Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
4/28/1998 - Regular
WORKING DOCUMENT -SUBJECT TO REVISION ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA APRIL 28, 1998 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. 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. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangement in order to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings or other programs and activities sponsored by Roanoke County, please contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005. We request that you provide at least 48-hours notice so that proper arrangements may be made. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. ALL PRESENT AT 3:01 P.M. 2. Invocation: The Reverend Steven W. Harris Baptist Children's Home 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS PMM: (1) DELETED ITEMS F-1 AND F-2. T.H. ADVISED THAT THESE i ARE REPLACEMENT TOWERS REPLACING THOSE DAMAGED IN ICE STORM AND DO NOT NEED SPECIAL USE PERMITS. BLJ ASKED STAFF TO BRING BACK TO THE BOARD A TOWER POLICY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. TH WILL BE BRING BOARD IN JUNE. (2) ADDED EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM 2.1-344a (3) JOINT EXECUTIVE SESSION WITH SCHOOL BOARD ON USE OF REAL PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE. HCN - ASKED THAT MIS DISCUSSION IN WORK SESSION BE MOVED TO BUDGET WORK SESSION WITH SCHOOL BOARD. C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS NONE D. BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing on activities of the Virginia Municipal League (Beth MacDonald, VML Director of Marketing and Member Services) PRESENTED BY BETH MACDONALD E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for approval of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 1998/1999 budget. (Diane Hyatt, Finance Director) R-042898-1 FFH MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC 2. Request authorization to donate three surplus vehicles to Explore Park. (Gardner Smith, Deputy Assistant for Citizen Services) A-042898-2 HCN MOTION TO DONATE VEHICLES UK 2 3. Request to accept and transfer funds for the Clearbrook area water line extension at the request of Indian Grave Partnership and J. Walter Miller. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) A-042898-3 HOM MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION URC 4. Request to extend water and/or sewer to Clearbrook Fire Station and appropriate $26,000. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) A-042898-4 HOM MOTION TO APPROVE ALT. #2 - EXTEND WATER AND SEWER LINE F. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READINGS OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING OF ITEM F-3 WITH F-1 AND F-2 DELETED 2ND AND PUBLIC HEARING - 5/26/98 URC Lewis-Mounta[nTGatawba-Magisterial-Distrietr upon -the r 3. First reading of ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to allow a private kennel, located at 5080 Glenvar Heights Blvd, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Katharine Shank & Vicki Osborne. 3 G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing the establishment of a sewer service area and financing of sewer connection fee for Clearbrook Area. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) HOM MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING - ORDINANCE TO BE REVISED TO INCLUDE EASEMENT DONATION BY DR. MILLER 2ND - 5/12/98 AYES-HOM,FFH,HCN,BLJ NAYS-J PM H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES NONE I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Fifth Planning District Commission - Stormwater Management Citizens' Advisory Committee. FFH NOMINATED WILLIAM OVERSTREET. 2. League of Older Americans Advisory Council. 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. R-042898-5 BLJ MOTION TO ADOPT CONSENT RESO 1. Approval of Minutes - April 14, 1998. 4 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors. 3. Resolution repealing actions previously adopted by the Board of Supervisors regarding Economic Development policies and to provide for a Policy Manual. R-042898-5.a 4. Resolution in support of the Virginia Department of Transportation's Secondary Road Project 0601-080-233, C501 and B677, Hollins Road and bridge replacement. R-042898-5.b 5. Resolution requesting acceptance of Otter Park Court and a portion of Monet Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. R-042898-5.c 6. Acceptance of sewer facilities for Hickory Hills. A-042898-5.d 7. Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving Sunscape Apartments. A-042898-5.e K. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS NONE L. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS RCM M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS NM_ N. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS s Supervisor Nickens: (1) Announced he was getting many calls, communications, emailsetc. and feels that someone specifically should respond to them and he thought the problems was discussed and resolved in retreat. BLJ suggested a policy. HCN asked ECH, Mary Allen and Brenda Holton to develop a policy for responding to citizen communications. (2) Announced that he attended the opening of the Brugh Tavern at Explore today and advised there were two more events: the opening of the Roanoke River Parkway on May 4 and the Taubman Welcome Center on May 6. Supervisor Minnix: (2) Extended sympathies to Supervisor McNamara upon the death of his mother. (2) Reported he attended the Arbor Day celebration in JPM's absence on Bent Mountain. (2) Advised he was not able to attend Brugh Tavern opening because of a doctor's apt. Supervisor McNamara: Advised he has received numerous calls, voice mails, and emails about the site selection for the new high school& and emphasized the importance of keeping citizens informed on what's going on. Supervisor Harrison: Announced he went to the memorial service for Mary Jane Burgess at Happy Hollow Park and the gardens were absolutely gorgeous. He questioned what will be done with the cottage. ECH advised that staff will be meeting with other family members to make arrangements for them to remove furniture. A staff person will be moved to the cottage temporarily, but long range plans call for some sort of visitor center. BLJ suggested a resolution of appreciation to the family for the donation of Happy Hollow. Supervisor Johnson: Advised he had also received many communications about the new South County School and reminded the public that constitutionally, it is the responsibility of the School Board to pick a site. 6 O. REPORTS HOM MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE AFTER DISCUSSION OF ITEM 7 -UW 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Accounts Paid - March 1998 5. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures as of March 31, 1998 6. Report from the Virginia Department of Transportation of changes to the Secondary System as of March 1998 7. Report of claims activity for the Self -Insurance Program HCN ASKED ECH TO BRING BACK A REPORT ON SEWER BACKUPS THAT INCLUDE LOCATIONS OF THE PROBLEMS. 8. Report on expenditures and commitments for public private partnerships from the Economic Development Capital Fund 9. Proclamation signed by the Chairman P. WORK SESSIONS - 4th Floor Conference Room 1. Budget work session with School Board (HELD FROM 6:00 TO 6:40 P.M.) DISCUSSION WITH SCHOOL BOARD ON CLERK OF THE WORKS JOB POSITION TO OVERSEE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. WHAT JOB SHOULD ENTAIL AND WHO THE PERSON SHOULD REPORT TO. BOARD CONSENSUS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH POSITION ADVERTISEMENT, WITH POSITION REPORTING TO ECH AND SCHOOL STAFF INVOLVED IN SELECTION AND INTERVIEW PROCESS. DISCUSSION ON WHETHER COUNTY MIS WILL CONTINUE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SCHOOL MIS OR WHETHER SCHOOLS WILL TAKE OVER SOME OF MIS RESPONSIBILITIES. NO CONSENSUS OF THE ISSUE. 2. Budget work session with County staff (HELD FROM 4:10 TO 5:10 P.M.) DISCUSSED CLERK OF THE WORKS POSITION, FUNDING FOR THE POSITION, JOB DESCRIPTION, AND WHO THE PERSON WOULD REPORT TO. BOARD CONSENSUS THAT POSITION WILL REPORT TO ECH. DISCUSSION ON SALARY SURVEY AND SALARY INCREASES. BOARD CONSENSUS TO FUND BOTH WITHIN THE 3% BUDGETED. REVIEWING CULTURAL AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCIES AND DUES AND MEMBERSHIPS. DETERMINED FINAL FUNDING OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS. Q. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A. (5) discussion concerning economic development prospects where no previous announcement has been; 2.1- 344 A. (3) acquisition of real estate, drainage easement 2-1- 344 A. (3) discussion of the use of real property for public use. BLJ MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOLLOWING BUDGET WORK SESSION URC EXECUTIVE SESSION HELD FROM 5:10 P.M. TO 5:50 P.M. 8 EVENING SESSION - 7:00 P.M. R. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-042898-6 BLJ MOTION TO RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AT 7:03 P.M. AND ADOPT CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION . ADVISED ONLY JOINT EXECUTIVE SESSION WITH SCHOOL BOARD CONCERNING PUBLIC USE OF PROPERTY WAS DISCUSSED. URC S. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for adoption of the fiscal year 1998/99 School budget. (Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent) R-042898-7 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT 1998-99 SCHOOL BUDGET URC 2. Request to advance funds to the School Board for Phase I - Roof Replacements. (Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent) A-042898-8 BLJ MOTION TO ADVANCE FUNDS FOR ROOF REPLACEMENTS �R_G ECH TO BRING BACK REPORT ON ROOF REPLACEMENTS T. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to allow a dance hall, located at 5610 Williamson Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Taylor Yeh and Jermaine English. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 0-042898-9 BLJ MOTION TO DENYORD URC 9 2. Second reading of ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to add a wireless telecommunications tower to an existing facility, located at 4135 West Main Street, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Ohio State Cellular. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 0-042898-10 FFH MOTION TO ADOPT ORD 3. Second reading of ordinance to rezone approximately 2.0 acres from C-1 to C-2 and obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a home for adults, located at the southwest corner of Rosecrest Road and Route 221, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Stephen and Marie Freeman. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 0-042898-11 JPM MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC 1 PERSON SPOKE IN SUPPORT 4. Second reading of ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to expand an existing religious assembly facility, located at 4804 Stanley Farm Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Glenvar Baptist Church. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 0-042898-12 FFH MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC 4 PEOPLE SPOKE IN SUPPORT 5. Second reading of ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to allow an outdoor gathering in the 7000 and 8000 blocks of Woodhaven Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Old German Baptist Church. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 10 0-042898-13 FFH MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC 6. Second reading of ordinance to enhance emergency services by implementing an Emergency Medical Dispatch Program funded by increasing the E-911 fee from $1.06 per month to $1.46 per month. (Rick Burch, Fire and Rescue Chief) 0-042898-14 HOM MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC 7 Second reading of ordinance to amend the Planned Industrial District of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance and rename the district the Planned Technology Development District, upon the petition of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 0-042898-15 BLJ MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC 8. Second reading of ordinance to rezone 456.6 acres from R-1, residential to Planning Technology Development District, for a business and commercial park, located in the 5300 block of Glenmary Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) PUBLIC HEARING HELD. BLJ MOTION TO DELAY ACTION UNTIL AFTER WORK SESSION IN MAY OR EARLY JUNE - UW FFH ASKED THAT ACCESS AND EGRESS TO PROPERTY BE INCLUDED IN WORK SESSION. U. CITIZENS COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 11 MARK SIDEL, CHIPPENHAM, KINGS CHASE, ASKED BOARD AND SCHOOL BOARD TO ADDRESS ISSUES SUCH AS FLOOD CONTROL, ACCESS, ACTIVITIES, LIGHTS, AND TRAFFIC WHEN DETERMINING HIGH SCHOOL SITE SELECTION. EXECUTIVE SESSION BLJ MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 8:35 P.M. FOR DISCUSSION CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROSPECT WHERE NO PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT HAS BEEN; 2.1-344 A. (3) ACQUISITION OF REAL ESTATE, DRAINAGE EASEMENT - URC CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-042898-16 BLJ MOTION TO RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AT 8:50 P.M. AND ADOPT CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION - URC BUDGET WORK SESSION DISCUSSION ON CHARGING FOR EMERGENCY RESCUE CALLS TO FUND ADDITIONAL PAID FIRE AND RESCUE PERSONNEL. ECH TO WORK WITH A COMMITTEE AND BRING BACK RECOMMENDATION IN SEVERAL MONTHS OTHER DISCUSSION GENERAL DISCUSSION OF SCHOOL ISSUES AND RECREATION ISSUES. V. ADJOURNMENT BLJ ADJOURNED MEETING AT 9:31 P.M. 12 Tcruntv Xirranatte ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA APRIL 28, 1998 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. 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. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangement in order to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings or other programs and activities sponsored by Roanoke County, please contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005. We request that you provide at least 48-hours notice so that proper arrangements may be made. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll CaII. 2. Invocation: The Reverend Steven W. Harris Baptist Children's Home 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 D. BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing on activities of the Virginia Municipal League i e Recycled Paper (Beth MacDonald, VML Director of Marketing and Member Services) E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for approval of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 1998/1999 budget. (Diane Hyatt, Finance Director) 2. Request authorization to donate three surplus vehicles to Explore Park. (Gardner Smith, Deputy Assistant for Citizen Services) 3. Request to accept and transfer funds for the Clearbrook area water line extension at the request of Indian Grave Partnership and J. Walter Miller. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) 4. Request to extend water and/or sewer to Clearbrook Fire Station and appropriate $26,000. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) F REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READINGS OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA 1. First reading of ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to add a wireless telecommunications tower to construct a 140 ft. broadcasting tower, located at Ft. Lewis Mountain, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Danny Kane. 2. First reading of ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to add a wireless telecommunications tower to construct a 160 ft. broadcasting tower, located at 8447 Honeysuckle Lane, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Danny Kane. 3. First reading of ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to allow a private kennel, located at 5080 Glenvar Heights Blvd, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the 2 petition of Katharine Shank & Vicki Osborne. G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing the establishment of a sewer service area and financing of sewer connection fee for Clearbrook Area. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Fifth Planning District Commission - Stormwater Management Citizens' Advisory Committee. 2. League of Older Americans Advisory Council. 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 - April 14, 1998. 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors. 3. Resolution repealing actions previously adopted by the Board of Supervisors regarding Economic Development policies and to provide for a Policy Manual. 4. Resolution in support of the Virginia Department of Transportation's Secondary Road Project 0601-080-233, 3 C501 and B677, Hollins Road and bridge replacement. 5. Resolution requesting acceptance of Otter Park Court and a portion of Monet Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 6. Acceptance of sewer facilities for Hickory Hills. 7. Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving Sunscape Apartments. K. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS L. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS N. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS O. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Accounts Paid - March 1998 5. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures as of March 31, 1998 6. Report from the Virginia Department of Transportation of changes to the Secondary System as of March 1998 7 Report of claims activity for the Self -Insurance Program 8. Report on expenditures and commitments for public private partnerships from the Economic Development Capital Fund 4 9. Proclamation signed by the Chairman P. WORK SESSIONS - 4th Floor Conference Room 1. Budget work session with School Board 2. Budget work session with County staff Q. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A. (5) discussion concerning economic development prospects where no previous announcement has been made; 2.1-344 A. (3) acquisition of real estate, drainage easement. EVENING SESSION - 7:00 P.M. R. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION S. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for adoption of the fiscal year 1998/99 School budget. (Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent) 2. Request to advance funds to the School Board for Phase I - Roof Replacements. (Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent) T PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to allow a dance hall, located at 5610 Williamson Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Taylor Yeh and Jermaine English. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 2. Second reading of ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to add a wireless telecommunications tower to an existing facility, located at 4135 West Main Street, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Ohio 5 State Cellular. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 3. Second reading of ordinance to rezone approximately 2.0 acres from C-1 to C-2 and obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a home for adults, located at the southwest corner of Rosecrest Road and Route 221, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Stephen and Marie Freeman. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 4. Second reading of ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to expand an existing religious assembly facility, located at 4804 Stanley Farm Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Glenvar Baptist Church. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 5. Second reading of ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to allow an outdoor gathering in the 7000 and 8000 blocks of Woodhaven Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Old German Baptist Church. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 6. Second reading of ordinance to enhance emergency services by implementing an Emergency Medical Dispatch Program funded by increasing the E-911 fee from $1.06 per month to $1.46 per month. (Rick Burch, Fire and Rescue Chief) 7. Second reading of ordinance to amend the Planned Industrial District of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance and rename the district the Planned Technology Development District, upon the petition of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 8. Second reading of ordinance to rezone 456.6 acres from R-1, residential to Planning Technology Development District, for a business and commercial park, located in 6 the 5300 block of Glenmary Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) U. CITIZENS COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. ADJOURNMENT ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER -2> - / AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: April 28, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Briefing on activities of the Virginia Municipal League COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia Municipal League (VML) has requested time on the agenda to update the Board of Supervisors on their activities and answer questions the Board members may have. Beth MacDonald, Director of Marketing and Member Services for VML will make the presentation. This would be a good time to get an update on the car tax, school construction funding and expectations for next year. Respectfully Submitted by: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved ( ) Motion by: Harrison Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) McNamara Referred ( ) Minnix To ( ) Nickens VOTE No. Yes Abs &Nunicipal ci&aque C� emoer sc,:ene f its legislation VML staff exerts an intensive effort to monitor and address legislation affecting localities during the annual General Assembly session and promptly responds to questions from members relating to legislative matters. Terminals connected to the state legislative computer enable us to deal with the massive volume of information and to prepare detailed and timely Legislative Bulletins. Following the legislative session an annual report entitled Legislation Affecting Local Government is prepared several months before the bound volumes of the Acts of Assembly are published. eesearch VML has extensive files on local government issues and frequently distributes this information to localities. We also have direct access to various state and national sources when preparing a response to your questions. If no available information can be found, the membership will be surveyed using a familiar one -page questionnaire. VML has available the largest collection of local government codes in the State enabling the staff to provide sample ordinances on any topic. eV epresentation and Sloting Representatives from your locality will be able to participate on our Policy Committees and Legislative Committee, could potentially serve on the Executive Committee, and will have full voting privileges at the annual conference. cublications Membership entitles you to receive Virginia Town & City, the league's award winning monthly magazine ($16 a year to non- members); Update, the biweekly newsletter ($25 a year to non-members); the Legislative Bulletin, published twice weekly during the General Assembly session ($150 a year to non-members); and other league publications and reports. on�erences an 9 gaining The annual conference, held each fall, provides educational opportunities through a variety of workshops and seminars; allows local officials to get acquainted and to develop local government contacts throughout the Commonwealth; and the membership adopts the legislative program for the upcoming year, as well as conducts other official VML business. Each year during the General Assembly session, VML sponsors a legislative day for local officials. Elected officials and administrators are invited to Richmond to attend this gathering where they will be briefed on the legislative issues most important to localities and will have an opportunity to meet with their senators and delegates. Specialized training sessions on topics of interest to elected officials and staff are held throughout the year. c9nsurance VML sponsors a local government program for workers' compensation insurance and general property, casualty and liability coverage. The VML Insurance Programs are open to all political subdivisions of the Commonwealth. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 RESOLUTION 042898-1 APPROVING THE ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY BUDGET FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1999 WHEREAS, Section 5.9 of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Members Use Agreement provides that the Authority shall prepare and submit its operating budget for the forthcoming fiscal year to the Board of Supervisors of the County, the City Council of the City of Roanoke, and the Town Council of the Town of Vinton; and WHEREAS, by report dated March 27, 1998, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board, the Chairman of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority has submitted a request that the County approve the budget of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority for the year ending June 30, 1999. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia that the budget for the year ending June 30, 1999 for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority as set forth in the March 27, 1998, report of the Authority Chairman, a copy of which is incorporated by reference herein, is hereby APPROVED, and the County Administrator and the Clerk are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the County, any documentation, in form approved by the County Attorney, necessary to evidence said approval. On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson 1 NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Allan C. Robinson, Jr., Chairman, RVRA John R. Hubbard, CEO, RVRA Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council Carolyn S. Ross, Clerk, Vinton Town Council 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER —/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: April 28, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Request to Approve 1998-1999 Operating Budget for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: oe_e_irrrocoo jitti.teps, BACKGROUND: On March 25, 1998, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority adopted an operating budget for the year ended June 30, 1999. As specified in the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority's Members Use Agreement, this budget must now be approved by the Charter Member Users before it can be placed in effect. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In a letter, dated March 27, 1998, the Chairman of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority submitted the attached approved budget for consideration by the Charter Member Users. The budget totals $8,004,000. The total expenses have been limited to a .5% increase over the 1997-98 amended budget and include a 3% increase for personnel. The budget plan continues the direction to operate the landfill based on the current tonnage and utilizes attrition to reduce staffing levels. The reserves have been adjusted to reflect the longer landfill life due to the decreased tonnage. The budget is balanced without an increase in the tipping fees which remains approximately 10% less than projected with the bond sale. The Charter Members will receive a $2 per ton tipping fee credit for 1998-99. FISCAL IMPACT: The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority budget will impact the County in several ways: 1. Tipping fees for Charter members will remain at $53 per ton. The tipping fee credit will be reduced from $3.00 per ton to $2.00 per ton. This is a net increase of $1.00 per ton or $37,000. M:\FINANCE\COMMON\BOARD\4-28-98.WPD —/ 2. The County will continue to receive a host locality fee of $300,000 for the Resource Authority to compensate for the siting of the landfill within the County. 3. The County will continue to receive payment from the RVRA for providing accounting services. This amounts to approximately $30,000 per year. All of the above fiscal impacts are included in the 1998-99 proposed budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution approving the operating budget of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority for the year ended June 30, 1999. SUBMI'11'ED BY: APPROVED: Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance &,,,4r /1445, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved () Motion by No Yes Abs Denied () McNamara Received () Harrison Referred () Johnson To () Minnix Nickens M:\FINANCE\COMMON\BOARD44-28-98. W PD AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY BUDGET FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1999 WHEREAS, Section 5.9 of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Members Use Agreement provides that the Authority shall prepare and submit its operating budget for the forthcoming fiscal year to the Board of Supervisors of the County, the City Council of the City of Roanoke, and the Town Council of the Town of Vinton; and WHEREAS, by report dated March 27, 1998, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board, the Chairman of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority has submitted a request that the County approve the budget of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority for the year ending June 30, 1999. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia that the budget for the year ending June 30, 1999 for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority as set forth in the March 27, 1998, report of the Authority Chairman, a copy of which is incorporated by reference herein, is hereby APPROVED, and the County Administrator and the Clerk are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the County, any documentation, in form approved by the County Attorney, necessary to evidence said approval. M:\FINANCE\COMMON\BOARD\4-28-98.WPD Ria. ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY �-/ March 27, 1998 Mr. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Roanoke County P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mr. Hodge: On March 25, 1998, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority approved its 1998/99 annual budget. The budget totals $8,004,000 and represents a .5% increase from the 1997/98 amended budget and a concerted effort to reduce operating costs and to maintain a stable tipping fee. The Resource Authority has adjusted its operations to reflect the current commercial waste flow market and has been able to maintain tipping fees for the 1998/99 fiscal year at the current levels. The budget will also allow the continuation of the tipping fee credits to the member jurisdictions and will implement a wood mulch fee. In accordance with the Member Use Agreement, the Resource Authority's 1998/99 annual budget is being submitted for the Board of Supervisor's approval. Attached is a summary of the budget, a comparison of the budget and the bond projections. A detailed budget is available, if additional information is needed. The Resource Authority is committed to providing the highest quality service possible to the County of Roanoke and the other Charter Members and their citizens, and we look forward to a challenging future. cc: Diane Hyatt Bill Rand Sincerely, Allan C. Robinson, Jr. Chairman 1A1(1 T- u,;, Rnari Rnannlra V:r•ninin 91A11 /CAA) QC7..CACA Far (Cd(11 RC9_CACi E-1 ...0evem,eze Disposal Fees $ 7.498.000 Interest Income $ 500.000 Beginning Balance $ 0 Sale of Recyclable Material $ 6.000 Miscellaneous $ 0 Personnel: 1.306.842 Operating: $ 2.460.281 Capital: $ 40.000 Transfer to Reserves $ 1.261.877 Debt Service $ 2.935.000 Total: $ 8.004.000 Total: $ 8.004.000 idfraai Wee6 Municipal Private $_5_3_ per ton $_55 per ton RVRA 1998-99 BUDGET 1998/9.9 / CATEGORY BOND PROJECTION F.Y. 98/99 BUDGET F.Y. 97/98 AMENDED BUDGET WASTE GENERATION (Tons) Solid Waste Generated Residential Waste 82,600 81,000 81,000 Commercial Waste 109,500 51,000 25,200 Less: Additional Source Recycling 26,000 private Residential Waste (5,200) (0) 10,000 wood Commercial Waste ( 6.800) (0) 25.000 tires Solid Waste to the System 180,100 132,000 142,200 OPERATING REVENUES Tipping Fee Revenue Requirement $ 10,854,000 $ 7,498,000 $ 7,509,000 Interest Income 504,000 500,000 450,000 Recycling Income 0 6.000 0 Total Operating Revenues $ 11,358,000 $ 8,004,000 $ 7,959,000 OPERATING EXPENSES Landfill & Transfer Station $ 3,454,000 $ 2,302,223 $ 2,267,187 Rail Expenses 1.912.000 1.104.900 1.106.000 Total Operating Expenses $ 5,366,000 $ 3,407,123 $ 3,407,895 NET REVENUES AVAILABLE FOR DEBT $ 5,992,000 $ 4,596,877 $ 4,551,105 SERVICE DEBT SERVICE $ 3,107,000 $ 2,935,000 $ 2,933,347 DEPOSITS TO RESERVE ACCOUNTS Closure Fund $ 500,000 $ 250,000 $ 500,000 Renewal & Replacements Fund Equipment Reserves $ 700,000 $ 476,877 $ 400,000 Environmental Fund & Contingencies 130,000 0 12,000 Host Community Improvement 10,000 10,000 10,000 Property Value Protection 0 0 0 Total Deposits to R&R Fund $ 840,000 $ 486,877 $ 422,000 HOST FEES $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 EXCESS REVENUES $ 1,145,000 $ 525,000 $ 330,466 INDENTURE COVERAGE TEST(.10 MIN.) .37 .18 .11 ADDITIONAL DEPOSITS TO RESERVES Further Site Development $ 920,000 $ 500,000 $ 0 Interim & Post Development 25,000 25,000 25,000 Recycling 200,000 0 0 Total Additional Deposits to Reserves $ 1,145,000 $ 525,000 $ 25,000 SOLID WASTE TIPPING FEES/($/TON) Residential (Municipal) $ 57.42 $ 53 $ 53 Commercial $ 62.42 $ 55 $ 55 $ 35 RVRA 1998-99 BUDGEZ 13 ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY SERVING YOU FOR THE NEXT 100 YEARS oacrxidoic,geeet,10405 c9Vtria t'cw,v,aei Boaua of Dinectous The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Board of Directors is comprised of seven members appointed by the charter member jurisdictions. Four members represent Roanoke County, two members represent Roanoke City and one member represents the Town of Vinton. The Authority Board is governed by its Articles of Incorporations, Bylaws and the Members Use Agreement. Starr The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority is directed by a Chief Executive Officer with 34 employees. The Chief Executive Officer's Administrative Assistant acts as the Resource Authority's Secretary. Counsel The Resource Authority receives legal counsel through a contract with the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission. *************** Allan C. Robinson, Jr., Chairman Roanoke County Kit B. Kiser, Vice Chairman Roanoke City Diane D. Hyatt, Treasurer Roanoke County Douglas J. Anderson Roanoke County B. Clayton Goodman, III Town of Vinton Bittle W. Porterfield, III Roanoke City William J. Rand, III Roanoke County ************** John R. Hubbard Chief Executive Officer Carolyn B. Wagner Board Secretary *************** Mark A. Williams, Esq. General Counsel RVRA 1998-99 BUDGET The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority in its sixth year of operation continues to adjust to the reduction in commercial waste flow and revenue. The Resource Authority has made adjustments and reductions in its overall expenditures to maintain the current tipping fee rates to its customers. The Resource Authority will continue to provide the highest quality waste disposal service available and will continue to search for ways to improve service and reduce cost. The Resource Authority's disposal rates remain 10 % lower than anticipated during the financial planning stage for the system and will remain as a goal for future years. The Resource Authority is committed to providing high quality service and remaining financially strong with sound management practices. This budget reflects our commitment and ability to remain competitive and offer fair rates for high quality service. 6HDGET 1998/99 Table of Contents Budget Summary Bond/ Budget Comparison Resolution of Approval Disposal Fees $ 7.498.000 Interest Income $ 500.000 Beginning Balance $ 0 Sale of Recyclable Material $ 6.000 Miscellaneous $ 0 Personnel: 1.306.842 Operating: $ 2.460.281 Capital: $ 40,000 Transfer to Reserves 1.261.877 Debt Service $ 2.935.000 Total: $ 8.004.00Q Total: $ 8.004.000 (.004a/CFeeA Municipal $ 53 per ton Private $ 55 per ton ..YRA 1998-99 BUDGET 1,998/99 BOND F.Y. 98/99 F.Y. 97/98 CATEGORY PROJECTION BUDGET AMENDED BUDGET WASTE GENERATION (Tons) Solid Waste Generated Residential Waste 82,600 81,000 81,000 Commercial Waste 109,500 51,000 25,200 Less: Additional Source Recycling 26,000 private Residential Waste (5,200) (0) 10,000 wood Commercial Waste (6,800) (0) 25.000 tires Solid Waste to the System 180,100 132,000 142,200 OPERATING REVENUES Tipping Fee Revenue Requirement $ 10,854,000 $ 7,498,000 $ 7,509,000 Interest Income ' 504,000 500,000 450,000 Recycling Income 0 6.000 0 Total Operating Revenues $ 11,358,000 $ 8,004,000 $ 7,959,000 OPERATING EXPENSES Landfill & Transfer Station $ 3,454,000 $ 2,302,223 $ 2,267,187 Rail Expenses 1,912.000 1,104, 900 1,106.000 Total Operating Expenses $ 5,366,000 $ 3,407,123 $ 3,407,895 NET REVENUES AVAILABLE FOR DEBT $ 5,992,000 $ 4,596,877 $ 4,551,105 SERVICE DEBT SERVICE $ 3,107,000 $ 2,935,000 $ 2,933,347 DEPOSITS TO RESERVE ACCOUNTS Closure Fund $ 500,000 $ 250,000 $ 500,000 Renewal & Replacements Fund Equipment Reserves $ 700,000 $ 476,877 $ 400,000 Environmental Fund & Contingencies 130,000 0 12,000 Host Community Improvement 10,000 10,000 10,000 Property Value Protection 0 0 0 Total Deposits to R&R Fund $ 840,000 $ 486,877 $ 422,000 HOST FEES $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 EXCESS REVENUES $ 1,145,000 $ 525,000 $ 330,466 INDENTURE COVERAGE TEST(.10 MIN.) .37 .18 .11 ADDITIONAL DEPOSITS TO RESERVES Further Site Development $ 920,000 $ 500,000 $ 0 Interim & Post Development 25,000 25,000 25,000 Recycling 200,000 0 0 Total Additional Deposits to Reserves $ 1,145,000 $ 525,000 $ 25,000 SOLID WASTE TIPPING FEES/($/TON) Residential (Municipal) $ 57.42 $ 53 $ 53 Commercial $ 62.42 $ 55 $ 55 $ 35 .0eJ,o%44.ow ......................:::::::::::::.v:::v:::::Y; ..........................i}:::::Jj:•:4Y:?•:+.L:?:ii%i �i)}:isi::;:}{:j:,::;i:?i:%:viiii::i:,v,'f,.?;::;:::i �i:•:•:•,': }. isti?:�iiiiii:??;:i4?;:•Y:•Y:;:•:•:??:;Y:??v};:::;{:::{.r}:?�v.v:;::.::::�:i{•:;:{�:•Y:j$;}}:;:}+:•:ti�Y:•k{?{,v• , y� 1*•*•',•.�',�,', is {? • ,,.. v.:.•. •.'•>::?•::•Y:•C;•}:i•Y:;:•::: nt:Yn{..;:•}::.v::.tCw: /.•:::•Y:v}Y}:'t� • ..u..:<:.:::.. ,,..:'u......: A a)•YY..a:?{•YY;{•>Yx{:•y..;?2�'?:+t�iRtip}YRaY:&t•:f::tinl;:tS:,.{Y: v .:.:.......} . :.. :........ {• •y }.i;{.?.:::::.........5,:; �:;;•:•}: �i:.;.,{;,Y: .. r::;•Y.}i%•};�::.:.?::•SA• .•� ti ;yy;ii � •. •. .•;�•., v:�.„�.,.,,..:::ir'•i}:•::}:•'':::v..v: ...: vf:: r.•.•..:: rr:.•:v.v:. '.+/.;:;+;;:Y:?J: �{ •»v.:Y:•.w� .,v,., ..{�4..••.. :..:,' ,1�.�. ,.,.<.v;:,.,.}... v: :• : .:: kv::.?•YY: Ynv: y,..r. :..,.:�••:,.,.:;:::: 4 •:.i•:::+..rA: k }:: Y:: Y:: hv: \+C?•. : i? i'•::�:• ?�.: }}:{•:4:•:: ,{{;•'} • : ,•�Y:• ,.:.::::.,..:,,,:.::� n-.• . �'+ n+r��rte��r:*:�.:;�Y!c�:: ••�' �7S'.Ct' :::'�:af:�'.:.: T}!�@p::?:tip '•r,'.'• RESOLUTION No. RA98-260 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AUTHORITY'S ANNUAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 AND AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF SUCH BUDGET TO THE GOVERNING BODIES OF THE CHARTER MEMBER USERS FOR APPROVAL BE IT RESOLVED by the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority that: 1. The fiscal year 1998-99 annual budget for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority as set forth in the reports and accompanying attachments by the Chief Executive Officer dated February 25, 1998, and March 25, 1998, is hereby approved; 2. The Authority Chairman is authorized on behalf of the Authority to submit the fiscal year 1998-99 annual budget and bond comparison to the governing bodies of the Charter Member Users, being the County of Roanoke, the City of Roanoke, and the Town of Vinton, for approval in accordance with the requirements of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Members Use Agreement dated October 23, 1991, as amended. ATTEST: (14 Secretary Mr. Kiser made a motion to approve resolution RA98-260 to approve the 1998-99 annual budget and authorize its submittal to the Charter Member Users for approval, seconded by Ms. Hyatt, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Anderson, Ms. Hyatt, Mr. Kiser, Mr. Porterfield, Mr. Rand, Mr. Robinson NAYS: None ABSENT: Mr. Goodman A-042898-2 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER -Z AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: April 28, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Request for authorization to transfer property by donating three surplus vehicles to Explore Park. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: During last year's budget process, the Board of Supervisors authorized the purchase of several new vehicles for Roanoke County. New vehicles have now been purchased and the old ones have been declared surplus property. As part of this process, the vehicles are first offered to other County departments. Any surplus vehicles remaining in the fleet are included in the County auction of surplus property. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Virginia's Explore Park has entered into the final stages of a major construction, reorganization, and expansion program. Openings are planned for the Brugh Tavern, the Taubman Welcome Center and the Roanoke River Parkway. Roanoke County has donated surplus vehicles to the Park in the past and they are used until they are completely worn out. Because of their limited budget, Explore Park has had difficulty acquiring and maintaining equipment and vehicles. Also, many of their vehicles are used and in poor condition. The Explore Park staff has been reorganized with a newly appointed Director of Operations, and they plan to improve maintenance and operations capabilities. Explore Park staff reviewed the County surplus vehicle listing and identified three vehicles which would assist them in operations for the current year. They are requesting that the following three surplus vehicles be donated to Explore Park: - one 15 passenger van - this vehicle will replace an older van currently in use. - two, pick-up trucks - GMC SIERRA and CHEVY S-10 to replace unserviceable vehicles no longer economically repairable. FISCAL IMPACT: These vehicles bring an average of $200 to $350 based on previous auctions. The donation of these surplus vehicles has a minor fiscal impact on the County. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Donate the three vehicles to Virginia's Explore Park. 2) Deny the Explore request and retain vehicles for a future surplus sale. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1, that the three identified vehicles from surplus property be donated to Virginia's Explore Park to enhance their operation. ully submitted, Approved by, Wit, Gardner W. Smith TElmer C. Hodge Deputy Assistant for Citizen Services County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens to donate Harrison _ x Denied ( ) vehicles Johnson _ x Received ( ) McNamara _ x Referred ( ) Minnix _ x To () Nickens _ x cc: File Gardner Smith, Deputy Assistant for Citizen Services i ACTION # A-042898-3 ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: April 28, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept and transfer funds for the Clearbrook area water line extension at the request of Indian Grave Partnership and J. Walter Miller. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: (440111-tx,44 During the summer of 1997, the Roanoke County Utility Department extended an existing, 12-inch diameter water distribution line, located on the south side of Buck Mountain Road to the front of Clearbrook Elementary School. This water line extension was constructed in conjunction with installation of sewer facilities for Clearbrook Elementary School in order to minimize disruption due to utility construction along the Route 220 corridor. On March 5, 1997, letter agreements with proposed water connection fees were transmitted by the Utility Department to property owners located along the U. S. Route 220 corridor. These letter agreements were transmitted to determine the level of interest among property owners for extension of water service into the Clearbrook area. Two of the property owners who indicated an interest in having water service extended to their properties are located at the intersection of U. S. Route 220 and Indian Grave Road. Dr. J. Milton Miller and the Indian Grave Partnership have agreed to pay the following water connection fees to extend County water service to their properties. The basis for these water connections fees is a special fee of $5,155 + [$30 x Length in feet of road frontage in excess of 100 feet] plus the off -site facility fee of $2,690 with a 50 percent credit. Tax Map No. 98.01-01-75 98.02-02-1.1 Owner J. Milton Miller Indian Grave Partnership Special Road Connection Frontage Fee Off Site Facility Fee w/ 50% Credit Total 302' $11,215 $1,345 $12,560 183' $ 7,645 $1,345 $ 8,990 4 -3 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Utility Department staff were recently advised by the Indian Grave Partnership that the well serving their property at 5304 Indian Grave Road (Drs. Weaver, Weaver, Vascik & Kleiner neurological clinic) has begun pumping muddy water. As a result, construction was begun to extend the 12-inch water line along U. S. Route 220 to provide County water service to the property. FISCAL IMPACT: Acceptance of the above listed connection fees and the funds collected would allow the Utility Department to apply the collected funds toward installation of new water line along U. S. Route 220. Utilization of these funds will allow Roanoke County to totally recover costs incurred for extension of the 12-inch water distribution line to serve the subject properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize acceptance of water connection fees totaling $21,550 from Dr. J. Milton Miller and the Indian Grave Partnership. Staff further recommends that the Board authorize expenditure of these funds for extension of the 12-inch water line along the west side of U. S. Route 220 to serve the subject properties. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: ifa.f Gary Robkison, P.E. ' "' Amer C. Hodge Utility Director County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: H. Odell Minnix to approve Harrison _ x Denied ( ) staff recommendation Johnson _ x Received ( ) McNamara _ x _ Referred ( ) Minnix _ x _ To () Nickens _ x ACTION cc: File Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance ♦ • • 411. 11 �� �16-0� .. 110,S._■1 F/1' ofili ■1 •1 •, . •, •, :, I'' • I■ ■ w t • .• 1♦ ■ i ♦` 1 • ■ r Ar.,..)••. ■ ■ 0 ♦♦ r■.•� ••♦ ••*♦ • I` li•T M , ■ L ■ ■ �♦ •• • •• •* ACTION # A-042898-4 ITEM NUMBER " V AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: April 28, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Request to Approve and Appropriate Funds for Extending Water and/or Sewer Service to Clearbrook Fire Station COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend approval of the extension of water service to Clearbrook Fire Station at this time. It would be great to extend sewer as well and to do the same for Mt. Pleasant Fire and Rescue where we also have problems. I am just not sure that we can absorb all of the costs at this time. Extending water to Clearbrook represents an opportunity for savings. I truly wish we had some way to extend to both of these stations and we will give these a high priority in the budget. BACKGROUND: The Clearbrook Fire Station is presently served by a private well and septic system. The well has limited capacity and the water quality is poor. The septic system has constantly been a maintenance concern. Utility Staff has met with fire personnel numerous times in the past; however, until recently public utilities were not in close proximity to the fire station and it was not economically feasible to provide these services. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: By providing utility services to Clearbrook School and the adjacent offices along Route 220, water and sewer service will soon be at the intersection of Indian Grave Road and Route 220. The cost to provide water service for the fire station as a separate project is estimated to cost $31,000. It will cost $26,104 if water service is provided as part of the Route 220 extension, representing a savings of approximately $5,000. These savings will be realized in mobilization, additional fittings, and restoration costs. Sewer service could also be provided at this time for an additional cost of $26,676. Due to the location of the existing sewer facilities and the proposed route for providing this service, it is anticipated that these costs will not change significantly if installed at a later date. 1 ALTERNATIVES: Alternative 1: Provide public water service to the Clearbrook Fire Station at a cost of $26,104. Alternative 2: Provide public water and sewer service to the fire station at a total cost of $52,780. Alternative 3: Do not install public water or sewer service to the fire station at this time. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the County Capital Reserve Fund for this project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Alternative 1 be approved and funds in the amount of $26,104 be allocated to extend public water service to the Clearbrook Fire Station. SUBMITTED BY: Gary Ro ertson, P.E. Utility D rector APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: H. Odell Minnix to approve Harrison _ x Denied ( ) Alternative #2 Johnson _ x _ Received ( ) McNamara _ x _ Referred ( ) Minnix _ x To () Nickens _ x ACTION cc: File Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance 1 Ilk ACTION NO. ITEM NO. F-I "3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: April 28, 1998 Requests for Public Hearing and First Reading for Rezoning Ordinances Consent Agenda COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: 7,0‘-' BACKGROUND: .77z. iaii -.-:-. tee -Le 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 May 26, 1998. The titles of these ordinances are as follows: 1) An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to add a wireless telecommunications tower to construct a 140 ft. broadcasting tower, located at Ft. Lewis Mountain, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Danny Kane. 2) An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to add a wireless telecommunications tower to construct a 160 ft. broadcasting tower, located at 8447 Honeysuckle Lane, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Danny Kane. 3) An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to allow a private kennel, located at 5080 Glenvar Heights Blvd., Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Katharine Shank & Vicki Osborne. MAPS ARE ATTACHED; MORE DETAILED INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. F -3 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 May 26, 1998. (2) That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth as Items 1 through 3, inclusive, 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. Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by Harrison Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) McNamara Referred Minnix to Nickens COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard Dr.••. P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ( 540` 772-2068 FAX (540) 772-2108 For staff use only date receited �G received by: application : /°/ placard issued: GCS date: 4 Case Number: j d'' Check type of application filed (check all that apply): • REZONING I SPECIAL USE IM VARIANCE Applicant's name: D J J L 1 R. KA N/ E. Phone:3 . L/ ;5 Address: r •Zip Code: S4L1< ! IR gli! 3 Owner's name: -41i/ M D PLLE+ 8tICI Ari mokRischuPhone: Address: /i/49 045T 64Lt'2) Zip Code: 0 A if4- L /ve a 9 q ..b-i Location of property: •T Tax Map Number: , 00 — I — iI a F° mew i 5 rJ Magisterial District: Cti - -b A 13 idc Community Planning Area: l) As 0A) Lc) v F Size of parcel (s): 1 nett Leti9e<bcres Existing Zoning: A 6.3 Existing Land Use: Tow sq.ft. cR Proposed Zoning: A6.3For Proposed Land Use: To Lk) Fop, Staff Usa Only Use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? YES NO ' i ,;: ; Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. RIS V Consultation Application Justification Rrs V 8 1 /2" x 1 1" concept plan Metes and bounds description Water and sewer application ws v Application fee Proffers, if applicable Adjoining property owners / hereby certify that / am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature: For Staff Use Only: Case Number 1—/ 7.1 1.• ii••`• Applicant D A N N Y KPH 1',1 E The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit 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 Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the��beginning of the 'applicable �zoning district classification inotheCzoning /'ordinance. /� /� , 15 ; t ° C±�I r ' -5 T W % I 1�,07" f./ 3" 1 !u9 e / /1 e i' �`'..+C%'v r ii�1' 0 ifi �'"' e Y 6s' if 74 0 7- ,5, 7e7L( Loc tprQ I4'A/ d I1 s . �-r�, 1,0 e1 -` 4,, 41 Fbl'� geQ-c(to d cuU5C rA Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. / f 5 p€c'Jec+ eo icC /ft,! 1cJ e/tit' , ‘tiv I''C'..S' z / e e'S 7 T-4 ra th e .1 e'ev3/r PP4t 71y > /b' /2 3 pies . / re= 6 c'F , e .z /7 e./ e,,faL�-y 02eg4-ra r+ Fob Zfla j zLJ? 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/rescue. . xU /7 41/C ,ter/woe ex-6 mi/ ict ram'/ %/ S '. if 72 C1 ' LD ��5y' wr2 � s; , � �th 4M f-bT4 � / 7-Agin Ay f % / f/�e �- y�y j�fJi�j /'�) / ! J� yj� 1� ;�Y or/ X_ —o i i L I / t 447 .Yi p✓ i� �( P-L % 0 `' t t / r C."© C 1) /'1 �/' i e. • 4, 7 ' c / $ 4/C ce 'ree- 7,ram ; 4 f n'T s,r . ir' ti if7of FT'5 4-"fiv Fiqfi Sit•c- S:01 firri,VTE Cr/1 Bui AjEtki 7btiER. E y )A/y eiewE ;,s 3//1* • 2 1 N 7-3 ti a. - M• •-- a. l-- Al— m • q_- a4 M-- N4 w`- 44, a4 - 1.4 - Ma • - / - MT1 -47 3 -MT B -N/ -Me t TOWER SCHEDULE v--- * ; --I gCTrwSPf'��p NQ,v,` a„y� Irani,ER LEGS TELD TOWER BR AGES 1�a�3cs�m W. FLANGE Pt TES RANGE BOLTS �'tw'3 12-343 xlrt BRA BCI NONE NONE TOP SOTTQM 3 3x49 } /376 I W t'-Z 1-2 3q 8 301-10 1lI ►SOLI° 3, 3x3lS _ /+24c. 2 W 1-2 1-4 3a 9 SOLID 3; i sot. ID 3 tf 36 34 3 242'be 3 wm 1-4' i-to ,1 0 sot ID T� / SOLO 1_a i x 4 x 12-2 x2 NONE 4N 1-6 2-2 I!': / 50L10 S/a" 0160L10 43X •}c. 41A, c, 12-%X21%. 12-4'Ixl%/ 5 N 2-2 2-0 I3fi i SOLID % • SOLIO 41}�;iC �i Ay 12-%72'r1 77-4'ex's 6N i-S 4-A Y' 0 PIPE LIf= x IlrLx' µ't.tyIV, 444wbe iz-11 2i. 7541)4 7N "d'4 ii-st z- 0 PIPE L 14231721'4 543 5 tr6,r'. • l2-Isx2',1 774,:x 8 M 6-eai ti -6 li Id PIPE L. I'[f x 14:1'4 Sat ,3. I9 o, d 72611 X2i2 4°420: 9 N t-e-N 10-OII. 1 Yh 6 PIPE L 134a I34x1ti 5 XSK S •xin.'c5 e c. 12`14 .l ab-iliID'4 ION 1D-S ti-7'4 a',„ -If PIPE L 2 t 2 N't 5 5)21 64 21��0+ 12-37oi: 4 • S=xlti: II N (2-79: 1w?h 3 -0 PIPE L 2I'2x21a2 x1 S 4.s^" ~7,1M7ee 7_7X 7 cl' 1231x911 4s-19,314 12N 14-7re 13-35 3011 PIPE L. 3 x 3 x'2ho 7TYla3a, 2J.x3Yi 30- xiii 13 N 16--8 -f3 l „ 4- j PIPE L 3 x 3 31; 7 3, e c, 7 7 46 7 w I2-.4 x3ti 30-41d4 I4N I` -a 20-91; 4•$P10C L31433'I404 l' 4 7,.,X4,- '..12-1X4 30-1101134` 15 N 20-03i 22-4Rg r 5 •91 PIPE . L 4 t 4 x 4; 4ithtrix 1tr 8 * g�12c104 Ir 1 x4I+ s0-Now3s le N 22-9ais ^ 24-93,, 5 -0 PIPE L 4 1t 4 x yj 4xdi Tea'1, x5Nlytj6 12- I u li: ao-Soli *ASTERISK INDICATES THAT THE BOTTOM FLANGE IE_OF THAT SECTION 1S OFFSET. *ilf A326 c y8'OIA. BOLTS $ 4,E. GRADE 51 - 14 • .�1 BRACING DETAILS FOR SECTIONS 4N 8 5N - a1 1 aT 1478* rt t ..1 111E Ito A 00T104, 4023 P77/1CAL /0a sal 14.111 -aa t 4100. 4410 4,11 44111011 ti 4411.10 - Na 3 - 3 110 3 a -Nil 1 au 1 -tti a •.a 3 - q F 1113 - aq q MN 1 44111 e -N14 t MIS a -a7a 1 AT @O D_P4 i!E Wit perms" runt 4..871 BRACING DETAIL FOR SECTIONS 6N-I 1 N ONTITANOMO LE11 Of Aar/ 304 WEIGHTS SEC.140 LEOS BRACES TOTAL e 1 M 111 213 100 3 VON 230 4N 260 175 43.5 5N 345 193 540 IN 290 190 480 7N 300 245 545 ON 426 274 700 9 N 420 300 720 ION 430 400 830 II N 570 840 1410 12 N 390 825 1,513 13 N T80 910 1700 1404 843 I•255 5479 13N 11,I55 2,000 3,IS5 10N �U55 2,130 3,305 GENERAL NOTES: AT 00 CLri, 1a6E MOLE 143a118.14 Malin P.*Tt BRACING DETAIL F04 SECTIONS 12N-16N 320' TOWER ELEVATION 1 hof'0 4✓An, *Y4D7J.r.wc M te. JV ..,8r /rrrer/liea'.a4'/.lae►' s .tert4AAr Jf6 *04'.at N.G1al1*S• .YAaOl.r w.rq.1/ K,y.f.r1/I►..ta'0 Ate,ANK L All PAW t41 1113T11 6T•r® MOW 11L1111fElal 4 Pal airs 11110r20132 aii All 7013e5 I01.11, SEC 4.14 *rlo•al. 11. Ira ICIL7e PPpVEEp 0» OE Lte fa Items; la 'Tam lM. MO 71D 1101.711 OM / 1284 Pao arras ?a T1..1 MM. 3. ALL TGIaf4 idamea a as 1QT-04PED ML1W60lD 4377 aeac,ridi i[ 0060 870440 (0a /o.Yarom raq i ♦N A9 a1 A/ .4• 44 Ra at . i. AOCa1L A325 l sr% r10TES 4.14 2.o?ECd froom ACI+SID a "Ab'4 a !}N • 7'rz /N Jli'/7'+�r.iA1a/. JAaC r,/aP 1M444. 76✓, 011 • ..1K .1 /N ' *•.R.M/iw IOa. 0 4 ,•4*84Q 1 RAM! 00 /J Ar sec /+• a rm 28'44 119T. 1W11 Phis 1W /147 a1 aaaTlart ow a Pi AWL T1 lM 0 Ma a/4/7 114 16.11.4 MODEL TOWER NORTH r ix240Q 11. /tu I.HAVENS '` I\\ \IN l, 2500x'' to 4 `) v 0 �. -- i i • szs '�' \ '32vo .� , i Ail .�`Bi t Bear KlRack Gap W/ L D MANAGEMENT AREA } 2500 � O cS. Dom-: J FE� j �, \�0. j" , ,, 'r >� �,Y 0`!, Of-- k.� � �/ G• �9 - \ i.- ¢ �` "... .,cif / Gi i� PPS : SFyuR•i `�i r \ '. sae 19� -� .. Q_ P CQ:pOWER _ ! ! > w ./600 R2500 / / / J.• • //,/, \3$C- ROANOK�-�l9UNTY • F _ / \ware JAizIg NG LEAVES / L ��'G P.R7..1148: / Ng 'Tp0 s / x18C SHlcxsr��NN s R '�N6. QO� jC Soof 1gp. -- . • \.). r�R ' �� A \ - t+ ` WARD LAKE, 643 640 1 � `� \� � r� ant $-TrLEi �� 801.W^. 1; ,\88 4 , P� % GRA SHELOR AV 649 , •'° ;'_'. ?, R � ,- YIpR ` (� GO J 2 �- - wESTwAA.; 9 ESP\K' µ. `� i .\- L. A x E (""t C c\P• .i _ O p 4 - 4'� ` 'f A RM , = /- c 3�1 . ; •,� ENVAR� -• c .' EAST c\P d\ti Q�y\+f �L0 <' ON GLERVAR ,= H o \� G s YAR LF r ,� ELEM ''• . a >�g yg• i� sr QR 0 R 9 i RES P4� `ew 8F 0 4. , 1 pant ROCK ,-* 1 ��E , fr Q4 ,� f" a.. 5" ■ SHAMRO ' RI SQUARE rR LEM PARtA. M, UE SO , STATE t� EST*. P05ICE . •, 1 ' \ �Q 4.5=5: �+ pt 0 a 2 , J p sa ■ +'r• I ay PY, ��♦ , d- R O t, \�'s ,,� _, �BrahC%�—_ / --, /SOG� _- ■ ' R,T;7034 • ■ ' _�- 9'e�.-_ : DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Kane Communications- Ft Lewis Site Tax Map # 42,00-1-1.1 AND ZONING . w COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard Dr.-._ P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ( 540' 772-2068 FAX (540) 772-2108 For staff use onl date recet. 2 received byy� application PC/SZA d ,e placards issue /9 SOS date: �J Case Num: ii,..6 01 Check type of application filed (check all that apply): • REZONING 19dSPECIAL USE •VARIANCE Applicant's name: ' A W IV R.., Address: t'3 9i{ ..c A l` eAl i/ KI tV Phone: 3`Sti7'�1 `' Zip Code: aL i5 3 y/S s s 2. �r I,WO Liz. Owner's name: �� Y'"I - � � E Phone: 39rJ,' 3560 Address: r,3' F R�. A' x1-1 ti R� SW Zip Code: RoANaKE, V4 2.1/ /i Location ofproperty: B e- i Y r,! d Ud T 41 W i/ Tax Map Number: 5� j 4 Q Q - , - 4/4/ Magisterial District: 'T Community Planning Area: i`', % m I1Y Size of parcel (s): 'Mite Le4Seacres Existing Zoning: A G 13 Existing Land Use: TOLL) ER sq.ft. • Proposed Zoning: fl 3 Proposed Land Use: p E . 1 (,O' : For Staff Use Only Use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. . If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? YES NO Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R/S V Consultation Application Justification R13 V 8 1 /2" x 1 1" concept plan Metes and bounds description Water and sewer application R/s V Application fee Proffers, if applicable Adjoining property owners l hereby certify that / am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature: • Applicant Nib\ R 1<.1 E For Staff Use Only: Case Number The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit 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 Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. t5 Rv j to iLl- !Uo / C/7 /h e ptzr5e .v.f' L1 Si9- 0 r rite 5/k Lohtch i5 PAD 7,24k5 1/ifr4, 4064/law e 764v(t Z c 15 %D 2e(JLcc: 7owe& 5/74(6 1,0..54 rtf5 C01z161/vi Ly /58 i�(4), J -The 5 r w l X 4400-. h Pcs 'Be e' I A The 'e4 5-1- Fl(tift e 1-5 well gG (4'd o `r tftr To r -The h e Tow eft j lAs >v 1c4 Uri F fee/ 3 °(1.r l2r @tali .e.5 0i5/-iC #1P;e0ve ew5 Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. /�' _ j/ �` lh {5 'izoZ e'c' T e T v 701i09,, ,u /m e l fd<r A&.'vs'/I / (4 e ge'se '491 i/i C o -g e /1464 795 5e 've,14- J y ,Q4 e5 � ,prat/ r Ccl ✓ ' d •,}- D /O 4%3 .4' oti r C/✓t/ ,G'/7 e / 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/rescue. �r������,� %'/Cjyi-,r2Q fty /i �f'gt'(�'I/,/C��'CYVT !al �' / k' �'G'L° ai/�izj 7'1C9-t,' t S7 r /�6�'�,�L r,� /t i r) ,Iry ft, p /2/e'1/I 7. %it k$i 'Lid iz ///6' (i041 /(k , Lv / c� 7 Lilig, -7 “,rr2 iv/ %//if0✓ zc>72"itirege i7% i 04°l . 100'' 4,� /5 ifio Re. Oc') eArt e 14,44Pfi Cir Set 1---,7 at 'I,R S. • • 93 "AK1T. POLES TAX MAP'" 93.00- 1 - 44 CATAWBA/WII.IOSOR HILL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS 1,052 AC. �Z S-GUY WIRES AIJCHO12 044 WT. WE• (SEE DATA) ;1II i I . P. S . • I.P.F • 74. 871 20°54'SeEr O, H, ELEC. WIRES I,P. F- I,FF • 1RAN P114 FOU►JD I.PS.• IRON PIN SET U.G.- UNDEE G►e.OU1.JID 0. N. - OVER. HEAD • • ,I.P.S. ire" PROPEE rry LEASED BY MOTOROLA COM MUIJ IGATIOI, AND ELECTR01U I CS , NOTE NO TITLE 1M021C WAS DONE ON THIS SITE. PURPOSE WAS TO DESCRIBE A LOT THAT WOULD CO.ITAILJ THE AIJTEIJ IvA TOWER A1JD CCU' WI2ES. AkiTENNA TOWE2 DATA LONGITUDE : 80.0914S" LATITUDE : B7° IO' 43" ELEV. BASE : 3e27,4S ELEV, TOP : 4007,4S SURVEY FOR DANNY R. KANE OF A 1.OS2 ACRE LOT (LOCATI014 OF I..OT SNOWIt4 TO SURVEY+0125 BY DA1.11.1Y Ie. WANE) 51TUATE ATOP POOR MOUMTA1 N 014 THE 1r RI TOWER SCHEDULE I.-- ** --I SECTIONS NO. Q I1. •.. ti OWER LEGS . wet 7Elo BM TOWER BRACES Mww.sl AYvein ]TM. u , TOP al a OOTT4M FLANGE Boas�, WE LL•7>>' Ie0 �y I .1 i� i-t' 0 1 f u%Lio 10410 1 3 3 x 3,e Bill.[. 3 4,3 x e' 7��Ti�rb �50 X1�4 1241 xl''t NONE Nome 2 W 1-2 1-3• 54 9 SOLID 3. 0 FOLIO 3 ,f 38 44 3 2�(IQ"se 3 VyN\ 1-6 1-10 0� 0 30L10 T(a 0 SOL10 $,as p5'' j x • x 12-42 X2' 12-Yx2'r l2_9e x2i. NONE 4N 1=xi T-i I.,: J. sou!) ►i• 0 SOLID , 41x 4 ' a ^ 12-u\xlg a-4xlfj 5N 2-2 z-e Ike0 scut) % 0soLlo "; ;s 14K7141 6 N z-e +-e' 2• D 919E L 111 x I'4 x is 4-1, 2*1 a +4n a c 12-3\ xa z 75-1hxiC T N hdl - 4 •"�7, L- 0 PIP[ L 1 x 1 x'� 2 7l e E 4,7 • • c 04 + Iz la szI4 i'rr •T S N 0-6 2it d > 19E L 1l12 x 1'ix' ti 5 x s x=7i5 4191N 1 x 4 41N• > a lia >Z n xin eo-tiZxd: 9 N •--e';i 10-03. a1.01 PIPE L 1340, 113'4 5 a7ss5•> r s 44.1. c. 12`36 22b• 4'rz2 ION I0-i, ri-T'Y 2'4 d PIPE L I X 3 10, 5 II 5 1 111"` 665 _ XL n 1};4 x73. 4. xxli. II N 1 i-71r i4-77,11 3 -1I PIPE L 2k 3 21� x 6 11 ,3..14. . I J �Texsii .}1,001/4 12 N 14-1% 111-f 3'} $ PIPE L 3 x 3 x ii i 7 v4. e e• .247 7,11r 12-Ze x31'2 904x''i 13N !if-8e1. 1•-t%e 4 -0 PIPE L 3 x a x.', 7 x 1Yrc 7 xl • ec 7 x 7 xl T: 12-ye X.3%; 30-�i0'# 30-464V I4N Ii-01h 20-SK 4 • PC PIPE L 314 x 3'4 x Y. T 7x ow ^ 9v1 c44t, 12- 1 x44' 15 N 2a i 22-3e 5 -0 INK 4 4 x 4 x y� 421 e r pbZ teeals 12- 1 34 4 ao-%wit le N z2-94i 11. ',9 1 5.0 PIPE L 4 X 4 x S� R>31•hxx P17,, ''''I1+ 12- , * ASTERISK INDICATES THAT THE BOTTOM FLANGE IE_ OF THAT SECTION IS OFFSET. *W A.i25 (5 8 'DIA BOLTS 5 A . GARDE 5 / BRACING DETAILS F90 SECTIONS 4N a 5N 1• rrn.ttma7l O.M WE TOP 4 e077041 KILLS I7',fC.K FOR Nell a.••Il14 - R10 1 41 • 440 4I0P w10 1 - A❑ e - N11 3 - MIS - ■12 2 MIS 1 1114 I 7 BO WA& r0E Aa.e saasee 7 Ma.R Sun BRACING DETAIL FOR SECTIONS 6N-i 1 N OuTerTAR0SI0 1E00 OF ..RE& 11- 1. WEIGHTS 1EC.N0 LEOS BRACES TOTAL I M 11\ 2W 1.0 3WN 4 230 4N 260 175 435 5N 345 lilts 540 •M 290 190 480 7N 300 245 545 ON 426 274 700 ON 420 300 720 ION 430 400 630 11 N 570 840 11410 12 N 690 825 1,7'* 13N 780 B10 1.700 14N 845 1.1125 2470 1S N , 1155 2.Ooo 3, IT5 w Ie `u55 2,130 3.34:e GENERAL NOTES: Al OR G,Pe. Vet ROLE ) J 1Es7 R.11t R.A'1 BRACING DETAIL FOR SECTIONS 12N-16N 320' TOWER ELEVATION 2 tea' .lrfNfOtIttare, JIeTmn,✓T71 ,ntt JerAIIIP 1. All FART N09 YETI/ Mee IEFOIE 94Lwr\le1L s /TI/ WTI manage R0. ALL 7Oa1*3 Ott". sal 0+4. A71oV e. 4 STIR IolTe F4109111E1 0,4 01E 120 Fa :eyo... T7•N IM. 41r 77V •O/7e ON a and Raw +Error q. Tau ew, s ALL Torn wale aYE wOT-ORPF4 MLWR20 .F7011 Abt! rnea. a UM OM.° 4204.0 RN Ra.mar10I g7M.t . Oro �M+ a,rNt.--�_ ve 40®4xi0 ar hva N +8 co. 2-oIEL' 9e4C+.ve >n i Er ��ajgrAelB,�A]Y7 111 A7 INN, /e1 01140w 4 a047 CS7+c 14 ..AI/ Jlf/Y%r /.,VK d.IK .N A -.. I/�yyW� qTV ,• ...1 7 /N!/lA7rT1i. • '4 !I ,.IAA met marl. I 1 71 .44+IFe ~AS h•s#e /Der AMC fat *CT. SIR 1074 1140 N I samara .9 a RR 0*31. E7 4R • UN 1\.10.71 Jet WOOL WV TOWER STANDARD WWI Ill I • •• 1;w r -. '5.,-i01 y-. I . P/0 82.00- 1- 41 I" R 400' District Distrlc 8832 8800 8776 3 102.00-1- I 1" • 400' APALACHIA RCPEATER AS 8695 8693 8697 ►R0. COMM IMC. /r 44.1 94.09 Ac OoA 149 8487 (M(RG. COMM. (VANCEL 1_ POUR SOl1AAF CNURCH 44 86649 Ac(0) 693.08 Ac (C) 8500 85/0 MgIN(!! AUTO MOM{ INC. WIVP7.Tv CNANM{I. 27 ■084•7v CNAIINCL 7 •086 F a DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING PETITIONER AND ZONING TAX MAP NUMBER(5): 93.00-1-44.1 REQUEST: SPECIAL USE PERMIT BROADCASTING TOWER NORTH " 414Y P. KA.':IF COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING, 5204 Bernard Dr.-. P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ( 540' 772-2068 FAX (540) 772-2108 For staff use only /- date receiv - received b • . kiii--/ application ee: , PC/BZA dat • , placWs4teepgBOS date: Case Number: ! 67 ,cg Check type of application filed (check all that apply): III SPECIAL USE IIII VARIANCE • REZONING Applicant's name: Katharine D Shank & Vicki L Osborne • Phone: 982_1916 Address: 2042 Maiden Lane SW Roanoke, VA Zip Code: 24015 Owner's name: Earl Eugene Powell Phone: 380-2292 Address: 5080 Glenvar Heights Blvd. Salem, VA Zip Code: 24153 Location of property: West Roanoke County, Glenvar Heights Tax Map Number: 5 4/ _ 0 3 _ / -'70 Magisterial District: QA-A--)q j 0 Community Planning Area:l h (14� Size of parcel (s): 5.15 acres Existing Zoning: R1 . Existing Land Use.: residental sq.ft. fa i'` ° • i'iii` ?il`iii;i;iiiiii';i:.:: 'i ii`'i i i':>:i''i I''•' Proposed Zoning: none Proposed Land Use: Private Kennel For Staff Use only Use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, YES 7 NO IF NO, A VARIANCE and frontage requirements of the requested district? IS REQUIRED FIRST. requested Use Type? YES // NO Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? YES NO (`s'lh '`'III°`I'''(;`'•`''''I'IIh'I''I'''~'''''''''I' Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. nrs V Consultation Application Justification ws V 8 1 /2" x 1 1- concept plan Metes and bounds description Water and sewer application PIS V Application fee Proffers, if applicable Adjoining property owners • I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature: • • Concept Plan For Proposed Private Kennel Special Use Permit a. Katharine D. Shank & Vicki L. Osborne requesting S.U.P. for a Private Kennel b. see attachment A c. Lot size = 5.15 acres; 505 X 392 X 502 X 490 d. Adjoining properties: 1. Tax Map Number: 54-03-1-69 (vacant lot) Owner: Earl Eugene Powell 5080 Glenvar Heights Blvd. Salem, VA 24153 2. Tax Map Number: 54-03-1-71 Owner: Karen Wilson 5040 Glenvar Heights Blvd. Salem, VA 24153 3. Tax Map Number: 54-00-1-3 Owner: Roanoke County Board of Supervisors being rezoned for Technology Industrial Center 4. Tax Map Number: 54-04-5-64 Owner: Robert C. and Martha C. Dantzler 5091 Glenvar Heights Blvd. Salem, VA 24153 5. Tax Map Number: 54-04-5-64 Owner: Ronald and Linda Perkins 5101 Glenvar Heights Blvd. Salem, VA 24153 F-- g e. Physical features: the majority of the land is covered in lawn -type grass; border of lot adjacent to Tax Map Number 54-00-1-3 is undeveloped woods. There are no natural watercourses on the property. Property is not in flood plan. f. per Tim Beard not needed; residental properties g. per Tim Beard not needed; kennel to be located adjacent to home h. House has 2277 square feet on the Main level; 1723 square feet on Lower Level i. Route 927 (Glenvar Heights Blvd) runs in front of lot. j. Driveway to home is shown on Attachment A k. Not applicable; home has private well and septic tank I-q. Not applicable for project For Staff Use Only: Case Number ,t 3 �7�•l}� `�� � ��+.. Yz.`•�, `�it,R Jn' �1�' �uv;a;fc.a; • Applicant Katharine D Shank & Vicki L Osborne The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit 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 Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district -classification in the zoning ordinance. We raise, show, train, and own Shelties as our hobby. Our dogs visit nursing homes (including the VA Medical Center), and travel extensively with us for shows and to obtain additional training; plus they are an integral part of our family. We consider ourselves responsible dog owners. Katharine Shank is a certified Agility instructor, a 20+ year veteran of teaching dog obedience, a member of the Roanoke Kennel Club, Lynchburg Dog Owners Training Club, and a founding member and current President of the Star City Canine Club. Vicki Osborne is a founding member of the Star City Canine Club. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. As we have searched for a home, we have deliberately looked for a place that would more than meet the requirements for a private kennel. The property of 5080 Glenvar Heights Blvd. more than meets the general requirements of a private kennel. In addition, the location of the house (in the middle of the property) means that the kennel will be away from all property lines and there is existing landscaping that will block the kennel from being visible from the road (and assist in blocking any noise). 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/rescue. We intend to have the kennel adjacent to the house. There will not be any additional buildings built for the kennel area. There should be minimal impact to the property and/or surrounding areas. 3 / Cr. 4 'Z.'�":i fJ r is 41 ---ti; C) _ _ t • • • I s r �'rhe 1" 31 cr.t. / ta to, ii,sp o orif • M h N 04 • NORTH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Osborne Private Kennel Special Use Request AND ZONING . Tax Map # 54.03-1-70 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: April 28, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of Ordinance to Establish Sewer Service Area and Financing of Sewer Connection Fee for Clearbrook Area COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: a#;244t-e' The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors authorized extension of public sewer service to the Clearbrook Elementary School in July 1996 (Action Number A-072396-1). The immediate purpose of this project was to protect the health and safety of students and faculty at the school. As designed and constructed, the existing public sewer facilities (sewage pump station and sewer force main) can be utilized without modification, as sewer service is extended into the Clearbrook service area. On February 14, 1997, and March 5, 1997, letter agreements with proposed sewer connection fees, were transmitted by the Utility Department to property owners located along the U. S. Route 220 corridor. These letter agreements were transmitted to determine the level of interest among property owners for extension of sewer service into the Clearbrook area. These letter agreements also indicated that Roanoke County would consider financing a portion of the property owner's project costs over a ten year period at the County's interest rate, if requested by the property owners. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The project has been completed and is now in service. Utility Department funds were applied to provide capacity in the Clearbrook sewage pumping station and sewer force main for the entire Clearbrook sewer drainageshed with the Roanoke County School Board contributing $215,000 toward the project. The attached ordinance would establish a surcharge of $700.00 per equivalent residential connection (ERC) to cover costs associated with construction of the Clearbrook sewage pump station and sewer force main. Dr. J. Milton Miller has agreed to pay a sewer connection fee of $15,965, which includes the costs associated with construction, off -site facility fee and pump station/force main surcharge. Dr. Miller has requested that Roanoke County finance $9,965 of the connection fee over a period of ten (10) years. Therefore, the attached ordinance also provides for fmancing a portion of Dr. Miller's sewer connection fee. FISCAL IMPACT: The attached ordinance will establish a special sewer service area for the Clearbrook area and also levy a surcharge of $700 per equivalent residential connection (ERC) for the sewage pump station and sewer force main. Authorization to allow Roanoke County to finance a portion of Dr. Miller's sewer connection fee will assist him, while allowing Roanoke County to recover costs incurred for extension of sewer utilities into the Clearbrook service area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached ordinance, which establishes a sewer service area for the Clearbrook area and levying of a surcharge for the sewage pump station and sewer force main. The ordinance will also allow Roanoke County to finance $9,965 of the sewer connection fee over a period of ten years for Dr. Miller. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: (e:"(7 Gary R66ertson, P.E. Elmer C. Hodge Utility Director County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved () Motion by: No Yes Abstain Denied () Harrison Received () Johnson Referred McNamara to Minnix Nickens ITEM G-1 Mr. Mahoney is in the process of preparing this ordinance, and it will be available by the meeting on Tuesday, April 28. Please call him if you have any questions. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A SURCHARGE FOR AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCING OF A LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CLEARBROOK SEWER EXTENSION WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors authorized the extension of public sewer service to the Clearbrook Elementary School in July of 1996 by Action No. A-072396-1; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 112288-7 authorizes the financing of local public works improvements and the imposition of special assessments upon abutting property owners upon the adoption of an appropriate ordinance by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the County Administration has negotiated the extension of the public sewer system to residents of the Clearbrook community; and WHEREAS, the extension of the public sewer system will alleviate a critical public health and safety problem; and WHEREAS, one of the residents, Dr. J. Milton Miller (Tax Map No. 98.01-1-75) has requested that the County allow him to pay his portion of the costs of connection to the public sewer system over ten years in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 112288-7; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 28, 1998; and the second reading was held on May 12, 1998. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board authorizes and approves a local public works improvement project namely, public sewer extension for a portion of the C:\OFFICE\ WPWIN\ WPDOCS\ AGENDA\ UTILITY\CLEARBRO 1 Clearbrook community. 2. That the Board authorizes and establishes a surcharge to cover costs associated with the construction of the Clearbrook sewage pump station and sewer force main of $700 per equivalent residential connection (ERC). This surcharge shall apply to all sewer connections within the Clearbrook Drainage Shed and shall be in addition to any construction costs and off -site facility fees imposed. 3. That the Board authorizes and approves the payment by Dr. J. Milton Miller (Tax Map No. 98.01-1-75) of his portion of the cost of extending the public sewer system in accordance with the following terms and conditions: Payment of a sewer connection fee of $15,965, which includes the costs associated with construction, off -site facility fee, and pump station/force main surcharge. Dr. Miller will pay $6,000 down and finance the remaining $9,965 over 10 years at an interest rate of 8% per annum. 4. That these payments shall be returned to the Sewer Fund. 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to take such actions and execute such documents as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this transaction, all upon form approved by the County Attorney. 6. That this Ordinance shall take effect on and from the date of its adoption. C:\OFFICE\ WPWIN\ WPDOCS\ AGENDA\ UTILITY\CLEARBRO 2 r ACTION NUMBER ITEM NUMBER T - 1 7-- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: April 28, 1998 SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1 FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE Since Mr. Tobie Eaton has resigned, there is a vacancy on this committee. A citizen should be appointed who would be willing to serve in an advisory capacity in the efforts to implement the Roanoke Valley Regional Stormwater Management Plan. 2. LEAGUE OF OLDER AMERICANS - ADVISORY COUNCIL The one year term of Dee Pincock expired March 31, 1998. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: il/ Cc . - C. e . -), • 67( Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator 1 ACTION Approved ( ) Motion by: Harrison Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) McNamara Referred ( ) Minnix To ( ) Nickens cc: File 2 VOTE No. Yes Abs _✓ r AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 RESOLUTION 042898-5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. that the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for April 28, 1998, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 7, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes - April 14, 1998. 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors. 3. Resolution repealing actions previously adopted by the Board of Supervisors regarding Economic Development policies and to provide for a Policy Manual. 4. Resolution in support of the Virginia Department of Transportation's Secondary Road Project 0601-080-233, C501 and B677, Hollins Road and bridge replacement. 5. Resolution requesting acceptance of Otter Park Court and a portion of Monet Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 6. Acceptance of sewer facilities for Hickory Hills. 7 Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving Sunscape Apartments. 1 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Consent resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Econ Dev Mary Hicks, Executive Secretary Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections 2 April 14, 1998 235 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 April 14, 1998 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday, and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of April, 1998. N RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob L. Johnson, Supervisors Fenton F. "Spike" Harrison, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chairman Harry C. Nickens, Supervisor Joseph McNamara STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator; Anne Marie Green, Director, Community Relations IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by F. Douglas Sweetenberg, Sheriffs Office. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. April 14, 1998 237 RESOLUTION 041498-1 AUTHORIZING THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO SUBMIT A $5 MILLION LITERARY LOAN APPLICATION FOR THE NEW BONSACK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of County of Roanoke , Virginia (the "County") adopted a resolution on August 19, 1997 evidencing the intent of the Board to reimburse itself from one or more series of bonds for expenditures which the Board or the School Board of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "School Board") may make with respect to the acquisition, construction and equipping of various projects including the acquisition, construction and equipping of a new Bonsack Elementary School (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Board and the School Board propose to finance a portion of the cost of the Project with a loan from the Virginia Literary fund in the amount of $5,000,000 (the"Loan") and the School Board presented to the Board a proposed application addressed to the State Board of Education of Virginia for the purpose of borrowing from the Literary Fund $5,000,000 for the Project to be paid in 20 annual installments and at the annual rate of 4% as set forth therein; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA AS FOLLOWS: 1. The application of the School Board to the State Board of Education of Virginia for the Loan is heresy approved and authority is hereby granted to the School Board to borrow $5,000,000 for the purpose set forth in such application. The Board of Supervisors will each year during the life of the Loan, at the time it fixes the regular levies, fix a rate of levy for schools or make a cash appropriation sufficient for operation expenses and to pay the Loan and the interest thereon, as required by law regulating loans from the Literary Fund. 2. The Board hereby determines that the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project is essential to the Roanoke County public school system. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisors McNamara, Nickens 2. Request for reimbursement of expenses to provide assistance to Bent Mountain residents suffering damage during the 1998 ice April 14, 1998 239 3. Request for approval of the Economic Development Strategy, 2000 and beyond. (Timothy Gubala. Economic Development Director) R-041498-3 Mr. Gubala reported that the Economic Development Strategy update examines the background of economic development, the roles of other economic development groups in the Roanoke Valley and the relationship of the Strategy to the Comprehensive Plan. The County has had an official strategy since 1985. A work session was held on March 24, 1998 and suggestions from the Board members have been incorporated into the document. Supervisor Minnix commended the staff and pointed out it was beneficial for the citizens to know why economic development has such a high priority. Supervisor Johnson expressed concern about comments made by the members of the School Board and noted that our successful economic development projects increases the tax base and eliminates the need to raise the tax rate on the citizens. Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Harrison, Minnix, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisors McNamara, Nickens RESOLUTION 041498-3 APPROVING AND ADOPTING ROANOKE COUNTY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY, 2000 AND BEYOND April 14, 1998 241 $17,000 and staff is requesting that the Board of Supervisors approve and appropriate its $17,000 share of the cost. Funds are available in the Economic Development public private partnership fund. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the appropriation. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Harrison, Minnix, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisors McNamara, Nickens 5. Request to execute a performance agreement with the Lowe's Companies and appropriate $300.000 for public improvements for the Lowe's project in the Pinkard Court area. (Timothy Gubala. Economic Development Director) R-041498-5 Mr. Gubala advised that Lowes has selected a 22 acre site in the Pinkard Court area for their retail store. They will invest approximately $12 million in this facility and the estimated annual tax revenue that will be generated is $657,600. The County Administrator has negotiated a draft performance agreement that will provide up to $500,000 for public improvements to benefit the Lowes project. Improvements include a traffic signal, water line extension, drainage and road improvements. The agreement ties any reimbursement of public funds to the approval of the Lowe's site plan, the approval of a certificate of occupancy and acceptance of road and drainage April 14, 1998 243 from the General Fund Unappropriated Balance. 4. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute said performance agreement on behalf of the County, upon form approved by the County Attorney. 5. That this resolution shall take effect immediately. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisors McNamara, Nickens 6. Request for approval of health insurance contract for School and County employees. (Elmer C. Hodge. County Administrators) A-041498-6 Mr. Hodge advised that proposals for health insurance were evaluated by a committee of County and School staff and a consultant. The consensus of the committee was to award the health insurance contract to Aetna/US Healthcare. The rates will increase somewhat because the number of claims has increased. Aetna has agreed to wave the pre-existing clause for those employees who have previously satisfied the clause with coverage through Trigon. In response to questions from the Board members, Mr. Hodge advised that the County can still participate in the local government consortium working on joint insurance; that the reserve at June 30, 1998 will be $538,723 and will be used to cover the costs at the end of the year; that the contract is for three years; and the County has been guaranteed by Aetna that they will not cancel Point of Service participation at Lewis Gale Hospital. James Gordon from Aetna was present and advised that they had long April 14, 1998 245 AYES: Supervisors Harrison, Minnix, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisors McNamara, Nickens RESOLUTION 041498-7 APPROVING THE FUNDING DISTRIBUTION METHODOLOGY FOR INCENTIVE FUNDS TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT REGIONAL ALLIANCE WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance was created by local governments to promote increased levels of interjurisdictional cooperation in order to improve the region's economic competitiveness; and WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance was formed under the authority of the 1996 Regional Competitiveness Act and this legislation provides incentive funds to jurisdictions within a region that agree to participate in regional cooperative activities; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors by resolution, has made a commitment to participate in the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance; and WHEREAS, the Regional Competitiveness Program requires that each participating local government within the region approve by resolution a methodology for the distribution of incentive funds; and WHEREAS, by a vote of those attending the March 19, 1998 meeting of the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance Board of Directors, it was unanimously recommended to local governments that funds provided through the Regional Competitiveness Program be distributed to the Alliance to assist in funding regional projects as presented in the regional Economic Strategic Plan, and that the Alliance Board must approve the use of such funds before the funds are expended; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors approves the allocation of any Regional Competitiveness incentive funds be paid to the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance and such funds be used to help implement the regional programs and projects as presented in the regional Economic Strategic Plan. On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisors McNamara, Nickens IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of ordinance to enhance emergency services by April 14, 1998 247 16. 17. and 18. Section 2. Starmount. as recorded in Plat book 3. Page 135. located in the Hollins Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey. Engineering & Inspections Director) 0-041498-8 There was no discussion and no citizens to speak on this ordinance. Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Harrison, Minnix, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisors McNamara, Nickens ORDINANCE 041498-8 AUTHORIZING THE VACATON OF A PORTION OF A 10-FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINES OF LOTS 6, 7, 8, 16, 17 AND 18, (TAX MAP NO. 27.13-3-27), SECTION 2, STARMOUNT, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 135, IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by subdivision plat entitled "Map of Section No. 2, STARMOUNT', dated September 15, 1954, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 3, page 135, M. A. Dillard and Kathryn J. Dillard created certain public easements, including a public utility easement along the rear property lines of Lots 6, 7, 8, 16, 17 and 18; and, WHEREAS, the petitioners, North Roanoke Baptist Church Trustees, are the owners of Lots 6, 7, 8, 16, 17 and 18, Section 2, Starmount; and, WHEREAS, the petitioners have requested that said public utility easement be vacated by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, pursuant to Section 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), which requires that such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by the governing body; and, WHEREAS, there being no objection raised by the appropriate public utility companies entitled to use the subject easement; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and a first reading and public hearing of this April 14, 1998 249 IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-041498-9. R-041498-9.d.. R-041498-9.f Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the Consent Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Harrison, Minnix, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisors McNamara, Nickens RESOLUTION 041498-9 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for April 14, 1998 designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 10, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes - March 24, 1998 2. Acceptance of donation of drainage easements in connection with storm drainage improvements (Project 197) and Wakefield Avenue road improvements. 3. Acceptance of water and sanitary sewer facilities serving Summerfield, Section 5. 4. Acceptance of water and sanitary sewer facilities serving the Groves, Section 3. 5. Adoption of a joint resolution of appreciation to previous members of the Court Community Corrections Policy Board and Community Corrections Resources Board. April 14, 1998 251 WHEREAS, these individuals freely and willingly gave of their personal time to enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Botetourt County, Craig County, Roanoke County, City of Roanoke, the City of Salem, and the Town of Vinton; and, WHEREAS, the Boards of Supervisors, City Councils, and Town Council participating in this joint resolution, and on behalf of their citizens, hereby extend their gratitude to each of these individuals for their personal dedication and professional contributions to ensure the effective implementation of the Alcohol Safety Action Program and the Community Diversion Incentive Program, enhancing our criminal justice system's public safety mission. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia joins the Board of Supervisors for the County of Botetourt, the Board of Supervisors for the County of Craig, the City Council for the City of Roanoke, the City Council for the City of Salem, and the Town Council for the Town of Vinton, that the herein named honorees, in appreciation for their personal commitment and professional dedication, are hereby recognized for their contributions to the criminal justice system and the citizens of the Roanoke Valley. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisors McNamara, Nickens RESOLUTION 041498-9.f RESCINDING CERTAIN POLICIES PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PERTAINING TO LIVESTOCK CLAIMS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR A POLICY MANUAL TO GUIDE THE ADMINISTRATION OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County hereby establishes a Policy Manual to provide an organized, systematic approach to the handling of routine matters by this government organization, and a dependable source of reference for all County departments and the Board; and, WHEREAS, this Policy Manual is based upon actions taken and measures adopted by the various boards of supervisors of Roanoke County over the past 20 years; and, WHEREAS, in reviewing these actions of the boards of supervisors of Roanoke County over the past 20 years, certain actions should be repealed, rescinded, modified or amended; and, WHEREAS, this Resolution addresses those actions pertaining Livestock Claims. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That there is hereby established a Policy Manual for Roanoke County government. April 14, 1998 253 Supervisor Johnson moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote with Supervisors McNamara and Nickens absent. 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Report on conveyance of property from Roanoke County Industrial Development Authority to Country East LLC 5. Proclamation signed by the Chairman 6. Statement of Treasurer's Accountability per Investments and Portfolio Policy as of March 31. 1998 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting at 3:55 p.m. Submitted by, Approved by, Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board Bob L. Johnson Chairman A-042898-5.f ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ..7 -Z AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: April 28, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1_ Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors Supervisor Johnson nominated Elizabeth Stokes to serve as his designee for a two year term which will expire May 5, 2000. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that this appointment be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Mary H. Alien, CM Clerk to the Board EGA Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson Harrison _ _ Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) McNamara _ x Referred ( ) Minnix _ x To () Nickens _ x cc: File Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors File AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 RESOLUTION 042898-5.a REPEALING CERTAIN POLICIES PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND TO PROVIDE FOR A POLICY MANUAL TO GUIDE THE ADMINISTRATION OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County hereby establishes a Policy Manual to provide an organized, systematic approach to the handling of routine matters by this government organization, and a dependable source of reference for all County departments and the Board; and, WHEREAS, this Policy Manual is based upon actions taken and measures adopted by the various boards of supervisors of Roanoke County over the past 20 years; and, WHEREAS, in reviewing these actions of the boards of supervisors of Roanoke County over the past 20 years, certain actions should be repealed, rescinded, modified or amended; and, WHEREAS, this Resolution addresses those actions pertaining to the Department of Economic Development. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That there is hereby established a Policy Manual for Roanoke County government. 2. That Resolution 85-199 adopted November 13, 1985 concerning the community certification program is hereby repealed. This is an economic development 1 program that the Commonwealth of Virginia ended in 1994 when Governor Allen assumed office and formed the Virginia Economic Development Partnership. 3. That Resolution 72793-6 adopted July 27, 1993 establishing a public/private partnership policy is hereby repealed. A new public/private partnership policy dated November 19, 1996 was adopted. 4. That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Econ Dev Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Mary Hicks, Executive Secretary 2 II ACTION NO. ITEM NO. '.7 =3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: April 28, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution repealing certain actions of the Board of Supervisors to provide for the creation of a Policy Manual COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This Resolution repeals several previous actions of the Board of Supervisors applicable to the Economic Development Department, as part of an ongoing review of currently effective actions, resolutions and ordinances to create a Policy Manual for Roanoke County government. BACKGROUND: County staff has reviewed various actions of the Board of Supervisors over the past twenty years to identify those actions which should be repealed or rescinded. The goal of this review is to establish a Policy Manual for County government. This manual will provide an organized, systematic approach to internal governance, and a dependable source of reference for all County departments and the Board of Supervisors. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff recommends that the repeal or amendment of these currently effective Board actions be accomplished over the next several months as workload demands allow. These actions have been grouped by department for ease and consistency of review. Resolution 85-199 adopted November 13, 1985 concerning the community certification program is hereby repealed. This is an economic development program that the Commonwealth of Virginia ended in 1994 when Governor Allen assumed office and formed the Virginia Economic Development Partnership. Resolution 72793-6 adopted July 27, 1993 establishing a public/private partnership policy is hereby repealed. A new public/private partnership policy dated November 19, 1996 was adopted. Finally, this Resolution creates a Policy Manual for Roanoke County. This manual consists of the currently effective actions of the boards of supervisors of this County over the past twenty years. Copies of these resolutions are attached. FISCAL IMPACTS: No direct fiscal impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board adopt the attached Resolution. Respectfully submitted, pvv,i) gtia, loct.tiLimutT Timothy W. Gubal , Director Paul M. Mahoney Economic Development Department County Attorney ACTION Approved () Motion by: Harrison Denied () Johnson Received () McNamara Referred to Minnix Nickens Attachment No Yes Abs 6 .T- 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 RESOLUTION REPEALING CERTAIN POLICIES PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND TO PROVIDE FOR A POLICY MANUAL TO GUIDE THE ADMINISTRATION OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County hereby establishes a Policy Manual to provide an organized, systematic approach to the handling of routine matters by this government organization, and a dependable source of reference for all County departments and the Board; and, WHEREAS, this Policy Manual is based upon actions taken and measures adopted by the various boards of supervisors of Roanoke County over the past 20 years; and, WHEREAS, in reviewing these actions of the boards of supervisors of Roanoke County over the past 20 years, certain actions should be repealed, rescinded, modified or amended; and, WHEREAS, this Resolution addresses those actions pertaining to the Department of Economic Development. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That there is hereby established a Policy Manual for Roanoke County government. 2. That Resolution 85-199 adopted November 13, 1985 concerning the community certification program is hereby repealed. This is an economic development program that the Commonwealth of Virginia ended in 1994 when Governor Allen assumed office and formed the Virginia Economic Development Partnership. 3. That Resolution 72793-6 adopted July 27, 1993 establishing a public/private partnership policy is hereby repealed. A new public/private partnership policy dated November 19, 1996 was adopted. 4. That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. U:\DOCS\REPORTS\POLICYMA.ED 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION • CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1985 RESOLUTION 85-199 ENDORSING OFFICIAL ENTRY INTO THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the governing body of Roanoke County, Virginia, is interested in the economic well-being of its citizenry and the community -at -large; and WHEREAS, the governing body is prepared to support appropriate efforts within the community to become totally prepared to promote economic development; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Division of Economic Development is offering a program which is specially designed to help Virginia communities to become prepared for industrial and related economic development; and WHEREAS, this program is entitled the Virginia Community Certification Program; and WHEREAS, the program requires the existence or formation of a local economic development organization, and this governing body having designated the Industrial Development Authority as representing our community for the purpose of participating in this program. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that our community, Roanoke County with joint participation from the Town of Vinton, Virginia, wishes to participate in the Virginia Community Certification Program, and that the leadership of this community fully realizes this program requires dedicated effort; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that by making entry into this program, we are pledging our honest efforts to become designated as a "Certified" community. On motion of Supervisor Nickens and the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Minter,,Brittle, Burton, Nickens and McGraw NAYS: None A COPY - TESTE 5r7I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1993 RESOLUTION 72793-6 READOPTING A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP POLICY FOR ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, the expenditure of public funds for the general purpose of promoting Roanoke County's commercial, industrial, and business development is a lawful, valid, public purpose; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 81286-169 authorizes the payment of a portion of the total water connection fee by resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, for certain commercial or industrial projects which are determined to be in the best interests of the County's economic generate significant employment; and, WHEREAS, Resolution 22790-1 adopted a broader public partnership policy for encouraging economic development in County; and, WHEREAS, modification of this policy to establish revised guidelines and criteria will prove beneficial in determining the scope of local incentives in the negotiations for economic development projects. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the Board hereby readopt and establish the following "Roanoke County Public Private Partnership Policy" in order to provide policy criteria and guidance in applying the provisions of the Roanoke County Code in negotiations concerning local incentives for economic development projects. 1 development and which private Roanoke ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP POLICY Purposes: 1. Roanoke County may fund part of site development costs for public improvements, roads, and off site facility fees for water and sewer for a qualifying industry or business that meets the evaluation criteria for public private (P/P) partnerships. 2. Roanoke County may encourage the creation or retention of jobs of qualifying companies within the community which employ a significant number of employees through assistance with employment training. 3. Roanoke County may support tourism related industry/ destination activities that provide a range of attractions for visitors from outside the Roanoke Valley. Applications: A business or industry may apply for County assistance by addressing a letter to the Director of Economic Development that indicates: a. a description of the business or tourism activity to be conducted on the site b. total capital investment in real estate (land, building) machinery and tools and anticipated personal property and/or other taxes paid on site c. total employment and annual payroll and jobs to be created or retained d. specific water and sewer needs (i.e., size line and/or capacity) or other public facility assistance required e. date of construction and/or start-up (if in an existing building) f. if applicable, the terms of any lease to ensure that the company will occupy the building during the period calculated for payback. Review: The Director of Economic Development, upon consultation with the County Administrator and other County staff, will review the request for participation to determine the extent of Roanoke County's funding. An evaluation method based on anticipated taxes (real estate, machinery and tools and personal property), payback, 2 S- .3 number and type of employees, likelihood of future growth, and other factors will be used. The County may participate in up to 50% of public improvement costs of the project if payback occurs within the first three years of the new project. Participation in projects with paybacks longer than three years shall be a reduced level. All applications are subject to restrictions by the amount of the County's budget appropriation for this purpose. Areas of Partnership Assistance: 1. Physical improvements and fees: If approved, Roanoke County may fund part of; a. water and sewer line extensions b. c. water, fire, and sewer utility connection fees public road construction and required drainage structures d. traffic control devices such as signals and related equipment e. employment training/retraining Requests for assistance with employment training and retraining of new and/or relocated employees may be considered. Amounts and priority of funding will depend on the salary/wage rate to be paid, the number of permanent full time jobs created, relocated or retained, and availability of matching funds from the state of Virginia and federal funds. County training funds will not be directly paid to a company, but will be appropriated to a training agency, state agency or economic development organization recognized by the Board of Supervisors. 2. Criteria for determination: a. No projects will be considered which are determined to produce significant environmental pollution, public nuisance or excessive demands for local public services. b. Excess County payments under the Public Private Partnership Policy will be refunded by the applicant if actual tax revenues do not meet the above criteria. c. All applications for payments of costs for physical improvements and/or fees which comply with the above criteria will be approved by the County Administrator upon the recommendation of the Director of Economic 3 Development. d. Applications which fall outside the criteria stated above, but which are considered by the County Administrator and Director of Economic Development to have merit, will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. e. Tourism projects will be evaluated on the basis of expected visitation and concentration of tourism activities in areas proposed by the Economic Development Strategy, as well as other criteria for new jobs and anticipated tax revenues. f. Public Private Partnership funds shall be paid after the approval of the required site plan and at the time that a building permit is issued for the project. Industrial Park Development Off -site fees of jointly developed parks shall not be held as a portion of the total cost of the project and thus not a portion of the payback equation. Such assistance shall be funded after the approval of the required site plan and at the time a building permit is issued for the project. Limitations: Roanoke County will not pay for any private sewage pre-treatment facilities or waive any ordinances requiring fire protection or industrial discharge certification. Funding Sources: Roanoke County shall fund its participation from the General Fund from anticipated tax revenue, or from an Economic Development Fund or other special non -utility funds. There is an intent to continue the maintenance of a fiscally sound utility enterprise fund to provide water and sewer service to County utility customers. (This provision is authorized by County Code Chapter 22 as amended by Ordinance 8-12-86-169, Section 3b.) Agreement: A written agreement on a form approved by the County Attorney will be required to specify terms of each Public Private Partnership. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: a AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Eddy, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: 6iQ,v_‘4. /d4_,_ 10- - Brenda J. H(flton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development 5 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN A REGULAR MEETING ON THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL 1998, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION 042898-5.b SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN FOR HOLLINS ROAD, VDOT PROJECT NUMBER 0601-080-233, C501 AND B677, AS OUTLINED IN THE SECONDARY SIX YEAR PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998-2004. WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation is reconstructing a section of state route 601 (Hollins Road), from the intersection of state route 115 (Plantation Road), 1.6 miles east of state route 115 to improve the safety and traffic flow in this area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby support the proposed improvements as presented to the general public at a combined location and design public meeting on March 3, 1998. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the resident engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: Seconded By: Yeas: Nays: Supervisor Johnson None Required Supervisors McNamara. Minnix. Harrison. Nickens. Johnson None A Copy Teste: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Virginia Department of Transportation r ACTION ,+ ITEM NUMBER '— '7 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: April 28, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of a resolution in support of the Virginia Department of Transportation's Secondary Road Project 0601-080-233, C-501 and B677, Hollins Road and bridge replacement. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: dr,....,,.." BACKGROUND: In accordance with the requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Board of Supervisors is required to adopt a resolution supporting the proposed improvements to Hollins Road. Once the resolution is forwarded to VDOT, the Commonwealth Transportation Board will approve the project and the project can move forward. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On March 3, 1998, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) held a combined location and design public hearing at Mountain View Elementary School. Twenty-one citizens commented on the proposed improvements. Of the twenty-one comments received only two citizens were against the project. We have already met with one of the property owners and advised him of his options. Unfortunately, two businesses (Hinman Estates, greenhouse, and Research Communications) will be relocated. Approximately 50% of the comments received indicated we were not continuing the improvements far enough or adding enough lanes past Hanover Direct. 1 ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: Conducting the public hearing involves no expenditures of County funds. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution in support of the Hollins Road project. SUBMITTED BY: mold Covey, Dir=ctor of Engineering & Inspections APPROVED BY: el°g. /44k Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved ( ) Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To 2 VOTE Harrison Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens No Yes Abs v ..i"- 4/ THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN A REGULAR MEETING ON THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL 1998, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN FOR HOLLINS ROAD, VDOT PROJECT NUMBER 0601-080-233, C501 AND B677, AS OUTLINED IN THE SECONDARY SIX YEAR PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998-2004. WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation is reconstructing a section of state route 601 (Hollins Road), from the intersection of state route 115 (Plantation Road), 1.6 miles east of state route 115 to improve the safety and traffic flow in this area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby support the proposed improvements as presented to the general public at a combined location and design public meeting on March 3, 1998. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the resident engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: Seconded By: Yeas: Nays: A Copy Teste: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL 1998, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION 042898-5.c REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF OTTER PARK COURT AND A PORTION OF MONET DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(a), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements. and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right- of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: Seconded By: Yeas: Nays: Supervisor Johnson None Required Supervisors McNamara. Minnix, Harrison. Nickens, Johnson None A Copy Teste: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Virginia Department of Transportation as 0 E 0) osed Additions to the Secondar 0 1 a ADDITIONS FORM SR-5 Attachment CO (N one only) ® Board of Supervisors Resolution 0 Surety Instrument Attachment to (c 0 z 0 THE GROVES, SECTION 1 Name of Subdivision: Addition Length 1 Centerline Miles (NIN O O O g z 7pn O C is 1 u i Notes: Guaranteed width of right of way exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, tills, and drainage. Total Mileage 3 E- d 3. o in Street Addition Termini Fro; THE INTERSECTION WITH CREEKVIEW COURT To: A POINT 150' EAST Plat Recorded Date: 1/ 1 7/ 9 5 evil -Book: 1 7 Page: - 8 9 F Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page: - 1 I-- Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page: 11 From: H Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page: From: 1 Y-- Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page: g LL is F Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page:1 - - i � i- Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book:. Page: Name of Street MONET DRIVE Q Z .- lH P) < in O n CERTIFICATION OF ATTACHMENT • he Seconda osed Additions Attachment Attachment to (chec _5wC 0 U O z 0 Addition Length Centerline Miles — 0 n 0 0 C0 ^ 0 15 2 a i 5 0 U a i TEMPORARY TURNAROUND IS FUTURE INTERSECTION Notes: Guaranteed width of right of way exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills, and drainage. Total Mileage 3 r o ¢i o tr) 0 in Street Addition Termini From:A POINT 150'. EAST OF CREEKVIEW COURT To: TEMPORARY TURNAROUND Plat Recomed Date: 4 /23/96 Bock: 18 Page: 153 Fran: THE NORTH INTERSECTION WITH MONET DRIVE To: THE SOUTH CUL—DE—SAC Plat Recorded Date 4 /23 /96 446gBock 18 Page: 153 F LL is r-- Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page: 1 Ck lL r- Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page: h° Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page: F° Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page: r° m co a a 8 w 0 ii "i 25 cc Q a Name of Street MONET DRIVE OTTER PARK CT. Q Z — cif O in m rs CERTIFICATION OF ATTACHMENT 8 0 a U V CC E 8 L a a E r u a a a (Name and Tida) NORTH L C N.'93 6033 21 c 2/ I 7.3 4.fooej 'e 6/05 2.0 7C i 17, 12.16 M 7_ THE GROVES, SECTION 1 (DESCRIPTION 1) DESCRIPTION: 7 ^ 6 6 . 16/28 ' 06 620 - to 927 e so 6729 17 16 6/35 /6 0 620/ 2 e, 55 62/0 o` 6120 622< 919 �d6, II � 62/6 so6229 7* 6 69 62/5 J 14 D • 6206 61t, i3 t,/ p � 6207a 2 r65 62/3 3 6° �0 1202 7 7 a` 9 63/5 1P 119.59 6 632/ 8 7745 62/9 /4 7794 10946 / 69"Qr 62/9 4 • 6949 6 6309 ; kry a1 6225 5 6303 n 5 0' 69.62 , A 13169 6223 67 25 09 12 THE GROVES, SECTION 3 (DESCRIPTION 2 & 3) 7729 2 17 6126 101 19 m N ' 12 63/0 /91.43 AP 5 6300" 91.90 77.29 '? 14 •6303 16. :6302 /5 z8.70 13 ° 6306 ns ,72 ! 90 n 6309 .0 6320 PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY 15 0 r1 1) Monet Drive - From the intersection with Creekview Court to ;point 150' east. 2) Monet Drive - From a point 150' east of Creekview Court to a temporary turnaround, future intersection. 3) Otter Park Court - From the north intersection with Monet Drive to the south cul-de-sac. LENGTH: (1) 0.02 MILES (2) 0.11 MILES (3) 0.07 MILES RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 50 FEET (2) 50 FEET (3) 50 FEET ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) 38 FEET (2) 38 FEET (3) 30 FEET SERVICE: (1) 2 HOMES (2) 7 HOMES (3) 5 HOMES ROANOKE COUNTY THE GROVES, SECTIONS 1& 3 ACCEPTANCE OF OTTER PARK COURT AND A ENGINEERING & PORTION OF MONET DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM. ITEM NUMBER J — 5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: April 28, 1998 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Otter Park Court and a portion of Monet Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Palm Land Company, L.C., the developer of The Groves, Section 1, and the Groves, Section 3, requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation accepting 0.02 miles of Monet Drive, from the intersection with Creekview Court to a point 150' east, 0.11 miles of Monet Drive, from the point 150' east of Creekview Court to the temporary turnaround, future intersection, and 0.07 miles of Otter Park Court, from the north intersection with Monet Drive to the south cul-de-sac. The staff has inspected this road along with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation and finds the road is acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT: No county funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to VDOT requesting that they accept Otter Park Court and a portion of Monet Drive into the Secondary Road System. 1 tJMITTED BY: old Covey, Director of Engineering and Inspection APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved () Motion by: Denied () Harrison Received () Johnson Referred McNamara to Minnix Nickens 2 No Yes Abs THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL 1998, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF OTTER PARK COURT AND A PORTION OF MONET DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(a), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements. and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right- of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote A Copy Teste: Moved By: Seconded By: Yeas: Nays: Mary Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors pc: Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering and Inspections Virginia Department of Transportation CERTIFICATION OF ATTACHMENT Notes: Guaranteed width of right of way exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills, and drainage. O-4 CO 0 0 V co on se W N — OZ P MONET DRIVE z 5 Q w a I Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book:. Page: O T 3 -0O F. n Q a o A 0 m a P CO P. To: I From: Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page: T Q7 13 D 2 R a 0 m 0 P a v P CO P. O T Q7 Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page: P. T Q7 I Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page: P. T 3 Plat Recorded Date: 1 / 1 7 /95 L'1Book: 1 7 Page: 89 To: A POINT 150r EAST From: THE INTERSECTION WITH CREEKVIEW COURT Street Addition Termini vi O a x g Q 9 0 P 7 z R. 0 0 N Addition Length Centerline Miles 0 Z 0 rxi Attachment to (check one only) ® Board of Supervisors Resolution 0 Surety Instrument 0 )uewyovuy s-as wao� sNolllaaV Suo1;IPpy peso Jupuooas al:11 o (1) Ism Pus swsN) N A 3 5- 5a A 5 n a A 4 CERTIFICATION OF ATTACHMENT Notes: Guaranteed width of right of way exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills, end drainage. 0 0 E CO V Ol (71 L fJ N _. 9 O -m. OTTER PARK CT. MONET DRIVE Name of Street Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book:_ Page: To: Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page: From: Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page: . Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page: From: 1 --- - Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page: O71 Plat Recorded Date: 4 / 2 3 / 9 6 Book: 18 Page: 153 [To: THE SOUTH CUL—DE—SAC From:THE NORTH INTERSECTION WITH MONET DRIVE] Plat Recorded Date: 4/ 2 3/ 9 6 = Book: 18 Page: 1 53 To: TEMPORARY TURNAROUND Frorm:A POINT 150'. EAST OF CREEKVIEW COURT Street Addition Termini In O Lo O g p TEMPORARY TURNAROUND IS FUTURE INTERSECTION 0 4. g a Z Q S 0 0 0 -- Addition Length Centerline Miles O z 0 0 0 c 3) of tueur4potiv [2 Board of Supervisors Resolution ❑ Surety Instrument 0 luewyovRy S waoJ sNoillaae 0 suoR1ppV peso epuooas ay • , • •1400 • yM &T 9.rSW +f' rs�T'°—"%a per,! rv,�x 0R \ � riv,.Is -04 tag a` fit " a� Foy;, P• • °,"" nPhir, ^3Q: 9nh*zz-,'.. VICINITY MAP NORTH xe93 6033 ▪ 21 • 1, 6/06 94 92 6/01 20 0,e 12.13 44 ., 61/2 >5 3s 63 B 18 6/20 THE GROVES, SECTION 1 (DESCRIPTION 1) DESCRIPTION: 5 M1 6 6 q, 16126 ., 06 6204-4' oo 6/29 17 s 7 9 2 T 60 16 6/35 /6 O 62/0 620/ O' 8 6220 61/6 vi• 94 0 , 6201 15 • 6206i1 1T a4' 6 69 62493 • '' 2 • 6, T3 62/5 eJ 62/3 3 • o 3 60 30 ,202 14 162 6224 1, 6 II A� '0 6229 // cZ 6223 12 146 62/13 7194 /3 i0946 / 69 07 62/9 4 4, 69 46 at 6221 5 9 6303 n 69.62 66 2n 09 1129 1 17 6116 /0, 19 6 630s tt 7 66 �ih 7 63/1 119. 99 t 6 632/ 8 �A a, (.3 Y l.' 4 PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY A 99 3 6300" 91.90 17.29� 14 N _ •6303 6302 /3 26 70 THE GROVES, SECTION 3 (DESCRIPTION 2 & 3) je 90 n 6309 S 13 0 9 6306 0 63 32 /2 ry0 12 63/0 191 43 // 1.1 6320 t5 16 m • /6 1) Monet Drive - From the intersection with Creekview Court to a point 150' east. 2) Monet Drive - From a point 150' east of Creekview Court to a temporary turnaround, future intersection. 3) Otter Park Court - From the north intersection with Monet Drive to the south cul-de-sac. LENGTH: (1) 0.02 MILES (2) 0.11 MILES (3) 0.07 MILES RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 50 FEET (2) 50 FEET (3) 50 FEET ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) 38 FEET (2) 38 FEET (3) 30 FEET SERVICE: (1) 2 HOMES (2) 7 HOMES (3) 5 HOMES ROANOKE COUNTY THE GROVES, SECTIONS 1& 3 ACCEPTANCE OF OTTER PARK COURT AND A ENGINEERING & PORTION OF MONET DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM. ? "" A-0428989-5. d ACTION # ITEM NUMBER IP AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: April 28, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Request to Accept Donation of Sewer Line Easements from Hickory Hill Subdivision COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: As part of development of the Hickory Hills Subdivision, Section 2, the developer originally established 15-foot sanitary sewer easements across Lot 24 (Tax Map No. 67.17-05-24) and Lot 28 (Tax Map No. 67.17-05-28). These easements were provided to allow for installation of an 8-inch gravity sewer collector line to serve the subdivision. The development plans originally showed that the sewer line would be installed within the easement at a depth of approximately 8 to 10 feet. The developer has since installed the sewer line within each of the easements. However, the sewer line was installed at a depth of approximately 22 feet, and not the 8 to 10 foot depth as originally shown on the development plans. Consequently, additional easements were required by the Roanoke County Utility Department to ensure that sufficient work space within the easement has been provided, in the event sewer repairs are necessary in the future. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: To meet the Utility Department requirement for additional work space, the developer has provided additional 7.5-foot and 17.5-foot wide sanitary sewer easements across Lot 24 (Tax Map No. 67.17- 05-24) and an additional 20-foot wide easement across Lot 28 (Tax Map No. 67.17-05-28). These additional easements are shown on an easement plat dated March 17 ,1998, as prepared for Townside Construction Company by T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers -Surveyors -Planners. Both lots, which contain the additional easements, are presently the property of Townside Construction Company. Prior to final acceptance by Roanoke County, all utility easements must be dedicated to Roanoke County. As indicated in the deed of easement, these additional easements within the subdivision as shown on the record plat are to be dedicated to Roanoke County. The developer has requested that Roanoke County accept the donation of the attached sewer line easements. FISCAL IMPACT: These easements are being donated by the developer and will have no fiscal impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the donation of these easements and authorize the County Administrator to execute the subject deed of easement. SUBMITTED BY: Gary Robertson, P.E. Utility Director APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson Harrison _ x _ Denied ( ) Johnson _ x Received ( ) McNamara _ x Referred ( ) Minnix _ x _ To () Nickens _ x cc: File Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney A-042898-5.e ACTION # ITEM NUMBER %: — AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: April 28, 1998 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Water and Sanitary Sewer Facilities Serving Sunscape Apartments COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: en444,44,/ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Developers of Sunscape Apartments, Occidental Development, Ltd., have requested that Roanoke County accept the Deed conveying the water and sanitary sewer facilities serving the subdivision along with all necessary easements. The water and sewer facilities are installed, as shown on plans prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C. entitled Sunscape Apartments, which are on file in the County Engineering Department. The water and sanitary sewer facility construction meets the specifications and the plans approved by the County. FISCAL IMPACT: The value of the water and sanitary sewer construction is $51,000 and $49,000 respectively. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the water and sanitary sewer facilities serving the Sunscape Apartments along with all necessary easements, and authorize the County Administrator to execute a Deed for the transfer of these facilities. A r-7 SUBMITTED BY: Gary Ro\ertson, P.E. Utility Director APPROVED: Xetoi Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson Harrison Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) McNamara _ x Referred ( ) Minnix _ x To () Nickens _ x cc: File Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney PY RETURN TO: ROANOKE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THIS CHATTEL DEED, made this 26th day of March , 19 98 , by and between: Occidental Development, Ltd. , a Michigan Partnership , hereinafter referred to as the "Developer," party of the first part; and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, its successors or assigns, hereinafter referred to as the "Board," party of the second part. :WITNESSETH: THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual benefits accruing to the parties, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Developer does hereby GRANT, CONVEY, ASSIGN AND TRANSFER, with the covenants of GENERAL WARRANTY OF TITLE, in fee simple unto the Board all water and/or sewer lines, valves, fittings, laterals, connections, storage facilities, sources of water supply, pumps, manholes and any and all other equipment and appurtenances thereunto belonging, in and to the water and/or sewer systems in the streets, avenues, public utility, easement areas, water and sewer easement areas that have been or may hereafter be installed by the Developer, along with the right to perpetually use and occupy the easements in which the same may be located, all of which is more particularly shown, described and designated as follows, to wit: Page 1 of 4 As shown on the plan entitled Sunscape Apartments , made by Lumsden Associates, P.C. and on file in the Roanoke County Engineering Department. The Developer does hereby covenant and warrant that it will be responsible for the proper installation and construction of the said water and/or sewer systems including repair of surface areas affected by settlement of utility trenches for a period of one (1) year after date of acceptance by the Board and will perform any necessary repairs at its cost. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance of this conveyance pursuant to Resolution No. adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the day of , 19 Page 2 of 4 •- 7 As shown on the plan entitled Sunscape Apartments , made by Lumsden Associates, P.C. and on file in the Roanoke County Engineering Department. The Developer does hereby covenant and warrant that it will be responsible for the proper installation and construction of the said water and/or sewer systems including repair of surface areas affected by settlement of utility trenches for a period of one (1) year after date of acceptance by the Board and will perform any necessary repairs at its cost. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance of this conveyance pursuant to Resolution No. adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the day of , 19 Page 2 of 4 Developer: By: As: WITNESS THE FOLLOWING signatures and seals: Occidental Develor me . Ltd. (SEAL) Its General Partner State of: Michigan County of: Oakland , to wit: By: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this: , day ofYn at ) , 19 Sheldon Rose Its General Partner Duly authorized officer Title on behalf of Occidental Development. Ltd.. (iktdt- Notary Public DAWN E. SCHUL ! NdterY �?B, My Commission expires: Commission 2030 Page 3 of 4 J-9 Approved as to form: Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia By: (SEAL) County Attorney Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator State of: Virginia County/City of: Roanoke , to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this: . day of , 19 by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Notary Public My Commission expires: Page 4 of 4 NORTH ROANOKE COUNTY UTILITY DEPARTMENT ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES SERVING SUNSCAPE APARTMENTS. "7 7. 1/ GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Aug 19, 1997 Sept 23, 1997 Oct 28, 1997 Dec 2, 1997 Dec 16, 1997 Jan 13, 1998 Feb 24,1998 April 14, 1998 Amount Audited Beginning Balance at July 1, 1997 9,614,873.00 Addition from 1997-98 Budget - Transfer of Garage Operations to the County 200,000.00 First installment payment on West County Business Park (1,000,000.00) Revenue Sharing Payment to Botetourt County through June 30, 1997 (158,280.86) Eminent domain for communications facility (107,000.00) Underground storage tank removal (65,983.00) Carson Road sewer project (150,000.00) Downpayment on Catawba Farm (110,000.00) Cancel Catawba Farm appropriation 110,000.00 Economic Development - Lowe's (300,000.00) Balance at April 28, 1998 $8,033,609.14 % of General Fund Revenues 9.69% 8.09% Changes below this line are for information and planning purposes only. Balance from above West County Business Park - balance Reserve for R.R. Donnelly - Phase II $8,033,609.14 (2,000,000.00) (730,700.00) $5,302,909.14 5.34% Note: On December 18, 1990, the Board of Supervisors adopted a goal statement to maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance at 6.25% of General Fund Revenues 1997-98 General Fund Revenues $99,264,769.00 6.25% of General Fund Revenues $6,204,048.06 Respectfully Submitted, Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance M:\Finance\Common\Board\Gen97.WK4 CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Beginning Balance at July 1, 1997 Revenues from sale of vehicles 1996-97 Audited Balance at July 1, 1997 Amount $1,113,043.00 38,406.64 1,151,449.64 Amount added from 1996-97 operations per rollover policy 744,687.00 October 14, 1997 Transfer to Future School Capital Fund (1,113,043.00) Balance at April 28, 1998 $783,093.64 Note: $100,000 of these funds have been temporarily advanced to the Mayflower Hills Park project. Respectfully Submitted, Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance M:\Finance\Common\Board\Cap97.WK4 0-3 RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA October 14, 1997 April 14, 1998 Amount From 1997-98 Original Budget $143,000.00 Design of South County Park Bent Mountain Ice Storm Clean Up (20,000.00) (15,609.49) Balance at April 28, 1998 $107,390.51 Respectfully Submitted, Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance M:\Finance\Common\Board\Board97.WK4 • • ACTION # ITEM NUMBER Q — AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: April 24, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid - March 1998 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Direct Deposit Checks $3,094,187.55 Payments to Vendors: Payroll: 3/6/98 $443,559.46 $242,261.38 685,820.84 3/20/98 $425,304.22 $252,586.08 677,890.30 Void Check 3/6/98 ($278.97) (278.97) Manual Check 3/6/98 326.36 326.36 $4,457,946.08 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator • • • Approved ( ) Motion by No Yes Abs Denied ( ) McManara Received ( ) Harrison Referred ( ) Johnson To ( ) Minnix Nickens 4 0-3 00 a, v a w A 4) N N vl CT VA VD 00 4) VD VD N oo oo M VD O N rn N N N c M VO. M 00 00 O Cr, O et v) l� M oo v) r- V oo V) oo et VD 00 M �--� ^c O --" -. '. T N T \ T ( v6 .-• M tV o0 M O N O N M M N M 00 - tie;) 00 O N N 01 et ON v) v) ‘.0A VD O, [� ON v) D N O1 r- r- r- O\ O\ r- 4) CD r- 00 V 00 c. VD l- M qA oo N d• N N t- kin M M v) O ON v) Cr N M t- qA vD oo r- VD "" N c. t-- O ^' M M O t- v) O M --, s.A -• Nt-,D�D--,NVDOrnCAc.rn hv)ooO CT VDONMt-Ot-N v)e-CA'1"-r-r-Nv1O\v) VD ^• ct N VD M M oo O V U t- -" O O v) 00 r- h o0 V) t- O O O 00 v) M Ct ,.A O M M VD VD er\ v)viN t`NO\viO VDNt`00O\^- NN c.NNMN MR00 Mcr CrM00MNN tcD ` NN — 00'-v NNN�� rt�-� — N O ". N N N 00 00 M I-- v) O v) 'A 00 'O I--- 10 M et R N M '1• O\ v) O\ a,t- CO ^+ 00 m N t- ety et N M M oo t- M O O l 00 VA N N e• O1 00 co O\ t- O M VD CT 00 v) 00 r- M N (el l a, et y Mt`v)t`MVD'.DNa\v)ONo0O\OTOet N inN^•M\DN00a1 Vnv)CrO\ut t'Det Q il cr.,' t�a;� Wit`- . vietd a\vir-:'O0606,71= re; T'•O ;N viNrOe-::4c;Nr- V vimO v)M CAMen 00 O00 NCC•)O�MMv?.-r(�1CA,-.. MMV ���sO�CA 0O ( N O���N N nj ~ H 0) 0 cle . w CD et et 00 M 0 \A 14n O O, 4) VA cc VD VD O M M M et v) Cr‘ M M --, v) M c. I- O VD at ,��// M .i 6> 00 00 t- et ken O\ O r- l O .�. CA O t M M 0�0 O rn CD CA et OD cc •7 'D 4D Vn M N CA F�M M J: 1 N O0 O, M N N ON 00 M M ^" ^' -� .OM*� O C O . 00 .O vO ct Lori N oo et M N N v) et et -, 00 v — M 4 v) N 00 <: vD vi 0 N M N N O 00 --. .-- �; P4 — -. VI N M M Ct g la o It Mt PO Ig 4„ y CD CD CD CD CD O CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD tom- 00 VD N CD CD N CD VD CD VI N CD v) in --• O .G y l�O O O CD CD CD CD O O O O O O O O O O O00OO MBA t-l--O O M O r- Ol- cr, O v1 ut pp O\ CT., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co al, 0 Co 00 et O\ O1 CD h et CD N CD VA d' O o0 00 s.D "'IL es., O N viOOviviviOv)viO4e;eCe �7O CC CC vOv)O�t7vi-•�Ovit`ONcr. 606 N 0 M O N VA O v) O O O1 N M O Cl O \0 M '.0 O --- — �' N— oD M v) M --• V) N et O 01 I. 42 •-• M a . -• '.D O d• 'r O, '.o N M N v) M v) M M et N O v) t— N t— O vi vi N N N N --, N N O r.+ y v N ... U 4 E a, CS CA For General Fund qi h E d cts O y y ij CI 6 r4 V . w gyp" ° w '� i — - 8 �• ai j F' E-, � � x o � �' on 6> � ' bo i °� ° 0� � °an y � r/1 E..., .�"aE-� ft 0 ca 8 " H o o ° oU.o toaUrn o,°o °�' �, •.• "; ~a a� a> " U -o v. U p> o . w w .0 0 1:1a1 W 03 0 5 M o «t .5 s~ U 6� � N cn en I.. .sd 8 v, o 0 on ao -� o > �; Rs ,.. el 01i I. W thflI .. O . a. 6� .tiN , G6100)}. F.5 0 0 e., 0 j O xN •C• g 6! N C0:14-i xF~�d. awUawa;aUUa txzv13w8w0�5 O - N M d' O --4 N M d' tr> VD 00 a\ O --4 N d• t` 00 Q\ O .-. N 00 O -'-1 VD O ,-+ et t` M O N \A N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M et et et et v) V) V) VA vO VA VA h 00 00 00 ON 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 00 m a A Statement of Estimated and Actual Revenues Year to Date For the 09 Month Period Ended 03/31/98 1.0 d Ork Grand Totals General Fund col a p E-4 O �O z w N o c3 RS • aa ^a • 0 O e4 ,-. °0 A. N R 04 (i,ku �W�yy .i� Unencumbered For the 09 Month Period Ended 03/31/98 0 CO Fund 100 General Fund -� a, r- MND,00 N M--0MrN�00 Md N �00 0000CIr- t t 6 er 0v34 O .O ,D vD d4r,6 1/46 1/46 O: rrr • kr)rrr- oor\JDroo .0 1- r N '0 ON M r 00 N M O O, O\ 00 kin M N '.O O N D O O O� .-+rM N ▪ Mgt 00 ^-'rvlr N OVO�4ON'4 • NNNr-'?0O.00 (V O t- t- M Q\ N r 00 .D 00 r O vi 00 00 M 4 OHO M VI V N O O\ .4 r r+ M r kin v) r oMo 00 \ •--� M y N 4 O� v) �O N O r- 00 t - M �t O O er NOON r,jr\j vD t�N0000 N \ONNONv1 O., Nvit�O�d't�o0 0▪ 0 N 0 M r 01 N 0000 VD VI -N- — 00 ..-� r+ N N 01 MOa\r 01 CI CD - '.000 r CD VI -V000- 0�0. N 000 N ,,D o0 .::).0 1....i01 O N • a1 O er, 00 00 vO M N `O �T a\ a; O, O N �' 4 � 'O V> t- O� N VNi 0 N N 000 O� M 0000 O� N ' + N 00 -, O m O1 r vO O, �t O\ O M 0000 0000 O N M N VD N et et M v) 00 O �D 00 ON M 4 O ON"Zr r N :MNM O o00v)Ov100 O00 fl V v)rnt� O 0 - — M— OO\O\N v» °� N N co M ONO et 0\ 0 O et M O 01 00 M d ri M N N N N ^- 00 N 1.0 O, 7r O M v0 ^-- t- '.0 et (SO 0T O, O M r O 10 en O O M O O O O O "zr O 01 r 0. t-- VD M a1 O ni ON O \O N O) er. O O 0 0 0 0 0 O rri M 'en O O \O 0 O ern ‘0 O O M O O O O O - N Wiv6 NN et VD r00r0 MD O -. r+ '.0 Nkri N. N C '. tN Fr et , rl O\ 00 v) N .O vO N (-4 v) 4- M er ken O\ V' �t 4\ r d' O rn 00 v) O O O en.0.4 r v6M O Od\rVD. M O VIr0v)I' er r0v)ret00 0 Ch --• O O, r O� N V. '0 0- 0 0 0 oMo rpN' kG v�)O '. �--+NN ,- &r 0000 kin IN 00 v) O to M 00 O N er OT .0 r rr a, O� v) M l ^ • O N .O 00 M 0 V 0 [� 'r N O 00 '-0 O of N — �n Vi [� N ▪ 00 CN 4 N OMO Q OM N 0 O M 00 a1 D O ct N .p 0\ N O 01 M N O 00 CD01 N O. teno0 O, O M O O 10 r 0 0 0 O O M .D .- Q V� O (; 0", 00 er 'n O, M 00 O O �t N O O O O 4 N 000 r- r- 0000 0000 t. VD - ri VI 0 r 0 4- c N t- 000 tMn N VV)) VD M 0000 'D ' , O O^ t ^ O. t- -. O. O •.• et r 00 r ' Cr. — O — 00 4 O' O 00 N N O a M 00 00" O --. N N eC N t': �. th M 00 M C O N O 'O 'O v) (y en r M .0 N ON M r 00 '0 (M M � M N r-N 4 rn r N r N N et et r '.0 \O t� et VO rt M V 'n vO .�+ oo" R et M N O N .: r+ N M '-+ N N M et O 0 0 O N 0000 MM 0 0 0 O 0 0000 0300 Public Safety '--i N M v) \O 0 0 0 0 0 0 et et et et et et O O O O O O 0400 Public Works '-+ M 'R v) \0 r 00 0\ 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 —S County of Roanoke, Virginia 2:26:26PM Schedule of Expenditures, Encumbrances and Appropriations Year to Date 90 El _y For the 09 Month Period Ended 03/31/98 Unencumbered & Encumbrance Year to Date O \O M \D \O 00 N O, pp N Ct 0 0 0 0 "It Op 00N 00 N O N M M M t-- N M to M' 00 O O O O O 00 00 0o t- O\ M 1D O h \O r- 00 \p Vl 00 t� v) \O \O \O \O \O 0 O ri \O (NI a, O h Mkr) VD O 0 0 \O 00 C' N \O O1 O M h No \O oo v.) \O O co 0 00 r-N 7t \O - �N f\l 00 en00 a 0 O� \0 00 \O O O M O; 00 O O; 0p M�pN N N00a1O O NO\OOO� h \ON 00 f+r N00 00 0OO\ tn '00-»Wnd•00crN N en --� 00 0t�\O re, \000 N N M\000. v'o- 00 Nr-- M O N 00 N M 00 M O\ N 0- M a\ O try O M O\ \O h O\ O\ 4 N N N m d' h O, O\ 00 ~ ~ N N H t N O O O O O O\ O\ 0 O\ O �t N 0 Oh N M N O el -. .-. N O O O 0 0 r'.1 r-i \O \O *r O O O 0 0 - O\ M 0 --. M 00 O— M O O O\ t� 00 00 0 r •V M vl M o0 0 ^. r- O\ t� N to N t� t- M O t� Lei' vi M M V0 11 00Nil N N MOO N r.-+ N VI ' tl fri - -. r-I Vl M M 36,232,441.37 72,586,031.26 00 u en O to N CD O O N 0 CD Q\ 0 0 0 CD O\ O O O 00 o 0 to 00 0 0 000. O 0 0 O O O t: 0 O O O h 0 0 o:;e� 'b }C„ 4 \O o0 O `Tr vl 0 0 0 I( 0 O 4 0 0 0 0 4 O O O C .R El a \O co V0 10 2 N N y u r-E- O - - rh-i 01 OC rr N Nr W 6. O R M O h 00 \O O O\ v \O 00 O O O O 00 t-- 0 h \G .a y to O\ tt O �Mpp N M D1 0 h l� 0 O O O 0 N v1 O O G v pop M MO O. \D N 0 0 WI � WI VD 0 0 0 0 CA VO' O O M O d ry tn Vl t to 00 .-� O\ tf^ O\ t - t - Tr — H SRO P O. N t--M r- oo 00 \. O M M fit' t� \O r to ol ~N0\ 0 0-.--.\p Ot NM00 4 W tn 00 Fund 100 General Fund M -- 0 0 - \O O N 0 00 O N \O 0 0 0 \O h M h h OO N O O ON 0 O O O'. 0 \O 00 O co 0 00 \O \O \O vz NOM � 0' NCO in r 00000� N ON N Vn O, 00 N 00 --. N 0^ ...1 ‘..0 00_ en CD CDN O\ — O O R r ON 00 \0 N kn M 0 \0 O O - r- .r 00 .Y' D\ - 00 t-- O O\ \D 0 Vl 00 O '--' 0 t+M N to t- \O N \D \O 00 40 o• 00 \O V ,.. . -� er V O\ \p nj --. .y .� ,-. N v4 Health and Welfare 0 0 8 0 a o 0 i gw c4 W p U ci co 0, 8 0 o Z II t7 a..1U o p,UWU © WA F. L) o 4.5. o 57,366,631.30 R O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 O \p \C \O h N S N 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Q\ 0\ O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 Transfers Out 108,818,472.63 Grand Totals COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER Mr. Elmer C. Hodge Roanoke County P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Dear Mr. Hodge: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 April 3, 1998 JAMES S. GIVENS STATE SECONDARY ROADS ENGINEER The enclosed report contains a list of all changes to the Secondary System of State Highways in your county approved by the State Secondary Roads Engineer in March 1998. All additions to and abandonments from the Secondary System are effective the day they are approved by the State Secondary Roads Engineer. This date appears in the far right column of the monthly report. These changes will be presented to the Commonwealth Transportation Board at its monthly meeting on April 16, 1998. If you have any questions or comments about this report, please call Martin Law at 786-7399. JSG/MII James S. Givens State Secondary ads Engineer WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 00 0 Report of Changes to the Secondary System of State Highways d 0 co 0 Resolution Effective <14 F Street Name 00 00 00 00 , a, a, a, N M M M ✓ en e r M M M M 00 00 00 00 a, O, 0, a, S N � cc. N N N - 111 v v 00 m o, 4-4 .4, C o O C o 0.14 Mile Northeast Route 621 Route 1491 0.14 Mile Southwest Route 1491 Route 1524 N 0 Route 1162 0.13 Mile South Route 1162 N N 00 a, O, a, O U Nicholas Hill Lane Nicholas Hills Polly Hill Lane Nicholas Hills Woodbridge, Section 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �+ Y b -0 la b 001) c es eta w a r U Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge Approved ( ) Motion by: Denied ( ► Received ( ) Referred ( 1 To ( 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER C/ - r AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: April 28, 1998 Report of Claims Activity for the Self -Insurance Program COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In accordance with the Self -Insurance Program, Ordinance #61494-4, Section 2-86.C, attached is the Fiscal Year to Date claims activity and status report for the Third Quarter ended March 31, 1998. FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted, Robert C. Jernigan Risk Manager County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Harrison Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens g:\riskmgmt\trustees\board. rpt 7 GENERAL LIABILITY PAYMENT O O O O O O O O O N O O N N m O N CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 (O (D O O N 0 O Sedgwick James Sedgwick James Sedgwick James cc 0 O U a a CC O U a a cc 0 U a cc 0 U a a cc O U Q a) m 0 O U 73 m 0 0 U a a) 0 O U m 0) O U m co 0 U 73 a) m 0 F. 0) cn 0 U W cc W N) W cc O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION Vehicle struck open construction hole Discolored water damaged wash/water heater Vehicle struck open manhole and cover Sewer backup Sewer backup Sewer backup Sewer backup Sewer backup Sewer backup Sewer backup Sewer backup Sewer backup Sewer backup TOTAL RESERVES and PAYMENTS DEPARTMENT T 7-1 T Y T Y N O) (D N 00 O N 0) N O co 0) O O O co O) 00 O 0 N M N 0 CO 0) M N 0 O 0) M N 0 CO M M N 0 CO N N 0 0 O W O (0 co O m 0 N O co O rn (0 0 O N O N O N N O co O SELF-INSURANCE TRUSTEES REPORT - FISCAL YEAR TO DATE GENERAL LIABILITY JULY 01, 1997 - MARCH 31, 1998 PAYMENT 0 o 170.40 CO N O 422.37 197.90 CO Ili r, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 973.83 CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR Sedgwick James Risk Manager Risk Manager Risk Manager Risk Manager Risk Manager Sedgwick James Sedgwick James Sedgwick James Sedgwick James Sedgwick James Sedgwick James Sedgwick James STATUS Closed Closed 13 a) N O 0 a) y O U Closed Closed a) N O U Closed a) (A O U Closed a) V) O U Closed a) N O (7.5 RESERVE O O O O O O 0 O O 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 0 O ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION Sewer backup Weedeater threw rock, damaged property Vehicle struck water line cover Vehicle struck water line cover Plumbing damaged - pressure Vehicle struck construction sink hole Water filter/property damaged - high water pressure Sewer lateral break Water line damaged - pressure Plumbing damaged - sediment Sewer backup Lawn restoration Water/sewer backup TOTAL RESERVES and PAYMENTS DEPARTMENT ? Y Parks T Y ? Y T Y T Y T Y T Y ? Y ? Y ? Y ? - T Y Page One ACCIDENT DATE N a) C") 0 N 0 N O) O r: 0 n O) (") N N 0 N 0) N 0 co 0 07/22/97 07/31/97 N 0) N. N 0 N Cr) N 0 O r- N 0) O) 0 0 10/07/97 N O) N N 0 '- N a) N 0 — N M 171) 0 Li) 0 N 0) O) 0 CO 0 Q Z 0 N 0 0wzt 0 N 0 cr 0 LC) 0 N N 0 CO 0 d' M 0 0 0 Tt 0 N 0 CO 0 COOa) 0 SELF-INSURANCE TRUSTEES REPORT - FISCAL YEAR TO DATE AUTO LIABILITY JULY 01, 1997 - MARCH 31, 1998 PAYMENT rn - CO 0 O L) (D N 369.73 4,740.73 563.70 0 O N m N. CO 0 h N N 2,080.83 CD d- O) N N 0 O O N COCO N (O 0 0 0) CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR Sedgwick James Risk Manager Sedgwick James Sedgwick James Risk Manager Risk Manager Risk Manager Risk Manager Risk Manager Sedgwick James Risk Manager VACoRP STATUS Closed a) W O D a) N O c y O. a) (0 O a) N O a) N O a) co) O Closed a) (0 O a) N O c a) O_ RESERVE o O 0 o O 0 0 0 0 m O 0 0 c; 0 O 0 c; O c;O 0 O c; 100.00 Auto rental 00'OO l' l ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION Backing, struck other vehicle Backing, struck driveway retaining wall Rear -ended other vehicle Rear -ended other vehicle Backing, struck other vehicle Backing, struck rock wall Backing, struck other vehicle Windshield broken by rock from County truck Backing, struck other vehicle Slid on ice, rear -ended other vehicle Backing, struck mailbox Backing, struck other vehicle TOTAL RESERVES and PAYMENTS DEPARTMENT a) N a) (1) Solid Waste a° 5 Parks a) (0 f0 (n a° Parks & Rec. a) « (0 co (1) o) c m D a° 5 Page One ACCIDENT DATE N 0) 1N O N O N o) 4 N O N. 0) CO 1" 0 r` a) N N N 0 N a) CID 0 N o) N CP 0 N rn o) O - N. o) Q) \ N o) N N N rn o) N N s- 0o a) M 0 0 co rn M N N 0 Q 0 -i Z U (() 0 0 CC) 0 0 1� 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 - (`) 0 O) 0) 0 N (0 0 CO Lc) 0 0) to 0 N CO 0 0 0) 0 SELF-INSURANCE TRUSTEES REPORT - FISCAL YEAR TO DATE GENERAL LIABILITY JULY 01, 1997 - MARCH 31, 1998 PAYMENT o o 0 3,000.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 00 co o 0 o co 0 a rn 0 CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR VACoRP VACoRP County Administrator VACoRP VACoRP VACoRP STATUS Closed a) 0w o Closed m w 0 o Closed RESERVE o O O O 0 O O O 00 O O O ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION Sewer backup Sewer backup Sewer backup Water pressure damage Sewer backup DEPARTMENT T Y T Y Y Y Page Three ACCIDENT DATE CO o) N N 0 1 1 /97,02/09/98 & 02/17/98 03/20/98 CO O) cfl (`') 0 CO O) O N (r) 0 Q 0 J Z 0 W O O Lo O O co O O) O 7 Item No. Q - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: April 28, 1998 Report of expenditures and commitments for public private partnerships from the Economic Development Capital Fund COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors readopted the Public Private Partnership Policy on November 19, 1996. The County Administrator and Economic Development staff review requests for partnership funding under the terms of the readopted policy. Since the last report on October 14, 1997, one project of $12,962 has been approved by the Board and five other partnerships totaling $54,501.07 have been approved by the staff for such projects as Greenbrier Nurseries and Custom Tool & Machine, Inc. The Board also approved a transfer of $10,062.54 from the fund for the completion of the Valley Gateway project and $3,535 for the Catawba Farm project. A total of $617,201.71 has either been committed or expended under the policy and $66,964.01 is unappropriated at this time. Respectfully submitted: Approved: ) A ^-0 1,4), &La, 1(0.e7 Timothy W. Gubala, Director Elmer C. Hodge Department of Economic Development County Administrator ACTION Approved () Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Attachment Eddy Johnson Harrison Minnix Nickens No Yes Abs County of Roanoke Public Private Partnership As of March 31, 1998 Description Category Total Budget Total Remaining Committment Complete Incomplete Appropriations: Original Budget 275,000.00 Rollover - prior year projects 331,250.50 Rollover - prior year unappropriated balance 87,977.76 Move Budget to Valley Gateway (10,062.54 Total Available 684,165.72 Projects: J.M. Kane, Tanglewood 75,000.00 38,768.50 X Affordable Efficiency Inn 9,301.00 X Winn -Dixie Project 72,302.00 9,150.00 X Acme Business Machines 65,220.00 53,006.08 X M & W Fire Appratus 2,000.00 X PD Lodging Associates 78,148.00 78,148.00 X Relax 78,353.00 78,353.00 X Optical Cable 33,613.30 X Liberty Property Trust Flex Space 18,419.00 X Interstate Commerce Park & Building 15,524.00 X FA Properties (Famous Anthony's) 12,962.00 1,715.00 X Greenbrier Nurseries, Inc. 6,188.00 6,188.00 X Alpha Christian Child Care Center 1,664.75 1,664.75 X Custom Tool & Machine, Inc. 6,659.00 6,659.00 X HCRI 25,809.00 20,096.00 X ITT 100,000.00 100,000.00 X m:/finance/common/PTSHP98B.WK404/21/98 Oth RE La Si T Ar C R M E E To u County of Roanoke Public Private Partnership As of March 31, 1998 D-8 Description Category Total Budget Total Remaining Committment Complete Incomplete er Miscellaneous Projects: ,funds: nd/Legal Fees related to Lowes In - Jack Smith Industrial Park urism/Special Events - Miss Va chery ASA itawba Farm lanoke Valley Horse Show ips - Glenmary plore gineering Services - Cooper Property tals 'appropriated Balance 0.00 1,200.00 X 1,067.50 X 3,000.00 X 0.00 3,535.00 X 2,000.00 X 4,203.88 X 300.00 X 732.28 X 617,201.71 393,748.33 66,964.01 m:/finance/common/PTSHP98B.WK404/21/98 DECLARING APRIL 24, 1998 AS NATIONAL ARBOR DAY IN ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, in 1872, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees; and WHEREAS, this holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska; and WHEREAS, Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world, and will be celebrated in Roanoke County on Friday, April 24, 1998; and WHEREAS, trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen and provide habitat for wildlife; and WHEREAS, trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes, fuel for our fires and countless other wood products; and WHEREAS, trees in our county increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our community; and WHEREAS, trees, wherever they are planted, are a source of joy and spiritual renewal. NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Bob L. Johnson, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim April 24, 1998, as NATIONAL ARBOR DAY in Roanoke County; and urge all citizens to celebrate Arbor Day and to support efforts to protect our trees and woodlands; and FURTHER, I urge all citizens to plant trees to gladd . i the heart and promote the well-being of this and future ge ATTEST: ations. on, Chairman Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER % AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 24,1998 AGENDA ITEM: Budget Work Session on the Upcoming Annual Budget for FY 1998-99. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside for a joint budget work session with the Roanoke County School Board and School Administration. Based on the joint work session with the Board of Supervisors on March 24, 1998, the School Board will present their balanced budget for FY1998-1999. State code dictates that the Board of Supervisors must adopt the School budget by May 1. Respectfully submitted, Brent Robertson Budget Manager Approve Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved () Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To () Harrison Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens VOTE No Yes Abs r 9� ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER _---1:)— AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: April 28, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Joint Work Session with School Board COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside for a joint work session with the School Board. The School Board has made adjustments to their budget from the last joint work session. Those changes are attached. Following the work session, the Board of Supervisors will be asked to adopt the fiscal year 1998/99 School Board budget at the evening session. Their proposed budget has been included with the agenda packet. ACTION Respectfully Submitted by: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved ( ) Motion by: Harrison Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) McNamara Referred ( ) Minnix To ( ) Nickens VOTE No. Yes Abs ► ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS LIST OF CUTS MADE TO BALANCE BUDGET BUDGET YEAR 1998-99 Salary & Related Cost Reductions AMOUNT 1. Reduce secondary teaching personnel 160,000 2. Reduce professional leave - 400 substitute days 20,000 3. Cut two central office instructional supervisory positions 120,000 Supervisors of Fine Arts & Health & P.E. 4. Reduce classified positions 80,000 Cut two central office secretary positions & five 4-hour janitor positions 5. Cut out $.50 per hour increase for janitors 100,000 6. Cut one of the proposed technology positions 30,000 7. Change nursing positions from full-time to part-time 126,000 Sub -Total $636,000 Departmental Requests Cost Reductions 1. Office of the Assistant Superintendent 27,924 Cut athletic equipment repair & replacement items 2. Educational Testing Department 30,000 Cut non mandated testing program with the exception of grade 2 3. Pupil Personnel Department 80,000 Cut materials, supplies, conferences & community based instruction 4. Media Services Department 50,000 Cut library materials, administrative computers & instructional equipment 5. Facilities & Operations ( Eliminate utility increases) 100,000 6. Reduce Office of the Superintendent 155,083 Cut summer curriculum writing & reduce contingency fund 7. Reduce Budget & Data Management Department Reduce risk management increase (workers' compensation fund) 25,000 Reduce textbook transfer from local funds 50,000 8. Reduce Summer School Accounts 100,000 Cut proposed $3 raise, additional 9 days & additional hour per day Sub -Total $618,007 GRAND TOTAL $1,254,007 ADDBACK PRIORITY LIST * 1. Restore $.50 per hour increase for janitors 2. Restore Textbook Transfer * Although not voted on, the above items reflect the general consensus of our board members. 100,000 50,000 GOUNry o` y .1'? °, i OC OFFICE OF DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT C r„ 5937 Cove Road i% � j� (�i Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Phone: (540) 562-3700 Fax: (540) 562-3994 April 28, 1998 TO: School Board Members FROM: Data Management Committee SUBJECT: County and School MIS Functions Our staff has spent a great deal of time researching the proposal that our 1998-99 school budget include the procurement of a new student information system at a cost of approximately $250,000. Not to be taken lightly, we considered the impact on the county's MIS budget and savings gained by moving in that direction. The MIS estimate to make our current student information programs year 2000 compliant is approximately $90,000. This expenditure would not allow increased functionality which is sorely needed. Rather than invest $90,000 into an antiquated system, we chose to pursue an upgrade which enhances teacher productivity as well as central management of records. With the current system, it seems inherently wrong that it should take two and one-half years to eliminate duplicate mailing labels for households with more than one child in the county schools. It also seems inherently wrong to continue to support a system that cannot create data labels to enable parents to expedite information on their son or daughter without having to complete new data cards at the beginning of each school year. In addition, when we requested two simple enhancements to allow more functionality to our current system, we were told that requests will probably not be completed unless they are mandated or maintenance items. In some instances, we have had requests on the books for more than five years. As a result of meetings held with the county MIS staff over the past several years, we were encouraged to search for canned software that would migrate certain functions down to the client server platform, thus relieving the MIS operations from both creating and maintaining additional programs. We are told in some quarters that our proposal would duplicate the efforts of the county MIS department, thus wasting tax payers' dollars. We disagree with this assumption and believe that the opposite would occur. For example, it takes three individuals to maintain our current student information system — one MIS employee and two school system employees. The new program we envision could be maintained by one school information system employee, eliminating the need for two of these individuals. Our proposal does not eliminate our need to continue the mutual cooperation with the county MIS department. We do not in anyway propose that we shift our payroll, budgeting, purchasing, or accounting from the county MIS. However, maintaining our own student information system like most school divisions across the state will provide the most efficient and fiscally responsible solution for Roanoke County. c: Deanna Gordon interoffice MEMORANDUM to: Board of Supervisors from: Diane D. Hyatt, Penny A. Hodge ,,,` subject: Status of School Construction Grants Program date: April 28, 1998 cc: Elmer Hodge The General Assembly has approved a $110 million school construction grant program for the 1998-2000 biennium. The grants will provide financial assistance to localities for school construction, additions, renovations (including the cost of retrofitting or enlarging public school buildings), site acquisitions, or debt payments. The methodology guarantees a minimum distribution of at least $200,000 to each locality for each year of the biennium. In addition, each locality will receive a grant based on their total number of students and their composite index (local ability to pay). The following table compares the estimated funding for Roanoke County, Roanoke City, and the City of Salem over the biennium: Roanoke County City of Roanoke Salem 1998-99 1999-2000 Estimated Funding $554,248 $553,042 $1,107,290 $544,362 $543,570 $1,087,932 $299,707 $300,439 $600,146 The legislation also creates a 12-member commission to recommend a permanent funding methodology for the future if the program continues. The Commission will be required to study the state's school construction needs and resources and to issue a final report. Due to the significant planned expenditures for Phase 1 of the Blue Ribbon Commission Report, the County should be able to meet all matching requirements for the state grants. We recommend that the construction program funding provided by the state be incorporated into the financing plan for the Phase 1 expenditures of $47,719,732. Any financial assistance used during Phase 1 could help free up future debt payments that could then be used for Phase 2 of the Blue Ribbon Commission Report. The General Assembly also passed SB672 which requires the Board of Education to impose a maximum limit of $7.5 million on Literary Fund loans. The maximum amount was increased to this level last year but it was at the discretion of the Board of Education. As of July 1, 1998, the new maximum will be available. The county recently filed for a $5 million literary loan for the new Bonsack Elementary School. There is no need to increase this amount as the literary loan funding is limited to "bricks and mortar" type expenditures which are not expected to exceed $5 million. However, the new high school will qualify for the increased maximum literary loan and an application will be filed once the site acquisition has been completed. M:\FINANCECOMMON\SCH-CIP\GRANT.WPD ) spill warnin DON PETERSEN / THEROANOKE TIMES ;hborhoo dtsaoverectdeackflsh, ogs and=othenwildlife-in-the iffed some.termfte sp'rayInto_a.rairrid initat-runs_into the - . nt's environmental health manager said small amounts of ' d in water and has a short chemical life, often spill into e is so widely used. Officials say there is no threat to people. General Assembly's action seen as only a first step Schools still await grant decisions While the legislature studies the formula for distributing grants, a governor's panel will study school needs. By CHRISI1NA NUCKOLS THEROANOKE TIMES RICHMOND School offi- cials can't be sure how much of a dent state construction grants will make in an estimated $6 billion in needs until more decisions are made about the future of the program. In spite of that uncertainty, school officials said Monday they are pleased with the two years of financial assistance approved last week by the General Assembly. The only assurance school divisions have for now is the amount of money they will be eli- gible to receive over the next two years. The annual amounts avail- able to school divisions in West- ern Virginia range from $221,451 for Craig County to $554,248 for Roanoke County. Local governments will be required to spend some of their —own- money--on-projects -that receive state grants. The amount -will.vary depending on the relative- wealth of individual communities. -What happens two years from now is still' unclear, and politics is likely to get in the way of a simple answer. The General Assembly last week voted to keep the same dis- tribution formula for two years, and legislators agreed to set up a 12-member commission that would report back in January 2000 with recommendations on a permanent formula for ,future years. But that's not the only group that will be looking at the school grants. Mark Miner, press secre- tary to Gov. Jim Gilmore, said the governor will continue with ,his own plans for a separate study group. Miner said the governor's commission will leave the deci- sion on the permanent distribu- tion formula to the General Assembly's commission and focus instead on long-term school needs. "The governor's going to look at the actual needs for school construction around the state," Miner said. The governor's commission will make a locality -by -locality estimate of school needs 'and is likely to look at broader issues, such as how many years the grants program should last' and how much money should be available each year. _ The - governor is asking his commission for recommenda- tions in time for next year's Gen- _ eraL Assembly session. No deci- sion has_been made on what to do _with the group's report, Miner said, but the General Assembly's commission isn't scheduled to make its final recommendations until January 2000. Local school officials say -they hope both groups will recogfze the need for a permanent -grants PLEASE SEE SCHOOLS/C4 Zcnoois 15tpgram. _1s a first effort, I applaud the .C:enferal Assembly," said Roanoke Sciiool Superintendent Wayne Httf,ris. "Our goal is that _it : k Ines perpetual." S►N rrissaid'tbe-4544,000 'o1ce is eligible to `receive - ty . .•for the _nexttwo_years Aik_ be used toward some of the • division's $25 million in construc- tion needs over the next five years. Some of those needs include 53 new classrooms, air conditioning in--12 elementary schools, gymnasiums at two ele- mentary schools and new library technology. '' Roanoke County School Superintendent Deanna Gordon said the $554,000 in annual grants for Roanoke County likely will be used to retire existing debt, clearing the way for the county's $120 million construction pro- gram. She said it would be risky to use the money as a down payment on new debt. -Gordon said state officials need to decide whether to make large sums available annually over a short period, or whether to divvy out smaller grants over a longer term. Either strategy could help schools with their construction needs, she said, but school offi- • ,cialls,won't be able to make much headway if the grants remain • small and end within a few years. - Smaller school systems will be • most dependent on those deci- sions because they have fewer : resotirces to fall back on if the state backs out. Carroll County is ip,,;+the process of studying the ' impact of a $57 million capital •program. Superintendent Oliver ' McBride said local officials were • careful not to assume that the state would be a partner in paying for the school projects, but he said they 'did pay careful attention to the debate going on at the state level about the grants. "Our locality needed some- thing to help us take the first step," he said. "It may be the very thing that gets us going." Although he could give no • assurances on whether the grant program will grow in the future, • Del. Vic Thomas, D-Roanoke, said - he expects it to continue at some level into the future. "Getting the $110 million was a trick," he said. "I don't think it's any question it's going to contin- ue. We're going to have our ups and downs, but that's one thing School construction funding Here's how much money localities in Western Virginia will get each year for the next two years under the school construction program approved last week by -the General Assembly. ' larslldes_ Cris . Allegheny $269,517 Bedford $455,160 Bland - -- - $230,985 Botetourt $324,424 Buchanan $344,551 Carroll $323,894 Craig $221,451 Dickenson $298,074 Floyd $255,878, Franklin $388,953 Giles $277,815 Grayson $277,550 Henry $476,301 Lee - : $343,315 Montgomery $456,086 Patrick $282,537 Pulaski $351,524 Roanoke $554,248 Rockbridge $279,050 Russell $343,403 Scott $328,970 Smyth $369,312 Tazewell $445,891 Washington - $423,027 Wise $451,982 Wythe $331,442 clan Bedford - $232,044 Bristol - $268,502 Clifton Forge $221,495 Covington $227,100 Galax $236,414 Norton Radford Roanoke Salem $222,643 $246,168 $544,362 $299,707 Local governments will be required to pay part of the costs for any construction or renovation project for which It receives state grant money, me local share will be based on each community's ability to pay. Existing debt for school construction projects can be counted toward the local share. A commission set up by the General Assembly wilt consider whether the distribution formula should change beginning Jury 1, 2000. If the formula Is changed, the amounts available to each school division would be adjusted accordingly. THE ROANOKE TIAIES For more : on Virginia poli- tics and government, go online at unvw.roanoke.com and look under "politics." America Online users, go to keyword Roanoke, Blacksburg or Lynchburg. Christina Nuckols can be reached at (804) 897.1585 or iriuraerer would not be proper for him to consider Garvey's testimony, he allowed Dalton to present the tes- timony for the sole purpose of putting it on the record for an Alston, prosecutors ful piece of evidence fingerprint left on th of Alston's apartmr identified as belongii Alston bled to apartment after he appeal. four times in the ba ;,"-►�1'o-ine; the-evidence-wasn't---last-Sept=39�1utho complete or was not taken to the of his death after -depth that it should have been," neighbor noticed bl- Garvey testified. Outside the from her apartment courtroom, she said tearfully that called police. she was pressured into going Weeks, 29, de along with the other 11 jurors, Alston. There were iv and that she hopes to never serve the killing. Nor wt on another jury. weapon found. But Garvey said she finally gave in told Weeks that they after reading the court's instruc= -:'! bloody fingerprint tions to the which'. :f jury, she�inter�b� scene,: he;.>;eplied: "7 preted as ordering her noj tn• ;.:right there here's speculate about any theory 'otllier. beat that, for.; real." than what was presented'inEotirt. :':.Nonetheless, Dr Although it was a circumstaii ':Monday tbat the fin tial case. that convicted Weeks of evidence only that murdering_ 39-year-old Lenwood present; not that he d .eA :� incide> j Z "rt Tii'obably would have` a' sensitive thingfor Llitirt6IO the parents; could have triad peaci?` of mind and be fully informed and avoid the rtmior. mills," Plenuner;:• Superior Exterminating Co:- - accidentally, spilled about t3300: gal. - lons of.a common termlteansecti=, cide 'into flood drainagepipes'; while hey were treating the10 dation "of a Ross Lane 'ho4�x ' Wedne§ saw: no reason to noti) day, authorities said The ;'�., •chemiccal, •,Dursban'IT( vfl ¢'� dDick-Tabb, the directly'tnto Murray Rtiirattd •tl"1�Department's env eled about a quarter -mile to Lake- health manager. wood Park pond. Most of the Small amounts creek's fish were dead within a TC, which is easily short time. water and has a she Dursban TC is toxic to fish life, often spill into but dangerous to people only in much larger quantities, authori- ties said. An organic gardener, John Tanner, noticed the white liquid flowing into the creek and alerted the exterminators. Tanner and the exterminators tried to dam the creek but failed. Authorities with the state Department of Environmental Quality and Roanoke Health Department arrived within an hour and ordered Superior to take water samples. After determining that no drinking -water wells were nearby and that the insecticide posed no Madir • Midc - Schc •Fishayrn Park THE IN because the insect widely used, he salt Dursban TC spill Peters Creek earlier residents were not said. "I don't want to leigh Court residents but our feeling was t' that big of a problem "I understand their c in hindsight it prof have been good to do cation." Urbanski said t would be discuss neighborhood's next meeting. interoffice MEMORANDUM to: Board of Supervisors from: Diane D. Hyatt, Penny A. Hodge, subject: Status of School Construction Grants Program date: April 28, 1998 cc: Elmer Hodge The General Assembly has approved a $110 million school construction grant program for the 1998-2000 biennium. The grants will provide financial assistance to localities for school construction, additions, renovations (including the cost of retrofitting or enlarging public school buildings), site acquisitions, or debt payments. The methodology guarantees a minimum distribution of at least $200,000 to each locality for each year of the biennium. In addition, each locality will receive a grant based on their total number of students and their composite index (local ability to pay). The following table compares the estimated funding for Roanoke County, Roanoke City, and the City of Salem over the biennium: Roanoke County City of Roanoke Salem 1998-99 1999-2000 Estimated Funding $554,248 $553,042 S1,107,290 $544,362 $543,570 S 1,087,932 $299,707 $300,439 S600,146 The legislation also creates a 12-member commission to recommend a permanent funding methodology for the future if the program continues. The Commission will be required to study the state's school construction needs and resources and to issue a final report. Due to the significant planned expenditures for Phase 1 of the Blue Ribbon Commission Report, the County should be able to meet all matching requirements for the state grants. We recommend that the construction program funding provided by the state be incorporated into the financing plan for the Phase 1 expenditures of $47,719,732. Any financial assistance used during Phase 1 could help free up future debt payments that could then be used for Phase 2 of the Blue Ribbon Commission Report. The General Assembly also passed SB672 which requires the Board of Education to impose a maximum limit of $7.5 million on Literary Fund loans. The maximum amount was increased to this level last year but it was at the discretion of the Board of Education. As of July 1, 1998, the new maximum will be available. The county recently filed for a $5 million literary loan for the new Bonsack Elementary School. There is no need to increase this amount as the literary loan funding is limited to "bricks and mortar" type expenditures which are not expected to exceed $5 million. However, the new high school will qualify for the increased maximum literary loan and an application will be filed once the site acquisition has been completed. M:\FINANCE\COMMON\SCH-CIP\GRANT. WPD ) spill warnin tt.-^ _DON PETERSEN I. THE ROANOKE TIMES ;hbortwod:discovered_dead=fish, frogsand=other wIldiife In -the illed some termiie=spraklnto_a_rain_diainIhat-nuns Into the _ nt's environmental health manager said small amounts of ' d in water and has a short chemical life, often spill into , e is so widely used. Officials say there is no threat to people. General Assembly's action seen as only a first step Schools still await grant decisions While the legislature studies the formula for distributing grants, a governor's panel will study school needs. By CHRISTINA NUCKOLS THE ROANOKE TIMES • RICHMOND — School offi- cials can't be sure how much of a dent state construction grants will make in an estimated $6 billion in needs until more decisions are made about the futureof the program. In spite of that uncertainty, school officials said Monday they are pleased with the two years of financial assistance approved last week by the General Assembly. The only assurance school divisions have for now is the amount of money they will be eli- gible to receive over the next two years. The annual amounts avail- able to school divisions in West- ern Virginia range from $221,451 for Craig County to $554,248 for _Roanoke County. Local governments will be required to spend some of their -own--money---on--projects that --receive state grants. The amount —will•vary depending on the relative - wealth of individual communities: What happens two years from now Is stil unclear, and politics is likely to get in the way of a simple answer. The General Assembly last week voted to keep the same dis- tribution formula for two years, and legislators agreed to set up a 12-member commission .that would report back in January 2000 with recommendations on a permanent formula for ,future years. Butthat's not the only group that will be looking at the school grants. Mark Miner, press secre- tary to Gov. Jim Gilmore, said the governor will continue with ,his own plans for a separate 'study group. Miner said the governor's commission will leave the deci- sion on the permanent distribu- tion formula to the General Assembly's commission and focus instead on long-term school needs. "The governor's going to look at the actual needs for school construction around the state," Miner said. The governor's commission will make a locality -by -locality estimate of school needs -and is likely to look at broader issues, such as how many years- the grants program should last' and how much money should be available each year. , -The_ governor- is asking his commission for recommenda- tions in time for next year's Gen- eral Assembly session. No deci- sion has-been made on what to do __with the group's report, Miner said, but the General Assembly's commission isn't scheduled to make its final recommendations until January 2000. Local school officials say-tl ey hope both groups will ree.ogttize the need for a permanent grants PLEASE SEE SCHOOLS/C4 e .�cnoo�s afirst effort, I applaud the a'General Assembly," said Roanoke Se ool Superintendent Wayne litthris. "Our goal is that it Jecbsnes perpetual." is said`tbe..$5`44,,.OGO ice is eligible to -receive t`ie11X for the next two_years lyitt iae used toward some of the • division's $25 million in construc- - tion deeds over the next five years. Some of those needs include 53 new classrooms, air conditioning in-12 elementary schools, gymnasiums at two ele- mentary schools and new library technology. Roanoke County School Supezintendent Deanna Gordon said the $554,000 in annual grants for Roanoke County likely will be used to retire existing debt, clearing the way for the county's $120 million construction pro- gram. She said it would be risky to use the money as a down payment on new debt. Gordon said state officials need to decide whether to make large sums available annually over. a short period, or whether to divvy out smaller grants over a longer term. Either strategy could help schools with their construction needs, she said, but school offi- ,cials.won't be able to make much _headway if the grants remain • sxrlall and end within a few years. • Smaller school systems will be most dependent on those deci- sions because they have fewer :resources to fall back on if the state backs out. Carroll County is iq,the process of studying the ' impact of a $57 million capital program. Superintendent Oliver ' McBride said local officials were careful not to assume that the state would be a partner in paying for the school projects, but he said they 'did pay careful attention to the debate going on at the state Wel about the grants. ' "Our locality needed some- thing to help us take the first step," he said. "It may be the very ,thing that gets us going." Although he could give no assurances on whether the grant program will grow in the future, . Del. Vic Thomas, D-Roanoke, said - he expects it to continue at some level into the future. "Getting the $110 million was a trick," he said. "I don't think it's any question it's going to contin- ue. We're going to have our ups and downs, but that's one thing School construction funding Here's how much money localities in Western Virginia will get each year for the next two years under the school construction program approved last week by -the General Assembly. -A, s . are tx+gdes - 1 Passed - p le Agheny $269,517 Bedford $455,160 - Bland - -- _ $230,985 Botetourt $324,424 Buchanan $344,551 -Carroll $323,894 Craig $221,451 Dickenson $298,074 Floyd $255,878. Franklin $388,953 Giles $277,815 Grayson $277,550 Henry _ $476,301 Lee $343,315 Montgomery $456,086 Patrick $282,537 Pulaski $351,524 Roanoke $554,248 Rockbridge $279,050 Russell $343,403 • Scott • • • $328,970 Smyth $369,312 Tazewell ,- - , $445,891 Washington . $423,027 Wise - $451,982 Wythe $331,442 cross Bedford ' $232,044 Bristol $268,502 Clifton Forge $221,495 Covington $227,100 Galax $236,414 Norton -• $222,643 Radford $246,168 Roanoke $544,362 Salem $299,707 • Local govemments will be reouired to pay part of the costs for any construction or renovation project for which it receives state grant money. The local share will be based on each community's ability to pay. Existing debt for school construction projects can be counted toward the local share. A commission set up by the General Assembly will consider whether the distribution formula should change beginning Jury 1, 2000. If the formula Is changed, the amounts available to each school division would be adjusted accordingly. THE ROANOKE TlAIES For more .on Virginia poli- tics and government, go online at unviv.roanoke.com and look under "politics." America Online users, go to keyword Roanoke, Blacksburg or Lynchburg. Christine Nuckols can be reached at (804) 697-1585 or iriuraerer would not be proper for him to consider Garvey's testimony, he allowed Dalton to present the tes= timony for the sole purpose of putting it on the record for an appeal.z '`�'���i'o=rtle� tile -evidence -was complete or was not -taken to the - -depth that it should have been," Garvey testified. Outside the courtroom, she said tearfully that she was pressured into going along with the other 11 jurors, and that she hopes to never serve on another jury. Garvey said she finally gave in after reading the court's insttuc=`. :' bloody fingerprint tions to the jury, which, she inter ja scene, he .replied: ` 9 preted as ordering her not :tb: right; ther`There's speculate about any theory other beat that, tor: real." than what was presented'in €otirt. " :v..Nonetheless, D1 Although it was a circuitistai ' Monday- that': the fin tial case.that convicted Weeks of evidence only that murderiig 39-year-old Lenwood present; not that he d Alston, prosecutors ful piece of evident( fingerprint left on th of Alston's apartm( identified as belongu Alston bled to apartment after he four times in the ba n'L iast-Sept. 19 Autho of his death after neighbor noticed bl from her apartment called police. Weeks, 29, de Alston. There were n( the killing. Nor wt weapon found. But told Weeks that they cider . "3 "rt srobably wouldhaver been• a sensitivetiling '`for^'� 'to c1O the parents; could have*peaci, of ;Hind and be fully informed and avoid the rumor mills," Plemmer ; ; said. - Superior Exterminating Co. accidentally spilled about 30 ;gal Ions of.a common teridainsecti Maddiif Midc Schc "• F1shbyjrn Park bide `into flood• drainagr� pip s t THE It( • while?lrey were treating to foi dation 'of a Ross Lane hoige, r Wednesday, authorities said. ilia :. s?w no reason to notit 4,; d Dick , Tabb, the 'Department's env health manager. Small amounts TC, which is easily water and has a she life, often spill into because the insect widely used, he sal( Dursban TC spill Peters Creek earlier t residents were not said. "I don't want to leigh Court residents but our feeling was ti that big of a problem "I understand their c in hindsight it prof have been good to do cation." Urbanski said t would be discus neighborhood's next meeting. chemieal .,Dursbati. ITC;;:7,f1sir • directIrinto Murray Rtiriaildt eled about a quarter -mile to Lake- wood Park pond. Most of the creek's fish were dead within a short time. Dursban TC is toxic to fish but dangerous to people only in much larger quantities, authori- ties said. An organic gardener, John Tanner, noticed the white liquid flowing into the creek and alerted the exterminators. Tanner and the exterminators tried to dam the creek but failed. Authorities with the state Department of Environmental Quality and Roanoke Health Department arrived within an hour and ordered Superior to take water samples. After determining that no drinking -water wells were nearby and that the insecticide posed no • interoffice MEMORANDUM to: Board of Supervisors from: Diane D. Hyatt, Penny A. Hodge, subject: Status of School Construction Grants Program date: April 28, 1998 cc: Elmer Hodge The General Assembly has approved a $110 million school construction grant program for the 1998-2000 biennium. The grants will provide financial assistance to localities for school construction, additions, renovations (including the cost of retrofitting or enlarging public school buildings), site acquisitions, or debt payments. The methodology guarantees a minimum distribution of at least $200,000 to each locality for each year of the biennium. In addition, each locality will receive a grant based on their total number of students and their composite index (local ability to pay). The following table compares the estimated funding for Roanoke County, Roanoke City, and the City of Salem over the biennium: Roanoke County City of Roanoke Salem 1998-99 1999-2000 Estimated Funding $554,248 $553,042 S1,107,290 $544,362 $543,570 S1,087,932 $299,707 $300,439 S600,146 The legislation also creates a 12-member commission to recommend a permanent funding methodology for the future if the program continues. The Commission will be required to study the state's school construction needs and resources and to issue a final report. Due to the significant planned expenditures for Phase 1 of the Blue Ribbon Commission Report, the County should be able to meet all matching requirements for the state grants. We recommend that the construction program funding provided by the state be incorporated into the financing plan for the Phase 1 expenditures of $47,719,732. Any financial assistance used during Phase 1 could help free up future debt payments that could then be used for Phase 2 of the Blue Ribbon Commission Report. The General Assembly also passed SB672 which requires the Board of Education to impose a maximum limit of $7.5 million on Literary Fund loans. The maximum amount was increased to this level last year but it was at the discretion of the Board of Education. As of July 1, 1998, the new maximum will be available. The county recently filed for a $5 million literary loan for the new Bonsack Elementary School. There is no need to increase this amount as the literary loan funding is limited to "bricks and mortar" type expenditures which are not expected to exceed $5 million. However, the new high school will qualify for the increased maximum literary loan and an application will be filed once the site acquisition has been completed. M:\FINANCE\COMMON\SCH-CIP\GRANT.WPD ) spill warning DON PETERSEN / THE ROANOKE TIMES ;hbortwod:dtscovered-dead=fish,--frogs and=otherwltdlife In the -- ifled sometermite spray_rtoltrai-n_.hnthatruns_Into the nt's environmental health manager said small amounts of ' d in water and has a short chemical life, often spill into e is so widely used. Officials say there is no threat to people. General Assembly's action seen as only a first step Schools still await grant decisions While the legislature studies the formula for distributing grants, a governor's panel will study school needs. By CHRISTINA NUCKOLS THE ROANOKE TIMES • RICHMOND --- School offi- cials can't be sure how much of a dent state construction grants will make in an estimated $6 billion in needs until more decisions are made about the futureof the program. In spite of that uncertainty, school officials said Monday they are pleased with the two years of financial assistance approved last week by the General Assembly. The only assurance school divisions have for now is the amount of money they will be eli- gible to receive over the next two years. The annual amounts avail- able to school divisions in West- ern Virginia range from $221,451 for Craig County to $554,248 for _ Roanoke County. Local governments will be required to spend some of their —own - money --on-projects that receive state grants. The amount will.vary depending on the relative wealth of individual communities. What happens two years from now Is still' unclear, and politics is likely to get in the way of a simple answer. The General Assembly last week voted to keep the same dis- tribution formula for two years, and legislators agreed to set up a 12-member commission that would report back in January 2000 with recommendations on a permanent formula for ,future years. f ; But that's not the only group that will be looking at the school grants. Mark Miner, press secre- tary to Gov. Jim Gilmore, said the governor will continue with his own plans for a separate 'study group. Miner said the governor's commission will leave the deci- sion on the permanent distribu- tion formula to the General Assembly's commission and focus instead on long-term school needs. - "The governor's going to look at the actual needs for school construction around the state," Miner said. The governor's commission will make a locality -by -locality estimate of school needs 'and is likely to look at broader issues, such as how many years -the grants program should last' and how much money should be available each year. , • _The governor .is asking his commission for recommenda- tions in time for next year's Gen- eral Assembly session. No deci- sion has-been made on what to do with the group's report, Miner said, but the General Assembly's commission isn't scheduled to make its final recommendations until January 2000. Local school officials say -they hope both groups will recognize the need for a permanent: grants PLEASE SEE SCHOOLS/C4 1 7-cnooIs an• z a rs�,-1� first effort, I applaud the 'e it:aineral Assembly," said Roanoke School Superintendent Wayne Ii'siris. "Our goal is that_it ....tierrnes perpetual." -_- is said tbp;.$544,A00 ike;=is eligible -to -receive b* for_ the_ next_ two_ years eusedtoward some of the • division's $25 million in construc- -tion -needs over the next five years. Some of those needs include 53 new classrooms, air cbnditioning in 12 elementary schools, gymnasiums at two ele- mentary schools and new library technology. Roanoke County School Superintendent Deanna Gordon said the $554,000 in annual grants for Roanoke County likely will be used to retire existing debt, clearing the way for the county's $120 million construction pro- gram. She said it would be risky to use the money as a down payment on new debt. -Gordon said state officials need to decide whether to make large sums available annually over. a short period, or whether to divvy out smaller grants over a longer term. Either strategy could help schools with their construction needs, she said, but school offi- • ,ciais,won't be able to make much headway if the grants remain • small and end within a few years. . Smaller school systems will be • most dependent on those deci- :.sions because they have fewer :resources to fall back on if the state backs out. Carroll County is in,:_the process of studying the ' impact of a $57 million capital program. Superintendent Oliver ' McBride said local officials were • careful not to assume that the state would be a partner in paying for the school projects, but he said 'they 'did pay careful attention to the debate going on at the state Wel about the grants. "Our locality needed some- thing to help us take the first step," he said. "It may be the very ,thing that gets us going." Although he could give no • as urances on whether the grant program will grow in the future, Del. Vic Thomas, D-Roanoke, said • he expects it to continue at some level into the future. "Getting the $110 million was a trick," he said. "I don't think it's any question it's going to contin- ue. We're going to have our ups and downs, but that's one thing School construction funding Here's how much money localities in Western Virginia will get each year for the next two years under the school construction program approved last week bythe General Assembly. .f:rnYre - Wailes r --/s aalt Cleft Allegheny $269,517 Bedford $455,160 Bland - -_ . - $230,985 Botetourt $324,424 Buchanan $344,551 Carroll $323,894 Craig $221,451 Dickenson $298,074 Floyd $255,878, Franklin $388,953 Giles $277,815 Grayson $277,550 Henry $476,301 Lee -_ $343,315 Montgomery Patrick Pulaski Roanoke Rockbridge Russell Scott Smyth Tazewell •- Washington Wise._ Wythe cross Bedford ' $232,044 Bristol $268,502 Clifton Forge $221,495 Covington $227,100 Galax $236,414 $222,643 $246,168 $544,362 $299,707 Norton Radford Roanoke Salem $456,086 $282,537 $351,524 $554,248 $279,050 $343,403 $328,970 $369,312 $445,891 $423,027 $451,982 $331,442 Local governments will be required to pay part of the costs for any construction or renovation project for which It receives state grant money.The local sham will be based on each community's ability to pay. Existing debt for school construction projects can be counted toward Me local share. A commission set up by the General Assembly will consider whether the distribution formula should change beginning July 1, 2000. If the formula Is changed, the amounts available to each school division would be adjusted accordingly. THE ROANOKE TIMES For more : on Virginia poli- tics and government, go online at www. roanoke. com and look under "politics.' America Online users, go to keyword Roanoke, Blacksburg or Lynchburg. Christina Nuckols can be reached at (804) 897.1585 or iriuraerer would not be proper for him to consider Garvey's testimony, he allowed Dalton to present the tes= timony for the sole purpose of putting it on the record for an appeal' �1.-�"� "�I'u-{ne;-tlie= evlderic complete or was not taken -to the depth that it should have -been," Garvey testified. Outside the courtroom, she said tearfully that she was pressured into going along with the other 11 jurors, and that she hopes to never serve on another jury. Garvey said she fmally gave in after reading the court's instruc=: „bloody fingerprint t tions to the jury, which'. she inter- A. scene, he„replied: as : preted as ordering her- not:rto , ;.right•therl'here's speculate about any theory otlher. beat that, for. real." than what was present_ed`in`Eotirt. '•• ';':.Nonetheless, Dr Although it was a circuinataii '''Monday� that,: the fin tial case.that convicted Weeks of evidence only that murderf'iig 39-year-old Lenwood present; not that he d Alston, prosecutors ful piece of evidence fingerprint left on th of Alston's apartml identified as belongu Alston bled to apartment after he four times in the ba e vvasn�- ast-Sept.' 191utho of his death after neighbor noticed bl from her apartment called police. Weeks, 29, de Alston. There were nr the killing. Nor w, weapon found. But told Weeks that they "It iiobably would"have~✓b t � a sensitive the parents -Could have'iad peace. of mind and be fuliy informed and avoid the rtunor mills; hemmer, said.�r.L .. Superior Exterminating Co _ = accidentally spilled about 30017 , lonsof .a common ternit einsecti cide :'•iitto flood drain`agplps t while`they were treating tale ou dationt "of a Ross Line ho Wednesday, authorities said: chemical,- Dursban TC •'=fi directly i tto Murray Riiiii d Va eled about a quarter -mile to Lake- wood Park pond. Most of the creek's fish were dead within a short time. Dursban TC is toxic to fish but dangerous to people only in much larger quantities, authori- ties said. An organic gardener, John Tanner, noticed the white liquid flowing into the creek and alerted the exterminators. Tanner and the exterminators tried to dam the creek but failed. Authorities with the state Department of Environmental Quality and Roanoke Health Department arrived within an hour and ordered Superior to take water samples. After determining that no drinking -water wells were nearby and that the insecticide posed no re��a• saw no reason to notil 4id ' Dick , Tabb, the bepartment's env health manager. Small amounts TC, which is easily water and has a sht life, often spill into because the insect widely used, he sal( Dursban TC spill t Peters Creek earlier t residents were not said. "I don't want to leigh Court residents but our feeling was tl that big of a problem "I understand their c in hindsight it prot have been good to do cation." Urbanski said t would be discus neighborhood's next meeting. Mal Midc Scho THh' n( ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER -P" 2- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 24,1998 AGENDA ITEM: Budget Work Session on the Upcoming Annual Budget for FY 1998-99. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside for a budget work session to discuss several items and issues relevant to development of the FY1998-1999 operating budget. Over the last several months, budget work sessions with the Board have given staffthe direction needed to substantially develop a fiscal plan that best addresses the priorities set by the Board of Supervisors during earlier planning sessions; however, there are several items that should be discussed before that proposed budget is finalized. Attached is summary information relating to budget development on the following: • Clerk of the Works. Construction review position for School projects requested by the Board • General Salary Increases and Market Survey. • County and School MIS Functions • Contributions to Social Service, Human Service, Cultural, and Tourism Organizations. Following the review and adoption of the School Board's budget, the anticipated schedule for finalizing the County's FY1998-1999 budget will be completed by early June. Staff will incorporate suggestions and changes made by the Board at the April 28, 1998 work session and finalize the County Administrator's budget for presentation at the May 12, 1998 meeting. A public hearing on the proposed budget will held at this meeting as well. Adoption of the budget and first reading of the Appropriation Ordinance is scheduled for May 26 with the second reading scheduled for June 9. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Brent Robertson Budget Manager Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved () Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied () Harrison ..,._ ..._. _ Received () Johnson _ — T Referred () McNamara , _ To () Minnix — Nickens 7-2 INTER OFFICE MEMO To: Members, Board of Supervisors From: Elmer Hodge, County Administrator Subject: FY1998-1999 Budget Work Session Date: April 28, 1998 New Position: Clerk of the Works During previous budget deliberations, the Board expressed interest in hiring a position that would have project management responsibilities over construction projects relating to the School's capital construction program. Staff has researched this request and put together pertinent details relating to job description and salary, requirements for your review (Job Description attached). Total estimated funding needed for this position will be in the $72,000-$76,000 range and includes salary plus benefits, a vehicle, and operating funds. Additional details concerning reporting methods and decision making authority can be determined as the hiring process moves forward. CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT GENERAL STATEMENT OF DUTIES Reviews, audits and advises on capital projects from inception to completion for Roanoke County. DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF THE CLASS The Construction Performance Consultant exercises independent judgment and wide latitude working under the general supervision of the County Administrator. Throughout the construction stage, the Construction Performance Consultant shall be cognizant of the status and condition of the project. Special attention shall be given to the completion schedule and potential cost over -runs. This shall be accomplished by field observation, records checking, and performance evaluation advising the County Administrator promptly regarding the status of all agreements and materials. The Consultant should also maintain good liaison with the Architect(s) and Contractor(s). EXAMPLES OF WORK: (Illustrative Only) Reviews and adjusts take -offs and preliminary Start of Construction Estimate based on firm contracts awarded and bids received to date and recommends appropriate changes. Reviews all sub -contract agreements and purchase orders and recommends appropriate changes. On split multi -shipment items requests Field Superintendent to confirm quantities in final shipment. Reviews sub -contractors performance (with Field Superintendent.) Reports any discrepancies or lack of performance to General Superintendent and County Administrator. Performs inspections including a review of compliance with all safety and local regulations, notices, posters, condition of storage compound and contents, payrolls, equipment, material, suppliers, files and overall site. A list of all discrepancies with recommendations, verbal or written, will be retained for follow-up by phone or next inspection. Reviews Shop Drawings for compliance with purchase order and job conditions. Coordinate changes with General and Field Superintendent. Reviews proposed change with General and Field Superintendent, discusses with Architect, costs out change and document reasons. Coordinates and monitors documents and records to insure that proper credit or charges are made to responsible parties. Reviews, calculates and codes all charges to job. All draws from Sub -Contractors should be maintained in a log and compared with Agreement and job status. Executes a work sheet monthly with a critical eye to timeliness and details. Particular CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE AUDITOR PAGE 2 attention is given to supporting documents for accuracy and completeness and briefs the County Administrator on job status, progress, and cost. Inventories and requisition of subcontractors must be checked for neatness, clarity and accuracy including required signatures. All figures of Trade Requisition and supporting documents must be checked and cross checked. Trade Requisitions should be prepared as soon after a field inspection as practicable. The Construction Performance Consultant maintains a Daily Log on each project. This log contains a brief statement of all significant items, i.e., complaints, abuses, disagreements, schedules, etc., and conclusions drawn or implied. Reviews and updates estimates and take -offs for cost control file. In the case of major discrepancies, investigates and documents reason and corrective action taken to rectify. Advises and consults with the BOS as necessary. REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES Computer literate and excellent PC skills. ACCEPTABLE EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING: Requires a B.S. in the field of engineering, architecture or construction management with at least five years of construction project management experience or equivelant. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS Must have a valid Virginia drivers license and satisfactory driving record. HR 98-4 rev. 02 INTER O F FICE MEMO To: Members, Board of Supervisors From: Elmer Hodge, County Administrator Subject: FY1998-1999 Budget Work Session Date: April 24, 1998 County and School MIS Functions Is Roanoke County missing an excellent opportunity to cut technology costs and efficiencies through a combination of services with Schools? The MIS department currently provides Roanoke County schools with technology services for Financial Operations (including Accounting, Purchasing and Budgeting), Payroll, Report Cards, Inventory, Census, Student History Information, Vocational Education Reporting, School Cafeteria Reporting, and United Way. For these, and additional services, the county receives approximately $174,500 for FY1997-98 from the school budget to cover the costs of computers, high speed printers, tape backup units, program licensing and maintenance fees, networks and digital telephone communications, network engineers, operators, and developers. This represents about 16% of the total MIS expenditures although schools are responsible for more than 50% of the financial volume, a much larger payroll, and require special services. County MIS staff currently provides technology services to the Schools well above the present level of reimbursement. The Schools also share, as with all county operations, the benefits of a highly efficient MIS department which typically operates at less than two thirds of the least expensive outsourcing rate. MIS has expertise and an understanding of school operations that is not available outside of our combined organization. The MIS department performs an important service for Roanoke County schools at the lowest possible cost. This is about to change. In regard to the year 2000 challenge, Roanoke County schools have decided to replace existing non -year 2000 compliant programs with packages which they will purchase from other sources. To offset the cost of these packages, the Schools have reduced their County reimbursement budget approximately $75,000 ($175,000 to $100,000) for next year. These funds would have been spent on making existing school systems year 2000 compliant. In general, we support procuring year 2000 compliant packages to replace non -compliant programs, provided costs are appropriate. However, we are concerned that an opportunity to reduce costs, particularly relating to implementation and continuing support, may be lost if the schools choose to implement and support these systems on their equipment with their staff. These systems will County and School MIS Functions Page 2 require support staff and equipment (that the schools currently do not have) including computer operators, database analysts, systems analysts, programmers, and supervisory staff, as -well -as multiple servers, high-speed tape systems, high-speed printers, check signers, bursters, decollators, etc. Most of this support staff and equipment is already in place within Roanoke County's MIS department. Perhaps more importantly, the emergence of two MIS departments may result in two totally different network strategies which could make implementation of the few remaining shared applications (finance, purchasing, and payroll) difficult, if not impossible. Roanoke County can avoid costs by preserving the combination of services that currently exist. Although some greater level of freedom and control might be achieved through the segregation of these services, we are convinced that cooperation will provide superior services countywide and make more money available to the schools for instructional needs. If Roanoke County is to preserve a single shared MIS department, time is of the essence. FY1998-1999 budget development is nearly complete and the year 2000 is just around the corner. The opportunity to combine our resources and streamline our organization is upon us. Roanoke County can maximize its resources through a shared MIS department to the benefit of its taxpayers. However, if the Board of Supervisors and the School Board agree that development of two MIS functions is the preferred route, we believe that a clear delineation of responsibilities in the area of information technology systems is absolutely essential and should be agreed upon by both county and school administration. Therefore, the ITT suggest that meetings at the appropriate management levels between the county and school administrations should be initiated as soon as possible to discuss the details of a joint solution. INTER OFFICE MEMO To: Members Board of Supervisors From: Stephen Kleiber Subject: FY 1998-99 BOS Contributions Date: April 23, 1998 Attached you will find the updated FY 1998-99 list of requests and recommendations for Contributions to Local Service Agencies. The spreadsheet has been updated to include the recommendations submitted to date by individual Board Members. After compiling these recommendations, a majority recommendation could be established in most instances. However, there are still several agencies which warrant further discussion due to a lack of consensus: • Adult Care Center of the Roanoke Valley • Big Brothers Big Sisters of Roanoke Valley • Smith Mountain Lake 4H Camp • Roanoke Valley Drug and Alcohol Abuse Council • Salem/Roanoke County Community Food Pantry • TRUST • TAP - Transitional Living Center • Alonzo Stagg Bowl • Art Museum of Western Virginia • Explore • Mill Mountain Zoo (Operating & Capital) • Ms. Virginia Senior Citizen Pageant • Miss Virginia Pageant • Science Museum (Capital) • VWCC (Scholarships & Site Development) • Western Virginia Land Trust • Vinton Chamber of Commerce • Virginia Amateur Sports • Virginia Municipal League We look forward to discussing these issues and any other changes the Board may desire at the April 28th work session. INTER OFFICE MEMO To: Members, Board of Supervisors From: Elmer Hodge, County Administrator Subject: FY1998-1999 Budget Work Session Date: April 28, 1998 Salary Increases and Market Survey During budget discussions it was determined that salary increases of 3% for County and School staff should be included in the development of the FY98-99 budget. This level of increase and related benefits equates to approximately $900,000 on an annualized basis for County employees. Also during this time period a Market Survey was completed by Human Resources to determine the market competitiveness of individual positions at the County. A Market Survey team composed of employees from various departments was engaged to review the methodology employed, develop assumptions, and review and discuss final results of the study. The survey methodology included comparisons to other localities of comparable size and cost of living as well as private sector employers with similar job requirements. Completion of the survey indicated a number of County positions were currently below market averages--43 positions (affecting 94 employees) fell below the survey average by 5% to 9% and 14 positions (80 employees) fell below the survey average by 10% or more. The survey methodology did not consider any position for market adjustment if that position was between 0% and 4% below market average. The accumulated cost, including benefits, to bring these positions to the market average is approximately $250,000. The Market Survey Team endorsed the results of the study. To recruit and retain good employees in a competitive market, it is desirable to implement the salary survey recommendations and give a general average increase of 3%. We understand the policy of awarding annual pay increases at the same percentage awarded to School employees. We have considered alternative methods of funding the market survey by utilizing turnover savings or delaying implementation; however, the Board has expressed interest in limiting the total increase to 3%, consistent with the School's increase. Based on the targeted allotment, salary increases for FY98-99 should be allocated in several components Results of the salary survey indicated that there were 57 positions (174 employees) out of market from 1 to 2 pay grades. Maintaining market competitiveness is essential in order to attract and retain quality employees. The survey indicated that approximately Salary Increases and Market Survey Page 2 25% of our employees were below the market average for their position. Given this reality, we must implement the recommendations of the Market Survey Team. These changes will be reviewed by Human Resources and the related department head to ensure each individual adjustment is valid. The remaining allocation would be given as a general increase of approximately 2.2% that would include a range movement and performance increase based on a percentage of mid -point. These increases would also be based on performance criteria determined by Human Resources and the appropriate department heads. Based on this method, individual increases could range between 0% and 7%, county -wide, but not total more than the identified allocation. While 3% is not quite the level of salary increase we are seeking, we recognize and appreciate the increase in the employees' total compensation package that includes the 3% salary increase, 1% increased funding for VRS Retirement and the portion of health insurance increase absorbed by the County. This total increases in the compensation package amounts to over 4.5%. Once again, implementing the entire salary survey recommendation is very important in an effort to attract and retain quality employees. This action will allow us to compete for all employees in our market territory; however, general salary increases of 4% to 5% by neighboring localities will impact our hiring and retention efforts combined with a general increase averaging 2.2% by the County. Subtotal Health and Social Service Agencies Subtotal Human Service Agencies EA FA EA 0) v o CO ((0)1 O 01 O W (O () O O W N co O N O EA EA EA CO N CO O OD 01 N U1 CO O () O — N O) 0 CO N �I - A A EA EA EA CO o o CO v () O O Wco N O 0 N O EA E_A N s W EA O v CO O (O O () O O W A CO O O () N O 0 N O EA EA EA 0) V O CD 01 U1 O W O) 43 N O O 4.1 N O EA IV NNv ((0 O) N U7 CO U1 -CO (.31 o -CO -CO () 0 0 () N 0 O N O 43 0 O O O O EA (0 CO (!.) () N EA v 0 C(D --I :C! 0) O 0 o D 1 '< o c 0 O 3 3 7 m 0 0 a 0) 01 0) 0 0 O 01 O 0 O O U1 O O N 01 0 O 01 0 0 0 N O O O W -CO O 0 N O O O O N O O O N O O O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 n) 0 O (0 0) CD co (D 0 S 90 (D 0) o' co 0 m (0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0) O (D v 0 C (o 0) 7 a 0 0 s 0 cc m 0 0 c o. O O O N O O O O 0 O N O 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 73 0 0) 0 N (D 0) 5' 01 O 0 N O 0 O O 0 0 O N O O O N O O O z 0 a (0 0 co 0 0) (0 O 0 co O 0 0 0 O O O O (0 0) 0 0 3 (D m v O CO 0) 3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 w V 01 0 N N O) o co w v 01 O CO v 01 O O O 0 W v (n O W v (n 0 2 CO 0 0) 0 3 0) O N O O O O O 0 O O 0 O 2- 5 a co 7 01 O O O N O 0 Ut O O O CA O O O 0 O O 01 O O O 0) 3a O im 7 3 r0 (0 A (D _ .Or 0) 90 3 5 -ad, 7 0 0 O 0 3 N 01 0 0 N 01 O O N 01 O O O N 0 O O W 01 0 O v w O W 01 O O W O O O W 01 O O (l) O O m 0) 3 CD (D O' (0 N 0 0) 0 0 W 00)) (0 O O co CA 0 0 O A O O Cl O O O 0 A O O O A 0 0 O 0 O .o 0 0 5 (0 o. (0 co n 0) d O O 0) co 0 D N O O O U1 O 0 0 N O O O N O O O O N O O O N O O O 0 O c 0_ O 0 0 3 3 c 7 (D O (D N 0 o� a m v 0 m m V v 0 4) O 0 O W O O O O G) O O O 0 0 7 0 (n 0 0 0 0 co 3 (D 3 O (I.) -CO 01 O O O O O 0) 7 (0 S -o' 0 2 N O) O 0 0) O) 0) O 0) O) O) O CO O) 0 0 0) 0) 0) O 0 o. 0 (0 (D '0 (D (0 O 0 O 7 O 0 7J 0 0) 0 m tu 01 O O (A) 01 O 0 W Ut O O W U1 O O W 01 O O (.) (n O O -CO O O O) -CO 0 0 0) Ut O O 0) 01 O O O) -CO 0 0 0) 01 O O O) (n O O W rn a) O O O 0 0 N -CT 0 0 W O O O N Us 0 O O 01 O O CO (0 S CO 2 0) Ut 0 0 A O O O O O O 01 O O O 01 O O 01 0 0 0 O O O 01 O O O 0 O 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O N S (0 3 CO 0 O. 0 7 O N 01 0 O O O O O O a 0 0) (0 0 (0 3 (0 0 C (D 0 0) 7 0 (D 00)) (0 CO 0 Q 0 N .0 Can W eo M O O. v 00 .0.► W c. 0 tn— m Z O 0 0) En 3 'oyr CD O 0) S O at O s EA 0) 0) O 0 0 10 O 0 7' W 7 O O Q 7 Subtotal Cultural Enrichment and Tourism Agencies EA (0 (O N O CO EA CO CO O Ut () W CO A v rn 0 EA W CO U t O O EA O -CO W CO EA (J CO N O 0 EA 01 CO -CO O O 0 U 0 (0 5. r 0) Q c 1 N U1 O O O 7 0 0 co O 0 v 0 N O O O O 0 Cl o O O O O O 0 O U 1 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 (D m 0 3 (D 3 co 3 (D N N O v O W O W W 2 0) a O 0) -o -o co Q 0 0 (D co m 0 O 0 0) v TI Q U1 (A w CO g. 0 O 3 3 c 3 0 O (T 0 (0 (0 v O O 3 c (0 (0 3 O CD SD v 3 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O CO U1 O O) O -CO -CA) o-CD 0 CO O) 0 O O N O O 0 0 N U1 N O O O W O O O CD CO ooO O O O 0 0 O N N O O O O N O v O (n N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W W CO U 1 4) (a CO 0 N O 0 O v O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 co 3 0 (0 0) m 3 N U1 O O 0 v N O O O N U1 O O O N Ut O O O U1 O co co N Vt -co o o 0) (0 3 c co co 3 0) co 3 S O a' 0) 0 0 CD O O o O O 0 O -01 O O V -CO O 0 v U1 O O V U1 0 O v O O O v 0 O • U1 O O O 0) 3 O 0) 0) 0 ((DD (D 0) 0 O 0 0 O O co O O O O 0) 3 0 3 v 3 0 J U1 O O O O O O O V -CO U1 0 0 O O O O O O O O -CO O O O -CO 0 0 v O O O v O O 0 0 C r 0 0 0 0 3 O 0) 3 O m O co O O 0 v co 0) 73 0 0) 3 0 (0 O O O O O O CO O CO O Z 0 3 0) 0 0 0) (D 3 O 0) m 0 3 Q so EA N U 1 O O O ((DD 0) 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O N W O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O U1 0 0 U1 O O 01 O 0 O O �n 3' O ) c co 3 O' 0 (0 rn 3 -o 0) CD 0) O O O 0 O O O O O (/) 0 'O O' 3 O O O 0 0) "O 0) O O O O O O O O N N O co O O O O O EE 0 0) 0), 3 N 0 0 0 'O (D 3 0 O 0 O O O O CO O O 0 O O O O CO O O O CO O O O CO O O O CO U1 O O N N O O CO U1 0 O CO U1 O O v O O O O O 0 O O O O X -0 O (o 3• co m m O c 3 Q 0) 0 3 N Ut O 0 0 W Ut O 0 0 N U1 O O O (V v O O O N Ul O O O N U1 O O O N O O 0 rn O O O 0 N N U1 O O co V U1 O O O O) O O O O co O O O O C3 O O O O 0 m m 3' 3- N CD .0 N0) 0 0) 0) O N O co co O O 0 co 7 0 O O O U1 0 O O O 0) O O co O U1 O O O 0 U 1 O O O O A O O O O Ut O O O 0 W O O O O O O W O 0 0 G) O O O O W O O O w O O O c c CD CD c 3 0 co 3 3' v' N O O O O) O O 0 N 0 0) 0 (0 W 0 O O O N U1 O O O N O O O EA N Ut O O EA N ✓ 1 O O EA N O O O EA O EA N O O O 0 c m 3 0 3 CD 3 0) 3 O 3 (D 3 0 0) S 0) (p O (0 3 0 O C 0 M 0 ¢) 0 Grand Total All BOS Contributions EA O W CO -CO (J's v (A o) O O W W (A O C)1 A O W (A CO C)1 W W O (A v O v CO W Co -CO 01 v 0) CA a Subtotal Dues and Per Capita Allocations W N Os O 0 v (A (0 O -CO N W_ W A O CO CO V (A N 0) CA O v (A N cn -co O v 1a 5 c c 0' 0 1 co 0 0 m CA -CO O CA CA -CO 0 CA O O -CO 0 Cn O O CA w' 5 E m 0 0 m 7 3 co D 0 O O 0 O 0 0 w' 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 c (n W O A O W -co A 0 W t0 A O W -CO A 0 0 W O A O W O cci w 0) c v 0 W O O 0 O O O O 0 0 0 O A O O O O W CT O 0 0 W C)1 O O O 0 0 0 N 3 0 co o_ 0 0 3 3 () m O 0 C)1 0 O O O O N O O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 O W 0 0 O W O O O (.4 O O O to 0) co 3 0 0) 7 0 m 0 0 c 0 co 3 0 co 0 0 0 3 3 m m 0) O 0 O O) O 0 0 O) O O O CA O O O 0 0 0 0 m m o' 7 d 0 0) 3 CS 0 0 0 0 3 3 co () co 01 O O N CA O 01 0 0 N CT O 0 O O W 0) N o O 0 O O O CA O O O N O O Z 0) 0 co 0 r 0) m 0 c co N O O N O O 0 O 0 O O 0 Z 0 d D 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 0 m rn Cl1 CT V 01 01 V C)1 v U1 CA v o -0 o m 7 n' o Ca c o) pa.7a o < v `:3 0 o - (7) 3 -00° 3 1 N• CD 0 7O 0 -o rn 0) 7 0 fJ co CA A N O 0) 0) N O 0) CT A N O O O O N O 0) 01 A N CO O) Cr A 0 O O O N CO Cn 0 V O O 0 V O O O co O O O 0 v CA O O co ()1 O O O O v 01 O O rA co a 0 m to o_ 0) a 0 0 N 0) 0 0 �M n1n e0 gad pus sena 0 01 01 x 0) (/) ZFs. Pr 0 tD 7 C_ 0 W N O O 3 O ID CO 0 0 a 0 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 RESOLUTION 042898-6 CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened an executive 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 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Certification Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: . C. ) Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Executive Session AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 RESOLUTION 042898-7 APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, Section 22.1-93 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, provides that the governing body of the County shall prepare and approve an annual budget for educational purposes; and WHEREAS, said budget shall be prepared and approved for informative and fiscal planning purposes only. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia: 1. That there is hereby approved the annual budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 for the educational purposes of the County School Board for Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: FUND School Operating Fund Cafeteria Fund Grants Fund Textbook Fund TOTAL FY 1997-98 FY 1998-99 $83, 928, 863 3,195, 000 1,661,603 914,822 $89,700,288 $87,233,241 3,293,000 2,137,547 851,675 $93, 515, 463 2. That the preparation and approval of this budget is for informative and fiscal planning purposes only. 1 On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Dr. Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent Diane D. Hyatt, Finance Director W. Brent Robertson, Budget Director 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER 5' I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: April 28, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of County of Roanoke School Budget for the 1998-99 Fiscal Year COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Ana-1 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The attached resolution is presented for consideration by the County Board to adopt the School budget for the 1998-99 fiscal year. The budget was approved by the Roanoke County School Board at their meeting on April 8, 1998 A copy of the School budget is included in the Board packet. This budget will be discussed with the School Board at a joint worksession earlier this day. FISCAL IMPACT: The enclosed School budget includes $46,612,748 of transfers from the County budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the enclosed School budget for the 1998-99 fiscal year. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: Zkelmma . 9c v) Deanna Gordon Ay School Superintendent Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator M:\finance\common\board\5-28-96.wpd April 23, 1998 S- Approved () Motion by No Yes Abs Denied O McNamara Received () Harrison Referred O Johnson To O Minnix Nickens M:\finance\common\board\5-28-96.wpd April 23, 1998 J AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, Section 22.1-93 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, provides that the governing body of the County shall prepare and approve an annual budget for educational purposes; and WHEREAS, said budget shall be prepared and approved for informative and fiscal planning purposes only. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia: 1. That there is hereby approved the annual budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 for the educational purposes of the County School Board for Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: FY 1997-98 FY 1998-99 FUND School Operating Fund $83,928,863 $87,233,241 Cafeteria Fund 3,195,000 3,293,000 Grants Fund 1,661,603 2,137,547 Textbook Fund 914,822 851,675 TOTAL $89,700,288 $93,515,463 2. That the preparation and approval of this budget is for informative and fiscal planning purposes only. M:\finance\common\board\5-28-96.wpd April 23, 1998 Roanoke County Schools 1998-99 Budget Roanoke County Public Schools School Board Members January 1,1998 Cave Spring District William A. Irvin, II Chairman Vinton District Michael W. Stovall Hollins District Jerry L. Canada Catawba District Marion G. Roark Vice Chairman Windsor Hills District Thomas A. Leggette Central Administration Dr. Deanna Gordon, Superintendent Dr. James Gallion, Assistant Sup :rzntendent Mr. Martin Robison, Assistant Superintendent Executive Summary ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS 1998-99 BUDGET CALENDAR September 24, 1997 • Non -Salary Budget Committee begins monthly work sessions October 1997 • Salary committees begin formulation of salary recommendations November/December 1997 • Instructional requests for materials, supplies, and equipment and non -instructional requests for maintenance, furniture, and equipment compiled and reviewed by each school December 10, 1997 • Superintendent's Budget Committee work session December 19,1997 • Instructional requests submitted to appropriate central staff personnel • Non -instructional requests for maintenance and equipment submitted to Associate Director of Maintenance January 13, 1998 • Administrative Budget Committee meets with Superintendent January 20,1998 • Senior Director of Instruction and appropriate staff begin review of schools' instructional requests • Associate Director of Maintenance and appropriate staff begin review of operational and maintenance requests January 22, 1998 • Superintendent's Budget Committee work session • School Board holds public hearing on budget February 2, 1998 • Administrative Budget Committee meets with Superintendent February 12, 1998 • Superintendent's Budget Committee work session February 13, 1998 • Non -Salary Budget Committee submits recommendations to Superintendent • Administrative Budget Committee meets with Superintendent February 26,1998 • School Board meeting/preliminary budget information presented to School Board March 2, 1998 • Administrative Budget Committee meets with Superintendent March 12, 1998 • Superintendent's Budget Committee work session • School Board meeting/budget work session March 24, 1998 • Budget work session with Board of Supervisors April 8, 1998 • Superintendent's Budget Committee work session • School Board meeting/final budget review and approval April 10, 1998 • School budget delivered to Board of Supervisors and county administration 2 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The annual budget for the Roanoke County School System offers citizens an opportunity to provide full educational opportunities for all students who are enrolled in the county schools - kindergarten through adult education. The budget process can be divided into a five -step process that includes planning, preparation, adoption, implementation, and evaluation. The process is driven by two objectives: to develop a budget that will provide every child in the school system the best possible educational opportunities and to maximize the use of available resources. With this framework, the School Board attempts to balance the educational needs of students and the resources available to the school system from local, state, and federal sources. Budget Planning For the fiscal year that begins July 1, the budget planning process starts the prior year when the School Board adopts a budget calendar. The calendar includes all important activities in the budget process and the dates on which important decisions are scheduled to be made. Once adopted, the calendar represents the guidelines for the preparation and adoption of the budget for the school system. The FY1998-99 budget calendar is shown on the preceding page. Preparation of the School Budget As shown in the All Funds Summary on the previous page, the Operating Budget reflects 93.3% of the total funds budgeted for the 1998-99 school year. Preparation of the school operating budget does not assume that items will be continued merely because they were in the previous budget. The process includes major input from each school with the understanding that teachers and principals need to understand and be involved with the ordering of the supplies and equipment with which they will be working. The process continues with involvement from several budget committees including the following community and school personnel: Superintendent's Budget Committee Phil Argabright Jim Gallion Jerry Canada Deanna Gordon Judy Deyerle Jerry Hardy Administrative Budget Committee Jerry Hardy, Chairman Deanna Gordon Jim Gallion Garland Kidd Penny Hodge Linda Holt Bill Irvin Jane James Gary Kelly Carol Whitaker 4 Tom Leggette Marion Roark Marty Robison Mike Stovall Marty Robison Garland Life Berkley Lucas Roanoke County Schools Operating Fund Revenues (0.6%) Other (53.4%) Local Appropriation (9.7%) State Sales Tax (36.1%) Other State Revenue (0.2%) Federal Revenue Description Budget FY 1998-99 Percent of Total Revenue Per Pupil* State Sales Tax $ 8,484,365 9.7% $ 608 Other State Revenue 31,449,488 36.1% 2,254 Federal Revenue 132,888 0.2% 10 Local Appropriation 46,612,748 53.4% 3,341 Other 553,752 0.6% 40 Total Operating Revenues $ 87,233,241 100% $ 6,253 *Estimated Average Daily Membership for 1998-99 School Year: 13950 6 RESOURCES TO SUPPORT OPERATIONS - Continued Federal Revenue: Title 2 (5601145) Preschool Mini Grant Forest Reserve Fund Voc Ed Consumer Homemaking Voc Ed - Carl Perkins Act - Adult Voc Ed - Carl Perkins Act Total Federal Local Appropriation: Local Appropriation - County Transfer From Gen. - CSA Transfer From Gen. Fund - Dental Transfer From Internal Services - Health 0 0 1,423 0 0 122,533 $ 123,956 $ 41,945,736 369,037 235,324 815,236 296 6,825 1,767 3,000 20,000 105,500 $ 137,388 $ 45,230,473 0 287,025 0 296 6,825 1,767 3,000 20,000 101,000 $ 132,888 $ 46,325,723 0 287,025 0 0 0 0 0 0 (4,500) $ (4,500) $ 1,095,250 0 0 0 Total Local $ 43,365,333 $ 45,517,498 $ 46,612,748 $ 1,095,250 Other Revenue: Interest Income Rental of School Property Tuition - Regular Day School Tuition - Summer School Tuition - Adult Education Tuition From Other Localities Fees From Pupils -Driver Education Trans Fees for Group Events Tuition Fr Pri Source - Summer Gifted Other Miscellaneous Revenue Rebates/Insurance Refunds Revenues Charged to Departments $ 0 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 75,160 84,360 84,360 27,350 20,000 75,000 86,420 70,000 70,000 133,376 130,000 130,000 49,906 42,000 42,000 22,814 50,000 40,000 5,248 2,500 2,500 26,294 24,392 24,392 4,728 500 500 1,110 5,000 5,000 40,177 0 30,000 $ 0 0 55,000 0 0 0 (10,000) 0 0 0 0 30,000 Total Other $ 472,583 $ 478,752 $ 553,752 $ 75,000 Total School Operating Revenue $ 81,070,111 $ 83,928,863 $ 87,233,241 $ 3,304,378 8 (80.4%) Personnel Roanoke County Schools Operating Fund Expenditures (4.8%) Support Services (0.5%) Summer School (0.2%) Adult Education (9.7%) Central Support (4.4%) Classroom Instruction Description Budget Percent Cost FY 1998-99 of Total Per Pupil Classroom Instruction $ 3,863,831 4.4% $ 277 Personnel 70,144,048 80.4% 5,028 Support Services 4,201,978 4.8% 301 Central Support 8,474,404 9.7% 607 Total Operating Expenditures $ 86,684,261 99.3% $ 6,214 Special Programs Summer School Adult and Continuing Education Total Other Programs 393,916 155,064 0.5% 28 0.2% 11 $ 548,980 0.7% $ 39 Total School Expenditures $ 87,233,241 100.0% $ 6,253 *Estimated Average Daily Membership for 1998-99 School Year: 13,950 t i 1 1 1 1 County of Roanoke, Virginia Local Appropriation Historical Amounts Fiscal Year Ended June 30 Annual Appropriation One -Time Appropriation Total Appropriation Increase From PriorYear Percent Increase 1987 24,515,000 215,128 24,730,128 1988 25,316,000 150,000 25,466,000 735,872 2.98 % 1989 26,456,000 184,291 26,640,291 1,174,291 4.61% 1990 28,717,090 28,717,090 2,076,799 7.80% 1991 30,576,236 30,576,236 1,859,146 6.47% 1992 32,876,578 32,876,578 2,300,342 7.52% 1993 32,903,869 32,903,869 27,291 0.08% 1994 34,206,283 34,206,283 1,302,414 3.96% 1995 36,733,183 800,000 37,533,183 3,326,900 9.73% 1996 39,647,773 1,850,000 41,497,773 3,964,590 10.56% 1997 42,550,097 0 42,550,097 1,052,324 2.54% General School Operating Fund * Fund Balance Historical Comparison Fiscal Year Ended June 30 General Operating Budget General Operating Fund Balance Fund Balance as a Percent of Budget 1987 57,075,919 447,663 0.78% 1988 59,882,774 (27,445) -0.05% 1989 60,291,502 886,647 1.47% 1990 65,216,142 640,148 0.98% 1991 68,199,917 1,130,342 1.66% 1992 69,239,225 1,048,838 1.51% 1993 73,123,145 2,035,853 2.78% 1994 76,862,642 1,650,376 2.15% 1995 79,974,051 2,076,939 2.60% 1996 84,485,595 2,137,711 2.53% 1997 88,524,591 1,741,901 1.97% Source: Figures for the above tables furnished by the Director of Finance for Roanoke County. • Includes adjusted budgets from all general operating funds as described on page 3. 12 1 Other School Funds School Textbook Fund Revenue and Expenditure Summary Budget Budget Budget Increase FY 1996-97 FY 1997-98 FY 1998-99 (Decrease) Revenues: State Reimbursement $ 427,480 $ 427,776 $ 309,029 $ (118,747) Sale of Receipt Books 1,500 1,500 2,000 500 Sale of Textbooks 35,000 35,000 40,000 5,000 Payments for Damaged Books 400 400 0 (400) Payments for Lost Books 2,500 2,500 3,000 500 Transfer from School Operating Fund 347,646 447,646 497,646 50,000 Total Revenues Expenditures: Salaries & Related Costs Textbooks Total Expenditures $ 814,526 $ 914,822 $ 851,675 $ (63,147) $ 49,699 $ 52,372 $ 53,450 $ 1,078 764,827 862,450 798,225 (64,225) $ 814,526 $ 914,822 $ 851,675 $ (63,147) The School Textbook Fund includes personnel costs for the textbook agent, temporary employees hired as needed to deliver books, payments for books and materials, and payments for books on consignment. This fund is supported to a large degree by an interfund transfer from the School Operating Fund. 15 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 RESOLUTION 042898-8 TO ADVANCE FUNDS FOR CERTAIN EXPENDITURES MADE AND/OR TO BE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION, RENOVATION, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR SCHOOL PROJECTS WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "County Board") adopted a resolution on August 19, 1997 declaring its intention to reimburse itself from the proceeds of one or more tax-exempt financings for certain expenditures made and/or to be made in connection with the acquisition, renovation, construction and equipping of certain capital improvements for school projects, and WHEREAS, the School Board (the "School Board@) of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "County") adopted a resolution on August 28, 1997 declaring its intention to reimburse itself from the proceeds of one or more tax-exempt financings for certain expenditures made and/or to be made in connection with the acquisition, renovation, construction and equipping of certain capital improvements for school projects, and WHEREAS, The School Board requested an advance of $ 50,000 on September 11, 1997 for environmental assessments, advertising costs for architects and engineers, core drillings, and other costs related to the acquisition of land in South County, and WHEREAS, the County Board approved this $50,000 advance on September 23, 1997, and WHEREAS, the School Board requested an additional advance of $1,721,200 on November 13, 1997 to hire architects to design various school projects, and 1 WHEREAS, the County Board approved this $1,721,200 additional advance on November 18, 1997, and WHEREAS, the School Board requested an additional advance of $130,000 on November 13, 1997 to hire architects to begin renovations to the science Tabs, and WHEREAS, the County Board approved a $104,000 additional advance on December 16, 1997, and WHEREAS, the School Board has now requested an additional advance of $200,000 to hire contractors to begin a roof replacement program, and has requested the amendment of Exhibit A of County Resolution 081997-1 to appropriately reflect the roof replacement program included in the Blue Ribbon Commission Report, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the County Board will advance the additional sum of $200,000 to the School Board to hire contractors to begin the roof replacement program, and amend Exhibit A of County Resolution 081997-1. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Brent Robertson, Budget Manager Dr. Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent Brenda Chastain, Clerk to the School Board Martin Robison, Assistant School Superintendent 2 County of Roanoke, Virginia Resolution 081997-1 EXHIBIT A- (Amended) Construction of a new South County High School Construction of a new Athletic Complex for dual usage by the new South County High School and the existing Cave Spring High School. Renovation of existing science laboratories at Northside High School, Glenvar High School, and Cave Spring High School Additions and improvements to Glenvar Middle School Construction of a new Bonsack Elementary School Renovations and additions to Burlington Elementary School Renovations and additions to Clearbrook Elementary School Roof replacement program 3 • • • ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER S AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER • MEETING DATE: April 28, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Request to Advance Funds to the School Board for Phase I - Roof Replacements COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: / i"� ++e z. A � 4 % .,.4 0-'0411SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On August 19, 1997 the County Board of Supervisors authorized the School Board to proceed with Phase I of the School Capital Improvement Program as outlined in the revised Blue Ribbon Commission Report. Phase I includes $47,719,732 of projects which include a new South County high school, science lab renovations, renovations at Glenvar Middle School, a new Bonsack Elementary School, renovations at Burlington Elementary School, renovations at Clearbrook Elementary School and roof replacements. The Schools were given approval to proceed with the selection of suitable sites and architectural firms. The Board of Supervisors expected to advance up to $4,075,200 for these start-up costs as shown on Attachment A. In addition, the School Board would now like to begin the roof replacement program that was also outlined in the Blue Ribbon Commission Report which would require an additional advance of $200,000 from the Board of Supervisors, for a total project advance of $4,275,200. The School Board was directed to return to the County Board for approval of advances as each contract was awarded. The Board of Supervisors has previously advanced $50,000 on September 23, 1997, $1,721,200 on November 18, 1997 and $104,000 on December 16, 1997. The purpose of these advances is outlined on Attachment A. The total Phase 1 budget is outlined on Attachment B. The School Board is ready to proceed with roof replacement bids for this summer. At their School Board meeting on March 26, 1998, the School Board requested an advance of $200,000 to begin the roof replacement program in June 1998. The attached resolution has been prepared authorizing an advance of $200,000 for the roof replacement program. M:\FINANCE\COMMON\BOARD\4-28-98.WPD April 22, 1998 s-a • FISCAL IMPACT: The initial start-up cost for Phase I will be advanced by the County. These advances will be reimbursed at a later date with proceeds from a Virginia Public School Authority loan or a General Obligation Bond. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting the attached reimbursement resolution which advances $200,000 to the Schools for expenditures to be paid over the next year for roof replacements on school buildings. This resolution includes the proper language to allow the County to reimburse itself from future bond issues related to this project. The School Board approved a similar resolution at their March 26, 1998 meeting. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: Ah� Deanna Gordon zry, Elmer C. Hodge Superintendent of Schools County Administrator Approved () Motion by Denied O Harrison Received O Johnson Referred () McNamara To () Minnix Nickens No Yes Abs M:\FINANCE\COMMON\BOARD\4-28-98. W PD April 22, 1998 • Attachment A • • Funds Needed to Begin Phase I Planning 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M l� O O O O O O O O O O O O con O co O N © O O O N N M O o0 N v., N vn 00 O O vn M N kin N 64 00 (1 •-. 997 Apr 14, 1998 U a] l-- O O 01 O O O\ O O 00 000 0 O0 6R > O a) CID O O 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 l� O O O M N to N 0 0 0 0 N U1 N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O 0 0 O N N 0 O 00"N" vn N vn 00 O O ../•1 VD V•) N - ^' ^' N 00 — •-� N N 69 Science Labs A + E costs - initial plans Glenvar Middle Renovations 6' 6' c � O o at t1 c O C sue. O C - a. 3 a 3 c, 3 o. 3 c •45, • ) � c.B ) c.- 0) i H a) a a) E-. a) 1 E-+ a) 1 -" �'O W •'b E4 -0 Ct c y 4'v c co0 o= o o - c W >>'ac aiW (1)a)a)iA+ p W i O+ O + 1v+ c>, v5 &vd) and>1 .C<D Q)E. a) o Z W 0 0 0 N O to O [� O 00 N 6R 631 Roof Replacement Program a) 0 ti a) U 0 .Q a a) O 0 a) s. a) E O 0 a) • E L •� E ▪ U O o a) XI • a 0) 1 03/30/98 M:\FINANCE\COMMON\Sch-cip\PHASE-1. WK4 • • • Blue Ribbon Committee - Phase 1 Projects Attachment B Projects Budget Project Anticipated Advances Code Costs Advances Sept 23,1997 Nov 18, 1997 Dec 16, 1997 Apr 14, 1998 Total New High School Land search 150002-8909 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Land and related expenses 150002-8901 2,200,000 2,200,000 0 A + E costs - Sherertz Franklin 150003-8905 1,100,000 880,000 880,000 880,000 Survey and testing work 150003-3007 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Construction 17,400,000 0 Site development 3,120,000 0 Furnishings & equipment 1,850,000 0 Media resources 355,000 0 Technology 1,400,000 0 Value engineering 102,600 0 Contingency (2%) 553,552 0 28,231,152 3,230,000 50,000 980,000 0 0 1,030,000 Science Labs A + E costs - Dewberry & Davis 150004-8905 130,000 104,000 104,000 104,000 Construction 1,300,000 0 Furnishings & equipment 800,000 0 Contingency (2%) 44,600 0 2,274,600 104,000 0 0 104,000 0 104,000 Glenvar Middle Renovations A + E costs - Kinsey Shane 150005-8905 190,000 152,000 152,000 152,000 Survey and testing work 150005-3007 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Construction 2,575,000 0 Furnishings & equipment 250,000 0 Media resources 110,000 0 Technology 75,000 0 Value engineering 25,000 0 Contingency (2%) 64,740 0 3,301,740 164,000 0 164,000 0 0 164,000 New Bonsack Elementary A + E costs - Mosley McClintock 150006-8905 309,235 260,000 236,030 236,030 Survey and testing work 150006-3007 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Construction 4,882,575 0 Site development 905,025 0 Furnishings & equipment 625,000 0 Media resources 170,000 0 Technology 300,000 0 Value engineering - Dewberry & Davis 43,400 23,970 23,970 Closing Roland E Cook 75,000 0 Contingency (2%) 163,285 0 7,523,520 310,000 0 310,000 0 0 310,000 Burlington Elementary Renovations A + E costs - Jones & Jones 150007-8905 155,000 128,000 128,000 128,000 Survey and testing work 150007-3007 62,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Construction 1,963,000 0 Furnishings & equipment 320,000 0 Technology 75,000 0 Value engineering 25,000 0 Contingency (2%) 57,100 0 2,657,100 140,000 0 140,000 0 0 140,000 Clearbrook Elementary Renovations A + E costs - Degen 150008-8905 144,000 115,200 115,200 115,200 Survey and testing work 150008-3007 62,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Construction 1,925,000 0 Furnishings & equipment 300,000 0 Technology 75,000 0 Value engineering 25,000 0 Contingency (2%) 50,620 0 2,581,620 127,200 0 127,200 0 0 127,200 Roof Maintenance Program 1,150,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 47,719,732 4,275,200 50,000 1,721,200 104,000 200,000 2,075,200 The above costs are summarized from the report prepared by Martin & Associates for the Blue Ribbon Committee M:\FINANCE\COMMON,Sch-cip\PH 1 STAT. WK4 103/30/98 • • • AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 RESOLUTION TO ADVANCE FUNDS FOR CERTAIN EXPENDITURES MADE AND/OR TO BE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION, RENOVATION, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR SCHOOL PROJECTS WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "County Board") adopted a resolution on August 19, 1997 declaring its intention to reimburse itself from the proceeds of one or more tax-exempt financings for certain expenditures made and/or to be made in connection with the acquisition, renovation, construction and equipping of certain capital improvements for school projects, and WHEREAS, the School Board (the "School Board") of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "County") adopted a resolution on August 28, 1997 declaring its intention to reimburse itself from the proceeds of one or more tax-exempt financings for certain expenditures made and/or to be made in connection with the acquisition, renovation, construction and equipping of certain capital improvements for school projects, and WHEREAS, The School Board requested an advance of $ 50,000 on September 11, 1997 for environmental assessments, advertising costs for architects and engineers, core drillings, and other costs related to the acquisition of land in South County, and WHEREAS, the County Board approved this $50,000 advance on September 23, 1997, and WHEREAS, the School Board requested an additional advance of $1,721,200 on November 13, 1997 to hire architects to design various school projects, and M:\FINANCE\COMMON\BOARD\4-14-98R.WPD April 22, 1998 • • • WHEREAS, the County Board approved this $1,721,200 additional advance on November 18, 1997, and WHEREAS, the School Board requested an additional advance of $130,000 on November 13, 1997 to hire architects to begin renovations to the science labs, and WHEREAS, the County Board approved a $104,000 additional advance on December 16, 1997, and WHEREAS, the School Board has now requested an additional advance of $200,000 to hire contractors to begin a roof replacement program, and has requested the amendment of Exhibit A of County Resolution 081997-1 to appropriately reflect the roof replacement program included in the Blue Ribbon Commission Report, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the County Board will advance the additional sum of $200,000 to the School Board to hire contractors to begin the roof replacement program, and amend Exhibit A of County Resolution 081997-1. M:\FINANCE\COMMON\BOARD\4-14-98R.WPD April 22, 1998 • • • County of Roanoke, Virginia Resolution 081997-1 EXHIBIT A- (Amended) Construction of a new South County High School Construction of a new Athletic Complex for dual usage by the new South County High School and the existing Cave Spring High School. • Renovation of existing science laboratories at Northside High School, Glenvar High School, and Cave Spring High School • Additions and improvements to Glenvar Middle School • Construction of a new Bonsack Elementary School • Renovations and additions to Burlington Elementary School • Renovations and additions to Clearbrook Elementary School • Roof replacement program M:\FINANCE\COMMON\BOARD\4-14-98R.WPD April 22, 1998 S-), AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ON THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1998 R SOLUTION OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA REQUESTING ADVANCE OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN EXPENDITURES MADE AND/OR TO BE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION, RENOVATION, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS -FOR SCHOOL PROJECTS WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "County Board") adopted a resolution on August 19, 1997 declaring its intention to reimburse itself from the proceeds of one or more tax-exempt financings for certain expenditures made and/or to be made in connection with the acquisition, renovation, construction and equipping of certain capital improvements for school projects, and WHEREAS, the School Board (the "School Board") of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "County") adopted a resolution on August 28, 1997 declaring its intention to reimburse itself from the proceeds of one or more tax-exempt financings for certain expenditures made and/or to be made in connection with the acquisition, renovation, construction and equipping of certain capital improvements for school projects, and WHEREAS, The School Board requested an advance of $ 50,000 on September 11, 1997 for environmental assessments, advertising costs for architects and engineers, core drillings, and other costs related to the acquisition of land in South County, and WHEREAS, the County Board approved this $50,000 advance on September 23, 1997, and WHEREAS, the School Board requested an additional advance of $1,721,200 on November 13, 1997 to hire architects to design various school projects, and WHEREAS, the County Board approved this $1,721,200 additional advance on November 18, 1997, and vf:!FINANCE\COMMON BOARDS-26-98.RES March 30, 1998 WHEREAS, the School Board requested an additional advance of $130,000 on November 13, 1997 to hire architects to begin renovations to the science labs, and WHEREAS, the County Board approved a $104,000 additional advance on December 16, 1997, and WHEREAS, the School Board now desires to hire contractors to begin a roof replacement program, Now THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the School Board requests the County Board to advance an additional sum of $200,000 to hire contractors to begin a roof replacement program. In addition, the School Board requests that the County Board amend Exhibit A of County Resolution 081997-1 to appropriately reflect the roof replacement program included in the Blue Ribbon Commission Report. M:'\FINANCECOMMON\\BOARD'\3-26-98.RES Mardi 30, 1998 Cow -of Roanoke, Virginia Resolution 081997-1 EXHIBIT A- (Amended) • Construction of a new South County High School • Construction of a new Athletic Complex for dual usage by the new South County High School and the existing Cave Spring High School. • Renovation of existing science laboratories at Northside High School, Glenvar High School, and -Cave Spring High School • Additions and improvements to Glenvar Middle School • Construction of a new Bonsack Elementary School • Renovations and additions to Burlington Elementary School • Renovations and additions to Clearbrook Elementary School • Roof replacement program M: FINANCE' COMMON' 'BOARD 3-26-98.RES March 30. 1998 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 ORDINANCE 042898-9 DENYING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO TAYLOR YEH AND JERMAINE ENGLISH TO ALLOW A DANCE HALL LOCATED AT 5610 WILLIAMSON ROAD (TAX MAP NOS. 38.10-5-7 AND 8), HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Taylor Yeh and Jermaine English have filed a petition to allow a dance hall located at 5610 Williamson Road (Tax Map Nos. 38.10-5-7 and 8) in the Hollins Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on April 7, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on March 24, 1998; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on April 28, 1998. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: On motion of Supervisor Johnson to DENY the special use permit, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney OD ?UM FlaNEW c rTY o OA N'KE %10 6T 5615 4 5539 4 4 S ne n 62 J5E3 e t BLUE RIDGE' MEMORIAL }GARDENS tttttyt t ttt 616 64 i . g 5626 25.1 et. 1533 1623 run 26 1.02Ac 36 Roanoke Mello/ Hygiene Service I.00Ac I NORTH 3.20Ac DEPARTMENT Or PLANNING Yeh-English Site Tax Map #38.10-5-8 AND ZONING . • PETITIONER: TAYLOR YEH AND JERMAINE ENGLISH CASE NUMBER: 9-4/98 Planning Commission Hearing Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: April 7, 1998 April 28, 1998 A. REQUEST Petition of Taylor Yeh and Jermaine English for a Special Use Permit to allow a dance hall, located at 5610 Williamson Road, Hollins Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Jeff Suhr, representing Boxley Hills Neighborhood Association, commented that he and his neighbors had attended the community meeting which caused concern about the impact on their neighborhood. He listed some of their concerns; increased traffic and congestion, noise, trash on adjacent properties, alcohol, and security. Tom Runions, a member of the Boxley Hills Assoc., stated that he and his neighbors feel this is an objectionable use in our neighborhood, particularly noise and traffic. Edward Banko said that his concerns have already been expressed. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION In response to the Commission staff said they are not aware of other similar facilities in the County. The Commission inquired about a recent disturbance that occurred at the site. Mr. English stated that it was a one-night rental (unsupervised) and they were not involved. Further, he said we do not want to have the type of functions that will require a lot of security. The applicants responded as follows to questions from the Commission: applicants have had experience in operation of this type of club; they plan to sell beer and wine and, according to them, food does not need to be served; plan to operate as a dance hall on a certain number of days per week (Thursday, Friday and Saturday), other things along with rental services will occur throughout the week. Staff responded to questions concerning the occupancy as follows: the BOCA Code will require the submission of architectural plans, with a seal, for interior upgrades including any required ADA standards. D. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Ross said that he is not concerned with the dance hall business but said that this site is not appropriate for it, and it is not consistent with the desirable land use types in the Transition area. He moved to recommend denial of the petition. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Robinson, Ross, Thomason, Hooker, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: Concept Plan Staff Report _ Vicinity Map Other Terrance Harrin n, Sectary Roanoke Cou y Planni g Commission STAFF REPORT PETITIONER: Taylor Yeh & PREPARED BY: John Murphy Jermaine English CASE NUMBER: 9- 4/98 DATE: 4/7/98 PART I A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a request for a special use permit to operate a dance hall at 5610 Williamson Road. While the property is zoned C-2, General Commercial, a special use permit is required for the operation of a dance hall. The two previous businesses licensed in the building at this location have been general restaurants. The operation of a dance hall would be a change of use for the building, would have a significant negative impact on the surrounding community and is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. B. DESCRIPTION Taylor Yeh and Jermaine English are requesting a special use permit, on two adjoining parcels, to operate a dance hall. The first parcel, approximately .77 acres, includes the 6760 square foot building, once housing the China World and most recently Southern Drawl restaurants. The special use permit would also include a second parcel, the .71 acre parking lot immediately adjoining the building to the north. The parking lot would be used for overflow parking from the parcel with the building housing the proposed dance hall. The property is zoned C-2 and the total of both parcels is 1.48 acres. The properties front on the west side of the 5600 block of Williamson Road (Route 11), in the Boxley Hills neighborhood, located in the Hollins Magisterial District. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The C-2, General Commercial District, allows many civic, office and retail uses by right. In addition dance halls are allowed only after a special use permit is obtained from the Board of Supervisors. The Zoning Ordinance defines a dance hall as an establishment in which more than ten (10) percent of the total floor area is designed or used as a dance floor, or where an admission fee is directly collected, or some other form of compensation is obtained for dancing. VDOT commercial entrance permits will be required. Although the site was previously a commercial operation, commercial entrance permits are not transferable between uses. • PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Site Characteristics - The property consists of a brick and wood frame building that was constructed in approximately 1959. The parking lot and surrounding driveways, which are level, are paved and are separated from Williamson Road by grass -covered planting strips. There are multiple access points from the parking areas to Williamson Road. There are pole lights on the northern and eastern sides of the parking areas. To the rear of the property is a narrow (6 foot) access to a 20-foot alley which was dedicated for public use with the platting of the Boxley Hill Subdivision in 1957. The alley intersects with Abney Road (Rt. 1844). Abney Road then feeds to the west, back into the Boxley Hills Neighborhood or to the east Abney Road intersects with Williamson Road approximately 200 feet north of the proposed site. Traffic Flows & Access - In 1995 the average daily trips (ADT) on Williamson Road was 18,000. Abney Road had an ADT of 1297 in 1994. This section of Williamson Road has traditionally had a "cruising" problem during warm weather and weekend evenings and nights. At the Roanoke City Limits, .2 miles south of the proposed location, northbound traffic on Williamson Road narrows from two lanes to one lane. There is a center turning lane for the businesses in this section of Williamson Road. Since the proposed dance hall is a change of use, the applicant will need to apply to VDOT for a commercial entrance permit. Adjoining and Surrounding Neighborhood - The property fronts on Williamson Road, with the Pilot Oil Gas & Convenience Store and the vacant Bonanza Restaurant Building fronting on the east side of Williamson Road directly across from the site. Immediately to the north of the overflow parking lot for the proposed dance hall, is the Clipper Food Mart. South of the site is a tanning salon and beauty shop. To the west, which is the rear of the building, is a 20-foot alley that ties into Abney Road. Just across the alley are the homes of the Boxley Hill Subdivision which was platted in 1957. Information from the Police Department indicated a large volume of calls for service at the businesses in this general area. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED PROJECT Proposed Use - The applicants for the special use permit request have presented an informal management plan to the community and planning staff at the community meeting. They would like to market the facility as a dance hall and entertainment center for the public. Their intentions are to actually operate the dance hall business 3 nights per week under their direction. The remaining nights would be available to be rented to the public for civic groups, non - profit organizations and for private parties and events. The management plan proposes no food service associated with the facility, yet it does show the availability of alcoholic beverages on site which is a violation of Virginia ABC Regulations. The security issue was not adequately addressed in the plan. Their presentation to the community could not specify if the security would be uniformed, licensed and bonded or just employees of the facility. The management plan did not address crowd control regulations, the handling of overflow parking situations, or noise abatement. The plan shows no details of responsibility for conformance to any applicable regulations, when the facility is rented to an outside organization. This same property, under the same ownership, was illegally rented out last year as a dance hall. The result was an overflow crowd spilling out of the building into the parking lot and on the property of several surrounding businesses. The result was an uncontrolled crowd on both sides of Williamson Road that prompted multiple calls to the Police Department and ultimately the problem escalated thus resulting in additional police officers being sent from the City of Roanoke to assist County Police. The vehicle traffic on Williamson Road was actually stopped as a result of the incident. Facility Layout - The existing 6760 square foot building was constructed as a restaurant. The proposed use is a dance hall. According to the BOCA National Building Code/1996, a dance hall is a use group change which would require the submission of architectural plans, with a seal, for interior upgrades including any required ADA standards. Based on the interior upgrades, the County Building Commissioner would then establish the maximum occupancy load for the new use. The applicants have stated, and submitted an interior floor plan shows that there will be no food service at the facility. Public Services - This property is currently served by public water and sewer. Fire and rescue services are provided by the Hollins Fire and Rescue Department, located at the intersection of Barrens Road and Peters Creek Road. Community Meeting - On Tuesday, March 31, 1998 a community meeting was held at the Hollins Library for the residential and business community of Boxley Hills. Approximately 38 members of that community were in attendance at the meeting. The neighbors were deeply concerned about the impact the proposed use would have on their properties. There were many concerns voiced by the community which were not satisfactorily addressed by the applicants. A list of the concerns from the neighbors included: additional heavy traffic in an already congested area, noise, especially late at night, violence at the facility and in the parking lot, loitering, alcohol related problems, security concerns, adequate parking, vandalism and hours of operation. There was a specific concern from the church two doors down where inner city children are bussed in on Friday evenings between the hours of 7PM and 9PM. The concerns of the neighbors were heightened because of the past history of the property. At the meeting the applicants provided a general "Proposed Business Plan." The participants at the meeting asked specific questions about some of the information in the plan and the applicants could not give specific answers to many of these questions. The applicants have proposed to the participants at the meeting that they would take all of their concerns that were voiced and rework their business plan to specifically address these concerns. The new business plan, according to the applicant, should be ready by the evening of the Planning Commission Meeting. • • • C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The site under review is designated within the Transition land use category in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map or policies of the Transition use category. Although the proposed use is for an existing building, the desirable land use types in the Transition areas include office and institutional uses as well as retail uses to a limited degree if clustered or within a planned shopping center. PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS The approval of the special use permit for the proposed use would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has not been provided any type of written documentation, from the applicants, that shows operational procedures for the prevention and/or management of undesirable activities commonly associated with a proposed use of this nature. Some of these undesirable activities would include building occupancy overload, alcohol related violations, traffic overflow, excessive noise, all- night hours, violence and traffic management concerns on Williamson Road in an already congested area. When the facility is rented to an outside group, staff has no written documentation, such as rental agreements, as to the type of regulations that would apply to this side of the operation. In addition, without written documentation staff has serious concerns about the responsible party for assuring that any regulations are enforced. Based on the lack of clear information submitted, the inability of the applicants to clearly present their proposals, a history of problems at this location when similar uses have occurred illegally, and the proposed use not conforming with the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends denial of the request. COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard Dr.., P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ( 540' 772-2068 FAX (540 ? 772-2108 Check type of application filed (check all that apply): El REZONING .SPECIAL USE ❑VARIANCE For staff use only date received:" itZC>(f3 received by: 41(21 a piication fee: PC/BZA/ da/te: placards issued: /-z-o7/9g BOS date: _ L/�J.Z$ �� Case Number: ` .. L/, 9 Applicant's narne:-TE,L,lor yth E J ;ne E Address:LI ) 00,14'618'ivd. c�cnoki VG Owner's name: Jor ycji Address: m4. CA.'S CAbO'JQ Phone: &Q -Ci110 _I Zip Code: Phone: Zip Code: Location of property: 660 W;U; o r-1'Soh 91j VG. gq011-7 Size of parcel (s): (o,%co acres sq.ft. c,r1 Tax Map Number: n , jD _5- 5 4 7 Magisterial District: N11i - Community Planning Area!?ref- CfQQr) Existing Zoning: C_ �a Existing Land Use: VG.ce.n }. /44,+r Proposed Zoning: C-a 5L4 Proposed Land Use:nCk Hill For Staff Use Only Use Type: Does the part imeet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES 1/ NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST, NO If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? YES NO Variance of Section(s) ki/A of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. Consultation Application Justification ws V 8 1 /2" x 1 1" concept plan Metes and bounds description Water and sewer application ws V r Application fee Proffers, if applicable Adjoining property owners / hereby certify that / am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge air d c�onsentAf he owner. Owner's Signature: For Staff Use Only: Case Number !r��•>> ft��.�{!7-r�•`•/SEE:f:iETf�Ei-+:,.yrn�±.{:,�{-k.i:E:::::::6::::::: t• Ed:J;i:1�fi�tlf i;t4:l��!;:�V�1;I;K;�7C��IlY�:i;iJ;c�F:;�Srl1`!T:;���i��i1.......:.:.:.:.:.:.:::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: • Applicant • The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit 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 Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. Our Cp9l `c .. }°ors d.o2S nod- C QL Qsl Can c. cud- -k r pt,c pote5 oc 4hQ Zone n Or81nunci C S�.C�?or, _ v),'Du& -1-0 locc.1 ors propvbcd but', (Q53 %° i-l1e tommi2ickd tzcet � 119C r & Q Coffin Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. pro°�,c* c.©n4of- ms �o C»d \ � �l c�,n�.r� c��c�e.1 ��e 'po ik C (1-5 eo n \t:'• nwA\ ti r> 414. ©e olf, C ca Coyy,prz Q.nS°vQ. 91Gr�, at.0 nQ 1 is Com C IIY C� L 1-k ,r� P .E ' a C©x b° nc.55 . c�.nec�. 5 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/rescue. OtAr. ec�c.\ i g �o Q..I° r',,c,,f1� e o unr Q.C.A.550-r- ct 5h i o,ne t5 r4 h\- occur on r\ Q. proprk- c uca,iI C5 S�nrrpt, nd; n cropc�-�" Q5 1 r\ro h 5acu�� �- pc�\-r-ol) v s° b\Q. n „ `'t) no�ti �,��,an canCi rnE n 1.S . T1n�, G pp " cA.14 on cioQS in 0+ f r.CNCS c o orrAl SLrv°CccS Crom the Zon°mrr,►5-Du on rtior ��°11 °+ in 'Tar S'fl.ra W°% 'W\ p o\1C 'tQ V C—QS j `nq WG.-kr-/sQ. ,-.Dv--) rOc�c�S, S0noo`S /rQcrac,. or\0-t QS . • ff. !-•-•"' 1 1 elf n.f 1 1 , : • rJ t 8 —J • 1 + o 1 i/ f omo /I1jif� t • J1.�LI 11 Ut ! / 3 BUFORD T. 'i tu*`i�N� : • (LICENSE} No 1010 & 173 16 ,e.s „Toe° .*.4r+ Ar J. re 7r\ • 11 (5 eoot1120 nu 123 •vr�r�; r '1 'it: .or prn• ,P lc pµr U 4/ /4.t e lil/iiiriil f t \,... CA.ii•v4, �.1nr \/ yYJLL/.4M'5' / 40.40. Al fr4. NOTE: 1N11 I1torEITY IS POT LOCATED IN A SPECIAL F1000 NA ARO ANEA AS 0ES1S'A1ED 11Y 1NE 1EC ETARP OF POUSIl4 A UOSA■ DEVELOPMENT. FLAT SHOWING HARBOR'S LING FISH C1+4P Slit SUNG ALL OF LOT I-C AND 1NE MAJOR PORTION Of LOT 1L0CI I. IOILEY MILL V.I. 3 9IVISION OF l01 1. ROANOKE COUNTY, VIAGINIA PAOPE111 OF: BILLY II. HARBOUR DAT( I1 HAY 1979 1'r6 JP- ,Cp 11.47 so' !// PI -Ia.) ;p. 5 PIG' sc_.t, t.. = SO' DUfOPc) Y. LUMIO4N R A9$OClATIII, P. C. CIAtuKo t.Awo tto+vtrons ttsommosol. V1046. sA I•1 PO. 210) 4' 1• • • 1. _....Ioo(' ! Id,r Lit -c • • <45 e OA __ Fivo Danct. ncs(l T Ext T 1o0C Plan • • • woori f,C PT Y \� OTc ROAN'EZKE NEW ndi. ERM AL ROANOKE EGIONAL IRPORT 11, 65 3g r 5603 ax !6 62 SSZ3e ve°xa 474 N4» 14 81UE RIDGE' f MEMORIAL tt 6ARDt is 16 251 3633 36Z3 27 17 5i36 oam DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING `(eh -English Site Tax Map #38.10-5-8 AND ZONING 36 Roanoke Menlo/ Hygiene Service 1.00 Ac NORTH 0 $ 3.20Ac 39 2.66 Ac AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO TAYLOR YEH AND JERMAINE ENGLISH TO ALLOW A DANCE HALL LOCATED AT 5610 WILLIAMSON ROAD (TAX MAP NOS. 38.10-5-7 AND 8), HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Taylor Yeh and Jermaine English have filed a petition to allow a dance hall located at 5610 Williamson Road (Tax Map Nos. 38.10-5-7 and 8) in the Hollins Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on April 7, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on March 24, 1998; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on April 28, 1998. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Taylor Yeh and Jermaine English to allow a dance hall to be located at 5610 Williamson Road (Tax Map Nos. 38.10-5-7 and 8) in the Hollins Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.2- 2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in C:\OFFICE\ WPWIN\ WPDOCS\ AGENDA\ZONING\YEHENGLI.SUP 1 Ti conflict repealed. district with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. C:\OFFICE\ WPWIN\ WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\YEHENGLI.SUP 2 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 ORDINANCE 042898-10 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OHIO STATE CELLULAR AND THE CITY OF SALEM TO CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 4135 WEST MAIN STREET (TAX MAP NO. 54.04-1-10), CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Ohio State Cellular and the City of Salem have filed a petition to construct a wireless communications tower located at 4135 West Main Street (Tax Map No. 54.04-1-10) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the City of Salem is the owner of the real estate located at 4135 West Main Street (Tax Map No. 54.04-1-10); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on April 7, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on March 24, 1998; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on April 28, 1998. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Ohio State Cellular and the City of Salem to construct a wireless communications tower located at 4135 West Main Street (Tax Map No. 54.04-1-10) in the Catawba Magisterial District is substan- tially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1 1. The height of the proposed tower, excluding any antenna attached to the tower shall not exceed 120 feet above grade. The structure constructed shall be constructed to accommodate a structure capable of being increased to 160 feet; however, the tower structure shall not be increased to 160 feet unless the increase is required to accommodate co -location of equipment for another vendor/provider, and any increase in tower height above 120 feet shall be subject to an additional special use permit application. 2. Any costs associated with relocating or modifying the tower and related equipment resulting from the proposed widening of 1-81 shall be the responsibility of the applicant and/or the owner of the tower. 3. The tower structure and all attached hardware shall be a flat matted color so as to reduce visibility and light reflection. 4. No lighting shall be installed on the tower structure. Security lighting may be provided on site, at a height not to exceed 25 feet. 5. This tower shall be structurally designed to carry sufficient loading and the site shall be developed to accommodate the additional equipment necessary for at least three other vendors/providers in order to minimize the proliferation of towers in the vicinity of the site. In addition, by executing the Special Use Permit, the applicant and owner of the land agree to make the tower and tower site available for lease within the structural capacity of the tower and at reasonable costs adequate to recover the capital, operating and maintenance costs of the tower location required for the additional capacity. 6. If the use of the tower structure for wireless communications is discontinued , the tower structure shall be dismantled and removed from the site within 30 days of notice by the County, and the Special Use Permit shall become void. 7. The location of the tower structure and related equipment shall be as shown on the undated plan included with the application entitled "Proposed City of Salem and United States Cellular 120' Monopole Tower located on the Glenvar Water Treatment Plant site; prepared by DanCell Inc. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. 2 On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: rn� i4! Qum✓ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 3 NORTH fa" Law,/ �✓�H GLKA 2.83Ac. W) .4ZAs1Ci DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING . DanCell Inc. Agents for Ohio .State Cellular, Co. Tax Map # 54.04-1-10 'or PETITIONER: OHIO STATE CELLULAR -WEST MAIN STREET CASE NUMBER: 7-4/98 Planning Commission Hearing Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: April 7, 1998 April 28, 1998 A. REQUEST Petition of Ohio State Cellular for a Special Use Permit to add a wireless telecommunications tower to an existing facility, located at 4135 West Main Street, Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission inquired how many additional carriers could be supported on the proposed tower. A representative of Ohio State Cellular responded that the proposed tower could structurally support up to 3 or 4 additional carriers depending on the equipment needed by the other carriers. Ohio State stated that the useful radius of the proposed tower is 3 to 4 miles. This site is needed to address the demands being placed on their system by additional customer loads. Mr. Witt expressed a concern that we will receive additional tower applications in the same area because the requested 120 foot tower is not high enough to meet the needs of additional providers. Ohio State Cellular responded that the tower height can be structurally extended to a height of 160 feet if necessary and that the city of Salem has no objection to a higher tower. Mr. Ross indicated that the applicant has found a tower site that is in an industrially zoned area along an interstate highway and that it is not on a ridge line. The applicant is willing to allow co -location, and the tower will be designed to allow co -location at a higher height than currently requested. He said he believes the applicant has done a good job of site selection and have found a good site. Ms. Hooker agreed. D. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS The following conditions are recommended by the staff and commission: 1. The height of the proposed tower, excluding any antenna attached to the tower shall not exceed 120 feet above grade. The structure constructed shall be constructed to accommodate a structure capable of being increased to 160 feet; however, the tower structure shall not be increased to 160 feet unless the increase is required to accommodate co -location of equipment for another vendor/provider, and any increase in tower height above 120 feet shall be subject to an additional special use permit application. 2. Any costs associated with relocating or modifying the tower and related equipment resulting from the proposed widening of 1-81 shall be the responsibility of the applicant and/or the owner of the tower. 3. The tower structure and all attached hardware shall be a flat matted color so as to reduce visibility and Tight reflection. 4. No lighting shall be installed on the tower structure. Security lighting may be provided on site, at a height not to exceed 25 feet. 5. This tower shall be structurally designed to carry sufficient loading and the site shall be developed to accommodate the additional equipment necessary for at least three other vendors/providers in order to minimize the proliferation of towers in the vicinity of the site. In addition, by executing the Special Use Permit, the applicant and owner of the land agree to make the tower and tower site available for lease within the structural capacity of the tower and at reasonable costs adequate to recover the capital, operating and maintenance costs of the tower location required for the additional capacity. 6. If the use of the tower structure for wireless communications is discontinued , the tower structure shall be dismantled and removed from the site within 30 days of notice by the County, and the Special Use Permit shall become void. 7. The location of the tower structure and related equipment shall be as shown on the undated plan included with the application entitled "Proposed City of Salem and United States Cellular 120' Monopole Tower located on the Glenvar Water Treatment Plant site; prepared by DanCell Inc. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Hooker noted that the monopole is not as obtrusive as a tower could be and the applicants have shown their ability and willingness to co -locate other carriers. She moved to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Robinson, Ross, Hooker, Witt NAYS: Thomason ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE Mr. Thomason said he will not support the motion because we need a broader look and a 30 day delay is reasonable to allow staff to get more information. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report . _ Other Terrance H - ingtdn, : ecretary Roanoke ' ounty P -nning Commission STAFF REPORT PART I PETITION: Ohio State Cellular FILE NO.: 7-4/98 PREPARED BY: Terrance Harrington DATE PREPARED: April 8, 1998 A. DESCRIPTION This is a petition filed by DanCell Inc., agent for Ohio State Cellular. The request is for special use permit to construct a 120 foot monopole wireless communications tower on a 15.87 acre site on West Main Street in the Glenvar community, Catawba Magisterial District. The property is zoned 1-1 Industrial. The property is currently owned by the City of Salem and is used as a water treatment facility. Broadcasting towers are permitted by Special Use in 1-1 districts. B. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 30-61-2 B of the zoning ordinance allows towers by Special Use in 1-1 Districts. Such towers, if permitted by the Board are subject to the Use and Design Standards contained in Section 30-87-2 of the zoning ordinance. These standards pertain to setbacks, lighting and airport safety. If approved by the Board, final compliance with these standards shall be achieved as part of the site plan review procedure. PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS The 15.87 acre site is currently developed and used as a water treatment facility owned and operated by the City of Salem. The site is relatively flat, yet rises slightly to the north near Interstate 81. The property has frontage on West Main Street and along 1-81. No significant vegetation exists on the site. Most of the site is currently used for water treatment facilities and storage tanks. Small clusters of trees exist near the edges of the property as it abuts 1-81 Current access to the site is from West Main Street. No additional access is proposed. Traffic volumes from the existing water treatment use are minimal. 2. The surrounding neighborhood is primarily a mixture of commercial, industrial and institutional uses along West Main Street. The closest residential development to the site is to the northeast along Crossmill Lane where approximately 6 homes exist. Additional residential development is located on the north side of 1-81 in the Fort Lewis Church Road area, including the Cherokee Hills subdivision. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT A 120 foot self-supporting monopole wireless communication tower is proposed. (Note: the tower will be identical in design and height as the monopole tower recently constructed along 1-581 near Orange Avenue). The installation of this new tower will allow Ohio State Cellular to upgrade their existing service in this area. The applicant has indicated that this additional tower will allow upgraded services within a 3-4 mile service area. The proposed tower site and equipment building will be located within a 60' X 60' enclosed pad in the north east corner of the site near 1-81, approximately 70 feet from the existing 1-81 right-of-way. The existing driveway on the property will be extended approximately 350 feet to the site of the tower and equipment building In evaluating this request, the staff evaluated the possibility of co -location on existing structures in this general area of the county. The staff did not identify any existing structures in this general area that would have an apparent height sufficient to meet the needs of Ohio State Cellular. There are existing AEP towers near the Dixie Cavern exit to 1-81, and existing public and private communications towers on Fort Lewis Mountain and Little Brushy Mountain. However, according to statements made by Ohio State Cellular, these sites are too far removed from the service area needed by the company. C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed site is located in a Principal Industrial (PI) Land Use Area. Although no policies within this designation specifically address communication towers, the PI designation promotes the siting of higher intensity land uses. Petition: 2 File No.: Ta PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS The towers lower base elevation and lower height are a function of Ohio State Cellular's need to provide improved service within an area already served by basic cellular service. Because the tower is at a lower elevation, it will not have the widespread viewshed impacts associated with towers on ridge lines or mountain sides. The proposed tower is in a heavily traveled commercial and industrial corridor along a major interstate highway. It will be most visible to motorists traveling on 1-81 and Route 11 Certain property owners who reside at higher elevations in the area will also have a view of the tower dependent upon obstructions in the foreground of their view. Petition: 3 File No.: r COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard O r . •. • P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ( 540' 772-2068 FAX (540) 772-2108 For staff use only date; ceiv. d:' received by: application (5e: lacards issued: SOS dace:{/ Aoli aft it Case Nurnbcr: ` iI`40' T Check type of application ffile4, (check all that apply): ❑ REZONING LI' "SPECIAL USE MI VARIANCE Applicant's name: DanCell Inc. Agents for Ohio State Cellular Phone Company, a Florida Address: Corporation d.b.a United States Cellular Wireless Communications. 621 S. Navy Blvd., Pensacola Florida 3250.7. Ph 850-453-9914 _ Owner's name: City of Salem, Virginia, City Manager, P.O. Box 869, Salem, Virginia Address: 24153. Ph 540-375-3007. 'Location of property: Litz-t.iEl 1V t S`�'�c\--- S ,,t,_ \j Ar 2_y 1.53 Tax Map Number: 1 4 Q { —. 1 — ICI Magisterial District: C(4,J 211, - Community Planning Area: C-1 v -.. Size of parcel (s): 1.5 .' ? acres Existing Zoning: ,__ 1 ' Existing Land use: City of Salem Glenvar Water Treatment Facility sq.ft. Proposed Land Use: To the existing Use, add a Wireless Telecommunications Facility, comprised of an-"approx. 60' x 60' compound with 120' Monopole tower and 1 x 24' Equipment shelter. . E+ -If-start- (1 c , Use Type: Does the 'parcel meet the minimum lot area, Witth, and frontage requirements of the requested dis:rict? YES ✓ NO IF NO, -:A VA IA.NCE'IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES V NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. • If rezoning request, are conditions being proffer__ with this request? YES NO :_ �. fir': ,.,.. . y� � •rt Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke Count! Zoning Ordinance in crier to: r- Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL iiOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. rsts .'v RvS V Consultation Application Justification I hereby certify that I am either tli; am acting with the know/ed Owner's Signature: ws V 8 1 /2" x i 1" concept plan - Metes and bounds description - Water and sower application Application fee Proffers, if applicable Adjoining property owners wner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and 'onsent of the owner. 1/`-' For Staff Use Only: Case Number Applicant .......... .... DanCell Inc. Agents for Ohio State Cellular Phone Company, d.b.a. United States Cellular Wireless Communications The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit 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 Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as'`well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district -classification in the zoning ordinance. This request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The project is to be located in an Industrial Zone (I-1) and is a Permitted Use for this type impact, in short the Current Zoning supports this request. • Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. This project conforms to the general guidelines and polices contained • in the Roanoke County Comprehensive plan. To the extent that because of proper zoning, this activity will support the overall intent of the Comprehensive plan. Please describe the impact(s) of the request dri 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/rescue. The impact of this project on the surrounding area will be beneficial. Its services will assist the public good by providing better wireless communications services. Due to the location in a developed Industrial Zone and its limited height it will have almost no visual impact to the adjoining properties. The unmanned nature and automatic operation of this project ensures that once constructed it will not have any impact on local Water/Sewer, Roads, Schools, Parks/Recreation or other Public Services or Facilities. w 0 • (1) O — c tn O 4-1 C 0 O- N C coE tl) ) L. U • 1.• CU • CI) CO ▪ C▪ V (/) I) Ca 4-3 c C a) 0,ZI c (13 o o .9 0 -0 (r) 0 0 ct. • ----"'---,.,.„ ... --7.:-.7.:4:::::Lv*H-71-72*:-•:.--,,---.D. ...* .0.,*,;..... „,,,,,,Ic....-,.. .,• 0 < u-z < 2 al 5 LLI _1 x w trt 0 U 3 < o CC MI a. WI Z c/a 0 < cn c 0 o z c4 a 0 c) co 0 Z ° tnujw 0 LU 0 > 0uJ 0 _.I go co 0 cc U.S. Cellular -. Glenvar Site Site #764315 120' Monopole Tower ELECTRIC METER PEDESTAL 24'-0" 5`-0" a ! 0 Equipment Shelter 0 1 20' Monopole 60' Prepared by: DanCell Inc., 621 S. Navy Blvd., Pensacola FL 32507 FJ t RT7054 TOMAHAWK z ARROW I <- WN°wrNO I 1,,,,O NVAR KGMIrl• DAN 441,:74 DR RrgLEw.rS. RESCUE SOU 0 • 8FIRESTN. SALEM., WATERFIL PLANT 1 , 3.25 Ac 4 117 fart lMN NI/0 CALL. 2.83Ac (D) ,42AciC) AARk STATE Q PQLICE' NDVST NORTH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING DanCell Inc. Agents for Ohio State Cellular, Co. Tax Map # 54.04-1-10 VIEW FROM U.S. ROUTE II O N 0 v >, CO la N co v_e vo La en cy 0 00 00 00 0 0 CO er M CO et M M 0 0 M 0 O CO N 0 0 eD N 0 O sr 0 0 N 0 O O ient plant 0 o 0 0 00 0 co c0 st N 0 (D AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OHIO STATE CELLULAR AND THE CITY OF SALEM TO CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 4135 WEST MAIN STREET (TAX MAP NO. 54.04-1-10), CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Ohio State Cellular and the City of Salem have filed a petition to construct a wireless communications tower located at 4135 West Main Street (Tax Map No. 54.04-1-10) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the City of Salem is the owner of the real estate located at 4135 West Main Street (Tax Map No. 54.04-1-10); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on April 7, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on March 24, 1998; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on April 28, 1998. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Ohio State Cellular and the City of Salem to construct a wireless communications tower located at 4135 West Main Street (Tax Map No. 54.04-1- 10) in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1 1. The height of the proposed tower, excluding any antenna attached to the tower shall not exceed 120 feet above grade. The structure constructed shall be constructed to accommodate a structure capable of being increased to 160 feet; however, the tower structure shall not be increased to 160 feet unless the increase is required to accommodate co -location of equipment for another vendor/provider, and any increase in tower height above 120 feet shall be subject to an additional special use permit application. 2. Any costs associated with relocating or modifying the tower and related equipment resulting from the proposed widening of I-81 shall be the responsibility of the applicant and/or the owner of the tower. 3. The tower structure and all attached hardware shall be a flat matted color so as to reduce visibility and light reflection. 4. No lighting shall be installed on the tower structure. Security lighting may be provided on site, at a height not to exceed 25 feet. 5. This tower shall be structurally designed to carry sufficient loading and the site shall be developed to accommodate the additional equipment necessary for at least three other vendors/providers in order to minimize the proliferation of towers in the vicinity of the site. In addition, by executing the Special Use Permit, the applicant and owner of the land agree to make the tower and tower site available for lease within the structural capacity of the tower and at reasonable costs adequate to recover the capital, operating and maintenance costs of the tower location required for the additional capacity. 6. If the use of the tower structure for wireless communications is discontinued , the tower structure shall be dismantled and removed from the site within 30 days of notice by the County, and the Special Use Permit shall become void. 7. The location of the tower structure and related equipment shall be as shown on the undated plan included with the 2 T,, application entitled "Proposed City of Salem and United States Cellular 120' Monopole Tower located on the Glenvar Water Treatment Plant site; prepared by DanCell Inc. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\OSC.SUP 3 t�mim11 111lm11111111 imuu1ulllllll1lullllull111111111111111111i11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 w i i i c PUBLIC HEARING '" ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS :' SUBJECT: =- ifl d cG FsS 7 L. ('c6ry • 7Z /Z e Ism Ism Mem Min Lam MOO iman MEE e e lwARO Mew NMI e MOM nom AGENDA [I'EM NO. CE REQUEST I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY' THE GUIDELINES LIS'i'ED BELOW: ® Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of • view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. • Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. • Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. ;_ a INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CIL FRK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. i. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK • i. a s i. NAME \1 4 . �/t?2/c/,..1 — -C- OvInA A6ze . MIMEO MINK lea N am Mom aim W▪ INN c Mom Nom i▪ • NMI Moo Mom O EM Ulm Mal BIM MOM Mao MEM aims mani Inesi VIM IBMs Ma▪ im WON Nam 1._ Imo AMA Ism IBMS Mom rn o Mon Ems s e e ems 11•11a MOOS mon Maim MIER O ▪ MEN Boom alma aim N EMEC maw 1.▪ 00 a ,,t1S 6c /� Z4'a7. _ c PHONE -- y1' 3- '-9 i i = � ih= tliilliliiiiillllilUlilililunni111iiiiilililUlillUliillliillllliliillllliillininimii111111i111i1 uillimmulli AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 ORDINANCE 042898-11 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 2-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROSECREST ROAD AND ROUTE 221 (TAX MAP NOS. 86.12-3-14; 15; 16 AND PART OF 86.12-3-13) IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 WITH CONDITIONS AND GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A HOME FOR ADULTS UPON THE APPLICATION OF STEPHEN AND MARIE FREEMAN WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 24, 1998, and the second reading and public hearing were held April 28, 1998; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on April 7, 1998; 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 2 acres, as described herein, and located at the southwest corner of Rosecrest Road and Route 221 (Tax Map Numbers 86.12-3-14; 15; 16 and part of 86.12-3-13) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-1, Office District, to the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Stephen and Marie Freeman. 3. That the Board finds that the granting of a Special Use Permit to Stephen 1 and Marie Freeman to construct a home for adults to be located at the southwest corner of Rosecrest Road and Route 221 (Tax Map Numbers 86.12-3-14; 15; 16 and part of 86.12-3-13) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved. 4. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions, which apply to the rezoning and the Special Use Permit, which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (1) The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the Cave Spring Independent Senior Living Concept Development Plan for Doug Freeman prepared by Balzer & Associates, dated February 18, 1998. (2) The property will only be used as an independent senior living center. (3) Exterior lighting elements will be of a downlit box design and will not exceed 20 feet in height. In all other aspects, exterior lighting will conform with Section 30-94 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. (4) Waste debris and trash will be contained on this property in appropriate trash facilities. If fencing is required to accomplish this condition then it shall be constructed at the request of Roanoke County and at the expense of the property owners. (5) The building appearance and exterior materials, excluding 2 landscaping, will be in substantial conformity with the architectural rendering, dated March 26, 1998. (6) The building will be brick to grade on all sides. (7) The Petitioners will design the parking area so as to permit the linking of the parking area to the adjoining property. 5. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point on the westerly side of Brambleton Avenue (Route 221) at its intersection with the northerly side of Ryan Lane; thence S 65° 55' 23" W 7.28 feet; thence N 61° 42' 37" W 110.56 feet; thence N 67° 37' 35" W 92.70 feet to a point on the easterly side of Bill and Kathleen Sizemore (Tax Map No. 86.12-3-18); thence N. 22° 01' 17" E 316.80 feet to a point; thence N 83° 39' 17" E 102.10 feet to a point; thence S 22° 04' 17" W 93.05 feet to a point; thence S 68° 11' 15" E 130.38 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way of Brambleton Avenue; thence with the same S 24° 34' 31" W 475 feet to the point and place of beginning and containing 1.5 acres, more or less. 6. 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. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: 3 Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney SJJS SJX DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 14 4. Cants,:¢ AM/Ba1rI RCawpa Crawl, C.darr.od In • • N\ • NORTH p4 .. 9 l06 WI , .. - 3.27J. ]G Y IC • • • • • • �e \ Can Spray \ \ ✓aanr nap Saul \ \ \ \ \ \ Cs mr Sal 84441 r\ \ Rear Cawry \ \ 19 N. \ 2T04 ss m \ \ SSA ae ICI 4 29 • \ / \ ry4,40 \ I1 ' 411. L12: JpY \ • STEPHEN & MARIE FREEMAN C-1 TO C-2 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 86.12-3-14; .-15; -16 & p/o 86.12-3-13 14 PETITIONER: STEPHEN & MARIE FREEMAN CASE NUMBER: 8-4/98 Planning Commission Hearing Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: April 7, 1998 April 28, 1998 A. REQUEST Petition of Stephen & Marie Freeman to rezone approximately 2.0 acres from C-1 to C-2 and obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a home for adults, located at the southwest corner of Rosecrest Road and Route 221, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Thomason asked if any consideration has been given to putting up a fence across the front as a visual retainer. Ed Natt responded that the site is already compact and constructing a fence would add to an even tighter appearance. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS NOTE: CONDITIONS APPLY TO REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT. 1) The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the Cave Spring Independent Senior Living Concept Development Plan for Doug Freeman prepared by Balzer & Associates, dated February 18, 1998. 2) The property will only be used as an independent senior living center. 3) Exterior lighting elements will be of a downlit box design and will not exceed 20 feet in height. In all other aspects, exterior lighting will conform with Section 30-94 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. 4) Waste debris and trash will be contained on this property in appropriate trash facilities. If fencing is required to accomplish this condition then it shall be constructed at the request of Roanoke County and at the expense of the property owners. 5) The building appearance and exterior materials, excluding landscaping, will be in substantial conformity with the architectural rendering, dated March 26, 1998. 6) The building will be brick to grade on all sides. 7) The Petitioners will design the parking area so as to permit the linking of the parking area to the adjoining property. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Thomason moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request with proffered conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Robinson, Ross, Thomason, Hooker, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. Thomason moved to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit with conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Robinson, Ross, Thomason, Hooker, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan Vicinity Map Staff Report Other Terrance H rington ecretary Roanoke ounty PI nning Commission • STAFF REPORT Case Number: 8-4/98 Prepared by: Janet Scheid Applicant: Stephen & Marie Freeman Date: April 7, 1998 PART I A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Petitioners propose to construct a residential facility for independent senior adults. The request is consistent with the proposed Transition land use designation of this area of Route 221. B. DESCRIPTION OF PETITION The petitioners are requesting that 1.5 acres be rezoned from C-1, Office to C-2, General Commercial for the purpose of constructing a residential facility for independent senior citizens. This type of use is classified in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance as a Home for Adults and also requires a Special Use Permit. The petitioners' property is located at the corner of Ryan Lane (private road) and Brambleton Avenue (Route 221). The site consists of 3 lots and a portion of a fourth lot. One of these lots is a Roanoke County well"lot and is owned by the Board of Supervisors. The well has been taken off-line and the Freeman are negotiating the purchase of the lot. The property is in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 1. Section 30-29-3 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines Home for Adults as "An establishment that provides shelter and services which may include meals, housekeeping, and personal care assistance primarily for the elderly. Residents are usually functionally impaired and socially isolated but otherwise in good health. They are able to maintain a semi-independent life style, not requiring the more extensive care of a nursing home." • • 2. A Home for Adults is only allowed by Special Use in the AV, Agricultural Village and C-2, General Commercial districts. There are no additional Use and Design Standards for this use type. 3. A commercial entrance permit will be required by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). In addition, VDOT may require a deceleration lane and a turning lane. 4. Section 30-54-3, Site Development Regulations in the C-2 District, will control building height and setbacks. PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. Lot Area - Petitioners' site consists of approximately 1.5 acres. The land is relatively flat and is oriented towards the Route 221 frontage. Behind petitioners' site, the land slopes down to a creek and then rises slightly towards the adjoining residential property to the rear. 2. Location - The site is located at the corner of Ryan Lane and Brambleton Avenue across from Cave Spring Junior High School. 3. Buildings/Structures - There are no buildings on this site. 4. Access - Access to this site is via Route 221. During the widening of Route 221 two access points to this site were constructed. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1. Use - Petitioners propose to construct a 3-story, 76 unit building that will provide residential facilities for senior adults. Petitioners intend to market these units to independent senior citizens who do not need daily medical care or living assistance. Petitioners do not intend to provide any type of health care on the premises. • Each unit will contain approximately 400 square feet and consist of a bedroom, a living area and a wetbar/microwave area. The facility will provide 3 meals/day, 7 days/week in a central kitchen and dining room area. Other centralized amenities will include an activity room, library and linen laundry service. This type of facility does not require any type of licensing by the State or Federal government. All units will be leased on a month -by -month basis with approximate cost in the range of $1,300-$1,500 per month. The petitioners intend to have live-in management, possibly two couples, and expect that the facility will require a total of 4 or 5 full and part-time employees. The building will be brick to grade on all sides. The exterior will also feature some type of siding and a pitched, shingled roof. 2. Access to Site - Access will be from Route 221. Petitioners propose one entrance/exit point approximately in the middle of the property. 3. Circulation - As you enter the site you will proceed straight to the front of the building or to the right into the parking lot. To the left of the entrance is a 12 foot service drive that will provide access to the back of the building for deliveries and trash service. 4. Traffic Count - In 1996, Route 221 had approximately 20,000 vehicles per day in the vicinity of this site. It is expected that the proposed land use would generate very little additional traffic. 5. Public Services - Public water and sewer is available to this site. 6. Site Design Issues Lighting - This property is bordered on the back by R-1, Residential. Overhead, outdoor lighting in this area is a 3 concern for some residents. Trash service - A private contractor will provide trash pick up. Residents have expressed concern regarding trash blowing onto adjoining properties. Parking - The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance requires 1 space for every 3 residents. In addition, one space is required for each employee. A total of 32 spaces are shown on the proffered concept plan. 7. Amenities - Petitioners have indicated that the far northern corner of this site will be an area for some additional landscaping, possibly a gazebo or shelter area for outdoor recreation. The concept or design for this area has not been proffered. 8. Signage - Signage will conform to the zoning ordinance which allows 1.5 square feet of signage/linear foot of frontage. Petitioners' site has approximately 280 feet of frontage. 9. Community Meeting - A community meeting was held on March 26 and attended by approximately 35 citizens. Many residents of this area of Rt. 221 stated that the petitioners' proposed land use seemed to be very compatible with the surrounding residential and school uses. Some citizens expressed concern about the following issues: 1)lighting; 2)fencing to contain trash; 3)definition of Home for Adults; 4)type of residents; and the 5)residual three lots to the north. C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The 1985 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Neighborhood Conservation. This designation establishes neighborhood areas where the highest degree of protection is appropriate. When the 1985 Plan was prepared the residential and commercial growth and development in the Rt. 221 corridor was not anticipated. It is staff's opinion, that given the significant residential and commercial growth in this corridor and the widening of Rt. 221 to five lanes, the Neighborhood Conservation designation is no longer appropriate. 4 • An analysis of land use determinants for this site indicate that it has frontage on a primary road and is oriented towards that frontage, it is in an urban service area and serves a buffer between the major road and the residential neighborhoods. Considering these factors it is staff's opinion that Transition is the appropriate designation for this site and the areas to the north. The following land use types are desirable within the Transition designation: office and institutional uses, retail uses when clustered or within a planned shopping center (free- standing retail uses are discouraged), multi -family and attached single-family uses and outdoor recreational facilities such as tennis courts and swimming pools. The petitioners' request for a specific C-2 use, a Home for Adults, is consistent with the Transition land use designation. PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS Staff recommends approval of the petitioners' request for rezoning from C-1 to C-2 and approval of the Special Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the Cave Spring Independent Senior Living Concept Development Plan for Doug Freeman prepared by Balzer & Associates, dated February 18, 1998. 2. The property will only be used as an independent senior living center. 3. Exterior lighting elements will be of a downlit box design and will not exceed 20 feet in height. In all other aspects, exterior lighting will conform with Section 30-94 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. 4. Waste debris and trash will be contained on this property in appropriate trash facilities. If fencing is required to 5 accomplish this condition then it shall be constructed at the request of Roanoke County and at the expense of the property owners. 5. The building landscaping, architectural 6. The building appearance and exterior materials, excluding will be in substantial conformity with the rendering, dated March 26, 1998. will be brick to grade on all sides. PREPARED BY: JANET SCHEID DATE PREPARED: March 31, 1998 • • 6 1-.2 • Acdnl 'C�sJA { F-ZA)rit-i21dt3Ci ` AU2rfn ac: , L9`1%.- S tph d /-{A�i� 2Gezoo,3c, gj"`-(1,9-`15 • raD-Jo-JO NCI 10•u. r r r. Vu Gltw t Ln111111YLJ r nn IYV I VD I f GC. 1 U0 1, VC - COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard Dr.• P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 { 540' 772-2068 FAX (540 ) 772-2108 For staff use only receive blt app cati• SOS dace: Cast Number: 1 41 lit 'ii; : i ii a. ii�:;:�jj:ii::i::::::�:i:i::�: ..... ............... ............ ...... ... ... :1:::::::::::: is •. . : : ... .. ....... . Check type of application filed (check all that apply): (XI REZONING CXJ SPECIAL USE • VARIANCE Applicant's name: Stephen D. and Marie Freeman ATTN: Edward A. Nett Phone: 774-1197 P.O.®OX 20068 Address: 3539 Peakwood, Roanoke, Virginia Roanoke, VA Zip Code: 24018 Owner's name: Stephen D. and Marie Freeman Phone: 774-6500 Address: 3539 Peakwood, Roanoke, Virginia Zip Code: Location of property: Southwest corner of Rosecrest Road and Route 221 Tax Map Number: 86.12-3- 14 & 15 , 16 & aPar.tio t 86.12-3-13 .Magisterial District: Windsor Hi I Is Community Planning Area: Cave Spring Size of parrsel (s): 1.50 _ acres Existing Zoning: C-1 Existing Land Use: Vacant sq.ft. ti: SY i;: .i j; i; : S:• Proposed Zoning: C-2 Proposed Land Use: Independent senior living project (Home for Adults) For staff use Only use Type: : Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES X - NO IF NO.,•A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES X NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? YES X NO f•is i: h i;s 1. liii_:; Variance of Section('s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws v X X Consultation Application Justification ws V 8 1 /2" x 1 1' concept plan Metes and bounds description Water and sewer application cus v X X Application fee Proffers, if applicable Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that 1 am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature: ILO 1J OU I R1 1U•UJ RRG VU LIYU/ I Lnl'!11117U r nn IYV. f UJ I I CC 1 UO For Staff Use Only: Casa Number f . UJ -r-3 Applicant .d01611 :�.-.�il%i�+ r�,, �{�1•:�.1�::5%! .��f :. �i�::���T�:�r'�C:1�7CL �. ,4•i�:C. The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit 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 Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. The rezoning and issuance of a special use permit will further the purposes of the zoning ordinance in that it will allow for a residential use on a parcel of land located on a major highway. The residential use will be for senior residents who will be able to reside in the premises on a leasehold basis. No medical assistance will be given. The individuals residing on the property will be ful ly capable of taking care of their individual needs. The project will provide for a central kitchen facility and recreational uses while providing independent homes. The use will be compatible with the surrounding area. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The existing zoning of the.property is commercial. The proposed use is a commercial but is not an intense commercial use and, therefore, would be appropriate in the neighborhood conservation district. 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/rescue. The proposed use will not have a negative impact on public services and facilities. There will be no additional demands on roads, schools, or fire. There will be no increase in water or sewer use other than that which would be allowed in a C-1 use for which the property is presently zoned. !II i11i! i 1! rh b'INI`Jtlin- ,U.NITUJ y.>1(J14VVtl (WA 1110113931 NHW33Ei3 onoa 3V3 hrfr • • 999 t 1S9011 f } kts, em aril t 1 � I iifNIIS '3 1 moo_ II I I� 1 1 17 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 'r3 NORTH STEPHEN & MARIE FREEMAN C-1 TO C-2 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 86.12-3-14; .-15; -16 & P/o 86.12-3-13 PROFFERS The und ersigned do hereby proffer the following conditions in conjunction with the rezoning: he roperty will be developed in substantial conformity 1, T P with the Cave Spring Independent Senior Living Concept Development Plan for Doug Freeman prepared by Balzer & Associates, dated February 18, 1998. roperty will only be used as an independent senior 2. The P living center. downlit box 3. Exterior lighting elements will be of a In all other design and will not exceed 20 feet in height. 30-94 of the aspects, exterior lighting will conform with Section Zoning Ordinance. Roanoke County ro erty 4. Waste debris and trash will be contained on this p d to ifi appropriate trash facilities. If fencing is require this condition, then it shall be constructed at the accomplish reque st of Roanoke County and at the expense of the property owners. The building appearance and exterior materials, excluding 5• with the landscaping, will be in substantial conformity dated March 26, 1998. architectural rendering, on all sides. 6. The building will be brick to grade 7. The Pet itioners will design the parking area so as to permit the linking of the parking area to the adjoining property. ' MARIE FREEMAN Z:\WP50\LISA\ZONING\SPRINGWO.PRO:laf04/20/98 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 2-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROSECREST ROAD AND ROUTE 221 (TAX MAP NOS. 86.12-3-14; 15; 16 AND PART OF 86.12- 3-13) IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 WITH CONDITIONS AND GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A HOME FOR ADULTS UPON THE APPLICATION OF STEPHEN AND MARIE FREEMAN WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 24, 1998, and the second reading and public hearing were held April 28, 1998; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on April 7, 1998; 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 2 acres, as described herein, and located at the southwest corner of Rosecrest Road and Route 221 (Tax Map Numbers 86.12-3- 14; 15; 16 and part of 86.12-3-13) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-1, Office District, to the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Stephen and 1 -7=3 Marie Freeman. 3. That the Board finds that the granting of a Special Use Permit to Stephen and Marie Freeman to construct a home for adults to be located at the southwest corner of Rosecrest Road and Route 221 (Tax Map Numbers 86.12-3-14; 15; 16 and part of 86.12-3-13) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved. 4. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions, which apply to the rezoning and the Special Use Permit, which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (1) The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the Cave Spring Independent Senior Living Concept Development Plan for Doug Freeman prepared by Balzer & Associates, dated February 18, 1998. (2) The property will only be used as an independent senior living center. (3) Exterior lighting elements will be of a downlit box design and will not exceed 20 feet in height. In all other aspects, exterior lighting will conform with Section 30-94 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. (4) Waste debris and trash will be contained on this property in appropriate trash facilities. If fencing is required 2 T- 3 to accomplish this condition then it shall be constructed at the request of Roanoke County and at the expense of the property owners. (5) The building appearance and exterior materials, excluding landscaping, will be in substantial conformity with the architectural rendering, dated March 26, 1998. (6) The building will be brick to grade on all sides. (7) The Petitioners will design the parking area so as to permit the linking of the parking area to the adjoining property. 5. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point on the westerly side of Brambleton Avenue (Route 221) at its intersection with the northerly side of Ryan Lane; thence S 65° 55' 23" W 7.28 feet; thence N 61° 42' 37" W 110.56 feet; thence N 67° 37' 35" W 92.70 feet to a point on the easterly side of Bill and Kathleen Sizemore (Tax Map No. 86.12-3-18); thence N. 22° 01' 17" E 316.80 feet to a point; thence N 83° 39' 17" E 102.10 feet to a point; thence S 22° 04' 17" W 93.05 feet to a point; thence S 68° 11' 15" E 130.38 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way of Brambleton Avenue; thence with the same S 24° 34' 31" W 475 feet to the point and place of beginning and containing 1.5 acres, more or less. 6. 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. C: \ OFFICE\ WP WIN\ WPDOCS\ AGENDA\ ZONING\ FREEMAN.ORD 3 _uminthIIIllhIIIliillHliLliitimiimmiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiililllilil Illlilllilllllllll111111llllll111111illlll1111111111111111111,1,E O r - AGENDA ITEM NO./ 3 ..... s ^. s �� APPEARANCE REQUEST - e o - �r - .� _ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS — -SBCT: Z Z45C,CrfSt — I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. c WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY" THE GUIDELINES LISTED =BELOW: — ® Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will = decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to "°' do otherwise. — m Speaker will be • limited to a presentation of their point of view only. C Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. — — ® All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. — ® Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. _. — - - Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments NI ® with the clerk. — • INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP c SHALL FITJ WITH THE CI.1 RK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. = = =- PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK • i = a — — — — - — - a ` = NAME S V 2 r'i /%'f • J4/✓ ($ 1 - ..� ADDRESS i / Iv'' v r r v / l C oW fk - s - PHONE 6/9/qe (� - til- iiiiiiquimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim11 miltllllllii111i11111111illlilli1111ilillllillllillli111iie AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 ORDINANCE 042898-12 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO GLENVAR BAPTIST CHURCH TO EXPAND AN EXISTING RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY FACILITY AT 4804 STANLEY FARM ROAD (TAX MAP NOS. 54.02-4-35 AND 54.02-4-55), CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Glenvar Baptist Church has filed a petition to expand an existing religious assembly facility located at 4804 Stanley Farm Road (Tax Map Nos. 54.02-4-35 and 54.02-4-55) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on April 7, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on March 24, 1998; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on April 28, 1998. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Glenvar Baptist Church to expand an existing religious assembly facility located at 4804 Stanley Farm Road (Tax Map Nos. 54.02-4-35 and 54.02-4-55) in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved with the following condition: (1) Ingress/egress to the parking area to be controlled according to VDOT's approval. 1 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 2 'C7 n �BrQh� y4J R7.7054 TOMAHW. h1CP yG 47 — 1.62 Ac 4929 48.1 48.2 1.16Ac Tr' T. 6.45Ac wK_ a CHE 'f— a OKE: a3-toARROW EADIDRVIC 8.42 Ac ENVAR Co EAST 44 5.13 Ac 404a 490559 1.67Ac 61 404 jos S11Ac401 5,85Ac r ni 40 $1•p Hgis qv, 45i LEW1 LIE SOLI E µ 30.I 38 2.4 3 Ac 6.05Ac 40 1.70Ac it, 1045 54 3 • e tsu- Z.17Ac 42 _�_• 36 1.66 At 4807 51IY is 11n+ so' 2T 33 4.43Ac 47 2 BI owe . n I. OM 22 10.95 Ac 473/ • 16 2.83 Ac 7-9 NORTH 4 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Glenvar Baptist Church Site AND ZONING . Tax Map Numbers #54.02-4-35, #54.02-4-55 4 T35 19 2.07 Ac 1 PETITIONER: GLENVAR BAPTIST CHURCH CASE NUMBER: 10-4/98 Planning Commission Hearing Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: April 7, 1998 April 28, 1998 A. REQUEST Petition of Glenvar Baptist Church for a Special Use Permit to expand an existing religious assembly facility, located at 4804 Stanley Farm Road, Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Scott St. Pierre expressed concern if a new septic system is installed the possibility of contamination to his well. Also, young people partying at night in the parking area. Jettie Wright presented a petition with about 30 signatures of residents who do not believe this is in the best interest of the community. He commented as follows: there are more people attending this church now and the parking situation is a mess; will increase water runoff; increased traffic on a narrow, two-lane road. Pastor Jett responded to Mr. Wright's petition as follows: several members from the church talked with people within walking distance of the church and most of them were not opposed to the request. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION With regard to VDOT's concern with the uncontrolled access to the site, the Commission asked how it is to be corrected. Staff said it can be controlled with a concrete barrier (parking blocks). The petitioner responded as follows: they have no problem with putting up a barrier to control ingress/egress; the Health Department informed them that the existing drainfield can be added to or a new septic system can be constructed; the little white church will not be razed; the church meets Sunday morning and night, and Wednesday night; and there will be no additional parking. D. E. F. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1) Ingress/egress to the parking area to be controlled according to VDOT's approval. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Hooker moved to recommend approval of the petition with the condition. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Robinson, Ross, Thomason, Hooker, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: None DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Staff Report _ Vicinity Map Other Terrance Harringt6n, Secr ry Roanoke Coun y Planni Commission STAFF REPORT PETITIONER: Glenvar Baptist Church PREPARED BY: LEE GARMAN CASE NUMBER: 10-4/98 DATE: April 7, 1998 PART I A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A request for a Special Use Permit to build additional bathrooms, a kitchen, and a fellowship hall to an existing church. The property is located in the R-1 zoning district which requires a Special Use Permit for an expansion to a Religious Assembly structure if the expansion is more than one hundred (100) percent of the existing floor area. Expansion to the seating capacity of the main sanctuary is not proposed. B. DESCRIPTION Petition of Glenvar Baptist Church to receive a Special Use Permit to construct a 6,500 square foot addition. The addition is for a fellowship hall, bathrooms and a kitchen. The existing church building is 4,340 square feet, has a seating capacity of 150, and an average Sunday attendance of 90. The proposed addition will not add seating capacity to the existing sanctuary. Because seating capacity will not be increased, improvements to the existing parking area would not be required. The existing parking area does not have marked parking spaces and does not have a controlled access along Stanley Farm Road (Rt. 807). On the property adjacent to the church, there are two single family dwellings. One dwelling is used for a parsonage and the other to house a church staff member. The applicant owns both lots and plans to build over this line. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS In the R-1, Low Density Residential District, a Special Use Permit is required for expanding a building for religious assembly if the expansion is more than one hundred (100) percent of the existing floor area. The existing building is 4,340 square feet and the proposed expansion is 6,500 square feet. The addition will be subject to site plan review. The development site is adjacent to, but not in the flood plain of Stypes Branch. Stormwater management and any requirements due to the proximity of the flood plain would be addressed during site plan review. The expansion will be built over the property line, at the rear of the church, and onto the lot where the two dwellings are located. Both lots are owned by Glenvar Baptist Church and will in effect combine these lots and they will thereafter function as one lot. The single family dwellings will become accessories to the church. The existing parking area is nonconforming to present zoning standards. To bring it into compliance, an expansion would be required in order to meet markings and size dimension requirements for spaces and isles, as well as landscaping requirements. Site plan review will not require the parking area to be improved. The Virginia Department of Transportation has expressed a reluctancy to approve any building addition until the parking access is confined to a controlled entrance. PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Location - 4804 Stanley Farm Road, in the Catawba Magisterial District and the Glenvar Planning District. Topography/Vegetation - The property is flat with a few mature trees. Surrounding Neighborhood - Single Family dwellings are on all sides of the property. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Access - Access is on Stanley Farm Road. At present, the access to the parking area for the church is not controlled. Traffic Generation/Circulation - No additional traffic generation is expected from the addition. Fire Rescue/Utilities - Roanoke County Fire and Rescue does not object to this request. Public water and sewer are not available to the property. Health Department approval will be required for the private well and septic system. C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Future Land Use Map has the property located in an area designated SURFACE WATER AND FLOOD HAZARD; the guidelines are to protect the surface waters from development as well as protect development from flood waters. However, the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Map, panel 38, October 15, 1993 has the building expansion lying just outside the flood plain which is on the opposite side of Fort Lewis Church Road. Any regulations regarding stormwater, erosion control or flood area would be addressed by the County Engineering Department during site plan review. PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS The physical size of the expansion is the only significant impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood. The applicant has stated that the seating capacity of the main sanctuary will not be increased and does not foresee an increase in the days the facility will be used. The existing parking area is not marked and completely open to Stanley Farm Road. Because there will not be an increase in the seating capacity of the main sanctuary, improvements to the parking area will not be required during site plan review. If approved, the commission may want to consider improvements to the parking as a condition of The Special Use Permit; specifically, a controlled access which will meet approval of the Virginia Department of Transportation. COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard tor. P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ( 540' 772-2068 FAX (540) 772-2108 For staff use only dater ceived:' received by: appi .' (400fee PC/ -4 ate: piia ards iss}\J ed: a SOS ate: IC t Ca e Number: 16 J/ajjg fr .s Check type of application filed (check all that apply): • REZONING C PECIAL USE = VARIANCE Applicant's name: %srerlt,'r 731/7147374- C%ca.zrel`. 3 "�(a1'(•( Phon60--ZI(a,`I —� Address: 4104 5' i1 MI F€U- Ld, Zip Code: czte_rv,1_ Vii' ZtI (5-3 / 2.41S 3 Owner's name: a le.r u , 4,f+ C t rc i+ Phone: 3e0-2-16•7 Address: 4804E Sr i te-zj Fdb'44 red Zip Code: A ft1h/ (,I 2q/3-3 2ct1J 3 Location of property: ilg4 5Pm it.} Feter'" 5,4te", 1- 2-4/ C3 Tax Map Number: 54. in_ — 4- 3 5 ,t 6-4. b Z--q—jS Magisterial District: C,arA.c.,-43.+ Community Planning Area: Size of parcel (s): cc ► z ' acres Existing Zoning: /4—i ' Existing Land Use: floss,;, ,i;4 ei,, O'pf}ff-e.e. t Sq.ft.l; 7,77C ::: i .i hill ii:ii:::ii:: is ii hill ii::i: si:=iii::::::::? Proposed Zoning: g - 1 Proposed Land Use: • ADO ,4-o0 /rcc, q- . 8 ems, it Fe/b04.4-4 p fivkil ray Staff use Cr:..: Use Type: Ta e i1-4r;+<i C & zz re o I c zl ln; ,mi Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested dis :.ict? YES ,/ . NO IF NO, A VA=.L.NCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES .— NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being proffe:et with this request? YES NO Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in c:-:_.- to: is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ors v l.' Consultation Application Justification tvs;•' 8 1 /2" x 1 1" concept plan Metes and bounds description Water and sewer application ws v Application fee Proffers, if applicable Adjoining property owners / hereby certify that / am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature: F�r1 GLENVAR BAPff HURCH ':�?fJtltlf Applicant a/le VAL -4 Ch.4.4gx. The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use pel justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and._ questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. 4804 Stanley Farm Rd. Salem, VA 24153 (703) 380-2167 JAMES K. JETT Pastor J L (703) 380-4074 Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. Cit)'- °`�` `i� `"� - r �3'r `" '7 ". �-�'` ` " ` �.:.�c ,_- . cam. --.-6 - -�� l ' `_`-t c4 /41 .-yu e- 45 a-el"S „ILL I. r1 i C� t�C 'lease explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke. Ccunty Jmprehensive Plan. �JJ 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/rescue. Vv `/ h , G- -- .-,-, r. er-1 7 7 lr-4 -ct • 47 1.62 Ac 4928 140 49,20 48.1 48.2 1.164c 2 � 92A 10 7 8IAc zp 117 >, C H E ratELSjY69 � QSAcP QKEpNlLLs �PAL0io •. ppRy L A71m •0 8.42 Ac 490559 1.67Ac 61 4901 40 514p 40 1.70Ac tads 4840 56 .00Ac 5 35 , Xorz 301 2.43AA 2.17Ac 4805 414841 IA3 Ac, 1.66 Ac 4807 55 4843 2.86 Ac • 26 Lek (CI L ~ SrrY I! 8 28 a/05 +• • 3'00 27 •v i 17 I.OPOa 27 582 Act 01 4.78Ac1C1 7- Li NORTH 15 3.00Ac (DI 2.08Ac ICI 22 )0.93 Ac 473/ - 16 2.83Ac 4813 13 1.33Ac ID) 1.15 Ac(C) 12 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Glenvar Baptist Church Site AND ZONING . Tax Map Numbers #54.02-4-35, #54.02-4-55 4733 19 207Ac AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO GLENVAR BAPTIST CHURCH TO EXPAND AN EXISTING RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY FACILITY AT 4804 STANLEY FARM ROAD (TAX MAP NOS. 54.02-4-35 AND 54.02-4-55), CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Glenvar Baptist Church has filed a petition to expand an existing religious assembly facility located at 4804 Stanley Farm Road (Tax Map Nos. 54.02-4-35 and 54.02-4-55) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on April 7, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on March 24, 1998; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on April 28, 1998. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Glenvar Baptist Church to expand an existing religious assembly facility located at 4804 Stanley Farm Road (Tax Map Nos. 54.02-4-35 and 54.02-4-55) in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved with the following condition: (1) Ingress/egress to the parking area to be controlled according to VDOT's approval. C:\OFFICE\ WPWIN\ WPDOCS\ AGENDA\ZONING\GLENVAR.BAP 1 UIIHsl roil,IIlIllhlitliiIIIllillll11IjIuhIIIIiiiiiiiiIilliiiiiiiIll1I111111111I1I1111II1I111I1111•IIIIIIIIIIIIIi1IIII111111111j1 q b q b q b T I a AGENDA ITEM NO. - z7 - - APPEARANCE REQUEST tq a a re i SI i i b anal Mp MUM Mal qw a MOO s Mewl nanil MUM OWN - alan Mall MEM naall Malt L4UBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS SUBJECT: '4t Pi i i o, i %v ek +i4,2 ;J ce I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY' THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: b Mat MM. .s - - - MIN Imo c Man c ▪ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will a▪ nal decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakingon an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of -the Board to do otherwise. • Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ;: • All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ▪ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. Man a W▪ an q O a a a b b a .s nand NOM N an b b q � b - a ' a b fi1111111l1111111111111111111111111111I111111111111111111111111111111I11111111i1111111111111111I1111I11111111111111111111111111iiiT1 ffi Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. • INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. IMMO Man PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK NAME /77..Slatz c 1 e s + f ADDRESS 1457 1o,er e cc.) c h PHONE 3ia - 7/ 1 UIIIiIIIIIIII1IIIIII1III11111i11i1I1I1I1IIIIIIIIII1I1I1IIIIIIIII111I1i11I11U111lIfillil!!!!!1lII!!1!!!11lIl1llll!!!lilllillilill11 w (V — - AGENDA ITEM �IYI NO. - — s —APPEARANCE REQUEST _ - - PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS SUBJECT: C N.rt U4%/�-3 d-1,i CG A j/ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS ._ FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY' THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: — Is Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will = decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakingon an issue, - and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority ofthe Board to do otherwise. Speaker will be •• limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ® All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. - 0 Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. - — — — ® Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. a INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CI, PRK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK Nana a � a = _ == �= .... a ..� = - = a - NAME / ? y r.:) �-Q-r �� !to-\ a - ADDRESS - erthz,./-2-7 e i,c 4'..- _/ / r - PHONE 3S-'i'- V'�.S- fl llllliiliiiiiiiiillllililli111ilUliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilillllliilliiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilliliiiiillliillililllliililiiiiiiliiiiiiiiil U!l1111lI11111lIffllfltllilllllf!!!lfflif11111i111111111111111Iliililli1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111j,� r _■ r INA MIS I.1 A r _ AI r AM r NO AGENDA NM AI HEM NO. /' r r� s .MAE Al se. .111 IA APPEARANCE REQUEST AI AIM AlII SallAA Al Al cWA IA i/PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS AAl s IA SrAl s SUBJECT: Cs1 e tt4,2 `�r,�,l7r/ C ; , /� /' i A. All AlAI MA AI iAsI I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the AlII AN AI AI AS meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. _ a as WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS AO IA FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY' THE GUIDELINES LIS'i'EDIA IA Isom All Al BELOW:WA As SEA AI As IA AI AlII ® Each will beAn speakergiven between three to five minutes to comment IA ASim S whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will = AS As decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue,IA AI and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to IMMIll =° All do otherwise. ._ SA A IN Speaker will be • limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman.alms Al ISM ® All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized = speaker and audience members is not allowed. _IA A s _; ® Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all tunes.AI SA IA iiiIA Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments ® with the clerk. WIMP .r NIIIin ® INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUPMA Sam SHALL FTT,E WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP immi ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. swim cr. MIMS r_ VIA AS IA MA PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK am lama a _ MIME r. AI IA AR A AI Asi A _ SA IAImoAIs r. Mel allmol Nk, IA Ai AI AI NAME � ` � �_ AM AM SA All As Ar. r. MAI ADDRESS-4 L-7-y) ifr// "" AI A Al PHONE kd $'JfMEM MOW s = m 1111111.01111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115 11llillulmii IIIII1lllulilulllillll9lllllllllldllli4ll11111111111ihiHh111111illlil1iiiiiiilltlitiillllllilllilttilllliiljj,j - s )e AGENDA HEM NO. ` ` c — A. q — APPEARANCE REQUEST a q O `� UBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE \t� CITIZENS COMMENTS _ c e SUBJECT: �: _ _ `� +, j,';t. r :: ;it +R OAP-ri 5' i/(tc I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. E WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY' THE GUIDELINES LISTTED —= BELOW: o ® Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to ® do otherwise. E ® Speaker will be • limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ® All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. s s x Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. RI Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments = with the clerk. E INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. lug = PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK s i — i A = MON r•1 s SEMI MEM GOMM AWN AMIN 7.. SONO MOM IMMO MINN inn NAME :/;, '�Ai, ADDRESS -'4 l [L- L. ) f' L E r �c <n PHONE i1C ,LAL lei �.n == fittlt!!!ttlttllittlttltllt!!!t!!!!!lt!!tI!!lIl1!!lttit!!!!!!!!!!t1l1!!!!!(!!!t!!!ttltlltl!!tt!!t1!!!Ill[!llittlt!!!![!11!![il11ll'�� T AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 ORDINANCE 042898-13 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OLD GERMAN BAPTIST CHURCH TO ALLOW FOR AN OUTDOOR GATHERING IN THE 7000 AND 8000 BLOCKS OF WOOD HAVEN ROAD (TAX MAP NOS. 26.17-1-1; 26.18-1-14 AND 14.1; 37.05-1-24, 25, 28, AND 29), CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Old German Baptist Church has filed a petition to allow for an outdoor gathering in the 7000 and 8000 blocks of Wood Haven Road (Tax Map Nos. 26.17-1-1; 26.18-1-14 and 14.1; 37.05-1-24, 25, 28, and 29) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on April 7, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on March 24, 1998; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on April 28, 1998. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to the Old German Baptist Church to allow for an outdoor gathering in the 7000 and 8000 blocks of Wood Haven Road(Tax Map Nos. 26.17-1-1; 26.18-1-14 and 14.1; 37.05-1-24, 25, 28, and 29) in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved. 2 . That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its 1 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. On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Yx. - ,i/. a..u..,,✓ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 2 NORTH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 01d German Baptist Church Site AND ZONING . Tax Map Numbers # 26.17-1-1; #26.18-1-14,14.1 # 37.05-1-24,25,28,29 PETITIONER: OLD GERMAN BAPTIST CHURCH CASE NUMBER: 11-4/98 Planning Commission Hearing Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: April 7, 1998 April 28, 1998 A. REQUEST Petition of Old German Baptist Church for a Special Use Permit to allow for an outdoor gathering in the 7000 and 8000 blocks of Wood Haven Road, Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission commended the petitioners on a well organized plan and their efforts in preparing the application. D. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Hooker moved to recommend approval of the petition. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Robinson, Ross, Thomason, Hooker, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report ether Terrance Harr gton, S-'retary Roanoke Cmy Planning Commission -r-5 County of Roanoke Department of Planning and Zoning Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: David Holladay Date: April 7, 1998 Re: Old German Baptist Church Special Use Permit for Outdoor Gathering The Old German Baptist Church is applying for a Special Use Permit for an outdoor gathering. They plan to hold their annual conference at 7629 Wood Haven Road from May 22, 1999 through May 25, 1999. Anticipated attendance is between 2,500 and 3,000 church members and families from around the United States. In addition to the conference, a youth activity area is planned approximately 3/4 mile to the west, at 7935 Wood Haven Road, and 8625 Ram Drive. Attendance at the youth activity area is expected to range from 750 to 900 people. In order to obtain a Special Use Permit for an Outdoor Gathering, the applicant must demonstrate their ability to conform with several use and design standards required by the zoning ordinance. The Churches' application is formatted to address all the use and design standards, and provides a complete description of the planned event. Use and design standards for Outdoor Gatherings are as follows: 1. As part of the application for a special use permit the petitioner shall submit information indicating the individuals and/or parties sponsoring the event, the nature of the gathering, the events, displays and/or entertainment scheduled, the number of tickets to be sold, and estimate of the total number of people expected to attend, and the dates for which the permit is requested. 2. In addition, a detailed plan shall be submitted of all facilities to be provided in accordance with the following guidelines: a. Adequate provisions for sanitation facilities, garbage and trash collection and disposal, and facilities for providing food, water and lodging for persons at the gathering shall be provided. b. The sponsors shall provide for adequate medical facilities, fire protection and security of the site. c. Adequate on -site parking shall be provided for all employees and patrons of the gathering. The parking layout shall be determined in advance of the festival, adequately marked on the site and shall be supervised during the festival in such a manner as to provide safe and convenient access to all patrons and employees, and to accommodate emergency service vehicles. d. Adequate off -site circulation and traffic controls to provide safe ingress and egress to the -T-5 • • • gathering without burdening the existing road network or substantially disrupting the normal flow of traffic. e. Any lighting installed for the gathering shall be directed away from adjoining properties and public rights -of -way, and shall not exceed one foot-candle measured at the property boundary of the site. f. The level of any music and other noise created by the gathering shall be directed away from any adjoining residence and may be specifically limited by the board of supervisors. The Old German Baptist Church appears to be capable of meeting or exceeding all of the use and design standards for outdoor gatherings. Some major points of their plan include: ** ** ** ** ** ** The event will be held on two sites along Wood Haven Road. Worship services will be held at 7629 Wood Haven Road at the church property. In addition, a youth activity area is planned approximately 3/4 mile to the west, at 7935 Wood Haven Road and 8625 Ram Drive. The event will take place from May 22, 1999 through May 25, 1999. Worship services will take place during the daytime. Youth activities will take place in the evening, and will end at 11:00 p.m. Some of the youth sports activities will be lighted, with lights directed away from nearby houses on Willow Creek Road, and turned off after 11:00 p.m.. Lodging for out of town families will be provided by area church members, or by local hotels and motels. A limited number of self contained campers will be allowed on the conference site for persons with disabilities. On -site parking will be organized and directed by church members at both sites. Off -site traffic assistance will be provided by off -duty police officers from the Roanoke County Police Dept. The only public address system will be inside the tents, with only enough volume for people in the tents. In their application, the Old German Baptist Church address all required use and design standards thoroughly, and appear to have given careful consideration to this Special Use Permit as part of their event planning. The permit is for a one-time, temporary event, and no negative impacts are anticipated. Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit for Outdoor Gathering as described in the Old German Baptist Church, Annual Conference 1999, Special Use Permit Application. Address: 7629 Wood Haven Rd Roanoke Va COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard Dr. P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ( 540' 772-2068 FAX (540) 772-2108 Check type of application filed (check all that apply): O REZONING MSPECIAL USE OVARIANCE For staff use only date r ceived:/ i recVi52p : ap ieation fee: PC/82,A daze: placards issued: 2-72.-; /"7 BOS date: /-Z e/7? Case Number: /,A4/9q Applicant's name: Address: Old German Baptist Church 7629 Wood Haven Rd Roanoke Va Phone: 562-0098 Zip Code: 24019 Owner's name: Darrell E Bower Phone: Earl E Bowman Jr, Harold W Reed Jr, John Sowers 562-4890 Zip Code: 24019 Location of property: 7000 & 8000 Block of Woodhaven Rd Tax Map Nurnber:2617.1.1 ; 2618.1.14,14.1 3705.1.2/ , 25 Magisterial District: Catawba Community Planning Area: Peters Creek Size of parcel (s): 15/7S acres sq.ft. Existing Zoning: p- / 11 Existing Land Use: Single Family Residential / Religous Assembly Proposed Zoning: Proposed Land Use: Special Use for Outdoor Gathering Far Staff Use Orly Use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, 'r'icth, and frontage requirements of the requested dis:;ic:? YES XX NO IF NO, A VAF,l- NCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES XX NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being proffe��C with this request? YES XX NO Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in crier to: Is the application complete? Please check if encicsed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws v ors V Consultation Application Justification MA 8 1 /2" x 1 1" concept plan Metes and bounds description Water and sewer application rvs V Application fee Proffers, if applicable Adjoining property owners / hereby certify that l am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature: OLD GERMAN BAPTIST CHURCH ANNUAL CONFERENCE 1999 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Sec. 30-87-3 Outdoor Gatherings 1 . The Old German Baptist Church is applying for a special use permit to hold their annual conference on private property at 7629 Wood Haven Road in Roanoke County. This conference will be held beginning May 22 ,1999 and continuing through May 25 ,1999 with approximately 2500 to 3500 attending. This conference has been held annually for over 100 years in various states,and occurs each year on Pentecost. This conference will attract members and families from over the United States. Also in conjunction with the conference, there will be provisions made for an activities area for the youngfolks. These activities will be held 3/4 mile west of the conference grounds at 7935 Wood Haven Road and 8625 Ram Drive with approximately 750-900 attending. These youngfolks activities will be fully chaperoned by church personnel and will include such activities as volleyball, basketball, relay races, and singing. The general format of the conference will be religious type services with preaching and singing. There will be no charges made to attend this conference and will be open to the public. Services will be as follows: Sat May 22 10:00 A M to 12:00 A M 2:OOPM to 4:00 PM Sun May 23 7:00 A M .to 7:30 A M 10:00 A M to 12:00 A M 2:00PMto 3:30 PM 5:00PMto 11:OOPM Mon May 24 7:00 A M to 7:30 A M 10:00 A M to 12:00 A M 2:00PMto 4:00 PM 7:00PMto 9:00 PM Tues May 25 7:00 A M to 7:30 A M 9:00 A M to Afternoon The schedule of activities for the youngfolks will be as follows: General Worship Services General Worship Services Morning Worship Service General Worship Services General Worship Services Communion Service Morning Worship $ervice General Worship Services General Worship Services General Worship Services Morning Worship Service Business Meeting Fri May 21 early evening to 11:00 P M Sat May 22 late afternoon to 11:00 P M Sun May 23 late afternoon to 11:00 P M MonMay24 4:30 P M to 6:30 P M Tues May 25 late afternoon to 11:00 P M The conference site is on approximately 35 acres of well established and maintained turf' which will provide adequate space for all of our meetings and parking on site. We expect approximately 1000 to 1500 vehicles. The youngfolks site is approximately 25 acres of well established and maintained turf and has adequate space for all activities and parking. We plan to erect temporary facilities consisting of two tents, one 101 ft. x 135 ft. to be used for worship services and business meetings, and one 69 ft. x 110 ft .which will have an adjacent wood structure and be used for meal preparations and dining. Also one or two smaller tents for special order meals and snacks. The temporary facilities at the site for youngfolks consist of an 80 ft. x 110 ft. for meeting and dining. 2 A. Restroom facilities will be temporary enclosures built and maintained according Roanoke County Health Department regulations. Restroom facilities for the youngfolks area will be a rented mobile unit.Other portable units will be placed at random on the conference site and at the youngfolks activities area as needed. Units accessible to persons with disabilities will be provided at both locations. Any grey water will be disposed of according to Roanoke County Health Dept. regulations: Food will be prepared and served at both locations .No charges will be made for food prepared and served in the Dining Tent and at the youngfolks activities area. All food preparation and storage will be in accordance with Roanoke County Health Department regulations. There will be a concessions operation at the conference grounds offering short orders and plate lunches for sale. Those operating these concessions will be required and responsible for obtaining the necessary permits and adhere to Roanoke County Health Department regulations. Lodging for families and friends coming from out of town will be provided by the church members in this area. Some attendees will be using the area hotels and and motels. A limited number of self contained campers will be allowed on the conference site for persons with disabilities. Garbage and trash will be collected daily, and disposed of through a dumpster type system at both the conference grounds and the youngfolks activities. This disposal will be according to Roanoke County Health Department regulations. 2 B. First Aid and emergency services will be available on site at all times during the conference and at the youngfolks` activities. We expect to work with local emergency services to meet any requirements they might have. Additionally, the Hollins Fire and Rescue Squad Station is located within 2 %2 miles of the conference site. Security lighting will be provided in all areas of the conference grounds and the youngfolks activities area. Personnel will be on site 24 hrs a day , securing the conference. 2C,D On site parking will be provided for both the conference and the youngfolks activities. Church personnel will be directing the on site parking at both locations. Off site traffic assistance will be by off duty officers hired from the Roanoke County Police Department. Representatives from the church have been in contact with the police and expect full co-operation from both the county officers and the church personnel, to achieve as smooth of traffic flow as possible. 1000-1500 vehicles are expected for this conference. Parking layouts and direction for traffic flow will be determined well in advance of the conference by a committee of our members. An alternate parking plan will be in place in case of adverse weather. We will provide at least 1 entrance and exit for use of emergency vehicles at all times. 2 E. Adequate security lighting will be provided at both locations, and will remain lighted all night. At the youngfolks activities area there will be adequate lighting to play volleyball and other activities. This lighting will be installed on poles and directed downward and away from adjoining property lines. These lights will be turned off at 11:00 P M each night. 2 F. There will be no music at either site. The only public address system will be inside the tents, with only enough volume for people in the tents. We do not propose to change the zoning or land use at these sites. This conference will be temporary, lasting only 4 days. The current zoning and land use will be the same after the conference as before. We don't expect to impact the property itself or the adjoining properties. Most of the adjoining property owners have been made aware of this conference and we have had only positive comments. Public services and facilities should not be impacted as we expect to provide on site water and sanitation facilities. We expect to comply with all state and county regulations and to obtain all required permits. Summary; We recognize that this request is for a departure from the normal use of this property. Our practice is to hold a quiet, peaceful conference with as little disturbance to our neighbors as possible. This conference has been held in Roanoke County in 1895,1913,1933,and 1949. It also was held in Franklin County , Va. in 1961,1973, and 1986. We look forward to holding this conference again in Roanoke County and appreciate the cooperation shown to us already by the staff of the various Roanoke County offices and for your consideration of this project. 4 a • eau • • • \ \ • } I ._ \ .: \ . `• o �. \ \ 1 \\\ •\ \\\ir yry/• ��.s.\ \\\ \\\ \ \ \\ \ rt�• bD�% \ \ \\\ \\ \ Nss \ �'—..oso \ \ \ • • / / \• -\� \\\ \1 \\ 1 \'� \ �\ 1 1 1 1 1 -v, r?oaef2 I �LFFMArJ CAL vim 0-K/5-r SOWPIPS 1 pJr m-ic% f) Zt ?vxT CAN egi6 / Na cQ 44�9c , 1 Ca 4 D4 / fi Jal l5. 5 z =4s a=A/6r• • 1111:"" P'ws r TOARRELL El Bow" - G ac. 200 LIIfIl111fIi►IIII( f Scat. !N CET CQL. PEopLEs. iggq - 01-0 GERMAH 54PTI5T _,a,tWt4LI4L co14FER514CE (OUNGFoLKS AcrIVIT1E5 )REA__— ROA NoKE , VA. JAW. 31. MIS Sail ?00' �M�TA ""'`''` DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Old German Baptist Church Site AND ZONING Tax Map Numbers # 26.I7-1-1° #26.18-1-14,I4.1 # 37.O6-l-24*25,2O^29 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OLD GERMAN BAPTIST CHURCH TO ALLOW FOR AN OUTDOOR GATHERING IN THE 7000 AND 8000 BLOCKS OF WOOD HAVEN ROAD (TAX MAP NOS. 26.17-1-1; 26.18-1-14 AND 14.1; 37.05-1-24, 25, 28, AND 29), CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Old German Baptist Church has filed a petition to allow for an outdoor gathering in the 7000 and 8000 blocks of Wood Haven Road (Tax Map Nos. 26.17-1-1; 26.18-1-14 and 14.1; 37.05-1-24, 25, 28, and 29) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on April 7, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on March 24, 1998; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on April 28, 1998. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to the Old German Baptist Church to allow for an outdoor gathering in the 7000 and 8000 blocks of Wood Haven Road(Tax Map Nos. 26.17-1-1; 26.18-1-14 and 14.1; 37.05-1-24, 25, 28, and 29) in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.2- 2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use C:\OFFICE\ WPWIN\ WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\GERMAN.BAP 1 Permit is hereby approved. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. C:\OFFICE\ WPWIN\ WPDOCS\ AGENDA\ZONING\GERMAN.BAP 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 ORDINANCE 042898-14 AMENDING SECTION 21-4, ENHANCED EMERGENCY TELEPHONE TAX OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, BY INCREASING SAID TAX FROM $1.06 PER MONTH TO $1.46 PER MONTH WHEREAS, the levy of this enhanced emergency telephone tax is authorized by Section 58.1-3813 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and WHEREAS, notice of the proposed adoption of the ordinance enacting this legislation was advertised in the "Roanoke Times and World News" on April 14, 1998, and April 21, 1998; and WHEREAS, the first reading on the adoption of this ordinance was held on April 14, 1998, and the second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on April 28, 1998. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That § 21-4, Enhanced emergency telephone tax, of Article I, In General of Chapter 21, Taxation of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 21-4. Enhanced emergency telephone tax. (a) There is hereby imposed and levied by the county upon every purchaser of local ......................................... telephone service a tax in the amount of r ) per month. This tax shall be paid by the purchaser to the seller of local telephone service for the use of the county to pay the recurring maintenance, repair and system upgrade costs and salaries or portion of salaries of dispatchers or call -takers which are directly attributable to the E911 system. The county treasurer shall notify the seller of the date on which the tax is to be reduced under this section. This notification will 1 be sent by certified mail to the registered agent of the seller sixty (60) days in advance of the date on which the tax is to be reduced. (b) It shall be the duty of every seller in acting as the tax collecting medium or agency for the county to collect from the purchaser for the use of the county the tax hereby imposed and levied at the time of collecting the purchase price charged therefor and the taxes collected during each calendar month shall be reported by each seller to the commissioner of the revenue of the county on or before the last day of the calendar month thereafter, together with the name and address of any purchaser who has refused to pay his tax. Simultaneously therewith, the seller shall file a copy of such report with and remit to the treasurer of the county the taxes so collected and reported. The required report shall be in the form prescribed by the commissioner of the revenue. The tax levied or imposed under this section with respect to the purchase of local telephone service shall be applicable to charges first appearing on bills rendered for service provided after August ......................................................... 1, 1904.'TOW ...................... 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after September 1, 1998; which is at least 120 days after written notice by certified mail by the County to the registered agents of the corporations providing telephone service that are required to collect said tax. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: yycu4,4,—s�! Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors 2 cc: File Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief, Fire & Rescue Circuit Court Roy B. Willett, Judge Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge Richard C. Pattisall, Judge Robert P. Doherty, Jr., Judge Jonathan M. Apgar, Judge Steven A. McGraw, Clerk Juvenile Domestic Relations District Court Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge Philip Trompeter, Judge John B. Ferguson, Judge Joseph P. Bounds, Judge Ruth P. Bates, Clerk Intake Counsellor General District Court George W. Harris, Judge William Broadhurst, Judge Vincent Lilley, Judge Julian H. Raney, Judge Jacqueline F. Ward Talevi, Judge Theresa A. Childress, Clerk Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney Magistrates Sherri Krantz/Betty Perry Main Library Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W., Rke 24016 Roanoke County Law Library, Singleton Osterhoudt Roanoke County Code Book Gerald S. Holt, Sheriff John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance O. Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Michael Lazzuri, Court Services William J. Rand, III, Director, General Services Thomas S. Haislip, Director, Parks & Recreation Elaine Carver, Director, Procurement John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER: rT to AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER MEETING DATE: April 28, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance to enhance emergency services by implementing an Emergency Medical Dispatch Program funded by increasing the E-911 fee from $1.06 per month to $1.46 per month COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The Public Safety Team has been discussing methods to enhance service to Roanoke County citizens and recommends that the County implement an Emergency Medical Dispatcher Program to provide greater emergency medical service to the County. To fund this enhanced service, the Team recommends increasing the E-911 fee from $1.06 to $1.46 per month. Roanoke County's E-911 fee is one of the lower 911 fees in the area. The fee was last increased in May 1994 to pay for equipment replacement and software upgrades. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: With emergency medical dispatch certification, our communications officers would be qualified to give basic emergency medical care instructions for 911 calls received. If these officers are NOT trained in CPR and EMD, dispatchers CAN NOT give any medical guidance. With this service, the County citizens would receive an increased level of emergency medical service and accelerated care. The 9-1-1 Center provides a central emergency dispatch communications center for police, fire, and rescue incidents, Sheriffs Office, Town of Vinton (limited and backup), and after- hours communications for Utilities, Social Services, Parks/Recreation, and schools. Inter- agency contact with adjoining public safety agencies is maintained continuously. Virginia legislation provides that a county may impose a special fee on consumers for initial installation, maintenance, repairs, upgrades, and salaries directly attributable to E- 911. Roanoke County's current surcharge is $1.06 per month. It is one of the lower 911 fees in Virginia. For example, Floyd County's 911 fee is $2.10, Bedford County's fee is $2.00. Roanoke City's fee is $1.46, the same amount as the Public Safety Team is requesting for Roanoke County. With this increase, the County can train the current dispatchers and hire 6 new positions. As a result, all dispatchers will be EMD trained. The total cost will be $194.405. The attached ordinance authorizes this increase to become effective September 1, 1998. There is a 90-day administrative advance notice that must be given the Phone Company before any increase in the fee can be collected. Therefore, this increase must be approved before the 1998/99 budget is finalized. FISCAL IMPACT: Each one -cent increase in the surcharge rate will generate approximately $5,354.40 per year. This amount is net of the three percent administration fee levied by Bell Atlantic. The requested increase is $.40 for a total 911 fee of $1.46 per month. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The first reading of this ordinance was held on April 14, 1998. Second reading and public hearing are being held on April 28, 1998. The Public Safety Team recommends that the County enhance their emergency services by the implementation of an Emergency Medical Dispatchers Program funded by an increase of the 911 Telephone fee from $1.06 per month to $1.46 per month. The ordinance will become effective on September 1, 1998. The funds generated will be used to train our current communications officers in emergency medical dispatching procedures and provide salaries for six additional EMD trained dispatchers. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: R. E. Burch, Jr., Chief Elmer C. Hodge Fire and Rescue Department County Administrator Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Harrison _ Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) McNamara _ To ( ) Minnix Nickens AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21-4, ENHANCED EMERGENCY TELEPHONE TAX OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, BY INCREASING SAID TAX FROM $1.06 PER MONTH TO $1.46 PER MONTH WHEREAS, the levy of this enhanced emergency telephone tax is authorized by Section 58.1-3813 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and WHEREAS, notice of the proposed adoption of the ordinance enacting this legislation was advertised in the "Roanoke Times and World News" on April 14, 1998, and April 21, 1998; and WHEREAS, the first reading on the adoption of this ordinance was held on April 14, 1998, and the second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on April 28, 1998. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That § 21-4, Enhanced emergency telephone tax, of Article I, In General of Chapter 21, Taxation of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 21-4. Enhanced emergency telephone tax. (a) There is hereby imposed and levied by the county upon every purchaser of local telephone service a tax in the amount of one dollar and Six ccnt3 ($1.0G) one do lar a forty ix cent$ ($1.46) per month. This tax shall be paid by the purchaser to the seller of local telephone service for the use of the county to pay C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\CODE\E911.98 1 the recurring maintenance, repair and system upgrade costs and salaries or portion of salaries of dispatchers or call -takers which are directly attributable to the E911 system. The county treasurer shall notify the seller of the date on which the tax is to be reduced under this section. This notification will be sent by certified mail to the registered agent of the seller sixty (60) days in advance of the date on which the tax is to be reduced. (b) It shall be the duty of every seller in acting as the tax collecting medium or agency for the county to collect from the purchaser for the use of the county the tax hereby imposed and levied at the time of collecting the purchase price charged therefor and the taxes collected during each calendar month shall be reported by each seller to the commissioner of the revenue of the county on or before the last day of the calendar month thereafter, together with the name and address of any purchaser who has refused to pay his tax. Simultaneously therewith, the seller shall file a copy of such report with and remit to the treasurer of the county the taxes so collected and reported. The required report shall be in the form prescribed by the commissioner of the revenue. The tax levied or imposed under this section with respect to the purchase of local telephone service shall be applicable to charges first appearing on bills rendered for service provided after Augu3t 1, 1994,September 1" 1998. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after September 1, 1998; which is at least 120 days after written notice by certified mail by the County to the registered agents of the corporations providing telephone service that are required to collect said tax. C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\CODE\E911.98 2 r7 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 ORDINANCE 042898-15 AMENDING AND REENACTING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, BY RESCINDING SECTION 30- 63. "PID PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT" AND BY THE ADOPTION AND ENACTMENT OF A NEW SECTION 30-63. ENTITLED "PTD PLANNED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT" WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 24, 1998; the second reading and public hearing was held on April 28, 1998. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 30-63. "PID Planned Industrial Development District" be, and hereby is, rescinded. 2. That the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to include a new Section 30-63. entitled "PTD Planned Technology Development District" to read and provide as follows: SEC. 30-63. PTD PLANNED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. Sec. 30-63-1. Purpose. (A) The Planned Technology Development (PTD) district is established primarily for Type I and Type II manufacturing and industrial uses. Supporting accessory uses 1 and facilities, such as office, commercial establishments, and residential areas are also permitted. The PTD district is intended to be designed with a park -like setting that complements surrounding land uses by means of appropriate siting of buildings, controlled access points, attractive and harmonious architecture, effective landscape buffering and scenic view easements. The district is intended to provide flexibility in design and site layout, allow latitude in combining different use types within a single development, and provide the developer with incentives to create an aesthetically pleasing and functional planned development. In addition, the intent of the Planned Technology Development (PTD) district is to provide certain industries that are clean and environmentally efficient the opportunity to locate in an area of like technologies in what is generally known as a mixed use park, developed under a complete, comprehensive Master Plan. Standards are provided for landscaping, buffering and open space to encourage high technology industries and to ensure a park -like atmosphere. Important in determining the location and size of a PTD are the accessibility of the location, the availability of public utilities, public safety services and the suitability of the topography for site and building development purposes. Sec. 30-63-2. Permitted Uses. (A) All of the residential, civic, office, commercial, industrial and miscellaneous use 2 types listed in Article II of this ordinance are permitted in the PTD district. Residential use types shall be limited to no more than fifteen (15) percent of the total gross square footage. No use shall be permitted except in conformity with the uses specifically included in the Final Master Plan Sec. 30-63-3. Site Development Regulations. (A) Each planned technological development shall be subject to the following site development standards: 1. Minimum district size: 15 acres of contiguous land. 2. Minimum front setbacks: All structures proposed to front on existing public streets external to the PTD shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from the existing public right-of-way. 3. The zoning administrator shall determine buffer yard requirements based on the existing or proposed use in the PTD and the district in which those uses are permitted. 4. Lot coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be determined through the preliminary master plan process and shall not exceed seventy-five (75) 3 percent. 5. Public streets in the PTD district shall be built in accordance with VDOT and Roanoke County standards. In reviewing the PTD preliminary master plan, the Commission may recommend and the Board may approve, one or more private streets within the proposed district. Private street standards, specifications and a proposed maintenance agreement shall be submitted with the preliminary Master Plan. 6. The applicant may propose a reduction to the number of parking spaces required by this ordinance for each use type, if justified. This proposal will be reviewed with consideration given to potential future uses of the site, parking demand and expansion potential. 7 Maximum height of structures: When adjoining property zoned Residential, 45 feet, including rooftop mechanical equipment. The maximum height may be increased provided each required yard (side, rear, or buffer) adjoining a Residential district is increased two feet for each foot in height over 45 feet. This distance shall be measured from the portion of the structure which exceeds 45 feet. In all other locations the height is unlimited. 8. Arrangement of areas: 4 a. The location and arrangement of structures, parking, access drives, outdoor lighting, signs, and other uses and developments within the PTD, in addition to achieving these development standards, shall be accomplished in accordance with an approved final master plan to assure compatibility with the existing and future land use in the vicinity. b. All areas designed for future expansion or not intended for immediate improvement or development shall be specified as reserve areas in the preliminary master plan. The future use and the limitations on future use of such area shall be specified, or else such areas shall not be included as part of the PTD application. Reserve areas included in the PTD shall be landscaped or otherwise maintained in a neat and orderly manner. 9. Accessory structures shall not exceed forty percent of the gross floor area of the principal structure. 10. Every structure in the PTD shall be a fully enclosed building of permanent construction. Any outside storage area shall be fully screened so that no materials so stored are visible at any lot line or public 5 right-of-way. 11. Lighting: Lighting shall comply with Section 30-94 of this ordinance. 12. Utilities: Utilities shall be underground unless the type of service necessary for normal activities of the industry or business shall prohibit underground installation. Sec. 30-63-4 Site Development Recommendations (A) The Planned Technology Development district should be designed and developed as a manufacturing, industrial and technology park with high standards for landscaping, buffering and open space. To ensure a park -like atmosphere the following site development recommendations are made. (1) The principal entrance into the PTD district should be sufficiently landscaped to comply with the purposes of this district. In addition, the first one -hundred linear feet of street, leading through this principal entrance into the PTD, should have a landscaped median of sufficient width and planting density to meet the purposes of this district. (2) Parking within the PTD should be located to the side or rear of the principal structures on the lot, wherever feasible. During review, consideration will be 6 given to topographical constraints, innovative site design, buffering and landscaping factors. (3) Loading areas should be screened from public view and should not be placed in front yards. (4) Fences should not be placed in front yards except as necessary for security purposes. Fencing should be uniform and well kept. Sec. 30-63-5 Relationship to Existing Development Regulations (A) All zoning regulations shall apply to the development of the PTD district, unless modified by the Board of Supervisors in the approval of the final master plan. Sec. 30-63-6 Application Process (A) The timeframes outlined in the Section are the maximum timeframes mandated by the Code of Virginia. Roanoke County will make every reasonable effort to complete the application process within a shorter timeframe. (B) Prior to submitting a formal application for review and approval under these provisions, the applicant and county staff shall meet to discuss the requirements of this section. The purpose of the meeting is to obtain a mutual understanding of the 7 application requirements and process. The applicant is encouraged to submit information on the scope and nature of the proposal to allow staff to become familiar with the proposal in advance of this meeting. (C) Any application to rezone land to the PTD designation, shall constitute an amendment to the zoning ordinance pursuant to Section 30-14. The written and graphic information submitted by the applicant as part of the application process shall constitute proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this ordinance. Once the Board of Supervisors has approved the final master plan, all accepted proffers shall constitute conditions pursuant to Section 30-15. (D) To initiate an amendment, the applicant shall complete a rezoning application packet. This information shall be accompanied by graphic and written information, which shall constitute a preliminary master plan. All information submitted shall be of sufficient clarity and scale to clearly and accurately identify the location, nature, and character of the proposed district. At a minimum this information shall include: 1 A legal description and plat showing the site boundaries, and existing street lines, lot lines, and easements. 2. Existing zoning, land use and ownership of each parcel proposed for the district. 8 3. A general statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PTD district, including a description of the character of the proposed development, the existing and proposed ownership of the site, the market for which the development is oriented, and objectives towards any specific human -made and natural characteristics located on the site. 4. A description and analysis of existing site conditions, including information on topography, historic resources, natural water courses, floodplains, unique natural features, tree cover areas, known archeological resources, etc. 5. The proposed conceptual location and number of structures within each land use of the proposed development. 6. The approximate gross square footage for each use type proposed in the PTD. 7 The proposed size, location and use of other portions of the tract, including landscaping and parking. 8. General information on the trip generation, ownership, maintenance and construction standards for proposed streets should be included. A Traffic Impact Analysis may be required by the Administrator. 9 9. Reserved 10. The proposed schedule of site development. At a minimum, the schedule should include an approximate commencement date for construction and a proposed build -out period. 11. Generalized statements pertaining to architectural design principles and guidelines shall be submitted in sufficient detail to provide information on building designs, orientations, styles, lighting plans, signage plans, landscaping, etc. (E) The completed rezoning application and supporting preliminary Master Plan materials shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and analysis. The Commission shall review this information and make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors. The Commission shall as part of its review hold a public hearing pursuant to Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. The proposed district shall be posted with signs indicating the date and time of the Commission public hearing. (F) The Commission shall make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors within 90 days of the receipt of the materials, unless the applicant requests, or agrees to an extension of this time frame. The Commission's report shall recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval of the preliminary 10 master plan. Failure of the Commission to make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors within this period shall constitute a Commission recommendation of approval. (G) If the Commission recommends denial of the preliminary Master Plan, or approval with modification, the applicant shall, if requested, have 60 days to make any modifications. If the applicant desires to make any modifications to the preliminary Master Plan, the Board of Supervisor's review and action shall be delayed until such changes are made and submitted for review. (H) The Board of Supervisors shall review the preliminary Master Plan, and after holding a public hearing act to approve or deny the plan within 90 days. Approval of the preliminary Master Plan shall constitute acceptance of the plan's provisions and concepts as proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this ordinance. The Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors shall constitute the final Master Plan for the PTD. Once approved by the Board of Supervisors, the Administrator shall authorize the revisions to the official zoning map to indicate the establishment of the PTD district. Sec. 30-63-7 Revisions to Final Master Plan (A) Major revisions to the final Master Plan shall be reviewed and approved following the 11 procedures and requirements of Section 30-63-6. Major revisions include, but are not limited to changes such as: 1. Any significant increase in the density of the development; 2. Substantial change in circulation or access; 3. Substantial change in grading or utility provisions; 4. Substantial changes in the mixture of land uses; 5. Substantial change in architectural or site design features of the development; 6. Any other change that the Administrator finds is a major divergence from the approved final master plan. (B) All other changes in the final Master Plan shall be considered minor amendments. The Administrator, upon receipt of a written request of the owner, may approve such minor amendments. 1 If the Administrator fails to act on a request for a minor amendment to the Master Plan within 15 calendar days, it shall be considered approved. 12 2. A request which is disapproved by the Administrator shall be considered a major amendment and shall be subject to the approval process outlined above for such amendments. Sec. 30-63-8 Approval of Preliminary and Final Site Development Plans (A) Following the approval of the final Master Plan, the applicant or its authorized agent, shall be required to submit preliminary and final site development plans for approval. Final site development plans for any phase or component of the PTD that involves the construction of structures or facilities, shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building and zoning permit, and the commencement of construction. Standards for preliminary and final site development plans are found in a document entitled Land Development Procedures, available in the Department of Engineering and Inspections. (B) It is the intent of this section that subdivision review under the subdivision regulations be carried out simultaneously with the review of a planned industrial development under this section. The plans required under this section shall be submitted in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the subdivision regulations, as determined by the Administrator. (C) Preliminary and final site development plans submitted for review shall be in compliance 13 with the final Master Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors. Roanoke County shall review and approve or disapprove any Final Site Development Plan within 60 days of its submittal. (D) No Planned Technology Development shall be approved and no work shall be authorized on construction until all property included in the final Master Plan is in common ownership. Sec. 30-63-9 Failure to Begin Development (A) Unless an extension is granted by the Administrator, failure of the applicant to submit a preliminary site development plan for at least one portion of the planned residential development within 36 months of the approval of the final Master Plan, shall constitute an application on the part of applicant to rezone the PTD to the district designations in effect prior to the approval of the final Master Plan. Sec. 30-63-10 Control Following Approval of Final Development Plans (A) The zoning administrator shall periodically inspect the site and review all building permits issued for the development to ensure that the development is in general compliance with the submitted schedule. (Amended Ord. 92794-17) 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its 14 final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: `nee Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors 15 cc: File Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Circuit Court Roy B. Willett, Judge Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge Richard C. Pattisall, Judge Robert P. Doherty, Jr., Judge Jonathan M. Apgar, Judge Steven A. McGraw, Clerk Juvenile Domestic Relations District Court Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge Philip Trompeter, Judge John B. Ferguson, Judge Joseph P. Bounds, Judge Ruth P. Bates, Clerk Intake Counsellor General District Court George W. Harris, Judge William Broadhurst, Judge Vincent Lilley, Judge Julian H. Raney, Judge Jacqueline F. Ward Talevi, Judge Theresa A. Childress, Clerk ki4a6 )1e-elf 20'7 Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney Magistrates Sherri Krantz/Betty Perry Main Library Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W., Rke 24016 Roanoke County Law Library, Singleton Osterhoudt Roanoke County Code Book Gerald S. Holt, Sheriff John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance 0. Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief, Fire & Rescue Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Michael Lazzuri, Court Services William J. Rand, III, Director, General Services Thomas S. Haislip, Director, Parks & Recreation Elaine Carver, Director, Procurement John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue •PETITIONER: ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CASE NUMBER: 13-4/98 Planning Commission Hearing Date: April 7, 1998 and April 21, 1998 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: April 28, 1998 A. REQUEST Petition of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to amend the Planned Industrial District of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance and rename the district the Planned Technology Development District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission discussed the issue of private roads in the proposed PTD District and decided to allow them under certain conditions. Mr. Witt inquired about the limited building zone. The Commission discussed the stringency of the district requirements and questioned their feasibility. The Commission decided to revise the information required on traffic circulation and generation to only apply to external road systems. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Ross moved that the public hearing for this item be closed and continued to the April 21 work session for further discussion. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Robinson, Ross, Thomason, Hooker, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. Robinson moved to recommend approval of the petition as amended. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Robinson, Ross, Thomason, Hooker, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report -they Terrance Harrin ; •n, Secr::ry Roanoke Cou► y Planning Commission 7=7 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Janet Scheid RE: Review of the Planned Technology Development District The Economic Development (ED) Department has proposed changing the existing Planned Industrial District (PID) to the Planned Technology Development District (PTD). I have reviewed, and where appropriate, commented on their suggested changes below: 1. Page 2, Sec. 30-63-3, (A), 4. Lot coverage. Economic Development has added the sentence "The only exception would be the Limited Building Zones that contain scenic view easements." Staff suggests that this sentence be removed and that it is too specific for an ordinance that is intended to apply county -wide. If ED wants an exception for the Limited Building Zones they can include that in their specific request for the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology. 2. Page 2, Sec. 30-63-3, (A), 5. Streets. Economic Development is requesting that private roads be allowed in the PTD for areas with slopes in excess of 25%. Staff recommends against this change not necessarily because of the private road issue but because of the slope issue. At the time the PID was approved by the Planning Commission there was considerable discussion of the issue of private roads in the PID. Staff does not feel strongly one way or the other about the merits of private roads in the PTD assuming that the specific rezoning request details what standards these roads will be constructed to and who will have maintenance responsibility for them in the long-term. Staff does not feel it is in the best public interest to allow private roads in a Planned Technology Development so that slopes in excess of 25% can be developed. If the Planning Commission is inclined to allow private roads in the PTD, staff recommends the following language be included: "In reviewing the PTD preliminary master plan, the Commission may recommend, and the Board may approve, one or more private streets within the proposed district. Private street standards, specifications and a proposed maintenance agreement shall be submitted with the preliminary master plan". 3. Page 2, Sec. 30-63-3, (A), 6. Parking spaces. ED has added the sentence "Additional parking spaces or expansion proposals are not applicable to the Limited Building Zone (LBZ) areas." Staff recommends removing this sentence for the same reasons that were stated in #1 above. 4. Page 3, Sec. 30-63-4, (A). "The Planned Technology Development district should be designed and developed as an technological park with " Staff recommends that this language be modified as follows: " designed and developed as a manufacturing, industrial and technology park with " This substitute language makes this paragraph more consistent with the stated purpose of the PTD, Sec. 30-63-1, on page 1. 5. Page 4, Sec. 30-63-6, (D), 5. This section of the ordinance deals with the minimum information required to initiate a rezoning request. The current ordinance requires "The proposed conceptual location and number of structures within each land use of the proposed development". Economic Development suggests the following language "The proposed conceptual location for each type of land use of the proposed development." Staff recommends that the language currently in the PID be retained. The gross square footage for each use type is required as part of the application process in the P'1'1). 6. Page 5, Sec. 30-63-6, (D), 8. Traffic plan. Staff recommends that the language currently in the PID be retained. That language provides the Commission and the Board with specific information and details on the traffic circulation plan, parking, loading facilities and trails and greenways. In staff's opinion this type of information is critical to the evaluation of a specific project. 7. Page 7, Sec. 30-63-9, (A). Economic Development suggests allowing 36 months, rather than the 24 months allowed in the current PID, to begin development. Staff has no objection to this change. In addition to these changes that Economic Development has requested, staff recommends the following "house cleaning" changes be made: 1. Page 2, Sec. 30-63-3, (A), 3. Replace language in its entirety with "The zoning administrator shall determine buffer yard requirements based on the existing or proposed use in the PTD and the district in which those uses are permitted". 2. Page 5, Sec. 30-63-6, (E). Reference to Section 15.1-431 should be changed to Section 15.2-2204. T-'I Planned Technology Development District (PTD) (Revision Request for the Planned Industrial Development District - PID) SEC. 30-63. PTD PLANNED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. Sec. 30-63-1. Purpose. (A) The Planned Technology Development (PTD) district is established primarily for Type I and Type II manufacturing and industrial uses. Supporting accessory uses and facilities, such as office, commercial establishments, and residential areas are also permitted. The PTD district is intended to be designed with a park -like setting that complements surrounding land uses by means of appropriate siting of buildings, controlled access points, attractive and harmonious architecture, effective landscape buffering and scenic view easements. The district is intended to provide flexibility in design and site layout, allow latitude in combining different use types within a single development, and provide the developer with incentives to create an aesthetically pleasing and functional planned development. In addition, the intent of the Planned Technology Development (PTD) district is to provide certain industries that are clean and environmentally efficient the opportunity to locate in an area of like technologies in what is generally known as a mixed use park, developed under a complete, comprehensive Master Plan. Standards are provided for landscaping, buffering and open space to encourage high technology industries and to ensure a park -like atmosphere. Important in determining the location and size of a PTD are the accessibility of the location, the availability of public utilities, public safety services and the suitability of the topography for site and building development purposes. Sec. 30-63-2. Permitted Uses. (A) All of the residential, civic, office, commercial, industrial and miscellaneous use types listed in Article II of this ordinance are permitted in the PTD district. Residential use types shall be limited to no more than fifteen (15) percent of the total gross square footage. No use shall be permitted except in conformity with the uses specifically included in the Final Master Plan Sec. 30-63-3. Site Development Regulations. (A) Each planned technological development shall be subject to the following site development standards: 1. Minimum district size: 15 acres of contiguous land. 1 1 7 2. Minimum front setbacks: All structures proposed to front on existing public streets external to the PTD shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from the existing public right-of-way. 3. The zoning administrator shall determine buffer yard requirements based on the existing or proposed use in the PTD and the district in which those uses are permitted. 4. Lot coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be determined through the preliminary master plan process and shall not exceed seventy-five (75) percent. 5. Public streets in the PTD district shall be built in accordance with VDOT and Roanoke County standards. In reviewing the PTD preliminary master plan, the Commission may recommend and the Board may approve, one or more private streets within the proposed district. Private street standards, specifications and a proposed maintenance agreement shall be submitted with the preliminary Master Plan. 6. The applicant may propose a reduction to the number of parking spaces required by this ordinance for each use type, if justified. This proposal will be reviewed with consideration given to potential future uses of the site, parking demand and expansion potential. 7. Maximum height of structures: When adjoining property zoned Residential, 45 feet, including rooftop mechanical equipment. The maximum height may be increased provided each required yard (side, rear, or buffer) adjoining a Residential district is increased two feet for each foot in height over 45 feet. This distance shall be measured from the portion of the structure which exceeds 45 feet. In all other locations the height is unlimited. 8. Arrangement of areas: a. The location and arrangement of structures, parking, access drives, outdoor lighting, signs, and other uses and developments within the PTD, in addition to achieving these development standards, shall be accomplished in accordance with an approved final master plan to assure compatibility with the existing and future land use in the vicinity. b. All areas designed for future expansion or not intended for immediate improvement or development shall be specified as reserve areas in the preliminary master plan. The future use and the limitations on future use of such area shall be specified, or else such areas shall not be included as part of the PTD application. Reserve areas included in the PTD shall be 2 landscaped or otherwise maintained in a neat and orderly manner. 9. Accessory structures shall not exceed forty percent of the gross floor area of the principal structure. 10. Every structure in the PTD shall be a fully enclosed building of permanent construction. Any outside storage area shall be fully screened so that no materials so stored are visible at any lot line or public right-of-way. 11. Lighting: Lighting shall comply with Section 30-94 of this ordinance. 12. Utilities: Utilities shall be underground unless the type of service necessary for normal activities of the industry or business shall prohibit underground installation. Sec. 30-63-4 Site Development Recommendations (A) The Planned Technology Development district should be designed and developed as a manufacturing, industrial and technology park with high standards for landscaping, buffering and open space. To ensure a park -like atmosphere the following site development recommendations are made. (1) The principal entrance into the PTD district should be sufficiently landscaped to comply with the purposes of this district. In addition, the first one -hundred linear feet of street, leading through this principal entrance into the PTD, should have a landscaped median of sufficient width and planting density to meet the purposes of this district. (2) Parking within the PTD should be located to the side or rear of the principal structures on the lot, wherever feasible. During review, consideration will be given to topographical constraints, innovative site design, buffering and landscaping factors. (3) Loading areas should be screened from public view and should not be placed in front yards. (4) Fences should not be placed in front yards except as necessary for security purposes. Fencing should be uniform and well kept. Sec. 30-63-5 Relationship to Existing Development Regulations (A) All zoning regulations shall apply to the development of the PTD district, unless modified by the Board of Supervisors in the approval of the final master plan. 3 T-7 Sec. 30-63-6 Application Process (A) The timeframes outlined in the Section are the maximum timeframes mandated by the Code of Virginia. Roanoke County will make every reasonable effort to complete the application process within a shorter timeframe. (B) Prior to submitting a formal application for review and approval under these provisions, the applicant and county staff shall meet to discuss the requirements of this section. The purpose of the meeting is to obtain a mutual understanding of the application requirements and process. The applicant is encouraged to submit information on the scope and nature of the proposal to allow staff to become familiar with the proposal in advance of this meeting. (C) Any application to rezone land to the PTD designation, shall constitute an amendment to the zoning ordinance pursuant to Section 30-14. The written and graphic information submitted by the applicant as part of the application process shall constitute proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this ordinance. Once the Board of Supervisors has approved the final master plan, all accepted proffers shall constitute conditions pursuant to Section 30-15. (D) To initiate an amendment, the applicant shall complete a rezoning application packet. This information shall be accompanied by graphic and written information, which shall constitute a preliminary master plan. All information submitted shall be of sufficient clarity and scale to clearly and accurately identify the location, nature, and character of the proposed district. At a minimum this information shall include: 1. A legal description and plat showing the site boundaries, and existing street lines, lot lines, and easements. 2. Existing zoning, land use and ownership of each parcel proposed for the district. 3. A general statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PTD district, including a description of the character of the proposed development, the existing and proposed ownership of the site, the market for which the development is oriented, and objectives towards any specific human -made and natural characteristics located on the site. 4. A description and analysis of existing site conditions, including information on topography, historic resources, natural water courses, floodplains, unique natural features, tree cover areas, known archeological resources, etc. 5. The proposed conceptual location and number of structures within each land use of the proposed development. 4 6. The approximate gross square footage for each use type proposed in the PTD. 7. The proposed size, location and use of other portions of the tract, including landscaping and parking. 8. General information on the trip generation, ownership, maintenance and construction standards for proposed streets should be included. A Traffic Impact Analysis may be required by the Administrator. 9. Reserved 10. The proposed schedule of site development. At a minimum, the schedule should include an approximate commencement date for construction and a proposed build -out period. 11. Generalized statements pertaining to architectural design principles and guidelines shall be submitted in sufficient detail to provide information on building designs, orientations, styles, lighting plans, signage plans, landscaping, etc. (E) The completed rezoning application and supporting preliminary Master Plan materials shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and analysis. The Commission shall review this information and make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors. The Commission shall as part of its review hold a public hearing pursuant to Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. The proposed district shall be posted with signs indicating the date and time of the Commission public hearing. (F) The Commission shall make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors within 90 days of the receipt of the materials, unless the applicant requests, or agrees to an extension of this time frame. The Commission's report shall recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval of the preliminary master plan. Failure of the Commission to make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors within this period shall constitute a Commission recommendation of approval. (G) If the Commission recommends denial of the preliminary Master Plan, or approval with modification, the applicant shall, if requested, have 60 days to make any modifications. If the applicant desires to make any modifications to the preliminary Master Plan, the Board of Supervisor's review and action shall be delayed until such changes are made and submitted for review. (H) The Board of Supervisors shall review the preliminary Master Plan, and after holding a public hearing act to approve or deny the plan within 90 days. Approval of the 5 preliminary Master Plan shall constitute acceptance of the plan's provisions and concepts as proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this ordinance. The Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors shall constitute the final Master Plan for the PTD. Once approved by the Board of Supervisors, the Administrator shall authorize the revisions to the official zoning map to indicate the establishment of the PTD district. Sec. 30-63-7 Revisions to Final Master Plan (A) Major revisions to the final Master Plan shall be reviewed and approved following the procedures and requirements of Section 30-63-6. Major revisions include, but are not limited to changes such as: 1. Any significant increase in the density of the development; 2. Substantial change in circulation or access; 3. Substantial change in grading or utility provisions; 4. Substantial changes in the mixture of land uses; 5. Substantial change in architectural or site design features of the development; 6. Any other change that the Administrator finds is a major divergence from the approved final master plan. (B) All other changes in the final Master Plan shall be considered minor amendments. The Administrator, upon receipt of a written request of the owner, may approve such minor amendments. 1. If the Administrator fails to act on a request for a minor amendment to the Master Plan within 15 calendar days, it shall be considered approved. 2. A request which is disapproved by the Administrator shall be considered a major amendment and shall be subject to the approval process outlined above for such amendments. Sec. 30-63-8 Approval of Preliminary and Final Site Development Plans (A) Following the approval of the final Master Plan, the applicant or its authorized agent, shall be required to submit preliminary and final site development plans for approval. Final site development plans for any phase or component of the PTD that involves the construction of structures or facilities, shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building and zoning permit, and the commencement of construction. Standards for preliminary and final site development plans are found in a document entitled Land 6 Development Procedures, available in the Department of Engineering and Inspections. (B) It is the intent of this section that subdivision review under the subdivision regulations be carried out simultaneously with the review of a planned industrial development under this section. The plans required under this section shall be submitted in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the subdivision regulations, as determined by the Administrator. (C) Preliminary and final site development plans submitted for review shall be in compliance with the final Master Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors. Roanoke County shall review and approve or disapprove any Final Site Development Plan within 60 days of its submittal. (D) No Planned Technology Development shall be approved and no work shall be authorized on construction until all property included in the final Master Plan is in common ownership. Sec. 30-63-9 Failure to Begin Development (A) Unless an extension is granted by the Administrator, failure of the applicant to submit a preliminary site development plan for at least one portion of the planned residential development within 36 months of the approval of the final Master Plan, shall constitute an application on the part of applicant to rezone the PTD to the district designations in effect prior to the approval of the final Master Plan. Sec. 30-63-10 Control Following Approval of Final Development Plans (A) The zoning administrator shall periodically inspect the site and review all building permits issued for the development to ensure that the development is in general compliance with the submitted schedule. (Amended Ord. 92794-17) 7 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, BY RESCINDING SECTION 30-63. "PID PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT" AND BY THE ADOPTION AND ENACTMENT OF A NEW SECTION 30-63. ENTITLED "PTD PLANNED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT" WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 24, 1998; the second reading and public hearing was held on April 28, 1998. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 30-63. "PID Planned Industrial Development District" be, and hereby is, rescinded. 2. That the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to include a new Section 30-63. entitled "PTD Planned Technology Development District" to read and provide as follows: SEC. 30-63. PTD PLANNED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. Sec. 30-63-1. Purpose. (A) The Planned Technology Development (PTD) district is established primarily for Type I and Type II manufacturing and industrial uses. Supporting accessory uses and facilities, such as office, commercial establishments, and residential areas are also permitted. The PTD district is intended to be designed with a park -like setting that complements surrounding land uses by means of appropriate siting of buildings, controlled access points, attractive and harmonious architecture, effective landscape buffering and scenic view easements. The district is intended to provide C:\OFFICE\ W PW IN\ W PDOCS\ AGENDA \ CODE \PTD.ORD 1 flexibility in design and site layout, allow latitude in combining different use types within a single development, and provide the developer with incentives to create an aesthetically pleasing and functional planned development. In addition, the intent of the Planned Technology Development (PTD) district is to provide certain industries that are clean and environmentally efficient the opportunity to locate in an area of like technologies in what is generally known as a mixed use park, developed under a complete, comprehensive Master Plan. Standards are provided for landscaping, buffering and open space to encourage high technology industries and to ensure a park -like atmosphere. Important in determining the location and size of a PTD are the accessibility of the location, the availability of public utilities, public safety services and the suitability of the topography for site and building development purposes. Sec. 30-63-2. Permitted Uses. (A) All of the residential, civic, office, commercial, industrial and miscellaneous use types listed in Article II of this ordinance are permitted in the PTD district. Residential use types shall be limited to no more than fifteen (15) percent of the total gross square footage. No use shall be permitted except in conformity with the uses specifically included in the Final Master Plan Sec. 30-63-3. Site Development Regulations. (A) Each planned technological development shall be subject to the following site development standards: C:\OFFICE\ W PW IN\ W PDOCS\AGENDA\CODE\ PTD.ORD 2 1. Minimum district size: 15 acres of contiguous land. 2. Minimum front setbacks: All structures proposed to front on existing public streets external to the PTD shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from the existing public right-of-way. 3. The zoning administrator shall determine buffer yard requirements based on the existing or proposed use in the PTD and the district in which those uses are permitted. 4. Lot coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be determined through the preliminary master plan process and shall not exceed seventy-five (75) percent. 5. Public streets in the PTD district shall be built in accordance with VDOT and Roanoke County standards. In reviewing the PTD preliminary master plan, the Commission may recommend and the Board may approve, one or more private streets within the proposed district. Private street standards, specifications and a proposed maintenance agreement shall be submitted with the preliminary Master Plan. 6. The applicant may propose a reduction to the number of parking spaces required by this ordinance for each use type, if justified. This proposal will be reviewed with consideration given to potential future uses of the site, parking demand and expansion potential. 7. Maximum height of structures: When adjoining property zoned Residential, 45 feet, including rooftop mechanical equipment. The maximum height may be increased provided each required yard (side, rear, or buffer) adjoining a Residential district is increased two feet C:\OFFICE\ W PW IN\ W PDOCS\ AGENDA \ CODE \PTD.ORD 3 for each foot in height over 45 feet. This distance shall be measured from the portion of the structure which exceeds 45 feet. In all other locations the height is unlimited. 8. Arrangement of areas: a. The location and arrangement of structures, parking, access drives, outdoor lighting, signs, and other uses and developments within the PTD, in addition to achieving these development standards, shall be accomplished in accordance with an approved final master plan to assure compatibility with the existing and future land use in the vicinity. b. All areas designed for future expansion or not intended for immediate improvement or development shall be specified as reserve areas in the preliminary master plan. The future use and the limitations on future use of such area shall be specified, or else such areas shall not be included as part of the PTD application. Reserve areas included in the PTD shall be landscaped or otherwise maintained in a neat and orderly manner. 9. Accessory structures shall not exceed forty percent of the gross floor area of the principal structure. 10. Every structure in the PTD shall be a fully enclosed building of permanent construction. Any outside storage area shall be fully screened so that no materials so stored C:\OFFICE\ W PW IN\ W PDOCS\ AGENDA \ CODE \PTD.ORD 4 T are visible at any lot line or public right-of-way. 11. Lighting: Lighting shall comply with Section 30-94 of this ordinance. 12. Utilities: Utilities shall be underground unless the type of service necessary for normal activities of the industry or business shall prohibit underground installation. Sec. 30-63-4 Site Development Recommendations (A) The Planned Technology Development district should be designed and developed as a manufacturing, industrial and technology park with high standards for landscaping, buffering and open space. To ensure a park -like atmosphere the following site development recommendations are made. (1) The principal entrance into the PTD district should be sufficiently landscaped to comply with the purposes of this district. In addition, the first one -hundred linear feet of street, leading through this principal entrance into the PTD, should have a landscaped median of sufficient width and planting density to meet the purposes of this district. (2) Parking within the PTD should be located to the side or rear of the principal structures on the lot, wherever feasible. During review, consideration will be given to topographical constraints, innovative site design, buffering and landscaping factors. (3) Loading areas should be screened from public view and should not be placed in front yards. C:\OFFICE\ W PW IN\ W PDOCS\AGENDA\CODE\ PTD.ORD 5 (4) Fences should not be placed in front yards except as necessary for security purposes. Fencing should be uniform and well kept. Sec. 30-63-5 Relationship to Existing Development Regulations (A) All zoning regulations shall apply to the development of the PTD district, unless modified by the Board of Supervisors in the approval of the final master plan. Sec. 30-63-6 Application Process (A) The timeframes outlined in the Section are the maximum timeframes mandated by the Code of Virginia. Roanoke County will make every reasonable effort to complete the application process within a shorter timeframe. (B) Prior to submitting a formal application for review and approval under these provisions, the applicant and county staff shall meet to discuss the requirements of this section. The purpose of the meeting is to obtain a mutual understanding of the application requirements and process. The applicant is encouraged to submit information on the scope and nature of the proposal to allow staff to become familiar with the proposal in advance of this meeting. (C) Any application to rezone land to the PTD designation, shall constitute an amendment to the zoning ordinance pursuant to Section 30-14. The written and graphic information submitted by the applicant as part of the application process shall constitute proffers pursuant to Section 30-15 of this C:\OFFICE\ W PW IN\ W PDCCS\AGENDA\CODE\ PTD.ORD 6 ordinance. Once the Board of Supervisors has approved the final master plan, all accepted proffers shall constitute conditions pursuant to Section 30-15. (D) To initiate an amendment, the applicant shall complete a rezoning application packet. This information shall be accompanied by graphic and written information, which shall constitute a preliminary master plan. All information submitted shall be of sufficient clarity and scale to clearly and accurately identify the location, nature, and character of the proposed district. At a minimum this information shall include: 1. A legal description and plat showing the site boundaries, and existing street lines, lot lines, and easements. 2. Existing zoning, land use and ownership of each parcel proposed for the district. 3. A general statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PTD district, including a description of the character of the proposed development, the existing and proposed ownership of the site, the market for which the development is oriented, and objectives towards any specific human -made and natural characteristics located on the site. 4. A description and analysis of existing site conditions, including information on topography, historic resources, natural water courses, floodplains, unique natural features, tree cover areas, known archeological resources, etc. 5. The proposed conceptual location and number of structures within each land use of the proposed development. C:\OFFICE\ W PW IN\ W PDOCS\AGENDA\CODE\ PTD.ORD 7 6. The approximate gross square footage for each use type proposed in the PTD. 7. The proposed size, location and use of other portions of the tract, including landscaping and parking. 8. General information on the trip generation, ownership, maintenance and construction standards for proposed streets should be included. A Traffic Impact Analysis may be required by the Administrator. 9. Reserved 10. The proposed schedule of site development. At a minimum, the schedule should include an approximate commencement date for construction and a proposed build -out period. 11. Generalized statements pertaining to architectural design principles and guidelines shall be submitted in sufficient detail to provide information on building designs, orientations, styles, lighting plans, signage plans, landscaping, etc. (E) The completed rezoning application and supporting preliminary Master Plan materials shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and analysis. The Commission shall review this information and make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors. The Commission shall as part of its review hold a public hearing pursuant to Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. The proposed district shall be posted with signs indicating the date and time of the Commission public hearing. C:\OFFICE\ W PW IN\ W PDOCs\ AGENDA\CODE\PTD.ORD 8 (F) The Commission shall make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors within 90 days of the receipt of the materials, unless the applicant requests, or agrees to an extension of this time frame. The Commission's report shall recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval of the preliminary master plan. Failure of the Commission to make a report of its findings to the Board of Supervisors within this period shall constitute a Commission recommendation of approval. (G) If the Commission recommends denial of the preliminary Master Plan, or approval with modification, the applicant shall, if requested, have 60 days to make any modifications. If the applicant desires to make any modifications to the preliminary Master Plan, the Board of Supervisor's review and action shall be delayed until such changes are made and submitted for review. (H) The Board of Supervisors shall review the preliminary Master Plan, and after holding a public hearing act to approve or deny the plan within 90 days. Approval of the preliminary Master Plan shall constitute acceptance of the plan's provisions and concepts as proffers pursuant to Section 30- 15 of this ordinance. The Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors shall constitute the final Master Plan for the PTD. Once approved by the Board of Supervisors, the Administrator shall authorize the revisions to the official zoning map to indicate the establishment of the PTD district. Sec. 30-63-7 Revisions to Final Master Plan (A) Major revisions to the final Master Plan shall be reviewed and approved following the procedures and requirements of Section 30-63-6. Major revisions include, but are not limited to changes such as: C:\OFFICE\ W PW IN\ W PDOCS\AGENDA\CODE\PTD.ORD 9 1. Any significant increase in the density of the development; 2. Substantial change in circulation or access; 3. Substantial change in grading or utility provisions; 4. Substantial changes in the mixture of land uses; 5. Substantial change in architectural or site design features of the development; 6. Any other change that the Administrator finds is a major divergence from the approved final master plan. (B) All other changes in the final Master Plan shall be considered minor amendments. The Administrator, upon receipt of a written request of the owner, may approve such minor amendments. 1. If the Administrator fails to act on a request for a minor amendment to the Master Plan within 15 calendar days, it shall be considered approved. 2. A request which is disapproved by the Administrator shall be considered a major amendment and shall be subject to the approval process outlined above for such amendments. Sec. 30-63-8 Approval of Preliminary and Final Site Development Plans C:\OFFICE\ W PW IN\ W PDOCS\ AGENDA \ CODE \ PTD.ORD 10 7i (A) Following the approval of the final Master Plan, the applicant or its authorized agent, shall be required to submit preliminary and final site development plans for approval. Final site development plans for any phase or component of the PTD that involves the construction of structures or facilities, shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building and zoning permit, and the commencement of construction. Standards for preliminary and final site development plans are found in a document entitled Land Development Procedures, available in the Department of Engineering and Inspections. (B) It is the intent of this section that subdivision review under the subdivision regulations be carried out simultaneously with the review of a planned industrial development under this section. The plans required under this section shall be submitted in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the subdivision regulations, as determined by the Administrator. (C) Preliminary and final site development plans submitted for review shall be in compliance with the final Master Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors. Roanoke County shall review and approve or disapprove any Final Site Development Plan within 60 days of its submittal. (D) No Planned Technology Development shall be approved and no work shall be authorized on construction until all property included in the final Master Plan is in common ownership. Sec. 30-63-9 Failure to Begin Development (A) Unless an extension is granted by the Administrator, failure of the applicant to submit a preliminary site development plan for at least one portion of the planned residential development within 36 C:\OFFICE\ W PW IN\ W PDOCS\AGENDA\CODE\ PTD.ORD 11 months of the approval of the final Master Plan, shall constitute an application on the part of applicant to rezone the PTD to the district designations in effect prior to the approval of the final Master Plan. Sec. 30-63-10 Control Following Approval of Final Development Plans (A) The zoning administrator shall periodically inspect the site and review all building permits issued for the development to ensure that the development is in general compliance with the submitted schedule. (Amended Ord. 92794-17) 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. C:\OFFICE\ W PW IN\ W PDOCS\ AGENDA \ CODE \ PTD.ORD 12 PETITIONER: ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CASE NUMBER: 12-4/98 Planning Commission Hearing Date: Planning Commission Worksession Date: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: April 7, 1998 April 21, 1998 April 28, 1998 A. REQUEST Petition of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to rezone 456.6 acres from R-1, Residential to Planned Technology Development District, for a business and commercial park, located in the 5300 block of Glenmary Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Margaret Simmons wanted to know how the proposed project will affect Dow Hollow Road. Staff responded to Ms. Simmons that any future extension to Dow Hollow would involve a substantial upgrade to the existing road, and would necessarily involve the acquisition of additional properties in the Dow Hollow Road and Prunty Drive areas. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION April 7. 1998 Public Hearing The Commission discussed with Mr. Gubala the Lone Eagle District proposal on the upper portion of the property, expressing support for the Planning Department concerns that until the preliminary engineering is undertaken, the extent of grading and land modifications needed to develop the Lone Eagles is unknown. Mr. Gubala indicated that the Lone Eagles were not a high priority development area and the County's immediate emphasis would be on developing the Corporate Circle and Technology District areas of the Park. The Commission agreed that additional language pertaining to Greenways was needed, and agreed to review additional proposals from the Economic Development staff at their April 21, 1998 worksession April 21. 1998 Worksession The Commission reviewed the April 17th memorandum from Mr. Gubala which outlined the County's stated greenway objectives for the project. After reviewing the memorandum and discussing the issue with Ms. Cox , the Commission expressed concern that a greenway system may never be constructed within the project area. The Commission's recommendation is that the Board of Supervisors, as current owner of the land, incorporate a greenway system into the design of the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology. The conceptual location of the greenway system should be located and reserved for future construction as part of the preliminary engineering for the site. The Commission understands that funding for the construction of the greenway system is not now available, and may not be available for the foreseeable future. However, if land area within the project site is reserved for future greenway an trail construction then development of businesses within the site will not preclude the possibility of a future trail system. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS All submitted material constitute proffered conditions (see attached notebook), including the April 17th greenway memorandum from Mr. Gubala. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Hooker moved to recommend that the request as submitted be approved with the proffered conditions with the exception that the area designated as the Lone Eagle District not be approved and that this area be designated as Reserved for Future Development . Development of this area would not be permitted until preliminary engineering is undertaken, and the conceptual master plan for the project is resubmitted to the Commission and Board for review and formal revision under the provisions of the PTD. The motion carried with the following roll call vote. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Robinson, Ross, Thomason, Hooker, Witt None None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Staff Report _ Vicinity Map Other Terrance Hringtoa, Secretary Roanokounty Planning Commission Roanoke County Department Economic Development Memorandum TO: Terry HarrinC FROM: Tim Gubala AAA( DATE: April 17, 1998 RE: Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology; Proffer of Conditions pertaining to Greenway and Trail Development at the Center As part of the Commissions and Boards consideration of the pending rezoning request, I would like to offer the following as a proffer pertaining to the development of a greenway/trail system at the proposed Center. 1. As developer of the Center, Roanoke County will be responsible for the inclusion of a trail/greenway system in portions of the park. A. Protect environmentally sensitive creeks and streams as addressed in the Preliminary Concept Plan from Hill Studio's team. B. The final area dedicated to greenways and walking trails may vary upon completion of detailed engineering. C. The various components of the system shall either be constructed at public expense, or shall be the responsibility of the businesses locating in the park. D. The fiscal responsibility for development and maintenance will be negotiated at the time of the sale of the property. 2. The conceptual location of all of the major components of the system shall be determined at the time that the preliminary engineering of the Center is undertaken. However, at a minimum, the system shall have the foillowing characteristics: A. Construction of the system shall be phased to coincide with the construction of the various uses in the Center. The intent is to develop the system in conjunction with the development of the park. B. A greenway system overlays the streams as a defined protection area. C. Some of the greenways incorporate a trail system available to residents and businesses within the site. D. The trail system allows a connection between the developed areas and the natural areas of site. E. The trail/greenway system may/shall be constructed of a variety of materials suitable to the intended usage. STAFF REPORT Case Number: 12-4/98 Prepared by: J. Scheid/T. Harrington Applicant: Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Date: April 7, 1998 PART I A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This request is generally consistent with the proposed Principal Industrial land use designation of this area of west county. It is also consistent with the county's Economic Development Strategy. An intensive community input process has been undertaken and results in a rezoning proposal that is consistent with the desires of the neighboring community, the county and area businesses. There are three areas of the proposal where additional information is required. These are: the Lone Eagle District and how development of this portion of the site will be accomplished with minimal environmental degradation to the steep slopes; status of roads including private road construction standards and maintenance agreement; and greenways and trails. DESCRIPTION This is a request of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to rezone approximately 457 acres from its current designation of R-1 Single Family Residential to a proposed designation of PTD Planned Technology District. The purpose of the request is to develop the public corporate research center to be known as the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology. Roanoke County purchased the property in 1997 for the purpose of developing this Center. Although the Center will likely contain industrial/manufacturing uses, the stated emphasis of the Center will be on research and development activities, corporate offices and corporate and business services to support the employment base within the Center. The property is located within the Catawba Magisterial • • • District, and within the Glenvar Community Planning Area. It is situated along Glenmary Drive approximately three -fourths of a mile north of the Dixie Caverns exit to I-81 C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A rezoning classification of PTD Planned Technology District is requested. The PTD is a new zoning district that has been developed and is being reviewed concurrent with this rezoning request. The PTD is a modification of the Planning Industrial District (PID) adopted by the Board in 1992. The existing PID regulations do not permit all of the components and proposals submitted as part of this rezoning request. The Planning Commission directed the staff to modify the PID district, to address the needs of this and similar proposals. The proposed PTD is the result. A conceptual master plan has been submitted as a requirement of the PTD. If approved by the Board of Supervisors, final master plans will need to be submitted for administrative review and approval prior to commencement of development. All final plans must generally conform to the conceptual master plan and the series of proposals and proffers submitted as part of this request. PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. Lot Area and Description - This site consists of 457 acres of land. The property is a combination of pastures, ponds, streams, steep slopes and forests. An overhead power line bisects the property from north to south. The property currently has a farm lease on it and is mowed for hay. 2. Location - This site is located just north of I-81 and Route 11/460 and is bordered on the east by Glenvar Heights Blvd. The Dixie Caverns Exit #132 is located to the southwest. 2 3. Topography - This site has a wide range of slope and topography as would be expected of a property this size. The southern portions of the site, consisting of the existing pastures, are the most level. The site becomes quite steep, with slopes exceeding 25%, on the northern half of the property. 4. Views - Views to the site are limited by existing topography and existing woodlands. Limited views of the site are feasible from locations along Rt. 11/460 and other high points in the Roanoke Valley. Views from the site are quite significant. Looking south from the pasture area, views of Poor Mountain and the associated ridgeline can be seen. Looking north from the pasture area, beautiful views of Fort Lewis Mountain and the associated ridgeline can be seen. To the northeast, views of downtown Roanoke and Mill Mountain can be enjoyed. 5. Vegetation - The northern, more mountainous areas of this site are predominately woodlands consisting of oak, hickory, beech, ash, tulip poplar, maple and scattered evergreen. The southern half of the site contains pockets of deciduous woodland that was left remaining after clearing for pastures. Along the stream corridors, willow, ash and sycamore have become established. 6. Drainage - Water is a significant factor on this site. Callahan Branch and it's tributaries bisect the property from northwest to southeast. The Callahan Branch basin drains the majority of the site and a sizable portion of off -site area. It exits the property through a box culvert under I-81. A main tributary to Callahan Branch parallels the eastern boundary, near the properties off Glenvar Heights Blvd. The Callahan basin features 2 existing ponds - one large pond located in the main stem of the branch and a second pond on the western side of the site. Two other existing ponds are located in a small basin in the lower southwest corner of the property. All of these ponds are utilized primarily for agricultural purposes. 7. Archeology - A standing cabin is located in the lower southeast corner of the site. This cabin was relocated for • -8 • • the construction of I-81 and extensively remodeled at that time. There are indications that Native Americans traveled through this property and one test dig, in the pasture area, revealed several areas with Native American and early settler artifacts. One study area is eligible to receive further research at the determination of the State of Virginia. 8. Buildings/Structures - This property contains three houses, including a log cabin at the corner of I-81 and Glenvar Heights Blvd. These houses are currently leased. Two houses and a barn are located at the end of Glenmary Drive and a pole barn is located near the largest pond. 9. Access - Access is currently from Glenmary Drive. 10. Surrounding Neighborhoods - This site is bordered on the west by the Prunty and Dow Hollow communities and on the east by the neighborhood of Glenvar Heights. These are all well - established single-family residential areas. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1. Use - The proposed use is a planned research and technology park containing four major areas: Corporate Village District, Corporate Circle District, Technology District and the Lone Eagle District. 2. Site Layout - Each of these 4 districts is described further below: Corporate Village District - A village center with businesses, support services, and commercial buildings, this area is located at the upper end of Dry Branch on the proffered concept plan. Corporate Circle District - Corporate office buildings with select commercial business ventures adjacent to the Corporate Village District. Technology District - Research and technology businesses located around the Corporate Village and Corporate Circle. The proffered concept plan indicates areas for 11 sites in this district. 4 • Lone Eagle District - Large lot, high -end residential home businesses or professional businesses of ten employees or less. All businesses are service oriented, non -manufacturing with minimal requirements for client pacing and'delivery truck service. This district is located in the northern half of the property. The proffered concept plan indicates 20 sites in the Lone Eagle District. The necessary preliminary engineering has not been done on this site to determine whether the location and size of these 4 districts is feasible. Information on the gross square footage in each land use has not been submitted as required by the Planned Technology Development District. On the proffered concept plan the Lone Eagle District is located in the area of the steepest slopes. The development of this area will possibly require private roads and private water and septic systems. 3. Access to Site - The primary access to the site will be from Glenmary Drive. The County has proffered that there will be no access from Prunty Drive or Glenvar Heights Boulevard. The proffered site plan shows an access option from Dow Hollow on the western side of the site. This access point proposes no direct connection to Prunty Drive (a bridge or tunnel design is proposed). The application does not state what, if any, improvements are proposed for Glenmary Drive to accommodate the expected traffic from this project. Glenmary Drive is technically part of the interstate system, having been constructed/modified in conjunction with the interstate construction. Portions of Glenmary are likely to be affected by the proposed widening of I-81. Such construction may allow the upgrade of Glenmary to accommodate expected traffic volumes, however the timing of this upgrade may not coincide with the demand generated by the commercial and industrial development in the Center. 4. Circulation - The concept plan indicates that a loop road will serve the Corporate Circle and Technology District with a smaller loop road to the west serving the Corporate Village. The Lone Eagle District to the north is served by a single road that splits and leads to two dead ends. Without the benefit of the preliminary engineering it is impossible to tell at this point in time whether the concept plan for the road system is feasible or not. If as a result of the preliminary engineering substantial changes to the designs shown on the master plan become necessary the rezoning request will need to be resubmitted to the Commission and Board for revision and adoption. The rezoning submittal does not include specific information about whether the roads are public or private and who has responsibility for long-term maintenance of the roads. This is particularly important within the proposed Lone Eagle District where environmentally sensitive road construction will be a challenge due to the extreme slopes in this area. A traffic circulation plan has been submitted with this application. 5. Traffic Count - A preliminary traffic generation study was conducted. This study assumed that the site would be divided into 14 buildable sites of 20 acres each. Utilizing the Institute for Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual a projected daily traffic count of 6615 vehicles per day was derived. The Virginia Department of Transportation reviewed this information and commented that based on generic business office parks the traffic volume estimate appeared to be conservative. 6. Architecture - Article VII of the Covenants and Conditions contains some general design guidelines for the exterior appearance of buildings in this park. A Design Review Team will be established and responsible for reviewing, evaluating and approving building and site plan designs. The Design Team may recommend a higher standard than these criteria indicate. In instances where the Design Review Team can waive specific standards, the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance will establish the minimum standard. 7. Public Services - Public water and sewer can be made available to this property by extensions of approximately 800 feet for both from Route 460. It is unclear from the information 6 • • submitted whether or not the Lone Eagle District would be connected to public services. 8. Fire and Rescue - Fire and rescue service to this site is adequate. Response service, in the range of 4-8 minutes, would be provided by the Fort Lewis Station. 9. Environmental Issues - Article VIII of the Covenants and Conditions addresses community concerns about environmental issues during the construction process such as open air burning, accumulation of debris, storage of equipment and materials and construction access. The northern portion of this site is heavily wooded and quite mountainous with most slopes ranging from 30% to in excess of 60%. This area is the proposed location of the Lone Eagle District. Although there are some areas in the saddles of the mountain ridges where slopes are in the 15% range, the development of this area and the necessary provision of road, water and waste disposal systems could possibly do significant environmental damage to this portion of the property. 10. Amenities - Although the Covenants and Conditions state that pedestrian access paths and bicycle trails shall be provided no concept plan or map of these amenities has been proffered at this time. 11. Community Process - A five -month Community Visioning Process was incorporated into the early stages of planning for this rezoning. This community process was initiated due to the failure of the County's initial attempt several years ago to propose and develop a traditional industrial park on this site. There was significant neighborhood opposition to the initial industrial park proposal. As a result of this failure, a Community Advisory Committee was formed from the business and residential leaders in West County and expert advice was sought from architects, landscape architects and engineers. A two-day charette was held to solicit community input on design, use and operational issues. The proposed concept plan and covenants are the County's interpretation of the results of this process. C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN As stated in the application materials, this request does not conform to the future land use map prepared and adopted in 1985. The 1985 Comprehensive Plan Map designated this general area as "Development", a designation that promotes residential development at a variety of densities and housing types. The 1985 Plan did however designate most of the land areas around the Dixie Caverns exit (and in proximity to this property) as Core in recognition of the commercial development potential made possible by the interchange location. Since 1985 the county has placed considerable emphasis on economic development and in recent years has adopted economic development strategies promoting the development of this site Generally, Principal Industrial policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan advocate development of industrial uses in the Glenvar area provided sufficient water and sewer capacity exists, and industries are protective of the natural environment and respective of adjacent neighborhoods. Policy I-8 states that industrial areas outside of principal industrial areas are appropriate if exceptionally designed for light manufacturing, office and research uses. PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS This rezoning request is a continuation of a process initiated by Roanoke County several years ago to develop this parcel for a productive economic use. The community involvement process used to develop the preliminary master plan and covenants was a response to the community's desire that the industrial use of this property be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. The staff believes this process was a success, in that a community consensus was achieved on the use of this property. 8 The proposal before the Commission for review is unlike any industrial rezoning previously before the county. With its emphasis on research and development uses, and the incorporation of commercial services to serve businesses and employees of the park, the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology has the potential to set a new standard for quality industrial development within Roanoke County. If the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology is successful, residential areas around the park in the Dow Hollow and Prunty communities will experience significant market pressure for redevelopment in the coming years. If approved, the county should recognize that future requests to rezone these areas will be forthcoming as demand for additional industrial and commercial space emerges. The staff recommends that this request be approved. However, we believe that several aspects of the overall proposal should be modified before acted on by the Board. First, because of the severe potential for environmental and slope degradation, we believe that the Lone Eagle District should be reserved from approval until such time as the county is ready to undertake preliminary engineering for this area to clearly show the extent of grading necessary to achieve the envisioned road network and install the necessary water and waste disposal systems. Second, we believe the application needs to be clarified as to which roads within the Center will be public and private, to what standards private roads will be built and how long-term maintenance requirements for private roads will be achieved. Finally, although greenways are designated in several areas on the concept plan, the proposal lacks clarity on greenway and trail development issues. We believe the plan should be modified to clearly state that greenways and trails will be constructed with each phase of the project, and that the system of Greenways and trails will generally link all of the sites within the park into a cohesive system. Information should also be provided on who will be responsible for • construction of the trail system and who will bear the maintenance responsibility after construction. PREPARED HY: JANET SCHEID/TERRY HARRINGTON DATE PREPARED: April 3, 1998 10 ltirnntg of aaxt.aie DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT "A" / 6J ROANOKE COUNTY CENTER FOR RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY MARCH 24, 1998 APPLICATION TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM R-1 TO PTD P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 • (540) 772-2069 • FAX NO. (540) 772-2030 Printed on Recycled Paper • ROANOKE COUNTY CENTER FOR RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY REZONING REQUEST MARCH 24, 1998 Executive Summary This report is a request to rezone the former Glenn -Mary Farm Site to a Planned Technology Development district (PTD) to support the development of the Roanoke County Center for Research & Technology. The park will contain four major districts: Corporate Village District Corporate Circle District Technology District Lone Eagle District A village center with businesses, support services, and commercial buildings Corporate buildings with select commercial business ventures adjacent to the Corporate Village Progressive R&D and technological manufacturing entities which encircle the Corporate Village and Corporate Circle Residential and commercial mix for self-employed or limited small business endeavors A Preliminary Concept Plan for the site was developed by the citizens and staff in a five month Community Visioning Process under the facilitation of a Design Team of architects and engineers. Concurrently, the Design Team used the same five months to qualify the site. Copies of the subconsultants reports are included in the attachments. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment found no major environmental obstacles to the purchase and development of the land. A Preliminary Subsurface Exploration Report determined the site suitable for development and that costs should be "normal" in the areas investigated. Adequate public water and sewer facilities exist, or are planned to be extended, at locations near the boundary of the site. A preliminary review of current and proposed stormwater, runoff impacts and water quality issues was conducted. With proper design, stormwater management and flow quantity can be controlled while the established stream ecosystem and drainage pattern can be utilized to lessen the impact of thermal loading and achieve some natural water quality management. The property is completely surrounded by a minimum 100' landscape buffer that will provide screening for adjoining residential neighborhoods. A Phase I Archeological study of the site was performed to identify historical resources. Several test digs revealed some artifacts with one area is eligible to receive further research if warranted by the State of Virginia. A preliminary traffic study focused on the alternative access road options, traffic projections, and existing road upgrades as a result of the projected traffic counts and safety concerns. /-6 Executive Summary Page Two The Roanoke County Center for Research & Technology's preliminary concept plan and design guidelines incorporate innovative and site responsive development methods. It allows the opportunity to develop a carefully crafted and rigorously controlled business park which protects and enhances natural resources, while facilitating high -quality, leading edge, mixed use development. Roanoke County Center for Research & Technology will provide Roanoke County the opportunity to become a part of the technological growth of this portion of the state. • COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard Dr.- P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ( 540' 772-2068 FAX (540) 772-2108 For staff use only -r: date (2-0 received (f. /-/ application fee: PC/BA7 e: placards jr 0 ed: B /dace:?? a.,,... Case Number:45, • Check type of application El REZONING filed (check all that apply): ■ SPECIAL USE • VARIANCE Applicant's name: Elmer C. Hodge, Administrator Phone:772-2004 Address: County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA Zip Code: 24018 Owner's name: County of 'Roanoke Phone: Address: (Same as above) Zip Code: Location of property: 5300 block of Glenmary. Drive Tax Map Number:54.00-1-2 , 3 / 64.00-1-1 Magisterial District: Catawba Community Planning Area: Glenvar Size of parcel (s): 456.6 acres Existing Zoning: R-1 Existing Land Use: Agricultural sq.ft. • ;::isisisisisisisissisisisisisisisisisi:::::::i:::isisiisisisisisi::i:i::i:i:::::::::i: i E €1 I iah * S' `C'IAA,i' i USE •PE A.4-11 AP C1 T8iiV`P• S•.........::..::....:.......:.:..: ......... Proposed Zoning: Planned Technology Development District (PTD) Proposed Land Use: Business and Commercial Park -as specified in the Concept Plan For staff use only Use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, YES X NO IF NO, A VARIANCE and frontage requirements of the requested district? IS REQUIRED FIRST. requested Use Type? YES x NO Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being proff _rot with this request? YES NO x ..'isi Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in crier to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT EE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws V Consultation Application Justification ws V 8 1 /2" x 1 1" concept plan Metes and bounds description Water and sewer application PIS V Application fee Proffers, if applicable Adjoining property owners l hereby certify that l am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and nsent of thr - wner. Owner's Signature: • JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING This request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance as it encourages the economic development activities for the creation of wealth and jobs while producing an aesthetically pleasing and functional planned development. Protection of the property was outlined in the professional reports in three areas of testing (archeological, environmental, and geotechnical) during the site qualification process. Access roads and traffic patterns received intense focus and five separate routes were proposed based on development phases and increased traffic patterns. Specific guidelines and restrictions were developed to protect the property, the public, the environment, and the businesses on site in the Declaration of Protective Covenants and Conditions (see Section 5). The project does not conform to the general guidelines and policies contained in the 1985 Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, but does reflect the goals of the Economic Development Strategy 1992-1994 and the County Visioning Process. In recent years, West County has experienced a growth spurt with the development of Valley TechPark; the expansion plans of companies such as The Kroger Company, Richfield Retirement Center, and RR Donnelley & Sons; and new location announcements such Frito-Lay and Rusco. Major impact on West County will be felt with the expansion of Interstate 81, the possible widening of Route 11/460, and the beginning of the construction on the test bed of the Smart Road approximately twelve miles from the Exit 132 at Dixie Caverns. There are approximately 17 miles of interstate with 6 interchanges which is an economic opportunity for Roanoke County as outlined in the Economic Development Strategy 1992-1994. Roanoke County's current construction project on the north transmission loop from the Spring Hollow Reservoir is also boosting development in an area that was primarily agriculture. The Economic Development Sub -Committee Report for Roanoke County Vision 2010 stated that a firm commitment was needed by Roanoke County to provide land and infrastructure to encourage economic development (see attached copy of report). It is respectfully requested that the current revision of the Comprehensive Plan review the growth and development of West County and alter the plan to reflect the change from neighborhood conservation to mixed use development in the area northeast of Dixie Caverns and Interstate 81. Due to the neighborhood conservation status of the land and the two residential communities which bookend this property, Roanoke County incorporated a five month Community Visioning Process. A Community Advisory Committee was formed from the business and residential leaders in West County and under the facilitation of an external Design Team of consultants, this group sought community feedback on the proposed Roanoke County Business Park. A Technical Resource Board was formed from regional leaders to support the Community Advisory Committee. The Design Team performed consecutive duties of gathering community input and qualifying the site for the preparation of a week long Design Workshop for the Community. The outcome of five months work was the Preliminary Concept Plan for the Roanoke County Business Park (see Section 4). This plan addresses the attached Critical Issues presented by residents in addition to the public services and facilities, water/sewer, and roads. Impacts on the schools and parks/recreation is expected to be minimal as only one district within the concept plan includes housing for a maximum of 20 families. Economic Development Sub -Committee Report Roanoke County Vision 2010 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1. Need a firm commitment by Roanoke County to provide land and infrastructure to encourage economic development. a. Procure a large tract of land (300-400 developable acres) in order to focus and control economic development facilities. b. Construct roads, water, sewer, storm drainage, and associated facilities. Facility should be similar to RCIT. c. Development should not be confined to "service industries". 2. Continue to identify and rezone existing "free standing" parcels to support economic development. Encourage these "individual" parcels to be developed for service industries in order to minimize conflicts with existing developments. 3. Strive to obtain a major industry to replace the void left by Norfolk -Southern and Dominion Bank. 4. Continue to develop partnership with Research Community at VPI&SU and "Smart Road". 5. Continue to support the efforts of the Roanoke Regional Partnership to showcase the Valley. TOURISM 1. Create a partnership with the municipalities of Valley to showcase the attractions in each of the municipalities, i.e. Center In The Square, Transportation Museum, Explore, Smith Mountain Lake, etc. 2. Actively educate the users of the Parkway of the attractions of the area. 3. Continue to promote events such as Tour DuPont which showcase the area to the world. • • CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FACTORS: ■ Public Trust • Avoiding "The Preconceived Plan" Notion (Use the workshop process to distill the "Smoke & Mirrors" attitudes) • Widening of Route 11/460 • Insure that end result is a saleable product • Use park to stabilize residential taxes • Seek out clean business/industry • Property tax impact - will homes hold value? • Buffer Zones • Industry & building restrictions • Access roads denied to neighborhoods • Preserve and maintain property integrity (Insure conditions such as mass, scale, color, design, etc. are harmonious to site) ■ Avoid pollution to air, ground, and water (especially during construction) • Traffic control • Installation of water and sewer on site • Avoid negative effects of blasting on private wells STATEMENTS: Major concern - encroachment on site by two major factors - the widening of Route 11/460 and the new proposed AEP line. "This park is a success if the neighbors can't hear or smell it." Roanoke County does not need "entry-level" jobs - we need WAGE earner jobs. Successful if the community understands the demands that are created by spin-off opportunities. Improves Quality of Conununity. Consider positives available such as parks, walking trails, greenways, etc. However, we must determine how to protect/respect adjacent property owners. For Staff Use Only: Case Number Applicant �.r.• ri:�i",'�':: �:rti :'J:i is:'t rii-<': rti 7-':%'h�Y 'r:f"i['+Y: i County of Roanoke The Board of Zoning Appeals is required by Section 15.1-495 of the Code of Virginia to consider the following factors before a variance can be granted. Please read the factors listed below carefully and in your own words, describe how your request meets each factor. If additional space is needed, use additional sheets of parer. 1. The variance shall not be contrary to the public interest and shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of the zoning ordinance. N/A 2. That the strict application of the zoning ordinance would produce undue hardship; a hardship that approaches confiscation (as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience) and would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of property. N/A 3. That the hardship is not shared by other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity. Such harpsnips should be addressed by the Board of Supervisors as amendments to the ordinance. N/A 4. That the variance will not be of a substantial detriment to the adjacent property or the character of the district • N/A 7-1 OA concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development, or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County permitting regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may by altered to the extent permitted by zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, 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 staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but in general, the following are considered minimum: • ALL APPLICANTS ❑ a. Applicant name and name of development. ❑ b. Date, scale, and north point of plan. ❑ c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions d. Location, names of owners, and Roanoke Co. tax map numbers of adjoining properties. ❑ e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. ❑ f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties. ❑ g. All property lines and easements. ❑ h. All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights. ❑ i. Location, widths, and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development. ❑ j. Dimensions and location of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces. Additional information required for REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS k. Show existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site. I. Any driveways, entrance/exits, curb openings, and crossovers. m Topography map on a suitable scale and contour intervals. n. Approximate street grades and site distances at all intersections. o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants. p. Please submit any proffered conditions at the site and show how they are addressed. q. If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule. ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ SEE THE ATTACHED ROANOKE COUNTY BUSINESS PARK PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN ' certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. Signature of applicant WATER AND SE.:1ER APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS An 8}" x 11" photocopy of the appropriate USGS contour map should be submitted with t application. A photocopy of the USGS may be obtained Econ the Roanoke County Engineeri Department a t' no charge. For those parcels that are within the area covered bv the se,. and Water planimetrics and are less than 20 acres in size, an 8i" x 11" photocopy of t appropriate planimetric should be su pitied. This copy may be obtained from the ginE; ing Department at no cost. However, if the applicant desires to have the enti planimetric copied, there will be a charge of $2. It is the developer's res cnsibilit to ensure that these maps are attached to the application and that the parcel i correctly delineated. After it is received, the application for water and seer will forwarded to the Roanoke County Utility Department for evaluation of the present syst capacity -at the point of the proposed connection. This information will bP included the staff report.submitted for review to the Board of Surervisors and Planning Ccmmissic Any questions with regard to the water and sewer application should be made to Roan( County Utility Department, 1206 Kessler Mill Road; Salem, VA 24153; phone 387-610 4 . Examples of minimum acceptable inforra: Example A: Portion of Sever P1ani etri 20 acres and within the a:a EXAMPLE B: Portion of USGS Contour Map 20 acres or outside of the ion for Contour Maps c. Required when the parcel is less than as covered by the vater and sever planimetrics. Required when the parcel is greater than areas covered by the eater and sever planimetrics. • • 7::: - _ ........ r: ' - ...._, ----.4. _525:. • • -7, i = 7HV14 •_, i Proposed Roanoke Coun SITE INFORMATION; TOTAL. ARP.A. 457 ACrPi (APPRAXIMA7E) Business Park = 500' Lr 11;:1%°241iltysct+01 • 400' eocr MM. MEN MEM • • 1) 0 0 0 z 0 WATER AND SEWER INSTALLATION A formal application for water and sewer will not be submitted at this time. All information on the development of the property via the Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan has been shared with the Director of Utility, the Director of Engineering & Inspections, and the Director of Planning & Zoning. Next year, it is expected that this site will undergo additional preliminary engineering studies. The outcome of the studies combined with the preliminary plan will be correlated, finalized, and incorporated in the Capital Improvement Plan. • • ENGINEERING CONCEPTS INC. October 21,1997 Ms. Melinda J. Cox Economic Development Specialist County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Re: Road and Traffic Issues Roanoke County Business Park Glenmary Tract Dear Melinda: Engineering Concepts, Inc. is pleased to provide the County with a summary of our preliminary evaluation of the road and access issues associated with the proposed development of the new Roanoke County Business Park in the Glenvar area. As part of the consultant team led by Hill Studio, P.C., ECI was responsible for the preliminary studies of the supporting utility infrastructure, drainage/stormwater management, and site access issues. Our overall evaluation of these items was included in the final report presented to the County entitled Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan, dated July 17, 1997, with Addendum, dated August 14, 1997. During the planning workshop, which was held in June of 1997, ECI performed preliminary traffic generation estimates for the developed condition based on a probable division of the property into 14 buildable sites of 20 acres each. Utilizing the trip generation numbers for similar developments as contained in the Institute for Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual, we developed a projected daily traffic count of 6615 vehicles per day (VPD) (The numbers from the Manual recommended utilizing a figure of 135 employees per 20-acre site with each employee contributing 3.5 trips per day). The final preliminary concept plan contained a mix of lot and development types: 11 sites in the range of 10 to 20 acres, 20 Lone Eagle sites, and a mix of office/commercial uses in the Corporate Village and Corporate Circle areas. For planning purposes, we believe that a vehicle per day count of 6500 to 7000 is adequate for the level of study at this time. Given a traffic projection greater than 5500 VPD, and assuming a Local classification, VDOT standards would require a Category VI roadway for this level of service. A Category VI roadway with curb and gutter would have a minimum 50 foot -wide right-of-way and a 40 foot -wide pavement section. Without curb and gutter, the pavement section would be 24 feet of pavement with shoulders. These requirements are a minimum; however, and the County may wish to increase the section to increase the marketable impact and aesthetics of the major entrance into this high -profile development. 20 S. ROANOKE ST., SUITE 201 P.O. BOX 619 FINCASTLE, VIRGINIA 24090 (540) 473-1253 FAX 473-1254 4656 BRAMBLETON AVENUE, SW ROANOKE, VIRGINIA (540) 776-5715 Fax (540)776-8543 • • • Melinda J. Cox October 21, 1997 Page 2 The consultant team developed numerous scenarios for access routes into the park. Further study of those various alternatives will be at the option of the County as the more detailed planning and preliminary engineering studies proceed next year. Based on our assessment of the current situation and our experience with industrial/business park development projects, we would recommend the following course of action for your consideration. Given all of the options for accessing the park, we would recommend a phased approach utilizing the existing Glenmary Drive as a near -term solution and an improved, realigned Dow Hollow Road as the ultimate access route. The use of Glenmary would reduce the initial expenditure and capital outlay required to access the site and would afford the County and VDOT time to study the effects of the proposed 1-81 improvements on the site and vicinity. If the Dow Hollow Road approach is considered viable, then the initial use of Glenmary Drive affords the County time to not only plan and design the road, but also to investigate cost -sharing and funding options with the Commonwealth. VDOT is currently in the process of studying the proposed widening and improvement of Interstate 81. We have all heard the discussions of rumors proposing to widen the Interstate to 6 or 8 lanes. We believe that whatever the outcome of the VDOT study, the widening of 1-81 will have some effect on Glenmary Drive and the interchange at Dixie Caverns. Therefore, the use of Glenmary Drive as an access to the park has a limited existence. We would recommend that the Couhty and VDOT begin discussions as soon as possible to determine how VDOT will consider the temporary use of Glenmary Drive as the access into the park. Items of concern from their point of view may be: timing of 1-81 improvements and the elimination of Glenmary Drive versus the build -out of the park and the resultant traffic generation to Glenmary Drive; existing condition, cross-section and geometry of Glenmary Drive and the compatibility of the existing roadway with projected traffic counts; VDOT right-of-way needs for the 1-81 work versus the subdivision and sales of development properties adjacent to the Glenmary alignment; ultimate traffic generation from the site and surrounding neighborhoods to a realigned Dow Hollow Road and improved Dixie Cavems interchange; and disposition of neighborhood streets and properties cut off from ingress and egress due to the elimination of Glenmary Drive. There are undoubtedly many other areas of mutual concern at this location that need to be addressed between the County and VDOT: general road construction funding, Route 460 improvements, utility routings under a new interstate, widening of underpasses, and others. Given our experience with VDOT, it is most advantageous to invite them in on the initial planning stages of a project. The interior roads of the development will be less restrictive in terms of the cross-section required as traffic counts decrease due to number of employees served. Again, due to aesthetic and marketing concerns, a minimum section may be desired that is still in excess of the required roadway. Once on -site, the road and traffic circulation is predicated more on a basis of working with the landscape and the development plan than from engineering concems. • Melinda J. Cox October 21,1997 Page 3 We hope this provides you with the information that you need. Please call us if you have additional questions. Again, it is a pleasure to work with Roanoke County on this important project. Sincerely, LoAAA w NAL Larry W. Wallace, P.E. Branch Manager /lww cc: David Hill, John Schmidt, Hal Bailey • ROANOKE COUNTY BUSINESS PARK PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINE'S OUTLINE STATEMENT AND SITE QUALIFYING DOCUMENT JULY 17, 1997 HILL STUDIO P. C. PLANNING LANDCAPE ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECTURE 120 WEST CAMPBELL AVE. ROANOKE, VA. 24101 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 4 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS 4 SITE ISSUES 4 LAND IsSUEs 4 SITE ANALYSIS 5 GEOTECHNICAL 5 ARCHEOLOGICAL 5 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 6 UTILITIES 6 STORM WATER 6 SLOPE AND ASPECT 7 VEGETATION 7 VIEWS 8 WORKSHOP PROCESS 8 PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN- DESIGN GUIDELINES OUTLINE 8 CORPORATE VILLAGE 8 CORPORATE CIRCLE 9 TECHNOLOGY DISTRICT 9 "LONE EAGLE DISTRICT" 9 LANDSCAPE But ERS 9 WATERWAYS AND GREENWAYS 10 INTERNAL ROADWAYS 10 SITE ACCESS 10 GLENMARY I 11 GLENMARY II 11 Dow HOLLOW ROAD 11 460/11 BRIDGE AccEss I 11 460/11 BRIDGE AccEss II 12 SCHEDULE 12 CONCLUSION 13 APPENDIX 14 DESIGN TEAM COUNTY OF ROANOKE CONTACTS COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTE TECHNICAL RESOURCE BOARD Context Map Preliminary Concept Plan Plan Detail Buffer Section and Road section Corporate Circle Section Perspective Dry Corporate Circle Perspective of Bridge Aerial Photograph Site Photographs Map of existing conditions Slope Map Road access options diagram 2 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On March 11, 1997, Roanoke County announced plans to purchase land for a proposed new business park in West Roanoke County, located along Interstate 81, Virginia's Technology Corridor. This document is intended to be a guide for the development of this new business park if the Board chooses to exercise its option to purchase the 463 acre site from Glenn -Mary Associates. Over the past five months Roanoke County and a Design Team have worked with citizens in a community visioning process, a method of open dialog and input with the public in the design process. Community involvement was in the form of an Advisory Committee, made up of citizens living close to the business park site, the business community in West County, and a Technical Resource Board, profes- sionals in the Roanoke Valley with expertise in engineering and economic development. This process has shown that proposed development is compatible with current site conditions. It is recommended Roanoke County purchase the property and proceed with the rezoning process. It is also recommended that the Preliminary Concept Plan and the Design Guidelines Outline Statement be used as a guide in the development process for the site. This property offers an opportunity to develop a unique mixed -use planned business park which strives to attract new and progressive businesses in the areas of technological research and development and business administration located in a picturesque natural setting in Roanoke County. Imagine a tree - lined parkway entry to a business setting of the future. • A village center with businesses and commercial buildings clustered around a tree -lined pond. • A corporate heart, with corporate buildings and select commercial businesses forming an ellipse around a woodland hollow, just below the village center. • A technology district, a campus -like setting of new and progressive technology businesses encircling the village center and corporate. • The Lone Eagle District, a backdrop of this business park with select building sites nestled in the saddles of the wooded ridges. Adequate public water and sewer facilities presently exist within close proximity to the site which could be extended to benefit the business park and adjoining residential areas. A Phase I Environmental Assessment of the property identified no environmental impediments to development. A phase I archeo- logical study was also conducted which indicated possibly one archeological site warranting further study. A preliminary geotechnical report concluded that soil conditions are favorable for development, mass rock could be encountered in limited areas of the site and the three of the ponds will require improvements to meet construction standards. The study of topography revealed the major portion of development will be located in the southern half of the site. In general favorable conditions for develop- ment. Natural buffer zones are proposed along boundaries adjoining private property to screen develop- ment. Critical to success of this project will be extensive but reasonable protective codes covenants and restrictions imposed on development above and beyond those imposed by the zoning process to ensure proper and appropriate development and also enhance and protect public and private development within the property. The covenants will be offered as proffered conditions to rezoning of the property and will be permanently associated with the property. Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document • • COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS Citizens recruited to serve as members of the advisory committee gathered feedback from the community, compiled this information, and made recommendations back to the Design Team for incor- poration into the Preliminary Concept Plan. Members of the committee attended formal meetings with County staff, the Technical Resource Board, business community leaders, and the Civic League Presidents from West County. They also collected information on an informal basis with co-workers and neighbors. The following list represents statements made by the County to the Advisory Committee and other citizen participants during the Design Workshop for the Business Park. The following items have been incorporated into design guidelines for the preliminary concept plan and will serve as proffers for the terms of purchase. SITE ISSUES • No access road will be routed from Glenvar Heights Boulevard or Prunty Drive. • Height restrictions will be established in the development of each park district. • Public water and sewer will serve the park with no corporate use of on -site wells. • No operation shall be permitted which produces objectionable smoke, dust, odors, soot, radia- tion, noise, vibrations, electrical interference, glare, gases, liquid waste, or any similareffects, or which creates excessive demands on internal roads, drainage, sanitary system or other service or utility. (Level of objectionability to be determined) • No heavy industry. LAND ISSUES • Roanoke County will form a Design Review Board to evaluate whether proposed structures meet the design guidelines outlined in the preliminary concept plan. • Development of a zoning code to incorporate the mixed land uses. • Minimum standards will be created for signage, lighting, parking, loading docks, security, traffic, construction of buildings, buffers, greenways, and landscaping. CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS At the beginning of community input, critical and key issues were determined critical to the suc- cess of the project which were addressed in the design process : • Public Trust 4 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document • Avoiding "The Preconceived Plan" - (Use the workshop process to distill the "Smoke and Mirrors" attitudes) / — • Widening of Routes 460/11 • Insure that the end result is a saleable product • Use park to stabilize residential taxes • Seek out clean business/industry • Property tax impact - will homes hold value? • Buffer zones • Industry & building restrictions • Access roads denied to neighborhoods • Preserve and maintain property integrity (Insure conditions such as mass, scale, color, design, etc. are harmonious to site) • Avoid pollution to air, ground, and water (especially during construction) • Traffic control • Installation of water and sewer on site • Avoid negative effects of blasting on private wells (A comprehensive list of critical issues developed by the advisory committees is included as part of the critical success factors and considered in the design process. A complete list is available through Roanoke County.) SITE ANALYSIS As part of the design process , site analysis information was gathered to allow informed design decisions during the workshop. Complete copies of the subconsultants reports related to site analysis are available for review through Roanoke County. GEOTECHNICAL Engineering Consulting Services completed a preliminary subsurface exploration report which investigated depth of bedrock, soil type, and the conditions of the dams for the four small farm ponds on site. The study was contained to the southern half of the property to reduce the scope of the study to areas which can accommodate large-scale development. The method of exploration was 22 soil borings to a depth of 20 to 25 feet and visual inspection of the dams. The study revealed that soil types are typical for this area of the Roanoke Valley. The presence of highly plastic silts and clays which suggest that earthwork activities should be limited to late spring, summer and fall during dry weather. Auger refusal from drilling was encountered in six borings at depths of 8-12 feet. Further investigation is required to determine the extent and density of rock. In general the site is suitable for development and the costs should be "normal" for the immediate vicinity. ARCHEOLOGICAL Lockwood Greene Technologies performed a Phase I Archeological study of the site. This in- cluded research into the written history of the site, and an on -site inspection of historic re sources with test digs in several locations. The study revealed that the property was traveled by Native American people and white 5 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan • Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document settlers cleared the lower areas for pasture and lived on the southern fringes of the site. A chimney remains from a cabin next to Calahan Branch. Inspection of the chimney construc- tion dates the cabin to the early 1900's. A standing cabin exist in the lower southeast corner of the site. This cabin was relocated for I-81 to its current location and extensively remodeled, which lowers its historical significance. Test digs revealed several areas with Native American and early settler artifacts in the pasture areas of the site, with one area eligible to receive further research. The State of Virginia will decide is this area warrants further study. ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Lockwood Greene Technologies performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the site. This included on -site inspection and research into property ownership of the site and the adjacent landowners for any evidence of previous environmental hazards. The study re- vealed no history of significant environmental issues and the on -site inspection determined that current conditions show no serious environmental concerns, only minor issues such as oil stains from farm equipment and the evidence of some refuse near the existing farm buildings at the south- ern boundary of the site. UTILITIES Engineering Concepts, Inc. performed a preliminary review of current and proposed utility demands. This included review of maps available at the Workshop for utility issues and discus- sion with several service providers of current and proposed utility demands. Adequate public water and sewer facilities presently exist, or are planned to be extended, at locations near the boundary of the site. Preliminary investigations indicate that these services could be extended to the property via existing public rights -of -way to minimize impacts. Other utilities such as telephone (with provision for voice and data transmission, ISDN lines, fiber optic capability, etc.), cable, electrical service, and natural gas are available in the vicinity of the site. The respective utility companies have indicated their willingness in having further discussions to coordinate further planning efforts and capacity/demand evaluations. Sewer extensions should be planned utilizing gravity flow where possible to avoid the additional costs. The capacity of the receiving sewer in Glenvar Heights Boulevard will need to be evaluated as a first step in the detailed utility planning process. Building location studies should incorporate evaluation of the water pressure zones and sewer service potential. The Lone Eagle Districts should be evaluated for service by well and septic field development, due to their loca- tion at the periphery of the development. STORMWATER Engineering Concepts, Inc. performed a preliminary review of current and proposed stormwater, runoff impacts and water quality issues. This was also performed during the Workshop with available maps. 6 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan • Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document The site is roughly bisected from northwest to southeast by Callahan Branch and it's associated tributaries. The Callahan Branch basin drains the majority of the site and a sizable portion of off -site area to the northwest, exiting the property in the extreme southeast corner of the site through box culverts under Interstate 81. A main tributary to Callahan Branch parallels the eastern boundary and intersects the main channel just upstream of the I-81 culverts. The Callahan basin features two existing ponds, one elevated pond in the western side of the site, and one large pond located in the main stem of the branch, 2000 feet north of the I-81 culverts. A smaller basin occupies the lower southwest corner of the property, draining through culverts under Glenmary Drive and I-81. This basin features two exist- ing farm ponds. The large pond on the stem of Callahan Branch is a more developed, yet all of the ponds are observed to be utilized mainly for agriculture purposes and have no mechanical controls for flow control / overflow protection. Management of stormwater from the development of the property should be accomplished on -site to minimize the downstream effects on the I-81 culverts. The Design Team believes this can be accomplished. Existing drainage ways are also the best method of achieving some natural water quality management due the established stream ecosystem. The ponds should be enlarged and modified to serve larger stormwater requirements. This will serve to manage the increase in flow quantity expected in the main stem as well as the flow from the Corporate Village, Corporate Circle, and Technology District areas of the development. With proper design, stormwater control can assist in the lowering of runoff temperature, which can lessen the impact of thermal loading on a natural stream or body of water. Other methods can include: the incorporation of plant and landscaping materials, shade tree plantings to block areas prone to thermal loading (roofs, pavement), the establishment of forebays upstream of discharge points to the natural channels. SLOPE AND ASPECT Hill Studio P.C. developed a computer 3-D model of the site to study the slope and solar aspect of the slopes. It revealed that the most developable portions of the site, areas which will accommo- date large footprint buildings, are focused in the southern half of the property. The upper wooded drainages revealed small areas in the saddles of the ridgelines which could accommodate small footprint building types. The aspect study showed that the main stream drainage which bisects the site from northwest to southeast, creates small drainages in the upper half the site pointing primarily to the south. The result is that a majority of the site contains areas sloping to the south with good solar exposure. VEGETATION Hill Studio P.C. investigated vegetation through on site inspection and the study of aerial photo- graphs. The investigation revealed that the upper half of the site is predominantly deciduous woodland consisting of oak, hickory, beech, ash, tulip poplar, and maple, with evergreen along the fringe or disturbed areas and in the deeply shaded north sloping areas. The southern half o the site contains pockets of deciduous woodland left after clearing for pasture. Black locust and Empress Trees have established in select disturbed, rocky areas and wet tolerant trees, such as willow, ash and sycamore, have established along the stream corridors. 7 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document VIEWS Hill Studio P.C. investigated view impacts to and from the site through on site inspections . The investigation revealed the site is not visible along the I-81 corridor directly adjacent to the property, except for a limited view of the cabin on the site in the southeast corner of the prop- erty. This is due to the extreme difference in elevation between I-81 and the property. Views of portions of the site are possible from the I-81 corridor in select locations to the north of the site. The topography to the south on I-81 restricts views of the site. Views of portions of the site are possible from several adjacent land owners on each side of the property. Woodland on the eastern boundary greatly restricts views into the site at times of year when leaf cover is present. Views of the site are feasible from select locations on the opposite side of Interstate 81 along 460/ 11 and other high points in the Roanoke Valley. Views on -site from the pasture area looking to the south capture beautiful views of Poor Mountain and the associated ridgeline. View from the pasture area looking to the north capture beautiful views of Fort Lewis Mountain and the associate ridgeline. Views to the northeast reveal Downtown Roanoke and Mill Mountain. WORKSHOP PROCESS The Design Team's five day workshop was a way of directing community input and ideas into the design process. The workshop was held at the Spring Hollow Water Treatment Facility along Routes 460/11 in Roanoke County. A hands-on intensive collaborative effort between staff, consultants and citizens resulted in a preliminary concept plan created by all parties involved. The Preliminary Concept Plan will serve as a guiding principle for further development of the site. The workshop has shown that community involvement and collaboration is essential to the design process. PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN- DESIGN GUIDELINES OUTLINE The proposed Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan strives for the integration of proposed building development with the natural topographic character of the site and the established woodland hollows. Like the construction practices of earlier settlers in the Roanoke Valley, the develop- ment works with the lay of the land and not against it. The design focuses the most developed portions of the site around the intermittent stream, called Dry Branch, and woodland hollow, upstream from the larger and perennial Calahan Branch. The following Preliminary Concept Plan and Design Guidelines Outline explain the different zones within the park, and set the stage for fully developed design criteria. CORPORATE VILLAGE The corporate Village is the commercial center of the development. Located at the upper end of the Dry Branch. The clustering of commercial buildings creates a village atmosphere focusing views onto a central pond and wetland doubling as a stormwater management facilities. The two to three story buildings step down the slope with parking toward the access road. Such com- mercial business may include copying and printing, restaurant, day care, coffee shop, service station and small corporate offices. 8 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document • CORPORATE CIRCLE Corporate Circle is the corporate office potential district. Located around the main portion of Dry Branch and its established hardwood enclave, the buildings step down the slope and direct into the trees around Dry Branch. The buildings are two to three story linked together with a pedestrian trail and boardwalk which will skirt the edge of the hollow. The main access road and parking will be located around the Corporate Circle. Such commercial businesses include corporate offices, hotels or travelers accommodations and restaurants. TECHNOLOGY DISTRICT The Technology District is the new technologies potential district. Located around the Corpo- rate Village and Corporate Circle, this district accommodates campus -like clean manufacturing facilities. An emphasis will be placed on facilities which specialize in new technologies, such as chip and circuit board manufacturing, research and development industries specializing in electronics, software publishing companies and telecommunications related to electronics and specialty equip- ment, automotive components manufacturing and "Smart Road" related manufacturing. The build- ings will be generally one story which integrate specialty manufacturing and research with business or office. The technology district emphasizes clean businesses with light to medium work force and distribution requirements. "LONE EAGLE DISTRICT" The Lone Eagle District occupies the steep wood areas on the north and eastern portions of the site. This district is served by a standard two-lane road. The development consists of large lot, high -end residential, residential with home business or professional business of ten employees or less. Home or professional businesses are strictly service oriented, non -manufacturing, with minimal requirements for client parking and truck service. Examples of businesses may in elude architecture, engineering, computer software consulting, attorney, accountant, marketing and financial advising. The lot development for this district is depicted in the concept layout plan. It emphasizes large lots to minimize disturbance. The buildings and parking are located in predetermined areas, also depicted in the concept layout plan. These locations, identified as Limit of Building Zones (LBZ), focus development on the flatter benches and saddles in the terrain, protecting the ridgeline and ridgetop treeline from development. The remaining portions of these lots are restricted from lot clearing, excluding a access drive to each LBZ. LANDSCAPE BUFFERS The property is completely surrounded by a minimum 100' landscape buffer. The landscape buffer on the eastern boundary of the site is extended to the perennial stream, significantly larger than 100' . The upper eastern and northern boundaries are protected by natural buffers from lot restrictions within the Loan Eagle District. In areas where additional buffering is neces- sary, the planting will be a mixture of native evergreens and deciduous trees and shrubs. The buffers will be landscaped to provide solid screening and blend with the natural wooded areas within the site and along the edge of the property. Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document WATERWAYS AND GREENWAYS The stream corridors are key amenities and set the stage for development. The three main drainage features; Dry Branch, Calahan Branch and the unnamed stream to the east of Calahan Branch flow together and leave the site under Interstate 81 along the southeastern boundary of the site. The two larger and two smaller ponds will serve as amenities and focal points for develop- ment. All streams or waterways warrant protection guidelines to maintain their natural character. A greenway system overlays the streams as a defined protection areas. Some of the greenways incorporate a trail system available to residents and businesses within the site. The trail system allows a connection between the developed areas and the natural areas of the site. INTERNAL ROADWAYS The roadway system is a mix of road types. The entry roadway is large enough to accommodate traffic needs for a completely developed business park. This consists of approxi- mately two travel lanes in each direction with a variable -width median. The support amenities, planting, lighting and signage, help define the roadway and promote the character of the business park. The main internal roadway will accommodate a large portion of the business park traffic and connect to the entry roadway. The size and number of lanes needed will be carefully studied as the concept plan is developed. Topography and traffic volumes effect the road design. The road would be approximately three to four lanes and in some areas a separation median could be provided. The secondary internal roadways will accommodate traffic for select businesses. Further study will determine the exact size, probably two lanes with a separa- tion island in some areas. The woodland roadway accommodates traffic for the Lone Eagle Dis- trict only. This would be a standard road and designed to meet minimum standards, which allows a roadway with minimum impact the steep wooded areas. SITE ACCESS The workshop revealed that development of the proposed business park would require improve- ments to the access road to meet future traffic requirements. A study was performed during the work- shop of alternative site access roads, including upgrades to the existing road, Glenmary Drive. The options were studied and compared for economic, social and engineering opportunities and constraints. The options are listed in order of relative cost, Glenmary I access being the most cost effective. GLENMARY I This option upgrades the existing Glenmary Drive to accommodate future traffic volumes, and develop the entry of Glenmary Drive at the intersection of Dow Hollow Rd., as the entry to the proposed business park. This alternative is the most cost effective and would be a likely candidate for initial site access. Careful planning in conjunction with I-81 improvements is required to make this alternative cost effective. Benefits: Existing road corridor in place, Visibility to I-81, consolidates impacts, cost effective Disadvantages: Single loaded corridor, Future I-81 issues, Impacts Glenmary and Prunty Drive, potential unplanned commercial growth along Glenmary Drive, limited space to beautify road. 10 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document • GLENMARY II l : As in the previous alternative, this scheme upgrades Glenmary Drive . It further redesigns the entry of Glenmary Drive to bend to the north of the existing commercial development on the corner of Dow Hollow and Glenmary Drive, realigning this entry to connect directly into Dow Hollow. As in the previous alternative, careful planning in conjunction with I-81 improvements is required to make this alternative cost effective. Benefits: Safer, streamlined entrance system, Improves entrance to Dow Hollow Road, Better Utilizes interchange exit Disadvantages: Impacts Prunty and Glenmary Drive and private property, Future I-81 issues Dow HOLLOW ROAD This alternative uses a new access point into the site by improving Dow Hollow Road at the southern end. The new access road would bend to the east and enter the site as Dow Hollow passes Gospel Baptist Church, midway along the western boundary, adjacent to Prunty Drive. By using the topography in this area of the Prunty neighborhood, the new access road would pass under Prunty Drive and a new section of Prunty Drive would fly over the access road. Benefits: Upgrades neighborhood entrance road, parkway -like corridor, central location into site, catalyst for proper interchange development, no access to Prunty Drive Disadvantages: Impacts on private property, impacts around Prunty Drive with bridge 460/11 BRIDGE AccEss I This alternative connects route 460/11 and the site directly with a bridge over I-81 and Glenmary Drive. This would require a vertical realignment to 460/11 at the bridge to allow adequate gain in elevation to clear traffic on I-81. Benefits: Distinct corporate entrance, removed from neighborhoods, improved safety, reinforces established commercial corridor along 460/11, short entrance road. Disadvantages: Cost 460/11 BRIDGE AccEss II This alternative also connects route 460/11 and the site directly with a bridge over I-81 and Glenmary Drive. This alternative would require changing the vertical and horizontal alignment of 460/11 at the bridge to allow adequate gain in elevation to clear traffic on I-81. entry and the continued growth of commercial development along route 460/11. 11 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document • T- g Benefits: Distinct corporate entrance, removed from neighborhoods, improved safety, rein forces established commercial corridor along 460/11, short entrance road. Disadvantages: Cost PROJECT SCHEDULE Some of the next steps in further development of this project will include: 1. Site Master Plan - Development which takes as the basis for design the included plan and in more detail focuses on road access, business types, road design, stormwater, utilities and other crucial site development elements with extensive involvement from the advisory committees. 2. Phase II Geotechnical Study- More accurately determine soil conditions and rock locations. 3. Phase I Wetland Study- Accurately Determine wetland locations, if any, and exact stream corri- dors and types, to fullfill the Army Corp of Engineer requirements with pond and stormwater improvements and road crossings of streams. 4. Phase II Archeological Study (If necessary)- One archeological site encountered during the phase I study was identified as warranting further study. The State of Virginia will decide if further study is necessary. 5. Comprehensive Design Guidelines -Develop in conjunction with the site plan employing a methodology involving the advisory committees. 6. Proforma/ financial analysis in conjunction with the master plan and guidelines to better identify markets and assess the plans financial costs and benefits. 7. Take the master plan through the rezoning process to as a Planned Business District (PBD) or comparable planning designation. 8. Develop a set of codes, covenants and restrictions (CC&R's) which would convey with land sales or long term leases. Some of the many issues to develop specific criteria for include: • Architectural guidelines • Site planning guidelines, such as setbacks, entry sequence design, openspace percentages and connections, etc. • Parking and road design • Size, height, types of material and theme for signage • Lighting intensity, height and style 12 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document • Best management practices for stormwater and water quality • Types of plants, theme of planting and percentage of construction budget • Maintenance and ease of replacement for planting • Use of recycled materials in construction • Existing vegetation protection and replacement ratios • Budget allocation for the arts on site such as statues and sculpture CONCLUSION The Preliminary Concept Plan and Design Guidelines Outline incorporate innovative and site re- sponsive development methods. It allows the opportunity to develop a carefully crafted and rigorously controlled business park which protects and enhances natural resources, while facilitating high -quality, leading edge, mixed used development. The Proposed Roanoke County Business Park is compatible with site conditions, including access to public utilities, road systems and the concerns of West County citizens and businesses. It provides Roanoke County the opportunity become a part of technological growth of this portion of the state. It is therefore recommended that Roanoke County purchase the property and begin the process of rezoning and use the Preliminary Concept Plan and Design Guidelines Outline Statement as a guiding principle in the design process for the site. • Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document APPENDIX DESIGN TEAM David Hill, ASLA, Workshop Captain John Schmidt, ASLA, Project Coordinator Hill Studio, P.C. 120 W. Campbell Avenue Roanoke, Virginia 24011 540.342.5263 540.345.5625 (fax) Carlton Abbott, FAIA Workshop Partner Carlton Abbott & Partners, Inc. Duke of Gloucester Street P. O. Box Williamsburg, Virginia 23187 757.220.1095 757.229.8604 (fax) Mike Circeo, P.E. Engineering Consulting Services, Inc. Geotechnical Services 5320 Peters Creek Road Roanoke, Virginia 24019 540.362.6000 540.362.1202 (fax) Jeff Cochran, P.E. Lockwood Greene Technologies Environmental and Archeological Services 1201 Oak Ridge Turnpike Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37631 423.220.4300 423.220.4310 (fax) Larry Wallace, P.E. Engineering Concepts Civil Engineering Services 4656 Brambleton Avenue Roanoke, Virginia 24018 540.776.5715 540.776.8543 (fax) COUNTY OF ROANOKE CONTACTS Fenton F. "Spike" Harrison, Jr. Member, Catawba Magisterial District Board of Supervisors 1638 Weaver Road Salem, Virginia 24153 540.389.3054 (h) 540.772-2193 (fax) Elmer C. Hodge Administrator County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 540.772-2004 (w) 540.772-2193 (fax) Timothy W. Gubala Director Economic Development Department County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 540.772-2069 (w) 540.772-2030 (fax) Melinda J. Cox Economic Development Specialist Economic Development Department County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 540.772-2185 (w) 540.772-2030 (fax) 14 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTE Robert A. Archer General Manager Blue Ridge Beverage Company Salem, Virginia Carole Bradman Board of Directors Member Industrial Development Authority Salem, Virginia James H. Brock President RUSCO Window Company, Inc. Salem, Virginia James F. Garlow President John W. Hancock, Jr., Inc. Salem, Virginia Martha Hooker Member Roanoke County Planning Commission Salem, Virginia Reverend Samuel J. Huntley Pastor Gospel Baptist Church Salem, Virginia Charles L. Landis Representative Glenvar Heights Neighborhood Salem, Virginia Karen Montgomery Representative Prunty Drive Neighborhood Salem, Virginia John Pecaric Vice President & Division Director R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company Salem, Virginia Ben F. Powers President Cherokee Hills Civic League Salem, Virginia • David W. Shelor Representative Glenvar Heights Neighborhood Salem, Virginia Winton W. Shelor, Sr. President Fort Lewis Civic League Salem, Virginia 15 Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document • • TECHNICAL RESOURCE BOARD Fred Altizer, Jr. District Administrator Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Salem, Virginia Arnold Covey Director Engineering & Inspections Department County of Roanoke Roanoke, Virginia Beth Doughty Executive Director Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership Roanoke, Virginia Timothy W. Gubala Director Economic Development Department County of Roanoke Roanoke, Virginia Terry Harrington Director Planning & Zoning Department County of Roanoke Roanoke, Virginia John S. Phillips Economic Development Officer Virginia Tech Blacksburg, Virginia Gary Robertson Director Utility Department Kessler Mill Service Facility Salem, Virginia Wayne Strickland Executive Director Fifth Planning District Commission Roanoke, Virginia 16 HILL STUDIO, P.C. TRANSMITTAL FR: John Schmidt, ASLA HILL STUDIO, PC 120 West Campbell Ave Roanoke, VA, 24011 Phone: 540-342-5263 TO: "Melinda Cox, Roanoke County Economic Development Larry Wallace, Engineering Concepts File RE: Roanoke County Business Park DA: August 16, 1997 PLEASE FIND ENCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: OTY DATE: DESCRIPTION 1 8/14/97 Addendum to RoCoBusPrk Preliminary Concept Plan, Design Guidelines (pages 1-4) 1 8/14/97 Color Print Proposed Roanoke County Business Park COMMENTS: These are for the meeting Tuesday, 8/19/97. • ADDENDUM ROANOKE COUNTY BUSINESS PARK PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES OUTLINE STATEMENT AND SITE QUALIFYING DOCUMENT This addendum only includes changes to the original report dated July 17, 1997 shown in italic text. The complete report is available through Roanoke County. AUGUST 14, 1997 HILL STUDIO P. C. PLANNING LANOCAPE ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECTURE 120 WEST CAMPBELL AVE. ROANOKE, VA. 24101 ADDENDUM Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document • UTILITIES Engineering Concepts, Inc. performed a preliminary review of current and proposed utility demands. This included review of reaps available at the Workshop for utility issues and discus- sion with several service providers of current and proposed utility demands. Adequate public water and sewer facilities presently exist, or are planned to be extended, at locations near the boundary of the site. Preliminary investigations indicate that these services could be extended to the property via existing public rights -of -way to minimize impacts. Other utilities such as telephone (with provision for voice and data transmission, ISDN lines, fiber optic capability, etc.), cable, electrical service, and natural gas are available in the vicinity of the site. The respective utility companies have indicated their willingness in having further discussions to coordinate further planning efforts and capacity/demand evaluations. Sewer extensions should be planned utilizing gravity flow where possible to avoid the additional costs. The capacity of the receiving sewer in Glenvar Heights Boulevard will need to be evaluated as a first step in the detailed utility planning process. Building location studies should incorporate evaluation of the water pressure zones and sewer service potential. the Lone Eagle Districts poses physical constraints for public utility service and should he evaluated further: Public utility service should be u long term goal for this district. PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN- DESIGN GUIDELINES OUTLINE The proposed Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan strives for the integration of proposed building development with the natural topographic character of the site and the established woodland hollows. Like the construction practices of earlier settlers in the Roanoke Valley, the develop- ment works with the lay of the land and not against it. The design focuses the most developed portions of the site around the intermittent stream, called Dry Branch, and woodland hollow, upstream from the larger and perennial Calahan Branch. The following Preliminary Concept Plan and Design Guidelines Outline explain the different zones within the park, and set the stage for fully developed design criteria. CORPORATE VILLAGE The corporate Village is the commercial center of the development. Located at the upper end of the Dry Branch. The clustering of buildings in this district creates a village atmosphere focusing views onto a central pond and wetland doubling as a stornwater management facilities. The two to three story buildings step down the slope with parking toward the access road. This district will primarily he commercial oriented with a possible business and office use within the commercial structure. The specific commercial and business types will become clearly defined with further development of the preliminary site plan, design guidelines and further marketing research and development by Roanoke County. 7 ADDENDUM Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document CORPORATE CIRCLE Corporate Circle is the corporate office potential district. Located around the main portion of Dry Branch and its established hardwood enclave, the buildings step down the slope and direct into the trees around Dry Branch. The buildings are two to three story linked together with a pedestrian trail and boardwalk which will skirt the edge of the hollow. The main access road and parking will be located around the Corporate Circle. The specific commercial and business apes will become clearly defined with further development of the preliminary site plan, design guidelines and further marketing research and development by Roanoke County. TECHNOLOGY DISTRICT The Technology District is the new technologies potential district. Located around the Corpo- rate Village and Corporate Circle, this district accommodates campus -like clean manufacturing facilities. An emphasis will be placed on facilities which specialise in new technologies and "Smart Road" related manufacturing with light to medium work force and distribution requirements. The buildings will be generally one story which integrate specialty manufacturing and research with business or office. The specific business types will become clearly defined with further development of the preliminary site plan, design guidelines and further marketing re- search and development by Roanoke County. "LONE EAGLE DISTRICT" The Lone Eagle District occupies the steep wood areas on the north and eastern portions of the site. This district is served by a standard two-lane road.. The lot development for this district is depicted in the concept layout plan. It emphasizes large lots to minimize disturbance. The buildings and parking are located in predetermined areas, also depicted in the concept layout plan. These locations, identified as Limit of Building Zones (LBZ), focus development on the flatter benches and saddles in the terrain, protecting the ridgeline and ridgetop treeline from development. The remaining portions of these lots are restricted from lot clearing, excluding a access drive to each LBZ. This district will be high end residential and small service business oriented. Because of physical site constraints the business use within this district will be limited and strictly enforced. The .specific residential and business types will become clearly defined with further development of the preliminary site plan, design guidelines and further marketing research and development by Roanoke C.ounty. • ADDENDUM Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document • PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN The attached plan includes revisions to the original plan in the report date July 17, 1997. The revisions effect the conceptual buildings depicted within the Corporate Circle District and the Technol- ogy District located along the existing AEP power line which runs north to south through the site. The buildings have been modified to reflect an adequate clearance zone along the power line and to clearly shown that no future building development will be located under the powerline. • • 4 • PROPOSED BUSINESS SITE • s- ct ow 1 follow Rd. ROANOKE COUNTY CENTER FOR RESEARCH &TECHNOLOGY DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS INDEX Section Article I Article II Article III Article IV Article V Article VI Article VII Article VIII Article IX Article X Article XI Declarations Definitions Covenants, Etc. to Run With Land Use or Uses of the Property Subdivision of the Property Approval of Improvements Design and Development Criteria Criteria for Environmental and Visual Protection During Construction Time Limits for Construction and and Completion of Improvements Resale, Lease or Other Transfer Maintenance Article XII Waste Article XIII Waivers, Changes or Rescissions Article XIV Assessments Article XV Separability Article XVI Terms of Restrictions Article XVII Captions Article XVIII Right of Enforcement Article XIX Notices Page 1 1 3 3 7 7 13 18 20 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS ROANOKE COUNTY CENTER FOR RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY ARTICLE I DECLARATIONS The purpose of this Declaration of Protective Covenants and Conditions (the "Restrictions") is to ensure that the Property (as hereinafter defined) will be developed and maintained in an attractive, park -like setting for applied science and high technology businesses, related research and development, and such office, commercial and manufacturing use as approved by the Design Review Team (as hereinafter defined) and permissible under the terms and conditions of the approved zoning designation of the property. A. Assessment: B. Team: ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS Assessment by the Design Review Team of a levy against the property for landscaping and maintenance of landscaping of entrances to the Roanoke County Center for Research & Technology and rights -of -way within the Center, and maintenance and replacement of signage for the Center. The Design Review Team will consist of (3) neighborhood representatives, (3) business community representatives, (2) professional representatives, and (1) member of the Economic Development staff to serve as liaison. The Team members will report to the County Administrator of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, a political subdivision, of the Commonwealth of Virginia. C. Administrator: The County Administrator or his designee. D. Business or Businesses: • The owner(s), lessee(s), or occupant(s), including prospective owners, lessees or occupants of the 1 E. Center: F. Improvements: G. Plan: H. Property or Properties: I. Restrictions: J. Park K. Setback: L. Transfer Property. Roanoke County Center for Research & Technology in the County of Roanoke, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Any and all improvements made to or constructed upon the Property including, but not limited to buildings, structures, tanks and storage containers, drainage and utility facilities, driveway and parking areas, landscaping, fencing, screening devices, site lighting, communication devices, signs, and all similar or related structures or improvements. The general development plan and a land use plan for the Roanoke County Center for Research & Technology, including infrastructure, road and parcel design as approved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County. The parcel or parcels of land, including any improvements thereon, located in the Center, as set forth in any deed, option, lease, agreement, or agreement of sale to which these Restrictions are applicable. The covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in this document. Roanoke County Center for Research & Technology located in Roanoke County, Virginia, incorporates four distinct park districts: Corporate Circle, Corporate Village, Technology, and the Lone Eagle Districts. The minimum distance by which any building or structure must be separated from a street right-of- way or lot line. Any conveyance or transfer of title or possessory rights respecting the Property, any portion thereof, or any interest therein, by contract, deed exchange, foreclosure (including a deed in lieu thereof), assignment, lease, operation of law, or other means, to another person or persons or entity or entities, whether voluntary or involuntary. In the case of a 2 • non -publicly held corporation, the assignment or other transfer of FIFTY PERCENT (50%) or more of its capital stock evidencing control of such corporation, unless made to the corporation's parent or subsidiary controlled (through stock ownership) by the corporation, shall constitute a Transfer. In the case of a partnership, general or limited, a change of the general partner or the transfer or assignment of partnership interests in excess of FIFTY PERCENT (50%) of the partnership interests shall constitute a Transfer. In the case of a limited liability company, the transfer of more than FIFTY PERCENT (50%) of its membership interests shall constitute a Transfer. The granting of a mortgage, deed of trust, lien or other encumbrance on or with respect to the Property shall not be deemed a Transfer, but any foreclosure thereunder (or deed in lieu thereof) shall constitute a Transfer. ARTICLE III COVENANTS, ETC. TO RUN WITH LAND These Restrictions, including the land use regulations and building requirements, shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all parties having or acquiring any right, title, or interest in and to the real property or any portion thereof, and shall be incorporated in any Transfer of the Property as covenants running with the Property. ARTICLE IV USE OR USES OF THE PROPERTY A. Uses Permitted. The Property shall be developed exclusively (i) for uses designated in the Plan and which are incorporated herein by this reference, and (ii) within the guidelines and requirements set forth in these Restrictions. Examples of uses would be scientific laboratories, and educational, manufacturing, research and development, administrative or manufacturing facilities located exclusively within fully enclosed buildings, and such other uses as the Design Review Team deems compatible with applied high technology businesses located or to be located in the Center. (See Appendix A) 3 1. Permitted Uses: Unless otherwise prohibited herein, district sites with the Park shall be used for the following purposes: a. The following uses would be permitted by right in the Corporate Circle District and Technology District. All uses listed in Sec. 30- 61-2 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance except: (1) Residential Uses (2) Civic Uses (3) Reserved (4) Commercial Uses such as automobile repair services -major, equipment sales and rental, and laundry (5) Industrial Uses such as landfill -rubble, recycling centers and stations, transportation terminal, truck terminal, and warehousing and distribution (6) Miscellaneous Uses (7) All listings for a special use permit under Civic Uses. Only equipment sales under Commercial Uses and custom manufacturing under Industrial allowed by Special Use Permit. (8) Only outdoor gatherings under Miscellaneous Uses is allowed by Special Use Permit. b. The following uses would be permitted by right in the Corporate Village District. All uses listed in Sec. 30-54-2 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance except: (1) Residential Uses (2) Civic Uses such as clubs, educational facilities -primary/ secondary, guidance services, halfway house, park and ride facility, public assembly, public parks and recreational areas, safety services, and utility services -minor (3) Office Uses such as laboratories (4) Commercial Uses such as agricultural services, antique shops, automobile dealership -new, automobile repair services -minor, automobile rental/leasing, automobile parts/supply-retail, bed and breakfast, boarding house, commercial indoor entertainment, commercial indoor sports and recreation, commercial outdoor entertainment, commercial outdoor sports and recreation, construction sales and services, funeral services, garden center, gasoline station, hospital, hotel/motel/motor lodge, kennel - commercial, pawn shop, personal improvement services, restaurant -family, and studio -fine arts (5) Industrial Uses (6) Miscellaneous Uses (7) Only outdoor gatherings under Miscellaneous Uses is allowed by Special Use Permit. c. Single residential and the following uses would be permitted by right in the Lone Eagle District. All uses listed in Sec. 30-53-1 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance except: (1) Residential Uses such as home beauty/barber salon, multi -family dwelling, and two family dwelling (2) Civic Uses such administrative services, clubs, day care center, education facilities-college/university, educational facilities, primary -secondary, guidance services, park and ride facility, post office, public parks and recreational areas, religious assembly, safety services, and utility services - minor. (3) Office Uses such as financial institutions (4) Commercial Uses such as business or trade school, clinic, all communication services excluding film and sound recording studios, and veterinary hospital/clinic (5) Miscellaneous Uses (6) No allowances provided for Special Use Permit. B. Uses Not Permitted No use shall be permitted in the Center which is not designated in the Plan or described herein, or which the Design Review Team deems not compatible with other existing or prospective high technology businesses in the Center. No operation shall be permitted which in the sole opinion of the Design Review 5 77. • Team produces objectionable smoke, dust, odors, soot, radiation, noise, vibrations, electrical interference, glare, gases, liquid waste, or any similar effects, or which creates excessive demands on the internal streets, drainage, sanitary sewer or other service or utility systems. (See attachment - Prohibitive Uses, Section 5) 1. Prohibited Uses: No use of any site, lot or building shall be made which causes or creates, or is likely to cause or create, a hazard or nuisance to adjacent properties, or which would violate the zoning ordinance of Roanoke County. In addition, the following uses are specifically prohibited within the boundaries of the Park: (a) Acetylene gas manufacturer and wholesale distributor (b) Asphalt manufacturing or refining (c) Birch tile or terra cotta manufacturer (d) Cement, lime, plaster manufacturer (e) Creosote manufacturing or treatment plants (f) Distillation of bones, coal, petroleum, refuse and tar (g) Explosives, ammunition, fireworks and gun powder manufacture (h) Fat rendering, production of fats and oils from animal or vegetable products by boiling or distillation (i) Garbage, offal and animal reduction or processing (j) Linseed oil, shellac, turpentine, manufacture or refining (k) Automobile storage for wrecking, dismantling of junking cars for salvaged parts (1) Any use or trade, which, though properly and safely operated with ordinary care and according to good and reasonable practice, causes noxious of offensive odors, gas, fumes, smoke, dust, vibration or noise substantially affecting other uses of property permitted in the Park Construction yards (m) 6 • • • Recycling centers and stations Scrap and salvage services Surplus sales Truck stops Where it is unclear whether or not a particular use of the Park is permitted or prohibited hereunder, the Team shall make a recommendation to the Administrator for a decision on whether or not such use is prohibited, and its decision shall be final and binding upon all persons. C. Approval of Use The specific use of the Property must the Design Review Team as to (i) the subsequent Transfer. In addition, the writing the use of the Property at any by the Business and not merely at the first be reviewed and approved in writing by original Transfer to a Business and (ii) any Team must first review and approve in time a change in use is proposed or effected time of each and every Transfer. ARTICLE V SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY All property within the Center shall be subdivided and used in accordance with the Roanoke County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. ARTICLE VI APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS A. Roanoke County Center for Research & Technology Design Review Team 1. Composition; Duties. The Administrator shall appoint members of the Team who will serve as the working level review group recommending approval or disapproval of (i) use of the Property (including changes to use), and (ii) plans and specifications for Improvements to the Property and shall perform such other matters as may be assigned. The Team shall review and act upon all 7 development proposals in accordance with the procedures set forth below. Upon its review of the final design plans, the Team will make a recommendation for final action by the Administrator. The composition of the Team shall be (3) residential community, representatives, (3) business community representatives, (2) professional community representatives, and (1) member of the Economic Development Department to serve as liaison. 2. Powers of the Design Review Team (a) Subject to the terms of paragraph VI (B) hereof, no Improvement shall be erected, constructed, placed, altered (by addition or deletion), maintained and/or permitted on any portion of the Property until plans and specifications of such Improvement, in such detail as the Team may deem necessary, shall have been submitted to, reviewed by and recommended, and approved in writing by the Team. In addition to the review of the site, landscaping and building plans and designs described above, the Team will perform such other duties and assume such other responsibilities as may be assigned from time to time by the Administrator. (b) B. Plans to be Approved. No construction, or any exterior alterations or additions and renderings to any existing Improvement may be initiated without submission of plans for said Improvements to and recommendation and approval by the Team. Interior alterations which do not change exterior appearance are permitted without submission of plans to, or prior approval by the Team, provided such interior changes do not change any use of the Property not previously approved as herein provided. C. Governmental Approval: Design Review Team Liability. Submission to the Team and approval of any such plans by the Team shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any permits or approvals required by any local, state or federal law or regulation. Further, such plan or plans will be subject to all applicable federal and state laws and city ordinances. Pertinent ordinances of the County include, but may not be limited to: Zoning, Site Plan, Subdivision, Stormwater Management and Sign Ordinances. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Team shall not be liable for any act or omission in the approval or disapproval of the plans and specifications submitted pursuant to these Provisions. 8 -71 Each owner, lessee and occupant of the property in the Park shall, and does, hereby indemnify and hold harmless the Team from and against any and all claims for injury or death to persons, or damage to or loss to property arising out of the construction, use, operation, and/or maintenance of improvements within the Park, the use and/or possession of any property, and the conduct of business or any other activities within the Park. D. Termination of Design Review Team In the event the Team is dissolved or terminated for any reason, all rights, privileges, responsibilities, and obligations of the Team under this declaration, shall transfer and be assigned without restriction to the designee(s) appointed by the Administrator. E. Design and Procedures. NOTE: The requirements listed below are in addition to all plan submittal requirements of Roanoke County, Virginia. 1. Preliminary Plan Review. The Business shall submit two sets of preliminary architectural and site engineering plans to include the following: (a) For Buildings and Structures. (1) Dimensioned building elevations of all facades and floor plan at a scale of not less than one -eighth inch equals one foot (1/8" = 1') with representations of exterior materials, textures, colors, fenestration and any other detailing necessary for accurately depicting the proposed appearance of the finished building or structure (2) Outline specifications to indicate the intent for major architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, HVAC, utility and site elements (i.e. pump station, on -site retention, exterior HVAC components, other utility structures, etc.) (3) Samples of all proposed exterior materials and colors. (b) For Site Plans. • • (1) Plans are to be printed on paper with a maximum size of thirty inches by forty-two inches (30" x 42") and shall be drawn to scale of not less than one inch equals fifty feet (1" = 50') using standard mechanical drawing techniques (2) The name and address of the owner of record and the applicant (3) The name, address, signature, registration number and seal of the professional preparing the plan (4) The footprint of all proposed buildings and structures existing or to be located on the site (5) All building and other setback lines, special highway setback lines, easements, reservations and rights -of - way which affect the development of the site (6) The site's total land area and area to be developed (7) A landscape plan, drawn on a separate sheet, showing proposed landscaping features, including species, the number, location, size of plants, plant protection, and landscaping materials. Any irrigation systems and details shall be shown on a separate sheet (8) The location, type, dimension, elevation, size, or number of the following existing or proposed items: (a) Adjacent or on -site utilities (b) Terraces and retaining walls (c) Site entrances, parking facilities, loading areas, and a count of such parking spaces as required by applicable ordinance and as proposed (d) Natural or artificial watercourses (e) Areas which are landscaped or recreational (f) The limits of site clearing, including the 10 • (9) (g) leading edge of the dripline of trees to be preserved on the site Points of refuse collection, including dumpster and screening methods (h) Location, dimensions and area of all required transitional areas and green areas, including the number of trees, plants and shrubs provided on site to meet the provisions of the County of Roanoke Site Plan Ordinance (i) Sidewalks and bicycle and jogging trails. Signs, including size, shape, color, message, graphics, location, materials, and illumination. (c) Informal Preliminary Review. If requested by the Business, the Team will informally review conceptual plans prior to formal submission of detailed architectural and site engineering plans; provided, however, that such preliminary approval shall not be binding upon the Team. 2. Final Review and Approval by the Design Review Team. For the final review the Business shall submit two (2) sets of plans and specifications and other information listed above to ensure adherence to the approved design and the inclusion of all changes required by the Team. If approved upon recommendation by the Team, the two (2) complete sets of plans and specifications will be marked "approved" and signed by an authorized representative of the Team. One set of said plans will be returned to the business and the other set of plans and specifications will become part of the agreement between the Business and the Team. 3. Time Frame for Action. The Team will normally meet once a month, or as necessary, to review any architectural and site engineering plans submitted. The Team reserves the right to require the Business's representative(s) to attend the meeting to discuss any questions of modifications necessary to make the design conform to the intent of these Restrictions. After final approval and recommendation of the 11 ? plan by the Team, the County will have thirty (30) days to approve, reject, or modify the plan submitted. In the event the Team requests changes to the plan, the procedure for final submission as described above, shall again be followed as set forth in paragraph two (2) above. 4. Governmental Approval. All submissions shall concurrently be submitted to the appropriate County, State and Federal permitting agencies as required by law. The approval of a plan by the Team does not relieve the Business of the requirement of securing appropriate permits or approval of the pertinent County, State and Federal agencies. If the plan of development as approved by the various governmental permitting agencies differs from the plan previously approved by the Team, the procedure for final submission as described above shall again be followed. In connection with any submission or approval of plans, the business hereby acknowledges and agrees, for itself, its heirs, successors, and assigns, and their successors in interest with respect to the Property, that: (a) The Team exist, in part, to ensure the harmony of, and to control inappropriate designs of, and improvements made within the Park. The Team nor any persons serving thereon, nor their respective staffs, regardless of their respective professions or backgrounds, shall have any duty or responsibility as an architect, engineer, builder or other design or construction professional with respect to the adequacy, accuracy or validity of any plans submitted to the Team for review, or with respect so such plans' conformance with any zoning ordinance, building code other law or regulation. The Team, nor any person serving thereon, nor any of their respective staffs, shall be liable to any person or entity with respect to (i) any cost to abandon or modify any plans or portions thereof or the increased cost to construct any improvement arising out of any rejection of plan; (ii) any damages or injury arising out of any defect or error in any plans, including any proposed material or design specifications of any nature, approved or rejected by it or not submitted to it for approval: (iii) its failure to review and/or approve or reject plans submitted to it or any failure to take action to prevent or cause the removal of any • Improvement which was rejected by it (or for which plans were not submitted; and (iv) any inconsistency in approvals or rejections made between made between similar proposed or existing Improvements or any aspects or elements thereof (b) Any person or entity submitting plans to the Team for its approval and/or making any Improvement on or to the Property (whether or not such plans were submitted to or reviewed by and/or approved or rejected by the Team) shall, by virtue of the submission of said plans or the making or carrying out of such Improvement, indemnify and hold harmless the Team and each of its members, and every person serving as staff to the Team, from and against any and all claims, damages, loss cost, expense, fines, awards, judgements, penalties, or settlements (including all costs of defense related thereto and all attorney's fees) arising out of or in any way connected with the submission of any plans, construction on any property, or any Improvement made to or on any property, including the Property, for any reason whatsoever. (c) The understandings, agreements and indemnifications set forth in this section shall (i) survive closing with respect to, and delivery of, the deed to which these Restrictions are annexed, and any correction or amendatory deeds thereto; (ii) run with the land being conveyed; and (iii) be binding on each and every owner thereof for so long as the Restrictions shall be in effect; and the Administrator shall have the right at any time hereafter (including any time after settlement) to record a document in the Clerk's Office where said deed is recorded, indexed against the land being conveyed and the current owner thereof, setting forth the provisions of this section. ARTICLE VII DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 13 GENERALLY The following design and development criteria have been submitted as proffers and shall be the minimum standards for the development of the Roanoke County Center for Research & Technology. The Design Review Team may recommend a higher standard for any specific parcel within the Property covered by these criteria. Where these proffers grant the Design Review Team the right to waive specific standards, the Design Review Team shall not have the right to set a standard or level of performance that is less than specified in the following applicable sections of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, as determined by the Zoning Administrator of Roanoke County. A. Setback. The zoning administrator shall determine the minimum setbacks based upon the requested use types as follows: B. C. D. E. F. Industrial Use Type: Commercial, Civic And Office Use Types: Civic Use Type: Residential Use Type: Trails and Greenways (Reserved). Landscaping Section 30-92 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, as amended. Parking, Loading Docks and Storage Areas. Section 30-91 of the Roanoke County zoning Ordinance, as amended. Signs. Section 30-93 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, as amended. Lighting. Section 30-94 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, as amended. 1. Walks and Building Entries. 14 I-1 Setback standards shall apply C-1 Setback standards shall apply C-1 Setback standards shall apply R-1 Setback standards shall apply • Low height, bollard -style, boxed light fixtures, or ground level landscape lighting, are recommended for walks and building entries. 2. Parking Lots. Parking lot light fixtures shall be no taller than the nearest building wall or thirty-five feet (35'), whichever is less, unless otherwise approved by the Design Review Team. Parking lots, traffic areas and loading areas shall be equipped with on -site lighting systems designed to provide an average level or illumination greater than eight tenths of one (0.5) foot candle per square foot of parking lot area. Required lighting shall be shielded to direct illumination inward and prevent glare on adjacent properties or public rights -of -way. G. Utilities. When possible, all site utilities shall be underground and shall be located to minimize the impact on trees designated for preservation by the site plan. H. Walls and Fences. Walls and fences may be located at the rear building line and at rear and side yard property lines when the rear or side yard do not front a street. All fences, masonry walls, hedges or other barriers erected for the purpose of screening or security shall receive prior approval as to materials, location, design, size and color by the Design Review Team. All temporary construction fencing must be removed upon completion of construction or as directed by the Team. I. Exterior Appearance. 1. Exterior Materials. Exterior building materials shall be of types that are of high quality, attractive appearance, durable, and easily maintained for the entire life of the building. 2. Building Design. Building design shall observe the following: a. Architectural design will be evaluated in terms of the integration of form, texture, color and massing of the building, with particular emphasis paid to articulating entrances and to minimizing bulk. b. All building facades will be evaluated for architectural design. 15 Brick, stone, or masonry construction is preferred for all parcels, Brick, stone, or masonry construction is required for facades of buildings fronting or visible from public streets. c. Metallic exterior construction materials are not encouraged and shall only be permitted by specific approval of the Team when the overall design of the building is enhanced by it or special site development circumstances require its use. Design features of metal construction shall include, but are not limited to: (1) Facade materials used to cover such metallic surfaces as be required by the Team (2) The slope and design of the roof line (3) Metal siding, if allowed, shall be of concealed or enclosed fastener construction specifically approved by the Team. d. For roof drainage systems, external gutters or downspouts will be allowed for buildings of three thousand square feet (3,000 S.F.) Or smaller. For larger buildings the Team shall require internal roof drainage unless an exception is granted. e. All mechanical appurtenances located on site or projecting above the roof, such as roof hatches, stairways, exhaust fans, heating and air conditioning equipment, plumbing vents, storage tanks, satellite dishes and communication equipment shall be screened from view from any adjacent public roadway with a parapet, wall or other opaque screening consistent in texture and color with the exterior skin of the building. f. Bright primary colors are not permitted, with the exception of trim and wall -mounted building signs or logos. Building and sign colors must be reviewed and approved by the Team. g. All facades facing public streets, whether in the front, side, or rear yard, shall have a high quality and finished appearance. J. Site Maintenance. All of the Business's developed Property not covered by buildings and 16 • structures shall be landscaped or paved, as provided herein, and kept clean and free from weeds, underbrush, trash, and debris at all times; unless the Team grants an exception based upon an approved phased development plan for the site. K. Transportation Management. 1. Traffic Impact Study. The Team may request from the Business a traffic impact study for development proposals having the potential to generate large volumes of peak hour traffic. 2. Requirements. When a proposed development is expected to generate one hundred (100) or more additional peak direction (inbound or outbound) trips to or from the site during the peak hours of traffic on the adjacent roadway or other roads within the Center, the following elements may be required as part of a transportation management plan for a development site: a. Off -site traffic control or infrastructure improvements b. Staggered work hours c. Carpooling or van -pool incentive program, e.g. preferred parking spaces provided for high occupancy vehicles, financial assistance, etc. d. Public transit ridership incentive program e. Bus bays, pull-outs and/or shelters provided on -site f. Provision of bike racks or other trail -related amenities on -site L. Pedestrian Circulation. Pedestrian access paths shall be provided on site to connect major building entries with public sidewalks and bicycle trails. M. Storm Water Retention and Drainage. 17 410 Storm water retention areas and drainage channels shall be designed to blend with the landscaping of the site and shall incorporate naturalistic materials and vegetation. Retention areas adjacent to any trail system shall incorporate site amenities such as lighting and benches. N. General Compliance. 1. Plans and Specification; Compliance and County Ordinances. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Team for approval with final construction plans and specifications. Design Review Team approval of the plan does not replace or supersede approval of site plan by Engineering & Inspections. Site plans shall be subject to standard County procedures and regulations as contained in the Site Plan Ordinance, Sign Ordinance, and similar related ordinances. 2. Development in Phases. If the Team approves a phased site development plan, the Business shall comply with landscaping requirements of the area developed; provided, however that the installation of trees along the entire street frontage of the a Property may be required with the first phase of development of the Property to maintain continuity of landscaping along the street. 3. Maintenance. The Business shall maintain all landscaping, signs, fencing and screening materials required by these standards as shown on an approved planting plan. Trees shall be pruned when necessary to remove discarded, dead, or dying branches. Dead, dying or diseased trees shall be replaced with a comparable species to meet the minimum landscape requirements. All exterior faces of structures shall be well maintained at all times. ARTICLE VIII CRITERIA FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND VISUAL PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION 18 A. General. In order to insure that here will be no environmental damage and in order to maintain an attractive nuisance -free setting for all Businesses in the Roanoke County Center for Research & Technology Park during the period of development, the Business shall submit to the Team a program which delineates the proposed methods of compliance with the criteria set forth in the article. The program shall be submitted at the time of final plan approval. The builder or contractor shall be given the opportunity to participate in formulating this program. After review, the Team shall approve or make known appropriate requirements in writing within thirty (30) days of submission. B. Construction Equipment Access. Access to each construction site shall be limited to one (1) location along the public or common roadway subject to approval by the Team. Mud, dirt, or other surface debris shall be removed from all vehicles prior to departing the site to avoid accumulation and damage to the roadway and to minimize damage to the drainage system. The Business shall be responsible to keep clean at all times, all public streets and rights -of -way within the Park from all mud, soil, debris, and trash caused by construction on the Property. C. Temporary Structures. Temporary structures, portable offices, and other related facilities shall be maintained in good repair and arranged in a compact and organized manner on the construction site. Such facilities shall be situated so as not to be obtrusive or unsightly when seen from the road or adjacent properties. All temporary structures and portable facilities shall be removed upon the completion of all construction activity and before permanent occupancy of the building. D. Temporary Utilities. All temporary utilities on the construction site shall be in a single, unobtrusive alignment. Distribution to the various areas of construction shall be from an approved, on -site location. E. Equipment and Materials Storage. The area designated for the storage of equipment of materials shall be at a location that is visually unobtrusive from the roadway and adjacent properties. Mobile equipment shall be aligned in an orderly manner at the end of each work day. F. Construction Debris. 19 • Construction debris shall not be allowed to accumulate during construction. It shall be removed daily or located in a visually screened place if debris is to be removed less frequently. Open burning of debris shall not be permitted. After construction is completed, temporary barriers, surplus materials, and all trash, debris and rubbish shall be removed from the site. All backfill shall be cleared of building materials, stone, and rubbish. G. Assessments (Reserved). ARTICLE IX TIME LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS A. Commencement and Completion. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Team, construction of approved Improvements must be commenced with one and one-half (1-1/2) years from the date of the delivery of a deed to or a lease of the Property from the Team to the Business, and must be carried on in a continuous and diligent manner until completed, which completion, unless otherwise specified, must occur within one and one-half (1-1/2) years form the date construction commenced. Construction shall be deemed to commence when the Business has obtained a building permit, performed site improvements, and begun construction of the foundation for the principal Improvement. Construction shall be deemed completed upon the issuance of a final Certificate of Use and Occupancy by the County and full completion of all approved Improvements constructed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the Team. Upon substantial completion of construction, the County's Department of Engineering & Inspections, authorization and issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Use and Occupancy may be granted by the County's Office of Building Inspections. B. Team of Supervisor's Right to Repurchase of Terminate Lease. 1. Repurchase Option. Should construction not commence or be completed as stipulated, or should construction be abandoned for one hundred twenty (120) days or more, the Team of Supervisors may, at its sole option, repurchase the and at the original purchase price or it appraised value as determined by a MAI appraisal obtained by Administrator, whichever is less, minus the cost to restore the Property to its natural condition. Such option shall be deemed 20 exercised by notice in writing to the Business after determination by the Team of Supervisors of noncompliance with this Article, and closing shall be for cash and/or assumption of debt within sixty (60) days of said notice. Should the Property be leased and noncompliance is determined, the Administrator may terminate the lease by notice in writing to the Business with the termination effective as of the date specified in such notice. Any lease payments theretofore and thereafter made shall be forfeited to the Team of Supervisors as liquidated damages. Any such lease termination shall not relieve the Business of any of its obligations (including the payment of rent) under the terms of the lease. 2. Requirements Upon Exercise of Repurchase Option. Should the Board of Supervisors exercise its option to repurchase provided by this Article, the Business shall convey the Property to the County of Roanoke with general warranty of title, free and clear of any and all tenancies, liens and encumbrances, but specifically excluding any and all deeds of trust or mortgage indebtedness to be assumed in accordance with the agreement of the Board of Supervisors. In addition, the Business shall convey the Property to the Board of Supervisors free of any environmental contamination, and if any environmental contamination is found at the Property for which any removal or remedial action is required pursuant to law, ordinance, order, rule, regulation of governmental action, the Business shall, at its sole cost and expense and to the Team of Supervisors' satisfaction, promptly complete such removal or remedial action. 3. Extensions. Notwithstanding the foregoing time requirements for construction and completion of Improvements, if the business has been prevented from commencing and/or completing the Improvements as required above by reason of strike or other labor disputes, in ability to procure necessary materials for construction of the Improvements, governmental agency requirements, regulations, or controls, or war -like operations, fire or other casualties, or acts of God, and provided that if in the sole opinion of the Team, the Business has otherwise made good faith efforts comply with the time requirements and has notified the Team in a timely manner or the event or events outside of its control which has or have chase such period of delay, then the Team may extend the time limits for construction and completion of the Improvements as it deems reasonable and proper under the circumstances. 4. Priority of Restrictions. The foregoing provisions contained in this Article are deemed to supersede 21 any contrary provision contained in any such lease of the Property, unless such lease specifically provides otherwise and refers to these Restrictions and this Article. ARTICLE X RESALE, LEASE, OR OTHER TRANSFER A. Unimproved Land. If a Business or any subsequent transferee thereof desires to Transfer all or any part of the Property, which land is unimproved, the Design Review Team shall have the prior right and option to repurchase said unimproved portion of the Property at the same price per acre originally paid to the Team by the Business, or the appraised value determined by an MAI appraisal obtained by the Team, whichever is less. In such event, the Business shall notify the Team in writing of its desire to Transfer the Property, and the Team shall have sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of such notice to exercise its option and to complete the repurchase. B. Improved Land. In the event that during construction or after its completion and/or occupancy by the Business, the Business or any subsequent transferee shall receive a bona fide, written offer for a Transfer of the Property, which offer the Business desires to accept, the Design Review Team shall have the prior right and option to purchase or lease the Property on the same terms and conditions offered by the prospective buyer or lessee. Prior to any closing of sale or lease of the Property, the Business shall deliver a copy of such offer to the Team, and the Board of Supervisors shall have sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of such notice to exercise its option. In the absence of the Team's written notification exercising its option, the Business shall be free to close the Transfer to the prospective buyer of lessee. The Team shall have the continuing right of first refusal as to such transferee and all succeeding owners or lessees during the life of these Restrictions. C. Exercise of Option to Repurchase. Should the board of Supervisors exercise its option to repurchase provided by subsections "A" and `B" above, t he Business shall convey the Property to the Board by general warranty of title, free and clear of any and all tenancies, liens or encumbrances not expressly assumed by or taken "subject to" under the terns of bona fide, written offer to purchase the Property. In addition the business shall convey the Property to the Review free of any environmental contamination, and if 22 • any environmental contamination is found on the Property for which removal or remedial action is required pursuant to law, ordinance, order, rule, regulation or governmental action, the Business shall, at its sole cost and expense and to the Team's satisfaction, promptly complete such removal or remedial action. Upon failure of the Business to take such remedial action within the time limit prescribed by the Team, the Team may effect the remedial action and its cost will be deducted from he purchase price; provided, however, that should the cost remedial action exceed the purchase price, the Team shall be entitled to fully recover any deficiency from the Business. ARTICLE XI MAINTENANCE The Property, including all Improvements thereon, shall at all times be kept in a neat, clean and attractive condition, and shall be maintained in accordance with the plan of development approved by the Design Review Team. Paint shall not be permitted to fade, wear to peel excessively; exposed metal shall not be permitted to rust; and, except in those areas where the plan of development has provided for certain areas to remain in its natural state, the grass and any plantings shall be kept nearly trimmed. The Business shall promptly replace any and all dead or damaged bushes, plants, and shrubs, trees and other vegetation included within the approved landscaping plan for the Property. ARTICLE XII WASTE A. Sewage and Non -Hazardous Waste. Public sewers shall only be used for sewage and such other non -hazardous industrial waste from the Property as may be allowed by the County of Roanoke or the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, Design Review Team, or its successor. Such sewage and waste shall only be released into a public sewer and must comply with the standards of the Roanoke County Utility Department and other applicable regulatory agencies. All other waste shall be properly disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. B. Hazardous Waste. Disposal and/or transportation of hazardous waste shall only be done in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. 23 • • ARTICLE XIII WAIVERS, CHANGES OR RESCISSIONS These Restrictions are for the exclusive benefit of the Design Review Team, any entity which succeeds generally to the Team's business and purpose, or if none, to the County, including its successors. The Team (or such successors) reserves the right to enforce, enjoy, interpret, waive, change, or rescind any or all of the provisions therein contained, or to add to same, at its discretion at any time and from time to time and without notice to or the consent or approval of any other person or entity owning the Property or other property within Roanoke County Center for Research & Technology. Any waiver, change, rescission, or addition as to one Business shall not entitle another to receive similar treatment. It is understood that any waiver, change, rescission, or addition to these Restrictions is valid only if in writing and signed by the Team and the Business. No failure by the Team to enforce any provision herein contained, whether such violation occurs one (1) or more times, shall convey upon any other person or entity the right to enforce these Restrictions. ARTICLE XIV ASSESSMENTS A. Creation of the Lien and Personal Obligation of Assessments. By the Restrictions, each business is deemed to covenant and agree to pay to the Design Review Team annual Assessments or charges. The annual Assessments, together with such interest thereon an cost of collection thereof, as herein provided, shall be a charge on the Property and shall be a continuing lien upon the Property against which each such Assessment is made. Each such Assessment, together with such interest, cost, and reasonable attorney's fees, shall be the personal obligation of the Business owning the Property at the time the Assessment fell due. B. Purpose of Assessments The Assessments levied by the Design Review Team shall be used exclusively for the purposes of landscaping and maintenance of landscaping of entrances to Roanoke County Center for Research & Technology and rights -of -way within Roanoke County Center for Research & Technology, and maintenance and replacement of signage for Roanoke County Center for Research & Technology. 24 • C. Basis and Maximum of Annual Assessments. To be determined in Final Plan. D. Effect of Non -Payment of Assessment; Remedies of Design Review Team. Any Assessment which is not paid when due shall be deemed delinquent. If the Assessment is not paid within thirty (30) days after the due date, the Assessment shall bear interest from the due date at the rate of (8.00%) per annum, and the Design Review Team may bring an action at law against the Business personally obligated to pay the same or foreclose the lien against the Property, and in either case, interest, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees incurred shall be added to the amount of such Assessment. E. Subordination of the Lien to Mortgages. The lien of the Assessments provided for herein shall be subordinate tot he lien of any first mortgage or first deed of trust. Foreclosure of any first mortgage or first deed of trust shall extinguish such lien for Assessments due prior to such foreclosure (and such liens shall attach to any excess proceeds of the foreclosure), but no such foreclosure shall relieve such property from liability for any Assessment thereafter become due or from the lien thereof. ARTICLE XV SEPARABILITY Invalidation of any of the provisions contained in these Restrictions by judgement, court order or legislation, shall in no way affect any of the other provisions, or parts thereof, which shall remain in full force and effect. ARTICLE XVI TERMS OF RESTRICTIONS These Restrictions shall run with Property and shall be binding upon all parties under it for a period of Twenty-five (25) years form the date of transfer of the deed or lease conveying title or an interest therein to the Business, after which time, such Restrictions shall automatically extend for successive periods of ten (10) years each, unless either the Design Review Team or the Business elect in writing by instrument duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County, to terminate them. 25 J -7 • ARTICLE XVII CAPTIONS The captions herein are for convenience only and shall not limit or necessarily describe the content of the paragraphs which follow. ARTICLE XVIII RIGHT OF ENFORCEMENT The Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to enforce, by any proceeding at law or in equity, or to interpret, any of the restrictions, conditions, covenants, and liens now or hereafter imposed by these Restrictions. Failure to enforce any covenant or provision contained in these Restrictions (whether as to singular or repeated violations of the same or other provisions) shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so at any time with respect to a previous or a new violation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Design Review Team reserves the right to enter upon the Property, or any portion thereof, during regular business hours and after providing reasonable notice to the Business, to inspect for purposes of determining compliance with these Restrictions. Violation or breach of any of these Restrictions shall give the Design Review Team the right after thirty (30) days written notice of such violation or breach, and failure to cure by the Business, to enter the Property an to abate or remove at the expense of the Business anything or any condition which is contrary to the intent of these Restrictions. However, in the event that the violation or breach involves the requirement in Article XI that grass and plantings be neatly trimmed, ten (10) days written notice of the violation shall be given. The amount so expended to abate or remove the violation or breach up to but not exceeding TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($25,000) shall constitute a lien against the Property which shall have priority over any and all other liens, provided, however, that the Design Review Team shall provide at the prior written request of any noteholder secured by any deed of trust on the Property, a copy of any such notice and allow the noteholder or its agents to cure the violation or breach within the time period provided in the notice and prior to any expenditures by the Design Review Team abate or remove the violation or breach. 26 ARTICLE XIX NOTICES Any notice required to be given or which may be given pursuant to or with respect to these Restrictions shall be in writing and sent by certified or registered U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the then current mailing address of the addressee as shown by the records of the Design Review Team, or if none, to the address of the Property. APPROVED: 411 27 • — —Po -111!`"‘• oteraw," 0 G1vr i I 1.1 • / 4ALIG ,gfittia $ glvd. Ti / 1 ' - '--- - --,- V ..ec,. \ ,, •:- . ,' i z.../ , ... •-.. /- .1- i 0 4,, s• \ i! ,/ / 1- - , > •:V 64 ''' a '101;• : ' , ., . . . .,Z V / 4-' ,'C.,, ( / S-: _q C i ' • (."/ \\\ I I "R.Lei • \ /\\ 4:</ / i. A. k -,/. • 'i ( • - . 0 l';,.. .. -... 'rt.-- — / .7; q ICI-6-116FIROG i • ! , • I : - :i• • ! 0 ••••.' ! t l • • • - 100 Foot Minimum Butter Lot Development c.J ct 7:1 c.4 • Date 7-14-97 E E cc 71N211ari!MMgZIFLIIA • Proposed Roanoke County Business Site OITE INFORMATION: TOTAL AREA. 481 AGRE5 (APPROXIMATE) IMM AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1998 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 456.6-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN THE 5300 BLOCK OF GLENMARY DRIVE (TAX MAP NOS. 54.00-1-2;3 AND 64.00-1-1) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF PTD WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 24, 1998, and the second reading and public hearing were held April 28, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on April 7, 1998; 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 456.6 acres, as described herein, and located in the 5300 block of Glenmary Drive (Tax Map Numbers 54.00-1-2; 3 and 64.00-1-1) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District, to the zoning classification of PTD, Planned Technology Development District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County. 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing conditions which are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\GLENMARY.PTD 1 " g reference and which are set out in detail in the submitted materials contained in the attached Exhibit A entitled "Roanoke County Center For Research and Technology, March 24, 1998, Application to Rezone the Property from R-1 to PTD," said materials to include a memorandum dated April 17, 1998, from the Director of the Department Economic Development for Roanoke County regarding conditions pertaining to greenway and trail development at the Center, all of which conditions the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts, with the exception that the Lone Eagle District described on the Preliminary Concept Plan is hereby to be designated as Reserved for Future Development, 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Beginning at a 3-inch capped rebar set in the north right-of-way line of Interstate 81 and Glen Mary Drive, corner to Philip Trompeter & Constance Trompeter Hausman, thence leaving said Interstate and Drive and along Trompeter, N 54° 11' 01" W 106.44 feet to a M-inch capped rebar set, corner to Emmett I. Jr. and Mary C. Grisso; thence leaving Trompeter and along Grisso, N 51° 03' 57" W 238.25 feet to a 5/8-inch iron rod found; thence N 41° 47' 23" W 399.04 feet to a 5/8-inch iron rod found; thence S 71° 20' 01" W 345.58 feet to a 3/4-inch iron pipe found, corner to H. M. & Karen E. Montgomery; thence leaving Grisso and along Montgomery, Kathleen F. Nichols, and Jayne Melton Hampton & William J. Hampton, N 39° 35' 40" W 3840.65 feet to a M-inch capped rebar set in a fence corner in a painted tree line, corner to Hampton and David W. & Constance R. Shelor; thence leaving Hampton and along Shelor, N 53° 24' 56" E 3805.08 feet to a M-inch iron rod found; thence S 01° 37' 22" E 190.40 feet to a 'M-inch iron rod found; thence N 41° 16' 31" E 88.69 feet to a ;4-inch iron rod found, corner to Glenvar Heights Section No. 2; thence leaving Shelor and along Glenvar Heights Section No. 2 the following courses: S 52° 15' 12" E 192.90 feet to a M-inch capped rebar set; S 36° 31' 18" E 85.00 feet to a M-inch capped rebar set; S 70° 01' 18" E 193.00 feet to a M-inch capped rebar set; S 54° 01' 18" E 85.00 feet to a M-inch capped rebar set; S 18° 01' 18" E 165.00 feet to a M-inch capped rebar set; N 87° 28' 42" E 102.00 feet to a M-inch capped rebar set; S 35° 01' 18" E 192.00 feet to a M-inch rebar found; S 26° 01' 18" E passing a 3/4-inch iron pipe found at 101.70 feet, passing a 3/4-inch iron pipe found at 206.20 feet, in all 338.00 feet to a M-inch capped rebar set; S 71° 31' 18" E passing a 5/8-inch iron rod found at 84.10 feet, passing a 5/8-inch iron found at 141.02 feet, in all 189.00 feet to a ;4-inch capped rebar set; S 71° 01' 18" E 176.00 feet to a M-inch capped rebar set; S 40° 31' 18" E 182.50 feet to a ;4-inch capped rebar set; C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\GLENMARY.PTD 2 /-# N 47° 56' 33" E 179.59 feet to a %-inch capped rebar set; S 32° 53' 00" E passing a 5/8-inch iron rod found at 537.90 feet, passing a %-inch road found at 2161.38 feet, corner to Glenvar Heights Section No. 1, thence leaving Section No. 2 and along Glenvar Heights Section No. 1, in all 2643.72 feet to a %-inch capped rebar set; thence along Glenvar Heights Section No. 1, S 30° 40' 00" E 820.33 feet to a %-inch capped rebar set; thence S 17° 14' 12" W 2.98 feet to a VDOT right-of-way monument found in the west right-of-way of Glenvar Heights Boulevard; thence leaving Glenvar Heights Section No. 1 and along the west right-of-way line of said Boulevard, S 16° 39' 28" E 166.64 feet to a VDOT right-of-way monument found; thence S 25° 54' 06" E 112.17 feet to a VDOT right-of-way monument found in the north right-of-way line of Interstate 81; thence leaving said Boulevard and along Interstate 81 north right-of-way the following courses: S 74° 21' 59" W 260.64 feet to a VDOT right-of-way monument found; S 78° 39' 35" W 152.to VDOT right-of-way monument found; S 64° 34' 36" W 99.73 feet to a %-inch capped rebar set; S 62° 56' 59" W 255.48 feet to a VDOT right-of-way monument found; S 56° 37' 49" W 197.29 feet to a VDOT right- of-way monument found; S 67° 26' 22" W 725.00 feet to a VDOT right-of-way monument found; S 81° 41' 10" W 128.80 feet to a VDOT right-of-way monument found; S 73° 12' 45" W 251.07 feet to a VDOT right-of-way monument found; S 63° 09' 48" W 266.97 feet to a %-inch capped rebar set; S 56° 59' 16" W 137.92 feet to a %-inch capped rebar set; S 53° 42' 48" W 105.50 feet to a VDOT right-of-way monument found; N 29° 06' 26" W 148.57 feet to a VDOT right-of-way monument found; S 64° 46' 41" W 26.63 feet to a VDOT right-of- way monument found, corner to Martin Gale & Gary Wayne Gallimore; thence leaving said right-of-way and along Gallimore N. 46° 50' 43" W 233.58 feet to a 2-inch iron pipe found; thence N. 52° 54' 24" W 17.59 feet to a 3/4- inch iron pipe found; thence S 54° 40' 01" W 91.57 feet to a 3/4-inch iron pipe found; thence S 31° 54' 33" E 271.32 feet to a 3-inch capped rebar set in the north right-of-way of Interstate 81; thence leaving Gallimore and along said right-of-way S 77° 12' 57" W 40.86 feet to a VDOT right-of-way monument found, the PC of a curve to the left with a radius of 560.87 feet, delta of 29° 52' 54", arc of 292.51 feet; thence a chord of S 69° 11' 45" W 289.21 feet to a VDOT right-of-way monument found, the PT of said curve; thence S 57° 30' 29" W 19.14 feet to a 5/8-inch iron rod found, corner to Edgar & Lottie B. Dickerson; thence leaving said right-of-way and along Dickerson N. 29° 37' 52" W 107.48 feet to a %-inch iron rod found; thence S 84° 02' 11' W 445.25 feet to a %-inch iron rod found; thence S 47° 19' 56" E 152.14 feet to a %-inch capped rebar set; thence S 54° 11' 01" E 130.67 feet to a %-inch capped rebar set in the north right-of-way line of Interstate 81; thence S 69° 58' 12" W 38.66 feet to a %-inch capped rebar set; thence S 53° 18' 07" W 8.39 feet to the point of beginning, containing 456.60 acres, more or less, and being a combination description of Tax Parcels #64.00-1-1, #54.00-1-2, and #54.00-1-3. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\GLENMARY.PTD 3 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. C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\GLENMARY.PTD 4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE ON TUESDAY, APRIL SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE NTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER 98 RESOLUTION 042898-16 CERTIFYING EXECUTIV MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roaroke County, Virginia has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmati +e recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Certification Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: .fir/ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Executive Session tirnxttg of iaxwtw MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD Internet E-Mail: mallen@www.co.roanoke.va.us P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 April 29, 1998 Mr. Allan C. Robinson, Jr., Chairman Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 1020 Hollins Road Roanoke, VA 24012 Dear Mr. Robinson: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK Internet E-Mail: bholton@www.co.roanoke.va.us Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 042898-1 approving the 1998-1999 operating budget for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, April 28, 1998. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors bjh Attachment cc: Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance John R. Hubbard, CEO, RVRA Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council Carolyn S. Ross, Clerk, Vinton Town Council tLrnxttg of aaxtoke COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (540) 772-2004 Rev. Steven W. Harris Baptist Children's Home 860 Mt. Vernon Avenue Salem, VA 24153 Dear Reverend Harris: P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (540) 772-2193 April 29, 1998 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOB L. JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS, VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FENTON F. "SPIKE" HARRISON, JR. CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JOSEPH MCNAMARA WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (540) 772-2005 On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I would like to thank you for offering the invocation at our meeting on Tuesday, April 28, 1998. We believe it is most important to ask for divine guidance at these meetings and the Board is very grateful for your contribution. Thank you again for sharing your time and your words with us. With kindest regards, Bob L. Johnn, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Internet E-Mail ehodge@www.co.roanoke.va.us ® Recycled Paper Internet E-Mail bosQwww.co.roanoke.va.us Crnxtttg of arnitte MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD Internet E-Mail: mallen@www.co.roanoke.va.us Mrs. Elizabeth W. Stokes 5421 Sweetfern Drive Roanoke, VA 24019 Dear Mrs. Stokes: P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 April 29, 1998 BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK Internet E-Mail: bholton@www.co.roanoke.va.us The members of the Board of Supervisors wish to express their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors. am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, April 28, 1998, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to designate you my appointee to the Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors for another two-year term. Your new term will expire on May 5, 2000. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, or appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, Enclosures cc: Theodore J. Edlich, III, Executive Director, TAP Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors To: adm01/bjh Subject: Dinner on Tuesday Date sent: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:50:01 I talked to Brenda Chastain Thursday afternoon and she said that School Board would be leaving after the work session so I called Mary Bommerino(?) and told her only 25 for dinner. Then, this morning Brenda Chastain called back and said that there MAY be a joint executive session with SB/BOS so the SB may want sandwiches. I don't know anything about it and ECH is not here. Anyway, we decided to wait until Monday and Brenda is going to let us know whether SB and School staff will stay and have sandwiches. If so, we need to call Mary Bommerino back and tell her 35 again. Sorry for the confusion, but it's not from our side! Mary Allen 1 Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:50:01 From: "Brenda Holton" < ADM01/BJH > To: adm01/mha, adm01/meh, adm01/ech Date sent: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:06:48 + 0000 Subject: playback of 4-28 Board meeting Elaine called to say that playback of the 4-28-98 Board meeting will be Wednesday, the 29th, instead of the usual Thursday night. The City is having a public hearing on Thrusday night. Note to Mary Allen - do you want to include notice of this in the agenda like we did once before when it was changed? Brenda Holton Deputy Clerk 772-2005 Mary Allen 1 Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:48:57 alem & United States Cellular 1 20' Monopole Tower on the Glenvar Water Treatment Plant site )NTROL IILDINGS SEDIMENTATION BASINS PROPOSED ADDITIONAL GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD +/- 350' 250,000 GAL GROUND LEVEL RESERVOIR PROPOSED 60' X 60' TOWER SITE SEE ATTACHED DETAIL Prepared By: DanCell Inc. 621 S. Navy Blvd., Pensacola FL. 32507 O OFFICE OF DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT Q 5937 Cove Road �•'�- Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Phone: (540) 562-3700 Fax: (540) 562-3994 9 "v�� dear EvAto April 9, 1998 Elmer Hodge Roanoke County Administrator 5204 Bernard Drive, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mr. Hodge: Enclosed please find the 1998-99 operating budget for the school division as. adopted by the Roanoke County School Board on April 8, 1998. The Board has asked that the list of specific personnel and department reductions from the prior budget be enclosed for review by the members of the Board of Supervisors. We appreciate the assistance of members of the finance department and other county staff as we have prepared this budget. The school board has reserved A ril 26 at 5 p.m. for a second joint workshop with the supervisors to give final revielw tote et. 5vN1>P1-y MOULD as 4PR;,. 28 Dr. Hardy and f will be pleased to provide any additional detail that is needed. Sincerely, Deanna W. Gordo Superintendent ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS LIST OF CUTS MADE TO BALANCE BUDGET BUDGET YEAR 1998-99 Salary & Related Cost Reductions AMOUNT 1. Reduce secondary teaching personnel 160,000 2. Reduce professional leave - 400 substitute days 20,000 3. Cut two central office instructional supervisory positions 120,000 Supervisors of Fine Arts & Health & P.E. 4. Reduce classified positions 80,000 Cut two central office secretary positions & five 4-hour janitor positions 5. Cut out $.50 per hour increase for janitors 100,000 6. Cut one of the proposed technology positions 30,000 7. Change nursing positions from full-time to part-time 126,000 Sub -Total $636,000 Departmental Requests Cost Reductions 1. Office of the Assistant Superintendent 27,924 Cut athletic equipment repair & replacement items 2. Educational Testing Department 30,000 Cut non mandated testing program with the exception of grade 2 3. Pupil Personnel Department 80,000 Cut materials, supplies, conferences & community based instruction 4. Media Services Department 50,000 Cut library materials, administrative computers & instructional equipment 5. Facilities & Operations ( Eliminate utility increases) 100,000 6. Reduce Office of the Superintendent 155,083 Cut summer curriculum writing & reduce contingency fund 7. Reduce Budget & Data Management Department Reduce risk management increase (workers' compensation fund) 25,000 Reduce textbook transfer from local funds 50,000 8. Reduce Summer School Accounts 100,000 Cut proposed $3 raise, additional 9 days & additional hour per day Sub -Total $618,007 GRAND TOTAL $1,254,007 ADDBACK PRIORITY LIST * 1. Restore $.50 per hour increase for janitors 2. Restore Textbook Transfer * Although not voted on, the above items reflect the general consensus of our board members. 100,000 50,000 MEMO To: Elmer Hodge From: John M. Chambliss, Jr. Subject: Letter from Beth MacDonald of VML Date: March 12, 1998 Attached is the letter I mentioned to you last week from Beth MacDonald, Director of Marketing and Member Services for VML. She would like to be on the agenda for the April 28 meeting of the Board of Supervisors to see if they have and questions or suggestions about the services that VML can or should provide. We should let her know if the date will be satisfactory. She plans to visit the City of Salem on April 27 and would like to try to visit both localities on the same trip. Attachment - / s - ,fie "S cit. //ed 6a cJE, , co; /l s P i c,ndGr .8e.b0,g .s o r, 4-2' 3pM. // c_a.-r/ Se .6 £.pie. e..6 .be re a. cc. OFFICERS PRESIDENT FAIRFAX COUNTY CHAIRMAN KATHERINE K. HANLEY PRESIDENT ELECT MARTINSVILLE CITY MANAGER EARL B. REYNOLDS JR. VICE PRESIDENT DANVILLE COUNCIL MEMBER JOHN C. HAMLIN IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT BLACKSTONE MAYOR DR. JAMES S. HARRIS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR R. MICHAEL AMYX MAGAZINE VIRGINIA TOWN 6 CITY P.O. Box 12164 13 EAST FRANKLIN STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23241 804/649-8471 FAX 804/343-3758 E-MAIL i2o2o. net Mori VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE March 6, 1998 Mr. John M. Chambliss, Jr. Assistant County Administrator County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 De I'm re 'ly looking forward to attending your board's meeting on April 28. Because our localities are the league, the purpose of my visit is to find out what we're doing right, what we're doing wrong, and how we can make league membership more valuable to our local officials. Since I want board members and staff to be really candid about league services, I'll let you decide what time slot is best for my brief comments and their reciprocal thoughts or suggestions. I'd be delighted to meet with members around the conference table before or after the meeting, or put me on the agenda wherever you think is appropriate. And if you feel there is a better format for your board, just let me know what approach you think would work best. As one of the reasons I'm coming on board meeting day is to see how your supervisors conduct a meeting, I will stay until adjournment or until you go into executive session. So, if I'm on the agenda, it's not necessary to schedule me early in the meeting as I'll be there for awhile. If any board members are curious as to the league's position on specific legislative items that may have been before the 1998 General Assembly, I'd appreciate knowing about these questions in advance so I can talk with whichever VML staff member followed that issue. Give me a call (804/649-8471) if you have questions or there is a problem with my visit on April 28. I'll touch base with you the week before to find out what time I should arrive, get directions to the county office building, and share information concerning my trip. I look forward to seeing you then. Beth MacDonald Director of Marketing and Member Services LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WORKING TOGETHER SINCE 1905 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, 1998, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Ohio State Cellular for a Special Use Permit to add a wireless telecommunications tower to an existing facility, located at 4135 West Main Street, Catawba Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: April 8, 19984.1(.,} Mary H. Alien, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, April 14, 1998 Tuesday, April 21, 1998 Direct the bill for publication to: DanCell Inc. For Ohio State Cellular Phone 621 S. Navy Blvd. Pensacola, FL 32507 (850) 453-9914 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, 1998, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Stephen & Marie Freeman to rezone approximately 2.0 acres from C-1 to C-2 and obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a home for adults, located at the southwest corner of Rosecrest Road and Route 221, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: April 8, 1998 Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, April 14, 1998 Tuesday, April 21, 1998 Direct the bill for publication to: Stephen & Marie Freeman 3539 Peakwood Dr Roanoke, VA 24018 (540) 774-1197 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, 1998, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Glenvar Baptist Church for a Special Use Permit to expand an existing religious assembly facility, located at 4804 Stanley Farm Road, Catawba Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: April 8, 1998 Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, April 14, 1998 Tuesday, April 21, 1998 Direct the bill for publication to: Glenvar Baptist Church 4804 Stanley Farm Rd Salem, VA 24153 (540) 380-2167 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, 1998, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Old German Baptist Church for a Special Use Permit to allow for an outdoor gathering in the 7000 and 8000 blocks of Wood Haven Road, Catawba Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: April 8, 1998 Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, April 14, 1998 Tuesday, April 21, 1998 Direct the bill for publication to: Darrell Bower Old German Baptist Church 7629 Wood Haven Rd Roanoke, VA 24019 (540) 562-0098 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, 1998, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to amend the Planned Industrial District of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance and rename the district the Planned Technology Development District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: April 8, 1998 Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, April 14, 1998 Tuesday, April 21, 1998 Direct the bill for publication to: Roanoke County Board of Supervisors PO Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540) 772-2005 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, 1998, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to rezone 456.6 acres from R-1, Residential to Planned Technology Development District, for a business and commercial park, located in the 5300 block of Glenmary Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: April 8, 1998 Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, April 14, 1998 Tuesday, April 21, 1998 Direct the bill for publication to: Roanoke County Board of Supervisors PO Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540) 772-2005 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 Caul -dry a PAUL M. MAHONEY COUNTY ATTORNEY (540) 772-2007 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (540) 772-2089 April 3, 1998 CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. Hugh Stallard Bell Atlantic Corporation 600 E. Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 Re: Roanoke County E911 Tax Dear Mr. Stallard: JOSEPH B. OBENSHAIN SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY VICKIE L. HUFFMAN ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY (540) 772-2071 Enclosed you will find a draft ordinance which will be presented to the Board of Supervisors for a first reading on April 14, 1998, and second reading and public hearing on April 28, 1998. This ordinance increases the E911 tax in Roanoke County from $1.06 per month and $1.46 per month. The effective date of this ordinance is September 1, 1998. Pursuant to Virginia Code Sections 58.1-3812 and 58.1-3813, Roanoke County is required to give all service providers 120 days notice of a change in this E911 tax. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney PMM/spb Enclosure c: Mr. Mike Riley 706 Church Street Lynchburg, VA 24504 Ms. Gracie Hart 5415 Airport Road Roanoke, VA 24019 PUBLIC NOTICE Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on April 28, 1998, at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia, at the evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m. will hold a public hearing on the following: ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21-4, ENHANCED EMERGENCY TELEPHONE TAX OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, BY INCREASING SAID TAX FROM $1.06 PER MONTH TO $1.46 PER MONTH All members of the may appear and be heard A copy of the ft available for public in: of Supervisors, Virginia. °`n he matters set forth above aforesaid. nance is on file and is of the Clerk of the Board whose office is located at 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, h)) ) Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Roanoke County, Virgini Publish on the following dates: April 14, 1998 April 21, 1998 Send invoice to: Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 ATTENTION: MRS. MARY ALLEN AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1998 ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21-4, ENHANCED EMERGENCY TELEPHONE TAX OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, BY INCREASING SAID TAX FROM $1.06 PER MONTH TO $1.46 PER MONTH WHEREAS, the levy of this enhanced emergency telephone tax is authorized by Section 58.1-3813 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and WHEREAS, notice of the proposed adoption of the ordinance enacting this legislation was advertised in the "Roanoke Times and World News" on April 14, 1998, and April 21, 1998; and WHEREAS, the first reading on the adoption of this ordinance was held on April 14, 1998, and the second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on April 28, 1998. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That § 21-4, Enhanced emergency telephone tax, of Article I, In General of Chapter 21, Taxation of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 21-4. Enhanced emergency telephone tax. (a) There is hereby imposed and levied by the county upon every purchaser of local telephone service a tax in the amount of one dollar and Six ccnt3 ($1.0G) ones? nd 61Eer month. This tax shall be paid by the purchaser to the seller of local telephone service for the use of the county to pay 1 the recurring maintenance, repair and system upgrade costs and salaries or portion of salaries of dispatchers or call -takers which are directly attributable to the E911 system. The county treasurer shall notify the seller of the date on which the tax is to be reduced under this section. This notification will be sent by certified mail to the registered agent of the seller sixty (60) days in advance of the date on which the tax is to be reduced. (b) It shall be the duty of every seller in acting as the tax collecting medium or agency for the county to collect from the purchaser for the use of the county the tax hereby imposed and levied at the time of collecting the purchase price charged therefor and the taxes collected during each calendar month shall be reported by each seller to the commissioner of the revenue of the county on or before the last day of the calendar month thereafter, together with the name and address of any purchaser who has refused to pay his tax. Simultaneously therewith, the seller shall file a copy of such report with and remit to the treasurer of the county the taxes so collected and reported. The required report shall be in the form prescribed by the commissioner of the revenue. The tax levied or imposed under this section with respect to the purchase of local telephone service shall be applicable to charges first appearing on bills rendered for service provided after Augu3t 1, 1994Septemberl�1998 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after September 1, 1998; which is at least 120 days after written notice by certified mail by the County to the registered agents of the corporations providing telephone service that are required to collect said tax. 2 • 1 1Inuntg a� PAUL M. MAHONEY COUNTY ATTORNEY (540) 772-2007 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (540) 772-2089 April 3, 1998 CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. Hugh Stallard Bell Atlantic Corporation 600 E. Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 Re: Roanoke County E911 Tax Dear Mr. Stallard: JOSEPH B. OBENSHAIN SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY VICKIE L. HUFFMAN ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY (540) 772-2071 Enclosed you will find a draft ordinance which will be presented to the Board of Supervisors for a first reading on April 14, 1998, and second reading and public hearing on April 28, 1998. This ordinance increases the E911 tax in Roanoke County from $1.06 per month and $1.46 per month. The effective date of this ordinance is September 1, 1998. Pursuant to Virginia Code Sections 58.1-3812 and 58.1-3813, Roanoke County is required to give all service providers 120 days notice of a change in this E911 tax. Please call if you have any questions. PMM/spb Enclosure c: Mr. Mike Riley 706 Church Street Lynchburg, VA 24504 Ms. Gracie Hart 5415 Airport Road Roanoke, VA 24019 Sincerely, g`i\Al\e(1 NA:A4 Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Recycled Paper s 1 PUBLIC NOTICE Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on April 28, 1998, at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia, at the evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m. will hold a public hearing on the following: ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21-4, ENHANCED EMERGENCY TELEPHONE TAX OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, BY INCREASING SAID TAX FROM $1.06 PER MONTH TO $1.46 PER MONTH All members of the public interested in the matters set forth above may appear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file and is available for public inspection in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, whose office is located at 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia. Publish on the following dates: .April 14, 1998 April 21, 1998 Send invoice to: Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 ATTENTION: MRS. MARY ALLEN )•11/ii\Q\C Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Roanoke County, Virgini AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1998 ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21-4, ENHANCED EMERGENCY TELEPHONE TAX OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, BY INCREASING SAID TAX FROM $1.06 PER MONTH TO $1.46 PER MONTH WHEREAS, the levy of this enhanced emergency telephone tax is authorized by Section 58.1-3813 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and WHEREAS, notice of the proposed adoption of the ordinance enacting this legislation was advertised in the "Roanoke Times and World News" on April 14, 1998, and April 21, 1998; and WHEREAS, the first reading on the adoption of this ordinance was held on April 14, 1998, and the second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on April 28, 1998. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That § 21-4, Enhanced emergency telephone tax, of Article I, In General of Chapter 21, Taxation of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 21-4. Enhanced emergency telephone tax. (a) There is hereby imposed and levied by the county upon every purchaser of local telephone service a tax in the amount of one dollar and six ccnt3 ($1.OG) gp r �..__.. maw er month. This tax shall be paid by the purchaser to the seller of local telephone service for the use of the county to pay 1 the recurring maintenance, repair and system upgrade costs and salaries or portion of salaries of dispatchers or call -takers which are directly attributable to the E911 system. The county treasurer shall notify the seller of the date on which the tax is to be reduced under this section. This notification will be sent by certified mail to the registered agent of the seller sixty (60) days in advance of the date on which the tax is to be reduced. (b) It shall be the duty of every seller in acting as the tax collecting medium or agency for the county to collect from the purchaser for the use of the county the tax hereby imposed and levied at the time of collecting the purchase price charged therefor and the taxes collected during each calendar month shall be reported by each seller to the commissioner of the revenue of the county on or before the last day of the calendar month thereafter, together with the name and address of any purchaser who has refused to pay his tax. Simultaneously therewith, the seller shall file a copy of such report with and remit to the treasurer of the county the taxes so collected and reported. The required report shall be in the form prescribed by the commissioner of the revenue. The tax levied or imposed under this section with respect to the purchase of local telephone service shall be applicable to charges first appearing on bills rendered for service provided after Auguct 1, 199'l Septtember 1 1998 w 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after September 1, 1998; which is at least 120 days after written notice by certified mail by the County to the registered agents of the corporations providing telephone service that are required to collect said tax. 4.1 f ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY March 27, 1998 Mr. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Roanoke County P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mr. Hodge: On March 25, 1998, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority approved its 1998/99 annual budget. The budget totals $8,004,000 and represents a .5% increase from the 1997/98 amended budget and a concerted effort to reduce operating costs and to maintain a stable tipping fee. The Resource Authority has adjusted its operations to reflect the current commercial waste flow market and has been able to maintain tipping fees for the 1998/99 fiscal year at the current levels. The budget will also allow the continuation of the tipping fee credits to the member jurisdictions and will implement a wood mulch fee. In accordance with the Member Use Agreement, the Resource Authority's 1998/99 annual budget is being submitted for the Board of Supervisor's approval. Attached is a summary of the budget, a comparison of the budget and the bond projections. A detailed budget is available, if additional information is needed. The Resource Authority is committed to providing the highest quality service possible to the County of Roanoke and the other Charter Members and their citizens, and we look forward to a challenging future. Sincerely, azia, (' Allan C. Robinson, Jr. Chairman 1020 Hollins Road Roanoke, Virginia 24012 (540) 857-5050 Fax (540) 857-5056 From: "Sue Patterson -Bane" < ADM01/SPB > To: adm01/mha, adm01/ech, gup01/wjr, gup01/g1r, adm01/ddh Date sent: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:27:39 + 0000 Subject: Policy Manual Copies to: adm01/pmm To follow up on the previous memo sent on February 12, 1998, Paul would like to take to the Board the resolutions prepared for each of your departments following this schedule: General Administration - Mary Allen/Elmer Hodge - March 10, 1998 General Services - Bill Rand - March 24, 1998 Utility Department - Gary Robertson - April 14, 1998 Finance Department - Diane Hyatt, April 28, 1998 Please review the resolutions that were sent to you and let me or Paul know if you have any comments or changes. Thanks. Sue Patterson -Bane Legal Assistant 772-2007 Mary Allen 1 Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:46:25 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, 1998, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Taylor Yeh and Jermaine English for a Special Use Permit to allow a dance hall, located at 5610 Williamson Road, Hollins Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: April 8, 1998 Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, April 14, 1998 Tuesday, April 21, 1998 Direct the bill for publication to: Taylor Yeh/Jermaine English 4580 Oakland Blvd. Roanoke, VA 24012 (540) 362-4409 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO TITLE 25, SECTIONS 15.2-1904 AND 15.2-1905, AND SECTIONS 33.1-119 THROUGH 33.1-132, OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA (1950, AS AMENDED), TO ACQUIRE BY CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS, AND AUTHORIZE IMMEDIATE RIGHT OF ENTRY TO, A PERMANENT 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT OF ACCESS AND A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT, FROM NYNA S. MURRAY (TAX MAP #28.09-2-4) L-0-e4QP-iut 'rckuu PUBLIC NOTICE Please take notice that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, will hold a public hearing at the Roanoke County Administration Center, Board Meeting Room, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia, on April 28, 1998, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the question of the adoption of a Resolution pursuant to Title 25, Sections 15.2-1904 and 15.2-1905, and Sections 33.1-119 through 33.1-132, of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), to acquire by condemnation proceedings, and to authorize immediate right -of -entry to, a permanent 20' drainage easement, together with the right of access and a temporary construction easement, from Nyna S. Murray (Tax Map #28.09-2-4). Any member of the public may appear at the time and place aforesaid and address the Board on the matter aforesaid. Please publish on April 21, 1998 Please send invoice to: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 4)adu,t Pn Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney q:50 Prrn From: "Paul Mahoney" < ADM01/PMM > To: "Mary Allen" < ADM01/MHA > Date sent: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:43:10 +0000 Subject: Re: 4/28 agenda We had talked earlier about whether or not it would be better to make Mr. Evans speak under citizen comments or in Ex. Session. ECH was leaning to have Mr. Evans speak under citizen comments, but he wanted to give Mr. Evans the choice. ECH did not want to box him in. We could leave it off the printed agenda, and leave it up to the BofS on Tuesday? > From: "Mary Allen" < ADM01 /MHA > > To: adm01/pmm > Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:19:24 +0000 > Subject: Re: 4/28 agenda > I assume you have talked to ECH about putting the Richard Evans item > on Executive Session > > Mary Allen, Clerk to Board > 772-2003 > Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Mary Allen 1 Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:54:14 From: "Brenda Holton" < ADM01/BJH > To: "Paul Mahoney" < ADM01/PMM > Date sent: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:15:35 + 0000 Subject: Re: 4/28 agenda Copies to: adm01/mha Thanks Paul. I will copy to Mary Allen as she is doing the meeting. I was covering the agenda staff meeting for her. I told her all about Mr. Evans. > From: "Paul Mahoney" < ADM01 /PMM > > To: adm01/bjh > Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:59:02 +0000 > Subject: 4/28 agenda > Cc: adm01 /ech > Brenda: > Please add 2 items to executive session for the 4/287 BofS > meeting: > 1) 2.1-344.A.1 Performance of personnel > 2) 2.1-344.A.3 acquisition of real estate, drainage easement > (Wakefield Dr.) > > The first item is per request of Richard Evans; he wants to > complain about Mr. Hodge to the BofS. > The second item is to consider the acquisition and possible > condemnation of a drainage easement for a project on Wakefield Drive. > Thanks > Paul M. Mahoney > County Attorney �� > Mary Allen 1 Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:18:34