HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/12/1998 - RegularHEART OF„gRULE RIDGE
ilixxt#g of ivaxtokQ
ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MAY 12, 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.
THERE WILL BE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS
DURING THE AFTERNOON SESSION TODAY.
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.
2. Invocation: The Reverend Phillip Whitaker
Brambleton Baptist Church
3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag.
B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER
OF AGENDA ITEMS
C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND
AWARDS
i
e Recycled Paper
1. First reading of ordinance authorizing vacation of the
northeasterly ten feet of an existing 20-foot waterline
easement on Lot 10A of Larson Oaks Subdivision and
acceptance of a new 10- foot waterline easement on Lot 9,
Larson Oaks. (Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering &
Inspections)
2. First reading of ordinance repealing Article V. Bingo
Games and Raffles, of Chapter 4. Amusements of the
Roanoke County Code. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney)
3. First reading of ordinance to vacate a part of a platted
unnamed, abandoned 25-foot wide right-of-way as shown
on the map of Lee Mitchell subdivision, Plat Book 3, Page
203 and located in the Catawba Magisterial District.
(Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering & Inspections)
4. First reading of ordinance enacting Section 13-13.1, of the
Roanoke County Code, Authorized Disposal of Trash,
Unlawful Scavenging or Handling of Trash. (Joseph
Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney)
5. First reading of ordinance to declare a 5.11 acre portion of
lot fronting on Merriman Road and a .16 acre portion of a
lot opposite the intersection of Starkey Road and
Merriman Road in the Cave Spring Magisterial District
surplus and accepting/rejecting an offer for the exchange
of same with portions of property owned by Charles R.
Lemon and Anne L. Lemon and Curtis L. Lemon and
Dorothy D. Lemon. (Pete Haislip, Director of Parks and
Recreation)
6. First reading of ordinance authorizing a lease allowing
CWF to install an antenna on the Avenham Water Tank.
(Gary Robertson, Utility Director)
7 First reading of ordinance amending Section 21-19.
Exemptions --Household goods and personal effects, of
Chapter 21. Taxation of the Roanoke County Code to
include antique motor vehicles not used for general
3
2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the Fifth
Planning District Stormwater Management Advisory
Committee
3. Resolution to request that the Virginia Department of
Transportation add into the secondary system new
portions of existing Roselawn Avenue and Ranchrest
Drive and abandon those portions of Roselawn Avenue,
Pleasant Hill Drive and Ranchcrest Drive that no longer
serve the public.
4. Appropriation of funds for child day care for the
Department of Social Services
5. Resolution repealing action previously adopted by the
Board of Supervisors regarding Bingo and Raffle Permits
and providing for a policy manual.
6. Request to receive and appropriate Section 18 monies
from the Department of Rail and Public Transportation for
use by CORTRAN.
J. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS
K. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
L. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
N. REPORTS
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance
3. Board Contingency Fund
5
Gas Company to construct a natural gas pipeline
connecting their storage facility. (John M. Chambliss,
Assistant County Administrator)
R. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section
2.1-344 A (7) consultation with legal counsel and briefings by
staff pertaining to specific legal matters; boundary line
adjustment; 2.1-344 A (1) personnel matter; 2.1-344 A (5)
discussion concerning a prospective business or industry
where no previous announcement has been made; 2.1-344 A (3)
consideration of the acquisition or use of real property for
public purposes.
S. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
T. ADJOURNMENT
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER C
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM: Request to proclaim May 17 - 23, 1998 as Emergency Medical Services Week
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
14.0—€ ex,(94&"-
In May of each year, the third week of the month is recognized as National Emergency Medical
Services Week. This week is set aside to honor those who provide emergency medical services, and
to remember those who have given their life to save their neighbor.
Roanoke County has an excellent group of career and volunteer personnel who provide emergency
medical assistance to our citizens 24 hours a day. We feel it would be appropriate if the County
would also provide local recognition by supporting this proclamation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the proclamation for Emergency Medical
Services Week on May 17 - 23, 1998.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved by,
am4*/
Richard E. Burch, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge
Fire and Rescue Chief County Administrator
ACTION VOTE
Approved () Motion by: No Yes Absent
Denied () Harrison
Received () Johnson
Referred () McNamara
To () Minnix
Nickens
C
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998
PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF MAY 17 - 23,
1998 AS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK
WHEREAS, emergency medical services is a vital public service; and access to
quality emergency care dramatically improves the survival and recovery rate of those who
experience sudden illness or injury; and
WHEREAS, the members of the emergency medical services teams are ready to
provide lifesaving care to those in need 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and
WHEREAS, emergency medical services teams consist of emergency physicians,
emergency nurses, emergency medical technicians, shock trauma technicians, cardiac
technicians, paramedics, fire fighters, police officers, educators, administrators, and
others; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County has 553 volunteers, 61 full-time and 14 part-time fire
and rescue providers, and
WHEREAS, the members of emergency medical services teams, whether career
or volunteer, engage in thousands of hours of specialized training and continuing
education to enhance their lifesaving skills; and
WHEREAS, the people of Roanoke County benefit daily from the knowledge and
skills of these highly trained individuals; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of
emergency medical services providers by designating Emergency Medical Services Week;
1
and
WHEREAS, the designation of Emergency Medical Services Week will serve to
educate the people of Roanoke County about injury prevention and how to respond to a
medical emergency.
NOW, THEREFORE, WE, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
in recognition of this event do hereby proclaim the week of May 17 - 23, 1998 as
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK and encourage the community to observe this
week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.
2
ACTION NO. /►
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: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM: Proclamation declaring the month of May as Virginia Heritage
Tourism Weeks
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation and the Regional Preservation Office have
requested time on the agenda to present a Certificate of Recognition for a local
preservation effort and to announce an Annual Valley Award for Governmental Excellence
in Preservation. Making the presentations are Dr. John Kern, Director of the Regional
Preservation Office and Dr. Deedie Kagey.
They will also accept a proclamation from the Board of Supervisors declaring the month
of May as Virginia Heritage Tourism Weeks.
Respectfully Submitted by:
C2L
Mary H. Allen, CMC/AAE
Clerk to the Board
ACTION
-44/ der ee
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
Approved ( ) Motion by: Harrison
Denied ( ) Johnson
Received ( ) McNamara
Referred ( ) Minnix
To ( ) Nickens
VOTE
No. Yes Abs
/'p
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998
PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE MONTH OF MAY, 1998 AS VIRGINIA
HERITAGE TOURISM WEEKS
WHEREAS, Historic Preservation is an effective tool for managing growth,
revitalizing neighborhoods, fostering local pride and maintaining community character
while enhancing livability; and
WHEREAS, Historic Preservation is relevant for communities across the nation,
both urban and rural, and for Americans of all ages, all walks of life and all ethnic back-
grounds; and
WHEREAS, it is important to celebrate the role of history in our lives and the
contributions made by dedicated individuals in helping to preserve the tangible aspects
of the heritage that has shaped us as a people; and
WHEREAS, "Celebrate Virginia" is the theme for Virginia Heritage Tourism Weeks
during the month of May, 1998, and "Preservation Begins at Home" is the theme for
National Preservation Week, May 10 - 16; and
WHEREAS, Heritage Tourism Weeks calls for Virginians to recognize the cultural
and economic benefits which come from saving our history and promoting historic sites
visitation efforts, co -sponsored by the Roanoke Regional Preservation Office, and the
Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation.
NOW, THEREFORE, WE, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
do hereby proclaim the month of May, 1998 as VIRGINIA HERITAGE TOURISM WEEKS
in Roanoke County, and call upon our citizens to recognize and participate in this special
observance.
C-3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998
PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF MAY 17 - 23, 1998 AS
WIRELESS SAFETY WEEK
WHEREAS, wireless phones have proven to be a valuable tool in making our
communities safer by providing a vital link to emergency services, and
WHEREAS, 50,000 people per day and 18 million people per year use wireless
phones to call emergency numbers, and
WHEREAS, the value of wireless phones for highway travelers has been endorsed
by the American Automobile Association Foundation, the National Safety Council, and
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and
WHEREAS, wireless phones help our public safety agencies --police, fire and
emergency medical services --to respond more quickly, and
WHEREAS, this quick response saves lives every day; and
WHEREAS, the appropriate use of cellular phones enhances safe driving; and
WHEREAS, United States Cellular is an active corporate citizen of the community,
creating jobs and strengthening the community's tax base.
NOW, THEREFORE, WE, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
do hereby proclaim the week of May 17 - 23, 1998 as WIRELESS SAFETY WEEK in
Roanoke County.
A-051298-1
ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER E—
I
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM: Request to Appropriate Funds for Actuarial Study of Early Retirement Program
aiii4.04ror
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The County of Roanoke Schools have requested that the County
analyze a new early retirement program that they are considering implementing as a replacement to their
current program. A preliminary review of this program was done by the Finance staff in February 1998.
It was determined that there was a potential benefit to this program. In addition, this program may be
beneficial for the County employees as well. Both Boards directed us to proceed in procuring an actuarial
study that will evaluate the potential cost or savings of this program.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: A team of School and County employees has been established to work
through analysis and potential implementation of this program. As a first step request for proposals were
released for actuarial services. Three firms responded to this RFP. All three were reviewed and interviewed
by the committee. The consensus of the committee was to choose William M. Mercer, Inc. to perform the
actuary study. Their fee for this service is $18,000. Staff recommendation is that this cost be allocated one-
third to the County ($6,000), two-thirds to the Schools ($12,000) based upon employee population. The
School Board will be considering funding of their $12,000 portion at the May 14, 1998 School Board
Meeting. Once funding is approved the group will begin immediately to proceed with the actuarial study.
Attached is the timeline that was previously submitted for study and potential implementation of the Early
Retirement Program. This is still a realistic time frame.
FISCAL IMPACT: The County portion of the actuarial study will cost $6,000. Staff recommends that this
amount be appropriated from the Board Contingency.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board appropriate $6,000 from the Board
Contingency for the County's portion of the early retirement actuarial study.
M:\FINANCE\COMMON\BOARD\5-12-98.WPD May 7, 1998
SUBMITTED BY:
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Finance
APPROVED:
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
Approved (x )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
ACTION
Motion by: Harry C. Nickens to approve
$6.000 funding to be appropriated
from other than Board Contingency
Fund
cc: File
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
Joe Sgroi, Director, Human Resources
Dr. Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent
VOTE
No Yes Absent
Harrison _ x
Johnson
McNamara _ x
Minnix _ x
Nickens x
M:\FINANCE\COMMON\BOARD\5-12-98.WPD May 7, 1998
Suggested Calendar for Early Retirement Project
1. Hire a consultant to do the actuarial study and the plan design.
Writing of RFP for actuarial study
RFP due back from vendors
Interview and selection of consulting firm
Analytical work done by consulting firm
2. Have plan approved by the School Board and the County Board
3. Select a committee to oversee the pension plan
Design legal plan documents (outside attorney?)
4. Submit plan to IRS for approval
5. Have the consultant selected above help select a plan administrator
RFP distributed for plan administration
RFP due back from vendors
Interview and select administrator
6. Forms and procedures documentation
Develop forms
Develop procedures
Develop budgetary procedures for allocations to the trust
Complete and/or prepare for tax filing requirements
Write internal procedures to establish the first year work
schedules
Design employee communications materials
7 Communicate with the employees the details of the plan
8. Receive approval from IRS
9. Ready to begin the plan
February 10 - March 1, 1998
March 31, 1998
April 30, 1998
June 15, 1998
Mid July 1998
Mid July 1998
July, 1998
July 1998
July 30, 1998
August 20, 1998
September 15, 1998
November 1998 to January 1999
December 1998
January 1999
February -July 1, 1999
i
M:\FINANCE\COMMON\CORRES\2-3-98A.WPD May 7, 1998
A-051298-2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER E ��'
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM: Request to Approve a New Position of Construction Performance Coordinator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
(11/18t/
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County Board has directed the staff to prepare a job description and
advertise for a new position of Construction Performance Coordinator. This position will have project
management responsibilities over construction projects relating to the Schools Capital Construction
Program.
This position will add benefit to the overall Phase I School Construction Program. It will assure that the
projects are completed in the most cost efficient manner, within the budget that has been established. Along
with value engineering, this position will generate cost savings where feasible. This position will report to
the County Administrator, however, he/she will work cooperatively with the School Board and School
Administration to coordinate the entire program.
The position is currently advertised at a grade 29 with a starting salary range of $38,961 to $48,318. This
position is currently being considered as a temporary full time position of an indefinite duration. As such,
it will be reconsidered and budgeted for on an annual basis.
FISCAL IMPACT: Attachment A shows the budget needed for this position for year 1, totaling $88,537.
The Board should consider the following alternatives to fund this position.
1. Monies can be reappropriated from the 1997-98 School Debt budget to cover this position.
This money was budgeted for a debt payment on Literary Loans that were not finalized
during the 1997-98 fiscal year.
2. The funds could be re -appropriated within the $47,719,732 budget for Phase I.
3. The funds could be re -appropriated from the recently approved School Board operating
budget.
M:\FINANCE\COMMON\BOARD\5-12-98C.WPD May 7, 1998
E-a
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends reappropriating $88,537 from the School Debt Fund
budget to fund the Construction Performance Coordinator for 1998-99. Future years funding will be
considered in future budget preparations.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED:
Zcarrbei • We?'
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Finance
z4//(beei
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION VOTE
No Yes Absent
Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens to approve Harrison _ x
Denied ( ) funding and position Johnson _ x
Received ( ) McNamara _ x
Referred ( ) Minnix
To () Nickens _ x
cc: File
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
Joe Sgroi, Director, Human Resources
Dr. Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent
M:\FINANCE\COMMON\BOARD\5-12-98C.WPD May 7, 1998
Attachment A
Construction Performance Coordinator
Budget for First Year
1998-99
Salary $ 50,000
FICA 3,825
VRS 6,380
Health Insurance 1,992
Dental Insurance 140
Office expenses 3,000
Mobile Phone 1,200
Gas, Oil 1,000
Computer/Printer 3,000
Automobile/Truck 18,000
$ 88,537
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER 3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM:
Request for $34,000 for construction of
Bunkrooms and Restrooms At Hollins and Fort
Lewis Fire/Rescue Stations.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
f/P'7(
BACKGROUND:
The Hollins and Fort Lewis Fire/Rescue Stations are first and third
in the number of calls answered annually. Anticipating this
increased demand for the services provided by the personnel
assigned to these stations, the Fire and Rescue Department placed
the upgrading of the crew facilities in the FY 1994/95 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). $350,000 in capital construction funds
were appropriated by the Board to the Fire and Rescue Department in
the FY 1997/98 budget. Since the original estimate of $350,000 in
the 1994/95 CIP is four years old, construction costs have
increased somewhat due to inflation, and additional funds are
needed to complete the project.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The architectural firm of Balzer and Associates was selected to
design the bunkroom additions. The process included input, review,
modification and acceptance by the volunteer companies involved,
Fire and Rescue staff personnel, and General Services construction
management personnel. Since the stations are identical, cost
savings were realized by requiring that the additions also be
identical.
Each 2,040 square foot addition will have space for five males and
five females. There will be separate male and female lockers and
shower facilities, and the additions have been designed for future
increased capacity. Attached is a copy of the bunkroom design.
The plans were reviewed and approved by all appropriate County
departments and advertised for bids in early February 1998. The
low bid received was above the budget monies available. The plans
were re-evaluated and the project was re -bid on April 14 with a
change that increased the construction period by 50% to 180 days.
Bids were received and opened on April 28. The low bid was
$354,000 which exceeds the funds appropriated for the project.
Additionally, of the $350,000 originally appropriated, $25,000 has
been spent to design, engineer, produce plans and generate bid
documents. Architectural and engineering inspection and management
services during the project are expected to be an additional
$5,000. Therefore, $34,000 additional funding is required to
construct these bunkrooms.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Request $34,000 in additional funding from capital fund
unappropriated balance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends appropriation of the additional $34,000 to enable
the timely construction of the bunkroom/restroom additions.
Respectfully submitted, Approved by,
William J. Rand, III Elmer C. Hodge
Director of General Services County Administrator
ACTION VOTE
No Yes Abs
Approved ( ) Motion by:
Denied ( ) Harrison
Received ( ) Johnson
Referred McNamara
To Minnix
Nickens
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
EXIST. NEW
2 HR RATED FIRE
SEPARATION WALL
UL #U901
NEW 4' CMU AT
OPENING
FILL VOID IN
FLOOR WITH N
CONC.
EXP. JT. TYP. AT
FIRE SEPARATION
WALL
PULL DOWN STAIR
ACCESS
EXISTING APPARATUS ROOM
m
PASSAGE
VESTIBULE
28'-0'
BUNKROOM (MEN)
LOCKERS (SEE SPECS.)
ROD AND SHELF
x� LINEN
x r STORAGE—
x // V COATS
✓,: v'
RADIUS AT
CORNER — TYP
EXERCISE ROOM
OPP.
MIRROR
MECH. EOUIP. ABOVE
TYP. EACH SIDE --I
RADIUS AT
CORNER — TYP
1 LOCKERS (SEE SPECS)•
ON
BUNKROOM (WOMEN)
BUNKS N.I.C.
PAINTED WOOD STOOL
AT 1' X 1' COVE
MOLD APRON TYP.
_ CMU BENCH
TOILET/ SHOWER (MEN)
HOLDER
ROBE HOOKS
C.T. SHOWERS
TO 6'-8"
12'-4' 4 yJ 3'A'
0/
I�
T.P.
HOLDER C.T. SHOWERS
TO 6 8"
rn• ROBE HOOKS
E-
FACE OF CMU
DOWNSPOUT
EXP. JT
EDGE OF ROOF
OVERHUNG
E.I.F.S.
DRWIT SILL SEE
SIMILAR DETAIL AT
GLASS BLOCK A17/
A-1 TYPICAL
—mac
m
EXP. JT
axe GLASS
BLOCK SEE
SPECS
I I
II
I I
11
I 1
11
I I
!I
1 I
I I
I I
I I
11
EXP. JT
L`
DOWNSPOUT
BRICK
8X8 GLASS
BLOCK SEE
SPECS
EDGE OF ROOF
OVERHANG
EXP. JT
DOWNSPOUT
FYO .IT
N
0
1
N
&
t
ACTION #
A-051298-3
ITEM NUMBER
g -4/
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM:
Preliminary approval of citizens' requests to file a complaint with
F.C.C. to review increase in cable programming services (C.P.S.) rates
of Cox Communications Roanoke, Inc.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
Cox Communications Roanoke, Inc. has announced increases in their rates for cable
customers of both basic cable service and for the C.P.S. tier of cable services effective
March 1, 1998. A cable television customer has 90 days from the effective date of an
announced increase in cable service rates to file a complaint with the franchising authority
regarding increases in C.P.S. rates. At least two cable customers must file complaints with
the franchising authority before it may file a request with the F.C.C. to review this C.P.S.
rate increase. Once this rate increase was announced by the cable operator, the County
requested a review of these rates by its outside legal counsel and has received an opinion
from them that the rates set forth on the FCC Form 1240, effective March 1, 1998, are
correctly calculated. At the present time, there is still pending before the FCC a Petition
for Reconsideration filed by Cox Communications Roanoke, Inc. concerning the FCC's Order
regarding the cable rates effective March 1, 1997.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Roanoke County has received complaints from twelve (12) citizens requesting a
review of Cox Communications Roanoke, Inc. announced increase of its rates for C.P.S.
effective March 1, 1998. In order to properly file a request with the FCC for review of this
rate increase, under FCC regulations Roanoke County, the franchising authority, must make
an initial determination that not more than ninety (90) days have elapsed from the date
the rate increase went into effect until the subscriber complaints were received and that
such rate increase pertains to the C.P.S. tier of cable service. In the opinion of County
staff, both of these criteria have been satisfied.
If Roanoke County intends to submit a complaint to the FCC requesting a review of
the C.P.S. rates, it must first send a written notice, including a draft FCC Form 329, to Cox
Communications Roanoke, Inc. to inform them that a complaint to the FCC is intended.
This cable operator must be permitted at least 30 days to file a response with the County.
Roanoke County has 180 days from the effective date of the rate increase at issue to file
the FCC Form 329, along with any response received from Cox Communications Roanoke,
Inc. with the FCC.
If authorized by the Board of Supervisors, the County Attorney's Office will prepare
a draft Form 329, and forward it by certified mail to Cox Communications Roanoke, Inc.
for their response within 45 days. Once this response is received, or the 45 days has
elapsed, this matter will be placed on the Board's agenda for final action upon whether to
file the Form 329, and any response from the cable operator, with the FCC.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Authorize the County Attorney to draft a Form 329, and to send to Cox
Communications Roanoke, Inc., by certified mail, requesting a response
within 45 days.
2. Decline to file a rate complaint on the C.P.S. tier, Form 329, with the FCC
and rely upon the review of rates previously conducted on behalf of the
County of basic cable service rates by outside legal counsel.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1.
2
Respectfully submitted,
Jo '. h B. • bens in
S : or Assistant County Attorney
ACTION VOTE
No Yes Absent
Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens to approve Harrison x _
Denied ( ) filing Johnson _ x
Received ( ) McNamara _ x
Referred ( ) Minnix _ x
To () Nickens _ x
cc: File
Joseph B Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney
3
i
a
a -
a -
_=a -
i -
a =ate.
a� a_
-- NAME —
�l�ill2�t f� C_c",-��1�� Y
wr —
�. a
a a
ADDRESS .'e'L" ,�, tG , ! I S i ' , , V // ?
—a a
=
PHONE ') PI - 3s1 '
fil1111111l11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 f101
13llllu1u1111111111i1111111111111111l111111111111111111111i1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I111111111111111111111 ,J
d
a
Ey _
-
AGENDA I`1'EM NO. -
-
-
-
_ a
APPEARANCE REQUEST E
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE Y CITIZENS COMMENTS
-
-
r. SUBJECT: >> r
a
— A 1-1 Y vbr j, :�Aa/ n a
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'1'ED
BELOW:
a
= a
® 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 c
do otherwise.
— a
a Speaker will be •• limited to a presentation of their point of view only.
Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. —. —
a —
O All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized
speaker and audience members is not allowed.
a -
-
® Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times.
a a
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 CI. F'RK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. —
—
—
a
— a
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK
—
A-051298-4
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER e,.5
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM: Request to Increase the Number of Vehicles in the County Fleet by One to
Allow Read Mountain Fire and Rescue to Operate a Second Ambulance out
of Their Station
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
4,,,,wnfr.La .fe-amis-el
BACKGROUND:
In September 1997, Read Mountain Fire and Rescue became licensed by the State as an emergency
medical transporting agency. Members of Read Mountain leased an ambulance from Blue Ridge
Volunteer Fire and Rescue Squad to provide emergency medical transport services to citizens in their
run area. Read Mountain has acquired a grant from the State Emergency Medical Services
Department for a new ambulance.
Since the acquisition of an ambulance in September 1997, the members of Read Mountain have run
a total of 240 rescue calls with this ambulance. This includes 88 calls in their first due area in
Roanoke County; 76 calls in their first due area in Botetourt County; and 76 calls assisting other areas
in Botetourt outside of their first run area. In addition to these calls utilizing the ambulance, the
members of Read Mountain have also run 53 calls with their first responder vehicle while their
ambulance was dedicated to another call.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Read Mountain Fire and Rescue has received a grant from the State and have purchased and equipped
their own ambulance. This is the same practice followed by all other rescue organizations in Roanoke
County.
It is requested that the County of Roanoke increase the number of authorized vehicles for the
Department of Fire and Rescue by one, adding the new ambulance to the County's insurance policy.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Read Mountain Fire and Rescue will pay for all associated costs in getting this ambulance operational.
Maintenance costs for the ambulance will be paid with funds from the operating budget of Read
Mountain Fire and Rescue Department.
Insurance expenses for the ambulance will be paid from the Risk Management budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the addition to the Fire and Rescue
Department Fleet to allow Read Mountain to have two transporting ambulances to provide
emergency medical services.
Respectfully submitted, Approved by,
e-4/4
Richard E. Burch, Jr.
Fire and Rescue Chief
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION VOTE
No Yes Absent
Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to approve Harrison
Denied ( ) increase in number of vehicles Johnson _ x
Received ( ) McNamara _ x
Referred ( ) Minnix
To () Nickens x
cc: File
Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief, Fire & Rescue
William J. Rand, III, Director, General Services
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER F - I
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance Authorizing Vacation of the Northeasterly Ten Feet of an
Existing 20-Foot Waterline Easement on Lot 10A of Larson Oaks
Subdivision (P.B. 12, PG. 73; P.B. 20, PG. 10; P.B. 20, PG. 189)
Owned By George P. Baron, Jr., and Tammy O. Baron, and
Acceptance of a New 10-Foot Waterline Easement on Lot 9, Larson
Oaks (P.B. 12, Pg. 73) Owned By Christopher H. Hanes and Jill H.
Hanes.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
ate-frrAgi
This is the first reading of a proposed ordinance to vacate a portion of an existing
waterline easement located on Lot 10A in Larson Oaks, owned by George P. Baron, Jr., and
Tammy O. Baron, and to accept, as an alternative, a new 10' waterline easement on Lot
9 in Larson Oaks owned by Christopher H. Hanes and Jill H. Hanes.
BACKGROUND:
The existing 20' waterline easement on Lot 10 was dedicated by subdivision plat for
Larson Oaks, recorded in the Clerk's Office in Plat Book 12, page 73. Mr. & Ms. Baron
acquired Lots 9, 10, 11, and 12, then resubdivided Lots 10, 11 and 12 to Lots 10A, 11A,
and 12A, as shown on the resubdivision plat recorded in Plat Book 20, page 10, and
revised and re -recorded in Plat Book 20, page 189. No change was made to the existing
easement, which is now on Lot 10A.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The Petitioners, George P. Baron, Jr., and Tammy O. Baron, husband and wife,
owners of Lot 10A in Larson Oaks subdivision, are requesting that the Board of Supervisors
vacate the northeasterly ten feet of that portion of an existing twenty -foot (20') waterline
easement extending along the boundary with Lot 9. In exchange, the Barons proposed to
convey a new 10' waterline easement along the northeasterly property line of Lot 9 which
adjoins the remainder of the existing easement. Lot 9 has recently been sold to
Christopher H. Hanes and Jill H. Hanes, but the new owners agreed to, and have, conveyed
the alternative easement area. A plat showing the areas to be vacated and accepted as new
easement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Staff has no objection to the proposed vacation and acceptance. Since there are no
water facilities within the existing easement, no relocation of lines will be required. There
is no cost to the County, and staff has approved the alternative easement location.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
County staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed
ordinance to vacate 10 feet of the waterline easement on Lot 10A and to authorize
acceptance of a new 10' waterline easement on Lot 9, in Larson Oaks (P.B. 12, pg. 73; P.B.
20, pg. 10; P.B. 20, pg. 189).
ITTED BY: APPROVED BY:
Arnold Covey, Director
Engineering & Inspections
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Harrison
Received ( ) Johnson
Referred McNamara
to Minnix
Nickens
2
�ANSON GAME
R7f, 47/
50'R/W
GOT !ARSON a4MS'
190. 1? PG, 73
EXIST, 15.P,U.E.,e,A.?0 P6.10
GeT 1/4
EXIST. M/N: OG04. GINO, P 10 P. l0
COT 1O A :LARSON OA 15 ` A0.10 PG, l01
/O'POPTION Of EXISTING Z0'/9TCNt/Ni
EASEMeN7 ro DC VAGATIP
EX/STING 2o'1VATERLINE EASEMENT
I? 19. 11 PA 7?
NEW Io'WArER(.1Ne
EASEMENT
5X1ST, ?0'WATURtaiV O P4T
�- N 76' 2q' o0" lY P. d r? P. 7?
EXIST 16'p11a6IG timer GAMMENT
91..00 0 SrGTION No. ? , e. 12 P4. 77
ORAP*1 ETDN COURT
1? /15. P4, ??0
NOTES:
1) THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A CURRENT TITLE REPORT AND THERE MAY
EXIST ENCUMBRANCES WHICH AFFECT THE PROPERTY NOT SHOWN HEREON.
2) 10' PORTION OF EXISTING 20' WATERLINE .EASEMENT TO BE VACATED BY BOARD OF COUNTY
SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY.
PLAT SHOWING
NEW 10' WATERLINE EASEMENT
LOCATED ON
LOT 9, LARSON OAKS (P . B . 12, PG. 73)
BEING DEDICATED BY
GBORGE P. BARON, JR.
TO
BOARD OP COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SCALE: 1" = 60 ' DATE; 4 SEPTEMBER 1997
LUMSDEN ASSOCIATIS, P. C.
ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS•PLANNERS
ROANOKU, VIRGINIA
COMM. it q7- 55 W.F.
EXHIBIT A
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON
TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING VACATION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY TEN
FEET OF AN EXISTING 20-FOOT WATERLINE EASEMENT ON LOT 10A OF
LARSON OAKS SUBDIVISION (P.B. 12, PG. 73; P.B. 20, PG. 10; P.B. 20, PG.
189) OWNED BY GEORGE P. BARON, JR., AND TAMMY O. BARON, AND
ACCEPTANCE OF A NEW 10-FOOT WATERLINE EASEMENT ON LOT 9,
LARSON OAKS (P.B. 12, PG. 73) OWNED BY CHRISTOPHER H. HANES
AND JILL H. HANES
WHEREAS, by subdivision plat entitled "LARSON OAKS," dated January 5, 1990,
and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat
Book 12, page 73, a twenty -foot (20') waterline easement along the southwesterly property
line of Lot 10 was created and dedicated to public use; and,
WHEREAS, by deed dated March 11, 1997, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's
Office in Deed Book 1536, page 987, George P. Baron, Jr. and Tammy O. Baron, husband
and wife, acquired Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12, in Larson Oaks; and,
WHEREAS, a 'Plat Showing Resubdivision of Original Lots 10, 11, & 12, Larson
Oaks (P.B. 12, Pg. 73) Creating New Lots 10A, 11A & 12A, LARSON OAKS', dated June
2, 1997, has been recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 20, Page 10; and,
WHEREAS, said plat has been revised, corrected, and dated April 7, 1998, and has
been re -recorded in Plat Book 20, page 189; and,
WHEREAS, Lot 9 of Larson Oaks has been conveyed to Christopher H. Hanes and
Jill H. Hanes, husband and wife, by deed dated January 30, 1998, and recorded in the
aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1566, page 873, from the Barons; and,
. F-1
WHEREAS, the Barons, as the Petitioners and owners of Lot 10A, Larson Oaks, have
requested that the northeasterly ten feet (10') of that portion of the twenty -foot (20')
waterline easement along the boundary with Lot 9 be vacated; and,
WHEREAS, in exchange, the Hanes', as owners of Lot 9, Larson Oaks, have
executed a deed of easement to the Board of Supervisors to convey a new 10' waterline
easement along the northeasterly boundary line of Lot 9, Larson Oaks, adjoining the
remaining ten -foot existing waterline easement on Lot 10A; and,
WHEREAS, there are currently no water facilities within the existing easement areas;
and,
WHEREAS, the County's engineering and utility department staff has no objection
to the proposed vacation and acceptance, and has approved the location of the alternative
easement area; and,
WHEREAS, §15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended) requires that
such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by the governing body; and,
WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by §15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia
(1950, as amended), and the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 12, 1998; the
second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on May 26, 1998.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That the northeasterly 10' of the existing 20' waterline easement on Lot 10A,
Larson Oaks, owned by George P. Baron, Jr., and Tammy O. Baron, husband and wife,
shown and designated as "10' PORTION OF EXISTING 20' WATERLINE EASEMENT TO
2
F-I
BE VACATED" upon the 'Plat Showing New 10' Waterline Easement Located on Lot 9,
Larson Oaks (P.B. 12, Pg.73),' dated September 4, 1997, made by Lumsden Associates,
P.C., a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, be, and hereby is, vacated; and,
2. That, in exchange, acquisition and acceptance of a new 10' waterline
easement along the northeasterly boundary line of Lot 9, Larson Oaks, owned by
Christopher H. Hanes and Jill H. Hanes, husband and wife, shown crosshatched and
designated as "NEW 10' WATERLINE EASEMENT" upon the above -described plat attached
hereto as Exhibit A, be, and hereby is, authorized and approved; and,
3. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to
publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioners; and,
4. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary
to accomplish this vacation and acquisition, all of which shall be on form approved by the
County Attorney.
5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption,
and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with §15.2-2272.2 of the Code of
Virginia (1950, as amended).
g:\attorney\v1h\eng\baron.ord
3
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
F—,
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE REPEALING ARTICLE V "BINGO GAMES AND RAFFLES"
OF CHAPTER 4 "AMUSEMENTS" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This Article of the Roanoke County Code regulated bingo games and
raffles. In 1995 the Virginia General Assembly created the Charitable
Gaming Commission, and vested control of all charitable gaming in the
Commonwealth with this Commission. Local ordinances regulating bingo and
raffles continued in effect until July 1, 1996. This ordinance repeals
this provision of the County Code, since local governments no longer have
any authority over charitiable gaming.
BACKGROUND:
Roanoke County regulated bingo games and raffles since 1981. In
1995 the Geenral Assembly removed local authority to regulate charitable
gaming and vested it in the Charitable Gaming Commission. Local
ordinances were to remain in effect until July 1, 1996, when the
Commission took control of these activities and implemented its
regulations.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This ordinance deletes the Article entitled "Bingo Games and
Raffles" from the "Amusement" chapter of the Roanoke County Code. This
action is a "housekeeping" matter.
Section 18.2-340.22 of the State Code permits limited local
authority: the governing body may adopt a local ordinance consistent with
State law and the regulations of the Commission which (i) prohibits the
playing of instant bingo and (ii) establishes reasonable hours during
which bingo games may be played within the jurisdiction. This local
ordinance would not be effective within the Town of Vinton. Finally no
local government may impose a gross receipts, admission or any other tax
G:\ATTORNEY\BOARD\BINGOREP.RPT
1
based on revenues of qualified organizations derived from the conduct of
charitable gaming.
The County ordinance did not prohibit instant bingo nor did it
regulate the hours of operation.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None.
ALTERNATIVES:
Since the County did not prohibit instant bingo, nor regulate hours
of operation under its ordinance, staff does not recommend that the Board
avail itself of the limited authority granted by State law.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of
the attached ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
Approved ( ) Motion by Harrison
Denied ( ) Johnson
Received ( ) McNamara
Referred ( ) Minnix
to Nickens
G:\ATTORNEY\BOARD\BINGOREP.RPT
2
No Yes Abs
1.
F
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY,
MAY 12, 1998
ORDINANCE REPEALING ARTICLE V. "BINGO GAMES AND RAFFLES" OF
CHAPTER 4 "AMUSEMENTS" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, Article V. "Bingo games and raffles" of Chapter 4.
"Amusements" of the Roanoke County Code regulates the conduct or
operation of bingo games and raffles in Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, in 1995 the Virginia General Assembly created the
Charitable Gaming Commission and vested control of all charitable gaming
in the Commonwealth with this Commission effective July 1, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 12,
1998; and the second reading was held on May 26, 1998.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County as follows:
1. That Article V. "Bingo games and raffles" of Chapter 4.
"Amusements" be, and hereby is, repealed in its entirety.
2. That this ordinance is effective from and after its adoption.
C:\OFFICE\WPW IN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\CODE\B INGOREP.ORD
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER fi'3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM:
Request to vacate a part of a platted, unnamed, abandoned 25-foot
wide right-of-way, as shown on the map of Lee Mitchell subdivision
recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 203 and located in the Catawba
Magisterial District.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
fi(1,40v,
Staff recommends that the unimproved right-of-way be vacated in order to combine
the property with the parcel adjacent to the south side of the former right-of-way,
known as Tax Parcel #44.04-2-42.
BACKGROUND:
The petitioner, Mr. Lloyd M. Tingler, is the owner of the parcel adjacent to the
property in question, which property is more particularly described as a part of Lee
Mitchell Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 203 and located in the Catawba
Magisterial District.
The petitioner wants to vacate this abandoned right-of-way, which is 25 feet wide
by 336 feet long, adjacent to his property, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 203 and
as shown on the attached map. Once this right-of-way is vacated, the property will
be combined with the property adjacent to the south side of the former right-of-way
according to the requirements of Title 15.2, Chapter 11, Code of Virginia, 1950 (as
amended), as cited in Section 15.2-2272(2).
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Roanoke County supports this right-of-way vacation because the abandoned right-
of-way, which was part of Lee Mitchell Subdivision, does not currently serve as
access to any specific tract.
1
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: (continued)
There are two parcels adjacent to the north side of this abandoned right-of-way: one
parcel belonging to Mr. Phillip Wampler, known as Tax Parcel #44.04-2-412, and
the other parcel belonging to Mr. J. Ralph and Maggie Goad Hensley, known as Tax
Parcel 44.04-2-48. Both parcels have adequate access to public rights -of -way: Tax
Parcel #44.04-2-41 fronts on a private road extending from Fort Lewis Boulevard,
and Tax Parcel #44.04-2-48 fronts on Route 826, Tyler Road, and Route 641,
Texas Hollow Road.
The County staff has received no objections. Therefore, Roanoke County requests
that the described right-of-way be vacated. This should be done in accordance with
Chapter 11, Title 15.2-2272(2), Code of Virginia, 1950 (as amended), and by the
adoption of the attached ordinance.
A first reading of the proposed Ordinance is scheduled for May 12, 1998. A second
reading and public hearing is scheduled for May 26, 1998
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
County staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the first reading
of the ordinance to vacate the referenced right-of-way and instruct the County
Attorney to prepare the necessary Ordinance.
BMITTED BY: APPROVED BY:
Arnold Covey, Director
of Engineering and Inspections
A/Ltr
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Harrison
Received ( ) Johnson
Referred ( ) McNamara
To: Minnix
Nickens
pc: Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
2
NORTH
8
TO BE VACATED
25' X 336'
4.044
:oUrt
;7
6 .a c
ROANOKE COUNTY
ENGINEERING &
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
VACATE A PART OF A PLATTED, UNNAMED, ABANDONED
25—FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY, AS SHOWN -ON THE MAP
OF LEE MITCHELL SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 3, PAGE 203 AND LOCATED IN THE CATAWBA
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998
ORDINANCE VACATING AND CLOSING AN UNIMPROVED, UNNAMED AND
UNUSED PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY SHOWN ON PLAT OF LEE
MITCHELL SUBDIVISION (PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 203) AND LOCATED
ADJACENT TO TAX MAP NO. 44.04-2-42 ON THE ROANOKE COUNTY
LAND RECORDS
WHEREAS, Lloyd M. Tingler, the petitioner, is the owner of a parcel of property
designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 44.04-2-42, in the
Catawba Magisterial District, shown as Lot X on the plat of Lee Mitchell Subdivision
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat
Book 3, page 203; and,
WHEREAS, Petitioner has requested that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, vacate and close an unimproved, unnamed and unused portion of right-of-
way, 25 feet in width and 336 feet in length, which lies adjacent to his property; and,
WHEREAS, §15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia, (1950, as amended), requires that
such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by the governing body; and,
WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by §15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia,
(1950, as amended), and the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 12, 1998;
and the public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on May 26, 1998.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That an unimproved, unnamed, and unused portion of right-of-way, being 25
feet in width and 336 feet in length, adjacent to a parcel designated as Tax Map No.
44.04-2-42 on the Roanoke County Land Records, shown on the plat of Lee Mitchell
Subdivision recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 3, page 203, and being
specifically shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, be, and hereby is, vacated and closed
pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia, (1950, as amended).
2. That this vacation shall be subject to the rights of the owners of any existing
public utility installations as provided in §15.2-2274 of the Code of Virginia, (1950, as
amended)
3. That fee simple title to the unused right-of-way shall vest in the owner of the
abutting property as provided in Section 15.2-2274 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as
amended), subject to the condition that the vacated area of land shall be added and
combined, by deed or by plat, to said abutting property, in compliance with the Roanoke
County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, and other applicable laws and regulations.
4. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to,
publication costs, survey costs and recordation of documents, shall be the responsibility of
the Petitioner, Lloyd M. Tingler, or his successors or assigns.
5. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, or any
County Subdivision Agent is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such
actions as may be necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which
shall be on form approved by the County Attorney.
6. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption,
and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office the Circuit
Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with Section 15.2-2272.2 of the Code
of Virginia (1950, as amended).
2
c:\ \agenda\eng\tingler.ord
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: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE ENACTING SEC. 13-13.1,
AUTHORIZED DISPOSAL OF TRASH; UNLAWFUL SCAVENGING OR
HANDLING OF TRASH.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
County residents have recently raised concerns about unauthorized tampering with
or scavenging through County trash receptacles and trash bags placed out for pickup by
County refuse trucks. Owners of private businesses have expressed concerns that
information which their clients expected to remain confidential, including social security
numbers or tax information, would become public knowledge as a result of such
unexpected activities conducted without the permission of the owner of private or
personnel information.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The proposed ordinance substantially incorporates the language which has appeared
in the Roanoke City Code since 1977. This ordinance, if adopted, would make it unlawful
for any person to "scavenge in the refuse of another" or to handle the contents of a trash
receptacle, except for County employees designated for that purpose. Further, only such
designated County employees may place garbage or refuse in a County trash collection
vehicle. In accordance with the provisions of Sec. 1-10 (b) of the Roanoke County Code,
a violation of this ordinance would be considered a Class 1 misdemeanor punishable by a
fine of not more than $2,500 or jail confinement for not more than 12 months or both.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternative 1: Adopt the proposed ordinance and establish a criminal penalty for
unauthorized scavenging or pilfering of a County resident's trash or garbage.
Alternative 2: Do not adopt the proposed ordinance and require County residents
to pursue civil legal action to redress any damages or violations of rights caused by
unauthorized scavenging or pilfering of trash or garbage.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the adoption of Alternative 1.
Respectfully submitted,
Joh B. benshain
Se or Assistant County Attorney
ACTION VOTE
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, MAY 12, 1998
ORDINANCE ENACTING SEC. 13-13.1 AUTHORIZED
DISPOSAL OF TRASH: UNLAWFUL SCAVENGING OR
HANDLING OF TRASH
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-901 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, empowers
localities by ordinance to authorize the proper disposal of trash, garbage, refuse, litter and
other debris and to restrict unauthorized disposal; and
WHEREAS, concerns have been raised by residents of the County as to unauthorized
access to the trash disposed of in containers provided by the County or in privately owned
containers contrary to the reasonable privacy expectations of these residents and contrary
to the public's interest in protection of personally identifiable information concerning these
residents; and
WHEREAS, the unauthorized access to trash placed in containers for collection by
County vehicles creates the potential for both economic damage to businesses located in
the County and loss of privacy rights to residents of the County; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 12, 1998; and the
second reading will be held on May 26, 1998.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia,
as follows:
1. That Section 13-13.1, Authorized disposal of trash: unlawful scavenging or
handling of trash of Chapter 13, Offenses - Miscellaneous of the Roanoke County Code be
enacted as follows:
Sec. 13-13.1 Authorized disposal of trash; unlawful scavenging or handling of trash.
(a) For the purposes of this section, the following words and phrases shall have
the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this subsection:
(1) Commercial waste: All solid waste generated by establishments engaged in
business operations other than manufacturing. [See Sec. 20-1.]
(2) Scavenge: To handle, separate, rummage through, take from or otherwise
remove goods, articles, identifiable information or any other item of tangible
property.
(3) Trash: Personal property, business or personal records, household or
personal refuse, commercial waste, rubbish, garbage, litter, solid waste or
debris, placed in bags or receptacles for disposal, excluding yard waste, wood
or brush collection.
(b) All trash shall be disposed of in automated container receptacles provided by
the County in accordance with Sec. 20-24 of this code or in privately owned
receptacles, bags or boxes.
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to scavenge in the trash of another, and
no person, other than designated County employees, shall handle the contents of
any receptacle containing trash which has been put therein for removal by the
County.
(d) No person, other than designated County employees, may place trash in
County collection vehicles, excepting a "free loader" as defined by Sec. 20-1.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from its passage.
g:\...\1bo\trashord.598
2
Action No.
Item Number
ro-s
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12,1998
AGENDA ITEM: First reading of ordinance to declare a 5.11 acre
portion of a lot fronting on Merriman Road (part
of Tax Map Parcel 97.1-2-11) and a .16 acre
portion of a lot opposite the intersection of
Starkey Road and Merriman Road (part of Tax Map
Parcel 97.05-1-1) in the Cave Spring District to
be surplus and accepting/rejecting an offer for
the exchange of same with portions of property
owned by Charles R. Lemon & Anne L. Lemon and
Curtis L. Lemon & Dorothy D Lemon (Tax Map Nos.
97.01-2-10 & 97.01-2-12).
County Administrators Comments:
Recommend approval. This is an excellent solution to a number of problems. It furthers our
economic development by expansion of a growing business. It improves and preserves
greenway space. It makes possible better planning of recreational space for public use; and it
helps provide additional funds for the schools. This transaction will be completed after
approval by the School Board and all environmental and geological work has been finalized.
Background:
In October of 1996 the Board of Supervisors allocated funds to
Parks and Recreation to develop a park master plan and begin
phased development of a park on School Board and privately owned
(Plastics One) property on Merriman Road in South Roanoke County.
The school owned property was originally acquired by the School
Board in connection with a location for a new South County High
School. Both the School Board and Plastics One have agreed in
principal to exchange land which they own with Roanoke County to
allow for the construction of this park facility. As part of this
process the Board of Supervisors directed staff to proceed with
negotiations with the School Board and Plastics One, Inc. to
acquire the needed property for the park.
Summary of Information:
The attached agreement assembles the property needed in order to
proceed with the construction of a new park in South County. In
r s
addition, it will provide Plastics One, Inc. the land and the
opportunity to proceed with their planned 30,000 square foot
business expansion.
For the purposes of this project the Roanoke County Schools have
agreed to declare surplus their 11.10 acre tract (Tax Map Parcel
97.01-2-11) and transfer to Roanoke County in exchange for water
and sewer connections for the new school. This allows Roanoke
County to proceed with the exchange of property with Plastics
One, Inc. as outlined below and in the attached ordinance.
Attached are letters from County Administrator Elmer Hodge and
School Superintendent Deanna Gordon outlining the agreement for
the transfer. The School Board will consider this action at
their May 14, 1998 meeting.
In determining the value of the property exchanged with Plastics
One, Inc., all parties agreed to use the property values
established by the appraisals dated January 4, 1996, by Dewey R.
Robertson and Associates. Mr. Robertson established a value for
"usable land", i.e. that which is floodplain or other and located
out of the floodway at $22,000 per acre. "Unusable land", that
which is located in the floodway was valued at $6,000 per acre.
Using the Lumsden survey it was determined that Plastics One is
exchanging with Roanoke County 6.38 acres of floodway and 2.92
acres of floodplain (portions of Tax Map Parcels 97.01-2-10 and
97.01-2-12) for a combined value of $102,847. In return, Roanoke
County is giving Plastics One, Inc. 5.27 acres (portion of Tax
Map Parcel 97.01-2-11) of floodplain or usable property valued at
$115,962. Plastics One, Inc. has agreed to pay Roanoke County
the difference of $13,115 as well as 500 of the cost of drainage
improvements of the park project. This exchange will create a
16.957-acre tract of land for the park and access road.
Fiscal Impact:
Plastics One, Inc. has agreed to pay $13,115 for the difference
in land values and 500 of the reasonable cost of drainage
improvements on park property. Estimated value of drainage cost
sharing is approximately $15,000 to $20,000.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the prepared ordinance following
second reading.
2
Respectfully submitted,
Approved by,
Pete Haislip, Director Elm r Hodge
Parks and Recreation County Administrator
Approved ( ) Motion by:
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To( )
3
Harrison
Johnson
McNamara
Minnix
Nickens
No Yes Abs
Fly
•
)53
4
W
T
Z
�pp
0
h
ics
ti
•
txt1
3
BACK
k
401
P4rk
jow
2
apol
oridW
0
Z
0
OJ
04,145
+IP
.critS
E-+
z
O
0
O
z
O
O
CO
0
If BOUNDARY cHARr
.03333334,
oT
hZonhyhHon
S 29ar59' E
S 147821' E
34i3333I03L0
,`�,`u4t��RlN
Hhhcnkkkkk
S8S
COMM. #97-4
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
(540) 772-2004
October 7, 1997
(Ctruntg of nal-take
P.O. BOX 29800
5204 BERNARD DRIVE
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798
FAX (540) 772-2193
Dr. Deanna W. Gordon, Superintendent
Roanoke County Public Schools
Roanoke County School Administration Building
5937 Cove Road, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Dear Dr. Gordon:
r--
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BOB L. JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN
HOLLJNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS, VICE-CHAIRMAN
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
LEE B. EDDY
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FENTON F. "SPIKE" HARRISON, JR.
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
(540) 772-2005
As we discussed, this letter is a request for the transfer of ownership of eleven acres of the Merriman Road
site from the Schools to the County. At the last Board meeting, we reviewed the master plan for park facilities.
We have excluded the twenty-eight acres in the Taylor tract from our plans. The eleven acres, shown on the
enclosed plat, will be exchanged for similar acreage now owned by Plastics One. This will provide continuous
property along Back Creek for recreational use.
At this time, we need approval of the School Administration and the School Board to make this transfer.
It may be better to transfer it directly to Plastics One rather than to the County to avoid having to close on the
property more than once. We will determine the best way to handle this in the next few weeks.
In exchange for the eleven acres, the County agrees to provide water and sewer connections to the new
school when it is constructed. In addition, at the appropriate time, staff should meet to discuss the potential for
joint use of the park and proposed sports complex.
Thank you for your support of this request. Let me know if you need additional information.
Very truly yours,
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ECH/meh
Enclosure
cc - Board of Supervisors
Mr. Thomas S. Haislip, Director; Parks and Recreation Department
® Recycled Paper
i
OFFICE OF DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT
5937 Cove Road
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Phone: (540) 562-3700 Fax: (540) 562-3994
October 13, 1997
Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, Administrator
County of Roanoke
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
Dear Mr. Hodge:
ID -
We have received your letter of October 7, 1997, indicating that the master plan for
development of the Merriman Road park and athletic facilities would be greatly enhanced if the
School Board would agree to transfer title for an eleven -acre tract currently owned by the
Roanoke County School Board to either the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors or Plastics
One. This matter has been discussed with the School Board. There is consensus that at the
appropriate time the School Board will take the required action to transfer title of this property.
We appreciate your offer that when the new high school is built, the county will provide
water and sewer connections. We further agree that coordination of efforts to develop the
stadium complex and the recreational facilities will allow for full utilization of both
developments. We look forward to working with you and your staff as this work proceeds.
Please let us know when we should put the transfer of title on a school board agenda.
Sincerely,
Deanna W. Gordo
Superintendent
c: Roanoke County School Board
a
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998
ORDINANCE DECLARING A 5.111 ACRE PORTION OF A LOT
FRONTING ON MERRIMAN ROAD (PART OF TAX MAP NO.
97.1-2-11) AND A 0.16 ACRE PORTION OF A LOT OPPOSITE
THE INTERSECTION OF STARRY ROAD AND MERRIMAN
ROAD (PART OF TAX MAP NO. 97.05-1-1) IN THE CAVE
SPRING DISTRICT TO BE SURPLUS AND
ACCEPTING/REJECTING AN OFFER FOR THE EXCHANGE OF
SAME WITH PORTIONS OF PROPERTY OWNED BY CHARLES
R. LEMON & ANNE L. LEMON AND CURTIS L. LEMON &
DOROTHY D. LEMON (TAX MAP NOS. 97.01-2-10 & 97.01-2-
12)
WHEREAS, Charles R. Lemon, Curtis L. Lemon and their wives are owners of two
parcels of real estate in the Cave Spring Magisterial District totaling approximately 20 acres
and each extending from Merriman Road to Back Creek and adjoining property of the
County of Roanoke and the Roanoke County School Board; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County School Board is owner of a parcel of real estate of
approximately 11 acres situated between the above described parcels owned by the Lemon
family; the Roanoke County School Board no longer foresees any potential use of this
parcel for future school construction and is willing to declare this real estate as surplus and
to deed this property to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors for use, in whole or in
part, for parks, playing fields or other public purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on October 14, 1997,
appropriated funds for the design of Phase 1 of the proposed South County District Park
and authorized negotiations with the Lemon family for an exchange of real estate in order
to assemble a parcel of approximately 16 acres along Back Creek for the South County
District Park which would connect with two existing County park facilities as well as
provide for a park access road from the intersection of Merriman and Starkey Roads; and
WHEREAS, the Lemon family has indicated a willingness to exchange approximately
9 acres of their two parcels closest to Back Creek for approximately 5 acres of property
owned by Roanoke County adjoining Merriman Road to facilitate the expansion of their
current manufacturing operations in the County and, in addition, to pay the County an
additional sum of $13,115.00 as the difference between the appraised values of these
exchanged properties; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 12, 1998; and the
second reading and public hearing for this ordinance will be held on May 26, 1998.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia,
as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.10 of the Charter of Roanoke
County, Ch. 617, 1986 Acts of Assembly, the subject properties, having been made
available and deemed unnecessary for other public uses, are hereby declared surplus; and
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke
County, a first reading was held on May 12, 1998; and a second reading and public
hearing was held on May 26, 1998, concerning the exchange of a 5.111 acre parcel of real
estate, being a portion of a lot fronting on Merriman Road (part of Tax Map No. 97.1-2-
11), previously declared surplus by the County School Board of Roanoke County, Virginia,
and to be deeded to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, and a 0.16 acre
portion of a lot lying south and east of a new park access road opposite the intersection
of Starkey Road and Merriman Road (part of Tax Map No. 97.05-1-1), property of the
2
Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, for two parcels of land containing 5.015
acres and 4.128 acres, respectively, owned by Charles R. Lemon and Anne L. Lemon and
Curtis L. Lemon and Dorothy D. Lemon (part of Tax Maps No. 97.01-2-10 and 97.01-2-12),
as shown on a plat of survey prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated
1998; and
3. That an offer in writing having been received to exchange said properties, the
offer of Charles R. Lemon & Anne L. Lemon and Curtis L. Lemon & Dorothy D. Lemon is
hereby accepted/rejected and further, if accepted, the terms of the Contract of Sale and
Exchange Agreement dated April _, 1998 are hereby confirmed as the binding terms for
the completion of this exchange of real estate; and
4. That as a condition of this exchange, Charles R. Lemon & Anne L. Lemon and
Curtis L. Lemon & Dorothy D. Lemon and the County of Roanoke have agreed to execute
an exchange of easements in order to provide such drainage easements and temporary
construction easements as shall be necessary for drainage improvements to the properties
of both parties and to provide an easement for ingress and egress over property of Roanoke
County for fire protection and other public safety needs of the currently existing Plastics
One facility on property retained by the Lemons; and
5. As a condition of this exchange, Charles R. Lemon & Anne L. Lemon and
Curtis L. Lemon & Dorothy D. Lemon have agreed to enter into an agreement for the
sharing of cost on an equal, 50-50, basis of all reasonable drainage improvements which
shall be located upon the property of Roanoke County adjacent to the remaining property
of the Lemons subsequent to this exchange. Roanoke County will be responsible for
3
maintenance of these drainage improvements and will provide reasonable opportunity for
the Lemons to review the design and bid documents prior to the public procurement
process.
6. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and
take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the property
exchange, specifically including the conveyance and acquisition of respective properties, all
of which shall be of such form as approved by the County Attorney.
7. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from its passage.
g:\...\jbo\plastics.lor
4
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER F
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of an Ordinance Authorizing a Lease Agreement with CFW for
the Use of the Avenham Water Tank for the Installation of a Cellular Antenna
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
etir9)-be
With increased use of cellular telephones, the demand for better coverage also increases. The cellular
telephone companies are continually requesting new tower sites to provide for the increased
coverage.
Roanoke County has requested that these companies pursue co -location of these facilities on existing
structures as opposed to new tower sites when possible. This policy allows the cellular telephone
companies and the owners of existing facilities to realize savings with construction and maintenance
costs while minimizing disruption to our environment.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
CFW, Inc. has approached the Roanoke County Utility Department about the possibility of installing
a repeater antenna on the Avenham water tank. The Avenham water tank is located on a wooded
site on the south side of Route 419 across from Tanglewood Mall. Enclosed are copies of the tax
map and photograph of the site.
CFW has submitted a proposed lease agreement and an offer of $300/month for the use of this site.
The initial term requested is for five (5) years with the ability to renew for three (3) additional five-
year terms. This lease agreement is presently being reviewed by the County Attorney's office.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The approval of this lease agreement will generate $3,600 per year for the water fund and these
monies will assist the County in the future maintenance of sites like this without the need of rate
increases.
Approval of this agreement will not place any fiscal demands on Roanoke County.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval following second reading of the ordinance on May 26, 1998, subject to
an acceptable lease agreement between Roanoke County and CFW, Inc.
SUBMITTED BY:
Gary Robert on, P.E.
Utility Direct r
APPROVED:
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION VOTE
Approved () Motion by: No Yes Abs
Denied () Harrison
Received () Johnson
Referred McNamara
to Minnix
Nickens
ROBS
I0
L53Ac
P/0 77.16-1-2
/ I • 100'
46
2.83 Ac ID)
2.47Ac (C)
4393
4393 9
51
11.08 Ac.
Roonoke Retirement
CommUJ ,t
Site
•
Aj
3
3.89 Ac
44
3.07Ac
91,
O'5/06/98 COUNTY OF
INQUIRE
PROPERTY NUMBER: 7566956055
MAP NUMBER: 77.20- 1-50. -
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
TANK SITE LESLIE WELL
AVENHAM AVE
ROANOKE REAL ESTATE TAXES
ALL BILLS FOR A PROPERTY
11:16:39
PAGE 1
OWNER NAME AND BILLING ADDRESS
ROANOKE CO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
P 0 BOX 29800
ROANOKE VA
24018
ACRES: .15 BANK CODE/NAME:
CURRENT PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS:
LAND VALUE 6,000
BLDG VALUE 98,600
TOTAL 104,600
LAND USE
TAX RELIEF REASON:
FROZEN ANNUAL TAX:
FROZEN ASSESSMENT:
LOAN NUMBER:
DATE OF LAST CHANGE:
WILL BOOK -PAGE REF:
CURRENT DEED BOOK -PAGE: 0990-0218
PRIOR DEED BOOK -PAGES:
THERE ARE NO BILLS ON FILE FOR THIS PROPERTY
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
CFW, INC., FOR THE USE OF THE AVENHAM WATER TANK
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A OI.I.ULAR ANTENNA
WHEREAS, the ever increasing use of cellular telephones within the Roanoke Valley
creates a demand for additional cellular tower locations to accommodate the needs of
cellular phone companies to adequately handle this increased cellular phone traffic; and
WHEREAS, the proliferation of cellular phone towers creates the potential for
significant impacts upon the visual, environmental and economic environment of Roanoke
County, and adjoining jurisdictions, which has compelled the County to encourage the
co -location of cellular transmission equipment and facilities on existing structures as
opposed to the erection of new towers; and
WHEREAS, CFW, Inc., an FCC licensed provider of cellular telephone services within
the Roanoke Valley, has approached the Roanoke County Utility Department with a
proposal for leasing space on the County's Avenham water tank, near Route 419 across
from Tanglewood Mall, for the installation of a cellular repeater antenna; and
WHEREAS, this proposed lease would generate revenue for the Utility Department's
water fund which will assist this Department in maintaining this water tank and other
facilities and may alleviate the need for future rate increases; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 12, 1998; and the
second reading for this ordinance will be held on May 26, 1998.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia,
as follows:
-ep
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke
County, a first reading was held on May 12, 1998; and a second reading was held on
May 26, 1998, concerning the lease of a location for a cellular telephone repeater antenna
on the County's Avenham water tank shown and designated on the Roanoke County Land
Records as Tax Map No. 77.20-1-50.
2. That an offer in writing having been received to lease said properties, the
offer of CFW, Inc. for a lease term of five (5) years with the right for three additional
terms of five (5) years and a lease amount of $300 per month, with reasonable increases
in lease payments upon each renewal thereof, is hereby accepted/rejected; and
3. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such leases, and any
accompanying documents, and to take such other actions on behalf of Roanoke County as
are necessary to accomplish the lease of a cellular telephone antenna location on the
Avenham water tank site, all of which shall be of such form as approved by the County
Attorney.
4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from its passage.
g:\...\jbo\avenham.ord
2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998
ORDINANCE 051298-5 AMENDING SECTION 21-19. "EXEMPTIONS --
HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS" OF CHAPTER 21.
"TAXATION" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO INCLUDE ANTIQUE
MOTOR VEHICLES NOT USED FOR GENERAL TRANSPORTATION
WHEREAS, Section 21-19 of the Roanoke County Code establishes a household
goods and personal effects which are exempt from taxation; and
WHEREAS, the 1997 General Assembly for the Commonwealth of Virginia
amended Section 58.1-3503 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, by including
"antique motor vehicles" to this category of exempt goods and effects; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 12, 1998; and the
second reading and public hearing was held on May 26, 1998.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County
as follows:
1. That Section 21-19. "Exemptions --Household goods and personal effects"
of Chapter 21. "Taxation" be amended to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 21-19. Exemptions --Household goods and personal effects.
The following household goods and personal effects are, pursuant to section 58.1-
3504 of the Code of Virginia, hereby declared exempt from taxation and shall not be
assessed for that purpose:
(1) Bicycles.
(2) Household and kitchen furniture, including gold and silver plates, plated
1
(3)
ware, watches and clocks, sewing machines, refrigerators, automatic
refrigerating machinery of any type, vacuum cleaners and all other
household machinery, books, firearms and weapons of all kinds.
Pianos, organs, phonographs and record players, and records to be used
therewith, and all other musical instruments of whatever kind, radio and
television instruments and equipment.
(4) Oil paintings, pictures, statuary, curios, articles of virtu and works of art.
(5) Diamonds, cameos and other precious stones and all precious metals used
as ornaments or jewelry.
(6) Sporting and photographic equipment.
(7) Clothing and objects of apparel.
(8) Antiq e m t r rehic es s d fined n S on 4 2.10 which May no be
rpose tran`>'r;>i u ....e. .
(8)} All other tangible personal property used by an individual or a family or
household incident to maintaining an abode.
The classification above set forth shall apply only to such property owned and used by an
individual or by a family or household incident to maintaining an abode.
2. This ordinance shall be effective from and after its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens to approve the first reading and waive second
reading and adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
2
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor McNamara
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Paul M Mahoney, County Attorney
R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
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
Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief, Fire & Rescue
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
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM:
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21-19. "EXEMPTIONS --HOUSEHOLD
GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS" OF CHAPTER 21. "TAXATION" OF
THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO INCLUDE ANTIQUE MOTOR
VEHICLES NOT USED FOR GENERAL TRANSPORTATION
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
I recommend that antique vehicles be exempted from taxation as provided for by State Code.
The total impact on the County is about $350.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This ordinance provides an exemption for antique motor vehicles from
personal property taxation. It implements the provisions of legislation
adopted by the 1997 session of the Virginia General Assembly (Acts of the
1997 Assembly, Chapter 250).
BACKGROUND:
In 1997 the Virginia General Assembly adopted legislation relating
to local personal property taxation of antique motor vehicles. This
legislation added "antique motor vehicles as defined in Section 46.2-100
which may not be used for general transportation purposes" to the
classification of certain household goods and personal effects that a
local governing body may exempt from personal property taxation.
This legislation also removed the authority of local governments to
exempt in whole or in part all or any of these classes. Therefore if any
of these classes are exempted from personal property taxation, all must
be exempted.
This legislation became effective July 1, 1997.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This ordinance adds antique motor vehicles to the list of classes
of property local governments may exempt from personal property taxation.
Since local authority to exempt in whole or in part from taxation
C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\CODE\ANTIQUE.RPT
1
all or any of these classes of property was eliminated by this
legislation, the County is forced to add this class of property to the
list of other property previously exempted from taxation. This exemption
should be effective for the current tax year 1998.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Approximately 100 cars at $3.50 per car - $350.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Board could eliminate all exemptions. This would subject all the
household goods and personal effects previously exempted (see items 1
through 7 of Section 21-19) to taxation, as well as antique motor
vehicles. Or the Board can adopt the attached ordinance exempting
antique motor vehicles from personal property taxation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the
attached ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
1\rn --VACOA-N)
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
Approved ( ) Motion by Harrison
Denied ( ) Johnson
Received ( ) McNamara
Referred ( ) Minnix
to Nickens
C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\CODE\ANTIQUE.RPT
No Yes
s
2
F7
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY,
MAY 12, 1998
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21-19. "EXEMPTIONS --HOUSEHOLD GOODS
AND PERSONAL EFFECTS" OF CHAPTER 21. "TAXATION" OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CODE TO INCLUDE ANTIQUE MOTOR VEHICLES NOT USED FOR
GENERAL TRANSPORTATION
WHEREAS, Section 21-19 of the Roanoke County Code establishes a
household goods and personal effects which are exempt from taxation; and
WHEREAS, the 1997 General Assembly for the Commonwealth of Virginia
amended Section 58.1-3503 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, by
including "antique motor vehicles" to this category of exempt goods and
effects; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 12,
1998; and the second reading and public hearing was held on May 26, 1998.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County as follows:
1. That Section 21-19. "Exemptions --Household goods and personal
effects" of Chapter 21. "Taxation" be amended to read and provide as
follows:
Sec. 21-19. Exemptions --Household goods and personal effects.
The following household goods and personal effects are, pursuant to
section 58.1-3504 of the Code of Virginia, hereby declared exempt from
taxation and shall not be assessed for that purpose:
(1) Bicycles.
(2) Household and kitchen furniture, including gold and silver
C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\CODE\ANTIQUE.ORD
1
plates, plated ware, watches and clocks, sewing machines,
refrigerators, automatic refrigerating machinery of any type,
vacuum cleaners and all other household machinery, books,
firearms and weapons of all kinds.
(3) Pianos, organs, phonographs and record players, and records to
be used therewith, and all other musical instruments of
whatever kind, radio and television instruments and equipment.
(4) Oil paintings, pictures, statuary, curios, articles of virtu
and works of art.
(5) Diamonds, cameos and other precious stones and all precious
metals used as ornaments or jewelry.
(6) Sporting and photographic equipment.
(7) Clothing and objects of apparel.
(8) Antique motorvehicles as defined. a action 46;;2-10Qrh ch
(8)
may not'':be.used for „general transportation purposes.
9)
All other tangible personal property used by an
individual or a family or household incident to
maintaining an abode.
The classification above set forth shall apply only to such property
owned and used by an individual or by a family or household incident to
maintaining an abode.
2. This ordinance shall be effective from and after its adoption.
C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\CODE\ANTIQUE.ORD
2
G-1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998
ORDINANCE 051298-6 ESTABLISHING A SURCHARGE FOR AND
AUTHORIZING THE FINANCING OF A LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CLEARBROOK SEWER EXTENSION, AND
ACCEPTING THE DONATION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS
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, property owners, 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
1. That the Board authorizes and approves a local public works improvement
project namely, public sewer extension for a portion of the 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 Board of Supervisors hereby accepts the donation to said Board of the 8-inch
water line easement and the 8-inch sewer line easement of variable width from Dr. J. Milton Miller, (Tax
Map No. 98.01-1-75) as shown on a plat prepared by the Roanoke County Engineering Department,
dated 27 April 1998, a copy of which is attached hereto.
6. 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.
7. That this Ordinance shall take effect on and from the date of its adoption.
2
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor McNamara
A COPY TESTE:
-cna,�, ,a1 Qre.cc..L/
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Gary Robertson, Director, Utility
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
3
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: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading of Ordinance to Establish Sewer Service Area and Financing
of Sewer Connection Fee for Clearbrook Area
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: /j
otilwir
er
BACKGROUND:
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 drainage shed 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 donate the necessary water and sewer easement to Roanoke
County (see attached plat) and 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 financing 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. Staff also recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the
donation of the water and sewer easement.
SUBMITTED BY:
z
Gary Robe son, P.E.
Utility Dir- tor
APPROVED:
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION
VOTE
Approved () Motion by: No Yes Abstain
Denied () Harrison
Received () Johnson
Referred McNamara
to Minnix
Nickens
0
Z
0
rn
0
0
RR
0
ca
J. MILTON MILLER & T. R. LESLIE
TAX NO. 98.01-01-75.1
v1
09: • /"-
5 59
N 4 '00' W
152.00' — —
PROPERTY OF J. MILTON MILLER, JR. & T. R. LESLIE
DB 1193 — PAGE 668
TAX NO. 98.01-01-7
NEW 20' WATER
LINE EASEMENT
1,3
0
vZ
0
0
? 9 oGZ
NEW 20' SANITARY \ ,
SEWER EASEMENT •
\
O
O CO
la
0
±14'
C
US
ROUTE 220
NEW 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
LINE
DIRECTION
DISTANCE
1-2
N50° 11'07"W
250.40'
2-3
N26° 02'00"E
20.59'
3-4
S50° 11'07"E
85.53'
4-1
S43° 28'00"E
170.95'
TOTAL AREA =
3,359 S.F.
NEW 20' WATER LINE EASEMENT
LINE
DIRECTION
DISTANCE
5-6
S48° 58'W
100.00'
6-7
NOO° 00'00"E
101.15'
7-5
S43° 28'E
20.00'
EXHIBIT "A"
PLAT SHOWING
TOTAL AREA = 999 S.F.
NEW 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
NEW 20' WATER LINE EASEMENT
BEING GRANTED TO
THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE
BY
J. MILTON MILLER, JR. & T.R. LESLIE
ACROSS TAX PARCEL NO. 98.01-01-75
THIS PLAT IS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE
OF CREATING A 20' SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT AND A 20' WATER LINE
EASEMENT AS SHOWN HEREON AND
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACTUAL
BOUNDARY SURVEY.
SCALE: 1" = 50"
DATE: 27 APRIL 1998
CLEARBROOK AREA
WATER & SEWER PROJECT
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
ROANOKE COUNTY
UTILITY DEPARTMENT
SHEET 1 of 1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY,
MAY 12, 1998
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A SURCHARGE FOR AND AUTHORIZING THE
FINANCING OF A LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
CLEARBROOK SEWER EXTENSION, AND ACCEPTING THE DONATION OF
UTILITY EASEMENTS
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, property owners, 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
C:\OFFICE\ WPWIN\ WPDOCS\ AGENDA\ UTILITY\CLEARBRO
1
G-
improvement project namely, public sewer extension for a portion of the
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 Board of Supervisors hereby accepts the donation to
said Board of the 8-inch water line easement and the 8-inch sewer line
easement of variable width from Dr. J. Milton Miller, (Tax Map No. 98.01-
1-75) as shown on a plat prepared by the Roanoke County Engineering
Department, dated 27 April 1998, a copy of which is attached hereto.
6. That the County Administrator is authorized to take such
C:\OFFICE\ WPWIN\ WPDOCS\AGENDA \ UTILITY \CLEARBRO
2
G-1
actions and execute such documents as may be necessary to accomplish the
purposes of this transaction, all upon form approved by the County
Attorney.
7. That this Ordinance shall take effect on and from the date of
its adoption.
C:\OFFICE\ WPWIN\ WPDOCS\ AGENDA\UTILITY\CLEARBRO
3
ACTION NUMBER
ITEM NUMBER if
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
1. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
The five year term of Richard L. Jones, Jr., Catawba District, will expire 06/30/98.
2. COMMUNITY POLICY AND MANAGEMENT TEAM
The three year term of Rita J. Gliniecki, Parent Representative, will expire 06/30/98.
The Community Policy and Management team will make a recommendation for this
appointment which will be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors.
3. FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
The three year terms of Mrs. Pat Dean, Citizen Representative; and elected
representatives Alfred C. Anderson and Fenton F. Harrison will expire 06/30/98.
4. HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION SAFETY COMMISSION
The four year term of Captain Charles R. Compton, Jr., State Police, will expire
06/30/98. The four year terms for a medical representative and youth
representative are also vacant. Attached is a letter from the chairman of the
Commission with recommendations for appointment.
5. LEAGUE OF OLDER AMERICANS - ADVISORY COUNCIL
1
/4- g
The one year term of Dee Pincock expired March 31, 1998.
6. PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
The three year terms of Bobby G. Semones, Vinton District; David A. Thompson,
Hollins District; and Jack W. Griffith, Cave Spring District; will expire 06/30/97.
term.)
7. ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL CABLE TV COMMITTEE
The three year term of James B. Dickey, Member at Large, will expire 06/13/98.
8. VIRGINIA WESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD
The four year term of Stanard F. "Stan" Lanford will expire 06/30/98.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY:
Mary H. Alien, CMC
Clerk to the Board
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION
Approved ( ) Motion by: Harrison
Denied ( ) Johnson
Received ( ) McNamara
Referred ( ) Minnix
To ( ) Nickens
cc: File
2
VOTE
No. Yes Abs
N-3
FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
Fax: (540) 43-4416
E-mail: plantive@roanoke_inti.net
http://www.roanoke.infi.net/—planfive
31 3 Luck Avenue, SW
0os1 Office 13ox 2569
Roanoke, Virginia 24010
Phone: (540i 11 3-4417
May 1, 1998
Ms. Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Ms. Allen:
According to our record of appointments, the term of Mrs. Pat Dean, non -elected
representative of Roanoke County on the Fifth Planning District Commission, expires June 30,1998.
The Commission Bylaws state that all appointments are for three-year terms. Mrs. Dean is, of
course, eligible for reappointment.
Please notify the Commission of the County's official action in filling this upcoming vacancy
on the Commission. Thank you.
Yours truly,
Wayne-G. Strickland
Secretary to the Commission
WGS:jlp
cc: Mr. J. Lee E. Osborne, 5PDC Chair
Mrs. Pat Dean
Serving Alleghany County, Botetourt County, Clifton Forge, Covington, Craig County,
Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Salem, and the Town of Vinton
if -
FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
Fax: (540) 343-4416
E mail: planfive@roanoke.inti.net
http://www.roanoke.inti.net/'planfive
111 Luck Avenue, SW
I'osl Office Box 2569
Roanoke, Virginia 24010
Phone: (540) 34 3-44I 7
May 1, 1998
Ms. Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Ms. Allen:
According to our record of appointments, the term of Mr. Fred Anderson, elected
representative of Roanoke County on the Fifth Planning District Commission, expires June 30,1998.
The Commission Bylaws state that all appointments are for three-year terms. Mr. Anderson is, of
course, eligible for reappointment.
Please notify the Commission of the County's official action in filling this upcoming vacancy
on the Commission. Thank you.
Yours truly,
Wayne G. Strickland
Secretary to the Commission
WGS:jip
cc: Mr. J. Lee E. Osborne, 5PDC Chair
Mr. Fred Anderson
Serving Alleghany County, Botetourt County, Clifton Forge, Covington, Craig County,
Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Salem, and the Town of Vinton
FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
Fax: (540) 343-4416
E-mail: planfive@roanoke.inti.net
http://www.roanoke.infi.net/--planfive
I Luck Avenue, SW
Post Office 13ox 2569
Roanoke, Virginia 24010
Phone: (540) 34 (-441 7
May 1, 1998
Ms. Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Ms. Allen:
According to our record of appointments, the term of Mr. Spike Harrison, Jr., elected
representative of Roanoke County on the Fifth Planning District Commission, expires June 30,1998.
The Commission Bylaws state that all appointments are for three-year terms. Mr. Harrison is, of
course, eligible for reappointment.
Please notify the Commission of the County's official action in filling this upcoming vacancy
on the Commission. Thank you.
Yours truly,
Wayne G. Strickland
Secretary to the Commission
WGS:jlp
cc: Mr. J. Lee E. Osborne, 5PDC Chair
Mr. Spike Harrison, Jr.
Serving Alleghany County, Botetourt County, Clifton Forge, Covington, Craig County,
Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Salem, and the Town of Vinton
CAC YE COUNTY. hiGH',AIAY& TRATION COMMISSION'
Mv.,Bab Johnson
Chairman County of Roanoke
Board of Supervisors
Pear Nr. Johnson;
Two of cur members terms expire
Pept. of State Folice and Chief Eobby Cave Rescue Squad.
'approached Capt. Compton about serving another 4 yrs. He suggested
we appoint 'First Sgt. Finch ( Frank ) Duffy. as his responsbility
as Supervisor of the counties of Roanoke, Pkontgomery, Floyd, & Crak
is more logical. Sgt. Duffy has been with the Dept. 28 yrs.:is
address is the same as Capt. Corn ptoras.
Nr. Fronk is no loner with the Rescue Sqd.and unable toattend
meetings.As a replacement I was given the name of John Blank
r-J'raining Lt.Hollins Fescue Sqd.,a student at the College ofR
Health Sciences,aETTinstructor, and trained in cardiac
life support. His address , 6_530 creegway Dr. Apt. 104, zip
24019, phone '366-6588.
6/30/98, Capt Charles Compton
I wouldappreciate the Boards action on these appointments.
Aletter of commendation would be appropriate for Capt. Comptn.
Sincerl
Horace McPherson
,c,Thairman
3501 Forester Rd. SA.
Roanoke, Va. 24015
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998
RESOLUTION 051298-7 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
May 12, 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 6, inclusive, as follows:
1. Resolution of Appreciation to the families of Mary Jane Burgess and
Cherie Burgess Shindell for their donation to Roanoke County of Happy
Hollow Gardens.
2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the Fifth Planning District
Stormwater Management Advisory Committee
3. Resolution to request that the Virginia Department of Transportation add
into the secondary system new portions of existing Roselawn Avenue and
Ranchrest Drive and abandon those portions of Roselawn Avenue,
Pleasant Hill Drive and Ranchcrest Drive that no longer serve the public.
4. Appropriation of funds for child day care for the Department of Social
Services
5. Resolution repealing action previously adopted by the Board of
Supervisors regarding Bingo and Raffle Permits and providing for a policy
manual.
6. Request to receive and appropriate Section 18 monies from the
1
Department of Rail and Public Transportation for use by CORTRAN.
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 Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor McNamara
A COPY TESTE:
y-17-42-ti-sr- Ai Q-c.try,✓
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Pete Haislip, Director, Parks & Recreation
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Betty R. McCrary, Director, Social Services
John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant Administrator
W. Brent Robertson, Budget Manager
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
Mary E. Hicks, Executive Secretary
Vincent K. Copenhaver, Finance Manager
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998
RESOLUTION 051298-7.a OF APPRECIATION TO FAMILIES OF MARY JANE
BURGESS AND CHERIE BURGESS SHINDELL FOR THEIR DONATION TO
ROANOKE COUNTY OF HAPPY HOLLOW GARDENS
WHEREAS, Mary Jane Burgess and her sister Cherie Burgess Shindell spent many
hours as children visiting their aunt and uncle, Ellen B. Wharton and H. B. Wharton, at
Happy Hollow in Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Burgess and Ms. Shindell inherited Happy Hollow, and on January
29, 1985, donated to Roanoke County these 34.5 acres and a cabin located in the
southwest portion of Roanoke County off State Route 221 on State Route 602 for the
enjoyment of its citizens as a place of peace and beauty; and
WHEREAS, Happy Hollow is planted with a large variety of species of plants,
including various rhododendrons, azaleas, flowers, and fruit trees, making it a wilderness
garden which blooms throughout the year; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Shindell was a familiar figure at meetings of the Board of
Supervisors, representing the League of Women Voters, until her death in 1996; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Burgess continued to live at Happy Hollow until her death in 1998,
and during her lifetime greeted visitors, cared for the garden area around the cabin, and
acted as superintendent of the gardens; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Parks & Recreation Department plans to continue
to preserve and protect Happy Hollow Gardens as a unique and beautiful area for future
generations to enjoy.
1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, does hereby extend its appreciation and gratitude to MARY JANE
BURGESS AND CHERIE BURGESS SHINDELL for their generous donation to the people
of Roanoke County of Happy Hollow Gardens; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does hereby convey
its condolences to the families of Mary Jane Burgess and Cherie Burgess Shindell for the
loss of these two generous and exceptional women.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor McNamara
A COPY TESTE:
•net-ey. yd. C�c..ec,„_
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Resolutions of Appreciation File
Pete Haislip, Director, Parks & Recreation
2
AT A REGULAR
COUNTY, VIRGINIA
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER 11-
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
May 12, 1998
Resolution of appreciation to the families of Mary Jane
Burgess and Cherie Shindell for their donation to Roanoke
County of Happy Hollow Gardens
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Mary Jane Burgess passed away recently and her sister, Cherie Shindell, passed
away several years ago. Both were active members of the community for many years, and
in 1985 they donated their family home and surrounding gardens known as Happy Hollow
to Roanoke County to be used as a park.
At the April 28 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board of Supervisors requested
that a resolution of appreciation be prepared to recognize their generous contribution to
Roanoke County and to express our sympathy to their family. The resolution is attached.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution and
that the resolution be forwarded to the Shindell and Burgess families with the condolences
of the Board of Supervisors and staff upon the death of Mary Jane Burgess.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
Z-�
ACTION
Approved ( ) Motion by: Harrison
Denied ( ) Johnson
Received ( ) McNamara
Referred ( ) Minnix
To ( ) Nickens
VOTE
No. Yes Abs
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO FAMILIES OF MARY JANE BURGESS
AND CHERIE BURGESS SHINDELL FOR THEIR DONATION TO ROANOKE
COUNTY OF HAPPY HOLLOW GARDENS
WHEREAS, Mary Jane Burgess and her sister Cherie Burgess Shindell spent many
hours as children visiting their aunt and uncle, Ellen B. Wharton and H. B. Wharton, at
Happy Hollow in Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Burgess and Ms. Shindell inherited Happy Hollow, and on January
29, 1985, donated to Roanoke County these 34.5 acres and a cabin located in the
southwest portion of Roanoke County off State Route 221 on State Route 602 for the
enjoyment of its citizens as a place of peace and beauty; and
WHEREAS, Happy Hollow is planted with a large variety of species of plants,
including various rhododendrons, azaleas, flowers, and fruit trees, making it a wilderness
garden which blooms throughout the year; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Shindell was a familiar figure at meetings of the Board of
Supervisors, representing the League of Women Voters, until her death in 1996; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Burgess continued to live at Happy Hollow until her death in 1998,
and during her lifetime greeted visitors, cared for the garden area around the cabin, and
acted as superintendent of the gardens; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Parks & Recreation Department plans to continue
to preserve and protect Happy Hollow Gardens as a unique and beautiful area for future
generations to enjoy.
1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, does hereby extend its appreciation and gratitude to MARY JANE
BURGESS AND CHERIE BURGESS SHINDELL for their generous donation to the people
of Roanoke County of Happy Hollow Gardens; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does hereby convey
its condolences to the families of Mary Jane Burgess and Cherie Burgess Shindell for the
loss of these two generous and exceptional women.
2
AT A REGULAR
COUNTY, VIRGINIA
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
A-0512989-7. b
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER Ts
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
May 12, 1998
Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the Fifth Planning
District Commission Stormwater Management Advisory
Committee
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Supervisor Harrison nominated William Overstreet to fill the vacancy of Tobie
Eaton.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that this appointment be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary H. Allen, CM
Clerk to the Board
Approved by,
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION VOTE
No Yes Absent
Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to approve Harrison _ x
Denied ( ) Johnson
Received ( ) McNamara _ x
Referred ( ) Minnix
To () Nickens _ x
cc: File
Fifth Planning District Stormwater Management Advisory Committee File
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON THE 12TH DAY OF MAY 1998
RESOLUTION 051298-7.c REQUESTING ADDITIONS AND ABANDONMENTS
OF PORTIONS OF ROUTES 689, ROSELAWN AVENUE, ROUTE 907,
RANCHCREST DRIVE, ROUTE 1552, PLEASANT HILL DRIVE, BY THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WHEREAS, Route 221, from 0.139 miles south of Route 419 to 1.860 miles south
of Route 419, a distance of 1,721 miles, has been altered and a new portion of road has
been constructed, Project 0221-080-107, C-501, and
WHEREAS, the project sketch, attached and incorporated herein as a part of this
resolution, depicting the additions and abandonments required in the secondary systems
of state highways as a result of this project, and
WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as those portions of the old road
identified by the sketch to be abandoned and those segments no longer serve a public
need, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add Sections 18,
19, 20, and 21, shown hatched on the attached project sketch, to the secondary system
of highways, pursuant to §33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 (as amended), and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, hereby abandons Sections 14, 15, 16, 17 and 22, shown crosshatched on the
attached project sketch, as part of the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to
§33.1-155, Code of Virginia, 1950 (as amended), and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County
reserves and retains all abandoned Sections as a Sanitary Sewer and Waterline Easement
and as a Public Utility Easement, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, orders that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Recorded Vote
Moved By: Supervisor Johnson
Seconded By: None Required
Yeas: Supervisors Minnix. Harrison. Nickens. Johnson
1
Nays:
Absent:
None
Supervisor McNamara
A Copy Teste:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Virginia Department of Transportation
•
Ns
Roselawn
TAX MAP No. 86.12-4-1,4
PROPERTY OF GARY W.
& DONNA J. PENICK
TAX MAP No. 86.12-4-1.1
PROPERTY OF' E.R.S. BUILDERS INC
TAX MAP No. 86.12-4-1
PROPERTY OF WILLIAM D. &
WINNIE V. CAMPBELL
TAX MAP No. 86.08-04-20
PROPERTY OF A.M.E. CHURCH
TAX MAP No. 86.08-04-22
PROPERTY OF VIRGIL V
& GLADYS S. PATE
TAX MAP No. 86.08-08-13
PROPERTY OF TRIANGLE DEVELOPERS
TAX MAP No. 86.08-08-1
PROPERTY OF SPRINGWOOD ASSOCIATES
13
�C Q- # � ��
__i..\ I�'' �. . Sect. 14
a21,)Q �� rect.15
naeY 1 003 MI.
/P �� e4 ''"` Sect.2$
ect.19
-ct.17
Sect. 1 8
0.04 IF' x
TAX MAP No. 86.12-3-10,3, & 2
PROPERTY OF CAVE SPRING BAPTIST CHURCH
�h 00
50
Vy
2
��5 1
Sect.22
co 0.13MI`..
iiCavc Spring
Junior High School
O� TAX MAP No. 86.12-1-51
\1 PROPERTY OF S.M. & BETTY P. LYNCH
tU
co
TAX MAP No. 86.12-1-50
PROPERTY OF CURTIS JAMES LYNCH
TAX MAP No. 86.12-1-49
PROPERTY OF HOWARD S. & HAZEL A. PETERS
TAX MAP No. 86.12-1-48
PROPERTY OF JOHN R. PRILLAMAN
04-27-98
3
ROANOKE COUNTY
ENGINEERING &
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
PLAT SHOWING SECTIONS OF OLD ROADS
TO BE ABANDONED AND
TO BE ADDED TO THE SECONDARY
SYSTEMS OF STATE HIGHWAYS
C:\CAD\ROADS\VDOT\ROSELAW2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER /'" 3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution to request that the Virginia Department of Transportation
add into the secondary system of state highways new portions of
existing Route 689 (Roselawn Avenue) and Route 907 (Ranchcrest
Drive) and abandon those portions of Route 689 (Roselawn Avenue),
Route 1552 (Pleasant Hill Drive) and Route 907 (Ranchcrest Drive)
which no longer serve the public need.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
Recommend Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
County staff has been requested by the Virginia Department of Transportation to
adopt and abandon certain sections of secondary roads relocated as a part of the
1994 realignment of Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue) project.
Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution.
SUMMARY:
Due to the 1994 realignment of Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue), the Virginia
Department of Transportation has requested that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County adopt a resolution to accept and abandon certain portions of
secondary roads per the attached sketch. The Virginia Department of
Transportation is requesting this action to obtain clear title to the abandoned
roadways and to update their mileage records.
The new sections of highway to be adopted are as follows: Route 689 (Roselawn
Avenue) and Route 907 (Ranchcrest Drive). The portions of old roadway that the
Virginia Department of Transportation has requested to be abandoned because
1
3
they have been determined to no longer serve a public need are portions of Routes
689 (Roselawn Avenue), Route 1552 (Pleasant Hill Drive) and Route 907
(Ranchcrest Drive).
The Virginia Department of Transportation has determined that the proposed
abandoned roadways no longer serve a public need per the application of Title 33.1,
Article 11, Code of Virginia, 1950 (as amended), and most specifically the essential
findings in the application of Title 33.1-155 Code of Virginia, 1950 (as amended).
Once these portions of road are abandoned, the property will be considered for
conveyance by the Virginia Department of Transportation, per the requirements of
Title 33.1, Article 11, Code of Virginia, 1950 (as amended), cited in Section 33.1-
154.
Roanoke County staff has no objections to the Virginia Department of
Transportation's request, but recommends that the underlying areas of the road to
be abandoned and reserved as a public utility easement and as a public
water/sanitary sewer easement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
County staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the attached
Resolution.
MITTED BY:
Hold Covey, Dire ctor of
Engineering and Inspections
APPROVED BY:
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Harrison
Received ( ) Johnson
Referred ( ) McNamara
To: Minnix
Nickens
pc: Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
2
Roselaw
TAX MAP No. 86.12-4-1.4
PROPERTY OF GARY W.
& DONNA J. PENICK
TAX MAP No. 86.12-4-1.1
PROPERTY OF E.R.S. BUILDERS INC
TAX MAP No. 86.12-4-1
PROPERTY OF WILLIAM D. &
WINNIE V. CAMPBELL
Co
•,"hancler t
Sect.1
Rd,j _.
Q
TAX MAP No. 86.12-3-10,3, & 2
PROPERTY OF CAVE SPRING BAPTIST CHURCH
TAX MAP No. 86.08-04--20
PROPERTY OF A.M.E. CHURCH
TAX MAP No. 86.08-04-22
PROPERTY OF VIRGIL V
& GLADYS S. PATE
TAX MAP No.
PROPERTY OF
TAX MAP No.
PROPERTY OF
t
{�c? `.
sQ�
T 3
86.08-08-13
TRIANGLE DEVELOPERS
86.08-08-1
SPRINGWOOD ASSOCIATES
C�Cave Spring
Jui for High School
TAX MAP No. 86.12-1-51
PROPERTY OF S.M. & BETTY P. LYNCH
TAX MAP No. 86.12-1-50
PROPERTY OF CURTIS JAMES LYNCH
TAX MAP No. 86.12-1-49
PROPERTY OF HOWARD S. & HAZEL A. PETERS
TAX MAP No, 86.12-1-48
PROPERTY OF JOHN R. PRILLAMAN
04-27-98 1
ROANOKE COUNTY
ENGINEERING &
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
PLAT SHOWING SECTIONS OF OLD ROADS
TO BE ABANDONED AND
TO BE ADDED TO THE SECONDARY l\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\I
SYSTEMS OF STATE HIGHWAYS
C:\CAD\ROADS\VDOT\ROSELAW2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON THE 12TH DAY OF MAY 1998:
RESOLUTION REQUESTING ADDITIONS AND ABANDONMENTS OF
PORTIONS OF ROUTES 689, ROSELAWN AVENUE, ROUTE 907, RANCHCREST
DRIVE, ROUTE 1552, PLEASANT HILL DRIVE, BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
WHEREAS, Route 221, from 0.139 miles south of Route 419 to 1.860 miles south of Route
419, a distance of 1,721 miles, has been altered and a new portion of road has been constructed,
Project 0221-080-107, C-501, and
WHEREAS, the project sketch, attached and incorporated herein as a part of this resolution,
depicting the additions and abandonments required in the secondary systems of state highways as
a result of this project, and
WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as those portions of the old road
identified by the sketch to be abandoned and those segments no longer serve a public need, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add Sections 18, 19, 20, and 21,
shown hatched on the attached project sketch, to the secondary system of highways, pursuant to
§33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 (as amended), and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
hereby abandons Sections 14, 15, 16, 17 and 22, shown crosshatched on the attached project
sketch, as part of the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-155, Code of Virginia,
1950 (as amended), and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County reserves
and retains all abandoned Sections as a Sanitary Sewer and Waterline Easement and as a Public
Utility Easement, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
orders 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:
A Copy Teste:
Mary Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
pc: Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering and Inspections
Virginia Department of Transportation
File
Y
ACTION NO.
A-051298-7. d
ITEM NUMBER ,,� t%
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM: Request to Appropriate Monies for Child Day Care for
the Department of Social Services
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
d&—,4-firigi44)*-/
BACKGROUND: The Department of Social Services receives,
throughout the year, additional appropriations for public
assistance and services delivery. The State has made available
$25,000 additional money for the Child Day Care - Local Quality
Initiative Program. The Department of Social Services cannot
access these state funds until the County has appropriated the
same. The Board of Supervisors is requested to appropriate $25,000
to the Social Services grant fund for Child Day Care and to
appropriate the related revenues from the State.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. The total amount for the additional funding
is being allocated to Roanoke County with no local match
requirement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriation of $25,000 to
the Social Services grant fund for Child Day Care.
401/
4.14040
Betty •. McCrary, Ph
Director of Social S
Respectfully submitted, Approv d by
d(),
Ermer C. Hodge
vices County Administrator
ACTION VOTE
No Yes Absent
Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to approve Harrison _ x
Denied ( ) Johnson _ x
Received ( ) McNamara _ x
Referred ( ) Minnix
To () Nickens _ x
cc: File
Betty R. McCrary, Director, Social Services
John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator
W. Brent Robertson, Budget Manager
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998
RESOLUTION 051298-7.e REPEALING CERTAIN POLICIES PREVIOUSLY
ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PERTAINING TO
BINGO/RAFFLE PERMIT PROCEDURES, 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 Bingo and Raffle
Permit Procedures.
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 Action A/7-22-86-164.B adopted July 22, 1986, which action sets up the
procedures for handling bingo and raffle permits in the Policy Manual, be, and hereby is,
rescinded.
3. That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
1
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor McNamara
A COPY TESTE:
..,,2u.Ly, 9.1 _cr.z-ec.c_.
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Mary Hicks, Executive Secretary
2
Action No.
Item No. Z-.S
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
SUBJECT: Repeal of that Section of the Roanoke County Policy
Manual Which Deals with Bingo and Raffle Permits
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND: When the Supervisors adopted the Policy Manual in
February, 1998, the County Attorney advised that the various sections
of the document could be modified, rescinded, or amended gradually and
as needed.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Bingo and raffle permits are no longer
approved and issued locally. All applications for such permits are
handled through the Virginia Charitable Gaming Commission. The
section of the Policy Manual entitled "Bingo/Raffle Permits" is no
longer valid and should be rescinded.
RECOMMENDATION: Since the Policy Manual is intended as a dependable
source of reference, its accuracy is important. It is therefore
recommended that the Supervisors rescind A/7-22-86-164.B [copy
attached] adopted on July 22, 1986.
FISCAL IMPACT: Roanoke County formerly charged an application fee of
$25 for bingo and raffle permits, which was used to offset the
administrative costs involved. Rescinding this section of the Policy
Manual will have no appreciable fiscal impact.
Respectfully su itted,
14°4'
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
Page 2
5
ACTION V O T E
Approved ( ) Motion by:
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
Harrison
Johnson
McNamara
Minnix
Nickens
Yes No Abs
A/7-22-86-164.B
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
IN ROANOKE, VA., ON TUESDAY,
MEETING DATE: July 22, 1986
SUBJECT: Revised Bingo/Raffle Permit Procedures
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
y„,644 a-4 :4:
,1�•�.R,,`�'"' V�""n"r`�t'tY�c`'K'G.� ,,�,�-y"'``'"�f a}�! "'Q'�"%C•
a
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
On July 11, 1985 the Acting County Administrator instituted
the present procedures for reviewing bingo/raffle permits. These
procedures provide that permit requests first be reviewed by the
Commissioner of the Revenue for compliance with state and county
codes. Those permits which the Commissioner approves go directly
to the Board for inclusion on the consent agenda. Should the
Commissioner deny a permit, the applicant may appeal to the
County Attorney. If the County Attorney's Office concurs in the
denial, the applicant may appeal to the Board.
Over the past year the County Attorney's Office has devoted
an ever-increasing amount of staff time to appeals for permits.
The County Attorney's Office now wishes to be removed as a second
decision -maker in the administrative permit review process. The
office would prefer to be involved as legal advisor to the Commis-
sioner and to the Board. It is therefore recommended that the
revised procedure function as follows:
RECOMMENDATION:
Applications for bingo/raffle permits will continue to be
received in the office of the Commissioner of the Revenue. He
will review them for legal eligibility; he will also review audit
reports from previous years to determine whether the applicants
disposed of the proceeds properly in the past. He may request a
legal opinion from the County Attorney's Office to assist him in
determining legal issues arising from the request to grant the
permit. Should the Commissioner decide to grant the permit, the
application will be forwarded to the Board and placed on the Con-
sent Agenda. Should the Commissioner deny the permit, the appli-
cant will have the right to appeal to the Board. When a permit
is before the Board the Board may request further legal assis-
tance from the County Attorney's Office if it so desires.
A/7-22-86-164.B
Respectfully,
Linda S. Lehe
Assistant County Attorney
ACTION VOTE
Approved (X) Motion by: BJ/HCN No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Brittle X
Received ( ) Garrett X
Referred Johnson X
To McGraw X
Nickens X
07/23/86
cc: File
Commissioner of Revenue
County Attorney
Deputy Clerk
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY,
MAY 12, 1998
RESOLUTION REPEALING CERTAIN POLICIES PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PERTAINING TO BINGO/RAFFLE PERMIT PROCEDURES,
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 Bingo and
Raffle Permit Procedures.
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 Action A/7-22-86-164.B adopted July 22, 1986, which action
sets up the procedures for handling bingo and raffle permits in the Policy
Manual, be, and hereby is, rescinded.
3. That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
G:\ATTORNEY\PMM\POLMAN.BIN 1
A-051298-7.f
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER 1.— Li
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM: Request to receive and appropriate Section 18 monies from the Department of
Rail and Public Transportation for use by CORTRAN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Cf� /f
exeleetrwil
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The County has applied for and received Section 18 monies from the Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Rail and Public Transportation for the period April 27, 1998 through September 30,
1999. The amount approved for the County is $15,624. These monies are pass -through to our
CORTRAN program and will be used to purchase a van for the program. These monies are in addition
to the local appropriation approved for CORTRAN for the current fiscal year.
The Board of Supervisors is requested to accept this grant and to authorize its transfer to the CORTRAN
program.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There are no new County dollars required. The $15,624 for the current fiscal year will be received from
the Commonwealth of Virginia to be used specifically for the purchase of a van and should be
appropriated so that we can transfer said monies to the CORTRAN program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends accepting the $15,624 from the Department of Rail and Public Transportation and
authorization of the transfer of monies to the CORTRAN program.
M:\FINANCE\COMMON\BOARD\5-12-98A.WPD May 5, 1998
SUBMITTED BY:
fIAA.ceitj t.PAAAAA.4e)?../
Vincent K. Cope aver
Finance Manager
APPROVED:
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
Approved (x )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
ACTION VOTE
No Yes Absent
Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to approve Harrison _ x
Johnson x
McNamara x
Minnix x
Nickens x
cc: File
Vincent K. Copenhaver, Finance Manager
John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator
M:\FINANCE\COMMON\BOARD\5-12-98A.WPD May 5, 1998
Project Agreement For Use Of
Commonwealth Mass Transit Funds
Fiscal Year 1998
The Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Rail and Public Transportation, hereafter
referred to as the DEPARTMENT, and the County of Roanoke , hear after referred to as the
PUBLIC BODY, enter into this Project Agreement dated April 27 . 1998 authorized by Chapter
924 of the 1997 Acts of the General Assembly, as amended. The parties hereby agree to
incorporate the Master Agreement for Use of Commonwealth Mass Transit Fund, dated July 1,
1996 as if set out in full herein. The Project Agreement Summary(s) and Budget(s) agreed to by
the parties is set out in Appendix(es) B . In no event shall the DEPARTMENT grant
pursuant to this Project Agreement exceed $1.224.00 . IN WITNESS whereof, the
DEPARTMENT and the PUBLIC BODY have executed this Project Agreement effective on the
day and year above written.
WITNESS:
s
By: �/ C.-,-��
By:
By:
Director, Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Rail and Public
Transportation
di., /7,y
Title: C'v,•nfy /i.,/,,,., „7`.21.—
Public Body: County of Roanoke
Appendix B
State Capital Project Agreement Summary
Project Number: 609-03-07-80426-98
Grant Recipient: County of Roanoke for UHSTS, Inc.
EIN # 54-6001572
Project Start Date: April 27, 1998
Project Expiration Date: September 30, 1999
Capital Project Agreement Budget Detail
Expense Detail Item
Amount
Purchase 1 Van $18,000
Total Expenses $18,000
Expense Summary
Federal share of project cost (80%) $14,400
State share of project cost $1,224
Local share of project cost $2,376
LEO J. BEVON
DIRECTOR
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND. 23219-1939
April 28, 1998
Mr. Curtis A. Andrews
Executive Director
USHTS, Inc.
P.O. Box 13825
Roanoke, Virginia 24037
Dear Curtis:
(804) 786-7940
FAX (804) 786-7286
VIRGINIA RELAY CENTER
1-800-828-1120 (TDD
FY1998 Project Agreement For Use
Of Commonwealth Mass Transit Funds
I am pleased to enclose for your execution two (2) copies of a "Project Agreement For Use
Of Commonwealth Mass Transit Funds" for FY1998. Please review the project agreement carefully
before signing. Verify the budget and amounts of state assistance. Complete execution by having
both copies of the agreement signed. Retain one copy for your records and return the other copy to:
Department of Rail and Public Transportation
Attention: Jack E. Apostolides
1401 E. Broad Street
Room 1404
Richmond, Virginia 23219
The project agreement must be executed and returned to this office within 30 days of the date
of this letter or DRPT may withdraw its offer of financial assistance. Please note that all appendices
have a project time period specified. You should ensure that grant funds are expended within the
time period specified in the appendices. It is our intention to close all grants at the end of the project
time period after which funds will no longer be available. Project time periods can be extended only
by an amendment to the Project Agreement.
8089.
If you have any questions regarding the Project Agreement, please contact me at (804)786-
Sincerely,
Darrel M. Feasel
Transportation Engineer Program Supervisor
Leading Virginia To Greater Mobility
UNIFIED HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, INC.
RADAR
2121 Salem Avenue, SW
P.O. Box 13825
Roanoke, Virginia 24037-3825
PHONE: (540) 343-1721 * FAX: (540) 344-6216
Toll Free: (800) 964-5707
E-MAIL: uhsts@roanoke.infi.net
May 4, 1998
Mr. John Chambliss
County of Roanoke
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear John:
As per our conversation, please find enclosed a Project Agreement to purchase a
new van for the Section 18 program. The local match for this vehicle will be provided by
RADAR and these funds will need to be passed through to our agency.
Please have this agreement executed and returned to my office within fifteen days.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you for your cooperation with
this matter.
Executive Director
caa:
Project Agreement For Use Of
Commonwealth Mass Transit Funds
Fiscal Year 1998
The Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Rail and Public Transportation, hereafter
referred to as the DEPARTMENT, and the County of Roanoke , hear after referred to as the
PUBLIC BODY, enter into this Project Agreement dated April 27 , 1998 authorized by Chapter
924 of the 1997 Acts of the General Assembly, as amended. The parties hereby agree to
incorporate the Master Agreement for Use of Commonwealth Mass Transit Fund, dated July 1,
1996 as if set out in full herein. The Project Agreement Summary(s) and Budget(s) agreed to by
the parties is set out in Appendix(es) B . In no event shall the DEPARTMENT grant
pursuant to this Project Agreement exceed $1,224.00 . IN WITNESS whereof, the
DEPARTMENT and the PUBLIC BODY have executed this Project Agreement effective on the
day and year above written.
WITNESS:
Lod' /"1-
By:
Director, Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Rail and Public
Transportation
By: By:
Title:
Public Body: County of Roanoke
7 (P
Appendix B
State Capital Project Agreement Summary
Project Number: 609-03-07-80426-98
Grant Recipient: County of Roanoke for UHSTS, Inc.
EIN # 54-6001572
Project Start Date: April 27, 1998
Project Expiration Date: September 30, 1999
Capital Project Agreement Budget Detail
Expense Detail Item
Amount
Purchase 1 Van $18,000
Total Expenses $18,000
Expense Summary
Federal share of project cost (80%) $14,400
State share of project cost $1,224
Local share of project cost $2,376
dui,n„ttt,ttttttttuntlu„utnntttuttttttttt►►►►►t►i►►►►►►►►►►►►i►ii►iiiiiiilll!!!lII111!!!l111lIllii!l1I11!!I!l1111li1111,�
AGENDA ITEM NO.
APPEARANCE REQUEST
s
a
ar
I
SUBJECT: % �. ;��3C Ko o
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:
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 orthe Board to
do otherwise.
a.o
sew
nom
Nam
man
10/.18
Mom
ism
paw
mum
mom
Immo
moo
a
i
i
Mug
immoni
AMMO
AIME
a=
s
311.1.111
MOW
OMNI
Semi
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS
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.
INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP
SHALL FILE WITH THE CT, FRK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK
NAME Ry�Qk( V 6XE
ADDRESS -,? 5?c7 `(U // C �1 �` I�IC S
PHONE c70 c 8/' 2__---
111111111111111111111111111111117111111111111111111111I111111111111I I1111
Oa.
MOM
IMO
IMO
Man
Min
Ism
mai
Mon
Inns
IMO
arm
num
alma
MOM
MEM
MOM
Mud
OMR
Mom
110110
amok
s
Mom
Mom
a
MOM
moo
Iminn
Mom
Mow
Immo
IRMO
At
Mina
MM...
IlMna
INNEN
REIM
.11.11
NNW
SWIM
lomat
MENINX
�flllllll(111l1(lllillllllllllllil!!l(1111111111111l1111l1!l1111111111111lII111111l11(lili(l111111!!11l111(Il!(1(Illlllllllllillll'�'1
Wig L
D?ojED /JEQ4 .Sc ttobL.
My name is Harold Greer. I live at 3530 Holland Drive, S. W., and my property
borders the Palmer Farmington property at the side and rear.
My situation is much like that of others: almost total ignorance of what the School
Board's plans are with respect to the Palmer property. Although the School
Board seems obsessed with building a multi -million dollar school on this property, the
information it has thus far divulged leads me to believe that the School Board itself may
be proceeding without any clear-cut guidelines.
Taxpayers and homeowners whose property adjoins the Palmer land certainly are
entitled to far more information than the School Board has yet released. As starters:
1. What other sites are being considered for the school?
2. What are the unique advantages of the Farmington location?
3. Which site being considered is the most cost-effective?
4. What are the architectural plans for the building --single or two story? Where
on the property will the building, or buildings, be placed?
5. What are the access routes? Will access routes also require condemnation
proceedings?
6. What sporting facilities are planned? Will there be tennis courts, football
fields, track facilities? If so, where will these be located?
7. What about drainage of the property; will adjoining property be affected by
water draining off the school property?
8. What about buffer zones?
9. What's all this going to cost?
In its haste to condemn this particular property on Farmington, the School
1
Board has left more questions unanswered than answered. It asks the taxpayers and
adjoining property owners to literally buy the proverbial "pig in a poke."
What is wrong with old-fashioned honesty? While it may be out of style, I think
the people of Roanoke County should expect the School Board to be straightforward
and justify, with specific details, cost estimates, etc., what it would spend all this
money on. Until the School Board levels with us, this project should be placed on hold.
Thank you.
2
1lttitttttttttttttuttttnt�tutnutnittuutuittiiiiiiuliiiti!!!itf1u111liiiiili1111111111t11111111I1111111111111llfltllitllj,�
s
AGENDA HEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE v' CITIZENS COMMENTS
SUBJECT: k c l "1Cr ic^,_6- 6y
a..
—
MOM
OMNI
IMMO
s
SINNER
IMMO
Swan
AIM
MINOS
11111111111111111111111111111111111
APPEARANCE 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'1'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.
▪ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP
SHALL FIEF, WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK
NAME
Cc Fiefc
ADDRESS ,--t .._3 (c> 7 Co 71-' r `i%c
OMNI
rM
lllllllllllllllllllll
lllllilllllllHHIIll
Illlllllillllllllillllillliillllllllllllllll 111►llll
OMER
AMIN
IMMO
a
MIME
NEM
NNW
MEN
IMMO
IMO
IMO
MOM
i
/
PHONE 9 ,� ` - �j zt _
filillilt[11t1111[1ii11t1tittllltlltllltt[ttItItitiltlllltttttttilt1111111t[Itilttlltltll[Itl[lllltt11tllttllltlltllltttltllttiilt'�
IiiiiiiiIIIIIIIII MIIuuIuIIIIIIIIIIII MIIIIIIIIM111i1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
INN
s
✓ 4
r
s
NMI
.
4
AGENDA HEM NO.
>_ rA
1_
�� 4
s 01
r APPEARANCE REQUEST
�� 4
-
=
a 4
4
4
r as
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE v' CITIZENS COMMENTS
01
s m• 1
ww re
Innil
s SUBJECT: W fio S NBCi Pr,. ;. r 1��
1
r. _
i 01
101
111.111111
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.
WEIEN CALLED TO TIIE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS 10
01
= FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY' THE GUIDELINES LISTED c
r. „e1
BELOW:NUM
s
o
o �'
01
a� -
M Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment 101
whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman willMINI
1110
WM decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, 10
Nan
110 1.00
and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to
NM. do otherwise.
NEM .
r. 10
® Speaker will be • limited to a presentation of their point of view only.
Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman.
lawel
Wm
man
IMO
Smog
Esomn ® All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized MIMI
01
MOM
10 speaker and audience members is not allowed.
4
w r.
M▪ O.
• Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times.
..MIMI
m iii Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments
10
OMNI
r. -
1/0with the clerk.
011
MUNI
lolme
S AWN
-
i1116
i.
4
4
.111111
a_
i
11.11M
SIMMI
Imo
SUNNI
r.
m INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP
SHALL FILE WITH THE Cl. ER.K AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK
. NAME ...� v ,�i Os ae l7%'
ADDRESS 3 FA-r M / Nc 1
PHONE ? ?r-/ 46 IY
A -S cJ
MOS
NUM
O ▪ EN
r.
MEMO
NMI
MINN
r.
Imma
Nam
4
MIME
NUNN
r01
1•RINI
rt.
rt.
111.1111
MEIN
4
MINS
MIME
MINN
Nan
- � 4
4 ~�
fi[t[IIIIltt{ttIttl{III1111lI1t111l111{11(((l(111111{Itlltllllllill[llllll(!1(I111!{1{{1!{11t11{{111l11l1l1!{!1{11l11l11lIl1l1!!11'�
�llitil11tilittlltlltlltllltltllt1i1111d111111Hlllliil�IiilllUlil{1111I1i1119111��IIll��1i�1�1i����1111�i����1�11iI1�����������,�J
MOM
a
AGENDA 11LEM NO.
MUM
SMS
Maw
sow
Imo
vow
APPEARANCE REQUEST ammo
110
s —
awn
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE <CITIZENS COMMENTS
ern —
SUBJECT: 0 U IrZ`.
s -
WMa
11/01
MIN NEM
lmfla
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 LISTED0• .1
BELOW: 110
MUM
NMI
1110
NOM Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment ONO
nom
whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will
MOM
decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue,
10• 1 and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to
do otherwise.011
101 ....
10/1
• Speaker will be • limited to a presentation of their point of view only.
NEM
UMWQuestions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman.MOM
WOO
MOM • All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized
speaker and audience members is not allowed.
110
a▪ � -
WPM Y• i
MOS • Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times.
c
-
T9 _" ▪ Speakers ire requested 1n leave any writtenstatements and/or comments a
110
ME▪ M
101.1
110
S IMIN
with the clerk.
MOM
-
Sem
pews
moo
loom
Emma
SONE
ammo
011/
.0111
11101
SEMI
.111111
0• 111
-
110
0111
101
—
Emu
• INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP
SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK
NAME SSE AJt'c,o
ADDRESS
)(ET LA
PHONE 77
IMMO
IMMO
IMMO
INCE
MINN
j111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I1M
Y �=
s ��
_ a_
w
MIN
_
i
AGENDA 11'EM NO.20
APPEARANCE RE
QUEST
w,a
INN 0• 1
E 011
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZENS COMMENTS 1121111.
MIMI
MOM
OM
SUBJECT: WGu d s .'i1�� 1'�-
- I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the0▪ 2
meeting on the above matter so that I may comment.
WIIIEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS
FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY' THE GUIDELINES LISTED c
10
BELOW:
02
a s
MN WPM
® Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment
110
whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will
02
12221
c decide the time limit based on th101
e number of citizens speakingon an issue, 0111
O 1
101
.- and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority othe Board to 10
110
01
do otherwise. .01
11221
•
0 II Speaker will be . limited to a presentation of their point of view only. 121212
UMW
MIMI Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman.
A IIIMMI
_s
AIM
1112111
laAll comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized1111211
OM MEM
Man speaker and audience members is not allowed. -
_ _
1.121
11.0
MOM
IISMO la MOM
Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all tunes.
i
O ▪ 2
® Speakers are requested to Ieave any written statements and/or comments
® WRNS
10 OWN
with the clerk. _
s
2122111
11101
n INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP M.
OXON
SHALL FILE WITH THE CL F;RK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
10
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
_ a▪ r
ri
21▪ 221 MIMS
i
AMMO
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERKMal
i• n
10
112.Y
110
1121111
_
01
0▪ 11
MINN
0.1
WWI
i 10
i
20
MEM
NAME i ik(,t 1 BCD Yl) 1112111
--
._ S▪ M.
21122
01
10
1221 ADDRESS3 ft( ( / J. )' i l.. i 'A.01
AIMS
/MOM
_MEM
MEM
PHONE Qg y-4= / 320
12211
0.1
OMNI
02
fi 1111111111111111111111111111111I111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111l
uiliiililltil11111119tillllllIl1I1il111I11UIIIIl11111111ii111111i11111111i11111111111111111111111111.11111HIM IllllllI11111I11111
SUBJECT: CW1VE -7///' c'
1.0
.n.
rl
r.
1i
r�
—
.nr
r.
AGENDA I1'EM NO. L
APPEARANCE REQUEST
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE
✓CITIZENS COMMENTS
171 �c//c C Le/tr.-7e
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:
• 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.
m INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP
SHALL FILE WITH THE CT ERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK
NAME tif i 7"
ADDRESS
PHONE (S y0 9 8 g r
101
-
-
a
O 11
110
110
a
N MI
a
1110
as
r.
11111.11
MOM
a••
i
MIME
-
_s
-
Mos
N om
N om
Mow
Mum
ism
a
Man
rR
MEN
-
NUN
-
�▪ i
-
01.1
-
110▪ 11
-
/1i
111/11
-
10▪ 11
10▪ 111
101111
c
-
r.
-
r.
i
_ r r.
fillll!!l111lllll!!!11l11l1lIlllll!!!!!IlIIIIIIIII!!lill!!!!I!I!1l11l1!!11lII!!I!l11IlIl11!!ll!!I!!!I!!!I!!!I!!11!!IlI11lI!!!I!!II'�
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
Apri114, 1998
Audited Beginning Balance at July 1, 1997
Addition from 1997-98 Budget - Transfer of Garage
Operations to the County
First installment payment on West County Business
Park
Revenue Sharing Payment to Botetourt County
through June 30, 1997
Eminent domain for communications facility
Underground storage tank removal
Carson Road sewer project
Downpayment on Catawba Farm
Cancel Catawba Farm appropriation
Economic Development - Lowe's
Amount
9,614,873.00
200,000.00
(1,000,000.00)
(158,280.86)
(107,000.00)
(65,983.00)
(150,000.00)
(110,000.00)
110,000.00
(300,000.00)
Balance at May 12, 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
October 14, 1997
Apri128, 1998
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
Transfer to Future School Capital Fund
Water/Sewer Extension to Clearbrook Fire Station
(1,113,043.00)
(52,780.00)
Balance at May 12, 1998 $730,313.64
Note: $100,000 of these funds have been temporarily advanced to the Mayflower Hills Park project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Qum Z. 4400.44
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Finance
M:\Finance\Common\Board\Cap97.WK4
RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
3
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 May 12, 1998 $107,390.51
Respectfully Submitted,
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Finance
M:\Finance\Common\Board\Board97.WK4
DATE OF
SITE NO. BACK-UP NAME ADDRESS CAUSE OF DAMAGE CORRECTIVE ACTION
CARVINS CREEK SEWERSHED
Removed debris and installed
heavier manhole lid
(Placed on 4-month rodding
(maintenance schedule11
(Placed on 4-month rodding
0
maintenance schedule
(Placed on 4-month rodding
maintenance schedule11
Main line replacement/upgrade
is planned
IIBACK CREEK, MURRAY RUN & MUDLICK CREEK SEWERSHED
IWye repaired
(Placed on 6-month rodding
0
maintenance schedule
(Placed on 6-month rodding I
maintenance schedule
Placed on 6-month rodding
maintenance schedule
Placed on 6-month rodding
maintenance schedule
Shear crack has been repaired
Property owner's responsibility II
Placed on 6-month rodding
maintenance schedule
IIWEST COUNTY SEWERSHED
Placed on 6-month rodding
maintenance schedule
Placed on 6-month rodding
maintenance schedule
IIPETERS CREEK SEWERSHED
Placed on 4-month rodding
maintenance schedule
System improvement is being
evaluated and designed
System improvement is being
evaluated and designed
Vandals threw debris into driveway
manhole which caused back-up
Back-up due to roots
Back-up due to roots
Back-up due to roots
Cause not evident
Wye separated at cleanout
Back-up due to roots and grease, sanitary
sewer line blockage and heavy rains
Back-up due to roots and grease, sanitary
sewer line blockage and heavy rains
Back-up due to roots and grease
Back-up due to roots and grease, sanitary
sewer line blockage and heavy rains
Back-up due to roots and heavy
rain. Shear crack discovered.
Back-up due to stoppage in waste line inside building
Back-up due to roots and grease
Back-up due to roots and grease
'Back-up due to roots and grease
Linda H. Thomas 5928 Wayburn Drive, NW Back-up due to roots
Michael Garst 4957 North Spring Drive Back-up due to improper main
line connections and defects.
William D. Wall 4954 North Spring Drive Back-up due to improper main
line connections and defects.
5405 Endicott Street
120 Manor Street
122 Manor Street
6707 Williamson Road
5327 Malvern Road
2703 Mallard Drive
3588 Colony Lane, SW
3594 Colony Lane, SW
5523 Cynthia Drive
3603 Colony Lane, SW
3580 Janney Lane, SW
3331 Longhorn Road
5114 Glen Heather Drive
2622 Puckett Circle
2610 Puckett Circle
(Susan McDaniel
Connie & Luther Garst
Lisa Bandy
Bandy, Thomas & Garst
Roger Murray
IVali Mohler
Mary E. Webb
Vola W. Cockram
Edward C. Woodard
Paul McAnnally
Jeffrey & Kirsten Cooper
Michael Scarps
h
E
t0
E.
N
<n
David J. Arwood
Cecil M. Dennis, Jr.
a)
N-
01/23/98
01/23/98
01/23/98
rn
O
N
0
rn
0
f:
0
rn
0
0
01/08/98
0)
N
01/08/98
11/97
02/09/98 & 02/17/98
04/02/98
08/09/97
rn
N
N
0
rn
N
N
0
01/23/98
03/20/98
03/20/98
N
C)
4
cf1
(O
f�
00
O)
— — 11111 —
__._._._._._._._._._._._._._..
r
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER N—'
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM: Report of Insurance Claims for Sewer Stoppages and Back-ups
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
The Roanoke County Risk Manager has received 18 claims for damages resulting from sewer back-
ups since July 3, 1997. Of these claims, 11 were denied, 6 received compensation and one claim
remains open at this time.
The sewer back-ups generally occurred as a result of heavy rains, stoppages due to roots and/or
grease or vandalism.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Attached are a spreadsheet summary of the subject damage claims and related site location maps.
These claims were in various drainage sheds of the County, including West County, Back Creek,
Mudlick Creek, Murry Run, Peters Creek, and Carvins Creek. Of the 18 claims there were 13
separate situations. Of these 13 incidents, three affected two homeowners and one affected three
homeowners.
In all cases that were caused by root intrusion, the lines have been placed on either a four or six
month rodding and cleaning schedule. The properties that received damage due to heavy rainfall,
are in areas that staff is presently working to reduce I/I with the SSER program. These areas are
North Spring Drive, Colony Lane, and Manor Street.
Y
4,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As we have discussed during recent work sessions, the solution to these problems is not easy. The
staff would recommend that we continue our aggressive SSER program, review and possibly
consider tighter restrictions on building in lower areas, and possibly tighter restrictions on plumbing
fixtures in basements.
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED:
Gary Ro r-ertson, P.E. Elmer C. Hodge
Utility Director
ak
County Administrator
ACTION VOTE
Approved () Motion by: No Yes Abstain
Denied () Harrison
Received () Johnson
Referred McNamara
to Minnix
Nickens
C ountg .oatto- t.e
vtociamatiott
ROAN
~ 1
i
1838
DECLARING THE WEEK OF MAY 3 -10, 1998
AS NATIONAL MUSIC WEEK
WHEREAS, Music plays an increasingly important role in our world today, and is
one of the most sublime of human pursuits and is subscribed to by all
races and creeds; and
WHEREAS, Music is the language of all peoples and one of the greatest forces in
creating peace and harmony; and
WHEREAS, the Seventy -Fifth Annual National Music Week will be observed May 3
through May 10, 1998, with a gala Celebration of Music at Roanoke's
Tanglewood Mall on May 5, 1998; and
WHEREAS, The Thursday Morning Music Club and the National Federation of
Music Clubs are dedicated to encouraging young musicians, to
increasing musical knowledge, and to advancing American music and
its cooperating musicians, and join forces to direct attention to the
dynamic influence of music in everyday living.
NOW, THEREFORE, 1,
Bob L. Johnson, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim the week of May 3 through 10,
1998 as NATIONAL MUSIC WEEK in Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, urge all citizens to observe and take part in activities, recognizing the
importance of music, musicians, and musical organizations to the
cultural life of our County, State, Nation, and World.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the County of
Roanoke to be affixed this the 14th day of " , 1998.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board
1
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER
MEETING DATE: May 12
AGENDA ITEM: Roofing Report - Roanoke County Schools
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
iv
BACKGROUND: At the last meeting of the Board of Supervisors, school
administration was asked to provide a listing of roof repairs
completed during the last five years.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The school maintenance department has summarized
roof areas replaced and repaired. Areas are identified by sections
and square footage. The total annual expenditure is summarized.
FISCAL IMPACT:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deanna W. Gordo
Superintendent`
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Approved ( ) Motion by: McNamara
Denied ( ) Johnson
Received ( ) Harrison
Referred ( ) Minnix
To Nickens
cc: File
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
Dr. Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent
oa,noke Conn iy Schools
Maintenance Department
716 South Market St
Salem Virginia 24153
Phone 540 -387-6587
N-�
Pnx540-387-6288
YEAR
SCHOOL
SECTION
SQ FT.
1993
CAVE SPRING HIGH
B/C/D
12994
CAVE SPRING ELEM
I/
2155
CAVE SPRING JR
C/D/Q
2780
CLEARBROOK
B/D
6634
GLENVAR ELEM
E/
5852
HERMAN L. HORN
D/E/FG
20998
HIDDEN VALLEY JR
A/C/H/I
74184
MASON COVE ELEM
C/D/G/H/K/M
22180
MT. PLEASANT ELEM
F
4419
NORTHSIDE HIGH
E/K/M
12219
WILLIAM BYRD HIGH
P
540
TOTAL COST
$308,019.00
1994
ADMIN. BLDG
B/E/F
15980
A. R. BURTON
B
11495
BURLINGTON ELEM
C/D
4694
BUS GARAGE
A/B
6190
CAVE SPRING JR.
K/M/N/O
19857
CAVE SPRING ELEM
A/C
4879
CLEARBROOK ELEM.
A
4338
GLENVAR HIGH
L/M/N
1448
KEITH SHOP
A/B/C/D/E/F
6854
MT. PLEASANT ELEM
C
3610
MT. VIEW ELEM
D/E
7369
NORTHSIDE HIGH
G
239
W. E. CUNDIFF
B/C
6768
TOTAL COST
$327,373.00
YEAR
SCHOOL
SECTIONS
SQ. FT.
1995
CAVE SPRING JR
AIB
12803
MT. PLEASANT ELEM
E
4185
OAK GROVE ELEM
H/I/J
6967
CAVE SPRING HIGH
H/I
56452
TOTAL COST
$129,889.00
1996
A . R. BURTON
A/C
7738
ADMIN. BLDG.
A/C/D/G/H/
37682
CLEARBROOK ELEM
C
1751
FT. LEWIS ELEM
A
4548
GLENVAR ELEM
C
2814
PENN FOREST ELEM
A/D
24367
RO. CO. CR. CENTER
F/M/N
6701
TOTAL COST
$281,871.00
1997
CAVE SPRING HIGH
E/F/G/L/N
30335
CLEARBROOK ELEM
E
105
FT. LEWIS ELEM
C STANDSEAM
3744
GLEN COVE ELEM.
A/B/C
44918
TOTAL COST
$200.044.00
GRAND
TOTAL
$1,247,152.00
!!,,
/7e roal--r
at _ ,1% a,
•
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALL BUILDINGS UP TO 1990 1,668,566
SINCE THAT TIME WE HAVE ADDED THE FOLLOWING: SQ. FT.
WM.BYRD HIGH 20 CLASSROOM ADDITON 16,785
NORTHSIDE HIGH - E HALL ADDITION 22,230
FT. LEWIS - NEW ADDITION 14,745
GLENVAR MIDDLE 35,700
NORTHSIDE MIDDLE GYM/CLASSROOM ADDITION 44,796
CAVE SPRING ELEM. LIBRARY 11,090
GREEN VALLEY LIBRARY 5,530
MASON'S COVE LAST ANNEX 4.700
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALL BUILDINGS SINCE 1990 155,576
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ALL BUILDINGS 1,824,142
CURRENT AVERAGE COST OF ROOFING PER SQUARE FOOT IS $2.70 PER SQ. FT.
(THIS INCLUDES A TAPERED SYSTEM)
TOTAL COST TO REROOF ENTIRE SYSTEM $4,925,183.00
AVERAGE LIFE OF A ROOFING SYSTEM IS 18 YEARS OR APPROX. $273,621.00 PER YR.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER At"' 7
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEMS: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per
Investments and Portfolio Policy, as of April 30, 1998.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
BANKERS ACCEPTANCE:
CRAIGIE 995,324.17
WACHOVIA 1,985,146.67 2,980,470.84
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITS:
FIRST AMERICAN 100,000.00
SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA SAVINGS & LOAN 100,000.00 200,000.00
COMMERICAL PAPER:
CRAIGIE 991,018.89
SUNTRUST 991,138.89
WHEAT 1ST 991,203.33
WHEAT 1ST UNION 994,520.00 3,967,881.11
GOVERNMENT
NATIONS 1,001,665.75
WACHOVIA 992,200.00 1,993,865.75
LOCAL GOV'T INVESTMENT POOL:
GENERAL FUND 9,997,109.23
RESOURCE AUTHORITY 1,700,938.21 11,698,047.44
MONEY MARKET:
5,151, 377.66 5,151, 377.66
CRESTAR
CASH INVESTMENTS:
CENTRAL FIDELITY 2,000,000.00
COMMONWEALTH (GEN. OPER) 4,874,215.09
COMMONWEALTH (RES. AUTH.) 5,190,958.22 12,065,173.31
TOTAL
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Respectfu Submitted b
e+ C. Anderson
ounty Treasurer
ACTION
Approved ( ) Motion by:
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ()
38,056,816.11
County Administrator
Harrison
Johnson
McNamara
Minnix
Nickens
VOTE
No Yes Abs
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. i!)—'/
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM:
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 authorize the acquisition of, and
immediate right of entry to, a permanent 20' drainage easement,
together with right of access and a temporary construction easement,
from Nyna S. Murray by Eminent Domain Proceedings.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
Recommend adoption of the resolution
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This public hearing has been scheduled for consideration of the adoption of the
proposed resolution to authorize condemnation of a drainage easement across the property
of Nyna S. Murray. In accordance with §25-46.5 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as
amended), a final bona fide offer of $2,873.00 was extended to Ms. Murray for purchase of
the permanent 20' drainage easement, right of access, and temporary construction easement
as shown on the attached plat, dated February 13, 1998, prepared by Lumsden Associates,
P.C. The offer was based upon an independent M.A.I. appraisal of the fair market value
of the easement to be acquired and damage to residue, if any. Ms. Murray has not accepted
the offer. Ms. Murray has also been notified by certified mail of the scheduling of this
public hearing.
BACKGROUND:
Nyna Murray is the owner of property, designated on the Roanoke County Land
Records as Tax Map #28.09-2-4, located on Shadwell Drive and adjoining Belle Grove
Subdivision along the rear property line. On August 19, 1997, the Board of Supervisors
considered three related items involving the Murray property and Belle Grove Subdivision.
The prior board reports and actions, referenced as Items A-081997-5.a, A-081997-5.b, and
A-081997-5.c, have been sent to the Board for review and are incorporated herein for
further background information. In Action No. A-081997-5.c, the Board authorized staff to
proceed with acquisition, as provided by law including eminent domain proceedings if
necessary, of a 20' drainage easement to extend from the stormwater management facility
in Belle Grove Subdivision to the existing drainage easement along Route 605 (Shadwell
Drive).
Belle Grove Development Corporation noted an appeal of the Board's decisions
from August 19, 1997, and those matters are currently pending in the Circuit Court of
Roanoke County.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Following the previous Board action, staff met with the Murrays' attorney in a
continued effort to resolve the issues, including renewal of the County Administrator's offer
to settle the matter extended by letter dated June 25, 1997, and acquisition of the necessary
easement by purchase for $5,000.00. Among other demands, confirmation on the proposed
location of the drainage easement was requested by the Murrays. Staff advised that
engineering and survey work on the property would be necessary to determine the specific
location, and requested authorization from the Murrays to enter the property for this
purpose, as well as for an appraisal. The Murrays refused to authorize entry.
Consequently, in order to gain entry for the necessary engineering work, staff was
required to invoke the authority granted to counties under §25-232.1 of the Code of Virginia
(1950, as amended), pursuant to which staff made a written request for written authorization
to enter in early November, 1997. No response was received. Staff notified Ms. Nyna
Murray, and Michael and Joy Ann Murray, that entry would be effected on specified dates
in early December, 1997.
The County's independent engineer, Michael S. Webb, P.E., with Lumsden
Associates, P.C., has studied the conditions, feasibility, geotechnical evaluation, costs, and
impact, (including estimated costs of easement acquisition and damage to residue based
upon a preliminary appraisal of the two options for location of the drainage easement
obtained by County staff), in connection with the drainage outfall project. The engineer has
recommended installation of a conduit system from the outfall of the stormwater detention
pond in Belle Grove Subdivision, along the property line of Michael and Joy Ann Murray,
to the existing drainage easement along Shadwell Drive. County staff approved and
concurred in the recommendation. This location is in accordance with the preference of the
Murrays as previously expressed.
The attached plat was prepared and construction plans were submitted to the County,
all of which were forwarded to VDOT for review. VDOT required additional calculations,
which have been provided.
2
The plat was sent to Earl G. Robertson, MAI, SRA, for preparation of a final
appraisal of the selected proposed easement. The total estimated value of the proposed
taking, as of March 13, 1998, was $2,873.00.
The final bona fide offer to purchase the easement for the fair market value of
$2,873.00 was sent to Ms. Murray by certified mailing on March 26, 1998. The offer has not
been accepted and no counter proposal has been received other than the previous demand
for $100,000.00 for conveyance of an easement subject to stringent conditions.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize initiation of eminent
domain proceedings for acquisition of the necessary drainage easement for public purposes
by adoption of the attached resolution. The permanent drainage easement, with right of
access and a temporary construction easement, for the management, collection, transmission,
and distribution of any form of drainage, including but not limited to stormwater drainage,
is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare, namely in order to have the streets in
Belle Grove Subdivision accepted into the Virginia secondary road system for the benefit of
the citizen residents therein, including approximately 15 households, and in order to ensure
proper management of drainage along Shadwell Drive for the benefit of all citizens in the
area using that road. This step requires a guarantee by the County of the right-of-way and
of adequate drainage facilities. Also, as a practical matter, the County will become
responsible for future maintenance of the off -site drainage facilities in this situation.
Furthermore, Ms. Murray has consistently maintained that the County/public is
responsible for correction of the problem, but despite extended negotiations, no agreement
for the purchase can be reached. Condemnation to address the public need, as well as at
least a portion of Ms. Murray's demands, is the only avenue remaining to the County.
Immediate right -of -entry is requested and recommended to proceed with the work
during the current construction season. Delay until conclusion of the condemnation
proceedings could result in postponement of construction for another year and would have
a significant impact on all parties involved. Such entry would not work an undue hardship
upon the property owner, as provision is made by this action for fair market value
compensation and damages to be paid.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
On August 19, 1997, the Board authorized all costs in connection with this acquisition
to be paid from the funds drawn on the developer's letters of credit. Due to the appeal,
the funds are not currently available and future availability will depend upon the results in
that appeal.
Preliminary costs, such as the appraisal, the survey and the engineering, have been
paid through the Department of Engineering & Inspections and are to be off -set against the
3
funds drawn on the developer's letters of credit, upon a favorable conclusion of the pending
litigation. The County's independent engineer and staff estimate the additional project costs
for materials, construction, further engineering work, and litigation expenses to be
$45,000.00. There is also the possibility that funds in addition to the County's appraised
value could be awarded to the property owner by the court in the condemnation
proceedings.
Section 15.2-1904 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), providing for
immediate right -of -entry to the project, requires the Board to identify the fund from which
the judgment of the court in the condemnation proceedings shall be paid. Staff recommends
that the Board designate the Capital Fund for payment of the condemnation award to
Nyna S. Murray. Staff also recommends that the Board appropriate the additional sum of
$45,000.00 from the Capital Fund for completion of the project, with any amounts expended
to be reimbursed to the Capital Fund from the funds drawn on the developer's letters of
credit for completion of Belle Grove Subdivision if and when the appeal is finalized and such
funds become available.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the proposed 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 authorize the acquisition of, and immediate right of entry to, a permanent 20'
drainage easement, together with right of access and a temporary construction easement,
from Nyna S. Murray by eminent domain proceedings.
2. Adopt a resolution pursuant to Title 25 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as
amended) to authorize the acquisition of a permanent 20' drainage easement, together with
right of access and a temporary construction easement, from Nyna S. Murray by eminent
domain proceedings, but without immediate right -of -entry.
3. Decline to authorize initiation of eminent domain.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1 above.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Vickie L. Huff i
Assistant County Attorney
o
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Harrison
Received ( ) Johnson
Referred McNamara
to Minnix
Nickens
G
z
W
w
J
LINE TABLE FOR
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
247..12'
114.5.r
La
14j
pp
W3W
.
.
1NN•
N
4imGOW4C5ZQ
j�OVOW1iCZ
0
U
o-i
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998
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 AUTHORIZE THE ACQUISITION OF, AND IMMEDIATE
RIGHT OF ENTRY TO, A PERMANENT 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT, TOGETHER
WITH RIGHT OF ACC -SS AND A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT,
FROM NYNA S. MURRAY (TAX MAP #28.09-2-4) BY EMINENT DOMAIN
PROCFF.DINGS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That a permanent drainage easement, twenty feet (20') in width, is necessary
for public use in connection with a County project to correct an existing drainage problem
across the property of Nyna S. Murray, located on Shadwell Drive and designated on the
Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map #28.09-2-4, and to provide for future
maintenance of said easement.
2. That the project is necessary for the general health, safety and welfare of the
public, and specifically is necessary to enable the County of Roanoke to guarantee adequate
drainage to the Virginia Department of Transportation for the streets in Belle Grove
Subdivision, currently serving approximately fifteen (15) households of County citizens,
to be accepted into the Virginia secondary road system, and in order to ensure proper
management of drainage along Shadwell Drive for the benefit of all citizens using that
road.
3. That acquisition of a permanent 20' drainage easement, with right of access
and a temporary construction easement, is required for the management, collection,
transmission, and distribution of any form of drainage, including but not limited to
of
stormwater drainage, and for the installation of facilities related thereto, specifically
including an underground conduit system, extending from the outfall of the stormwater
detention area in Belle Grove Subdivision, through the Nyna S. Murray property along the
western boundary of the adjoining property owned by Michael and Joy Ann Murray, to the
existing drainage easement along Route 605 (Shadwell Drive).
4. That the easement required for this project is through the property of
Nyna S. Murray, located on Shadwell Drive in the Hollins Magisterial District of the County
of Roanoke, Virginia, and is more particularly described as follows:
A perpetual DRAINAGE EASEMENT, approximately twenty feet (20') in
width and consisting of 0.18 acre, to construct, install, improve, operate,
inspect, use, maintain, remove, monitor, repair or replace present or future
drainage courses, ditches, lines, pipes, conduits, facilities, and other necessary
or related structures, appurtenances and improvements, for management,
collection, transmission and distribution of any form of drainage, including
but not limited to stormwater drainage, together with the right of ingress
and egress thereto from a public road, and together with a temporary
construction easement, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land
conveyed to Alfred M. Murray and Nyna S. Murray, husband and wife as
tenants by the entireties with right of survivorship, by deed dated November
13, 1952, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke
County, Virginia, in Deed Book 481, page 324, and designated on the
Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No.28.09-2-4. Alfred M. Murray
departed life on February 19, 1991, and fee simple title became vested in
Nyna S. Murray by right of survivorship.
The location of said perpetual drainage easement is shown stippled and
designated as "DRAINAGE EASEMENT" upon the plat entitled 'Plat Showing
Temporary Construction Easement and Drainage Easement' dated
February 13, 1998, prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., attached hereto
as Exhibit A and by reference incorporated herein. The location of the
temporary construction easement and the easement for ingress and egress,
consisting of 9,635 square feet, more or less, is shown cross -hatched and
designated as "TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT" on the above -
described plat attached as Exhibit A. The temporary construction easement
and easement for ingress and egress shall be operative and in effect during
any period or phase of construction, installation, improvement, inspection,
2
maintenance, repair, replacement, or alteration of the drainage system and
appurtenant facilities, but shall otherwise be inoperative and of no force and
effect upon completion of the project.
5. That the fair market value of the permanent drainage easement, together with
right of access and the temporary construction easement, is $2,873.00. The sum of
$2,873.00 has been offered, and is hereby re -offered, to the property owner for purchase
of the above -described easements by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia.
6. That it is immediately necessary for the County to enter upon and take
possession of such property and commence construction of said drainage improvements in
order to ensure proper management of the drainage, to have the streets in Belle Grove
Subdivision accepted into the Virginia secondary road system for maintenance purposes,
and to more adequately serve the needs of the citizens of Roanoke County, and to institute
and conduct appropriate condemnation proceedings as to the above -described easements
as provided by law.
7. That a certified copy of this resolution, to be sent by certified mail to
Nyna S. Murray on or before May 15, 1998, shall constitute notice to said property owner
of the offer to purchase as set forth above and the intent to enter upon and take possession
of the subject easements to commence construction, as provided for in 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).
8. That the Capital Fund is hereby designated as the fund from which the
judgment of the court in the condemnation proceedings shall be paid to the property
owner.
3
9. That the Board does hereby invoke all and singular the rights, privileges, and
provisions as to the vesting of powers in the County under the Virginia General
Condemnation Act (§25-46.1, et sec .), 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), all as made and
provided by law.
10. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, and the
County Attorney are hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions
as may be necessary to accomplish this acquisition through eminent domain proceedings,
or otherwise.
11. That this resolution shall be effective on the date of its adoption and the
property owner shall have thirty (30) days following the sending of notice, i.e. the certified
mailing of this resolution as provided herein, within which to contest this taking and
immediate right of entry as provided in Section 15.2-1905.C. of the Code of Virginia (1950,
as amended).
g:\...\v1h\eng\murray.res
4
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER 0— i)
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing for Proposed Budget for FY 1998-99.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION., This time has been set aside for a public hearing to receive written and
oral comment from the public concerning the proposed annual budget for fiscal year 1998-99. A summary
of the proposed budget was advertised in the Roanoke Times and World News on May 5, 1998 and copies
of the proposed budget have been distributed to all Roanoke County libraries..
Respectfully submitted,
1A,,i5S,,,,
Brent Robertson
Budget Manager
Approved by,
RE
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION VOTE
Approved () Motion by: No Yes Abs
Denied () Harrison
Received () Johnson
Referred () McNamara
To O Minnix
Nickens
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: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM: Presentation of the Proposed Budget for FY 1998-99.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S QOMMENTS:
SUMMARY QF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside for the presentation of the County
Administrator's proposed FY 1998-99 budget. This presentation of the proposed fiscal plan by the County
Administrator will permit Board comment in an informal setting.
A public hearing on the proposed FY1998-99 budget is scheduled for May 12, 1998. Advertisement of the
proposed budget was placed in the Roanoke Times on May 5, 1998.
Board consensus of final changes will be incorporated into the final budget with adoption and 1st Reading
of the Appropriation Ordinance scheduled for May 26, 1998.
Respectfully submitted,
Brent Robertson
Budget Manager
Approvby,
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION
Approved () Motion by:
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ()
Harrison
Johnson
McNamara
Minnix
Nickens
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Ua)
ct
2
Economic Development
• Continued Public/Private Partnership funding of $250,000.
• Provided $200, 000 for initial engineering and development of Roanoke County's Center
for Research and Technology.
• Continued $107,500 in funding for the Roanoke Valley Economic Development
Partnership to ensure a regional marketing approach to economic development initiatives.
Public Health and $afety
• Provided $175, 000 for 24 hour Emergency Medical Dispatchers (B's) added in the
E-911 call center.
• Included funding of $650,000 for scheduled Fire and Rescue apparatus replacement.
• Allocated $88, 000 for enhanced fire and rescue coverage by extending daily shift hours
of paid staff and adding part-time advanced life support (ALS) personnel at selected
stations.
• Commitment to study additional equipment and staffing needs in conjunction with
charging set fees for rescue calls.
• Provide for nationally accredited, professional law enforcement services that also provides
educational assistance in county schools through a fully staffed DARE program and
School Resource Officers at each high school
Parks and Recreation
• Strengthen Parks and Recreation services by providing $100, 000 for park development in
South County and $50, 000 for a lighted soccer field in North County.
• Continued funding of $50,000 for Community Matching Improvements Program.
Regional Cooperation
• Regionalized 800 MHZ Public Safety Communication System with Roanoke City.
• Allocated $25, 000 for initial stages of Roanoke Valley Higher Education Center,
contingent upon additional state and other locality funding,
• Continued efforts to regionalize juvenile detention services to reduce costs and optimize
service levels.
• Allocated $50, 000 of funding for joint development of a police firing range at the Dixie
Caverns Landfill location with Roanoke City.
• Continued $913,000 in funding for regional human service, social service, cultural, and
economic development organizations that provide benefits throughout the Roanoke Valley
and western Virginia.
• Continued regionalized efforts for library services including joint branch library with
Botetourt County and valley -wide automation services.
m:\budget\proposed\mssge_eh.99
3
Technology
• Included additional funding of $83, 000 for staffing increases and $40, 000 for
outsourcing the Treasurer 's cashiering system to ensure completion of Year 2000
software and hardware upgrades.
• Reallocation of existing resources to meet growing, complex technology needs.
Additional Budget Considerations
In addition to allocating resources to support the specific priorities outlined by the Board
of Supervisors, there are many other issues that directly or indirectly affect the quality of life
issues important to our citizens.
Community Services:
• Provide $85, 000 in funds for one additional automated refuse collection vehicle. This
purchase will allow automated collection services to approximately 98% of the county's
residential homes.
• Funded $500,000 for revenue sharing with VDOT for county road repairs and upgrades.
These fiends leverage $1,000,000 in road repair.
• Continued $170,000 in funding to leverage state and federal grants for on -going
development of an integrated GIS system that will benefit public safety, community
development, utility services, and the general public.
Tourism:
• Maintained $107,500 in funding for the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau
to ensure a regional marketing approach to tourism related activities.
• Provided continued support of approximately $173,000 to numerous regional tourism
related and cultural organizations including National D-Day Foundation, Center in the
Square, Western VA Science Museum, VA Transportation Museum, and others.
• Increased support of Virginia's Explore Park from $160,000 to $170,000.
• Allocated $30,000 for planning and development of the Blue Ridge Parkway Interpretive
Center. These funds will be combined with federal and other locality funding to begin
development and construction.
m:\budget\proposed\mssge_eh.99
4
Employee Benefits:
• Provided salary increases for County and School employees averaging 3%, cost
approximately $900,000 for County employees and $2,100,000 for School employees.
• Contributed an additional 1% of County and School employee salaries, approximately
$1,000,000, for VRS retirement to fund cost of living increases for current and future
retirees.
• Allocated an additional $180,000 for County personnel and $789,000 for School
personnel to substantially off -set employee health insurance increases.
Other Capital Needs:
• Allocated $75,000 towards renovation of Roanoke County -Salem Courthouse. Funds will
be reserved pending final decision of specific renovations and can be increased in the
future if final plan requires additional funding.
• Increased Capital Facility Maintenance funding for public buildings and parks sites by
$100,000 to protect our infrastructure investments.
Conclusion
This proposed budget addresses many of the priorities identified by the Board of
Supervisors; however, there are many competing needs and resources are limited. While
moderate revenue growth and reallocation of existing resources has allowed the County to
continue excellent service delivery, most additional staffing requests were not granted, many
capital needs have been deferred, and new or enhanced services have been limited. With this in
mind, future budgets will have to deal with many significant issues --operating costs of new school
construction, gain -sharing with the Town of Vinton, VRS increases of 1% annually for the next
three years, development of the Roanoke County Center of Research and Technology, and storm
water management concerns, just to name a few.
I am confident that this budget provides effective and efficient levels of services expected
by the citizens of Roanoke County. I would like to thank the Board of Supervisors, School
Board, and staff for their many hours of hard work and deliberations in developing the FY1998-
1999 Annual Fiscal Plan.
m:lbudgetoposed\mssge_eh.99
5
ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
1998 PRIORITIES
1. PUBLIC EDUCATION
• Emphasize salaries and benefits in operating budget
• Continue funding school construction and renovation projects
2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
• Marketing of Valley Gateway
• Further engineering and marketing of Glenn -Mary
♦ Marketing of McDonald Farm with the Town of Vinton
• Protection and preservation of the Catawba Farm
• Support of existing businesses and industries
3. HEALTH AND SAFETY
♦ Regionalization of the 800 MHZ Public Safety Communication
System
• Evaluate the need for Emergency Medical Dispatch
+ Continued support of ALS
• Focus on regional efforts
4. PARKS AND RECREATION
• Development and construction of Merriman Park
♦ Provide lighted soccer field in North County
• Publicize Camp Roanoke to enhance fund raising efforts
• Develop a recreation program for Spring Hollow Reservoir
5. REGIONAL COOPERATION
♦ Support Destination Education through the General Assembly and
funding
• Schedule meetings with neighboring counties to discuss potential
joint agreements and projects
• Engineering and construction of the Juvenile Detention Center
• Develop joint economic development and other projects with Salem
• Increase membership in the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority
6. MI
• Complete Year 2000 upgrades
6
Roanoke County
Proposed Capital and Capital Maintenance Projects
Funded Through Expenditure Savings
FY1998-99
Source of Funding:
Unappropriated Capital Reserve Balance
-Accumulated balance due to Roll Over Policy adopted by Board of Supervisors.
40% of year-end departmental expenditure savings transferred for future capital.
Proposed Capital Expenditures from
Economic Development
Economic Development
Parks Development
Joint Police Firing Range
* Courthouse Renovations
Unappropriated Capital Balance:
Center for Research and Technology
Parkway Interpretive Center
South County/North County
Dixie Cavems Landfill (wi Roanoke City)
Identified at previous work session
Remaining Unappropriated Capital Balance
$730,314
100,000
30,000
150,000
50,000
$75,000 405,000
$325,314
* The Board of Supervisors has recognized the need for renovations and alterations in the Roanoke
County -Salem courthouse and adjacent parking. These funds will be set aside and, pending final
agreement on action to be taken, be used for necessary renovations. If the final resoultion requires
additional funding, the allocation can be increased at that time.
m:\budget\book-wk\Master\capital\9:45 AM15/8198
1
)
w.l
a)
Affi0
a) a.,
a) rn
FBI
o
Os
a
0 rt
0
4-1
8
l
9
E
E
o _
= d
fx • C4 co
O C
e0
0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o o a o 0 0 0 0
OO V• r' O v- O CO N ‘t CA CO Tr O (3) CO O CO O O
to r- co; N O co; M CO to M to M O M O O N co; M co;
a)
M
000000000000000 co0001-0 CO 0 CO
M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t9 0 0 00 CO CO
0-00 0 00000000'1-0o MO v v
CO CO O O 0 to 0 0 O O ▪ O I,- 0 0 L to to N N
N N V' N CO N' CO U) 0 CO CO N.- Nr N- N O NN
0 Cr) N- l- N CO
N CO- CO -
CO
00000000000000000000)M N 0 N
O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 I� CO to CO
0000000000000000000000 O) N N
yo,) OO• totn0• to60LSLOOtntf)0N.0OnLOO)N ti
0 CD 03 CO O" x- 0 M u co COO N M 0 or)
O COO N O ao COC0 ~ O
o • m co- N • N 1. • CO) '— N '— O O O
d LL y
ER
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOOOOM o) O O)
CD r t-00000000000000(00OOOti - 00
`d N 00 0) C)) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 tt 0 0 0 M o0 to N ti
•F� �, M to u') O to O to to tf) O O GO ,— O to O N to I� M '�t
i C V- fl.0)ti MOMtoto00NMNON000OOCOMOot0N 0) N- O
• L o 13 O) r' CO Nt 0 .- - CO to O O N CO 'I- O O CO N CO 0 OD — N
O CD Q m LL N N O • M T- N (O 0)
'0
V
L
d
'CD
V
Real Estate Taxes
Bank Franchise Tax
Motor Vehicle License Tax
x
t6
I —
a)
c
c
0)) N Q a) =
c a)• L
o x V N O a)) > >
F.cu al
cn
Tit- X
X to `C >, N o c)
OS • .r
cal ~ O~ 2 o m ` SU ca
O H N a V O O a)N 3
?' o
O ` O c s N al
O a)
'a 2 2 w- a) O t6 O Ce
.... al —IN to O rnTR> EE
a) O 0 a) ) .0 UOn L- 0 O 0) 0
cei2o0a_ �DU2�UIt_ I—
Non -Recurring Revenue
Total General Government
M:\finance\budget\book-wk\Master Revenue Summary 5/7/98 1:57 PM
v-0
4)
ci,
P.4 '
0 Z-)4
;...
4.4 A—'
. ,..4
1C3 rri
00 p..4
� rT1
›"I
rT1
ent Expenditures
Pie Chart -- General Go
ent Expenditure Summary
General Gover
11
12
as
E
E
-0
0 CD CO
O. 7 CA
O
co O WZ ) amLI"
r X CO
� W Cr)
C EL• }L
C
�0 t_
V
0
CD
0 co
0
cts• 13
a00LL
Expenditures
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r-r-'o0 0)�-(0 (000 (00 ��0() ) N
N6(;; O� N4O '�d)N;O—Nco i
CI
4t
COLON• r0
"cr i\1 N N
0LOCO- ct)LC) N0
(0 CO N- 0 LO
H. N v N u� r
O ti
O 0
O
N N
Nd't000dN'(OCO
10
03LON 0T-0 0
ti� 0) r-CO10
•-MtC) CV
r N 0
0 0
CO
'0OOMN 0-0 ONNO10 N((000((00 0 0
el 03 CO C V.
0) N %-" O
MOOp�CANr 0(00 I�1.0I` Ov-ON- 0
1....OD(0r-�.4-0 L.C)0)0 00r-10 I-N(3)d- O-
N- `CI- v" N- 't- CO M 0)N0) O) —N to()COr 0
CO(0LO03COt's(0 C)(0LO CO N- CO NCOhCO r-
CI(0 ‘-tiO) T-- CO- 0 '� TN
(0L0L0Nnt'tL0 ON-0—(0(0010(000 0 0
(O�O0'Cr d'C') 0 CO 0 (0N-1� NNNI' CO 0
OO N O N N- O N- O t0 O 0 0) � O CO CO r O
(0M0(0(3)I-C3)f-0)0 0(00 r-0•CI- O 0
LO•-•M000)OOI` d'N(3) N(0M LOCOtnLO N
NTr LC) OON•Cl- •- UC) fs"z:rN NCO(0N-
N (0 r CO O) e- CO- N ('1
AV/
0
0)
co
0 cn O G) t
O cn v ()
O O O) V N co N
NCn O O Q
momco omoWc2
CCU-2aOi Z
O
cn
1
1-
Board Contingency
Addition to Fund Balance
co
O
N
N
CO
M
(F?
General Government
2
a
0)
N
CO
rn
ti
u)
E
E
N
m
L..
4)
0.
K
.13
+41
L
4)
0
0
0)
-10
0
ca
2
13
County of Roanoke
Adopted 1997-98 and Proposed 1998-99 Expenditure Budget
FY 1997-98 FY 1998-99 Percent
Adopted Proposed Inc(Dec)
General Government
General Administration
Board of Supervisors
Administration 233,623 245,310 5.0%
Board of Equalization 10,765 10,765
County Administrator 191,503 196,538 2.6%
Community Relations 146,648 150,987 3.0%
Assistant County Administrators
Management Services 97,242 100,949 3.8%
Human Services 138,280 142,878 3.3%
Human Resources 367,394 388,821 5.8%
County Attorney 324,117 335,989 3.7%
Economic Development
Administration 315,699 311,032 -1.5%
Marketing 424,595 427,095 0.6%
IDA 7,000 7,000
Total General Administration 2,256,866 2,317,364 2.7%
Constitutional Officers
Treasurer 547,389 573,344 4.7%
Commonwealth Attorney 514,710 558,691 8.5%
Commissioner of the Revenue 567,521 591,508 4.2%
Clerk of the Circuit Court 712,065 739,820 3.9%
Sheriffs Office 1,162,674 1,167,909 0.5%
Care and Confinement of Prisoners 2,908,856 3,017,688 3.7%
Total Constitutional Officers 6,413,215 6,648,960 3.7%
Judicial Administration
Circuit Court 129,268 132,268
General District Court 56,758 40,478
Magistrate 1,255 1,255
J & DR Court 10,429 10,429
Court Service Unit 332,385 332,385
2.3%
-28.7%
Total Judicial Administration 530,095 516,815 -2.5%
Management Services
Real Estate Assessments 714,639 712,030 -0.4%
Finance and Budget 818,612 843,429 3.0%
Public Transportation 105,200 105,200
Procurement Services 297,751 310,795 4.4%
Total Management Services 1,936,202 1,971,454 1.8%
14
County of Roanoke
Adopted 1997-98 and Proposed 1998-99 Expenditure Budget
FY 1997-98 FY 1998-99 Percent
Adopted Proposed Inc(Dec)
Public Safety
Police Department 6,098,969 6,049,087 -0.8%
Transportation Safety Commission 960 960
E-911 Maintenance 460,388 635,388 38.0%
Fire and Rescue 4,539,427 4,629,523 2.0%
Total Public Safety 11,099,744 11,314,958 1.9%
Community Services
General Services 231,699 238,755 3.0%
Solid Waste 3,566,273 3,087,301 -13.4%
Property Management 81,684 83,271 1.9%
Engineering and Inspections 2,305,412 2,461,345 6.8%
Development Services 228,911 82,748 -63.9%
Building Maintenance 1,245,081 1,234,564 -0.8%
Planning and Zoning 627,984 596,299 -5.0%
Total Community Services 8,287,044 7,784,283 -6.1 %
Human Services
Grounds Maintenance 1,452,350 1,376,236 -5.2%
Parks and Recreation 1,360,585 1,408,222 3.5%
Public Health 425,333 420,333 -1.2%
Social Services Administration 2,453,471 2,546,536 3.8%
Public Assistance 1,397,400 1,397,400
Institutional Care 30,062 28,596 -4.9%
Contributions
Social Service Agencies 126,832 126,832
Human Service Agencies 95,910 95,910
Cultural Agencies 229,809 244,661 6.5%
Library 1,644,424 1,716,979 4.4%
VPI Extension 76,126 79,720 4.7%
Elections 187,433 188,750 0.7%
Total Human Services 9,479,735 9,630,175 1.6%
Non -Departmental
Employee Benefits 1,147,000 1,395,000
Internal Service Charges 1,429,537 1,629,612
Miscellaneous 590,000 590,000
Total Non -Departmental 3,166,537 3,614,612
21.6%
14.0%
14.2%
Transfers to Other Funds
Transfer to Debt -General 3,726,061 3,898,703 4.6%
Transfer to Debt -School 2,466,976 2,711,525 9.9%
Transfer to Capital 2,609,130 3,209,130 23.0%
Transfer to Schools 45,230,473 46,325,723 2.4%
Transfer to Schools Dental Insurance 257,025 257,025
Transfer to Internal Services 880,826 892,468 1.3%
Transfer to CPMT-County 404,840 301,500 -25.5%
Transfer to CPMT-Schools 250,000 487,500 95.0%
Transfer to Garage II 100,000 1,055,037 955.0%
Transfer to Youth Haven II 50,000 50,000
Total Transfers to Other Funds 55,975,331 59,188,611 5.7%
15
County of Roanoke
Adopted 1997-98 and Proposed 1998-99 Expenditure Budget
Unappropriated Balance
Board Contingency
Addition to Fund Balance
FY 1997-98 FY 1998-99 Percent
Adopted Proposed Inc(Dec)
120,000
100,000 -16.7%
Total Unappropriated Balance 120,000 100,000 -16.7%
Total General Government 99,264,769 103,087,232 3.9%
Youth Haven II 427,646 442,655
Comprehensive Services 1,451,110 1,707,917
Law Library 41,980 41,980
3.5%
17.7%
Recreation Fee Classes
Administration 1,769 2,757 55.9%
Community Education 349,674 332,910 -4.8%
Leisure Activities 13,600 46,000 238.2%
Outdoor Adventure 48,689 44,952 -7.7%
Senior Citizens 152,095 114,531 -24.7%
Special Events 30,600 23,959 -21.7%
Therapeutics 20,325 29,950 47.4%
Adult Athletics 72,066 49,950 -30.7%
Youth Athletics 9,331 38,899 316.9%
Camp Roanoke 13,100 14,521 10.8%
Park Conservation 9,200 14,000 52.2%
Equestrian Center 5,920 7,200 21.6%
Total Recreation Fee Classes 726,369 719,629 -0.9%
Internal Services
Management Information Systems 1,207,929 1,338,878 10.8%
Communications 560,908 573,951 2.3%
Total Internal Services 1,768,837 1,912,829 8.1%
Garage II
Total General Fund
283,794 1,055,037 271.8%
103,964,505 108,967,279 4.8%
Debt Fund
General Fund Obligations 4,338,572 4,551,100 4.9%
School Fund Obligations 5,070,105 5,322,122 5.0%
Total Debt Fund 9,408,677 9,873,222 4.9%
Capital Fund 2,609,130 3,614,130 38.5%
Internal Service Fund -Risk Management 880,826 892,468 1.3%
Water Fund 11,489,461 11,553,788 0.6%
Sewer Fund 6,962,712 6,572,913 -5.6%
Grand Total All Funds 135,315,311 141,473,800 4.6%
16
County of Roanoke
Adopted 1997-98 and Proposed 1998-99 Expenditure Budget
FY 1997-98 FY 1998-99 Percent
Adopted Proposed Inc(Dec)
Special Categories
Employee Benefits
Termination Pay 100,000 100,000
Health Insurance -Increase 180,000
Volunteer Retirement 200,000 200,000
3% Raise 832,000 900,000
3% Part-time Raises 15,000 15,000
Total Employee Benefits 1,147,000
8.2%
1,395,000 21.6%
Miscellaneous
Airport
Potential Litigation 50,000 50,000
Tax Relief Elderly 400,000 400,000
Refuse Credit 110,000 110,000
Payment in Lieu of Taxes 30,000 30,000
Total Miscellaneous 590,000 590,000
Transfer to Capital
Economic Development
Land 25,000 25,000
Commitments 250,000 250,000
Valley TechPark Maintenance 9,500 9,500
Center for Research & Tech 100,000
School Capital - Future Construction 2,000,000 2,000,000
Capital Maintenance:
General Facilities 149,630 224,630 50.1%
Parks and Recreation 25,000 50,000 100.0%
Year 2000-Payroll/Personnel Software 100,000 500,000 400.0%
Parks & Recreation
Community Incentive Matching 50,000 50,000
Total Trans to Capital 2,609,130 3,209,130 23.0%
17
Service and Funding Highlights
FY 1998-99 Increased School Support.
O
0
4) O
U U
Cl $-+
O
Clo
4)
4)
O
O O CA
U
C
oo 00 4)
aA
1
›mg
• • •
18
School Operating
1
M
N
0
0
fal
0
cu00
4,4
School Debt
School CPMT
0
z
0
1)
U
0
19
Ca.)
w
0 �
Pow
� v
v°).)
r:4 C)
CD
M O O
••-,1 O O
O O
00 O
00 l� O
b9 — (NI
Edo 64
Extended Shifts and Advanced Life Support
N
0 to
o
E U
O a,
N
N P4
N
• o
W U'FA
L.)
O
Payroll (Y2K)
`O O
`O O
N O O
M O
00 O 00
Employee Benefits
Health Insurance Increases
Employee Benefits
20
County of Roanoke
Board of Supervisors Contributions to Local Service Agencies
FY 1998-99 Requests
1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 FY 1998-99
Actual Budget Request Proposed
Human Service Agencies
Adult Care Center of the Roanoke Valley $7,000 $10,000 $12,480 $10,000
Alzheimer's Association 0 0 2,500 0
Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC) 10,000 10,000 15,000 10,000
Bethany Hall 500 500 4,000 500
Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Roanoke Valley 2,500 2,500 3,000 3,000
Blue Ridge Regional Education and Training Council 3,466 0
Bradley Free Clinic 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500
Child Abuse Prevention Council of Roanoke Valley 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500
Child Health Investment Partnership (CHIP) 16,660 16,660 21,600 16,660
Conflict Resolution Center, Inc. 0 0 3,950 0
Council of Community Services -Info and Referral Center 3,000 3,000 7,470 3,000
Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) 2,000 2,000 5,000 2,000
Family Service of the Roanoke Valley 4,000 4,000 5,000 4,000
Fifth District Employment & Training Consortium 3,500 3,500 11,730 3,500
Smith Mountain Lake 4H Camp 2,500 2,500 2,600 2,000
Goodwill Industries Tinker Mountain 5,000 5,000 11,200 5,000
Habitat for Humanity 0 0 22,000 0
League of Older Americans (LOA) 13,750 13,750 22,688 13,750
Literacy Volunteer Program 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
National Multiple Sclerosis Society 0 0 1,000 0
Roanoke Area Ministries 2,000 2,000 2,500 2,000
Roanoke Valley Drug and Alcohol Abuse Council 1,000 1,000 2,000 1,000
Roanoke Valley Speech & Hearing Center 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Salem/Roanoke County Community Food Pantry 0 0 8,000 0
The Salvation Army 2,000 2,000 3,500 2,000
TRUST 5,500 5,500 6,000 5,500
Subtotal Human Service Agencies
$92,910 $95,910 $188,684 $95,910
Health and Social Service Agencies
Blue Ridge Community Services $79,332 $79,332 $108,204 $79,332
TAP 30,000 30,000 35,101 30,000
TAP -Transitional Living Center 17,500 17,500 22,017 20,000
Subtotal Health and Social Service Agencies $126,832 $126,832 $165,322 $129,332
Cultural Enrichment and Tourism Agencies
Alonzo Stagg Bowl $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,000
Art Museum of Western Virginia 2,000 2,000 6,100 2,000
Arts Council of the Blue Ridge 3,000 3,000 4,000 3,000
Center in the Square: Operating 50,000 50,000 60,000 50,000
Capital 0 0 12,000 0
Explore (The River Foundation) 160,000 160,000 225,000 170,000
Julian Stanley Wise Museum(25,000/yr. for 3 yrs.) 12,500 25,000 35,000 25,000
League of Women Voters 300 0 0 0
Mill Mountain Theatre 8,500 8,500 12,200 8,500
Mill Mountain Zoo: Operating 8,000 8,000 10,000 8,000
Capital 10,000 10,000 22,000 1,000
Sister City Pavilion
0 0 0 0
Ms. Virginia Senior Citizen Pageant 100 100 0 0
Miss Virginia Pageant 500 500 500 500
National D-Day Memorial Foundation($25,000/year for 10 years) 10,000 10,000 230,000 10,000
Opera Roanoke 0 0 800 0
OUTLOOK Downtown Roanoke 1,000 1,000 0 0
Roanoke Symphony 7,500 7,500 10,000 7,500
Roanoke Valley Greenways Coordinator $21,600 $10,800 $11,100 $10,800
Roanoke Valley History Museum 7,500 7,500 7,800 7,500
Salem Museum / Salem Historical Society 0 0 0 0
21
County of Roanoke
Board of Supervisors Contributions to Local Service Agencies
FY 1998-99 Requests
1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 FY 1998-99
Actual Budget Request Proposed
Science Museum: Operating 25,000 25,000 72,000 25,000
Capital 20,000 20,000 80,000 10,000
Transportation Museum: Operating 10,000 10,000 15,000 10,000
Capital 2,000 2,000 10,000 2,000
VA Western Community College
Scholarship Fund
5,339 5,338 5,360 5,360
Handicapped Access
O 0 59,892 1,000
Site Development / Improvements
O 22,870 31,033 0
Va. Higher Education Center
Vinton Dogwood Festival
Westem Virginia Land Trust
Subtotal Cultural Enrichment and Tourism Agencies
25,000
500 500 1,000 1,000
O 0 25,000 5,000
$367,839 $392,108 $948,285 $390,160
Dues and Per Capita Allocations
Blue Ridge Soil and Conservation District $1,250 $1,250 $1,500 $1,250
Convention and Visitors Bureau - Operating 107,500 107,500 165,000 107,500
Economic Development Partnership 107,500 107,500 112,185 107,500
Fifth Planning District Commission 29,160 29,654 29,654 29,654
National Association of Counties 1,557 1,557 1,557 1,557
National Civic League 200 200 200 0
Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Salem/Roanoke County Chamber of Commerce 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Roanoke Valley Sister Cities 0 3,000 3,000 3,000
Tour Dupont 7,500 0 0 0
Vinton Chamber of Commerce 100 100 500 500
Virginia Amateur Sports 35,000 35,000 40,000 40,000
Virginia Association of Counties 13,855 13,940 13,940 13,940
Virginia Institute of Govemment 0 0 0 0
Virginia Municipal League 16,006 16,806 16,806 16,806
Subtotal Dues and Per Capita Allocations
$328,128 $325,007 $392,842 $330,207
Grand Total All BOS Contributions $915,709 $939,857 $1,695,133 $945,609
Proposed Funding of CIP projects.
FY 1999-2003 CIP Summary of Projects
�� 1
23
Capital Improvement Program
Proposed Funding
FY 1998-99
Proposed
FY 1998-99
CIP Projects Proposed from General Operations:
Economic Development
Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology
Engineering and Inspections
County Wide Road Improvements
Geographic Information System — Phase I
Planning and Zoning
Neighborhood Incentive Fund — Hollins 30,000
Subtotal Projects Funded with Operating Funds 800,000
CIP Projects Proposed from Unappropriated Capital Funds:
Economic Development
Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology
Blue Ridge Parkway Interpretation Center
Parks and Recreation
South County Park Development
Light Soccer Field - North County
Police Department
Firing Range
Subtotal Projects Funded with Capital Funds
$100,000
500,000
170,000
100,000
30,000
100,000
50,000
50,000
330,000
Total Proposed CIP Project Funding $1,130,000
m:\proposed\99procap
24
E
N �• 4
o • a
o Wag
cc E
O
o Ih
U 2 y
a
c13
U
Estimated Ex
FY 2001-02
FY 1999-00
FY 1998-99
d
0
a`
p
E
c
a
d
0
•c
N
Economic Develo
§ 8
a
l'7
Site Development Glenn -Mary Park
8
Blue Ridge Parkway Interpretation Center
C!)
North Roanoke County Industrial Park
c3
N
N
�Qm
total Economic Dev
0)
Regional Stormwater Management/Drainage
g
N
N LI)
County -Wide Road Improvements (2)
Geographic Information System -Phase Ii3i
GIS Phase II
Automated Permitting System
Renovate 2nd and 3rd Floor -- RCAC
0
N
O
Co
Subtotal Engineering & Inspections
ire & Rescue
N
8
Of) 8 8 8 8
N
a- co M N N Cwo
7 If)
Network Fire and Rescue Facilities
Fire and Emergency Medical Training Center
800 MHz Base Stations
Bunk Rooms - Catawba, Bent Mt, Masons Cove
Clearbrook Public Safety Building
Mount Pleasant Public Safety Building
Upgrade Paging Capabilities
Station Bay Additions
Hanging Rock Public Safety Center
Hollins Road Public Safety Building
tri
m
8
Subtotal Fire & Rescue
m:\finance\cip\99cipsum 5/7/98
25
Estimated Ex
FY 2002-03
FY 2001-02
FY 2000-01
FY 1999-00
FY 1998-99
Department/Project
(`0
0.§ 8 § P § o
8gip_ (§
(7 N 0 to
County -Wide Reference/Internet Access
O N
Glenvar Regional Library
Bent Mountain Branch Expansion
Parks and Recreation
U i § § § § §_ . cg§ p§
(O 8 g l(p� W A g N M § I� g fs � g V
(V
O
8
9 9g 8t,9.
tS
8
v r
Southwest County District Park Land
Garst Mill Park Improvements
Camp Roanoke Development
Green Hill Park Phase III
pO
N N N 8 N IN() i 8 S292 V
Burton Athletic Complex
Vinyard Park Phase III
Wairond Park Phase I11
Improvements for Parking Areas
Brambleton Center
Spring Hollow Park
Whispering Pines Phase III
Merriman Soccer Complex
Craig Avenue Recreation Center
Starkey Park Phase III
Picnic Shelters
Parks and Recreation Land Bank
Community Recreation Center
Family Aquatic Center
t5
8
Subtotal Parks & Recreation
m:\finance\cip\99cipsum 5/7/98
26
a
m
Estimated Ex
FY 2002-03
FY 2001-02
1
9
0
0
0
N
LL
FY 1999-00
FY 1998-99
_0)
O. c
LL
172 C
Oo. rt
0
a.
w
G
c
0
N
0
R
R
a
-05
< < < < <
pQ
§ O O Q O O
§ N N N N N
O O O O O O
8 8 8 8 8 8
O O O O O O
8 8 8 8 8 8
2 8 8 E 8 8
O O pO O O
8 $ 88i88
8
Commercial Neighborhood Incentive Funds
County -Wide Greenways
Police Department
Firearms Range
Mobile Data Terminal System
Evidence Vault Expansion
Criminal Records System Improvement Program
Office Space -- Police Department
8
Subtotal Police Department
d
r
R
Sheriff's De
0)
Courthouse Entrance Renovation for Security
Renovation of Roanoke County/Salem Jail
0)
N
Subtotal Sheriffs Department
Total Proposed CIP Funding
fp
d
0
z
c
m
E
O
n
E
N
O
OI
c
n
qO
0
N
� w
o co
C 'p�
o
E
C o
R O
ID Cea
a. N
10 0 d
c > o
Etc
L L O
O.
.0 L O
U all0 O
E E No
o o a
o o n
10 N
O O w
N m a
.c .c U
N N c
N N O
c c
0
U c
c d
m m E
m 2
cr
0o U N
N
7
C C 'F2
c c a`
m:\finance\c1p\99cipsum 5/7/98
27
CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
October 14, 1997
Apri128, 1998
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
Transfer to Future School Capital Fund
Water/Sewer Extension to Clearbrook Fire Station
(1,113,043.00
(52,780.00
Balance at May 12, 1998 $730,313.64
Note: $100,000 of these funds have been temporarily advanced to the Mayflower Hills Park project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Z. .
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Finance
M:\Finance\Common\Board\Cap97.WK4
28
00
c
Z
krc n
CO00
1-1
krc
LA cict
'I
O 1 al
I) c..) =
,— '.-Tz,, -,, 0
0 P4- aA
'� '
o.,o
o
o-i--- ,,,K L.)
rz4 •''s m ,
• o
o
Z CI
a, a)
c
29
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 May 12, 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
30
RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
October 14, 1997
April 14, 1998
From 1997-98 Original Budget
Design of South County Park
Bent Mountain Ice Storm Clean Up
Amount
$143,000.00
(20,000.00
(15,609.49
Balance at May 12, 1998 $107,390.51
Respectfully Submitted,
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Finance
M:\Finance\Common\Board\Board97.WK4
31
O a)
LU a) P a
coo r.4 a
tj (:, v—I
o a
c.) (:) fi ; N
W a
GCS Z W o o aD
0
P-i C.) 8 .',..4 4 a)
E ,'''') 3 0 0
i) a) ct
® O 0 �' x o
Cis) E-i W W W
fal
cd Pq CI(
U L.) U L)
a) a) a� a)
E-911 Tax Rates
32
Expenditures Per Capita
10
Cr)
0
N
CO
Eft
CO
CO CO
N-
M
X-
City of Roanoke
E
a)
co
U
Henrico County
Roanoke County
Albemarle County
Stafford County
Hanover County
0
0
1.0
Ef3
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
Eft
0
EJ9
Per Capita Expense
urt
A.)
•••0
Pt: clm
tio.0
;..•
Ta
V1 CIJ
• mai
ctin
;leo
• m
CV sal
r �
E
co)
Educational Expenditures Per Capita
O
7*
O
69
Chesterfield County
Stafford County
Roanoke County
E
m
0
T
M
d)69
City of Roanoke
Apieooi
Albemarle County
c
8
a)
J
Henrico County
8
N
8
0
CO
8
0
Efl
Per Capita Expense
At
CD
VD
V1
IS "a
ct
p60 co)
o tel
.-ga.,
r z
a,,
z A.,
-< •iis
CIJ mcwzi ;1,0
ct
W
E
)104
Ct
m,
T.
Pm* glial
• -
CV :4
E
?-
36
Comparison of E-911 Tax Rates
0
N
69
0
0
0
N 0
69 0
0
U
0
Bedford County
LaJ LaJ
69
as
0
0
0
0
0
as
0
AlIIe3o1
69
City of Roanoke
City of Martinsville
M
Efl
Albemarle County
Roanoke County(current)
C
a)
U)
4-
0
CU
N
Ef}
0
0
0
u)
0
69
0
0
0
ea
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.""01
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM: Work Session on the Roanoke County Center for
Research and Technology
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
At the Board's April 28, 1998 meeting, the Board held a
public hearing on this item and received the Planning
Commissions' recommendation of approval. At the close of the
hearing, the Board deferred action on this item and scheduled a
work session to discuss issues including access, the "Lone Eagle
District" and greenways. The worksession was scheduled for May
12, 1998
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends as follows:
1. That the Board hold a worksession on May 12, 1998 to discuss
the proposed Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology.
Respectfully Submitted,
Terrance . Har ngton, AICP
Direct• of P1 nning and Zoning County Administrator
Approved,
Elmer C. Hodge
2
Action Vote
No Yes Abs
Approved ( ) Motion by Harrison
Denied ( ) Johnson
Received ( ) McNamara
Referred Minnix
to Nickens
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: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM: Work Session on Virginia Gas Company's proposed natural gas
transmission line through Roanoke County
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This time has been set aside for a work session on Virginia Gas Company's proposed
natural gas transmission line through Roanoke County. Officials from Virginia Gas will be
present to answer any questions you may have.
Following the work session, the Board will reconvene and be requested to consider several
alternative actions on the proposed transmission line. Under Item Q-1 is a Board report
outlining the options available to the Board of Supervisors and a map of the proposed gas
line.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION VOTE
No. Yes Abs
Approved ( ) Motion by: Harrison
Denied ( ) Johnson
Received ( ) McNamara_ _
Referred ( ) Minnix
To () Nickens _ _ _
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 r'
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: Robinson, Ross, Thomason, Hooker, Witt
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE
None.
• G. ATTACHMENTS:
•
_ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map
_ Staff Report _ Other
Terrance HA(ringto, Secretary
Roanoke,'County Planning Commission
•
•
•
Roanoke County Department Economic Development
TO: Terry Harringt
FROM: Tim Gubala
DATE: April 17, 1998
RE:
Memorandum
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.
4
•
•
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
1
•
•
•
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
3
•
•
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
01,
•
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.
5
•
•
•
Without the benefit of the preliminary engineering it i
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.
7
•
•
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
9
construction of the trail system and who will bear the
maintenance responsibility after construction.
PREPARED BY: JANET SCHEID/TERRY HARRINGTON
DATE PREPARED: April 3, 1998
10
•
•
(County of oanoke
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
EXHIBIT "A"
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 A village center with businesses, support services, and
commercial buildings
Corporate Circle District Corporate buildings with select commercial business
ventures adjacent to the Corporate Village
Technology District Progressive R&D and technological manufacturing entities
which encircle the Corporate Village and Corporate Circle
Lone Eagle District 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.
-72 figs
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=21 08
For staff use only. p�
dolour 2-079 f
2 o
rece p f:
ii /-(
application fee:
PC/SZA date:
`i/ Ziff
placards fsFed:
/ZU�`
8 S %..2-8/fib'
Case Number: ... /�%�
Check type of application
E1 REZONING
filed
■
(check all that apply):
SPECIAL USE IN 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 1 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.
S14
Proposed Zoning: Planned Technblogy Development District (PTD)
Proposed Land Use: Business and Commercial Parkas specified in the
Concept Plan
For staff Use Orly
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.
for the requested Use Type? YES y NO
Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria
IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST.
being with this request? YES NO x
If rezoning request, are conditions proffered
�:�•`i=lei`i`i�����'�1��������������'`�`�`���`�`�'�':`'�'�`�`���':11`?`s1I'���1='
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.
xrs V wa V
Consultation
Application
Justification
byeel,,
... Fi
8 1 /2" x 11" concept plan
Metes and bounds description
Water and sewer application
ws 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 nsent of th 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".
S. 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?
s 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.
licant
County of Roanoke
For Staff Use Only: Case Number
7
The Board of Zoning Appeals is required by Section 15.1-495 of the Code of Virginia to consider the follo‘.•iing
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 paper.
1. The variance shall not be contrary to the public interest and shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and
purpose of the zoning ordinance.
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 unreasona�iy restrict
the use of property.
3. That the hardship is not shared by other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity. Such hardships
should be addressed by the Board of Supervisors as amendments to the ordinance.
N/A
4. That the variance will not be of a substantial detriment to the adjacent property or the character cf the district
N/A
concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall
graphically depict the land use change, development, or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall
address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the
applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct
any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County permitting regulations.
The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance 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, navies of owners, and Roanoke Co. tax map numbers of adjoining properties.
e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, ftoodplain, 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.
❑ 1. Any driveways, entrance/exits, curb openings, and crossovers.
❑ m Topography map on a suitable scale and cc: tour 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 compete.
411
Signature of applicant
WATER AND SE:1ER APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
An 8 " x 11" photocopy of the apprepriate USGS contour map should be submitted with t
application. A photocopy of the USGS may be obtained from the Roanoke County Engineer i
�epaLmefl
t at' no charge. For those parcels that. ,are within the area covered by the se,.
nd water planimetrics and are less than 20 acres, in size, an 8 •" x 11" photocopy of t
appropriate planimetric should be su i tied. This copy may be obtained from tree Engine�
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 develocers resxns_bilit
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 bei. included
the staff reoort•subrnitted for review to the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commissic
Any questions with regard to the water and seer application should be made to Roanc
County Utility Department, 1206 Kessler dill Road; Salem, VA 24153; phone 387-E104.
Examples of minimum acceptable infor=at
Example A: Portion of Sever ?1ani=et7i
20 acres and within the are
EXAMPLE B: Portion of USCS Contour Map
20 acres or outside of the
ic;, for Contour Maps
c• Required when the parcel is less than
as covered by the eater and sever plani=etrics.
Required when the parcel is greater than
areas covered by the eater and sever olanimetrics.
.. .... ,i-_;, ': .raj/�_ .
::,—...,—,„.„..... --.,_...4,:-..:„.....,„,„,..s.„,.
L/ ^• Of----. r T.�Ir fT 4 .i-•ice,J---6?„
GLT
': c —mil ..I m. �,� f 7
� �1 ;Off ,Z ": jY
f'Z
ty �e0 mo w:
c(; _ __ E ; er
It�
�� •multi_:
;r•
T
6.)
4,r
Proposed Roanoke County Business Park
fill ITE INFOFRMATION:
Taw. AREA. frerextpmATE)
0
400'
e00'
•
•
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 buiidable 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 819
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 determihe 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 concerns.
CIL
•
•
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,
Larry W. Wallace, P.E.
Branch Manager
/Iww
cc: David Hill, John Schmidt, Hal Bailey
•
•
•
ROANOKE COUNTY BUSINESS
PARK PRELIMINARY CONCEPT
PLAN
DESIGN GuIDELINES
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
STORMWATER 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 BUPFBRS 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 COMMTI TL
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.
3
Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan
Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS
of the advisory committee gathered feedback from the1)-4)-
• Citizens recruited to serve as members ry
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.
•
•
SrrE 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
111
•
• Avoiding "The Preconceived Plan" '� L J
(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 1)1 - /a..
• 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 1-81 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 1-81 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 1-81 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
clude 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.
9
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, Ca
lahan 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 11
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 comer 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 1-81 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 1-81 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 11
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
•
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.
13
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)
7z-f?
r
14
Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan
Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document
•
•
•
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMTI 11•.
Robert A. Archer
General Manager
Blue Ridge Beverage Company
Salem, Virginia
Carole Brackman
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 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 poses physical constraints for public utility service and should be 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 stonnwater 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 .speck commercial and business types will become clearly defined with further
development of the preliminary site plan, design guideline.. and further marketing research and
development by Roanoke County.
•
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
types 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 manufacturingwith 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 bu.s•ines.s 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 County.
3
ADDENDUM
Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan
Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document
PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN
411) 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 existingAEP 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
•
Interstate Exit
PROPOSED BUSINESS SITE
0
OW
Cn
Ll)
•
Vram^1
O
u
cu
O
ct
O
a
O
CLIz
o Li
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
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
Article X Resale, Lease or Other Transfer
Article XI 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:
C. Administrator:
D. Business or Businesses:
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.
The County Administrator or his designee.
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
Industrial Uses such as landfill -rubble, recycling centers and
stations, transportation terminal, truck terminal, and
warehousing and distribution
(5)
(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
4
•
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
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:
(7)
(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
•
•
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
•
•
•
(n) Recycling centers and stations
(o) Scrap and salvage services
(q) Surplus sales
(r) Truck stops
Where it is unclear whether or not a particular use of the Park is peiiiutted
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 first be reviewed and approved in writing by
the Design Review Team as to (i) the original Transfer to a Business and (ii) any
subsequent Transfer. In addition, the Team must first review and approve in
writing the use of the Property at any time a change in use is proposed or effected
by the Business and not merely at the 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.
(b) 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. 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
•
•
•
(3)
Each owner, lessee and occupant of the property in the Park shall, and _ 2--
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.)
Samples of all proposed exterior materials and
colors.
(b) For Site Plans.
9
•
•
•
(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 111
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.
I-1 Setback standards shall apply
C-1 Setback standards shall apply
14
C-1 Setback standards shall apply
R-1 Setback standards shall apply
•
•
Low height, bollard style, boxed light fixtures, or ground level landscape 3
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
•
•
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 is
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 f-ok
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
A
•
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.
upancy
In the event that during construction or after � transferee s completion
shall receive aor cbona fide,y
the Business, the Business or any subsequent
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
•
•
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
•
•
o
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:
27
•
0
IMP
•
7
• • ''''' •
lertvar 141vd
'
'1
; ..... i ;
o Is \
,/ efr; , _1.- -/A
/
•s4-e '7'
''•ra.;:,- ,-- — ,
t
4 f
tat 00g c„)
-14to 61 v.:
\ I f
1(..t4ei •
\\\ 11
,k•sv...• •
bi.O"
• '
11211TOTI-P76:6(1
•
,•
• 0, .... .
4 ----1,--- -- i--) , . -
• : __, .;... •
Hit
!•. -- ,------_.•i.:. .-
.:.
•
•
100 Foot Is.dinintum Butler
v
0
•
4
Lot Development
Q t
CS
Date 7-14-97
OCD
- Oct:
C
y
Pal
A
;:4
E
irl y
W c
Proposed Roanoke County Business Site
•TE I NFORMATI ON
TOTAL AA E 461 AGRE
(APPROXIMATE)
IIIIIIIMM
•
•
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
•
•
•
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 M-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 1A-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 3-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 1-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 IA -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 M-inch capped rebar set; S 71° 01' 18" E 176.00 feet to a h-inch
capped rebar set; S 40° 31' 18" E 182.50 feet to a M-inch capped rebar set;
C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\GLENMARY.PTD
2
•
•
N 47° 56' 33" E 179.59 feet to a M.-inch capped rebar set; S 32° 53' 00" E
passing a 5/8-inch iron rod found at 537.90 feet, passing a M.-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 iA-inch capped rebar set; thence along Glenvar Heights
Section No. 1, S 30° 40' 00" E 820.33 feet to a M-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 M-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 M-inch capped rebar set; S 56° 59' 16" W
137.92 feet to a M-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 1A-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 M-inch iron rod found; thence
S 84° 02' 11' W 445.25 feet to a M.-inch iron rod found; thence S 47° 19'
56" E 152.14 feet to a M-inch capped rebar set; thence S 54° 11' 01" E
130.67 feet to a M-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 M-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
P'''''
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
•
•
•
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: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM: Work Session on Virginia Gas Company's proposed natural gas
transmission line through Roanoke County
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This time has been set aside for a work session on Virginia Gas Company's proposed.
natural gas transmission line through Roanoke County. Officials from Virginia Gas will be
present to answer any questions you may have.
Following the work session, the Board will reconvene and be requested to consider several
alternative actions on the proposed transmission line. Under Item Q-1 is a Board report
outlining the options available to the Board of Supervisors and a map of the proposed gas
line.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION
VOTE
No. Yes Abs
Approved ( ) Motion by: Harrison
Denied ( ) Johnson
Received ( ) McNamara__,
Referred ( ) Minnix _
To ( ) Nickens _
. ' UNITED STATES
:.k.„
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
00-15' 112., .11
1,30.
"11
10'
000
EET
41
111 1 500010 11127 02 12'
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES
JAMES L CALVER. STATE OEOLOOIST
murAiZerc 3 ro ''''4';=S 31; ,
icr.60.0
ELL/STON QUADRANGLE
VIRGINIA
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (tOPOGRAPHS
_4140000 frEi
Mr/ 25.1.11nati .110.00/mou
UNITED STATES
.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
,711.,
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES
BENT MOUNTAIN QUADRANGLE
VIRCINIA
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOORAPHIC) •
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES
GARDEN CITY OUADRANOL
VIRGINIA
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOCRAPIt1,4 SOW. MILL QUADRANC1,
-
• UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
37°ar°°'. .... f
u
'5I
eta
.51
•
ea '`oo'
I Mapped, edited, and published ov the Geological Snnrw
42 57'30" r++rr roue 91 oro.adn[r r+ •, mu.a :s Ilt 55' ISmoao2er
wR.+Marr�i wi 3D" N3 re14.9iww
'I1 55'
• UNITED STATES
V-. DEPARTMENT OF THE I ERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURV
• {a•sr3o^ ..�•c
y.#, r ea0000 FEET W qz .u«ui c
Mapped, edited. and published by the O.alaykal Survey
Canine by 3SGS.n NOSMo1A
•
r.
Tel
COMMONWEALTH OF VIROINIA
DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES
SCALE 1i21G11O
w
ti
HARDY QUADRANGLE
VIROIN IA
7.5 MINUTE SERIES(FQPPOORAPHI•
'Q 4730" O • «eA«nva 1ev.0000 ff tI.7 «u•.ro«n MILT * u�as
q 47'30
1 ' J%`41Fr G
ncicn
3'
`UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
79 2'30. ..fe ro •fxivov�ti w 50'
17'30
''‘A
30
SI
510000 f[f. w 50'
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES
r✓rL4MONT wl.Nnawra wr
plea.
Y,,
w v(HA ROO
STEWARTSVILLE OUADRANOL
VIROINIA
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOORAPH4
w 'Ie
w
47'30' w. I830000 ftt}
47'30" w . r5e�`.
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: May 12, 1998
AGENDA ITEM: Request to Adopt a Resolution on the Application to
the Virginia State Corporation Commission by
Virginia Gas Company to Construct, Own and Operate
a Natural Gas Pipeline Connecting their Storage
Facility at Saltville, VA to Chesapeake, VA.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
This is a project that can be constructed without our approval. I have concerns that many of our
citizens may not understand that we have little control over this gas line or the AEP line or the
widening of I-81. We are located in the path of progress. Recommend adopting a resolution of
quaked approval or of non -opposition.
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Gas Company currently operates a natural gas storage
facility in Saltville, VA (located in Smyth and Washington
Counties) and is currently constructing a natural gas pipeline to
the Radford, VA area. The application being presented to the
Virginia State Corporation Commission would extend this intrastate
natural gas transmission line to the Chesapeake, VA area. The
proposed route of this line (maps attached) passes through Roanoke
County. The route would form a branch in the Buck Mountain Road
area to provide a spur line to Rocky Mount, VA to provide a
connection whereby Roanoke Gas could serve that area.
Much of the new line will parallel other existing pipeline
corridor of the East Tennessee Natural Gas pipeline which serves
Roanoke Gas today. Part of the new line will interconnect
developed areas of the state and provide access to the transmission
network across our state. Initially, a 12-inch high pressure steel
line will be installed. In the future, a twin 16-inch or 20-inch
line may be installed parallel to the first to meet the needs of
the customer base.
This matter has been forwarded to the County Departments of
Planning and Zoning, Utilities, Economic Development, Engineering
and Inspections, and Fire and Rescue for review and the following
comments have been received:
1. The planned route that follows the East Tennessee line across
Roanoke County will require expanding the existing easement by
30 - 50 feet. Where this crosses the mountain ridges, this
will cause a widened or new clear-cut swathe for the
installation of the new line.
2. The plan is to go around the Spring Hollow Reservoir rather
than parallel the existing line which was installed through
the reservoir at the time of construction of Spring Hollow.
3. Staff is concerned about the visual impact in light of the
ridge line protection issues previously studied by the Board
and also the impact to the visual image to the Blue Ridge
Parkway. In addition, the conceptual route is through several
Roanoke County park properties and the impact of the
construction of the line on park facilities or on -going
programs is not known at this time.
4. There will need to be a crossing of the Parkway, but this
matter has been referred to that agency.
5. There are no current public safety issues, as long as normal
safe construction practices are incorporated in the
installation and proper pre -planning for emergencies are
developed with the County.
The only above -ground devices associated with this project in
the Roanoke County stretch is likely to be a metering station at
the point(s) of interconnection with Roanoke Gas. As such, no
zoning or other permit process from the County will be required.
Roanoke Gas is supportive of this effort and has forwarded the
attached letter to Roanoke County. Other Counties along the
proposed route have submitted their resolution of support to the
Virginia State Corporation Commission as well.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the attached resolution supporting the efforts of
Virginia Gas Company to construct and operate a natural gas
transmission line across Virginia which supports access to
natural gas systems for existing users, as well as Economic
Development prospects. Staff suggests that Virginia Gas
Company be sensitive to the ridge line and view shed
protection issues previously established by the Board of
Supervisors.
2. Adopt the attached resolution not opposing the efforts of
Virginia Gas Company to construct and operate a natural gas
transmission line across Virginia. Non -opposition is
premised on the fact that detail information is not available
at this time on the line route or its impact on specific
private and public properties, or its general impact on ridge
line or mountain side view sheds within the County
3. Do not take a position (no action) on the construction of said
line.
4. Oppose the construction of said line through Roanoke County.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board hold a worksession on May 12
to discuss the proposed line and determine the position of the
Board with respect to the above alternatives.
Respectfully submitted, Approv,d by
John M. Chambliss, Jr. Elmer C. Dodge
Assistant Administrator County Administrator
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Harrison
Received ( ) Johnson
Referred ( ) McNamara
To ( ) Minnix
Nickens
,Roanoke Gas
519 Kimball Avenue, N.E.
P.O. Box 13007
Roanoke, Virginia 24030
540 983-3800
April 17, 1998
VIA FACSIMILE - 772-2089
Mr. John Chambliss
Assistant County Administrator
County of Roanoke
P. O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
RE: Virginia Gas Company Pipeline Project
Dear John:
Thank you for your call of April 17, 1998, regarding the referenced pipeline project.
Roanoke Gas Company supports the proposal of Virginia Gas Company for construction
of an intrastate natural gas transmission pipeline from southwestern Virginia to eastern Virginia
via the Roanoke Valley, including Roanoke County. We have signed an agreement with Virginia
Gas Company for capacity on the pipeline to allow us to better serve the growing demand for
natural gas service in the Roanoke Valley, including Roanoke County, and to make service
available into Franklin County. We are hopeful of having the additional capacity available by
fiscal year 2000/2001.
We respectfully request that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors consider adoption
of a resolution of support for the project, recognizing the economic development and quality of
life implications that the additional capacity will provide for the future growth of the Roanoke
Valley and southwest Virginia.
If I can provide any additional information or if you would like for me to meet with
County officials, please do not hesitate to call.
John B. Williamson, III
President & CEO
JBW/mvs
c: Michael Edwards
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING VIRGINIA GAS COMPANY'S PROPOSED NATURAL GAS
TRANSMISSION LINE THROUGH ROANOKE COUNTY
WHEREAS, Virginia Gas Company is developing an intrastate
natural gas distribution line between Saltville, Virginia and
Chesapeake, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, a portion of this line is proposed to be located
within Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, representatives of Virginia Gas Company have met
with Roanoke County staff and have shared information on the
conceptual location of the proposed corridor for the new gas
distribution line; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Gas company has indicated their intent to
parallel, to the extent possible, an existing natural gas line
that currently lies within Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Gas Company has received the approval of
the State Corporation Commission for those portions of the line
that lie between Saltville and Radford, Virginia and intends to
request in May approval of the Commission for those portions of the
line that lie within and to the east of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Gas Company has requested that Roanoke
County adopt a resolution of support for the proposed line; and
WHEREAS, the construction of this line will help to insure
the future availability of natural gas to the residents and
businesses of Roanoke County.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA as follows:
1. The Board hereby expresses its support for Virginia Gas
Company's proposed natural gas transmission line within Roanoke
County and that said support is conditioned on the following:
A. Virginia Gas Company choose a corridor with an understanding
and respect for the unique mountainous environment in Roanoke
County. We request that Virginia Gas locate and construct the
line with a heightened awareness of the importance of the mountain
viewsheds and the important role that these natural areas have
played in the cultural history of Roanoke County and southwest
Virginia.
1
q
B. Virginia Gas Company parallel the existing natural gas
transmission line to the extent possible, and where feasible, co -
locate both gas lines within a wider easement. The objective of
sharing space within a wider easement is to reduce vegetation
removal to the minimum width possible, particularly on mountain
sides and ridgetops.
C. Virginia Gas Company follow the proposed southern alternative
route in the area of the Spring Hollow Reservoir. Any proposed
line within the Spring Hollow watershed or the contiguous Camp
Roanoke property, must protect water quality and be coordinated
with the proposed and adopted Spring Hollow Park Master Plan.
Roanoke County has a strong interest in ensuring that the
construction of the proposed line does not interfere with any
existing or proposed County facility or amenity within the County's
Spring Hollow area land holdings; and
D. Line construction and staging within any County park facility
will not interfere with any scheduled community or seasonal
programming and that all construction areas are fully restored in
time to allow the continuous operation of all County programs; and
E. Virginia Gas Company work cooperatively with Roanoke County to
explore all opportunities to co -locate water and sewer lines within
the new gas easements to be acquired by the Company; and
F. Virginia Gas Company work cooperatively with the National Park
Service, the Virginia Recreational Facility Authority, and the
Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA) to insure that the
proposed line is constructed in a location that respects and
enhances the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Virginia Explore Park, and
protects the interests of RVRA in relation to the closed Rutrough
Road landfill site.
On motion of Supervisor to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998
A RESOLUTION OF NON -OPPOSITION TO VIRGINIA GAS COMPANY'S PROPOSED
NATURAL GAS TRANSMISSION LINE THROUGH ROANOKE COUNTY
WHEREAS, Virginia Gas Company is developing an intrastate
natural gas distribution line between Saltville Virginia and
Chesapeake, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, a portion of this line is proposed to be located
within Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, representatives of Virginia Gas Company have met
with Roanoke County staff and have shared information on the
conceptual location of the proposed corridor for the new gas
distribution line; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Gas Company has indicated their intent to
parallel, to the extent possible, an existing natural gas line
that currently lies within Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Gas Company has received the approval of
the State Corporation Commission for those portions of the line
that lie between Saltville and Radford, Virginia and intends to
request in May approval of the Commission for those portions of the
line that lie within and to the east of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Gas Company has requested that Roanoke
County adopt a resolution of support for the proposed line; and
WHEREAS, the construction of this line will help to insure
the future availability of natural gas to the residents and
businesses of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, detailed information is not available on the
proposed line route, or the impact of the line on specific public
and private properties, or its overall impact on the mountainous
viewsheds important to Roanoke County and its citizens.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA as follows:
1. The Board hereby expresses its non -opposition to Virginia
Gas Company's proposed natural gas transmission line within Roanoke
County and that said non -opposition is conditioned on the
following:
A. Virginia Gas Company choose a corridor with an understanding
and respect for the unique mountainous environment in Roanoke
County. We request that Virginia Gas locate and construct the
line with a heightened awareness of the importance of the mountain
viewsheds and the important role that these natural areas have
1
Q--/
played in the cultural history of Roanoke County and Southwest
Virginia.
B. Virginia Gas Company parallel the existing natural gas
transmission line to the extent possible, and where feasible, co -
locate both gas lines within a wider easement. The objective of
sharing space within a wider easement is to reduce vegetation
removal to the minimum width possible, particularly on mountain
sides and ridgetops.
C. Virginia Gas Company follow the proposed southern alternative
route in the area of the Spring Hollow Reservoir. Any proposed
line within the Spring Hollow watershed or the contiguous Camp
Roanoke property, must protect water quality and be coordinated
with the proposed and adopted Spring Hollow Park Master Plan.
Roanoke County has a strong interest in ensuring that the
construction of the proposed line does not interfere with any
existing or proposed County facility or amenity within the County's
Spring Hollow area land holdings; and
D. Line construction and staging within any County park facility
will not interfere with any scheduled community or seasonal
programming and that all construction areas are fully restored in
time to allow the continuous operation of all County programs; and
E. Virginia Gas Company work cooperatively with Roanoke County to
explore all opportunities to co -locate water and sewer lines within
the new gas easements to be acquired by the Company; and
F. Virginia Gas Company work cooperatively with the National Park
Service, the Virginia Recreational Facility Authority, and the
Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA) to insure that the
proposed line is constructed in a location that respects and
enhances the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Virginia Explore Park, and
protects the interests of RVRA in relation to the closed Rutrough
Road landfill site.
On motion of Supervisor to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
2
b
o
CO
sg
o
0 g
•
•
z
0
0)
0
Fri
8661 `Ta Tudy :a4PG
•
I 1
rri
8
it: Et
O -
cn cfq
rL
°
▪ *ci
its
(I) CD
O 0
(r) P
W CA
453
co
0-1
Roanoke County
Department of
Engineering and Inspections
Pipeline Sites
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998
RESOLUTION 051298-8 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 Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor McNamara
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Executive Session
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
(540) 772-2004
T.,autttg larranake
P.O. BOX 29800
5204 BERNARD DRIVE
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798
FAX (540) 772-2193
May 13, 1998
Rev. Phillip Whitaker
Brambleton Baptist Church
4122 Cresthill Drive
Roanoke, VA 24018
Dear Reverend Whitaker:
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, May 12, 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. Johnson, Chairman
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Internet E-Mail
ehodge@www.co.roanoke.va.us
Internet E-Mail
® Recycled Paper bos@www.co.roanoke.va.us
Cxrnxtfg of uaniake
MARY H. ALLEN, CMC
CLERK TO THE BOARD
Internet E-Mail: mallen@www.co.roanoke.va.us
Mr. William Overstreet
4930 North Spring Drive
Roanoke, VA 24019
Dear Mr. Overstreet:
P.O. BOX 29800
5204 BERNARD DRIVE
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798
(540) 772-2005
FAX (540) 772-2193
May 13, 1998
BRENDA J. HOLTON
DEPUTY CLERK
Internet E-Mail: bholton@www.co.roanoke.va.us
am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, May 12, 1998,
the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as a member of the Fifth
Planning District Commission Stormwater Management Advisory Committee. You are one
of two Roanoke County representatives appointed to this committee which will work in an
advisory capacity to implement the Roanoke Valley Regional Stormwater Management
Plan.
State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed, or re -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.
Very truly yours,
yx.a.,tcr
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board
Enclosures
cc: Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, 5PDC
George Simpson, Director, Engineering & Inspections
e Recycled Paper
From: "Brenda Holton" <ADM01/BJH>
To: Executive Team, adm01/sbo
Date sent: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:29:32 +0000
Subject: 4-28 Board Agenda
As a reminder -- The Agenda Team Meeting for the 4-28-98 Board
Meeting will be at 3 p.m. this aftemoon in the Board Conference
Room.
Mary Allen is on vacation but I will be covering the meeting for
her. If you have any items to add to the agenda, please let me know.
Thanks.
041
y d/ / c .• d J —
1-de /l CivP
/-‘
ibL e64i, (1k—el #-K
John Chambliss 1 Mon, 20 Apr 1998 11:04:32
Roanoke County Department of Planning
Memorandum
TO: John Chambliss
FROM: Terrance L. Harrington, AICP
Director of Planning
DATE: April 15, 1998
RE: Proposed Natural Gas Transmission Line
John....
I have reviewed the information you forwarded to me regarding
your meeting with the representatives of Virginia Gas Company.
I've also reviewed Elmer's questions in his E-mail to us et. al..
I have the following comments.
1. Since the proposed line is subject to review and approval by
the SCC, it is by definition exempt from local zoning regulation.
The zoning ordinance defines such lines as a "Major Utility", but
specifically excludes from the definition and thus regulation,
lines regulated by the SCC. I talked to Barry Buchanan and it
does not appear that the line will have any major above ground
facilities/substations that are subject to zoning regulation.
2. Barry indicated that their desire is to follow the existing
Tennessee Gas Company line through the county to the extent
possible. Where they follow the line, they will widen the
existing easement by 30-50 feet and clear cut a wider swath
across the mountain sides and ridge lines. Where they chose a
new route, they intend to cut a new swath on the mountain sides.
The installation of this line will then have an impact on some of
the County's viewsheds. I expressed to Barry the County's
interest in mountainside/ viewshed protection and indicated that
the visual impact of the proposed route might be a factor
considered by the Board in its adoption of a resolution.
3. From the maps you submitted, it appears the proposed route
parallels the Parkway and crosses the Parkway near the Buck
Mountain area.. Barry confirmed this and said they would be
meeting with the Parkway staff in the near future to discuss
routing and easement options.
c: Tim G., Arnold C., Gary R., Paul M., Don M., Rick B., Elmer
H.
From: "Elmer Hodge" < ADM01/ECH >
To: adm01/jmc
Date sent: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 12:32:25 +0000
Subject: Gas Pipe Line
Copies to: adm01/mha, adm01/tlh, gis01/oac, adm01/pmm
John, Thanks for meeting with Brad Swanson and Barry Buchanan of
Virginia Gas. I have many questions:
- Does this go to the BOS and Planning Commission
- Does this require a 456 (233?) review
- Does this require a public hearing
Do we even want it? Can they use easements with AEP or Roanoke Gas?
How much money will we get from taxes?
John, since you accidentally inherited this one you can pass it off
to one of the others on the above list if you want to.
Thanks.
Elmer Hodge 772-2004
71Y-et.,e_A--e-- 9 a_k.,,c_ L'ka./14.-i1/4_64.,41_,:1)
e,1,?i:P_-1J
Mary Allen 1 Fri, 10 Apr 1998 14:04:14
rG
nico
School Roof Replacements
;1 1988 VPSA
1989 VPSA
1992 VPSA
,. ) 1993 VPSA
( 1993 General Obligation Bond
1994 VPSA
1995 VPSA
1996 VPSA
1998 Capital Improvements
1997 Capital Improvements
1996 Capital Improvements
-!, ? 1993 Capital Improvements
1992 Capital Improvements
1991 Capital Improvements
111,000
148,403
482,895
0
0
300,000
0
0
104,800
142,681
87,558
90,950
9,050
31,699
1,509,036
E/rr,r
17,.a.,/
—
March 24, 1992 / q q Go.
2.School Board Budget a 9 —9 ,r
School Board Chairman Frank Thomas reported that the state funding shortfall
had been restored and the County schools will receive $2.8 million from the state. The
School Board has also budgeted a 3% salary increase. They would like to use revenue
from the tobacco tax to raise the salary increase by one-half percent for a total of 3-
1/2%. They have also funded an increase in the School Board share of health care for
their employees. School Superintendent Bayes Wilson presented a proposed Capital
Improvement Budget of $1.8 million that would include roof replacement, completion of
site improvements at Cave Spring Junior High School, sewage system at Mason's Cove
Elementary School, building renovations and kindergarten rooms at Green Valley
Elementary School, improvements to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act; and
Tennis court renovations at each high school. Supervisor Nickens expressed
concern about including funding for cable TV service when the schools don't have
paper and other instructional supplies. Supervisor Eddy asked for more information on
how the schools would utilize cable W.
Mr. Hodge suggested that the School Board and Supervisors discuss the
potential of a bond issue at the April 6, 1992 meeting.
June 9, 1992
1.Authorization to Apply to the Virginia Public School Authority for
the Fall 1992 Financing. (Diane Hyatt, Director. Finance)
R-6992-1
Ms. Hyatt advised that the School Board is applying to the VPSA for
$1,930,000 in the fall of 1992. Chairman Eddy asked if they will be able to begin roof
repairs prior to approval of the bond. Ms. Hyatt responded that the School Board will
borrow $500,000 from the County this summer and will reimburse the County when the
VPSA bond money is available.
Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 6992-1 AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC
SCHOOL AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE OF SCHOOL BONDS AND
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FROM THE PROCEEDS OF
SUCH BONDS FOR CERTAIN EXPENDITURES
From: "Elmer Hodge" < ADM01/ECH >
To: "Mary Allen" < ADM01/MHA >
Date sent: Tue, 5 May 1998 09:32:53 + 0000
Subject: Re: Budget Public Hearing
Copies to: adm01/wbr
Folks, I have a concern that our work sessions will run much longer
than we are hoping for. What do we co then?
From: "Mary Allen" < ADM01 /MHA >
To: adm01/wbr
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 08:35:34 +0000
Subject: Budget Public Hearing
Cc: adm01/ech
Brent, I called Elaine Simpson with RVTV and asked her to change the
message that the public hearing will be at 5:00 p.m. on May 12
instead of 7:00 on May 12. I think I might send an additional
"blurb" specifically about the budget public hearing.
Is that O.K. with you?
Mary Allen, Clerk to Board
772-2003
Elmer Hodge 772-2004
Mary Allen 1 Tue, 5 May 1998 09:52:59
March 16, 1998 (10:20am)
NOTE TO: Brenda Holton
FROM: Harry Nickens
SUBJECT: NATIONAL EMS WEEK
ECth 4r.) srnZ_
ods-- 10)-1
The week of May 17 through 23 is National Emergency Medical Services
Week. If you would contact Rick Burch to see what we might do. Probably the
Board meeting before so that we don't do it in the middle of the week to declare
that National EMS Week in Roanoke County. See if there is an opportunity
also for the Board Meeting during that time period, whatever that turns out to
be. for us to maybe agree on providing as a Board the emergency medical
dispatch services to the County citizens.
cc: Mary Allen
Elmer Hodge
Date of Board Meeting would be May 12, 1998 at 3 p.m.
(May 26th is after the week.)
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 May 12, 1998, at 3:00 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the question of theadoption 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.
IRA
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
Please publish on May 5, 1998
Please send invoice to:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
MA-
4-23-98 Paul Mahoney: Do you see any
problem with d0n9 a resplution at this time?
Would that compromise any of the law suits
that you have outstanding?
-`` Elme odge
'.� 'w J V& r t C 1 rnyr a tO s t a 1
yQhA1ik C , s CS .
Excellence in Communications Services
Apri123, 1998
Mr. Elmer C. Hodge
Roanoke County Administrator
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018
Dear Mr. Hodge:
1507 Apperson Drive
Salem, VA 24153
UNITED STATES
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
A TDS Company
United States Cellular, the nation's seventh largest wireless communications company, is a proud
member of the Roanoke County community.
We have a major commitment to educate the public about the safe use of cellular phones, and plan
to observe Wireless Safety Week May 17-13. As part of our activities, we would be most
grateful if the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors would adopt a resolution declaring the week
as Wireless Safety Week.
Our purpose is to create an awareness among users of how to make 911 calls safely and correctly
and to provide information on the safe use of cell phones while driving.
I have enclosed a draft resolution to assist you in the preparation of a resolution and will be glad
to attend a meeting of the Board of Supervisors when the resolution is adopted. Please call me if
you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincer y,
Han Clin
Area General Manager
1
PROCLAMATION
WIRELESS SAFETY WEEK
MAY 17-23, 1998
WHEREAS, wireless phones have proven to be a valuable tool in making our
communities safer by providing a vital link to emergency services, and
WHEREAS, 50,000 people per day and 18 million people per year use wireless
phones to call emergency numbers, and
WHEREAS, the value of wireless phones for highway travelers has been endorsed
by the American Automobile Association Foundation, the National Safety Council,
and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and
WHEREAS, wireless phones help our public safety agencies --police, fire and
emergency medical services --to respond more quickly, and
WHEREAS, this quick response saves lives everyday,
WHEREAS, appropriate use of cellular phones enhances safe driving,
WHEREAS, United States Cellular is an active corporate citizen of the community,
creating jobs and strengthening the community's tax base,
THEREFORE, I, Elmer C. Hodge, Administrator, do hereby declare May 17
through the 23rd, 1998 as Wireless Safety Week in Roanoke County.
PROCLAMATION
VIRGINIA HERITAGE TOURISM WEEKS
WHEREAS, historic preservation is an effective tool for managing growth, revitalizing
neighborhoods, fostering local pride and maintaining community character while enhancing
livability; and
WHEREAS, historic preservation is relevant for communities across the nation, both urban and
rural, and for Americans of all ages, all walks of life and all ethnic backgrounds; and
WHEREAS, it is important to celebrate the role of history in our lives and the contributions
made by dedicated individuals in helping to preserve the tangible aspects of the heritage that has
shaped us as a people; and
WHEREAS, "Celebrate Virginia" is the theme for Virginia Heritage Tourism Weeks the month
of May, and "Preservation Begins at Home" is the theme for National Preservation Week, May
10-16; and
WHEREAS, Heritage Tourism Weeks calls for Virginians to recognize the cultural and
economic benefits which come from saving our history and promoting historic sites visitation
efforts, co -sponsored by the Roanoke Regional Presrvation Office and the Roanoke Valley
Preservation Foundation.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Bob L. Johnson, Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the month of May, 1998 as
VIRGINIA HERITAGE TOURISM WEEKS
and call upon our citizens to recognize and participate in this special observation.
Bob L. Johnson, Chairman, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
ROANOKE
VALLEY
PRESERVATION
FOUNDATION
OFFICERS
Rusty Pritchett, President
Mary Beth Layman, Pres. Elect
Evelyn S. Lander, Secretary
Helen Roberts Hill, Treasurer
TRUSTEES
Doug Baker
Michael B. Barber
Evelyn D. Bethel
Kent D. Chrisman
Alison Blanton
Nancy K. Carson
Victoria Coogan
Dr. Rupert Cutler
Perry R. Downing
Whitney Feldmann
John D. Fulton, Jr.
Leslie Giles
Al Holland, Sr.
Dr. Deedie Kagey
George Kegley
Dr. Mark F. Miller
Dr. Warren L. Moorman
Dr. Norma Jean Peters
Darlene Richardson
J. David Robbins
June V. Shapiro
William F. Trinkle
Dan Vogt
Jim Woltz
P. O. BOX 1558
ROANOKE, VA 24007
April 22, 1998
Ms. Mary H. Allen
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of Roanoke
P. O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018
Dear Ms. Allen:
In the annual emphasis on preservation activities, National Preservation Week
will be observed May 10-16 and Virginia Heritage Tourism Weeks has expanded
into the month -long "Celebrate Virginia" cultural tourism program, now
extending through the entire month of May.
This joint program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the
Department of Historic Resources and Tourism will focus attention on state and
local history and on the economic benefits of historic sites visitation. The
Roanoke Regional Preservation Office, the Roanoke Valley Preservation
Foundation and local preservation organizations will join in the commemoration
of heritage tourism in our community. The theme of National Preservation Week
is "Preservation Begins at Home." This is a time when we recognize the cultural
and economic benefits of saving and enhancing the buildings in which we live
and work and to celebrate the history of and promote visitation to our own
hometown community.
On behalf of the Regional Preservation Office and The Preservation Foundation, I
ask for the opportunity to appear on the Roanoke County Board of Supervisor's
agenda on May 12 at 3:00 PM. We would also request a proclamation by
Roanoke County for Virginia Heritage Tourism Weeks. A sample proclamation is
enclosed and we would like to receive the proclamation at the May 12 Board of
Supervisor's meeting. Dr. John Kern, Director of the Regional Preservation
Office and Dr. Deedie Kagey would like to present a Certificate of Recognition
for a local preservation effort. In addition, the Preservation Foundation will
announce an Annual Valley Award for Governmental Excellence in Preservation.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
fJWaJ
Whitney H.'Feldmann, Chair
Governmental Relations Committee
cc:
Dr. John Kern
Dr. Deedie Kagey
To: "Diane Hyatt" < ADM01/DDH >
Subject: Re: Agenda - 4/28 (Reso repealing BOS previous actions)
Date sent: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 14:36:34
Will do!
> Please move to the next meeting. I have not even read the revisions
> yet.
>
> > From: "Mary Allen" < ADM01 /MHA >
> > To: adm01 /ddh, gup01 /wj r
> > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 07:51:36 +0000
> > Subject: Agenda - 4/28 (Reso repealing BOS previous actions)
>
> > According to info I got from Paul Mahoney, both of you have reports
> > due to repeal certain actions previously adopted by the BOS to
> > create a policy manual.
> >
> > I have placed them on the April 28 agenda. Will you have the
> > reports, resos ready or should I move them to the May 12 meeting?
> > Please let me know.
> > Mary Allen, Clerk to Board
> > 772-2003
> >
>
Mary Allen 1 Wed, 22 Apr 1998 14:36:34
From: "Sue Patterson -Bane" < ADM01/SPB >
To: adm01/pmm
Date sent: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 10:38:07 + 0000
Subject: Policy Manual
Copies to: adm01/mha
Gary Robertson called because he thought this was the meeting his
department is scheduled for regarding the changes in the policy
manual.
He prefers to rescind the water standards resolution and readopt the
water standards as an ordinance to go along with the sewer standards
which were adopted as an ordinance.
So if his stuff goes this meeting, we'll need a resolution rescinding
all the obsolete stuff and an ordinance adopting the water standards.
He would do the Board report.
Do you want to take this to the Board this meeting?
Sue Patterson -Bane
Legal Assistant
772-2007
-i-/--,28 ??
Mary Allen 1 Tue, 7 Apr 1998 10:40:15
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 y/iy
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
From: "Diane Hyatt" < ADM01/DDH >
To: "Mary Allen" < ADM01/MHA >
Date sent: Mon, 4 May 1998 12:08:25 + 0000
Subject: Re: May 12 Agenda Staff Meeting
Please put an item on for the approval of the Clerk of the Works (or
whatever the title is) position and the related funding. I will also
have one for the Request for Funding for the Actuarial Study of the
Early Retirement System.
> From:
> To:
> Date:
> Subject:
"Mary Allen" < ADM01 /MHA >
Executive Team
Mon, 4 May 1998 10:19:16 +0000
May 12 Agenda Staff Meeting
> Just a reminder that the Agenda staff meeting for the May 12 agenda
> will be held at 3 p.m. in the Board's conference room. If you have
> an item on the 5/12 agenda please plan to attend. If you have any
> items you wish to place on the agenda, please email me the titles in
> advance of this afternoon's meeting.
> Thanks
Mary Allen 1 Mon, 4 May 1998 12:09:37
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 May 12, 1998, at 3:00 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.
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
Please publish on May 5, 1998
Please send invoice to:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
of The
. K. A.
for the
lurch is
ss noted
n during
a, by any
As within
cation of
bility.
Its. K. A.
for the
th
els
men
0234
ID
LED
PRISES
any, Inc. Is
aals from
registered
nen-owned
is for the
Nations to
Aerospace
As are due
ay, May 8,
,Please call
lotion:
ipany, Inc.
venue
140
24011
43-8749
3-6031
TEES SALE
Avenue
i 24017
deed of trust
19. 1992.
1998.89 FI c. 1 Year Budget
The County of Roanoke will hold a pub-
lic hearing at 5:00 PM or as soon there-
after as the matter may be heard on
Tuesday, May 12, 1998 in the Board
Meeting Room of the Roanoke County
Administration Center, 5204 Bernard
Drive, Roanoke, Virginia. The purpose
of the hearing is to receive written and
oral comment from the public concern-
ing the proposed annual budget for fis-
cal year 1998-99 summarized below
and the FY 1999-2003 Capital Improve-
ments Program.
All interested citizens, groups, senior
citizens, and organizations are encour-
aged to attend and to submit com-
ments. Copies of the proposed budget
will be available for public inspection at
the office of the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors and all County libraries.
Summary of Proposed
1998.99 Budget
Revenue Estimates
General Fund
General Government
Other Local Taxes
Permits, Fees & Licenses
Fines and Forfeitures
Interest Income
Charges for Services
Commonwealth
Federal
Other
$ 70,835,000
21,275,000
730,000
567,000
600,000
279,500
6,199,609
1,842,873
783,250
Total General Government 103,112,232
Youth Haven II
Comprehensive Services
Law Library
Recreation Fee Class
Internal Services
Garage II
442,655
1,707,917
41,980
719,629
1,878,022
1,055,037
Total General Fund 108,957,472
Debt Service Fund
Capital Projects Fund
Internal Service Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
School Operating Fund
School Cafeteria Fund
School Grants Fund
School Textbook Fund
Total Revenues All Funds
Less: Transfers
Total Net of Transfers
9,873,222
3,209,130
892,468
11,553,788
6,572,913
87,233,241
3,293,000
2,137,547
851,675
234,574,456
(67,638,780)
166,935,676
41 au. berm n Ianar, [Abat-
able photo & phone # to: PO
Box 296, Martinsville, VA
24114-0296.
BM, 36 ISO, full figure female
to rock my world. PO Box
5404, Rke, Va. 24012
Married couple, non smoker,
no drugs or alcohol • seeks
males 25-45. P.O.Box 19223,
Roanoke, Va. 24019.
MWC-mid 30s, looking for cou-
ples, females & males. Write to
Wayne & Jean, PO Box 7835,
Roanoke, VA 24019.
PROFESSIONAL WC, attractive,
fit N/S, late 30's, very down-
to-earth, fun loving & friendly,
ISO similiar open-minded cou-
ples, singles, 35-55. Send
photo & phone no. to: PO Box
1224, Salem, VA 24153.
Tall slender single white female
interested in meeting outgoing,
open minded, Bi-F for good
times and fantasies fulfilled.
Respond to Po Box 522 Bed-
ford Va 24523
White M, 37 5'11", 170 would
like to meet white or black cou-
ple, discretion assured. RKE
area. Reply to: PO Box 41
Union Hall Va, 24176
ATLANTIC CITY TRIP
Three days & two nights, May
31 & June 1 & 2, $150. Call for
reservations 343-0846.
HOWETT TUB & TILE -Repair &
Refinishing. Resid & Commer.
Lic/ insur. 540-966-4180
MASONRY CONTRACTOR —Brick
or block; flagstone paving,
underpinning mobile homes.
Call 427-4112 or 798-6785
NEW WORK & REPAIRS -brick,
block, stone, slate, etc.
Licensed & insured. Specialist.
Free est. 265-7377
ABODES: additions, garages &
Affordable Child Care
Rees. Exc refs. 387-4135
CHILD CARE in my home, Mon. -
Fri., 6am-5:30pm. Stewartsville
area. Call 890-4294
PIRSTDAY
CHILDCARE WORKER-exper. &
mother of 2 has openings in my
home. Dayshift. 731-0869
SUMMER CHILD CARE in my
SW City home. Exper. & refs.
345-8615
WILL babysit in my S.E. home
$65.00/wk, F/T, incl. food, no
wkends. Also before/after
school. Debbie at 345-8887
COMPUTER
SERVICES
COMPUTER SERVICE
Help with computer problems,
also training in your home &
computer setups. 890-2659.
Patios, steps, driveways side-
walks & basemnts, new and
old. Reasonable rates.
344-7027
DRIVEWAY
PAVING;#,
GUARANTEED PAVING & SEAL
COATING. For free est. Call
890-1728
Jennelle's Paving & Sealing
Comm./Resid. Refer. Avail.
FREE EST. 382-9443
CARE FOR ELDERLY -in their
home. 8-10 hrs. per day. Expe-
rienced, references. 563-8808
CNA's (2) will sit with elderly in
their home. Flexible schedule.
992-4745
ELDERLY CARE -Looking to care
for elderly persons: 2nd or 3rd
shift. 562-0418.
Interim HealthCare
24 hrs/7 days/wk 774-8686
New River Valley, 381-2757
Martinsville, 647-1700
Galax,Hillsvllle,Wville 236-6066
Danville, 804-836-4686
VACANCY in private care home
for elderly. 16 yrs exp. Refs.
992-3272
ESTATE
LIQUIDATORS".I
1
AA Estates, we sell for you,
staffed with 60 years experi-
ence, Lic. &Bonded, 427-5161
• ELEANOR ESTATES •
We Sell It All and Sweep the
House; 15% Commission.
Lic, Bonded & Ins 366-5925
GARAGE
DOORS
Dixie Bldg. Products
Garage Door & Opener
Installation & Service
:.L.111J ,.UIr:,;L,-
formed by experienced crew.
Licensed & insured.
344-8863
Landscaping
Mowing, brush remove , build-
ing & restoring rock walls.
985-0632
MOWING: ALL TYPES 890-0679
TREE & YARD WORK
TOP SOIL, Pro -mix, fill dirt,
mulch, Bobcat loader, wk seed-
ing. 375-6750 or 268-2666
WATKINS TREE SERVICE
Low rates, free estimates.
540-380-2743
OPPORTUNITY UNLIMITED
People needed now for our
Planned Advancement
Program.
Call 366-0720 ask for Mr. Jay
AccuStaff
m .. 4V .0o
725-9526
No Fees EOE
Adeccc'
THE EMPLOYMENT PEOPLE
989-1672
ACTION PERSONNEL
366-4222 NO FEES
PERSONNEL SERVICES
540-776-8729, Roanoke
HOME TYPISTS
PC users needed. $45,000
income'pot'I. Feel Directory.
1-800-513-4343 Ext. 8-9264.
ITT GTC is now
GaAsTEK
Catch us at www.gaastek.com
ITT NIGHT VISION
For Career Opportunities see
www.ittnv.com.
Temporary
Services
774-8300
ATTENTION: Insurance Agents,
have no leads? Call for career
opportunity. 540-562-3300
411
7.4 7
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
April 30, 1998
1Irnuttg of "iaanatte
Ms. West
Roanoke Times & World News
Legal Advertisement Department
201-209 Campbell Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Ms. West:
DIANE D. HYATT, CPA
DIRECTOR
PAUL E. GRICE, CPA
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
Please publish the enclosed public notice as a block advertisement on Tuesday, May 5, 1998. The
size of this ad in past years has been approximately 2.5" x 14". These general dimensions are needed
in this ad as well. Bill the cost of publication to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors at the
following address:
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
ATTN: Mary Allen
P. O. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798
I would like to review a draft of the advertisement as soon as possible before publication. My fax
number is 772-2186. If you have any questions, please call me at 772-2021. Thanks.
Sincerely,
W. Brent Robertson
Budget Manager
Enclosure
c: Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
ary ,
Anne Marie Green, Community Relations
Elmer Hodge, County Administrator
P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 • (540) 772-2023 • FAX: (540) 772-2186
Recycled Paper
County of Roanoke
Notice of Public Hearing of the Proposed
1998-99 Fiscal Year Budget
The County of Roanoke will hold a public hearing at 5:00 PM or as soon thereafter as the matter
may be heard on Tuesday,May 12, 1998 in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County
Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia. The purpose of the hearing is to
receive written and oral comment from the public concerning the proposed annual budget for fiscal
year 1998-99 summarized below and the FY 1999-2003 Capital Improvements Program.
All interested citizens, groups, senior citizens, and organizations are encouraged to attend and to
submit comments. Copies of the proposed budget will be available for public inspection at the office
of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors and all County libraries.
Summary of Proposed
1998-99 Budget
Revenue Estimates Amount
General Fund
General Government
General Property Taxes $ 70,835,000
Other Local Taxes 21,275,000
Permits, Fees & Licenses 730,000
Fines and Forfeitures 567,000
Interest Income 600,000
Charges for Services 279,500
Commonwealth 6,199, 609
Federal 1,842,873
Other 783,250
Total General Government 103,112,232
Youth Haven II 442,655
Comprehensive Services 1,707,917
Law Library 41,980
Recreation Fee Class 719,629
Internal Services 1,878,022
Garage II 1,055,037
Total General Fund 108,957,472
Debt Service Fund 9,873,222
Capital Projects Fund 3,209,130
Internal Service Fund 892,468
Water Fund 11,553,788
Sewer Fund 6,572,913
School Operating Fund 87,233,241
School Cafeteria Fund 3,293,000
School Grants Fund 2,137,547
School Textbook Fund 851,675
Total Revenues All Funds 234,574,456
Less: Transfers (67,638,780)
Total Net of Transfers 166,935,676
04/30/98 08:53 PM PROPOS99.WK4
Proposed Expenditures Amount
General Fund
General Government
General Administration $ 2,317,364
Constitutional Officers 6,648,960
Judicial Administration 516,815
Management Services 2,016,271
Public Safety 11,339,958
Community Services 7,789,125
Human Services 9,615,323
Non -Departmental 3,579,805
Transfers to School Operating Fund 46,582,748
Transfers to Capital Fund 3,209,130
Transfers to Debt Service Fund 6,610,228
Other 2,886,505
Total General Government 103,112,232
Youth Haven II 442,655
Comprehensive Services 1,707,917
Law Library 41,980
Recreation Fee Class 719,629
Internal Services 1,878,022
Garage II 1,055,037
Total General Fund 108,957,472
Debt Service Fund 9,873,222
Capital Projects Fund 3,209,130
Internal Service Fund 892,468
Water Fund 11,553,788
Sewer Fund 6,572,913
School Operating Fund 87,233,241
School Cafeteria Fund 3,293,000
School Grants Fund 2,137,547
School Textbook Fund 851,675
Total Expenditures All Funds 234,574,456
Less: Transfers (67,638,780)
Total Net of Transfers 166,935,676
04/30/98 08:53 PM PROPOS99.WK4