Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/24/2000 - Regular~~~~~ O~ R ANO,Y~ ~ G ~ • ~ r_ ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~ ACTION AGENDA OCTOBER 24, 2000 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. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3, will be rebroadcast on Thursdays at 7 P M and Saturdays at 4 p m ,and are now closed captioned. BECAUSE OF THE THANKSGIVING AND CHR/STMAS HOLIDAYS, THE ONLY MEETING /N NOVEMBER W/LL BE NOVEMBER 74 AT 3:00 P.M. AND 7:00 P.M. AND THE DECEMBER MEETINGS WILL BEHELD ON DECEMBER 5 AT 3:00 P.M. AND DECEMBER 79 AT 3:00 P.M. AND 7:.00 P.M. Individuals who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005 at least 48 hours in advance so reasonable accommodations may be made. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call ALL PRESENT AT 3:02 P.M. 2. Invocation: John M. Chambliss Assistant County Administrator 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS ECH ADDED CLOSED MEETING. 2 1-344A (7) CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL 1 ® Recycled Paper COUNSEL CONCERNING PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT WITH ADVANCE AUTO. INC. C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Proclamation declaring the month of October 2000 as National Arts and Humanities Month in Roanoke County. HCN MOTION TO ADOPT PROCLAMATION - URC ACCEPTED BY SUSAN JENNINGS WHO DISTRIBUTED COPIES OF ECONOMIC AND EDUCATION IMPACT REPORT. D. BRIEFINGS 1. Presentation of the Center for Research and Technology marketing CD to the Board of Supervisors and expressions of appreciation for the October 12, 2000 grand opening program. (Elmer C. Hodge and Economic Development Staff) PRESENTED BY ECH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STAFF. NEW MARKETING CD WAS VIEWED. 2. Update on Future Technology and Trade Expo to be held on October 28 and 29, 2000, at the Salem Civic Center. (Debbie Pitts, Assistant Director of Recreation) PRESENTED BY DEBBIE PITTS E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for approval of a performance agreement with Wal-Mart. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) A-102400-1 BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE AYES-BLJ,HOM,JBC.HCN NAYS-JPM 2. Request to negotiate an agreement for Botetourt County and Roanoke County to jointly provide water and sewer service to the proposed Stonegate subdivision. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) 2 CONTINUED TO 11/14/00 TO LOOK AT POSSIBLE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT AND ENTRANCE AND EGRESS ISSUES. PMM AND GARY ROBERTSON TO WORK WITH BOTETOURT COUNTY. F. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of these items does not indicate support for, or judge the merits of, the requested zoning actions but satisfies procedural requirements and schedules the Public Hearings which will be held after recommendation by the Planning Commission. HOM MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING AFTER DISCUSSION OF ITEM F- 2. - 2ND AND PUBLIC HEARINGS -11114100 URC 1. First reading of ordinance to amend and re-enact Sections 30-82-12 and 30-82-13 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to make minor revisions to use and design standards for certain single family residential developments, upon the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission. 2. First reading of ordinance to obtain two Special Use Permits to operate a camp and a day care center located at 5488 Yellow Mountain Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of the C&H Enterprises and Rising Star Sports & Adventure Camp. HCN REQUESTED WORK SESSION BEFORE 2ND READING CONSENSUS TO SCHEDULE WORK SESSION ON 11/14/00 G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of ordinance amending Ordinance 011299-6, "Roanoke County Community Plan" for adoption of a new future land use map and design guidelines for the Colonial Avenue corridor. (Tim Beard, Planner) HOM MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND AND PUBLIC HEARING -11114100 URC 2. First reading of ordinance vacating a 15 foot drainage easement 3 recorded in Plat Book 15, Page 131, within the boundary of Derby Drive in Triple Crown Estates, Section 1 and located in the Vinton Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Community Development Director) HCN MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND AND PUBLIC HEARING -11/14/00 URC 3. Ordinance authorizing the vacation of a portion of a 20 foot water line easement and a portion of an existing 20 foot sanitary sewer easement and acceptance of the relocated portions across Parcel 1 B-1-A of Peters Creek Commercial Park. (Arnold Covey, Community Development Director) BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND AND PUBLIC HEARING -11114100 URC H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES NONE I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Grievance Panel 2. Highway and Transportation Safety Commission HCN ASKED STAFF TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THIS COMMITTEE COULD BE PART OF THE BLUE RIDGE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD. 3. Industrial Development Authority JPM NOMINATED LINWOOD WINDLEY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, TO A FOUR-YEAR TERM WHICH WILL EXPIRE SEPTEMBER 26, 2004. 4. Social Services Advisory Board J. CONSENT AGENDA 4 ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. R-102400-2 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA URC 1. Confirmation of appointments to the Industrial Development Authority and League of Older Americans Advisory Board. A-102400-2.a 2. Adoption of resolution authorizing motion with the State Corporatio proposed Virginia Gas Pipeline. R-102400-2.b the County Attorney to file a n Commission concerning the 3. Request from school administration for acceptance and appropriation of $300 for a Virginia Commission for the Arts music in service program. A-102400-2.c 4. Request from school administration for acceptance and appropriation of $3,698.13 to the Student Assistance Program Fund. A-102400-2.d 5. Appropriation of Compensation Board reimbursement of $3,810 for additional capital purchase for the Commonwealth Attorney's Office. A-102400-2.e 6. Donation of a .203 acre of land for public right-of-way from A. Jennings Robertson and Doris K. Robertson conveyed to the Board of Supervisors in the Hollins Magisterial District. 5 A-102400-2.f 7. Acceptance of aPass-through $25,000 grant on behalf of RADAR from the Commonwealth Mass Transit Funds to develop a facility study for their transportation system. A-102400-2.a K. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Request for work session on November 14, 2000 to review the Secondary System Six-Year Construction Plan and projects for VDOT Revenue Sharing. (Arnold Covey, Community Development Director) WORK SESSION SCHEDULED FOR 11/14/00 WORK SESSION ON RISING STAR SPORTS CAMP SCHEDULED FOR 11/14/00 L. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS NONE N. REPORTS HOM MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE -URC 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Future School Capital Reserve 5. Accounts Paid -September 2000 6 6. Proclamation signed by the Chairman 7. Report of claims activity for the Self-Insurance Program 8. Estimated revenues and expenditures as of September 30, 2000 O. WORK SESSIONS 1. Work Session on Clearbrook Initiatives (4:30 p.m.) D HARRINGTON. BOARD CONSENSUS TO GO FORWARD IMMEDIATELY WITH ,.. .- w r,e~~nn~ ~I1IATCR eAln SEWER AND MOVE FORWARD WITH OTHER INITIATIVES. MID-FEBRUARY 2001. 2 Work Session on proposed Fire and Rescue Comprehensive Plan (5:00 p.m.) HELD FROM 5:00 TO 6:00 P.M. PRESENTED BY ECH CHIEF BURCH NSUS TO MOVE FORWARD WIBTH AND WOODROW HENDERSON. CONSE RE UEST TO ADD 20 PARAMEDIC/FIRE NpHSURPLUSTI D SCUSSION OIN STATION RENOVATIONS USING YEAR E FUTURE FUNDING METHODS INCLUDING FEE FOR SERVICE OR INCREASING THE DECAL FEE. P. CLOSED MEETING pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344A (7) consultation with legal counsel concerning performance agreement with Advance Auto. BLJ MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED MEETING AT 4:20 PM. URC CLOSED MEETING HELD FROM 6:10 P.M. TO 6:45 P.M. EVENING SESSION (7:00 P.M.1 7 Q. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-102400-3 JPM MOTION TO RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AT 7:05 P.M. AND ADOPT CERTIFICATION RESO -URC R. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. (a) Public Hearing on the proposed Fire and Rescue comprehensive plan which provides expanded advanced life support coverage; additional paramedic/firefighters; and funding; and (b) request to approve funding and positions for 20 additional paramedic/firefighters. 17 CITIZENS SPOKE A-102400-4 HCN MOTION TO ~) AUTHORIZE THE ADDITION OF 20 PARAMEDIC- FIREFIGHTERS AND FUNDING OF $907,000 OUT OF JUNE 2000 YEAR-END FUNDS; (2) MOVE FORWARD WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS AT CLEARBROOK AND MOUNT PLEASANT STATIONS; (3) MOVE FORWARD IN WORKING ON PLANS FOR POTENTIAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT VINTON, READ MOUNTAIN AND MASON COVE STATIONS; (4) MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VOLUNTEER/ADMINISTRATIVE TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP A LONG RANGE PLAN FOR RECRUITMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICE DELIVERY AND BRING BACK A REPORT TO THE BOARD WITHIN 90 DAYS. -URC BOARD CONSENSUS TO STAY OUT OF THE STAFF ALLOCATION PLAN WHICH SHOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CHIEF BURCH, THE VOLUNTEERS AND THE FIRE AND RESCUE STAFF. S. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. CONTINUED TO JANUARY 2001 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER) Ordinance for a Special Use Permit to allow a convenience store with gas station located at 3434 Buck Mountain Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Springwood Properties, LLC. jCONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 14, 2000 AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER) Second reading of ordinance to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a 180 foot broadcasting tower, located in the 300 block of John Richardson Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of U. S. Cellular. CONTINUED TO 11/14/00 3. Second reading of ordinance to obtain a Special Use Permit for a religious assembly, located at 5471 Keffer Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of The Church of God. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) 0-102400-5 JBC MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE URC 4. Second reading of ordinance to rezone 3.77 acres from C-2 with conditions to C-1 with conditions to construct an office building, located in the 3100 block of Electric Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Certified Medical Representatives Institute. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) 0-102400-6 JPM MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE AYES-HOM,JBC.HCN.JPM ABSTAIN-BLJ 5. Second reading of ordinance for a Special Use Permit to allow a 195 foot broadcast tower, located in the 8300 block of Honeysuckle Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Aircable of Roanoke, LLC. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) 0-102400-7 JPM MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE STAFF TO INVESTIGATE TAX PAYING STATUS OF PROPERTY SINCE IT IS OWNED BY EVANGEL FOURSQUARE CHURCH. URC 6. Second reading of ordinance to rezone 0.345 acre portion of .809 acre parcel from C-2 to R-2 to construct a two family dwelling, located at 5929 Williamson Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon 9 the petition of Mexicorp Inc. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) 0-102400-8 HOM MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE _AYES-HOM,JBC,HCN.JPM ABSTAIN-BLJ 7. Second reading of ordinances foe adlogtion ofI a new fuOture Band "Roanoke County Community Plan p use map for the Hollins (Exit 146) I-81 Interchange area. (Janet Scheid, Senior Planner) 0-102400-9 DESIGNATED CORE LAND USE. URC 8. Second reading of ordinance amending and reenacting Section 21-3. "Utility Service Tax" of Article I. "In General" of Chapter 21, "Taxation" of the Roanoke County Code to conform to the requirements of Virginia Statutes deregulating electrical and natural gas industries. (Joseph Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney) 0-102400-10 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE URC T. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS James Garris. 3108 D Honeywood Lane, spoke on Su ervisor Nickens'.proposal to give radar puns to citizens and asked_that they also be used as a tool to capture County vehicles that are speeding. including _Police and EMS vehicles when their lights are not flashing Asked for an answer from staff. U. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Su ervisor Church: 1 Ex ressed s m ath to Dick Fisher on the death of his wife. Ann (2) Complimented TAP on their 35t'' Anniversary 10 encourage people to vote. absentee ballot through Saturday, October 28. V. ADJOURNMENT JPM ADJOURNED MEETING AT 9:20 P.M. 11 ROANp e~xr aF na arise xmrF ~F ~, z ~ ~z C~~~~# ~~ ~a~xx~~.~.~ 1838 / ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA OCTOBER 24, 2000 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. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3, will be rebroadcast on Thursdays at 7 P.M. and Saturdays at 4 p.m., and are now closed captioned. BECAUSE OF THE THANKSGIVING AND CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS, THE ONLY MEETING IN NOVEMBER WILL BE NOVEMBER 14 AT 3:00 P.M. AND 7:00 P.M., AND THE DECEMBER MEETINGS WILL BE HELD ON DECEMBER 5 AT 3:00 P.M. AND DECEMBER 19 AT 3:00 P.M. AND 7:00 P.M. Individuals who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005 at least 48 hours in advance so reasonable accommodations may be made. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation: John M. Chambliss Assistant County Administrator 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1 ® Recycled Paper D. BRIEFINGS 1. Presentation of the Center for. Research and Technology marketing CD to the Board of Supervisors and expressions of appreciation for the October 12, 2000 grand opening program. (Elmer C. Hodge and Economic Development Staff) 2. Update on Future Technology and Trade Expo to be held on October 28 and 29, 2000, at the Salem Civic Center. (Debbie Pitts, Assistant Director of Recreation) E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for approval of a performance agreement with Wal-Mart. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 2. Request to negotiate an agreement for Botetourt County and Roanoke County to jointly provide water and sewer service to the proposed Stonegate subdivision. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) F. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of these items does not indicate support for, or judge the merits of, the requested zoning actions but satisfies procedural requirements and schedules the Public Hearings which will be held after recommendation by the Planning Commission. 1. First reading of ordinance to amend and re-enact Sections 30-82-12 and 30-82-13 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to make minor revisions to use and design standards for certain single family residential developments, upon the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission. 2. First reading of ordinance to obtain two Special Use Permits to operate a camp and a day care center located at 5488 Yellow Mountain Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of the C&H Enterprises and Rising Star Sports & Adventure Camp. G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of ordinance amending Ordinance 011299-6, "Roanoke 2 County Community Plan" for adoption of a new future land use map and design guidelines for the Colonial Avenue corridor. (Tim Beard, Planner) 2. First reading of ordinance vacating a 15 foot drainage easement recorded in Plat Book 15, Page 131, within the boundary of Derby Drive in Triple Crown Estates, Section 1 and located in the Vinton Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Community Development Director) 3. Ordinance authorizing the vacation of a portion of a 20 foot water line easement and a portion of an existing 20 foot sanitary sewer easement and acceptance of the relocated portions across Parcel 1 B-1-A of Peters Creek Commercial Park. (Arnold Covey, Community Development Director) H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Grievance Panel 2. Highway and Transportation Safety Commission 3. Industrial Development Authority 4. Social Services Advisory Board J. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Confirmation of appointments to the Industrial Development Authority and League of Older Americans Advisory Board. 2. Adoption of resolution authorizing the County Attorney to file a motion with the State Corporation Commission concerning the 3 proposed Virginia Gas Pipeline. 3. Request from school administration for acceptance and appropriation of $300 for a Virginia Commission for the Arts music in service program. 4. Request from school administration for acceptance and appropriation of $3,698.13 to the Student Assistance Program Fund. 5. Appropriation of Compensation Board reimbursement of $3,810 for additional capital purchase for the Commonwealth Attorney's Office. 6. Donation of a .203 acre of land for public right-of-way from A. Jennings Robertson and Doris K. Robertson conveyed to the Board of Supervisors in the Hollins Magisterial District. 7. Acceptance of aPass-through $25,000 grant on behalf of RADAR from the Commonwealth Mass Transit Funds to develop a facility study for their transportation system. K. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Request for work session on November 14, 2000 to review the Secondary System Six-Year Construction Plan and projects for VDOT Revenue Sharing. (Arnold Covey, Community Development Director) L. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS N. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Future School Capital Reserve 5. Accounts Paid -September 2000 4 6. Proclamation signed by the Chairman 7. Report of claims activity for the Self-Insurance Program 8. Estimated revenues and expenditures as of September 30, 2000 O. WORK SESSIONS 1. Work Session on Clearbrook Initiatives (4:30 p.m.) 2 Work Session on proposed Fire and Rescue Comprehensive Plan (5:00 p.m.) P. CLOSED MEETING pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344A EVENING SESSION (7:007:00 P.M.) Q. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. (a) Public Hearing on the proposed Fire and Rescue comprehensive plan which provides expanded advanced life support coverage; additional paramedic/firefighters; and funding; and (b) request to approve funding and positions for 20 additional paramedic/firefighters. S. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. CONTINUED TO JANUARY 2001 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER) Ordinance for a Special Use Permit to allow a convenience store with gas station located at 3434 Buck Mountain Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Springwood Properties, LLC. 2. (CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 14, 2000 AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER) Second reading of ordinance to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a 180 foot broadcasting tower, located in the 300 block of John Richardson Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of U. S. Cellular. 5 3. Second reading of ordinance to obtain a Special Use Permit for a religious assembly, located at 5471 Keffer Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of The Church of God. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) 4. Second reading of ordinance to rezone 3.77 acres from C-2 with conditions to C-1 with conditions to construct an office building, located in the 3100 block of Electric Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Certified Medical Representatives Institute. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) 5. Second reading of ordinance for a Special Use Permit to allow a 195 foot broadcast tower, located in the 8300 block of Honeysuckle Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Aircable of Roanoke, LLC. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) 6. Second reading of ordinance to rezone 0.345 acre portion of .809 acre parcel from C-2 to R-2 to construct a two family dwelling, located at 5929 Williamson Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Mexicorp Inc. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) 7. Second reading of ordinance amending Ordinance 011299-6 "Roanoke County Community Plan" for adoption of a new future land use map for the Hollins (Exit 146) I-81 Interchange area. (Janet Scheid, Senior Planner) 8. Second reading of ordinance amending and reenacting Section 21-3. "Utility Service Tax" of Article I. "In General" of Chapter 21, "Taxation" of the Roanoke County Code to conform to the requirements of Virginia Statutes deregulating electrical and natural gas industries. (Joseph Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney) T. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS U. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS V. ADJOURNMENT 6 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: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Proclamation declaring the month of October, 2000, as National Arts and Humanities Month in Roanoke County COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Ms. Susan Jennings, Executive Director of the Arts Council of the Blue Ridge, has requested in the attached letter that the Board proclaim October, 2000, as National Arts and Humanities Month in Roanoke County. Ms. Jennings will be present to accept the proclamation and to distribute copies of their economic-education impact report to the Board members. ~) .~~,.... Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved () Motion by: Church Denied () Johnson _ _ _ Received () McNamara- _ _ Referred () Minnix To () Nickens .' the council of the blue ridge October 11, 2000 The Honorable Joseph McNamara Chair, Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke VA 24018-0798 Dear Chair McNamara: C-~ For the seventh year, mayors and other public officials across America will proclaim October National Arts & Humanities Month, hailing the arts and humanities as vital to the well-being of our families, communities and the nation as a whole. A resolution has been signed each year by participants at the United States Conference of Mayors and nationwide events are sponsored by Americans .for the Arts. This makes October an opportune time to highlight the value of the cultural life of the Roanoke region to our community. Coincidentally, The Arts Council has just completed aneconomic/education impact study which demonstrates the importance of arts and culture to our region. I have enclosed a copy for your review. I am asking that you designate October Arts and Humanities Month in Roanoke County by presenting a proclamation similar to the enclosed copy at an upcoming Board of Supervisors meeting. As the only organization which represents all the arts and cultural groups in the region, a representative from The Arts Council would attend to accept the proclamation. At that time, I would ask for a few minutes to share the results of our economic/education impact report with the members of the Board of Supervisors. I appreciate your consideration of this request and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Susan Jennings Executive Director ~ Cc: 1VIr. Elmer Hodge Administrator County of Roanoke The Arts CUUncil of the Blue Ridge • 20 East Church Avenue • Roanoke, Virginia 24011 • 540-342-5790 • www.theartscouncil.org • tacbrL~roanoke.inti.net 4 f ~„ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2000 AS NATIONAL ARTS AND HUMANITIES MONTH IN ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, the arts and humanities enhance and enrich the lives of all Americans; and WHEREAS, the arts and humanities affect every aspect of life in America today including the economy, social problem solving, job creation, education, creativity, and community livability; and WHEREAS, cities and states, through their local and state arts agencies, representing more than 23,000 cultural organizations, have joined with the National Cultural Alliance to celebrate the value and importance of culture in the lives of Americans and the health of thriving communities during National Arts and Humanities Month; and WHEREAS, the United States Conference of Mayors' arts partner, Americans for the Arts, will coordinate the national awareness campaign and activities for National Arts and Humanities Month this year; and WHEREAS, the nation's 23,000 cultural organizations, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the nation's 3,800 local arts agencies, the arts and humanities councils of the 50 states and U.S. jurisdictions, and the President of the United States will be encouraged to participate in this national celebration and public awareness campaign; and WHEREAS, the month of October, 2000, has been designated as National Arts and Humanities Month. NOW, THEREFORE, WE, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim the month of October, 2000, in Roanoke County, Virginia, as NATIONAL ARTS AND HUMANITIES MONTH, and call upon all citizens to become involved in supporting the arts and humanities in our area. 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: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Presentation of the Center for Research and Technology marketing CD to the Board of Supervisors and expressions of appreciation for the October 12, 2000 grand opening program COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Economic Development staff and I want to take this opportunity to thank those who participated two weeks ago in the "Opening Ceremony" of Roanoke County's CENTER FOR RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY. We had an outstanding program with some very special speakers and a video presentation on our new park. We now want to present the Board with a copy of our new "business card" CD that has been prepared to market CRT. Virginia has become the leading technology state in the country surpassing even California and the "Silicon Valley." With our new business park and it's proximity to Virginia Tech and the Roanoke metropolitan area, Roanoke County can play a role in this vision. We have from the beginning said that CRT fills a special niche, to be the best research and technology park in western Virginia. I express my appreciation once again to the Board of Supervisors and staff who have made the Center for Research and Technology possible. Thank you to the Supervisors who, three years ago, had the vision to purchase this land, establish development guidelines, and rezone it. I also thank the present Board members who continue to support the development and who encourage us to market the property only to the best prospects. Thanks also to our staff for working very hard to prepare the site and plan the program. want to express my personal appreciation to each member of the Board, to Pete Haislip, Anne-Marie Green, Arnold Covey, Gary Robertson, the Police Department, and the Sheriff's Office. I also want to thank David Porter, Jill Barr, and especially Melinda Cox who piloted this project from the beginning. I have included a list of just some of the many guests who attended and participated in our program. PARTICIPANTS Lieutenant Governor John Hager Senator "Bo" Trumbo ~ -/ Delegate Morgan Griffith Delegate, Jeannemarie Devolites of the 35th District Donald W. Upson, Secretary of Technology Mark Kilduff, Executive Director, Virginia Economic Development Partnership Dr. Charles Steger, President of Virginia Tech Joe McNamara, Chairman, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Joseph "Butch" Church, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors VIRGINIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP Mark Kilduff brought 13 members of his staff VIRGINIA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE David Dickson, Director, Virginia Business Assistance AGRICULTURAL Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services William P. Scruggs VIRGINIA TECH Dr. Raymond Smoot Dr. William Stephenson Ray Pethtel Dr. Mary Guy Miller John Phillips Dr. Tracy Wilkins Ralph Byers STATE ORGANIZATIONS Anne Armstrong, President, Virginia's Center for Innovative Technology Mark Herzog, Executive Director, Virginia Biotechnology Association CITY OF ROANOKE Mayor Ralph Smith TOWN OF VINTON Mayor Donald Davis LOCAL OFFICIALS Darlene Burcham, Roanoke City Manager Gerald Burgess, Botetourt County Administrator Elizabeth Frank, Craig County Administrator Clay Goodman, Vinton Town Manager Richard E. Huff, County Administrator, Franklin County Bill Rolfe, Bedford County Administrator Joseph Yates, Acting Assistant City Manager, Salem W~. NEW CENTURY TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL Bonz Hart, President ROANOKE VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP Phil Sparks, Executive Director Rob Ledger, Marketing Manager Ann Piedmont INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Billy Branch, Chairman Carole Brackman ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Kyle Robinson, Jr. Donald R. Witt CHAMBER & VISITORS BUREAU REPRESENTATIVES Roger Dalton, President, Salem-Roanoke County Chamber Elizabeth Doughty, President, Roanoke Regional Chamber Brian Duvall, Executive Vice President, Salem-Roanoke County Chamber Dave Kjolhede, Executive Director, Roanoke Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau We want to show the new marketing CD and introduce to you representatives from Access, the local company that produced this for us. A few weeks ago, Access was chosen by the Regional Chamber as the Small Business of the Year in the Micro-Business category. mer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Motion by: No. Yes Abs Church Johnson McNamara- _ _ 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: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Update on Future Technology and Trade Expo to be held on October 28 and 29, 2000, at the Salem Civic Center. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Future Technology and Trade Expo will be held at the Salem Civic Center on October 28 and 29, 2000. This is the final and one of the most exciting events planned and coordinated by the Celebrate 2000 Committee. Debbie Pitts, Assistant Director of Recreation, serves as the Chairman of the Expo and will update the Board on the event plans. The Expo will showcase high tech companies from across the New Century Region. There will be exhibits, demonstrations and entertainment. One of the highlights will be the Virginia Tech Pavilion with student exhibits. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Motion by: VOTE No. Yes Abs Church _ Johnson McNamara- Minnix _ _ Nickens ~-2 ~ j f ~ • ` 4j •' i~ °°o ,. O A~~~' 7 ~ Ad .Od~~ Future Techno%gy and Trade Expo n m ~~ nanTavr wnmx pO rF+ vp ~~ J1~~~F /a~i ~~ ~`:1! \o~~ M~ Ids M ~ 3~ ~`~ 1UJ~ THE HOTEL ROANOKE & CONFERENCE CENTER A D0I1BlFTREE NOTEI '~ ~~; n h a n s l • the spirit of virginia AMERICAN` ~ EIECTR/C PAVER ,~ .~tt^;~x„cai;?;.~yPoq.~r.~ yp,LE,y ~r hAa~e~ ~~ ~'~ 4 +. ^. r uture Expb Future Technology and Trade Expo V,` F 11 ROAI~IOKE CO(1NTY -.2 Page 1 of 2 Thanks to Rev.Net and Verizon for their cooperative effort in providing a WebCast of this event! To view this WebCast, please visit the WREV.Net site ,click on the FAQ/Help link, and follow the instructions for downloading Real Player in Question #2. Test the connection on the news and radio links prior to the event. Check out the proposed schedule of the WebCast here! Check out our_ confirmed exhibitors please be patient while this page loads! Ise°ur VENDORS: CHECK HERE FOR Interested in Sponsoring? organization interested EXPO SETUP INFO in participating? This event, held at the Salem Civic Center, will provide an opportunity for over 80 New Century Region corporations, businesses, governments, and industries to showcase their high tech products and services of today and offer previews of future products and services. Citizens will be able to see the unique technologies and services made and offered in our own community and explore employment and educational opportunities. Drop by to trick or treat the vendors, meet Robomaster, and to enjoy the family entertainment offered throughout the show Saturday October 28, 2000 9:00 a.m. unti16:00 p.m. Sunday October 29, 2000 from 1:00 p.m. unti15:00 p.m. $2.00 for adult. Children 17 & under are free In addition to the Vendors, there will be a special area highlighting Virginia Tech's Engineering students. The VT Pavilion will showcase 16 student projects from the College of Engineering at Virginia Tech. It will be officially opened at a "Vendor Only" event Friday night, with a "hi tech" ribbon cutting by Congressman Bob Goodlatte and Congressman Rick Boucher. ('!'he ribbon cutting can be viewed by the public on the webcast.) Several of these projects have won first place nationally this year in competition against other institutions of higher learning. Students and faculty members will be on hand to interpret their projects to the expo participants. Examples of the projects are a human powered submarine, a fuel cell powered car, an autonomous vehicle, a cement canoe that floats, etc. If you are interested in being an exhibitor, sponsor or checking out who is already scheduled to attend, use the links at the top of the page. If you would like more info on this event, send an email below. http://www.co.roanoke.va.us/celebrate2000/default.htm 10/24/00 ' www.co.roanoke.va.us/celebrate2000 125 212 ~.~ 40 Town of Vinton =i~'~.~~ ; I Broadslate Networks n~nroa~~,. rae. ~~ V_~_ c 127 • • • _ . - . .. . 214, ~\1~.~''11'VQ,L~G ~QLLE~G 40 _ _ -- --- 129 °•-~ ~'~ ~^, ~~~ 216 41}r! n: •~ Roanoke City 131 Con~ou r r 222 ~~-'fin ~41~ ~.~. _ __ 133 224 ~; 41 ;Barrows Business Environments -------_ _.___-- ___-_ ----_-__ _------- ___ ____ _-_-_-New Century Products ---- --- ~ Acme BusinessMachnines 135 226 421 - ---- --- _ _ 304 --- _- 423! 203 - aaawks Cva~sty ,,,~ i 1~+ar{<.d p*vt~ ~+6QrtCpliwrh r y,.,,i,~. m Hiss ak~r x 205 ;306 42 1.w91'•'IQIrM!WiW .. irr i I ~1 \\j • __ __ 207 ' 308' ~ ~ ~ ~ 429 -_~. ~_ _ _- i 211 ~ 312; Barrows Business Environments _.- - _ -- _ -- 213 •• • •- •• • 314 •• • •- .• •- -143', 215 316; i 501; Barrows Business Environments ._ ___ - - - 221 322j 'S0~ Gallopade International ~ ,~~„~ 1"1 [,,,,;,.. p><'1'1 ~~lecom. , N.~w d •w A~Wf MM~~r ~1~awoi14 223 i ' 324! ~ 503, f j Gallopade International _ ~ _ ___ 2251 _.. ,,~, 1504 ~ _: -326 ._. ..~, ~. ~ ~ ,, . , F ~ _ . _.. , _-_ . - ~ , .Y.. _ . ', 1 330 j229~ s~ X505 0'111!` 1 ADVEI~• I~E~ i ~~~ { I I j. - _ _ __ _ _ -- _~,__._~-.._ .. _ - L - - - Page 2 Sponsors InclLdeAEP, motel Roanok~NewsChanne110, Roanoke CityRoanoke County SunCom and V~inia Tech Page 3 www.co.roanoke.va.us/celebrate2000 A-102400-1 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: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Performance Agreement with the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia, and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: County staff has negotiated a Performance Agreement to promote and encourage economic development in Roanoke County through the recruitment of new retail business to provide for increased employment and corporate investment in Roanoke County. This Performance Agreement with the IDA and the Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust accomplishes this goal. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This Performance Agreement provides for the future appropriation of $620,000 to the IDA. The IDA will reimburse Wal-Mart for certain public infrastructure improvements in four annual installments. Wal-Mart will develop a 45 acre parcel located at State Rt. 460 and Alternate State Route 220 with projected annual sales of $40 Million, and it is estimated that this project will generate $524,000 in new annual local tax revenues for Roanoke County. Wal-Mart will construct an approximate 184,456 square foot Wal-Mart Super Center in general conformance with the site plan dated September 20, 2000, prepared by Mattern & Craig. G:\ATTORNEY\PMM\ECONDEV\WalMartPerfAgree.rpt.frml ACTION # 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: October 24, 2000 SUBJECT: Request for authorization to negotiate an agreement for Botetourt County and Roanoke County to Jointly Provide Water and Sewer Service to the Proposed Stonegate Subdivision COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ..v~.~,~ BACKGROUND: Roanoke County and Botetourt County have a history of cooperating on development adjacent to our common borders. In the late 1980's a grant was obtained to provide water and sewer service to the Hollins community, which was comprised of both Botetourt and Roanoke County residents. A separate company (Hollins Community Development Corporation) was established to serve this area. This corporation was later purchased by Roanoke County. In May 1990 a contract was approved by Roanoke County/Botetourt County allowing Roanoke County to sell bulk water to Botetourt County in the Route 604 area. This contract was renewed and amended in 1999 to allow Roanoke County to provide water service to certain Botetourt County residents after Roanoke County purchased the Read Mountain Water Company. In addition the five valley governments share major interceptor lines and the regional treatment facility for providing sewer service to our residents. The contract most recently amended in 1995 provides capacities for each locality. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: A new residential subdivision is being proposed that will be partially in Roanoke County and partially in Botetourt County (see attached map). As proposed, public water service would require extending Roanoke County water lines and public sewer service would require extending Botetourt County sewer lines. ~r Staff members from Roanoke County and Botetourt County have met to discuss the best way to provide public water and sewer service to this area. Staff proposes that water and sewer be provided in accordance with the following conditions. - Roanoke County shall supply potable water service to the subdivision. - Water lines and all appurtenances located in Tinkerview Road shall be the property of Roanoke County. - Water lines and all appurtenances located in Stonegate Drive shall be the property of Botetourt County. - If Botetourt County determines that the water line will be further extended into Botetourt County, then a bulk meter should be installed near the intersection of Stonegate and Tinkerview. If the line will not be extended, bulk rates could be based on individual water meter readings. - Botetourt County shall provide sewer service to the subdivision. - The sewer lines and all appurtenances within the subdivision will be the property of Botetourt County. - Properties located in Roanoke County shall be Roanoke County water and sewer customers and will pay Roanoke County water and sewer rates including off-site and connection fees. Roanoke County residents pay water rates between $3.25 and $4.45/1,000 gallons for 10,000 gallons and 5,000 gallons respectively. Roanoke County residential sewer rates average $3.12/1,000 gallons. - Properties located in Botetourt County shall be Botetourt County water and sewer customers and will pay Botetourt County water and sewer rates including off-site and connection fees. Botetourt County residential water rates would include the bulk rate Roanoke County charges plus the cost for Botetourt County to provide service to their accounts for a total water charge of $4.99/1,000 gallons. Botetourt County residential sewer rates average $3.70/1,000 gallons. - Roanoke County shall bill Botetourt County bulk water rates for water used by Botetourt County customers. These rates will be based on rates (presently at $3.40/1,000 gallons) approved by contract dated October 1, 1999 with any subsequent amendments between Roanoke County and Botetourt County. - Roanoke County would deduct the sewer flow of Roanoke County customers from the master meter reading at the Botetourt County/Roanoke County line at Tinker Creek. This sewer flow would be determined from individual water meter readings. - Maintenance of water lines owned by Roanoke County shall be the responsibility of Roanoke County and maintenance of sewer lines shall be the responsibility of Botetourt County. However, either locality shall have the ability to make emergency repairs to the other party's facilities if deemed necessary to maintain services to their respective customers. Every attempt shall be made to contact the respective responsible locality before repairs are made. Alternatives: Alternative 1: For Botetourt County and Roanoke County to provide utility service to their respective citizens as outlined above. Alternative 2: Allow Roanoke County to provide water service to all residents in the subdivision and Botetourt County to provide all residents in the subdivison sewer service. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no cost to Roanoke County if this agreement is approved. Roanoke County will collect one-time off-site facility fees for the water and sewer properties located in Roanoke County, water and sewer rates from the customers located in Roanoke County and bulk water rates from Botetourt County, for the customers located in Botetourt County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve Alternative 1, and that the Board of Supervisors authorize the County Administrator to execute an agreement with Botetourt County with the terms and provisions outlined above on a form approved by the County Attorney. SUBMITTED BY: /L ~--~-c~~o-,tom/~ Gary Robertson, P.E. Utility Director APPROVED: /~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved () Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied () Church _ _ Received O Johnson _ _ Referred McNamara _ _ to Minnix _ _ Nickens `~ , ROANOd~E' COUNTY ~- PROPOSED STONEGATE SUBDIVISION UTILITY DEPARTMENT ~U©~ ~~o~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~' c~ 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: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Requests for Public Hearing and First Reading for Rezoning Ordinances Consent Agenda COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The first reading on these ordinances is accomplished by adoption of these ordinances in the manner of consent agenda items. The adoption of these items does not imply approval of the substantive content of the requested zoning actions, rather approval satisfies the procedural requirements of the County Charter and schedules the required public hearing and second reading of these ordinances. The second reading and public hearing on these ordinances is scheduled for November 14. 2000 . The titles of these ordinances are as follows: 1) An ordinance to amend and re-enact Sections 30-82-12 and 30-82-13 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to make minor revisions to use and design standards for certain single family residential developments, upon the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission. 2) An ordinance to obtain two Special Use Permits to operate a camp and a day care center, located at 5488 Yellow Mountain Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of C&H Enterprises and Rising Star Sports & Adventure Camp. MAPS ARE ATTACHED; MORE DETAILED INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ~~_ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: (1) That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of these rezoning ordinances for the purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for November 14. 2000. (2) That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth as Items 1 thru 2 inclusive, and that the Clerk is authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this action. Respectfully submitted, l,l- ''~ L Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Approved Denied Received Referred to Action Motion by No Yes Abs Church Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens ., ~ - .~~ Sec. 30-82-12 Single Family, Detached (Zero Lot Line Option) (A) Intent. The following zero lot line provisions are intended to offer greater flexibility in providing a variety of housing options to meet the changing demands and needs of the public, while providing standards which afford a reasonable degree of protection for surrounding properties. (B) In the R-1, R-2, R-3 or R-4 districts, within a common development, one interior yard may be equal to zero for single family detached dwellings, subject to the following additional criteria: 1. Minimum tract size of the common development: Three (3) acres or on tracts less than three (3) acres with a special use permit from the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Section 30-19. 2. The minimum lot size, frontage and front and rear yard setbacks required in the District Regulations may be reduced up to twenty (20) percent, however the normal front, rear, and side yard setback requirement must be maintained adjacent to any lot or public street or right-of--way not within the common development, or not otherwise designated for zero lot line use. 3. Minimum side yard opposite the zero yard: Ten (10) feet. ~. For lots less than 7,200 square feet, rtla~iir~um building coverage:. Forty (=1(1) percent. 4~. No two dwelling units built under these provisions shall be attached along the common property line (See Single Family, Attached). s(>. A perpetual five-foot wall-maintenance easement shall be provided on the lot adjacent to the zero lot line property line. This easement shall be kept clear of structures or any other improvement which would infringe on the use of the easement, with the exception of freestanding walls and fences. This easement shall be shown on the plat and incorporated into each deed transferring title to the property. €~7. A copy of the plat approved by the subdivision agent of the County shall be submitted to the administrator. The administrator shall make the appropriate notation on the official zoning map that the affected lots have been approved for zero lot line dwellings. (Ord. No. 42694-12, § 15, 4-26-94; Ord. No. 042799-11, § 2, 4-27-99) .~ ~._~ Sec. 30-82-13 Single Family, Attached (A) Intent. The following provisions are intended to offer greater flexibility in providing a variety of housing options to meet the changing demands and needs of the public. The standards below are intended to accommodate new developments of attached single family dwellings, as well as to allow attached single family dwellings as in-fill development on scattered sites in existing residential areas. (B) General standards within a common development containing three or more acres: 1. The minimum lot size, frontage, and front and rear yard setbacks required in the district regulations may be reduced up to twenty (20) percent, however the normal front, rear, and side yard setback requirement must be maintained adjacent to any lot or public street orright-of--way not within the common development, or not otherwise designated for zero lot line use. 2. Minimum side yard opposite the common lot line between two attached dwellings: Ten (10) feet. ~. For lots less than 7,?00 square. feet, m~~,xinltxtn t~uildin~coverage: Fc~rt~ ~4C)) percent. . A copy of the plat approved by the subdivision agent of the County shall be submitted to the administrator. The administrator shall make the appropriate notation on the official zoning map that the affected lots have been approved for attached dwellings. (C) General standards on existing lots or in new developments containing less than three acres: 1. Minimum side yard opposite the common lot line between two (2) attached dwellings: Ten (10) feet. (D) Public street frontage shall not be required for any proposed lot of record platted for single family attached development within R-3 and R-4 districts. (Ord. No. 42694-12, § 16, 4-26-94; Ord. No. 042799-11, § 2, 4-27-99) w ~- County'of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning 5204 Bernazd Drive P O Bo;~ ?9800 Roanoke, VA, 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX {540} 772-2108 For Staff Llse Only tJate received; ~` ~ / aJ` / Received by; ~~. Application fee: f b{ PGBZ.4, date: ~ ~, i Placards issued: , BOS dare: ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ y I ~' ....., Caec Nutabcr ' .- , i 7 ur," I ~.rr.. ;~~~. ya',a:, iA~'1d tr rll`t~t(4tir~< l~r{. y!I'~.r;y~ 14 k },I`fp,.~r~n~ 1'.r.,;i >k r( ^'n-.i?"~i Sr. ~'~~ i YJ°;\e1 yt' -1:L . aS\ ^F t i1hH, n, r t.~ .^:+~, 1q.lr.,l;~1. I r2. ,f. yr ~,r t.. i ~w: I ~I _JIJ~a11", . ~~"~.'N` I~.yi],lix~tia~b~ I~..~If 1 t1 ~kk~\~~1..,~,1 ~'d .tT?t '~I:pS~Vn~. Ui~'U~.~.k~~74r19i ~~~a~~:~l.Ht~tM~1..~,~~i>, , 7r~rr~:„ ~A R .r ~rY.S...~P ~!U'1 i"`r,+~~~it l~1\.i i~t!,~~I C~.n.~t+?L + : (~ C l ~~r~ '~ ' 1 ~ 1 ! y I . n I ,t t ~ gr. t~l .h. a ~ P 1. !. ~, ~, ,r t„ I 1 Uk~ ,to ' 4 ~.t f ~~ r $F 1 lu4 I. N L r -~ ~ ?7:q!y"..~ ! . ~, + f o .ll.;~at'tl \.d ~ ;,„1.! . r 1i4. ,a !. < }v 1 ~? :...}, o ~i."."w.•tW`~ ~?; r!, ca7;t 0 ~~. t, ! 1~ „ ~ _,v \ s ~ 1*,.~<,,: 1 "n i11c a nn ti c -( Check type of application filed (check all that apply) O Rezoning Special Use D Variance Applicants name/address w/zip Phone• 774-7725 C i; H Enterprises, L.L.C. and Rising Star Sports i; 774-6612 Adventure Camp, 5488 Yellow Mountain Road, Pax No. Roanoke, VA 24014 Owner's name/address w!zip Phone: Same as Applicant Fax No. Property Locarian Cave S r i Magisterial District: p ~J 5488 Ye I I ow Mountain Road Roanoke, VA 24014 Community Planning area: CI earbrook lax Map No.: 89.00-2-6.2 Existi~ Zozung: AG-3 Size of pazcel(s): Acres: 13.42 Existing Land Use: Camp tl f ~~w` ~1'}:11fk _I~`~`]n~..~lal~J:~1R1i; ~i. "~~" ~i 1"}.~~ \a ju ~'(Xf1 $f Y{~r'~ :~ }. Ym.r F+ ~'..CA 2 fc T.~Y {^ Y • i. t {f:{'~r I(r1ft ,'•~ 4 `r \ ~~,~~5~• +\ ~ s 1~,`)•~~. M'~AC'111. _.I rrii. ~L t X11 ~~1.'Y~~•1 ~R~. 7i •.11 ~~J p t'!S. ~ ~1.lll(~n ~ f11G ~Y'\ . r "1•t 4 4s^ ~!~'f J '~/ ii /~ 'f1 ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ x ~ `( 1. 14 / 1~5 / I~~ ~~'~~~ ,•~ f 4 ~ )'1 St 1 S .. X411 l 1-~` j \111'1 It ~ n lF t ~7 I ~ r [ ~( QQ~~ `~ j ]' } ] $ ~ j ~ 1 lii~~ 1 a \c~l}~ 1 .. ~ 9 ~\~ i n ~ ~ ~` `f "' . 1 ... .,~ -/. 1~ i . ... .. q ~ I , \ ~Y- • 1 ;._., N. :i'!r V~ , t.._- .1 'A6 .'. r, I .~? ~I<: d ! Proposed Zoning: AG-3 w/ spec i a I exception for camp Proposed Land Use: Camp Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes ~ No ~ IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUI]aED FIY2ST. Does the pazeel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes ~ No O IF NO, A 'V'AF.IANCE IS REQTJIYt> D FZIZST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes 0 No ~ ,f.1,~~:.~4'`.~ *`~:l s; ~A'rl~'a ~ .u "~ ~. ~ , n rl ~u.7,h ,t i,. r , ~ - U I..~.. t :~'~?>" .•l . ( 4 i .~:V.. I ~ ,'t\\i y IF 1i?~ 14 ~ .. ~ yl ~ II M Ir~w+`711T ~~x~~' 1`i 1t'~9r~ ,7'if h \l..•N 1'1J 'r <~ L' l`1 J fr~.raj AF7~4 '.. ~f ,rl \ \~ y '~~rJ~' I r ' ~ 1 ly h 5~S , 1l'YI r } r ~" ~ ! 1 1 1 / „ r I 1~ { l:b F \, 1 ` ~ 1 ~'~• 4 ~ 4~vr I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ , Y ~ ~ '.1 ~ Ir C'.( i/..IL \~".+5. '.[' 1 ~+r, - . ! ~\i. ~1 ~~:: 1 .I' ~ 4j tr k l! ~ ~5 ?,~ ~7'",.C ~} t\M T, ,r e_r I 4 Y`'I.. 11. . rr ~i.~,. 1' I r n~ `` ,,I} ' .N' ~ .. ~,n r I xCat„s ~ . ,~c~ i.~ti~`c;~ Variance~of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: --- --- Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WII,L NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANX OF THESE ITEMS ARE l~.ISSING ORPICOMP'LETE. Consultation 8 1!2" x 11" concept plan X Application fee Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable X Justification Water and sewer application X Adjoizting property owners X hereby certify that 1 am either the owner of the property or the ownei s agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature meY or n e p s, Rising ~5tar Sports S Adventure Camp ~w Rising Star Sports & Adventure Camp has been in operation for approximately two years. During that period of time, the operation of the facility has been subject to challenge through the court system. While the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke has concluded that the after- school operation is operated within the provisions of law, the Court further held that the developmental team camps operated in the evenings and weekends did not meet the requirements of law because of a lack of instruction from the operators. Rising Star Sports & Adventure Camp is desirous of securing the special use permits for both a day care center and a camp in order to clarify all of the points in question and, further, to set the guidelines for operation of its facilities. While the after-school program is operated in accordance with the provisions of law, your Petitioners desire to secure a special use permit for the day care facility so as to eliminate questions in the future. The permit would contain specific guidelines for operation of the day care center as contained in the conditions submitted with the application. The day care center would provide for apre-school day care center to be operated from 8:00 AM until after lunch and, then, anafter-school program as presently conducted. While the present enrollment is approximately 100, Rising Star would like to secure a permit for an enrollment of 200 for its day care facility. Insofar as the remainder of the programs, Rising Star is incorporating specific instruction within its programs. The instruction will be for the first fifteen minutes of the allotted hour and the remaining time will be utilized through scrimmages where the instructors will continue in the role of officials. Rising Star would like to secure a special use permit for the camp to specifically outline its methods of operations. The permit is being sought for the developmental team camps which would operate in the evenings and the weekends and would allow for a limited number of weekend tournaments with out-of--town teams. All of the operations would be conducted specifically by Rising Star Sports & Adventure Camp. All of Rising Star's criteria for the day care facility and their operation of the camp are set forth on Exhibit 1 attached hereto. Representatives of Rising Star met with a representative of the Civic League and presented this scope of activities to the Civic League. The Civic League responded with the items set forth on Exhibit 2. Rising Star specifically requests that special use permits be granted for a day care operation and for a camp under the existing County guidelines. G:\Users\CBaumgardner\ZONING\Rising Star JUSTIFICATION.doc Proposal for Rising Star: 1. Da~Pro rg ams ~• (a) After-school program will remain operating as it currently operates during the City/County school year. Rising Star would like to request a special use permit for a day care center. (b) Rising Star would like to initiate a school day program for preschoolers during the school year. This would also require a day care license. (c) The maximum number of children to be allowed at any time in the facility under the above programs would be 200. (d) Both programs would be licensed by the State. 2. Summer Camp (a) The summer camps will operate as they currently have operated from the end of the school year through the summer. These are day camps Monday -Friday. Rising Star would like to secure a day care license for these camps. The maximum number of children would be 200. 3. Developmental Team Camps (a) These camps would be operated generally in the evenings and on weekends during the school year generally. The camps would operate between 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM during the week; on Saturdays from 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM; and on Sundays from 1:00 PM to 7:00 PM. Participation in these developmental team camps will be through pre-registration at Rising Star by all participants. No one would be permitted in the camps unless they had pre-registered through Rising Star. Curriculum would be for there to be individual and team instruction followed by team competition to practice the skills learned. Enrollment could be either individually or as a team. There will be no records or standings kept. Individual and team instruction would be given in basketball, soccer, lacrosse, baseball, roller hockey, football, golf, mountain biking and volleyball. Payments may be made by individuals or teams. 4. Sin>;le Function Clinics (a) Single function clinics of up to a maximum of four (4) hours would be permitted during the operating hours. G:\Users\CBaumgardner\ZONING\Rising Star PROPOSAL.doc ~' 5. Weekend Tournaments (a) Rising Star would like to obtain permission to conduct not more than 9 outdoor and 16 indoor weekend tournaments a year in the various sports programs. The tournaments would be totally sponsored by Rising Star. Rising Star would solicit applications from a maximum of ten (10) teams to participate in any tournament on any weekend. No tournament would involve more than ten (10) teams. All teams would have to pre-register for the various tournaments through Rising Star. Tournaments would be conducted Friday evening, Saturday and Sunday during normal operating hours as set out above. Rising Star will conduct the tournaments and operate them through itself and will not allow any other entities to become involved other than as potential sponsors or as teams. 6. Operations as a Whole The following would apply to the operations as a whole: (a) There will be no change in zoning from the AG3 Magisterial District. Rising Star would like to secure special exceptions to operate its camps within the parameters set out above and to obtain a special exception for the day care center as outlined above. (b) The outdoor fields will not be lit. (c) There will be no loud speakers placed on the premises. (d) Parking will not be permitted on Yellow Mountain Road. If there is overflow parking, Rising Star will utilize its van to provide transportation from a designated parking area. 7. Holida~Closing_s Rising Star will be closed for the following holidays: New Year's Day Easter Memorial Day Labor Day Thanksgiving Day Christmas Eve Christmas Day 8. ActivitYSupervision (a) Rising Star's personnel shall be present in a supervisory capacity at all activities conducted at the site. G:\Users\CBaumgardner\ZONING\Rising Star PROPOSAL.doc 2 9/22/200 t '" Septem 1. Day P a) b) c) d) 2. Su 3. 4. 11, 000 Count®r Proposal for Rising Star S miffed by the Yellow Mountain Road Citizens Committee ,. _.. ~pecif date requested: suggested August 15-.June 15. he c mmittee objects to the school day program. he co mittee would like to submit the number as 125 children. his w uld be changed to only after school program (see objection item a). dates requested: suggested June 1 - august 15 and limited to 12~ en al Team Camps mmittee would like to see these items changed as follows: t) here camps would be operated in th® evenings and on weekends du th school year. 2) he camps would operate between 6:00 t~r~t~9'.Q_0_ mp d ring he wE 3)~urriculum would be for Individual instruction followed by competition to pr tice the skills learned. Enrollment would be individual. Individual in ruction would be given in..... Paymerrt would be made by individuals. 4) his would keep in compliance with the court order and monitoring. Clinics 5. Week nd To maments a) he mmittee questions how toumam®nts are to beheld without going again th court rder. If they can beheld, we would like to make the following points: 1) The number of weekend tournaments would be limited to 36 calendar 2) No tournaments on Sundays to fit into th®reauest on item 3a s~2.. 3) These toumaments would be totally conducted and sponsored by Risi1 St with a specific amount of required instruc~onai time given to each team] co ply with the court order. 4) In the final sentence of the section it should read a5 follows: Rising Star!' co duct the toumam®nts and operate them through itself and will not allow an oth®r entitles to become involved. by/ 11/ LE w 6. ~~ ~rltions abs a Whole a T r n b PI add the word ever to the end o1 the sentenc®. c Prem s needs to be changed to Rising Star Property. d No o }actions e Ple add: No Alcohol or concessions allowed 8_v_er_._ 7. Hc~lid n 8. Activ e 9. Cc~m Please add the wording at all times to end of the sentence. ittee pedal Requests Netti end fencing to be placed at the west end of the soccer fields to deter Is fro going onto Mr. Dean's property. Tree planted on property Iln® adjoining D. Overstr®et's property to deter md.7 ese trees should be White Pines 6 ft or larger planted 10 foot apart. ang S would be responsibi®for replacement of any trees that would to th e. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. l~ - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGIhIIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MF.RTTN T D F: October 24, 2000 AC'ENDA ITEM: First reading of ordinance authorizing adoption of revisions to the Roanoke County Community Plan future land use map and design guidelines for the Colonial Avenue Corridor. C'Oi TNTY ADMTNTSTy____R ATOR' OMM .NT ~~~~»~~s< Beginning in early 1999, staff undertook a comprehensive study of the Colonial Avenue Corridor at the request of the Board of Supervisors. As mapped, the comdor encompasses some 983 land parcels on 1,098 acres. Detailed analyses of existing land use and zoning, property valuation and housing, public water and sewer, drainage, transportation and community participation were compiled into the Draft Colonial Avenue Corridor Study completed in December 1999. At the Planning Commission's direction, staff then developed a range of special corridor design guidelines under a mixed use concept of existing residential and well-designed, carefully located commercial projects recognizing neighborhood sensitivity and compatibility. These design guidelines, recommending preservation of the overall residential character of the corridor through appropriate site layout (particularly parking and street access), architectural treatment, landscaping, lighting and signage relative to all development or redevelopment proposals were approved by the Planning Commission on July 5, 2000. Also at that time, the Commission reviewed and approved proposed revisions to the future land use map. Those appear in the draft study titled "Alternative II Proposed Future Land Use" which includes additional Transition designated properties along the north side of Colonial Avenue. The citizen-based Colonial Avenue Alliance reviewed and voiced support for the proposed revisions to the future land use map and proposed design guidelines at community meetings held on September 21 and October 4, 2000. ~- , w I ~~ 2 The draft corridor study, recommended revisions to the future land use map and proposed design guidelines are attached. Staff recommends as follows: Hold first reading and set second reading and public hearing for November 14, 2000. Respectfully submitted, ~_ -_ _ ~~~ ..~,~~ Timothy Beard, Planner Department of Community Development Approve , Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Church Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens Vote No Yes Abs • A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 011299-6, "ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN" -ADOPTION OF A NEW FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THE COLONIAL AVENUE CORRIDOR, AND THE INCORPORATION OF DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THIS AREA WHEREAS, by Ordinance 011299-6 the Board of Supervisors adopted the "Community Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia;" and WHEREAS, at the request of the Board a comprehensive study of the Colonial Avenue Corridor was completed in 1999; and WHEREAS, at community meetings held on September 21 and October 4, 2000, the citizen-based Colonial Avenue Alliance reviewed and voiced support for the proposed revisions to the future land use map and the proposed development and design guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has prepared amendments to the Community Plan for Roanoke County for the Colonial Avenue corridor area; and WHEREAS, a Planning Commission Public Hearing on the proposed amendments was held after advertisement and notice as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, on July 5, 2000; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 24, 2000, and the second reading and public hearing was held on Novemberl4, 2000. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Ordinance 011299-6 adopting the "Roanoke County Community Plan" dated September 30, 1998, is hereby amended to include the following: (A) Colonial Avenue Corridor Future Land Use Proposed map revisions as shown on a map prepared by Roanoke County Department of Community Developed dated December 22, 1999, said map is attached hereto as part of the "Colonial Avenue Corridor Study" dated December, 1999 - Attachment A. (B) The adoption of text amendments entitled "Colonial Avenue Corridor Study" dated December, 1999, attached hereto as Attachment A. 2. That the effective date of this Ordinance is November 14, 2000. G: \ATTORNEY\ PMM\AGENDA\ comm.plann. colonial. ave.wpd ~-i DRAFT COLONIAL AVENUE CORRIDOR STUDY DECEMBER, 1999 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ' The Roanoke Count De arhn n y p e t of Community Development, Planning Division would hke to thank the following for assistance in the preparation of this study: ' Roanoke Valley - Alleghany Regional Commission ' Roanoke County Department of Community Development, Geographic Information Systems and Engineering Divisions ' Participants in the August, 1999 Colonial Avenue Corridor Citizens Meeting and Survey Roanoke County Planning Commission: Martha Hooker, Chair ' Kyle Robinson Todd Ross Al Thomason Don Witt i i COLONIAL AVENUE CORRIDOR STUDY Contents p a 9 e I INTRODUCTION & SCOPE 1 Corridor boundary map & narrative II PURPOSES 2 Land Use Transportation Environmental Quality Neighborhood Issues Site Planning/Urban Design III ANALYSIS 3 Corridor Borders - boundary determinations including property and aerial mapping Existing Land Use -discussion by use group with redevelopment "alternative potential" - field survey listing and Existing Land Use map Existing Zoning -narrative with corridor zoning district table g - statistical graphics with written description g - corridor zoning map 11 -Table of Zoning Actions (history) 12 Property Valuation & Housing -narrative of land and building ownership and history 13 -valuation and building graphics 15 Public Water & Sewer -narrative of conditions 18 -service maps 1 g Stormwater/Drainage -description of conditions and maintenance projects in the corridor 1 g -topographic map indicating recent drainage improvements 21 Site Planning/Urban Design -narrative with graphics for architecture, parking, 2 2 landscaping, signage & exterior lighting Transportation -narrative including existing conditions inventory, traffic data, congested 2 7 areas, select intersection analysis & access management, potential improvements Community Participation -discussion of public meeting, survey results and graphics 3 7 IV GUIDELINES 5 5 Future Land Use - discussion of potential future comdor uses with implementation strategies and proposed future land use map 5 6 t 1 COLONIAL AVENUE CORRIDOR STUDY I INTRODUCTION & SCOPE The existence of Colonial Avenue dates back to the early 1900's when it was known as Poor House Road reflecting its link to the then regional facility for the poor at present-day Virginia Western Community College. Until the mid-1960's, the only businesses along Roanoke County's 2.2 mile stretch of Colonial Avenue were Conner's Store - a general store/gas station at the corner of Colonial and Thompsons Lane and Lester's Garage at the ColoniaUBrambleton Avenue intersection. By the mid-to-late 60's, Corner's Store had become a Shell service station and a new 7-Eleven convenience store was built adjacent to the service station. Also, by this time nearly all single family homes actually fronting on Colonial Avenue had been constructed. At the corridor's western tip, aMick-or-Mack grocery was developed circa 1970. The construction of four-lane VA 419 in the early 1970's ended a large farm operation and created a major highway intersection unlike anything corridor residents had known. During the 1970's, the first residence-to-office conversion occurred at the 419 intersection, the Colonial Green Office Park was developed and dentists offices were built adjacent to the 7-Eleven. One or two residence-to-office conversions occurred just east of the Mick-or-Mack store, also in the 70's. In 1983-1984, the corridor's first shopping center ,Promenade Park, was constructed southeast of Colonial Avenue and 419 -partly as a result of traffic on Electric Road at the time. Other than the emergence of Harris Teeter at the previous Mick-or-Mack site, new commercial activities had not occurred in the corridor for approximately 15 years until the HarrelUPaychecks Plus redevelopment project began in early 1999. During the County's visioning process, citizens identified five key themes from which to help mold the future. Those themes are regionalism, sustainability, scenic beauty and two others of great significance to neighborhoods -community identity and quality of life. Quoting the newly adopted Community Plan, "Roanoke County citizens identify very closely with their neighborhoods and school districts. Efforts must be made to preserve the elements of community identity that provide gathering places for the exchange of information and support. The citizens recognize that there exists a fragile balance between economic growth and prosperity and the preservation of a way of life that is cherished by many. Proactive steps must be taken to manage growth in a positive way - to act conservatively and with deliberation when making decisions that will affect our high quality of life and that of our children's children." Recent increases in traffic and accompanying development pressure have brought uncertainty to Colonial Avenue and its predominantly residential character. This study will provide a framework for protecting existing land uses from the disruptive impacts of change wherever possible and for avoiding development or conversion/redevelopment having a significantly different density, size, height or scale. The study area encompasses only land lying within County boundaries although plans addressing Roanoke City's portion of Colonial Avenue will be explored. The study's 2.2 mile length begins at the ColoniaUBrambleton Avenue intersection, travels northeast through mostly developed single family residential neighborhoods to the Route 419 intersection and continues eastward through single and multi-family residential areas until reaching the city limits 0.4 mile northeast of Ogden Road. 1 1 II PURPOSES Land use, transportation, environmental quality, neighborhood issues and site planning/urban design have been identified as the most important elements influencing the future of the Colonial Avenue corridor.. Purposes of the corridor study are determined by analyzing existing conditions related to each of these elements and combining these analyses with the concerns of local officials and citizens. These purposes serve as a guide for future conservation, development, or redevelopment in the corridor. Land Use - Preserve established residential neighborhoods and protect them from encroachment by conflicting land uses while allowing properly designed infill development. - Require that all development or redevelopment preserves or creates open space. - Apply Community Plan design guidelines to all development or redevelopment. - Discourage development where public service expenses exceed revenue generated. Transportation - Maintain a safe and efficient flow of traffic throughout the corridor. - Establish desired traffic patterns, parking connectivity and design standards for buildings and landscaping at those sites where development or redevelopment may be appropriate; limit access points to ensure safety and facilitate movement. - Ensure that road improvements are sensitive to existing land use/environmental conditions and that such improvements occur with maximum citizen input. - Provide for alternative modes of transportation around neighborhoods such as walking and bicycling including greenway/bikeway construction. - Explore the feasibility of expanding transit service through the Colonial corridor. Environmental Quality - Identify natural areas that limit development (such as floodplains, steep slopes and mature woodlands) and maintain them as conservation areas. - Preserve all remaining natural scenic features. - Properly manage stormwater runoff, especially on frontage properties. Neighborhood Issues - Protect the uniqueness and special characteristics of the Colonial Avenue corridor - Preserve the high quality of life, sense of place, and authenticity residents of the comdor enjoy by maintaining the institutions and natural, cultural and historic features that define this community. Site Planning/Urban Design - Increase the compatibility of conflicting land uses through effective screening and buffering and building orientation/architectural scale where possible. -Maintain and enhance the visual quality of development and redevelopment. 2 III ANALYSIS ' CORRIDOR BORDERS After a thorough review of available mapping, Community Development staff selected topography and the local street network closely linked to Colonial Avenue as the two most important factors influencing boundary determinations for this study. In this respect, staff delineated a small study area focusing unilaterally on Colonial Avenue, an arterial highway in its own right, and attempted to de-emphasize its connections to U.S. 221 and VA 419. In the vast majority of cases, parcels lying within corridor boundaries intersect Colonial Avenue (VA 720) directly or are connected to it by an exclusive network of subdivision or "local" streets. Topographically, much of the study area's northern limit coincides with natural ridgelines which parallel Colonial Avenue to a depth of 1,000 feet to 1,500 feet from the road. The corridor's southern boundary generally follows Murray Run east of VA 419 and natural ridgelines and Belle Meade Drive (which parallels Colonial Avenue) at depths varying from 700 feet to 2,200 feet. Western study limits are formed by Brambleton Avenue (U.S. 221) and the eastern border coincides with Roanoke City Limits at Ogden Hills. Property and aerial mapping depicted on the next two pages indicate corridor boundaries and provide a birdseye view of the nearly 1,000 parcels of land comprising the Colonial ' Avenue Corridor. EXISTING LAND USE Among the variety of uses for land within the corridor are single and multi-family residential (including condominiums), institutional (both public and private), office and retail commercial and open or undeveloped. Single family residential is the dominant use except at intersections with U.S. 221, Route 419 and Ogden Road where retail business, office and retail commercial and multi-family residential are the controlling uses, respectively. Of the 983 total parcels of land within the comdor, 118 front on Colonial Avenue including 16 commercial, 6 institutional, 3multi-family residential, 85 single family residential and 8 undeveloped. Although institutional and multi-family residential make up only 9 of the 118 total frontage parcels, they account for a ' disproportionately high 147 acres of the approximately 1,098 acres which comprise the entire study area. ' From a commercial standpoint, a key location is the Colonial/Thompsons Lane intersection where a recent residence-to-office conversion was a catalyst for this study. The potential for more such conversions, especially of older single family structures, coupled with long-term rising property values increases the likelihood of new frontage commercial activity. 1 -;- -~ U .r ~ y `~ S •c o ~ yam ~' ~ U ~ U c ~ > m b~0 '~ a ~ N O ~ ~ ~ ~ o a, m o b ~,Z~aac7UC7v~0 ~ N M V' h ~ [~ m a\ ~~ ~ ~ ~_ ~~ ,ti _ ^; a+ ~g~/ ~~. /` ~ ~~ d ~'9~ ~Y~ ~~. ~ ~~ c~ ~; + ~~ °~~~. ~ ~~ ~! `~ .~I 1~ '?~ > r _ ~ ~`~f, , ..,, `~~. ~`~ \ . ,~ I o Z'.._ ~~ `' r ~. I! ~ ~' /~~1X\ a ~~%~! ~9 f i '~~ ~~ %\ ~~ c ~'_ _~, ~ ~~~s ~~~ ~~~~$ /i ~ ~ 7~- ~ ~~ 28~ ,~ \ a 'S E ~~' l ~ ~~~~~~ l ~T r I t i e ~~- ~ - ( ~ ~6~'9 ~ ,-•~: ". ~Y r ~ pp'y E ~'aY ~~~~. 5 5~ '~ ~,~ _ _, ~'`1, ~~. y` ~ ~ ~~~~-~~ ~ wp~~s~~ 1 . y ;, ~, ~ C ~~~8~~ 1ti ,) ~ ~ L` ~~1 ~ p~~~e ~ ~-F~ ~J ~~~~~ P ~ ti ~~T `~ ~~ o ~~'1 ~~~~ `~~ ~P ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~4~~~. ~~ ~,`\ '~ \~ ~~,`. ~ e sQ t 1 COLONIAL AVENUE CORRIDOR -EXISTING LAND USE -APRIL 1999 INSTITUTIONAL, OFFICE, SERVICE & RETAIL COMMERCIAL (* Direct Frontage) Wilco Harris Teeter (Kroger)/CVS* Bell Atlantic* Lester's Garage* (vacant) Cave Spring Lions Club* Fishers of Men Christian Bookstore Discount Wallpaper & Carpet/Perfect Touch Interiors Mostly Sofas Cave Spring United Methodist Church North Cross School, athletic facilities, ballfields* Colonial Green Office Park* (professional counseling, financial planning, management, health testing, doctors' offices, chiropractic offices, law, media management, real estate appraisal) Crestar Bank* Family Dentistry* Colonial Avenue Baptist Church* Promenade Park Shopping Center* (financial services, dry cleaning, vacuum & sewing supplies, ice cream & candy sales, golf supplies, jeweler, childrens' clothes, sign making & sales, paint sales, gift shop, health food, restaurant, tax & mortgage services, pet supplies, hair styling) Paychecks Plus* (accounting & tax services) Computer Wizards/Hair Trends* Super Mart/Amoco* Dentistry for Children* Colonial Presbyterian Church & ballfield* Green Valley Elementary School, park &ballfields Carilion Family Medicine* Charles R. Simpson, Building Contractor/Wellspring Chiropractic The Manassas Group (Licensed Professional Counselors & Clinical Psychologists) The Counseling Center SINGLE- &MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL & CONDOMINIUMS Belle Meade (north tip) -approx. 30 single family units Colonial Place -approx. 20 future zero-lot line units Eton Hill -approx. 50 single family units Oak View Court - 10 single family units Castle Hills -approx. 175 single family units Green Valleys/Green Haven Hills -approx. 270 single family units Georgetown Park -approx. 80 single family units The Parks - 10 future single family units Timberline Condominiums - 108 units Bent Tree Apartments - 148 units Sunscape Apartments - 264 units Ogden Hills -approx. 50 single family units Pebble Creek Apartments - 636 units ~ E nial Avenue Corridor Existing Land Use D Residential ~ Institutional ® Commercial ~ Industrial ~~ ~ Open Space D Undeveloped - Study Area Boundary Julyl, 1999 Prepared by the Roanoke County Department of Community Develop Scale EXISTING ZONING Similar to land use acreage, the vast majority of land in the study area is zoned for single family residential (approximately 84%). Of the 8 parcels of undeveloped land fronting on Colonial Avenue, 5 are zoned R-1 Low Density Residential, 2 are zoned R-4 High ' Density Multi-family Residential and 1 is zoned C-1 Office. ' Colonial Avenue Corridor Zoning District Designations R-1 Low Density Residential R-2 Medium Density Residential R-3 Medium Density Multi-family Residential R-4 High Density Multi-family Residential 1 C-1 Office C-2 General Commercial Only 33 parcels out of 983 total tracts within the studt area are zoned commercial C-1 ( or C-2). However, 21 of these parcels directly abut Colonial Avenue. Of the remaining 12 properties, 6 front on VA 419, 4 abut U.S. 221 and 2 adjoin Ogden Road. Number of Parcels per Zoning District ' R-1: 825 units R-2: 4 units - 92 parcels front Colonial - 1 parcel fronts Colonial R-3: 9 units - 4 parcels front Colonial R-4: 112 units C-1: 22 units - 1 parcel fronts Colonial - 14 parcels front Colonial C-2: 11 units - 6 parcels front Colonial Acreage of Land per Zoning Di strict Throughout Corridor - 1,097.68 Total Acres R-1: 794.28 acres (72.36%) R-2: 43.68 acres (3.98%) ' R-3: 53.89 acres (4.91%) R-4: 134.87 acres (12.29%) C-1: 43.58 acres (3.97%) C-2: 27.38 acres (2.49%) Number of Properties for Each Zoning District, Colonial Avenue Study Area 22 ^ R-1 Low Density Residential D R-2 Medium Density Residential ^ R-3 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential O R-4 High Density Multi-Family Residential ^ C-1 Office C-2 General Commercial 9 Acreage of Land for Each Zoning District, Colonial Avenue Study Area a3_ss 53,89 43.68 ^ R-1 Low Density Residential ^ R-2 Medium Density Residential ^ R-3 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential ^ R-4 High Density Multi-Family Residential ^ C-1 Office C-2 General Commercial io Avenue ~orricbr ping Districts Prepared by the Roanoke County Department of Community Develops r ZONING DISTRICTS ^ AG3 Agricultural/Rural Preserve O AGl Agricultural/Rural I.nx Density C AR Agricultural/Residential ^ AV Village Center ^ R] G»r Density tuesidenitinl F7 R2 Medium Density Residential ^ R3 Medium Denaitq Multi Fancily ^ R4 High Density Multi Family ^ PRD Planned. Residential Development O RMH Manufactured Housing Overlay Ci NC Neighborhood Commercial ^ Cf Office District ^ C2 General Commercial District ^ PCD Planned. Commercial Development ^ Il Industrial Dislsict ^ 12 Industrial District ^ PID Planned. Industrial Development ^ ]EP Explore Park ~ Study Area Boundary No Scal e ~kpril 5, 1999 C/1 .~ U .~ N r1 I O ~. V] . O ~ 'd O G O .~ ~ ., ~. c U' bA q ~ _~ a > > > > > > > ~ Off. C~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cC c~ cG RS cd cC cC O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ am c c c cG c~ c 'd 't7 'C 'II 'C 'O ^c7 "G 'C7 'CS "O 'CJ U o a~ ° ~ a~ a~ a~ a~ ~ ~ a~ -o a > > > > > > > > > > > ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ a a a am" ~ c a a °" . c . a a a .. ~ TJ cd c~ RS c~ aS cC cd a3 cC c~ cC cG N v a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a1 41 ~ dq ~ ,~ ~ O d' ~' v rt' ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ C~ ¢, 3 - ~ o ~ ,~ ~ ~ o ' ' ' f i ap ~n an an o o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ,~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ,~ o ~ ~_ Z ai °~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~° o ° o 0 0 0 c ~ ~ ~ . o ~ U ~' ~ U a~ 4-.i _, ° 4:: a O e~ ~ ~ ' ~ U . r ~ ~ ~ y ~ ,.6 O ~ O ~ "G y ~ ~ sU-, tU.. ~ cd C cC c~ cC O «i ~ ~ c~ ~" U ~ V U U ~ j v C. c. s. s, I-. > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ > > 3 3 3 3 ~ O ~ O O O O ~ O O O O O O `~ U U O U U U cd .~ U U -p ~ ~ ~ cd O O O O O O O~ O O~ O O O O ~p M ~ tr1 r.. N ~ ~p N ~ ~ ~? ~ .~ U U U U ^-~ U N W ~-' ~ i N a '-+ ~ W N ~ ~-+ W .-+ ~ M ~-+ d ( 1 1 P ~G C t]a ~ ~ P1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o W W ~ FJ-1 F1-i Fit W W ~ I-5 F~ i=+ Fit Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~a ~ ~ ~ o ~ -a '-~ p ~ x ¢ ~ ~. ~~ ~ a w as ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ Q ~ ~ ~ v o 3~ w ~ x x 00 M N Q1 00 \p V'1 ~' M Q~ 00 Cq l~ l~ ~ (~ l~ l~ l~ l~ l h N N Q~ N ~n N C1 r- v-~ ~ ~ in O O C O -~ O ~--~ ~-- O O O C 0 .~ U c~ bA C .~ O N ~r O bA G .~ .~ U G ^CS C N ~» N 3; -a 0 U ti bD .r". .~ O O z 0 a, ~_ N ~. M U .~ O o~ 0 'C U a. 0 U TJ 3 a, U 0 ~? ~_ G O O U 12 i~ PROPERTY VALUATION & HOUSING The chart entitled "Building and Land Values, Properties in Colonial Avenue Study Area" illustrates the number of land unit and building unit assessments within specific price ranges for all parcels within the corridor. These values are markedly higher for commercial and multi-family residential areas. A possible future trend may involve higher values around major intersections currently zoned single family residential where accessibility and high visibility to traffic could raise the commercial demand for these parcels. The total assessed value (1999) of all Colonial Avenue frontage properties is $37,899,100. Of this amount, developed office and general commercial values equal $9,686,300 and institutional land and buildings make up $12,690,600 (predominantly North Cross School, Colonial Avenue Baptist Church and Colonial Presbyterian Church). Residential values account for $15,522,200 of the total figure. i 1 Building Values -All Uses Price Range Quantity Under $25,000 - 83 $25,000 - $50,000 - 113 $50,000 - $100,000 - 696 $100,000 - $150,000 - 57 $150,000 - $200,000 - 10 $200,000 - $400,000 - 10 $400,000 - $1,000,000 - 1 Over $1,000,000 - 13 Land Values -All Uses Price Range Quantity Under $25,000 - 913 $25,000 - $50,000 - 23 $50,000 - $100,000 - 19 $100,000 - $150,000 - 7 $150,000 - $200,000 - 7 $200,000 - $400,000 - 5 $400,000 - $1,000,000 - 7 Over $1,000,000 - 2 The corridor's housing stock is aging gracefully. Approximately 82% of all houses in the study area are at least 20 years old. Nearly 60% of all homes in the corridor were built in the 1950's or 1960's. Only approximately 7% of all units have been constructed since 1980. A large majority of homeowners in the study area are relative newcomers (1 - 5 years) or have owned their houses for more than 20 years (an estimated total of 609 units out of 983 comdorwide). Clearly, there is a large recent influx of new homeowners into older dwellings in addition to the long-time residents of the area. This is most evident on subdivision lots not directly abutting Colonial Avenue, although frontage houses continue to be purchased by new owners for residential purposes. Over 300 houses in the corridor have been owned/occupied for 5 years or less by their current owners. ' 13 Age and Quantity of Housing Units Constructed by Decade Percent of Total Housing Units 1940's or Earlier: 109 units - - - - - 11.09% 1950 - 1959: 321 units - - - - - 32.65% 1960 - 1969: 268 units - - - - - 27.26% 1970 - 1979: 219 units - - - - - 22.28% 1980 - 1989: 44 units - - - - - 4.48% 1990 - 1999: 22 units - - - - - 2.24% Current Homeowners Length of Ownership Years Owned Number of Units Percent of Total 1 - 5 304 30.93% 5 - 10 175 17.80% 10 - 20 199 20.24% more than 20 years* 305* 31.03% * data estimated -records incomplete 14 Bi3iia"~i~ia~ arit~ Lai~t~ ~ai~a~, ~~ a3~~i'`a9e3 i~ C31~;~ial Av~~a~ae ~t~~y Araa 1000 - ~ 900 -F $00 -~, ~ N . :~ 700 . c ~ 600 - I' r ;~ t~9 L 500- ~ d ~ .:~ ~ ~ 400 - ,,_ ~ l 300 I' 200 --+~' , 100 -;•' f 0 -! ~;W 23 g ~ o N ~ ER ~ ~ ~ ~ c a a ~ o 0 0 o r. o ~ u-i ~ o 0 0 0 0 ua Price Rage ~ o i 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~' ~~ 10 7 10 7 1 Q5 13 o ~ 7 0 °o o° i O 2 Building Value ~ ~ o °~ o Land Value o ~ ~ ~_ -n ~ ~ o ~ -_ °o °o g 0 o r ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ O 15 Age of Housing Units, Colonial Avenue Study Area 350-~ ____ 300 --! 16 17 SEWER & WATER SERVICES Sanitary sewer and public water are available throughout the corridor or can be accessed as land is developed. Private wells or septic systems make up only a very small percentage of utility services supplied and only in situations involving older buildings. Public water line improvements are planned and/or underway in the Eton Hill and Castle Hills subdivisions. Most existing water lines are adequate for domestic flow (everyday residential use) although some pipelines cannot provide the flow of water needed for fire protection. Upgrades have not been made to some residential areas since the 1960's. Water line sizes are generally less than 6 inches in diameter in subdivisions. Portions of the corridor's sanitary sewer system experience wet-weather capacity problems due to infiltration. This intrusion of stormwater runoff into the sewer is normally introduced by pipeline cracks, illegal connections and leaky manhole covers. Sewer line diameters range from 8 to 12 inches throughout the study area. Maps on the following pages depict existing utility service areas in the comdor. STORMWATER/DRAINAGE Several localized portions of the study area suffer from drainage problems. Among the affected locations are : 1) the Manassas Drive/Colonial Avenue intersection; 2) the northeast corner of the Lanewood Drive/Colonial intersection; 3) Girard Drive near the zero lot line residential development under construction; and 4) a malfunctioning stormwater facility at Cave Spring Methodist Church. The Community Development Department's drainage maintenance program evaluates possible improvement projects based generally on potential for property damage with those sites most likely to receive the most damage receiving a higher priority than minor nuisances. In the past few years, channel stabilization and repair have been performed in Green Valleys, adequate storm sewer and channel construction was achieved in Eton Hill, storm sewer improvements occurred on Poplar Drive and smaller drainage improvement projects were completed in the Belle Meade area, off Hazel Drive and between View Avenue and Iredell Avenue. Manassas Drive is scheduled for additional improvements. A topographic and drainage improvement map of the corridor follows the utility maps referenced above. 13 ..~ . - - r rte- ~ - 7"•: 't r r -• ~ r ) ^ ~ \•. ~vi \ 1 ~.:.. ~.~ 7 ~-.J r vv i _ s ~+ "\t r~ ` )~ x ~ _~~ Y i • • ,~,s~.~ ~ .a _i'.~\T \. 1 - ~ -- ~~rt _i i\,~Y \ \ '`_--_.`. ~ ~ _ ; A ~-1~..- t - - + ~,;~ ~ :\ • • ~. _ _ ~ C ~~ ~ ~ i -, i_? - y .1 «-y' '_.__` ^ ~ -p~„'lR'[~731~ l~'3 1` ` 1~ y < ~~, \ -~ i V ~ ~ \,` . \ ~j'`C ---~:- .__ :-ar.-••.ia• ~, p_t~ •v~•' -/!'~1 /''d'am ~-- 'C y i / ~ • ; r r' E f.~'~r r .•~ \ '~~ `~~-.\~` ~-- ?' ' f~~,,.~,'.-...~~ sfaa ^ • r, •_~ i^ ,•~ " '~A •s~ •~ 1 .1 t gyp( ~~-~ • i .\a-.° / ~. . w ~F,, r ~ ~ ~.r• r ~\.~. \\ ^ '`r \! a•- `~. ~/ !~. 1 ..\~•«~`"`"'L. \\• \ \~ ~`° i. ~ ~/j /_ i' l .~a Vi'a'^-•r ~ ~p !-••r \~~• • ``~,/~~ -/~:~ f :. lra_u~.r.ux.sis~--~`f PUBLIC SEWER SERVICE ~,'~,~'~~~..•~~-*: ~ ,~'•i~ _; L~, ~~-R 9 .it •t~~~ • ~ •, ,~.. -.~ ~` ~'~ ~f~' Comdor Boundary ' ''~~~] ~ ~ ,~~~ -~s,/ -~ •. . -= y'a'm-:a~~'~ e~'' J ~ /~~i-"1' / i,~~ ~ "`~~ • ~ ` ~A i \^ ~ lrtf ~ ! • ~ r • Jlr,; ; ~; ---- Sewer Line Locations :4'' r ~`" - ~ ~ ~ i~ ": ~; ~.~ SS ~ - - __" (( 1 { • * 1 ~' ~ ~ ' / `~ c ~ _ 1 I{I r~~4l-`~% 0 t r-~ ~ ~ ~ .!• r V *~~. r• •Y i •~Y • • 4 i~• r! • •~ ! d r, j \~ t. ~'O _ ~'\•` '~~ f ' 'F(,~KE •3\:1.. 4 ^.) _ -_~ _~` ~~ •r,.:~ • ,~ ~ IMP C~ :rte «~ ~\ _ ,--'~;: • • • •..- ••• •• • •tr • ~ ~~• ,~ ...~v~:::~ ~ ,,:~~ _ ~ ~;~.x:, . o : err , ,,, ,• ~ *.+ r \`\~ ~. ~ 1 }V r; uA` r \ y r `~ \ h , / ~,,.~`~ .} r "~:~~ / \~ x.41 'i ~ ^•^ J l ~s i }} ~.r L' • r ~ r~~ ~ ~ )/ h \t /,; ~ '. ~~ : ~;f ~ -~~' ~-,.:..._-~,1 ~% `fi v~;{.~r / ~,~,rl ~~ t ( ~ r `~ •~ ~'o I '• ~ / %' " =~~~v~,~~ ~~ J ifi 1r k R :;r s ' •-"') f ~ \ 1\ ' .--'' _:' f / / o ~ /~ r / \ -.. r _ _ t_.___ _-- ,+r r I ~ ~ V r` • _ .1 t s r n ~`\.\ ~ -~{rf f r(j ~'~~~~~- '~ / ~"~ \~ . } ~\~^\\ \~\ l~ 1~ ~~'(~\ T ~ ~ ~r ~ ~1~N ~~ ~Y=~-'~ •" f _ -~'~ 1 \ -i~Lg-~,~ -~~ .~~.`)111I frC~~-ti"r ~•~t ~,r,,.~•r •~~'~~JI ~ ~.,\•~li ,~, ;{~y'f ., ~!,' r , ~\ ~^-.• _ --` • • • [ ~v ~ ~~ ~,~, a • _ '~ i" ~ ii} • . ~ = ` 1~-`.~r"s l • / i •,s*~ ~ ~ , I ~~- t ~ ~k * t y ~ ~ ~y E r _• .- ~ .[~ • .q_y r` ! I r ..'.....may. ,,,.i ~•-~ 4.-\`. i~ ..~-` : ~ --~ `~` , • ,•. e.-1k' ~-. a ~'rri~ _ t.-' i _ ~~ ~` . ~ ~ _` _ ~ y' l y J''T, ~ i r t yr ~.S _. •• ~ ~ • ~ : ' ,d• ; / •- _. _~'-t'~'.'t ~r r~i' •'r .~ \ \ \ a? . '..~' =" ..'~"'~~`` •! . 'ti'^-i""°' fir" E f -f~ LJ~ ~~ ~, ~ {f \ r~y, ,, i f• 1.-~. p ~ \~ • ! ° ~' i A s! <.\ V~ `` ~~/Jj/ r~ ~' \ '~ , `ti ~ a.l~,. ~' ~~ ~ '\.-.. ~k --•---..._Yr~ • •.-.r 1 •-i..., p ~ •.~ ~ • /~~ ~'7~j •~~ ® "• ,,y,_.~b "! tr$ N- \~ a \~ _~ ° '~.~~~ ~ ~ _ \. ~t \ l ~. ~ r i••. '° ~ ,~ - i- .r, ff ~il•° ~a`-+a~t -_+~;\ly ,tl\Y. ~ ~1 y~\a "11 r ~ "~ \~ ) ~'_--~~~ ~ ~f~•arr ~ .~~•~ • ~ r~~y, //• • `-~~~. tl b as '`r`te-. i ; ry ) \ `t `\`!y/ ~ ~ • / / - ~ •. ~~f'•', ~- ••r~~'. rS~•-'~ A `^ ~ / • i I• • a r r '~~_ i^-.e-~-°_ r :n~ ~, < 1 ~ • a r .rl+,~",-~ ~7+`~ -, ~ _- ~- ••/ th•• .!R' • i tr ~ • ~~ ~~ ~- 1 -, i . +•~-~~~~ Pl1I3L1C~ WATL12 S~RV IC~'1~, ~,:~?~~~~~; -`'~,:w ?••1±,`;'!-~=~ ~ • ~ H • •I i ! t~ YV r`~-r •~~ ~ S r C O11"1. C~ OI' B O U 17t~ c~.1"y '', y :ff '%' / ~ i • • ~~`~i.•,,;._ Wa-ter Line l.ocatiol:zs ='- --;~~;/~ ~: ':J ~,1 ~ !r / g / R YI ~f1 t ~ `-- I' ~ ~ T ~j ~'{~~uh;"-~ _,~ ~~ •~~ _._` (~~-~ !" • •r_~a r~T}r ^I j'`1 ~ f f~~~'1~~ -1 /~ 1 / } • ' •~ ~ ~ `\~, f.;,~#, /i a- W ..._~~ .) \ !'` !r ~~~~,y~A •t a •~ ~ ~ ~ • • • r `` `: • ~' ~. ~ •~• • +• • \ ~~ /~/ \ `_ ' ' fF / r /Y~-~ ~r.1i ~\ t-_,~ , Il I 1 • • •!~~ .~t• - •• ! _~ 1+ • ^ .• • ~' ~ ~ Y _ - ~ / - • . y.,,,.ft ~'\ _ k: •'k~ - ~ ~ _ Sri _ ~, a . • . ° t % ~_.. ~ ~ ~ `~ I ~~. q7~ ~ 89 ~Y ,~.-~1.--,,, •I f~ _ .~I.a '-~ /O~~ ~r i r ° ~~;. f \.~~k s(' _~~'` r !7~~~ f, ,,. _ ~ I/ (Jfi~'~.. :--.~S ~~~ tt ~'- ~ ._..{,.~ . i~ I ~ ~wl ~ ~1' !• Q_~• A •• •i ~y ~ ~ 1'P. ~~~2~ ~ l 5• r~"a .-». a `~ ~ 1--~ ', ; '~` ` . % r - •~' ' • ~•t / • i i 5~ / , ._ ~., •/r -.5L .~kw_;;, -` ~~---- \E'~ . \ ;' ~ ; 4 _~- ~ • a ; •( .• •. . .• • . fI ~'* `. \ -ate. `-~--`~~ ~ • - • • f~~ I I~ ,`- ` rte."' ~ % p ~ MM ~~ / * ~ i / -~".\`~\ • :• • ~![.Li V`~ ~ i~n". ~~i '' \i~_` ' a,•Zpl~f •^w j /y, l•'" ~''~'.'`.~ •r ~.~ '~'~ `,' r ~ • . r r , ~ r -~ • .p ~~ .. ~, l` i E i ^ ~ ., + ~._F * ~~~1./" 't I r r. `G"-._ I8, •/ ~' ~ ~. ~, : i ~% ~ i ~ ~ `, • `L~ /•i~•-`..'' ~ i.. ~ ~ 1 O ti4 i Y • • a ~ ! ... f~`' ~~ 1// ~~Fj1~I~\ ~ ~~. ~ / \~\~~~ ~,~ L.~'~ .1~~~::• ~ ~ ~J~_ I.. i .\ . r/ - '\\N./. / ~ ~~.A ii`~•wt / ~ /r..~~ ~~ \'~` ~ \I ~• '~,/ f!~ t .~i ~\-~ 1 ~` ~ `v "s ~Fiy \l , r~-~•~' l {~r _--._, - :` tom.-. ~ ~ °• ~ / i~'"c ! 3 €i7' ~~ ~ ° ~1 1. I • i ' , iC` ~ ~:' //'-~~l'/ i-~~~..: k~l~-~-_ J .~ tr' a;~rE~s. `__._` Y~\ _ ", -~.f j- ~ / ~~ I // .rr MJ.. • ~ ~' J J~ Ii,! Fj/ ~r~-~ ~ ice' /r••~~.d*f.~ ~.~• 1 : n-'-~ •\ ^~`~ 1,~ ~ ` ..~,,'/ ~t~ / /~i~~~~ ' j _ ~I~`.'~--.~r_:/\i~~. y".....:.~...- ==~:~ :~.~ t Ir_ ~--+ s''- G~?. ~ ik?~f.~.~ ~ ;%'~~~~~:.~j-\..1 ~~fl~ --=~; f :---". r'~,': -~~ % „ ~ .~'. C.... 1 y `-~ ~ "^- ~,~~ ~ ~~• ~ I ~ }I Ft!l "fir •-• ~ j 1`~ • 0A~'~ ~ ~ V~-11L~~~ ~ \ ~ ,/ ~ - i r ~ ~ ` ,--^K -V - ~\~-~ ~l f' ~ .. ~ ~-`. • i ae~i~ •~ ~1 P ~ •. '~+ ~~''•Vt"r ^ •"~l~ F R/ ~` ~~ •~~ ~~. el~ ~~ r r^'~Q~~ { /:Xk -"`~~-- ~+.....,...., __ Y• ~ l {gL~~_.~rr r ~ r •a :~jr r ~~ ~-~~1, '~•a r `1~•~s>-3~'- ~ ~ ti~~ 1{lll l ~ ~ t V F~ ~ ~~E- ~' ~ • -_, _ ~- ft's'=~^ // ~ ~ ~` .J' -./`_.___.~a~_ .t\ - + ~fi J, ~ ;,t i \ ^ _ ? • , `~ e~ • -~~•A ~'~ ~ti _" ~/~l,r•ws~rv± I~*~~ _ {r'~~t. '~'-• ~-~.ti, ~~~ ,• ~ ~~~TTTrY .~1`~ - •• ~ar~~~f • ~ e~ ~ 1; 7' i/ `~ \ \\ \, ~.• ~\ (W ~F - 'dir. ^ >;, Jo •. / . 1 y.-~~ • C• -'~• ~, s ~`! $. ~~. ~.L' Ifs ,.. \. L.f!`-'Z''~ ~°~ ~•. \~ ~,~ ""'_? .-~'-1.~-- ~ •• ~!1 ~~/4.C~` ~•~ ~•i ._~ ti!',%' ~. t d ;''it~~ ~~~ ~ SLOPE 8L D1Z_AINAG~ '...~...' ,,.,, ~;! ~ , ;-~~.. -.-- ~~~.JJ. ~ •Y/ ~ • ~~ / • . ••/• •-~. - _ i • `may ~~ «t '~ ;~A ~~ ~%'' ~ I Corridor Boundary ~-- ~ ••~~• '- ~~~ /~`.~~~~~ • '• •~:: ''~', :°~' -~, Recent Improvements::. •'J%~t~;~~' -,.~1 ;(' ~; ~.,~,, ~ .~`~~ ;, ~ , ~~. .. ,- , f> ~ I i' I,. 1 1 , •- .~! .~~' - ~ ~ i ~~~"V,aj,~. a ~ ~~.~~ -~. b ~' ~ , -+• , ! ~, I ~` ~ ~ f ~ ~~~~'~» _--'~ f~ ~ ~, t` ~ j(~~ j G(i ~. r ~ ,~ '\-`.I ~A)'//a^~ ~ ~~ w-~~'. ~ ~__ -` ~L `~/.~'"• • ~ _ . '*~ ~•I `~ ~ j! ~w~4.1.~1~i~~ -'~ ~ I .~.. ~j*'~~i- ! I' -. !' i 1~0-~~ I , ,~_'~"-~-:,~ '~ i--~..--`-~~ .r• ~ • • V I I !I t • r• \ I / ` I1S,. l(~ s ! 1 fr (~ ~' :~H• ~-~ ° -t~,!~~. ' -~ •! • _ ,• u ,~-+~ • '\• •' ! •~ it '/ \ ~/I/l/~!~yAt' 1-~--'_: ~4 C Wr _.+l lV .t •. ~~.\-k.!,i~. , /' .i ~ •- 4•~~ ••} ~' •s• •l~ ..-~ ~-lyyt ~~r r r• •s/~ p*,° /Jf 6 • ` ~~- ~,'I ~ I~ '- ~ 1\ - ~~ 4• f -~ ~-•L,;~Ir} ~v' ~~ ^ •, • • • ' :1 • ,f~ •~!f E~! ~ J ~: ~ •~~~ l' ft~ ~.,V ~.1 ~; ''^ ~~ 77 nn1 ~' U89 ~'~` ' ^I 1 1 -+. 'lOi~/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ° f ; ~~ • \-./ y~~ ! '1i /. ~ ,75r ;%_ _~'iTJ.t_ JV .. ~~ ~'t ,~`-~'-~ ' •V~ Ff l-` ~ '• Y ~) • ~ ,~ Ql~j~' JiY,`~ ~• • I •`•'~C ~ii' / /`~~~~, ~`-- ~ ~ ~L~~r3~~ A~ !• ~{ ~C r ~1 ".r i ~ J- • ~,'~11•/* • 1` 1~t~_ ;~~~~ L i~ it i" -~-___~ -~ ~' ~ ' ?'`~i\ ~ .~ I~t ~~r\'. ~_ C~ ~i j ' i ~i'" • ~ ! a • ~~'~~ i ~ 6~ ~~rl~~ ,/ f/~ '~ i • / R `• I c ~ ;I .3 ~. ~ 4 a 111 ur -~~yJ ~\\' • _ \\ ° • -_~' : •• /• • • !~ \`~• \J .~ I -"' ate -'~~ ~~ ~ I r ~ _.,_, ~ ` 1 \\ a r • • ••• ,,• • 1 • • ~ 4 w -•\ ~ 1~ 1 ~~~ It i / ( M ~ M ~•, ~i .ry :~.` ~~O~bkl~ •4JI'O~.ci • •• •• r i'w • ~'~.f ~ --,=^~. J~ _. % r \~\ / ~~-__ ~'t r __..-. I ~ ~8 ~ :.-~~s" ° %- Cam'%~ • -/ ~ i1. ~~~ ~ ~,,1 ~ ` ~ ,*~ 1 ~ ~\~i i~ ~ ~ • a + • J f Y..•`~ ~ ~ r _..Jr f R l .,_.~' ~ . - :#i~, :~ ! r D 4 'I ~~ ~ • i ~.1. , Jf/ L / '"'. ~l •;. • `• • • 'd ! ..yam J rim sh.- "' tf y~ • 1, t It~••!~_' L7~ ~ ~- " ~' )? ~ ~ ` ~• . ~ `t{~f ~ rr/~j'ti ~ -J !• • ! ~a/ {= i rwi, ^ 1\.~. f1 l'« r!~~ ~~ ~' 'M f~~,~",'Vl ~r ^,y=/1(~IIr /,rr~ ~ ~~ ~~ \ ~ ,""lr ~ ~~~~-/•.i ° ~ \ ! ~~ : t '!r, // t%~~~ fr f~~ ,,f~.~~~ ~ 1.~-. ,lid ~ ~ ~ v~.-~/ .___-~j ~'''['-/ t~~ i V . / /\/''~\`_-.~` I i • ~ ,~'O l ~'(\~~/,/ '%- ~~~.. ~ ~J- ~1 b ' a r w s w ` ,.-' / / 1 % ~ f _ ! ; .' f/ ` '/ ~ / ~ '1 / _. ^ , __.~ r 1 t~ ~%j/ ~ i ---- - ~ '~, • III ~~- _. ~ r 1 >\ ~ ~- f ' ~ ~ 1 ~ ~\ ' .: l,J,'- .~' .'` --'' [- % • t ! + .i-_ • ~ • fail fi'-"t~a-.~ir ~L-• ~l / s :'~ f- w I SITE PLANNING /URBAN DESIGN Historically, site planning has been limited to residential subdivision layout with notable exceptions such as Promenade Park shopping center, Colonial Green offices, Harris Teeter/Kroger, professional offices on Manassas Drive, Carilion Family Medicine, and more recently, Paychecks Plus in the study area. As commercial activity increases, the importance of preserving established neighborhoods and protecting them from conflicting I land use encroachment becomes more crucial. Compatibility can be improved upon, if not achieved, through appropriate use of building orientation and location, landscaping, signage, lighting, and parking concepts. Staff recommends the following site design guidelines -particularly on Colonial Avenue frontage properties - for development or redevelopment of parcels in the corridor: Site Plan - Where feasible, businesses should attempt to share existing and future access points from the street right-of--way. - Site design should make a positive contribution to the streetscape and insure buffering from adjacent less intensive land uses. = Existing healthy vegetation should be preserved and incorporated into the plan. Limit grading along adjacent property lines and where appropriate, preserve - for screening purposes. Building Orientation and Setback - Buildings should be prominent from street view, using architecture as a means of - business advertisement. Setbacks should be determined accordin to ultimate road ri ht-of--wa g g y. Building Scale Size of buildings should approach a residential scale. - If larger buildings axe required, landscaping and architectural facades should be 1 Used to lessen their impact. Parking Areas - Locate parking to the rear and sides of buildings. Street frontage should be devoted to building architecture and landscaping. - Landscape the perimeters and interiors of parking areas. Separate rows of spaces ' with planting islands. Large canopied trees placed among parking stalls will Reduce the heat island effect. Berms landscaped with shrubs, hedges and trees around the perimeter of a parking area will soften the noise, light, and view of a parking area to its neighbors. - Where appropriate, break up required parking into smaller areas spaced throughout the site, lessening their visual and environmental impacts. 22 Architecture Q~~ ~~~ ~. ~ Q n .~ Avoid - Excessive height -Flat roofs - Buildings without a sense of entry -Building out of scale with adjacent structures • Building height, style, materials and design should be consistent with existing buildings. • Where infilling between existing residential structures, maintain a continuity of building height, width, first floor elevation, roof pitch, architectural style and porch detailing, if applicable. nnn 0 n Existing house with architecturally compatible addition Examples of existing architecturally compatible commercial development along Colonial Av. 23 Small Seale Redevelopment's -r--- ------ ~ _----- -- ~ -- ----- ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~-----+ ~----~- i ~--- ---~ I Proposed Screening & Buffer Requirements -Option 1: - 40'buffer yard I I - 1 large & small tree every 40' - 1 large shrub for every 5' I a}/ I ~ w~ ~ ~ • ~, ~ _, ~'~ . ~ ~ - ~. ~ ~ ~ i \~ Vacated Property Line ~ _ ~ !Layout Parking to _ \ ; ~ ~ Preserve Existing- Screening & Buffer ~ , 1~'r ~ Trees Requirements -Option 1: ~ ._ i^ i 15'buffer yard Business 6' high screening ~ ~ ~ . ~ Entrance ~- ~I ~ `~ t Future Shared f • ~, ' I Access Potential I ~ I 1 ; ~. i I i ,. Street Yard ~ " I Remains Mostly . Bui ding . I Monumental Sign; Unchanged ~ Addition i ~ i ~ ------ - ---- - Colonial Av. 24 1 1 Large Scale _ _ _ - -- ` ~,. ~. Commercial Developments __ ~- - - .- ' _ ~ '-- - - _ ~ ~ ''' ~, .-: ~ f I _ ..- - ~ -, !~~` __ . ~- - - - ~- .~-_ .~- I _'- ~ i ~ ~ I ;Vegetated 3 ~. ; i' r---r Berm ~ ~ 1 _I I ;, ! j ---- -- -- ' - "~ ,, ~. __ __ ~ ti;' Existing Vegetation ~ A~~ -- ~ i - i Preserved ,- - `a ~ ~" is - - - i ; ; ~ , ~ ",I Imo' ~ ~ 'I jam---, ~ , ; ~ i ~, ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 'C Future Shared Access Potential COIOnial Av. - -~ - - ~ ~ , r-r i , - _' ~____ __ , Multi-Family -or- -- - -- " - ` --- _ _..__ Office Park Development _ .--- - -' ~ - ~` ~ - r:_ - - - ._--- - _ Proposed Screening & Buffer ~ _ __ --- - _-. Requirements -Option 1: ` `~ __ _ Screening & Buffert`' ~ - 40' buffer yard ~ _ ~ -- Requirements -Option 1 - ~'- - 1 large & small tree every 40' _ ~ _ 15' buffer yard - 1 large shrub for every 5_ ~,_"_, -''"-~~! _ 6' tall screening _ _ __._- -- ~ _ ~ 4--, ` I fi, ' -r--. ~ ~~ ~~ Screening & Buffering - _ ~ _ a = __ ~ _, ._ ~_ Requirements -Option 2: ~ ~ = ~ ~ '~ - 25' buffer yard `._ , ~ - - small evergreen trees ~' i ~ ' ~', '~r.jr--~ ~ ~ - a row of evergreen shrubs,~~ .'' ' ~ `. ~~ - - - fi ~- ~. ~ ~_ t.. ----' 'j` '--C -- ~ =7 Colonial Av. ---- - - r- ~-,- -- - - " = -- ~. ~' T , Iii '~I ~C ~ , a-'-- _ L^' ! ~ _ ,-- - _~ '' S ' Signage C ~~-°`-` -~I' Style • Monumental signs are encouraged (those with a solid base near ground level). • Signs should compliment the building's architecture. • Limit the length of the message so that a passing motorist can read the sign within three to four seconds. ,_ -~-~~~CiGJ0~1~ , . Illumination • Signs should be lit by either channel lighting, where only the letters are lit, or by the use of in ground units that do not direct light toward the road of into pedestrian eyes. L i Lighting ~-~~ „~ Pathway Lighting Example Fixture Details • Path and landscape lighting are encouraged. • Details of lighting fixtures should be compatible with the existing residential character of the corridor. f ,'`~\ ~ ~ ,~ ~~ ~~ a, ,~ Area /Parking Lot Lighting • Parking lot fighting should be down lit and directed to the interior of the lot so as to not project glare onto the street or adjacent properties. • Height of lighting should not exceed 15', thereby keeping its height consistent with the scale of adjacent buildings. 2 6 TRANSPORTATION REVIEW OF THE COLONIAL AVENUE CORRIDOR (FROM ROUTE 681 TO ROUTE 221) BACKGROUND INFORMATION Colonial Avenue provides a vital link in the regional highway network from the inner city of ' Roanoke to the outlying suburbs of Roanoke County. Over the past fifty years or more this has been the function of this road. As development has crept further and further away from the inner city area the function of Colonial Avenue has stayed the same. This increase in development has ' had a direct impact on the roadway as traffic volumes have steadily increased - as shown in Table 1. 1 High traffic volumes and the availability of developable land often prompt developers to seek locations along such corridors for new commercial development. This is the situation that is currently taking place along the Colonial Avenue corridor. Pressure to rezone select parcels fr ' residential to commercial has prompted the need to plan for expected future changes in development. i om u Issues Situation 1. Land Use Changes - Mostly residential development with access to Colonial Avenue from intersecting collector or local streets. Some residences have direct access to Colonial Avenue. - Limited amount of commercial development along a small segment of Colonial Avenue. - The significant amount of undeveloped land or land that could easily be redeveloped along the corridor. - One recent zoning change, from residential to commercial, could lead to similar rezoning requests in the future. 2. Traffic Volume Growth & - Traffic volumes have steadily increased over the past 20 years. . Physical Characteristics - As traffic volumes increase, so does the "visibility" of land adjacent to Colonial Avenue. Developers of commercial properties often seek areas that are highly visible to passing motorists. - Physically, the roadway has changed little over the years. The mm~ber of lanes has remained the same, except for the addition of turn lanes at several of the major intersections along the corridor. - As traffic volumes increase, more conflicts arise at intersections and driveways -- safety along Colonial Avenue decreases. Issues -Colonial Avenue Corridor 27 ii THE COLONIAL AVENUE CORRIDOR ! Colonial Avenue is part of the existing highway network in the Roanoke Metropolitan Area. It provides a direct (radial) link from Brandon Avenue near the inner city of Roanoke to Route 419 (Electric Road) and Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue) in the outlying suburbs of Roanoke County. ' By providing this link between the inner city and developing suburbs the primary function of Colonial Avenue is to provide relatively uninterrupted through travel. For the purpose of this analysis the Colonial Avenue will be split into two sections: 1) from Route 221 to Route 419 and 2) from Route 419 to Route 681. ' Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue) to Route 419 (Electric Road) Physical Characteristics and Land Use ' The entire length of this section of Colonial Avenue is characterized by two-10 foot travel lanes, no sidewalks or bicycle facilities, and one foot or less earthen shoulders. Separate turn lanes do exist at its intersection with Route 221 and Route 419. All intersections are unsignalized except for the ones at Route 221 and Route 419. ' This section of Colonial Avenue is categorized as a Minor Arterial. Typically, Minor Arterials such as Colonial Avenue serve less concentrated traffic-generating areas such as residential areas, neighborhood shopping centers and schools than do Major Arterials. This section of ' Colonial Avenue connects with two Major Arterials, Route 419 and Route 221; each of these roadways has much higher concentrations of commercial development than does Colonial Avenue. As shown in Appendix A (Figure A-1), the primary function of Colonial Avenue should be the safe movement of through traffic with a secondary function of access to residential areas, neighborhood shopping centers and schools. Typically, arterial roadways offer little or no direct access (driveway access) to residential development. Colonial Avenue, however is somewhat unique in that is does offer direct access to residents. The predominate land use along this section is residential and institutional (private school), with ' one area of commercial development at the intersection of Route 221. The spacing between residential driveways that access Colonial Avenue directly range in spacing from 60 feet to several hundred feet. The portion of the roadway with the most access points is the 0.25 mile ' segment from Route 687 (Penn Forest Boulevard) to Route 1521 (Girard Drive) - 10 residential access points. Traffic Volumes The most readily available and thorough traffic count data available for this section of Colonial ' Avenue is the Secondary Traffic Tabulations taken by the Virginia Department of Transportation. This data was available for seven of the nineteen years since 1980; see Table 1 below. The importance of this data is that it documents how traffic has grown along this section of the roadway. 28 From 1980 to 1997 the average daily traffic (ADT) for this section has increased anywhere from 88% to 195%, depending on the segment. This represents a 5-11% growth rate per year. As shown in Table 1, the growth in Average Daily Traffic since 1980 has been significant. [] 0 Table 1: Average Daily Traffic Counts for Colonial Avenue (Route 221 to Route 419) Year Count Taken From To Length 1980 1982 1984 1986 1992 1994 1997 Change Route 221 Route 613 0.06 3384 3911 4934 5049 5723 9039 10000 195.51 (Brambleton Ave) (Merriman Rd) Route 613 Route 1620 0.21 3419 3792 4195 4261 5723 9785 8100 136.91 (Merriman Rd) (Hazel Dr) Route 1620 Route 687 0.07 3424 3515 4063 4112 5723 9697 7900 130.72 (Hazel Dr) (Penn Forest Blvd) Route 687 Route 1693 0.08 3200 3290 4074 4127 6489 7384 6500 103.13 (Penn Forest (Vest Dr) Blvd) Route 1693 Route 1521 0.17 3196 3203 4171 4239 6489 7384 6500 103.38 (Vest Dr) (Girard Dr) Route 1521 Route 419 0.28 3821 4078 5605 5692 6489 6954 7200 88.43 (Girard Dr) (Electric Road) Source: Virginia Department of Transportation (Traffic Engineering Division) -Secondary Traffic Tabulation In an effort to estimate travel demand as basis for determining the needed transportation supply in the year 2010, projections were made by linearly projecting historic ADT. This method bases projections on past trends and does not consider expected future changes in socio-economic ' characteristics or physical changes to the roadway. According to the information provided in Table 2, the ADT along this section of Colonial ' Avenue should continue to increase anywhere from 33-71 %, depending on the segment. This represents a 2-5% growth rate per year. During this time period, traffic on the surrounding road system should also grow at a similar rate. Table 2: Current and Projected ADT, and Projected Growth Rates for Colonial Avenue (Route 221 to Route 681) 1 Section 1997 Actual 2010 Projected Projected From ! To Length ADT ADT Change Route 221 Route 613 0.06 10000 13282 32.82 (Brambleton Ave) , (Merriman Rd) Route 613 Route 1620 0.21 8100 11852 46.32 (Memman Rd) (Hazel Dr) Route 1620 Route 687 0.07 7900 11648 47.44 (Hazel Dr) ~ (Pem1 Forest Blvd) 29 ii 1 i~ ~I Table 2: (continued) Section 1997 Actual 2010 Projected Projected From To Length ADT ADT Change Route 687 ~,' Route 1693 0.08 6500 10783 65.89 (Penn Forest Blvd)', (Vest Dr) Route 1693 Route 1521 0.17 6500 11104 70.83 (Vest Dr) (Girard Dr) Route 1521 ', Route 419 0.28 7200 11189 55.40 (Girard Dr) ~ (Electric Road) Source: Virginia llepartment of'1'ransportahon ('1'rattic J/ngmeenng llivision) -Secondary 1Yattic Tabulation * -Data for the years 2010 and 2020 were tabulated using linear projection. Socio-economic factors were not used in these projections. Accident Data The only accident data that has been obtained is from the Virginia Department of Transportations Intersection Critical Rate Report for the Roanoke Valley Area. This report provides accident information for intersections that experience five or more accidents per year. This data was obtained for the most recent year, 1998. In this section of Colonial Avenue the only intersection that experienced enough accidents to be included in VDOT's report was the intersection of Route 419 (Electric Road) and Route 720 (Colonial Avenue). A total of eight accidents occurred at this intersection in 1998. Of these eight accidents only one included personal injury, while seven included personal property damage. Inclusion in Existing Plans 1. Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System Construction Program (FY 2000) • Route 720 -Route 687 to Route 419 -reconstruct and replace bridge structure; project ID# 15189. See Appendix B for excerpt from Secondary System Construction Program (FY 2000) 2. Roanoke Valley Area Bikeway Plan (1997) • Route 221 (Brambleton Avenue) to Route 419 (Electric Road) -recommends widening 2-lane road to accommodate bicycle traffic. 3. Roanoke Valley Area Long Range Plan (1994) • Route 221 to Route 419 -recommends widening existing two-lane to 24 feet (12 foot lanes). 30 C~ Route 419 Electric Road to Route 681 Od en Road ~ ( g ' Physical Characteristics and Land Use The entire length of this section of Colonial Avenue is characterized by two-10 foot travel lanes, no sidewalks or bicycle facilities, and one foot or less earthen shoulders. Separate turn lanes do exist at its intersection with Route 419 and Route 681. All intersections are unsignalized except for the ones at Route 419 and Route 681. This section of Colomal Avenue is categorized as a Minor Arterial. Typically, Minor Arterials ' such as Colonial Avenue serve less concentrated traffic-generating areas such as residential areas, neighborhood shopping centers and schools than do Major Arterials. This section of Colonial Avenue connects with one Major Arterial, Route 419 that has much higher concentration of commercial development than does Colonial Avenue. As shown in Appendix A (Figure A-1), the primary function of Colonial Avenue should be the safe movement of through traffic with a secondary function of access to residential areas, neighborhood shopping centers and schools. Typically, arterial roadways offer little or no direct access (driveway access) to residential development. Colonial Avenue, however is somewhat unique in that is does offer direct access to residents. f The predominate land use along this section is residential, with two areas of commercial development at the intersection of Route 419 and near the intersection of Route 1632 (Thompsons Lane). Most of the residential development along the corridor gains access to Colonial Avenue through intersecting local roads. There are, however, several residential driveways that access Colonial Avenue directly. These driveways range in spacing from 40 feet to several hundred feet. The portion of the roadway with the most access points is the 0.19 mile segment from Route 1632 (Thompsons Lane) to Route 1604 (Poplar Drive) - 14 residential and 3 business access points. Traffic Volumes The most readily available and thorough traffic count data available for this section of Colonial Avenue is the Secondary Traffic Tabulations taken by the Virginia Department of Transportation. This data was available for seven of the nineteen years since 1980; see Table 4 below. The importance of this data is that it documents how traffic has grown along this section of the roadway. Froin 1980 to 1997 the average daily traffic (ADT) for this section has increased anywhere from 11% to 72%, depending on the segment. This represents a 1-4% growth rate per year. As shown in Table 4, the growth in Average Daily Traffic since 1980 has been low to moderate for this section. 31 Table 3: Average Daily Traffic Counts for Colonial Avenue (Route ~~1 to Route 419) Year Count Taken From To Length 1980 1982 1984 1986 1992 1994 1997 Change Route 419 Route 682 0.04 8144 8207 9196 9313 12677 11955 14000 71.91 (Electric Road) (Manassas Dr) Route 682 Route 1625 0.12 8041 8123 8762 8851 12677 10200 10000 24.36 (Manassas Dr) (Green Valley Dr) Route 1625 Route 1632 0.06 7640 7714 8448 8525 12677 12367 9900 29.58 (Green Valley (Thompsons La) Dr) Route 1632 Route 1604 0.19 7692 7761 8388 8444 12677 12367 9900 28.71 (Thompsons La) (Poplar Dr) Route 1604 Route 1655 0.16 8217 8304 8664 8763 12677 12763 11000 33.87 (Poplar Dr) (Overdale Rd) Route 1655 Route 1626 0.12 8520 8614 9038 9159 12677 11198 9900 16.20 (Overdale Rd) (Georgetown Rd) Route 1626 Route 681 0.23 8927 9041 9557 9707 12677 11198 9900 10.90 (Georgetown Rd) (Odgers Rd) Source: Virginia Department of Transportation (Traffic Engineering Division) -Secondary Traffic Tabulation In an effort to estimate travel demand as basis for determining the needed transportation supply in the year 2010, projections were made by linearly projecting historic ADT. This method bases projections on past trends and does not consider expected fiiture changes in socio-economic characteristics or physical changes to the roadway. According to the information provided in Table 4, the ADT along this section of Colonial Avenue should continue to increase anywhere from 27-60%, depending on the segment. This represents a 2-4% growth rate per year. During this time period, traffic on the surrounding road system should also grow at a similar rate. 1 Table 4: Current and Projected ADT, and Projected Growth Rates for Colonial Avenue (Route 221 to Route 681) Section 1997 Actual 2010 Projected Projected From To Length ADT ADT Change Route 419 Route 682 0.04 14000 17749 26.78 (Electric Road) ', (Manassas Dr) Route 682 Route 1625 0.12 10000 14336 43.36 (Manassas Dr) i (Green Valley Dr) Route 1625 Route 1632 0.06 9900 15901 60.61 (Green Valley Dr) (Thompsons La) 32 Table 4: (continued) Section 1997 Actual 2010 Projected Projected From To Length ADT ADT Change Route 1632 ', Route 1604 0.19 9900 15603 57.60 (Thompsons La) ~ (Poplar Dr) Route 1604 i Route 1655 0.16 11000 15529 41.18 (Poplar Dr) ~ (Overdale Rd) Route 1655 Route 1626 0.12 9900 14149 42.92 (Overdale Rd) ' (Georgetown Rd) Source: Virginia Department of Transportation ('Traffic ~ngmeermg llivision) -Secondary tratric 1 anuianon * -Data for the years 2010 and 2020 were tabulated using linear projection. Socio-economic factors were not used in these projections. Accident Data The only accident data that has been obtained is from the Virginia Department of Transportations Intersection Critical Rate Report for the Roanoke Valley Area. This report provides accident information for intersections that experience five or more accidents per year. This data was obtained for the most recent year, 1998. In this section of Colonial Avenue two intersections experienced enough accidents to be included in VDOT's report. These intersections, at Route 419 (Electric Road) and at Route 682 (Manassas Drive) are located only 0.04 mile apart. A total of eight accidents occurred at the Route 419 intersection in 1998. Of these eight accidents only one included personal injury, while seven included personal property damage. A total of seven accidents occurred at the Route 682 intersection in 1998. Of these seven accidents none included personal injury, while all seven included personal property damage. Inclusion in Existing Plans 1. Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System Construction Program (FY 2000) • Route 720 -Route 419 to Route 681 -reconstruct, initial study to determine design ' options. See Appendix B for excerpt from Secondary System Construction Program (FY 2000) t 2. Roanoke Valley Area Long Range Plan (1994) • Route 419 to Roanoke City Limits -recommends widening to four-lanes. 33 1 CURRENT ISSUES ALONG COLONIAL AVENUE • A recent rezoning request that was approved could lead to similar requests in the future. The approval of the request allowed the zoning to be changed from residential to commercial. This occurred along a segment of Colonial Avenue where several small commercial developments currently exist. • There is a significant amount of undeveloped land and land that could easily be redeveloped along the comdor. ' • Traffic volumes have steadily increased over the past 20 years. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes have increase anywhere from 11 % to 195%; with most segments experiencing increases above 70% during this period. This trend indicates that ADT volumes will continue to increase in the future. • The increase in traffic volumes has created more conflicts at intersections and driveways. The current situation along certain segments of Colonial Avenue is that there are too many poorly spaced accesses that, in conjunction with increased ADT volumes are increasingly rendering the facility incapable of effectively serving its traffic-carrying function. fl 34 i~ How to address these issues Access Management Traditionally, the goal of access management has been to provide adequate access to land development while simultaneously preserving the flow of traffic on the surrounding road system in terms of safety, capacity and speed. However, it has become increasingly apparent that the planning and design of both roadways and neighboring land uses must be coordinated not only to simultaneously preserve the functional integrity of the highway system while allowing efficient access to and from abutting properties, but also to serve the desired land use objectives of local communities. Access management is but one tool for managing transportation in a corridor. Other management strategies include improving transit service, reducing travel demands and making better use of street space (e.g. removing parking). The Need for Access Management Road systems serve two necessary, but often conflicting, functions: traffic movement and access to land. Arterial roadways should primarily serve longer distance through-traffic, while local streets should primarily provide direct access to land. Collector streets serve both functions to varying degrees. As cities expand, increased development along arterial highways generates more and more demand for driveways and intersecting local roads to serve abutting and nearby businesses, industries and neighborhoods. Without access plam~ing and management, arterials become increasingly congested and safety is-compromised. Planning the number of and controlling the location of access points helps to ensure both the safe and efficient flow of traffic and improved service to adjacent lands. The functional integrity of the arterial is maintained and major capacity improvements are often not needed or can be delayed until a later date. At the same time, bicycle and pedestrian travel is made safer due to fewer sites for potential conflicts with vehicles turning into and out of intersecting driveways. In the older, developed portions of urban areas, access management is only possible on an ad hoc basis, with consolidation or removal of existing access being sought in conjunction with roadway reconstruction or urban redevelopment projects. It is primarily on the urban fringes that it is possible to coordinate transportation system improvements with land development to avoid creating situations where too much poorly spaced access renders a facility incapable of effectively serving its traffic-carrying function. ' When access management and land use planning are coordinated, it is possible to ensure that when properties are developed, site designs are compatible with efficient movement of traffic onto and off of public roadways and, at the same time, are conducive to pedestrian movements, bicycle traffic and transit usage. 35 1 Proper access management, particularly with regard to spacing and type of access, can also be used as a tool, in conjunction with proper zoning, to help shape development patterns in a manner consistent with local community plans and desires. Improving Transit Service Currentl ,there is no fixed route transit that serves Roanoke County, including Colonial Avenue. Y Roanoke County's recently updated Comprehensive Plan does however call for transit service to be established in the County by the year 2010. Before service is established a study will need to be developed to determine the best locations for routing such a service. 1 1 36 t t r~i ~. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION Colonial Avenue Corridor landowners have provided Roanoke County with valuable input for this study. Over 900 property owners were sent a detailed questionnaire requesting their opinions, reactions and concerns for the study area. In addition to the approximately 190 surveys returned, citizens were invited to a community meeting to express themselves on a range of issues critical to the future of the area. 116 citizens attended the meeting. Headline topics included land use, transportation, neighborhood/quality of life, the environment, and site design. Summaries of comments follow: Land Use - Attendees were concerned that residential property values will decrease with Colonial Avenue road improvements. Some residents want new commercial rezonings limited to C-1 and no "spot zoning". Others want to keep the existing land use pattern and community plan designation. Transportation - Citizens expressed their desires for sight distance improvements at the Poplar Drive, Georgetown Road and Penn Forest Boulevard intersections with Colonial Avenue. Most were not in favor of any widening of Colonial between VA 419 and Ogden Road. Residents want Roanoke County to keep them up to date on whatever plans VDOT generates regarding road widening. Neighborhood/Quality of Life - Attendees want the residential character of the corridor to remain. They would like to see Brambleton Avenue improvements take precedent over more vehicular use of Colonial. Additional traffic signals and stop signs are needed as are sidewalks and bike lanes. Environment - Citizens were most concerned with drainage problems in the study area (see previous Stormwater discussion). Residence-to-business conversions have adjacent homeowners worried. Greenways are desired and the few remaining wooded or otherwise natural areas should be preserved. Site Design - Attendees want better enforcement of conditions regarding rezonings and special use permits where design is involved. Landscaping and existing vegetation are important to residents in the study area. Citizens also want lighting and drainage situations resolved. 1 37 [~ Questionnaire: Roanoke County Colonial Avenue Study -RESULTS OF SURVEY 1) Where do you live or own property in relation to Colonial Avenue? 46 a. Directly on Colonial Avenue 113 b. Within 2 blocks of Colonial Avenue 27 c. In the immediate neighborhood (but more than 2 blocks) 6 d. Other. Where? For questions 2-4, please rank all of the responses numerically based on importance or preference; with 1 being the best choice, 2 being the second best choice, etc. t I~~ u 2) In your opinion, lots 1-Best 2 -Next Best 3 -Middle 4 -Next 5 -Worst 6 -Other with frontage on Colonial Worst Avenue should be used for (please rank): Single family residences 150 (30) 9 (3) 5 (2) 5 (3) 6 (3) 0 (0) Multi family residences 7 (2) 58 (13) 19 (5) 17 (4} 7 (1) 0 (0) Retail 3 (3) 3 (2) 6 (1) 15 (2) 57 (12) 0 (0) Professional Offices 12 (5) 27 (6) 31 (10) 24 (2) 7 (1) 0 (0) Mixed Uses 23 (7) 14 (4) 35 (5) 27 (11) 7 (2) 0 (0) Other 5 (1) 4 (2) 0 {0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 3) For residential 1-Best 2 -Middle 3 -Worst 4 -Other purposes, development of Colonial Avenue frontage properties should be limited to: Single family residences 150 (33) 12 (5) 12 (4) 0 (0) Multi family residences 13 (6) 38 (9) 40 (9) 3 (1) (condominiums, apartments, etc.) A combination of housing 30 (8} 43 (11) 28 (9) 2 (0) types within a planned development Other 1 (0) 3 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0} 4) For commercial 1-Best 2 -Middle 3 -Worst 4 -Other purposes, development of Colonial Avenue frontage properties should be limited to: Small businesses utilizing 103 (24) 12 (5) 9 (3) 0 (0) the existing structures and lots as-is Conversion of existing 18 (4) 55 (13) 10 (5) 2 (1) structures to businesses (with possible structural changes). Combining lots and 15 (7) 12 (4) 50 (11) 4 (0) building new office complexes Other 34 (5) 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 38 5} Which measures could keep office and commercial developments compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods (check as many as apply)? 115 25 a. Use of fences, trees, hedges, etc., to screen office and commercial developments from residences 57 11 b. Facing office and commercial developments away from adjacent residential property lines 78 15 c. Setting office and commercial developments further away from adjacent residential property lines 121 28 d. Design of office and commercial buildings in architectural styles that blend with residential neighborhoods. 27 10 e. Other. 6) Which measures could enhance the visual quality of development along Colonial Avenue (check all that apply)? 82 19 a. Improving architectural style of buildings 84 18 b. Tightening sign controls 112 29 c. Landscaping front yards and parking areas 102 27 d. Placing parking to side and rear of property 86 21 e. Plantings along the road frontage 71 15 f. Maintaining existing vegetation in front, side and rear yards of frontage lots 21 4 g. Other. 7) Are you aware that the Virginia Department of Transportation is considering improvements to Colonial Avenue in Roanoke County from Penn Forest Boulevard to Ogden Road? 54 18 Yes 128 26 No (3 No answer} 8) If Colonial Avenue were to be improved, what measures would you be in favor of {check all that apply)? 26 7 a. Four-laning Colonial Avenue 92 19 b. Putting in a center turn lane 47 8 c. Limiting the number, location, and spacing of driveways along Colonial Avenue ' 118 32 d. Discouraging through-traffic 17 7 e. Vehicular access only by alleys to the rear of frontage lots 13 2 f. Putting in a median that would limit left-handed turns " " ' 30 5 methods (traffic circles, landscaped curved medians, etc.) g. Utilizing traffic-calming 80 12 h. Construction of sidewalks/bicycle lanes/greenways 13 7 i. Other. 9) What are the three most important issues facing Colonial Avenue and neighboring properties (please check only three)? 135 37 a. Traffic flow and capacity: congestion along Colonial and the difficulty for residents in getting onto it 21 6 b. Decline of visual quality: sign congestion, inadequate landscaping, above ground power lines 101 19 c. Maintaining dominant residential character of area (encroachment of commercial uses) 72 22 d. Safety {both pedestrian and vehicular) along corridor 52 12 e. Need for planned development: blending the various areas into homogeneous developments and preventing strip-like development, planned residential and office developments 79 13 f. Overdevelopment of corridor 32 9 g. Environmental quality: poor air quality, sound and visual nuisances (lighting), stormwater control 22 7 h. Intergovernmental coordination: Do Roanoke City and Roanoke County have compatible plans for the corridor? 4 3 i. Other. Numbers far respondents with Colonial frontage lots only are shown in (parentheses) TOTAL NUMBER OF SURVEY RESPONSES: 192 ' 39 0 c can n o_ d D m C ~~ ~a Number of Responses ~ ~ 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 o ~ ~ .. D ~ `. ,. < _ _ r o o m ~ o - n °: m o ~ ~ ' ~, v ~ _~ o -o o ~ ` ~ ~~ O N N ' 7 ~ D tD o ~ n ~ ~'. z a Q ~ ~ 6 ~^:~~~ T ~~' ~~-~ 3 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ o a 3 ~ `` N O • ~ i y 3 ~ ~ O (D a a i O ~ COi ~ ~ ~ 7~ ~p us ~ ~` ~1~ ~ ni _~ D i ~ C O ~ C ~ m - I a ~ , ~ 40 0 0 D m 1 c m m i ~ ^ ~5~ ~ ~~~ m ~ ° ~ ~ m o ~ ° ~ ~' ~ 0 0 0 0 °0 0 0 m ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~. ~ ~_-~-._ ~.~ 4 ~ -~ ~ .__.~ m a ~ m~ m a ~ ~ °' ~ ~ ~ a m ~~ ~ ~i ~ m c ~ o ~ ~. 'o ~ < o ' ~ '•~ ~c ~ a ~ _ co .. ? ~ ~ ~ o ~ cu ~ ~ o',I o ~ p ~ a ~ ~ ~ o ~ n I ~. cn < o ~, a o r: ~ ~ a m e 3 ~ ~ ~. r ~ ~, ~ y ~, ~ ~ rn ~ ~ a~ ~ no> > a~ ~ °~ ~' N ~ .. ~ ~ ~ o o ~ m ao ~ c m ~ ^ < ~ ~ Q ~ fD ~ ~ -°o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ °' N m ~ o m ~° ~ m `° m ~ 3 = ~~ ~ ~ m co ~ o ~ ~ N to 0 N O ~ o - a o O 'C O 7 N N G ~D N O O O D cD C ~D N C a Al 41 0 c n 0 a ~- D c m n m ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ^ ®~ Q~ = m o~ z cn ~ v a ~ < ° ° m ° ~ ~ S m ~ ~3 ° ° ~ c o ~ ~ o ~ °-' ~ ° O t ~ ~ ~ ~p C O O ~ ~ N N W W J- ry~- , 3 'O ~ ~ ~ ~ ° fl' 3 ~• ~ ~° o c ~ ~ a~ c ?tea m ~• ~ ~ ~" O ~ ~: °a~ ~ ~ w ~ k ~ d ~c m ' ni - n ~, ~ o ~ ~ a ~o ~ ? ~ ,~ ,.: ~ ~ H ~ ~ o o-o ~ a n: m ti ~ ~ ` C ~ m c ~ ~Q o i O ~ ° ~ ~, N ° ~ o °c a~ ~ ~ cc O ° a <c o a c ~ C) ° ai < ~ ~ ~ a ~ o a ~ c ~ ~ D v ° < v-; = c v ~' ° ~ ° m ° ~ cD ~ d °' ~ ~ °' a '~ C o O ° a ° ~ n°, a ~ ;~_ cD O C O ~ Q N ~ fD .._F :.. N ~ CAD 7 ~ ~ ~ f r C O aG w co ~ ' O l U m 3 0 ° ,.. - -~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,, fD '" ° ~ ~ ~ ~ N• ~ ~ o ~ ., v ~ g c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ( O ~ ~ ~ ° -, . ~ ~ " ~ . m 42 Number of Responses _ N N J W N ~., o ~ A \`~. f~ C 3 d ~ -_ __ ~e 3 ~ ~ 3 ,~ '~ A ~ ~ O 7 ~ .~i A p, ? w n ~ N ~~ d "a ~~ ~, » ~ d N a c~ ~i -., rD e~ N O n O O ~• C C a O r y 43 0 c n 4 ni D m ^ ^ G ~ ~ ~ ~ Number of Responses ~ < ~ ~ .... N N W W A 3 p- ~ ~ O CJ~ O CT O CT O Ut O ~ V1 - J ~ L._ ~ ~. J_ ~~.J' ~ I ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ n N (A ~ ~ fn ~ pl ~ ~ X ~ C ~_ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ .+ ~ N~ ~ ~ ~• ~ Q 3 ~ ~ 7 (D C ~ N C'f X f~/1 ~ ~ H ~ cQ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ G ~• O C a r ~ X W ~ i U ~ N ~ N C Q' _ ~' ~ N 'a to rr a v ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ,p ~1 c c ~ C v m 3 ~ ~ ~ \ r N \' t% ~`: _ ~ 44 ~i 3 a w a• ~S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T 0 3 eD d 3 e~ a N 3 ~~ C :. 3 a e~ 3 n ID N 0 N w O m !! 1p w 3 fxD a C N I eo <D n eD -~ p C H ___ ~ O -+~ .n O r. 0t - -- co r 0 TI O 7 b1 r 0 H 3 `G -- ~ N N W O (Jt O U+ O (A O T L J ~ ~ ~_1 n 0 0 7 At -- D c e~ c a c~ ~t 45 g ~, ~ a~°v 3 e~ o ~ ? ~ a"'3 ~' ~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ y < _ W Q ~ ~ ~ ~. 00 f1f ~ a0 n O ~ ~ ~ Q ~p 0 ~ F C 0 u~ ~D a~3 ~~yo, ~ c ~ !P ~ O fD '~ 3 N 1 n w ai ~ w ~ O o 0'8 ~ ~ ,a °a°<~ ~' °~ x 3 • ` ~ e ~ c ~ ~ ~~'~~ n O tN A 3 ~ ~ ,_ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ \ ~- i _ dl \ '~ ' -.. ~ • `~ / O ,~ 3 ~f -o a~ c n e~ s ~ s ,'. ~ ~. N . F. r ~, ~ ~ ,. ~ yA . 1C N a ~,. ~ c~ ~~~ ~ i% F „i AY f v ?u', 4 O ~~ ^ 3 b I W w, A O ~ O O h m < O m O ~ A~ ~ Q O C ~ < ~`. y O O pt N~ 3 ~, C ~D A ~ O A ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `C A '6 7 e> > O w~ C p ~ ~ ea N " ~' 3 ~ A N . 3 46 ~ y A ~~°~ 3 r0 o ~ ~ Aa"3~" o a ~ f ? .: c O c ° ~' ~ N C ~' ~D ~ N ~ _ O Q ~ !D Q' Fi' y O N O pt ~ Q Ot ~D ~ y "'~ O ~/! ~ ~ .* ~ c~ ~ C O ~ 3' fA " ~ ~ ~ ID A tD N -~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ o Z 7 ~Q . ~- ~! ~1 Oi at ~ - r>s ~p '~ n ~ I 3 , a 0 V~ o ~p o O p < ~ ~« 4~~. ~, ~, ~ ~, ~ ~ -~3a ~£ y 3 N ~ ~ ~ al W 1 O y . ~ O t!1 ~ `G !G r.~ly ^~ _ ~ ' .~ N ~ ~ a _ ` ~~ ~~P~ ~ x:~ ~ rr ~~ ~ ;~ ~ ., . I .,` ~ . F ~ \ ~ o ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~ p' 3 tG ~ y O ~ H ~, O -s C ~p No 3 ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~' ~ N ~$ ~° A \ fp *3 o to ' a ~ !1 A N -h " ~, ~ ~ ~ • ~ 3~,~N N N 47 J ~i ~ J 0 0 0 Q Q 0 0 ~. Y ~ ~ j j, ~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~~~~~~ ~ gyp, ~ .. f- lp Z ~ ~ H ~p ~D ~- x / J~ // __ ~ a -/f/ ~ ~ a w .a n __.__ w .~~„`% / ~ O / -~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ G - -_ " ~ ~ 1 ~~~~ ______ Q / j ~ ~' d ~ ~ s w~~~._ ~. ~ W ~: ~ / ~ ~- ~ ~ O t/1 ~ ` ~ 'X1' C7 ~ +~ N n m ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ O -+, ~ ~ "- `~ d t9 ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ 3 H A J ~ C fAA ~ ~ I[ ~ N °' ~ ~ ~ ~ d Q c A ,~ aE `~'° y ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ N 48 g Number of Responses ~,._~ 1..~..,..y,a,.m~..~~`. J I \\ '~`~. \~ y a ~i c~ H O C'1 O O ~i D c c~ N ~.. c a r 0 H 49 0 C ''^^ VI ^ `I ~ O 0 0 ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ (D - 6 -~ ~ N ~ ~ N O ~ ~' ~ O N X N ~ c ~ a .~ o ~ c c N _. ~ ~ Q 3 C (Q ~ m c ~ "' (D X ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ca C ~ N • ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X to .~ (p N ~ ~ _. a ~ -a N ~ ~ N c ~ . c v v co m Number of Responses N -P O O O N ~ O OD O O O O O O O O O O m .~ N ~. ~. m ~ N w O O m O 3 e~ n at r 0 r. n ~p to n O O 7 at D c e~ N r.. c a n o = ~ ~ ~ _ ~ o ~' < 3 ~'c m • ~ y ~ m ~ ~ °' ~ Q, a w D. y {Q ~` ~~ ~ ~ IQ Cam! eF'i~~ ~ ~ a'.. V ~ o ~ ... ~ ~ ~w v v~ ~'`~ ~ ~' a~~, 2 ~ 7 ~ N ~ n, a1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~3 w y ~ 1D ~ ~ , •:~, ~~~ ~+ . H - y v, ~~ c~ M " `~~t° 3 o ~ '~ ~ ~:} O '` ~~ _ ~ v ~ ~ co _ ~; s~y ~ ~ ~ -,r C N ~. ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ a,~ ,,rr xil ~t ~}', ~ ..` ~ ~ ~ f11 ~ C n J~ _, ` ~ ~ ~ _ + ~ ~ ~ N A_ X11 ~ ~ k ~ ~ ~ ~~ n 0 ~i ~ i ~ '~~:. p1 ~~ / ~° < ~ -,..a a ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~.` a ~ ,~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ _ ~~ ' ° C c , r c A rt ~ ~ ~ ~' ~~ - ~ F = y''~ a _ a ~ N ~ ~ ~ C ~ k oc°1s3 .~ ~'; - ~ ~ ..,. ~ c , ~ -~ ~ ty M {Q ~ C ~ ~ O at 3 ~ n ai o N C , iD ~p ~ C 3 = 3 t° 51 0 c A ~ C C7 c a1 3 n ~ ;~ d' ~ ~ C Q. ~ < ~ O U~ Ot 3 "• ~ O d ~+ C ~~~~- p p o=r:w ~~en3 3= • ~:: (~ R A ~p ~~ ~' N ~a ~ N 3 c.o ~ m y a~ o y~3 33 a a~y~ ~ °~ ~ a r- c~ °' ~ ~ ~ 1D ~ a~ ~- o N a~~ r. - ~~ n ~ ~~ ~. ~ ~ ~' ~ Z ~ % Q- A ~• -, ~ N ~ cD ~- ~_ ~ - ~D v y ~ -v c m w do ~~ y._ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ A ~ ~ A ? ~ O ~ ~ ~ 3 N r ~ "~ '~'~= ° • " O n K ~ O O g: - ? rya 4`t'`_ N A ~ O ~. D 5 C ~ 'w r~ ~~ a ~ ° `D `~ D .~ c~ 0 a_ ~~ ~ n~ ~ ~ ~ ~a3 ~ cc '~ `° ~ o r o < ~ Oo ~ Ot ~ _ ' .~ y ~~ o aA Af0-yp 3 ~ D~ O O n d C "3 ~ V ~ a ~ ~ 0 3 ~ A ~ ~ ~ tD ~c O d ~ 7 O ~ J ~ ~ -- ~ O ~ A .r C 3 52 0 c ~o n o ~ '~ D 3 ~ ID !11 m c -s ~ `~ O n ~ N ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ e O ` *r ~ \ ~ tQ 0 3 ~ • {r ~ ~ ~r ' O ~ Q x C ~ ~ ~ 7~; < Fl~4~t ~ • 0 ~ ~' ' K ~ 4 ~ t ii I 3 N 3 C _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ` t ~ i ~~~: ~~ rn ~~ ~ ~ xt- ~ m ~ ° f° 3 d .~ c~ ~ / ~ ~ !"f ~ ~ - / --~ ~ O ~ 0 ~ a c~D ~ 3 ~ , ~,~ ~ a '" 3 to }~ ~ ~ ~, _, ~ ~ c ~ T .4 Y . ~ ' ` 3 O O %~' ~ ~;1 ~ c J ~ m 4 v .~ = ," r ~ °: ~ i S ~, J~~ 3 A ~, ,;q { i,_. ~ n ~ ~ y C ~ .s u ~ ~ r # ~: ~ ' . ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ fl. 3 a ~, Q , m a ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~'~ ~ o \°~m 3 e ~ ~ 01 3 O N ~ N ~ Q to 53 0 c n ~ o ~ pi ~ _ °-' 3 pt 3 < D ~ ~ y ~ {Q m ~ ~ F ~ ~ C - o ~ -- ~- ~ p ~ C ~ tp 3 3 Q~ ~ ~ - '~ .pi a 3 3 fn tP o ~ ~ ~ -w rn ~ d K ~ e~ o a - -w 3 a~»~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ a m ~. m e~ ~ 3 /~ s ~ ~ !a m / ,~ ~ ~ O ~ N p v a O e~ ~ n~ ~ ~, a 3 ~ ~- ~ .~' o D m ~ ~ ° `° c . -o~~ ~D ? (/~ 3 A C N ~ ~ - a o 3 ~ ,m ~ ~~ A Hi ~ r a~ ~ 3 ~ ~. N N .m o O ~~ o ~ ~ o N ~ m 3 ~ .~- ~ ~ w p O. 54 ' IV GUIDELINES FUTURE LAND USE ' On December 14, 1999, the Roanoke County Planning Commission was presented an overview of citizen and staff efforts concerning the entire study thus far. A range of alternative future land use plans and maps were reviewed by the Commission. At this ' stage, the selection of a combination of mixed residential and commercial uses has been made for in-depth work according to framework language which appears below as "Alternative III -Mixed Use Residential/Commercial". A proposed Future Land Use ' map is also included. After further review, the Planning Commission approved the "Colonial Avenue Corridor Proposed Design Guidelines For Development /Redevelopment" and the proposed future land use map titled "Colonial Avenue Corridor Alternative II" on July 5, 2000. This action redesignated parcels on the north side of Colonial Avenue between Colonial Avenue Baptist Church and Poplar Drive from Neighborhood Conservation to the Transition future land use category. i 1 1 1 r ' 55 ' FUTURE LAND USE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE COLONIAL AVENUE CORRIDOR I. Existing Pattern This option would consist of maintaining the residential character of the corridor. Although there are a few scattered businesses, and some higher concentrations along the intersections with major thoroughfares, the focus on the corridor would be the existing predominantly residential character. ' Protection of historically established neighborhoods would be encouraged. Strategies for implementation of this approach would include: ' a) Maintenance of the "status quo" in the Community Plan with regards to existing and future land use. Revise the Community Plan to further strengthen the County's vision for the corridor. b) Keep existing residential zoning districts throughout the corridor. c) Work with the Virginia Department of Transportation to take Colonial Avenue off the 6-year ' transportation improvement program. d) Make an effort to remove any commercial nonconformities from the corridor and discourage additional development as such. e) Recommend denial of commercial rezoning applications. Develop strategies to detour/discourage through-traffic. Implement pedestrian access system and links to other neighborhoods/commercial areas. f) Adopt special sensitive corridor overlay district to address issues such as traffic volume, ' design/improvement of structures, pedestrian ways, noise, trees, and other natural features. II. Growth with Residential Focus ' The preservation of residential units is the focus, but the area may be seen as in a state of minor transition into more intense use types. This approach should be open to limited office-type uses similar to existing commercial uses (and the conversion of R-1 residences and lots into limited R-2 multi-family uses). Land uses should be unobtrusive and have minimal impact on the adjacent neighborhoods. Strategies for implementation of this approach would include: a) Perform a study to determine likely or most feasible properties for transition, and develop a land use plan which identifies these and their best uses. Amend the Community Plan to reflect this. ' b) Retention of as much of the single-family residences as possible. Amend the Community Plan to reflect the possibility of more intense development such as apartments, previously existing single- family home conversions into smaller apartments, townhouses, and single business sites. c) Using the land use plan and community plan, allow limited rezonings only on targeted properties and only for the designated purposes. d) Work with the Virginia Department of Transportation to develop a plan for Colonial Avenue improvements. This approach acknowledges that improvements to the road are likely, but not necessarily intense in nature. Alternatives may include a center turn lane, widening the shoulders, 56 peak-hour no left turn requirements (Manassas), pedestrian and bicycle circulation patterns, or other traffic calming techniques. Colonial Avenue could ultimately be a study project for VDOT to ' investigate traffic calming techniques. e) With consent of owners, rezone existing commercial properties back to residential. f) Adopt a sensitive use overlay district for the corridor, which identifies features and uses that need to be preserved, use types that need to be avoided, and special structural architectural standards, which give the corridor the appearance of a residential neighborhood. Possibly set up a citizens architectural review board with outside interests lending their expertise. III. Mixed Use Residential/Commercial This approach focuses on a mixed-use environment, recognizing the possibility that the best use for frontage lots or properties at major intersections may be some sort of limited commercial. While the ' possibility of some commercial development is likely, any such development should blend with the adjacent neighborhood. Commercial uses are typically single business establishments in structures that for the most part retain their residential character. Pedestrian and vehicle circulation systems and their ' functionality are critical. Land uses should blend with the adjacent neighborhoods. Strategies for implementation of this approach would include: ' a) Amend the Community Plan to reflect the possibility of small-scale commercial development and planned commercial projects along the corridor. b) Rezone the frontage lots to NC Neighborhood Commercial or C-1 Commercial to allow for by-right 1 development. c) Develop a special corridor overlay district for that recognizes the sensitivity of the neighborhoods. The district would have architectural and other performance standards related to minimal impact in the area. Standards could include regulations on the structures themselves, landscaping and buffers, location and type of parking, hours of operation, signage and lighting restrictions, access to 1 lots (alleys instead of directly off Colonial) and use types. d) Work with Virginia Department of Transportation to devise a program for better circulation along the corridor. This may involve road improvements, signalization, pedestrian walkways and cyclist lanes, and no left turn requirements. Program should include the possibility of private alleyways behind frontage lots. ' e) Draft a land use plan to determine present and ideal future uses for parcels. This may involve parcel-specific research by staff identifying best uses for each. IV. Office District Extension of existing commercial development along the corridor is the focus of this approach. Established nodes and centers are seen as anchors for future businesses. However, basic uses will be general offices and not retail. The corridor essentially is in transition to becoming a truly mixed-use area with established residential neighborhoods and office commercial development. Much of the new ' projects should be establishments identified as necessary and useful for the immediate neighborhood, therefore maximizing their utility and usefulness. Prospective businesses may combine parcels in order to locate their operations there, and development standards similar to those of a PRD or PCD are ' necessary. Larger office buildings are a possibility. Strategies for implementation of this approach 57 would include: ' a) Amend the Community Plan to reflect a change in existing policy and vision for the Colonial Avenue corridor. The amendments would include provisions for small offices and office park-type uses. b) Rezone the frontage lots to C-1 Commercial and encourage rezonings to PCD to reflect the future vision of the corridor. c) Develop a special set of standards for planned residential and commercial developments which minimize the impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhoods. These could include such things as ingress/egress, parking, -ighting, landscaping, use types as related to noise and building design. ' d) Work with the Virginia Department of Transportation to devise a street improvement plan for Colonial Avenue. Pedestrian and bicycle access and use are a vital element, as commercial uses may be designed to target the immediate neighborhoods. This may involve the addition of ' sidewalks, bike lanes, one or more lanes, stop lights, or other elements. Particular attention should be paid to the level of traffic and effective circulation patterns. e) Draft a land use plan which identifies specific goals for growth and ideal land use types, which would include uses the residents view as necessary, offices and office support services. Retail uses would be prohibited. ' V. Commercial District This approach would essentially be the commercialization of a recognized high traffic corridor, and a ' link between Roanoke City and outlying areas in the County. Existing commercial nodes would be extended as "commercial infill" would be encouraged. The primary focus of the transition would be the frontage lots, and uses would include not only general offices but retail uses as well. This approach ' would allow for the combination of lots for larger-scale developments. Favorable use types would reach beyond the needs of the immediate neighborhoods. Strategies for implementation of this approach would include: a) Amend the Community Plan to reflect this change in existing policy and vision for the Colonial ' Avenue corridor. The amendments would include provisions for larger-scale general commercial and retail development and planned commercial developments. ' b) Rezone the frontage lots to C-2 Commercial and encourage rezonings to PCD to reflect the future vision of the corridor. c) Develop a special set of standards for minimizing the impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhoods. These standards would also set criteria for the extension of commercial development beyond the frontage lots when appropriate. Protection for the adjacent neighborhoods is scaled down from previous approaches. Standards might include such things as ingress/egress, stormwater management, alternate entry points/alleyways, parking, lighting, landscaping, use types as related to noise and building design. d) Work with the Virginia Department of Transportation to devise a street improvement plan for Colonial Avenue. Pedestrian and bicycle access may not carry as high a priority as in previous approaches, and commercial uses are intended to service a larger market beyond existing ' neighborhoods. Expansion of existing facilities is likely in this approach, and the emphasis is on 58 ' smooth through-traffic movement and capacity management. e) Draft a land use plan to accommodate the transition to a highly visible and commercially vital corridor. While pedestrian facilities and neighborhood protection are a lower priority, the plan still recognizes these and contains strategies to accomplish each. Extensive research should be conducted on approaches other communities throughout the country have taken to produce an ideal commercial district. This should include a plan that balances vehicle and pedestrian traffic, blends different use types, and minimizes impacts on adjacent residential development. Colonial Avenue could be seen as a model commercial corridor for future transitional areas in Roanoke ' County. i L 59 1 ~I COLONIAL AVENUE CORRIDOR PROPOSED DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT Back round Colonial Avenue provides a vital link in the regional highway network from the inner city of Roanoke to the outlying suburbs of Roanoke County. As development has increased over the years around the inner city area, the function of Colonial Avenue has stayed the same. This increase in development has had a direct impact on the roadway as traffic volumes rise steadily. High traffic volumes and the availability of developable land often cause developers to seek locations ' along such corridors for new commercial development. This situation has begun along the Colonial Avenue corridor. As commercial pressures increase, the importance of protecting established neighborhoods and ensuring the safe and efficient flow of traffic becomes more crucial. It is also important to ensure a comfortable transition for existing residential frontage properties if neighboring parcels become commercial. Compatibility can be improved upon, if not achieved, through the proper use of building style, orientation and location, landscaping, signage, lighting, parking concepts and access management. Staff recommends ' the following site design guidelines -particularly on Colonial Avenue frontage properties -for development or redevelopment in the corridor. ' Goal • To plan for and achieve compatibility between new and existing developments along the corridor. ' Design Guidelines Objectives - To encourage well designed, aesthetically pleasing developments that make a positive contribution to the streetscape and lessen potential negative impacts on adjacent residential properties. - To encourage architectural compatibility with the surrounding residential character. ' _ To minimize impacts to traffic flow from new developments. To encourage the use of landscaping to improve environmental quality within new developments, enhance property values and create an enduring community image. ' - To limit light pollution onto adjacent residential areas and encourage human scale in detail lighting. - To minimize sign clutter by encouraging attractive, well-placed signage. ' I, Existing Conditions 1 A. The proposed development should show sensitivity to the existing residential character of the corridor by incorporating as many of the following as possible: 1. The preservation and use of existing residential structures for small offices (architecturally compatible alterations and additions are permitted), or the construction of new buildings having a distinct residential character. 1 n 2. The preservation and incorporation of existing vegetation. 3. Front yard character that is a common feature of residential properties should be preserved. 4. Depending upon terrain, the use of terraced parking lots, minimizing their visual and site impacts, may be appropriate. 5. Existing drainage ways should be protected and incorporated into all proposals. II. Site Layout A. Buildings 1. A building should be prominent from street view, using its architecture as advertising. 2. Setbacks should be determined according to ultimate road right-of--way. 3. Minimum distance between a building, off street parking, driveway, loading space or paved surfaces and any contiguous residential property should be 25 feet. B. Parking I . Parking should be constructed to the rear and sides of buildings only. Street frontage should be devoted to building architecture and landscaping. 2. Parking areas should be designed to allow future interconnections with adjacent parcels. 3 . Where feasible, break up required parking into smaller areas spaced throughout the site, lessening their visual and environmental impacts. 4. Alternative surface materials, such as pervious pavement, are recommended. Asphalt pavement should be minimized to mitigate existing drainage problems. C. Site Access 1. Where feasible, businesses should share access points from the street right-of--way. Temporary access points may be utilized until further development of the corridor allows for combined access. These temporary permits are issued with the understanding that they will be closed when a satisfactory alternate access in available in the opinion of the local governing body. 2. At the time of project approval property owners should provide a joint easement agreement allowing cross access to and from other properties in the surrounding area and a unified parking and circulation plan should be established wherever feasible. III. Architectural Treatment A. Scale 1. Size of buildings should approach a residential scale. Avoid excessive height and buildings out of scale with adjacent structures. 2. Where larger buildings are proposed, landscaping and architectural facades should be used to lessen their impact. 3. Where infilling between existing residential structures, maintain a continuity of building height, width, first floor elevation, architectural style and porch detailing, if applicable. B. Entrances 1. Design entrances that are clearly visible and easily recognizable from parking lots and walkways which serve the building. 2. The principal "front" facade should face Colonial Avenue, for all buildings directly adjacent to the road, although the major pedestrian entrance may be in the back or side of the structure. C. Materials ' 1. Materials should be selected for harmony with the surrounding community and for suitability to the type of building and style in which they are used. 2. Exterior materials such as exposed concrete block, metal or brightly colored siding are not 1 recommended. Materials should be in the range of earth tones. D. Roofs 1. Utilize dormers, gables and other variations in roof shapes and/or heights that are compatible with the basic facade elements and add interest and scale to the building. Avoid flat roofs. Gable roofs, hip roofs and multiple plain roofs are encouraged. IV. Landscaping A. Native Vegetation 1. Landscape plans should incorporate the use of native vegetation. ' B. Adjacent Right-of--Way Plantings 1. Front yards should be developed as open green spaces with a combination of large and small trees, evergreen & deciduous shrubs, earth berms, and/or ground covers. 2. Where it is necessary that portions of a parking lot front the adjacent right-of--way, a planting strip of 10 feet in width should be provided along the adjacent right-of--way. Within this strip ' a combination of large and small trees, evergreen & deciduous shrubs, earth berms or ground covers should be utilized to buffer the parking area. C. Parking Areas 1. Parking areas should incorporate raised landscaped islands in order to break up large expanses of pavement. ' 2. Large shade trees should be planted within and along the perimeter of parking areas in order to mitigate the negative environmental effects of heat and glare. ' 3. Landscaped berms located around parking areas to soften the noise, light and view of a parking area to its neighbors are highly encouraged. D. Building Plantings 1. Buildings should incorporate foundation plantings where appropriate. ' E. Stormwater Management 1. Above- ground stormwater management areas and facilities should be landscaped with plants adaptable to being temporarily inundated with water and designed as an asset to the overall L development. F. Screening & Buffering 1. Where a development adjoins residential property, a 25-foot wide buffer yard should be required. a. Within this buffer yard landscaping and screening should be provided and maintained to an average height of 15 feet. A combination of large and small trees, evergreen & deciduous shrubs, earth berms and/or ground covers should be utilized. Berming is encouraged to supplement screening. Average berm height should be 3-4 feet. Berm slopes should be no greater than 2: L V. Lighting A. Details of lighting fixtures should be compatible with the existing residential character of the corridor. ' B. Path and landscape lighting are encouraged where appropriate. Lighting should be at a pedestrian scale through the use of light standards or placements 14 feet or less in height. C. Parking lot lighting should be no more than 14' above grade, down-lit or shielded so as to direct light to the interior of the lot and not project glare onto the street or adjacent properties. Average intensity should not exceed the minimum required for safety. D. Any security lighting should be shielded and located so as to not cast light onto adjacent properties. In addition, the light source should not be visible from adjoining residential areas. ' VI. Signage A. The shared use of signs is encouraged for adjacent businesses. ' B. Signage should complement a buildings' architectural style. C. Signage placed on buildings should occupy less than 5% of the facade area. D. All freestanding signs should be monument type and meet the following criteria: 1. Monument signs should not exceed 5 feet in height or 7 feet in width; 2. Signs should be ground lit or top lit with shielded lamps placed so as to not cast light onto the path of traffic or on any adjacent road or property. E. Messa e len h should be limited so that a assin motorist can read a sign within three-to-four g ~ p g seconds. No interchangeable boards should be permitted. F. Signs should be complemented, accented and enhanced by landscaping. The size of the landscaping plot should be one and one-half times the square footage of the sign. G. No portable or temporary signs should be permitted. AVENUE CORRIDOR Y in Church is ----~- -_ `-~._ (` 1- (J _ r •~~ }. ~~~ ';` a~ ~~ 1` ~~ ;~ ., N/ __ _ ~ ~ ,l~ ~ ~ ,\ / i ' // /~ k~ ~~ ~'~ ,, ~y ~ \l j _- ~ 1 ALTERNATIVE II PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE Neighborhood Conservation Development ^ Transition ^ Core -.'~- ,, l` a Prepared by The CoonLy o! Romoke i1aP\YID y~9 a i7.5 C ,%j~ 77 10 77. /l :erg `\ '\ / , / 77.14 !77 Ss Department o[ yR~IM 199 9 /' l l ~ '\ . C~nmunity De.elopmenL i OAUSH III7! 22~(~) ~ FEeics 1'S / f f \ 77.1s 77.19177.2 ' CVAIDI AaR R - am aat 09IGII1AL yea ~1T6: 12/31/90 ~~~ ~~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ LA5f @B.VLSIOY: 09/00/98 APPENDIX A FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ROADWAYS The street and highway systems typically serve two major functions: the movement of traffic between dispersed points and the provision of access to individual properties. Because of the distinct characteristics of these two functions no single roadway type can safely or efficiently meet all travel needs. Thus, five roadway types are frequently utilized to describe the movement of vehicles from origin to destination. Figures 1 below and Figure 2 on the following page illustrate this concept. Of these five roadway types, there are three -Major Arterials, Minor Arterials and Collectors - where through traffic predominates. The entire length of Colonial Avenue, from Brandon Avenue in Roanoke City to Route 221 is categorized as a Minor Arterial. Typically, Minor Arterials such as Colonial Avenue serve less concentrated traffic-generating areas such as residential areas, neighborhood shopping centers and schools than do Major Arterials. Colonial Avenue connects with two Major Arterials, Route 419 and Route 221; each of these roads has much higher concentrations of commercial development than does Colonial Avenue. As shown in Figure 1 below, the primary function of Colonial Avenue should be the safe movement of through traffic with a secondary function of access to residential areas, neighborhood shopping centers and schools. Typically, arterial roadways offer little or no direct access (driveway access) to residential development. Figure A-1: Function of Roadway Types ALL P~~YVEMEh1T Ll,., ALL ACCESS Comfdele sccess /~~+ ~+~+ wntrol, little focal ~ Atrl.rEJt3 traffic. ~ ~ EllNCTI~JN M01~EMENT ~' . EU ~JCTIQN - '~- ~ ~,roa41, Iratfi~. unresficted access. ~ arrr tr,xNRttiS~^!AY MAJO}d Skt:ONDAF?Y CQLLEGTOR LOCAL ARTERIAL ARTERIAL FUI~CTIt~NAL CASSIFfGAT14N Figure A-2: Example Layout of Road Network R trKiLw wSTx-MCt T~IYM~ iMp w,u[ t~~rrEptparsncna:E~e atiezcsc ~td')C rCt SrAYtf TS~E IIwI ~~ q • A. gtl'Ifx~~ t.tsi~.~CI+a L~Y A y` ~ X } `.~ A ~Yya^ fad ~ L'ilk4f~i~} S7A'#feTi ~ „e# y ~„ Gt,~-~ M ti t i, G~.k S~ Tai ~- ~ IMT~wro~'~i4iafiAKycM a ~ ~ T'pwvt~,: ~~ ,Fx~1[ ~s i~slx~sxc~vE ~ ,,;.++ l +v~~rarwas,~ s ~ ~.»,~ r.~,sor~ ~a •~wa;, ~ ~n~kr,+~u~ ! .~,,, ~" ~n~x~r~udu~ attr.#~a~: 1 ~ O N O O v 1 v °' h ~'~ ~ I _ 0 l~ y • Y r ~~ U ~ O Gv rl O w ti Q ~ ~ A ~l ~V ~I •V W~ V7 ~ o ~I ~~ A ~ ~ O ~ ~i a GZ U MM W ~ ~ ,, 0 ° e z N H H ' a ' r ~ ~ ~ ~ i r o O o O ~ - - - - - ~ o O o O ~ __--__ ___ f m o r n ; o 0 0 0 :r :~ o c N ~ N ._._.. 4 _.____ } °° b 0 0 0 0 ~ ~' o O ° O O r ,~„ „r m ~o-----~------; ° o o ° ° ° ° ° ° ° o ° ~~ °°°o °°°° o° o° °° ° o ~ ~~ .+ n a ' o°° 0 0 0 0 0 ° °° °° a °° ~~ o ~r ^ P N X 0 0 0 0 ± 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O ~ ~ N N ° ° ^ o 0 0 0 D o n o 0 0 o N o 0 0 o r r o 0 D o n r o .~ N N m N i ~ ~ D o e r 0 0 0 0 o r n ~° 0 0 . 0 0 0 ~ o rv~ , 0 0 0 n rv in °~ ° r .a y -__-._ t -_.._- ~ '°°° °° r o 0 0 0 r o 0 0 0 0 0 r o 0 0 0 ; 0 0 0 ~ ^ N ^ ~ N o c o o~ 0 0 0 0 0 o N '^ n r r o ~ o 0 oN ^ '~ rl P N N N o .i a .a ~ O wazH ~ ~ auazHp i \ O O r~ a a U F w i a a u N w e~ + - _ } ~ - ~ O m ~ H .+ b H ~ p1 n rj~ej u n m p ~ ~ n6 ° awx~~ T b rl M A a ^ T 4 N~ H N G ~ C .Ti ~ i m a a o ~ rf o o V o ~ ° ~ ~ ~ z ~ N w r O O H H O ' N ~q i O o o ~ ~ 07 ~ o~ao~3o~o77 W pat r V o W H a oG ' u o a~ x U~ ' - ~ - - - - + n N o '' n :i n (~ O r Y1 N U < rl U a ~ w ~+ F ~pH77 (Z. a ~ vl ~ O U g O H i O V g O oG v r a H H U ~! r a H H U a0 r ~.O/ W O H rte. N~ ~r M~ U .~ ~~ U W V\ ti ~' O W i~~~ . a o w a F d V q ;aoo r O F ~ N z ~ ~ o W N O~ 1 Q e] O a N~ Z p7 a w U' (rjea H H H N izi q K ~ .____. ; i o 0 0 0 ~ o ~ 0 a~ o r .a o .y yr yr o ^ a 4 ....-. r o 0 0 0 o n o v N ~ N O N N P ~ _ _ . _ - _ ; O O O O O m ° N N *------+ ° ° ° ° _____ °°°° °°°° _ _ - } O O O O +------t 0 0 0 0 r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a m voi r ^ a 4 0 0 0 0 - + ~ _ - - _ _,_ i o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 b n oo°°°° O Om ~ O O O V N N ^ T rl v O O w a z H QR ~ w a U F W e ~ + 4 m N H ~ U a ~ ,$ O w w H o H H m 4 o a a N b m H H ., o H N F 2 o ay 2W OO r U o W H .7 K~ r - - - - - - + o rn N Or O r0 O ~. rl O .+ o ~ a .a 1 0 U q~ H r a H u N EXISTING STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS THAT AFFECT ' TRANSPORTATION & LAND-USE ROANOKE COUNTY • Public Street and Parking Design Standards and Specifications -Section 200.00: Street and Off-Street Design Standards ' 200.05 Frontage on Arterial Road Whenever a Subdivision (residential/commercial) abuts a road which is included in the State System of Primary Highways or a road designated as "Arterial" in the adopted Roanoke Countv Transportation Statewide Highway Plan, the following Plan, or the latest conditions shall be met. ' A. A reverse frontage and/or combined access. concept shall be utilized such that no lot has exclusive access to the arterial or primary highway; and in addition, all developments shall provide sufficient building, parking and travelway setbacks to permit the construction of the ultimate highway section. B. If reverse frontage or combined access cannot be provided, the site shall be limited to one exclusive access point. ' 200.06 Driveway Connections It is the intent of this Manual that access be provided to individual residential lots only from streets classified as local and minor collector as defined in the Virginia Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements. A reverse frontage or service drive concept is required for streets which: A. Carry in excess of five thousand five hundred vehicles per day (5,500 vpd) and/or are categorized as primary highway; or B. The Roanoke Countv Transportation Plan indicates will carry in excess of five thousand five hundred vehicles per day (5,500 vpd). If the Director finds that a street carries in excess of three thousand vehicles per day (3,000 vpd) , he may require a traffic impact study by a licensed Engineer to evaluate potential problems and to recommend corrective measures. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • Mir:imum Standards of Entrances To State Highways -Traffic Engineering Division • Subdivision Street Requirements • Road and Bridge Standards • Drainage Manual -Location and Design Division • Laud Use Permit Manual -Maintenance Division u ~t O O i~ ~-~I N N G~ O .~r ~' 1 . i ~ 0 r~ 0 0 ~ ~./ 1 C~ ~--i CCt a~ c~ 1 i 1 b°'n n o, ~ ~ oMO ~ c ~~' V'1 \O O M . M ~ O~ M M O O ~ V ~ 0 ° ° ° ° ° ° O o o o o o ~+ ° o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H O1 M 00 ~ 0 0 O O V') ~ ~ 01 [~ [~ I~ d' d' ~ ~-~1 V~ ~ V'1 \D ~D ~ ~ _ ~ °~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ mot- x. ccs ~ ~1 cl' 00 d' M ~ ~ M ~ d' ~ •--~ (~ V'1 O ~ ~' d' ~ d' ~' ~ N ~-+ N ~ O M o0 00 r+ G1 ~--~ G~ O l~ ~ ~ M M M M ~' O C1' O~ ~' O ~O ~--~ O ~ Q~ M ~ d' N 00 r! M M M M M M ~.r ~"~ ~ ~D •--~ I~ 00 [~ 00 ~", O N O O .-+ N G~ O O O O O O '^~ M (1; N ~ [~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ G1 ~ _ \p ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ Q ~ Q d- ~i C cis '-a .~ ~ N N O '-" ~ y '-' Z7 ~ ~ ~ ~ . ,-, ~ ~ ~ O ~" ~ R/ x ~ ~ ~ ? ~i ~,.i ' ` W . a N O ~O ~ ~ Q ~ v ~ Q ~ Q ~ ~ o ~ w ~ ~. ~~ ~ ~~ ~ a 0 d' O O °.9- -4~~ O r-.~ .~ O ~.. O U -F-i O U CAS C~ A aA ~ ~ r., C1 ~p M oo v~ ~ l~ ~ 00 O N O ~ o ~ r, ~- ~ 00 M ~O O ~ [~ N N N M ~--~ •-" V ~ 0 o 0 ° ° °o 0 °o °o °o ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .d, v~ ~ O O I~ \O [~ ~D M ~O o0 ~ 00 d1 ~ ~ O N N N _ ~--~ r-' N N N N N N N ~ ~ M .-. Vl ~ M 01 ~ ca ~-~ o~ o0 00 00 00 ~ a~ 00 O ~ oNO ~ oo [~ ~ [~ [~ M o0 ~ 0o O O~ O~0 'd ^+ ~' O d' N U~ ~ O N Q~ ~ --+ ~ O ~ ~D ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ bA p ,N_, O ,~-~ ~ ~ N ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~-. Q ~ .-. b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~, ~ O~ ~ ~ N Q `n Q ~, N ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~~ ~~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a ~o ~ ~ ~- 0 Accident Information for Colonial Avenue From Route 687 (Penn Forest Boulevard) to Roanoke City Limits Accident Information Collected for the Years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 Length of Segment In Miles: Accident Rate: Fatal Accidents: Property Damage Accidents: 1.88 Total Accidents: 350 Injury Rate: 0 53 Persons Killed: 71 113 0 Amount of Property Damage: $301,355 Conditions 51 of the 71 accidents occurred on dry - 57 of the 71 accidents occurred during surface conditions daylight hours 23 of the 71 accidents occurred during - 34 of the 71 accidents occurred during cloudy weather conditions clear weather conditions 54 of the 71 accidents were attributed to driver inattention 58 of the 71 accidents occurred on a weekday ~ Accidents where distributed evenly throughout the four year period 23 of the 71 accidents occurred during the 3:00-6:00 pm peak travel period r G r ' ' . ACTION NUMBER °~ ITEM NUMBER ' a AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance to vacate a 15' drainage easement recorded in Plat Book 15, Page 131, within the boundary of Derby Drive in Triple Crown Estates, Section 1, and located in the Vinton Magisterial District. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: This is the first reading of the proposed ordinance to vacate a 15' drainage easement (Plat Book 15, Page 131) within the boundaries of Derby Drive in Triple Crown Estates, Section 1. In June 1993, C & D Builders, Inc., dedicated a 15' drainage easement to the County of Roanoke by subdivision plat of Triple Crown Estates, Section 1, as recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 15, Page 131. In order for the portion of Derby Drive to be accepted into the state secondary road system, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requires that the right-of- way be free and clear of any third party rights or encumbrances. This 15' drainage easement no longer serves public need and vacation of this easement eliminates any third party rights or encumbrances within the proposed VDOT right-of-way. (1) Adopt the proposed ordinance authorizing the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents to vacate the 15' drainage easement within the boundary of Derby Drive of Triple Crown Estates, Section 1. 1 (f/t~^~R,, l (2) Decline to adopt the proposed ordinance, which would result in the portion of Derby Drive remaining a private road. Roanoke County staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed ordinance as provided in Alternative 1. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Arn Covey, Director Elmer C. Hodge Department of Community Develo ment County Administrator ACTION Approved ()Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) VOTE No Yes Abs Church Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens c: Paul Mahoney, County Attorney 2 .> ~•-~~ ~ ~ ~~ `~'~ S \\ ~ ,, ~ ~ \~~> \~ ~• ~b ~ ~ O ''LY 1 ~ F' ~' j i ~ ~- `~ ~' P (~~ ~ / y,~ 4.J v~ ~~~ ~ ~~ l~V ~`~' ~ c'' / //// ~, h' ~ ~ ``~ "' / i .30 tis ~/P , ~ ~~~f ~`/~ ~ ~, sue,` ~ ~ S ~ / C~ ~ _. :P ~ ,~'\`~ ~~ =~ ~ 'i'~..~~~r ~ L ` ~ 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT ~~ \ '~-~ ~ 1 ~ ~6 TO BE VACATED '~~~ ~ " ' `~~ ti NOT ~ / ~" ~,, \ r ~ ~ 1 DESCRIPTION: ~; ' '"'' ,J -~~ A 15 Drainage Easement (P.B. 15, PG. 131) within r ~~ the boundaries of Derby Drive. ' J --'-- --~~ - ~~ _-- - ROANO.KE CO~INTY 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF BE VACATED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRIPLE CROWN ESTATES, SECTION 1 ~"- c~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 ORDINANCE TO VACATE AN EXISTING 15-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF DERBY DRIVE AS SHOWN AND CREATED ON SUBDIVISION PLAT OF TRIPLE CROWN ESTATES, SECTION 1, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGE 131, AND LOCATED IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by subdivision plat entitled `PLAT OF SECTION 1, TRIPLE CROWN ESTATES, BEING A SUBDIVISION FOR C & D BUILDERS, INC.', dated September 15, 1992, revised March 3, 1993, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 15, page 131, afifteen-foot (15') drainage easement was created and shown within the proposed future extension for Derby Drive; and, WHEREAS, by `PLAT OF SECTION 3, TRIPLE CROWN ESTATES, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF 7.654 ACRES, PROPERTY OF C & D BUILDERS, INC.', dated June 23, 1997, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 20, page 85, the extension of Derby Drive was dedicated to the public and constructed for acceptance into the state secondary road system; and, WHEREAS, the 15' drainage easement no longer serves a public need and is no longer required, and vacation of this easement will eliminate any third party rights or encumbrances within the right-of--way; and, WHEREAS, the Petitioner, C & D Builders, Inc., has requested that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, vacate the existing 15' drainage easement, pursuant to § 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); and, WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County, and County staff has field inspected the subject easement and determined that the requested vacation is acceptable; 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 October 24, 2000; the public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on November 14, 2000. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: r 1 1. That the existing 15' drainage easement, created and shown within the proposed future extension for Derby Drive on the `PLAT OF SECTION 1, TRIPLE CROWN ESTATES, BEING A SUBDIVISION FOR C & D BUILDERS, INC.', dated September 15, 1992, revised March 3, 1993, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 15, page 13 1, and shown hatched and designated as "15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE VACATED" on Exhibit A attached hereto, said easement being now located within Section 3, Triple Crown Estates (Plat Book 20, page 85), in the Vinton Magisterial District of Roanoke County, Virginia, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to § 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), subject to the conditions contained herein. 2. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioner. 3. 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 the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 4. 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\VLH\AGENDA\VACATE\TripleCrown.C&DBuilders.wpd 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ ~ 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of an Ordinance Authorizing the Vacation of a Portion of an Existing 20-Foot Water Line Easement and a Portion of an Existing 20' Sanitary Sewer Easement and Acceptance of the Relocated Portions of Said 20' Easements Across Parcel 1B-1-A of Peters Creek Commercial Park (Plat Book 22, Page 137; Tax Map No. 37.08-1-6.3) in the Hollins Magisterial District COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS: ~ p~~,/J~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Petitioner, The Branch Family, LLC, is the developer of Peters Creek Commercial Park in the Hollins Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke. By resubdivision plat recorded in the Clerk's Office in Plat Book 22, page 137, a 20' waterline easement and a 20' sanitary sewer easement were dedicated to the County across Parcel "1B-1-A", designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 3 7.08-1-6.3 . A concrete dumpster pad with fuel tanks was constructed within the dedicated easement areas. The developer relocated the water and sewer lines and proposes to convey new 20' water and sanitary sewer easements, encompassing the relocated lines, to the County. The Branch Family, LLC, has also requested that the former portions of water and sewer easements be vacated as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. County staff concurs in the Developer's request. FISCAL IMPACT: All costs associated with the adjustment of these easements will be the responsibility of the Petitioner. ~'~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached ordinance to vacate the cross-hatched portion of the existing 20' water line easement and of the existing 20' sanitary sewer easement as shown on the attached Exhibit A and to authorize acceptance of the relocated portions of said 20' easements across Parcel 1B-1-A of Peters Creek Commercial Park (Plat Book 22, Page 137; Tax Map No. 37.08-1- 6.3) as shown on Exhibit A. by: ~ J 1 O. Arnold Covey _ Elmer C. Hodge Director of Community Dev lopment County Administrator ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Approved: ACTION Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: VOTE No Yes Abs Church Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens 2 DOd1VOOD ACRES DR/YE (PR/PATE ROAD) ~~ Q~ RDANGIYE I~QKiVAL A/~Brg4T A:Jf~Y 7M,{37.07-7-5 D.6C 1267 PG f24 CENTERLINE OF NEW 20' WA IE'RL/NE EASEMENT L/NE BEAR/NG D/STANCE 1-2 S 81' S0' .36" E 6.3.18' 2-3 S 36' 50' 5B" E 217.15' 3-4 S 06' 09' 30" E 38.36' W.f/. ~ SL QPAFT TM,f3~o~ f-f O.B.1186 PG.432 N 60' 25' OO' E Ea7ST. DY~VG PAD IMIf/ fl/EZ TAA7f5 ---f0' Ea75'T. P!/8VC l0' SAM. SfNE]P ESMT. 10~ TD BE YACAIID NEW 20' PUBL/C WAIE%lNE ESNT. Ea7ST. Pl7&lC WATER LAr£ E57YT. I 7D BE YACATID NEW 20.' fM/~/C \ SAM. SfMER ESIUT. ~°~ H.Q f1TICERAIld ~J& 7a/~PIB.20-6-31 D.B.1117 PO784 ~-- i Z~---~_ _.-- GE ~ LD. LI/!lE]V 7M~Ei7. A8-1-7 1 D.B.137f PO 1171 EX/ST/NG ~~' 'r' PA/PCEL 9B-1-A' Z' P.B.2~ PG. 137 PRA°ENTY D)R' 1F/E BRANDY/ FAM/L Y, LLC ~T SAN. SE11fR ESNT. P.B 2z Pt,~ 137 ~' EJ17ST. PUBVC WATER LhVE E3I/T. P.6i 2Z Prn 137 I CROSS-HA ICHEO AREA DENOTES THAT PORAON OF PAIn><i yA_f- EX/STING SAN/TARY SEWER f:e.21 PG92 ~ ANO WATE"RL/NE EASEMENTS • TO BE VACATED. CENTERLINE OF NEW 20' SAN/TARY SEI1ER EASEMENT LINE BEAR/NG O/STANCE A-B S 81' S0' ,36" E 71.96' B-C S .36' 50' 58" E 250.00' NOIE~ 1. 7HE /NIEIVT OF 7HlS PLAT /S TO SNOW 7HE REZOCAIIAN OE EXISTING WATERLINE AND SAN/TARY SEWER EASEMENTS AS RECO140ED /N P.EL ~ PG. 137. 2 7H/S PLAT WAS PIREPARm WITHOUT THE BENEFIT L~ A lI1LE REPORT AND THERE MAY E:Y1ST. EASEMET/IS NOT SHOWN HEREAN. 3. 7H/S PLAT DOES NOT REPRESENT A BOUNDARY SURREY OF THE PR01°ERTY. 4. Ex/S71NG 20' SANITARY SEWER AND WATERLINE EASEMENTS 70 BE YACAIED BY SEPARATE /NSIRUMENT. PLAT SHOWING NEW 20' WATERLINE EASEMENT & NEW 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT LOCATED ON PARCEL "1B-1-A " (P.B. 22, PG. 1,37) BE/NG GRANTED TO COUNTY OF ROANOIfE BY THE BRANCH FAMILY, LLC S/TUATED /N PETERS CREEK COMMERC/AL PARK HOLL/NS MAG/STER/AL D/SIR/CT ROANOKE COUNTY, I~IRG/N/A DATE: July 11, ~o°° LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P.C. scALE: ~~-10° ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS COMM. NO.: ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 93-71 4664 BRAMBLEfON AVENUE PHONE (540) 774-4411 CADD FILE: F:\g3\93071\Garter\Esmtplat2.dwg P.O. BOX 20669 FAX (540) 772-9445 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018 E-MAIL IUMSDENPCCa?AOL.COM E%HIBIT A \T' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN EXISTING 20-FOOT WATER LINE EASEMENT AND A PORTION OF AN EXISTING 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE RELOCATED PORTIONS OF SAID 20' EASEMENTS ACROS S PARCEL 1 B-1-A OF PETERS CREEK COMMERCIAL PARK (PLAT BOOK 22, PAGE 137; TAX MAP NO. 37.08-1-6.3) WHEREAS, by subdivision plat entitled `PLAT SHOWING NEW PARCELS "1B-1-A" & "TRACT 2" BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL "1B-1" (P.B. 21 PG. 92) PETERS CREEK COMMERCIAL PARK,' dated November 1, 1999, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 22, page 137, a "NEW 20' WATERLINE EASEMENT" and a "NEW 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT" were dedicated and shown across Parcel "1 B-1-A", said parcel being designated upon the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 37.08-1-6.3; and, WHEREAS, thePetitioner, TheBranchFamily, LLC, isthe owner ofParcel"1B-1-A",Peters Creek Commercial Park; and, WHEREAS, due to the location of a concrete pad with fuel tanks within the area of the above-described original easements, the water and sewer lines for Peters Creek Commercial Park were relocated by the Petitioner; and, WHEREAS, the Petitioner has requested that, pursuant to § 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, vacate the affected portions of the existing 20' water line easement and 20' sanitary sewer easement, and accept in exchange a new 20' public water line easement and a new 20' sanitary sewer easement across Parcel "1B-1-A", Peters Creek Commercial Park; and, WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected County departments have raised no objection; and, V''" WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by § 15.2-2204 ofthe Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), and the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 24, 2000; the public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on November 14, 2000. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That portions of the existing 20' water line easement and 20' sanitary sewer easement on Parcel " 1 B-1-A",Peters Creek Commercial Park (Tax Map No.37.08-1-6.3 ), dedicated by `PLAT SHOWINGNEW PARCELS "1B-1-A" & "TRACT 2" BEINGARESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL "1B-1" (P.B. 21 PG. 92) PETERS CREEK COMMERCIAL PARK,' dated November 1, 1999, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 22, page 137, and being shown cross-hatched and designated as "EXIST. PUBLIC WATER LINE ESMT. TO BE VACATED" and "EXIST. PUBLIC SAN. SEWER ESMT. TO BE VACATED" on `Plat Showing New 20' Waterline Easement & New 20' Sanitary Sewer Easement', dated July 1 1, 2000, attached hereto as Exhibit A, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to § 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), subject to the conditions contained herein. 2. That, in exchange, acquisition and acceptance of a new 20' water line easement and anew 20' sanitary sewer easement across Parcel "1 B-1-A", Peters Creek Commercial Park (Tax Map No. 37.08-1-6.3), being designated and shown as "CL NEW 20' PUBLIC WATERLINE ESMT." AND "CL NEW SAN. SEWER ESMT. TO BE DEDICATED" on Exhibit A attached hereto, 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 Petitioner. 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 the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 2 ~~ 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\VLH\AGENDA\VACATE\PetersCrk.Branch.ord.wpd 3 ACTION NUMBER ITEM NUMBER ~ "~` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 24, 2000 SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. GRIEVANCE PANEL The three year terms of Henry H. Wise, Alternate; King Harvey, Alternate; and Karen Ewell, Alternate, will expire October 28, 2000. 2. HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION SAFETY COMMISSION The four year terms of Jay E. Gaylor, Legal Representative, and James M. Martin, Senior Representative, expired June 30, 1999. Mr. Martin has notified the Clerk's Office that he does not wish to serve another term. The four year terms of Thomas A. Abbott, Citizen at Large; Gordon E. Saul, Neighborhood; and Hank Gregory, Citizen at Large, Jr., expired June 30, 2000. Mr. Gregory has served two successive terms and is NOT eligible to serve another term. The one year term for a youth representative who must be attending a Roanoke County high school is vacant. 3 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY The four year term of J. Richard Cranwell, who lives in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, expired September 26, 2000. Supervisor McNamara is nominating Linwood Windley, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, to a four year term which will expire September 26, 2004. His confirmation will be on the November 14, 2000 agenda. 1 a ,.,...~. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 RESOLUTION 102400-2 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J -CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for October 24, 2000 designated as Item J -Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 7, inclusive, as follows: 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. Confirmation of appointments to the Industrial Development Authority and League of Older Americans Advisory Board. 2. Adoption of resolution authorizing the County Attorney to file a motion with the State Corporation Commission concerning the proposed Virginia Gas Pipeline. 3. Request from school administration for acceptance and appropriation of $300 for a Virginia Commission for the Arts music in service program. 4. Request from school administration for acceptance and appropriation of $3,698.13 to the Student Assistance Program Fund. 5. Appropriation of Compensation Board reimbursement of $3,810 for additional capital purchase for the Commonwealth Attorney's Office. 6. Donation of a .203 acre of land for public right-of-way from A. Jennings Robertson and Doris K. Robertson conveyed to the Board of Supervisors ACTION NO. ~-102400-2. a ITEM NUMBER ~'°' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee appointment to the Industrial Development Authority and endorsement of appointment to the League of Older Americans Advisory Board COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY At the October 10, 2000 meeting, Supervisor Nickens nominated Craia W. Sharp to complete the four year term of J. Carson Quarles, expiring September 26, 2002. LEAGUE OF OLDER AMERICAN ADVISORY BOARD Susan Williams, Executive Director of the League of Older Americans has advised that the Advisory Board has appointed Elizabeth Bogle to another three-year term expiring March 30, 2003. This appointment should be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the above appointments be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. Submitted by: Approved by, Mary H. Allen CMC/AAE Elmer C. Hodge Clerk to the Board County Administrator 1 / , ~- ~ + ! o • ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens to approve Church _ x _ Denied () Johnson _ x Received () McNamara- x Referred () Minnix _ x To () Nickens _ x cc: File Industrial Development Authority File League of Older Americans Advisory Board File 2 ~~ ! } _. , ~,,,. A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 RESOLUTION 102400-2.b AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A MOTION WITH THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION CONCERNING THE PROPOSED VIRGINIA GAS PIPELINE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby authorizes the County Attorney to file a Motion with the State Corporation Commission supporting and urging the State Corporation Commission to grant the Motion requesting the State Corporation Commission to reconsider and reopen the certification process for the Virginia Gas Pipeline (Case No. PUE 990167) proposed to go through Montgomery and Roanoke Counties that was filed by certain citizens residing in the Counties of Montgomery and Roanoke for the following reasons: 1. Virginia Gas failed to comply with the statutory notice provisions of the Code of Virginia, which resulted in a lack of notice to the citizens of Montgomery and Roanoke County affected by the pipeline. 2. Misrepresentation on the part of Virginia Gas concerning the scope and extent of the proposed gas pipeline easement that has been offered to citizens of Montgomery and Roanoke County affected by the pipeline. 3. Request the State Corporation Commission to reconsider and reopen the certification process in order to address the environmental impacts that were previously identified by the Department of Environmental Quality. 4. Request the State Corporation Commission to reconsider and reopen the process in order to address the possibility of Virginia Gas Pipeline co-locating within the existing gas easements of Duke Energy when appropriate. FURTHER, that a certified copy of this resolution be mailed to the governing bodies 1 ~ ~y of Franklin County and Montgomery County and to the State Corporation Commission. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney John M Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Joel H. Peck, Clerk, State Corporation Commission Virginia Gas Pipeline Company Duke Energy Corporation Richard E. Huff, II, Franklin County Administrator Jeffrey D. Johnson, Montgomery County Administrator Darlene L. Burcham, Roanoke City Manager Forest Jones, Salem City Manager Roanoke County Legislators 2 Action No. Item No. ~- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A MOTION WITH THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION CONCERNING THE PROPOSED VIRGINIA GAS PIPELINE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: .,,,~~r~''`~"~L SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At a joint meeting held on October 10, 2000, of the Board of Supervisors of Montgomery County and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, the two localities agreed to file motions with the State Corporation Commission requesting the SCC to reconsider and reopen the certification process for the Virginia Gas Pipeline. This resolution formalizes the action at that meeting. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted: Paul M. Mahoney ' County Attorney Action Vote No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by Church Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) McNamara Referred ( ) Minnix to Nickens /-102400'2 . C ACTION # ITEM NUMBER MEETING DATE: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Request to appropriate $300.00 for a Virginia Commission for the Arts music inservice program for K-12 music teachers. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The Virginia Commission for the Arts approved a grant in the amount of $300.00 for Roanoke County Schools to apply towards an inservice on music technology for K-12 music teachers. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:A check in the amount of $300.00 will be sent to the Roanoke County Schools upon completion of the inservice. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriating $300.00 for the Virginia Commission of the Arts inservice progroam in music technology for K-12 music teachers. Signature : `~ ~~ Name:J.Greg Denton Title:Coordinator of Fine Arts ACTION Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens to approve cc: File J. Greg Denton, Coordinator of Fine Arts Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Dr. Linda Weber, School Superintendent Brenda Chastain, Clerk, School Board ~~~~?a~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Church _ x Johnson _ x McNamara- x _ Minnix _ x _ Nickens x A-102400-2.d ACTION ~ ITEM NUMBER _ ""'"' MEETING DATE: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation to the Student Assistance Program Fund COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The Student Assistance Program has received donations for the sum of $3,698 for curriculum, professional development, and supplies. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The funding will enhance the capacity of the Student Assistance Program to train core-team members and other staff members, purchase recommended curricula and supplies to implement effective strategies for drug and violence prevention and intervention programs in Roanoke County Schools. FISCAL IMPACT: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Appropriation of $3,698.13 to the Student Assistance Program Funds i,~.v J es A. Gallion Elmer C. Hodge D uty Superintendent County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens to approve Church _ x Denied ( ) Johnson _ x Received ( ) McNamara- x Referred ( ) Minnix _ x To ( ) Nickens _ x cc: File James A. Gallion, Deputy Superintendent Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Dr. Linda Weber, School Superintendent Brenda Chastain, Clerk, School Board A-102400-2 . e 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: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation of Compensation Board reimbursement for additional capital purchase for the Commonwealth Attorney's Office. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: During the course of a fiscal year, the Compensation Board reimburses localities for specific expenses relating to the operations of the Constitutional Officers. Reimbursable expenses include salaries, fringe benefits, certain operational costs, and limited capital expenditures. An additional capital item has been funded by the Comp Board for the Commonwealth Attorney that was not included in the original budget appropriation. During the course of some fiscal years, Compensation Board budgets are not depleted and, upon request of the Constitutional Officer, may be reallocated to cover previously unbudgeted items. The Commonwealth Attorney has requested additional funds from the Compensation Board for the purchase of 3 replacement computers. The Comp Board has approved this request (copy of approval attached) and the reimbursable cost is $3,810. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact to County funds. Approval of this request will increase state revenue reimbursements and the expenditure budget by equal amounts. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an appropriation adjustment to increase revenues from the state for Compensation Board reimbursement by $3,810 and to increase the Commonwealth Attorney's budget by $3,810. Respectfully submitted, ~~ W. Brent Robertson Budget Director Appro ed by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator v _" ACTION Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) cc: Motion by: Harry C. Nickens to approve File W. Brent Robertson, Director, Budget Francis W. Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney VOTE No Yes Abs Church _ x Johnson _ x McNamara- x Minnix _ x _ Nickens x na AN s ~ O O~ Oti h ~ p r~~ cc~ "' ~nm H< A~ ~~~ a~.~ N O N C O .3 ? ~ _ ~ ~ ~~ ~V N ^ ~ F > O ~- {- Q O 2 N O N O H ~ W O ~ C U t C A O xms W W ~ N W~ N O 2 J s s Wpm CO' N S r .. ~'~C Ol W O N U F O r C .a. FW ~O OS~ its Q 6 .1 ~~0 v~ ~ W O ~ ((~~ S W O W F G FJ~~J < K 20 W 44 O ~`~ !~ 1- G N •- {W~ ~ ~ G 7 G G7 O J ti Q O ~ W ~ y~ C~ a W = O _ ~ O F- J < C ~ h = ~ W O N N v1 O ¢ w a ~ ' d o~ ~ •- H mo o r- a v a a - _. ~ .... .. .. - ,_ A-102400-2 .f ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~7'- (v AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: DONATION OF A .203 ACRE OF LAND, FOR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY, FROM A. JENNINGS ROBERTSON AND DORIS K. ROBERTSON (TAX MAP NO. 50.01-1-16.6) CONVEYED TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This consent agenda item involves conveyance of .203 acre to the Board of Supervisors for public right-of-way in the Hollins Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke: a) Conveyance of .203 acre portion for public right-of-way from A. Jennings Robertson and Doris K. Robertson by (Tax Map No. 50.01-1-16.1) as shown on the map attached hereto (Exhibit "A"). The County's engineering staff has reviewed and approved the location and dimension of this right-of-way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of this right-of-way. SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey, Director Department of Community Devel pment APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator 1 J~ ------------------------- ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: Harr C Nickens to approve Church _ x ._ Denied () Johnson _ x Received () McNamara- x Referred () Minnix _ x To () Nickens _. x cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development 2 J ~ Exemption Claimed: Grantee is exempted from recordation taxes and fees pursuant to § 58.1-S11A(3), Code of Virginia. Prepared by Martin, Hopkins & Lemon P. O. Box 13366 Roanoke, Virginia 24033 Tax Map No.: 50.01-1-16.6 Property Owners: A. Jennings and Doris K. Robertson THIS DEED, made this ~ 7th day of October , 2000, by and between A. JENNINGS ROBERTSON and DORIS K. ROBERTSON, husband and wife ("Grantor") and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA ("Grantee"). W I T N E S S E T H THAT, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the said Grantor by reason of the location and construction, or other improvement of Autumn Drive, along, through, or over the lands of the Grantor, and for the further consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration paid by Grantee to Grantor, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY to Grantee in fee simple, with General Warranty and Modern English Covenants of Title, the following described real estate lying in the County of Roanoke, Virginia, for the location and construction or other improvement of a road right-of-way: That .203 acre portion, more or less, of Roanoke County Tax Map Number 50.01-1-16.6 shown on the plat attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and by this reference made a part hereof, (the "Property"); and BEING a portion of the property conveyed to A. Jennings Robertson and Doris K. Robertson by deed April 15, Martin, II Hopkins & 1 Lemon, P.C. .~ ....~ Martin, Hopkins & Lemon, P.C. 1996, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1505, page 991. Also granted herein is the temporary right and easement to use such additional areas as located and staked on the ground for cut and/or fill slopes as being required for the proper execution of the work. Said temporary easement will terminate at such time as the construction or improvement of the aforesaid route is completed. And further granted herein is the right and easement to construct, improve and maintain any drain ditches or other drainage facilities that may be needed for the proper and adequate drainage of said route. Grantor, for the consideration stated above, also covenant and agree, upon demand of any public utility company or corporation having its facilities in, over or across the lands herein conveyed, that the Grantor will give, grant and convey unto such public utility company or corporation an easement in, over and across the lands of the Grantor lying adjacent to the lands herein conveyed for the relocation, construction, operation and maintenance of said facilities. The Grantor by execution of this instrument acknowledges that the plans for the aforesaid road right-of-way as it affects their property have been fully explained to them or their authorized representative. The Grantor covenants and agrees for themselves, and for their heirs, successors, successors in title, executors, legal representatives and assigns that the consideration aforementioned 2 shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation and damages by reason of the location, construction, reconstruction, operation or maintenance of said road right-of-way, including such drainage facilities as may be necessary. This conveyance is made expressly subject to all recorded conditions, reservations, easements and restrictions affecting title to the property herein conveyed. The road right-of-way herein granted is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any easement or right-of-way now in existence or which may be acquired in the future. QUITCLAIM OF TEN FOOT STRIP ADJACENT TO ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEREAS, there is some discrepancy in the land records as to ownership of a ten foot wide, more or less, strip of land (hereinafter the "ten foot wide strip of land") adjacent to the .203 acre conveyance set forth above, said ten foot wide strip of land being shown on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the parties that all of the Grantor's interest in the property within the 40 foot road right- of-way shown on Exhibit A be conveyed to the Grantee, including any interest Grantor may have in and to the ten foot wide strip of land adjacent to the .203 acre conveyance. NOW THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration paid by Grantee to Grantor, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor does hereby release and forever quitclaim unto the Grantee all right, Martin, II Hopkins & Lemon, P.C. 3 -.' ~,1 title, and interest which the Grantor may have in and to the following described property: That ten foot (10' ) strip, more or less, adjacent to the .203 acre portion, more or less, of Roanoke County Tax Map Number 50.01-1-16.6 shown on the plat attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and by this reference made a part hereof. QUITCLAIM OF CRESCENT SHAPED STRIP ADJACENT TO ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEREAS, there is some discrepancy in the land records as to ownership of a crescent shaped strip of land (hereinafter the "crescent shaped strip of land") adjacent to the .203 acre conveyance set forth above, said crescent shaped strip of land being shown on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the parties that all of the Grantor's interest in the property within the 40 foot road right- of-way shown on Exhibit A be conveyed to the Grantee, including any interest Grantor may have in and to the crescent shaped strip of land adjacent to the .203 acre conveyance. NOW THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of One Martin, Hopkins & Lemon, P.C. Dollar ($1.00), cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration paid by Grantee to Grantor, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor does hereby release and forever quitclaim unto the Grantee all right, title, and interest which the Grantor may have in and to the following described property: That crescent shaped strip of land adjacent to the .203 acre portion, more or less, of Roanoke County Tax Map Number 50.01-1-16.6 shown on the plat attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and by this reference made a part hereof . 4 .,J a ~F° To have and to hold unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance by said Board of Supervisors of the real estate conveyed herein pursuant to Ordinance No. adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the day of , ~~_.-~.,yr',Z,~ / ~ ~s-.~~-~-~~ ( SEAL ) A. ~;~ENNINGS ROB/BE~RTS/ON f~ ~`,,~ ',r~~--G''~```.--~ ~-~~~ y L-~~--'f~-7`° ~'~' "~'1t ( SEAL ) DORIS K. ROBERTSON Martin, II Hopkins & Lemon, P.C. 5 ..~.~ Notary Public My commission expires: Martin, Hopkins & Lemon, P.C. STATE OF 't COUNTY/C OF The foregoing i~}~,trument was acknowledged before me this /'~ day o f ( ~'-~-1 ~' ~.. ;~~ r ~ ~ by A . Jennings Robertson. My commission expires: STATE OF COUNTY/£ ~ OF { .~ ~,~ R n ~7 f ..Y. ~~~' ;~ otary ~', blic ,, C l ~ ~;f ,~ to-wit: to-wit: he foregoing ink~--tzument was acknowledged before me this l~ day of ~7 ~(~~y'.x.~, _, ~~?v ~, ~~ by Doris K. Robertson. ~` /~J +~ ~~~,%1x-'7 1.,-' ~,~ otary PubL~ic ~ ,~ ~` -~ ~> My commission expires : `.~/-~'-~~~~.- ~ ~ ~~' Approved as to form: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Martin, Hopkins & Lemon, P.C. By. STATE OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY/CITY OF ROANOKE, to-wit: Elmer C. Hodge (SEAL ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ~ ~ by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. 6 METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT REPRESENT A COMPOSITE OF DEEDS, PLATS, AND CALCULATED INFORMATION AND DO NOT REFLECT AN ACCURATE BOUNDARY SURVEY. 1RACT 'A' 17.003 ACRES TAX (50.01-01-16 1 16 ~,0 TAX IUP / 3LlO1-1-11 STf/ART d ~ AAD L~RALDII(E ~ ~ Y P'1Na°1ASED 40' R/1-' TD TAX .WP /30.01-1-f? of /L~RpCD bt ~ AN7 D.~ 7.x; TRACT t': P.R 17, AG f3a TAX .YAP ~60.D1 ~fOYANTAAY MFADOM' ESTA TES' P.Q 15t PIG f.Tl t 16 I ~~1 ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~; ~'gz v~~~z ~a~Z Z !~ y N~ ~~ 1 Lit ` apt 6 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Lor 1 ~ A Z~ ~ 1 ~B T ~ LOT2 ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A..OMYIM65 AIG16iE7P1S1~V ~ NEW R/GHT-G~ WAY ` 0~13 [ ~ AU11AY9V AQ & bi a ' /J ~ ± ~/1 R/W 7a ~ AIX.98ED _ P1410.°iRSED 40 3 PYP0.°ERTY E~sr. 30' acuo EA~nvr /iza an, PIG ae4) sE£ DEAD aar 57/RtrEl' DA7ED Aura fa6a ~ To aE - - - ~ "'- -~ pNTLYAAED 57 ~ . L4 4 1 j ST. 50' RILLID TAXj 3LtOf-1-13 HARpCD 6tR~f/K~6E;Y 9t AM7 HAIL G fKIPQES TRACT ~ 0.7GIxS AG D.Q 117C{ PIG •R59 LINE TABLE 1-2 57.54' 2-3 27.97' 4-5 43.07' 5-6 27.97' LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING Ll 43.07 N26.51'00'E L2 528.95 N56'43'00'W L3 14.91 S33.17'00'W L4 586.60 S56.43'00'E TAX MAP N0._ 50.01 _ 1=16_6 n ~ SCALE: _ 1 =100 PLAT SHOWING NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY BEING CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY A. JENNINGS ROBERTSON AND DORIS K. ROBERTSON ~T (Qd 7.118. PIG ?1) SEE' DAM SUPif'Y DATID Al/G: tR f81B.x ~ O TAX/ 3L'107-1-1.x 1 TAX/ 30.01-1-14 Pigo~'4' cf ~ pycpw'tY of Z .~Pf/ K BU95/VL41 AAO .A1SEA'J K BGC9'9VL~Il AAD ~ i/PgY1L/ A. 6~1NEZL YlR~i9Vit A. Q(/9'dYfE[L y TRACT Q Q7LELT AG D.d 112b~, AG B44 ~ Q3 11Jq AG 43a Q V ® PROPERTY TO BE ACQU/RED ® PROPERTY TO BE QU/TCLA/MED c-1 =2 L=84.15 L=42.08 Ton=55.94 Ton=27.98 X967521' X9676'00' R=5Q 00 CHORD BEAR/NG= 575774 00'W R=25.00 ~~D BEAR/NG= S75t94'00'W ' CHORD= 74.56' CHORD= 37.28 PREPARED BY.• ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 10= 5= 00 n A-102400-2 . g ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER .S-~T AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Request to Accept a Pass-Through Grant on behalf of RADAR from the Commonwealth Mass Transit Funds to Develop a Facility Study for their Transportation System COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc. (RADAR) which operates the CORTRAN program on behalf of Roanoke County has been approved for a capital grant of $25,000 to conduct a facility study for their transportation system by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. The Federal Government will provide $20,000, the State $2,500 with a $2,500 match being provided by RADAR. As in the past, both of these sources of funds must be received by a local unit of government and then passed on to the service provider. RADAR will be providing the required match for the vans. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The grants must be accepted by a unit of local government and the monies must be appropriated to allow the pass- through. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS: ~"' ` Accept and appropriate the Transportation capital grant in the amount of $25,000 of which RADAR will provide the required $2,500 match. The grant will then be forwarded to Unified Human Service Transportation System for their facility study. Respectfully submitted, ~r L ~ Ctrs-L--`ZC~:-.. hn M. Chambliss, r. Assistant Administrator Approv by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens to approve Church _ x Denied () Johnson _ x Received () McNamara- x Referred () Minnix _ x To () Nickens _ x cc: File John M Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator 2 Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc. 2121 Salem Avenue, SW P.O. Box 13825 Roanoke, Virginia 24037 Phone: (540) 343-1721 Fax: (540) 344-6216 E Mail: uhsts@roanoke.in~.net October 5, 2000 Mr. John Chambliss County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear John: As per our conversation, please find enclosed two copies of a State Aid Project agreement between Roanoke County and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation for the FY2001 Section 5313 (b) funds. As in the past, these funds would be passed through the County of Roanoke to our Agency. UHSTS will pay the local match for this project. Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc. applied, and was approved, to conduct a feasible study in regards to building a new transit facility. Also, included in this grant was funding for conceptual design of the facility consisting of scaled drawings. The following is a cost breakdown of this project. Federal $20,000 State 2,500 Local Match 2,500 Total $25,000 This agreement must be executed and returned to VDRPT within sixty days. If you have any questions, please contact me at the above number. Thank you for your cooperation with this matter. Curtis A. Andrews Executive Director caa: Enclosure a ,.1-~ Amendment To The Project Agreement For The Use Of Commonwealth Mass Transit Funds Fiscal Year 2001 The Project Agreement between the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, and the Count~of Roanoke (for UHSTS, Inc.) dated October 1, 2000, is hereby amended by $2,500.00, from X108,621.00 to $111,121.00 to add Appendix D in the amount of 2 500.00 to provide the state match for the FTA Section 5313 (b) Program. All other terms and conditions of the original Project Agreement are unchanged. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, and the County of Roanoke (for UHSTS, Inc.) executed this amendment on October 1, 2000: WITNESS: I By: Director, Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation WITNESS: By: By: ~~ Title: Public Body: County of Roanoke - ~ Appendix D Technical Assistance Project Agreement Summary (Promotion and Operations) Project Number: 477-41000-57-1 Grant Recipient: County of Roanoke (for UHSTS) Project Start Date: October 1, 2000 Project Expiration Date: September 30, 2002 Maximum State Share of Eligible Expenses: $2,500 EIN: 546001572 00 Technical Assistance Project Agreement Budget Detail Item Number Expense Detail ~~ ~....i' Item Amount 11 2500 UHSTS (RADAR) Facility Study 2000 Total Expenses Expense Summary 1200 Federal share of project cost (80%) 1400 Local share of project cost (10%) 1300 State share of project cost (10%) $25,000 $25,000 $20,000 $2,500 $2,500 ACTION NUMBER ITEM NUMBER - O AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: REQUEST FOR A WORK SESSION FOR THE SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM SIX-YEAR CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2007 AND CONSIDERATION OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 VDOT REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: VDOT and County staff request the Board of Supervisors to schedule a work session for November 14, 2000 to review and finalize the proposed plans. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Arnold Covey, Director Elmer C. Hodge Department of Community Development County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: VOTE No Yes Abs Church _ Johnson _ McNamara Minnix Nickens A(/ w GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA of General Amount Fund Revenues Unaudited Beginning Balance at July 1, 1999 $7,269,259 6.11%I Balance at October 24, 2000 $7,269,259 6.11 Changes below this line are for information and planning purposes only. Balance from above $7,269,259 Anticipated addition from 1999-2000 operations 2,625,000 $9,894,259 8.32% 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 2000 - 2001 General Fund Revenues $118,982,797 6.25% of General Fund Revenues $7,436,425 Respectfully Submitted, Diane D. Hyatt ~/ Chief Financial Officer Approved By, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator M:\Finance\Common\Board-ReportslMonthlyReports\GENOO.xIs 10/18/2000 /~` . CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount Balance from June 27, 2000 Board meeting $279,722.09 Balance at October 24, 2000 $279,722.09 Respectfully Submitted, ,~C~t.~ ~~ i~~~~~1 Diane D. Hyatt Chief Financial Officer Approved By, ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator M:\Finance\Common\Board-Reports\MonthlyReports\CAPOO.xIs 10/18/2000 f Y - FUTURE SCHOOL CAPITAL RESERVE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Savings from 1996-1997 debt budget $670,000.00 Transfer from County Capital Projects Fund 1,113,043.00 FY1997-1998 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000.00 June 23, 1998 Savings from 1997-98 debt fund 321,772.00 FY1998-1999 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000.00 FY1999-2000 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (1,219,855) 780,145.00 November 9, 1999 Savings from 1998-99 debt fund 495,363.00 FY2000-2001 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (1,801,579) 198,421.00 Balance at October 24, 2000 $7,578,744.00 Reserved for Future School Operations FY2000-2001 Original budget appropriation $1,500,000.00 July 11, 2000 SW Co Regional Stormwater (290,000.00) Balance at October 24, 2000 1,210,000.00 Receivable from Roanoke County for purchase of refuse vehicles - to be repaid within two years (736,680.00) $ 473,320.00 Respectfully Submitted, Approved By, Diane D. Hyatt Elmer C. Hodge Chief Financial Officer County Administrator M:\Finance\Common\Board-reportsWlonthlyReports\SCHOOLOO.xIs 10/18/2000 .. , 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: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid -September 2000 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Payments to Vendors: Payroll 9/1/00 Payroll 9/ 15/00 Payroll 9/29/00 Manual Checks Voids Direct Deposit Checks $4,241,435.83 $633,452.90 $190,015.79 823,468.69 582,753.65 183,262.54 766,016.19 569,994.65 174,149.74 744,144.39 1,177.79 1,177.79 (566.49) (566.49) $6,575,676.40 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. SUBMITTED BY: ~~~ , Diane Hyatt, CF ~~ ~ ~ " Approved Denied () Church Received () Johnson Referred () McNamara To ~ Minnix Nickens No Yes Abs ~uuz~#~ ~f ~u~cxcn~E ^~- ~ ~ r.~ OF ROAN ~~ -( ~, , G F~ ~p z ~ ~ ? ~ d. t e DECLARING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2000 AS WIRELESS ETIQUETTE MONTH IN ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, there are more than 100 million wireless subscribers in the United State today, and WHEREAS, there is a need to provide wireless phone users with guidelines for the proper and courteous use of their phones; and WHEREAS U. S. Cellular, a community partner since 1995, is launching a wireless etiquette campaign to educate wireless customers and the general public; and WHEREAS, U. S. Cellular is dedicated to educating the citizens of Roanoke County about the importance ofwireless etiquette. NOW THEREFORE the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby proclaim Octoberas WIRELESS ETIQUETTE MONTH in Roanoke County, and FURTHER, The Board of Supervisors commends U. S. Cellular for its services and commitment to the local community, and encourages other wireless companies to join U. S. Cellular in educating customers in wireless etiquette. Mary H. Allen, Clerk seph McNamara, Chairman H. Odell "Fuuy" Minnix, Vice-Chairman '~51 ///~ Joseph B. "B " Ch ch Bo L. J o Har C. 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: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Report of Claims Activity for the Self-Insurance Program COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In accordance with the Self-Insurance Program, Ordinance #61494-4, Section 2-86.C, attached is the Fiscal Year to Date claims activity and status report including the First Quarter which ended September 30, 2000. FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Respectful I~sis~bmitted, Approved by, rr--•' Robert C. Jerhigan Eimer L. Hodge Risk Manager County Administrator ACTION Approved ( )Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) - --- VOTE No Yes Abs Church _ Johnson _ ~ _ McNamara - _ Minnix _ _ Nickens g:\riskmgmt\trustees\board. rpt .'~~/ - i~ ~ i I i i ~ I t ~ I ~ ~ N O I ~ ~ ~ i cD ~ N I t c ' Q i rn ~ I ~ ~ m i w I j ~'~ I --,, r- - -- - i I ~, ~' r I ~ ~. ~ I c i I ~ ~ ~ ~- a C cn U O U U -- - +- ' -- r- - '-- ~~ ~ -~ ~ __ O O H ch ~ d' ~ ' I Wi ~ m ~ ~_ ? 0 0 0 0 ~I I ii ~ ~ W g ~ Q Q' Q Q; i ' ~I d W ( ~ ~ ~ ~ j W y ~ I I i i i ~ ' 'I I , ! W G H a' ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~~ N Q ~; ~ i, ~ it r ~j C J ~ ~ I I ~,, Q, E j W li ~ J m i w ~ .' ~ 'i I I V J~ ~ = o ~ cn ; ~ ~ j I ~i ~ Z ', W Z ~ ~' ~ o I ~ I i I i ~I C7 ~ ~! m' o aol ! i II N ii W I ~ ~`' E ~ ', c~ ! I ' I M' a', W~ N 'o ~ I I i ~ J i ~ ~ c ~ it t ~ I I ~ ICI i I W ~ ~ o N coo ~ ' I fni H' z w', °~' ~ m, i I ~ ~ ' ~_ c a', s ~ ' i I I~ I' t U N ~ ~F } ._ W I ~I Q U ~I ~~ cn I I! I - ~ - I F ~ __ - { _ t ~___. F J. I ~ ~ ~ Q'i Z ~ F U I LLl '~, Ali ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ II ~' L y ' z Iii ail LL '' ~ i !i i Q ~ ~I T T ~ ~~ i j m, W a - - = I ~ C --, _ - -_T- -~- i ~ ~~ C] ~ p ~~I N N N ~ '~I I' ~ C O ~ ~ U ~' rte, co ', ~ I C i ~ ' F - - _ •--~- C o ~ r i E ~ ~ 0 ~ z o ~ o o ~ ', I ~ 0 0 m m d °" ~' Z I °o '' I I' °o ~ ~ o Q N ~ ~ I O'i a 1 ~ W M O ~ '.. I ~ I M i '. ', '. '~ ', I O ~, O N Mw W ~ w O a a w W y; W W ~ ', ~~ O N ~ ~ ~ o W ~' Q J ~' fn w' a Z III O' II W J Q U NCI II ~ ~ '. ~ ' ~ - i ~i i i - - h-~ C O C C C' C N ~ Q N f/1 ' O N' l N '. N~ ' ' N V) i o ~ a n n ' n u i O U O O! O O U i ! i ~ ~ I ~ I ~ `m I I I i H m ~ i i ~ C I Z ~ i ', _ a O O O O O O; ' ~ g a a a a ~ a Q ' a~ ~ ~~ i o ~', ~ ~ ' r, c~', I '' ~ N i a ~ rn ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ' j i ~ i ~ ~, ! ~ i ' I ' m I I I a~ c i ' - ~ I I I I i, i i Z O = ' •~ ~ ~ n I I I i ~ d ~ ~~i a~ LI ~ v Y , i ~ c i i ~ i CC cu ~ N O , ` i ~ v O '~ > I 0 U - U I ~ I ~ 3 ° ~ ° ' I z ~, U I N N ~ U i a i Y N i I I' ' '', ~. O 'O ~ O)I ~' 'i ~ I I ~ YI U I I' YI N Y, Y. ~ ~. C U U O I ~ ~ U «`. a~ ~ . +: ~ f ~ ', (/~ H J fn h- ' t ~ ~ _.___ __ h ~- F z i i i i w °' °' i o :: m ~' t I I i ~ ~ , ~I ~ ~ ~' a v I ;o I w o -o ~ -o I ~ ~~, ! c '~ tg <°n I ~ o' ° ° ° ° ° ° I i ~' ~ I i I ' I ' o o o o o ' o ' I ' I ' [ I i ~ o 0 0 0 0' ' o o i I i ~ I ~ N N E N N N N N , I I , L ~ r I I U 0 O N NI M' O L ~ C~ I~ (D I~ I 00 ~ m ~ I ~ i i C Q O O '~, , O ~, O O O O '.. 'I ~ ', I I '~, ', ~~ ~ L ' i I I h _- __. __ i _ (O. V 0~~. ~ O m O C L ' o' o o o o ~ h ~ o ~ ~ , ~ i z ~ ', o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ C I U oI rn o 0 0 oI o I I < ' L 0 a~ m m a r . o 0 0 N ~ ~ ~ Vi ~ W O ++ p e dA o b4 ~ ~' y ~ .ti CC J 0. 0 ~ ~ CC 6~ ~ U • ~ CC Ste. GQ CC ono 6) O C7 C~ O w O O U M ~ Vl O .-- ~z-, c ~ O ~ O O M ~ O ~ a U ~ "~ W ~ 'C ~ O b y ,~ a C~ ~ O ~ ~" W M ~ O O ~ ~ ~ w L 0 a~ ~, r.., A °' w y L ~ a ~>-+ y C y ~ N~ W wo b a c W L C C7 0 0 a 0 ~1 ,~ ..~. ~' ~O M O l~ O M ~--~ oo v~ ~ M O ~ (~ ~ ~ ~O O O M N M ~ ~--~ N M ~ ~--~ O O~ ~n ~ O ~ O O ~ M O O\ O ~--~ ~O O oo ao v~ O ~O ~O O f~ O~ oo ~D O O oo v~ vl O ~--~ ~--~ \O oo M v~ ~O M ~O O l~ O O M ~--~ O~ \O ~O N 00 M O\ 00 Vl .-~ .--~ 00 V'1 l~ V'1 ~ 00 ch \O N N t!1 00 00 ch N N t~ O N O ~--~ ~-+ o0 01 M v'i O O o0 M D\ M N N o0 v~ M ~n O O~ V O ~O vl Q~ N M vl ~O ~n v~ O ~O O O l~ v'l N O N O O~ O oo l~ M ~O o0 N M~ 00 v~ O h vl l~ 01 N O~ ~O O O O~ N N l~ [ O ~--~ O M N O '~h N ~--~ O oo l~ ~ ~ 00 N ~ ~ M N ~ a1 O M N ~ a\ ~--~ O r ~ v'~ ~ ~--~ vi .--~ ~/1 M O M O M 00 .--~ 00 \O N ~ .-~ V'1 N ~O ~ 00 lp 00 [~ O V N O ~ N M M ~O 01 00 Vl ~ [~ O O~ M 7 O~ M N ~--~ M N N M 01 00 N ~O v7 O N ~--~ ~ N M 00 N M 00 [~ M O ~!1 ~O ^~ N l~ ~--~ l~ O [~ •--+. ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ vl oo ~t v~ N ~--~ N N ~t oo O O N ~t ~-+ ~O ~ 00 ~ ~--~ N O~ N N v'i ~ M ~--~ N ~ N M ~ N N ~ N M oo O~ O~ N ,--~ l~ ~n O N [~ .--~ l~ o0 00 00 v~ t~ vi O O~ 00 ~O V ~n O v~ vl 00 N O~ ~O ~ M a\ N ~ [~ a\ r ~--~ O~ •--+ N ~O M ~--~ N ~O vl oo ~n M ~n ~ O O~ oo N M O~ O o0 ~O N o0 ~O l~ 01 vl l~ 00 ~--~ N M vl ~O [~ N ~D ~O N ~ 00 ~ N ~ M [~ 00 ~ N N vl ~ v'i ~O Ap ~O ~--~ 00 ~--~ M ~' M OV l~ M O O O~ 00 l ~ O ~ ~--~ ~ N l~ ~O ~--~ M N ~--~ Vl Oy vi O ~ O N l~ [~ ~D ~--~ ~ .--~ N ~O v~ 01 O N ~--~ ~--~ ~--~ 01 M M ~n 01 l~ M ~--~ O 01 ~--~ N .--~ ~ ~--~ M N 00 01 01 N 01 O l~ ~ O~ 01 N 01 l~ ~O ~ O I~ ~ 00 O~ M ~O v'1 v7 l~ 01 `O M v'1 ~ O~ 00 O [~ ~O O l~ ~ 01 [~ _ v'~ l~ M ~ ~ l~ O~ O ~--~ [~ .--~ M M o0 O~ O~ v~ v1 O~ v~ ~O O~ [~ O ~O ~--~ O M ~O oo ~ O ~--~ ~ O oo N O~ N O O~ ~ v~ ~O ~ O o 0 N O~ ~ ~ V'1 lO N ~ v'~ ~ ~ ~ V1 O N ~-+ N vl ~O [~ ~ O~ N M 0 o ' -. ~ O ~ N ~--~ M ~ ~ N O O ~ ,--i .--. ~ M M M l~ M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v, 0 0 .~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o vi vi vi o o ~o v~ ~o 00 ~--~ ~ ~--~ N v'1 00 01 \O ~ ~D \O N N O M N ~O ~!1 M ~-+ --~ N vl N O O O O oo O~ O v~ ~D O H O [~ O .~ v1 ~O O O O O~ N O l~ 00 O N O O O O M N N o v, o 00 ~ ~0 0 0~ ~ o 00 0 00 0 ~ o, v, .-. v'i O O ~t v~ ~O O Oi v~ O ~ O O vi l~ _O O~ ri ~ t~ N v'l 00 O~ ~t -~ v~ O vi o0 h [~ ~n l~ M O N ~~ ~n O l~ M ~ N --~ N ~ ~ N N N ~. ~ ~ a~~i o~ ~ 3 ~ o o ~~ U b ~, a F" ~^ O w F" ~ y • ~ k p o ai w ~ ~„ a~i ~ a~ ai ~ o~'"q ~ 'O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U O ~+ U ~ '~ ~ ~ G a~ ~-+ O ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ,b m ~ v m v ~ v .d . ~ b~A [~ p • ^ ~ ~ h '~ ~ ~ .U, y ~ ~' a. n '"' ~ ~ (, p O O V] C~ p ~ U i. y ° U ° O U y ~ °.: ..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °' ~ ~ a, ~ U -o U ~ b ~ ~ w ~ ,~ ~ y a~ k 023 ~ 023 ~ +~ ~ id cc ~ . ~ ~ o y ~ a~ ~ a~i ~ 'L7 ~, ,~„ ~ y a~i a~i ~ ~ ~ v O U ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ a~i ~ a~i ~ O o ~ ~~,, O ~ ~~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aUi .~ ,~ . ~ ~ ai .~ .~ • a~ ' ~ aUi p ~ a~ '~ a~ b +'s".+ '~ ~~., a: a a w w a U W w~ F-~ ~ x F~ O Q a a w U w w rx r~ U U r~ ~ c~ Z~ 3 0 3 w 0 0 E-~ O ~--~ N_ M V O N M d• ~~~ 00 01 O ,--i N d• ~ 00 a\ O --~ N o0 O ~--~ ~ O ~--~ ~Y M O N ~O N M ~--~ N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M 7 V' ~~ V1 V1 ~~~~~ OO OO OO D\ Q\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O N ~ ~ ~ Ca O +-+ 01 o /.~ A C ~ bD `p ~ ~ ~ ca ~ ~ L ~ C~ 'a a ~ y a ~ ~ i y ~ ~ . .. C N ~ ~ i. RS .~-i ti y '~ Lr" 6~ ..fir L7 "' C~ ~bA O ~ ~ O ~ C~ y ~~i w O ~ ~ r.., W ~ O O ~ U ~ E e~ O O O M O ^O 'O C W b O ~L ~' f"'. O M 0 ~. 0 w w Q ~ O C r.+ y L ~ R a _~ ~ ~ C C y ~i GA 'O 7 CC ~--i O~ O~ 00 N N 7 00 .--i M N N o~ .-i .~ 0 H C R L .¢ M ~ Vl O -- z ~. c '~ C '~ C~ L v C C7 0 0 b C r_~ r 0 0 ~ o .N M O O ~ O O N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i.r ~ ~ y ~ LL] LU LLl O ~ a> bq ro ~ o Q ~ ~ 0 N ~ ~ ~ ~ u~7` ,+w. O O 0 N M O N N b0 ro 0. ~ ~.. 'O E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 00 r V M M ° a a ° 'fl ~ v' ~ 'n v' ~° 'n N N N N N N eLe W ~ ~ 00 67 0~ ~' ,L7 .,..~ C~ .rr it a /Sr- F+1 O O O •r~r b M .~ ~ ~ ~ O i^ ~ ~ ,~ v ~, y^ ~ c W 'O O C~ ~ ~Y, ~O/ r~[1 QI W W .O. ~ ~ O ~ i~r ~ C~ ;S ~ M O O U ~ ~ ~ o W ~ 4r _~ '~ '~ 6> V t N ~ ~ .--. L ~ ~ ~ u e~ u ce ~ ~ C u ~ ~ L ~ .~ ~ ~ 0 r y ? L a ~ ~ W ~ ~ pp u C O 'b L ~ ~ y 7 u 0 W L .~ 7 Z G ~ O O a K Gz7 nn 7 CQ ^O Li f7. C~ L C 0 0 C ~ M [~ ~ ~ ~O M ~O M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N ~--~ 7 M 00 O N N M ~O O O~ 00 0o r O ~ -~ O ~--~ v~ ~ O O~ O~ ~O N r \G N ~O 00 O O ~O O r r N ~--i ~ M 00 00 N M 00 .ti ~D ~O ~O O~ ~--~ ~ 1fi vi r N h M 00 ~O O Vl N oo O vi oo M ~O ~ 00 [~ r M ~-+ l~ O~ O~ ~D -~ ~O et --+ N ,--i ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~O O ~--~ O ~ M ~--i ~O M M M ~--i O~ ~O r N O o0 00 ~O ~ O ~--~ ~"+ r O~ O~ p~ O~ 00 0o vi O O ~ ~ oo ,--~ 7 N ~ O~ ~--~ ~ oo M O ~O v1 N O M M ~p v~ .--~ M r ri N rn V~ ~ .--~ r o~ N N E o N O vl 00 ,--i N M~ O~ O V i ~O M M N ~ r ti O~ M r ~O ~D 00 O~ . -~ N ~ .--~ M O ~O M O V'1 00 N ~ M V1 N V' 00 01 00 ~ N N N M N N ~ ~ oo N r O d' •-+ 00 V'1 r 00 .--~ N 0o O~ ~ M O N O~ M O O M ~n ~--~ ~ ~ N O~ O vl O~ r [~ 00 ~ ~ O ~ ~O , -i N oo O ~ O~ N N ~--~ ~--~ r N N 01 r ~ ~ ~"~ , -i ~O r N O~ ~ M 00 ~O ~O ~ O ~ ~--i O~ M~ M O r N ~D l~ oo r M ~ rn o ~ o ~ ~ ~ N O O~ O O~ l~ O r N vl O O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O ~n O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O 00 O ~ ~ ~ O O ~ O Q~ O O~ O~ N .-+ N O~ N N ~O O [~ vl N O v'i O U O~ _ O N ~ vi ~--~ ~--~ N ~ ~ ~--~ N .-~ O~ O~ ~O l ~ O M ~--~ r N ~O ~--~ r ~O •--~ ~--~ ~--~ N M ~O O N O~ ~O ~O v'1 N O v~ M M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~--~ r Q~ ~n ~O O M O M ~O oo M [~ ~ O O~ ~O ~O vl N 00 Vl (~ l~ ~--i M 00 ~--i V' 00 ~ V'1 M ~ N ~ r O M Q~ 00 ~D oo et 7 ~ ~--i v~ ~O oo O~ O ~ N oo ,--~ vl ~ ~O O~ r ~t N ~ O V~ N O~ oo ~ ~O o0 00 ,--~ -~ ~O r O~ d' ~O .~ V' ~ 00 M M O~ ~O M '~ 'd~ 00 v'1 [~ M M M O ~--~ ~D ~O v~ .-i v'~ N o0 [~ 7 [~ M M O~ N O [~ ~--~ ~ ^' ~D ~O N N ~ r V7 ~--~ O~ N M M Vl Vl M M vl 1n rr ~O M M M M N V' .ti ~--i ~--i 0 0 0 0 ov-,o v~ ~ .--~ 01 ~--i N ~ h ~ O~ U vl ~ O ~O ~O ~ ~n O O ~O N N ~ r r L +.+ H .C .~ '~ ~ Q ~ G .~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ "C U L Q O ~ ,~Ohh U ~ V ~ o C G7. > °,~ ~ a~ `~ ~ o ~ .~~, a~ bUA ~ y O ~C7W o ~--~ N M 0 0 0 0 0 0 °o, o 0 ~ Q~ M r ~ M ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~--~ O ~. ~. ^~ ~V U O b ~ ti ti Q ,Y O U O o ~--~ N 0 0 0 0 0,000 a M 0 0 0 M O N O O~ .~ v`~i O~ ~ ~ M O~ O~ N l~ Q~ 00 01 O~ N O M 01 O N r 0o v v r .r ~... O U U W [~ O ~ °~ ~ ea: N Y ~ N V] °~ ~ Q o a~i ~ ~ ~ p ,~~ oU p- W ~ ~ s. O ~ w U Q o ~--~ N M ~ 0 0 0 0 M M M M O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O ~n N N 01 ~D ~ l~ ~ ~ ~ ~--~ N ~ ~' Vl M 00 00 ~--~ N M 00 ~O 00 N N N ~O O~ 00 ~ l~ ~O M M \O 00 [~ ~ N 1n M N ~--~ ~--~ O ~--~ b ~ r ~./ ~ ~v "V L O ai 3 y ~ . U ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ (~ p~ ~ o U C1r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C7r~~W~C7 O 0 ~--~ N M V' ~/'~ ~O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...~ y ~' ~--~ O ~n o0 00 ~ ~ O ~ . rov~~o ~o r i ~ ~ ~ ~ ma v i N . y O O N ~--~ oo ~O O vi N Gov,-~~o~o~ r 00 ~ O r ~ v'i O~ N ~O r o0 N v~ ~O O O~ ~n M Vl ~ 00 ~ 01 M O~ O\ r V O O oo ~ r ~O N ~ ~ oo ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ O O O oo O~ N ~t O v~ 00 ~ O V oo M vl O ~O N ~O O O~ r ~ ~O M N .-r O M v) ~ 00 00 01 O O~ 00 00 N ~ O~ O~ .--. ~ N M ~ ~--i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O l~ O~~~ O O N M 00 O N M v~ O O r 00 ~O O M o0 N O M O~ M _ M N ~O O~ ~ o 0 ~ 7 M ~1 O\ ~O O~ V7 7 t~ O .-. M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ~n V O v~ O N N O 00 r oo ~O ~ O [~ M M ~O ~ ~--~ ~ ~--~ 00 00 M O O~ [~ l~ I~ ~O ~-i M vl N ~--~ A N N M ~ 01 00 00 N ~ ~ 0 •~ ~ ~ ~ Q O ~+:+ W ~ .~ G: U '" ~ ~ ~A C ¢~~~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + ~ -. ~, ~ •~;, ~ 0 ~a,v°~Ua~.,Sv°~~ o -~ M v ~ `p r o0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vl ~!1 V1 V1 Vl Vl V'1 V1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 00 O N M O N N ~ ~ 0.. ~ ~~~ ~ ~ A Q. C e b0 CC w w CO 7 ~ m 6> 0~ L ~ u O O ~ C u vi y .LO A TS ~ ~ ~ ~ s. a ° ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ C O b s~- a+ ~ u OW y ~a i' 7 ~ a+ = C O ~ ,~ a W OD 'C 7 0. a f7r }. a~ c G7 0 0 r. 0 C O I ~~ N ~ l~ oM0 O~ M ~~~ 0 0 0 M O O O 7 O N [~ O O O O p~ N N ~ N ~ .--i .--. ~ 01 O N N ~ \p M r \O .N-~ .-' ~ ~O O O ~ M oo O ~ v~ M --~ O O O O~ O O O M l~ ~--~ O O~ vl lp O O N [~ ~O 0 0 0 0 N O O O ~ ~D ~n N \O l~ 00 O N o0 ~ l~ O O O N O~ ~O In ~ M ~O ~--i ~t M ~O v'> O o0 00 ~O O O O 7 ~O N O~ N O ~ ~ ~t N N M N .-~ ~ v~ --~ O O O N o0 ~--~ O~ 00 O~ l~ ~D ~ l~ ~O O~ O M ~ M Ui O O O M oo ~O R b ~ O O~ ~ ~ 00 O~ M _ O .ti O~ .ti In O~ ~ oo ~ •--~ ~-"' O~ ~n ~O N M ,--~ •--~ M •--~ ,--~ M N •--~ er ~p ~O ~O O ~--~ ~D ~t O O ~O l~ N O V) v'~ l~ O\ O O O .--i O O O ~ N oo O ~--i ~ M Q~ O l: N M 0 0 0 0 l~ O O O M O M O 7 Q~ ~O N O 00 v'~ ~ O~ O O O 00 O O O r M ao O '-+ O~ O ~ ~O N _ ~ ~ V'~ (rj M N v1 ~--~ ~O ~O v1 •--~ O ~ ~ 1n 00 00 [~ ~O N ~--~ \O [~ [~ .--i .--~ vl 00 r ~ p ~ vl M N .--~ v'i 00 ~p v'~ ~ V ~ N M O .-.r M .ti X 0 0 7 O O M O M O O M 0 0 0 M O O O M 0o O O 00 v~ O H O Q~ O O ~D 0 0 0 ~O O O O 00 ~ 0 O ~ M O N O N O O O O O 0 0 O 0 N N ~ ~O M O~ O~ N N l~ l~ ~ M M \p .--i N N N (~ N [~ O~ O ~O l~ .-. N O ~D ~O N oo O O O ~O 0 0 O ~O N M O ~O N M oo O l~ M ~n X 0 0 0 M O O O ~--i N M O 1A O~~ O ~O ~ M O~ O O O [~ O O O ~D ~n f~ O N v'i v'~ N O [~ .--~ ~O O 00 ~ N ~ O [~ .--~ 00 N O [~ O~ v~ 00 N O~ ~ .--. .-, ~ ~ ~ M M N ~ [~ O N .~ N 7 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O~ 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 00 ~ ~--~ ~O N ~~ M M ~O O M 0 0 0 O ~O N O~ \O N ~--~ --~ M ~ 00 ~ ~ .-i ~ O ~--~ O O O O 00 .--~ O, ~O 0o vi ri ~D oo l~ vl t~ O v~ v~ .-~ O O O .-i oo ~D ~ 7 ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ 00 ~ OO N ~--~ ~--~ ~ O ~--~ O O ~ ~--i N ~O ~O O 7 ~--~ •--~ M ~n ~O N et N ~--~ ~ ~--i .--~ N ~ N ~--~ R O\ \O ~O .~ ~--i G~ L R w ~ ~ C ° ~ ~ ~ , ~ 0 ~. a ~... ~ ~ U ~ ~ 0 ~~ ~ °~ ~ O O ° ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ x .~ + ° b O v ~ ~ w ~ L a p; ~ i i ~ ~ o W > E ~ ~ ~ b a1 A ~ ~ N~Q~ E ~ ~~owb~ c ~~ a U Z - - F X23 ~ ~ ~ ~ p o U ~ ';; U ~ ~ ~ ° a ~ ~ ~ ~ °o v o ~ k .~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ °o rs.WU o a.UWU o , WQ~HR:U o ~~ o N M O O O ~--~ N M V'l O O O O N M V ~O [~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O ~O ~ ~O O O O l~ [~ l~ [~ O O O O 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ O~ O O y O F'' c ca ~. C7 / r '"~ a ~+ 1 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: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Worksession on Clearbrook Initiatives COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The purpose of this worksession is to give the Board an overview of the various staff and community initiatives that are underway in the Clearbrook area. These initiatives include: 1. Proposed zoning changes to implement 1998 Community Plan policies, 2. Exploration of road improvement alternatives to provide better access and improved safety, 3. Development of conceptual stormwater management plans incorporating large facilities as an alternative to smaller individual detention areas, 4. Plans for expanded water and sewer services, and, 5. Financing alternatives for public improvements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: . „ a~ 1. -~ 2 That the Board hold a worksession on this topic at your October 24, 2000 meeting Respectfully Submitted, ,~ Terrance L. arri gton, AICP Department of Community Development Approved, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Action Vote No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Church _ Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens Outline for October 24, 2000 Worksession with BOS Topic: Clearbrook Initiatives OBJECTIVE: Undertake public initiatives and investments to promote orderly development in the Clearbrook Community with focus on public improvements and land use development standards I. Water and Sewer for Land Rover/Parkway Motel Area • Immediate need • Being designed to provide service to these uses and larger surrounding area. • Estimated cost: SOOK • Source of funds has been identified. (Loan from Year End Surplus) II. Other Initiatives for Clearbrook 1. Zoning Overlay • Implement and Refine Community Plan Policies for Clearbrook • Clearbrook Village Overlay District Land Uses Landscaping Signage Lighting 2. Planning for Public Facilities • Road Improvements Signalization Intersections Frontage Roads • Drainage Facilities Area-wide Ponds III. Exploration of Funding/Implementation Alternatives • Official Map Amendment • Special Service District • Special Tax District • Tax Increment Financing District • Others? f ~ -. ~ s 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: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session on proposed Fire and Rescue Comprehensive Plan COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: During the past 30 days, the County staff has met with every volunteer Rescue Squad to discuss a comprehensive plan for Fire and Rescue, and met twice with the Rescue Chiefs Board. I am pleased to report that at the October 18 meeting, the County staff and volunteer rescue chiefs reached agreement on a proposed Fire and Rescue Comprehensive Plan. Every Rescue Squad was represented and there was unanimous support for hiring additional advanced life support paramedic/firefighters. Fire Chief Woodrow Henderson, representing the Fire Chiefs Board, also attended the meeting and expressed the support of the Fire Chiefs Board for the plan. The volunteers and the staff should be recognized for the hard work and time that they devoted to reaching this agreement. Some of the highlights of the plan are as follows: • The County staff has posted, and will immediately begin hiring and training the 20 ALS paramedic/firefighters. • The Fire and Rescue Department will develop acounty-wide staff allocation system with the Volunteer Chiefs Board. • The volunteers will reduce the reaction time from the current six minute level. • The Fire and Rescue Department will update their dispatch procedures. r ~ ~ ~~ • The County staff will continue meeting with the Cities of Salem and Roanoke and the Town of Vinton to discuss regional cooperative efforts. • The County will begin renovations at the Clearbrook and Mount Pleasant stations which are already funded. • The Board of Supervisors will be requested to appropriate funds to cover the initial costs for the 20 paramedic/firefighters. • The Board will also be requested to fund, preliminary engineering studies for the renovations at the Vinton, Mason Cove and Read Mountain stations. A public hearing is scheduled for this evening to hear comments on the proposed comprehensive plan. Following the public hearing, the Board of Supervisors will be asked to approve the additional 20 ALS paramedic/firefighter positions and appropriate $907,000 to fund the positions and station renovations. ~~inu~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE No. Yes Abs Approved () Motion by: Church Denied () Johnson Received () McNamara Referred () Minnix To () Nickens cc: File October 24, 2000 County staff requests the Board to adopt a motion to enter into closed session within the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act as follows: Consultation with legal counsel regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice, namely Performance Agreement with Advance Auto, Inc., in accordance with Section 2.1-344 A 7 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 RESOLUTION 102400-3 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the Certification Resolution; and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~- Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Closed Session File A-102400-4 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOICE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing on Expanded Advanced Life Support Coverage and Request to Approve Funding and Positions for Twenty Additional PazamediclFirefighters COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Earlier today, the Boazd held a work session with administration, staff and volunteers on the proposed plan for expanded advanced life support coverage for the County. This time has been set aside for a public hearing on the plan presented to the Board in work session. In order to implement this plan, it is necessary to add twenty pazamedic firefighters, at an annual cost of $907,000. As previously approved by the Board, these positions have been advertized and applications are in hand. We can begin hiring as soon as approval is given, but the training period will last for approximately three to four months. If we begin immediately, we will have trained positions ready to put in the field by March 1, 2001. In addition, the bunk room additions and renovations are needed at Mt. Pleasant, Cleazbrook, Vinton and Mason Cove. There is currently $500,000 budgeted to start the renovations at Cleazbrook and Mt. Pleasant, however additional funds will be needed for Vinton and Mason Cove. FISCAL IMPACT: It will cost $907,000 to fund these twenty positions on an annual basis. Since 2000-01 will be a partial year for the new positions we will need $590,000 for salaries and start up costs in the current year. It is recommended that the balance of the funds for the first year be used toward the needed station renovations at Vinton and Mason Cove. There are two alternatives to pay for the additional positions. Fee for Service -The Board has discussed instituting fee for service. This method would charge individuals for ambulance service, with the expectation that the bill would be paid by the insurance provider. Staff estimates that this method will generate net revenue of $600,000 annually. While this is a good way to pay for the service, it would take six months to institute this fee, in order to have time to get all the procedures in place. It is recommended that this method be delayed until G:\COMMONIBOARD110-24-0O.wpd ~~ r ~r •. ' additional expansion of the system is needed in the future. If we do not institute fee for service, the Board may want to consider paying the City of Roanoke for fees charged to county citizens when they are answered by the City units. 2. Use of recurring revenues - At the October 10, 2000 Boazd meeting the Boazd was told that unaudited year end figures show a surplus of approximately $2,625,000 of revenues in excess of budget. These additional revenues will be recurring in the future. A portion of this surplus balance can be used for this expense in the 2000-2001 yeaz. In the future, the revenues will continue to reflect this increase to pay for these positions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: At the conclusion of the public hearing, staffrecommends adding twenty positions for paramedic firefighters, and appropriating $907,000 from the 1999-2000 surplus revenues. SUBMITTED BY: Richard E. Burch Chief of Fire and Rescue ACTION Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) cc: File APPROVED: (` Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Motion by: See Motion by Harry C. Nickens listed below Richard E. Burch, Chief of Fire & Rescue Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Joe Sgroi, Director, Human Resources W. Brent Robertson, Director, Budget VOTE No Yes Abs Church _ x Johnson _ x McNamara- x Minnix _ x _ Nickens x HCN MOTION TO (11 AUTHORIZE THE ADDITION OF 20 PARAMEDIC- FIREFIGHTERS AND FUNDING OF $907,000 OUT OF JUNE 2000 YEAR-END FUNDS; (2) MOVE FORWARD WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS AT CLEARBROOK AND MOUNT PLEASANT STATIONS; (3) MOVE FORWARD IN WORKING ON PLANS FOR POTENTIAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT VINTON, READ MOUNTAIN AND MASON COVE STATIONS; (41 MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VOLUNTEER/ADMINISTRATIVE TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP A LONG RANGE PLAN FOR RECRUITMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICE DELIVERY. AND BRING BACK A REPORT TO THE BOARD WITHIN 90 DAYS. G:\COMMON\BOARD\I 0-24-0O.wpd O~ ~OAN0~~6 ~ :.. z ~ o Z a 183$ AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ - t APPEARANCE REQUEST -PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCE X CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: P/~o PosEl7 G~tS tpC~- ~ /zs as ~r 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, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ~I DDRESS FOR THE RECORD. /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/NES 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 othe-tivise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of hislher 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 to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ~~A/A~ ~ L71eG~ ~SC(f~ ADDRESS: ~~/7 ~I~N/~j~r R~~ ~~Ab/G~~~~ z~f07~ PHONE: ~ o ~-~~~~5 October 25,2000 8819 Newport Road Catawba, Va 24070 Board of Supervisors Roanoke County P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Va 24018-0797 Subject: Comments about the proposed EMS system Gentlemen: ~ar~a The plan you are considering is not a plan. The primary responsibility of any government is to protec all of it's citizens. _This ~.lan only provides protection to 80~ of the citizens. It's stated goal is to respond to 80$ of the EMS calla within 6 :r~intites. What about the other 20~ of the emergency calls? The 6 minute time is when a heart attack victim begins to suffer permanent damage and at 10 minutes they are dead. By concentrating the EMS resources in only 4 locations the time of response will be reduced within that area but the remaining 20$ of the emergency responses will be lengthened and in some cases by significant amounts due to the distance traveled. Response time to the scene is made up of the sum of reaction time, (the time for the personnel to leave the station) and the travel time. In many areas the proposed response time will actually be longer than the existing times today. For instance calls to Catawba will be answered by a crew from the Hollins Station which must pass the Mason Cove Station and the Catawba Station on their way to the scene. Calls to Bent Mountain will be answered by a crew from Clearbrook which must pass Cave Spring Station and Back Creek Station nn their way to the scene. To check the response times of the proposed system I suggest that the Board .have the Chief prepare a county map with the h{?~.zndaries of the 6 minute response time shown and the~/add boundaries for 12, 18, 24, and 30 minutes until all locations in the county are rover. ?c3. This map will show the realities of response time for the L_roposed system and expose it's weaknesses. O~ ~OANO~~` o :Z J 'a 1838 AGENDA ITEM NO. ~" ~ APPEARANCE REQUEST t/ PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCE _ CITIZEN. COMMENTS SUBJECT: L~/~~n ~~.~,-n ~i~T~uf ~,~r ~nrr~F~~ C'~`v,`c C~~y~~ r-,,~ ~~~~~ o~ /~c~C ~~~ S~'/Cvir~J I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED 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 othe-tivise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her 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 to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ~ t4 ~ ~ ~~ /~ ~' ~,` r~ T~ ~-- ADDRESS: G ~ 7 ~ ~' /.~ ~ k~s hv.~~~ ~,-~ PHONE: ~ c1" ~1- ~' ~ ~~ d~ O~ POANO~~` ~:, z s' ,~ 'a 1838 AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ " ~ APPEARANCE REQUEST ~~PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: 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, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED ^ 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. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her 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 to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: I~j~~~6?Gt~~ ~ ~L~I~Z~.~ ADDRESS: ~~ ~Q ~` l~~~l~y ,j ~1~~'~_!'.~- PHONE: `~ a ~~J ~~~ O~ ROAN0~~6 ~, h ~ ~ z o v ~a 1838 AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ " APPEARANCE REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: 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, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED 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. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her 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 to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ADDRESS: _ , ,^ ' , ~~R.2 ~~~, i'd'(~ ~~~. ~~ PHONE: ~~ 1 ~ ~~ ~%~~~~~ O~ a0AN0~F` ~, z ~ Z J ., "~.a 1839 AGENDA ITEM NO. /~ APPEARANCE REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS __ f ,,,r , SUBJECT: ~ _ ~`~°'~' ` t- 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, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED 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. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her 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 to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOA,~tD y NAME: ,~. /, 4: r C~ (-' ~ ~ ; ~~{~r,.~"~ ,. ~` ,- -; ADDRESS: ,~ ~ "' ~~~ ~ ~,1 ~ _~ ~ ~ f; ~" ~ ,~' ~ ~~,`%r, PHONE: ~~ -~ ~ .,. ~•~~~~ c;,~ ,`~ ~°` AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ " APPEARANCE REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE xx CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: FIRS AND R~SCU~ 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, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED 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. • The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her 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 to the Board. • Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ADDRESS: 3 ~ ~6 ~ ~~~ ~~' PHONE: ~UU ~ ~I a ~ , ~f ~ o~ Y O~ ROANO,Y~` ~ . - 9 z ~ o Z ~a 1835 AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ " ~ APPEARANCE REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ~ CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: 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, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED 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. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her 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 to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ~-= ADDRESS: ~ ~ (~ 1 ~~~ ~~~~ rte. PHONE: O~ ~OAN0~~6 ~ ~~` , z ~ ~ ~" o~ , f a AGENDA ITEM NO. 1838 APPEARANCE REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ~ CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~ ~ ~- I~ =.5~ v ~ ~ ~~ 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, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED 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. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her 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 to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ~(.,~~~~ ~.C~~C~ ADDRESS: ~ d ~Jd x ~Q (~ PHONE: rJ7a - ~ SAS '~ ~'' ~ z o Z ~a 1838 AGENDA ITEM NO. APPEARANCE REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: r % '' r' 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 TD THE LECTERN, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED 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. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her 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 to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: / ~ '. !. ADDRESS: PHONE: O~ Et0AN0~~6 ~> ~ z` ~_ o z v ;:µ `a 1839 AGENDA ITEM NO. APPEARANCE REQUEST /PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCECITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: 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, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED 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. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her 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 to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 13a~6a.rQ ~. ~csrTi~ /> NAME: ~wr.~wb.~ ~~•+~• My j ADDRESS: 7~5y 3/~c~s h~rg ~d PHONE: 3 8'~f - 43 r ~ CATAwBA COMMUNITY CLUB October 24, 2000 TO: The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Mr. Elmer Hodge, County Administrator RE: Fire Station Staffing Gentlemen: The Catawba Community Club is a community organization that focuses on the well- being of the Catawba Valley. Over the past several years, concern has grown regarding the ability of our Catawba fire station volunteers to respond in a timely manner to fire and rescue emergencies in the Catawba Valley. During these years it has become increasingly difficult to find volunteers to respond to calls. Our valley has experienced, and is continuing to experience, new growth. We also wish to point out the Commonwealth of Virginia's Catawba Hospital of Mental Health and Mental Retardation is located in our community and depends on our station for emergency services. Presently, the Catawba Fire Station is manned by volunteers who also work at full time jobs. As a result, there is no fire and rescue coverage at Catawba Fire Station # 4 during the daytime hours. Should an emergency arise either in the community or at the hospital during the daytime hours, response time from the Mason Cove station could be a half- hour or longer. If the Mason's Cove crew is on another emergency call, a much longer response time will result. Medical personnel refer to the "golden hour." They consider it the critical time span in which treatment must begin. But without coverage at Station #4 our citizens will be denied treatment within this critical "golden hour." We highly commend our volunteers for their unselfish commitment to the Catawba Valley community over the past 50 years. However, knowing that other areas of Roanoke County have 24 hour fire and rescue coverage, we believe the Catawba Valley community MUST have the same benefits as our fellow county citizens. Our homes and our lives are no less valuable. The time is here for Roanoke County to step forward and provide the Catawba Valley community with the paid coverage needed for 24 hour response at the Catawba Fire Station. Sincerely yours, Barbara Martin, President Catawba Community Club O~ QOANO,Y~` ~ ,F 9 Z ~ ~ 2 OV a 1838 AGENDA ITEM NO. APPEARANCE REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~- i 'i7,; / ~~=-s"C~ ~_ 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, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED 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. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her 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 to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD r.._ NAME: ,/~` ~'~~ c',~/.~-~~~' L l.J- ~. ~7 ADDRESS: ~~~~3 ~->-~~~-cam- ~~/ PHONE: ~~~ 7 - / ~/~/~ O~ QOANp~.~` ~ ,h 9 2' -., 'f~ ~ Z o ,~,a ;r 1839 AGENDA ITEM NO. APPEARANCE REQUEST ~ PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCE _ CITIZEN COMMENTS ~~ SUBJECT: ~ 1 ~ ~ -~~.X~ ~~~~h~1~ lP/1.1~~ 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, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/IVES 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. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her 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 to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ~~ ~ j~~~~I~~IS NAME: -r ADDRESS: ~~~ ~~1~~~'S~~h= ~d~1~~ ~~c~~~~. PHONE: ~~~~' 7 ~ ~3 COMMENTS TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OCTOBER 24, 2000 ANNIE KROCHALIS, PRES., BENT MOUNTAIN CIVIC LEAGUE RE: STAFFING OF COUNTY FIRE AND RESCUE STATIONS I am Annie Krochalis, current Pres. Of the Bent Mountain Civic League, and I reside at 9428 Patterson Drive, Bent Mountain. I still live on Bent Mt., I still support increased hours and services at the Bent Mt. Library, and I still believe in community participation in the public process of governing. My specific concern today is to speak in support of the proposal of the Volunteer Chiefs Assn. As it was first worked out with County staff, Mr. Hodge and Chief Burch. While I applaud the spirit of compromise and the efforts of all concerned, I am concerned that the compromise position developed later in the meeting cycle is a proposal that requests staff positions without assignment to specific stations. My concern is not simply the business question of where do these staff go?, or how are the new positions funded?, but why is this not being discussed here? We have approximately thirty years of data regarding these needs in our community. We began this discussion before the Board with data collection and review. Do we need more study?, or is the County shy about the controversy surrounding the assignment of these star? Is this fair to the citizens, especially all those here tonight because of this topic, whatever their position might be? In fact, I am wondering if the Board is aware of the high level of interest and concern on this topic. Could all of us here due to interest in this topic please signal the Board by a show of hands, or standing? Again, whatever your position might be? Thank you. I have spoken with citizens in South West County, with community groups and with Volunteer Chiefs in Mount Pleasant, Bent Mountain and Fort Lewis. I have spoken with citizens and administrators in Floyd County. I am struck by the commonality of our thoughts ,more than any differences on specifics. These common concerns include the following: -we need the County to staff all stations, especially Bent Mountain, Mount Pleasant and Fort Lewis, in addition to the existing volunteer crews. I am also aware that the Hollins area station serves an area with several nursing homes and other facilities with alarm systems and needs an additional position; -we need to be sure that the Board of Supervisors understands that our frustrations and concerns rest squarely on your shoulders, and with County administration, and not with our volunteer or career personnel. We realize that all crews are eager to respond as quickly as possible- and are professional in their service delivery. As a Bent Mountain resident, I am especially concerned that the crew at Back Creek is aware of our understanding; -The County system is essentially a volunteer system- and we are concerned that in areas where volunteer numbers and availability are lower, stations not abruptly be converted to career staff only stations.. Volunteers want to continue their work, and are a real presence at all our stations in the County. This needs to be acknowledged and volunteers need to be heard in the County planning process. Beyond these areas of commonality, I am also asking that the Board of Supervisors be sensitive to the difficult positions in which this process can place our volunteers. The pressures of politicizing staffing assignment risks choices of statistics being placed in competition with dedication to service. For instance, volunteers who maybe off duty and at home on a non work day at their full time job are faced with choices of responding when a full volunteer crew is not scheduled or available, or the six minute response time can not be met, or a full compliment of staff required for a vehicle to respond is unavailable. While this may not seem new, the weight of statistics as a basis for staff has significantly altered the pressures. A second example are those County volunteers who have worked 24 hour shifts to provide the ability to respond to their community., Not only are these volunteers never fully off duty, but the real staffing needs are obscured . Why do we need to place our volunteers in such difficult positions? Can we meet our immediate needs for staff now, so that all citizens are equally treated, equally taxed, and equally served? How can either the County administration or the Board say that residents of one area of the County are less deserving or less important than residents of another area of the County? I am also aware that Mr. Hodge and Chief Burch have suggested that the Board not pursue Fee for Service at this time. Will there be an increase in the decal fee? Do we have $900,000 available for these salaries, and if so, when did these funds become available for this service? I also note that the contributions of Floyd County residents have gone unrecognized in this discussion.. The 929 telephone exchange is our E 911 response area, and half our volunteers are from the Floyd part of this area. The withdrawal of Salem City response to Fort Lewis is another pressure here that has not been mentioned. I include these factors to remind us all of the complexity of the issues at hand. It appears that the County Administration has deferred the question of Fee for Service to the sole discretion of the Board of Supervisors. I hope that the members of the Board will continue the dialogue with the Volunteer Chiefs Assn, and with the citizens groups who have expressed interest in this process, including our Bent Mt. Civic League and other Civic Leagues. I strongly encourage such community members to contact your representative on the Board of Supervisors directly and often! Toward this end, I invite you Mr. McNamarxa to our next Civic League meeting on Nov.16th, 7:30 PM at the Bent Mountain Fire and Rescue station. I extend that invitation to the County staff and administration, as always. Of course, I expect that we will be seeing you before that , at our community fund-raiser for the Fire and Rescue crews on Nov. 4t''. I refer to the annual Pancake Supper held at the station. Thank you for your time this evening. 19'~ Annual All-You-Can-Eat Pancake Buckwheat Cake Supper Annual Fundraiser for the Bent Mountain First Aid ~, Rescue Crew and Fire Department Saturday, November 4, 2000 9606 Bent Mountain Road, Public Safety Building ~8 - -- 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. $5.00/adults X3.00/children 12 to 4-years = 'r Free/children 3 & under ~" O~ ~OANp~~` ~:,~ f 9 o~ .d ;a AGENDA ITEM NO. 1838 APPEARANCE REQUEST ~'~ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~ , R C ~ ~ ~. s c v ~ ~c~ M ~rz~ r~ ~: ~u `,~'~ t,'~ ~~~ 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, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/A/ES L/STED 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. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her 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 to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: '~ ~~Iv ~. ~~,- ~c~ R-~, ~~tz. f~ ADDRESS: ~~ ~ ~ `1~c•~-fZ- ~~--.~yr~= tJ ~~~-~ ~ ~~~~ ~''''t~~-' ~~ ~'~A PHONE: `~~Z-cG- ~~'~~ ~ o~ POANO~~` ~ ,. = _- z o Z ~ >a 1839 AGENDA ITEM NO. APPEARANCE REQUEST V PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCE _ CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: ,~~5 D~1 /'~ ,B,~UC~-fly v .~s - ~~ ~ ~- ~y I would like the Chair~`nan of the Board of Supervisors tt5 recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED 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. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her 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 to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall h/e with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: Uc~~%t~ ~~~ ADDRESS: ~'~`~ ,~ ~~~ .~~~ `~ ~ ~~~,/~ PHONE: ~~~`~~ ~~~ July 31, 2000 Joe McNamara Windsor West Supervisor Chairman Board of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Joe; As my residential supervisor on the board, I am writing to you regarding the Unfortunate EMS fee for service issue. I am a volunteer for the Roanoke County Fire & Rescue Dept. working for the past 10 years as an EMT/Firefighter with Cave Spring First Aid & Rescue Squad Incorporated. I am a past officer and past president of this organization and currently a concerned member. Our department operates under an Incorporated 501 c-3 tax status and is assisted by Roanoke County on a limited basis, most of our operational budget comes from local Donated Dollars. We the volunteers of Roanoke County along with the County's career Fire 8c Rescue providers are all in the same business of providing the best quality EMS care that our residents deserve and have come to expect. I am personally in favor of adding more career personnel to the county's staff to cover the diminishing response of some areas, including our own area. Call volumes are increasing, area growth in the residential sector and the decline of volunteerism in general, whether it be EMT's or Library Aides. As a Roanoke County taxpayer I think that we all want the Fire & Rescue Departments there when we need them. I am deeply concerned and very disheartened with the county's answer to this problem regarding a fee for EMS service. There are more cans than pros to this proposal of fee for service, that would be both detrimental to the residents, the County of Roanoke and the County's Fire 8c Rescue Volunteers. I am going to List my concerns below. Pros: Increased revenue for Roanoke County of aprox. $660,000.00 for added career staffing. ( is this before or after collection costs, in-house or contracted out) Cons: Loss of volunteers due to implementation of fee for service @ a more rapid rate than normal departmental turnover. Local departments fundraising will grossly deminish due to publics perception of being charged for a ambulance transport. Loss of use of Volunteers additional equipment (not owned by Roanoke County) i.e.: Ambulances, Crash Trucks, Response Cars, Supplies (supplies not replaced by hospitals such as defib pads, oxygen, backboards etc. that we supply the career trucks). Publics perception of fee for service vs. Volunteers County's Potential loss of approximately 5 Million dollars of free services Increase in Roanoke County's residents Health Insurance Premiums from their provider due to a fee for service ambulance transport. Roanoke County's increase in employee's health insurance premiums from the Roanoke County's benefit Health Provider. Possible loss of individual departments United Way Donations. I feel that the County grossly under estimates the savings the volunteers provide to the county and is well in excess of over 5 Million dollars annually... Example they are over 540 volunteers with an average of over 800 man hours each, of call response, meetings, training, fundraising events done yearly @ a modest $10.00/hr equals 4.32 Million. This is before supplies, equipment and 24 departmental operating budgets are taken into effect, all with the help of Donated Dollars from their communities. Another reason that I am against the fee for service is that the individual departments will see little or no moneys from the fee taken by the county that the volunteers provided the service for. As in past county budget years the Rescue Departments sees very little funding after everything is filtered down. Last years School Board Budget ADD BACKS were more than the entire yearly Fire & Rescue regular budget!!!! ,~ I think that there are alternative methods to which we can raise the moneys to provide needed additional Fire & Rescue career stai~ng. I as a taxpayer would not mind paying an additional $50.00 a year on my real estate tax if it went to the County's Fire & Rescue budget. At least it would be income tax deductible @ the end of the year. Just in the Cave Spring Area alone 10,000 homes @ 50.00 each would be an additional $500,000 and that's just one section of the county and it almost comes to that Magic $660,000 number! Roanoke County has always provided for its citizens, we have a lot to be thankful for sometimes I do feel that we work on a very fat budget and maybe we need to trim it down a little bit to put some more of that money into the Fire & Rescue Budget. We provide for a lot of "Special Projects" yearly, why not cut back on these types of budget items and offer more to the citizens by way of better EMS/Fire protection that the residents as a whole would benefit from and deserve as taxpayers and leave the Volunteer sector alone. Why is -the Administration putting the Burden on the FireJRescue VOLITNTEERS of Roanoke County for finding alternative funding for more Cazeer Staffing???? When we as volunteers have given of our time for yeazs for free. Are you as Roanoke County Supervisors/Administrators saying it's the volunteers FAULT that we need more additional career personnel? I hope not because we have provided a free service for a long time for the citizens as well as the County's benefit. As a Courny Administration you need the volunteers and the money we save the residents as well as the county each year. Instead of making the Volunteers out to be the bad guys in the press and pushing us out the door you should be helping us recruit new FREE volunteers rather than recruiting Career Staff with the volunteer coordinator (which now I understand we do not have) and remember it is in everyone's best interest to keep the volunteers as long as you can.....Because when we are all gone and you really need us in the case of a natural disaster or a large plane crash at the Airport, we won't be there to come to your Rescue (once we are gone don't ask us to come back) and you will have to explain that to your residents. You as a county had your resources but you pushed them out the door. If fee for service becomes a reality I will personally consider resigning as a volunteer. I don't think that it would be fair for the County of Roanoke to ask myself or any other volunteer to provide a service for free when our residents are being charged by way of fee for service to pay for additional county employees with the fruits of the volunteers labor. .~ In closing I strongly feel rather than putting negative pressure or negative impact on the Roanke County Volunteers or the Roanoke County Residems, The Administrator and the Board of Supervisors should put forth a concerted effort to find alternative funding for much needed additional career Fire & Rescue personnel and not put a bad light on yourselves or the Dedicated Individuals of the Roanoke County Volunteer Fire ~ Rescue Departments. Remember we are all working towards the same goal to protect our neighbors lives and property and to do this while working together, that is what makes Roanoke County a great place to live.....Lets keep it that way and keep the volunteers as long as they are willing to give of their time for others.... It is your Choice.... Sincerely; Eugene F. File 3854 Hyde Park Drive SW cc: Supervisor Fuzzy Msnnix County Administrator Elmer Hodge Asst. County Administrator John Chambliss Rescue 3 Chief Joe Coyle O~ p~OANp~.~G F , ~' 9 z ~ o Z V_ a 183a AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ ° ~ APPEARANCE REQUEST PUBLIC NEARING -ORDINANCE _ CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: P _ 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, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED 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. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her 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 to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ~~ ~~~ ~ r ADDRESS: `z~ '~~~ -~,~` ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~`~I / ~'~ !/v ~~ PHONE: ~~ i ~ ~ Z ~~ `~ 0~ AOANp~~` ~' ~ Z c~ ~ z o~: „ a 1838 AGENDA ITEM NO. APPEARANCE REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: f-~. ~5C ~~--e-- 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, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED 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. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her 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 to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent Them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD _r- NAME: J ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ADDRESS: ~~ G ~ ~'~~ -2~ ~~ PHONE: ~ ~~ - ~ ~ ~ O~ ~OANO~~` ~ 9 ~• ~ o~ a AGENDA ITEM NO. 1839 APPEARANCE REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE r.-'`CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~~.5 ~~~~~~l~c~,~ ` 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, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED 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. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her 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 to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ~ , ~ ~~ ,.-. 1 ~ ~ c_ -~ ~ ADDRESS: PHONE: 3 ( L1 ~ ~~ O~ POANO~F` Z' c~ ~ Z CJ a < 1839 AGENDA ITEM NO. APPEARANCE REQUEST ~/ PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCE _ CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: 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, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED 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. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her 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 to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ~(~ 1.~ ~/t 1 Y I ' f, ) !~-I-~}~'N r ~ ADDRESS:~U~~~ ~~~,~ I!1.~ PHONE'. I ~~ ~ ~ ~ J~'1 Catawba Valley Civic League TO: THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: MR. BUTCH CHURCH MR. BOB JOHNSON Please Try To Attend MR.JOEMCNAMARA Board of Supervisors Mtg MR. FUZZY MINNIX MR. HARRY NICKENS October 24th at 7:OOPM MR. ELMER HODGE, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 SUBJECT: FILLING THE GAPS IN EMERGENCY SERVICES In Roanoke County heavy reliance is placed on volunteer workers for delivery of Fire and Rescue services (hereafter referred to as Emergency Services). In places such as Catawba, Bent Mountain, Mason's Cove, and other areas, Emergency Services personnel are now being asked to do more and to cover more territory with less resources. We feel they are being stretched to the extreme, and they must have some relief. County officials need to be reminded that Emergency Services are an important part of the infrastructure, or "bed rock," of county services and support. Those services should be both prompt and reliable so that no person will be denied equal access and availability. The most significant problem is limited emergency medical care from personnel in more remote areas such as Catawba district. The main mission according to the County's charter is "TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COUNTY AND THE SAFETY, HEALTH, AND GOOD ORDER OF ITS INHABITANTS." Some citizens, however, are not receiving services that are equal to what others are receiving although we are all considered equal by local, state, and federal governments. We request your thorough consideration of the following matters: 1. There should be paid personnel during daytime hours in the Catawba district as well as the other Fire and Rescue districts as a minimum. We must, however, state that a more realistic long-term goal should be considered for all Emergency Service districts within the next five to ten years. 2. Charging fees for those using Emergency Services should not be done. We feel that charging for service in the County would deter people who ought to have it because of the high cost of the service. 3. Immediate attention should be given to finding the funds for adding professional staffing in each district. We propose trimming other County funding to increase Emergency Services funds. There are items in the County budget such as public-private "pay-back" project funds to induce economic development groups, for example. Another such item is Tourism Promotion. Such items are less important to us than improving the County's infrastructure for Emergency Service. 4. A possible new source of revenue we would support for filling the gap could be per capita taxes such as a "911" charge on everyone's telephone bill each month. We urge County leaders to look into this matter in more detail. 5. With a strong base of paid professionals at least during the day, it would be much easier to actively recruit more volunteers to cover evenings and nights. We ask County authorities to relieve the pressure -hire professionals and place them on site in Catawba as well as the other Fire and Rescue districts. We would emphasize that this would be only a first major step, but a realistic long-term goal should be full-time professionals around the clock. The volunteers would then assume the role of supplementing the paid staffing. We will attend the Board of Supervisors meetings when these matters are being reviewed. O EHA OF THE CATAWBA VALLEY CIVIC LEAGUE, ti John W. Starkey, President °~ September 27, 2000 MEMO TO: Ms. Carol Rizzio Roanoke County Planning Commission FROM: Jim Crumley Springwood P o erties, LLC RE: Special Use Permit Application for 3434 Buck Mountain Road Due to the recent response from VDOT concerning this application we respectfully request a postponement of public hearing dates until January, 2001, to allow for further study and review. WOODS, ROGERS JAMES R. CREEKI.lORE p 54U 983-75U5 & H[A7LEGROVE ~~ ]N7BANET. cnckucucGi]wuudu~,k,ec~sum Attvrr7e~S Al' ZQ'Lf1 Oct~her 19, 2~0(T V1A 1NACSIMILE (54U) 772-2108 Depart]ent of Community Developrrte]~t County of Roanoke P.U. F3ox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 In Re: iJ.S. Cellular Special Use Permit Application John Richardson Toad Sipe (Near Ilershbergcr and Plantation Roads) Case No. 16-7/00 Dear Sirs: On behalf of U.S. Cellular, I am writing to request a continuance of the public hearing of the above referenced application before the Board of Supervisors, now scheduled to he heard on Tuesday, (~ctoher 24, 2000, to the Board's regular public meeting on Tuesday, November l 4, 2000. ' - ,, As the Department is aware, we have not yet received any report or comment on this proposed site from the Virginia T)eparltnent of IIistoric Resources in Richmond., from whom we had anticipated. such a report. or recommendation as early as August or September. We believe the Board may be anticipating that report prior to considerin6 TJ.S. Cellular's application. U.S. Cellular believes il' we have not received. it by November 14, we simply should proceed without it. Also, U.S. Cellular still is in the process of following up on a specific inquiry about alternative property as a possible site for this proposed cell tower that was raised by Mr. Ross at the Planning Commission Hearing on October 3. The additional time between now alzd November 14 would enable U.S. Cellular to conclusively determine the availability and potential of this property for this project in order to address the queslion> posed to it by the Planning Commissions. We therel:ore wc,uld usk that the Department continue jJ.S. Cellular's application from Tuesday, October 24, 2000, to the Board's regular public meeting on Tuesday, November 14, 2000. Very truly yours, Woous, ROGL•RS & Hr~zLEGitovN, P.L.C. ~~~- ,Tames R. Creekmorc RKEA 066@355.WPD P. O. Bvx 14125 / RuaLnokc, Virbinuc 2403&-4725 C!M 10t t30-00020.0? lU South Jcllerson SU•ccl, 9uilc 14W / lloan.^icc, Virgitua 34(11 ] 5•i(? 9~f.~-7(>(Ml ~ F'~x S4U `)iS3-7711 Mtcrurt - nkrilCn`v,~ock]c;ruge•rs.c•<!m UfJice>n1;>o in Clinr{otir:villc,t~miviHractd I~icJnnaul,Vi±~iuin S ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, ~w.~ VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1990 RESOLUTION 10990-3 ADOPTING A POLICY CONCERNING REQUESTS TO CONTINUE OR POSTPONE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR REZONINGB, AND TO ESTABLISH DEADLINES FOR THE SUBMISSION OF VOLUNTARY PROFFERS FOR CONDITIONAL ZONING BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That it is the policy of Roanoke County that the citizens be fully informed of all material proceedings in the process of rezoning real estate in the County, and that the citizens be provided the opportunity to fully participate in this important governmental process. It is hereby declared that it is in the public's interest that requests to continue or postpone previously scheduled and legally advertised public hearings for changes in zoning classifications, or to voluntarily proffer conditions for conditional zoning, should be received in sufficient time to provide adequate notice to all interested parties. 2. That the applicant may request a continuance or postponement of a previously scheduled and legally advertised public hearing for a change in zoning classification by submitting such a request in writing to the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors no later than noon on the Thursday before the scheduled public hearing date. The Clerk may only grant a single request for a continuance or postponement for the same application for a change in zoning classification. The request shall include an affidavit from the applicant that all parties notified pursuant to Section 1 .- _ I 15.1-431 of the State Code and all citizens appearing before the Planning Commission on this application have been provided a copy of this request. As a condition of granting this request the applicant hereby agrees to pay all costs and expenses required for any additional legal notice as a result of this request. Failure to comply with these requirements may be deemed by the Board of Supervisors in its sole discretion to constitute a withdrawal of the application for a change in zoning classification. 3. That it is the policy of the County not to grant any additional requests for a continuance or postponement except for an exceptional or unusual occurrence or dire emergency. An additional continuance or postponement may be granted only by, and at the discretion of, the Board of Supervisors for good cause shown, or upon a showing that to proceed with the public hearing would not be in the best interest of justice. The applicant shall appear before the Board of Supervisors no later than 3:00 p.m. on the day scheduled for the public hearing to request the continuance or postponement. If the Board grants this request, the applicant shall notify the parties and citizens, and shall be responsible for the costs and expenses, as described above. 4. That the Board of Supervisors reserves the right to continue or postpone a public hearing, or the consideration of a question, upon its own motion. 5. That the applicant may voluntarily proffer in writing reasonable conditions as part of a rezoning or amendment to the zoning map. This proffer in writing of conditions shall be made 2 i • W~ ~_ ;~ by noon of the Thursday before the scheduled public hearing date. This proffer shall be delivered to the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors, and a copy shall be delivered to the Zoning Administrator at the same time. Failure to comply with this policy may result in the refusal of the Board of Supervisors to consider these proffers. The Board of Supervisors reserves the right to refer proffers received after the Planning Commission public hearing to the Planning Commission for its review and comment. 6. That the effective date of this Resolution shall be October 9, 1990. On motion of Supervisor Eddy to adopt resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Mary Hicks, Executive Secretary Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board 3 .~ ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 ORDINANCE 102400-5 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO THE CHURCH OF GOD, CATAWBA, VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY TO BE LOCATED AT 5471 KEEPER ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 7.00-1-59), CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, The Church of God, Catawba, Virginia has filed a petition for a special use permit fora 2400 square foot religious assembly to be located at 5471 Keller Road (Tax Map No. 7.00-1-59) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 3, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on September 26, 2000; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on October 24, 2000. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to The Church of God, Catawba, Virginia fora 2400 square foot religious assembly to be located at 5471 Keller Road (Tax Map No. 7.00-1-59) in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ->'YL~~ ~ Mary H. Allen, CMC/AAE Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Terry Harrington, County Planner John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Valuation Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney NO TIC ~~. ~n ~ C") ` ~V~ , 54d? 7 r ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~,~ 4.5 ~' li ~t ~. ,~ ~ ~~ ~. ~2. 1. ~ 544 547< J.w ~~ T ~ ROANOKE COUNTY The Church of God DEPARTMENT OF Zoning: Special Use COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tax Map No. 7.00-1-59 ~ -- _ ~ ~~ . ~~~ 54~~q ~. 3 ~~~ ~~ ~ . ~~~ . ~ ~ >~ ~,~~ ~.~ ~ 6 7 ~ `° ~, ~.~~ ~.g 5~='.~,5 521 ,5 ~%1 .~.~ i c ~~ s s ~~ Q ~C~ ~. ~~~ l ' "~ ~ '~ PETITIONER: THE CHURCH OF GOD CASE NUMBER: 25-10/2000 Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 3, 2000 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: October 24, 2000 A. REQUEST Petition of The Church of God for a Special Use Permit fora 2400 square foot religious assembly on Keller Road, in the Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS No citizens spoke on the request. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Murphy presented the staff report. Ms. Hooker inquired as to the location of the parking area in relation to the new church facility. Rev. Anders was present for the church. Rev. Anders indicated that the church would be constructed of block and wood. Mr. Robinson asked if the church would have a basement with all of the shale on the site. Rev. Anders responded that a basement was planned. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Hooker made a motion to approve the request. The motion passed 5-0. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other Terrance F arringt6n, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission STAFF REPORT PETITIONER: Church of God CASE NUMBER: 25-10/2000 PREPARED BY: David Holladay DATE: 10/3/00 PART I A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S-,~ This is a request for a Special Use Permit to construct a church. The 2.8-acre site contains a 1,080 square foot church and gravel parking lot, as well as recreation facilities. The existing church was originally a school, and more recently, a community recreation center. The area is designated Village Center in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. The proposal is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the Community Plan. B. DESCRIPTION The Church of God plans to construct a new 2,400 square foot, one-story church, with a 80-90 seat sanctuary. The building would be served by an existing private well and new septic system. The property is zoned AR, Agricultural Residential District, and is located at 5471 Keffer Road, in the Catawba Magisterial District. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Site development review is required Religious Assembly is allowed by Special Use Permit in the AR zoning district. The Health Department requires a septic permit. PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Backgrround -The existing church was originally constructed in 1921 as a school. After desegregation of County schools, the school building and the property served the community as a park and recreation center. In 1986, the Board of Supervisors sold the property to the Church of God of Prophecy, with a deed restriction that the grantor (Roanoke County) reserved "the right to continue to use the park area for park and recreational purposes for the benefit of the citizens in the community". In 1999, the Church of God purchased the property. In the spring of 2000, in order to clear up the deed and allow for construction of a new building, the Church of God petitioned the Board of Supervisors to release the deed restriction for park use. In May, 2000, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance to release the deed restriction. -„ The existing church is located near the center of the property. To the east is a softball/baseball field. To the west is a paved basketball court and other recreation equipment. The existing driveway enters at the southern corner of the property. The driveway serves a small parking area, then continues through the property to serve three homes on properties adjoining to the northwest. No evidence of recorded easements exists for use of the driveway by the neighbors. The petitioners have indicated that the neighbors will be permitted to continue using the driveway. The concept plan indicates no change in the driveway location. Topograph~/Ve~etation -The property slopes up gradually to the northwest from Keffer Road. Most of the property is open grass yard, with scattered mature trees. The area where the new church is proposed is currently the left outfield for the softbalUbaseball field. SurroundingNei~hborhood -The petitioners' property and all surrounding properties are zoned AR, Agricultural Residential District. A small creek surrounded by dense vegetation flows along the northeast property line. An open field, and three single-family homes are located to the southeast, across Keffer Road. A vacant wooded lot adjoins to the southwest. Several homes adjoin to the northwest. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture - As shown on the concept plan, the petitioners propose to construct a new one-story church to the north of the existing building. The concept plan shows a 2,400 square foot building. The seating capacity is planned for 80-90. The existing driveway and parking area would remain. According to the petitioners, the existing gravel parking area adequately serves the current congregation. Additional parking spaces maybe required based on the new seating capacity. The petitioners are considering demolishing the existing church due to a termite infestation. No architectural drawings of the new structure have been submitted. Fire & Rescue/Utilities -Fire and Rescue service would continue as presently provided. The site is served by a private well and septic system. The petitioners plan to use the existing well for the new church and install a new septic system. C. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The site is designated Village Center in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. Rural Community Centers such as churches are encouraged land use types. PART III A. STAFF CONCLUSIONS The petitioners' request for a Special Use Permit for religious assembly is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. The site has ample space to conform with all applicable development standards. No negative impacts are anticipated. 2 COUNTY OF ROANOK~ DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard Dr. .. ` ~~ P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 c' ~~ ~9~~. ( 540` 772-2068 FAX (5'.0 } j?2-21 C8 For staff use only dater eive :' received by: , a 3`-~ ba ~ application fee: PCi6'A ,y{ate: i 1o b0 -? I ~ ' sued plat rds 805 ate: a`'t, c~ c7 a dD Case Number. ~+ ° / y r .~ •- ~ y - _3 Check type of application filed (check ail that apply}: D REZONING ~1 SPECIAL USE ^ VARIANCE Applicant's name: Rev. Harvey G. Anders Fhone540 375-728 Address: 834 E. Riverside Dr. Salem Va. 24153 Zip Code: ~~~ As A ent Pastor Owner's name: The Church of God / Php ~~ ~0 375-7280 Address: 5471 Keffer Rd. Catawba Va. . ~~ir7co Location of property: Tax Map Number: 7.00-1-59 5471 Keffer Rd . tviagisterial District: Catawba Catawba Va. Community Planning Area: Catawba Size of parcel (sl: Existing Zoning: AR 2. 8 acres Existing Land Use: Religious Assembly , 121 , 967 sq.ft. .,. .. . .~ ;.;.~ 7 :~ Proposed Zoning: AR ~ ~~ )~-gdlr ~ J p~D ~ ~~ Fen Staff Use Oniy `I ' Proposed Land Use: Nt~~vic.Q~c. Use Type: '~ Religious Assembly :~ Does the parce! meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES X NO 1F NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES X NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? YES N/A NO ~~ ~'~ ~~I Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL rtOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLE i E. R/5 V R/S V R!5 V / Consultation 8 1(2" x 1 1 " concept plan Application fee Application `"'f Metes and bounds description %< Proffers, if applicable Justification ~^``~~ Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners /hereby certify that / am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting v~~ith the knowiedge and consent of the owner. f ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ J ~} r Owner's Signature: "~-' a ~1.%%~ ~.lt'~i ~i ,~,4:7~. .~!.--~-, 1 .f n~1=t~1.1 ~t ~ i Y'r2.ci.,L~: , ~.~.~ ,~,~ ! 1f ' For Stai;` Use Only: Case Number ~ ~~ ~plicant The Church of God Catawba Va. The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the follo~~,ring questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Pfease explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as wet! as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the zoning ordinance. This request is for a Special Use Permit to build a new building to replace the old existing building on property. The facility will be locatled on 2.8 acres located on State Route 698 5471 Keffer Rd. Catawba~Magistrate District Tax Map # 7.00-1-59 known as The Church of God Catawba.The new building will be approximately 4800 SF including basement area with a seating capacity of approximat 120 this facility will add to the community and will be attractive and harmonious with the community. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. Religious Assembly facilities are permitted by the zoning ordinance by Special Use Permit and in this case there is~;an existing (church) religious assembly existing on property . Pfease describe the impacts}, of the request on`the propery itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and faci]ities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation, and fire rescue. This purposed project will have minimal impact on~adjoining properties Traffic on State Route 698 will not increase that much because of the existing (church) religious assembly Adequate on site parking is available. Storm water run off will be contained Septic system and well water will be provided. We understand that we will meet all of Roanake County codes that pertain to our building. ~l ..- ~.-- -- " .r ~~ ~~~`{-~ ~~'~ ~` ~ ~ ~: 1 ,` \~ it '1 JI ~ i, ~. ,~' ,,.~,~ t~ i ~, ~ a, .~ C ~~ ~z: ~? r~ ~ tl; ,`y ~ a ~~' 2 T,v ~. M ,1 y t ~,/ t~ ` ~~ n ,~ !~..,. ~a k ~''"' `~ ,.,~ ~ ~. ._, J~a ~ r"" ! c.- - ~; ~s v.-- ~"~ `vS'~ ~J ~~ c' ~ `• ,.. `~ t._.._.~..__.. -- _.. ._ _ _ _ `_1~ - -.._... -_---- _ -~---_.~~ \ r_, -~ xir~r ~ .~ -~~t, ~~ `~~" ~, ,~ ~:` w~ s ~ ,, _~~ ,~.~~ ,~~ , ~~. ~ ~, r-~.r~C~) -.... ~ `~ _~. <:~~~ ~~ -.~ ~ ~. --- ~~ ~t i ~~. "' Q~ \t~ IJ~ ~~ '~~. . ~.. y, ~~~~ . ~1 ~J ~..'_~^ 4 4^ v ~~ ~ T yr O 0 f~ a ::1~ ~~ ROANOKE COUNTY The Church of God DEPARTMENT OF Zoning: Special Use COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tax Map No. 7.00-1-59 ~ / ~"`~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO THE CHURCH OF GOD, CATAWBA, VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY TO BE LOCATED AT 5471 KEFFER ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 7.00-1-59), CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, The Church of God, Catawba, Virginia has filed a petition for a special use permit fora 2400 square foot religious assembly to be located at 5471 Keffer Road (Tax Map No. 7.00-1-59) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 3, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on September 26, 2000; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on October 24, 2000. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to The Church of God, Catawba, Virginia fora 2400 square foot religious assembly to be located at 5471 Keffer Road (Tax Map No. 7.00-1-59) in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. U: \WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\church.of.god.catawba.sup.wpd S-`~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 ORDINANCE 102400-6 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 3.77-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN THE 3100 BLOCK OF ROUTE 419 (TAX MAP NO. 76.16-1-39) IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C2C TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C1C WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF CERTIFIED MEDICAL REPRESENTATIVES INSTITUTE WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 26, 2000, and the second reading and public hearing were held October 24, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 3, 2000; 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 .377 acres, as described herein, and located in the 3100 block of Route 419 (Tax Map Number 76.16-1-39) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C2C, General Commercial District, with conditions, to the zoning classification of C1 C, Office District, with conditions. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Certified Medical Representatives Institute. 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (1) There will be no additional entrances or exists on Route 419. 1 (2) An easement providing access across the property between Tract 1 (Tax Parcel #76.16-1-39.1) (N/F WEstclub Corporation) and Parcel " 3" (Tax Parcel #76.16-1-40.7) (N/F Bank of Virginia) will be made available for purchase at a reasonable cost that allows the owner of the property to receive fair value for the easement and to recover costs incurred in connection with the easement. (3) Parking lot lighting shall not exceed a height of 20 feet above grade. (4) A minimum of an 80 foot buffer yard shall be established and maintained at the rear of the property adjacent to the residential lots on Hillbrook Drive. (5) The building height shall not exceed 45 feet. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Beginning at an iron pin set on the northern right of way of Virginia Route 419 (Electric Road) 703.61 feet from the point of intersection of Postal Drive as shown on a plat by T. P. Parker and Son, dated August 18, 1994, and recorded in Plat Book 17, page 58; thence along the northern right of way of said Virginia Route 419 along a curve to the left having a chord bearing and distance of N. 82 deg. 05' 10" W. 79.97 feet, a radius of 1488.15 feet, and an arc length of 79.98 feet to an iron pin set; thence continuing along said Virginia Route 419 N. 82 deg. 08' 42" W. 142.30 feet to an iron pin set being the southeast corner of Tract 1; thence leaving said Virginia Route 419 and with the eastern line of said Tract 1 N. 19 deg. 37' 09" E. 559.22 feet to an iron pin set being the northeast corner of said Tract 1, the southeast corner of Lot 13, Block 16, Section 4 of Cresthill, and the southwest corner of Lot 12, Block 16, Section 4 of Cresthill, recorded in Plat Book 5, page 28; thence leaving said Tract 1, and said Lot 13, and with the southern lines of Lots 12, 11, 10, and 9 S. 70 deg. 50' 00" E. 171.17 feet to an iron pin found; thence continuing with the lines of same S. 59 deg. 36' 00" E. 239.18 feet to an iron pin set being the southern corner of said Lot 9 of Cresthill, said point also being located on the western line of now or formerly Robert S. and Jane W. Branham property; thence leaving said Lot 9 and with the western lines of said Branham, now or formerly United States Postal Service, and now or formerly Bank of Virginia properties S. 41 deg. 27' 45" W. passing an iron pin 2 found at 113.18 feet and an iron pin found at 289.18 feet for a total distance of 312.41 feet to an iron pin found; thence continuing with the lines of same S. 41 deg. 25' 35" W. passing an iron pin found at 159.62 feet for a total distance of 194.54 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.7755 acres of land, being all of Tract 2 of subdivision for Westclub Corporation, as recorded in Plat Book 17, page 58. 5. That the conditions imposed with the rezoning of this property by Ordinance 022399-5 are hereby removed. 6. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Johnson A COPY TESTE: • Q.-t-e~-.c-~ Mary H. Allen, CMC/AAE Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Terry Harrington, County Planner John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Valuation Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 3 °?-r ROANOKE COUNTY Cert~fzed MedtieaZ RePresentatizes DEPARTMENT OF Zoning: Existting zoning C-2c COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To Pro~oosed Zoning C-1 c Tax Mai No. 76. i 6-1-39 .~. PETITIONER: Certified Medical Representatives Institute CASE NUMBER: 27-10/2000 Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 3, 2000 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: October 24, 2000 A. REQUEST Petition of Certified Medical Representatives Institute to rezone a 3.77 acre parcel from C2C to C1 C for the purpose of constructing an office building located in the 3100 block of Route 419 in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission inquired as to the envisioned style of the building, and the height of the proposed parking lot lights. Mr. Greg Lewis, representing the applicant commented that a colonial style of architecture had been discussed. Mr. Thomason asked if additional proffers relating to a 45 foot maximum height of the building and 80 foot rear buffer yard would be acceptable to his client. Mr. Lewis indicated that he thought they would. Mr. Witt also indicated an interest in a proffer related to parking lot lights. Mr. Lewis also thought that would be acceptable. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1. There will be no additional entrances or exits on Route 419 2. An easement providing access across the property between Tract 1 (Tax Parcel. # 76.16-01-39.1) (N/F Westclub Corporation) and Parcel "3" (Tax Parcel # 76.16- 0-40.7)(N/F Bank of Virginia) will be made available for purchase at a reasonable cost that allows the owner of the property to receive fair value for the easement and to recover costs incurred in connection with the easement. 3. Parking lot lighting shall not exceed a height of 20 feet above grade. 3. A minimum of an 80 foot buffer yard shall be established and maintained at the rear of the property adjacent to the residential lots on Hillbrook Drive. 4. The building height shall not exceed 45 feet. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Thomason moved approval of the rezoning contingent upon receipt of the discussed proffered conditions. AYES: Ross, Hooker, Witt, Robinson, Thomason NAYS: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Othe Terrance H ing ,Secretary Roanoke ounty Planning Commission ~~ STAFF REPORT Case Number: 27-10/2000 Prepared by: Janet Scheid Applicant: Certified Medical Representatives Institute Date: October 3,2000 PART I A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Petitioners request to rezone this parcel to C-1, Office District is consistent with the Roanoke County Community Plan. B. DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petitioners are requesting to rezone this parcel from C-2C, General Commercial District with conditions to C-1C, Office District with conditions in order to construct a 26,000 square foot office building not to exceed 45 feet in height. Neither the use or the concept plan has been proffered. This parcel is designated Transition in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. The site is in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 1. Site plan review is required. 2. A new entrance onto Rt. 419 would require a VDOT commercial entrance permit. 3. The property is currently zoned C-2C, General Commercial with the following conditions on the property: A. Preliminary concept plan, prepared by Pierson Engineering & Surveying, dated 11/14/98 is proffered. B. There will be no additional entrance/exits on Route 419. C. There will be minimum of 80 feet of natural ground cover including trees and brush to be left on the rear of the property, to be displaced only by necessary water drainage systems. D. All lighting will be directed away from the adjoining residential properties. Poles shall not be more than twenty feet in height. E. One monument-type freestanding sign is permitted. Maximum size of the monument sign is 40 square feet and ten feet in height. The sign shall be ground lit. F. No residential uses will be placed on the property. 1 ~" T G. Architecture- the exterior of the principal building shall be wood frame with brick as indicated on the preliminary concept pla n. H. An easement across the front of the property connecting First National Exchange Bank and Colonnade Corporate Center shall be made available for purchase at a reasonable cost that allows the petitioners to recover costs they incur associated with the easement. I. Dumpster location shall be screened and directed away from adjoining homeowners. J. There will be a minimum 50 foot buffer, containing either natural ground cover including trees and brush or planted materials, to be left on the west side of the property between petitioner' s site and the adjoining property as shown on the proffered concept plan. 4. C-1, Office District allows for varying intensities of office development as well as limited retail uses that are supportive of the office environment. 2 .. l PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. Background - The Board of Supervisors rezoned this site from R-1, Single Family Residential to C-1, Office in 1988 at the request of The Hobart Companies. It was originally intended to be a part of the Colonnade Corporate Center with two-story office buildings being built on this site and the adjoining site to the west. In July 1999, Blue Ridge Cafe, LLC successfully petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone this property from C-1, Office to C-2, General Commercial with conditions to construct a restaurant. 2. Lot Area - This lot is wooded although some rer place in recent months. 419, levels off towards off again down towards Drive. 3.77 acres. The site is primarily noval and clearing of trees has taken The site rises steeply away from Rt. the center of the site and then drops the residential homes on Hillbrook 3. Location - The site is located off Rt. 419 to the west of Postal Drive. 4. Buildings/Structures - The site is currently vacant. 5. Access - This site has approximately 220 feet of frontage on Rt. 419. Since the site is currently vacant no access has been constructed into the site. There is an access easement from the adjoining property to the east. Petitioners have proffered no additional entrances or exits on Rt. 419. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1. Use - Petitioners propose to construct a 26,000 square foot office building. The height would not exceed 45 feet. This use has not been proffered. 2. Access to Site - Access is proffered to be from the adjoining site to the east, through an access easement. No new access to Rt. 419 is proposed. There is a median cut on Rt. 419 at this location so vehicles could access the site traveling either east or west on Rt. 419. 3. Circulation - Concept plan is not proffered. 4. Traffic Count - Signalization, turning movements, accident data and traffic counts are currently being studied on the Rt. 419 corridor by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Peak hour traffic on this corridor and at key intersections is a level of service D. 3 ~'.w A. 5. Public Services - Public water and sewer are available to this site. 6. Signage - Signage will be per the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This parcel is designated Transition. This future land use category encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels to serve as buffers between highways and nearby adjacent residential development. The land use type encourages office and institutional uses on properties that are oriented towards the major street and are served by urban services. The petitioners proposal is consistent with the Transition designation and is also consistent with the Rt. 419 Frontage Development Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1987. PART III STAFF CONCLUSIONS Staff recommends approval with the following proffered conditions to replace those currently on the property: 1. There will be no additional entrances or exits on Rt. 419. 2. An easement providing access across the property between Tract 1 (Tax #76.16-01-39) (N/F Westclub Corporation) and Parcel ~3" (Tax #76.16-0-40.7) (N/F Bank of Virginia) will be made available for purchase at a reasonable cost that allows the owner of the property to receive fair value for the easement and to recover costs incurred in connection with the easement. PREPARED BY: JANET SCHEID DATE PREPARED: September 25, 2000 4 County of Roanoke Community Development ' Planning & Zoning 5204 Bernard Drive P O Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 772-2108 For Staff Use Only Date received: Received by: v Application fee: `` ~ ~:- ~ a PC/B~'~.date (~~>t.r : `~ ACC Placards issued: BOS date: {~ Case tiumber ° ~ `~` ? ~' ``° , { `ALL .=IFPLICAIVTS Check type of application filed (check all that apply) Rezoning ~ Special Use O Variance Applicants name/address w/zip Phone (540) 989-4596 Certified Medical Representatives Institute 4950 Brambleton Ave. Fax No. (540) 989-4720 Owners name/address w/zip Phone: (540) 776-0606 David Linden, Lisa J. Linden, Thomas J. Linden, Lesley W. Linden - C/0 RealStar Realtors Fax No. (540)776-2848 4415 Pheasant Rid e Rcl.. Suite 102- Roanoke, VA 24014 Property Location Magisterial District: Cave Spring Route 419 Roanoke, VA Community Planning area: ?.~±iv~u5a,~ N: li; Tax Map No.: 76.16-1-39 Existing Zoning: C-2c Size of parcel(s): Acres: 3.77 Existing Land Use: :' REZONI.I~'G A.VD SPECL~L USE PERILIIT .4PPLICA ~r'TS (R/S) Proposed Zoning: C-lc Proposed Land Use: Office Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes ~ No O IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQIJIItED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes ~ No ~ IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes ~ No ~ VdRIAxVCE APPLICAiY~TS (V}~ Variance of Section(s) N/A of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE iYIISSING OR Ii iCONIPLETE. v v i v Consultation 'l 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan ~ Application fee Application ~ Metes and bounds description ~ Proffers, if applicable ~ Justification / Water and sewer application '~ Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING OR SPECIAL IJSE PERMIT REQUEST- Applicant Certified Medical Representatives Institute ~-~~` L~ The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the begiruiing of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. The use proposed for this parcel is office. This will provide a.n attractive blaffer between the less intensive Residential district behind the property and the roadway that it fronts on. The use is a "by-right" use in a C-1 Zone and is a recommended use in the Transition land use category. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community ~~ Plan. In the Roanoke County Comprehensive Development Plan, this parcel is designated as a '~ transitional area. The proposed use as an office conforms with the intent of this land use designation. The Applicant has no plans to develop the parcel as a retailorii or restaurant use, and, therefore, the existing buffer condition is no longer needed.!, However, buffer requirements set for the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance shall be met! Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. This project will bring a pos?_tive aesthetic impact to the area. The building will be "colonial" in architectural style and will compliment the neighboring properties well. There is existing water and sewer available on Rt. 419 and on the neighboring property. Topography will prevent a large portion of the rear of the property from being developed, and, therefore, will leave a large natural buffer. ~ ,ff( 4 ~ N ~1 ~~~ r~ o 00 N ~ Z. ¢ <.4 _ ~~ ~~. ~ ~~L ~~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ vl ~ 2 Z ~o~ 2 ~ ~ ~ a-- ~ ~ ~ (i~ r r1 ~~N CL '1` {PC` ~ i~~~1r~- al ~ a' R o,7 / ~ ~L. 1 C cn ~ ~ j, _ ~r ~W~~s ~ ~•= o a~ i _ ~ d~'J~ / ~ o ~{~ ~.N ~ J b/~ i t p..~~ t'~U ~ ? .o' ~~ ~, S .~1/ ~ , /"~ 3 ~ c a~ ~~~ ~ :, ~ ? ~- v \ ~ \i v /~ _ ~~. - ~ 3 N ~ \~ 3 u ~~' 7 ~,~. 11 I 4- VI 44 / ~' _1 / ~ r ~ ~, ~ ; ~ I~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. ~ ' . ~ ~/ ~ o~ y~~~ ~ ~ ~az~ ti y~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~; ~, ~ ~ ~ .~ ~:~ -~ ~ J t ~ ~ N 4 a ~~~ _ Z - ~ ~~. ~3~ N ~:, . , ., ~ . . ROANOKE COUNTY Certified Medical Representatives DEPARTMENT OF Zoning: Existing zoning C-2c COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To Proposed Zoning C-1 c Tax Map No. 76.16-1-39 -~ ~~-- ~ / J ~ ~~ 10./18/00 WED 08:51 FAY 540 776 2848 REALSTAR Realtor [ZSZS 0~1t %~I/~7 60 ~ TT hiOAt OQ/60JOrt ~' i j ,~. ~- [~ooz _ ~ ~` E,•f P. 2 f F'~ ~-..~ ~ o e,~ owrner cif Roanoke Caurrty Tax Parcel # i 78.~s-7-39 da haraby c~fari'Fnlfowin® as pmfter3 ~~ wlth'fhe r~azariing appli,ptjvrt of ~~Pied 1ldedi~l RepresenfativeS In~tittlte~ {i~c~anok~ County Case file ~,'f Ul2fJQQ~ ~. There wc7l be na addi~ortaf entrance$ pr exits can Route 419 ~• A~ cutpxnviding access s~rass ~.e isa~~ # 75~ 16~aI-34.i~ ~NlI~ Wesiclub PzflF~y between Trszt I i(Z'ax 76.1 b,.~~,7~(N'+rF $~k o#'~ ati1°~) ~Siacel '3 ~!"a~ l'areel # re~o~ble cas= u~uua7 ~wr131xe utade avatlahla fer use at a ai,layv~ the a'wr of the pragcrL~* to r+ccei~e fgir values far the ~seme~t and to rceover casts inattrsed is eort~aa with the aasetucnt. ~• Pig lot hgtiting shall Izoi exceed a h of 2Q f~ shove grade, , .. ~'-. ' . 1 •A ~,i'nimum of an 8Q f©ot buffea' yard shaIl be ~stablis}scd aid ~ #>ae ~ et''tl~uep~p~r ac~j~~ ra,2heres~deatial lot`s oa H11111u+ookD~iaed ~• 'fie 1x~ilatfn~ height steal! n~ weed ~5 feet. Signed; ~_ Owrt r z020'd TS9~# L9e6Q! ~4-0t•~GT H~l.'ts6860b5 ~1r11I1sNI t~L,l~a up~~ 900 f~ VHUOIHD'I~'81,TOZJUI2I3Fi,L3M C9L05860i~5 ~3 OT ~ LT 0019T/01 ""~'~T AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 3.77-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN THE 3100 BLOCK OF ROUTE 419 (TAX MAP NO. 76.16-1-39) IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C2C TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C1C WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF CERTIFIED MEDICAL REPRESENTATIVES INSTITUTE WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 26, 2000, and the second reading and public hearing were held October 24, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 3, 2000; 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 .377 acres, as described herein, and located in the 3100 block of Route 419 (Tax Map Number 76.16-1-39) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C2C, General Commercial District, with conditions, to the zoning classification of C1C, Office District, with conditions. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Certified Medical Representatives Institute. 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (1) There will be no additional entrances or exists on Route 419. (2) An easement providing access across the property between Tract 1 (Tax Parcel #76.16-1-39.1) (N/F WEstclub Corporation) and Parcel "3" (Tax Parcel #76.16-1-40.7) (N/F Bank of Virginia) will be made available for 1 ~~~ purchase at a reasonable cost that allows the owner of the property to receive fair value for the easement and to recover costs incurred in connection with the easement. (3) Parking lot lighting shall not exceed a height of 20 feet above grade. (4) A minimum of an 80 foot buffer yard shall be established and maintained at the rear of the property adjacent to the residential lots on Hillbrook Drive. (5) The building height shall not exceed 45 feet. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Beginning at an iron pin set on the northern right of way of Virginia Route 419 (Electric Road) 703.61 feet from the point of intersection of Postal Drive as shown on a plat by T. P. Parker and Son, dated August 18, 1994, and recorded in Plat Book 17, page 58; thence along the northern right of way of said Virginia Route 419 along a curve to the left having a chord bearing and distance of N. 82 deg. 05' 10" W. 79.97 feet, a radius of 1488.15 feet, and an arc length of 79.98 feet to an iron pin set; thence continuing along said Virginia Route 419 N. 82 deg. 08' 42" W. 142.30 feet to an iron pin set being the southeast corner of Tract 1; thence leaving said Virginia Route 419 and with the eastern line of said Tract 1 N. 19 deg. 37' 09" E. 559.22 feet to an iron pin set being the northeast corner of said Tract 1, the southeast corner of Lot 13, Block 16, Section 4 of Cresthill, and the southwest corner of Lot 12, Block 16, Section 4 of Cresthill, recorded in Plat Book 5, page 28; thence leaving said Tract 1, and said Lot 13, and with the southern lines of Lots 12, 11, 10, and 9 S. 70 deg. 50' 00" E. 171.17 feet to an iron pin found; thence continuing with the lines of same S. 59 deg. 36' 00" E. 239.18 feet to an iron pin set being the southern corner of said Lot 9 of Cresthill, said point also being located on the western line of now or formerly Robert S. and Jane W. Branham property; thence leaving said Lot 9 and with the western lines of said Branham, now or formerly United States Postal Service, and now or formerly Bank of Virginia properties S. 41 deg. 27' 45" W. passing an iron pin found at 113.18 feet and an iron pin found at 289.18 feet for a total distance of 312.41 feet to an iron pin found; thence continuing with the lines of same S. 41 deg. 25' 35" W. passing an iron pin found at 159.62 feet for a total distance of 194.54 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.7755 acres of land, being all of Tract 2 of subdivision for Westclub Corporation, as recorded in Plat Book 17, page 58. 5. That the conditions imposed with the rezoning of this property by Ordinance 022399-5 are hereby removed. 6. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final U:\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\certified.medical.rep.rzn.frm 2 ~.. '. passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. U:\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\certified.medical.rep.rzn.frm ,J ~?-- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 ORDINANCE 102400-7 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO AIRCABLE OF ROANOKE, LLC TO CONSTRUCT A 195-FOOT BROADCAST TOWER TO BE LOCATED ON POOR MOUNTAIN (TAX MAP NO. 93.00-1-47), WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, AirCable of Roanoke, LLC has filed a petition for a special use permit to construct a 195-foot broadcast tower to be located on Poor Mountain (Tax Map No. 93.00-1-47) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 3, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on September 26, 2000; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on October 24, 2000. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to AirCable of Roanoke LLC to construct a 195-foot broadcast tower to be located on Poor Mountain (Tax Map No. 93.00-1-47) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved with the following conditions: (1) The height of the tower shall not exceed 195 feet from grade. (2) The lattice tower and all attached hardware and antenna shall be non- reflective so as to reduce visibility and light reflection. 1 d (3) No lighting shall be installed on the tower structure unless required by the FAA. Security lighting may be provided on site, at a height not to exceed 25 feet. (4) If the use of the broadcast tower structure for broadcasting is discontinued, the tower structure shall be dismantled and removed from the site within 30 days of notice by the county, and the special use permit become void. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC/AAE Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Terry Harrington, County Planner John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Valuation Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 2 ROANOKE COUNTY Atircable of Roanoke, LZc DEPARTMENT 0~' Zon~.ng: S~veciaZ Use COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tax MaP No. 93.00- i-47 PETITIONER: AirCable of Roanoke, LLC CASE NUMBER: 28-10/2000 Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 3, 2000 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: October 24, 2000 A. REQUEST Petition of AirCable of Roanoke, LLC, for a Special Use Permit to construct a 195 foot broadcast tower on Poor Mountain, in an AG-3 zoning district. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS No citizens spoke. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Murphy presented the staff report. Maryellen Goodlatte described the history and operation of AirCable. Mr. Ross requested confirmation of the co-location possibilities. Mr. Robinson asked about the addition of dishes on the tower. Ms. Goodlatte advised that dishes may be a future need but not initially. Andy Wright of AirCable and David Simpson, RF Engineer, answered technical questions for the applicant concerning broadcast transmission signals and the antenna. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1. The height of the tower shall not exceed 195 feet from grade. 2. The lattice tower and all attached hardware and antenna shall be non-reflective so as to reduce visibility and light reflection. 3. No lighting shall be installed on the tower structure unless required by the FAA. Security lighting may be provided on site, at a height not to exceed 25 feet. 4. If the use of the broadcast tower structure for broadcasting is discontinued, the tower structure shall be dismantled and removed from the site within 30 days of notice by the county, and the Special Use Permit shall become void. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Thomason made a motion to approve the request. Motion carried 5-0. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other Terrance rring ,Secretary Roano County Planning Commission ... STAFF REPORT PETITIONER: AirCable of Roanoke, LLC CASE NUMBER: 28-10/00 PREPARED BY: John Murphy DATE: October 3, 2000 PART I A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a request for a Special Use Permit for the construction of a 195-foot lattice broadcast tower for a digital television provider, in the 8300 block of Honeysuckle Road, on Paor Mountain. The property is zoned AG-3, and the site of the proposed tower is a one (1) acre area, leased from the Trustees of Evangel Foursquare Church. The 1998 Community Pian designation for the property is Rural Preserve. The site is located in the Bent Mountain Community Planning Area and the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. B. DESCRIPTION This is a request by AirCable of Roanoke, LLC for a Special Use Permit for the construction of a 195-foot lattice broadcast tower along the ridge of Poor Mountain. AirCable provides digital quality television and CD quality sound for their paid subscribers. AirCable currently leases space on a broadcast tower with another television provider and that tower is located approximately 600 feet from this proposed tower. AirCable's lease will expire within two (2) years and they are proposing an independent broadcast tower. AirCable has provided detailed technical information describing the need for their antenna to betop-mounted on a tower. The site is located in the 8300 block of Honeysuckle Road in the Bent Mountain Community Planning Area and Windsor Hills Magisterial District. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Broadcast Towers are permitted in the AG-3 zoning district with a Special Use Permit. The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance definition of a broadcast tower: Any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting one (1) or more antennas. The term includes but need not be limited to radio and television transmission towers, microwave towers, common-carrier towers, and cellular telephone and wireless communication towers. Broadcasting tower ypes include, but-are not limited to monopoles, lattice towers, wooden poles, and -guyed towers. Excluded from this definition are amateur radio towers, which are described separately. The broadcast tower shall comply with the Use and Design Standards in Section 30-87 of the zoning ordinance. Site plan review shall be required to insure compliance with all Roanoke County Development Standards including compliance with Section 30-73, of the zoning ordinance, as it relates to the Emergency Communication Overlay District. VDOT shall review the project for entrance standard compliance. """~.' Health Department approval will be necessary for any well and septic systems. The applicant has provided a document that indicates that FAA approval is not necessary for a tower under 200 feet in height. PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Location -The one (1) acre leased site is located on Honeysuckle Road (S.R. 916) approximately .5 miles from the intersection of Poor Mountain Road (S.R. 612) and Honeysuckle Road. The proposed location is approximately 600 feet southwest from AirCable's current shared tower site on Honeysuckle road. Topo~raphy/Vegetation -The site of the proposed tower has an elevation of 3760 feet. Poor Mountain has one of the highest elevations in the Roanoke area and due to this topographic feature Poor Mountain is a prime location for communication providers for various services. This specific tower site is slightly lower than some of the surrounding tower sites on Poor Mountain. Currently the area is covered with a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees. The average tree height is approximately 30 feet. The row of broadcast towers on Poor Mountain maybe visible from several locations along the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Roanoke Valley. Surrounding Neighborhood -The general area of the site consists of vacant land or other broadcast towers and related equipment. The specific site of this proposed tower is undeveloped for several hundred feet in each direction. Across Honeysuckle Road is undeveloped land. The site is generally visible from the plateau of Bent Mountain along the Route 221 corridor. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture -The leased site is approximately one acre in size with access from Honeysuckle Road. The tower is sited on the north side of the site with a 600 square foot building generally in the center of the site. A 1600 square foot area (40'x 40') area is to be provided for satellite dishes to the south of the building. The tower is a tri-base lattice design, constructed of galvanized steel with anon-reflective finish. The applicant is has requested the flexibility in allowing the installation of dishes to the tower in the future, if necessary. The applicant has indicated a willingness to minimize disturbance of the site. There will be no visual impact as a result of the access road to the broadcast tower site. The access road will be generally at the same grade as Honeysuckle Road, which is a gravel road. Access -Access to the site is to be provided from Honeysuckle Road, a state maintained gravel road. Fire & Rescue/Lltilities -There will be no impact on Fire & Rescue services. There is no public water or sewer to the site. The applicant has indicated that electric service is currently available to the site. '"". C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE In the interest of preserving and enhancing the scenic and natural beauty of Roanoke County, it is the goal of the county to achieve a long term reduction in the number of broadcasting towers within the county, and where possible, to achieve a reduction in the height of existing broadcasting towers throughout the county, with special emphasis on towers located along or near ridgetops of major mountains and land forms. It is the official policy of the county to encourage and promote the collocation of antennas on existing structures. When new broadcasting towers are proposed as a last alternative, the requested broadcasting tower location, height and design should be chosen to protect and enhance the scenic and natural beauty of Roanoke County. Broadcasting tower locations at elevations lower than surrounding ridgelines are preferred. The request by AirCable is fora 195-foot, lattice broadcasting tower on Poor Mountain, where multiple broadcast towers of all types currently exist. The zoning ordinance recommends the monopole tower design, and for the tower heights to be reduced. The "icing conditions" during the winter on Poor Mountain create the necessity for broadcast towers to be constructed with a lattice design to insure the structural integrity of the tower with the weight of the antennas and the additional weight of the heavy ice. The proposed broadcast tower of 195 feet is not as high as the existing leased tower of 208 feet and the proposed site is located at a lower elevation than the current site. Therefore the broadcast tower complies with some, but not all, of the standards in the zoning ordinance. D. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The property is designated as Rural Preserve in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. The Rural Preserve category designates limited land use types, in areas of mostly undeveloped outlying rural areas. These areas generally require a high degree of protection to preserve agricultural and forestal and remote rural residential areas. Desirable land use types include agricultural production, and the services that support agricultural production. Other uses that are encouraged include rural residential and rural industrial, tree farms, nurseries as well as parks and outdoor recreation facilities. One of the themes of the Community Plan is the preservation of ridgelines. Specifically referenced in the Community Plan is the concept that utility and communication structures should not be placed on the ridgeline. The immediate impact of a new broadcast tower on Poor Mountain is not consistent with the Community Plan. E. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Engineered plans must be submitted for County and VDOT review in order to insure compliance with Roanoke County Development Standards and VDOT regulations. PART III A. STAFF CONCLUSIONS The site for this proposed broadcast tower is designated as Rural Preserve in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. The Community Plan specifically discourages utility and communication structures on ridgelines. In addition the zoning ordinance use and design standards promote a monopole design or stealth design, when all other alternatives have been exhausted and a new broadcast tower is the only option. The AirCable request is consistent with some aspects of the zoning ordinance and inconsistent with the immediate goals of the -- Community Plan. On Poor Mountain, with dozens of existing broadcast towers, the "long-term" goal of the zoning ordinance and Community Plan would be the reduction of the number and height of broadcast towers. In order to achieve this long-range goal, it may be necessary to allow additional new broadcast tower facilities that are structurally engineered to allow co-location possibilities. Many of the existing tower structures are becoming antiquated and the severe ice storms are taking their toll on these towers. As new towers replace the older broadcast towers current mandatory collocation requirements can be imposed through the special use permit process, thus achieving the County's goal of fewer and shorter broadcast towers. Other broadcast providers on Poor Mountain are using older technology with their broadcast operations and will be requesting new broadcast towers in the near future in order to accommodate the new antenna and related equipment. The applicant has provided ample documentation related to the technology of AirCable's broadcasting operation. The information supports the need for their antenna to be mounted at the top of a tower. The applicant has described AirCable's original operation, attempting to use aside-mounted antenna, which resulted in a signal obstruction and deflection thus causing the need for atop-mounted antenna. The ridge of Poor Mountain is commonly referred to as a "pin-cushion" because of the significant number of existing broadcast towers. As the Planning Commission evaluates broadcast tower requests on Poor Mountain the long-term goal of reducing the total number of towers and decreasing the height of towers may be systematically achieved by thoroughly evaluating each request with respect to the collocation potential of each new request. The applicant has indicated that the lease on their current location will expire within two (2) years. AirCable has indicated in their application that their proposed broadcast tower will be able to accommodate at least six (6) other providers. Staff views the approval of this request, with appropriate conditions, as a step in the direction of working towards the long-range goal of less broadcast towers on Poor Mountain. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission impose the following conditions as part of the Special Use Permit: 1. The height of the proposed lattice tower shall not exceed 195 feet from grade. 2. The lattice tower and all attached hardware and antenna shall benon-reflective so as to reduce visibility and light reflection. 3. No lighting shall be installed on the tower structure unless required by the FAA. Security lighting may be provided on site, at a height not to exceed 25 feet. 4. If the use of the broadcast tower structure for broadcasting is discontinued, the tower structure shall be dismantled and removed from the site within 30 days of notice by the County, and the Special Use Permit shall become void. V ~~ - - Cotartty cf ~~araoiie . ~otnmunity i3evcloprnent Pian~ing & Zoning $a~4 $Cr'I13Pe~ Ul]y8 P C~ Box 29800 R©attoke, VA X4018-079 {s~o) 772-20~~ F~ (5ao) 772°2108 Check type of application fated (check al} chat apply) ~ Rezoning ~ Spacial Use Applicants name/address w/zip AIRCAHT.E C~' RDANUICE , I~ 2fl18 EL~.TRSC RfJPD, _~~~ • e SUITE 202 pwner=s narrtc/address w/zip TRIJST~S OF >jVA21GEL F'4UR.~4UARE CI3URf~~i 612 ~JL~I'IT AVEA?L7E , :SE Property I..ncatiom , Poor N><:untain 2°ract P., Su~ivision for Wrangel Foursquaz'e Tax Map DIo.: 093.00-O1-47.00 Size of parcels}: Acres: _or~ (1) For Sta~`Usv C'r Mato scccived; Application f:c: e d~1~, pi~aras i$$~ea; ~,~e5 5 ~:~,~~_ (;aye Number ~ U Variance Received tsy: ~~ PClY~~A damp C' ~ T ? a. C C: t~ aos dart: t:~c7-; 2µ,Zocc ,~~/~~~ Phone: (540) 380~58~~~) (Gregory Fax loo. (540 380-5841 Phone (5401 982-3694 Fax No. t~iagisterial District: Windsor Hills Camrntanity Plai~nistg area: ~xi~ :''~t:''itair? Existing Zoning: AG3 Existing Land Use: Vacant I~~ Propcsed Zoning: Social Use Permit to allow a Broadcast ~r on Proposed Land Use: a Parcel zoned AG3 Does the: parcel anet:t the aTianimuan lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested distract? Yes ~ No D fll? N®, A VARI~CE IS REQ[dIRED Fi1LST. No a Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria Cot the requested Use Type1 Yes ~ IF N®, A VARIANCE I5 REQUIREll FiI28T No fl If rezntaing request, arc conditions being luoffcrcd with ibis request? Yes O Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Is the application completc't Please check if enclosed. APPLICA'T'ION K'ALL NOT B~. ACCEP'i'Ea Ip" ~~Y ®~ ~~I~SE ~iVIS AItE MI$StNG flR uyCDMPLE'I'E. y$ V R/S V R/S V Application (ce Consultation 8 112" x ] l" concept plan pro#Fers, iC applicsbla Application Metes and bounds description Adjoining property ptvners 3ustification 1tFater and sevrcr application ! hcraby t:trtlfy that i ant zither the tsuncr c; the proparty or the owners a;et+ ° r contract putH~d am acting with the lcnowlcdge and copse^! oC rho owner, 'I'~TJS S O>'' EVANGLy ~ ~ ~,- ~'Y7 ^ ~ „~ Owner=s Signature ~` ~ i Applicant AirCable of Roanoke, LLC The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant met with County planning staff pursuant to the regal-rements of Section 30-87.2 (broadcasting tower).- Even though that ordinance is geared toward cellular towers, the Applicant, which is a broadcaster seeking to add a tower to Poor r~untain upon which many towers are currently located, followed the requirements of the ordinance. As set forth in the letter from AirCable which accompanies this applicati all other options for co-location were reviewed including discussions with Paxson Communications from whose tower the Applicant currently transmits. The need of .this Applicant for atop-mounted antenna in close proximity to its existing top-mounted 'antenna on Poor I`~ountain makes building a new tower on its selected site its only alternative. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community 'lan. This site is located in the Bent :mountain Planning District and is designated as Rura Preserve in the 1998 Community Plan.. The Rural Preserve category designates a variety of land use types in areas where limited development activity has historicall occurred. Because of its unique features, Poor P?ountain has been the location of choice for broadcasters and, consequently, has many towers along its ridgeline. This notwithstanding the 1998 Community Plan which discourages the placement of communication structures on ridgelines. The Community Plan, however, recognizes that a balance must be maintained between economic gro~Jth and prosperity and ridgeline preservation. By fitting into an area where towers already exist, this Applicant brings quality services to residents with a minimum additional ridgeline impact. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, toads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. There is no adverse impact anticipated as a result of this development. 1-540-380-5611 p•7 Sep ~18 fl0 Q3: 15p fl-irCable ~~ :~c;: '~1 ~ ~ / /I Il r~ CZ'~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ iY~ V Electrical Specifications WNO Band: 250o-2686 (W)/2150-2? 63 (NQ) ~~~~~~ PolarizaS4n Vertical orNorizontal Vertical or Horizontal Gain (dBi} 8-bay 10.6 (W} 8.8 (NQ) 13.4 (W) 11.6 (NC;) 12-Bay i2.4 (W) 10.6 (ND) 15.2 MJ} 13.4 {NQ} This new broadband antenna operates in both 16-gay 13.6 (V+/} 11.8 (NGt) 16.4 (W) 14.6 (NQ) the 2150 - 2163 MHz and 2500 - 2586 MHz lnpui Power 500 W (8-Bay} 500 W (8-say) bands allowing construction of a complete Rating (Max) ~ 800 W (12, 16-Bay) 800 W (12, i6-Bay) Frequency Band 2150-2]63 (NQ} and 2150-2163 (NQj and MMDS system using two instead of four (MHz} 25Da-z6as (v+r~ 25ao-2sas (W) antennas. Beare tilt Q.5° standard 0.5° standard Input Type 7/8" c1A 7/8" EIA When building a 33-channel MMDS system, tnputvsWR 1.35:1 (v~ 1.35:1 (vv) the broadband feature saves on cost and (Max} 1.5:1 (NQ} 1.5:1 (Nq} tower space by eliminating two antennas and tW0 !'lln5 of tfanSm1S5i0n Ilne. t Peak of sync for analog systems (NTSC, PAL, etc,) Broadband HMD MMDS antennas are available Mechanical Specifications with omnidirectional and directional patterns _ . - and either vertical ar horizontal polarization. All HMD Series antennas are VSWR tested prior t0 HMD8H0-WNfl A 738 {614) 367 {4g5} 44 (112} 5 (13) 55 (25) shipment. OptlOnal pattern te5ting IS available. HMD12H0-WtJ4 A 157 (639} 523 (706) 60 (152) 5 {13) 60 (27) HMD16H0-WNfl A 180 (801) 759 (1022} 81 (206) 5 (13) 65 (30) HMD$HC-W~7Q C8 130 (579} - 46 {116j 8 (2D) 55 (25) HMDI2HC•WNQ C8 167 (743} - 60 (187) 8 (20) 60 (27) HMDi6HC-WNfl C8 275 (957) - 92 {233) 8 (20} 65 (30} HMD8V0-WHQ A 135 (60fl} 343 (460") 41 (104) 5 (13) 45 (20) -~'~ HMD12V0-WNfl A, 155 (689) 504 ($85) 56 (147) 5 (13) 55 (25) HMDi5V0-4YNQ A 180 (801) 757 (1022) 81 (206) 5 (13) 65 (30) Note: High power and super power versions available. Contact HMA$VC-WNQ C5 92 (409) - 41 (104) 5 (13} 50 (23} factory inr deceits. 60 {152) 5 (73) 55 (25) HMD~2VC-WNQ CS 114 (507} - HMDI6VC-WNfl C5 138 (614) - 81 (206) 5 (13) 60 (27} :~,... ,~ Lightning Pod 3 0":(75 mm}- , .;,: 3.0.:(76 mm) ;: 3 0 (75 mm) . r Lighining Rod ~ I •:• ~~ _ <<.. . „ . ..... - 1 ,. ,,. ._. - , - ~ _ - -. _ ,.. a ., ., .... :... ... ::. • _ - :_ ~ ..: H H H 31 7.0 Maz, i . ' 3.a" ~ 3 8 g g (79 mm) II . ,r ~ 25 mm 9' "nn!) I (9Z mm). mm} - ( ) ( , (97 ~ ~ . , ~., .,,, ,. ~ _ -_ .. :.. 0 83":'. ,.( .._. ,......- t ' :: I ~ ,... . 't'-{ 21$imm) Typ 11.0" . . ,.. .... ., -... ,, .. :: ~ l.. ~.. . ;..-: - 20" {5D8 mm~ ' {280 riim) ~\' '~ . I ;... ,, ~j u ) 3D 108 (2ti3 mm}7YF (203 trim} ;p76~mm~} TYP. ~uP o M rnber (273 mm} Typ.. .. ... ,. . (419 m[ri) (2fl3, mrn) T.yp - 2T ftt Dia. Ho .. . ,. j a 9 50 .(241 mni} D Boii.CirC4e 3 (76 mm), Dia. la .. Support:Member - Mount,Type C8 - NtountType Cs .; Nas.Gussets at Tap and Mount Type A Srde Mounted at Srde gottorrt of Mount 8rackers " MoccntType. Q - Side Mounted at To ,of Tower. o{Tower for`Rddttipna! Support Top Mounted at Tcp of Tower P.. - ;: ; i.~; i . 1-54a-38C-5611 p.,~l ~'liep ],8~ CC. 03: ~5p AirCable ~~~ ~~ ~;~ • ,..; :i~ ~_ ~~~~ Cnrporau- Dice: 110.B West Main SC, Salem, V l 24153 Tcl: (s4o) .lso-ss2t ?ax: (540) .1x0-5341 Customer Service: 3214 Elec:rii: Road, SW Suitc 107 Roanoke,l'r~'<4018 Tel: (540) -7Z-7798 Fax: (540) ?" 2-8159 mn h' chantrels fur less mvrrrp " ~ wwwatrcarrle.com September 18, 2CC0 RE: FAA filing requirements for towers Gregory J. Ritacco AirCable America General Manager and VP On Monday August 21 7 placed a call to the FAA tower at the Roanoke Airport to verifythe filing requirements in regard to erectl.ng a new communications tower. I stated that we were planning to erect a tower an Poor Mountain and asked him what we needed to file with the FAA to complywith their re7ulations- He informed me that there is no requirement as long as .the tower is less than ZCO feet tall. Since our tower and antenna will be less than two hundred feet tall we are not required to file with the FA.~1. O>.:r signal will be transmitted at 2500-2700 mghz and the power into the antenna will be 350 watts. Sincerely, ~'. • ~Urig llE_r~;~, I HLUN e~Ul~'tl~`I 1i`+'.~ rr-i~ae ~~* L^C! •~b!'L~bb 14: L~ .~YJ.'J'L'1144~b „f r, ., ,~ ~~ ~~ ~ I.}uttl T»p r3~UC~ttx~a • • ,.. YI?tsn prGgr~rrr*vn9 rcq~k#ae6t+~ n~cabslts,a t~ vae of twa arrt#•~rias .~ in Kias• ~raxim~, 3h+y shacfd ba ~ ;r rt•ka~t°,la~ Irls~ararc~ (~rrtJlt p~nt+sl31'3~Li•~.. ~,~ ~. ',~: bs!~s~ . dust, atd~-,Y+,ocr;twd c~rdfclda ahaiki ba mDUnfrt! :+n: {nntUan i) 'j alscva'-tia rntcr. '3vxs ~-at*ni3~s s~1~y ~ ~s+ROli ~ ~~1' CCs'#figa 0( !!t!! d;ui1~ ~#~ rrlth ~GQttiar;dl ~rp~t8>7'nrin~, (ftrrn 'I .. - a .rfrsgk FQe~dosr. •. ,~ . Fe prvvrd~r ar.^snidrr+wc:~on#t cc~c~nga frh~r s slr~pita ;~tar~e,~ eanncr ~• :i 1s~i b~.ar3ss at brrll~lnq Dr ~tupr ~ostruc5'ana iPl+r~srnnwrda~i a~741~!!t~ ~paaltt~a • *varrdtrrtu7 t ~ awl, asp rror~~d omn,dlr~c'.~a^st anl~na~ r PoiflrlS.sth3+1 tyi 8nar pr bQ~1 C~ Utq anta!;naa' Vst#t~ei; IC ~+ci; (~'rtJ ~p~st S ~ :' I• ' ' • Cae~tcfa~ 2 , 1 , ~,~•~ ,.• t .. ' aw'ia! Etta nrOJtttQQ W %# Stde 13'ui~•! ~~4CeJl~~ ~ $~~)ft#t~ i${~1 nrrtsnd+ys! for nmr'sidir~'.icnrJ requl~wm~nta tial:i? . ~ . (Ccha tori•a~ ~ ... !; fat rv~a Acre ; Mtr,~rrasm of 3.5 c~ m! wi~* ~a~a ul antr~rs~ • lc~at at to'dt~r ?larlxors{a; mamner. . . Bata s? sugc~stk~ns trt y»a{1#+'6! ;n natvrs. 5e315 fCt ihd 'a¢vz~rxj is .n prsu+rrdrk,tfi#~i#alIIlthl#,~6 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~`ra~en~~' .op9m mY u~ ' 1 r k x , rr rroC#: #rudiya v#n ~* P'~• • ~a raa naib+!Ir ;cr anl5nn2 ~nienr<s rncwrtl A~cl: ~tw 3oG8p#a ~ A % I ' . ~' tC ~rwiCrtnr^cr Gt e+ ttwn ttxiss 3rtlr~tlate# #t~tt~tl on psQe+E ~•~ ir ' ar. 6.7 of tiffs Gsttut • ~~' TM;r ~~~;, S •;j •. ~ + ,L V~. ~~ • ' .~ ~ ~''+~ Jis84~,'7t3R2-q!$, *'J~j^~1~ li~i..r.~ e;~;: IS Od R8 3r.~ J~~ ,+ ' 1 1 ~ J 1 Y ~~' 7 ~0~~~~s~ ~ ~, ~ 210 1St 5t;eec J~X/. Suite 200 Pose OEnce Box 2887 Roanoke, Virginia 2x001 540.224.8000 Fax 540 24.8050 gTdg~gcdg com .~~' iVjAR`IE~.LEti F. GOODLA`!" LE Direct Dial (`~0) 22~-8018 E-maii mgoodlattz;~.gidg.com September l~, 2000 H ~~~ DELIV~',RED Mr. John Murphy Associate Planner Roanoke County Department of Community Development 5204 Benard Drive, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Re: AirCable of Roanoke, LLC Dear John: Having listened to the audio tape of the Planning Ccm-mission's September 5 meeting at which AirCable's broadcasting was discussed, I wanted to correct misinformation as quickly as possible. . Ca lle'sIapplication unt IeOctober 3~ Commission will not formally consider A1r it has hired an independent engineer tom b stemilab ae ~eddthat en ne tecD ~dI needs of AirCable s digital broadcasting sy r Simpson, to lister_ to the tape and respond to the in~ormation presentee as to AirCable's systems. His responsive letter to me is enclosed. from Martin Frankel of Decathlon Also enclosed is a copy of a letter Communications, Inc. NLr. Frankel is AsCable's outside engineer who installed its digital wireless system. Mr. Simpson will be in Roanoke for the balance of fhie3 4eletanme knowbwn t meet or answer any questions .you may -have. PI additional information we can provide. Very truly yours, ~;, ~. Maryellen F. Goodlatte MFG:1nh:4552000 Enclosures cc; ,4irCable of Roanke, LLC ,.~_ DE~~r CHLUN GUMM 1Nt' 3/30/~~~0 14:2fl 603221x456 , +. • ~• ,fYr ~~ ~~~~~ ~~t~~'I~~E~S.T~~~1~, ~~1~, AAPIU ";rY ~F=•c SUITE 105 7200 E. HAtdPDEy .AVE. Q?~;~ ~.~ ~o ~; , p~ CchIVER, CGLGR.4CX:, 80~2>d (6651 5^e^e-19fl? {303) 795-8780 pAi. C°LB'i 386-? 681 N18riin 5. Frankel Pr..:. X3031 221..iE5fi emaVt: rn(rankel ~ decathlon-dig i~aLcam ~,.ugust 30, 2Q+~~ Maryellen F. Gaodlatte, ~5c1, Glean, Feldmann, Darby c~ Gaadlatte P4 Ba:~ 2887 Roanoke, V,A..240a1 ;TlA TE.~LEF:~.~ A3v~ tJ.S. lvi~ dear 1vls. Gaodlatte: a;npxesiden ail3e:athlon~ammu~icatians, ~zzC.(her.Vln`~"r "~ecdthian"~j, aleadin~ z uez of digital. wireless cable systen7s. Decathlon inst e~sd e r~dogzYe~-zezzt ti~ss caG>.e syst:~,. thz system, develoy in Roanoke, ~r',~ for Air~aole America. Because ofrny ext am intim.ateiy farzzali.ar ~-ith the reuuiremenis of the antenna and its plaae;x~er~t az~. th.e to~'ez. ,had the NL"~~ antenna side rnaun~tad az~ 7vfr- Lundin z5 correct that the prejnous awz~.ez 4 tlrarzsz:~Qsi.on and ir. fac:t na carr~merciai the tower, .At tlta time the antenna. vas used for analca~ 3 used far analog tzan.smissia~z use was made of t,.he system. The PAX TV antenna that is currency is currently side maur~ted. . ar six months afttir the initial installation of the d:z~.tal tzansmisslcn equtnment us~c~g tiZe F - +' aih, irtzrierence and .side mounted antenna, the systetzt in Roanoke exper,er-cod severe mull-f'roblexz~., athez thazt the tian roblems, Elzmznation of every possible saurw~ of the p signal corrup F. t~~ mauntiza.g of ttxe antenna on the tower, was done. The pablem ~ were riot salve naz even F arneliarated, Tag ~lcsuntzrig of the antenna elimsn-aced p ed cn ou:.:field studies and>engizJ.eeri.ng a,-,~iysis, the Rb ~ted atz a~g an {~w thta~ncther Fs as unless the AirCahle antenna is B~tT~ tap mounted A_ not ~~au nna. There are a nunioer of factors parciculaz to ta~.e Rao th eimnzen1 e~amaL nt of LRFs this RF atit e conclusion including the vertical polarity o£ t,l~e Air. Cable cyst sz , ar ~lountair_, transnv.ssion of digital signals in a :nixed ~~gare ~Plea.se note theist a~zd sig.na.l o.n Po the togagraghy of ~aor ~.t~uxztairi. and t,'ne underlying R,oanok-~ a` est zuiten~~a rrazzufacturzr in attached mounting spec~ifiaatious fro.rr~ An.cixew Gorgcrati~n, the lar~lazz~ad sysceras. ~ixCable's the world, advising against the use of side mounting far v,~rticaal;r F systexrl is vertically polarized aszd eazl not be changed. III t DECD i =ILQt~{ CDh~ihA I`IC r` r~~.~ ~~ ..~' ~Pviar~}eilen F. CTaodlatte, Esci. ~,us~ust 30, 2G00 'Page Ttxo Tile dir~culties e~.countY;ed Try ?~.irCahie described above oorli~rn the-nanu=a.ctur;rr's require~.ents that the ar=te:~na must be toy mcur_ted. ?1t~ious~h I a:-n not privy to F'~~..X' S ttiC:~.nica! ret_tuirernents, Iassume its engineers are also .rQeoccun e~d;vnrg~l1 n~~ tos discusst;~+s may ~~with 14ir. facilitate its cti~.an,ge ~orx~ ana.iosz to digital. I lv~r1ain ~' -- Lundin or a1Zy of PA..i's e~.~ineer stf th~.t would be nel~fu?. However, let me be clear tl~at Mr. Lundin's opinion is based on erroneous assurxlpti.ans as it relates to ~,irGable's operations. Please let me :~rae~r if further infc:rln.atiQn can be provided. Enc. Very tru~yo ~~. t~iartin F'rar~kel cc; ~. ~texl.tnger ~.-> ~- .._._.7 September 15, 2000 Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Esq. Glenn, Feldmann, Darby &Goodlatte P. 0. Box 2887 Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2887 Re: AirCable Broadcast Tower Request, Poor Mountain, Roanoke County, Virginia Dear Mrs. Goodlatte: AirCable has engaged me as an independent consultant to review the technical information surrounding its tower application. My firm has over 20 years experience in NIMDS/microwave engineering. We have worked with Andrews Corporation, the manufacturer of the antenna used by AirCable, many times and is familiar with the HMDI2VD-WDS, 2.5 Gig's antenna that is currently mounted at the top of the PAX tower. I understand AirCable is required to move from its current location at the expiration of its lease term. The owner of the current tower, Paxson Communications, is seeking permission to construct a new tower within 50' of its existing tower to facilitate its change from analog to digital broadcasting. I have listened to the audio tape of Pax's September 5 Planning Commission hearing. Based on my review of the record, my engineering experience, and on-site inspections of the existing tower and antenna, there are a number of misperceptions which need to be addressed. I have reviewed the August 30, 2000 letter of Martin Frankel, which responded to Pax's assumption that AirCable's antenna could be side-mounted on its new tower. That assumption is based , in part, on Pax's erroneous belief that AirCable's antenna is located at 166' on its antenna, and an unfamiliarity with AirCable's transmission scheme. I understand you shared that letter with Pax's attorney prior to their public hearing. Mr. Frankel's assessments are correct, and are supported by the experience of Andrews, the manufacturer of the antenna. ~°°° Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Esq. September 15, 2000 Page 2 When AirCable acquired ownership of the antenna, it was side-mounted on PAX's tower at 192 feet. The prior owner was using the antenna only to preserve his signal and was making no commercial use of it. When AirCable began preparing for broadcasting, it encountered the Omni pattern beam and had severe distortions of the pattern. After AirCable moved the antenna to the top, it made a substantial difference in its C/N and corrected the group-delay. QAlV1 signals, unlike television's new digital 8-VSB, has a high dependency on phase relation to keep its robust carrier easily understood by the receiver terminal. The FCC has licensed AirCable to broadcast vertically in an omnidirectional pattern. (You will find a fuller discussion of these terms in my attached analysis.) Because the system is vertically polarized and omnidirectional, AirCable's antenna must be top-mounted. Andrews' signal pattern shows vertically polarized antenna experienced distortions unless mounted at top. AirCable's situation (presently on a tower which will be replaced for activation of the owner's digital antenna), is not unusual given the transition of television stations from analog to digital.. I have taken the liberty to contact KTLA, Chief Engineer, Michael Engelhaupt, since they were one of the early TV stations to go digital, and discussed their experience. I understood that PAX would be mounting their antenna on top. My analysis produces no support for mounting AirCable's digital antenna on top along with PAX's antenna for the following reasons: A. PAX's antenna is twice the size of KTLA's since PAX will carry dual transmissions -analog and digital. KTLA's digital antenna weighs some 1,000 pounds with mounting. AirCable's 100 pound antenna would be dwarfed in size. Its size in proximity to AirCable's would.. cause undetermined signal blockage -much like having a tower leg next to it. B. That AirCable cannot mount its antenna on the tower side is a foregone conclusion. Its experience with unrecoverable line of sight interference to its signal coupled with the manufacturer's requirements tells the story. C. AirCable's signal is like 8-VSB, but different and more sensitive to phase interference. PAX is mounting its antenna on top, because they need clear line of sight and as little defusing of its signal as possible to serve its customers. AirCable's signal at 2.5 Gig's is actually more vulnerable to those same problems and more. Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Esq. September 15, 2000 Page 3 I have attached a more lengthy analysis which deals with the technical aspects of why AirCable's antenna must be top-mounted. If I can provide further detail, please let me know. Sincerely, David R. Simpson RF Engineer FCC License # PG-9-14379 (~ ~~. ~~ ~n Overview and Introduction to lO~MDS Tower Issues: AirCable's need to build their own tower and to mount their Digital NIIvIDS Antenna on top will easily and clearly be understood once reading a brief analysis of Analog and Digital transmission. The rainbow of frequencies presently used for various purposes reaches from the extremely low frequencies (and gigantic wavelengths) used to communicate with submarines all the way through the frequencies used in radio, television, MMDS, cellular phones, on up to the frequencies of infrared used by TV remotes and fiber optics, and beyond to visible and ultraviolet light and then X-rays. Virtually all electromagnetic signals can bear information, and the higher the frequencies, the mare room. they provide for bearing information, but these high frequencies have their penalties to use, as we'll discover. As a practical matter, along with the fact that they are more easily used, communications engineers aimed low, totally thronging the frequencies at the bottom of the spectrum. The vast expansion of wireless commmumications, however, will. require the use of higher frequencies, far up the spectrum. Since 1948 Communications Engineers have grown to understand there are two methods to transmit information: Narrowband, high-powered solutions and broadband, highly efficient bandwidth solutions. 1From Inefficient to Highly Efficient Analog: As an example, just as you can get your message through in a crowded room by talking louder, you can overcome a noisy channel with more powerful signals. We'll call these Analog television signals. Over the years, engineers have proliferated the frequencies with this theory (more power overcomes noise) and used up available frequencies. More over, when everyone talks louder, no one can hear very well. Unfortunately, today the favored regions at the bottom of the spectnun are so full of spectrum-hogging radios, pagers, phones, television, long-distance, point-to-point, aerospace and other uses that heavy- breathing experts speak of running out of "air." Digital: In all spectrums of transmission, there is noise. This noise is called, "urhite" noise and cloaks the entire rainbow of frequencies. "Very simply put" -Transmissions of Digital information come in many forms. AirCable is using one of those Digital transmission schemes, (QAM) to transmit high-resolution images and sounds -Thusly, an alternative to narrow and strong is more efficient use of bandwidth. Overall, fighting noise with high power is less efficient than using elaborate coded transmission. The '`more efficient digital use of bandwidth" is at the heart of the most promising technologies of today, from the advanced digital coding of 8-VSB and QAM. of American television including the ''_~ - spectacular pictures of HDTV to ubiquitous mobile phones, personal communications networks (PCNs), and wireless computer networks. No free lunch: However, there is no free Iunchi Compensating for the rapid rise in communications needs is an exponential rise in complexity. Efficient use of bandwidths means larger, more complex codes and exponentially rising burdens of decoding and error-correcting along with the need to have "clear and precise" reception of signals. In previous decades, handling 40 Megabits per second was simply out of the question with existing Analog technology. During the late 1990s through today, however, the problem of soaring complex transmission needs started being solved with QAM, 8-VSB, CAFDM, and on. MMDS and AirCable: Air delivery of cable television programming had long seemed unpromising. Not only was there too little spectnun available to compete with cable, but the range of services through cable would be superior to MMDS Analog television. Digital has decidedly changed how MMDS and AirCable will compete through the air. However, wireless firms will not long be able to compete with the cable industry, unless they have clear, unrestricted line-of- siaht transmission for their microwave signals! Conventional wisdom points out, these microwaves are useless far anything but Point-to- Point transmissions. For radio, and some television communication, the prevailing folklore preferred frequencies that are cheap, can penetrate buildings and tunnels, bounce off the ionosphere or scuttle across continents along the surface of the earth, if necessary. The fact is, the higher the fre~uency• the less it can~orm these feats? In addition, the more line-of--sight it becomes. Finally, the "real show stopper' is the more complex digital signals have only two conditions: Perfect or Gone. Whereas, in comparison with Analog, there are several grades of in between reception, The oId rule of Analog radio and television: For the past 40 some years, radio-wave transmissions (and we'll use television as example) was cheaply received, it could go through buildings, and in most cases, it can been seen over moderately long distances. It could be received and watchable under most conditions. In other words, it had several conditions where it went from "crystal clear to totally snow" before it became unwatchable. -The new rule of Digital radio and television: If you are receiving tmobstructed reception, you are guaranteed Perfect reception. As conditions deteriorate, you loose that guarantee, but can remain to have Perfect reception -- until it is Gone. There is "no" in between? This condition is commonly called: The Cliff Effect. This means Perfect pictures can be there one second and gone the next due to critical disturbances in the signal. In the pamphlet: "ATV Transmission Planning Questions For Public Television Stations," PBS Engineering Committee: Harvey Arnold and Bruce Jacobs explains the question, What Transmit antennas will be appropriate? "Most of the guidelines for NTSC will continue to apply. Omni-directional UHF antennas with a gain. of up to 30 db will be used." "The best solution for Omni-directional eovesage is a t®p mounted antenna. " It goes on to say awrap-around Panel antenna is a good solution if you must side mount and directional antennas will be continued to be used where appropriate. However, "the effect of antenna radiation pattern on coverage may be of more concern with Advanced Television (ATi~} and needs,furtlzerstudy." Gene Zastrow, General Manager, Sutro Tower, Inc., San Francisco, CA replied to a message asking if they had concerns with the placement of their Digital antenna. ``Our digital antennas are mounted on one face of the triangular tower. Side mounting does, of course, result in some distortion or shadowing of the signal whether it's Analog or Digital. In our case we are lucky in that the side mounted antenna does well in three directions and the fourth doesn't matter much since it's very close to the ocean." "I suspect the problems you encountered were more a result of your relatively high frequency in comparison to television frequencies." AirCable had disastrous effects of their I9i~ital Antenna side mounted to Pax's tower. Moving to the tap cured the problem! Presently, it represents the "only" antenna on top of Pax's tower He goes on to say, `Having your own tower is of course the best solution since you could then control where your antenna is mounted." The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), in Washington, D.C. on August 24, 2000 announced that 152 DT stations are on the air. These Digital stations mostly represent Nlajor Markets such. as New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, etc. After reading several articles of standards, FAQ, and DTV planning guides by the NAB, FCC, and major stations, anyone can safely surmise most antenna are either on top of buildings or affixed to "forkltriangular" towers to maintain precious top placement. They are going for the "New Rule!" A reminder that Digital Signals are either Perfect or Gone. Richard V. Ducey, Ph.D. Washington DC and International Fellows Program Center for Information and Communication Sciences, Ba11 State University may have said it best when he wrote in Meeting New Challenges Head-ON: The Transition to Digital Broadcast Television; "Digital television will offer clearer pictures. It offers the capacity for broadcasters to provide more than one program at a time using the same channel capacity that provides a single service to the home today. This provides the consumer with better signals and more choice. That is largely what made the cable industry successful today. To broadcasters; this is a promising sign. " NAB proudly displays on its Web Page Cover announcing 152 Stations Broadcasting in Digital --- A "mighty Dollar" ,i ~~ `~ v~ Does this all mean "top" antenna placement means more viewers? Tower and Power effect: In the PBS ATV Transmission Planning, it is aslced, How does changing the tower Height affect UHF ATV coverage? How does changing the ERP effect ,~.-. ~.. +~.a ^• UHF ATV coverage? "As with NTSC, ATV UHF propagation is primary line-of-sight, so go for all the height you can get. For example, at 50 kW ERP, every extra 200' extends coverage more than doubling the power! 200'=32 miles coverage. While doubling or halving ERP effects the UHF coverage by only about 3 miles. In other words, you can't get any better reception than having your transmit antenna on top. MNIDS and AirCable MIvIDS channels come in b MHz chunks and runs on licensed and unlicensed channels. Each channel can reach transfer rates as high as 27Mbps. MNII~S is aline-of--sight service. The area near or throughout the path of signal ``must" be clear or signal strength will suffer and have Multi-path disturbances. Most M1VIDS companies, as well as AirCable, uses QAM. DTV uses 8-VSB. Disturbances that effect 8-VSB's good reception are worse when using QAM. 8-VSB and QAM both need good signal strength to guarantee a Perfect picture. MMDS stations will need to have a higher ERP (Effective Radiated Power) to cover the same miles as UHF. 8-VSB and QAM both can suffer disastrous effects from Multi-path signals. Lastly, MMDS and AirCable are mass-media business to include Video and Internet. Whereas, television stations are licensed in the Public Interest. Can service have any rl~le on antenna placement? The FCC's Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance reads; while it is a simple matter to evaluate a single transmission from a single tower, "it is important to understand that the FCC's limits apply cumulatively to alI sources of RF emissions affecting a given area. A common example is where two or more wireless operators have agreed to share the cost of building and maintaining a tower, and to place their antennas on that joint structrire. In such a case, the total exposure from the two facilities taken together must be within FCC ffuidelines, or else an EA will be required." In Summary: Reception is hest for both UHF Television and MMDS when there is line-of-sight. Each service suffers from reflections, multi-path, and poor carrier to noise (C,~N), but MNIDS's service will react worse. If placed next to a UHF antenna, MMDS antenna and signal can have blockage, because of antenna size and frequency being smaller. David R. Simpson RF Engin.eer r.. ~. ~~ ROANOKE COUNTY Aircable of Roanoke, Llc DEPARTMENT OE Zoning: Special Use COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tax Map No. 93.00-1-47 "«~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO AIRCABLE OF ROANOKE, LLC TO CONSTRUCT A 195-FOOT BROADCAST TOWER TO BE LOCATED ON POOR MOUNTAIN (TAX MAP NO. 93.00-1-47), WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, AirCable of Roanoke, LLC has filed a petition for a special use permit to construct a 195-foot broadcast tower to be located on Poor Mountain (Tax Map No. 93.00-1-47) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 3, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on September 26, 2000; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on October 24, 2000. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to AirCable of Roanoke LLC to construct a 195-foot broadcast tower to be located on Poor Mountain (Tax Map No.93.00-1- 47) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved with the following conditions: (1) The height of the tower shall not exceed 195 feet from grade. (2) The lattice tower and all attached hardware and antenna shall be non- reflective so as to reduce visibility and light reflection. (3) No lighting shall be installed on the tower structure unless required by the FAA. Security lighting maybe provided on site, at a height not to exceed 25 feet. U:\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\aircable.tower.sup.wpd 1 -~ (4) If the use of the broadcast tower structure for broadcasting is discontinued, the tower structure shall be dismantled and removed from the site within 30 days of notice by the county, and the special use permit become void. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. U:\WPDOCSWGENDA\ZONING\aircable.tower.sup.wpd 2 li ~• AirCable of Roanoke, LLC Special Use Permit Poor Mountain ~~ [~ I• i ~urrcCbll~ AMERICA August 23, 2000 Corporate Office: 3410-B West Main St., Salem, VA 24153 Tel: (540) 380-5821 Fax: (540) 380-5841 Customer Service: 3214 Electric Road, SW Suite 107 Roanoke, VA 24018 Tel: (540) 772-7798 Fax: (540) 772-8159 "more digital channels for less money " www.aircable.com I! Mr. John Murphy Associate Planner Roanoke County Department of Community Development 5204 Bernard Drive, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Re: AirCable of Roanoke, LLC Dear Mr. Murphy: Thank you for meeting with me to discuss AirCable's need to construct a tower in close proximity to its current location on Poor Mountain. AirCable is a FCC licensed broadcaster that provides digital broadband service to the Roanoke Valley and New River Valley areas. We provide a digital quality television picture and digital CD sound at very attractive rates for our customers. Our technology allows the existing televisions sets of customers to receive more digital channels with rates that are less than satellite and cable providers. We have truly found that competition brings out the best in all technologies and provides the most options and best prices to consumers. While we have offices in the County on Electric Road and in the City of Salem on West Main Street, our only broadcast tower is located on Poor Mountain. We lease space on the tower owned by Paxson Communications (PAX). Because our signal is digital, our antenna is and must be top-mounted on the tower. PAX also uses the tower to broadcast its signal. Because PAX's broadcast signal is not digital, but analog, its antenna is side-mounted on the current tower. Our lease with PAX expires in less than two years and PAX has advised us that the lease will not be renewed. We understand that PAX intends to convert its signal from analog to digital, which will require that its antenna, like ours, be top-mounted. We understand that PAX would like to construct a new tower to replace its existing tower in order to facilitate its digital broadcasting. But since both PAX and AirCable will be broadcasting digital signals, neither antenna can be side-mounted, and consequently, there will be no room for us on a new PAX tower. I• '~ Mr. John Murphy August 23, 2000 Page 2 Given the requirement to relocate, any new location for us must be in very close proximity to the current antenna location on Poor Mountain in order to continue to serve current subscribers and maintain our FCC license. To receive our signal, aline-of--sight between the antenna and the customer's receiver must exist. This does not require that the antenna be visible to the eye, but that the technology be able to clearly communicate. Our broadcast area, as is shown on the map enclosed at Tab 1, encompasses a large area. You will see the proposed tower location noted on that map. • As you know, broadcasters and many others before us have determined that Poor Mountain, because of its location and its lack of shadowing by other mountains, is the preferred tower location. Before we even began our operations, we determined that Poor Mountain was the only place our antenna could be located. Consequently, when we learned that we were required to leave our current tower, we evaluated other existing tower sites at Poor Mountain to determine if co-location was an option. Because our signal requires a 360 degree omni-directional transmission, our antenna must be mounted on top of a tower without obstruction. The following towers on Poor Mountain were evaluated for relocation: ~~ STATION BROAD- CASTER CONTACT CONTACT PHONE # PROPERTY OWNER RESULTS WDBJ TV CBS 344-7000 WDBJ Antenna To Mounted WBRA TV PBS Ron Smith 344-0991 WDBJ Antenna To Mounted WFXR TV FOX John 344-2127 WDBJ Antenna To Mounted WPVR Radio 94.9 Leonard Wheeler* 345-3841 WSLS Antenna To Mounted WXLK Radio 92.3 J.J. Lar en* 774-9200 WSLS Antenna To Mounted WVTF Radio 89.3 Paxton Durham 989-8900 WSLS Antenna To Mounted WSLS TV NBC 981-9110 WSLS Antenna To Mounted WSLQ Radio 99.1 Leonard Wheeler* 387-0234 WDBJ Antenna To Mounted Because there are no existing towers that can accommodate us, we have no option but to construct a new tower. To that end, we have leased space from Evangel Foursquare Church, which is adjacent to our current location. The current tower upon which we are a tenant is 208 feet high. We propose to build a shorter, 195 foot tower upon which our 4 foot antenna would be top mounted. Because the structure will be under 200 feet, no FAA approval is required. We have confirmed that electric service, the only utility we require, is currently available to the site. We do have a commercial grade liquid propane backup generator with a V6 engine. Its noise level would be comparable to a pickup truck engine. Our broadcast tower will be a lattice tower tri-base as more particularly shown on the schematic attached at Tab 2. It will look very much like the tower upon which we are 1• Mr. John Murphy August 23, 2000 Page 3 currently located. The new tower will be constructed of galvanized steel and will have a non-reflective finish. The antenna, which is a slim whip-like structure, will be identical to our existing antenna. It is constructed of fiberglass and will have a matte white finish. At 195 feet, the proposed tower will be somewhat lower than the surrounding towers. Its ground elevation will be 3,760 feet. Its coordinates will be N 37° 11.563' W 80° 09.457'. At some point, we may wish to add other appurtenances to the tower, such ~ as a microwave dish, to facilitate our communications. The dishes we would expect to use are today about 6 feet in diameter and weigh less than 100 pounds. While there is no immediate need to add a structure beyond an antenna to the tower for our purposes, we realize that technology may require such devices in the future, and we would ask for such flexibility. Additionally, the tower will have the structural ability to accommodate at least six other providers who will need to attach their devices to the tower. Our conceptual site plan is attached at Tab 3. The one acre site has direct access to Honeysuckle Road and will be developed so as to minimize disturbed areas. We have taken photographs from a number of places in the valley and have digitally simulated the impact upon the view of the proposed tower. Those photographs are attached at Tab 4. Attached at Tab 5 is a computerized terrain analysis showing the visibility of the proposed broadcast tower across the valley. Please note that the locations from which the photographs at Tab 4 were taken are identified on the map at Tab 5. We understand that we are responsible for all fees associated with the filing of our application including the reasonable costs of any independent analysis deemed necessary by the County to verify the need for the new broadcast tower. ~ Thank you again for meeting with me and for reviewing the approval process. We at AirCable are pleased to be part of the Roanoke County business community and look forward to our continued service to Roanoke Valley residents. If there is further information we can provide, please don't hesitate to let us know. Very truly yours, AirCable of Roanoke By. ~ i .~ Gr tacco Ge eral anager 11 i~ • `J Pram^srnr .^'n-nr4rr Gear .~r^:+~~i>Rr•M17lel+++iw _ _ . _ -- 1 a iawik ,~ I- T 9' {FMF xmiNl ,~ PATFM NLA~7r: ( fM 0 1 1 1 .EtPNGL... -. 5 ____ _ _- 6 8 '2 I~ 9 + !0 n 77 fy :9 ,F II t '"u:.. .. ::: ~~. ~yl I i ~, i i I j :C~ ' 'i I i r, is is `` n t+ e- I I t9 ~ ~IkflYv~C. __-_.-__ I ;3 !7 J1 1 ~ I TtLMN E ~ 1111 __ _ ._____ J6 • 17 i ,;" ~ ~s ~ I 19 10 0 i A7 ._l.____. __... _. _. J._ 41 ~7 ey 41 .~ u 1 ~;i AS 11 ((~~'" ~~ _ ~ ~$i{VGl _ .... -_~_R 17 IB 47 I dR 78 +,. '. ;J I ~I w ~ ~ g, ~,. ... 57 II _. _.~ 57 i s~ ~ ,5 ~+ 3, ~ 55 Yn' 57 56 57 _. ttrllGt_.. _ ~ ~ '. 59 60 fir 60 ~• G~ 8P 6i 61 67 tiA 61 (7) NuDS AA i1.nN.: - i96'-0'f IO LDP 01 f0'ATR .`-g :f0 0~~ 1 14 .,_ I ~ >` I':r oy ..~ ~~1 9('6• - (i.+cf ufliiti B T 9'-A~Iti ..-(FMC MOii~~ 17'-7 9/i 6~ _._ __ (F.ME W10IH) _ _ _ C le' 1 ~s/IS' 1 ~C.ACf. W~1H) --/ ar-e va.. (r~Ct lrtmil ~ ELEVATION `VIEW OF TOWER sores r . m•-e. _.._-_ -` i I }'; i ... __._ _. _.__ ._~l S'..__. ___ _ .. _. ~.._' . I+r[ CE I ~ [ OC ', ~~ ;~,~ ~ _~~~~ -_ ,IFII IYPY`-Y I Fr, (`%YSR 4'CiION ~.~ ~ 0~ ~~~ _~ TYfY`.U I ACJlX: (yiOSS SECiION 40.5 kips 17 :~ !ps ~ Y r _ I r, y!ps~ d.l kips..., X Z _ - 7.9 lops 17! I :~s I---_------------AUrruw A;C ~c ELEVATION ! POSITION NPR. MO OTT. COA% MOUNh le+'-a' N/A ArlOFdrr, AIWS 1 I i 6: 'J 40( AIM 110=0 _~A. { A _ __ 6 ~I ~ - I 1 ~ 90E _ _ / ~ - ~~9 S 1 0 0 NJA r A I r + ' GENCHAL NO1ES, 1. TOWER IS ANALYZED FOR ILA/ETA-222-F $iANDARDS WITN 80 mph WIND COAO ~' WITH 4' !CE. Z MITF.NNA LOMS Ak[ AS LISTED IN THE ANTENNA SCHEDULE. S. tOwCR K DESIgNED t0 MEEr OR ExCEED AlSC SPECIFICATIONS, AN$ SPECIi'ICATKN4,: ' AND All. OTHER APPLICABLE CODES. A. TOWER STE[L AND ASSEMBLY HARDWARE MEET ALE A41M SPECIFIUTIOItS. 5 ?Ow'ER SiEEI 15 CAIVAN12ED PER ASTM-Ai23 SPECIFICATIONS, F. ALL ASS[IdOLY BOLTS ARC ASTM-A125 3~4' DIA, UNLESS NOTED OTHER115E. ' N.L ASSEMBLY HODS .4RE 70 HRlL (1) COCK WISHER AND A IIP1'rf I'IX NUT. B. ALL ASSCUBI:f BOLES ARC TO RC TIGI{iCNED i0 THE 'SMUG-TIGHT' CONDRION- 9. NUtS ARE 10 "ROJFfi IO THE OUTSIDF.OF TOWER UNLESS NOTED OTHCRw1SE. f0. FLANGE BOLLS rYRE 10 UE LIGHTENED [ff THE 1URN OF iITE NUi ME1H00. 11 BOLT CN.L OUTS AHE r+01CD AS (OlY) 9 LENGTH, 12. STCNCILED Pff,E MARKS PipICAfE THE 801TOM ENO OF LEGS. I }, PIPGE COAr. HM+GER$ ("•Cx) IN All OUTSIDE .LEGS Ai }'-0" INiERVA15. 14. StACGE:R SEEP LUGS (--lA) ON ONE OUTSIDE LEG AT 1Z' INTER`IALS, T I5. PLACE SAFETY CLIMB DEVICE ON CLIMBING lEC AHO INSTAE,L PER Ab>iLl)FACIURERS SUGGESTED INSIALIAEION, -"- t6. CLIENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TOWER GROUNDING ATQ4IGHTINC. 17. TOWER CREri IS TO INSURE IHAi MC TOPS OF CONCRCTE f00TINCS ARE lE`rEl WITHIN I/2" FROM tNE tOP OF A REFQRENCE FOOTING. 18. BASE PLATE IS i0 REST DIRECTLY ON illE TlrP,f)F, F NN. tD. ALl FIELD M00'FICATIONS ARE 10 flE' APARfIVbb ~9Y U1~ ARK TOWER CORPORATION. 20. ALL ANTENNAS ARE TO DE ORIENTED PER CUSTOMER, 2'. 10WER MEMBERS, HARDWARE, AND ALE OTHEA ACCFSSORfCS ARE TA BE INVENTO¢NED WITHIN 48 t10UR5 OF DELIVERY. LANDMARK TOWER. CORD: PALL NaT BE. RESPONSIBLE FOR MISSING PARTS AVER 1HI5 DURATION. 22. TOWER CRFW IS TO FOLLOW 091A AND ALL OTHER APPLK;ABLE $AfCTY CUIOELSNES. iRK TOWER CORAORATION ~' "'-" ~~-~"" CL[t4f:DKAFAI BAA05pG14.C0RP. F+IttFD To vERnCaI CxCEILFNCl ,.yr n roRrH, IFxes ~A+n (nn+ »s-aaan ~' f RCV,; VhPR IYPC ~ IpN[R ~~"•' ~. ^ $HECT ~: , OF IO ,:,r' _: ~-'" .=~' .Lgi "5- ~~ ter- ~ 21 - os' S F~F .a ~~ ~~ .~ , ~ + Ley. (v I Cl p D ! ~ r- .~ (~ ~~ I` I ~~ s- o ~~ :xJ ~ v ~ ` I -a u r'i ~ S iA n vi X ~ l?~ ~ Cc~ ~ ~ N ) ~ ~ t< - L7) o N r V ,.-~ IU a O u -,~ ~~ rJl 1 ~ I --•--- y I PU O ~ ~ I /, I CJ (Tl ~ o~ ~I I ~. S- A ~~ BLD(, ~ _ 4 ,~, '~i' ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ; , ~ o l ~ _ ~..~~ -~:a ~ __ • ' / ~ cn \ m m v Q m ~J I C7 m v~ i I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ .:- R'1 I i 5 J8°UO'OO"W 1 67.91 ., JAwAE~ 1,. YJOLTL. ET AL TAX: n93.UG-UI - +~+ rJ J 8 ° ~'. 9 OO ~ E. • 1 67 .90 ~ ---- . ! HONEYSUCKLE ROA[1 ~ S• R 9 1 r~ 1 SEE D8.382. PG. 2.~(8 t-,~PJ1'RAl_ SURvE'r J NG ;,anU iURVEYI ~{(i 6Lnl+!!1 N(j JQH11 E RA!JSEY .CLS ISd010>7~UU5J 190 FO%CflOFi UR. BWE nIUGE. va. 3dgo° .JOB r1o . ~ 00 J Q2 ..~ '=, v~ O n !`. n ~~ ;r PROPOSED TOWER SITE ~IAGRA~n 014 HON1vY5UCKLE ROAD ROANOKE COIIfJTY . V I RG 1 PJ l A DATE: 05125/OU SCALE: I' - ,~0~ ~• i• Poor Mountain as seen from Bent Mountain. (2.78 miles) I• Simulation with new tower. If I• I• Poor Mountain as seen from Dixie Caverns. (4.48 ~_,;;,. _ ~~1 F ~ ~ .lv I• Simulation with new tower. I• Poor Mountain as seen from Holiday Inn Tanglewood. (9.68 miles) C Simulation with new tower. 1• 11 r, u 1, J I • Poor Mountain as seen from Vinton. (15.2 miles) -Towers are not visible }7 a he '~' I°7.-'<' ti; '~` 1J. ~4~1 ..,F ',.'k {~~it. ~_~~'~. R' ~'. .. I • I~ 1• 1• p~~r Mountain as seen from Hollins. (16.1 miles) -Towers are not visible n ~. I • 1 1 • O ~ I 1,. _ ~ <~ - ~~ ~\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ` , ; ~ v aQ - ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ , ~' ~,v~ ~'~ - /~ ~ ~ ~ 'I o~ ~. . i _ ~ ~ A = ~'~ ~-- it t c~ a, ° "~ O ~ ~~ 0 2\ ~~ ~ ~J, S / _ ~ ° ~ b ~ 6 ~ ~ / i r ~ ~.' m ''~ n C' h ~ ~ ~~ ,1 ~. ., 1 ._,I e - r, ~ O C \ J' O a ~ c ~ ~ l/'f r /11( \J ° :: ~ /~ \N , ( ~ ~ D. ( ~ a 0 I~f '\ 0 \ ~ ~, o Yl , \\ ~„~ C _ V C O O O • o 0 `C ~ ` 9 i b ~ O 0 ('- t `~ - r ~ `` ~ Z3' / - L ~' e • ~ ~' O ~n c O ~ 1 ~ V ~ ~ ~ py c Q Q C i a a. O l O ~~ ~ ~ 1a + 0 ~ ~~~ +.' '~ .a 1 ~ ~ s Vo ~ ..~ ~ ~ /.~ ~ ) 8 • • `~"~~ e ~, ~ o C AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 ORDINANCE 102400-8 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A .345-ACRE PORTION OF AN .809-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 5929 WILLIAMSON ROAD (PART OF TAX MAP N0.38.06- 9-3) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R2 UPON THE APPLICATION OF MEXICORP, INC. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 26, 2000, and the second reading and public hearing were held October 24, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 3, 2000; 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: That the zoning classification of a .345-acre portion ("Lot A") of a tract of real estate containing .809 acres, as described herein, and located at 5929 Williamson Road (Part of Tax Map Number 38.06-9-3) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C2, General Commercial District, to the zoning classification of R2, Medium Density Residential District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Mexicorp, Inc. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Lot "A" containing 0.345 acres as shown on a plat entitled "Plat from Records made for Mexicorp, Inc. showing a proposed new line on .805 acre parcel also showing proposed Lot "A" (0.345 acres) and proposed Lot "B" (0.460 acres) situate on Williamson Road and Florist Road. Said plat prepared by Jack G. Bess, dated August 25, 2000, and attached to this ordinance. Lot "A" being a portion of Tax Map No. 38.06-9-3. 4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Minnix adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Johnson A COPY TESTE: ~• Mary H. Allen, CMC/AAE Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Terry Harrington, County Planner John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Valuation Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 2 aura ~~ ~`, y5 r , ' ~ s~r~ ~ ~~ NORT~I ,-~ '` 3.1 ~., =, ~~~ `, ,, 4. `~, ,~ 593,3 ~ ~- • .~. ~,,'' FJ. ~~ ~'e~+.corp Ine/Cesar DomZnguez ROANOKE COUNTY Rezoning fom j;'xisting Zoning C-2 To DIs'PA.RTMENT OF Zoning R-.2 Residential COMDfUNITY DIs'YELOPMENT Tax Mai Na. 38.06-9-3 ."' PETITIONER: Mexicorp, Inc. CASE NUMBER: 29-10/2000 Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 3, 2000 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: October 24, 2000 A. REQUEST Petition to rezone a .345 acre portion of an .809 acre parcel from C-2 General Commercial to R-2 Medium Density Residential. The purpose of the rezoning is for the construction of a two family dwelling. The lot is located at 5929 Williamson Road near the intersection of Williamson Road and Florist Road. The property is in the Hollins Magisterial District and Community Planning Area. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no citizen comments. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission discussed the possible time frame for VDOT's road improvements to Florist Road and inquired as to the use of the parcel to the immediate south of this lot, which is residential. D. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Ross moved to recommend approval of the petition. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Witt, Thomason, Hooker, Robinson, Ross NAYS: None ABSENT: None E. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. F. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map Staff Report _ Other Terrance Harri ton, ecretary Roanoke Co ty Planning Commission ,~ w STAFF REPORT PETITIONER: Mexicorp, Inc. DATE: 09/26/2000 CASE NUMBER: 29-10/2000 PART I A. Summary The request is for a rezoning on a portion of a parcel approximately .345 acres from C-2 General Commercial to R-2 Residential. The applicant intends to use the property for the construction of a two family dwelling. The lot has an address of 5929 Williamson Road. The property is in the Hollins Magisterial District and Community Planning Area. In the Community Plan, the property is designated as Core. Core areas by definition are where high intensity urban development is encouraged. Two family dwellings are not seen as suitable uses in the Core district. The surrounding environs consist of mostly commercial uses, with several residential neighborhoods in close proximity. B. Description This is a request by Mexicorp, Inc. rezone a .345 acre portion of a .809 acre parcel located off Williamson Road and Florist Road. The applicant is proposing the property be used for a two family dwelling, with the portion fronting on Williamson Road remaining as C-2 General Commercial. The parcel is located off the commercial corridor of Williamson Road, and is close to several neighborhoods. C. Applicable Regulations The proposed rezoning is associated with use of the property as a two family dwelling. Two-family dwellings are designated as uses permissible by right in the R-2 Medium Density Residential District with the following requirements: The minimum lot size shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet. Screening, landscaping and buffer yard requirements between the original C-2 General Commercial lot and the R-2 Residential lot shall be m accordance with Section 30-92 of the zoning ordinance. PART II A. Analysis of Existing Conditions Use The property is currently used as asingle-family residence. The proposed R-2 portion is vacant. Location The property is located in the Hollins Magisterial District and Hollins Community Planning Area, along Williamson Road, approximately 600 feet from the intersection with Florist Road, Route 623. Lot The property is currently one lot approximately .809 acres in area. There is an existing single-story structure on the property. The lot is wooded in some sections, particularly towards the rear area that fronts on Florist Road. There is a sharp drop off at the rear of the lot just before it meets Florist Road. Access Current access to the property is from Williamson. The proposed two family dwelling would have access from Florist Road. Surrounding_Neighborhood p p rty Adjacent land uses consist of a mix of commercial and residential uses. To the north of the roe is a well lot owned by the City and The Bridal Shop. To the east of the property across Florist Road is the Brookside Golf CoouRoad a~d to tihe wesdtes the (H llt p'Lanes bowling alale~ynand a~ ah ant par~eltat the Across W~Ifiam entrance to the Boxley Hills Subdivision. B. Analysis of Proposed Development Property Characteristics The property is proposed for rezoning from C-2 General Commercial to R-2 Medium Density Residential. Uses permitted within this district include several types of residential uses and civic uses such as community recreation, public parks and recreation areas and religious assembly. The proposed use is for a two family dwelling. Site Lakout/Architecture The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into two separate lots. The lot proposed for rezoning to R-2 Medium Density Residential would have street frontage on Florist road. The remaining C-2 General Commercial lot would have street frontage on Williamson Road. The commercial lot would be approximately 20,000 square feet in area and the residential lot would be 15,000 square feet in area.. Both lots meet the minimum lot regconfoem with the setbackvand otherddes gn standardsgor,the C 2 General makes the existing structure Commercial zoning district. Access/Traffic Generation The proposed new entrance is off Florist Road. The existing structure will continue to have access from Williamson Road. Upon review of the application, VDOT offered the following comments/observations: 1. Route 623 is classified as an urban local road and has an estimated traffic count of 5,400 vehicles per day (1997). Route 623 is 20 feet wide at the entrance to the proposed site and has a speed limit of 25 mph. Florist Road is in the Six Year Plan (SYP) for improvements. Additional right of way required on this parce- for the SYP improvements to Florist Road should be required as part of this rezoning. 2. It does not appear that there is adequate sight distance from the proposed entrance location towards Route 1867 (Verndale Drive). 3. The rezoning proposal is to construct a duplex on this parcel. If an entrance is allowed, only one will be permitted and it shall serve both units of the duplex. Additionally, future improvements to Florist Road may include the acquisition of properties or additional right-of-way in order to make the intersection with Williamson Road safer and more functional. Fire & Rescue: Emergency vehicle rescue time is estimated at four minutes or less. Drainaae/Floodplain: Although adjacent lots on the other side of Florist Road are within the floodplain, no portion of this property is. S t~ Screening_& Bufferina: The lot is currently being used as a residence. However, after the lot is subdivided, if the use of the lot fronting on Williamson Road changes to an allowable C-2 Commercial use, a site plan will be required in accordance with Section 30-90 of the zoning ordinance. At that time, Screening, landscaping and buffer yards will be required per Section 30-92 along the lot line between the two newly subdivided lots. Water/Sewer: Public water and sewer are available to this site C. Conformance with the Community Pian This property is designated Core in the 1998 Community Plan. Areas designated as such, according to the Plan, are future land use areas where high intensity urban development is encouraged. They are suitable for highway-oriented retail uses and regionally-based shopping facilities. Additionally, these areas are not appropriate for tax-exempt facilities. Favorable land use types include general retail shops and personal services, office and institutional and limited industrial uses. Residential uses are generally not suitable in areas designated as core, due largely to the limited availability of core areas. The Plan also defines land use determinants conducive to transitional areas, and several of these are present for the proposed project. These include a location where commercial uses exist or will likely exist, a location served by an arterial street system, close proximity to population concentrations and service by urban services. However, these determinants are for consideration of a commercial, and not residential use. An unfavorable determinant is a location where commercial zoning exists. The rezoning would clearly be contradictory to the goals of the Core designation. Use of a portion of this property may be viewed as not utilizing the property to its highest and best use. D. Conformance with County Development Standard The proposed project would comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Review and approval of site and building plans, VDOT entrance permit, and erosion and sediment control and stormwater management plan will be required when the lot fronting on Williamson experiences a change of use from residential to commercial, civic or institutional. PART III Staff Conclusions This property is designated as Core in the Community Plan. Core areas have been identified as most suitable for office, institutional and commercial uses. R-2 Residential zoning designation and two family dwellings are not desirable for Core designated areas. It is located in a mixed-use area, with commercial uses dominating the Williamson Road corridor and several established residential neighborhoods right off Williamson Road, including Florist Road. Access for the proposed new lot is off Florist Road, which has been identified by VDOT as on the 6 Year Plan for improvements. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this rezoning, the following proffer should be required: 1. An additional five (5) feet of right-of-way on Florist Road shall be dedicated to the Virginia Department of Transportation. Sb County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning 5204 Bernard Drive P O Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 772-2108 For Staff use vnty Date received: Received by: Application fee: PC/BZA date: tll, ~- ,~ Placards issued:,,. ~,' BOS date: ` x~, !~ . '"~ ,,;~ i )f~ Case dumber ~ ~ ~1.Gd V ~ l*TC' I.y1. ~I~ !11 ~ Li Lat ~ 1 v Check type of application filed (check all that apply) ® Rezoning ~ Special Use ~ Variance ~ ~ 1 _ L' Applicants nameladdress w/zip f' ` ° Phone ,-. t ~ 1 ~1~ C`r'~~~ Dr-,~t ~ ~~`r Fax No. t, r Owner's name/address w/zip Phone: c~ rr Fax No. Pro~erty Location ~ Magisterial District: ~ ~ ~ ! #`l ~ 1 Lt`~1~t~.:.~3Sov~. _ S f~ ~~~C~`~-+'~~ ~~- ~1L~' Community Planning area: Tax iVlap No.: ~ L} ~ `" ~~ , ~' ~ ~ '" ~ ~,. -° Existing Zoning: _ Size of parcel(s): Acres: ~' ~ Sc~ ~ Existing Land Use: ~ ~"'"'~~ ' ~ REZONIiVG A,'VD SPECIr1L .USE PER~tiIIT APPLICANTS (R/S} Proposed Zoning: ~-~- ~~"~~-'~'`~~ Proposed Land Use: ~~za ; '~~~;~, Does parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes No ~ IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIlED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes ~ No IF' NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes ~ No O V=~1RL=INCE APPLICANTS (V) 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 iVIISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ~ ~ Consultation f,=~-- 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan ~'°~ Application fee /'~ 'Application Metes and bounds description • ~ . Proffers, if applicable Justification Water and sewer application _ ~ Adjoining property owners ereby certify that I am either the owner of the propert e own agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. ,~'~ '~ ~ y-~---°~L°' .y .~.~' Owners Signature JUS'FIFIC ~`I'ION FOR REZ0IVLNG OR SPECL-~L T?SE PER1bIIT REQL~ST Applicant ~~ ~' ~ ~ f~ ~~ .~ ~„ ~ ~~ ~4 ~ ~:~ !t ~ ~ ~ yti ~~ i~ ~= ~."'" ~'he Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer lie following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classiTfic}atioJ(n ,in the Zoni/ng Ord(ifna~n}~c~-e/~.-1?~ /~ V ~ / / '` L~ ~~~ mot, i ~`~~ c~ 9~ p ~~ ~ r''~ ~"~ ~ ,+~ ~~; s ~~ /// ~ ~ ,.S S ~~~~~~ar~1~. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contamea m the xoanoxe Loun~y wuuiiuiu~y Plan. _ .~ c~~~'~ ~?_ ~~~t,~~ Crrt~~~~=~ ~~-~~~-~ -- -„ Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, ana me surrounamg area, a~ wcii as the impacts on public services and facilitie~°s,,~including water/sewer, roa/d~s, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. ~~ ~~ ~, ~~~~ ~1~ ~'~~ ~~~` ROANOKE COUNTY Mexioorp Inc/Cesar Dominguez DEPARTMENT OF Rezoning fom Ex~i,sting Zoning C-2 To Zoning R-2 Residential COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tcux Map No. 38.06-9-3 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A .345-ACRE PORTION OF AN .809-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 5929 WILLIAMSON ROAD (PART OF TAX MAP NO. 38.06-9-3) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R2 UPON THE APPLICATION OF MEXICORP, INC. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 26, 2000, and the second reading and public hearing were held October 24, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 3, 2000; 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: That the zoning classification of a .345-acre portion ("Lot A") of a tract of real estate containing .809 acres, as described herein, and located at 5929 Williamson Road (Part of Tax Map Number 38.06-9-3) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C2, General Commercial District, to the zoning classification of R2, Medium Density Residential District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Mexicorp, Inc. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Lot "A" containing 0.345 acres as shown on a plat entitled "Plat from Records made for Mexicorp, Inc. showing a proposed new line on .805 acre parcel also showing proposed Lot "A" (0.345 acres) and proposed Lot "B" (0.460 acres) situate on Williamson Road and Florist Road. Said plat prepared by Jack G. Bess, dated August 25, 2000, and attached to this ordinance. Lot "A" being a portion of Tax Map No. 38.06-9-3. 4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance U:\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\MEXICORP.RZN.frm Z ~-" be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. U:\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\MEXICORP.RZN.frm 2 0' 40' 80' 120' ~ . X623 ~ SAC ' R vP. S ZA 55 00 ~ R~ P~ ~ ~~ ~~~' 0 5 g'~° ~~ F~ ~~ , ~ I~ 29, ,- ~O ! / 12~ ~6' 11 > > PCR~ ~ ~ O ~N R1~ - - -,. ,-T ~ A L .,...-.., .._. -- ~ N "s o v~.~9~ ,a -' ~ ? O O x o oyo ~~, "' r~ NooOZ° y,pa2~°~, o gti "` p' E ' N zWwr+m ca. ° a n a ~ ~ c ~~ PROPOSED NENE RTY O S 30 17' 19' ~ w ~ o z-c zo N ~ i° ? v PROPE 151 . ~ ~ ~ O Z TAX ? 06-09-03 w 38 N0 O O p N A ~ . . 35074.2 S0. FT. ~ , ~ ' `~• o. 0.805 ACRES ~_ ~ ~ rn ~ v2~ ~ A ~I,\ ~~ NG w o OQ ~~0 ~ a lP ~ ~ ~ 2 Q`t~~9'?,9 ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~,~yo ~~ „ „ ~~ ONi~^ B i a 20027.5 SQ. FT. ~ ~+ 0.460 ACRES N 121.83' "-- N 0950'00" W 530.0' +/- 70 R/W OF FLORIST RO AD WII~LLIAM(~STON ROAD LEGAL: REFERENCE: U. S. 1~ 1 1 1 D.B. 1620, PG. 1554 ZONED C-2 R/W VARIES TAX N0. 38.06-09-03 PLAT FROM RECORDS MADE FOR MEXICORP _ SHOWING A PROPOSED NEW LINE ON 0.805 ACRE PARCEL ALSO SHOWING PROPOSED LOT "A" (0.345 ACRES) AND PROPOSED LOT "B" (0.460 ACRES) SITUATE ON WILLIAMSON ROAD AND FLORIST ROAD ROANOKE COUNTY VIRGINIA SCALE i" =40' AUGUST 25, 2000 BY: JACK G. BESS, LAND SURVEYING 5422 STARKEY ROAD MEXICORP ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24014 S-Co a. r w AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 ORDINANCE 102400-9 AMENDING ORDINANCE 011299-6, "ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN" -ADOPTION OF A NEW FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THE HOLLINS (EXIT 146) I-81 INTERCHANGE AREA, AND THE INCORPORATION OF DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FORTHIS AREA WHEREAS, by Ordinance 011299-6 the Board of Supervisors adopted the "Community Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia;" and WHEREAS, as a result of increased traffic along the Interstate 81 corridor, the Virginia Department of Transportation has proposed improving the interstate to provide increased carrying capacity and to address safety concerns; and WHEREAS, these proposed improvements include the redesign of Exit 146 at Hollins; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has prepared amendments to the Community Plan for Roanoke County for the Hollins area; and WHEREAS, a Planning Commission Public Hearing on the proposed amendments was held after advertisement and notice as required by 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, on September 5, 2000; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 26, 2000, and the second reading and public hearing was held on October 24, 2000. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Ordinance 011299-6 adopting the "Roanoke County Community Plan" dated September 30, 1998, is hereby amended to include the following: (A) The adoption of the Land Use and Economic Opportunity Area map revisions as shown on a map prepared by Whitesell Orisson, Inc., dated 09/09/00 and entitled "I-81 Interchange Study HOLLINS AREA PROPOSED LAND USE," said map is attached hereto as Attachment A. (B) The adoption of text amendments entitled "HOLLINS/EXIT 146 INTERCHANGE DISTRICT" attached hereto as Attachment B. 1 2. That the effective date of this Ordinance is October 24, 2000. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt ordinance with land use map amended on 10 lots to be designated Core Land Use, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~' Mary H. Allen, CMC/AAE Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Terry Harrington, County Planner John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Valuation Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Janet Scheid, Senior Planner 2 ~" o1u~6JIn 'Fquno7 .~ouooal gp ~ ~~ ~ ~ S o d ® ~ d asn aNd°t 9 ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~a~~ sNi~-~®w ~ii1~ ~ 0- 1 w ~~1 _{~1 banns .6uoyo~.au~ IB-~ 6aa u ~ ~ ~~ e • • • i• • • f s . .. .. ` 3E LEGEND: .. ' ~ •. • ~ copse rNsrs ~ r • dielred. aer ~. nservation ' ' ' ~ e MIt1O~Cb MQlel of Hie sxletYig . ryklwitial yrordh a wid cWieltbe. ' ~ t comnsrcWl strip. ' sr tuturo clsvslopmsrt .. ~ ' /'~, ' ~ ~ ~ ~ . / ~ ro suburtxn centers . ~ ' j ' ~ opment v-e present . / . ~ M,cltetrYro and , ~ o^s prseerk Whiusell prrisaai lac. I,7oyn~eAcaaeetae IrdPLmio~ 7tlWdYAw~ erJtiYyY~M11t T/7Yrf16lY~MI 1..1nn7 V, ~ 6 s ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ 1~ Z ~ •~~~ ~ ~ T Q .n ~ V, ~ s ~ Z Q o ~ U ~ J W ~ ~ _ N ~ ~ ~ O ~ 6 i ~ O _ ~ O a ~mm i~.>~-0 ».~~ ~~~ >~ i ~.i~m 2 ~m.~ ~m ny.ni. Weis ~~I~ ~_~_ S°~1 >' 190' O 900' 600' HOLLINS AItCA 2APHIG SGALE sc~ r =900'-0^ 1 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: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading and Public Hearing - Amendment to the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan to adopt a revised future land use map and text amendments for the Exit 146 interchange area. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: a~ %~ BACKGROUND: As a result of increasing traffic along the Interstate 81 corridor, the Virginia Department of Transportation has proposed improving the interstate to provide increased carrying capacity and to address safety concerns. These proposed improvements include the re-design of Exit 146 at Plantation Road. In response to these proposed improvements, the Board of Supervisors asked staff to analyze the potential land use impacts and opportunities that the road improvements might provide. An additional objective of the project study was to determine suitable land uses within these interchange areas that could promote economic opportunities while limiting haphazard development. Over the last year, staff has held two community meetings in this project area. The proposed Community Plan revisions reflect citizen input from these meetings, staff analysis of current and anticipated conditions and Planning Commission review. The most significant land use change being recommended is in the Indian Road area in the southwest corner of the project area. This is a residential area, zoned R-1 and currently designated as Neighborhood Conservation. The Planning Commission has ~~~ ~;_ ~ 2 recommended changing this designation to Principal Industrial to reflect the prevalent surrounding industrial development. The proposed ordinance is attached as well as a project area map and text amendments. SUMMARY Planning Commission public hearing was held on September 5, 2000. Approximately five residents of the Indian Road community expressed their concern about the proposed map revisions. In response to these concerns each property owner on Indian Road has been mailed a color map of the proposed land use map changes and notification of the proposed schedule for second reading and public hearing. The Planning Commission unanimously recommends these revisions to the Board of Supervisors. A worksession was held on October 10, 2000 to review this project and address questions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends as follows: Hold public hearing and approve the revisions to the 1998 Community Plan. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Janet Scheid, Senior Planner Elmer C. Hodge Department of Community Development County Administrator Action Vote No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Church Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens ~~ HOLLINS/EXIT 146 INTERCHANGE DISTRICT PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Hollins Area Interchange District, shown on the attached land use map, is located at Plantation Road (Rt. 115). The District is bounded on the south by Williamson Road, on the east by the Roanoke/Botetourt County boundary, on the north by the ridgeline of Green Ridge and extends west almost to Enon Drive. In general, the topography within the project area is well suited for new development. North of the interchange the forested slopes of Green Ridge and Tinker Mountain have seen light development. In the northeast corner of the District is a vacant 85 acre tract of industrial zoned land owned by Hollins University. This property splits the Roanoke/Botetourt County line. Currently, the area north of the I-81 interchange is primarily comprised of open land, church property and residences. An easement for a high voltage power line serves as the northern boundary for this portion of the project area. The City of Roanoke's water treatment facility is located at the current terminus of Plantation Road and influences the design and location of the new interchange. The area east of Plantation Road is comprised of a wide mix of land uses. The area along Friendship Lane and Hollins University are characterized by open land and light residential and institutional development. Closer to Williamson Road, the amount of development intensifies and is comprised of industrial and commercial properties with scattered single and multi-family residential. ITT Industries and Hollins University are the largest property owners in this area and have a significant impact on the visual and developmental characteristics of the study area. Approximately 35% of the Interchange District is comprised of land owned by Hollins University. West of Plantation Road there is again a wide mix of land uses. The area near the I-81 interchange is comprised of single family residential, open farm land and highway oriented commercial uses such as gas stations, motels and restaurants. A large, undeveloped parcel is located between Plantation Road and Enon Drive and is zoned commercial. There is a proffered condition on the property specifying that commercial access to the property can only be from Plantation Road. Closer to Williamson Road the industrial and commercial development intensifies. ITT and Double Envelope are significant property owners in this area. There is also an established single family residential neighborhood located on Indian Road. This neighborhood is surrounded on three sides by commercial and industrial properties. ACCESS With the relocation of the interchange there will be some notable impacts on access and traffic flow within the project area. Plantation Road will no longer cross I-81 at its current location but curve towards the northeast to meet the new interchange. Current VDOT plans call for the termination of the existing Plantation Road just south of the existing overpass bridge. This will allow access to the existing businesses in that area to remain. GREENWAY ACCESS Greenways are an important amenity in the Roanoke Valley and are especially successful when located near centers of employment such as the industries and businesses located in the Hollins community. Current plans call for a greenway to run through the Hollins University campus and connect with the trail system at Carvins Cove via an existing tunnel under I-81. As properties are developed and roads improved within the project area, efforts should be taken to create pedestrian/bicycle links from the businesses to the major greenway trail. Trail extensions from Walrond Drive, Friendship Lane and Lila Drive could serve as collector spurs that would provide access to the Hollins campus. OBJECTIVES OF THE HOLLINS/I-81 INTERCHANGE DISTRICT Due to the location factors cited above, the availability of public water and sewer facilities and the existence of significant tracts of undeveloped land, this is an area with opportunity for substantial growth. It is an objective of Roanoke County to direct and manage this growth in a way that provides suitable locations for new businesses, provides opportunities for commercial and industrial development and protects existing residential property values and quality of life in the area. In addition, the Interstate 81 corridor provides gateways into the Roanoke County community and this interchange is one of the front doors. It is desirable to have this gateway express the community's pride, our strong economic health ,our good public image and our concern for the natural beauty of this area. The County would like to ensure that this interchange area develops in a manner that is attractive and provides the appropriate setting for science and high technology businesses, research and development firms, office and commercial uses that support these facilities and tourist and traveler facilities and services. STUDY OBJECTIVES As a result of the increasing traffic along the Interstate 81 corridor, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has proposed improving the interstate to provide increased carrying capacity and address safety concerns. One of these proposed 2 improvements calls for the enlargement and relocation of the Hollins interchange, Exit 146. This interchange study has been conducted to analyze the potential impacts and opportunities that the road improvements provide on the current land uses. An additional objective of the project is to determine suitable land uses within the project area which can promote economic opportunities for the area while limiting the haphazard development of land in ways that are not consistent with the overall objectives of the interchange district as cited above. In addition, the study seeks to determine road improvements required to access properties within the project area. The current uses within the project area range from agricultural to residential to industrial. The impact of the interstate is quite evident in the area's transition from an agricultural/residential community to an industrial/commercial node. It is common in this community to see homes or pasture land adjacent to an industrial center. As this transition continues to progress with the widening of I-81 and the re-design of the interchange, it is important that the County Land Use Maps and Community Plan provide current property owners, and particularly residential owners, with the ability to adapt to changing uses and property values. DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES The following Design and Land Use Guidelines are recommended to ensure that the development of the Hollins/I-81 Interchange District conforms with the overall objectives of the District as stated above. Plantation Road will continue to serve as an important gateway into Roanoke County and it is extremely important that the improvements made to the area reflect the project's proximity to Tinker Mountain, Green Ridge, Hollins University and the adjacent residential developments. These recommendations will be implemented in all or some of the following ways: (1) as guidelines in the review of rezonings and special use permits; (2) as requirements of an interchange overlay district incorporated into the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance; or (3) as guidelines used in evaluating public/private partnerships to advance economic development projects. Streetscape Improvements 1. This interchange area is a gateway into the Roanoke County community. Landscaped medians and right-of-ways, where appropriate and visual, are encouraged to be incorporated into road improvement projects. "' `/ 2. The coordinated use of shared entrances and parking lots is encouraged. This will create a safer vehicular environment along Plantation Road by reducing the number of entrances on the roadway. signage The County should work with property owners to ensure that signage conforms to the Hollins Village Design Guidelines for suitable sign types, materials and colors to aid businesses in the design and construction of their signage. A financial incentive program is in place in this community to encourage owners of existing business signs to renovate their signage to meet these recommended guidelines. 2. Monument style signs are encouraged throughout the interchange area. In areas designated Transition, monument signs, whether for multiple or single business, should not exceed 7 feet in height and 10 feet in width. In areas designated Core or Principal Industrial, monument signs, whether for multiple or single business, should not exceed 15 feet in height and 10 feet in width. In all areas, monument signs should not be back lit but may have ground illumination. There should be a limit of one monument sign per parcel. 3. In situations where monument style signs are not used, then the sign regulations contained in the Office District (C-1) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, Section 30-93-13(D) should apply. 4. No new off-premises advertising should be allowed in the interchange district. Architectural Guidelines 1. Exterior building materials are encouraged to be of high quality, attractive in appearance, durable and easily maintained for the life of the structure. Brick, stone or masonry construction is preferred for all structures but particularly for those buildings fronting or visible from the public street. Metal exterior construction materials should only be used on the sides of buildings not visible from the public street. 2. For properties zoned commercial, roof pitches of no less than a 4/12 pitch are encouraged on both primary structures and accessory structures. Flat roofs are not encouraged on commercial properties. Roof materials should be nonreflective. 3. Architectural design should be sensitive to form, texture, color and massing of buildings, with particular emphasis paid to articulating entrances and to minimizing bulk. 4. Bright primary colors for exterior materials, including trim, are discouraged. 4 '~ Land Use Guidelines It is the intention of Roanoke County to encourage the development and re- development of this interchange district in an orderly manner that is consistent with the stated objectives. This will ensure development that protects the environment and aesthetics of the area while protecting against development that is likely to cause or create a hazard or nuisance to adjacent properties. 2. The development and re-development of property within this interchange district should only be conducted when proper and safe vehicular access is provided taking into consideration sight distance, turning movements, acceleration and deceleration lanes and speed of traffic. 3. It is the intention of Roanoke County to provide technical and/or financial incentives to property owners within this Interchange District, through public/private partnerships where appropriate, to encourage the development and re-development of property within the guidelines stated herein. 4. It is the objective of Roanoke County to encourage the development and re- development of those properties that are best situated for industrial and commercial development based on location, road access, topography and other physical attributes. In addition, it is the objective of Roanoke County to preserve and protect, where appropriate, existing residential properties and those properties best suited for no development or for very low intensity development due to their special natural features. 5 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 ~~ ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 011299-6, ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN" -ADOPTION OF A NEW FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THE HOLLINS (EXIT 146) I-81 INTERCHANGE AREA, AND THE INCORPORATION OF DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR THIS AREA WHEREAS, by Ordinance 011299-6 the Board of Supervisors adopted the "Community Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia;" and WHEREAS, as a result of increased traffic along the Interstate 81 corridor, the Virginia Department of Transportation has proposed improving the interstate to provide increased carrying capacity and to address safety concerns; and WHEREAS, these proposed improvements include the redesign of Exit 146 at Hollins; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has prepared amendments to the Community Plan for Roanoke County for the Hollins area; and WHEREAS, a Planning Commission Public Hearing on the proposed amendments was held after advertisement and notice as required by 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, on September 5, 2000; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 26, 2000, and the second reading and public hearing was held on October 24, 2000. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Ordinance 011299-6 adopting the "Roanoke County Community Plan" dated September 30, 1998, is hereby amended to include the following: (A) The adoption of the Land Use and Economic Opportunity Area map revisions as shown on a map prepared by Whitesell Orisson, Inc., dated 09/09/00 and entitled "I-81 Interchange Study HOLLINS AREA PROPOSED LAND USE," said map is attached hereto as Attachment A. ~~ (B) The adoption of text amendments entitled HOLLINS/EXIT 146 INTERCHANGE DISTRICT" attached hereto as Attachment B. 2. That the effective date of this Ordinance is October 24, 2000. G: \ATTORNEY\ PMM\ AGENDA\ COMMPLAN-HOLLINS.wpd . . ~ .. ~ `~ ~ ~9~ L bEND: H rNere WhibeeellOaisonInc. LssdrapoAi3Bedee ~_ / :t«• r dHr•.d. t,oaYL~ ~ssrvation "'°"Or"""~ ...+,~+a+.~ WlNntlal g•owtfi . e and deroltbs. ' , . ~ t commercial strip x lutixe development ~. / .. .. ~ ro suWrbcan centers . ... / ~ ~pment aro present ~' /'~ a~ . ~ hdustrtes and ors present •.\ sL .~ V/ ~ 6 s "6 ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~- ~ z ` .~~' ~ ~ T 6 ° s ~ zr Q o ~ U ~ - ~ `~tn~ ~~0~ i 6 - ~ ~ ~ N~ OL IL- sric i• - nova n~.rr. tew a.uy: aw ~.~ i m.ism z os.aem ~ asaa.ao ~~ ueie I i..~ ~ I M ~_op_ X>'ISD' O 900' 600' HOLLINS AROA iRAPHIG SGALE ~. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 ORDINANCE 102400-10 AMENDING AND REENACTING SEC. 21-3. "UTILITY SERVICE TAX" OF ARTICLE I. "IN GENERAL" OF CHAPTER 21, "TAXATION" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF VIRGINIA STATUTES DEREGULATING ELECTRICAL AND NATURAL GAS INDUSTRIES WHEREAS, the 2000 session of the General Assembly, as part of its comprehensive electric utility restructuring legislation, amended Section 58.1-3814 of the Code of Virginia to convert the basis for the local consumer utility tax to kilowatt-hours delivered, for electricity, and hundred cubic feet (CCF), for natural gas, from the current basis of a percentage of the monthly amount charged to the consumer of the utility service; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly further required that any locality imposing a tax on consumers of electricity and natural gas must amend its ordinance to conform to these legal requirements not later than October 31, 2000, in order to permit the required notification to each utility so that the new consumer utility tax will be effective on and after January 1, 2001; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 10, 2000; and the second reading and public hearing will be held on October 24, 2000. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 21-3, Utilit r~service tax of Article 1. IN GENERAL of Chapter 21, TAXATION of the Roanoke County Code be amended and re-enacted as follows: Sec. 21-3 Utility service tax. (a) There is hereby imposed and levied by the county, upon each and every purchaser of a utility service, a tax in the amount of twelve (12) percent of the charge made by the seller against the purchaser or consumer with respect to each utility service, which tax, in every case, shall be collected by the seller from the purchaser and shall be paid by the purchaser to the seller for the use of the county at the time that the purchase price or such charge shall become due and payable under the agreement between the purchaser and the seller; provided, however, that the tax herein above imposed shall not be deemed to apply to that part of the charge in excess of fifteen dollars ($15.00) per month made by any seller of any utility service to any purchaser thereof who uses such utility service in private homes or residential units; provided, further that any commercial or industrial user shall pay the herein above set out twelve (12) percent on the first five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) of utility service. **** a2~Electric and Natural Gas Consumer Tax: (1) "Electric Utility Consumer tax": In accordance with Code of Virginia § 58.1- 3814 ems.. ffective with the first bill for electric ener rendered for meter readin on or after Januar 1 2,,, .001,__the rate of tax on electric ener delivered to a consumer b a servi.,,,,ce prov,,,_,„_ider,.classified as determined b such rovider shall be as follows: Residential consumers; Such tax shall be $0.00900 per kilowatt hour kWh with a minimum tax of 0.90 er month and a maximum tax of ~1 r8,_0_,per_month ii Commercial consumers: Such tax shall be $0.00610 per kilowatt 2 hour kWh},delivered includin~,customer cha, rges,,with a minium tax of $0.90 per month and a maximum tax of 600.00 er month• iii Industrial consumers: Such tax shall be $0.00640 per kilowatt kWh, delivered_includ,,,, ing,_customer charges,_,with a minimum tax of '0.90 er month and a maximum char a of $600.00 er month. (2) "Natural~as utility consumer tax": In accordance with Code of Virginia 5§M 8.1-3814~there is hereby im o~ sed_,,and levied a monthl tax on each purchase of natural as delivered to consumers ~~ i eline distribution co,,., mpa„nies an,,,,,d~as utilities as classified "class of consumer"as such term is defined by Code of Vi„ r~inia 58.1-3814 J, as follows: iv Residential consumers: Such tax shall be $0.12183per CCF delivered to residential consumers monthl~wth a minimum tax of 0.90 per month and a maximum tax of 1.80• ~ Commercial consumers: Such tax shall be $0.12183per CCF delivered to commercial consumers month,,,,,, ly,with a minimum tax of 0.90 er month and a maximum tax of 600.00 vi Industrial consumers: Such tax shall be $0.12183 per CCF delivered to industrial consumers monthl with a minimum tax of X0.90 der month and,a maximum tax of ~60..O,OOs (3) Exemptions• The following consumers of electricity and natural gas are exem t from the tax im~osgd by subsections a and b hereof: vii Any public safety agency as defined by Code of Virginia ~ 58.1- 3813x. viii The United States of America, the Commonwealth of Virginia and thevpplitical subdivisions thereof~,,,;i:nclu„din this 'urisdiction. ~~~~ ~~r~4 ~~: ° or_service fro„eider ~:~~ ~-.; ,~. ~h+~ t~~ ~~,~.. ~~~ bill to and ~ ,.: ~ ~-;9 tht ,.. ~ or consumer a~ ,x...~~i ~a~~ _ ~. ,as .f.. ~~: The or an,X transmission fee or servicesrovider ~°<~s~~~~~F~e .i~ ~.:>:,~ ~~~ ~~, , ., = ~~ ~:=~f~ on such forms as the Commissioner shall z~~~~ rp escri,.,,,be1=~„,~ ry;•,~:> t `~~ igs:~s~~ir ~~b~,Y.~.r~~~s}~. ~c~~:~~:~l~:s~ ~~rfE~g`i ~~< !~" :?'t~ ~, rii"'_ ."y a% _.,_ _< :. ... <~..`~tar "€.~~; ~~i~~,I t~.:~ i:.~_. ,wi ,-• . , - ~_ ,,.w; ~ or service rovider ~;F~ali ~il~ ~~ ~c~~Y of .. ~_#t'. ~ ~"~ ~,~~~ ~~Y~'S :ICJ in accordance with Section 58.1-3814 Para ra hs F. and G., and Section 58.1-2901 of the, Code of Virginia. If an consumer fails to a~ Mbill issued b a seller or service,,~rovider includin the tax im osed b this section the seller or service rovider must follow its normal collection procedures and upon collection of the ,bill or an~r p.art,thereof must a ortion the net amount collected between the c_,,, harge for the service and the tax,and remit the tax ortion to the count~r,._A,n tax aid b the consumer to the seller or service rovider shall be deemed to be held in trust b such seller or rp ovder until remitted to the count, ~'~~~=w ~~ _ ~ ~~, ~~~- ~ =~ _~~~~~e~~ this 4 e ~ i` 9r :. a M .,~:3 ~~ r , . or service~rovider ~ .. an,, , d~reserve fora eriod 4 ..._.~..~~..... .~ of three 3 ears _ .,, .. i== ~i~ ~:t~14f~9t~~+, .____._._.u..._._...~._.~...Y ..~ ~ , , E > , the want,,,,.,,.,itx_, or volume of~utilit rovided where ap~l,icables ` ~ ~ ~~ ,~<<K ~~~.~ ~~i~~~ ~~~~-_~n~ 4 ~ - . ~ ~ , 1 _ i .. . , t.`, i, r ~ e t Cz~ 1 +~! w'A ~~ 4 6 ~Y ~i.4 R ~ ~, ~~ t r~'~ ? ~ .1: a .s <~;;~ ~-f ,>~ , ~.f,, .., ~ or service.~?rovider .. ~ . ;-~:~ ,~~~~~:~~ ~;~~~ ~,~~i~i~r,F ~~<$o~/~' electric ever or natural.,gas ~ ~~ p~~+°l~ti~ i~~~~~t~~ li~a >:ci erg ,,~ _ ~>~r~ G~~ ~ ~ ~ .r ., .i"4'_ t,ii~ ,t~~.~.1~ ~~C ~~iC .~~"'' 'ra;, ~~ .~ sG i.-t, . . ,... .i,. 5 r ~~~~ ~~ ., :~ -z~ ~= consumer ~~ b ~ 2~~..~~ ~~~ ~-~ _-~~_= -i~~ c~ ,._;_.ot~"t~i,~i r ,- . . .~=x...~..~r-,.a~ consumer 3, .: ~, ~ ~ .. ~:~~~t~,~~~~~~~~ ~~ . t~.~~~ ,: excee~t those defined as a residential consumer , ~ ~ - c~:r:~, .. , ! ~ -i ` ... ~2 Consumer. The word "consumer",shall include eveN, rerson~, whos individual) or throu h a ents, em to ees officers re resentatives or ermitees makes a taxabl,,,, emu„rchase of electricit natural as tele hone or water services,in the count (3) Gas utility. The word "gas utilit~r" shall include every public utility authorized to furnish natural gas service_in,Vir inia. (4) CCF The term "CCF" shall mean the volume of gas at standard pressure and t.,,emperature in units of 100 cubic feet. ~5~ Kilowatt,.hour kWh delivered. The term "kilowatt hour o,,, v r kWh delivered"shall mean 1000 watts of electricit delivered in a one-hour eriod an electric rovider to a cons,..,,.,., umer,_ exc~ in the case of eligible customer- enerators sometimes called "co enerators" as defined in Code of Vir inia § 56-5,94 it means kWh supplied from the electric ird to such customer,-generatorsz minus the kW~ h generated and fed back to the electric grid b„y such customer- enerators. ~Y'` ; .._ ~.~ ° ~~_ „The term "mobile local 6 teleCOmmUnlGatlOnS SE'rVICe" .'r~6 i - - ~.~ ~ , . ~3 ~ k x ~ ~ ~f a n co~.X~ __~,~_- - ~.=t.- .__ ,;y t;-_ _ . -,- or other entit ~n~.~ ,~ . ,. ,, 8 Pi eline distribution com~an,~,.The term ",pipeline distribution comma shall include ever erson other__than,a,,pi~eline transmission,compan~r~ which transmits b means of a~i.~el,ine~,,natura~l gas, manufactured as or cru,., dew„etroleum and the products or,by,~r_oducts thereof to a urchaser for purposes of furnishingheat or light,. X10 ~~ ~ ~~ z~. ,. ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~:~~~s~;~~ ~~~~ . , .~ tae ~-~-~,~ ~ ~ 4 ta! ~ ~~ , . :, a k~ W`^s{~~"Y ~, va ,s,. ~ ~ ., ~ ~ .a:_)w~~ (11) Residential consumer. The term "residential consumer" shall include the owner ortenant,_,_af,pro ert used rime for residential ur oses includin but,not limit_._.,,ed to,,a~artment houses_and,other multi le-famil dwellin s. (12~ Service~rovider. The term "service provider" shall include a person who delivers electrici~ ty,,,to_ a,_consumer or a,~as,,utili,, tx_,.,or i eline distribution comps which delivers natural gas to a consumer. (131 Used arimarily. The term "used primarily" shall refer to the larger portion of the use for which electric or natural gas utilit service is furnished. ... _. ~ ,,..,. ~s<~ , ~ ~ ,~: and .. ~ _ ~. , .,. "~~,3 ~, ~~ ,.. ~ -_ , 15~ Unless, otherwise indicated the ~ ~..:; .'~ ~`~~~~ ~~' y !_. ~ t - . i s .. E,, ~~~_~, ~ ~, _ .. ~ t <<~ ~r ~ i~~: - , ..; or service rovider ~ .: <. t . ~. ~:: ~.~.~.v.._._~_, _ ~., . . ,.: , .. ~ . ~orservice,~rovider ~ ~ . :n~~l~:~~~s{:~'~__,~ ,.r .;, ~ ~v' ~3.:M, ~ .. ,.,s, . ,~''.' ~.:er.'o{rr's~t,i.aei! )~~~1!~'r=ll1"iUllCl~ {'1'f f.f €....v +~ +- ~ i `.~ ~ ,;~eY. -~'~' or Service r~_ovder ..,. 4,~r:~'7 '.? 1A ~:;`i,i7 k.A Q,. ~~ L!:!~';. .. .. 7 .xS i, ~.,.. ,,.. ,w .... ! } ,{: .fix ~,.. _..~ YN9L~~ 8 :~f`~ ., ~,k~}4 : ~ ,. or service rovider. ;~;~. ~ . tt~~;,~ ~~- x . ,' ,~a1 or a2 =:~~-~~~ ~~ ~~rs~~~~€~ ~~~~~: trr,~~; -, _.~t~~s::: ~:., m ,,E~ ~ ~E~". _ ~ a ~.,__ _, 2.r~~~. ,. ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~s~~ ,F5 ~;:. x;,r:w ..` .ti. ~ or service rovider ~#ye~y ~~~f ~a ~i ~:4 ~_ .,._ ,.._ i' ii~'~C~CrE cXil ~'ic. ~, =8 E4:al _ ._ _: ,. - or service 4 , provider ~t~ ~~ ==fs~, .,._,:...- ., , . ~: _ ,a~~t~;~ ~t~t:~a ,..; ~~. ~- or service~rovider -.~ _::~ ~ ::;~ ., - ; , ~:~ s t ~ ,~., :fie ;° `g ~.j~.~.=4° ~.~~ '?~,1! ~' ~, On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: y'12.c~ ~. Mary H. Allen, CMC/AAE Clerk to the Board of Supervisors io cc: File Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney 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 Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Magistrates Sherri Krantz/Betty Perry Main Library Ray Lavinder, Police Chief Richard Burch, Chief of Fire & Rescue Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W., Rke 24016 Roanoke County Law Library, Singleton Osterhoudt Roanoke County Code Book Gerald S. Holt, Sheriff John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer O. Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Terrance L. Harrington, County Planner Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Michael Lazzuri, Court Services Elaine Carver, Director, Information Technology Anne Marie Green, Director, General Services Thomas S. Haislip, Director, Parks, Recreation & Tourism Gardner Smith, Director, Procurement John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Valuation Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue ~~~ 11 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: October 24, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Sec. 21-3. "Utility Service Tax" of Article I. "In General" of Chapter 21 "Taxation" of the Roanoke County Code to Conform to the Requirements of Virginia Statutes Deregulating Electrical and Natural Gas Industries COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ ~~~ ~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia General Assembly passed legislation deregulating the gas and electric industries in the state, effective January 1, 2001. As a result, localities in Virginia are required to amend their consumer utility tax and utility license tax ordinances before October 31, 2000, to allow a sixty day notice to be given to electric and gas companies. With deregulation, electricity and gas services will be "unbundled", wherein the generator of energy will be separated from the deliverer of energy. Consumers will have the option of purchasing their gas or electricity service from a choice of different providers. These providers may be located outside of Virginia. Federal law prohibits local governments from requiring out- of-state companies to collect the taxes imposed upon residents and businesses in their present form. For this reason, the tax basis must be changed from a percentage of the dollar amount paid by the consumer to a tax based on the amount of energy consumed. On January 1, 2001, three taxes providing sources of revenue to localities will be affected by the passed legislation. These three taxes are: a.) the local consumer utility tax; b.) the utility license tax (gross receipts); and c.) the public service corporation tax (real estate and personal property). State law requires that the consumer utility and utility license taxes be replaced with a "consumption tax" and the public service corporation tax will see a change in assessment methodology at the state level. The consumer utility tax currently shows on a customer's monthly bill as a percentage of the bill. This line will continue to show on the bill, but will be based on units consumed. The utility license tax will be listed in a similar fashion. Although the line for this tax will be new, consumers have been paying the taxes indirectly for years, as the tax was "imbedded" in the rates of the utility companies. Customers will see no affect of the change in the public service corporation tax. G:\ATTORNEY\JBO\COMMREV\10-10-00 UTIL.DOC S'- 8 The Virginia Municipal League has provided a model ordinance to aid localities in converting their consumer utility tax ordinances to a consumption-based tax. It is important to note that while the method for calculating the consumer utility tax will change, the amount of consumer utility tax that a consumer pays each month on their gas or electric bill should remain virtually the same. This is necessary to comply with the General Assembly's legal mandate that these changes in method of taxation be revenue neutral. Any locality that has not changed its local consumer utility tax ordinance by October 31, 2000, risks losing consumer utility tax revenue because the present authority to levy this tax lapses on December 31, 2000. Sixty days notice is required to be given to electric and gas companies. The Code of Virginia requires that a public hearing occur prior to final amendment to the consumer utility tax, even though technically the consumer utility tax rate change is not a rate increase. FISCAL IMPACT: State legislation affects two local taxes: 1) the consumer utility tax and, 2) the utility license tax. As noted above, both taxes will be changed to a consumption-based tax and will have little effect on current revenues. The new rate structure is supposed to be revenue neutral, generating the same amount of revenue that localities have been receiving under the current system, while at the same time not increasing the tax burden on the customer. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the first reading of the ordinance and authorize advertisement for a public hearing and second reading on October 24, 2000, to amend the gas and electric consumer utility tax in accordance with recently passed deregulation legislation. SUBMITTED BY: APPRO Jos B. benshain Elmer C. Hodge Assistant County Attorney Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To O Motion Church Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens Administrator No Yes Abs G:\ATTORNEYVBO\COMMREV\10-10-00 UTIL.DOC AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SEC. 21-3. "UTILITY SERVICE TAX" OF ARTICLE I. "IN GENERAL" OF CHAPTER 21, "TAXATION" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF VIRGINIA STATUTES DEREGULATING ELECTRICAL AND NATURAL GAS INDUSTRIES WHEREAS, the 2000 session of the General Assembly, as part of its comprehensive electric utility restructuring legislation, amended Section 58.1-3814 of the Code of Virginia to convert the basis for the local consumer utility tax to kilowatt-hours delivered, for electricity, and hundred cubic feet (CCF), for natural gas, from the current basis of a percentage of the monthly amount charged to the consumer of the utility service; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly further required that any locality imposing a tax on consumers of electricity and natural gas must amend its ordinance to conform to these legal requirements not later than October 31, 2000, in order to permit the required notification to each utility so that the new consumer utility tax will be effective on and after January 1, 2001; and WI-~REAS, the first reading ofthis ordinance was held on October 10, 2000; and the second reading and public hearing will be held on October 24, 2000. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 21-3, Utility service tax of Article 1. IN GENERAL of Chapter 21, TAXATION of the Roanoke County Code be amended and re-enacted as follows: Sec. 21-3 Utility service tax. (a) There is hereby imposed and levied by the county, upon each and every purchaser of S- ~' a utility service, a tax in the amount of twelve (12) percent of the charge made by the seller against the purchaser or consumer with respect to each utility service, which tax, in every case, shall be collected by the seller from the purchaser and shall be paid by the purchaser to the seller for the use of the county at the time that the purchase price or such charge shall become due and payable under the agreement between the purchaser and the seller; provided, however, that the tax hereinabove imposed shall not be deemed to apply to that part of the charge in excess of fifteen dollars ($15.00) per month made by any seller of any utility service to any purchaser thereof who uses such utility service in private homes or residential units; provided, further that any commercial or industrial user shall pay the hereinabove set out twelve (12) percent on the first five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) of utility service. **** ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . . ..:::::: ..................... . .......................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. :... ~.. ~ ~ e ~: b ::.:: ;. gnd~:: __ _ _ _ __ ___ .:.. ~ _:.. - h t_ ` ' fr`4lli~ .:.,:. l .. h'° r. ........................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................... . .......................................................................................................................................................................................... . d~li~r~iiv ... `cai t >.~1~ :.;.....e~` yxao 2 iii: ~i' ~'.4:~i:~:~:~i:~Ji:~:~:~ ~~~:1Jii:~.'~~ ~i ~i:~ ~~~iiiiiiiii}iiiiii''iiiiiiiiiiiiiii:~' `.~'+j+' Yi i:i ~iii:~i:~:4"'~ ~!'!'~:!iii~i:4iii%~ii:~:f:~:~:!!~::~'::Y:~j!::::~i::' ~: ~vv;: :::::5~ ~:~:''':::~iiiiiiii:4iii:~:~:~i:~:~:~'~' ~:~: . .h. .... :. :... ' .. :. .; :. :.>:.>:.>:.>:.>:. s:. s:.::. s:.::.::.: <.::.: : ~::i:::s: ~"F:i:::i::::i::?ii::ii:::~ii::::i:`:;::i:::::i:::::i:;:::i:`'~'::i::::i::::i::::i::::i::::<::: ~::::::;::i::`:... :: :R4ii%^i >s '': y . g ::;::: :;' 1 //~~t~E (~ :2: y } i`~. ;i ::iii::i:::::::::::iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:::::•:•:::':•:::i::i:::::::iiii::ii'::::::i::ii:'::i::i::i:C:::i::i::i::i::i::i:::C:: ~:~'~'~':::::i:: j:isi.::.i:::'iTi.::i:'::::i"~':i'~':i'~':i::i:;i:'~'::i':::ii::~:i:::ii:2i.::j::i::i::::::: ;iiiii:::.i'. 4i:v'v:.:'.?'. ::::i::i:::ii:: :. :::i':::.i.: _:.;.{'~.•:::i:' :.i: .:: •: :^: 'i::•i:::~:.:; .'' ;:.:::i":'•:: :. ... ... {:.. ii ^: •ii. .ii::.. :. ::.: iii :.....:. ..:.:..........~ ;' i >::`>~.:.;.`>:.. lire ' ';: '` 1> ~' __ _ __ ;::... ;.:.:. .::... ;:::::. , tom: ~ 1~1~3>:: '...~° __ h _ ; , ''. ,:,: »`.'' .;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.::..::. : i:.::.::. i:. i'.;:. i. . .:::::::::::.:::.... : ~' ;: ;>. ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... fib) It shall be the duty of every seller '''`°` ~ ~ E'i r~i` :` an acting as the tax c®llecting medium ~~ (d) Each and every seller : erg ~ ~r *~ „r shall keep ` `` 4 ~r.~ complete records showing all purchases in the county, which records shall show the price charged against each purchaser with respect to purchase, f a ent thereo and the thereo and the date o ''' the date f, p ym f, amount of tax unposed hereunder and such records shall be kept open for inspection by the duly authorized agents of the county at reasonable times and the duly authorized agents of the county shall have the right, power and authority to make transcripts thereof during such times as they may desire. ............... . (e) In all cases where the seller „r '': ~ ~i < collects the price of utility services, 1~^tr~ ................................................... .................................................. ................................................... '~i periodacally, the tax hereby imposed and levied may be computed on the aggregate amount of the purchases during such period, provided, the amount collected shall be the neazest whole cent to the amount computed. ***~ (j) The following words and phrases when used in this section shall for the purposes of this section have the following respective meanings, except where the context cleazly indicates a different meaning. ........................ ¢6jCornrraercial or indaestrial a,,,,,,~raa~ ttsea :The term "commercial or industrial Laser" shall mean the owner or tenant of property used for commercial, industrial and all other ° f r ch f r ili rvice o su '` h s o ut se purposes, `th ` +~ p Y t5' property; except, that with respect to local exchange telephone service, such term shall mean any person furnished service classif ed as "business" under taziffs filed with the state corporation commission. 5 i means any two-way mobile or portable local telecoanmunications service, including cellular mobile radio telecommunication service and specialized mobile radio. ~ Pere®n. The word "person" shall include individuals, +~ `rr~ farms, partnerships associations, c®rporations, xt`'' ' ``` and combinations ®findividuals ®fwhatever form and character. S-~ Purchaser The word "purchaser shall include every person who purchases a utility service. f Sj Private horses or residential unit. The term "private homes or residential unit" shall mean the owner or tenant of private residential property who pays for the utility service in or for said property, except that, with respect to local exchange telephone service, such term shall mean any person furnished service classified as "residential" under tariff's filed with the state corporation commission. <:1:~::::: >`.~e~::.:. ar~r~ :°::::''1`h :_te1'm.;;;: ;>'< r: "he:l .... , n:::. ~1.:..,...; . , ii': .;i::::4 C:ii,v:v~i:~' iii::::it::i1:::.!::i::iiiii:~iii:~:~i:~:~i:~:~'~'~::~:: :::i: ~:;:; ::: i'iiiii'iiif Jii:~:~i'~'~ i:j:;:S :.: ::::::::::::':::.}:i:~ii:~'~ ~:- .:. .. ... ::. ~::. .: .i L. :::.. ~: .::::::::!i.:::: :~:i ..:.. .:.: .::: a::. ::::::. :., .::. ~le~at~'~ix°s~`` ` &~ Se :: <1 :: she '>:" Utility ser~rice. The phrase "utility service" shall include local exchange telephone service of corporations falling within the provisions of article 4, chapter 38, title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, water service service consumer," "mobile service provider," "service address," and "taxable purchase" shall 7 ""., have the meanings as provided in Section 58.1-3812 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and such definitions are incorporated herein by reference. **** (1) ~JV henever the tax levied by this section is collected by the seller ~?~ ~' ~ :;~' i' ~"'> "'~':" :' ~" acting as a tax collecting medaum or agency for the county is accordance with paragraph (b), such seller ````'~`"`'````'```'`"````"~"````~~ shall be allowed as compensation for the collection and remittance of this tax, three (3%) percentum of the amount of tax due and accounted for. The seller `"`"`~~ `" ::::~`"``'".:>~~ ' ' shall deduct this compensation from the payments made to the county treasurer in accordance with paragraph (b), provided the amount due is not delinquent at the time of payment. (m) If any sellers whose duty it is to do so shall fail or refuse to file with the Commissioner of the Revenue any return for the tax required to be collected and paid under subsection (b) within the time and in the amount specified therein, there shall be added to such tax by the Commissioner of the Revenue of Roanoke County a penalty often (10®/0) percent of the tax '.::::6iiiii::::::::::i:i;:i K.;. ~'i due. If any seller r'`` ' : `. ~,<::.„ whose duty it is to do so shall fail or refuse to remit to the Treasurer of Roanoke County the tax required to be collected and paid under subsection (b) within the time and in the amount specified therein, there shall be added to such tax by the Treasurer of Roanoke County a penalty often (10%) percent of the tax due. Any such penalty when so assessed shall become a part of the tax. In the event any such tax is not paid on or before the date the same is due, interest at the rate often (10®/0) percent per annum, commencing on the first day of the month after the due date, shall be assessed and collected on the principal of and any penalties on such tax; provided however, that, for the second and subsequent years of delinquency, such interest shall be at the rate established pursuant to Section 6621 of the iT. S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 8 amended. (n) The Commissioner of the Revenue shall promulgate rules and regulations for the interpretation, administration and enforcement of this section. It shall also be the duty of the commissioner to ............................................... ............................................... ............................................... ascertain the name of every seller " liable for the collection of the tax imposed by ................................... .................................. ................................... subsections (a)'` `: ` '' i~ - ' who fails, refuses or neglects to collect such tax or to make the returns and remittances required by subsection (b). The commissioner shall have all of the enforcement powers as authorized by article 1, chapter 31 oftitle 58.1 ofthe Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, for purposes of this section. (o) If any seller' a >'~ :'r.x :: :day{' ' :, whose duty it is to do so shall fail or refuse to co ect a tax ................................ ................................ ................................ imposed by subsections (a);j and to make within the time provided in subsection (b), the returns and remittances mentioned in this section, the commissioner shall proceed in such manner as he may deem best to obtaua facts and information on which to base his estimate of the tax due. As soon as the commissioner shall procure such facts and information as he is able to obtain upon which .. ....d.: •::::. to base the assessment of any tax payable by any seller' ' ° '`r ii'`'"rte' ' ::who has failed or refused to collect such tax and to make such return and remittance, he shall proceed to determine and assess against such seller ''`r< ~ ```°at `'~"`r'' ~'` a the tax and penalties provided for by this section and shall notify such seller ' `~ `' >''~ , by registered mail sent to his last known place of business, of the total amount of such tax and penalties and the total amount thereof shall be payable within ten (10) days from the date such notice is sent. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and after January 1, 2001. a:w~-roxxEEYVSO~co~.~con~ur~~yr~.2ooo.o:a.~a 9 O~ ~OANO~~` a ~~ ~ z o Z J ., a 7838 AGENDA ITEM NO. APPEARANCE REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: -~r~-+~~v;t~, N,`~c,E~P„s b~-~n{Js~~--~ s.-~~•;~,J.. ~~~~~~~~ ~s -~o c; ~,~ZC:~s 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, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE Gl1/DEL/NES L/STED 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. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her 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 to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: a1 c7~.v+~~s ~-,o:~r-r- 5 ADDRESS: 3 i o~ :~ N-~r,e.y~:.ec,~ 1~. PHONE: ~ ~~ k~ - ~g~to ~ POANp~.~ 6 ~ ~ `' p z ~ ° a C~~~xxY# ~a~ ~~xxY~.~.~e 1838 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE MARY H. ALLEN, CMC ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 BRENDA J. HOLTON CLERK TO THE BOARD (540) 772-2005 DEPUTY CLERK Internet E-Mail: mallen@www.co.roanoke.va.us FAX (540) 772-2193 Internet E-Mail: bholton@www.co.roanoke.va.us October 26, 2000 Mr. Craig W. Sharp 4560 Cowman Road Roanoke, VA 24014 Dear Mr. Sharp: I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, October 24, 2000, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as a member of the Industrial Development Authority to complete the unexpired four year term of Mr. J. Carson Quarles, who resigned on June 30, 2000. This four year term began on September 26, 1998, and will expire on September 26, 2002. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, or appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. State law requires that you take an oath of office before the Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be administered prior to your participation on this Board. Please telephone Steven A. McGraw, at 387-6205, to arrange to have this oath administered, and Mr. McGraw has asked that you bring this letter with you. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Enclosures cc: David Porter, IDA, Secretary Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Circuit Court ® ftecycled Paper ROANp,~~ ~ . z ~ ~a= Cn~~xx~# ~ ~ ~~xx~~ ~.~ 1838 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE MARY H. ALLEN, CMC ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 BRENDA J. HOLTON CLERK TO THE BOARD (540) 772-2005 DEPUTY CLERK Internet E-Mail: mallen@www.co.roanoke.va.us FAX (540) 772-21 93 Internet E-Mail: bholton@www.co.roanoke.va.us October 26, 2000 Ms. Susan B. Williams Executive Director League of Older Americans 706 Campbell Avenue Roanoke, VA 24009 Dear Ms. Williams: This letter will advised that at our meeting on Tuesday, October 24, 2000, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to ratify the appointment of Mrs. Elizabeth Bogle to the League of Older Americans Advisory Board for another three year term. Mrs. Bogle's term began on March 31, 2000 and will expire on March 31, 2003. As we discussed during our telephone conversation, the appointment to the LOA Advisory Board is made by LOA and then ratified by the County. Mrs. Bogle was appointed by LOA earlier this year and this notice will keep our records up to date. Sincerely, Yr1c~~,- ~.C~t~-cam Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors ® Recycled Paper ~ ROANp~.~ L 2 .,.. G ,,~2 1838 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD C~~~x~~~ a~ ~.~~z~.a~e P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2193 October 26, 2000 Mr. Joel H. Peck, Clerk State Corporation Commission P. O. Box 1197 Richmond, VA 23218 Dear Mr. Peck: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK Attached is a certified copy of Resolution No. 102400-2.b authorizing the County Attorney to file a motion with the State Corporation Commission concerning the proposed Virginia Gas Pipeline. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, October 24, 2000. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ,~'Yt-~,,,.~~...~. Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Attachment cc: Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney John M Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Virginia Gas Pipeline Company Duke Energy Corporation Richard E. Huff, II, Franklin County Administrator Jeffrey D. Johnson, Montgomery County Administrator Darlene L. Burcham, Roanoke City Manager Forest Jones, Salem City Manager Roanoke County Legislators ®Recyded paper Brenda Holton - Re: Distribution of SCC Resolution Page 1 From: Paul Mahoney To: Brenda Holton Date: 10/26/00 7:39AM Subject: Re: Distribution of SCC Resolution Brenda: I can add Ms. Burcham in Roanoke City, but should we also add Forest Jones for Salem City. (We got a letter from Mr. Riley today with copy of resolution that Salem passed., We were not listed as getting a copy.) I did not add Salem, since the gas pipeline does not pass thru that jurisdiction. But if Salem adopted a resolution, it would not hurt to add Forrest. Do you want to send copies to area legislators also? Good idea! Paul Brenda Holton - Re: Distribution of SCC Resolution Page 1 From: Paul Mahoney To: Brenda Holton Date: 10/25/00 3:34PM Subject: Re: Distribution of SCC Resolution Brenda: I recommend the standard Clerk letter, and sending a copy to the Clerk of the SCC. Jeff Johnson is Montgomery County Admin (not Franklin Co). You may want to send a copy to Burcham in Roanoke City. I thought I listed recipients in the last paragraph. Did I not? Sorry. »> Brenda Holton 10/25/00 03:27PM »> Paul, below is proposed distribution to send copies of resolution to SCC about Va Gas Pipeline. Any one else you want to add? Do you want to write letter or should I send standard letter from Clerk? You wrote a letter previous to Clerk of SCC, should I write to him or the Chairman? Thanks. cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney John M Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Virginia Gas Pipeline Company Duke Energy Corporation Virginia State Corporation Commission Richard E. Huff, II, Franklin County Administrator Jeffrey D. Johnson, Franklin County Administrator LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, October 24, 2000, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Mexicorp Inc. to rezone .345 acre from C-2 to R-2 to construct a two family dwelling, located at 5929 Williamson Road, Hollins Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: October 4, 2000 Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, October 10, 2000 Tuesday, October 17, 2000 Direct the bill for publicatio Mexicorp Inc/Cesar Domirn 512 McDonald Dr Vinton, VA 24179 (540) 981-0980 SEND ORIGIN ROANOKE P.O. Bt Please... ^ Read ^ Handle ^ approve And... ^ Forward ^ Return d ^ Keep or Recycle ^ Review with Me From: ~, .., ',~,.~;~ ~r ~aiw ,: Dam: LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, October 24, 2000, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of U.S. Cellular Inc. to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a 180 foot broadcasting tower, located in the 300 block of John Richardson Road, Hollins Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: October 4, 2000 Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, October 10, 2000 Tuesday, October 17, 2000 Direct the bill for publication to: United States Cellular c/o Atlantic Tower Corp. 10197 Maple Leaf Court Ashland, VA 24121 (800)826-8616 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, October 24, 2000, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Certified Medical Representatives Institute to rezone 3.77 acres from C-2 with conditions to C-1 with conditions to construct an office building, located in the 3000 block of Electric Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: October 4, 2000 Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, October 10, 2000 Tuesday, October 17, 2000 Direct the bill for publication to: David Linden, et al c/o Realstar Realtors 4415 Pheasant Ridge Rd Suite 102 Roanoke, VA 24014 (540) 776-0606 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, October 24, 2000, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of The Church of God for a Special Use Permit for a religious assembly, located at 5471 Keller Road, Catawba Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: October 4, 2000 Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, October 10, 2000 Tuesday, October 17, 2000 Direct the bill for publication to: Rev. Harvey Anders for The Church of God 834 E. Riverside Dr. Salem, VA 24153 (540) 375-7280 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, October 24, 2000, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Aircable of Roanoke, LLC for a Special Use Permit to allow a broadcast tower, located in the 8300 block of Honeysuckle Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: October 4, 2000 Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, October 10, 2000 Tuesday, October 17, 2000 Direct the bill for publication to: Aircable of Roanoke LLC 2018 Electric Rd Suite 202 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540) 380-5821 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 Martha Plank 'R 540-9A1-3415 Q~ Oct. 9, 2000 ~~8~24AM pi11 ioios~2ooo The Roanoke Times Ad i d : 152979 Acct:7722003000N Name: COUNTY OF ROANOKE PUBLIG NOTICE Ph: 5407722003 Class Rate: Disp Rate: play x advix~ 4ha+ the PO BOX 29800 Credit Status: LM Board of Supervisors of ~°°"°~ ~o ober24 2040, meetir ~ TERRY HARRINGTON at the f~arroke County.Admlr• ROANOKE VA 24018 Re Re uest A l Istratlon Center, "J304 Berrrartl ihe ~ ' at bo m' c'a ~ o p y q n P 2 . s o o Paytype BL Rate LE Legals Rep: 37 a41cr as tro mmtter may oe heard, will hold a pubic hoar. ingarbmcentl roaangon tnra Source FX Class 10 Legals ^ TFN fctlcwing matter, {G-wit: OROINANGE AMENGINu AN6 REENACTING SEC. 21w. °UTIL• Start 10/10/00 Days 2 Rate Ist 2 Stop 10/17/00 1 '7NGENER:q OFCFIAPSER 21, "TA7{ATICN' OF THE 0.00 Words...... 159 price 159 20 RQANOKE COUNTY COPE TO CONFORM TO THE P,EaUiRE- . MENTS OF YIROINIA STATUTES Q.QQ Lines....... 40 Discount O.OO DEREOULATIN4 ELECTRICAL AN6 NATURAL OAS o GO Depth..... 4U.0o Commis 0.00 O . rtemoer3ortne DuDlb IrY4er• All Columns.. 1 Net 159.20 oalad In thin matter may Q,QQ Graphic.... 0 St Tax 0.00 appear and be heard at the time and pta°a abromid. Q.QQ St Words. 0 Fed Tax O.dO A oopy of the full flack of the ordinaroe bon file and a+ai!• Free Da Y 0 ^ Boxed Ad Total 159.20 able for public inspection in the office of the perk of The Board i 5204 B d f S Payment 0.00 ernar upav acrs, o DrItE, r+oar~are, ruetnr. Copy Line Util. Service Tax 00 App Cr 0 Mary H. Atlen, CMGIAAE clerl;,otr~eeoartl Sort String Util. Tax . . Balance 0.00 c~~z~l ld Check O H Phone n o Product Co Tear Sheets ^ Ad Killed PO # Comments Reason for Discount Mary Allen Editions DC, PUBLIC NOTICE Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on October 24, 2000, at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter maybe heard, will hold a public hearing and second reading on the following matter, to-wit: ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SEC. 21-3. "UTILITY SERVICE TAX" OF ARTICLE I. "IN GENERAL" OF CHAPTER 21, "TAXATION" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF VIRGINIA STATUTES DEREGULATING ELECTRICAL AND NATURAL GAS INDUSTRIES All members of the public interested in this matter may appear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file and available for public inspection in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia. ~. Q.~2.stav Mary H. Allen, CMC/AAE Clerk to the Board Please publish on the following dates: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 Tuesday, October 17, 2000 Send invoice to: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 C O V E R FAX S H E E T Clerk to the Board To: Roanoke Times Legal Advertising Fax #: Subj: Legal Notices Date: October 6, 2000 Pages: 2, including this cover sheet. COMMENTS: Please advertise the attached legal notice in the Roanoke Times on the following dates: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 Tuesday, October 17, 2000 If you have any questions, please contact me at 772-2003. From the desk of... Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board County of Roanoke P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke„ VA 24018 Phone: 540-772-2003 Fax:540-772-2193 RKE BOARD SUPERVISORS TEL~540-7~2-219 Oct 06'00 640 Transmit Confirmation Report No . Receiver Transmitter Date Time Mode Pages Result 001 RT-LEGAL RKE BOARD SUPERVISORS Oct 06'00 640 00'55 Norm 02 OK Mary Allen -fire&rescue.public.notice.frm Page 1 PUBLIC NOTICE Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on October 24, 2000, at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia, at the session beginning at 7:00 p.m., will hold a public hearing on the following: PROPOSED FIRE_ & RESCUE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH PROVIDES (1) EXPANDED ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT COVERAGE. (21 ADDIT~NAL PARAMEDICS/FIREFIGHTERS. AND (3) FUNDIN All members of the public interested in the matters set forth above may appear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid. A copy of the full text of this proposal is on file and is available for public inspection in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, whose office is located at 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia. Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Roanoke County, Virginia Publish on the following dates: October 15, 2000 Send invoice to: Ms. Mary Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Mary Allen - Re: Public Notice Page 1 From: Mary Allen To: Sue Patterson-Bane Subject: Re: Public Notice I don't know, but if you showed it to him and he was O.K. with it, then go ahead. »> Sue Patterson-Bane 10/12/00 08:28AM »> I sent a copy of the Public Notice to ECH and he said okay - do you think he realized that he would have to cover that info at the meeting? Sue »> Mary Allen 10/12/00 08:08AM »> It looks good to me. My only concern is whether ECH is going to cover that information at the public hearing. I assume Paul has reviewed it. Mary H. Allen CMC Clerk to the Board County of Roanoke 540-772-2003 »> Sue Patterson-Bane 10/11/00 03:54PM »> See attached -any comments before it goes to the paper? Sue Mary Allen -Legal Notice -Reply Page 1 From: Legals Staff <legals@roanoke.com> To: <SPATTERSON-BANE@co.roanoke.va.us> Date: 10/13/00 10:31 AM Subject: Legal Notice -Reply Sue: I've scheduled your ad to run on Sunday, October 15, as requested. The ad # is 1533529 with a cost of $91.26. Thank you. Denita Wray »> "Sue Patterson-Bane" <SPATTERSON-BANE@co.roanoke.va.us> - 10/12/00 10:04 AM »> Martha, Please publish the attached legal notice on Sunday, October 15. Please email me with any questions. Please email me upon receipt of this. Thanks, Sue 1 ~, .. ~ PUBLIC NOTICE Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on October 24, 2000, at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia, at the session beginning at 7:00 p.m., will hold a public hearing on the following: PROPOSED FIRE & RESCUE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH REQUIRES: (1) FOUR COUNTY QUADRANTS TO PROVIDE 24/7 ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT COVERAGE (2) ADDITIONAL PARAMEDICS/FIREFIGHTERS AND (3) FUNDING All members of the public interested in the matters set forth above may appear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid. A copy of the full text of this proposal is on file and is available for public inspection in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, whose office is located at 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia. Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Roanoke County, Virginia Publish on the following dates: October 15, 2000 Send invoice to: Ms. Mary Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Mary Allen - Re: Public Notice Page 1 ,, ~ Y From: Mary Allen To: Sue Patterson-Bane Subject: Re: Public Notice It looks good to me. My only concern is whether ECH is going to cover that information at the public hearing. I assume Paul has reviewed it. »> Sue Patterson-Bane 10/11/00 03:54PM »> See attached -any comments before it goes to the paper? Sue Mary Allen -Agreement w/Botetourt Page 1 From: Susie Owen To: Mary Allen Date: 10/3/00 10:52AM Subject: Agreement w/Botetourt ECH said to put the Botetourt Water Agreement on the Agenda fo~ Susie B. Owen, CPS Executive Secretary to County Administrator Roanoke County P O Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 540.772.2004 FAX 772.2193 ~C ~ ~ CC: Gary Robertson Mary Allen - Re: Agreement w/Botetourt Page 1 From: Gary Robertson To: Susie Owen Date: 10/4/00 11:56AM Subject: Re: Agreement w/Botetourt I would rather wait until the next meeting if possible. We haven't worked out all of the details with Bot Co. staff at this time and I would rather have those worked out before we go to the Board. Let me know if this is OK. »> Susie Owen 10/03/00 10:52AM »> ECH said to put the Botetourt Water Agreement on the Agenda for 10/10. Susie B. Owen, CPS Executive Secretary to County Administrator Roanoke County P O Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 540.772.2004 FAX 772.2193 Mary Allen - Re: Joint Meeting -Montgomery Co. Page 1 From: Paul Mahoney To: Mary Allen Date: 10/11/00 3:26PM Subject: Re: Joint Meeting -Montgomery Co. Yes, I agree. Put this on Consent for 10/24. I will forward to you a draft Res. prepared by the Mont. Co. attorney. »> Mary Allen 10/11/00 02:51 PM »> Don't forget to get me the language for the motion from the Joint Meeting. Also, do you think it would be a good idea to have a resolution on the 10/24 Consent Agenda following up so that it's "public" in Roanoke County? Just a suggestion. Mary H. Allen CMC Clerk to the Board County of Roanoke 540-772-2003 Mary Allen - Re: Wal-Mart Page 1 From: Mary Allen To: Paul Mahoney Subject: Re: Wal-Mart I'll add to the 10/24 agenda. Mary »> Paul Mahoney 10/12/00 04:38PM »> ECH and MA: Wal-Mart would like for the BOS to approve the performance agreement at its 10/24 meeting. Wal-Mart wants to close on this property in early November (before the 11/14 BOS meeting). I am sending Wal-Mart's re-write to AMG for her review. This communication and advice is provided to you within the scope of the attorney-client privilege,. and as such, it is confidential and is exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Mary Allen' Re: Proclamation for 10-24 Page 1 From: Mary Allen To: Brenda Holton Subject: Re: Proclamation for 10-24 Just a two sentence brief report. »> Brenda Holton 10/17/00 11:11AM »> Talked with Susan Jennings and she would like to accept the proclamation on Oct 24 at 3 p.m. Proclamation declaring the month of October 2000 as National Arts and Humanities Month in Roanoke County. Said that she would give the Board a brochure and make a couple of remarks upon presentation. Only a couple of minutes. She said that Frosty Landon, President of Board of Arts Council, may be coming with her but she did not know so just put her down as accepting and she would introduce him if he comes. Do we need a Board report with this? the council of the blue ridge October 11, 2000 The Honorable Joseph McNamara Chair, Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke VA 24018-0798 Dear Chair McNamara: For the seventh year, mayors and other public officials across America will proclaim October National Arts & Humanities Month, hailing the arts and humanities as vital to the well-being of our families, communities and the nation as a whole. A resolution has been signed each year by participants at the United States Conference of Mayors and nationwide events are sponsored by Americans for the Arts. This makes October an opportune time to highlight the value of the cultural life of the Roanoke region to our community. Coincidentally, The Arts Council has just completed an economic/education impact study which demonstrates the importance of arts and culture to our region. I have enclosed a copy for your review. I am asking that you designate October Arts and Humanities Month in Roanoke County by presenting a proclamation similar to the enclosed copy at an upcoming Board of Supervisors meeting. As the only organization which represents all the arts and cultural groups in the region, a representative from The Arts Council would attend to accept the proclamation. At that time, I would ask for a few minutes to share the results of our economic/education impact report with the members of the Board of Supervisors. I appreciate your consideration of this request and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, ~~~~~~ ~' Susan Jennings Executive Director ~ Cc: Mr. Elmer Hodge Administrator County of Roanoke The Arts Council of the Blue Ridge • 20 East Church Avenue • Roanoke. Virginia 24011 • 540-342-5790 • www.theartscounciLorg • tacbrC~roanol<einfi.net the council of the blue ridge CULTURE and the ARTS IMPROVE BUSINESS, EDUCATION, and QUALITY of LIFE 1999 Economic/Education Impact Study of the ~~~ke Re~~o~' s Cultural ~0 ~~d~s~~] O~ce of the Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE raci~.n~a~ti Given under our hands and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this fifteenth day of October nineteen hundred and ninety-seven. WHEREAS, the arts and humanities enhance and enrich the lives of all Americans; and WHEREAS, the arts and humanities affect every aspect of life in America today including the economy, social problem solving, job creation, education, creativity, and community livability; and WHEREAS, cities and states, through their local and state arts agencies, representing more than 23, 000 cultural organizations, have joined with the National Cultural Alliance for the last three years to celebrate the value and importance of culture in the lives of Mary Allen - Re: 10/24 Agenda Staff Meeting Page 1 From: Terry Harrington To: Mary Allen Date: 10/16/00 9:46AM Subject: Re: 10/24 Agenda Staff Meeting Mary I have Worksession on clearbrook 2. First Readings on: Rising Stars SUP Dixie Cavern Rezonings Zoning Ordinnce Amendment for zero lot line lot coverages 3. BOS Public Hearings on Hearings on: Church of God.. Keller Road CMR Rezoning Route 419 Air Cable SUP US CELL SUP Mexicorp Rezoning »> Mary Allen October 16, 2000 9:36:37 AM »> Just a reminder that the Agenda staff meeting will be held at 3 p.m. this afternoon in the Board's Conference Room. If you have an item on the 10/24 agenda, please a-mail or call me with the agenda title and plan to attend the meeting. Mary H. Allen CMC Clerk to the Board County of Roanoke 540-772-2003 Mary Allen - Re: 10/24 Agenda Staff Meeting Page 1 From: Gary Robertson To: Mary Allen Date: 10/16/00 2:13PM Subject: Re: 10/24 Agenda Staff Meeting I plan to have an agenda item for Rke Co/ Bot Co. to establish an agreement to serve water and sewer to Stonegate subdivision. »> Mary Allen 10/16/00 09:36AM »> Just a reminder that the Agenda staff meeting will be held at 3 p.m. this afternoon in the Board's Conference Room. If you have an item on the 10/24 agenda, please a-mail or call me with the agenda title and plan to attend the meeting. Mary H. Allen CMC Clerk to the Board County of Roanoke 540-772-2003 Mary Allen - Re: Work Session on Clearbrook - 10/24 agenda Page 1 From: Terry Harrington To: Mary Allen Date: 10/18/00 1:58PM Subject: Re: Work Session on Clearbrook - 10/24 agenda yes.. ECH wants us to be prepared to have a WS on Clearbrook. Recognize time will be short. Please put on agenda after the FR worksession(s) »> Mary Allen October 18, 2000 1:55:47 PM »> Terry sent you and Diane an email that there is a work session on Clearbrook on the 10/24 agenda and Dlane told me about it . I evidently forgot or was never told. Is there? Will there be time with F&R work sessions? Mary CC: Diane Hyatt Mary Allen -Crowd control -Board Meeting Page 1 From: Mary Allen To: Elmer Hodge Subject: Crowd control -Board Meeting At the Agenda staff meeting, we decided NOT to use the Fire Marshall for crowd control at the meeting. Do you want me to call Ray Lavinder and see if we can get two police officers in case there is major overflow? Mary FAX TO: Joe McNamara FROM: Mary Allen DATE: October 17, 2000 RE: Appointment to the Industrial Development Authority I talked with Linwood Windtey today and he definitely would like to serve on the Industrial Development Authority. I will note on the the Appointment Board Report that you are nominating him and confirmation will be on November 14 if that is O.K. with you. l~~A~T-10/1~'/OD-130~~ ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA OCTOBER 24, 2000 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. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3, will be rebroadcast on Thursdays at 7 P.M. and Saturdays at 4 p.m., and are now closed captioned. BECAUSE OF THE THANKSGIVING AND CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS. THE ONLY MEETING IN NOVEMBER WILL BE NOVEMBER 14 AT 3:00 P.M. AND 7:00 P.M., AND THE DECEMBER MEETINGS WILL BE HELD ON DECEMBER 5 AT 3:00 P.M. AND DECEMBER 19 AT 3:00 P.M. AND 7:00 P.M. Individuals who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005 at least 48 hours in advance so reasonable accommodations may be made. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation: 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS -~ 1. Proclamation declaring the month of October 2000 as National Arts 1 and Humanities Month in Roanoke County. D. BRIEFINGS 1. Presentation to the Board of Supervisors of the Center for Research and Technology market CD and appreciation of the October 12, 2000 grand opening ceremonies. (Elmer C. Hodge and Economic Development Staff) i-~ 2. Update on Future Technology and Trade Expo to be held on October ~~~, e 28 and 29, 2000, at the Salem Civic Center. (Debbie Pitts, Assistant ~~~~-~~~ Director of Recreation) ~~~ c~~~ ~ E. NEW BUSINESS _____~ 1. Request for approval of a performance agreement with Wal-Mart. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) ~ 2. Request to execute an agreement to serve water and sewer to Stonegate subdivision in the County of Botetourt. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) F. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of these items does not indicate support for, or judge the merits of, the requested zoning actions but satisfies procedural requirements and schedules the Public Hearings which will be held after recommendation by the Planning Commission. a, First reading of ordinance for a Special Use Permit -Rising Star Camp. 1, First reading of ordinance amending the zoning ordinance for zero lot line lot coverages. G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 2 1. First reading of ordinance amending Ordinance 011299-6, "Roanoke County Community Plan" for adoption of a new future land use map and design guidelines for the Colonial Avenue corridor. (Tim Beard, Planner) ~ 2. First reading of ordinance vacating a 15 foot drainage easement recorded in Plat Book 15, Page 131, within the boundary of Derby Drive in Triple Crown Estates, Section 1 and located in the Vinton Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Community Development Director) ??? ~ j First reading of ordinance amending Chapter 15, Section 15-8 Parks and Recreation, of the Roanoke County Code prohibiting the flying of any aircraft, including motorized and non-motorized remote control planes, helicopters, and gliders in public parks without a Special Use Permit. (Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism) H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES I. APPOINTMENTS ~ 1. Grievance Panel / 2. Highway and Transportation Safety Commission 3. Industrial Development Authority / 4. Social Services Advisory Board J. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 3 / 1. Confirmation of appointments to the Industrial Development Authority and League of Older Americans Advisory Board. __-~ 2. Adoption of resolution authorizing the County Attorney to file a `~ motion with the State Corporation Commission concerning the proposed Virginia Gas Pipeline. 3. Request from school administration for acceptance and appropriation '~ of $300 for a Virginia Commission for the Arts music in service program. 4. Request from school administration for acceptance and appropriation '~ of $3,698.13 to the Student Assistance Program Fund. v 5. Appropriation of Compensation Board reimbursement of $3,810 for additional capital purchase for the Commonwealth Attorney's Office. 6. Donation of a .203 acre of land for public right-of-way from A. '~ Jennings Robertson and Doris K. Robertson conveyed to the Board of Supervisors in the Hollins Magisterial District. K. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS / 1. Request for work session on November 14, 2000 to review the Secondary System Six-Year Construction Plan and projects for VDOT Revenue Sharing. (Arnold Covey, Community Development Director) L. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS N. REPORTS ,, 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance ,; 3. Board Contingency Fund 4 ~ 4. Future School Capital Reserve 5. Accounts Paid -September 2000 v 6. Proclamation signed by the Chairman ~ 7. Report of claims activity for the Self-Insurance Program -~ 8. Estimated revenues and expenditures as of September 30, 2000 O. WORK SESSIONS ~ 1. Work Session on Clearbrook Initiatives (4:30 p.m.) 2 Work Session on proposed Fire and Rescue Comprehensive Plan _---= (5:00 p.m.) P. CLOSED MEETING pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344A EVENING SESSION (7:00 P.M.~ ~, Q. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1, Public Hearing on the proposed Fire and Rescue comprehensive plan which provides (1) expanded advanced life support coverage; (2) additional paramedic/firefighters; and (3) funding, and approval of 20 additional paramedic/firefighters and appropriation of$907,000. S. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES ~ 1. (CONTINUED TO JANUARY 2001 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONERS Ordinance for a Special Use Permit to allow a convenience store with gas station located at 3434 Buck Mountain Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Springwood Properties, LLC. ~ 2. (CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONERS Second reading of ordinance to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a 180 foot broadcasting tower, located in the 300 block of John 5 Richardson Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of U. S. Cellular. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) ~ 3. Second reading of ordinance to obtain a Special Use Permit for a religious assembly, located at 5471 Keller Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of The Church of God. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) / 4. Second reading of ordinance to rezone 3.77 acres from C-2 with conditions to C-1 with conditions to construct an office building, located in the 3000 block of Electric Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Certified Medical Representatives Institute. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) ~ 5. Second reading of ordinance for a Special Use Permit to allow a broadcast tower, located in the 8300 block of Honeysuckle Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Aircable of Roanoke, LLC. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) 6. Second reading of ordinance to rezone 0.809 acre from C-2 to R-2 to construct a two family dwelling, located at 5929 Williamson Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Mexicorp Inc. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) ,~ 7. Second reading of ordinance amending Ordinance 011299-6 "Roanoke County Community Plan" for adoption of a new future land use map for the Hollins (Exit 146) I-81 Interchange area. (Janet Scheid, Senior Planner) 8. Second reading of ordinance amending and reenacting Section 21-3. "Utility Service Tax" of Article I. "In General" of Chapter 21, "Taxation" of the Roanoke County Code to conform to the requirements of Virginia Statutes deregulating electrical and natural gas industries. (Joseph Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney) T. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS U. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS V. ADJOURNMENT 6