Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/2000 - Regular~ff~~~ ~ pOAN ,~~ ti, ;>'s, z ~ ° rat ~~~~ ~~ .iY~~~ .~ ' 38 Work Document -Subject to Revision ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA DECEMBER 19, 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. 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 ROLL CALL AT 3:05 P.M. 2. Invocation: The Reverend Dusty Fiedler Covenant Presbyterian Church ,~ 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS (1) ECH ADDED ITEM TO CLOSED MEETING PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.1-344 A (7) BRIEFING BY COUNSEL AND STAFF WITH RESPECT TO SALEM VENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT 1 ®Recycled Paper 2 PMM ADDED ITEM TO CLOSED MEETING (3) BRIEFING WITH RESPECT TO PROPOSAL TO DISPOSE OF PUBLICLY HELD REAL ESTATE 3. PMM ADDED ITEM TO CLOSED MEETING AFTER ITEM 0.2 (WORK SESSION ON MCDONALD FARM) (7) BRIEFING BY COUNSEL AND STAFF CONCERNING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO MCDONALD FARM C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS Recognition of Police Department for reaccreditation. CHAIRMAN RECOGNIZED AND PRESENTED CERTIFICATE TO: CHIEF RAY LAVINDER ASST CHIEF TERRELL HOLBROOK ASST. CHIEF JACK MCCORKLE, SGT PHIL PATRONE, SGT LINDA PAYNE AND OFFICER NANCY SABADOS, NEW ACCREDITATION MGR D. BRIEFINGS Annual Briefing by the Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors. (Rita Gliniecki, Roanoke County Board Member) BRIEFING BY MS. GLINIECKI E. NEW BUSINESS Consideration of the petition of DePaul Family Services, Inc. to adopt a resolution supporting its request to the Virginia General Assembly to exempt from taxation certain property owned by DePaul in the County of Roanoke. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 14, 2000) R-121900-1 BLJ MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC HOM REQUESTED POLICY BE ESTABLISHED AND SUGGESTED WORK SESSION BE HELD 2. Request for approval of the application of North Cross School to the 2 Industrial Development Authority issuance of revenue bonds not Hodge, County Administrator) R-121900-2 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC of the City of Salem, VA for to exceed $8,000,000. (Elmer 3. Request to approve a Reimbursement Agreement with Exaquaria Corporation for Hanging Rock Estates off site sewer in the Catawba Magisterial District. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) JBC MOTION TO DEFER UNTIL 1ST MEETING IN JAN SUBJECT TO ORG. MTG -URC 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, fhe 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 2ND AND PUBLIC HEARINGS -1/23/01 (SUBJECT TO ORG. MTG~ URC 1. First reading of ordinance to obtain a Special Use Permit for religious assembly, located at 5422 Starkey Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Trustees of the Korean Baptist Church. 2. First reading of ordinance to obtain a Special Use Permit for mini warehouses, located at 4520 Barley Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Jerry Letterman. G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of ordinance authorizing the vacation, quit-claim and release of a portion of an existing 100-foot drainage easement shown on `Plat Showing New Drainage Easement Being Granted to County of Roanoke', Plat Book 13, Page 59, on property owned by DFC Roanoke, LLC, and located in the Hollins Magisterial District. 3 (Arnold Covey, Community Development Director) BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE 1sT READING 2ND READING -1/23/01 (SUBJECT TO ORG. MTG) URC H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of ordinance authorizing creation of and financing for a Local Public Works Improvement Project: Webster Road Water Project located in the Hollins Magisterial District. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) 0-121900-3 BLJ MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC 2. Second reading of ordinance ratifying and approving a contract of sale with Billy B. Guthrie and Barbara B. Guthrie for the purchase of 2.797 acres of land being the westerly portion of property (Tax Map No. 97.05-1-3) and authorizing the acquisition and acceptance for parks and recreation purposes and located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Pete Haislip, Director, Parks, Recreation & Tourism) 0-121900-4 HOM MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Blue Ridge Alliance for Organ and Tissue Donation 2. Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors 3. Grievance Panel 4. Library Board 5. Roanoke County Cable Television Committee 4 6. Roanoke Valley Regional Cable TV Committee 7 Social Services Advisory Board BLJ REQUESTED RESO OF APPR FOR BOB LEWIS FOR HIS SERVICE ON THIS 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. R-121900-5 JPM MOTION TO ADOPT CONSENT RESO URC 1. Approval of minutes for October 24, 2000. 2. Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of Audrey Bower, Community Development Department, after more than 15 years of service. R-121900-5.a 3. Confirmation and ratification of committee appointments to Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors, Roanoke County Cable Television Committee, and Roanoke Valley Regional Cable TV Committee. A-121900-5.b 4. Acceptance of $1,000 donation from the Salem Rotary Club to support the Police Department's School Services Unit. A-121900-5.c HOM REQUESTED THAT LETTER OF APPRECIATION BE SENT 5. Acceptance by Police Department of $18,000 grant from Department of Motor Vehicles selective enforcement on Interstate 81. 5 A-121900-5.d 6. Request for acceptance of Peace Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. R-121900-5.e 7. Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving The Groves, Sections 5 and 6. A-121900-5.f 8. Acceptance by County Schools of $6,720 grant from the Virginia Department of Education to support mentor teacher program. A-121900-5.g 9. Transfer of funds from Sewer Surplus to Sewer Repair and Replacement Fund. A-121900-5.h K. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Request for Board Retreat on January 27, 2001. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) CONSENSUS TO SCHEDULE BOARD RETREAT FOR 1-27-01 AT HOLLINS UNIV, MOODY CENTER 2. Request for Work Session at first meeting in January, 2001 on Stormwater Phase II, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Requirements. (George Simpson, Community Development Assistant Director) WORK SESSION SCHEDULED FOR 1ST MEETING IN JAN SUBJECT TO ORG. MTG 3. Request for Work Session at first meeting in January, 2001 on Redistricting. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 6 WORK SESSION SCHEDULED FOR 1ST MEETING IN JAN SUBJECT TO ORG. MTG L. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS NONE N. REPORTS BLJ 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. Changes to Secondary System of State Highways as of December, 2000 6. Account Paid -November 2000 7. Review of October 24, 2000 Board Action to appropriate funding and positions for twenty additional fire fighters. O. WORK SESSIONS JPM ANNOUNCED THAT WORK SESSION (ITEM 0.2) WOULD BE HELD FIRST 1. Work Session on Clearbrook rezoning. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) TIME: 4:35 P.M. UNTIL 4:55 P.M. PRESENTED BY: TERRY HARRINGTON 7 2. Work Session to consider Town of Vinton's request for Roanoke County participation in the McDonald Farm Business Park. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) TIME: 4:20 P.M. UNTIL 4:35 P.M. PRESENTED BY: MELINDA COX, ECON DEV SPECIALIST; VINTON TOWN MANAGER CLAY GOODMAN; AND VINTON MAYOR DON DAVIS CONSENSUS FOR STAFF TO BRING FORWARD ITEM AT EVENING SESSION TO APPROPRIATE $500,000 AS COUNTY SHARE 3. Work Session on funding for Roanoke River Greenway. (Pete Haislip, Parks, Recreation & Tourism Director, and Liz Belcher, Greenway Coordinator) TIME: 4:55 P.M. UNTIL 5:20 P.M. POWER POINT PRESENTATION BY PETE HAISLIP AND LIZ BELCHER BOARD ADVISED THAT FUNDS ARE NEEDED: (1) $47,000 TO MOVE FORWARD WITH GREEN HILL SECTION AND (2) $ 30,000 FOR MASTER PLAN OF EASTERN SECTION CONSENSUS OF BOARD THAT ~) $47,000 WILL BE APPROVED; (2) STAFF TO CONTACT VA TECH ABOUT COMPLETING THE MASTER PLAN AND SEND OUT RFP'S AT THE SAME TIME AND (3) COME BACK TO BOARD WITH RESULTS. 4. Work session to discuss changing Board meeting dates from Tuesdays to Mondays. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) TIME: 5:25 P.M. UNTIL 5:45 P.M. PMM DIRECTED TO BRING TO ORG. MEETING CALENDARS FOR 2ND AND 4T" MONDAYS AND 2ND AND 4T" TUESDAYS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE 2001 BOARD MEETING SCHEDULE P. CLOSED MEETING pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (5) discussion concerning a prospective business or industry where no previous announcement has been made. JPM MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED MEETING FOLLOWING THE WORK SESSIONS AT 4:15 P.M. - URC 8 CLOSED MEETING HELD FROM 5:45 P.M. UNTIL 7:00 P.M. Q. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-121900- 6 JPM MOTION TO RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AT 7:05 P.M. AND ADOPT CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION -URC JPM ADDED ITEM TO AGENDA FROM THE CLOSED MEETING 1. Request approval of appropriation of $500,000 Roanoke County's share of construction costs for the 99.53 acres park project in East County known as McDonald Farm. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) A-121900-7 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE APPROPRIATION URC R. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public hearing for citizen comment on Secondary Road System Six- Year Construction Plan for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 and the allocation of funds for Fiscal Years 2001-2002. (Arnold Covey, Community Development Director) NO CITIZENS SPOKE MR. COVEY CHANGED ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS AND ASKED FOR ADOPTION OF (b) FIRST (a) Adoption of resolution for Secondary Road System Six-Year Construction Plan for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 and the allocation of funds for Fiscal Years 2001-2002. R-121900-9 JPM MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC (b) Approval of projects for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Revenue 9 Sharing Program. A-121900- 8 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE PROJECTS URC S. PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 1. First reading of ordinance to vacate a portion of a 15-foot drainage easement on plat entitled "Subdivision of the Orchards, Section 2, Applewood", Plat Book 9, page 112, and further shown as "Existing 15'; Drainage Easement (P.B. 9, PG. 112)" in Plat Book 13, Page 59, located in the Hollins Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Community Development Director) NO CITIZENS SPOKE BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND READING - 1/9/01(SUBJECT TO ORG. MTG) URC T. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. (WITHDRAWN AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONERS - PUBLIC HEARING IS CANCELLED) Second reading of an ordinance on the petition of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to rezone nine parcels of property in the Twine Hollow Road area of the Catawba Magisterial District as follows: 74.43 acres owned by Salem Stone Corporation to be rezoned from AG-3 and AR to I-1 Industrial; 70.50 acres owned by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to be rezoned from AG-3 to I-1 Industrial; and 43.5 acres owned by Energetic Solutions to be rezoned from AG-3 to I-1 Industrial; to implement the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan Future Land Use Plan. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) CHAIRMAN ANNOUNCED THAT ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN 2. Second reading of ordinances on the petitions of the Roanoke County Planning Commission: TWO CITIZENS SPOKE 10 (a) Ordinance amending and re-enacting the Roanoke County Community Plan by the addition of design guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District. 0-121900-10 HOM MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC (b) Ordinance amending and re-enacting the Zoning Ordinance for Roanoke County by the addition of the Clearbrook Village Overlay District. 0-121900-11 HOM MOTION TO ADOPT ORD WITH CORRECTION ON PAGE 11 URC (c) Ordinance amending and re-enacting the official Zoning Map of Roanoke County by the rezoning of sixty-four parcels in the Clearbrook portion of Roanoke County from AV Agricultural Village and AR Agricultural Residential to C-2 Commercial and thereafter amending the official Zoning Map of Roanoke County by the addition and application of the Clearbrook Village Overlay District to sixty-six parcels of land in the Clearbrook section of Roanoke County. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) 0-121900-12 HOM MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC 3. Second reading of ordinance to establish a utility service area in Clearbrook for Stable Road Water and Sewer Extension in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) 0-121900-13 HOM MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC 4 Second reading of ordinance of petition of First Team Auto Mall to obtain a Special Use Permit for Automobile Repair, Major, located at the northeastern corner of Peters Creek and Barrens Road, Hollins Magisterial District. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) 11 0-121900-14 BLJ MOTION TO ADOPT ORD WITH ADDITION TO CONDITION #1: "IF ANY VEGETATION WITHIN THIS AREA IS REMOVED OR OTHERWISE DESTROYED DUE TO WIND, FIRE, DISEASE, ETC., THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO REPLACE THE VEGETATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCREENING STANDARDS." URC 5. Second reading of ordinance of petition of Tim T. Snyder to rezone .574 acre located in the 5200 block of Peters Creek Road from C-2 conditional, General Commercial to C-2, General Commercial, Hollins Magisterial District. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) 0-121900-15 BLJ MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC 6. Second reading of ordinance adopting a new cable television ordinance and approving a franchise agreement which renews the right of Blacksburg/Salem Cablevision Inc., D/B/A Adelphia Cable Communications to erect, construct, operate and maintain a cable television system and repealing Ordinance 102594-12. (Joseph Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney) MR. OBENSHAIN ADVISED THAT DATE ON PG 2 OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT SHOULD READ 10/18/2010 0-121900-16 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC U. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FOUR CITIZENS SPOKE CONCERNING I-73 AND ADVOCATING CONSIDERATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ~TSM~ ALTERNATIVE: KRISTIN B. PECKMAN, 8131 WEBSTER DR.; BOB PECKMAN, 8131 WEBSTER DR.; BENJY BARNHART, 5420 LINDA LANE; AND SUZANNE OSBORNE, 1702 BLAIR ROAD 12 V. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Johnson: ~) Expressed concern about reduced state funding for coming year which will reflect on budget. (2) Asked for update on status of water for Stonegate subdivision in Botetourt County. ECH will provide him with the status. (3) Wished Board members a happy holiday season. Supervisor Minnix (1) Wished everyone holiday greetin sc,~. (2~ Advised citizen on Richland Boulevard that he would contact VDOT tomorrow and ask to have her road cleared from recent snow. Supervisor Church: (1) Advised that first year in office went by extremely fast and much has been accomplished. Expressed appreciation to citizens, staff and Board members for their help. Asked everyone to reflect on thoughtfulness, cooperation, forgiveness and love for each other every day and not just during Christmas time. (2) Thanked Chairman for his leadership this year. Supervisor Nickens: (1~ Asked for projected delivery date of new utility trucks. ECH advised that there was a delay but all four will be delivered in Jan, and expressed appreciation for the trucks. Supervisor McNamara: ~1) Echoed BLJ concerns about budget and economy slowdown but Board will work together for best for citizens. (2) Humourously advised that only one of the Christmas cards he received was from an organization that is not directly or indirectly funded by the Count (3) Thanked staff for assistance during his year as Chairman; Board members for their confidence; and citizens for putting him on the Board; and advised that the best representation is for the position of chair to change each year. W. ADJOURNMENT TO 9:00 A.M., TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 2001 FOR ORGANIZATION MEETING JPM ADJOURNED MEETING AT 8:50 P.M. TO 9 A.M. ON 1/2/01 13 ~ ROAN ,~.~ ti z' ~ i J ;,:. a 183 C~~~x~~~ ~a# ~~~xx~a~~e ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA DECEMBER 19, 2000 ~ff~~~ 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. 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: The Reverend Dusty Fiedler Covenant Presbyterian Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Recognition of Police Department for reaccreditation. D. BRIEFINGS 1 ® Recyded Paper 1. Annual Briefing by the Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors. (Rita Gliniecki, Roanoke County Board Member) E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of the petition of DePaul Family Services, Inc. to adopt a resolution supporting its request to the Virginia General Assembly to exempt from taxation certain property owned by DePaul in the County of Roanoke. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 14, 2000) 2. Request for approval of the application of North Cross School to the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Salem, VA for issuance of revenue bonds not to exceed $8,000,000. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) 3. Request to approve a Reimbursement Agreement with Exaquaria Corporation for Hanging Rock Estates off site sewer in the Catawba Magisterial District. (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 obtain a Special Use Permit for religious assembly, located at 5422 Starkey Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Trustees of the Korean Baptist Church. 2. First reading of ordinance to obtain a Special Use Permit for mini warehouses, located at 4520 Barley Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Jerry Letterman. G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of ordinance authorizing the vacation, quit-claim and release of a portion of an existing 100-foot drainage easement shown on `Plat Showing New Drainage Easement Being Granted to 2 County of Roanoke', Plat Book 13, Page 59, on property owned by DFC Roanoke, LLC, and located in the Hollins Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Community Development Director) H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of ordinance authorizing creation of and financing for a Local Public Works Improvement Project: Webster Road Water Project located in the Hollins Magisterial District. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) 2. Second reading of ordinance ratifying and approving a contract of sale with Billy B. Guthrie and Barbara B. Guthrie for the purchase of 2.797 acres of land being the westerly portion of property (Tax Map No. 97.05-1-3) and authorizing the acquisition and acceptance for parks and recreation purposes and located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Vickie Huffman, Assistant County Attorney) I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Blue Ridge Alliance for Organ and Tissue Donation 2. Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors 3. Grievance Panel 4. Library Board 5. Roanoke County Cable Television Committee 6. Roanoke Valley Regional Cable TV Committee 7 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 3 CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Approval of minutes for October 24, 2000. 2. Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of Audrey Bower, Community Development Department, after more than 15 years of service. 3. Confirmation and ratification of committee appointments to Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors, Roanoke County Cable Television Committee, and Roanoke Valley Regional Cable TV Committee. 4. Acceptance of $1,000 donation from the Salem Rotary Club to support the Police Department's School Services Unit. 5. Acceptance by Police Department of $18,000 grant from Department of Motor Vehicles selective enforcement on Interstate 81. 6. Request for acceptance of Peace Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 7. Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving The Groves, Sections 5 and 6. 8. Acceptance by County Schools of $6,720 grant from the Virginia Department of Education to support mentor teacher program. 9. Transfer of funds from Sewer Surplus to Sewer Repair and Replacement Fund. K. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Request for Board Retreat on January 27, 2001. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) 2. Request for Work Session at first meeting in January, 2001 on Stormwater Phase II, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Requirements. (George Simpson, Community Development Assistant Director) 4 3. Request for Work Session at first meeting in January, 2001 on Redistricting. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 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. Changes to Secondary System of State Highways as of December, 2000 6. Account Paid -November 2000 7. Review of October 24, 2000 Board Action to appropriate funding and positions for twenty additional fire fighters. O. WORK SESSIONS 1. Work Session on Clearbrook rezoning. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) 2. Work Session to consider Town of Vinton's request for Roanoke County participation in the McDonald Farm Business Park. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) 3. Work Session on funding for Roanoke River Greenway. (Pete Haislip, Parks, Recreation & Tourism Director, and Liz Belcher, Greenway Coordinator) 4. Work session to discuss changing Board meeting dates from Tuesdays to Mondays. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) P. CLOSED MEETING pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (5) 5 discussion concerning a prospective business or industry where no previous announcement has been made. EVENING SESSION (7:00 P.M.1 Q. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public hearing for citizen comment on Secondary Road System Six- Year Construction Plan for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 and the allocation of funds for Fiscal Years 2001-2002. (Arnold Covey, Community Development Director) (a) Adoption of resolution for Secondary Road System Six-Year Construction Plan for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007 and the allocation of funds for Fiscal Years 2001-2002. (b) Approval of projects for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Revenue Sharing Program. S. PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 1. First reading of ordinance to vacate a portion of a 15-foot drainage easement on plat entitled "Subdivision of the Orchards, Section 2, Applewood", Plat Book 9, page 112, and further shown as "Existing 15'; Drainage Easement (P.B. 9, PG. 112)" in Plat Book 13, Page 59, located in the Hollins Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Community Development Director) T. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. (WITHDRAWN AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONERS - PUBLIC HEARING IS CANCELLED) Second reading of an ordinance on the petition of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to rezone nine parcels of property in the Twine Hollow Road area of the Catawba Magisterial District as follows: 74.43 acres owned by Salem Stone Corporation to be rezoned from AG-3 and AR to I-1 Industrial; 70.50 acres owned by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to be rezoned from AG-3 to I-1 Industrial; and 43.5 acres owned by Energetic Solutions to be rezoned from AG-3 to I-1 Industrial; to 6 implement the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan Future Land Use Plan. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) 2. Second reading of ordinances on the petitions of the Roanoke County Planning Commission: (a) Ordinance amending and re-enacting the Roanoke County Community Plan by the addition of design guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District. (b) Ordinance amending and re-enacting the Zoning Ordinance for Roanoke County by the addition of the Clearbrook Village Overlay District. (c) Ordinance amending and re-enacting the official Zoning Map of Roanoke County by the rezoning of sixty-four parcels in the Clearbrook portion of Roanoke County from AV Agricultural Village and AR Agricultural Residential to C-2 Commercial and thereafter amending the official Zoning Map of Roanoke County by the addition and application of the Clearbrook Village Overlay District to sixty-six parcels of land in the Clearbrook section of Roanoke County. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) 3. Second reading of ordinance to establish a utility service area in Clearbrook for Stable Road Water and Sewer Extension in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) 4 Second reading of ordinance of petition of First Team Auto Mall to obtain a Special Use Permit for Automobile Repair, Major, located at the northeastern corner of Peters Creek and Barrens Road, Hollins Magisterial District. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) 5. Second reading of ordinance of petition of Tim T. Snyder to rezone .574 acre located in the 5200 block of Peters Creek Road from C-2 conditional, General Commercial to C-2, General Commercial, Hollins Magisterial District. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) 6. Second reading of ordinance adopting a new cable television ordinance and approving a franchise agreement which renews the right of Blacksburg/Salem Cablevision Inc., D/B/A Adelphia Cable Communications to erect, construct, operate and maintain a cable 7 television system and repealing Ordinance 102594-12. (Joseph Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney) U. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS W. ADJOURNMENT TO 9:00 A.M., TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 2001 FOR ORGANIZATION MEETING 8 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER C --/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Recognition of the Police Department for Reaccreditation COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: On Saturday, December 2, 2000, the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA) recognized the Roanoke County Police Department by granting their reaccreditation for a three year period during their meeting in Burlington, Vermont. Our Department was initially accredited in 1992 and was reaccredited in 1997. The accreditation process requires compliance with 288 mandatory standards and subjects the law enforcement agency to a review of up to 151 others based upon the size of the agency and duties performed. Our agency complied with all mandatory and 83 other standards during the on-site assessment held in August, 2000. The Committee meeting of the Commissioners on December 2 provided time for the Commissioners to ask questions of the agency as to their efforts to bring deficiencies into compliance, their work plan, or any other inquiry to ascertain to their satisfaction that the agency was indeed worthy of this designation. Accreditation is important because it symbolizes the striving for excellence in the daily management and operation of a law enforcement agency. Standards are not only written as policy, but daily records and actions must be maintained to prove adherence to these standards. The assessment team interviews field personnel, observes daily operations, talks with community groups, holds public hearings for input and concerns, and talks with neighboring and peer agencies to measure the success of the department. This higher level of written standards and the conscious monitoring of performance not only aids the daily management of the department, but also prepares our officers for a better understanding of dealing with issues presented in the field such as the use of force, management of personnel, or pursuit situations. This time has been set aside on the agenda to recognize the individuals who were instrumental in setting up the policies and procedures and performing the tasks necessary to maintain this I° ~-i professional recognition. Staff participants who will be recognized include Chief Ray Lavinder, Assistant Chief Terrell Holbrook, Asst. Chief Jack McCorkle, Sergeant Phil Patrone, Sergeant Linda Payne, and Officer Nancy Sabados who will assume the responsibilities of accreditation manager. Respectfully submitted, App~/r~o__v~e_d by, /John M. Chambli Jr. Elmer C. Hodge Assistant Administrator County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Church Received ( ) Johnson Referred ( ) McNamara To ( ) Minnix Nickens 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: December 19, 2000 SUBJECT: Annual Report from the Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors has requested time on this agenda to give a brief report about the services provided to the residents of Roanoke County in 2000. Board member from Roanoke County, Rita Gliniecki, will be presenting the report. She will be accompanied by S. James Sikkema, Executive Director. C`~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved () Motion by: Johnson _ Denied () Church _ _ _ Received () McNamara_ _ _ Referred () Minnix _ _ _ To () Nickens ~ } ~-~ BLUE RIDGE COMMUNITY SERVICES MISSION STATEMENT The mission of Blue Ridge Community Services is to support and promote the health, independence and self-worth of individuals and families impacted by mental illness, mental retardation and substance abuse by providing quality community based services that are responsive to individual needs. Report to The Board of Supervisors of the ROANOKE COUNTY December 19, 2000 Blue Ridge Community Services Program Highlights -Roanoke County July 1, 1999 -June 30, 2000 In Fiscal Year 2000, Blue Ridge Community Services staff delivered over 109,000 units of service to more than 2,600 Roanoke County residents. The value of those services was almost $2,500,000. The County's local matching contribution to the agency's FY 2000 operations was $79,332. That means that Roanoke County residents received $31.46 worth of services for every tax dollar they allocated to their Community Services Board. The following are some examples of how Blue Ridge is working in Roanoke County: Assessment & Counseling Services is the single gateway to agency services, crisis response, comprehensive assessment, and short - term interventions for all mental disabilities -:• Jail Assessment & Treatment Services provides a full array of substance abuse services to inmates of the Roanoke County/Salem Jail, including modified therapeutic communities for both men and women. Funding targeted specifically for substance abuse prohibits us from addressing the critical needs of inmates with mental illness. BRCS is developing a proposal for consideration by the Sheriff's Department to develop a pilot for the provision of mental health assessment, treatment, crisis counseling, psychiatric care, appropriate medications, and case management. We anticipate this collaboration resulting in an effort to seek funding from the General Assembly for implementing the pilot. • Individuals and agencies that refer them to our system of care have in the past often commented on the difficulty of knowing how to access the most appropriate service. As part of our Renewal 2000 restructuring of services, BRCS opened The Assessment Center, providing one consumer-oriented means of access to all of our clinical services. Intake and assessment services are provided to all consumers, of all ages, and with all disabilities. The center is located at 1729 Patterson Avenue in Roanoke. • Roanoke County Department of Social Services and Project LINK have cooperated to provide services to TANF recipients whose barriers to employment include drug and alcohol abuse or dependence. Funding for this collaboration is provided by the State Department of Social Services. Child & Family Services provides a continuum of prevention, early intervention, and therapeutic services and supports for families with seriously emotionally disturbed children. • BRCS continues to employ and supervise the Coordinator for the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) and a secretary for that unit. • Prevention Staff provided prevention activities to Roanoke County Parks & Recreation's Kids in Camp (KIC) Summer Camps. • During the 1999-2000 school year and during the summer, Day Treatment services were delivered to middle school students in partnership with Roanoke County Public Schools. This service helped these students avoid being placed in a more restrictive setting. • Support groups were staffed in eight elementary schools that focused on alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use prevention. • Professional staff provided leadership and technical assistance for the school system's conflict mediation programming, which has now been implemented in every school. Community Support Services provides the necessary services and supports to consumers with long-term mental disabilities to maximize each individual's potential for independence, improved quality of life, and optimum level of functioning. • The Community Training Services Program has developed a contract with Roanoke County for a student at Cave Spring High School with mental retardation to receive training, support, assistance, and supervision by BRCS staff. • With the support of the General Assembly, advocates, and consumers, a significant increase in funding was made available for individuals with mental retardation, who were on waiting lists for FY 2000. BRCS used these funds to expand Medicaid Waiver services to approximately 50 consumers and their families. Medicaid Waiver funding provides for individualized community supports, and two smaller capacity (3 bed) residential programs were developed within Roanoke County which allow increased independence for consumers. • Additional funding has been received for PACT (Program of Assertive Community Treatment), which will allow for expanded psychiatric services and group activities for adults with serious mental illness who are homeless or have histories of frequent use of State hospitals. On the following page is a table that displays Service data for Roanoke County in the manner the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services requires of us. It shows in summary: the number of County clients seen according to service, the number of units of each type of service delivered, an indicator as to whether a given service unit is an hour, a day, etc., and the total cost of each type of service. Blue Rid a Communit Services Directl Funded Pro rams - FY 2000 Performance Re ort Co unt of Roanoke Unduplicated Client Count b Service Number Of Units Units of Service Total Cost of Services Men tal Health Services Emer enc Services 238 1,797 SH $71,557 Out atient Counselin 223 2,597 SH 171,527 Intensive In-Home Services 6 751 SH 44,833 Case Mana ement 55 1,584 SH 101,424 Assertive Communit Treatment 6 1,090 SH 58,911 Children's Da Treatment 8 2,541 DSH 85,725 Mountain House Clubhouse 8 1,209 DSH 29,440 Alternative Da Su ort 20 442 SH 4,949 Hi hl Intensive Residential BD Su ortive Services SH Su ervised Residential 59 422 BD 1,229 MH Subtotal 623 12,433 $569,595 Mental Retardation Services Case Mana ement 134 2,647 SH 171,852 Sheltered Em to ment 3 152 D 9,323 Rehabilitation 16 1,753 DSH 45,865 Su orted Em to ment 5 192 SH 7,260 Hi hl Intensive Residential 20 73,283 BD 964,477 Su ervised Residential 3 331 BD 38,783 Su ortive Residential 55 8,933 SH 129,337 Famil Su ort 60 60 F 41,935 MR Subtotal 296 87,351 $1,408,831 Substance Abuse Services Out atient Services 130 2,811 SH 145,051 Case Mana ement 65 1,773 SH 82,923 Da Treatment 1 121 DSH 1,540 Hi hl Intensive Residential 30 145 BD 38,122 Intensive Residential 24 895 BD 71,388 Alternative Da Su ort 34 1,508 SH 49,619 SA Subtotal 284 7,253 $388,643 Pre vention Servi ces MH Prevention Services 112 1,335 SH 52,673 SA Prevention Plus 1,339 1,073 SH 75,959 Prevention Subtotal 1,451 2,408 $128,632 Grand Total 2,654 109,445 $2,495,701 FY 2000 Local Tax Share $79,332 Service /Local Dollar $31.46 Units of Service: SH =Service Hours DSH= Day Support Hours D=Days BD=Bed Days F=Families ,~„ ::. r AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 RESOLUTION 121900-1 TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SUPPORTING TAX EXEMPTION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY DEPAUL FAMILY SERVICES, INC. AND USED FOR ITS CHARITABLE, EDUCATIONAL, AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES ON ANON-PROFIT BASIS WHEREAS, DePaul Family Services, Inc. (DePaul) has petitioned this Board for support of a bill to be introduced at the 2001 Session of the Virginia General Assembly to exempt certain property of DePaul from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia; and WHEREAS, a public hearing at which all citizens had an opportunity to be heard with respect to the Foundation's request was held by the Board on November 14, 2000, and continued until December 19, 2000; and WHEREAS, the provisions of subsection B of Section 30-19.04 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, have been examined and considered by the Board; and WHEREAS, DePaul agrees that the property to be exempt from taxation is the property of DePaul Family Services, Inc. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That, in accordance with Section 30-19.04 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, the Board supports an exemption from taxation under Article X, Section 6 (a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia of property owned and used by DePaul Family Services, Inc. for its charitable, educational, and benevolent purposes. This resolution is adopted by the Board after holding a public hearing with respect hereto as to which public notice was given 1 and at which citizens had an opportunity to be heard. In adopting this Resolution, the Board has examined and considered the provisions of subsection B of Section 30-19.04 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The assessed value of the property owned and used by DePaul is $759,900 and the property tax is $8,586. The Tax Parcel No. of the property owned by DePaul is 28.13-1-27.3. 2. The Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this Resolution to the Chairman of the Committee of the General Assembly considering the designation of property to be exempt from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia, to the Commissioner of the Revenue and the Treasurer for Roanoke County, and to DePaul Family Services, Inc. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Hol n, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney David Porter, Director, Economic Development The Honorable C. Richard Cranwell, Co-Chair, House Finance Committee The Honorable Harry J. Parrish, Co-Chair, House Finance Committee The Honorable John H. Chichester, Chair, Senate Finance Committee The Honorable R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue The Honorable Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Herb Beskar, Executive Director, DePaul Family Services, Inc. Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Danial Morris, Director, Finance 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: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Petition by the DePaul Family Services, Inc. for tax exempt status pursuant to Article X, Section 6 (a) (6) of the Constitution of Virginia COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This petition by the DePaul Family Services, Inc. seeks tax exempt status in accordance with the Constitution of Virginia. The real estate consists of 2.33 acres located at 5650 Hollins Road. The assessed value of this real estate is $759,900 and the real estate taxes would be $8,586. DePaul will agree to pay a 20% service fee. BACKGROUND: This matter was before the Board on November 14, 2000 and the Board requested that this matter be postponed until certain information was provided. Attached to this Board report is a copy of the tax map showing the location of the property owned by DePaul. This property was previously owned by Norman Mason and was purchased by DePaul in March of 2000. Mr. Mason operated several smaller businesses out of this location. A financial services corporation and a retail sales corporation have business licenses which list this location as their address. DePaul occupies the entire structure and does not lease it out to any other businesses or operations. The Board also requested budget information, number of full time employees, and salary information. In response to that request, DePaul submitted the attached letter dated December 5, 2000, documenting salary information for a range of various positions. The Constitution establishes the requirements and qualifications of tax exempt organizations. Section 30-19.04 of the State Code establishes the procedural requirements for organizations seeking tax exempt status by designation from the General Assembly. This procedure includes a public hearing, adoption of a resolution, and certain findings by the local U:\WPDOCS\AGENDA\GENERAL\depaul.rpt.wpd 1 ~`~ governing body, before action by the General Assembly. DePaul has submitted an application to the County for tax exempt status, which is attached. DePaul has submitted to staff materials which provides a more complete description of its services, which are attached to this report. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: DePaul is an organization associated with Catholic Charities USA. It is a private, non-profit child placing agency licensed by the State Department of Social Services. It provides specialized foster care for children and adolescents, day programs for mental retardation, and clinical services programs. The applicable provision of the Constitution is as follows: Article X. Section 6. Exempt property. - (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the following property and no other shall be exempt from taxation, State and local, including inheritance taxes: (6) Property used by its owner for religious, charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural, or public park and playground purposes, as may be provided by classification or designation by a three- fourths vote of the members elected to each house of the General Assembly and subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed. The applicable provision of the State Code is Section 58.1- 3650: A. The real and personal property of an organization designated by a section within this article and used by such organization exclusively for a religious, charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural or public park and playground purpose as set forth in Article X, Section 6 (a) (6) of the Constitution of Virginia, the particular purpose for which such organization is classified being specifically set forth within each section, shall be exempt from taxation so long as such organization is operated not for profit and the property so exempt is used in accordance with the purpose for which the organization is classified. In addition, such exemption may be revoked in accordance with the provisions of §§ 58.1-3605. B. Exemptions of property from taxation under this article shall be strictly construed in accordance with the provisions of Article X, Section 6 (f) of the Constitution of Virginia. U:\WPDOCS\AGENDA\GENERAL\depaul.rpt.wpd 2 ~f will be offset in part by the 20% service fee. ALTERNATIVES: After the public hearing the Board may decide to support this exemption by the approval of the attached resolution; or it may decide to refuse to support this exemption. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This matter is submitted to the Board for its consideration. Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Vote No Yes Church Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens Abs U:\WPDOCS\AGENDA\GENERAL\depaul.rpt.wpd 4 "/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 RESOLUTION TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SUPPORTING TAX EXEMPTION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY DEPAUL FAMILY SERVICES, INC. AND USED FOR ITS CHARITABLE, EDUCATIONAL, AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES ON A NON-PROFIT BASIS WHEREAS, DePaul Family Services, Inc. (DePaul) has petitioned this Board for support of a bill to be introduced at the 2001 Session of the Virginia General Assembly to exempt certain property of DePaul from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia; and WHEREAS, a public hearing at which all citizens had an opportunity to be heard with respect to the Foundation's request was held by the Board on November 14, 2000, and continued until December 19, 2000; and WHEREAS, the provisions of subsection B of Section 30-19.04 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, have been examined and considered by the Board; and WHEREAS, DePaul agrees that the property to be exempt from taxation is the property of DePaul Family Services, Inc. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That, in accordance with Section 30-19.04 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, the Board supports an exemption from taxation under Article X, Section 6 (a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia of property owned and used by DePaul Family Services, Inc. U:IWPDOCS\AGENDA(GENERAL\depaul.resolution.wpd 1 ~. ~- for its charitable, educational, and benevolent purposes. This resolution is adopted by the Board after holding a public hearing with respect hereto as to which public notice was given and at which citizens had an opportunity to be heard. In adopting this Resolution, the Board has examined and considered the provisions of subsection B of Section 30-19.04 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The assessed value of the property owned and used by DePaul is $759,900 and the property tax is $8,586. The Tax Parcel No. of the property owned by DePaul is 28.13-1-27.3. 2. The Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this Resolution to the Chairman of the Committee of the General Assembly considering the designation of property to be exempt from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia, to the Commissioner of the Revenue and the Treasurer for Roanoke County, and to DePaul Family Services, Inc. U:\W PDOCS\AGENDA\GENERAL\depaul. resolution.wpd 2 8 _ Y. _ 4.1 ,`0 - 657f .~ - .. _I 11fi • ' Rf. .. 3e1} 91,3} ~ 5. ~ ~ 651b 150 . 1842 63.33 6601 ~ V 19 ro n 8500 ~1. 0 132.5 A 11 h . $ - t ~0. o 0.28 12 8 5 '~ 20. M 21. N BBSJ ~. 4.8s 6.44 1 ~ N o N 66f7 - $. 101 182.15 a C'~ - N o ~, 81,33 a 6611 ~ ~ 130 J33 fJl' y6 83.14 6619 ' F1 y 165.84 I2fi 22. 1 zs nt Cll` 132.5 cJe 6615 ` y 23.4 - 24p. 150 1s 1.37 Ac. 6648 125 114,85 6575 6577 h ~ I , h 13. 6638 132 5 124.35 lsp . 1 Rt lsp 23.5 Iss.zz - 1~. 6670 24.ss . 191,5 n'' 6576 z ~ 15. 66JB 12].s4 y lBp ~ A ~ 125 _ 35 248, 42 25. 149. 45 12} - 1 6. 8601 6510 Stlf 7 17s 132.5 ~ 17. 18 . 216,06 / loo 1z4.9s - 0 23.6 4z.. 8 39. 6 561 12s. 21 1.oB Ac. ° 40. R C6S S 16 6518 J , . 6,84 a 251 yN 100 1.21 Ac. 6617 NN n 6.95 5717 161 .900 _ 28. 175.04 3.14 Ac. 66JB 38. B s m 27. 7 ~~ `, 59.98 8.87 Ay R. C B. S 1 `~,`~ # ~~+ rt 9 ^ 27_.5 a.e3 Ac. O ~~ .r '~ ,~_.. \ ~~t 27.3 2.}} Ac. 27.4 R.CB.S. 5650 }5 3°'' . 561f 27.2 \ 24.79 Ac. - ti ~, , t. .ao Ac. , F. - ~~. ~.. U c~~` 9.4 z.o a<. / b 0 ~' j 5597 28. i 9.5 1.00 A<. 5'6x6 ~ 7.50 A~, 1 29. m 1.00-Ac. .4. .y 6f J0 ".'t9 _ 8 sfle 23. ~~s, ~ ~ S 23.7 ~ Sn 1.18 Ac. ~ ~ ~ 576 • ~° 5781 i z39s1 sn6 ~ ~ m 5719 o~ 262 ~ ~ i 24. i 5. 5710 1 191.E • ^ ~ o n ~ 5709 6' J8 2DQ9 S~~O i i 7. s7o1 - 5696 . 2j88 ^° 5691 Q, IO ~ 1 X22'7 • ~ 222.Ig i ~ 5687 8r1 273.24 / u i m~ s6B1 ~ 8.2 1~ 2^ ~ ~ 2 9,83 m 5671 8~ r 5675 7.TS.43 J ~ a' 5667 9_4 O 243 OJ I m 41 2 9.3 2.52 Ac. 71\171 .'Z~ 5575 17\`~ ,~, i 9.fi ~'~_ - ~ 5571 1.}7 Ac. ~~~` i ~~'~~ ~'~~~ K ~ ~'~ - \' ~~, LEGEND ':a,.. i .. :. . ~-«. IVI~IIIWI~I~VIIDIIINaP1VIYN DePaul Family Services December 5, 2000 Paul Mahoney, County Attorney P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Dear Mr. Mahoney: ,~ `~ Following our recent phone conversation, I am documenting in this letter the information which you requested. Salary information by the range for various position is as follows: Bachelors level Social Workers, $23,500. - $31,500.; Masters level Social Workers, 25,500. - 33,500.; Front Office Staff, 18,000. - 24,000.; Mentors, 18,000. - 22,000.; Program Directors, 38,000. - 52,000. These salary ranges are competitive in the field of human services and in this part of the State. Also, approximately 40% of our 8.5 million budget are pass-through monies which go to the foster parents for their services. Tom Markwood, our Director of Finance and Administration, forwarded to you the original packet of material; he is not aware of additional information which might be of use. I'm in touch with Doug Henson, our Board attorney, regarding the need for a patron, especially in light of the pre-file date of December 18th. Your assistance is appreciated. Sincerely, ~~~ ~ `~_ r--_ Herb Beskar Executive Director Hb/pb ~~~l~~Ml~l~ DEC 0 6 anon ---8~Y~1------- MAIN OFFICE: 5650 Hollins Road Roanoke, VA 24019 540-265-8923 Fax 540-265-7663 BRANCH OFFICES; 2316 Atherholt Road Suite 107 Lynchburg, VA 24501 804-528-0184 Fax (804) 528-0187 80 College St. Suite F Christiansburg, VA 24073 540-381-1848 Fax (540) 381-5372 440 Premier Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 804-977-9847 Fax (804) 977-2809 106 Abingdon Place Abingdon, VA 2421 1 540-623-0881 Fax (540) 623-0002 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 RESOLUTION 121900-2 APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF NORTH CROSS SCHOOL TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA FOR ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED $8,000,000 WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Salem, Virginia (the "Authority") has considered the application of North Cross School (the "Borrower") requesting the issuance of one or more of the Authority's revenue bonds or notes in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in financing the construction, expansion, renovation and equipping (including landscaping) ofvarious buildings and other facilities on the Borrower's campus (the "Project"), which is located at 4254 Colonial Avenue, S. W ., in Roanoke County ,Virginia (the "County"), and which Project will be owned and operated by the Borrower, and the Authority has held a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, it has been requested that the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds, and such approval is required for compliance with Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Borrower, as required by said Section 147(f), to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. The Board concurs with the resolution 1 ~. adopted by the Authority on November 1,2000 with respect to the Bonds and the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by said Section 147(f), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Borrower or otherwise indicate that the Project possesses any economic viability .The Bonds shall provide that neither the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Commonwealth") nor any political subdivision thereof, including the County, the City of Salem (the "City") and the Authority, shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on the Bonds or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and receipts pledged therefor and that neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, including the County, the City and the Authority ,shall be pledged thereto. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 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: Brenda J. Ho ton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Alton L. Knighton, Jr., Attorney at Law Forest Jones, Salem City Manager David Porter, Secretary/ Treasurer, Roanoke County Industrial Development Authority 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER C ~ ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Request for approval of the application of North Cross School to the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Salem, Virginia for issuance of revenue bonds not to exceed $8,000,000 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND North Cross School is an independent, non-sectarian coeducational day school for students in Junior Kindergarten through Grade 12. The school was founded and originally located in the City of Salem, and has been located on Colonial Avenue in Roanoke County for many years. The total student enrollment is 542 with 145 in the Upper School. The student-faculty ratio is 11-1 with an average class size of 15. From the Class of 1999, 97 percent of the students attended four-year colleges. The facilities on the 77-acre campus include six buildings, an athletic centerwith three gyms, indoor running track, Olympic sized pool and weight and aerobics rooms. While the school is located in Roanoke County, the project will promote the welfare and enhance educational opportunities for the residents of the entire Roanoke Valley and surrounding areas. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: North Cross School has applied to the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Salem for the issuance of $8,000,000 of revenue bonds to assist in the financing of the construction expansion, renovation and equipping various buildings and other facilities on the campus. The school is applying for Industrial Development Authority Bonds through the City of Salem so that they can get "bank qualified" bonds. "Bank qualified" debt is a special category of debt that is only available to small issuers (those that issue under $10 million in a calendar year). Bank qualified bonds can be held by local banks and may generate a lower interest rate. Since the County typically issues in excess of $10 million annually in debt, we do not have the capacity to issue bank qualified debt. Salem, however, does not issue much debt and can do this. ~~ The Salem Industrial Development Authority held a public hearing on this application on December 7, 2000 and voted to recommend the approval of the bonds to the Salem City Council and Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. The Salem City Council heard the request on December 11, 2000 and voted to approve the financing. Attached are copies of the resolution adopted by the City of Salem IDA, and the resolution adopted by the Salem City Council. Also attached is information about North Cross School. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the County because the bonds specifically provide that no political subdivision is obligated to pay the principal or interest on the bonds or any other costs. Attached is the fiscal impact statement provided by North Cross School. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution approving the financing of the project and issuance of the Bonds by the City of Salem Industrial Development Authority. This action must be taken by December 31, 2000 in order for North Cross to take advantage of the financing. Respectfully Submitted by Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Motion by: ------------------- VOTE No. Yes Abs Church Johnson _ McNamara- Minnix Nickens cc: File r' ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF NORTH CROSS SCHOOL TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA FOR ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED $8,000,000 WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Salem, Virginia (the "Authority") has considered the application of North Cross School (the "Borrower") requesting the issuance of one or more of the Authority's revenue bonds or notes in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in financing the construction, expansion, renovation and equipping (including landscaping) of various buildings and other facilities on the Borrower's campus (the "Project"), which is located at 4254 Colonial Avenue, S. W ., in Roanoke County ,Virginia (the "County"), and which Project will be owned and operated by the Borrower, and the Authority has held a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, it has been requested that the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds, and such approval is required for compliance with Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Borrower, as required by said Section 147(f), to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. The Board concurs with the resolution adopted by the Authority on November 1,2000 with respect to the Bonds and the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by said Section 147(f), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Borrower or otherwise indicate that the Project possesses any economic viability .The Bonds shall provide that neither the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Commonwealth") nor any political subdivision thereof, including the County, the City of Salem (the "City") and the Authority, shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on the Bonds or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and receipts pledged therefor and that neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, including the County, the City and the Authority ,shall be pledged thereto. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. ~ ~~ FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: December 7, 2000 Applicant: North Cross School Facility: Various buildings and other facilities located on the Applicant's campus in Roanoke County, Virginia. 1. Maximum amount of financing sought $ 8,000,000 2. Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property to be constructed in the municipality $ 0 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 8 Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates $ 0 Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates $ 0 Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates $ 0 a. Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased from Virginia companies within the locality $ 0 b. Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality $ 0 c. Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from Virginia companies within the locality $ 25,000 d. Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality $ 0 Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis 0 Average annual salary per employee $ N/A RKE# 0671091.WPD C/M:069650-00005-01 r Signature: /~~ ,/ Au hority Chairman The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Salem, Virginia If one or more of the above questions do not apply to the facility, indicate by writing "N/A" on the appropriate line. RKE# 0671091.WPD C/M: 069650-00005-01 Lam', +•~ RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, there have been described to The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Salem, Virginia (the "Authority") the plans of North Cross School (the "Borrower") to construct, renovate, expand and equip a number of facilities (the "Project") in Roanoke County, Virginia (the "County"); WHEREAS, the Borrower has described the benefits to the County and to the City of Salem, Virginia (the "City") and has requested the Authority to agree to issue one or more of its revenue bonds or notes (the "Bonds"), under the Virginia Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act (the "Act"), in an amount not expected to exceed $8,000,000, to finance the cost of the construction, renovation, expansion and equipping of the Project; WHEREAS, the Authority has held a public hearing with respect to the issuance of the Bonds; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA: 1. The Authority hereby recommends that the Boazd of Supervisors of the County (the "Boazd") and the City Council of the City (the "Council") approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds. 2. The officers of the Authority aze hereby authorized and directed to deliver to the Board and the Council (a) a reasonably detailed summary of the comments expressed at the public hearing held with respect to the issuance of the Bonds, (b) a fiscal impact statement concerning the Project in the form specified in Section 15.2-4907 of the Code of Virginia, and (c) a copy of this resolution, which constitutes the recommendation of the Authority that the Board and the Council approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. RKE* 0871171.WPD GM: 069850-00005-01 REPORT OF PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing was conducted by The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Salem, Virginia (the "Authority") at 4:00 p.m. on December 7, 2000 on the application of North Cross School (the "Borrower") requesting the Authority to issue up to $8,000,000 of its revenue bonds or notes (the "Bonds") to assist the Borrower in the construction, renovation, expansion and equipping of various buildings and other facilities (the "Project"). Notice of such hearing was published on November 23, 2000 and November 30, 2000 in The Roanoke Times. The Project will be located on the Borrower's campus in Roanoke County, Virginia. The public hearing was held in the City Council Chambers, Salem City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia. At the meeting those persons interested in the issuance of the Bonds or the location and nature of the Project were given the opportunity to present their views. The public comments, if any, received at the meeting are summarized in Exhibit A attached hereto. After such hearing, the Authority voted to recommend the approval of the Bonds to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (the "Board")and the City Council of the City of Salem, Virginia (the "Council"). Accordingly, the Authority hereby recommends to the Board and the Council that they approve the issuance of the Bonds, as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Dated December 7, 2000. THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA Bye ~~--- ~~ -~- Chainrnan RKE# 0671110.WPD C/M: 069850-00005-01 G- °` Exhibit A to Report of Public Hearing The following public comments were received: None. RKE# 0671110.WPD CIM:069650-00005-01 ~'~" /~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Salem, Virginia (the "Authority") has considered the application of North Cross School (the "Borrower") requesting the issuance of one or more of the Authority's revenue bonds or notes in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in the financing of the construction, expansion, renovation and equipping (including landscaping) of various buildings and other facilities on the Borrower's campus (the "Project"), which is located at 4254 Colonial Avenue, S.W., in Roanoke County, Virginia (the "County"), and which Project will be owned and operated by the Borrower, and the Authority has held a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, it has been requested that the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Salem, Virginia (the "City") approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds, and such approval is required for compliance with Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"); BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA: 1. The Council approves the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Borrower, as required by said Section 147(f), to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by said Section 147(f), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds, the creditworthiness of the Borrower or the economic viability of the Project. The Bonds shall provide that neither the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Commonwealth") nor any political subdivision thereof, including the City, the County and the Authority, shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on the Bonds or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and receipts pledged therefor and that neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, including the City, the County and the Authority, shall be pledged thereto. 3. The Bonds are hereby designated as qualified tax-exempt obligations for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, but only to the extent the Bonds are issued during 2000. The City has not designated, and will not designate, more than $10,000,000 of obligations to be issued during 2000 as qualified tax-exempt obligations for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. RKE* 0871187.WPD C/M: 069850-00005-01 G._ "` . NORTH CROSS SCHOOL 4254 COLONIAL AvENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018 -4090 540-989-6641 FAX: 540-989-4888 CEEB: 471-941 G. WILLIAM STACEY IV, ED.D. HEAD OFSCHOOL SAMUEL P. COX DIRECTOR OF UPPER SCHOOL LISA G. TURNER DIRECTOR OF COLLEGE COUNSELING SCHOOL PROFILE 2000-2001 THE SCHOOL AND C0112MUMTY: North Cross School is an independent, non-sectarian, coeducational, college-preparatory day school for students in Junior Kindergarten through Grade 12. It provides a rigorous program supported by a variety of electives and co-curricular activities. The Upper School student-faculty ratio is 11-1 with an average class size of 15. At North Cross School, issues of honesty are matters of major importance. Our strict Honor Code encourages all members of the School community to work in an open and honest manner. THE ENROLLMENT: The total student enrollment is 542 with 145 in the Upper School and 35 in this year's senior class. The average graduating class size is 40. The student body reflects the economic and ethnic diversity of the Roanoke metropolitan area. Students commute from Bedford, Botetourt, Franklin, Montgomery, and Roanoke Counties. The majority of parents hold professional or managerial positions. ACCREDITED BY: Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and the Virginia Association of Independent Schools. It is the only school that is a member of the National Association of Independent Schools within a 75-mile radius SENIOR PROJECT: Completion of the senior project is required for graduation. The project includes the production of a formal research or thesis paper, or original work of art, music, or creative writing. Each senior works closely with a faculty advisor and completes a journal describing the process of the project. The final work is graded, and each senior subsequently prepares and makes an oral presentation for the entire Upper School student body and faculty. NATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY: Students must have an overall semester average of 94 (A) or better to be considered for nomination to the National Honor Society. ADVANCED PLACEMENT: We believe that all of our upper level courses offer appropriate preparation for the Advanced Placement exams, though no course is singled out as AP. This past year 46 students (63% of whom are seniors) took one or more AP exams. 75 exams were taken with 75% receiving a score of 3 or higher. ~ -.:1, GRADUATION REQumE~rrTS: Minimum of 22 units (19 Academic, 2 Physical Education, and 1 Fine Arts). GRADING SCALE: A: 94-100 B: 86-93 C: 78-85 D: 70-77 F: below 70 No course is weighted in determining the GPA. CLASS RAxx: North Cross School does not rank students. SAT DISTRIBUTION FOR THE CLASS OF 2000 SAT I VERBAL RANGE MATH 14% 700-800 12% 35% 600-690 42% 42% 500-590 44% 9% 400-490 0% 600 Mean 610 (all students) SAT II WRITING RANGE MATH IC MATH IIC 22% 700-800 8% 75% 24% 600-699 54% - 42% 500-599 29% 25% 12% 400-499 8% - 660 Mean 600 690 (30 students) (24 students) (4 students) GPA QUINTILES CLASS OF 2001 CLASS OF 2000 (G'~ SEMESTER) 1 ~ 3.79 - 4.00 3.61 - 4.00 2°~ 3.33 - 3.74 3.31 - 3.59 3'~ 3.14-3.32 3.00-3.28 4~' 2.83 - 3.11 2.73 - 2.98 5`~ 2.06 - 2.78 1.80 - 2.69 r COURSE OF STUDY ENGLISH English 9,10,11,12 Writers Workshop (.5) Humanities Russian Masterpieces (.5) Comparative World Religion (.5) FOREIGN LANGUAGE French I - V Spanish I - V Latin I - V HISTORY Modern European History (9) United States History (11) American & VA Government (12) Latin American History Ancient History Chinese History SCIENCE MATHEMATICS Integrated Science (9) Algebra I Chemistry A/ Biology A (10) Algebra II Biology B/ Chemistry B (11) Honors Algebra II Physics College Algebra Honors Physics Geometry Advanced Biology Honors Geometry Advanced Chemistry Pre-Calculus Anatomy & Physiology Statistics Diseases of Man (.5) Calculus I Evolution (.5) Calculus II HEALTH/PE FINE ARTS Driver Ed/PE (9) Studio Art Health/Physical Ed (10) Media Art Advanced Art Drama Workshop COMPUTERS Music Appreciation Computer Applications Humanities Computer Programming Instrumental Music -~ .~` COLLEGE ACCEPTANCES -CLASS OF 2000 University of Alabama University of North Carolina at Greensboro Auburn University Northwestern University Boston University Ohio University California Institute of Technology Old Dominion University Clemson University Oregon State University Cornell University University of the Pacific College of Charleston Pennsylvania State University University of Colorado at Boulder Pfeiffer College Davidson College Presbyterian College Dickinson College Princeton University Duke University Purdue University Elon College Radford College Florida State University Randolph-Macon College George Mason University Rhodes College Georgetown University Roanoke College Gettysburg College University of South Carolina University of Georgia University of the South Guilford College University of Tennessee Hamilton College University of Texas at Austin Hampden-Sydney College Tulane University James Madison University University of Vermont Johnson State College University of Virginia University of Kansas Virginia Commonwealth University Lock Haven College Virginia Military Institute Mars Hill College Virginia Polytechnic Institute University of Maryland Wake Forest University Mary Washington College Washington and Lee University Meredith College Wells College University of Miami in Ohio West Virginia University Michigan State University Wheaton College University of Montana The College of William and Mary New York University University of Wisconsin North Carolina State University e ACTION # ITEM NUMBER 'c- ! -3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 19, 2000 SUBJECT: Request to approve a Reimbursement Agreement between Exaquaria Corporation and the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: This has been a long and troublesome project. Minor corrective action is still needed before final acceptance is given on this project. We are still holding sufficient bonds on this project and we are in the process of resolving it. 1 recommend approval. The contractor over-sized the project at our request. Normally, this would be brought to your attention before work was begun. BACKGROUND: A gravity sewer interceptor was installed by Hanging Rock Estates, L.L.C. in 1996 to serve a development known as Hanging Rock Estates. This sewer interceptor ran from the City of Salem limits at Thompson Memorial Drive for a distance of approximately 2,800 feet to the proposed development. The Roanoke County sewer ordinance provides that developers can be compensated for the cost of off-site facilities if these facilities are sized to serve other properties. This is provided by granting credits of off-site fees within the development and/or reimbursement for off-site fees paid by other developments that may utilize this line. The maximum credit or reimbursement would be 50% of the off-site fees collected by the County. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The sewer interceptor was sized to handle the entire service area of approximately 500 acres, as shown on the attached map. Staff and Exaquaria have negotiated a fair market value for this sewer interceptor to be $400,000. Hanging Rock Estates contains approximately 50 residential lots, therefore, without a reimbursement contract, the developer could only recover approximately $37,500 (50 lots x '/2 ($1,500). Allowing a reimbursement contract would provide the opportunity for the developer to recover more of his investment as other properties develop. ` -~ The reimbursement contract would allow Exaquaria Corporation to receive up to 50% of the off- site facility fees collected by Roanoke County within the service area served by this interceptor. This agreement would be valid for a period of ten years. Exaquaria could be reimbursed up to but not to exceed a total of $400,000. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract would require that Roanoke County reimburse the developer $19,500 in fees already collected in this area and future credits as other properties develop. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the County Administrator be allowed to execute a reimbursement contract with Exaquaria Corporation on a form approved by the County Attorney. SUBMITTED BY: ~~ Gary Robertson, P.E. Utility Director ACTION Approved () Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to APPROVED: /~.~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator -------------------------------------------------------- VOTE No Yes Abs Church Johnson _ _ McNamara _ _ _ Minnix _ Nickens t ACTION NO. ITEM NO. r~ ~` '~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 19, 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 January 23. 2001. The titles of these ordinances are as follows: 1. Petition of Trustees of The Korean Baptist Church to obtain a Special Use Permit for Religious Assembly, located at 5422 Starkey Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. 2. Petition of Jerry Letterman to obtain a Special Use Permit for Mini Warehouses, located at 4520 Barley Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. 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 January 23. 2001. ~ ~ ~ . (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, ~~ aul M. ahoney County Attorney Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Action Motion by No Yes ~ Church Johnson- McNamara Minnix Nickens (,,VUIa N T LJI' nU~'Iyv~C L'-',: N~ Idacereee~~ a;J -,;~. ~ ~ ~ ~9p~«c tian (ce: ~ u ~~ ~PC~Bc?. date: ' ~ 5ZO4 Bernard vr. ~ T~~~i~ ~ ~ f ~~ P,O. 8oX 2_°80Q placards;ssucd: 6u5 date: ~~ ~, ' P,aanake. VA 24018 i ~~ (540` 772-2068 FAX i~~01 l l2-"G1 ~$ Casa Number. C ~-% / ~ ld2~ ~•:: ; " ' ~1 ~', r iI Checx type of application fiieti ichec;< all that appfyl: .,,- ~ cncrini iicc f~VaAIA~ICE ______! Fhone: 772-4222 Applicant's Warne: Trustees of The Korean Baptist :CYiurch Zip Ccde: 24015 Address: 2660 Brarrioleton Avenue, SuV, Roanoke,. VA F".one: 334-2603 Gwner's name: Jack C. Bess Zp Code: 24065 Address: P. 0. Box 28, Boones Mi 1 1 , VA I Location of prcpery: Tax Map Number: 87.19-2-4 8 87.19-2-5 5422 Starkey Road Magisterial District: Cave Spring Roanoke, CIA. 24014 y Cave Spring Communit F!ann~ng Area: ~ ciZe of parcel (s;: Existing ~oning: C1C ' 2 , 16 acres Existing Land Use: Office - sq.ft. _ ' ~: ~: ;} .:~: ;: :~: l ., :,. ~: " . C1C Spec i a 3 Use Permi t ~r Starf' U.:a Only Frcpvsed Zoninc: Fropcszd Land Use: G!nurch - rei igious asse~ly use ~YF=~ II III l Dces the parcel meet the mirimum lot area, vvidt;,, and frontage requirements of the r?auested district? Y_5 X NG IF N0, P, VAf'il.=.~~ICc IS F+E'U1F,i=C F1FtST. Dces the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YEti X NC'. iF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRE) FIRS T . if re_oning request, are conditions being prof;erect with ;his request? YES X ~1G ., :;:: :; ,: :;: ~;: ;ii• 'i _::;:. :;:: _ :;i° _ ;;; ., ~`:. .~~ , . g Grdinac,ce :n erdar to: ~! of the Fcanoke County Zcnin Variance of Section(s) is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. AFPL!CATIGN WILL NCT 6E ACCE?TEG IF ANY CF T~!ESc" ITEMS A.RE M1SSiNG OR INCGMPLc ii E. ws v nrs v ors v XI Consulrtien X 8 11?" x 11' concept plan X ( Application fee Application X ~~-~ Me*.es and bounds description X - Proffers, if applicable XI ~ Justification ~°=~ Water and rawer application i X Adjoining property owners / he.-e~y certiry that / am either the owner of the property or ;he owner's agent tar contra c; purchaser and am accmg with the knowledge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature: _ _ ack G. Bess, t~nmer ~~ Tr''T'=~ .. P • l'1' ,=ar ~tac Jse Cnly: Case ~'Jumoer ~ t,.t `: f ~~ n`4.'`I / t x~ r ~ rc ,~;'"11~I ~' 1...~ ~ _.:. t -~,1..= ? ~ ~ ,~' i ~!~2~-f - f~'' -f'~ ~f ~~~ x .rl'S 1 ~. ..i a ~ . `l. •. '~ Trustees of The Korean 8a t i st C~urc4~ ~ / Applicant t RE Planning ~OmmISSIOn Wlii StUoy r e~OnlnC ar~d SpeClal USZ permit i 2QUeStS tC det~rrnlne the ne°:~ and justificatien for the change in terms CT public health, safet~r, and general welfare. Please ansNei the iclle~r~ing gUestiQnS as thorouchiy aS pGSSIDIe. L,~Se oddlLlCnai SpaC° IT ~.^ieC°SSary. Please explain flaw the request 7Ui"Cr1erS the pUrpGScS Of the Zoning Qrd{nanC (CeCtiCn yO-J} a5 vveli a'S trie purpose fcund at the oeglnning of the apCitCablc ZOnlny^ dlStrlCt'CiaSS(TICatlOn in the zoning crdinanc=_. The request will allow a piece of property which is presently zoned C1C to be utilized with special use permit for a church facility which is a reasonable use and fits within the intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance for the subject property. Please exDiBin how the project ConTOfrnS to the genera! guleenr,es and pciices Contained In tr ie ~CcnQke COURt'! C'Jmprerlen5l4e Plan. The general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan call for appropriate uses of land. The proposed use is compatible with uses within the area which include generally residential properties. There is another church within the immediate area. Please describe the impact(sj cf the request on the property itself, the adjoining properies, and the surrcundinc area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including waterisc''Ner, roads, schools, parks;recrea~ion, and firerrescue. Because the size of the church is relatively small, the impact on water, sewer and roads would be minimal. There would be no impact on schools, parks and recreation. The fire and rescue impact is minimal. ~ . PROFFERS The following Proffers are hereby submitted with the request for the Special Use Permit of the Korean Baptist Church Trustees: 1. The property will be developed in accordance with the site plan fora "new sanctuary building and additional parking for Korean Baptist Church," prepared by Gonzalo Gouffray under date of October 23, 2000. Applicant: KOREAN BAPTIST C~IU~ZCH U ~. ~ ~ i BY ~~ TRUSTEE /~ ~~J USTEE ~ BY ~N i,'"~ri~ I~ c-~~~~C~~` /TRUSTEE / Owner: ~ ~ ~ JACK G. BESS / \\OFNAA01\DATA\Users\CBaumgardner\ZONiNG\Korean Baptist PROFFERS.doc November 14, 2000 ~~ - ; ~; _~ ,a .: ° - - ' u o N < i Q S IA ~~ a<_ n ~y ~ O u < ' o ~ ~ D V• ~ V~ Z Z pz0-rs ~ ~ ~ ~ z o~~rn~ ZOO ~ ~~z ~ rno~ ~ ~z -a- z r' G1 z STAR1C~y ROAD -~, --,,~ - ~ ' ~ 'L~ ~~~ ~ ~ m ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ tl ~~~ ~ ~`° ~` Z~~ ~ Z ~ ~ I ~ ..m ~.m y ADZ _ 8 ~~~ ~ ~ 0 • ,~ ~~ 0> g <r _ ~. u~ 1 °~ ~ g~ ~ (~! a' . ~~~~~~~ ~' D (~ ~~ 8 \ I~~ I ~~~ Ni ~l A a ', Aar _ ~ ~ '~ ° \ s 3 ~ 1 a m \ \ ' ~~ \ \ ~ ..dam ~ ~\ \ ~~ I \ \\ \\ \ '• ~~ \ \\ ~\ \ ~ \ \ \ \ I \ \ ~ '. \ \ u~ . 4(x71 ~ \ 'C t~ ~ N 70 \ c0 - n / p ptVp~~a N8VV b FOOSPD ~~a?iiAA I 1 ~ __ _ _- Q ~i N ~ ~ ~ _ ZZ N O O d ~ ~ ~ ri iii` "Q.~ O pNrn D Z N ~ ~ ~nD~ ~ C 70 ~ p -1 tip ~ _ ~ ~ g ~ ~^ l 1 o I ; ~ C ~ O O f a ~'~ a~~ ~~ gn A~^ ~ ~ ~~ / . 8 ,. _. . 4 p ~ ~w ~~ 1v ~ ~I 5 / f R ^) 4 1 i i ~-= ~ sloe 9 ~ .. 0 Iw. 6: Js' $oo ~~:: ®a c g=< D rn N '~ ~ ~ z~ ~ ~; h ~ -~ p n '-'~ 4~ h ~ O ~~'~ O i+ ~\ ."e D \B ~ A J ~ ~ f4 ~ N D ~ v V ~ ~ ~ ~~ a o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ I ~y> ~°~ ~~. ~~ ~, x a ~ I~ ~ - Cf n 4v ~q±~~r S o t~cqq ~~ ~ 6 4 s j ~ 2 ~ ~ ° ~ e ~_ ~. i s o o a ~ cn ~ a _ F w _ ~~ ~°~ F® ~ M eo ~ I w Lr >"o w n F Y W D L A l C ~ Nd R~ V I] I O N] oAre, oe]cRl~rla' ~ROJGOT ]Y o.ra~r P R E L I I~ I N /~ RY ~ ~~ s rA~L o A r c 11,O1m waelO~D oRAw^ er _ , , - ~ Fi RST FLOOR PLAN L RCVIDGO OT . OYMGR AI~ROV A I w N ~ R O .~ iS A rR~ ~ .. COY YIDDIOM Ma KOREAN BAPTIST C11URCi1 A- z o 0 7 New BUILDING ]n eer N: 5~l22 STARKEY ROAD 3 ROANOKE -VIRGINIA ~IP~dGit~lG ~.DG~ .~o~ ~ 80- u59-- Lor /a ~ ~,w"~ V0.o4 coa, ~/l~I~.fJPs 5. ~3° 50' ~. = Efj,3D,aJ~D~S ) ~ °j ~ ~a ~ N ~ ~ v7 ~ °l ~ /. o~' .~(~~~ t W ti C///LJ6/~ ~LOC~f ~yA.{.OGf 1st1 L °l ~ ~¢ou v~~e Cos. ~'- j L Dl -~ ~ o~ ~ 3 5 Ec j'io./ Z Mao D~ o ~ ~ 5o vfs/~.q n/ ,o~,/E ~ al ~ n ,q~COijlJt'~ /n/ ~i i E~/CLnS~'O Par4G •/ D.>/f 5ja,q Y ~iNs~&tT ~StoGrf /B. f HorISE F"'-'~ ~ 54 2 2 ~fACANT ~h1'„ r 119.2 ~ ~4 0 4c, ~ v Go.j I h ~ ub.l /.~.~ j~ v3 15.z 4 ~q ot.A- iti/f1L -~-1~jyQI ~^ e 4 III d. e1 ~ h /3.5 ~ `\ f! i~ V ,,J~` , +do ~ _ Pi.o~e c: ~ ~' . 1 ti S~,F .S'o~tD,Y oq ~ 3o-59.E /o, 9 ~-,~, //2 So / -r ,~/or L o~.ej~o ~.~ ~ 5'PEC/AL Ft ooa '~"a '`~~-~.o _' ~.fZA h'o Q~{Efl $a OE s /G.,~/ef-Ea l3 / Tf/E R~~~t ~' L'q '- ~4, ~' E, 5~ ~ r4Fr.4~3 y o~ yo v s LNG A~/o l1~~,~ •v ~1~; ii l 90,E D~vF~ ~,~,~~.~r PL~-~ . u ,~. _ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~I~ ~~R .JOHN M> PEDIGO A~~ORNEY ROANOKE COUNTY Applicant: Trustees of The Korean DEPARTMENT OF Baptist Church Zoning: Special Use COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tacx Map No. 87.13-2-4 & 5 t'ounty of Rt~artoke For Staff i_)s~ _ C~otnmunity Deveioprnent ~1re re~P,.,Pd~ Planni>'i~ ~~ Zoninz __ Y 5204 ~e]"IlarC~ T_)TtVe tlppficrri~,~n Fee F O Rix 29800 __--_ ROatlOke, ~i,'-~ ?~~) (~-I_) /t~~ Fllc~rds issue) l5,-l.(11 ;-, ,_,r~F~ F~1Y 1 ~~>Ol 772 Z l Og --- Case ,Jumi~er ------- ------- ----- --- ---- _ --I ~II_I_ f1PPLICf1N'TS Check type of application filed (check all that apply) '~~ Rezoning Special Use O Variance ----"----,------------___-- --- erry Letterman (540) 387-0729 lpplicants name/address r;~/zip 703 Apperson Dr. Phone:----------- -_-. __.-_-___-- Salem, VA 24153 (540) 389-5523 Fax Nn . ------ -------- ----- Jerry Letterman (540) 387-072Q r ~ ~~ner's name address v'zip 703 Apperson Qr. Plume Salem, VA 24153 F,tv rf (540) 389-5523 Property Locatir~n 4520 f3arley Ur. Iv[agisterial District: Salem, VA 24153 Community Planning area: 1'nv Map No.: 64.02-2-2 I-2 Existing Zoning: ________ _ Si;.e of parcel(s): Acres:l •811 acres Existing Land UJe: Former Industrial equipment~storage -- RFZnNING ,4ND SPEC7.4L USE PERMIT ~1PPLICANT~S (R/S) _~ ____ __ _ Proposed Zoning: i-2 with special use permit Proposed Land iJse: Mini Warehouses $~ Storage ~ parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested. district? Does di , 'r'es f~±1' Non IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUI.RED FIRST. VARIANCE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVEi? rl ~ No Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type'? Yes A VARtt\NCE IS REQUIRED FIRST ' f C' NO , [f rezoning request. are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes O ~1o O V~IRIANGE ,-IPPLICANTS' (ti") Variance of Section(s) -_.__________~_ cif the Roanoke County 7.oning Ordinance in order to: Is ttte application complete? Please check if enclosed. r~.I'PLICA'I'ION WILL NOT BE ACCEI'"CED t[' ANY OF THFSE I't'F.,l\~iS ARE iv1ISSING OR INCOiYIPLETE. RiS V R V ~_L~,_~ _ __~ Consultation 8 1/2" x l l" concept plan __I Applicati~~n fee f _ ~tt__ Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable ,__ I_~ Tustification _ Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners 1 herehy certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owners agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and r.nnsent of the owner. ` 4j ? !' . 4.~. ~ ~~, - Owners Sivnature ,i, ~ ___~ _ 1~.15'I`iFICATIC7I`I F(~R REZONING OR SPECIAL UfiE PERIVCi'f' R~QfJEST' ,- _ .~ h~~ Planuint? (~c~mmission will ;holy rezoning and .;pedal ~cse~ permit requests tc~ determine the need and ju ,zifi.cation For the ~I~.:~nF=_e in terms of public health. lfet!; , and general welf~~tre. Please answer dze following questions as thnrnughly as possible. t `~e~ additional space if necessary. ~~; t-~Ir_~<<, explain how the request furthers the purposes ~~f the 7onulg nrdinan,:e f`;ectzon 3U~-Si is ~~,~~etl as the p,trp~~~sn tr~unn ~ ~, rhr~ beginning of the applicable zoning district classificati~~~n in the Toning Ordinance. Site has already been cleared of industrial refuse strewn about the property. Granting of a special use permit will allow for construction of modern buildings, which will be much more attractive than that of its previous use, of industrial storage. Presently no such facility exists in that Roanoke County area, making it a near by storage facility for the public. ~~ 1'~~ i ~ .~cpl~ain how the ptr~fcct confocnis to the general guidelines and policies containe 1 in the Roanc,ke ('cntnt,~ C~~cnmurzzt}~ '~ ('Lan- Adds aeasy access public facility and increases the tax base. __ -- -- __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ ---- ------ _.-~_-t-- l'lea.tie describe dze impact(s) of the request on the property itself, die adjoining properties, and die sucTOUnding area, as well ac the impacts on public services and facilities, inchiding water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. Property owners of the residential properties are very happy that I have purchased and cleaned up the property. They have mentioned themselves, they would like to have a public storage facility in that area. The facility would have a positive affect for the public, by being a close storage facility and would not generate any road congestion, water/sewer, fire or rescue problems, pp ~t..'~ ~ .AA„4 . i/rYA '',~.~ 111,7E r .~.. ' /. ad ~ ;~~ ,, ;, (~~///~JJy , ,i5 ~~Yf~ ~ / -. 7 1 ; i ~^: ~Ri CURVE RADIUS TANGENT LENGTH DELTA -CHORD CH.BEARING C-1 C-2 741.2D' 1960.75' 150.41' 118.3e' 29b.78' 238.47 22'Sb'32' B'54'36" 284.e1' S 71,04,09,E 236.33' S 00'56'18"W ~~ ~~ ~ ~k ~~ ~ ~~, Zoned i-1 ti ~q J'Iv \~\ 1'uhllc Wahr f~~ C ~*s ' a 77 ~~ \ ` ~ ~ Dralnryeid 1~ // ~`~8~~ Saptic ,~ Tank P~4° `~_ Now or Forrerly j0h -~ Kathleen Hill °"w ~~ Taxi 64.02-2-3 ~ 7J. D.B. 656, Pg. 379 a' ~~0,~ Zoning: R-1 / 30 `\ AB~~ 37 3' / ~7A \ ti 4 7e~/ ~, 30 ~ ~ 7Gb. ~~ 37.7' ~~~\~Oy,y~'~_i Gravel Lot ~i ~'~C Current Owner; '~~ 'i°~,y~ ''., Jerry Letterman D.8.870, Pg, 75 ,~ D.B. 1061. Pg. 680 '* Tax~k 64.02-2-2 ~ a Zoning: I-2 °~:?~ 1.81 Acres ~o~`~~' ' Site: 4520 Barley Drive '~. Mailing: 703 Apperson Drive Salem, YA 24153 Now or Formerly Atwell ~ Lucille Freese Taxi/ 64.02-2-4 Zoned R-1 i~ 9 B~ ~~ AfioA~,~ ^~ / '`~ \7~ ~- I I ~ I I 3 Z 7 ~~, 30' ~ 7q,. 31' N U GLENVAR STORAGE NOT TO SCALE ~,. ~~ _,A~ _T~ A , ,~'' j' - ,° 1 ,,. r i r `~N A ~ F'+ ~; a~ ~.~ > Ac. r~, ~y +,q ~'+ 3-.~' '~ i ~Y. ~ ~ iJ d ~ ~ `- 95( - - ~ cn 1 C ~ v 0 3100 ~, ~~ ' ~ ~ 4 328.02 /~f1 O J CT ~ a ~ '.' ,j..i' ~P Y ~~ ~ N ~~ t c j . 331.66 ~r ~--' . ~ -11.1 ~- ~ g40~s~ i ° ° ~ ~ ' S0 S ~ o i ; "~C ~.~ , „F 5 2.82 Ac t :~,-.~;, 3~1 3a3'2f ~~. o ~, .~ 393,72 ~~. 39632 cr RDANOKE COUNTY A,ppZicant: Jerry Letterman DEPARTMENT OF Zoning: Special Use COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tam Map No. 64.02-2-2 ~~ 1sR o 54.63 5. f ~ ~ M ~ N 49 0 y 1.81 Ac.(D) 7 9 7 A .. ~r r w 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: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of an Ordinance Authorizing the Vacation, Quit-claim and Release of a Portion of an Existing 100-foot Drainage Easement Shown on `Plat Showing New Drainage Easement Being Granted to County of Roanoke', Plat Book 13, Page 59, on Property Owned by DFC Roanoke, LLC (Tax Map #40.01-1-4.3) and Located in the Hollins Magisterial District COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is the first reading of the proposed ordinance to authorize and approve the vacation, quit-claim and release of a portion of an existing 100' drainage easement shown on plat recorded in Plat Book 13, page 59, on property of DFC Roanoke, LLC, designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map #40.01-1-4.3. BACKGROUND: By deed of easement dated October 15, 1990, and recorded in Deed Book 1337, page 540, F & W Community Development Corporation conveyed to the Board of Supervisors a 100' drainage easement as depicted on `Plat Showing New Drainage Easement Being Granted To County of Roanoke' of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 13, page 59. F& W Community Development Corporation subdivided the original tract of land over which the 100' drainage easement was granted. DFC Roanoke, LLC, is now the owner of that portion of the original tract referenced as Tax Map No. 40.01-1-4.3, which is located between Crumpacker Drive and Cortland Road in the Hollins Magisterial District. 4 ~-1 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: DFC Roanoke, LLC, has requested that the Board of Supervisors vacate, quit-claim and release a portion of the existing 100' drainage easement through its property, in order to allow the construction of its proposed multi-family development, referred to as The Orchards Apartment Homes. The portion of the 100' easement to be vacated is shown hatched on Exhibit A attached hereto. An alternative drainage system has been established as part of the site development. FISCAL IlVIPACT: All costs associated with the adoption of this ordinance will be the responsibility of the Petitioner, DFC Roanoke, LLC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed ordinance. BY: Arnold Covey, Director Department of Community Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) to Motion by: APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Church Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens No Yes Abs `^-f ~ / ~, / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ / ~ ~ o ~ ~ \ ~ CORT` ~~O Ro 1 ^~I WIDE _ DRAINAGE EASEMENT _ TO B E VACATE D PARCEL: 4D.D 1 -1 -4.4 m O m m PARCEL: 40.0 1 -1 -4 PARCEL: 40. D 1 -1 -4.3 `' CRLIMPACKER RD ROANOKE COUNTY MAP DETAILING VACATION, QUITCLAIM AND RELEASE DEPARTMENT OF OF EXISTING 1 O^ FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON TAx PARCEL: 4D.0 1 -1 -4.3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCALE: 1 ° = 20D~ DECEMBER 1 3, 20D0 ~-/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE VACATION, QUIT-CLAIM AND RELEASE OF A PORTION OF AN EXISTING 100-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON `PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO COUNTY OF ROANOKE', PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 59, LOCATED ON PROPERTY OWNED BY DFC ROANOKE, LLC (TAX MAP #40.01-1-4.3) AND LOCATED IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by Deed of Easement dated October 15, 1990, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1337, page 540, F & W Community Development Corporation, as owner of the property designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No.40.01-1-4, conveyed to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, a 100' drainage easement as depicted on `Plat Showing New Drainage Easement Being Granted To County of Roanoke' of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 13, page 59; and, WHEREAS, F & W Community Development Corporation subsequently subdivided a portion of said tract of land, and the subject property is located between Crumpacker Drive and Cortland Road in the Hollins Magisterial District and is now designated upon the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 40.01-1-4.3; and, WHEREAS, the Petitioner, DFC Roanoke, LLC, is the current owner ofthe property and has requested that the Board of Supervisors vacate, quit-claim and release a portion of the above- described existing 100' drainage easement as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto; and, WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected County departments have raised no objection; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on December 19, 2000, and a second reading was held on January 9, 2001. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject real estate (portion of drainage easement) is hereby declared to be surplus and the nature of the interest in real estate renders it unavailable for other public uses. 3. That, subject to the following conditions, the vacation, quit-claim and release of a portion of an existing 100' drainage easement across property of DFC Roanoke, LLC, located between Crumpacker Drive and Cortland Road in the Hollins Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, cross-hatched and designated as "100' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE VACATED" on Exhibit A attached hereto, said easement having been acquired by deed of easement dated October 15, 1990, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1337, page 540, shown and designated as "NEW 100' DRAINAGE EASEMENT" on plat entitled `PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO COUNTY OF ROANOKE...', recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 13, page 59, is hereby authorized and approved. 4. That Petitioner, DFC Roanoke, LLC, shall be responsible for all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to, all costs associated with the establishment of an alternative drainage system, surveys, publication, and recordation of documents; and, 2 That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as maybe necessary to accomplish this vacation, quit-claim, and release, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 6. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. G:\ATTORNEY\VLH\AGENDA\Vacate\ 100ft.orchards2.gc.ord.wpd G:\ATiORNEY\VLH\AGENDA\Vacate1100ft.orchards2.gc.ord.wpd AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 ORDINANCE 121900-3 AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF AND FINANCING FORA LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, WEBSTER ROAD WATER PROJECT WHEREAS, Ordinance 112288-7 authorizes the financing of local public works improvements and the imposition of special assessments upon abutting property owners upon the adoption of an appropriate ordinance by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the County Administration has negotiated the extension of the public water system to the Webster Road community; and WHEREAS, the extension of the public water system and the creation of a special utility (water) service area will alleviate a critical public health and safety problem; and WHEREAS, several of the residents have requested that the County allow them to pay their portion of the costs of connection to the public water system over ten years at an interest rate of 8%; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this Ordinance was held on December 5, 2000, and the second reading was held December 19, 2000; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the authority of Ordinance 112288-7, the Board authorizes and approves a local public works improvement project, namely, public water extension for the Webster Road community. The total construction cost of this public water project is estimated to be $44,550, to be initially financed as follows: 1 Citizen Participation (5 at $4,455 each) $22,275 Advance from Public Works Participation Fund $22,275 TOTAL $44,550 That there is hereby appropriated for this project the sum of $22,275 from the Public Works Participation Fund. Any citizen participation under paragraph 3. will be advanced as a loan from the Water Fund. 2. That the "Project Service Area" is shown and designated on the attached plat entitled "Webster Road Waterline Petition Project, December 5, 2000" prepared by the Roanoke County Utility Department and identified as Exhibit 1. The Webster Road Waterline Project Area is created for a period often (10) years. Any owner of real estate within this service area may participate in and benefit from the public water extension to this service area by paying at a minimum the sum of $5,800 ($4,455 toward construction costs plus [$30 x length of road frontage in excess of 250 feet], plus $1,345 toward the off-site facility fee) said costs to be paid in full and in advance of connection to the public water extension. 3. That the Board authorizes and approves the payment by the property owners in the project service area, who elect to participate on or before 90 days from the date of the adoption of this ordinance, of their portion of the cost of extending the public water system to their properties in accordance with the following terms and conditions: (a) The total amount per property owner/residential connection may be financed for 10 years at an interest rate of 8% per annum. 2 (b) Property owners agree to execute a promissory note or such other instrument as the County may require to secure this installment debt. (c) Property owners further agree to execute such lien document or instrument as may be required by the County; said lien document or instrument to be recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County. This lien instrument or document shall secure the repayment of the promissory note by the property owners to the County and shall be a lien against the property of the owners. Property owners also agree to pay the County any Clerk's fees or recordation costs which may be required to record any lien instrument or documents in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. 4. Property owners who wish to participate after the deadline set out in paragraph 3 (other than new property owners) shall pay a minimum of $5,346 ($4,455 construction costs plus 20% plus $30 x length of road frontage in excess of 250 feet) plus the off-site facility fee in effect at that time. 5. That the payment by citizens in the project service area who elect to participate shall be made to the Public Works Participation Fund. Any off-site facility fee collected on this project shall be returned to the Water Fund. 6. That the County Administrator is authorized to take such actions and execute such documents as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this transaction, all upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None 3 A COPY TESTE: N/ y Brenda J. Holt n, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Dan Morris, Director, Finance 4 r~ 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: December 19, 2000 SUBJECT: Second Reading of Ordinance Authorizing Creation of and Financing for a Local Public Works Improvement Project -Webster Road Water Project COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~~".~",.~ BACKGROUND: The Roanoke County Utility Department has been advised that private wells serving properties on Webster Road yield water of poor quality, which requires extensive in-home water treatment systems. On August 16, Utility Department staff subsequently received a petition with 6 signatures from property owners along Webster Road to extend public water lines to serve their properties. Public water presently exists at the intersection of Laban Road and Webster Road. Utility staff considered a study area larger than the initial petition area since a large area without public water and sanitary sewer adjoins the area of the submitted petition. Also several individual requests have been received in the past from the adjoining area. Utility Department staff explored various options and prepared a preliminary feasibility study. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In an effort to determine if there was interest in public water service for a larger area, letters were mailed on September 20 to 95 property owners on Webster Road, Laban Road, Dallas Road, Goff Road, Loman Drive, and Enon Drive with responses due on October 4. Insufficient response was received to warrant continuing with development of the larger project. Consequently, staff decided to proceed with development of a smaller scale project, which would serve the original petitioners. Based on the location of properties agreeing to participate, the proposed service area was established as shown on the attached map. Utility Department staff has determined that the cost to extend public water lines approximately 850 feet to serve the 10 properties in the proposed service area would be $44,550. ~`-/ - 1 The attached ordinance establishes a special service area for the project with each participating, property owner paying their cost share through a special connection fee as shown below. The ordinance also establishes a method of financing at an interest rate of 8% for a period of up to 10 years for those property owners who participate initially. This connection fee includes the fair share of the construction cost required to extend the public water system to serve the subject properties along Webster Road, as well as, 50 percent of the off-site water facility fee of $2,690. Basic Construction Cost $4,455.00 Off-Site Facility Fee (w/50% Credit) 1,345.00 TOTAL CONNECTION FEE $5,800.00 The fee proposed above would be applicable, only if the property owner financially committed to participate in the proposed project prior to or during the 90-day grace period cited below. FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated cost of the project is $44,550. It is anticipated that with 50 percent participation of property owners on Webster Road funding of $22,275 from the Public Works Participation Fund will be required. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends proceeding with this project and allowing a 90-day grace period. Properties not participating within this time period would pay their share of construction plus a 20% increase and the full off-site facility fee should they connect at a later date. Based on present fees, the cost to connect at a later date would be $8,036.00. SUBMITTED BY: r ~ ~ ~ Q'B' Y~J Gary Robe on, P.E. Utility Director ACTION Approved O Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Church Johnson _ McNamara Minnix _ Nickens /~ " I- L~ t ~_! _~ ' _~'_- ~ ~ ~ li I - I ~ ~ ~ > I I ~ ( I ~ ~ - 1l - o ~- a I W i o ~ n rn i U ~ ~ ~ I 0 o 1 J 1 Q ~ U.~~ W r_ _ 1 ` ~ l ~.i G U n- I ~ I ~,QBi '~~ +i I ~ ~! N cn ,--~ ~C C j~ ~ ~ 'II ~I J I C ' U ~ ~ ~ ~= ~ C L ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ n O ~ iJ ~ ~ O n ~ - ~- w Z I J ~ i ~ ', ~ ~ w ~ I ~ i O ~ m ~ ~ I .--~ I C Ui O '~% C ~ ? O ~i ~ I _ „`~ ~. Q7 ~' a I ~ ~ O C_ ~ Ir ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ O x O ~ F- N L W -f O -~ _ p~ s~ii~Q _~ ~ ti Q O O ~ Z V ~ d O j- O N O I ~ o ~ in 4 ~ :J o ^ `' ~ N p ~,~~~ /v 7 ` 7 N O~ 1 I Q ` ~ \ O ~ N r N ~ O ; } ~ \ ~ ifl 1 . .7 L ~ ~~ ~ \D N 3 ~ \ \ ~ x H ~ ^ N ~ y ® ~ ~ i i x U ~ d ~, ~ ~1i ~ z 7 ~ ~ N ~ a co U ~ m ~ ~ I 2 ~ ~ ~ x O Z_ N W 6~~ 1r ~V i ~\ ~ \ D\ O QJ x ~ ~ :\ c ~\ ~~\ ~ ~ ~ a a7 U ~ y ~ U: O \ ~\H N n ~ v L Q C ~ ~Y O O z ~ /~ 11.. ~. 1. ~ ___ S ~ 71 j ~~ C~ r ~~ f N' ^ _J ~ ^ ``~ 0 7 ° L7 N \ a ~~ l C ~ ~ ~ ° ~~ U f_ O N ~ Z G ~ O (` o a N N O ~ ~, ~ ~n ~ D O ~ x F~ N ~ O O r~\Z I ~ Q O N .~ \ O O N\~ In x O \ o r: \~- N ~~~ \~ ~ G r N C A'"~ '" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF AND FINANCING FOR A LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, WEBSTER ROAD WATER PROJECT WHEREAS, Ordinance 112288-7 authorizes the financing of local public works improvements and the imposition of special assessments upon abutting property owners upon the adoption of an appropriate ordinance by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the County Administration has negotiated the extension of the public water system to the Webster Road community; and WHEREAS, the extension of the public water system and the creation of a special utility (water) service area will alleviate a critical public health and safety problem; and WHEREAS, several of the residents have requested that the County allow them to pay their portion of the costs of connection to the public water system over ten years at an interest rate of 8%; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this Ordinance was held on December 5, 2000, and the second reading was held December 19, 2000; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the authority of Ordinance 112288-7, the Board authorizes and approves a local public works improvement project, namely, public water extension for the Webster Road community. The total construction cost of this public water project is estimated to be $44,550, to be initially financed as follows: Citizen Participation (5 at $4,455 each) $22,275 Advance from Public Works Participation Fund $22,275 U:\WPDOCS\AGENDA\UTILITY\Webster.ROad.Water.Project.wpd 1 ~`~ ~ TOTAL ~ $44,550 ~ That there is hereby appropriated for this project the sum of $22,275 from the Public Works Participation Fund. Any citizen participation under paragraph 3. will be advanced as a loan from the Water Fund. 2. That the "Project Service Area" is shown and designated on the attached plat entitled "Webster Road Waterline Petition Project, December 5, 2000" prepared by the Roanoke County Utility Department and identified as Exhibit 1. The Webster Road Waterline Project Area is created for a period of ten (10) years. Any owner of real estate within this service area may participate in and benefit from the public water extension to this service area by paying at a minimum the sum of $5,800 ($4,455 toward construction costs plus [$30 x length of road frontage in excess of 250 feet], plus $1,345 toward the off-site facility fee) said costs to be paid in full and in advance of connection to the public water extension. 3. That the Board authorizes and approves the payment by the property owners in the project service area, who elect to participate on or before 90 days from the date of the adoption of this ordinance, of their portion of the cost of extending the public water system to their properties in accordance with the following terms and conditions: (a) The total amount per property owner/residential connection may be financed for 10 years at an interest rate of 8% per annum. (b) Property owners agree to execute a promissory note or such other instrument as the County may require to secure this installment debt. (c) Property owners further agree to execute such lien document or instrument as may be required by the County; said lien document or instrument to be recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County. This lien instrument or document shall secure the repayment of the promissory note by the property owners to the County and shall be a lien against U:\WPDOCS\AGENDA\UTILITY\Webster.Road. Water.Project.wpd 2 the property of the owners. Property owners also agree to pay the County any Clerk's fees or recordation costs which may be required to record any lien instrument or documents in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. 4. Property owners who wish to participate after the deadline set out in paragraph 3 (other than new property owners) shall pay a minimum of $5,346 ($4,455 construction costs plus 20% plus $30 x length of road frontage in excess of 250 feet) plus the off-site facility fee in effect at that time. 5. That the payment by citizens in the project service area who elect to participate shall be made to the Public Works Participation Fund. Any off-site facility fee collected on this project shall be returned to the Water Fund. 6. That the County Administrator is authorized to take such actions and execute such documents as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this transaction, all upon form approved by the County Attorney. U:\WPDOCS\AGENDA\UTILITY\Webster.Road.Water.Project.wpd 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 ORDINANCE 121900-4 RATIFYING AND APPROVING A CONTRACT OF SALE WITH BILLY BUCK GUTHRIE AND BARBARA B. GUTHRIE FOR THE PURCHASE OF 2.797 ACRES OF LAND, BEING THE WESTERLY PORTION OF PROPERTY IDENTIFIED ON THE ROANOKE COUNTY LAND RECORDS AS TAX MAP N0.97.05-1-3, AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION AND ACCEPTANCE OF SAID REAL ESTATE FOR PARKS AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES (CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT) WHEREAS, Billy Buck Guthrie and Barbara B. Guthrie are the owners of a parcel of real estate situate in the Cave Spring Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, consisting of four (4) acres, more or less, located at 6453 Merriman Road, and identified on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 97.05-1-3, which is adjoins the new South County Park property owned by the Board of Supervisors; and, WHEREAS, Roanoke County staff has negotiated and executed a contract of sale, dated November 27, 2000, for the purchase of the westerly 2.797 acres of said parcel to accommodate additional facility development for the Park and the relocation of the south county maintenance shop, subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors; and, WHEREAS, the contract provides for payment of a purchase price of $48,000.00, installation of a tree buffer along the new boundary line at an estimated cost of $1,000, and payment of approximately $2,000 in closing costs and fees, including expenses of the sellers; and, WHEREAS, park and recreation uses constitute a valid public purpose for the expenditure of public funds; and, WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 5, 2000; the second reading was held on December 19, 2000. 1 THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the contract of sale, dated November 27, 2000, with Billy Buck Guthrie and Barbara B. Guthrie for the purchase of the westerly 2.797 acres of a 4-acre parcel of real estate situate in the Cave Spring Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, located at 6453 Merriman Road, and identified on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 97.05-1-3, is hereby ratified and approved. 2. That acquisition and acceptance of the parcel, referenced above, from Billy Buck Guthrie and Barbara B. Guthrie, is hereby authorized and approved, said parcel being more particularly described as follows: All that certain tract or parcel of land, together with any improvements thereon, rights incident thereto, and appurtenances thereunto belonging, situate in the Cave Spring Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, consisting of 2.797 acres, more or less, as shown highlighted and designated as "PORTION OF TAX #97.05-1-3 - 2.797 AC." on `Plat Showing The Subdivision Of (4.060 Acres) And Combination Of (50.475 Acres) Being The Property of The Board Of Supervisors Of Roanoke County ...' dated August 18, 2000, prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., a partial copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. That the sum of Forty-Eight Thousand Dollars ($48,000.00) forthe acquisition of this real estate and the sum of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) for related expenses, including tree buffer costs, the environmental audit, recordation fees, legal fees, title insurance and all other closing costs, is available in the Parks and Recreation Department budget. 4. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as may be necessary to accomplish this acquisition and accept the property, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following 2 recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: rends J. H on, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Pete Haislip, Director, Parks, Recreation & Tourism Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Terry Harrington, County Planner John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Valuation Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 3 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: AGENDA ITEM December 19, 2000 Second Reading of an Ordinance Ratifying and Approving a Contract of Sale with Billy Buck Guthrie and Barbara B. Guthrie for the Purchase of 2.797 Acres of Land, Being the Westerly Portion of Property Identified on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 97.05-1-3, and Authorizing the Acquisition and Acceptance of Said Real Estate for Parks and Recreation Development Purposes (Cave Spring Magisterial District) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS BACKGROUND: As part of the development of the South County Park, parks and recreation staff had identified adjacent privately owned properties that could accommodate additional facility development as well as allow for the re-location of the south county maintenance shop, currently located at Penn Forest Elementary School. The shop has to be re-located because the existing location, in a high traffic area and unprotected site, has resulted in a significant amount of vehicular vandalism. We now park our major equipment at the Brambleton Center, which reduces our productivity. The Guthrie parcel (Attachment A), consisting of approximately 2.8 acres, is strategically located between Starkey and the new South County Park, and could easily accommodate an additional ballfield(s), parking, and/or provide space needed for the South County maintenance shop. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This past winter staff initiated negotiations with the Guthrie family in regard to the purchase of this parcel. The County and Guthrie family have agreed to the following terms: Roanoke County will pay $48,000 for the parcel; Roanoke County will provide a tree buffer on the boundary line of the park and the new Guthrie property line according to terms outlined; Roanoke County will be responsible for all expenses related to the transaction, including certain legal and recording fees on behalf of the Guthries. The attached ordinance ratifies the contract of sale dated November 27, 2000, and authorizes the acquisition and acceptance of the subject property pursuant to the terms and conditions agreed upon. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the property is $48,000 with an additional $3,000 for related acquisition expenses, including the tree buffer cost of an estimated $1,000. The funds are available in the Parks and Recreation budget. Additional funds will be required to develop and maintain any future facilities added to this site. ALTERNATIVES: Approve second reading of the attached ordinance to ratify the contract of sale with the Guthries, to authorize acquisition and acceptance of this property subject to the terms outlined. 2. Do not approve the purchase of this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1, authorizing the purchase of the property. Respectfully submitted, ~~`-~ Pete Haislip Director Approved Denied Received Referred to ACTION Motion by: Approved by, ~~~"~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ------------------------------------------------------ Church Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens VOTE No Yes Abs -~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 ORDINANCE RATIFYING AND APPROVING A CONTRACT OF SALE WITH BILLY BUCK GUTHRIE AND BARBARA B. GUTHRIE FOR THE PURCHASE OF 2.797 ACRES OF LAND, BEING THE WESTERLY PORTION OF PROPERTY IDENTIFIED ON THE ROANOKE COUNTY LAND RECORDS AS TAX MAP NO. 97.05-1-3, AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION AND ACCEPTANCE OF SAID REAL ESTATE FOR PARKS AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES (CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT) WHEREAS, Billy Buck Guthrie and Barbara B. Guthrie are the owners of a parcel of real estate situate in the Cave Spring Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, consisting of four (4) acres, more or less, located at 6453 Merriman Road, and identified on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 97.05-1-3, which is adjoins the new South County Park property owned by the Board of Supervisors; and, WHEREAS, Roanoke County staff has negotiated and executed a contract of sale, dated November 27, 2000, for the purchase of the westerly 2.797 acres of said parcel to accommodate additional facility development for the Park and the relocation of the south county maintenance shop, subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors; and, WHEREAS, the contract provides for payment of a purchase price of $48,000.00, installation of a tree buffer along the new boundary line at an estimated cost of $1,000, and payment of approximately $2,000 in closing costs and fees, including expenses of the sellers; and, WHEREAS, park and recreation uses constitute a valid public purpose for the expenditure of public funds; and, WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 5, 2000; the second reading was held on December 19, 2000. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the contract of sale, dated November 27, 2000, with Billy Buck Guthrie and Barbara B. Guthrie for the purchase of the westerly 2.797 acres of a 4-acre parcel of real estate !"'7'°~ situate in the Cave Spring Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, located at 6453 Merriman Road, and identified on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 97.05-1-3, is hereby ratified and approved. 2. That acquisition and acceptance of the parcel, referenced above, from Billy Buck Guthrie and Barbara B. Guthrie, is hereby authorized and approved, said parcel being more particularly described as follows: All that certain tract or parcel of land, together with any improvements thereon, rights incident thereto, and appurtenances thereunto belonging, situate in the Cave Spring Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, consisting of 2.797 acres, more or less, as shown highlighted and designated as "PORTION OF TAX #97.05-1- 3 -2.797 AC." on `Plat Showing The Subdivision Of (4.060 Acres) And Combination Of (50.475 Acres) Being The Property of The Board Of Supervisors Of Roanoke County ...' dated August 18, 2000, prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., a partial copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. That the sum ofForty-Eight Thousand Dollars ($48,000.00) for the acquisition of this real estate and the sum of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) for related expenses, including tree buffer costs, the environmental audit, recordation fees, legal fees, title insurance and all other closing costs, is available in the Parks and Recreation Department budget. 4. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as may be necessary to accomplish this acquisition and accept the property, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. G:\ATTORNEY\V LH\PARKS\Guthrie\Ordinance.wpd 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: December 19, 2000 SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. BLUE RIDGE ALLIANCE FOR ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION The two year term of Mary H. Allen expired November 21, 2000. This committee is currently inactive, and this appointment will be removed until the Board becomes active again. 2. BLUE RIDGE COMMUNITY SERVICES The three year term of Member at large Mr. John M. Hudgins, Jr. expires December 31, 2000. Mr. Hudgins is filling the unexpired term of Rita Gliniecki. The at large appointment is recommended by the Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors and ratified by the Board of Supervisors. Attached is a letter from the Blue Ridge Community Services recommending that the Board ratify Mr. Hudgins' reappointment. This ratification has been placed on the Consent Agenda. 3. GRIEVANCE PANEL The three year term of Henry H. Wise, Alternate, expired October 28, 2000. 4. LIBRARY BOARD The four year term of Connie Goodman, representing the Vinton Magisterial District, will expire on December 31, 2000. 5. ROANOKE COUNTY CABLE TELEVISION COMMITTEE On October 25, 1994, the Board appointed four members serving on the Roanoke 1 ,~/ .. '~ Valley Regional Cable TV Committee and one member from Catawba Magisterial District to serve on this committee to provide oversight and advice on the operations of Salem Cable TV, now known as Adelphia. Anne Marie Green, Community Relations Director, was one of the members appointed to serve on this committee. Since Ms. Green is now Director of General Services and Ms. Kathi Scearce is the new Community Relations Director, it is recommended that the Board appoint Ms. Scearce to replace Ms. Green on this committee. Confirmation of this appointment has been placed on the Consent Agenda. 6. ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL CABLE TV COMMITTEE On June 11, 1991, Ms. Anne Marie Green, Community Relations Director, was appointed by County Administrator Elmer Hodge as his designee to serve on this committee. Since Ms. Green is now Director of General Services and Ms. Kathi Scearce is the new Community Relations Director, Mr. Hodge would like to nominate Ms. Scearce to serve on this committee as his designee. Confirmation of this appointment has been placed on the Consent Agenda. 7. SOCIAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD The four-year term of Robert H. Lewis, Vinton Magisterial District, expired August 1, 2000. Mr. Lewis has served two consecutive terms and is not eligible for reappointment. SUBMITTED BY: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board ACTION Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Motion by: APPROVED BY: ~~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator 2 VOTE No. Yes Abs Church Johnson _ _ McNamara- Minnix _ Nickens Blue Ridge Community Services ...1 J Rodney P. Furr Chairman William L. Lee Vice Chairman Meredith B. Waid Treasurer Rita J. Gliniecki secretary Executive Director S. James Sikkema, LCSW December 8, 2000 The Honorable Joseph McNamara, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Dear Mr. McNamara: According to our records, the current term of Mr. John M. Hudgins, Jr. as an at- large representative on the Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors will expire December 31, 2000. Mr. Hudgins has been completing the unexpired term of Mrs. Rita Gliniecki, and has quickly become one of our most active Board members. In compliance with Virginia statutes regulating appointments to community services boards, he is eligible for reappointment for athree-year term, and at the December 7, 2000 Board of Directors meeting a resolution passed unanimously recommending that Mr. Hudgins be so reappointed. The by-laws of the Board require that appointments of members at-large be ratified by all five participating localities, so this request is being sent to our four other governments as well. At the present time, four members of our Board are, or have been, consumers or family members of consumers who have received public or private behavioral healthcare services. This information is provided in keeping with the statutory requirements of § 37.1-195 A of the Code of Virginia, as amended. Sincerely, ~~ ..~ Av ~`~~ %--. ~, i. .. ~,, ` t., / 1, `/ ..~ Rodney P. Purr Chairman C: Mr. Elmer C. Hodge Mr. John M. Chambliss, Jr. Ms. Mary H. Allen Mr. John M. Hudgins, Jr. Mr. S. James Sikkema Executive Offices - 301 Elm Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24016-4001 (540) 345-9841 Fax: (540) 342-3855 TTY: (540) 345-0690 Serving the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, and the Counties of Botetourt, Craig and Roanoke ._ _' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 RESOLUTION 121900-5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J -CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for December 19, 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 9, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes for October 24, 2000. 2. Resolution ofAppreciation upon the retirement ofAudrey Bower, Community Development Department, after more than 15 years of service. 3. Confirmation and ratification of committee appointments to Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors, Roanoke County Cable Television Committee, and Roanoke Valley Regional Cable TV Committee. 4. Acceptance of $1,000 donation from the Salem Rotary Club to support the Police Department's School Services Unit. 5. Acceptance by Police Department of $18,000 grant from Department of Motor Vehicles selective enforcement on Interstate 81. 6. Request for acceptance of Peace Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 7. Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving The Groves, Sections 5 and 6. 8. Acceptance by County Schools of $6,720 grant from the Virginia Department of Education to support mentor teacher program. 1 9. Transfer of funds from Sewer Surplus to Sewer Repair and Replacement Fund. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the Consent Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Hol n, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File James R. Lavinder, Chief of Police Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Danial Morris, Director, Finance Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Tom Hall, Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Dr. Linda Weber, School Superintendent Brenda Chastain, Clerk, School Board 2 ...`.,-- J _`° October 24, 2000 605 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 October 24, 2000 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of October, 2000. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph McNamara, Vice Chairman H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Supervisors Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Bob L. Johnson, Harry C. Nickens MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Hodge added a closed meeting, pursuant to Section 2.1-344A (7) October 24, 2000 607 economic development marketing compact disk from Roanoke County which was viewed by the Board and public. All of the individual Board members expressed appreciation to those involved in the Opening Ceremonies. Mr. Hodge advised that they will be mailing copies of the CD to targeted companies. 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) Ms. Pitts reported that the Trade Expo surpassed all their goals. There will be 105 booths in the show with 72 businesses and organizations, 68 of them from Virginia and four from outside of the state. The Virginia Tech Pavilion will have 14 exhibits. She also advised that there would be two robots. There will be a Cyberguard robot from Cybermotion and an entertainment robot called Gizmo. Verizon and Rev Net will provide live web casting to WREV.NET on Friday and part of Saturday and Sunday. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for approval of a performance agreement with The Industrial Develoament Authority and Wal-Mart (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) A-102400-1 Mr. Mahoney reported that staff has negotiated a Performance Agreement to promote and encourage development and provide increased employee and corporate investment in Roanoke County. The Performance Agreement provides for the future appropriation of $620,000 to the Industrial Development Authority. The IDA will reimburse Wal-Mart for certain public infrastructure improvements in four annual October 24, 2000 609 Mr. Robertson reported that a new residential subdivision is being proposed that will be partially in Roanoke County and partially in Botetourt County. As proposed, public water service would require extending Roanoke County water lines and public sewer service would require extending Botetourt County sewer lines. 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. Mr. Robertson advised that staff proposes that water and sewer be provided in accordance with conditions, some of which are: (1) Roanoke County shall supply potable water service to the subdivision (2) Botetourt County shall provide sewer service to the subdivision; (3) 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. (4) Roanoke County shall bill Botetourt County bulk water rates for water used by Botetourt County customers. These rates will be based on rates approved by contract dated October 1, 1999 with any subsequent amendments between Roanoke County and Botetourt County. Mr. Robertson recommended that the Board negotiate a contract where Botetourt County and Roanoke County will provide utility service to their respective citizens. Supervisor Nickens suggested that the localities consider a boundary adjustment, and Supervisor McNamara concurred. Supervisor Johnson advised that he has concerns about entrance and egress issues. • October 24, 2000 611 Avenue corridor. (Tim Beard, Planner Mr. Beard explained that at the request of the Board of Supervisors, the corridor 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. Mr. Beard reported that 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. Mr. Beard requested that the Board approve the ordinance following second reading. Supervisor Minnix advised that the residents on Colonial Avenue expressed concerns about the final outcome of the road improvement plans by VDOT, October 24, 2000 613 3. Ordinance authorizina 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 1B-1-A of Peters Creek Commercial Park. (Arnold Covey Community Development Director Mr. Simpson advised that Branch Family LLC, is the developer of Peters Creek Commercial Park, and a 20 foot waterline easement and 20 foot sanitary sewer easement were dedicated to the County across Parcel 1 B-1-A. A concrete dumpster pad with fuel tanks was constructed within the dedicated easement areas, and the developer relocated the water and sewer lines and proposes to convey new water and sanitary sewer easements to the County. The petitioner also requested that the former portions of water and sewer easements be vacated. The petitioner will pay all costs associated with the adjustments. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for November 14, 2000. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Hiahway and Transportation Safety Commission Supervisor Nickens asked staff to investigate whether this committee could be part of the Blue Ridge Transportation Safety Board. October 24, 2000 615 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. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the Consent Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None 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 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 October 24, 2000 617 concerning performance agreement with Advance Auto, Inc. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Work Session on Clearbrook Initiatives The work session was held from 4:35 p.m. to 4:55 p.m. and presented by Terry Harrington. Mr. Harrington advised that the purpose of the work session was to undertake public initiatives and investments to promote orderly development in the Clearbrook Community with a focus on public improvements and land use development standards. The immediate need is for water and sewer for the Land Rover/Parkway Motel area at an estimated cost of $500,000 to be funded from the year end surplus. Other initiatives include a zoning overlay to implement and refine Community Plan policies, and planning for public facilities such as road improvements and drainage facilities. Possible funding and implementation alternatives include official map amendments, a special service district, a special tax district and/or a tax increment financing district. There was a discussion on use of the year-end surplus. Supervisor McNamara recommended that the Board look at other areas for spending of the year- end surplus, including future sports based activities. Supervisor Johnson felt that the Board needed information on schools and the six-year plan before making any decisions. Mr. Hodge emphasized that the Board had to move forward with the water and sewer for Clearbrook. October 24, 2000 619 engineering studies for the renovations at the Vinton, Mason Cove and Read Mountain stations. Chief Henderson of the Fire Chiefs Board reported that he attended a meeting with the Fire Chiefs and they are not opposed to hiring the additional positions. There was a discussion on how to fund the additional positions and station renovations. Supervisor McNamara recommended waiting before making a decision on fee for service, but Supervisor Johnson pointed out they needed a permanent solution and a designated funding source. Supervisor Nickens suggested using the $900,000 from the year end surplus, adding a fee for service and a $5.00 increase in the decal fee, but pointed out that this will be hard to sell to the public. Chief Burch reported that there were some differences with the volunteers because they recommended adding 28 additional positions, but they agreed to reduce that to 20 positions. He advised he planned to have the positions in place in March 2001. Chief Bibb advised that he felt this resulted in better communication and he supported the additional 20 positions. He also advised that all chiefs and stations will be involved in the plan. In response to a question from Supervisor Johnson, he advised that most squads do not support the fee for service but would support a decal fee increase. Supervisor McNamara felt that the Board of Supervisors should not be involved in establishing the plan but they should consider a facilitator if the committee gets bogged down. It was the consensus of the Board to move forward with the request to add 20 paramedic/firefighter positions and begin station renovations using year end surplus. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION October 24, 2000 621 20 additional paramedic/firefighters A-102400-4 Mr. Hodge, Fire and Rescue Chief Rick Burch, and volunteer Chiefs Bibb and Henderson made the presentation. Mr. Hodge explained that the Board held a work session prior to this public hearing. He highlighted the discussion from the work session and advised that the recommendation from the work session is that the Board authorize the addition of twenty paramedic firefighters at an annual cost of $907,000. The positions have been advertised and 150 applications have been received. It is anticipated that these positions will be ready to put in the field by March 1, 2001. Mr. Hodge also advised that bunk room additions and renovations are needed at Mt. Pleasant, Clearbrook, Vinton and Mason Cove. There is currently $500,000 budgeted to start the renovations at Clearbrook and Mt. Pleasant, but additional funds will be needed for Vinton and Mason Cove and possibly Read Mountain stations. Mr. Hodge explained that the County will need $590,000 for salaries and startup costs in the current year and he recommended that the balance for the first year be used toward the station renovations at Vinton and Mason Cove. He recommended that the Board use the year-end surplus to fund the positions and renovations and that a fee for service be delayed until additional expansion is needed in the future. Chief Burch reported that staff had met with all the squads and had several meetings with the Chiefs Board. The volunteers recommended the addition of 28 paramedics, but that number was reduced to 20. A task force is being developed to deal with other issues such as regional cooperation, response times, recruitment and development of an operational plan. Chief Bibb spoke in support of the plan but acknowledged there are still problems to work out such as opposition to fee for service. October 24, 2000 623 Catawba Community Club expressing concern about the lack of coverage in the Catawba Valley. 11. Michael Roop, 3033 Bonsail Lane spoke in opposition to the proposed quadrant system. 12. Annie Krochalis, 9428 Patterson Drive President of the Bent Mountain Civic League, spoke in opposition to the compromise plan for staff allocation and recommended addressing the staffing at Bent Mountain, Mt. Pleasant and Catawba. 13. Eugene File, 3854 Hyde Park Drive Roanoke spoke in opposition to fee for service. 14. Karen Scott, 8443 Poor Mountain Road Bent Mountain advised that her son was severely burned in the Bent Mountain area and time is critical to burn victims. 15. Joe Coyle, 4908 Wade Road expressed support for the 20 new positions but not for the quadrant plan. He recommended developing a plan after the positions are approved. 16. Timothy Tucker. 2820 Beaverbrook Road spoke in support of the 20 positions. 17. Paula Bittinger, 10325 Tinsely Lane expressed support for the original proposal and that no station should ever be empty. Mr. Hodge explained to the Board and the public how the staff and volunteers came to their recommendations. Chairman McNamara thanked the citizens for attending the meeting and expressing their views. Supervisor Nickens expressed appreciation to the volunteers and advised that the staff allocation will be determined by October 24, 2000 625 This item was continued to November 14, 2000 by the Planning Commission at the request of the petitioner. 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 This item was continued to November 14, 2000 at the request of the petitioner. 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) 0-102400-5 Mr. Harrington advised that 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. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None October 24, 2000 627 this site from R-1 Single Family Residential to C-1, Office in 1988 at the request of the Hobart Companies. It was intended to be part of the Colonnade Corporation Center. In July 1999, the Board approved a rezoning from C-1 Office to C-2 General Commercial at the request of Blue Ridge Cafe LLC to construct a restaurant. The parcel is designated Transition in the Community Pfan. At the Planning Commission meeting, the petitioners were asked if additional proffers relating to a 45 foot maximum height of the building and 80 foot rear buffer yard would be acceptable to the client. The Planning Commission recommended approval with four conditions. Supervisor Johnson advised he would abstain because his company had the property for sale. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Johnson 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 October 24, 2000 629 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 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 ~jTerry Harrington County Planner) 0-102400-7 Mr. Harrington explained that this was a request for the construction of a 195 foot broadcast tower along the ridge of Poor Mountain. At the Planning Commission Andy Wright of Aircable and David Simpson answered technical questions. The Planning Commission recommended approval with four conditions. Maryellen Goodlatte, attorney for the petitioners, was present to answer questions. Supervisor Johnson noted that the property is owned by Evangel Foursquare Church and asked if they pay taxes on the property. Mr. Mahoney responded that he would check, but if the property is not used for religious purposes, it should be taxed. Ms. Goodlatte also advised that Aircable is a commercial tenant who October 24, 2000 631 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 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) 0-102400-8 Mr. Harrington reported that this lot is located near the intersection of Williamson Road and Florist Road. The proposed new entrance is off Florist Road. The existing structure will continue to have access from Williamson Road. The Planning Commission discussed the possible time frame for VDOT's road improvements to Florist Road and recommended approval. Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Johnson 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 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, _, October 24, 2000 633 concerns. These proposed improvements include the re-design of Exit 146 at Plantation Road. In response to these proposed improvements, the Board asked staff to analyze the potential land use impacts and opportunities that the road improvements might provide and determine suitable land uses within these interchange areas that could promote economic opportunities while limiting haphazard development. Ms. Scheid advised that staff has held two community meetings in this project area, and 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 recommended changing this designation to Principal Industrial to reflect the prevalent surrounding industrial development. Supervisor Johnson emphasized that these changes would not increase taxes ands there will be no attempt to assemble property fora "big box" type business. Richard Baum spoke and advised that one side of Colvin Street is commercial and one side is heavy industrial. He recommended that the land use for 10 lots be designated Core Land Use. Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the ordinance with changes requested by citizens on 10 lots which will be zoned commercial and designated Core Land Use. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None ORDINANCE 102400-9 AMENDING ORDINANCE 011299-6, "ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN" -ADOPTION OF A NEW October 24, 2000 .635 I electrical and natural gas industries (Joseph Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney 0-102400-10 There were no changes to the ordinance from the first reading and no citizens present to speak. Supervisor Nickens moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None 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, 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 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 c~~ October 24, 2000 viii 637 It shall be the duty of every seller or servicesrovider in acting as the tax collectir~~g medium or agency for th~Vcaunty t~ bill to and collect from the purchaser or consumer for the use of the county the tax f:ereby ia-r~posed ar~d lev"sad at the time of collecting the purchase price or an transmission fee charged there#or. ar~rd-t-i~ The taxes cs~lle~;ted during each calendar month shall be reported by each seller- or,service~rovider tc~ the Gorrrrr~issioner of the a avenue of the cour~tl~. on, such forms as, the Commissioner shall~resc~,M rite vr~ or before the last day of the calendar month thereafter, together with the name as~d address of any purchaser who has refused to pay this tax. Simultaneously therewith, the seller or service row eider shall file a copy of such report with and remit tr, the Treasurer of the county the taxes so collected arsd reported in accordance with_Section 58.1- sts~41 raragra~ns r. ana v. and Section 58.1-2901 of the Code of Vir ig niaw. If an consumer fails to a a bill issued b a seller or serviceproviderx,includir~the tax imposed b this section _the seller or servi~ ce,Q_rovider must follow its normal collection roVicedures and upon collection of the bill or anx~art thereof must ap~,ortion the net amount collected betweenthe charge for the service and the tax and er or service pr-ovrder shall be deemed {c} Cdr i~~ *,~* sucn_serrer or,proviaer until remitted,to the coun~The tax levied or impr~sed under *hiswsection with respect to the purchase of any utility ser*,~ice shall be applicable to charges first appearing on bills rendered for° service provided after ,~anuary 1, ;988. The county Treasurer shat! be charged with the power and the duty of collecting the taxes levied and imposed hereunder and shall cause the same to be paid into the general treasury of the county. Each and every seller or service rovider shall keep and,,~reserve for a.period of three ~~.xears complete records showing all purchases ire tl'~~: cUUr~ty, which i~ecorGS shall show tl~ae price charged against each purchaser writh respect to purchase, the,guan~~ti~,.or volume of utili~,vided where applicable, the date thereof, and the ~#ate of ~i~yn~ent thereof, grid the amount of tax irr~posed hereunder and such records shall be kept open far inspection by the duly authorized agents of the county at reasonable times and the duly authorized agents of the ct~ur~ty shall have the right, power and authority to make transcripts thereof during such times as they may desire. In al! cases where the sailer or service rovider collects the price of utility services,~electric ene„~,~,or natura,l,,,g_as periodically, 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 nearest whole cent to the amount computed. October 24, 2000 under tariffs filed with the state ccarparation "residential,; cammissr'e~n. (11) Reside include the c c ~a~ consumer. ~ ne term "residenti~ ~ner or tenant o,~f~ro art used rim udin,_,g,~but not limited to, apartment 63 9 prov~aer. ~ ne term "service provider" delivers electricit to a consumer or ribution ,, com~ia_~__which delivers n~ Used ~imarily. The term "used primarily" n of„the_ use for_ which electric or to the service is rurn_isnea. ~.4).~ U#~'ity s~rrrice. The phrase "utility service" shall include local excha~~ge telepharae service of car#aorations failing uvithin the previsions of article ~, chapter 3F~, title 5~.1 of the Code of Virginia, 19~, as amended, and water service d--~4 _' .._.G _. _ L~..~. ._ .IC i A'.,. ,t.l ~ ' A ;i J ) Ay i - A [ l~ ti A A A .~. ~...~ _ A® 1 r , t. .. ..,.. .... RA Yi R.;,Rt ,,. t"'PA A _.. Y.. 4A.. _. 5.... :._2 a't~ .C '9 l•.. .~:. ~'"s furnished rn ii.F r°...A ~ 4i 9.A +.~i.Y. i SOA i4 i td VV i ii t.~E ~~i ~,a~ty. ~1~ } Unless, otherwise indicated the T-h~ terms "consumer," "grass charge,,, "rec~bile service cansu~xaer," "mobile ~er~ice ~~~vider,,, tcA,?ervi~..$~ adds"~'~as a and "t'uX.ci~il~ ~34.9d~cha:~~'" shall h~.E'~3"f3 t$`3e r~~eanings as provided in yection ~~.1-3f312 raf tl~e 19513 ~cade of `~'irgir;ia, as aneended, ar~s~ such definitions are is~c:orpc~rated Herein by ref~;~-e~yce, «~r:n CI} 'Vllhenever the tax levied ~y this section is collected by the sailer or service provider acting as a tax collecting medium car agency for the county is a~~cardance with paragraph (b), such sailer or service rovider shall be aflowed as camper~satican f~;r the collecticsn and remittance of this tax, three (3°!°) percentum of the ar;~e~ur~t caf tax due and accraunted for. The seller or service„provider shall deduct thlS compensation from the payments made to the ~cca~nty tre~esurer in ac.;errlarts~v ~rvth paPeg~a~;ti~ (b}, prc~videcl the a~tcaunt due is ncat delinquent at the ti~~'~~: cif pay~3c.nt. rra) If any seller or service rovider whose duty it is to do sr shall fail car refuse to file with the ~ur~rr~issicner of the revenue any return for the tax required to be ~~'oil~vcted ay~d paid under suk~sectian (b} within the time ar~d in the amo~.tnt sp~:~~i#ied tl~:Rrein. there shall be added tc~ such tax by the Co~mmissitaner of the ~~e~~er~ue v~f rt~aszae Cc~ut~ty a penalty of te,z (10°,~°) percent of the tax due. If any ~;ellet or service rovider whose duty it is to do sc shall fail or refuse to remit to the Trei~s~irer rf R~aricike bounty the tax required to be collected and ;paid under sulasectiaai (b) within the time and in the amaunt specified therein, there shall be added to such tax by the Treasurer of raancake Caunty a penalty of t~:r7 (113°I°) percent of the tax due. ~r~y such penalty S.vhen sa assessed shall became a part caf the tax. Ire the event any such tax is not paid on or before the date the same is :due, interest at the rate of ten (1 ~%) percent per annum, commencing an the first day of the month after the due date, shall be assessed and collected on the October 24, 2000 Supervisor Church: (1) He expressed sympathy to Dick Fisher on the death of his wife, Ann. (2) He complimented Total Action Against Poverty (TAP) on their 35`h Anniversary events. (3) He reminded everyone that November 7 is Election Day and encouraged people to vote. Supervisor McNamara: He announced that registered voters can vote by absentee ballot through Saturday, October 28. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT At 9:20 p.m. Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting. Submitted by, Mary H. Allen, CMC/AAE Clerk to the Board Approved by, Joseph McNamara Chairman ~~ -s. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 RESOLUTION 121900-5.a EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE RETIREMENT OF AUDREY J. BOWER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AFTER MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Audrey J. Bower was first employed by Roanoke County on September 3, 1985 as a secretary in the Engineering and Planning Department; and also served as Planning Projects Coordinator; and WHEREAS, Ms. Bower retired from Roanoke County on October 1, 2000 as a Program Support Specialist with the Community Development Department after more than fifteen years of service; and WHEREAS, Ms. Bower served as the Recording Secretary for the Roanoke County Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, Ms. Bower, as Recording Secretary for the Planning Commission, played the crucial role of ensuring that the Planning Commission agendas, legal ads, and bi-monthly packets of information were correctly prepared and timely distributed; and WHEREAS, Ms. Bower, through her employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke 1 ~ r Y County to AUDREY J. BOWER for more than fifteen years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Hol on, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Appreciation File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Joe Sgroi, Director, Human Resources 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Request for approval of resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Audrey J. Bower, Community Development Department, after more than fifteen years of service COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Human Resources Department has notified us that Ms. Audrey J. Bower, Community Development Department, retired on August 1, 2000, after more than fifteen years of service to the County. Ms. Bower has requested that her resolution be mailed. It is recommended that the Board approve the attached resolution and direct the Deputy Clerk to mail to Ms. Bower with the appreciation of the Board members for her many years of service to the County. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ Brenda J. olton, CMC Deputy Clerk Approved by, ~ ~i~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ~~ ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved () Motion by: Church Denied () Johnson _ _ Received () McNamara- Referred () Minnix _ _ _ To () Nickens _ _ _ ....~~ F .~.~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE RETIREMENT OF AUDREY J. BOWER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AFTER MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Audrey J. Bowerwas first employed by Roanoke County on September 3, 1985 as a secretary in the Engineering and Planning Department; and also served as Planning Projects Coordinator; and WHEREAS, Ms. Bower retired from Roanoke County on October 1, 2000 as a Program Support Specialist with the Community Development Department after more than fifteen years of service; and WHEREAS, Ms. Bower served as the Recording Secretary for the Roanoke County Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, Ms. Bower, as Recording Secretary for the Planning Commission, played the crucial role of ensuring that the Planning Commission agendas, legal ads, and bi-monthly packets of information were correctly prepared and timely distributed; and WHEREAS, Ms. Bower, through her employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke 1 County to AUDREY J. BOWER for more than fifteen years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. 2 A-121900-5. b ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~~ .3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation and ratification of Committee appointments to the Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors, Roanoke County Cable Television Committee and Roanoke Valley Regional Cable TV Committee COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION BLUE RIDGE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD OF DIRECTORS At the December 5, 2000 meeting, Supervisor McNamara nominated Gary Kelly to serve another three year term. His term will expire on December 31, 2003. The appointment of Mr. John M. Hudgins, Jr., member at large, expires December 31, 2000. The Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors passed a resolution on December 7, 2000 unanimously recommending that John M. Hudgins, Jr. be reappointed. This appointment must be ratified by all five participating localities. ROANOKE COUNTY CABLE TELEVISION COMMITTEE County Administrator Elmer Hodge recommends the appointment of Ms. Kathi Scearce, Community Relations Director, to replace Anne Marie Green, General Services Director. ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL CABLE TV COMMITTEE County Administrator Elmer Hodge recommends the appointment of Ms. Kathi Scearce, Community Relations Director, to replace Anne Marie Green, General Services Director. Ms. Green will continue to serve on the Cable TV Negotiating Committee. 1 -a^ A I STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the above appointments be confirmed and the above appointment of Mr. Hudgins be ratified by the Board of Supervisors. Submitted by: -ncp~ ~. Mary H. Allen CMC Clerk to the Board Approved by, ~%~-- Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: Joseph McNamara to approve Church _ x _ Denied () Johnson _ x Received () McNamara- x Referred () Minnix _ x To () Nickens _ x _ cc: File Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors Roanoke County Cable Television Committee Roanoke Valley Regional Cable TV Committee 2 A-121900-5. c ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER: ~~ '~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER MEETING DATE: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of a One Thousand-Dollar donation from the Salem Rotary Club to support the Police Department's School Services Unit. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The Salem Rotary Club awarded the Roanoke County Police Department one thousand dollars to support D.A.R.E. activities. The Rotary Club was informed of the Police Department's functions in school operations and determined to continue their support of the School Services Unit. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: FISCAL IMPACT: There are no matching funds associated with this contribution. STAFF RECOMMENDTION: The Staff recommends acceptance of this donation for use by the Police Department's School Services Unit. ., i i SUBMITTED BY: APPROVE f _~.____- 'ef of Poli County Admini rator ACTION Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) cc: File James R. Lavinder, Chief of Police Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Danial Morris, Director, Finance Motion by: Joseph McNamara to approve VOTE No Yes Abs Church _ x Johnson _ x _ McNamara- x Minnix _ x _ Nickens _ x _ .,, A-121900-5.d ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER: ~"`* AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER MEETING DATE: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Request acceptance of Department of Motor Vehicles grant in the amount of $18,000. These funds are for selective enforcement on Interstate 81. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: Interstate 81 has a tremendous volume of vehicle and truck traffic. Problems with traffic crashes, aggressive drivers, and other moving violations are well documented. The Roanoke County Police Department does not have sufficient manpower to patrol the section of interstate that runs through the County with any consistency or to conduct selective enforcement activity. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The police department has officers trained in the enforcement/detection of aggressive drivers and other motor vehicle/driver violations. Budget constraints do not allow for selective enforcement projects without additional DMV/grant funding. FISCAL IMPACT: The DMV has provided $18,000 in grant funds with no matching funds required. The grant period runs between October, 2000, and September, 2001. r ~"` STAFF RECOMMENDTION: The staff recommends acceptance of the DMV grant for $18,000. SUBMITTED BY: ief of o APPROVED: CJ~O ~~~ County Administrator ACTION Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Motion by: Joseph McNamara to approve cc: File James R. Lavinder, Chief of Police Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Danial Morris, Director, Finance VOTE No Yes Abs Church _ x _ Johnson _ x _ McNamara- x Minnix _ x Nickens _ x ,,..... ...... ~ THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2000, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION 121900-5.e REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF PEACE LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the street described on the attached Addition Form SR-5(A), fully incorporated herein by reference are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: Supervisor McNamara Seconded By: None Required Yeas: Supervisors Johnson. Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara Nays: None Absent: None A Copy Teste: ~`~ Brenda J. Ho on, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Virginia Department of Transportation r t ~~-°~ S1te Gotio ~yo 4`~ VICINITY MA.P fi= b NOR ~~ 9 +a, ' ' xro I ~ r r~ na ~ rq Y4, '.lr .w ~ 7.17 Ac. 91 ~ :r +u 19. is ` "°' ~.; '' -,,. Q _, r 1 ~~i\ ,~ ~ • m io. - e. 9 ~ / 7 ~tl _ ~ ~ ' /d r~z ~ nlsv vJ~ ;~~ 8. a o w '` 3.~7 .' 4 ~ , o-~! J e a9 , p ,t> S - 93a ~47~ J7/T ~ "/. ~ ~' C ~ ~. 2l A y '~~ ' 2 7 ~~ ~'~ Y 4' ~s a J»a° a~.ea~~A?~~~`~o`~, va~~ 5 ? Green I/alley ,tns E/ementary Schoo/ ++ 2 2. - . ~.~ry r - ~+ 5838 ~~ SlOS " T 3. o°' J7a[ N ~~i 13.ia h~ n ~~~J, a ~ n e~4`~J 8'.~~ ~ ~ 7a.30 ae e ~ z d °~ w.i'vs ~ aa..~ 7 - +0 - 4°s_ PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY. DESCRIl'TION: Peace Lane from the intersection with Overdale Rd. north to its cul-de-sac. ROANOKE COUNTY TI-~ PA1~KS DEPARTMENT OF Acceptance of Peace Lane into the ' C'O1-!j11/1~JN~2T Vir inia Department of Transportation g LlETIELOPMLNT Secondary System. ~. ~~ ya ~`~ pow ,~o 4'`~ Site VI~CIIVIT~'1~~P ~°'',, I • ~ ....,,~. ,b, , ~q N ,~ ! ~ 0 ieN +le qy ,~` +.. N ,a w t9. ,,- /o 1 -~ ~~ / 0 ~ 3 i~~ J$ ~ ' I 10. ~ 9 ` f 'qf l72 J715V ~ ~ ~ ~i ~s ~ 17J7 ~ c ~ ~ J> J.07 .. q ~ ,by B5a ~p7~ ,p/7 :~ '7 7 tea. 'a4. I .~ _.. ~9 ~7e 6 ~i, 9 ~ J7/1 ~'~ 6. ~ ~ 6. e, ~ '~. ' 3 ~ - en '~o E ~ l7ia a a7.8fi ~,A?la N~CC, 5709 h°- .. s Giren l/a//ey ~y 2 ~. ^ 171a -5- E/ementary Schoo/ ' ~~`~' a "0 ~+ ~ S8J8 ~y I 3. o" J70E N .U05 \ ~OS~ 15.14 ~ n a Oµ s 4. e e,~~ ~ 7'a _ a/e /Q Z "^ b~. \ ~,~ ~a~ \\\ - ~,'S',- PRQPOSED ADDITION SI~OWN IN GRAY. DESCRIl'TION: Peace Lane from the intersection with Overdale Rd. north to its cul-de-sac. ta.3a ne oalvo~ coin DEPARTMENT OF ~`OMMUtVITY DEVELOPMENT TIC P~.RKS Acceptance of Peace Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. ~i m L V ... Q _~ m Q w.. O m r rJ fj} 1"O L Z C e O O V d Cn ~ ~ L 2 O ~- m y ~ CC ~ O Q j ~ ~ d ~ x O ~ O ~ ~ ~ °- t ~ a ~~ a ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~CC C O A ~ s j V] c ~ Z ~ L }.- ~ C ~ t a R Q ~ Z .~ ~ t N ~ e i i r ~ C: ~ VI :~;i. C ~ ~ i O ~ t.: m 0 z ~ =l° 'o d e °u S r+ ~ 2 W L ~ 1 Q Z O U ~~ Y u 2 w W U C G 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: December 19, 2000 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Peace Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Parks, L.L.C., the developer of The Parks, Sections 1&2 requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept 0.06 mi. of Peace Lane, from the intersection of Overdale Rd. north to its cul-de- sac. The staff has inspected this road along with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation and finds the road is acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT: No county funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to VDOT requesting that they accept Peace Lane into the Secondary Road System. ~-` SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey, Director Department of Community ACTION Approved ()Motion By: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To APPROVED: ~~~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Church Johnson _ McNamara Minnix _ _ Nickens THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 19'TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2000, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF PEACE LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the street described on the attached Addition Form SR-5(A), fully incorporated herein by reference are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of--way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved by: Seconded by: _ Yeas: Nays: A Copy Teste: Mary Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors pc: Arnold Covey, Director, Department of Community Development Virginia Department of Transportation File 4 ~ ~.. ,,,, , a~ , ,i,H f«. p n r, ~„ 7 °J 7 ~ ,~,~ .0_ 3 ~ q ~ i l.. t6 @~ J ® v '6°~.°jl s's~+~ I725V - ~ ~ 11 ~' ~ ~° 5.~7 .- 0 ~ • °,oo. a3 ~ 5 '~' 7 '~"~,' pa~ 37/T ;" 7. ~" ~.. 97A ~?b9 5 37/3 ~~' Fi. 5 s~ s v 2 i - bA '~ ~A2+ ~~ ~ 3709 h9 5 / .rna 47.86/6 ~s oe, ~ 5 G~ieen I/alley E/ementary Schoo/ N 5838 ~O, d\ 3 ~. ~o"37oa v tS ~3lOS ^ ei X13.74 h q ~. ry // \ ~ B a \ ~~ '398 4 a.. ^ ~ ~a~le a>~ ry~. a 3 2 e. d \ abq~ ~ 38.31 X04®a_ 14.30 A( PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY. DESCRIPTION: Peace Lane from the intersection with Overdale Rd. north to its cul-de-sac. J¢' ,~,0 ,~~ Site ~o~ G° ~,yo 4'`~ } v VICINIT~'1VIAP /~. C\~ / 7.17 Ac. ,°~' / 19. R ~ANOKE COUNTY THE PARKS DEPARTMENT OF Acceptance of Peace Lane into the CoM~UNIT~' Virginia Department of Transportation DEVE.~OPMENT Secondary System. J~' ,~,4 ~~~` Site otio G ~ti° 4`~ VI~INIT~.~~P N®RTH Y~~ .kn 1 rsV O 9 ' ~ , , ~IhW I ~~ N Jwr \\ 7.17 Ac. 1 'p J9 ~ ahv r~r, o ' +~4~~sst/ \ ? ~s J ~ ~ R J72 ~ I725~ J7 ~>D~~^' fj 8/ a ~~'~'6~~ w,. i ~ a3.~5 ~> ~ u s ~L~~%f~' o 954 e2/ ,_{7/7 ,P ~ ` A . 1 . 7; vg ~'>s9 s A 2 9 2 1 ~A e~ e~ ~~J7is°~ a7.E8~\A~`'s c~~ce ~ cos h° 3 Green Va/ley `bo 2 ~. ^ ~": ~~, _5~ E/ementary Srhoo/ N' _ ~4, 809 3 3. o" 3704 N,. ~ '~37a5 ~ Sd3S e~\ 13.14 h~ ~ '.7 ~, ry 6> v _ py.~ "9~ d Q.. ^%r. rq e, ry6. / - dJe ~~'> ^ 14.30 Ae a ~j N Y ' d \ V ~+08 0~~ PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY. DESCRIl'TION: Peace Lane from the intersection with Overdale Rd. north to its cul-de-sac. ROANOKE ~'OtINT~' THE PARKS DEPA~4TMENT OF Acceptance of Peace Lane into the ~®MMUNITY Virginia Department of Transportation DEVELOPMENT Secondary System. c 0 `o U C E L U Q _~ m _4 Cn O r ''^~ /'J V/ L V C Q Q U O7 ~ _ m L_ E 2 a o~ a c o O ~ ~ Q ~ ZS ~ d Q l^-~ Q 1'~f O ~ L ~ ~: 7 1 y C ~ Q ~ CC ~ ~~ ~ ' ~~ ~ ~ c O m O Of s ~ L ~ ~ c ~ F- ~ o ^ L ~ 0 9 R Q <' z ~ y ~ yy ~ ~ QI N 0 O C ~, r C C.'' o ~ O V O n ~ ~ m ~ m ~ ,,y c a ,~ --, r '~ < U m 1- Z 6 3' ~"' ov _~ m m m a m w m ~ m ~ ° m a e a a d a n. ° a ¢ . a a c A tl a O _ yyy~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ C L! J ~ tb m 9 ~ ~ t=j F ~ ~ 9 9 m m m 01 m r ^, a ~ ci- ~ ~ T_ "rte n '~' V O m 0 0 9 9 m m `~ ~ p p p D ~ 4 Qo i -~+- m m m '~ C ~. ~ A ~ ~ ZS ~ L ~ 'o J 25 ~ UU t~ _ .~ (] 0 V 01 (UJ 0 m O m ~ ) a F d F d a ~ a e ~ c a ~ C a d ~ a i a r a ii o r d w c r n. ~ c r a ii r a. u`. r ~ X m L ° z Q~ L y ~. ~ ~ 9 , d Z ~ v C o ~ ~ ~ m ~ .~ ( N A Y N 9 ~ ~ O Z ~"-!o m 'o d a a U 3 r- E Z w ~ ~ ~i ~ }"' 0 z 0 < ~ U LL ~ U ~ n w U c L'. A-121900-5 .f ITEM NUMBER ~' / ACTION # AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: CT TR TFC`T• December 19, 2000 Acceptance of Water and Sewer Facilities Serving The Groves, Sections 5 and 6 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: a ~~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Developers of The Groves, Sections 5 and 6, Palm Land Company, L.C., have requested that Roanoke County accept the Deed conveying the water and sanitary sewer facilities serving the subdivisions along with all necessary easements. The water and sanitary sewer facilities are installed, as shown on plans prepared by Lumsden Associates entitled The Groves, Section 5 and The Groves, Section 6, which are on file in the Community Development Department. The water and sanitary sewer facility construction meets the specifications and the plans approved by the County. FISCAL IMPACT: The value of the water and sanitary sewer construction is $ 49,135.00 and $ 76,395.00 respectively. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the water and sanitary sewer facilities serving The Groves, Section 5 and The Groves, Section 6 subdivisions along with all necessary easements, and authorize the County Administrator to execute a Deed for the transfer of these facilities. SUBMITTED BY: Gary Robertson, P. . Utility Director Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) cc File Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Motion by: Joseph McNamara to approve Church _ x Johnson _ x McNamara- x Minnix _ x _ Nickens _ x ~` Return To: Roanoke County ~~~~ Attorney's Office THIS CHATTEL DEED, made this ~_ day of December , 2000, by and between Palm Land Company, L.C. , a Virginia Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer," party of the first part; and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, its successors or assigns, hereinafter referred to as the "Board," party of the second part. WITNESSETH: THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual benefits accruing to the parties, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Developer does hereby GRANT, CONVEY, ASSIGN AND TRANSFER, with the covenants of GENERAL WARRANTY OF TITLE, in fee simple unto the Board all water and/or sewer lines, valves, fittings, laterals, connections, storage facilities, sources of water supply, pumps, manholes and any and all other equipment and appurtenances thereunto belonging, in and to the water and/or sewer systems in the streets, avenues, public utility, easement areas, water and sewer easement areas that have been or may hereafter be installed by the Developer, along with the right to perpetually use and occupy the easements in which the same may be located, all of which is more particularly shown, described and designated as follows, to wit: 7 As shown on the plan entitled The Grove, Section h , made by L.umsden A~ ociate~, P.C. And on file in the Roanoke County Department of Community Development. The Developer does hereby covenant and warrant that it will be responsible for the proper installation and construction of the said water and/or sewer systems including repair of surface areas affected by settlement of utility trenches for a period of one (1) year after date of acceptance by the Board and will preform any necessary repairs at its cost. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance of this conveyance pursuant to Resolution No. adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the day of , 20 2 Developer: Address: By: As: WITNESS THE FOLLOWING signatures and seals: ~ ~~~ ~~~~~, ~,c. Title State of: Virginia , County/City of: Roanoke , to wit: *-,.~' / The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this: ~~ ,day of~~~l~- , 20 ~~ , By: ~~.t~ ~~.J~ • Its ~a4~~~~-~- Duly authorized officer (typed name) Title on behalf of: 1 iQl.~ ~ ~ ~`''~ ~ ~-~' `C ' otarv ublic My Commission expires: 3 ~~ Approved as to form: Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia By: (SEAL) County Attorney Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator State of: __Virginia County/City o£ Roanoke , to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this: day of , 20 , by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Notary Public My Commission expires: 4 ~' .__" COPY Return To: Roanoke County Attorney's Office THIS CHATTEL DEED, made this 7th day of December , 2000, by and between Palm Land Com}~y, L.C. , a Virginia Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer," party of the first part; and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, its successors or assigns, hereinafter referred to as the "Board," party of the second part. WITNESSETH: THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual benefits accruing to the parties, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Developer does hereby GRANT, CONVEY, ASSIGN AND TRANSFER, with the covenants of GENERAL WARRANTY OF TITLE, in fee simple unto the Board all water and/or sewer lines, valves, fittings, laterals, connections, storage facilities, sources of water supply, pumps, manholes and any and all other equipment and appurtenances thereunto belonging, in and to the water and/or sewer systems in the streets, avenues, public utility, easement areas, water and sewer easement areas that have been or may hereafter be installed by the Developer, along with the right to perpetually use and occupy the easements in which the same maybe located, all of which is more particularly shown, described and designated as follows, to wit: As shown on the plan entitled The ('Troves, Section 5 , made by Lumsden Associates, P.C'. And on file in the Roanoke County Department of Community Development. The Developer does hereby covenant and warrant that it will be responsible for the proper installation and construction of the said water and/or sewer systems including repair of surface areas affected by settlement of utility trenches for a period of one (1) year after date of acceptance by the Board and will preform any necessary repairs at its cost. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby j oins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance of this conveyance pursuant to Resolution No. adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the day of , 20 2 Developer: Address: By: As: ,W>ITNESS THE FOLLOWING signatures and seals: ~ - ~" - State of: Virgjnia , County/City of: Roanoke , to wit: J- 7 The foregoing instrument wjas acknowledged before me this: ,day of `i~~ ~"` , 20 Oy , By: ~.! e1,1L-~oe~3 . ~ ~ ~ Its ~2 ~1~~'? Duly authorized officer (typed name) Title on behalf of: My Commission expires: 3 _„ Title ..J / Approved as to form: Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia County Attorney By: (SEAL) Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator State of: Virginia County/City of: Roanoke , to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this: day of , 20 , by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Notary Public My Commission expires: 4 1 .~~ °°~'`."`-~'~ = -SITE ~.. `'~., .. - ~ f /E CR y,, ~~ , ~. ~' ~ i ~ f ~ C~~ `~ ! V<- `.~ ' _ ' 1 i -_ ~- SEC?~Cil,; ~ y ` ~/r';; / ..Ilic GPOvE .9`~r \ VI CI~V~~'~ 111A~' ~y NORTH. N H ~. W .. x, W~ ' W ~ . ' ~ ~~ e~ ~ zaE ~ woo^ I NaTm tiR )~----~- e 20 a` ~ FIR / O7E: ,.()~ eta ~ W . m Q .~ r ° R.2 FROM ~ ° ~ ~ ,uY~ puT 2/ PUG MONET 7~RIVE 70 7RAN5t710N rKAMI 2 m ~ £ ~ e m "' ~ 270 L.F• ~ARpRAI~, ~ 110A ~~ 4 x a 5T Lf, 8~5pN~5EN5a ~ P~ tA'PAY6/.IENT WIOTN AT 57ATION~ I Fd^`t y. ~~~ a ~ve~i i SiAilON 2ht2p 106TH nti4 /`^c~ ~ PG g8r58'3~ ~ ~}1~~ ?3104.64 70 36' PAVEMENT Wt~i ,`^„~ o '! ~ ~ ~, ? +q0 `' y~ y54 tq` R ' tt STATION 24 r 20. B9 /~ a- ~ _ ~ ~ ~ } ~ ~ i 7 t' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~/ ti M / ,e , ~5 ~ ~ ~_, g„ w~,TER f ~ ~ 1t EMfST. 1B"RGP __.- i Y h/ i° c. [3h' / ~ ~.IST 95M~NAY~EMUEN't t ~"~ ~ ~ - ~ _ ---1~ _ < - _' s . 95,4 `~ .__. ~~._ _ ¢ `~.K~ _ .. 1 ~,: ,u. ~ i .s y~--- r;Y-3nlbt+OOO~O~,~.~~~~~t~ ~ s ~,, ~ p ~ STp. 28 `~ \ ~`~' ~ ~O IyF~Gw 2R1~k0 t ~q{~IET ~ ~ NlT ~ l I L E O \~ \ ~.E. ~ ¢~rOOtJ ~ I~ 1~• xa"rEC ~rt'w '~'~pbt.92. _ ~ ~ ~ ~ g~~ `SA i~ ,.1,1. e~ \ // ,?~~~y~ ~ --`~ -'<-~~ ~ _ _~ X/ST. F1FiE NMRANT y I - - EXfST. ZQ' wa ez tln~ ~6~t I ': hh ~4 p1~ ~ ~ G.tha /y1,' `. ~ r,~~ PSTR. 25+ ;8.86 l8 R7. VAIZIAOCC I _"_ ~ 9 -_ -- ~~~ /, / ~~~ B~ _~_ ~ ~ \o ~ WtrJTN i ~ +EXfST, 50' EAJ ,T' 9SEE AJ Ll \.l T ~^'`_ taRAfNAG6 cNNG ~1 Eh a \ \\ 1 `c o ~ 1 ' ~ASEMENI ~ I ~~ D 1x10 '`4 ~ a m 9\9 :~ I ~ V Z r- m -.~ a e t9 \ / a` ~~ PGA ~ ssr~m \ 3~~so.~ ~ I amI I ~~ s~-+ \` ~ s+~~ Q f / Cd \ 1 w~ ¢ aNm ~ / / / ~ / ~ ~ s % j \ ~3 ~ 30' 25 ~' a v o'er II'I z ~ ° ~ Q G.), .o ` \ ~IQ,GpS J ~• !Y G }, /// ~/PRVA7BWAKN4TI2A~LEEASEMENT ~ 1 ^\~ ` `'JII `° 4' S ~~ ~'' / / ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oN dpi / U.S. GOVERNMENT AtfiOAEATY ~ ~ ~ Mp `StAtl i II ' ~ ~ -- /P`aoo°'// j~ (~6UERfOGE PARKWAY) _~'~ ~X~gt.h ~k~ ~ (~ is .i SHEET 1 ROANOKE COUNTY UTILITY DEPARTMENT ,, THE GROVES, SECTION 5 WATER AND SANITARY SEWER ~ ~~ ~J'~~C,-- 5 IT1~ ~ '~ ~. .. `, \ _ ~~~ ~j TTT/~7..'i7H~ET GRGVF~ ':v~. l Y 1 l.r 1 d Y ~1 ~ ~LYl..fi~• o i ~ ~ / ~ ~~ ~ \ i E-+ i `~ w ~ - ~ P~ 29~ 39.63 n E4S NI MENr __ 4 a ~~c\~ ~ ~ ~, ~ 9 ~7~` ~ aL~~W 1 ~~1 ~. ~~ SHEET 2 ROANOKE COUNTY THE GROVES, SECTION 5 UTILITY jJEPARTMENT WATER AND SANITARY SEWER ~. ~ . ~ ~~`~ /V~, ~~~~ i \~~ ~;~~ .- -~1~~`i ~,,I1 -' ~ 1~~ ~' gill J ~,I ~ II ~- - - - ~5r°9,~2 ,MOrJer n4rk~I~ ~, ~~ 2" T:MP• BcoW-oFP a .aq c• $Of00,GO SIaEEr"S' I $i D0+95.00 t o' r .I- ~ '• g• J//~'` 50.50 5N~ nF AAA 9gINL ~/ . V E b `rA. 35rq~5.7~ ~g,~ El m ,p ~ oy""' 1 } lV i a/ ~I. ___, r~~ _ . ~ ~~ „ `y'0. p Rs,,~ ~~~ ~.NCEr ~ I a. ..r`= ~ ~ ~: ,. ' She.. Orr WA 5. j~- ~8'CT "/ TER ^ _ ~~ ~ n.(y F ~ +- ~~ ~ ' 4 {~ of °~a _ F~ ~~ 99iry ' J 1V ~2 ` ~ _ ~, v`o ~ ~~ /I 8~73Lf 57G, a/ o j . dZUOF ~, l Ih $_ l "~1 I ,,_Ir` m ~ _ ,; `' 1 _ -` % ~\ `. ;ar, ~r f ,, - ~ /F _, ._ > ` -- ---' " ~f. ~+ r ~ V,~'C~1V.~~`~ 1y1A~~ ~ IAX x'95.04-I -46.3 W AfIS7t.N 5+ 9UZANh'E R, 9pR44L 7.9. ISC; Py. f0E9 YGNE9: AR. r-EE-W~E~ ,.8~~~\ ~BD.•~.~.,D, l3' SJLry J fEE•rvYEr O~}~ G.D.•M'.0•y,~ L._ fs~ SI4p 1 r ~ ~^\ N~ \ ~/ + ~ `~ ~'~ ~s}~ "E y E ~ D F ..i' ~: ~~ ~ ~ E '~E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n 45MH q~ 59MM ~ ~ s7v7H ~~~ ~~ ~,r ~ , S• nl ~,rQ.Wt~. ~ \F P~ J t~ 4 ~ ~/' //;, 6. j l % °~/ `SAN. SEW~~ki ~~- -" ~ nl~~ g '-,tnq .a'- ~ MN B 8.A 8~+'q 42 J y.r ~~ AJMN~TVALVE ~;A~ <7A. 8!•4!.67 ~ IF ~! I4ATERA4 OUT KANMC' ,,,.47 , .+9' -( Y /3' S/U9 ~57A. 80.50' 7!E /~ INEW pAVEMEN7,EL49 ..!I(.1G GU7TER 70 Ex.~57/.h'6 W.I~fR 9 GN~E A~ ~KItI. Z% c/ME /YJO e~~~. _ , _ , ROANOKE COUNTY ~ THE GROVES, SECTION 6 UTILITY HEPARTMENT WATER AND SANITARY SEWER - - .. ~ '~ 4lO~y9 !E/E "pNc Prn ~'` /'~ THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT made and entered into this 31st day of July 1998, by and between PALM LAND COMPANY L.C. (hereinafter "Grantor") and BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY VIRGINIA (hereinafter "Grantee"). W I T N E S S E T H "That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) , cash in hand paid by the Grantee unto the Grantor, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby BARGAIN, SELL, GRANT, and CONVEY, with General Warranty and Modern English Covenants unto the Grantee, a "NEW 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT," located across the remaining lands of Grantor (Tax Parcel 96.02-1- 46.4) a plat showing "New 20' Sanitary Sewer Easement being dedicated to Roanoke County" as more particularly shown on attached plat prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated June 24, 1998, for the location, construction, reconstruction, enlargement, inspection,. repair, and maintenance of a sewer line, this easement being a perpetual easement through the lands of the Grantors together with the right of ingress to and egress from the same, for the location, construction, enlargement, inspection, repair and maintenance of a sewer line or lines and for any additional line or lines to be installed within this easement. The County agrees, as evidenced by the acceptance of this easement to repair or replace existing fences, walks, pavement, and or other improvements such as trees and shrubbery only outside the .,,permanent easement herein granted, upon the property which may be ~...~ "" damaged in construction of, or in the course of ingress and egress for subsequent inspection, repair and maintenance of the above said easement. Grantors agrees that the County will not be expected to restore the property to the identical original condition, but rather as near thereto as is practicable. Grantors further agree to cooperate with the County in effectuating such restoration and not to obstruct the easement without the written permission of the County. To have and to hold unto the Grantee and its assigns forever. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify acceptance by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Viroinia, of the easement conveyed herein pursuant to Ordinance No .102787-4 /Action No . 090898-10.h adopted by said Board of Supervisors on the gth day of~~~e~er 1998. WITNESS the following signatures and seals this ~r~1 da of Y UGC, 1998 . P Approved as to form: r Vickie L. Hu a Assistant Co ty Attorney B BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By: ~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator 2 ~:~ "~' ~ STATE OF VIRGINIA ) OF ) The11 foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on J~G~ ~J f 19 ~g , by ~ ~ C~--r3 ~~~~ , (title) of Palm Land Company L C on behalf of the corporation. My commission expires ~'(b ~$ ~-~Z- ~' Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA ) CDUNT of ~~NOKE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on OGTOB~R 28 19~~, by _ELMeR C. I-~o.t~GE , ~DMiNtSTR.4T012 (title) of Board of Supervisors of Roanoke Countv, on behalf of the corporation. My commission expires SEPTEMBER .30 /~i Q q L• , No ry Public 3 NEW 20' SAN/TAAY SEWER EASEMENT CEN7L'RUNE DATA L/NE D/RECIION D/STANGL' 1-2 S 84 3435 W 56.71 2-3 S 5546 49 W 216.84 3 4 S 18~t310 E 104.12 4-5 S ?34141 W 121.68 TAX #96.02-1-46.3 PROPERTY OF W. AUS77N SPRU/LL & SUZANNE R. SPRU/LL D.B. 1506, PG. 1069 i ~ ~~ ~ ~ \ \ LOT 9 ~ ' I I \ ~ LOT B \\\ - ~- LOT 10 ~ 'Z\ EX. 15 D. E. P.B. -,, PG. __ `~s\ 6~9'D0KHA i/EN w:. ~~ OT ~ 7 CDURT 40' R/W~ ,_ ~ -~ EX. 20 ~ S.S.E. L SECT/ON No. 6 p P.B. _, PG. _ ~''a, " " ~ Q NEW 15 D.E. ~-- INE GRO l/ES BY SEPARATE p ~ \ /NSTRUMENT ~~ ~~ \ j EX. STORM WA TER MANAGEMENT EASEMENT ~..~ TAX ,6.02-1-46.4 , 3 PROPERTY Of PALM LAND CG1{/PANY, L C. I D.B. 1484, PG. 909 REMA/N/NG PG1PIIt7W Ole I TRACT "A" P.B. 17, PG, 3 ~!~ ,~,~ ,¢,~ (TOIAC/ O X22.30' ,.- / .t / N;,, P.B. ___, PG. __ 0 ~` LOT 6 I LOT 5 I .-. I i ~- . ~ EX. D.E. /--- P B _~ PG. __ 30.18' o, N 5835'05" 2f.7s' NEW 20' SAN/TARY SEWER EASEMENT /,1 5~~ R~ BLOCK 2, SECT/ON Nv. 5 Z "INE GROI/ES" ~~ P.B. ~1_, PG. _`~o_ ~, ~ w ^' LOT 2 ~ LOT 1 i~ G' o~~ c~c.ENv EX. £XrsnNc P.B. PLAT BOOK PG. PAGE' R/W R/GiYT-Gl~ WAY D.E. ORA/NAGS EASEMENT .~.~E. SAN/TARP SEK£R EASEMENT NEW 20' SAN/TARY ® SE'WFR EASEMENT 1 ~-fC1 /-~fd{c}(J ~ : l~t1NM t- KUM ~lULLY . F-'LAC.'t. t- FtiI~.L i N '..~Ll.U / 0`~ ~1 i '.gib ~oM~•axw~a.aH a~ ~RCYrr~a r±cFlt3~!. p.~I'~I~T u{tD~ktl~'E r{~TV r_ip.Ctt;? ~lwi . ~,~° nCC~i QFf•C3pT ''"" o 1, 7; r ; uT, ± s ru rnz;a atrC1,D3• c~trslnfsgacgq ~'@4T~• s4t(?81.E~ t3N.E. 3:E. 4h ~C~QI,.• E1C:...~__~._ ' FP.: £~SC f:=E: k~3{z '4YP3;•: nc_rsiy~vwrui; cru„t bav_-ssu~ .c•aa~cTgin+~xt gEsg?7~ Rti~u: P~:us:r•nr~~a=a; + t„na~cg aI I?.~y ~~~ a;~ z~tsr -~ r a_yD rs7fl~¢,~v, L C rz• ~ ~ EIS fiv; rn -gc9>zi~E gi$xt Bsspf?a ~f a}P~R~lIELI+E nt EUl~~' =3: !~ i~r,+r~-iT. i~{~~g ~Q~P p31D~z~5 : x!g't rnnuTV - . :~~rr. ~ r1Cn nC ~, ~occ j _ ~G~Y E41.fti(t .i1C~ fGiFTi~tgd 1 ~ ,tS~CL~Cl~T '~ 'C~5IIREKSTII!!s• ,n:~ aa~s tctvt~„t • .~st, ll~+.F': .:~ ~SCEIPtI~~ ral~ a~rrnc neS*P.Ipt?~!~ af;Ir> ~ .. TrN~~Ezfl 's?.`K! ... .~. . ~; r; rug; cif rnlio7• c7casE-¢'P.. 4l~E?Alf 'u^ . ... { ,. .' t~teCn'sD) (-'. ;~ T- 7 1- MEETING DATE: December 19, 2000 A-121900-5. g ACTION ## ITEM NUMBER --rte"` AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation of a $6,720 Grant from the Virginia Department of Education COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: `~~zr BACKGROUND: Virginia Department of Education has awarded $6,720 to Roanoke County Schools to support our mentor teacher program. (see attached) SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The 2000 Virginia General Assembly appropriated funds to support mentor teacher programs. Funds are allocated on a per teacher basis with a local resource commitment of 50 percent. FISCAL IMPACT: 50 percent local match of $3,360 to be funded within the current operating budget. Appropriation of $6,720 to the school grant fund to be utilized as stated. Tom Hall, ssi tant Superintendent Elmer C. Hodge of Personnel County Administrator ACTION Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) cc File Tom Hall, Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Danial Morris, Director, Finance Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Dr. Linda Weber, School Superintendent Brenda Chastain, Clerk, School Board Motion by: Joseph McNamara to approve VOTE No Yes Abs Church _ x Johnson _ x _ McNamara- x _ Minnix _ x Nickens _ x _ ~~r -.~; ~~, ,~. I~~ il~'~ ~>;, .I ~~~ ~~~~ ~~L::.wr zd DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION P.O. BOX 2120 RICHMOND, VA. 23218-2120 November 2, 2000 TO: Carol Whitaker Mentor Teacher Program Participants I+ROM: Thomas A. Elliott, Assistant Superintendent Division of Teacher Education and Licensure SUBJCCT: Distribution of 2000-01 Mentor Teacher Program Funds .~ ~ ,_~ . J-_ ,~'~ Based on information contained in affidavits submitted by your school division, the Division of Teacher Education and Licensure, Department of Education, has officially forwarded a request for Mentor Teacher Program allocations in the amount of $ 6 720 for (Roanoke Coi-nrty Schools) to the Department's finance office for electronic transfer for the 2000-O1 year. Funds will be transmitted electronically by November 16, 2000 and are retroactive to July 1, 2000. Allocations for year two of the biennium will be similar in amount to those allotted to school divisions in 2000-01 and will be issued subsequent to receipt of the Mentor Teacher Prograiu Summary Report, due on August 1, 2001. The format to be used in completing this report is attached. While the amount of funds available do not represent a large sum, I hope that the 2000-02 General Assembly allocation, in conjunction with your local 50% match, will enable you to contribute significantly to the professional growth of the approximately 4,753 new teachers with zero years of experience supported by these funds. If you have questions regarding the General Assembly funding allocated for the Mentor Teacher Program requirements, please contact either me or Dr. JoAruie Y. Carver, Education Specialist, Special Education Human Resources Development, at (804) 225-2096, or mail to: jcai-ver ~ mail vakl 2ed.edu. TAE: j yc Attachment c: JoAlule Y. Carver Linda Weber .y r A-121900-5 . h - ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~,7"M~. '~` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 19, 2000 SUBJECT: Transfer of Funds From Sewer Surplus to Sewer Repair and Replacement Fund COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: rr~~'` ~~~ BACKGROUND: The Roanoke County Utility Department budget has funded the Sewer Repair & Replacement fund at a level of $380,000 since the mid 1990's. These monies are used to finance designated sewer repair and replacement projects, which have been identified as part of the Utility Department's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Continued funding of the program is critical to achieving our departmental goal of achieving zero overflows and maintaining continuous service to our customers. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: When the 2000-2001 budget was prepared, the funding level for the Repair and Replacement budget was reduced to $228,850 to maintain the existing sewer rates. Staff intended to fund the remaining $151,150 of this Sewer Repair and Replacement fund from the sewer surplus fund. However, the Repair and Replacement account was not modified in the final version of the budget to restore the funding level to its historical level of $380,000. FISCAL IMPACT: Because of the revenue covenants related to the bonds that were sold for the expansion of the Regional Sewage Treatment Facility, we will no longer be able to fund sewer repair and replacement as part of our sewer operating budget without a sewer rate increase. However, funds are available in the Sewer Surplus to fund the sewer repair and replacement for another five years. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that $151,150 be transferred from the sewer surplus fund to finance the SSER Sewer Repair and Replacement program at the intended $380,000 level. This fund will allow the Utility Department to complete CIP projects slated for this fiscal year. !~ ~"' SUBMITTED BY (~ , •~ Gcvr~z, ~ . ~ c~~ Gary Rob rtson, P.E. Diane D. Hyatt, CP Utility Director Chief Financial Officer ----------------- ACTION Approved (x) Motion by: Joseph McNamara to approve Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( 1 Action cc: File Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Danial Morris, Director, Finance APPROVED: `"' T~/C Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Church _ x Johnson _ x _ McNamara- x Minnix _ x _ Nickens x 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: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Board of Supervisors Retreat on January 27, 2001 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At the last Board meeting, Chairman McNamara recommended that the Board retreat be held in January and that it focus on economic development. He asked that staff contact other Roanoke Valley governments and invite them to send representatives from their economic development offices and to contact the State as well. Mr. McNamara has contacted Aliah and requested the same facilitators that we had last year. This report provides the Board with a proposed agenda. Purpose: To review the strategic plan for economic development in Roanoke County and determine its role in the region; and to build partnerships with the State, Virginia Tech and neighboring localities to accomplish this. Participants: - Members of the Board of Supervisors - County Economic Development staff - County Administrator - Assistant County Administrators - Clerk to the Board - County Attorney - Community Relations Director - School Superintendent - Planning Commission Chairman - Representative from the Virginia Economic Development Office - Representative from the Regional Partnership - Representatives from Salem, Roanoke City and Botetourt County - Representative from Virginia Tech - Aliah staff ~~ /~' -~ Date, time and place: January 27, 2001 from 8:30-5:00 in the Ballator Gallery, Moody Center at Hollins University. This has been confirmed with Hollins University pending Board approval. I have contacted most of the representatives and they are awaiting confirmation of the date. Please let me know if you have any questions or recommendations so we can finalize these plans. Thank you. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE No. Yes Abs Approved () Motion by: Church Denied () Johnson Received () McNamara Referred () Minnix To () Nickens cc: File *- ACTION NUMBER ITEM NUMBER ~'~' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEE INC DATE; December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEMS• Request for work session: Stormwater Phase II, NPDES Requirements. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION• The Environmental Protection Agency is currently regulating stormwater quality in localities with a population of 100,000 or greater under Phase I of the Clean Water Act. Effective in March, 2003, localities of less than 100,000 will have to comply as Phase II of the Clean Water Act and obtain an NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit for stormwater quality. Staff, in conjunction with Ogden Environmental and Engineering Services, would like to conduct a work session with the Board on the specific requirements, potential impacts, deadlines, funding possibilities, and opportunities for regional cooperation with the other localities in the Roanoke Valley that will also have to comply with this federal mandate. STAFF RECOMMFN ATION• Staff requests the Board to authorize a work session as stated above, for the first meeting in January, 2001. SUBMITTED BY: 2i./ ,rte. 3 George W. Simpson, III, P.E., Assistant Director Community Development APPROVED BY: ~~~~ ~T Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator r ---------------------------------------------------------- ACTION Approved () Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) P ?~ VOTE No Yes Abs Church _ _ Johnson _ _ _ McNamara- _ _ Minnix _ _ Nickens _ _ r 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: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Request to Schedule a Work Session on Redistricting COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Article VII, Section 5 of the Virginia Constitution directs that localities shall redistrict every 10 years, if it elects its governing body members from districts. This is understood to require redistricting in advance of the November 2001 elections. The County faces a tight timetable to redistrict in time for the November 2001 elections. Staff requests a work session with the Board of Supervisors in early January to brief it with respect to the various legal requirements for redistricting, the standards to be applied to this redistricting process, a methodology for meeting these requirements and standards, redistricting data from the Census, and a proposed timetable for action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Board schedule a work session at its first meeting in January 2001 (either January 8 or 9, 2001) for a briefing on the requirements, standards, data and timetable for decennial redistricting. Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney G:\ATTORNEY\PMM\BOARD\redistrictingworksession.rpt.frm 1 ~~ Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by G:\ATTORNEY\PMM\BOARD\redistrictingworksession.rpt.frm Vote No Yes Church Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens Abs 2 GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Audited Beginning Balance at July 1, 1999 $9,908,641 Oct 24, 2000 Funds for twenty additional paramedic firefighters (907,000) and planning for renovations to Vinton, Read Mountain, and Mason Cove stations Balance at December 19, 2000 Amount 8.33% $9,001,641 7.57% Changes below this line are for information and planning purposes only. Balance from above $9,001,641 $9,001,641 7.57% 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, Danial Morris Director of Finance Approved By, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator of General Fund Revenues M:\Finance\Common\Board-Reports\MonthlyReports\GENOO.xIs 12/12/2000 ~- CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount Balance from June 27, 2000 Board meeting $279,722.09 Addition for sale of land and equipment during 99-2000 303,501.34 Audited beginning balance at June 30, 2000 583,223.43 Transfer from 1999-2000 departmental savings 224,701.00 Balance at December 19, 2000 $807,924.43 Respectfully Submitted, Danial Moms Director of Finance Approved By, ~~ ~ ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator M:\Finance\CommonlBoard-Reports\MonthlyReports\CAPOO.xIs 12/12/2000 N "" .RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount From 2000-2001 Original Budget $100,000.00 July 25, 2000 Contribution to D-Day Memorial (10,000.00) Sept 12,2000 Video distribution for Senior and Challenged Citizens Commission (1,000.00) Sept 12,2000 Project Impact (12,800.00) Balance at December 19, 2000 Respectfully Submitted, ~~~ ~~~~ Danial Morris Director of Finance Approved By, ~~~~ /~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator $76.200.00 M:\Finance\Common\Board-ReportslMonthlyReports\BOARDOO.xIs 12/12/2000 N -'~ 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 December 19, 2000 $7,578,744.00 FY2000-2001 Original budget appropriation $1,500,000.00 11, 2000 SW Co Regional Stormwater (290,000.00) Balance at December 19, 2000 1,210,000.00 * Of this amount $736,680 is currently being used for the lease purchase of refuse vehicles and will be repaid within two years. Respectfully Submitted, Danial Moms Director of Finance Approved By, ~1vY""" Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator M:\Finance\Common\Board-reportsUVlonthlyReports\SCHOOLOO.xIs 12/12/2000 .~ ~ _~~ V' ~~ ~' , e~°oeR C®A~i~t®I®T~~AL~'I-I ®f VIRGINIA CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23215-2000 December 4, 2000 Mr. Elmer C. Hodge Roanoke County P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Dear Mr. Hodge: "" JAMES S. GNENS STATE SECONDARY ROADS ENGINEER The enclosed report contains a list of all changes to the Secondary System of State Highways in your county approved by the State Secondary Roads Engineer in November 2000. All additions to and abandonments from the Secondary System are effective the day they are approved by the State Secondary Roads Engineer. This date appears in the far right column of the monthly report. These changes will be presented to the Commonwealth Transportation Board at its monthly meeting on December 14, 2000. If you have any questions or comments about this report, please call Martin Law at 786-7399. James S. Givens ~- ~~ State Secondary ads Engineer JSG/MII WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING . ~ O O U q O "~ 11~~~ " ~I v„ o,~~i a '~ U 0~ w O 0~'i Wp V w u w W w ~ ~ Q Qa _~ G~ O ~ y C~ 6~ Aa ~~ ~~ G ~y ~ iG H~ L ,7 O ~i z ~. C O .~ .; b J~ ~_ u ~o i a a~ b0 C teS U y o °00 0 N N N O O O O O O N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ O~ D\ O~ o N o N O O O '~ 6~ O O y N bq 'b ~ C W W s ~ ~ U U U 0 O ~ C% ~ ~ O '~' y Q ~ ~ U ~ y . ~ ~ ~ z U , . E-~ U a~ L ^ 1--I ~ ~ o ~ ,~ ~ U ~ ~ c ~ H ~ a~ w o w O pq -~ c C W 0 o w U U 0 vOi rOii ~ O y0.. ~ a0+ rCi U ~ N N i-i N d' O~ 41 O~ ~--~ O O ~ a~ ~ > > .~ .~ U Q Q V it 0 ~ 3 3 W ~ cn C G C O O O C C C ~ ~ ~ w w w 0 0 0 C N C N C N ~ o ~ .o ~ .o b a`~i b ~ ^o a`~i Wrn Wcn W~ C C C O O O b b b Q f 1r -~- i 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: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid -November 2000 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Direct Deposit Checks Payments to Vendors: $5,126,507.76 Payroll 11/9/00 $600,535.81 $175,449.34 775,985.15 Payroll 11/22/00 575,732.27 206,534.91 782,267.18 Manual Checks 1,752.70 1,752.70 Voids (533.41) (533.41) $6,685,979.38 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. SUBMITTED BY: L~~~'~~ Danial Morris Director of Finance Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ~ No Yes Church Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens ~- Abs t 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: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Worksession on Clearbrook Area Zoning Changes COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: Working with the Clearbrook community, the staff and Planning Commission have prepared a comprehensive set of zoning and Community Plan changes for Clearbrook. A Board public hearing on these changes is scheduled for Tuesday evening. The purpose of the worksession is to provide the Board information on the specific changes proposed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: 1. That a work session be held to discuss proposed zoning and Community Plan changes for Clearbrook. U I 2 Respectfully Submitted, Approved, ~~ -~ _~ ~~ Terranc L. 'rrington, AICP Elmer C. Hodge Depar ent of Community Development County Administrator Action Vote No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Church _ Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens ACTION # ITEM NUMBER N- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Review of October 24, 2000 Board Action to Appropriate Funding and Positions for Twenty Additional Fire Fighters COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: I recommend leaving the action previously taken by the Board, however if you prefer we can reduce the appropriation from $907, 000 to $690, 000. This will allow us to fund the $590, 000 for the six months of the new positions and $100, 000 for the space study and design work on the stations. ` BACKGROUND: On October 24, 2000 the Board of Supervisors approved twenty additional fire fighter positions and appropriated $907,000 to Fire and Rescue. This appropriation was broken down into $590,000 for start up costs and six month funding for the twenty positions, and $317,000 for needed station renovations at Vinton and Mason Cove. A copy of this board report is included as Attachment A. At the December 5, 2000 board meeting Mr. McNamara and Mr. Johnson requested that this item be brought back to the board with further clarification of the funding needs for the firefighter positions. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attachment B outlines the salary requirements as a result of proceeding with the 24/7 staffing plan. This will cover the staffing of the twenty positions from January 2000, the training of this large class of new hires, and the overtime that was required to operate the Fort Lewis station on the weekends beginning in October 2000, when the mutual aid contract with Salem ended. The remaining $317,000 would go toward the space study of the buildings and design work on the renovations that are needed to operate these stations on a 24 hour basis. Attachment B also shows that there is an estimated $3,000,000 of renovations and construction that could be require over the next three to five years. After the study and the design work is completed, staffwill need to return to the Board for additional funding before any of the capital construction could begin. FISCAL IMPACT: $907,000 has already been appropriated from the general fund unappropriated balance to fund twenty additional fire fighters and to begin work on the design of needed station renovations. No additional action is needed if the Board does not wish to change anything. M:\FINANCE\COMMON\Board-Reports\2000\12-19-0O.wpd December 14, 2000 ,' ~ / STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends leaving the action as it was taken on October 24, 2000. SUBMITTED BY: Richard E. Burch Chief of Fire and Rescue Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To () APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator No Yes Abs Church Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens M:\FINANCE\COMMON\Board-Reports\2000\12-19-OO.wpd December 14, 2000 A-102400-4 ATTACHMENT A 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: Public Hearing on Expanded Advanced Life Support Coverage and Request to Approve Funding and Positions for Twenty Additional Pazamedic/Firefighters COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Earlier today, the Board 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 paramedic 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 Mazch 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-O1 will be a partial yeaz for the new positions we will need $590,000 for salaries and start up costs in the current yeaz. 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. 1. 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 N'"~ G:\COIvIlvlON1BOARD\10-24-0O.wpd /~-/ additional expansion of the system is needed in the future. If we do not institute fee for service, n/ _ the Boazd 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 Board meeting the Board 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 RECONIlVIENDATION: At the conclusion of the public hearing, staffrecommends adding twenty positions for paramedic firefighters, and appropriating $90'7,000 from the 1999-2000 surplus revenues. SUBMITTED BY: Richazd E. Burch Chief of Fire and Rescue ACTION Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) cc: File -------------------- VOTE No Yes Abs Motion by: See Motion by Harry C. Nickens Church listed below Johnson Richard E. Burch, Chief of Fire & Rescue Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Joe Sgroi, Director, Human Resources W. Brent Robertson, Director, Budget McNamara- Minnix _ Nickens x x x x x HCN MOTION TO ~1) 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. APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator G:ICOMMON~BOARDU 0-24-OO.wpd ~- ATTACHMENT B Funding Needed for Twenty Additional Firefighters Salary and Benefits ($40,000 annually) Protective clothing, uniforms and equipment Pagers -Alpha and Minitor Type Medical Exams Overitme required (Scheduled and training) Fort Lewis Overtime Instructor Training Hours Needed for Per Six Months Firefighter (Jan~lune 2000) $ 40,000 $ 400,000 2, 900 58, 000 450 9, 000 500 10, 000 3,450 69,000 $ 47, 300 546, 000 26, 000 18,000 $ 590, 000 Capital Funding Estimated for Station Renovations and Repairs Vinton addition (County share) $ 500,000 Read Mountain Additional Bays 300,000 Mason Cove -Bunk Room addition 300,000 Hanging Rock Station (NEW) 1,900,000 $ 3, 000, 000 M:\Finance\Common\Board-rpts\12-19-OO.xls 12/14/2000 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER 4 - ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session to consider funding for McDonald Farm Business Park COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: A few months ago, the Town of Vinton advised Roanoke County that they have the funds to proceed with the development of the McDonald Farm Business Park and requested Roanoke County's participation. The Board may recall that this business park was one of the components of the Gain Sharing Agreement that we negotiated with the Town, and was approved by both local governments and the Commission on Local Government, effective July 1, 1999. The Town purchased this 100 acre parcel fifteen years ago to be included as part of the development of Explore Park. The property was under consideration at that time for development as a mobile home park. The Town has $1.5 million equity in the property and is prepared to appropriate another $500,000 for roads and infrastructure improvements. At this time, Roanoke County has invested limited planning in the project. McDonald Farm served as the model for Roanoke County in working with the citizens and neighbors to develop the Planned Technology District which was later used for the Glen Mary (CRT) project and Clearbrook. The property has been planned with the assistance of Carlton Abbott, the world-renowned landscape architect, who also worked with us on CRT and is now working with the City of Roanoke on the plans for the new biomedical center. The material from the rezoning which was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 26, 1999 is attached to provide you with background information. This project has already gone through the community meeting process, review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, approval by the Vinton Town Council, approval of the rezoning by the Board of Supervisors and inclusion in the Gain Sharing Agreement. During the year-end budget review, we requested $500,000 so Roanoke County can become a participant in this development. If we do not participate, the Town will receive all of the tax revenues generated from the business park. We asked for $500,000 to fund ~ - .,~..- infrastructure improvements in the Clearbrook area which is on your agenda for this meeting as well. We should not delay Vinton's effort to develop this property. It is my recommendation that we move forward in partnership with the Town in this economic development venture. Representatives from Vinton will attend and participate at the work session. Following the work session, staff will be prepared to add a request for funding to the evening session if it is the consensus of the Board to do so. Vinton representatives will not be able to attend this session because they have a Town Council meeting at the same time. CJC~,...~.i Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE No. Yes Abs Approved () Motion by: Church _ _ Denied () Johnson _ _ _ Received () McNamara_ _ _ Referred () Minnix _ _ _ To () Nickens ~X D-2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1999 ORDINANCE 102699-7 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 99.38-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE (McDONALD FARM) LOCATED AT THE 2100 BLOCK OF HARDY ROAD (TAX MAP N0.71.11-1-1) IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF PTD WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE TOWN OF VINTON WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 28, 1999, and the second reading and public hearing were held October 26, 1999; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 5, 1999; 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 99.38 acres, as described herein, and located at the 2100 block of Hardy Road (Tax Map Number 71.11-1-1) in the Vinton Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District, to the zoning classification of PTD, Planned Technology Development District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of The Town of Vinton. 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: All submitted materials, including "Protective Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for the McDonald Farm" in addition to the following proffers: 1 d " (1) On Parcels "G" and "H" on the concept plan dated August of 1999, Mattern & Craig, Inc., all exterior building materials shall be residential in character. The exterior wall materials shall be limited to brick, stone, wood, vinyl or aluminum siding and other materials customarily found on residential structures. Exterior colors shall be predominantly earth tone colors. On Parcels "G" and "H" roof pitch shall be no less than a 4/12 pitch and roof materials shall be non-reflective, earth tone colors. (2) Buildings on Parcel "A" identified on the concept plan dated August of 1999, Mattern & Craig, Inc., shall be oriented inward on a central, landscaped parking area. No customer parking shall be permitted to the rear of the buildings. (3) Any residential, civic, office, commercial, industrial or miscellaneous use types listed in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, that require a Special Use Permit, shall also require a Special Use Permit under this Planned Technology District rezoning, except as amended by the "Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the McDonald Farm". (4) Broadcasting Towers shall be prohibited. 4. That said real estate is a 99.388 acre tract known as The McDonald Farm (Tax Map No. 71.11-1-1) and more fully described on Exhibit 1 attached to this ordinance. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the 2 -.~ following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: /,'~z~~. Brenda J. H on, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Terry Harrington, County Planner John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney B. Clayton Goodman, III, Vinton Town Manager 3 o-z PROTECTIVE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR THE McDONALD FARM Whereas, the Town of Vinton, hereinafter referred to as the "TOWN", is the owner of a certain tract of land known as the McDONALD FARM, which real estate is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, and which real estate is hereinafter referred to as the "PARK"; and Whereas, the TOWN intends to jointly develop with Roanoke County and sell and/or lease parcels of land in the PARK for office, commercial, residential and industrial use in conformance with the standards of the Planned Technology Development District zoning regulations; and Whereas, the TOWN desires to impose upon the PARK certain protective covenants, conditions, and restrictions for the purpose of ensuring the orderly development of the PARK, protecting the environment, and providing that the use of the PARK will not adversely affect the health and safety of residents and workers in the vicinity of the PARK, or the use, or development of property within and adjacent to the PARK; and Whereas, the TOWN may designate an agent, an administrative body or Authority to administer the protective covenants, conditions and restrictions for the PARK. Now, therefore, the TOWN hereby declares and provides that each and every parcel of real estate within the PARK shall be conveyed subject to the following covenants, conditions, and restrictions which shall be binding upon all purchases or lease of real estate within the PARK, the heirs thereof, successors, or assigns to ensure proper use and appropriate development of each building site and the grounds thereof, to protect the environment and aesthetics of the PARK, to guard against the erection thereof of structures built of improper or unsuitable materials; and in general, to provide for a high quality of development so that each building site will not adversely affect the health or safety of residents or workers in the area nor be detrimental to the use or development of other properties in the PARK, and Further, that a copy of these Protective Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, and shall be binding upon and running with the land, including 1 "~ each and every parcel, whether sold or leased in whole or in part and by reference made a part of each and every deed, option, lease or other grant of any interest in and to any parcel thereof as a part of the terms thereof. 1. Property Development: The TOWN intends to jointly develop the property with Roanoke County and others in a phased manner as a business park with mixed uses. (a) A Master Development Plan prepared for the TOWN, showing a general arrangement of sites, an access road and water and sewer lines, shall serve as a guide in the overall sale of sites and development of the PARK. The TOWN may alter the size and configuration of these sites provided the standards are maintained and depending upon the specific needs and requirements of businesses desiring to purchase and develop land within the PARK. Said plan shall be maintained on file in the offices of the Town Manager and the Roanoke County Director of Economic Development. (b) The TOWN intends to develop the PARK in phases with the assistance of Roanoke County. Tracts of land within the PARK will be marketed and sold to businesses and developers for development in accordance with the Planned Technology Development District zoning. (c) Any residential, civic, office, commercial, industrial or miscellaneous use type listed in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, that requires a Special Use Permit, shall also require a Special Use Permit under this Planned Technology District rezoning, except the specific use types listed below: (i) Day care center: Parcels A, E, F, G, H and I. (ii) Cultural services: Parcels A, E, F, G, H and I. (iii) Safety services: Parcels A, E, F, G, H and I. (iv) Commercial indoor sports and recreation: Parcels A, E, F, G, H and I. 2. Permitted Uses: Unless otherwise prohibited herein, sites within the PARK shall be used for the following purposes only: (a) Manufacturing, processing or assembly operations (b) Commercial or industrial flex space (office/warehouse combination) 2 ~.~ (c) Research or experimental laboratory (d) Commercial or office uses as well as business services incidental to any of the foregoing (e) Retirement housing (fl Life care facility (g) Educational facilities, college/university (h) Institutional and civic uses 3. Prohibited Uses: No use of any site, lot or building shall be made which causes or creates, or is likely to cause or create, a hazard or nuisance to adjacent properties, or which would violate the zoning ordinance of Roanoke County. In addition, the following uses are specifically prohibited within the boundaries of the PARK: (a) Acetylene gas manufacturer and wholesale distributor (b) Asphalt manufacturing or refining (c) Birch the or terra cotta manufacturer (d) Cement, lime, plaster manufacturer (e) Creosote manufacturing or treatment plants (f) Distillation of bones, coal, petroleum, refuse and tar (g) Explosives, ammunition, fireworks and gun powder manufacture (h) Fat rendering, production of fats and oils from animal or vegetable products by boiling or distillation (i) Garbage, offal and animal reduction or processing (j) Linseed oil, shellac, turpentine, manufacture or refining 3 (k) Automobile 'storage ~ for wrecking, dismantling of junk cars for salvaged parts „~. (1) Any use or trade, which, through properly and safely operated with ordinary care and according to good and reasonable practice, causes noxious or offensive odors, gas, fumes, smoke, dust, vibration or noise substantially affecting other uses of property permitted in the PARK (m) Construction yards (n) Recycling centers and stations (o) Scrap and salvage services (p) Surplus sales (c~ Truck stops (r) Automobile dealership, new and used, auto and truck sales and service establishments (s) Broadcasting tower (t) Other uses not listed or unknown but with similar impacts of those uses listed above. Where it is unclear whether or not a particular use of the PARK is permitted or prohibited hereunder, the TOWN shall decide whether or not such use is prohibited, and its decision shall be final and binding upon all persons. 4. Building Standards: All buildings, structures, and improvements shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the following standards, unless an exception is approved in writing by the TOWN: (a) Exterior walls of each building shall be finished with approved tilt-up concrete, concrete panel construction, brick, architectural block, or in the case of metal, an architectural rendering of an appropriately designed facade must be submitted to the TOWN for its approval. Those buildings having a residential appearance may use exterior wall materials customarily found in residential construction. On Parcels G and H, it is the preference of the Town for any building constructed facing the Parkway, windows should be minimized and it is preferred the use of non-reflective, no-glare material. Earth-tone 4 colors of matte gray or flat brown are preferred. ~ - -~- On Parcels "G" and "H" on the concept plan dated October 26, 1999, Mattern 8v Craig, Inc., all exterior building materials shall be residential in character. The exterior wall materials shall be limited to brick, stone, wood, vinyl or aluminum siding and other materials customarily found on residential structures. Exterior colors shall be predominately earth tone colors. On Parcels "G" and "H" roof pitch shall be no less than a 4/ 12 pitch and roof materials shall be non- reflective, earth tone colors. Buildings constructed on Parcel "A" will be oriented inward on a central, landscaped paving area. No customer parking shall be permitted to the rear of the buildings. The Town and Roanoke County may amend this if a unique use is presented which would improve and enhance the Park's development. (b) The height of all buildings, including other structures, will be according to the site components as identified in the Master Development Plan: (i) Parcel G: Shall not be more than twenty-five (25) feet. (ii) Parcel H: Shall not be more than thirty-five (35) feet. (iii) Parcels A, C, and I: Shall not be more than forty-five (45) feet. (iv) Parcels E and F: Shall not be more than sixty (60) feet. (c) No temporary buildings, travel trailers, mobile homes or storage facilities shall be stored on a lot except as necessary during construction periods but then only for the periods during which actual construction is being pursued. (d) Prefabricated tool or utility sheds shall be prohibited. (e) A colored architectural rendering of the proposed building shall be submitted to and approved by the TOWN. This shall include elevations and material samples so that the TOWN can determine compliance with these covenants. This approval shall be obtained from the TOWN prior to requesting a building permit from Roanoke County. (fl Planned expansion or renovation for all buildings or structures must meet or exceed the quality of the initial structure. Where expansion is planned to one side of an existing building, a wall of temporary material may be erected, provided such expansion is performed within the time period prescribed on the approved site plan. If said 5 O -..~-. expansion is not accomplished within the approved time, a permanent wall of suitable materials shall be erected within ninety (90) days. The TOWN may grant a single one-year extension. (g) All electrical and mechanical apparatus, equipment, fixtures (other than lighting fixtures), conduits, ducts, flues, and pipes located on the exterior of any building shall be concealed from view from any public street and shall be architecturally treated in a manner acceptable to the TOWN. Where residential type structures are constructed it may not be feasible to conceal chimneys and other apparatus and their use may be approved following review and approval from the Town. (h) Parking lots, loading/unloading areas and lot lighting shall meet the standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, as amended. The maximum permitted mounting height for any lighting fixture shall be twenty-five (25) feet. (i) The TOWN shall not be responsible for maintenance of any site improvements. (j) Signs shall meet Section 30-93-13 (D) which is Commercial District C-1 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, as amended. Freestanding signs shall not be more than ten (10) feet in height. To create apark-like setting, monument type signs will be encouraged. (k) Electrical and telephone services -Reserved. 5. Outside Storage: No materials, supplies, equipment, trash, or refuse shall be stored on the property except inside a building or behind a visual barrier approved by the TOWN which screens the stored matter from view from streets and adjoining sites; which barrier shall not be less than eight (8) feet in height or two (2) feet above the stored matter, whichever is higher, unless written approval from the TOWN allows an exception. The request for this exception must come in writing and must be accompanied by engineering plans for review. Except with the prior written approval of the TOWN, storage areas shall not be located between a building and a street. Plans for such storage areas must be submitted to the TOWN for approval prior to installation. 6. Construction Date: If, after one (1) year from the date of purchase of the property from the TOWN, the then record property owner has not begun in good faith the actual construction of a proposed building, the TOWN shall have the right and option to reacquire the property by refunding the said record property owner the amount of the original purchase price per acre paid to the TOWN for the property, less and except real estate commissions and other related expenses paid by the TOWN; whereupon the said record property owner 6 shall forthwith convey the property back to the TOWN. At any time after the ~~ '~ aforementioned one-year period, the TOWN shall have the right to exercise its option to re-acquire the property. Settlement shall take place within sixty (60) days after the TOWN exercises its option. The option shall be exercised by mailing written notice thereof to the record property owner. In the event that the record property owner for any reason fails or refuses to convey title back to the TOWN as required herein, then, in that event, the TOWN shall have the right to enter upon and take possession of said property, together with all necessary rights and causes of action necessary to have title to the property conveyed back to the TOWN or its assigns. The TOWN may grant written exceptions to this section if it determines that it is in the best interest of the PARK development to extend the construction period. 7. Resale of Property: In the event that any owner of unimproved property or any portion thereof shall desire to sell all or a portion thereof, the TOWN must approve any subdivision or sale and shall have the first right and option to purchase said property at the same purchase price per acre paid to the TOWN by the original purchaser. Prior to such sale, the property owner shall notify the TOWN by registered or certified mail of its intentions to sell the property or any portion thereof. Said notice shall describe the exact parcel intended to be sold. The TOWN shall have sixty (60) days from receipt of said notice in which to exercise the option, and settlement shall take place within sixty (60) days after the date the TOWN exercises its option. The option shall be exercised by mailing written notice thereof to the record property owner at any time within the option period. 8. Subdivisions: No owner of any property in the PARK shall subdivide a site without the prior written consent of the TOWN. No owner of any property may lease an undeveloped site or any portion thereof without the prior written consent of the TOWN. The subdivision of any tract will have to comply with the provisions of the Roanoke County Subdivision Ordinance, as amended. 9. Site Maintenance: Each property owner shall be responsible for maintaining its property in a manner that enhances the appearance of the PARK. The premises shall be kept free of debris and trash of any sort, and lawns and landscaping shall be kept in a state of good repair. Maintenance of landscaping and lawns shall include all necessary planting, cutting, watering, fertilizing, aerating, seeding, spraying, pruning, weeding and required replacements. 10. Damaged or Destroyed Buildings: If any building or other improvement in the PARK be damaged or destroyed by fire, storm, explosives, or otherwise, then, in that event, all debris resulting from such damage or destruction shall be cleaned and removed from said property within thirty (30) days of the said damage or destruction. If any building or other improvement is to be reconstructed, such construction shall begin within six (6) months of the C../ date of such damage or destruction, or the land shall be graded and restored to substantially the condition, which existed prior to initial construction. 11. Streets: All streets and roadways constructed by the TOWN within the PARK are dedicated to public use, and shall not be private streets, and as such, are dedicated to all owners and lessees of lots in the PARK for the reasonable use and enjoyment of their properties, including the free use thereof for the installation, maintenance, and operation of public utilities. Owners of tracts may construct interior private roadways that connect to public streets upon approval of a site plan by Roanoke County. However, the TOWN reserves aright- of-way of ingress and egress across these streets to its other property, or to any other streets within the PARK that the TOWN develops in the future. 12. Stormwater Management: The TOWN has identified the location of stormwater management facilities within the PARK. It is the responsibility of the owners of properties upon which these are served, to construct these facilities. The Property Owners Association set forth in Section 15 within will handle maintenance of the regional storrnwater management areas. 13. Fuel Storage Tanks: Unless prohibited by law, every tank for the storage of fuel installed outside any building shall be located above the surface of the ground. 14. Trails: The Town intends to jointly develop the trails with Roanoke County and others. (a) All trails shown on the Master Development Plan are reserved for public use and will be constructed at a future time as public and private funds are made available. (b) Trail easements shall be dedicated at tune of subdivision and platting. (c) Construction of the trail system shall be phased to coincide with the construction of the various uses in the PARK. The intent is to develop the system in conjunction with the development of the PARK. (d) The TOWN may convey ownership and maintenance responsibility of these trails to a public or private entity in the future. 15. Property Owners Association: After the construction of public improvements at the PARK, the TOWN intends to establish a Property Owners Association to fund and manage the maintenance of storrnwater management s G/ "" facilities, landscaping, signs and other improvements. 16. Amendments: Except as provided herein, each of the covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth herein may as to all persons and property be waived, released, rescinded, modified, altered or amended by the TOWN. The TOWN expressly reserves the right, after consultation with Roanoke County to amend these restrictions by document recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County. 17. Liability of TOWN: Each owner, lessee and occupant of property in the PARK shall, and does, hereby indemnify and hold harmless the TOWN, its agents, officers, employees, and representatives from and against any and all claims for injury or death to persons, or damage to or loss to property arising out of the construction, use, operation and/ or maintenance of improvements within the PARK, the use and/or possession of any property, and the conduct of business or any other activities within the PARK. 18. Duration: The covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth herein, along with amendments, shall be in full force and effect immediately upon adoption by resolution of the TOWN and shall be binding on all property within the PARK and the owners thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns for a period of twenty (20) years from the date of adoption, after which period said covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years unless an instrument executed by the owners of two-thirds of the number of sites within the PARK and has been recorded terminating the covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth herein. 19. Severability: If any covenants, conditions, restrictions or portion thereof, set forth herein, be declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity will not invalidate any of the remaining covenants, which shall remain in full force and effect. 9 ~~ TOWN OF VINTON State of Virginia County of Roanoke The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /J` day of ..,~o,~.~-m-l.~-~ _ 1999, by ~' ~ a~ `~ ~~ XJ (~'~~ ~- 70 Notary Public My commission expires: 30 0 PETITIONER: TOWN OF VIhTON CASE NUMBER: 38-10/99 Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 5, 1999 ~ ''" Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: October 26, 1999 A. REQUEST Petition of The Town of Vinton to rezone 99.38 acres from R-1 to PTD, in order to develop mixed residential, commercial and industrial uses, located at the 2100 block of Hardy Road, in the Vinton Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Charles Mitchell, Glenn Reed, John Miller and Robert Arbogast, citizens in the surrounding neighborhoods, all spoke against the petition. Mr. Mitchell expressed concern that the conceptual plans are not specific enough and have changed over time. Other concerns were as follows: noise and light pollution, loss of mountain views, loss of property value and Hardy Road traffic congestion. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Witt expressed concern about the lack of specificity in the plans particularly regarding the trail system. After presentations by the petitioner, questions and answers, Mr. Witt stated that he had more assurance that the conceptual plan and proffered conditions would be followed. Mr. Ross expressed concern regarding the feasibility of the assisted care facility due to its location and distance from a hospital. Mr. Thomason expressed concern about some of the commercial uses that would be allowed and petitioner agreed to revise proffers to address these concerns. Mr. Robinson congratulated the Town of Vinton for producing awell-designed conceptual plan. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS All submitted materials, including covenants, are proffered conditions. In addition, the following proffers apply: On Parcels "G" and "H" on the concept plan dated, August 1999, Mattern & Craig, Inc., all exterior building materials shall be residential in character. The exterior wall materials shall be limited to brick, stone, wood, vinyl or aluminum siding and other materials customarily found on residential structures. Exterior colors shall be predominantly earth tone colors. On Parcels "G" and "H" roof pitch shall be no less than a 4/12 pitch and roof materials shall be non-reflective, earth tone colors. 2. Buildings on Parcel "A" identified on the concept plan dated August, 1999, Mattern & Craig, Inc., shall be oriented inward on a central, landscaped parking area. No customer parking shall be permitted to the rear of the buildings. 3. Any residential, civic, office, commercial, industrial or miscellaneous use types listed in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, that require a Special Use Permit, shall also require a Special Use Permit under this Planned Technology District rezoning. 4. Broadcasting Towers shall be prohibited. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Robinson moved to recommend approval of the petition with the proffered conditions. The motion for approval carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Ross, Thomason, Witt, Robinson, Hooker NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other '~~ Terry Harringto , Secr ry Roanoke Co my Planning Commission OCT-~2-99 FR ~ 10 ~ 51 AI~i TOti~I~ OF ~'IId1'OI~ Fiii 1\~, ~4~,1+~~~+0~~~j P, G October 22, 1999 TOWN OF VINTUN 311 S. POLLARD STREET VINTON, VIRGINIA 24179 PHONE (6d0) 999.0607 8. CLAYTON GOODMAN, III FAX (640J 98J-OB2! TOWN MANAGER Mr. Terry Harrington, AICP Secretary ,Roanoke County Planning Commission Department of Community Development P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Re: Town of Vinton -McDonald Farm, Tax Map Number 71.11.1-1 PTD District Rezoning Application and Proffers Dear Terry: I have provided each Council member with a copy of the most recent edition of the proposed covenants for the McDonald Farm. I asked the Council to review the covenants and advise me of any concerns they may have regarding the proposed covenants. Several Council members have informed me that at the November 2, 1999 Council meeting they will vote to remove one proffer. Since you must receive notice of any changes to the proffer by today, I thought I would notify you of the Council's intent to act. The one proffer, which several Council members have asked to be removed from the rezoning process, is the site plan rendering of a wet pond located on the open space adjacent to the large block barn. The plan identifies this area as section J. Please inform the Board of Supervisors that the Town Council respectfully requests that this proffer be removed from the Town's application. I would also like to summarize the Town's applicatioutlli~es shall belulnderground unless the type over the past two months, the PTD Distrct states that of service necessary for normal activities of the industry or business shall prohibit underground installation. It is my understanding that a portion of the CRT has primary service above ground, which may be in violation of the PTD policies. During our many discussions and at the Planning Commission's public hearing you discussed the need for the County staff to prepare an amendment to the PTD ordinance which may allow above ground pnmcrl that I b 1 eve that due to the 3 phase language has been prepared, but I have lnformed my Coun service required for the site and cost factor as indicated by the AEP personnel, it is necessary for the Park to have primary service above ground. The CRT Park the CountngP arming sdtaff can support to be underground but not the primary line. I hope tha Y language, which would permit primary service above ground for the McDonald Farm. OCT-2?-99 FRI IG~S? AI~4 T01~,'I~ 0~ 4'II~TOI~ :~1y I~IO, 540+983+06?1 P, 8 .~ Terry Hatxington (~ ~ -:~ October 22, 1999 Page 2 During a breakfast meeting today with Mayor Charles H'e , Eelveral~ssues~reglardingb he McDonald Nickens, Anita McMillan and Kevin Boggess, we discuss d Farm PTD. I also tried to describe the process for future changes in use in rte a lcome uter~ompoany or thoeme P informed the group that if a large developer such as a w~- a ~ hearin If the assisted supply company asked to develop in the park; it would require a rezoning $• care facility site were to be used for commercial use a rezorunbe renuiged for useeact~vi~ty that'the group also discussed the proffer that a special use perrYUt would q County Code requires a SUP. Questions arose regarding the interpues before the Bogard me ting. is my understanding that a meeting will be scheduled to clanfy these iss I wanted to thank Janet Scheid and you for working over the pasnd m nhschanges have been made McMillan and I on this prolect.thMae chanaes have strengthened the development and will result in to the project. I believe that g future positive development outcomes for the Town and County. Sincerely, ~~ B. Clayton Goodman, III Town Manager Cc: Anita McMillan Janet Scheid Town Council Elmer Hodge Tim Gubala Kevin Boggess Dr. Harry Nickens t "" PROTECTIVE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR THE McDONALD FARM Whereas, the Town of Vinton, hereinafter referred to as the "TOWN", is the owner of a certain tract of land known as the McDONALD FARM, which real estate is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, and which real estate is hereinafter referred to as the "PARK"; and Whereas, the TOWN intends to jointly develop with Roanoke County and sell and/or lease parcels of land in the PARK for office, commercial, residential and industrial use in conformance with the standards of the Planned Technology Development District zoning regulations; and Whereas, the TOWN desires to impose upon the PARK certain protective covenants, conditions, and restrictions for the purpose of ensuring the orderly development of the PARK, protecting the environment, and providing that the use of the PARK will not adversely affect the health and safety of residents and workers in the vicinity of the PARK, or the use, or development of property within and adjacent to the PARK; and Whereas, the TOWN may ,designate an agent, an administrative body or Authority°,to administer the protective covenants, conditions and restrictions for the PARK. . Now, therefore, the TOWN hereby declares and provides that each and every parcel of real estate within the PARK shall be conveyed subject to the following covenants, conditions, and restrictions which shall be binding upon all purchases or lease of real estate within the PARK, the heirs thereof, successors, or assigns to ensure proper use and appropriate development of each building site and the grounds thereof, to protect the environment and aesthetics of the PARK, to guard against the erection thereof of structures built of improper or unsuitable materials; and in general, to provide for a high quality of development so that each building site will not adversely affect the health or safety of residents or workers in the area nor be detrimental to the use or development of other properties in the PARK, and Further, that a copy of these Protective Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, and shall be binding upon and running with the land, including each and every parcel, whether sold or leased in whole or in part and by reference 1 made apart of each and every deed, option, lease or other grant of any interest in Y and to any parcel thereof as a part of the terms thereof. 1. Property Development: The TOWN intends to jointly develop the property with Roanoke County and others in a phased manner as a business park with mixed uses. (a} A Master Development Plan prepared for the TOWN, showing a general arrangement of sites, an access road and water and sewer lines, shall serve as a guide in the overall sale of sites and development of the PARK. The TOWN may alter the size and configuration of these sites provided the standards are maintained and depending upon the specific needs and requirements of businesses desiring to purchase and develop land within the PARK. Said plan shall be maintained on file in the office of the Town Manager and the Roanoke County Director of Economic Development. (b) The TOWN intends to develop the PARK in phases with the assistance of Roanoke County. Tracts of land within the PARK will be marketed and sold to businesses and developers for development in accordance with the Planned Technology Development District zoning. (c) Any residential, civic, office, commercial, industrial or miscellaneous use type listed in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, that requires a Special Use Permit, shall also require a Special Use Permit under this Panned Technology District rezoning. 2. Permitted Uses: Unless otherwise prohibited herein, sites within the PARK shall be used for the following purposes only: (a) Manufacturing, processing or assembly operations (b) Commercial or industrial flex space (office/warehouse combination) (c} Research or experimental laboratory (d) Commercial or office uses as well as business services incidental to any of the foregoing (e) Retirement housing (f~ Assisted living facility (g) Institutional -upon review and approval of the Town 2 3. Prohibited Uses: No use of any site, lot or building shall be made which causes or creates, or is likely to cause or create, a hazard or nuisance to adjacent properties, or which -would violate the zoning ordinance of Roanoke County. In addition, the following uses are specifically prohibited within the boundaries of the PARK: (a) Acetylene gas manufacturer and wholesale distributor (b) Asphalt manufacturing or refining (c) Birch file or terra cotta manufacturer (d) Cement, lime, plaster manufacturer (e) Creosote manufacturing or treatment plants (fl Distillation of bones, coal, petroleum, refuse and tar (gj Explosives, ammunition, fireworks and gun powder manufacture (h) Fat rendering, production of fats and oils from animal or vegetable products by boiling or distillation (i) Garbage, offal and animal reduction or processing (j) Linseed oil, shellac, turpentine, manufacture or refining (k) Automobile storage for wrecking, dismantling of junk cars for salvaged parts (1) Any use or trade, which, through properly and safely operated with ordinary care and according to good and reasonable practice, causes noxious or offensive odors, gas, fumes, smoke, dust, vibration or noise substantially affecting other uses of property permitted in the PARK (m) Construction yards (n) Recycling centers and stations (o) Scrap and salvage services -_ .~- 3 s-a (p) Surplus sales (q) Truck stops (r) Automobile dealership, new and used, auto and truck sales and service establishments (s) Broadcasting tower (t) Other uses not listed or unknown but with similar impacts of those uses listed above Where it is unclear whether or not a particular use of the PARK is permitted or prohibited hereunder, the TOWN shall decide whether or not such use is prohibited, and its decision shall be final and binding upon all persons. 4. Building Standards: All buildings, structures, and improvements shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the following standards, unless an exception is approved in writing by the TOWN: (a) Exterior walls of each building shall be finished with approved tilt-up concrete, concrete panel construction, brick, architectural block, or in the case of metal, an architectural rendering of an appropriately designed facade must be submitted to the TOWN for its approval. Those buildings having a residential appearance may use exterior wall materials customarily found in residential construction. On sites G and H, it is the preference of the Town for any building ' constructed facing the Parkway, windows should be minimized and it is preferred the use of non-reflective, no-glare material. Earth-tone colors of matte gray or flat brown are preferred. On Parcels "G" and "H" on the concept plan dated August 1999, Mattern & Craig, Inc., all exterior building materials shall be residential in character. The exterior wall materials shall be limited to brick, stone, wood, vinyl or aluminum siding and other materials customarily found on residential structures. Exterior colors shall be predominately earth tone colors. On Parcels "G" and "H" roof pitch shall be no less than a 4/ 12 pitch and roof materials shall be non- reflective, earth-tone colors. Buildings constructed on Parcel "A" will be oriented inward on a central, landscaped paving area. No customer parking shall be permitted to the rear of the buildings. The Town and Roanoke County may amend this if a unique use is presented which would improve and enhanced the Park's development. ~' " 4 >~~~ (b) The height of all buildings, including other structures, will be according to the site components as identified in the Master ~ - ~- Development Plan: (i) Sites G: Shall not be more than twenty-five (25) feet. (ii) Site H: Shall not be more than thirty-five (35} feet. (iii) Sites A, C, and I: Shall not be more than forty-five (45) feet. (iv) Sites E and F: Shall not be more than sixty (60) feet. (c) No temporary buildings, travel trailers, mobile homes or storage facilities shall be stored on a lot except as necessary during construction periods but then only for the periods during which actual construction is being pursued. (d) Prefabricated tool or utility sheds shall be prohibited. (e) A colored architectural rendering of the proposed building shall be submitted to and approved by the TOWN. This shall include elevations and material samples so that the TOWN can determine compliance with these covenants. This approval shall be obtained from the TOWN prior to requesting a building permit from Roanoke County. (f} Planned expansion or renovation for all buildings or structures must meet or exceed the quality of the initial structure. Where expansion is planned to one side of an existing building, a wall of temporary material may be erected, provided such expansion is performed within the time period prescribed on the approved site plan. If said expansion is not accomplished within the approved time, a permanent wall of suitable materials shall be erected within ninety (90) days. The TOWN may grant a single one~year extension. (g) All electrical and mechanical apparatus, equipment, fixtures (other than lighting fixtures), conduits, ducts, flues, and pipes located on the exterior of any building shall be concealed from view from any public street and shall be architecturally treated in a manner acceptable to the TOWN. Where residential type structures are constructed it may not be feasible to conceal chimneys and other apparatus and their use may be approved following review and approval from the Town. (h) Parking lots, loading/unloading areas and lot lighting shall meet the standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, as amended. The maximum permitted mounting height for any lighting fixture shall be twenty-five (25) feet. 5 1 (i) The TOWN shall not be responsible for maintenance of any site improvements. ~ -,' (j) Signs shall meet Section 30-q3-13 (D) which is Commercial District C-1 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, as amended. Freestanding signs shall not be more than ten (10) feet in height. To create spark-like setting, monument type signs will be encouraged. (k) Electrical and telephone services -Reserved. 5. Outside Storage: No materials, supplies, equipment, trash, or refuse shall be stored on the property except inside a building or behind a visual barrier approved by the TOWN which screens the stored matter from view from streets and adjoining sites; which barrier shall not be less than eight (8) feet in height or two (2) feet above the stored matter, whichever is higher, unless written approval from the TOWN allows an exception. The request for this exception must come in writing and must be accompanied by engineering plans for review. Except with the prior written approval of the TOWN, storage areas shall not be located between a building and a street. Plans for such storage areas must be submitted to the TOWN for approval prior to installation. 6. Construction Date: If, after one (1) year from the date of purchase of the property from the TOWN, the then record property owner has not .begun in good faith the actual construction of a proposed building, the TOWN shall have the right and option to reacquire the property by refunding the said record property owner the amount of the original purchase price per acre paid to the TOWN for the property, less and except real estate commissions and other related expenses paid by the TOWN; whereupon the said record property owner shall forthwith convey the property back to the TOWN. At any time after the aforementioned one-year period, the TOWN shall have the right to exercise its option to re-acquire the property. Settlement shall take place within sixty (60) days after the TOWN exercises its option. The option shall be exercised by mailing written notice thereof to the record property owner. In the event that the record property owner for any reason fails or refuses to convey title back to the TOWN as required herein, then, in that event, the TOWN shall have the right to enter upon and take possession of said property, together with all necessary rights and causes of action necessary to have title to the property conveyed back to the TOWN or its assigns. The TOWN may grant written exceptions to this section if it determines that it is in the best interest of the PARK development to extend the construction period. 7. Resale ofResale of Pro~e~: In the event that any owner of unimproved property or any portion thereof shall desire to sell ail or a portion thereof, the TOWN must approve any subdivision or sale and shall have the first right and option to purchase said property at the same purchase price per acre paid to the TOWN by the original purchaser. Prior to such sale, the property owner shall notify the TOWN by registered or certified mail of its intentions to sell the property 6 ~"~" '~,. or any portion thereof. Said notice shall describe the exact parcel intended to be sold. The TOWN shall have sixty (60) days from receipt of said notice in which to exercise the option, and settlement shall take place within sixty (60) days after the date the TOWN exercises its option. The option shall be exercised by mailing written notice thereof to the record property owner at any time within the option period. 8. Subdivisions: No owner of any property in the PARK shall subdivide a site without the prior written consent of the TOWN. No owner of any property may lease an undeveloped site or any portion thereof without the prior written consent of the TOWN. The subdivision of any tract will have to comply with the provisions of the Roanoke County Subdivision Ordinance, as amended. 9. Site Maintenance: Each property owner shall be responsible for maintaining its property in a manner that enhances the appearance of the PARK. The premises shall be kept free of debris and trash of any sort, and lawns and landscaping shall be kept in a state of good repair. Maintenance of landscaping and lawns shall include all necessary planting, cutting, watering, fertilizing, aerating, seeding, spraying, pruning, weeding and required replacements. 10. Damage or Destroyed Buildings: If any building or other improvement in the PARK be damaged or destroyed by fire, storm, explosives, or otherwise, then, in that event, all debris resulting from such damage or destruction shall be cleaned and removed from said property within thirty (30) days of the said damage or destruction. If any building or other improvement is to be reconstructed, such construction shall begin within six (b) months of the date of such damage or destructiop, or the land shall be graded and restored to substantially the condition, which existed prior to initial construction. 11. Streets: All streets and roadways constructed by the TOWN within the PARK are dedicated to public use, and shall not be private streets, and as such, are dedicated to all owners and lessees of lots in the PARK for the reasonable use and enjoyment of their properties, including the free use thereof for the installation, maintenance, and operation of public utilities, Owners of tracts may construct interior private roadways that connect to public streets upon approval of a site plan by Roanoke County. However, the TOWN reserves a right- of-way of ingress and egress across these streets to its other property, or to any other streets within the PARK that the TOWN develops in the future. 12. Stormwater Management: The TOWN has identified the location of stormwater management facilities within the PARK. It is the responsibility of the owners of properties upon which these are served, to construct. these facilities. The Property Owners Association set forth in Section 15 within will handle maintenance of the regional stormwater management areas. 13. Fuel Storage Tanks: Unless prohibited by law, every tank for the storage of fuel installed outside any building shall be located above the surface of 7 ~~~~~~~ the ground. 14. Trails: The Town intends to jointly develop the trails with Roanoke _. ? County and others. (a) AlI trails shown on the Master Development Plan are reserved for public use and will be constructed at a future time as public and private funds are made available. (b) Trail easements shall be dedicated at time of subdivision and platting. (c) Construction of the trail system shall be phased to coincide with the construction of the various uses in the PARK. The intent is to develop the system in conjunction with the development of the PARK. (d) The TOWN may convey ownership and maintenance responsibility of these trails to a public or private entity in the future. i 5. Property Owners Association: After the construction of public improvements at the PARK, the TOWN intends to establish a Property Owners Association to fund and manage the maintenance of stormwater management facilities, landscaping, signs and other improvements. 16. Amendments: Except as provided herein, each of the covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth herein may as to all persons and property be waived, released, rescinded, modified, altered or amended by the TOWN. The TOWN expressly reserves the right, after consultation with Roanoke County to amend these restrictions by document recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County. 17. Liability of TOWN: Each owner, lessee and occupant of property in the PARK shall, and does, hereby indemnify and hold harmless the TOWN, its agents, officers, employees, and representatives from and against any. and all claims for injury or death to persons, or damage to or loss to property arising out of the construction, use, operation and/or maintenance of improvements within the PARK, the use and/or possession of any property, and the conduct of business or any other activities within the PARK. 18. Duration: The covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth herein, along with amendments, shall be in full force and effect immediately upon adoption by resolution of the TOWN and shall be binding on all property within the PARK and the owners thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns for a period of twenty (20) years from the date of adoption, after which period said covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years unless an instrument executed by the owners of two-thirds of the number of sites within the PARK and has been recorded terminating the .- covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth herein. ~'"` 19. Severability: If any covenants, conditions, restrictions or portion thereof, set forth herein, be declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity will not invalidate any of the remaining covenants, which shall remain in full force. and effect. TOWN OF VINTON State of Virginia, County/ City/Town of Vinton, to wit: The foregoing signature of of the Town of Vinton, Virginia, was acknowledged before me this day of 1999. Notary Public My commission expires: 9 '~a STAFF REPORT Case Number: 38-10/99 Applicant: Town of Vinton A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prepared by: Janet Scheid Date: October 5, 1999 PART I This petition is generally consistent with the Roanoke County Community Plan and the Economic Development Plan contained within. The petitioner has proposed a mixed use development that, with minor modifications and strengthened design guidelines, will be an appropriate use of this parcel. Any development on this site will have impacts on the surrounding property owners and the community. The petitioners proposal includes provisions that will minimize the impact of this particular development plan. Staff recommends that some of these standards be strengthened. In addition, staff has concerns regarding future increased traffic on this section of Hardy Road as this mixed use park is developed, and encourages consideration of improvements to this road. B. DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Petitioner requests to rezone 99 acres from R-1,Single-family residential to PTD, Planned Technology District to develop a mixed-use residential/commercial/industrial park. The land is in east Roanoke County and has been owned by the Town of Vinton since 1988. The two localities are working in a cooperative manner to develop and market this property. Under the recently approved gainsharing agreement between the two localities, costs of this development, as well as future tax revenues generated by this development, will be shared. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The Planned Technology District (PTD) allows a wide variety of residential, civic, commercial, industrial and miscellaneous uses. The amount of residential development is limited in this district to 15% of the total gross square footage of developed space. The following additional site development regulations apply and are included in Section 30-63-3 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance: r/+ °"` 1 A. Minimum district size is 15 acres B. Front setback from existing public streets is 30 feet C. Buffer yards are determined by the Zoning Administrator '~ ~~ ''" D. Lot coverage not to exceed 75% E. Public or private streets permitted F. Height of structures- 45 feet, unless increased buffers are provided G. Utilities shall be underground 2. Site plan review is required. 3. Commercial entrance permits will be required from VDOT. 4. Realignment of Feather Road will require review and approval of VDOT. 5. Stormwater management plan will be required. 2 PART 1! A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS +'"' Histor~of the Farm The McDonald Farm compound is typical of the Blue Ridge Scotch-Irish settlement pattern with a cluster of homes and barns located high in the watershed and roads and fields extending from this central hub. Barns are placed within easy access to the house and can be seen from the house. The farm is locally known as the site of a dairy farm operation dating back to the early 1800's. The original farmstead contained about 400 acres, stretching to Chestnut Mountain. The original home place, known as the Thrasher Gabin, was removed in the early 1930's and replaced by the current house. This house was seriously damaged by fire in the 1970's and its original form and architectural significance have been compromised by post-fire construction. In 1985 the Town of Vinton purchased the McDonald Farm. Soon thereafter, the Town participated in discussions about developing the farm in conjunction with Explore Park -possibly using the farm as a lodging and food establishment base for the Park. As the main emphasis of Explore Park changed, it became apparent that is was no longer feasible to think the 100-acre McDonald Farm could be developed along with the Park. Since that time the land has been (eased for agricultural purposes. 2. The Barns Some of the most significant structures on the property include two wooden barns that were used as milking barns until the mid-1930's. These barns are in fair condition and currently store hay and farm equipment. In 1938, to meet new dairy sanitation requirements, the large concrete block dairy barn was constructed. The roof of this barn is modeled after its predecessor German-heritage barns and remains in fairly solid condition. 3. Description of the Property The McDonald Farm is a 99 acre parcel of land located in eastern Roanoke County between the Town of Vinton, Hardy Road (Route 634) and the Biue Ridge Parkway. This parcel is the largest remaining easily developable parcel of land in the east end of the County. The land is currently zoned R-1,single-family residential. The property is bisected by a broad ridge that ranges in elevation from 1165' to 1129'. This ridge formation is paralleled by a valley approximately 500' to the north. .~ The valley falls from an elevation of 1140' near the Blue Ridge Baptist Church to 1074' at the western property line. From the ridge, the land falls away toward the Blue Ridge Parkway-and Roanoke River Gorge on the southern side, at scopes ranging from 10 to 20 percent. This ridge area affords spectacular views from the property towards the south west. The farm is bordered on the entire southern side by the Blue Ridge Parkway. There exists a relatively wide 450 foot buffer of deciduous trees on National Park Service property between the McDonald Farm and the Parkway road. Portions of the farm property are visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway. Traveling south on the Parkway road, just before the bridge that goes over Hardy Road, the farm property near the Blue Ridge Baptist Church and a finger shaped area of land along the ridge line are visible. This area is a mapped Blue Ridge Parkway viewshed on the Future Land Use maps of the Roanoke County Community Plan. There is a 5-acre block of hardwoods in the southwest corner of the site which buffers a portion of Montgomery Village Subdivision from the farm. There is a 100' American Electric Power easement on the property cutting across the northwest corner of the Farm. This easement contains a 138kV transmission line and there is one lattice tower on this property. 4. Access Current access to the farm property is from a driveway off Hardy Road located about 1000 feet from the north western property boundary. 5. Surrounding Land Uses The Farm is bordered on the western side by Montgomery Village Subdivision and in the northwest corner by a church. It is bordered on the northern side by Hardy Road and five single- family residences. On the eastern side, the Farm is again bordered by a church and cemetery and in the northeastern corner, across Hardy Road, is another church. The southern boundary of the property adjoins the National Park Service -Blue Ridge Parkway. 6. The Planning Process In October 1996, the Town and County jointly commissioned Carlton Abbott and David Hill to conduct a design workshop and develop a master plan of the McDonald Farm. This 3-day design workshop included the community, staff from both localities and representatives from the Blue Ridge Parkway.The master plan 4 that resulted from this public process included a small lodge modeled after the Peaks of Otter, specialty retail shops, several business areas for commercial development and a public executive golf course. The master plan put heavy ~--,,,, emphasis on the preservation of the abundant natural and historically significant resources found on this site and was particularly sensitive to the viewsheds from the Blue Ridge Parkway. The Town and County then proceeded with performing a market analysis study to evaluate the Abbott/Hill master plan in light of realistic market conditions. The market analysis recommended removing the lodge, golf course and speciality retail functions from the master plan. More recently, the firm of Mattern and Craig has taken the Abbott/Hiil master plan and the market analysis and developed the McDonald Farm Development Plan. This current development plan calls for amixed-use development including commercial and industrial/manufacturing operations and limited assisted care living facilities. B, ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Use The petitioners propose to sell approximately seven lots within this development for residential, commercial and industrial uses. The conceptual plan shows three additional parcels which are reserved for open space and stormwater management areas. These three parcels will ultimately be owned and maintained by a business- owners association. The permitted uses, site plan and construction of buildings will be controlled by a set of proffered covenants that the Town of Vinton will be responsible for enforcing. The petitioners have proffered amixed-use development including the following functions: Commercial -These areas will include retail and neighborhood services and could include such uses as stores, restaurants, car dealerships and personal services. Flex Space -These areas will include manufacturing, processing or assembly operations, office uses or warehouses. Assisted Care Facility -This area will include independent and assisted living units with indoor-and outdoor common spaces for residents. 5 ©pen Space -The petitioner has proffered an area of open space in the center of the development, totaling approximately 9.5 acres of land. This open space provides a large area of pervious surface reducing the amount of engineered ~ ~'~" stormwater management needed as well as providing environmental and aesthetic benefits. The existing barns and houses are in this designated Open Space area. At this time, there are no adaptive re-use plans for these structures. If no plans are formulated these structures will be razed. The Town will retain ownership of this property until such time as abusiness-owners association is established and can takeover ownership and maintenance of these areas. 2. stormwater Mana eq ment There are three stormwater management areas shown on the conceptual plan. Parcel "B", the 7.0 acre area adjoining Montgomery Village on the western edge of the farm, provides an opportunity forthe Town to design and construct a stormwater management facility that is aesthetically pleasing and an asset to the development. This is an important area since it borders the existing homes and is a central feature of the trail system. 3. Pro,~ect Phasina It is recognized that this is a large project that will take place over the next 15 years. Under this plan the Town will begin infrastructure development, jointly funded by the Town and the County, in 2000 and anticipates this work on the road, water and sewer will take 2 years. The road will be built in phases. Phase 1 of the development plan will most likely include the assisted care facility and may extend until 2003. Phase 2 and 3 would include the commercial and flex space functions and extend until 2007 with the remaining areas of flex space possibly not being completed until 2015. 4. Access to Site The Town of Vinton portion of Hardy Road from the Bypass to the East Roanoke County line is scheduled for widening from 2 Panes to 4 lanes with an additional center turning lane. This improved road will include sidewalks and bike lanes. There are no current plans to widen Hardy Road in Roanoke County from the Town of Vinton line to the Bedford County line. There are construction plans for drainage improvements on this portion of the road. Traffic counts on Hardy Road are approximately 8,000 vehicles per day (1997). Mattern and Craig estimates an additional 3,000 vehicles per day at complete build out of this Park. 6 r''y ~r~~ Primary access to the site will be from the existing point of access off Hardy Road. A public, paved road will be built on a 60' right-of-way, entering the Park and ,„ traveling up to the ridge in a southern direction then turning east, staying just off the - ~"`` ridge line and coming back down to Hardy Road just west of the Blue Ridge Baptist Church and across from Feather Road. Future plans are to realign Feather Road at this intersection so that this new industrial road will align with Feather and accommodate a traffic signal if traffic countslaccident rates warrant it in the future. Negotiations for land and stormwater pond relocation would need to occur with the church that occupies that corner lot. The design of this roadway on the eastern side creates some visual intrusion to travelers on the Parkway as the roadway follows the line of sight as you travel south on the Parkway and draws attention to itself. The original design by Abbott/Hill had this eastern access to Hardy Road intersecting with Hardy Road at a point approximately 500 feet to the west just on the eastern side of the single-family residential units that fronton Hardy Road. In discussions with the Town of Vinton they have stressed their desire to have this access road align with Feather Road and possibly accommodate a future traffic signal. 5. Circulation The internal road system is planned to provide access to the various functions of the Park. The access road to the Flex Space located just behind the 5 houses on Hardy Road is designed in such a way as to provide future access to those 8 lots (5 with houses, 3 vacant) through the new Park ratherthan having additional access points on Hardy Road. Those properties are all zoned residential, and at the time of rezoning, the recommendation could be made that access be provided from the rear of these sites rather than the Hardy Road side. 6. Buffers The conceptual plan shows a 50 foot buffer along the northern (Hardy Road) and western (Montgomery Village) sides of the property with a 25 foot buffer along the eastern (Blue Ridge Baptist Church) side. The buffer along Hardy Road is calculated from the approximated future "edge of righ#-of-way" if and when this section of Hardy is widened. The buffer yard along Montgomery Village may be bisected by the trail system which would be constructed within the existing or newly planted vegetation/trees. 7. Amenities A 2-mile trail system is proposed for this development. As shown on the conceptual plan the trail, when combined with the internal road system and sidewalks, will provide direct access to most sites. The trail will be open to the public and a small trail head parking lot is proposed on Parcel "J". The adopted Roanoke Valley Greenway Conceptual Plan proposes continuing the existing Wolf Creek Greenway, between Hardy Road and Rt. 24, to the north and south. To the north, the proposed greenway will go through Goode and Stonebridge parks to the Blue Ridge Parkway and to the south it is proposed to go along Hardy Road, through the McDo~lald Farm property, ultimately linking to the Blue Ridge Parkway. The proposed trail system included in the petitioner's proposal could be a critical connection in this larger greenway system. Neither the Town or the County has monies budgeted for the construction of this trail at this time. It is anticipated, and the petitioner has proffered, that as either public or private grant monies became available, the trail will be developed in phases in conjunction with the development of the Park. Petitioner has also proferred that trail easements will be dedicated at the time each subdivision plat is recorded. 8. Public Services The Town of Vinton provides water and sewer services to this portion of the County along with fire and rescue services. 9. Community Meeting A community meeting was held on July 15. Approximately 10 citizens attended the meeting and expressed concerns about the following issues: 1)density of the proposed development; 2}industrial uses on the site; 3)adequate buffers between the Park and the neighboring residential uses; 4)parking for the trail system; 5)cellular towers; and 6)light pollution. In response to these concerns the Town has proposed a trail head parking lot in the Open Space area. 10. Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions The Town of Vinton has suggested a set of protective covenants for the purpose of ensuring the orderly development of the Park. These covenants describe permitted uses, prohibited uses, building standards, property owners association, trails and other details such as site maintenance, streets and stormwater management. In Part 111 of this report staff has some suggested revisions to these covenants. C, CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This property is designated Transition on the future land use map of the Roanoke County Community Plan. At the time this designation was made, the planning process for development of this property had already begun. The office, institutional and residential components of the proposed plan are consistent with the Transition designation. The flex space and industrial components would fit more appropriately ~` :sJ~~'~ into the Core designation of "limited industrial uses -planned uses in areas designated as economic opportunity areas". The following features of the proposed ~. ~~° plan are consistent with the guidelines of the Transition designation: 1)Establish .~" provisions which discourage strip development along corridors and promote planned development nodes; 2)Ehcourage the interconnection of parking lots and the reduction of driveways; 3)Coordinate vehicular and pedestrian movement among adjacent sites; 4)Preserve, enhance, and/or incorporate into the design natural site resources; 5)Buffer adjacent incompatible land uses by landscaping. The Vinton Community Planning Area meetings, held during preparation of the Community Plan, stressed that the development of the McDonald Farm should be oriented as a point of destination and provide tax revenue, employment and an example for all new development in the community in relation to design standards. The site is also designated an "Economic Opportunity Area" in the Community Plan to indicate that based on location, access or topography, there exists some potential for future economic development of this site. In Chapter Three, Economic Development Plan, the following is written regarding using quality measures to evaluate economic development opportunities: "The appearance and the impacts on the local community are important factors to consider in proposing new projects in areas adjacent to residential areas". Specifically referring to the McDonald Farm Master Plan: "Retention of natural vegetation, site and building design criteria, open space preservation and the adoption of protective and restrictive covenants are some of the quality measures adopted in the Master Plan process which will not be compromised as development occurs". PART I11 STAFF CONCLUSIONS This parcel of land has been a farm for nearly 200 years. Any change in the use of this property has inevitable land use impacts on the adjoining properties and the larger community. Recognizing that the property will be developed, the site plan that has been proffered, with minor modifications and strengthened design guidelines, provides protection to the adjoining residential neighborhood. Petitioners have proposed a site development plan that incorporates many, but not all, of the design features originally developed by the Carlton Abbott/David Hill design team. Petitioners have made adjustments to several site features, such as the primary road, to accommodate their desire for marketing flexibility and future, anticipated traffic flow. Many of the original design concepts, such as open space, public trail system and minimizing impacts on adjoining residential neighbors have been respected. ,~ Underground Utilities -The current Planned Technology District requires that utilities shall ,, be underground unless the type of service necessary for normal activities of the industry ~ -~ or business shall prohibit underground installation. Staff recommends that within the next 6 months the PTD ordinance be amended to require a "utility plan" as part of the rezoning application process so staff, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors can evaluate the feasibility of above ground utilities in some areas of the site. Structures Within View of the Parkway -The covenants state that buildings in these areas (Parcels "G" and "H") may use exterior materials customarily found in residential construction and state the Town's preference that for those buildings facing the Parkway, non-reflective, no-glare glass be used in windows and the buildings be earth tone colors. Staff recommends that this language be modified to require exterior materials that are residential in character and are earth tone colors. Parcel "A" -This is a commercial parcel, 15.3 acres. The intent of this area and the conceptual plan reflects this, is a "neighborhood" commercial retail area. The difficulty is translating this intent to covenant or ordinance language to ensure that it is developed in this fashion. Staff suggests more specific design and site plan language. Height of Structures -The covenants (4b) contain standards for building height for each area of the site plan. Staff recommends revisions to these height limitations based on the location of specific parcels and their relationship to the adjoining residential neighborhood, the Hardy Road frontage and the views from the Blue Ridge Parkway. Suggested Proffers 1. On~Parcels "G" and "H" on the concept plan dated August, 1999, Mattern & Craig, Inc., all exterior building materials shall be residential in character. The exterior wall materials shall be limited to brick, stone, wood, vinyl or aluminum siding and other materials customarily found on residential structures. Exterior colors shall be predominately earth tone colors. On Parcels "G"and "H" roof pitch shall be no less than a 4/12 pitch and roof materials shall be non-reflective, earth tone colors. 2. Buildings on Parcel "A" will be oriented inward on a central, landscaped parking area. No parking or loading spaces shall be permitted to the rear of the buildings. 3. Any residential, civic, office, commercial, industrial or miscellaneous use type listed in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, that requires a Special Use Permit, shall also require a Special Use Permit under this Planned Technology District rezoning. 4. Broadcasting Towers shall be prohibited. 10 5. All buildings shall be limited to the following heights: Parce! Sug„eq sted Staff Recommended Heiaht Height A 45' 25' C 45' 25' E 60' 35' F 60' 35' G 35' 25' H 35' 25' I 45' 25' PREPARED BY: JANET SCHEiD DATE PREPARED: October 1, 1999 11 COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT.` OF PLANNING 5204 Bernard Dr. .. P.0. Eox 2980G Roanoke, VA 24C18 ( 540' 772-2068 FA.X AND ZONING s-a (5'.0 l 77=-2103 Far sraf` use only dace revct.,i~n/ i-y received by• ~. appfica~ion `e e: IPCibZ;~ da^e; ~~ ~ t~ i, (."r placards s~^ued: 1J OS date: Casa Number: ~ y / J!+ /~~~ ,, ::ri~. ~~~~~ Check type or application flied (check all tha*, aoplyl: ® REZONING ^ SPECIA.L USE ^VARIANCE Applicant's name: Town of Vinton Phone: 983-0607 Address: 311 South Pollard Street, Vinton, VA Zip Cade: 24179 Owner's name: Town of Vinton '~ Phone: 983-0607 Address: 311 South Pollard Street, Vinton, VA Zip Code: 24179 Location of properly: Tax Map Number: 71 ,11-1-1 2100 Block of Hardy Road 2185 and 2191 Hardy Road Magisterial District: Vinton Community Planning Area: Vinton Size of parcel (s1: Existing Zoning: R-1 99:88 acres Existing Land Use: Agriculture, tenant occupied, vac ant barns and sq.ft. outbuildings ~:: s:; ;~:: ::~Iiii;ii~. i:r;i:: -~~`' Proposed Zoning: Planned Technology Development District F~~srafr use or;~, Proposed Land Use: Mixed uses of residential, commercial, and use Type: industrial .......... ... I Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements or the requested district? YES }( NO IF N0, A VARI~.NCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES X NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED F1RST. If rezoning request, are conditions being prorered with this request? YES X NO :,: .:;: '~i`:'i' .~'. ,~~: Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in ordar to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL t~tOT 8E ACCEPTED IF A.NY OF THESE !TENS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLE i E. 2 R!S V W9 V R!S V Consultation X 8 1i2" x 11" concept plan ~ Application fee (See dttdChed `,~,u .,. ,.. p Metes and bounds description >:~:=- Proffers, it applicable X A plication <~>~<: >:>, X Justification >°•" Water and sa~rver application Adjoining property owners '(Town of Vinton) l hereby certify that / am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contra c: purchaser and am actr'ng with the knowledge and consent of th))e owner. Owner's Signature: ~'~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~'~ bv,: ~.(:1,,'~,, ~~~.'+"~.:.~ ~ ".aS~ ('lam;G`rtir`~ an MCDONALD FARM - TOWN OF VINTON PTD DISTRICT REZONING REQUEST 1. Legal description and plat attached. ~~p. 2. McDonald Farm, a 99.53-acre parcel, the largest remaining developable land in East County is currently zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. The Town has owned the property since 1985. The land has been used for agriculture purposes. The majority of the site is in pasture habitat with several mature trees. There is a cluster of structures; a tenant-occupied farmhouse, a vacant farm dwelling, barns and outbuildings (see attached). 3. General statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PTD. The Town of Vinton purchased approximately 100 acres from the McDonald family in 1985 to prevent the property from being converted to a trailer park. The Town had participated in discussions concerning the development of the Explore Park with the hope the McDonald Farm property could be developed with lodging and food establishments to support the proposed Explore Park. Later, the main emphasis of the Explore Park development changed, and it was no longer feasible to believe the 100-acre McDonald Farm could be developed along with it. Since that time, the land has been leased for agriculture purposes. In October 1996, the Town and County jointly commissioned Carlton Abbott and David Hill to conduct a design workshop for the master plan of the McDonald Farm. The comrr~unity and staff from both governments participated in a three-day session. Abbott and Hill recommended a master plan for the development of the property. Following receipt of this report, the County and Town then proceeded with securing the services of ZHA, Inc. to perform a market analysis study. ZHA was asked to study the Abbott -Hill master plan in light of market conditions. ZHA recommended some changes to the marketing emphasis, but tried to maintain many of the Abbott - Hili listed master plan site development factors. The engineer from Mattern and Craig has taken both reports and prepared the McDonald Farm Development Plan. .The plan was developed together with Town and County Economic Development off cials. The proposed development plan calls for amixed-use development as follows: Commercial -This area would be developed for neighborhood-serving retail and services, with some design guidelines, but allowances for signage and visibility. Buildup of this land will be possible only after other development occurs on the site, and should not be expected in the first five years of the development of the property. -. r ~~ ~~ Assisted Care Facility =This area would be developed with independent and assisted living units, as well as indoor and outdoor common spaces for the residents. This portion will likely be the first area developed, and will likely occur within three years from the start of the project. Flex Space -These areas are intended to be used possibly for manufacturing, processing or assembly operations, and office or warehouse combinations. Hopefully this area will be developed within five to seven years from the start of the project. The Town of Vinton is the owner of the property, and will work closely with Roanoke County Economic Developmerrt Department personnel in the marketing of it. Once the property has been fully developed, the intent is to sell each parcel and end the Town's ownership in the property. The site has many aesthetic qualities, including wooded areas and a small stream branch. The proposed development will utilize these characteristics by retaining open space and adding trails on the site. The open space and proposed trails will be open to the public. Once the Town's ownership of the property has ended, the park's occupants through some type of ownership association would maintain the trails and open space. Until the park is fully developed, the Town and County will jointly fund maintenance costs together with the parcel owners. The proposed trail will be constructed subject to the availability of funds from the Town and County. Construction grants and General Fund appropriations will be sought. Similar to Hanging Rock trail, the McDonald Farm trail will be constructed not only subject to availability of construction funds, -but also a local non-governmental association which will assume the maintenance of the trail. 4. Description and analysis of existing site conditions. This information is derived from a report prepared by Carlton Abbot and David Hill. The elevation of the property drops from 1165' on the east to 1129' at the west border, see attached topography map. From the ridge, the slopes ranging from 10 to 20 percent toward the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Roanoke River Gorge. Hardwood growth can be found along the south and east borders and in the southwest corner of the site. Parallel to Hardy Road, there is an active spring moving west into a small tributary of Wolf Creek with several mature trees. Along the fence and adjacent to the barn and farm-house, maple and mature oaks can be found. There is a 100' American Electric Power (AEP} easement on the property cutting across from the west border to the north border at about 45 degrees. This easement contains a 138 kV transmission line on lattice towers. See attached conceptual plan. 6. The approximate gross square footage for each use type proposed in the PTD is attached. 2 7. 8. 9. 10 Proposed landscaping, buffer yards, trails, parking, open space and other amenities are shown in the attached conceptual plan. ~,.~ .,~,,,,, A Traffic Impact Analysis is attached. Ownership and maintenance for proposed streets are detailed in the attached proposed McDonald Farm Protective Covenants. Reserved. Proposed schedule of site development. The Town is proceeding with the rezoning request at this time in order to have this matter resolved before the start of the preparation of the FY 2001 budget. If the Town receives a favorable response to its application, it will seek funds in the FY 2001 budget for development of the infrastructure. It is anticipated that the infrastructure development will take twenty-four months. During that time the Town and County will jointly fund the construction of the first phase of the roadway, and install water and sewer to the property. The first phase will hopefully include the development of the assisted care facility. It is anticipated that will take approximately three years to secure and develop this area. The second phase will be the development of the commercial area. Absorption rate will be slow, and it is anticipated that will take three to seven years to develop. The third phase is the development of the flex space area. The first such area to be marketed will be located along the roadway near the assisted care and commercial spaces. The remaining flex space areas will be developed over a seven to fifteen-year period of time. During this process, Town and County officials have noted that the development of this site will be lengthy. The Town has owned the property for more than fourteen years. Quality development versus quick development of the property is preferred. Listed below is a proposed development time line. DESCRIl'T'iQN Property Rezoning Budget Consideration Infrastructure Development First Phase -Assisted Care Second Phase -Commercial TiN1E FRAME September, 1999 -January, 2000 February, 2000 through June 30, 2000 Juiy 1, 2000 -June 30, 2002 By July 1, 2003 Between July 1, 2003 and July 1, 2007 3 ~~ Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the proposed purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning ~~ district classification in the zoning ordinance. The application encourages economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base. It does so by using the development and construction activities, which mitigate impact on the surrounding land. Efforts have been made to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive, and harmonious community. The Town and County have conducted many community meetings to receive public input on the proposed McDonald Farm development. Many of the concerns raised at these meetings have been incorporated in the plan development. Instead of numerous curb cuts for ingress and egress from Hardy Road, the plan provides for two points of access. The density of the project is well below that of a private development density. It provides for open space and trails, not only for the development, but for the public as well. Developing the property as a PTD will also reduce the demand on public services such as schools, fire and rescue, and other governmental services. If the property were to be developed at its present R-1 zoning classification, the impact to Roanoke County services would be much greater. The PTD district was established primarily for mixed-use developments. This includes manufacturing, office, commercial establishments, and residential uses. The PTD's intent is to have apark-like setting that complements the surrounding land uses. This is accomplished by means of appropriate siting of buildings, controlled access points, attractive and harmonious architecture, and effective landscape buffering. The PTD District was also established to provide the developer with flexibility in design and site layout and to allow mixed-use developments. McDonald Farm's proposed PTD provide for the development to follow a comprehensive Master Plan, via use of protective covenants. A park-like layout is proposed, and it incorporates many of the public concerns raised at the many community meetings over the past three years. It addresses the PTD's intent listed above. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The 1998 Community Plan identifies this site as an economic opportunity area for East County (Page 47). The Future Land Use map for East Roanoke County identifies the area as one in transition (Page 179). The Vinton Community Planning Area notes that the type of development placed on the McDonald Farm will have a major effect on how the community develops in the future. The Farm is also listed as a key resource. Regarding the land use section, the Plan notes that the McDonald Farm should be oriented as a point of destination and provide tax revenue, employment, and an example for all new development in the community in relation to design standards. The proposed PTD provides the applicant with the tools needed to insure the site can be ,. ,~~+ economically feasible to develop, and be consistent with community concerns and standards for this proposed development. The density has been kept low to prevent over development. Protective covenants have been prepared to protect the Park's future development. The Town and County have diligently attempted to obtain public input in this development from the beginning, not just at the rezoning hearing. Many of the concerns raised by the public have been incorporated in the plan to insure the development does not unnecessarily impact the surrounding community. Approving the requested PTD will allow the Town and County to proceed with the development of the property as partners seeking to improve and enhance the Vinton community. 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~'recreatzon, and fire,/rescue. The site is presently being used for agricultural purposes. The proposed PTD would have a major impact on the site. It would change the land use activities; however, the proposed PTD has incorporated many mitigating factors. They will reduce the impact to the adjoining properties. The strategic layout of the roadways, parking spaces, and structures minimizes impact to the surrounding residential community. The proposed assisted care facility has been located in a location that will reduce impact to adjoining residential properties. Buffers have been incorporated into the plan to lessen the impact on adjoining properties. Project density has been kept low to further minimize impact on the surrounding areas. Open space has been proposed to promote stormwater practices, which are less intrusive and promote apark-like appearance. The build-up time frame is anticipated to be long term. This will further reduce the impact on the community. The Town of Vinton provides water and sewer services to East Roanoke County through a long-term franchise granted by Roanoke County. Sufficient water and sewer facilities exist to serve this site. A major electrical service line crosses the property. A gas line adjoins the property. The new roadway will be constructed to state standards. The engineer has estimated, at complete build-out, the development will generate 2,850 vehicles per day. The Town of Vinton will upgrade Hardy Road from the Bypass Road to the East Roanoke County line from two lanes to five. Work is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2000. The County recently added a section of Hardy Road to its construction plans for drainage improvements. The roadway running along the site will be improved at the two intersections. Due to the mixed use, it is anticipated the project will have very little impact on schools and parks/recreation. The Vinton Fire Department provides fire/rescue services to East Roanoke County, and this development should have less impact than that of a large residential development. V ~~ ~ ~ i• I• o ~ p ~I !1 ° I I • • .er •' j ~ '~,/ j o ~ R-1 ,a* ~,~ ~ / ,m ~ ~+.._-_._ ~~a __ ~ /~ /„ // / / R-1 / mss:.:=_ /-' / ~:+ I d o tltp ~ CHURCH , o ~ / e ~ .,p . i ~~\ • ~\ ~ ~ ~~ nu B / ,q F ' ~. ,-- ,s---- /- / REO1O ,e AR~ 7A !•~,~! ~ ~ tope w -- ' ~ ~ © CHURCH ~ p ~.. - - .. ~- o ~~ -- . ~ARE FA '~ ~ _ _ '~ 1 , y„i .I sF . ,~ -' ~~ ~ • ""' Q , ~ •~ ,~ ~ %/ ~ ~ ow ~ ,,~ ~,. -_..._ 9 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ _ c •~+ 4,2 ACR ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ / ~ ~ ~ n,,. Mattern & Cra~ colraul,77Na eeolNeeRa • elrnve~r •r. 701 FIRST s7'RF.E7; BW. 16.9 1,000 RoAraxe, vIROINIA >r+ms a3.s 1.000 NOT TO SCALE wa ~~ 1'•` zso OCT08ER 26, 1999 10401 i/f-7101 PAX Q0.7 _ s ~ ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER t~ '"' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session on the Roanoke River Greenway COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside to allow Parks, Recreation and Tourism staff and Liz Belcher, the Roanoke Valley Greenway Coordinator the opportunity to update the Board on the status of the Roanoke River Greenway project. Detailed information will be presented at the work session, including the cost to construct the Green Hill segment of the Roanoke River Greenway and to begin planning for the eastern section. Respectfully submitted, Pete Haislip U/ Director, Parks, Recreation Tourism ---------------------------------------------------- ACTION Approved O Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Church _ _ _ Johnson _ _ _ McNamara _ _ _ Minnix _ _ Nickens i To: Elmer Hodge Members, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors From: Pete Haislip Liz Belcher Date: December 19, 2000 Re: Greenway Work-session The purpose of today's work-session is to update the Board of Supervisors on the status of the Roanoke River Greenway in the Roanoke Valley and to specifically outline the proposed plan of action (including a request for funds) for the planning and construction of the Roanoke River Greenway in Roanoke County. Both the Cities of Salem and Roanoke are proceeding with the construction of sections of the Roanoke River Greenway. Roanoke County also has the opportunity to construct one mile of the Roanoke River Greenway in Green Hill Park. This was made possible by a joint County and Salem TEA-21 grant of $300,040. Staff from Salem and Roanoke County met and agreed to dedicate $175,000 of this grant for the Green Hill section. Salem will use the remaining $125,000 to design and engineer the remainder of the Roanoke River trail project in Salem However, the grant requires a 20% match from the localities. The total cost of the project in Green Hill is $222,100; consequently, $47,000 is needed from the County as match to complete the design and construction of the Green Hill trail. The proposed Diuguids Lane bridge, costing $145,000, will be included in this year's CIP request. In regard to the East county portion of the trail, from the Wastewater treatment plan to Explore Park, staff has estimated the total cost of the project at $1,569,700. This estimate includes a potential $400,000 bridge connection to Vinton, funds for right of way acquisition, planning and design, and construction. To verify these estimates and to have the information necessary to apply for grants etc., staff is requesting $105,000 to do the conceptual master plan and engineering of the eastern section. This is the essential first step in the process. Staff feels that with the current progress being made in Salem and the City of Roanoke now is the time to move forward with the Roanoke River Greenway in Roanoke County. Thank you for your support. Roanoke River Greenway Roanoke County Section ~ Salem Section ~ Roanoke City Section . ~,,, ~ ~. 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: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session on Proposed Change in Meeting Dates COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Chairman McNamara has requested consideration of a change in the Board of Supervisor's meeting dates from the second and fourth Tuesday of each month to the second and fourth Monday of each month. A work session on this proposal was requested for this meeting. The Board establishes its schedule of meeting at its organizational meeting. This year's organizational meeting is scheduled for January 2, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. Attached you will find a calendar for 2001 showing proposed meeting dates for Mondays (highlighted in blue) and Tuesdays (pink), and holidays (yellow) that will impact these dates. There are several factors to be considered with respect to this request: 1 . Roanoke City Council meets on the first and third Mondays of each month. To avoid cable tv conflicts we should avoid these dates. 2. Monday meetings would conflict with two national holidays (Memorial Day and Columbus Day). In this event the meeting would be moved to the following Tuesday. 3. Adjusting the Board's schedule to accommodate the November and December holidays may be difficult. Because of these difficulties I have not shown any Monday meetings in November and December. Veteran's Day will be celebrated on Monday, November 12, 2001, so the Board meeting would move to Tuesday November 13, 2001. A meeting Monday, November 26, 2001 would pose an administrative difficulty due to Thanksgiving holidays November 22 and 23, 2001. Would the Board consider scheduling only one meeting in November, or would it prefer a Tuesday schedule in November? Possible December meetings on Monday, December 10 and 24 are problematical: December 10, 2001 is the first day of Hanukkah, G:\ATTORNEY\PMM\Board\meeting.date.change.ws.wpd 1 . r,,, F and December 24 is Christmas Eve. Would the Board consider scheduling only one meeting in December, or would it prefer a Tuesday schedule in December? Only one meeting in November and December will pose difficulties with scheduling Planning Commission and Board action on rezoning requests. Workload will be heavy (remember Student Government Day) with only one meeting each of these months. Board decisions on these matters will assist staff in preparing a Resolution for Board action on January 2, 2001. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None. Respectfully submitted, ~~, ~~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by G:\ATTORNEY\PMM\Board\meeting.date.change.ws.wpd Vote No Yes Church Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens Abs 2 -~~N~ ~o~. 2t ~~~ 1 New Year's ooy 2 3 S 6 7 7 8 ~ ._~t,o ~-, 10 i 12 13 14 1 14 115 ~+ortint~tnrruny,lr i D°y 16 17 1 19 20 21 N 21 ~ ~ ;. s23,. ~': - '' ~-~,. x 24 _ i 26 27 28 ' 28 29 30 31 i 2 3 4 4 5 6- 7 9 10 11 F 11 12 linmin's&rthd°y 13 ' 1~} .valentine's 16 17 1$ E ;B 18 19 Presidents' o°y 20 21 23 24 25 25 26 ; 28 Ash weaves 30 31 1 4 5 16 7 6 7 !: 8 M Q 11 12 f..13. + 14 73 14 15 . R 18 19 20 ' 21 ; 20 ; 21 22 25 1 Daylight Saving Time Begins 26 2 Z'T . ~ 3 28 4 27 Yom Kippur 4 2g $ 29 6 - lm S d A o un ay 8 Tlrst Doy o/Passover 9 ~~ 1 1 11 12 13 . 15 e° rer ~ s 16 17 18 18 19 20 -" 22 x' S ' 23 24 .- ecretaries ~ 25 26 27 29 30 1 2 1 2 3 6 7 tii ";, .,, ~ . 9 8 - 9 10 13 M1lotner's Day 14 15 _ M 16 __ 15 116 17 A 20 21 Victoria Day (Canada) Y i 23 ~ ih°nksgtwn9 PaY 23 24 27 28 n,emo,i~ICOy 29 _ 3p 29 - 30 1 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 10 17 ~2 13 U! 13 14 15 ' 17 T°rners D°y 18 19 20 N 20 21 22 24 St. /ean Baptiste Day 25 27 (Quebec) 27 28 29 I O 0 v rn n ~~ Zf '' ~ ~I '~ -r I, C rn~ r~ i _ f, - ' ;, 'I, ~ ',_ ij ~, ~' rn' O ' n ~~~ z D~ ~i ~..~ ~: ~ ~, "~ _' , rn '4 V AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 RESOLUTION 121900-6 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: c~.i Brenda J. Holt n, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Closed Meeting File ACTION NO. ' ~ ~ ~ "OO-7 ITEM NO ' l AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Request approval for an appropriation of $500,000 Roanoke County's share of construction costs for the 99.53 park project in East County known as McDonald Farm. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In 1996, Roanoke County entered into a joint development venture with the Town of Vinton to construct a new business park on land owned by the Town on Hardy Road in East County. Vinton had purchased the property in 1986 to prevent undesirable development and as a future investment in the Town's economic development inventory. Listed below is a brief chronology of the project's progress: • Design Charrette held on October 15 - 17, 1996 at the Vinton Senior Center. The charrette was an open house, community workshop with formal evening meetings to seek citizen's input for the future use an development of McDonald Farm. Roanoke's Hill Studio and Carlton Abbott and Partners of Williamsburg were the consultants for the charrette. • Preliminary Concept Plan presented on November 12, 1996. Master Plan was completed in early 1997 and the cost of consultation was $10,000 to the County. • ZHA, Inc., a marketing consultant firm from Annapolis, Maryland, was hired to conduct a marketing feasibility study on the mixed uses suggested in the Master Concept Plan. The final report was submitted on October 28, 1998. This study was approved by the Board of Supervisors in February of 1999. The cost of consultation was $34,000 split equally by the County and Town. • The Gain Sharing Agreement between Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton for sharing of revenues from economic development projects became effective on July 1, 1999. 1 • Engineering Concept Plan was completed by Mattern & Craig in the summer of 1999 for $27,600. The County and Town paid equal portions of the cost. • The rezoning of the 99.53 acres to Planned Technology Development (PTD) was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 26, 1999, in conjunction with the development of a set of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CCRs). • In October of 2000, the Vinton Town Council adopted a resolution authorizing the appropriation of $450,000 to begin development of the property. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The final Engineering Concept Plan presented by Mattern & Craig projected that preliminary construction costs for public infrastructure and an entrance roadway into the park would be $901,633.20. Public infrastructure is defined as 1,500 LF of entrance roadway and extension of the water and sewer lines along the main access road. Target date for completion of the plans and profiles is first quarter of 2001. These engineering documents will be used to bid Phase I of the construction costs. In early October, the Vinton Town Council adopted a resolution authorizing the appropriation of $450,000 for construction costs associated with McDonald Farm. Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors authorize an expenditure of $500,000 from the General Fund Unappropriated Balance (as a result of the Year End Surplus). This payment would serve as Roanoke County's half payment of the Phase I construction costs projected by Mattern & Craig. FISCAL IMPACT: Roanoke County has paid approximately $45,000 for the McDonald Farm project in the past four years. The request for an appropriation of $500,000 from the General Fund Unappropriated Balance (from the Year End Surplus) in order to participate in the gain sharing of future revenues from the business park. ALTERNATIVES: Authorize the appropriation of $500,000 from the General Fund Unappropriated Balance (from the Year End Surplus) to serve as the County's half share of the projected construction costs for the Phase I development at McDonald Farm in East Roanoke County. 2. Decline to appropriate funds for the joint development venture, McDonald Farm. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative No. 1 in order to continue the development for future economic 2 development inventory and purposes, direct the County Attorney to develop the appropriate contract in accordance with the Gain Sharing Agreement, and appropriate $500,000 contingent upon the completion of a contract approved by the Board of Supervisors. Respectfully submitted: Economic Approved: 1 ~ Elmer C. Hodge Specialist County Administrator ACTION Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens to approve a ~~ropriation cc: File Melinda Cox, Economic Development Specialist Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Danial Morris, Director, Finance VOTE No Yes Abs Church _ x Johnson _ x McNamara- x Minnix _ x _ Nickens _ x _ 3 ~~~ _ G''• AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000. RESOLUTION 121900-9 APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM SIX-YEAR CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2007 AND APPROVAL OF THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001-2002. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on December 19, 2000 to receive comments on the adoption of the Secondary Road System Six-Year Construction Plan for Roanoke County for Fiscal Years 2001-2007; and the adoption of the funding for Fiscal Years 2001-2002; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors does hereby approve the adoption of the Secondary Road System Six-year Construction Plan for Roanoke County for Fiscal Years 2001-2007 and allocations for Fiscal Years 2001-2002 as set out on the attached Secondary System Construction program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution duly attested to be forthwith forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation Salem Residency Office along with a duly attested copy of the proposed Secondary Road System Six year Construction Plan for Roanoke County for Fiscal Years 2001-2007 by the Clerk to the Board. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~~ Brenda J. Holton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Virginia Department of Transportation A-121900-8 ACTION NUMBER ITEM NUMBER f'~-" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Projects for FY 2001-2002 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff is requesting the Board of Supervisors to approve the prioritized list of projects for the FY 2001-2002 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program and authorize the County Administrator to sign the letter of intent to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. BACKGROUND: The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) annually provides localities the opportunity to receive state matching funds for the construction, maintenance, and improvement to primary and secondary roads in the state's highway system. The Commonwealth of Virginia provides $15,000,000 for the matching program and limits localities to $500,000 each. However, if more or fewer than 20 counties participate, our share of money will be reduced/increased proportionately. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Revenue Sharing Program for FY 2001-2002 contains 61 projects totaling $1 million in construction improvements. County and VDOT staff presented a proposed priority project list with maps and justifications for inclusion in the Revenue Sharing Program for FY 2001-2002 at the November 14, 2000 Board of Supervisors work session Receiving no requests to modify or change the priority list, staff is requesting the Board to approve the priority list for FY 2001-2002 Revenue Sharing Program. R-i b ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACT: 1. Approve the project list and authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors or County Administrator to sign the letter of intent and defer appropriation of the funds ($500,000) until July 1, 2001. 2. Decline to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program for Fiscal Year 2001- 2002. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1. S MITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Arnold Covey, Director Elmer C. Hodge Department of Community evelopment 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 Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development 2 r . 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: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing and Adoption of Secondary Road System Six-Year Construction Plan for Fiscal Year 2001 through 2007 and the allocation of funds for FY 2001-02. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff is requesting the Board of Supervisors to adopt the attached resolution to approve the Secondary Road System Six-Year Construction Plan for Fiscal Years 2001-2007 and approve the allocation of funds for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. BACKGROUND: In accordance with Section 33.1-70.01 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, the Board of Supervisors is required to conduct a public hearing on the Secondary Road System Six-Year Construction Plan to receive public comments. This plan, developed jointly by the Virginia Department of Transportation and County staff, was developed by reviewing the current construction plan and requests received by both County citizens and the Board of Supervisors during the past year. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The plan before the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors was presented to you at a work session on November 14, 2000. At the work session, County staff explained the funding for the next five years and the distribution of this year's allocation ($3.56 million) among the three funding categories (Countywide Items, Incidental Construction and Numbered Projects). 1 I R-- ~- As a result of our work session, one change was made to the numbered project list. Florist Road, priority number 10 from Six-Year Secondary Road Construction Plan, was removed. It was the consensus of staff, VDOT and the Board that the intersection improvement of Florist Road and Williamson Road (Route 11) should be addressed at the time Williamson Road (Route 11) is improved. VDOT reallocated the funds assigned to Florist Road to the other numbered projects. No other changes were made. Attached are revised sheets as a result of the change. Staff is now requesting the Board of Supervisors to conduct the public hearing and approve one of the following alternatives and impacts. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACT: 1. Conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution approving the Six-Year Secondary Road Construction Plan for Fiscal Year 2001-2007 and allocation of funds for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. 2. Conduct the public hearing and defer approval of the Six-Year Secondary Road Construction Plan for Fiscal Years 2001-2007 until staff can review additional comments received at the public hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1. SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey`;~irector Department of Community D Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: pment APPROVED BY: ~~~h"~ ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Church Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens 2 ~' R-~a, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000. RESOLUTION APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM SIX-YEAR CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2007 AND APPROVAL OF THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001-2002. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on to receive comments on the adoption of the Secondary Road System Six-Year Construction Plan for Roanoke County for Fiscal Years 2001-2007; and the adoption of the funding for Fiscal Years 2001-2002; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors does hereby approve the adoption of the Secondary Road System Six-year Construction Plan for Roanoke County for Fiscal Years 2001-2007 and allocations for Fiscal Years 2001-2002 as set out on the attached Secondary System Construction program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution duly attested to be forthwith forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation Salem Residency Office along with a duly attested copy of the proposed Secondary Road System Six year Construction Plan for Roanoke County for Fiscal Years 2001-2007 by the Clerk to the Board. 3 R~ In your Six Year Road Plan/Revenue Sharing Notebook, please replace the following pages with the attached pages: PAGE S PAGE 8 PAGE 13 PAGE 15 PAGE 19 PAGE 21 AND PAGES 3 8-45 RURAL ADDITION UPDATE The following is a review of each road that staff has worked on or is working on: Signatures for temporary and permanent easements for BLUEBIRD LANE have been obtained. Speculative interest monies have been collected and staff has completed design plans which will be submitted to VDOT by the end of November. VDOT normally will schedule the work within eighteen months of acceptance of the road. Signatures for right-of--way for AUTUMN DRIVE have been obtained and speculative interest collected. Plans are complete and have been submitted to VDOT for review. VDOT normally will schedule the work within eighteen months of acceptance of the road. Staff plans to begin work on the next roads in the Rural Addition Priority List before the end of the year. The first is CREEKSIDE DRIVE. This road has a steep (18%) grade as well as several utility conflicts and speculative interest also exists. ARTRIP LANE serves four families and will require staff to obtain right-of--way and drainage easements. It is anticipated that needed easements and right-of--way will be obtained and design work will begin in the Spring. Staff reviewed three new additions this past year. LEFFLER LANE, DOW HOLLOW ROAD, UPHILL DRIVE AND GREY FOX LANE have been added to the list. LEFFLER LANE and DOW HOLLOW ROAD. each serve three families. UPHILL DRIVE AND GREY FOX LANE serve 11 families. 5 Items include minor construction that can be corr~pleted normally within one vear, such as pavement overlays, drainage improvements, and minor curve improvements. Staff has not included any funds for incidental construction in the Six-Year Secondar~a Construction Plan since they have been addressed under the Revenue Sharing programs for this year. The use of the Revenue Sharing fund for incidental projects is based on the assumption that Roanoke County will participate in the this program. If the Board chooses not to participate in the Revenue Sharing program, staff will review the need to fund several prioritized projects (pages 50-79) from our secondary yearly allocation. The bulls of Roanoke County's allocation funds are for numbered projects. This year, staff anticipates approximately S3.I million will be allocated toward reconstrulction. The entire Six-Year Secondary Construction Plan is enclosed for your review (pages 38-'l~). The following is a summary of our current and proposed plan for nett year: After the work session, one change was made to the numbered project list of the Six-Year Secondary Construction Plan. Florist ~oa~l - IZte. X23 (Priority fr10) was re~r~oved. It was the consensus of staff, VDOT and the Board that the intersection improvement of Florist Road and Williamson Road (Rte. 11) be addressed at the time Williamson Road is improved. Funds were reallocated to the other numbered projects. The following roads were completed or received sufficient fiords to be completed, and no longer appear on the Six-Year Secondar~~ Construction Plan: ate. 6iD6 - li_,ayrnan ~oa~l -Railroad crossing grade improvements, dashing light and gate installation are complete. Rte. ~b~ -Patterson give reconstruction is complete. ~.d.l. PRfl~CT~ SC'~~~~JF,E~ Tt~ R~OFI~TF F'Ir';1`~`~~N~ ~Iw1 ~'~' X1/02: The following roads are currently- in the Six-Year Secondary Constntction Plan: Priority #0-12 are scheduled to receive funding this year and are highlighted over the next several pages. Priority rr13-17 will not receive any funding this vear. Priority X18-19 are unpaved roads. Unpaved roads are a separate acccunt and the allocation is based upon the number of qualifying lane miles within each County. L-nfortunately, only =1.73 miles of our unpaved roads ~23.2~ total miles) qualify for funding because they do not meet the minimum 50 vehicles per day requirement. 8 ,~.. ~' ,,~ h ROANOKE COi~NTY ~~~ SECONDARY SYSTEIvt ~x `' SAX YEAR ROAD PLAN ~' X ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~A Gitn ~G'(q `~ hoh ~ ~" ~ R ~ ~ I&S2 k ~, c~: ~spFr R~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ :h „~ ~Ni r,, ~HL~ ~h 'Pp, ,~ ~ ,~ ~i~~M ~ `° ,~'+ S c Rt,62? ,~° ? ~ ~ 8 /rs ~ aN R~ %1ny 'u tits ~ T~, ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ti6 Llrln raeaV. ~ e '~ ~s ~ t ^rlOnpjn Av h G°cs~' v p .F ,° w d' 0 H r~ ~ r ~s ~ : Rs. r, ~ N~~~g r r .~ ~ R~ ,43 Fw~ ~®LLINS ROA.~ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ROAN®KE CQUNTS~ s~coN~AR~ s~s~r~~ six BAR RoA~ ~'LE! N ~ ~ ~ ~-i~Y,i~ ~~ _ R t, 419 Rt, 702 -~'L ~~ ~, c~~ar 2ic~fl° ~~, ~~, r.- a j ~~ ~~~ ~ y~t~ ~ ~~ ~ ,~ ;~ `.r W .,rim ~{ ` f:C.V~ Rt,1574 ~~:~~ ~P ~~2 ~~, ti R'~ 163 ~~ a Cris ~ ~` Rz 1638 ~~ ~~~ t~ + ~~ j66- c' L~ ro k`~ t ;~ 3g 63 1~ R~~ ti ~2 ~~ e~ ~ > ~ c~ ~ ~ ?~ ~ ~' ~ ~„ ~C7 ~ `~ e^`~ ~~ '~ ~~. f ~l~ V~ 1 t ~ R~r`1~' QLD CAVE S~RIN~ ~~A~ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ROANOKE COUNTY SECONDARY SYSTEM SIX YEAR ROAD PLAN ~~~.~ M~~~T~i~~ ~a~~ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Ro~v®x~ cour~r~ SECONi)ARY SYSTEM SIX YEAR Rt3A.DF I'I.~N ~2h ~-"'~ R~ Rt,) ~'c~1 ~'~S ~~~/-=~ ~`~~ ~~ a~~ ~ ~ ~'~, 'c~, Rt~i ~~, $~.~g ~~d~~ ~~, ~/ 0 ^RIGINAL SCOPE ^F WORK wa ADDITIONAL SC[7PE ^F W©RK ~~ ~~ C~~TTOI~ ~-IILL GOAD PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS i~ i• >= fn i p a~ m o o N ~ o Q = o N ~ v ~ _ :~ ~ U V til i• .~ ~ ~I d I t ~ I ~i ~I ti I ~~I Gl ~~i 3~1 Z ~ I d I ~ I N I LL D O M IMO M ~ :O f0 ID O O) m D N ~ ~ iO0 fOD tJ O th ~ f0 ID '. ~ ~ ~ ~ 6~9 ~ O N N IO cO I n M M O> 7 7 N ~ } t0 M IUD M M ~ W ~ f0 ~ W ~ (A fff 0 0 ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ N M fA fR f9 f9 N3 to 0 o m o °o, o ° tO ° 0 b4 0 N tl4 0 N 69 o N lA I C W u ~ fA o I o 0 0 IV 0 In a c~ In Ib N N N N N N t• bi N V! N I" S°. F.. I N I ~ I o I I I o I I I I I ~ I I o I h I I a w I L I I m I W I g I Y a I ~ I~~ Iz~ Iwo to 1= ~ o ~ ° m. z ~w ~ > v N 38 a M~~ • • • .~ j -i R` LZ ~ ! S f ~..'Y { 3 .`~ Q Y ~. '+ Q ~- a (('' ' { ~d Q U ~_ ~ ~,-~ ~ .N ~ 1 ~-~'-~ Z'-_ ~ I Q O c ~ U'~ L W "o ~~; -~ .~ ', ~.. ;' _ ~ ; (n ; `r ::~_:` a -. is Z;a~~ G LQ i ~ i 1114 ~- j ". 5 F IT,. x ~,~. ~~i _~. ....-V'. C c m m c o p^~- c u. ¢ N: t 40Ay ~- m 5" ~, ~' r .~ o m W~tn 0 ~v Y 0 Z ~ g S .. - ,~.• ~~ p 2 U OLL~mn ~ ~ 00 0 O O U' m ~ 2 YOW 3 ij Otia~ w ~ ~ C^ g ~ I _ _ ) 3~UO ~ O 3>)an ~ ~# ~ c ot_ "~ ~ N 3 Q 3 q y ,.5,`Y ^_rt .a„ w c iWO` --' >~~ Z ¢ ~ ~ ~~ci ~ zWW m~ ~ z r w UV ~ Z Z O Z o ^ aa~~ > »w°~ o > ~~ w w ..mom-~~U?.~ s` a ~ ¢~OU U wU2o0 U O v~rn ~ C 1 c,u ~. 1 u M W O N N o M .a . "_~ E . = c . ,m'.`~ ° - -nBli Cii w w ~ w w w ~ s ~ _ -.4 ( N _ I ,.- o w 0 w m e~ . O o w. 0 0 0 0 * C~ f I ~ N o O ~ Nf 9,g~~ w ., ~ O N w ? ~ ~, rg ; ~,U.i?a 1 ~ in -~ w w ~ c H o o 0 ~~ ~J ,J IJ~~ ~, y ~ ai K N ~ ~,;,5 ~~~ O CJ ~ w w ' ~f . r'' J ~` O Ow N O C ~ 4 ~~~ _t ~ Fl:~~ w N ~ w ~ O M _ N a p M Q + {~ J L ~~. ~ ~:'a _~ ~ O w O w n 7 ~ w p ~ w ~ N w O o O » w rl - O O N A m w fo ~ O ~ w O ppj w 0 O O ' N 0 O O O N -~ o o 0 ai 0 o ~ 0 m p o f:. ~ ~ CT C , W O w C O M C~j w O w O N ~_'_ - ~'.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ui vi ui ai u~ n m w w 0 o ui ~ 0 0 o w ~ ~ m ni » n an w O w o w 0 w 0 w 0 o o o is 0 0 0 w a o c o m °m w w o o o o w o n .~ ~ ~ m ~ vi r m ~ m is u$ w 0 o g w 0 0 0 0 0 0 m °m g o 0 w w w li 2 'm ° 2 w a ~ 2 ~ 'm a Z m ° ~ ~ ~ a 2 m ° ~ ~ a 2 m ~ ~ ° _ a ~ ~ ~ a ~ v° a v° ~ _ ~ ~ - 1 '- ` c o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 w $ o 0 0 w 0 w 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 g 0 0 0 w $ °o 0 °o o g o v°~ o, u°> 0 4u 0 0. o °o °o 0 vi » » » W » o ~ $ n c ~ ^ "~ p o »rn o g g m n '~ 5i 1 ' ~ w N S w w w N N w M n N w nj w w N _ ~ w O ~ W O r N f0 w w w ~~ m O O w N vi w w Z Z ~ w 3 0 w Z 0 3 0 o w 3 Z 0 ~ o w Z `N 3 0 o w Z ~ 3 0 o w Z 3 0 0 o a s- v ~ a a ~ ti a ~ ~ ~ a w ~ r- a t>; 0 1- a ~ ~ ti i''. ~'_ i O U m ~ O O n m W < n U ¢ p U Q ~ Z> W Q ' W Y i CJ 3t ~ CJ Q f7 Z O O - d' O~ W 00 O ~ o t~1 O~ W ~ ?~ } p 1 2 N K N Om S U N C Z N~ 2 Np m N O ~ m O W N O `~' " ^ 4 0~ ~= O 4 0~ N 2 ~ J 4~ g J N Q~ S N F K ~.- ~ n r' ~ t ~~ ~~` d' ~ J O O o ~ o a K a ~ J O O U 0 7 0 ~ O J o ^O p~ a 0 m ~n w J o O Oi J O m 1n o ., ~ ~ m F F D ?? m - :L L. rl ~.- 4,: ~ » 2 o w o -~ S ~ W o ~ U m o 2 0 o S o 2 0 0 2 0 ~ o ~ ~ I m ~' Cn "'~ O ^~.~ ~ V ~W 10 O m ~ N W W N O ~ ~ LL W N. O m M ~ W ~ ' ~ tm`] ~ W ~ ' n imC ~ ~ H ~ N ' c. .ui~ o ~. o » ~. ¢ w is ~ u' c Q 'm dE m m a ~ 3 r o C ~rn # c o c 6 rn ~ c Q rn ' C L G H .H '.a ~ C~ U N K. d ~ ~ U N C a C 0 N y C a K p p 0 U N K R C ~ U N C 1 ~ ~ U N K d °o N m 0 m N d ~ ~ n ~% • C C L' 1 r] ~;- C ~ Lti `. 3 L ~ c L '~ p S ° - Ih C I O O ~ ~ ~ r^o'~ ~ r r ~° cp M ' - y ,", YI9 ~ v `~ m v ~~ _ A. .~ 'r II ~ z II ~ = it K N g N L~ Q+ Q ~ F.~ . I p ~ ~ ^ ~ C ~ j_ C p - u ax ~ w w ~ ~-~.ut ~ w U U w U U N - Z ~ U U ~ Z ~ ZO a -` ~ - ~ ~ 7 ~l ~ ~ 7 LL ~ ~ U W ~ LL h U U - ~ .- 0 ,.LL .,~,:..,~. N vi tq N ~ N ~ ~ -a,;m~ Gr ~ U` ow O w o w 0 w 0 - w 0 w 7 °w p °w w w w 0 o O O O w O w w C f1 • - C N O W O of p C'~ ~ y~ N... g'.~ ~ _ ~' w ~ .G ~ _ ~ ~ O O O ° O C O p ° r o O ° J u~ :~,' ~5 O H~ O A ' Oi ~ N ~. ~ ._ ? w ~ p w .~~[1~- 1'(1.~~.'~ N i' - -- r~ N1 l ~a ~•~~ O ~ O O O O ~ O C Q O O J';. u N O M O W n H G N -~- ~~ - Vii.. w N w N w I~ W- N ' - W - _ O O N O O ~ O G N O C p p O t°O w O O N w - - ni a `, N o °o vi ~ 00 0 o N' °o 0 ~ w ° °0 ~ N o. 0 N p o 0 °o w O R O O O b O O ~ W N Q N C O F _ w w w w w G LL ~ - - -_ ~ ~ - c o O o o w o °° 0 0 0 O h H O f0 N N w w z ~ w 3 0 o 0 0 0 0 o w o 00 0 0 O O O O - W h 19 N z 0 w 3 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ O IOD M fD N N z ~ w 3 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 ur o 00 0 0 O C~J M N w H w z r w~ o o 0 0 r 0 0 ~ so 0 o r ~ O r N t+l IA N N w N N z. ~ w 3 0 o ° o 0 0 N w ~n w r w~ o 0 v~ a c U ti a w ~~ a w U~ a a v~ a~ v~ a~ .. =o'' a °o w °o °o o 0 0 °o °w g °o . 0 0 o °g °o g °o o ~' o °o 0 o g g $ 0 0 °o °o °o °o 0 0 0 0 '-~ ~ ~ O N N O p ~° b H ~j t°I1 N N O N N M R N O r b t7 N t0 R O O O O N r Z. -r f M ~ w w w w ~ N t0 O~ w N N N~ w N N w w Cj N N N w N N n~ I ~' z w w 3 0 z ~ w 3 0 o z ~ w 3 0 o z~ w 3 0 o z~ w 3 0 o z w 3 0 0 ti o a¢ ~~ a a o~ a~ U~ a a o l- a a ~ ~. a~ o ~ g ~ 5 w 0 ~ p l0 O r ~ O W W a U +~ • ~D ~ ~ ~ O ~ y y m V U f l 1 W N O G ~yj a ~ (1 a O p ~ O . . 4 ~ aa{{ ~ N C W O - W C ~ O f W N { ~ > O~ F~ (n p~ a O Z w 0 a d~ v c'1 g O Q O d N S O d g :.~ Ni'4L~ ' tl ~_ o N g 'o` n I U G~ g~ ~ o~ K N ZO O~ g N U °~ C' O D I m 1' K Y O N J -..~ -. ' J N~ a 0 O M ~_ d O ~ O M Z .~ ~ Z 0 J O d {O_{pp O C~ U J UU 0?? O U O= ~ O [D ~ CL L` - ~ ~ O C O G C O (n O O U . I ~L U' r ~#, _ r .F >f" G ~ ~-.-a ~; ~ ~ > _, ~ i m° W `m N M m -• m Iy W m M O~ ~ m o m 'i$ v ~ m W `m M n ~ m ~ O ° ~9 Ti a n ~ m ~ O °' o Ti v> r° m F ~ ° ' _ ~ ` a d ' ~ a Q w # °, c a rn u o a o+ d£ V- d ~ ° 'c a m o F- d 'c ' o. L is ~ ~W ~s~~~ r H ~ ~ ;~ocgw~a - c F - ~9U~n~a F d '~ o H m c ~°_c>vr~asoc>u~¢a ~etgmza` ~ooN~a . Rv~~.;.'r G G ~ O N O m 0 m m d • • C n„ ~~"~ ~n1~ .: ~ +a . Z.. ~~. ~ cl~ - U c ~' ~~ ~ ~ ^~ 7 2 ~m , ~;O<,:o V ti-o - ;~ :W:v F-, o . { r :y , ~'• ~: Q ~ - ~' e Z '; U W (p ' ~~4 Vim'` ~ q, d,. ~ m; c c C '~ L C y" ~ a ~V N-- ~ tlrap ' n ;, -. _ ri~ ... ~ _ ,1 ~1 ,~ O O N ~ O n m v ~ O~ ,b 4 ~ r r 4 5 ~ O .`~A~ ~'! ~ ~~~~~~ {{~~ ~ ~ {1W{W~~ ~ Y u ~ gg .... Vf~l'~~~}.p.;' ~ ~ v ~ ~ z F O v o - C ~ u7 Q ~ y p ~ H ~ m } ~ ' ~~ ~ N 2 W = W N 2 p ~ ~ a,~ y ~ Z O . U_ U r ~ U p c ~~~ C # ~ ~ U ~ LL ~ Z ~ a ~ U v ~ a ni ~~k BUJ :~tL. U r. W ~ W ~ m N m ~ N o:-m ' ~ N w ~+ ~' o m-U - ~ .c,. '~ll~f5~ p o m w r M w 0 w ' .i '. N. O C W N N N //' ~ ~'- O t0 O ~ ' ± 1 G n N O N ['~ G' ~ ~~t J F .U-~ ~ o o c $ $ $ G.' - o ~ m wi J "~. i K G ~ N b W W H p N a .Jl: CV ~ i~ .~ p °o °o c oo ° . ~_~ ., ...1~ ' O O~ M ~ N W LU . `~ u- L: ~ ~ ~ `~' ~ ' N o 0 m 0 0 M VI 0 0 0 K 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 n w - o 0 0 0 w ~~ t V o o° C N N o °o ^ W 0 °o O N 0 °p O W o °0 A W 0 0 0 Q ~ L ~= ~ ~ o. ~ O N w C O ~ N w p O M ~ O O W O O W q O O 10D H ~1 - -- - -~~ o 0 0 o o u> °o o 0 0 O O OV W ~ N 0 0 0 0 o w vi o 0 0 M ~ W N 0 0 0 0 o w ~a o 0 0 A r Vi M 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N ~ N N N M W $ 0 0 0 0 (a o 0 0 0 ~ N ~ V3 Yf N 0 0 0 0 0 o w o 0 0 0 ~ ~ N t9 N ~ z ~ z~ z ~ z z V z ~~ ~ +$ S$ o $ S S~ $" S o ~ 8 0 8 0 S o S o$ o , L m " + ~ $ ~ n ~ N N IV N ~ K N QQN eeyOy N O V fh Q N N K nj eh b9 H r M ~ F9 N !Ii N N N N O N (9 (A N N O m A C'1 < N W N N ~ ~ N f9 19 N M W S _ ~. ~ ' 1 ~ z W Z R ~ z ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ z ~ a ~ ~ ~ Z .~.. ° a ~ ~ a ~ ~ ti ~ .~ a ~ a ti a ~ " o o °a ~ ° a ~ ° ii ~ o O W > ~ ~ 2 U ~ W ~ Z ~ W f~D O c W N N N ~~tl RR v m ~S > N n J w U° z W a m ~~ a U S O w m i x w U m n c~ - ~ s ~ p a ~ ~~~ 2 O N = ~ W 2 U O~ Z U O~ ~' . ~ c9 ~ ~ L ~ 2 m H m O N O Z r~ ~ O .p ¢ d 3 h° W N U ~ F M m d¢ W ° U m~ n w ~ Q$ Q c~ tr ¢ m m d m K$ Q ~n C K~ m d m Z$ . ~ ~'~- L - c ~ ~ '~ ~ i O O ~ U7 . Z ? S O N Q Z R g~ N Z p~~ N ¢ 4~~ N o Q O 5~ °' o ~ J ..' - k d N o ~ ~ o ~- O ~ O Z~ c ~ a o 8 ~ N W O ~* in d o O ~ N p F- °' co Q n 0~ a Ti F- Q r N a r) . ., L'lL'f-~ ~ O .~ n U O O O ~ O C~ O n m O C C O , n m O G Q O U O O O ~ U O O O ~i i a __ , ~ tl ~ L L ~~ -N~- ~' p f w m U fo ` p n ~ U n ° m u m ~ W `m ~n n u' u m W `m _ °' n " m n A w m °' ~ ip W !o °' n . a; [~ c r o u:~ a C m m ; ~o ~ ~ ~ W '° ~ ~ ~ 5 .N- ~ f ~ ~ ~ $ m p ,~ H 5 ~ o n .- ~- ~ Q ~ ° c n 5 r ~ o ° Q rn o ~. T.,.~. f ' -L '' e, o i ~ ~ r~ y C ti c¢ rn E o pp¢ rn K~ U N K a K ~ U f~p ~ a c Q rn ~ D U y~ d a pp ~~ U N K a O K~ U N tr d .~ i C F-. - ~ O A Q• O 7 n~ Al }~'S~ rr, ~~ ~~ k • ~~ ~~ ~!n ~ Y t I_ I~ ~ i i > 1 s~{ S }~ i I ' 'Q' .~'` ~ ' i ~ ' n: F Q } F ... W ~ ~ , Ny LL } F ~N • N ..~ Z, ~...0 ~U:'p _ s~_sc : r N ~: ' Q , . , ~., U W .i~ ~ T Q "~$~t~ - ~ ca0v c _ o ~ ° m m ~~ m ~ ro CJ ~ ~ ., N e ' y; it ~r i . el a ~ O w y d '` - ~ W e . y r - m ~ > ~ CL p ^ ~ ~ O O U co a - .. ~ Z ° o a U I=. a ° ~ ~ ~ , o A m p+' ~ ~ k C' a m .. j p ~ .u ~ ~ C rl ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ U ' F N a. ~ ,', T ~ h_ o o ~ rr ~ o o w ° n ~° o ~~ ~ ~ O o'~ m U ~3a w m a a m ~ a w a a d a ao ~G~~'- ~ f '.l^...C ~.U a .Cl N N H - G ° N O t7 w O ti'.~ tt~~ k w w e °o N O o q O N a 0 ~ 0 0 Nw .~~ w w • °o °o 0 °o o ° 0 ' °0 0 0 .r ~ f1 p y t0 M H O N w 3'1a?~ . - ` N w h W w ~~~M :irZ'X4 . -N..: N ~~'1. Y U ~+ _ o o ° 0 0 0 O _ 0 ~ 0 0 ° -~ _\ ~," ~ - p.; w ~ ~ w w w w w ~ ~„ ~~ ~ V,~.~' ~. r Q ~4 _ o o Yl M '~+ 0 °0 N p ° 0 ^ w ° 0 ' w °0 O N w 0 O N W ~r;~, . C a cJ: O N O H tpt~ N w - N w - O w N w ~~~ ` _ _ o N h °o N `~ w °o ~ n w 0 °o A w w 0 w _ - - °o w °o w v c ° 0 m v+ ° 0 ~ ui w ° Nw L`y''. .- ~' a' ~ >.~ 0 0 0 0 o w w o 0 N N w w z m w 3 0 `o a a ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 o w w o 0 N N w w z~ w 3 0 o a a ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 w w w w ~ w 3 0 o a a c> ~- 0 0 0 0 w w w w ~ w 3 0 o a a ~ ~ ' 0 0 0 0 w w w w W w 3 0 o a a o ~ 0 0 0 0 w w w w i w 3 0 0 a a ~ ~ .~ QQ Q g S g °o o .. g o °o ~o °o_ q o QQ S °o_ o °o o S g o g g °o_ °o O iJ _~, O O t7 to e} pw w M O O N Oi '? H w N N O O N h i(I N t`°'I n < O ' p O m N 10 u'J N w w N N O O O O O O t0 t0 C vJ N A O O O ~O 10 O O w w ~N w w -. G~ ~ - ii w w w w w w ~.j v w w w w w ~ yj w f •}( ;w + Z ~ w 3 o z ~ w 3 0 o z ~ w 3 0 c Z ~ w 3 0 o Z W w ~ o ~ Z w 3 0 0 , ~ c a a ~ ti a a o. .ti a a ~~ a a v~ a a v r- a a o~ ~ ~ _ o ! ~ ~ 0 W W Z - 0 W m. = ~¢ O~_ 0 .p x ~ m ~ p U J A U ~ ~ > U N ~ C; ~ 0 M >~ k V O M ,mj >> Q Z ~ m O C O lr S Q 4' O m ppJ~ J gq R tp O C N ~ ~ C C ~ ~~ _ 'C, O m> m O 0 ~ F S~ ~ R ~ 0 F~ ~ ~y ~ °N m Z N Z m IW- ~ N K ~ N ~ - • ~ = o~ ~ ~ • _ x ~o ~ O ~ ~ tr ~ Z o ~ m K ~ q ¢ x z 4 ~ ~ G~ n ~ K m~ O O m aaO K ta0 Z ° W 0 Z Z O ~~ J 5 O N Z Z N y pp ~ A o ~ a 0 0 - ~. LL..'Y- < ~ o c U o 3 O o ~ o C7 0 0 o U o a o 4 ` -': `_.: g u ~ 1 /L j ~ L ~ C~ i U C C p .- N. G a ~ O) ^ Tj ~ Q m W m ~ ~O ~ 1- ~ m^ U ~ p R W' _ 1- O ~ t7 ~ ZS ~ N 10 W b ~ ~ m O y E ^ W N ~ N ~ F- O N O U „ ~ ' N ~` O # Q S ~ W r O N` ~ O N ~ . _, o. ~ kiG C ~. ,, ° c 6 rn iF O V~ O' 'O , . E a df O F iI 'C c~ 0 3E O N 'C o c Q o ~£ f- 0~ 'C o c a rn F- Yl •C g ° O m ..1 O ~ d 'C .G _ . m t: g U y tx a z 9 U m rr a z 9 c~ m s a m z a C~ c rr 9 u m a s O O N m 0 O N =~ ~ r -~ ' • j . i ~ ~' ~_: 1 ~ S L-r ; f r 1 \ { J i i i Q: C C7 a ' ' .; O F r U. ; o , NomN.;. LL~~i~ • '"" al/1 Z 1(Q IaC~;i?o =' c ,ir2 •~~ 1 } };i ~~ Q ~'' Z" Q w ~: • ~. z "' " ' ' _ , ~ - c ~'' ' yo- U ~" w N ~ » o ~ I J r~.~: ' 1 " ~ R .. N II . : . . ~~ ~ 2 O tO .4 sc 2 m ~ m ~ U ~ ~ ~ N N ~ # 2 N ~ ~ - m Z .4z e.:-fit ~ ~ Pi U Z Z Z U U Z >, n:~ ~ ~ Il O O ~ a LL U ~ i ~ ~ N K :c .~ J ~~ K v i ~ ~ ~ p ~~ p o ~ p o 0 .- o C pp IOYI N H N ~ N ~ Ay ~ ` W , N "~ N W C 1 - J U N N ~ p O ~ ~ O O ~ N N W ~ N O O N O O ~ N - c~ ' N w I? M '.i>,d ~~ ~ ° ~ o e ` ~' °o p o w ~' o M O N -UJ ~' _,~.. N N N N W C-r ^, ~ _ ~.`; J ~• - O O ~ O O f00 p G N p N O O ~ Q';: w C~ C. .' - ~~~ LL', `_ kk ^~'.. ^'~J{ ~ IOD W W M ~ ~ W _ O M O o N H :e O N M O O L , C~ O vei^ N O ry w b W O N ~ _ CJ N 0 oN o O p N °o O O tD N ° O N N T ~, _ _ _ O O N N O O ~ W O O O ~ ~ N M O O ~ N O O. b N Op O 1rl M Va ;~.._ - i_LL :L _ - -~ ~ - L- c O O O O N N N N io O O O O (A Vi fA N m ~ O O O O Vf di N K m ° a O O I~ A o O n n O O CO m -w ~ ° w Z ~ ~ O O O O O S N 00 N N O NN N w 2 `, ° ~ ~ O O O O f9 f9 d3 N z a ~ ~ a ~ ~ 1°_ ~ ~° a - ~ r a ~ a ~ n r I ~o ~ l :J o 0 0 o o N g °0 o 0 0 g ~ °° $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 °o °o °o °p 0 0 o p 0 0 0 0 °o °o g °o o 0 0 0 0 o d' v °o °O °o °o 0 0 0 0 vi o Ic 0 0 ~ °o 0 0 0 o o vi ri ~'~ p ttl N N N V N Y! N N O W Yi N N f9 N O O O O f7 m N b fA N ~rj ~ N N N ? O K V3 N wf N 1/1 N In OI fR Hf 19 M y V OI M Vl M M IR N w. 2 'w 2 m 2 ~0 ~ 2 m ¢ ~ 2 m ~ ° 2 m a a ~ ° a c ~ r° a ~ ~ r° ~ ~ a ~ a ~° a ~ r I O 1 l ~ U O Z ~' p tr o O a m A ^ IL iA N Q m A Q Q O W Z Z W ~ Z Z tOD y r !'~ Q p IND .~ _ 8 O G A^ ~~ 4 m Z O O O M ~ O A S p O J ~ a o O N = m W J 0 G O O N Q O F O a IY 'V' - ~ -.' r ~ O ~ U q C_ O A } S Q O D ~ A t Y O W t p O W U O O W U ~ ~ A W 8 ~ ~ m ' ~' ~ .. ~ t ~ QOQ ~ N Y O (~ N (- N Y O m p F^ N ~ m 4 F~ ^ A ~ _ y Y ~Ry f00 `2 . ~ 1 = C'] < O O Q ~ N ^ ~ Q pp~pp~~ ~ ~ ° Z { p ~ O ~ J Z ItD Oj Q ? ~ V F ~ O~ ~ L C r C ~ ~ O C D ~ U 0 0 m' o h C?? O Y O? I +. ~ LL r L' O ~ O C O ~ A G -U ~ _ > ' ' , ~ L r -f c~ c s' ~ 7 M $ ~ m ° V ° eN- m ~ ° °p O r m o m m _ N IC 'O tD m ~ O n 9 fD m r N a iD 7. '. W ^ ~ ' = ~ ~ o ?^ op y~ i o O w ~ h ~ rn ° c a of ~ ° ° c a ~ o ~ m f ° ~ 6 n ~ ~ m ° Q n ~ a r - m ° ~ Q n c~ ' ~C a S ,F-'" F- d i m ~ a ~. ~ ~ c ~ ^_ ci v~i tr a z ~ ci u~i ~ a C ~ cn of ~ a ~ ~ m ~ n` ~ . ~ ~ u~ vi ~ a i h:. w.~; y y .~.~ C ~ ~~~ ~...- {0.' ~ O ~~r C n U ~ 5~' ~n ~ ,.~ ~ 0 °o N 0 0 to v, _~ ~~ 0 ~,. * ~ ~1 ',.~ ~ o .k ;J:tf ~ ~, ~ .~ W C t~ ~, U GW~ f ~., ', a ka'S -~'. :. ~ a W o ~ n ~ ~ o" ~ ~ ?~:~ t~q UW3 r.i ~ ,~::= C ~ w ~020~ s ~ ~,.,~4 0 N 1 C I- "C v j O ~ N } _.-~ O - O O w Cn.; ~'~. N... ~^ J- _- ,y . c 0 u O~R. ~ d O ~~ . d~- ~ _ °o 1 t~ '; N ~: O ~..~ .~-= - w U 1 W~ ~ ;, ~ w' • ~ d. ~ o (n N ~~.. ~R'i Cl L =~ N ~. ~~ .~ CJ W ~ O N ~" ~ w Cn ~ - _ ~ ' Q ^ o 0 ~ o V - _ - _ w W ~'~ c 0 0 0 { '.:'~~l ].~ ~ iLl'[ Vl<, 7'~ .: ~:. j- ~` ~ z a ~ ° ti 0 0 0 0 ~.J '- to O N O t N ~ ~ N C 2 m a a ~ r°- o O o "7: cl 6 °o ~ = O a ~ a • ~ m ~ w °o T Y o~ g N a ~'~ _ 1' p W e O 1 C tl ~ .. Q C f- - ~ (((1 ~~ G r {{{ CJ r NSA ~ r U G c7 F~ a1 C ! Q I~ JL ~`_ ~, N ~ m~ ~~ L G~ Nn O O N Q aQ Q G G .l V T >. C~ Q ~- C L u'.Y C,.G. !- M- 43 Q' 0 N y 7 d !.:... r, ~ ~ . °O N a m O O d ~ dd. i• • o a O G,1 ~. N V C ~ . ~E ° ~ ~ m mU 0 ~ N m ~Q t~ K ~ o o m ~ rn ro ~ ~ m m m H ~" N ~ Q N O N ~ tD ~ ' w o ~[] ~ ~ o O - ~ n ~ ^m h ~ 10 ~ ~ w Z U 0 o 0 0 0 0 ~ Q Q p N ~ ~ N ~ N ~M V 1.1. Y J ~ a ~ o t+ f ~ ~ O o o o o M M H O ~ LL ~, O l7 ~ N K ~ ~ a Q C7 0 N ~ ~ ~ U a ~ ~ to w v ~ o v a- o Q ~ g O O ~ ~ N ~ ~' d ~ ~ < O O O N ~tri M f D Oi C V O 01 Z ~ O Q p N g to (A ~ U 'BL`.. o '~_ . W . m o o g g m ~ ow F" o p S o ra m N r ~ p N a } t0 lA ~ O f0 N o Y) N C N N ~C] M M W O C m y t0 N M N Q LLB' ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ c LL 7 o ~ ~ M ~- r o o chi [") o ~ m M b n m cm's ~ ~ ~ a` ~ ~ 9 0 U m g ai ~ o ~ rn v°~_ ~ v o ~n o m E ' co v~ .~ w m ss ~ ~ N 111 y a d o ~ c `m U ~ m m p ~ m a 10 a G D F o1 ~ O d Y ~ G W d O N A t6 ~ ~ H H nT. L' U C N C O d U U C 0 0 0 N `W O a a d 45 m n 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: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance to vacate a portion of a 15-foot drainage easement on plat entitled `Subdivision of the Orchards, Section 2, Applewood', Plat Book 9, Page 112, and further shown as "Existing 15' Drainage Easement (P.B. 9, PG. 112)" in Plat Book 13, Page 59, and located in the Hollins Magisterial District. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: This is the first reading of the proposed ordinance to vacate a portion of a 15-foot drainage easement on plat entitled, `Subdivision of The Orchards, Section 2, Applewood', Plat Book 9, Page 112, and further shown as "Existing 15' Drainage Easement (P.B. 9, PG. 112)" in Plat Book 13, Page 59. In December 1977, F. & W. Community Development Corporation, dedicated a 15- foot drainage easement to the County of Roanoke by subdivision plat of The Orchards, Section 2, Applewood, as recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 9, Page 112. By plat of July 31, 1990, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, Plat Book 13, Page 59, F. & W. Development Corporation, Owner of said property (Tax Map #40.01-1-4) conveyed to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County a 100-foot drainage easement. Included on the plat (P.B. 13, PG. 59) was the existing 15' drainage easement (P.B. 9, PG. 112). S-I The petitioners, DFC Roanoke, LLC and F. & W. Community Development Corporation, are the current owners of the properties on which the above described easement is located, said property being situated along Cortland Road in the Hollins Magisterial District, and designated on the Roanoke County land records as Tax Map No. 40.01-1-4 and Tax Map No. 40.01-1-4.3. DFC Roanoke, LLC and F. & W. Community Development Corporation have requested that the Board of Supervisors vacate a portion of the easement described above, and as shown on Exhibit "A" attached, in order to allow the construction of the proposed multi-family development (apartments). All costs associated with the adoption of this ordinance will be the responsibility of DFC Roanoke, LLC. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed ordinance. SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey, Director Department of Community Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by:_ APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hod/ge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Church Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens cc: Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development lopment 2 S-~ .. ~_ - .:~ ~~. . ~ ' ~~L ~' --~-. =..\ RUTR E. NWE,G PGl°Wr71 WNE ` 7 _~R ~°~tC ~~/.`~~~ D9. ~ ~ ` R°TF. G0. TAX /1°E•`.°CL. }I4t . ~oAO ... .~ ~ ~ . F. & W. Community Development Corp. ~~~~ . ~~~~ ~''~~ '`~ ~ °. ~. Tax Map # 40.01-1-4 b. ~'~o~ i_ FeK~. ~~~. McS~ .(AV~RO%°inc.Y~~ ~. 15 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE VACATED (HATCHED) -" '~ ~~ ~k~.n4~. ~.: ;~ :/ ~.~ r..a ~ / , ~~. /'~~: ~. ~ ~. , ~~~~ f. ,.. P ~ 9 DFC Roanolce, LLC -Tax Map # 40.01-1-4.3 . ~~~ 'c ~~) aY4°7TE 0.147 - ~ - EX62. RIGYT-oF-WAY .. TAY ~4G°°1- 1B '.; •1 /• k-W. 'Gd1M1AlITY °EV! " • ~ ~"°P~'TM~' DESCRIPTION: .. D~6:HbT P°: A 15 foot drainage easement (P.B. 9, PG. 112) within the properties (Tax Map No. 40:01-1-4 and Tax Map No. 40.01-1-4.3) located between Crumpacker Drive (VA Sec. Rte #781) and Cortland Road (VA Sec. Rte # 1003). • EXHIBIT "A" ROAN(~I~' CQ~J.NTI' 15-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT 'i T~EF..~LR3'~~RN?' ~OF` TO BE VACATED I, THE ORCHARDS APARTMENT HOMES ~ ~- ~(4n ~. ~~ ec. t~# Op3~ e~~f~r 46 ~' '`rwN~an~ . ~: ~` ~ ` ~4` ,, _~ 100 foot Drainage Easement ,, !'~ P.B. 13, PG. 59 .:~ C% _ ._ ___ ~y . Y ~~ _ ~ ., S-1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF A 15-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON PLAT ENTITLED `SUBDIVISION OF THE ORCHARDS, SECTION 2, APPLEWOOD', PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 112, AND FURTHER SHOWN AS "EXISTING 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT (P.B. 9 PG. 112)" IN PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 59, AND LOCATED IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by subdivision plat entitled `SUBDIVISION OF THE ORCHARDS, SECTION 2, APPLEWOOD', dated September 14, 1977, and recorded in the Clerk's Office ofthe Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 9, page 112, afifteen-foot (15') drainage easement was shown and created on remaining property of F & W Community Development Corp., the subject easement being designated on said plat as "15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT"; and, WHEREAS, the subject easement is further shown and designated as "EXISTING 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT (P.B. 9 PG. 112)", on plat entitled `PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO COUNTY OF ROANOKE...', dated July 31, 1990, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 13, page 59; and WHEREAS, the Petitioners, F & W Community Development Corporation and DFC Roanoke, LLC, are the current owners of these properties designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as 40.01-1-4 and 40.01-1-4.3, respectively, and have requested that a portion of the above- described existing 15' drainage easement be vacated; and, WHEREAS, the construction of a proposed multi-family development will result in an encroachment on the subject drainage easement and the Petitioners have requested that it be vacated pursuant to § 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); and, S-~ WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected County departments have raised no objection; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); the public hearing and first reading of this ordinance was held on December 19, 2000, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on January 9, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a portion of the existing drainage easement being designated and shown as "15 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE VACATED" on Exhibit A attached hereto, said easement having been shown and designated as "15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT" on the subdivision plat entitled `SUBDIVISION OF THE ORCHARDS, SECTION 2, APPLEWOOD', dated September 14, 1977, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 9, page 112, and further shown and designated as "EXISTING 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT (P.B. 9 PG. 112)", on plat entitled `PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO COUNTY OF ROANOKE...', dated July 31, 1990, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 13, page 59, in the Hollins Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, 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 Petitioners. 2 ~` 3. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as maybe 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\ 15ft. orchards2. ord.wpd 3 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: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Withdrawal of second reading of an ordinance on the petition of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to rezone nine parcels of property in the Twine Hollow Road area of the Catawba Magisterial District as follows: 74.43 acres owned by Salem Stone Corporation to be rezoned from AG-3 and AR to I-1 Industrial; 70.50 acres owned by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to be rezoned from AG-3 to I-1 Industrial; and 43.5 acres owned by Energetic Solutions to be rezoned from AG-3 to I-1 Industrial; to implement the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan Future Land Use Plan. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: I have asked the staff to withdraw this item to allow us time to take a more comprehensive approach. It is clear that the property near this I-81 interchange WILL develop and it will do so because the owners CHOOSE to sell. Our role is to plan the transition, to work with our citizens in the area, and to have it be beneficial and attractive. Several things concerned me about the approach that we took in the Dixie Caverns area. The Planning Staff and Planning Commission have worked very hard to develop the Comprehensive Plan amendments that you approved in May of this year. Looking back, we should have developed design guidelines and done the rezonings at the same time. I take responsibility for not having worked through that sufficiently with the Commission and staff. We have a long history of working with our neighborhoods. While we held many neighborhood meetings and workshops in this area, we need to do so again before proceeding. More importantly, I believe that we should involve the Planning Commission in a broader scope approach to economic development just as we include them in planning for housing, greenways and conservation areas. Chairman McNamara has asked that our annual Board of Supervisors' retreat focus on economic development this year. It is a great idea and long overdue. It is also important that all County functions be a part of such an important priority. I want to involve the Commission, the Economic Development staff and the Planning staff in identifying and planning the development of properties that provide jobs 1 i for our citizens and add to the tax base. Good development seldom happens on its own. It must be planned. ~~ ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved () Motion by: Church _ _ _ Denied () Johnson _ _ _ Received () McNamara- Referred () Minnix To () Nickens 2 R M ~ ~1..-. ~.. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 ORDINANCE 121900-10 AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING THE ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN BY THE ADDITION OF DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE CLEARBROOK VILLAGE COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Community plan was adopted in 1998 as a guide for future patterns of development in Roanoke County; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Community Plan contains growth objectives and policies for the twelve community planning areas within the county including the Clearbrook community; and, WHEREAS, Roanoke County has worked with the citizens of the Clearbrook community to clarify and refine the growth policies and objectives for their community for the purpose of guiding the location and character of future growth; and, WHEREAS, the citizens of Clearbrook, working in conjunction with Roanoke County did develop a set of design guidelines for the Clearbrook area; and WHEREAS, the intent of these guidelines, known as the Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District is to establish recommended policies and standards for the character of future development within the Clearbrook area; and, WHEREAS, Clearbrook community meetings were held in July and November of 2000 to solicit community input on the guidelines; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on December 5`h, 2000 to receive community input on the guidelines, and did thereafter recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the guidelines be adopted as an amendment to the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law, and that the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 14, 2000, and second reading and public hearing was held on December 19, 2000. BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County Virginia, that, 1. The 1998 Community Plan of Roanoke County, Virginia be, and hereby is, amended by the addition of the Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District, dated December 5, 2000, and is reenacted with said guidelines. 2. That this ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2001. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. H on, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Terry Harrington, County Planner Janet Scheid, Senior Planner ~='e, a., 1 a~ .~ a~ .~ ~~~ c7 bA .~ A 4~ c~ .~ O O .•~ V .~ .~ A a~ 0 N .-~ O~ • V 4~ ~~ E 0 L~ F ..~ N ~ ~ r N N M M ~I i ~--~ . -i N ~ z ~ ~ a o a a ~ y A ~ ~ ~ , o z a w ~ , w o ~ ~ o w A o ~ O ~ ~ a ~ W A ~ ~ ~' . ~ ~ ~ W A x ~ ~ O ~ ~ a a ~ ~ ~ ~. U A , ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ „o v ~ ~ O v p ~ C ~ v ,~ U a~ o ~ ~ a ~ a ~ ~ ~ ° ' ~ ~ ~ e ~ „ ~ c w, ° V o~ 'o ~ ~ U ~ „ d d Z o ,~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; . ~ ~ a~ ~ t~ ,,,,,, ~ ..~ a ~ r,., ~ c oA ~ ~ W U A a ~ a o O ~.~ ~"~ ° ~ ~ ~ ra^o a,~ ~ ~°..JD~, ; A ~ o n,° C7 W ~n ~ a ~..a v~ ~ ... ^d zs zs ^o o ~ ,~ c ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ a O ~ ~ ~ ~ a as a A ,. ~ M y ~ ~ ..., .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~~d ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N .-. cd O ~ rd' ,~ ~ .~." 'C ~ ~*-~ ~ N O ~~+ t~ ~ '~" cad ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ vi ~ N ~ O OU ~ b . O '~ ~ s.+ ~ cd ~ U s0., ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ V N ~ bq ~ N . ~ ~ bQ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ 'J b cyd c,,..~ ~ C ~ "" °' " U o ~ `~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ °~~ ~ ~ ~3~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ O 'b ~ ~ ~ .C a~ U ~ o ~ ~ ~ o 0o O b~A o ~ N r~+ N .''"-~ U yam,., cad '~' N ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Y ~+ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ t~ ,~ 'd o bA fir., ~ ~ r..., ~ "d .~- ~"+ ~'' ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ N ~ O ,.~' o ..~, ~ ~ a~ s ., fr V C~ ~, s U ~ ~ ~ ~ U s-. U b .~ a~ ,~ ~ U ~ O ~ O 4-a .O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v a~ y a~ 'd N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~." ~, O cd ~ ~ ~ w~,b '~ j U ~ ~ ~ '~ ~'~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ • ~ cd ~~.~ Sao bow ~°~~ ~U° ~a~ `~~o ~~-d O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U N ~ 'd N sU. N ^' ~ ~ ~ 'C ~ ~ sU, O ~ ,~ ~ ,~ ~ N ~ O ~ O r ~ ~ ~ ~ O U a~ •~ O aU.. 'b ~ .~' ~+ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~"" ~U, ~"" H N O ,~ ~ '~ ~ ~ N .D ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ i.+ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O '~ N ~ N .~ ~ ~ b 3 ~ O •~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ '~ •~ ~ o . ~ O ~ ~ `-~-' O "~ ~ ~ 4, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cd O c~^d O ~ ~ .~ ~ p cd ~ v'~~' ~ `a .fl O Cd +-' ~ ,~ H ~ a ~ ~ ~ U ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^, ~ •~ ~ w ' p~ ~ ~ cd ~ bn a~i ." ~ ~"" .~ ~ ~ ~ ^. .~ ~ ~ o ti ~ ~ ~ •~ by ' v ~ ~ ~ c~3 ~ -b O ~ N >-' ~ N ~Q ~,~.~ ~,~ a~° ASS a~ b~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ O U ~ ~ cUC y a' 'b ~ ~' ^' '~ '_" U ~ U U .-~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ -d a~ ~ ~ U r--~ ~ _ ~ cC '• O ~ c~ a, O >' ~ ~ ~ O ~ cd ~, ~ ~ ~ ^d ~i ~ ~" O •O ~ V U O .r. ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~" ~' U to ¢~ ~ ~-+ O ~,.., 4U, ,-, ~' •~~,, by 4-a ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ 7N. ~ W~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Q ~ ~ ~ cd ~ '~ cd b ~ O .fl ~ ~ ~ ~ .-, ~ y N ~ ~ "O bA O O ,-O ON U O~ U 3 s., A ~~~ O E N O ~" N .~ U~ N O 'C7 i. ~ N~ O y C~, cd N w' ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O bA pp ~ ~' „O ^~ .. OU V N U U~"„ ~'" .r". bA H ~ ~ °~ t~ H U ~ U ~ ~: U i ~ ° c~ C~ 0 r~l V C~ A~ W ~, v a~ bA •~ C~ e~ a a~ ~ :~ a4 cn U W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N O "~ bA N p cd N '~ +~ ,'' ~ ~ bA p ,~ ' p ~ a cd .-~ ~ ~ c C N C7 U ~ N W o c d ~ ~ U 'te'n ~ O O . ~ ~+ Q ~ ~ ~ N p" ~ ~ p ~ bA LZ., b ~ ~ c~i~ O ~ ~ v~ ~~-~ ~ ~ dq U N .9C ~ N Q" p ~ ~ "d ^~ ~ ~ . ,--~ bA cd ~ ~ ~, v ~ ~ U ' O ... ,~., . U U N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ U ~, v~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "' U ~ ~ ~ O ~ U ~ ~ ~ o .b ~ O .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ '~ p ~ ~ ~ N ~ + ~ ~ U ~ ~ cd o N ~ ~ c d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cd 'd U cC f~. ~ p .., ~ O ;--~ ~ ~, bA N N Q., ~ ~ o U ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ N ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~, ~ ... vi ,~ ~ ~ ~" ~ N c d N ~ ti • ~ n ~ Q~ v+.I .~ ~ ti ~ ~ / 1 i+1 O ~ x ~ ~ ~ b ~' ~d ~ ~ .b 0 O . ~ c /~/ ~).N.y.~ o ~ ~~ ~ ^~ ~ ^~~ ~ ~ i~Y ~. ~+A! ~ ~ ,.-~ cd ~ v U O ~ 5~., ~ ~ dj v ~ ,.y ~ ~ ' V Y ~ CC ~ ~ ' . ,_., ~• ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~'-' ~yr ~ it-.•1n ~ w.I i~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~--+ O Q~ Rl L~ ~' ~ bA d ~ O ~ ~ ,~ ~ S~. v O ~ ~ N ~ ~ O p bq ~,, , - ~" N ~ d ~ O ~ b A O ~ ~ U ~ • . ~ ~ cn ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ '" 4 p ~ ~ ~ p ~, .~ cd cn ~ ~ cd r--~ -~ "d p p ~ U p ~ ,~ ~ c ~ ~ id v~ ~ , bA cn ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ,.~ p ~ p ~ N ~ ~ p ~ ~ N 'C7 ~ ~ ~ ~ 'd N ~ ~ ~-+ B'" c C . b~A CA ~ V bA b~A bA '~ c~ ~ ~ ~ N p a. ~ ,`•~--, . N ~.~.,~ ~ ice,,, yam.., sue. ~ ~ O ~ ct3 ~ ~ ~ 4-a " ' o s~-+ ,--~ ~ • 0 0 ~n 0 o 'C • ~ , by ~; ~ ~~^^ i~+~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X .1 N ~~II , i~l ~ ~ H ° N ~ ~ ~ ~ Al W ~... ~... ~ W W b ~ Q . ~ L O .. RS ~. 0 a e~ ~. E~ N ~ U ~ Cd O ^' U bA "" '~ O ~ bA ~.~~ ~ ~ bA '~ ~. b ~ ~ bA ~ U O N ~ ~ O bA N~+ ~ ... ~ .~ ~ ~ bA ~ ~ ~ O ~ N ~ ~. o O U U pp O U ~O ~ ~ ~ .~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o O O ~ U O ~ U ~ U ~ ~ aA O O i-i ~ .'. ~ O ~ ~~ ~ ~ a o v~ 7Vi c~ S3, N .~ L~ b~ .~ s~ ~. ~ a ~ "d U S ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ C C ~ U ~ ~ 4-a p ~" ~ ~ U .~ ~ +-~ ~ cti "" 3 v i bA O , ~ ~ ~ U . ,-, U ~ ~ ,-~ a y„y ~ +-~ Q. c d U dA ~ ~~ ~ ~ 'd ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~.° ¢ ~ U O , ~ ~ bA ~"' ~ O ~ ~ w-i N ~ O b cd d" 4-i O ~ Q" ~ ~ y..; ~ b A p ~ U ~ .~ 4-a ~ U ~ U ~ 'd ~ ~ ~ U • ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ .~ U U ~ .~ a; ~ O . a~ ~ _ ~ ~' U U N OU~d "d ',~ ~ '~ N ~ N "" _ ~ ~ f_L bA c~ ~ ~' ~ U ~ ~." ~' U cd ~ U U cd cd cn ~ ~ bA ' •" ~ ~+ y 0 3r,b ' a ~ ~~ 4 • ~ b~ ~ .~ U O ~ r.., I cd O bA . cd ~" ~ U ~ " ~ ~ N '~ U " U ~ ~ ~'" ~ on w ~ --~ N ~ °'~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ,~ a . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, > U ..~ ~ Q-' I ~ U O .~ o ~ ~ U Q,,, s-. bq ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d4 ~ N ~ ~ a '~ " ~ .b ~"'" cC ~ ~. ~ b ,Sy' 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ j U ~ - ~ cd rn .-+ O b . `~ s., cd . ~.' ~ ^' ~ ~ U N ~ ~ ' U ~' ~ ~ .b ~ cd ~ ~' O.'' N ,b ~ C +~ cC ~ O O ~ ~ '~ ~ O U ~ ~= U ~ ~ U Q" ~ ~~ ~ o ~ .., ~ ~ .. y ~ ~ ~~d Q, , a o tom, W o 'L7 W ~ ~~ c~" U C!1 V U b~A .~ ..~i U Q, ... ~ a ~" N ~ ~ N ~C.'y' ,~ ~r .~, o .~ -v ;~ ,.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~+ '. U ~ •~ ~ O N ~ 'C~ .. S~, ~ N ~ ~~ N O „~ .Si ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ b Q.. at ~ ~ O o ~~ ~ Q. ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ o bA ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s.~ N U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti .~ ~ ~ o .~ ~ .~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ E-' o ~ ,~ ~ ~ i .~ o F-a ~ aA 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ O O N ~ a~ E ~ ~ U ~ U ~ ~ '~ C ~ _ ~ C (~ ~ C ~ O ~,., .~ ~ ~ - O ~ ~ ~ > ~ '` ~ ~ ~ O Q ^ , W ~ ~ ~ X ~ () a i~nc i ~ ~ o O ~ c° ~ > U ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~' o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ c~ ~~,~ ~ •N C ~ ,~ (a . ~ / _ ~~U ^ ' W ~ C fn ~ ~ € .~ ~ A93 ` ~ C ~ ~ a OBg$ ~ ~ C ~~3~ ~ ~ 0 C ~ U (Q ~ C ~ N aj f6 ~ ~ c~ Q. ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ N c~a~ C U ~ ~ Q / ~ O N ~ °' o U N cv ~ f!1 U ~ -~~ g ~o ~~ - ~_., ~ g ~ 1 !_t! -®/~~ ~~~- - - =a `~ 4s c. ~~ i . ~~ 4 d~ • ~ .~ f ~ ~ V i ., ~~ w~ a~ €~ o a~€~ ~g~ ~P-- ifs ~~~ 9~g s~~ ~ ; ~~_~ &~~ ~~~8 a8F ~FQ~' ~- w ]+ 8q~> ~ ~ dQ$ ~ ~ U ~ L ~ S ~`m j e~€~ ~ O ~ _ ~ L Q ~ ~ C ~§~ ~ c N 0 _ m~zvb ~~s c U U e ° U ~E =~ z°s~88 Su ;~ '1~ ':y.. ~`~ ~ ~~'~ ca ^~_~ 0 Q~ (0 e ~ (~ gg ~. a~ p o~ U ~; ~~ L E ~ m °m P~ N 8 ~ ~~ ~ `~ ~~~ ~$ ~ • ! r`I Q ~. ~1 `^~ i~ Q '-- CTS U ~-.+ ~ ~ ~Q ,; ~ `~ > `~ ~ ~~ ~ ~o ~, ~+.~ ~ V J y ~ Ol t6 ~ N R y ~ ~ O C ~ ~ d U y N ~ O. G U ~ m O ti `m ~ o ~ `cL o~ N .J O a3 `~ 0 ~o o~ ~~ ~_~ U ~p r o. R ~ °i m C C ~ O _ ~ y C N ~ O _ ~ . ~ L ~ c m N h O ~ ~ N (9 'n C o N ~ ~`° E oa ~ o o 'c ~ o` m U ~ a G N o /U) U d ~ l0 L C ~ O ~ ~ ~ o m p~0 y 0 o m nm_4 v o ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ m ~~ Q -_-~ ~t H ~ N ~ U G U O ~ y O ~ N N -p ~~ n m T ~ N ` U a G y 0 ~ C > ~ N ~ ~ Q N ti o m D) y c ~ o. -o m n m t9 U a-a m ~ ~ `o m .o v - m L m 3 v m ~o ~~ ~~ Q ~ ma m d ~ ~ ~ vi O y m G Ln'O U p C ~ ~ ,W V I O 5... ~}~( 1..i /`^V V/ ~~//~~ O V/ Q `v t{~/ Q (Q Q Q. U _O N N ~ ..~'~ ~' ~ ~' r --~, r~ ~~ + I .~ ~ 3 ~ ~li '`~ ~ `' f~! ~ ~ ~., i ~~ ~ \ _ } I ~ ~ a 1 ~~' ( o -~ 4 L y ~- -~ ~.` ,_ _ ~ ;~ Q ~-- e ; ~ ~ ~~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~! ~ '~~ ~~ ~ U ~--- - -- a ~o ~ c y~ ~ m~ ~~ a a° U N ~ ~ -~ ~ I u~ m Q L I L a d m ~; I a J ;: , g` E a ~~ ~ ~~, ~I ~~~ _m _=o =m ~~ a~ .. c o m o w a x- !A m (L ~ ~ ~+ U U '~'~ U .~ ~_ T~T^`` L 1V 0 L ~ ~ ~ ~ U o0 n, ~ W U U L 3 d m w O 7 O m C ~~ N L N a-O a a v m _ (Cp O N `~ ~,L\ C N _ N C o ~ ~mui Q1 y QI C t .C I ~ ~~ :.N J L D ,~~ ` ~~~ '~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~+L~ U N l . 44 `~\~ ~,r ~ ~~1 C N ~ ~. y~y,~-yr ~ I ~ ~ U l __ _ ~~ "' r ~ - '° ~ j x ~ ~~ , __~ m.~ ` ~~ m ,; ~ ~ L m ~~ C ~ y P _ p ~ > r-~ C 'O m O ~ N 2 C ~ L N ~ m ° a m a o m G V N Y ~ p ~ ~ ~ C ` ° f--aN - m 3 r a m O a '?' '~ l9 m ~ (n L ~~~ m L m I y l9 r d d ~, ~ ~ C !j ' ~ Ca _ ' ~4.,$ ~ ~ •~ J ~ W U +~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ i i { ~ ,I I I 1 ' ~ L.L ' , i I `, j ~ i!, ~' IX~ ~ i ~1~ h ~ iV~l ~~ ~ 'I '. m ~ ~ ~ I I ~` i ''~~ ,,~ ~ ~ ~~ I i `~ ,!~~,~,Y ;1 ~`` 1~ ~5 h I ~ ~ ~ ` ~' ~ 1 ~ , ~ ~ L ~ 3 v m . N_ C C Q 1 ry Y N U ~p N ~~ a C C ~ N j N E °' > c O C G j O 3 ° ~ J N (D N U o ~O d m a `o cp ~' ~ ~ s~~ -~ N ~ k ,`, C ~ ~ / ~ of T C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~- i~ r w ~ r- ~_~ ~- s Ci~ GI . ~, d ~~ N N L O ~ a C ry m m m m ~ m U ti ~ m ~ O C a = !~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ c~ Q c o^~^^ Y..L V! i 1l ~~ I~I^^ ^Q V! Y..L (^^Q ~ ^L W ( I i ~ W {jI ~ ~~r, ~` I~i~~~rl l f~ ~ i ~ ~~ `I , ', > U . _. _p.c i :. F' ~ ~ ~ Q W,, ' ~ ~ ~ _{ I ff r I ~ 9~I ~~~ 'R ~~i ~ ~ ~ { ~ (~ ~_ ~ t \ ~- ~ .{ ~~ +~ j ~ ~ ^ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I __ ~ J ~~ ~ I / ~ ~ ^ W ~ c~ .~ a ~ ;; ~ :.~ i. "~,,~ 4~ rr f+ ~ '~i, i l i , l . it ~~. 1 11 .y ty~wl 1 ~. ~. ~ fn ~ J. ~ ~~Vv j~l r i ~ ~ ~ f0 \ ~ ~ ~ ~' Q. L O ~ • W O ~U . ~ ~ V ~Q L f-- U ~' '-' ~ ~ U ~ a~ O b .~ ~ '~ O ~ ~ ~' ~ N ,~ ,b ~ a., O ~ b -~ ~ t} a' ' d ~ 'C7 N U ~ .~, , mo L,' ,.s.,"' ~ O " ~ .N ~; c~i N N ~ r'' ~ C3 U U ~ N ~ ~ G~ O ~ ~ C1r ~ ~ .4; ~ ~ • ~ `~ 'b ~ ai ~ ,~ ~ v~ o o ~ ~? ~ ~ a~ p .~ ~ ° ,.~ b ~ ' ~ ~ U ''.'' ~+-~ ~-' 3 O ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ fl L1, O ~ Q. cd N ~ U ~ ~ O O b ~ . ~ ~ ^ N 'b ~ ~, A ~ t~ ~ c~ "d ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O U N "C ' O N ~ . ~ ~ ° v ~ ~ ~ Q, ~ ~ ts, °q ~ '~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ C o ~ ~ ~ ° ~ °' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tin .r b ~~., ~o ~.d o , ~ ~~b~b ~~ ,~ I ~ ~; ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~p ~ ~ ~~ N ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~.~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o .~ ~ 'b ~ ~ o ~ ~~ N ~ m U U-b ~4-'b ~ ~ O ~ ' ~ O cd ~ ~ b .--. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N U ~ ,, ~~ ~ O .n N v~ ~ N ~ N ~~ U ~, U O ''' O .X ~ p .~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ N U cn ~ Qa .. ~ U +~--~ 4-, ~ ~ O ~ O ~ ~+-+ 'b cd '-~ ~ ~ O ~ bD ~ 3..' U O ~ '~ yU_, N 3 a, ~ cn N cd cn bq N O O ~ ~ . ~ p. ~ vUi +., ~ ~ U .-. ~ ~ ~ .--. ~ ~ U .~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ O O U cd • ~ ~ ~ ~, ,~ ~ .,~ ~ o o a~ ~, o o ~ ~ ~.. v ~ • ~ r , ~ +' c,,., R. .. r, ~ ^C b4 ' " 'b ' ~ ...., ~ i ~ Q., ~ ~' ~ U H c d N ~ ~ .b d d : ~ a~ cd .~ v i ° ' 'd ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ o v ~ Q ~ • ° n. • ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ " ~ ~ S3, ~ cn ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ U y N O U ~ ~ ~, ' ' ~ i , P1 «3 (~ W 'ri, ° d pa U Q .~ H 0 bA y~~+ s.a a~ w vi N N ~_ 'dam ~3 ~". O U O N .~ w O 0 bA c~ b~A .~ Q o ~ ~ o ~ ~ o -~ N ~ ~ '~ U V ~ ~ ¢,~r ~ ., ~ ~ ~_ ~_ ~ ~ ~, O ~ ~ ~" ... ~ ~ y N ~ ~ ~~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4-i ¢, o O ~ ~ ~'' ~ 4-, °~' '-' ~ ~ ~~, ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . r, N ~ O ~, Q.'~ '~ ~~~ ~d ~, ~ ~ cd" ~' c~ vvi O ~ "d ~~~ ~ . ~ a~i ~ '~ ~ bA s~ ,~ ' ~' O ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ N N ~ ,y N ~ ~ N .ys-"' ~ y O x vi N O .; ~~+ 4-i O .s; .~ .~ b N 0 U N N N .~ .~ O U o ~ ~, o U ~ N N ~ ,~ O b4 ,_„ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢. '~ bA .~ N ,y .~ .~ 0 ~+ O dA ~", cd .b N .-~ ~+" 0 N c~ b O bA b ~.-~ ,~ N cn d' U U ~--~ w 0 H ''"~., U .~ ~ ~ i-i ¢' ~ ~ cC3 ~ bA O O U ~ ~i ~ ~ U ~, ~ O U ~ ~ ~ ~ 'C b ~ G~ ~ ~ .U ~ ~ 0 O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~, ~ 4a ~ *~ ~ ~ N O ~ N '~ ~, ~ „~ N +-, ~ ~ O U N Q. ~ vi O O v~ '~ N N ' ^' ~, cd ~" N ~ ~ ~ U ~ j o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ,~ b sue., ~ ~ ~ c bA U ~' ~ ~ '1 am, ,_, ~ ~ ~ S - . , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O . ~ y ~ ~ ~ ,~ p v ~ ~ ' O ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . +- U ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ .~ c d U ~ ~ ~• a~ sa. U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T ~" .°A'3 ~ .~ O .~ o ++ N ~ ~ b ~ U ~ O ~ ~ ~ > > O vi ~ ,.+ X ~ s., ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4-i ~ ~ N P, ~ cd 3 ~ ~ «3 ~ U v ^, U ~ ~ bA ~ ~ ~--~ N N E"~ 7~i U N ~; b ~ . ~ ~ ' ° ~ , ~ ~ ~ O .b •~ b ~ ~ O O N ~, ~ ~ ~ . P, 3~ ~ ~ . j O `+-i ~ ~ O ~ '~ cad .~~' N .s~ ~ +' ~ ~ ~ cd .~ cn O .., ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ cd b ~ ,s ~ ~ o r-+ ~ . O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ bA ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ .S," ~ ~ cd .b ~ ~ N ~ p v ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ a3 '~ ~ , 'C3 ~ , ." +~ N ~ cd ~ "C c~ ~ ~ 3-i .., ~ ;b C j ~ Q. ,~ ~ ;? ~, °' ~ U ~ o 'b .,~ i~ i.-l ~ y..~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ o ~ '~ c~ ~ O o ~ ~, O ~ ~ ~ ff~"" ~ cd ~ a~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~'C ~ ~~ ~ N U ~ ~ N ~ ~ O S", ' ~'" ~., ~ ~ ~ , O Q~ cci ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ Cd •~ N ~ + ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢~3~ F-~~ ai ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ O ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ • •~ ~ .~ O 9 ~ ' ~ ~ + 3 ~N N U^ ~ ~ .5.."' ~ c~ ~". ~ ~ .~ ~ ,~ ~ N ~ "mod . ~ c~"''C ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ .fl ~ (~ ~ '''' ~ , ,,, cQ . ,~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ . • ~ U w ^, ~ Gq N O M_ ~ U .~ U N Q" U N =~, ~ N ~ O w ~ •~ O ~ ~ ~ .~ yam,,, U ~ ~ O O U ~ U ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~ 3 on . ;~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ w v; ~ G~ X bq ~ '~ ..fir Uj bA .y N • ~ ~ ~ ~ N , Q., ~ . ~ ' p ~ O p U Wi t"', Q., ~ U ~ ~ ~--i .b ~ CC1 ~ Q ~ O'-~ , U ~., ~ . i + N ,~ ~ -tj `~ v ~O '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ O ~ O p ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ „~ -+ ~ cd ~--~ " N y-~ ~ f1. --~ b i-+ ~ y .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ` -q ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ . ~ U O ~bA ~ ~ ~ c~ ~'' ~ ' ~ 'c3 .-~ ..~ 'd ~' ~ ~ N ~ .~ • ~ ~ ~ (O ~ sU, ~ ~ O . ,., U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O .,. ' U 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' H J r+ N V] ~ U Q W .~ «3 U N S~ '~ b b N b~A ~ .b cd" ~ U f, ~ ~ ~ a bA cd ~..~ W O S"" ~ CSC N w ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~. .~ O Q bA ~ >, ~ ~ ~ 'd `~' ~ O ~ -~-, ~ ~ ~ ~ N Q, ~ ~bD U ~ ~ a i, O cd •-. .~ N ~ ~ U ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ cn .~ Q, ~ ~ U V ~~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ,,., . ~ ~ +~' W U N 4. .~ , '~ O v i 'Cj ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ cd c cUC ~ N ¢" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ U .~" ~ ~ ,-, ~, c}, ai ,b S~ O b z"" . b O cC ~ N "C ~ "" y ~ U N ~ ~ b A ~ O~ ~ ..^ O ~ ~ N an ~ .--. O ~ ~ U ~ a> ~ U .~ N 'b .b ~", .~~r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ "r N ~ '~~"~, ~ ~ ~~,,, ~ ,~ y ~ ~. > N cd ... ~ p ~. cd ,s.: 6, ~ O U ~ ~ •~ ~ '~"' bA ~ cn cUn ~ +~-~ U ~ ~" ~ •~ r ..-~ O ~+ _ ^~ ~ N O ~ U ~ d N ~ ~ ~ H V1 E-+ ~, ~ o Q " •--~ N ~ N M 4 a V] O N .-i v~ N N N bA O bA .~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N S~, .D U ~ ~ ~ ~'. ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ 'b -c~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~' ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ w ~ ~' ~ 0 0 ~ ~ o ~~ ~~ ~~ ~, ~~ ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ° .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~ ~ O 3 ~ U ° ~, ~ a i ~ `~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~,o ~~ b ~ •O p ' ~ U ~ L. b a3 N '. ~ O 4.i ~ O ~ ~ j.., ~ ~ 3 N ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~•V ~ •~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ . ~ ~ " d ~ U ~ ^ ~ ~ .~ ~ ' ~ O ~ ~ ° ~' ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ b O x ~ N ~ .-~ ~ ..~ ~n ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •., O N 4a '~ ~ N 3 ~ O •~~~ S]., ~ ., ~,~,:.o ~ ~ ~ +r, U ~ ~ ' " ~ '. N ~ U .~~ O ~ O M ~ U O bA rn ~ CCS N S3. ~ ~ ,~ 'd ~ ~`d,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ a~ c~ ~• ~ F-+ Q„ c,.., ~., ~ 0 o~~~ ~° ~ ~ ~ ~ a~~~ °' ~, u. ~ ~ ~ b ,~ ~ `~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ o . s~ °' ~ ~ ~ ~b N N ~--~ O ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ b 'C b .O 0 ~ ~ .--~ .--~ b ~ Q, ~ '~'~ ~ O ~ ~ -b o ~~ S~ U ~-+ ~ o ~ '~ sue. ' ~ O . ~ ~ ~' N ~ ~ O ~ ~ U O ~ O ~ ~ O • ... cd :~ ~ 'd ~ O ~ ~ ~.~ cn n a~ O .,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ a v~ bA ,~ N .~ O 0 U O bA 3~-~ o~ 0 0 a~i a~ O ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~~ ~~ r..., O cd ~" O ~ ~ sue, ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~+ O . N ~ a~ ~~ ~--~ ~~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, .--, U ~ ~ ~ N ~ N ~ ~ a~ .~' . r ~ ~ ~ ~ v `~ ~~ a ~ N bA .~ as b Q N y ~ N •~ .~ .'~.+ ~ ~--~ ~" ~ O ~ °~ `~ ~ ~ o ~ o :~ o ~ O c~ 0 ~ ~ ~ .~ O ~ ~, b o •~ U N o ~ U ~ '~ ° ,~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ '~3 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O aq ~ ¢, a~ •.. ~ o ~ ~, ~ ~ bn ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N .~ 4-i ~ U ~+ O ~ ¢" ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o .y ~". ~ -~ ~ cd N N ~ ~ ~ 9 N ~w ~ 0 •v ~ s.•~ ~ 3 ~ ~ N bA F~1 •~ U ., ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ . _, ~ 'd +'""-' ~ 'O ~ U N ~ ~ N ~ O ~ ~ O N O +"' M ~ ~ N ~~~ ~~~ ~. ~ ~ bA ai w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ '~ ~ ~ cd U Ham aa~ r-i N M .--i 0 w ~ ~ ~ a~ .~~ •~ c~ ~~ ~ ~ o o 0 ~ o ~ O U ~ _~ ~ O w, '~ bA U ~ ~ ~ O ~ O -~ , O ~ . ,.-~ .~ A.. ~ ~ O c~i~ N ;-~ v~ U O U ~ ~+ ~ ~*'' ~ ~ p" ~ S . ~ O R3 ,~" O CC ~ 'C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'O ~ ~ ~ ~U+ ~ " '~ ~ ~ ~" "d ~ "" ~ ^~ U i--i bq ~ ~' ~`"' ' y , O ~ U O d '~ O U O `~ .~ O ~ ~ o ~ \ - ~ ~ a~ ;b~ ~ a, o ~ ~ ~? 3 o ~ 4, o a~ ~ ~~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ U cd ~ bA O ~ ~ ~ „L, ^' , ~ 'd ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ X 0~ . ~ N~ ~ 3 fl O ~ . O 4r cd U ~ ~ ~ ,d ~ .~ ~-" ~ ..O p ~ "'' '~ U ~ ~ O U ~ ~" O ~ ~ ~ N O v~ ~ .~ ~ U vii ,--i '" ~ ~ 'C3 ~ ~ O ~ ti ~ U O ~ ~ ~ O O N ..~ ~ +~ .-, ~ ~ ~., v~ c~C ~ ~ ~ bA ~ ~ O v ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ cd ~ ~ ~ ~ rn U p ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ `n ~ . ~ ~ -d ~ O pip U ~ U O ~ ~ bUA + ~' b ~ ~ Q ~ bUA b ~ ~ r^"n O ~ ~ bA ~ ~ N ^' , , U ~ ~ `~ O OU N O ~ ~' .fl ~ ~ cUd b a~ 3 ~ ~ ° :b ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~U ~ ~~° ° ~ °' ~ o ~ ~ ' ~ a. 'd °' ~ ~o ~ ° ~ a, ~' ~ bn -d o on ~ ~ ' ~, 3 ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ do .~ ~ ~ o ° ~ ~ 'd ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ o .d ;-d ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ .fl ai .~ o ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ a .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O w c d ~ U ~ N ~ cn '~ ~ ~ . ~ Z ; ; c~ ,~ ~ H 'v~ ~ ~..~ ~, v~ d v1 .~ '~ ~ ~ bA ~ d ~ U Q W w a ~ ~a ~ ~ v r, .~ ~, b .~ ~+ N c~ bA .~ .~ .-. M N ~i C~ H O O z b 3 O U ~ N ~ ~ ." N ~ ,s: •~ ~ b . c~ O z o ~ , N Gq ~..i ~ ~ O ~, O N ~ '~ N r--' .~• ~ b~A • ~ . 3 aA .~ ~ ~ >, ~° .~ o ~ bA N ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ O ~.~ bQ .~ ~ tiQ ~+ ~ ~ ~ 0 ("~"!~ ~ O ~ i ~ O a ~ .-~i ~~/ E~ U "' Q, N U ~ ~"' ' i, „"' N M 'd' v~ ~p ~ +-+ W ~ ~ .~ ~ x on 0 c~ oA .~ b .~ 0 ~, 0 0 O s., G~4 N '.d O N N 0 .~ b ~, ... o N ~ 'd ~ '~ .~ O c~ ~ U ~ O ,,,, N V' ~ '~ U •~ N r--~ 3--i ~--i ~ ~ r .--~ .~ ti ti ~ L., 'C ~ N .-~ O w c~ ~ ~ N o ~ O O y.., ~ ai U O ~ ~, ~ ~ U O ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢' ~ V U ~ ~ O Q" ~~. ~ ~+" ~ b~A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cd ,.., ~..+ Q" cad O bA ~ ~ ~ b ~" O ~ ~ O v~ U~ y cd ,~ O O ~ b ~ +-+ "" ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'd N ~ ~ ' ~ rn ~ U ~ .r.r N N ~ ~ cC U ct3 a'.' ~ X ~ ~'" U ~ ~ t-, O U ~!-~" U +~ Q, b ~ ^~ ,S' ~ cti ~" tip ~ ~ cn .• : ~ %~ ~ ~ sue. ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ .~ N ~ .~ bA ~ ~ i, U ~ N O O ~ f3. w ,~.~ ~ :•~ cn ~ c~ cUi~ €1, b ~ O ~ ~ 'd ~ ~ ~ ~ v N c~~C ~ ~ OU '~~, U Q. ~ O .b i-. ~" ~ rn .'. cd k ~-+ ~ bA O U sU-a GQ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ 4-a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O bq • r" U ~ ~ ~ S~, ..fir ~ ~ ~ +'~.., •--i bA •~''-. ~ N 4J U • ..~ h Q" c~ ~ CC ~ ~ N .~., ~ O 5f H W rn -~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ d Z ~ ~ H :~ . ~ ~ L7 ~ ~ ~ O ~ v ,~ ~ N .~ O ~ +-' '" O p ~ 'C ~ O ~ bA N Q U 0 ~ ^O 'C3 ~ cd O ~ 0 j ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 'y U ° o a ~ a ~ ^ U ~ ~ ~ . N H ~ ~ .V. ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ .~ ~ N .~ • j ~ O ~ '~ ~ ~ ¢, 'd cd ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ N US", ~ NS"'. .d ~ s0, N O 'r... ' ~ d4 'd ~ ~ O n , ^ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ O .~ ~ ~ rn O 't7 ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ O ~ O ~ ,, , O ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i .~ ~ a ~ 'd ~ r~ o ~ (Q o `~ ~ ~ o ~. U " •~ vOi ~ ~ . '. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r V ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~." ~ .~ ~" ~ .~ O .~ ~ cn ~ '~ ~ ,~ , O cC O •~ ~ ' ~ s., • ~ 'b ~ ~+ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,~ O ~ cd ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ on ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ Q .~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s~. ~~~ ~ bn ~ •~ A ~ ~ ~• ~ ~ ~.o.~ a ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ o ~ .~ .. >, ~ ~ ~ .~ C7 ~ ~ ¢, on ~ ~ 9 ~ O O ~ ^~ ~' dA O • V U N ~ ~ i"i y ~ U bA S.". O S.: U bA O N t, ~ ~', N .O bq GO a H ~.~ w ~ ~ 'gib o ~ 3~, ~ ~ °' o a' ~ ~ >,~ o ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -b ~ N ~ ~ ~ "~ ~ N ~ N O ~ ~ O . ~ ~ ^O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r, ~ O O U U ,~ N ., ~ r a" b ~ ~ c~ O N ~ O ~ O ~ N L ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~.~"'~. E~ O ~ . ~ ~ ~ y,, ., ~ 9 r 3.., C~ y O s , ~ cd ~ cd cd ~ ~n ¢+ +~ N 4-i .~ N N O O ~ ~ ~ ~ cC ~ b ~ b O A Q.. a3 ~ ~ .~ o `~ 3 • ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ . .o o ~ a .~ O ~+, o ~„~~,,, ~ v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~i ~ ~ ~ aNi p ~ ~ 'cd ~ ~ i.. '~ N U ~ `~ ' ~" ~ ~ N N c~ .~ ~ y O Q. ~ ~ ai ~ ~ C7 C~ ~ ~ b pp bA ~ ~ ~ cQC ~ f ' N ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ Q" a~ O ~ .O ~ U ,~ ,~ ~ Q ~ ~ .b p . ~ O ~ U c~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ O O .~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ r~+ p fsr ~ ¢ ~ N ~ a • ~ OU • = ~ p Q cd O ~ ~ O O , ~ ~ ~ ~ b O ~ ~ O O ~ U ..~ c~ r.-~ ~ ^' cd N ~ ai W ~~ ~ 0 a~_ N J~U ~ N ~ W W m W Q U Y } O Q ~ m J= `` ~W~ ~ °o W ~ J~ ~i U ryo ,. - . ~ ti ~~ ~ k J U 7~ ~~ N ~, 7!~ 2~v ~ P ~Q ~~ ;~ Q' ~d v ~ '~ b ~ I f~n V O ~ W '~ Q ~~~~, W ~'~' ~ ~% ~ // Q ~ Z ~ W } Q ~ Z Ya Qw ~~~~~ ~ '''~ W m ~ W ~ ~ ti W ~ w o 0 ;% m ~ , o U 0 w U ~~~ I ~ ~" 0 } F mZ Q W W ~ ~ H aQ ~a W W y V O i., O ~. a b C". Cr a d O r.. c~3 N ~ t+, p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ . j dq ~ N ~ N cad '."" O ~ U :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~. cC3 ' ~ ~ ~ O c'''C ~" Wit"" N v ~ ~ bA .~ ~ to • ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ O Q c~ ~ r-• " ~ ~ ~ ~ O V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ Q ~ ~ N ~" ~ f"' ~ ,' ~ . ~ w >, ~ ... ~ ¢, ~ O ~ O o 'v'' +~' ~ ~"" U 9 ~ Q~ v~ 4-i ~ cd U } O O -+ v~ "d ~ ~ O o ~ ~' N ~ v~ ~ ~ ~ y~„+ N O ~ ~ • ~"-+ v bA ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ O .'~ ,b Q., ~ `~ a~ ~ cd ~ bA ~ ~ ~' ~ ~o ~ ~ ..~ L7 n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o N ~ ~ ~ ,7 ~ ~ p ~ •~, ,~ b ~q ' ~ S"., bA ~ ~ N ~ ; ~ 'b j ~ ~ Q ~ , ~ . ~ O o . ~ ~ o~ ~; ~ -d ~ : i cw ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ .~ .~ ~' ~ ~' o ~ ° o U on ~ ~ . o ,~ ~' °° ^' ' -• ~' 3 ~ 0 ~ • ~ t+ ~ .b ~ ~ ~ o ~ b a~ ,~ r--' ~ ~ o ~ 4--~ ~ ~ ~ o Q„ o ;.~ ~ ~ b~ ~,, i ~~ ~ o ~ 'S ~ ~ ~ v i ~ cd" • ~ N ' ~ Q, ~ Gy ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢" cC '"" O ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ., S]. G~ ~ ~ p .~ >C ~ ~i bA ~ p ~ ~ cd ,~ s.• ¢" ce ~ ' L1, o cC s., o i . ~ Q" aj ~ ~ bA O +~' N ~ c ~ .~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~" I.. o ~ p U x o ~ i ~ ~ a p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • o ~ • c U ~ ~ o ~ ~ j ' w ~ ~ o ~' ~ m ~ o o . ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ i. CC L." ~ .s" p '~+ ~ U ~ ~ . ~ „~ ~ o ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a w ~ a •~' W ~) ti .~ Q ~ a H ~ zi ~.~ ~ A (.~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ b 0 N N 6~ 0. CC i! CC L ~.+ U w .C u L Q U x a c. Q Q 3 ~_ O 4-~ O ~, C U RS v .~ s, O s. z h ~I ~~ '` 4 ~~~' . ~~ ~'; Q, ~. cC Q s.. O 'd RS b 0 Lr a O 0 U C/~ A s, c~ C w O O s., ca U r ~ ~ ~ U ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ b ~ ~ o a~ a ~ ~ ~, -b ~ ~ ~ ~ WUv~zn t~;~n~~vla,rr~p,d~C7G~~v~E-~P~v1~~3v~v~c~UZA~~d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ may. Oq ~: ~ ~' ~ G ~ ~ R ~ . H ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ U sV. ~ U ~ ~ C3 ~ ~ ~ ti 0 '~ o ~ .?; a3i ~'~ '~ ~ ~' ~ o o ~ ~? o -^' o •a~o ca o ~ ~ ~ a~i •~ y ° o ~ o ~ ~ Uaa¢zaav~3aa33~~w~xw¢a~aa ~Urna,xw¢wU~Uw ~, w° ~ ~ v ti ~ d' v~~~CUUUvC7C7~~,~~L~~~~~~.~~ v,i~~~~UU000W w^~ N N s Y ~ '~' ~` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY DECEMBER 19, 2000 ORDINANCE 121900-11 AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR ROANOKE COUNTY BY THE ADDITION OF THE CLEARBROOK VILLAGE OVERLAY DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1992; and, WHEREAS, good zoning practice requires that zoning ordinances be periodically evaluated and amended to ensure consistency with community values and updated community plan policies; and, WHEREAS, Roanoke County has worked with the citizens of the Clearbrook community to clarify and refine 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan growth policies and objectives for their community, and to develop zoning standards designed to implement these growth objectives and policies; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors did adopt, on December 19, 2000 amendments to the Roanoke County Community Plan that reflect these updated growth policies and objectives; and, WHEREAS, Clearbrook community meetings were held in July and November of 2000 to solicit community input on proposed zoning standards for the Clearbrook area; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on December 5th, 2000 to receive community input on the proposed zoning standards, and did thereafter recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the proposed zoning ordinance changes be adopted; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law, and that the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 14, 2000, and second reading and public hearing was held on December 19, 2000. NOW, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia that the zoning ordinance for Roanoke County Virginia be amended and reenacted as follows: A. 1. Amend Sec 30-6 by the addition of the following: SEC. 30-6 ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS 1 Commercial Districts CVOD Clearbrook Village Overlay District 2. Amend Sec 30-58 by the addition of the following: SEC. 30-58 CVOD Clearbrook Village Overlay District Sec. 30-58-1 Purpose The purpose of the Clearbrook Village Overlay District is to promote future development that is consistent with the current character of Clearbrook, and with the Community Plan future land use map and policies for this area. Future development in this district should respect the character and historical context of the Blue Ridge Parkway, Clearbrook School, and other social and cultural resources in Clearbrook area. The Clearbrook area has adequate public facilities, good road access, suitable topography, and land available for development or redevelopment. Recognizing these factors, the plan, and this district promote the creation of the Village of Clearbrook. Commercial development consistent with these district standards and the Community Plan Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District is encouraged, but strip commercial patterns of development are discouraged. Thus, the district allows a wide variety of commercial uses, but provides a high degree of emphasis on landscaping, building design, site design, and lighting and signage control. Sec. 30-58-2 Creation of Overlay (A) The Clearbrook Village Overlay District is created as an amendment to the official zoning map of Roanoke County. All regulations and standards contained herein shall apply to all parcels and land within the designated overlay district. (B) The boundaries of the overlay district as shown on the official zoning map may only be amended by action of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors pursuant to Section 30-14 of this ordinance. Sec. 30-58-3 Applicability and Administration (A) The Zoning Administrator shall have the responsibility for determining compliance with these standards. In making any such determination, the Zoning Administrator shall consider the purposes of the Clearbrook Village Overlay District, and shall consider the extent to which the requested use or development 2 substantially complies with the, Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District adopted as part of the Roanoke County Community Plan. If in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator, the use or development does not substantially comply with these design guidelines, the requested use or development shall, by decision of the Zoning Administrator, be considered a special use and shall require a special use permit pursuant to Section 30-19 of this ordinance. Sec. 30-58-4 Permitted Uses and Use Restrictions The uses permitted in the Clearbrook Village Overlay District shall be governed by the underlying zoning district in which the property is located as shown on the official zoning maps, except as otherwise modified below: (A) The following uses shall be prohibited within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District: 1. Civic Uses Park and Ride Facility Public Assembly 2. Commercial Uses Automobile Rental/Leasing Automobile Dealership, Used Automobile Repair Services, Major Boarding Houses Commercial Outdoor Entertainment Commercial Outdoor Sports and Recreation Kennel, Commercial Mini-warehouse Pawn Shop Recreational Vehicle Sales and Service 3. Industrial Uses Recycling Centers and Stations 4. Miscellaneous Uses Parking Facility Broadcasting Towers (B) Unless prohibited in 30-58-4(A) a Special Use Permit shall be required for all 3 uses listed as a special use in the underlying zoning district. In addition, the following uses shall require a Special Use Permit within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified, or more stringent standards are listed in Article IV, Use and Design Standards, for those specific uses. 1. Residential Uses Multi-Family Dwelling* Two-Family Dwelling* 2. Commercial Uses Agricultural Services* Automobile Repair Services Minor* Commercial Indoor Sports and Recreation Communication Services Construction Sales and Services* Gasoline Station Garden Center* Retail Sales* Veterinary Hospital/Clinic Sec. 30-58-5 Site Development Regulations The site development regulations required in the Clearbrook Village Overlay District shall be governed by the underlying zoning district in which the property is located as shown on the official zoning maps, except as otherwise modified below: (A) Maximum height of structures 1. Height limitations: a. Principal structures: 35 feet b. Accessory structures: actual height of principal structure. (B) Maximum coverage 1. Building coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area. 2. Lot coverage: 70 percent of the total lot area. 4 Sec. 30-58-6 Special Regulations in the Clearbrook Village Overlay District The following special regulations shall apply within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District (A) Landscaping Required landscaping within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District shall comply with the standards contained in Section 30-92-4.1 of this ordinance. (B) Signage Signage within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District shall comply with C-1 Sign District regulations, except as modified by Section 30-93-14 (F) of this ordinance. (C) Lighting Lighting within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District shall comply with the provisions of Section 30-94 of this ordinance. (D) Utilities All new utility lines and services within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District shall be located underground. (E) Residential Use Types Residential Use Types within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District upon the date of the adoption of this ordinance shall not be deemed to be nonconformities, and may be reconstructed, altered and/or enlarged consistent with the requirements contained in Section 30-58-5 of this ordinance. In addition, single family detached dwellings may be developed in the district on lots of record in existence on the effective date of this ordinance. Any dwelling constructed shall not be deemed to be a non-conformity. No new subdivisions for residential purposes shall be allowed within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District, except that Family Exemption subdivisions shall be permitted pursuant to Section 30-100-11 of this ordinance. (F) Parking All off-street parking, stacking and loading areas within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District shall comply with the provisions of 30- 91 of this ordinance, including construction standard provisions found in Section 30-91-6(A)1 3. Amend Sec 30-85 by the addition of the following: Section 30-85-24.5 Retail Sales (A) In the Clearbrook Village Overlay District: 5 1. A special use permit shall be required for any retail use or development that exceeds fifty-thousand (50,000) square feet of gross floor area. When multiple buildings are proposed as part of a planned or phased development, square footage calculations shall be based upon the total size of all buildings planned or proposed. 4. Amend Sec 30-91-6 by the addition of the following: Section 30-91-6 (A) 1 1. Within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District, any parking areas or parking spaces provided in excess of the requirements of this ordinance, shall be constructed with a porous pavement material approved by the administrator. Gravel shall not be accepted as an approved porous material. 5. Amend Sec 30-92-4 by the addition of the following: Section 30-92-4.1 Landscaping Provisions in the Clearbrook Village Overlay District (A) Applicability 1. The following landscaping provisions shall apply to all property within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District 2. These standards shall be deemed to supplement, and be in addition to, standards found in Section 30-92 of this ordinance. (B) General Standards/Specifications 1. All landscape plans required for uses within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District shall be prepared by a registered landscape architect, or certified nurseryman. 2. All landscaping shall be alive and in good condition at the time of planting. All landscaping shall be maintained, and replaced, as necessary to insure continued compliance with these provisions. 3. Where specified, all deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2.5 inches at the time of planting. Evergreen trees shall have a minimum height of 8 feet at time of planting 4. Where specified, all shrubs shall have a minimum height of 24 inches at time of planting. 6 5. Native species shall be use for a minimum of 50% of required plantings. A listing of acceptable native species is available in the Department of Community Development (C) Site Landscaping 1. Landscaped areas shall be provided for the side and rear walls of all buildings. The width of these landscaped areas shall be sufficient to accommodate the required plantings. The following plantings shall be required: a. For buildings walls in excess of 15 feet in height, one tree shall be planted for every 20 lineal feet of building wall b. For building walls 15 feet or less in height, one tree shall be planted for every 30 lineal feet of building wall. Flexibility in the location of landscaped areas and the placement of the required trees shall be allowed for the purpose of implementing professionally designed landscape plans and for loading, service, or other similar areas. 2. Landscaping shall be provided along the main entrance facade of all buildings, providing a vegetative area between the building and parking areas. The size of the required front landscaped area shall not be less than 20 percent of the square footage of the front facade of the building. The landscaped area shall be professionally designed and planted with a mixture of trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Undeveloped areas between a building and a public or private right- of-way shall be landscaped with berms, trees, shrubs and groundcover. Landscaping plans for these areas shall incorporate a minimum of one large tree, three small trees and seven shrubs for every 30 feet of lot frontage. 3. All above ground stormwater management areas and facilities shall be landscaped with plant materials that are adaptable to being temporarily inundated with water. The facility shall be landscaped in order to create a 75% screening of the facility. A minimum of one-third of all provided plantings shall be evergreen. 4. Landscaping shall be provided around the base of any freestanding sign proposed. The size of the landscaped area shall not be less than one and one-half (1.5) times the square footage of the sign. 7 (D) Landscaping of Parking Areas 1. Where a new, expanded, or reconfigured parking area is proposed adjacent to a public or private street right-of-way, a planting strip shall be established between the parking area and the adjacent right-of-way. The planting strip shall have a minimum width of fifteen (15) feet. An earthen berm, with an average height of 2 feet shall be constructed within the planting strip. Within this strip, one large tree, (small if overhead utility lines are present) and nineteen shrubs shall be planted for every 30 feet of frontage. In addition, small trees or groundcovers shall be interspersed within the planting area. One-third of all plantings shall be evergreen materials. No uses shall be permitted within the planting strip except underground utility crossings, pedestrian/bike trails, stormwater management facilities which are an integral part of a landscaping plan, and signs as allowed in the district. 2. All parking areas shall incorporate raised interior landscaped areas for the purpose of visually enhancing parking areas. These areas shall be evenly distributed within the parking area and shall be provided in accordance with the following standards: a. One continuous landscaped median, with a minimum width of 10 feet, shall be installed between every four or less rows of parking, or, b. One landscaped peninsula or island with a minimum width of 10 feet shall be located between every 10 to 15 parking spaces. One large tree shall be planted for every 30 feet of continuous median, and shall be planted within every landscaped peninsula or island provided. However, at a minimum, one large tree shall be planted within the parking area for each 10 parking spaces provided. In addition, all parking lot landscaped areas shall include deciduous or evergreen shrubs. 6. Amend Sec 30-93 by the addition of the following: Section 30-93-14 (F) Signage Provisions within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District F) Clearbrook Village Overlay District. Signage within the Clearbrook Village Overlay district should be planned, designed and installed to complement a buildings architectural style. All signage within the Clearbrook Village Overlay 8 district shall comply with C-1 Office District regulations with the following exceptions: 1. Lots within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one (1) square foot of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. signage placed on a building wall shall occupy less than 5% of the facade area of that wall 3. All freestanding signs shall be of a monument design and shall meet the following criteria: a. Monument signs, including their structure, shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height, or ten (10) feet in width. b. Signs shall be channel lit, ground lit, or top lit with a shielded light source so as to not cast light onto the path of traffic or on any adjacent road or property. 4. No establishment shall be allowed more than three (3) signs) 5. A maximum of two directional signs shall be allowed per lot, and no directional sign shall exceed two square feet in size. 6. The following signs shall be prohibited in the Clearbrook Village Overlay District: a. Off-Premises Signs b. Temporary Signs c. Portable Signs d. Roof Signs 7. Amend Sec 30-94 by the addition of the following: Section 30-94 Exterior Lighting (A) 2. Within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District, no freestanding light pole, including fixture, shall be more than 18 feet above grade. All exterior lights, including security lighting, within the district shall be down-lit or shielded so as not to direct glare onto adjoining streets or residential properties. The intensity at adjoining streets or residential properties shall not exceed 0.5 foot candles. B. 1. That this ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2001. 9 On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance with correction from 0.2 to 0.5 in Section 30-94, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Ho on, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors 10 cc: File Terrance L. Harrington, County Planner 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 Kathie Scearce, Director, Community Relations Danial Morris, Director, Finance O. Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development 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 William E. Driver Director, Real Estate Valuation Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue 11 ~~ '~"` ~ ~" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY DECEMBER 19, 2000 ORDINANCE 121900-12 AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF ROANOKE COUNTY BY THE REZONING OF SIXTY-FOUR PARCELS IN THE CLEARBROOK PORTION OF ROANOKE COUNTY FROM AV AGRICULTURAL VILLAGE AND AR AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL TO C-2 COMMERCIAL AND THEREAFTER AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF ROANOKE COUNTY BY THE ADDITION AND APPLICATION OF THE CLEARBROOK VILLAGE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO SIXTY-SIX PARCELS OF LAND IN THE CLEARBROOK SECTION OF ROANOKE COUNTY. WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1992; and, WHEREAS, good zoning practice requires that zoning ordinances and official zoning maps be periodically evaluated and amended to ensure consistency with community values and community plan policies; and, WHEREAS, Roanoke County has worked with the citizens of the Clearbrook community to develop zoning standards designed to implement these community plan growth objectives and policies; and, WHEREAS, Clearbrook community meetings were held in July and November of 2000 to solicit community input on proposed zoning standards for the Clearbrook area; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on December 5`h, 2000 to receive community input on the proposed zoning text and map changes and did thereafter recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the proposed zoning text and map changes be adopted; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law, and that the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 14, 2000, and second reading and public hearing was held on December 19, 2000. NOW, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia that the official zoning map for Roanoke County Virginia be amended and reenacted as follows: 1. That the following fifty-nine (59) Roanoke County tax parcels are hereby rezoned from their current designation of AV Agricultural Village to C-2 Commercial: 088.03-03-03.00-0000, 088.03-02-05.00-0000, 088.03-03-04.00-0000, 098.02-02-12.00-0000, 098.02-02-09.01-0000, 098.02-02-04.00-0000, 098.02-02-01.01-0000, 098.01-01-75.01-0000, 098.01-O1-01.00-0000, 088.03-02-01.00-0000, 088.03-O1-06.00-0000, 088.03-01-02.00-0000, 088.03-01-01.00-0000, 098.02-03-13.00-0000, 098.02-03-10.00-0000, 098.02-03-07.00-0000, 098.02-03-04.00-0000, 098.02-03-01.01-0000, 098.01-01-77.00-0000, 088.03-02-02.00-0000, 2. That the following five (5) Roanoke County Tax Parcels are hereby rezoned from their current designation of AR Agricultural Residential to C-2 Commercial: 088.04-O1-41.00-0000, 088.04-O1-40.00-0000, 088.04-01-39.01-0000, 088.04-01-36.00-0000, 098.02-02-16.00-0000 (PORTION). 088.03-03-02.00-0000, 088.03-02-04.00-000A, 088.03-02-04.00-0000, 098.02-02-11.00-0000, 098.02-02-08.00-0000, 098.02-02-03.00-0000, 098.02-02-01.00-0000, 098.01-01-75.00-0000, 088.04-01-39.00-0000, 088.03-O1-35.00-0000, 088.03-01-04.01-0000, 088.03-01-01.02-0000, 098.02-03-15.00-0000, 098.02-03-12.00-0000, 098.02-03-09.00-0000, 098.02-03-06.00-0000, 098.02-03-03.00-0000, 098.02-03-01.00-0000, 088.03-O1-29.01-0000, 088.03-O1-29.00-0000. 088.03-03-01.00-0000, 088.03-03-05.00-0000, 088.03-02-03.00-0000, 098.02-02-10.00-0000, 098.02-02-06.00-0000, 098.02-02-02.00-0000, 098.01-01-76.00-0000, 098.01-01-74.00-0000, 088.04-O1-38.00-0000, 088.03-01-09.00-0000, 088.03-O1-03.00-0000, 088.03-01-01.01-0000, 098.02-03-14.00-0000, 098.02-03-11.00-0000, 098.02-03-08.00-0000, 098.02-03-05.00-0000, 098.02-03-02.00-0000, 098.02-02-13.00-0000, 088.03-03-06.00-0000, 3. That the zoning designation of the following sixty-six (66) parcels is hereby amended on the official zoning map of Roanoke County by the addition and application of the Clearbrook Village Overlay District: 088.03-03-03.00-0000, 088.03-02-05.00-0000, 088.03-03-04.00-0000, 098.02-02-12.00-0000, 098.02-02-09.01-0000, 098.02-02-06.00-0000, 098.02-02-02.00-0000, 098.01-O1-76.00-0000, 098.01-01-74.00-0000, 088.04-O1-40.00-0000, 088.04-O1-38.00-0000, 088.03-01-35.00-0000, 088.03-03-02.00-0000, 088.03-02-04.00-000A, 088.03-02-04.00-0000, 098.02-02-11.00-0000, 098.02-02-09.00-0000, 098.02-02-04.00-0000, 098.02-02-01.01-0000, 098.01-01-75.01-0000, 098.01-O1-01.00-0000, 088.04-01-39.01-0000, 088.04-01-36.00-0000, 088.03-O1-09.00-0000, 088.03-03-01.00-0000, 088.03-03-05.00-0000, 088.03-02-03.00-0000, 098.02-02-10.00-0000, 098.02-02-08.00-0000, 098.02-02-03.00-0000, 098.02-02-01.00-0000, 098.01-01-75.00-0000, 088.04-01-41.00-0000, 088.04-01-39.00-0000, 088.03-02-01.00-0000, 088.03-O1-06.00-0000, 2 088.03-O1-04.01-0000, 088.03-O1-01.02-0000, 098.02-03-15.00-0000, 098.02-03-12.00-0000, 098.02-03-09.00-0000, 098.02-03-06.00-0000, 098.02-03-03.00-0000, 098.02-03-01.00-0000, 088.03-01-33.00-0000, 088.03-02-02.00-0000, (PORTION) 088.03-O1-03.00-0000, 088.03-O1-01.01-0000, 098.02-03-14.00-0000, 098.02-03-11.00-0000, 098.02-03-08.00-0000, 098.02-03-05.00-0000, 098.02-03-02.00-0000, 098.02-02-13.00-0000, 088.03-01-29.01-0000, 088.03-01-29.00-0000, 088.03-01-02.00-0000, 088.03-01-01.00-0000, 098.02-03-13.00-0000, 098.02-03-10.00-0000, 098.02-03-07.00-0000, 098.02-03-04.00-0000, 098.02-03-01.01-0000, 098.01-O1-77.00-0000, 088.03-03-06.00-0000, 098.02-02-16.00-0000 4. That this ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2001. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Hol on, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors 3 ~' PETITIONER: Roanoke County Planning Commission CASE NUMBER: 37-12/2000 Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 5, 2000 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: December 19, 2000 A. REQUEST Request of the Roanoke County Planning Commission to (1 ), amend the Roanoke County Community Plan by the addition of Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Overlay District, (2), amend the text of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance by the addition of the Clearbrook Village Overlay District (CVOD) standards, and (3) amend the official zoning map of Roanoke County by rezoning approximately 133 acres to C-2 General Commercial and simultaneously apply the CVOD to sixty-six parcels of land within the Clearbrook Community. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mike Wray, president of the Clearbrook Civic League, and a member of the Clearbrook Committee spoke to the Commission in favor of the community plan and zoning ordinance amendments. He provided a brief overview of the process used to prepare the amendments, and thanked the members of the Clearbrook Committee and planning staff for their work on the project. Glenn Prather, a member of the Clearbrook Committee, spoke in favor of the changes stating that the amendments will help the Clearbrook community achieve the type of future commercial development consistent with the character of Clearbrook. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Members of the Commission stated they were impressed with the work of the committee and the community and stated that the process used in Clearbrook should be a model of how the county should work with other communities when major land use changes are being discussed. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS None E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Witt made a motion to recommend approval of the following three items: 1. The adoption of the Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Overlay District as an amendment to the Community Plan. 2. The adoption of the Clearbrook Village Overlay District, and related amendments, as text amendments to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. The rezoning of 64 parcels of land totaling approximately 133 acres from their current designations of AV Agricultural Village and AR Agricultural Residential to C-2 General Commercial and simultaneously apply the CVOD to these parcels and two additional parcels currently zoned C-2 F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: X Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map X Staff Report _ Other Terrance arri ton, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission I ~~ Roanoke County Department of Community Development Memorandum TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Terrance L. Harrington, AICP County Planner DATE: December 11, 2000 RE: Clearbrook Village Overlay District BACKGROUND In the Spring of 2000, the staff began to work with the residents of the Clearbrook community to identify and prepare detailed planning and zoning standards for Clearbrook. The 1998 Community Plan designates a large area in the northern part of Clearbrook as suitable for future "Core" commercial development. Adopted plan policies state that future commercial development in Clearbrook should be based upon the " Village Concept" with a high degree of attention paid to issues such as signage, landscaping, access and lighting. Plan policies state that strip commercial patterns of future development are to be avoided. Over the past several years public facility improvements and market factors in Clearbrook have accentuated the commercial development potential of many properties. Public investments have been made in water and sewer facilities to serve existing residents and facilities such as Clearbrook School. These improvements have increased the value and commercial development potential of these and other nearby properties. Second, recent changes in the ownership of large vacant or under-developed tracts in Clearbrook are an indicator of heightened commercial interest in these properties. Finally, and perhaps the most direct indicator of commercial interest, is the recent effort of an out-of-state real estate company to aggregate 30+ acres for a large commercial user. The Clearbrook Village Overlay District and Design Guidelines have been prepared as tools to implement Community Plan policies and guide the character of future commercial development in Clearbrook. They have been prepared with the guidance and assistance of a committee of Clearbrook residents and business persons. The members of this committee have contributed hundreds of hours of their time and their expertise. Their knowledge of their community was instrumental as the staff transformed their ideas into documents that are compatible with the zoning ordinance and community plan of Roanoke county. Three items are before the Board of Supervisors for adoption on December 19, 2000. These items are: I. DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE CLEARBROOK VILLAGE COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT. These guidelines are being offered as an amendment to the 1998 Community Plan. The guidelines are a policy document. They offer ideas, and present desired standards for site layouts, architectural treatments, landscaping, lighting, and signage. Once adopted, the guidelines will be a useful tool for the development community as future projects are planned and designed. The guidelines will also be a tool for the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, and staff as we review development proposals requiring public hearings and public action. II. CLEARBROOK VILLAGE OVERLAY DISTRICT (CVOD) The CVOD is proposed as a zoning text amendment. It is a new zoning district proposed for the Clearbrook area. It is designed as an overlav district, and contains regulations and procedures that supplement an underlying zoning designation. As a zoning district, the CVOD defines allowable uses, and sets development standards and procedures for the development of land. As an overlay to a C-2 district, the CVOD will permit a wide variety of commercial uses by right or by special use. It will also define and require specialized development standards in the areas of landscaping, signage, lighting, parking and utilities. ..,..~' '- III. Zoning Map Amendments; Creation of C-2 Zoning District in Clearbrook and Application of CVOD Overlay This item will rezone approximately 133 acres in the Clearbrook community to C-2 and will apply the CVOD to all of the C-2 properties in Clearbrook. The locations of these two map amendments are shown on the attached maps. REQUESTED ACTIONS The following three actions are recommended, consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendations 1. Adopt .the Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District as an amendment to the 1998 Community Plan. 2. Adopt the Clearbrook Village Overlay District as a text amendment to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. 3. Rezone the parcels designated on the attached maps from their current designations of AV and AR to C-2 and simultaneously apply the CVOD to these parcels. W ~f ' 1..1 ~ o N J v ~ u~ J ~~n ft m W ~~ V ~ mJ ~ ° o ~W W ~ ii JD x U ~~ J~ Z Q" J Q~ fA ~~ v aQ ~ o, ~~. ~~~ ~~ ~. Z bi t11 .-+ O 0 ~d r W U ~~ 4 o J ~ [] J z W W ~ ~, f ` ~ I- ~ N Z O J ~ W CY] W m 0 Q ~ W ~} }p F_ } ..I ~ ~ } Q Z L~ Z W ~ j o ~ ~ CJ ~ W J W W J 7 W v ~o v p m~ W ~ <\~ p Wf ~ H as ~ W W ao T-~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REAENACTING THE ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN BY THE ADDITION OF DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE CLEARBROOK VILLAGE COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Community plan was adopted in 1998 as a guide for future patterns of development in Roanoke County; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Community Plan contains growth objectives and policies for the twelve community planning areas within the county including the Clearbrook community; and, WHEREAS, Roanoke County has worked with the citizens of the Clearbrook community to clarify and refine the growth policies and objectives for their community for the purpose of guiding the location and character of future growth; and, WHEREAS, the citizens of Clearbrook, working in conjunction with Roanoke County did develop a set of design guidelines for the Clearbrook area; and WHEREAS, the intent of these guidelines, known as the Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District is to establish recommended policies and standards for the character of future development within the Clearbrook area; and, WHEREAS, Clearbrook community meetings were held in July and November of 2000 to solicit community input on the guidelines; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on December 5th, 2000 to receive community input on the guidelines, and did thereafter recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the guidelines be adopted as an amendment to the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law, and that the first reading of this ~~ ordinance was held on November 14, 2000, and second reading and public hearing was held on December 19, 2000. BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County Virginia, that, 1. The 1998 Community Plan of Roanoke County, Virginia be, and hereby is, amended by the addition of the Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District, dated December 5, 2000, and is reenacted with said guidelines. 2. That this ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2001. T~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY DECEMBER 19, 2000 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REAENACTING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR ROANOKE COUNTY BY THE ADDITION OF THE CLEARBROOK VILLAGE OVERLAY DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1992; and, WHEREAS, good zoning practice requires that zoning ordinances be periodically evaluated and amended to ensure consistency with community values and updated community plan policies; and, WHEREAS, Roanoke County has worked with the citizens of the Clearbrook community to clarify and refine 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan growth policies and objectives for their community, and to develop zoning standards designed to implement these growth objectives and policies; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors did adopt, on December 19, 2000 amendments to the Roanoke County Community Plan that reflect these updated growth policies and objectives; and, WHEREAS, Clearbrook community meetings were held in July and November of 2000 to solicit community input on proposed zoning standards for the Clearbrook area; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on December 5"', 2000 to receive community input on the proposed zoning standards, and did thereafter recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the proposed zoning ordinance changes be adopted; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law, and that the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 14, 2000, and second reading and public hearing was held on December 19, 2000.. NOW, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia that the zoning ordinance for Roanoke County Virginia be amended and reenacted as follows: 1 Tab A. 1. Amend Sec 30-6 by the addition of the following: SEC. 30-6 ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS Commercial Districts CVOD Clearbrook Village Overlay District 2. Amend Sec 30-58 by the addition of the following: SEC. 30-58 CVOD Clearbrook Village Overlay District Sec. 30-58-1 Purpose The purpose of the Clearbrook Village Overlay District is to promote future development that is consistent with the current character of Clearbrook, and with the Community Plan future land use map and policies for this area. Future development in this district should respect the character and historical context of the Blue Ridge Parkway, Clearbrook School, and other social and cultural resources in Clearbrook area. The Clearbrook area has adequate public facilities, good road access, suitable topography, and land available for development or redevelopment. Recognizing these factors, the plan, and this district promote the creation of the Village of Clearbrook. Commercial development consistent with these district standards and the Community Plan Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District is encouraged, but strip commercial patterns of development are discouraged. Thus, the district allows a wide variety of commercial uses, but provides a high degree of emphasis on landscaping, building design, site design, and lighting and signage control. Sec. 30-58-2 Creation of Overlay (A) The Clearbrook Village Overlay District is created as an amendment to the official zoning map of Roanoke County. All regulations and standards contained herein shall apply to all parcels and land within the designated overlay district. 2 r ab (B) The boundaries of the overlay district as shown on the official zoning map may only be amended by action of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors pursuant to Section 30-14 of this ordinance. Sec. 30-58-3 Applicability and Administration (A) The Zoning Administrator shall have the responsibility for determining compliance with these standards. In making any such determination, the Zoning Administrator shall consider the purposes of the Clearbrook Village Overlay District, and shall consider the extent to which the requested use or development substantially complies with the Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District adopted as part of the Roanoke County Community Plan. If in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator, the use or development does not substantially comply with these design guidelines, the requested use or development shall, by decision of the Zoning Administrator, be considered a special use and shall require a special use permit pursuant to Section 30-19 of this ordinance. Sec. 30-58-4 Permitted Uses and Use Restrictions The uses permitted in the Clearbrook Village Overlay District shall be governed by the underlying zoning district in which the property is located as shown on the official zoning maps, except as otherwise modified below: (A) The following uses shall be prohibited within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District: 1. Civic Uses Park and Ride Facility Public Assembly 2. Commercial Uses Automobile Automobile Automobile Boarding H Commercial Commercial Rental/Leasing Dealership, Used Repair Services, Major ruses Outdoor Entertainment Outdoor Sports and Recreation 3 ~"`~ Kennel, Commercial Mini-warehouse Pawn Shop Recreational Vehicle Sales and Service 3. Industrial Uses Recycling Centers and Stations 4. Miscellaneous Uses Parking Facility Broadcasting Towers (B) Unless prohibited in 30-58-4 (A) a Special Use Permit shall be required for all uses listed as a special use in the underlying zoning district. In addition, the following uses shall require a Special Use Permit within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified, or more stringent standards are listed in Article IV, Use and Design Standards, for those specific uses. 1. Residential Uses Multi-Family Dwelling* Two-Family Dwelling* 2. Commercial Uses Agricultural Services* Automobile Repair Services Minor* Commercial Indoor Sports and Recreation Communication Services Construction Sales and Services* Gasoline Station Garden Center* Retail Sales* Veterinary Hospital/Clinic 4 r ~. b Sec. 30-58-5 Site Development Regulations The site development regulations required in the Clearbrook Village Overlay District shall be governed by the underlying zoning district in which the property is located as shown on the official zoning maps, except as otherwise modified below: (A) Maximum height of structures 1. Height limitations: a. Principal structures: 35 feet b. Accessory structures: actual height of principal structure. (B) Maximum coverage 1. Building coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area. 2. Lot coverage: 70 percent of the total lot area. Sec. 30-58-6 Special Regulations in the Clearbrook Village Overlay District The following special regulations shall apply within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District (A) Landscaping Required landscaping within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District shall comply with the standards contained in Section 30-92-4.1 of this ordinance. (B) Signage Signage within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District shall comply with C-1 Sign District regulations, except as modified by Section 30-93-14 (F) of this ordinance. (C) Lighting Lighting within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District shall comply with the provisions of Section 30-94 of this ordinance. 5 '~ J~ b (D) Utilities All new utility lines and services within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District shall be located underground. (E) Residential Use Types Residential Use Types within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District upon the date of the adoption of this ordinance shall not be deemed to be nonconformities, and may be reconstructed, altered and/or enlarged consistent with the requirements contained in Section 30-58-5 of this ordinance. In addition, single family detached dwellings may be developed in the district on lots of record in existence on the effective date of this ordinance. Any dwelling constructed shall not be deemed to be a non- conformity. No new subdivisions for residential purposes shall be allowed within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District, except that Family Exemption subdivisions shall be permitted pursuant to Section 30- 100-11 of this ordinance. (F) Parking All off-street parking, stacking and loading areas within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District shall comply with the provisions of 30-91 of this ordinance, including construction standard provisions found in Section 30-91-6(A)1 3. Amend Sec 30-85 by the addition of the following: Section 30-85-24.5 Retail Sales (A) In the Clearbrook Village Overlay District: 1. A special use permit shall be required for any retail use or development that exceeds fifty-thousand (50,000) square feet of gross floor area. When multiple buildings are proposed as part of a planned or phased development, square footage calculations shall be based upon the total size of all buildings planned or proposed. 6 ,~~,°' ,~,`` ip .~. 4. Amend Sec 30-91-6 by the addition of the following: Section 30-91-6 (A) 1 1. Within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District, any parking areas or parking spaces provided in excess of the requirements of this ordinance, shall be constructed with a porous pavement material approved by the administrator. Gravel shall not be accepted as an approved porous material. 5. Amend Sec 30-92-4 by the addition of the following: Section 30-92-4.1 Landscaping Provisions in the Clearbrook Village Overlay District (A) Applicability 1. The following landscaping provisions shall apply to all property within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District 2. These standards shall be deemed to supplement, and be in addition to, standards found in Section 30-92 of this ordinance. (B) General Standards/Specifications 1. All landscape plans required for uses within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District shall be prepared by a registered landscape architect, or certified nurseryman. 2. All landscaping shall be alive and in good condition at the time of planting. All landscaping shall be maintained, and replaced, as necessary to insure continued compliance with these provisions. 3. where specified, all deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2.5 inches at the time of planting. Evergreen trees shall have a minimum height of 8 feet at time of planting 4. Where specified, all shrubs shall have a minimum height of 24 inches at time of planting. 7 ~. 5. Native species shall be use for a minimum of 500 of required plantings. A listing of acceptable native species is available in the Department of Community Development (C) Site Landscaping 1. Landscaped areas shall be provided for the side and rear walls of all buildings. The width of these landscaped areas shall be sufficient to accommodate the required plantings. The following plantings shall be required: a. For buildings walls in excess of 15 feet in height, one tree shall be planted for every 20 lineal feet of building wall b. For building walls 15 feet or less in height, one tree shall be planted for every 30 lineal feet of building wall. Flexibility in the location of landscaped areas and the placement of the required trees shall be allowed for the purpose of implementing professionally designed landscape plans and for loading, service, or other similar areas. 2. Landscaping shall be provided along the main entrance fagade of all buildings, providing a vegetative area between the building and parking areas. The size of the required front landscaped area shall not be less than 20 percent of the square footage of the front facade of the building. The landscaped area shall be professionally designed and planted with a mixture of trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Undeveloped areas between a building and a public or private right-of-way shall be landscaped with berms, trees, shrubs and groundcover. Landscaping plans for these areas shall incorporate a minimum of one large tree, three small trees and seven shrubs for every 30 feet of lot frontage. 8 ~~ 3. All above ground stormwater management areas and facilities shall be landscaped with plant materials that are adaptable to being temporarily inundated with water. The facility shall be landscaped in order to create a 75o screening of the facility. A minimum of one-third of all provided plantings shall be evergreen. 4. Landscaping shall be provided around the base of any freestanding sign proposed. The size of the landscaped area shall not be less than one and one-half (1.5) times the square footage of the sign. (D) Landscaping of Parking Areas 1. Where a new, expanded, or reconfigured parking area is proposed adjacent to a public or private street right-of-way, a planting strip shall be established between the parking area and the adjacent right-of-way. The planting strip shall have a minimum width of fifteen (15) feet. An earthen berm, with an average height of 2 feet shall be constructed within the planting strip. Within this strip, one large tree, (small if overhead utility lines are present) and nineteen shrubs shall be planted for every 30 feet of frontage. In addition, small trees or groundcovers shall be interspersed within the planting area. One- third of all plantings shall be evergreen materials. No uses shall be permitted within the planting strip except underground utility crossings, pedestrian/bike trails, stormwater management facilities which are an integral part of a landscaping plan, and signs as allowed in the district. 2. All parking areas shall incorporate raised interior landscaped areas for the purpose of visually enhancing parking areas. These areas shall be evenly distributed within the parking area and shall be provided in accordance with the following standards: a. One continuous landscaped median, with a minimum width of 10 feet, shall be installed between every four or less rows of parking, or, 9 r-~ b b. One landscaped peninsula or island with a minimum width of 10 feet shall be located between every 10 to 15 parking spaces. One large tree shall be planted for every 30 feet of continuous median, and shall be planted within every landscaped peninsula or island provided. However, at a minimum, one large tree shall be planted within the parking area for each 10 parking spaces provided. In addition, all parking lot landscaped areas shall include deciduous or evergreen shrubs. 6. Amend Sec 30-93 by the addition of the following: Section 30-93-14 (F) Signage Provisions within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District F) Clearbrook Village Overlay District. Signage within the Clearbrook Village Overlay district should be planned, designed and installed to complement a buildings architectural style. All Signage within the Clearbrook Village Overlay district shall comply with C-1 Office District regulations with the following exceptions: 1. Lots within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District shall be allowed a maximum Signage allocation not to exceed one (1) square foot of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. Signage placed on a building wall shall occupy less than 5% of the facade area of that wall 3. All freestanding signs shall be of a monument design and shall meet the following criteria: a. Monument signs, including their structure, shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height, or ten (10) feet in width. b. Signs shall be channel lit, ground lit, or top lit with a shielded light source so as to not cast light onto the path of traffic or on any adjacent road or property. 4. No establishment shall be allowed more than three (3) 10 f `"' ~. signs) 5. A maximum of two directional signs shall be allowed per lot, and no directional sign shall exceed two square feet in size. 6. The following signs shall be prohibited in the Clearbrook Village Overlay District: a. Off-Premises Signs b. Temporary Signs c. Portable Signs d. Roof Signs 7. Amend Sec 30-94 by the addition of the following: Section 30-94 Exterior Lighting (A) 2. Within the Clearbrook Village Overlay District, no freestanding light pole, including fixture, shall be more than 18 feet above grade. All exterior lights, including security lighting, within the district shall be down-lit or shielded so as not to direct glare onto adjoining streets or residential properties. The intensity at adjoining streets or residential properties shall not exceed 0.2 foot candles. B. 1. That this ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2001. 11 ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY DECEMBER 19, 2000 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REAENACTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF ROANOKE COUNTY BY THE REZONING OF SIXTY-FOUR PARCELS IN THE CLEARBROOK PORTION OF ROANOKE COUNTY FROM AV AGRICULTURAL VILLAGE AND AR AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL TO C-2 COMMERCIAL AND THEREAFTER AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF ROANOKE COUNTY BY THE ADDITION AND APPLICATION OF THE CLEARBROOK VILLAGE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO SIXTY-SIX PARCELS OF LAND IN THE CLEARBROOK SECTION OF ROANOKE COUNTY. WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1992; and, WHEREAS, good zoning practice requires that zoning ordinances and official zoning maps be periodically evaluated and amended to ensure consistency with community values and community plan policies; and, WHEREAS, Roanoke County has worked with the citizens of the Clearbrook community to develop zoning standards designed to implement these community plan growth objectives and policies; and, WHEREAS, Clearbrook community meetings were held in July and November of 2000 to solicit community input on proposed zoning standards for the Clearbrook area; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on December 5t'', 2000 to receive community input on the proposed zoning text and map changes and did thereafter recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the proposed zoning text and map changes be adopted; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law, and that the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 14, 2000, and second reading and public hearing was held on December 19, 2000. NOW, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia that the official zoning map for Roanoke County Virginia be amended and reenacted as follows: ~. 1. That the following fifty-nine (59) Roanoke County tax parcels are hereby rezoned from their current designation of AV Agricultural Village to C-2 Commercial: 088.03-03-03.00-0000, 088.03-02-05.00-0000, 088.03-03-04.00-0000, 098.02-02-12.00-0000, 098.02-02-09.01-0000, 098.02-02-04.00-0000, 098.02-02-01.01-0000, 098.01-01-75.01-0000, 098.01-01-01.00-0000, 088.03-02-01.00-0000, 088.03-01-06.00-0000, 088.03-01-02.00-0000, 088.03-01-01.00-0000, 098.02-03-13.00-0000, 098.02-03-10.00-0000, 098.02-03-07.00-0000, 098.02-03-04.00-0000, 098.02-03-01.01-0000, 098.01-01-77.00-0000, 088.03-02-02.00-0000, 088.03-03-02.00-0000, 088.03-02-04.00-000A, 088.03-02-04.00-0000, 098.02-02-11.00-0000, 098.02-02-08.00-0000, 098.02-02-03.00-0000, 098.02-02-01.00-0000, 098.01-01-75.00-0000, 088.04-01-39.00-0000, 088.03-01-35.00-0000, 088.03-01-04.01-0000, 088.03-01-01.02-0000, 098.02-03-15.00-0000, 098.02-03-12.00-0000, 098.02-03-09.00-0000, 098.02-03-06.00-0000, 098.02-03-03.00-0000, 098.02-03-01.00-0000, 088.03-01-29.01-0000, 088.03-01-29.00-0000. 088.03-03-01.00-.0000, 088.03-03-05.00-0000, 088.03-02-03.00-0000, 098.02-02-10.00-0000, 098.02-02-06.00-0000, 098.02-02-02.00-0000, 098.01-01-76.00-0000, 098.01-01-74.00-0000, 088.04-O1-38.00-0000, 088.03-01-09.00-0000, 088.03-01-03.00-0000, 088.03-01-01.01-0000, 098.02-03-14.00-0000, 098.02-03-11.00-0000, 098.02-03-08.00-0000, 098.02-03-05.00-0000, 098.02-03-02.00-0000, 098.02-02-13.00-0000, 088.03-03-06.00-0000, 2. That the following five (5) Roanoke County Tax Parcels are hereby rezoned from their current designation of AR Agricultural Residential to C-2 Commercial: 088.04-01-41.00-0000, 088.04-01-40.00-0000, 088.04-01-39.01-0000, 088.04-O1-36.00-0000, 098.02-02-16.00-0000 (PORTION). 3. That the zoning designation of the following sixty-six (66) parcels is hereby amended on the official zoning map of Roanoke County by the addition and application of the Clearbrook Village Overlay District: 088.03-03-03.00-0000, 088.03-02-05.00-0000, 088.03-03-04.00-0000, 098.02-02-12.00-0000, 098.02-02-09.01-0000, 098.02-02-06.00-0000, 098.02-02-02.00-0000, 098.01-01-76.00-0000, 088.03-03-02.00-0000, 088.03-02-04.00-000A, 088.03-02-04.00-0000, 098.02-02-11.00-0000, 098.02-02-09.00-0000, 098.02-02-04.00-0000, 098.02-02-01.01-0000, 098.01-01-75.01-0000, 088.03-03-01.00-0000, 088.03-03-05.00-0000, 088.03-02-03.00-0000, 098.02-02-10.00-0000, 098.02-02-08.00-0000, 098.02-02-03.00-0000, 098.02-02-01.00-0000, 098.01-01-75.00-0000, ~~ ~L 098.01-O1-74.00-0000, 088.04-01-40.00-0000, 088.04-01-38.00-0000, 088.03-O1-35.00-0000, 088.03-01-04.01-0000, 088.03-01-01.02-0000, 098.02-03-15.00-0000, 098.02-03-12.00-0000, 098.02-03-09.00-0000, 098.02-03-06.00-0000, 098.02-03-03.00-0000, 098.02-03-01.00-0000, 088.03-O1-33.00-0000, 088.03-02-02.00-0000, (PORTION) 098.01-O1-01.00-0000, 088.04-01-39.01-0000, 088.04-01-36.00-0000, 088.03-01-09.00-0000, 088.03-O1-03.00-0000, 088.03-01-01.01-0000, 098.02-03-14.00-0000, 098.02-03-11.00-0000, 098.02-03-08.00-0000, 098.02-03-05.00-0000, 098.02-03-02.00-0000, 098.02-02-13.00-0000, 088.03-01-29.01-0000, 088.03-O1-29.00-0000, 088.04-01-41.00-0000, 088.04-O1-39.00-0000, 088.03-02-01.00-0000, 088.03-01-06.00-0000, 088.03-O1-02.00-0000, 088.03-01-01.00-0000, 098.02-03-13.00-0000, 098.02-03-10.00-0000, 098.02-03-07.00-0000, 098.02-03-04.00-0000, 098.02-03-01.01-0000, 098.01-01-77.00-0000, 088.03-03-06.00-0000, 098.02-02-16.00-0000 4. That this ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2001. N U 0 W ~ a~w ~No 1 _N Y~~ 0} 0 QW m '~ m ~0 W ~~ J~J U W v a a n r ~ a W C~ E- QU J YQ ^ ` pQ ~J m~ \W W / J~ U 0 a N N W m W U W 0 W D O O U W Q z W W Yf oa Z 0 Q J 0 W ~ W W~ }0 y I- Z Z~ py 0~ [] 0 WV I W ~' 0 ~ F ID Z p W W ~ ~ F aQ W W ao ~ ~ AGENDA ITEM NO.T~- APPEARANCE REQUEST ~. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~`~ °~r~r~~L, ~.Je-V`\~l~i 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: ~ ~ ~~ e ~ o~) . ~- PHONE: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ 6 AGENDA ITEM NO.~ APPEARANCE REQUEST PUBLIC NEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~ ~ e ~r~~'ao ~ ~'~~-Y' ~q 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~- ~~~v,y 2~ i ~-/c s~ ADDRESS: ~L ~ ~( ~~/1 ~ ~ ~l< ~'~' ~C ~" PHONE: ~ ~ T _ ~~~~' .~ ,. . AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 ORDINANCE 121900-13 AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF A LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, STABLE ROAD WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES THEREIN, IMPOSING AND ALLOCATING CERTAIN FEES OR ASSESSMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY LOCATED THEREIN WHEREAS, Ordinance 112288-7 authorizes the financing of local public works improvements and the imposition of special assessments upon abutting property owners upon the adoption of an appropriate ordinance by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, Sections 15.2-2243, 15.2-2400 and 15.2-2404, et seq. authorize the County to create and establish a general water and sewer improvement program for a designated area of the County having related and common sewer and water conditions, to install certain public works improvements, and to impose fees, charges and assessments for said improvements; and WHEREAS, the extension of the public water and sewer systems and the creation of a special utility service district will alleviate public health and safety problems and promote economic development; and WHEREAS, the Board hereby establishes the "Stable Road Water and Sewer District"; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this Ordinance was held on November 14, 2000, and the second reading and public hearing was held December 19, 2000; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1 ~ ' i 1. That pursuant to the authority of Ordinance 112288-7, the Board authorizes and approves a local public works improvement project, namely, public sewer and water extensions for the Stable Road community. That pursuant to the authority of Section 15.2- 2243, the Board establishes a general water and sewer improvement program for the Stable Road community. The total construction cost of this public sewer project is estimated to be $418,766, to be assessed against the properties within the project service district as shown on the attached Exhibit A. That there is hereby appropriated for this project the sum of $418,766 from the General Fund Unappropriated Balance. 2. That the "Stable Road Water and Sewer District" is shown and designated on the attached plat entitled "Clearbrook Area Water and Sewer Service Districts" prepared by the Roanoke County Utility Department, dated November 2000 (Exhibit B). The Utility Department shall construct in and adjacent to the Project Service District sewer and water lines and appurtenant facilities as shown in the map of this area, and shall acquire easements for these lines and facilities. 3. That the owner, subdivider or developer of property located within the Project Service District shall, before or at the time of issuance of a building permit for the construction of any building or structure to be located on his or her property which is to be the subject of development or subdivision, pay or provide for the payment of a share of the cost of construction of the sewer and water facilities, as shown in Exhibit A. This is in addition to the connection fees and off-site facility fees that are imposed by the County. 4. In any case where a payment by the owner, subdivider or developer is required prior to construction of the sewer and water facilities, the amount paid by the owner, subdivider or developer shall be held in an interest bearing account for the benefit 2 of the owner, subdivider or developer until expended, or, in lieu of such payment, the Board of Supervisors may provide for the posting of a personal, corporate or property bond, cash escrow, letter of credit or other method of performance guarantee satisfactory to it conditioned on payment at commencement of such construction. 5. Any owner, subdivider or developer of property located within the project service district who pays a share of the costs of construction of the sewer and water facilities after completion of construction by the Utility Department shall pay such share of the cost of construction of said facilities together with interest on the unpaid balance of such share from the date of completion of such construction until paid, which interest shall be computed at the rate of 6 percent per annum. 6. That the payment by owner, subdivider or developer of property in the Project Service District shall be returned to the General Fund until such time as the advance has been repaid. 7. That the County Administrator is authorized to take such actions and execute such documents as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this transaction, all upon form approved by the County Attorney. 8. That this ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: 3 Brenda J. Ho ton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Danial Morris, Director, Finance 4 FROM ROANCKE COUNT`r' UTILITY DEPT FAX N0. Dec. 11 2OU~8 t09 : 42AM P2 s~ ' . ~~ CLEA_,,,,RBROOK AREA -1NATER SYSTEM IM~'ROVEMENYS STABLE ROAp WATER LINE EXTENSION CONNECTION FEE FOR MINIMUM FRONTAt3i= $7,700 Minimum Frontage Length = 150 Cost per Foot for Frontage Greater Than Minimum = $42.00 PROPERTJE~PQ 8, yWATfR fMPROVEMPIIf j~S Construction Tax parcel ~ooe ner •e 88.03-01-09 EVANGEL FOURSQUARE CMUFiCH TRUSTEES $39,620 88.03-01-29 JACKSON ASSOCIATES LIMITEi~ $28,322 88,03-01.29,1 ALMERINDO ~ JOANN MAZZAREt.1..A $7,700 88.03-01-33 DIRK LINTON BEASLEY $33,068- +98.03-01-35 ALVIN L. MILLER X19.460 3128,170 CON8TRUCTlON E8TIMA,j~ ~antlty t~0it Cost Tota ms 8-inch Water Line 1,935 $32 $81,920 Fira Hydrants 5 $2,000 510,000 Road Crossings 2 y20,000 $40,000 Service Connections 9 $S00 $4,500 Contingency 511,750 ESTIMATEI? CONSTRUCTION COST = 3128,170 Exhibit A FR®M ROANOKE COUP~ITY UTILITY DEPT FAX N0. Dec. 11 2©00 09 : A2AM P3 CLEARBROOI~C AREA -SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS STABLE ROi4D SEWER LINE EXTENSION CONNECTION FE<: FOR MINIMUM FRONTAGE = $11,800 Minimum Frontage Length = 150 Feet Cost per Foot for Frontage Greater Than Minimum = $60,00 ~RQPERT!€S SERVED B SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Construction P.S. $~ F.M. Total Tax a col ProaertY bwnar ee Surchars~e Fee 88.03-01.01 DR. JOAN M. FEESiC $11,800 5700 $12,500- 88.03-01-01.1 VINE & BRANCH, INC $35,200 $2,002 337,20 88.03-01-OB MOD-U-KRAF HOMES, INC. $29,800 $1,651 $31,451 88.03.01-09 EVANGEL FOURSQUARE CHURCH TRUSTEES 387,x00 $12,857 $70,35X 88.03.01-29 JACKSON ASSOCIATES LIMITEp $41,zso $2,583 $43,8x3 88.09.01-29.1 ALMERINDO & JOANN MALYAREt.I.A $11,800 $903 $12,703 88,03-01-33 pIRK I_INTON SEASLEY $11,800 $700 $53,2a0 88,03-01-35 ALVIN L. MILLER 2 600 $700 X29,300 5286,300 $24,x86 5290,588 CON3TRUCTIO~t=STIMATiE uantit Unlt Cost To ! C 8-Inch Sewer I_fne 2,800 $as $126,000 Manholes 13 $2,500 $32,500 Raid Crossings 4 $25,000 $100,000 Service Connections 11 5500 55,500 Contingency 2~C.598 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST = 5290,598 Exhibit A ~ z W c-~ w +~ ~ m C ~ 0 'O ~°~~ 3 ~ a~ a~ ~N c p p ~~_ ~~ ~ _ n ~N N -+~ rn C N J ~~ ~~~ 0 ._ O > ~ a~ °' ~~ °~p C U~ ~ v l -~' i-~ L +~ r-~ ~3 ~~ O~ N 00 ~ cn o`J O ~ ~~ ~ N O~~ cnc3O N~~ o ~ C~ ~ {, ~ a~ o p~ ~ ~'cn ~ o~.. ~ ~ ~ .~~~p ~~~ ~ C c o N '~p ~ U ~ O o ~; ~~ Q 0 Q" C ~ p co ~ ~ ~ ~ U N N 3~,°_Q~ ~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~ c•- ~°~o O C (n ~ O c o o O a~~ U ^ S ~: F L a i ~l Q ~ ~~ Y. ~~~ ~~. ti ~~ ~4 ~~ ti a w R V• Sa~ ~ ~ P W a Q'i W~-+ O W 'Q+ W d N Bp r~i ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~Q O ~o R ; H ~ - ~ ~ W ~ ~ W W E ~ ~ O T ~'" w ~ ~ z a ~w V Ul Exhibit B INTER MEMO ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS O F F I C E CLERK'S OFFICE TO: Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Dania) Morris, Director, Finance FROM: Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk ~~/~" DATE: October 29, 2001 SUBJECT: ORDINANCE 121900-13 WITH EXHIBIT A (AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, STABLE ROAD WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT) It has been requested that I redistribute copies of the above ordinance with Exhibit A (two pages) attached. When copies were sent out in December, 2000, Exhibit A was not attached. Exhibit B (map) was attached but "Exhibit B" was not printed on the sheet. There are no changes in the ordinance. If you have any questions, please let me know. Attachment cc: Paul Mahoney Mary Allen -T~.C.;o ~~tia,wc.~, h.e.:~d~ ~ ice, r~se,,~- c.~-( inc.. ~. ~~. ~-v 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: December 19, 2000 SUBJECT: Second Reading of Ordinance Authorizing the Construction of Water and Sewer Facilities -Stable Road Water and Sewer Extension ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: Since 1996 four separate water and sewer projects have been constructed by Roanoke County in the Clearbrook area. The latest project was the Clearbrook Lane Water Project constructed this year. The Clearbrook Lane Project was a petition project that originally included the Stable Road area. Because petition projects require that more than 50°10 of property owners voluntarily participate and only property owners on Clearbrook Lane chose to participate, the Stable Road area was removed from the project. The first reading was held on November 14, 2000. SUMMARY OF IlVFORMATION: During the past year, there has been much interest for economic development projects within the Stable Road area. In order for this area to develop as a planned growth area, it has become obvious that public water and sewer facilities will be critical in achieving the goal. Staff is proposing that these utilities be provided by Roanoke County with individual properties paying their share at the time of development. This process would be very similar to recent petition projects in that a special service area would be established with separate fees. The differences are that the project is not the result of a direct petition by property owners and would not have 50°Io of the property owners participating at this time. COUNTY The cost estimate for the project is $128,170 for water and $290,596 for sewer resulting in an estimated total cost of $418,766. Attached is a table showing the cost estimates, the properties involved, and the special connection fee each property would pay. These fees would be in addition to the normal off-site facility fees that would be charged by Roanoke County. Also included is a project map of the Clearbrook area showing the new service area in addition to the service areas that have been approved since 1996. FISCAL IMPACT: In order to encourage economic development in this area, staff would like to appropriate $500,000 to this area. These funds would be used first for the water and sewer extensions as outlined above. The remaining funds will be used toward traffic signal installation and road improvements. This will be a loan that will be repaid to the general fund as customers connect to the water and sewer system. Funds for the stoplight will be repaid through increased tax revenues generated as a result of new businesses in the area, and contributions from future development in the area (i.e., the special use permit that was granted to Foursquare Evangel Church). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve construction of the water and sewer facilities to the area, establish a special service area, with special connection fees, and provide funding as a loan in the amount of $500,000 for the project, including partial payment toward traffic signal installation and road improvements. The loan will be paid back to the general fund as properties develop. SUBMITTED BY: Gary Robert on, P.E. Utility Director APPROVED: ~~C.~w~- Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved () Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied () Church Received () Johnson _ _ _ Referred McNamara to Minnix _ _ Nickens CLEARBROOK AREA -WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS STABLE ROAD WATER LINE EXTENSION CONNECTION FEE FOR MINIMUM FRONTAGE $7,700 Minimum Frontage Length = 150 Cost per Foot for Frontage Greater Than Minimum = $42.00 PROPERTIES SERVED BY WATER IMPROVEMENTS Construction Tax Parcel Property Owner Fee 88.03-01-09 EVANGEL FOURSQUARE CHURCH TRUSTEES $39,620 88.03-01-29 JACKSON ASSOCIATES LIMITED $28,322 88.03-01-29.1 ALMERINDO & JOANN MAZZARELLA $7,700 88.03-01-31 DIRK LINTON BEASLEY $7,700 88.03-01-32 DIRK LINTON BEASLEY $7,700 88.03-01-33 DIRK LINTON BEASLEY $7,700 88.03-01-34 DIRK LINTON BEASLEY $9,968 88.03-01-35 ALVIN L. MILLER 19 460 $128,170 CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE uantit Unit Cost Total Cost 8-inch Water Line 1,935 $32 $61,920 Fire Hydrants 5 $2,000 $10,000 Road Crossings 2 $20,000 $40,000 Service Connections 9 $500 $4,500 Contingency 11 750 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST = $128,170 CLEARBROOK AREA -SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS STABLE ROAD SEWER LINE EXTENSION ~t CONNECTION FEE FOR MINIMUM FRONTAGE _ $11,800 Minimum Frontage Length = 150 Feet Cost per Foot for Frontage Greater Than Minimum = $60.00 PROPERTIES SERVED BY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Construction P.S. & F.M. Total Tax Parcel Property Owner Fee Surcharge Fee 88.03-01-01 DR. JOAN M. RESK $11,800 $700 $12,500 88.03-01-01.1 VINE & BRANCH, INC $35,200 $2,002 $37,202 88.03-01-06 MOD-U-KRAF HOMES, INC. $29,800 $1,651 $31,451 88.03-01-09 EVANGEL FOURSQUARE CHURCH TRUSTEES $57,400 $12,957 $70,357 88.03-01-29 JACKSON ASSOCIATES LIMITED $41,260 $2,583 $43,843 88.03-01-29.1 ALMERINDO & JOANN MAZZARELLA $11,800 $903 $12,703 88.03-01-31 DIRK LINTON BEASLEY $11,800 $700 $12,500 88.03-01-32 DIRK LINTON BEASLEY $11,800 $700 $12,500 88.03-01-33 DIRK LINTON BEASLEY $11,800 $700 $12,500 88.03-01-34 DIRK LINTON BEASLEY $15,040 $700 $15,740 88.03-01-35 ALVIN L. MILLER 28 600 $700 29 300 $266,300 $24,296 $290,596 CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 8-inch Sewer Line 2,800 $45 $126,000 Manholes 13 $2,500 $32,500 Road Crossings 4 $25,000 $100,000 Service Connections 11 $500 $5,500 Contingency 26 596 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST = $290,596 ~- 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF A LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, STABLE ROAD WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES THEREIN, IMPOSING AND ALLOCATING CERTAIN FEES OR ASSESSMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY LOCATED THEREIN WHEREAS, Ordinance 112288-7 authorizes the financing of local public works improvements and the imposition of special assessments upon abutting property owners upon the adoption of an appropriate ordinance by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, Sections 15.2-2243, 15.2-2400 and 15.2-2404, et seq. authorize the County to create and establish a general water and sewer improvement program for a designated area of the County having related and common sewer and water conditions, to install certain public works improvements, and to impose fees, charges and assessments for said improvements; and WHEREAS, the extension of the public water and sewer systems and the creation of a special utility service district will alleviate public health and safety problems and promote economic development; and WHEREAS, the Board hereby establishes the "Stable Road Water and Sewer District"; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this Ordinance was held on U:\WPDOCS\AGENDA\UTILITY\clearbrooksewerwaterord.wpd 1 T- 3 November 14, 2000, and the second reading and public hearing was held December 19, 2000; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the authority of Ordinance 112288-7, the Board authorizes and approves a local public works improvement project, namely, public sewer and water extensions for the Stable Road community. That pursuant to the authority of Section 15.2- 2243, the Board establishes a general water and sewer improvement program for the Stable Road community. The total construction cost of this public sewer project is estimated to be $418,766, to be assessed against the properties within the project service district as shown on the attached Exhibit A. That there is hereby appropriated for this project the sum of $418,766 from the General Fund Unappropriated Balance. 2. That the "Stable Road Water and Sewer District" is shown and designated on the attached plat entitled "Clearbrook Area Water and Sewer Service Districts" prepared by the Roanoke County Utility Department, dated November 2000 (Exhibit B). The Utility Department shall construct in and adjacent to the Project Service District sewer and water lines and appurtenant facilities as shown in the map of this area, and shall acquire easements for these lines and facilities. U:\WPDOCS\AGENDA\UTILITY\clearbrooksewerwaterord.wpd 2 °" , 3. That the owner, subdivider or developer of property located within the Project Service District shall, before or at the time of issuance of a building permit for the construction of any building or structure to be located on his or her property which is to be the subject of development or subdivision, pay or provide for the payment of a share of the cost of construction of the sewer and water facilities, as shown in Exhibit A. This is in addition to the connection fees and off-site facility fees that are imposed by the County. 4. In any case where a payment by the owner, subdivider or developer is required prior to construction of the sewer and water facilities, the amount paid by the owner, subdivider or developer shall be held in an interest bearing account for the benefit of the owner, subdivider or developer until expended, or, in lieu of such payment, the Board of Supervisors may provide for the posting of a personal, corporate or property bond, cash escrow, letter of credit or other method of performance guarantee satisfactory to it conditioned on payment at commencement of such construction. 5. Any owner, subdivider or developer of property located within the project service district who pays a share of the costs of construction of the sewer and water facilities after completion of construction by the Utility Department shall pay such share of the cost of construction of said facilities together with interest U:\WPDOCS\AGENDA\UTILITY\clearbrooksewerwaterord.wpd 3 ~` on the unpaid balance of such share from the date of completion of such construction until paid, which interest shall be computed at the rate of 6 percent per annum. 6. That the payment by owner, subdivider or developer of property in the Project Service District shall be returned to the General Fund until such time as the advance has been repaid. 7. That the County Administrator is authorized to take such actions and execute such documents as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this transaction, all upon form approved by the County Attorney. 8. That this ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption. U:\WPDOCS\AGENDA\UTILITY\clearbrooksewerwaterord.wpd 4 T- 3 December 11, 2000 CERTIFIED MAIL Property Owner Address RE: STABLE ROAD WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT Dear *: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 19, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as may be heard, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, will hold a public hearing on the matter of adopting an Ordinance to create a local public works improvement project by establishing the Stable Road Water and Sewer District in the Stable Road/Clearbrook area. A copy of the proposed Ordinance, with attached plat showing the district, is enclosed for your reference. YOUR PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND WILL BE AFFECTED BYTHIS ACTION. The purpose of the proposed action is to provide for extension of public water and sanitary sewer service to your community. The Board is considering appropriation of $418,755, the estimated cost of the project, from the General Fund for the implementation of this project. This cost is to be ultimately recovered through the assessment of special fees, allocated among the properties to benefit from the project. These fees are to be paid by the owner, subdivider or developer of property located within the Project Service District before or at the time of issuance of a building permit for the construction of any building or structure to be located on his or her property which is to be the subject of development or subdivision. This utility improvement fee is to be in addition to the connection fees and off-site facility fees that are imposed by the County and is payable with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of completion of construction of the project. Your property, which is to be within this Service District and subject to the special utility improvement fee, is referenced by tax map number and shown with the allocated fees as follows: List Properties and Designate Type of Fee, i.e. water and/or sewer If the Ordinance is enacted, it will be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County and the special fee assessment will be indexed in the name of each property owner, constituting a lien against each property within the Project Service District. Page Two 11 December 2000 You are hereby notified that you may appear, in person or by counsel, at the public hearing on December 19, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., in the Board meeting room at the Roanoke County Administration Center, if you wish to state objections to the assessment or the apportionment, or otherwise offer your comments on the proposed action. If you should have any questions or require any additional information prior to the public hearing, please feel free to contact this office or Robert W. Benninger, Assistant Director of the Utility Department, at 387-6102 (ext. 284). With kind regards, I am Very truly yours, Vickie L. Huffman Sr. Assistant County Attorney ,~~~. r C AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 ORDINANCE 121900-14 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO FIRST TEAM AUTO MALL FOR MAJOR AUTOMOBILE REPAIR TO BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF PETERS CREEK ROAD AND BARRENS ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 27.13-4-2), HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, First Team Auto Mall has filed a petition for a special use permit for major automobile repair to be located at the northeastern corner of Peters Creek Road and Barrens Road (Tax Map No. 27.13-4-2) in the Hollins Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on December 5, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on November 14, 2000; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on December 19, 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 First Team Auto Mall for major automobile repair to be located at the northeastern corner of Peters Creek Road and Barrens Road (Tax Map No. 27.13-4-2) in the Hollins 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) Along the entire property line (between the proposed facility and the property line adjacent to the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church) the existing vegetation shall remain intact 100 feet inward from that property line. If any vegetation within this area is removed or otherwise destroyed due to wind, fire, disease, etc., the property owner shall have the responsibility to replace the vegetation in accordance with the Roanoke County screening standards. (2) On the exterior sides of the screening fence for the storage area for damaged vehicles the following additional plantings shall be required: One row of small evergreen trees, five feet at time of planting, with an ultimate height of not less than fifteen feet at maturity, one tree shall be planted every fifteen linear feet. (3) A row of small evergreen trees, five feet at time of planting, with an ultimate height of not less than fifteen feet at maturity, one tree shall be planted for every fifteen linear feet adjacent to the fire station property line that parallels the rear of the existing First Team Hyundai & Suzuki showroom and service building. (4) The development of the site shall be in substantial conformity with the concept plan prepared by Balzer & Associates, Inc. dated October 27, 2000. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. 2 On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance with addition to Condition #1, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Ho ton, CMC Deputy 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 i ~- Y ~ b'WIDHN'I.Wl10~3NONVOtl O 1~Itl1Sl0'iVItl31S3DVYV SNII'lOH O g~ ~ i€ ~ 8 ~ ~ NVId 1d30N00 ~ ~ o ~ ~! ~~~~ ~°E~~~ ~-~(~ ~~dw olnd wv~.lsm~ ; a ~ ~ ~ W T ~~ ~s ~~ '~~ ~ ~R~S~ ~~~' ~ S ~~:~ ~~ a ~a ~ Y U ~~~• Z O U ~, _ ~oF i !~ ~°~ .~~ ~~,~~ ~~ \ ~~\\\\~~ ~ j1111 ~ I i IIII ~ / / 111111 5~ss /////////% ~ a C / // ////~~ / 4 t°°'° III -- - ~ J~ ul II ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,rq~l ~ ,~ nl1 d R ~/ / h. ji ~~sa ~! y~ 1Ir i/ '~°r ~ y r rr ~ ^$~`e~ I ~ilr ~ ~e ~°z 3E~ I i I I ~~ _ :}?~ ~°a3a= ~~~~ _' ~~ ,~ ~a ~~gr 5~¢~¢~~~ ~$3„~ W4' €~`~- ~ ~ ~~ 3 E d~&g= _-°" I` --~ - ~ R (~ ~ l ~ i ~ ~ ~I r r ~ r ~ aq ~ ~gB~ 1 3 ~ ~ K 1 I .~ $ r ~ W ~ 1 ~~; s?~~ 1 ~~ r r 1 I ~39~s ! I I .\ -~-~ -- / / ~/ PETITIONER: David Dillon/First Team Auto Mall ~ ~~ CASE NUMBER: 36-12/2000 Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 5, 2000 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: December 19, 2000 A. REQUEST Petition requesting a. Special Use Permit for the construction of a Major Automobile Repair Service (body shop) located at 6520 Peters Creek Road on a portion of the 9.45-acre parcel housing the Hyundai and Suzuki dealerships. The property is zoned C-2, and is located in the Hollins Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS No citizens spoke on the petition. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Murphy presented the staff report. Mr. Craig Balzer and David Dillon presented the applicant's request to the Commission. Mr. Ross inquired about the location of the suggested landscaping. Mr. Thomason inquired about the view from the northwest side of the site. Mr. Witt had questions about air pollution and dust mitigation measures. Mr. Robinson asked the applicant to describe the plan of operation for the proposed use. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1. Along the entire property line (between the proposed facility and the property line adjacent to the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church) the existing vegetation shall remain intact 100 feet inward from that property line. 2. On the exterior sides of the screening fence for the storage area for damaged vehicles the following additional plantings shall be required: One row of small evergreen trees, five (5) feet at time of planting, with an ultimate height of not less that fifteen feet at maturity, one (1) tree shall be planted every 15 linear feet. 3. A row of small evergreen trees, five (5) feet at time of planting, with an ultimate height of not less than fifteen feet at maturity, one (1) tree shall be planted for every 15 linear feet adjacent to the fire station property line that parallels the rear of the existing First Team Hyundai & Suzuki showroom and service building. 4. The development of the site shall be in substantial conformity with the concept plan prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. dated October 27, 2000. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Ross made a motion to forward the petition to the Board of Supervisors with a favorable recommendation, with the four conditions. The motion was approved 5-0. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS:~~, Concept Plan ~ Vicinity Map =~ Staff Report _ Other Terrance Ha~ringtori; Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission STAN li' 1~~'~F.T 1'1JT~'f'~~N~12: David ~iilon / Hirst Team Auto l~dall CAS1J N~..T1Vil~~i~: 36-12/00 PAIg'1' ~ ~~ ~ ~~': 3ohn lYiurphy DAT1J: December 5, ?000 A. 11JCUTi'~ SI.Tl!'IMA~2~ This is a request for a Special ~Jse 1?ermit for the construction and operation of a Mayor Automobile i2epair Service at the first Team Auto 1VIal1 facility at the intersection of barrens road and Peters Crecy road. The property is zoned ~-2 and is designated Transition and Neighborhood Conservation in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. This site is located in the ~ollans Community Planning Area and the Collins Magisterial Dastrict. B. 1-ESCR.1PTf~N This petition is a request for a Special Use Permit for the construction and operation of a Major Automobile Repair Service on a portion of the 9.45-acre parcel. The property is zoned C-2. The specific use is a proposed 12,225 square foot body shop with a 4750 square foot future expansion of this use with related parking. The property is designated as Transition along the Peters Creek Road frontage and Neighborhood Conservation at the rear of the site, which is the area where the body shop is proposed. C. APPi.iCA131/1J 1~~'tT1JA'I'~DNS The property is zoned C-2, General Commercial. A Major Automobile Repair Service requires a Special Use Permit in the C-2 zoning district. The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines Automobile Repair Service, Nlajor as: Repair of construction equipment, commercial trucks, ag? icultural implements and similar heavy equipment, including automobiles, where major engine and transmission repairs are conducted. This includes minor automobile repairs in conjunction with major automobile repairs. Typical uses include automobile and truck repair garages, transmission shops, radiator shops, body and fender shops, equipment service centers, machine shops, and similar uses where major repair activities are conducted. The Zoning Ordinance allows for New Automobile Dealerships to operate a paint and body shop as long as the area devoted to this service does not exceed twenty (20) percent of the gross floor area. The existing showroom and service area has 14,192 square feet. The proposed body shop, including the future expansion area is 16,975 square feet. The Use and Design standards for Major Automobile Repair Service are as follows: 1. All vehicles stored on the premises in excess of seventy-two (72) hours shall be placed in a storage yard. The storage yard shall be fully screened from public view and shall be set back at least one hundred (100) feet from any adjoining residential district. 2. Body and fender repair services shall be subject to the following: r~i a. The repair facilities are at least one hundred fifty (150) feet from any adjoining residential district. 1 b. Any spray painting takes place within a structure designed for that purpose and approved by the Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department. Exterior display or storage of new or used automobile parts is prohibited. Site plan review will be required to insure compliance with Roanoke County and VDOT requirements. PAIt'~' II A. ANAI_,'~'SIS OF ES'i'ING CONS)ITIONS Location -The site of the proposed body shop is located in the 6500 block of Peters Creels Road, situated at the rear of the property of the existing First Team Hyundai and Suzuki sales and service facility. The proposed location of the body shop facility is near the rear of the Hollins Fire & Rescue Station. Tono~raphv/Vegetation -The proposed site is slightly higher than the vehicle storage area for the Suzuki and Hyundai dealership. The land at the proposed building site is generally flat and covered urith scrub vegetation and sparse trees. The rear or northwest side of the property, adjoining the R-1 property, has an earthen berm making the adjoining residential property to the rear approximately 10 to 1 S feet higher than the proposed building pad. There is also thick vegetation along this property line. The northeast side of the subject property, adjoining the R-2 zoned property, averages 10 feet above grade of the adjoining properly and has a thick growth of vegetation. Surrounding Neighborhood -The proposed body shop would be located behind the First Team Hyundai and Suzuki dealership on Peters Creels Road, which is zoned C-2. To the northwest are several residences and the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church which are zoned R-1. The church use consists of over six (6) acres of land. On the northeast side of the site is a residence and the Glad Tidings Assembly of God Church, both zoned R-2, each of these parcels are at least three (3) acres in size. To the south of the proposed body shop is the Hollins Fire & Rescue facility with a C-2 zoning and Neighborhood Conservation Community Plan designation. B. ANAL~'SIS OF PROPOSES) S3EVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture - No building elevations have been provided with the application. The agent for the applicant has indicated that the building will be similar in appearance to the existing sales and service facility. This site does not fall within a FEl~1A flood plain. Traffic Circulation -Access to the proposed body shop will use existing access points on Barrens Road. The facility will be located far enough from the existing sales and service area that on site traffic circulation will not be an issue. Fire & Rescue/Utilities - No impacts on utilities or emergency services are anticipated. C. CON~'ORMA.t~tCE ~VSTI~ COTJN'~"Y +COMMiTNST~' PS.Aioi The First Team Hyundai and Suzuki parcel has a Transition designation along the Peters Creek + Road frontage. Beginning at the southeast corner of the fire station property the parcel is ~- designated as Neighborhood Conservation, which is the area where the body shop is proposed. Neighborhood Conser<~ation areas are single-family neighborhoods and are traditionally the most protected land uses. The strategic placement ofnon-residential land uses, such as parks, schools, libraries and churches can play a vital role in preserving and enhancing neighborhood character. The objective of Neighborhood Conservation is to preserve and enhance the existing character of established neighborhoods through boundary protection and the addition of desired amenities. The Major Automobile Repair Service use proposed on the Neighborhood Conservation area of the site is not consistent with the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. I). C®1,1F'®IIMANC~ ~I~'~I C~vI~'I'Y I1E'~L®I'1VPENT S'TANI~A~S The development of the site will require complete site plan review and approval to insure compliance with all Roanoke County development standards. PAI2~' III A. S'I'A~'F Cfl1~1CI:I7SIDNS The proposed expansion of this site for a Major Automobile Repair body shop is not consistent with the Neighborhood Conservation designation in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. There are some unique features with the specific area of the site that may provide some additional buffering for surrounding zoning and uses. The proposed body shop facility weuld be located directly behind the Hollins Fire and Rescue building, which is also designated as Neighborhood Conservation. The public safety building, in a Neighborhood Conservation district, would seem to have more of a visual and audible impact on a community than the proposed use. The use and design standards require screening and a 150-foot separation from adjoining residential district. The proposed cancept plan shows adequate separation from these residential districts. In addition the residential area on the northwest side, adjacent to the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, has substantial evergreen plantings, averaging approximately 40 feet in height, and topographical differences to help screen the proposed use. On the residential properties immediately adjacent to the north are floodplain and floodway designations that would reduce the possibility of any future residential expansions closer to the subject property. The floodplain issue provides for a natural buffer from the proposed body shop. Staff believes with that with appropriate conditions, the proposed use may blend with the neighborhood. Should the Planning Commission choose to support this request staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Along the entire northwest property line (between the proposed facility and the property line adjacent to the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church} the existing vegetation shall remain intact 100 feet inward from that property line. 2. On the exterior sides of the screening fence for the storage area for damaged vehicles the following additional plantings shall be required: One row of small evergreen trees, five (5) feet at time of planting, with an ultimate height of not less than fifteen (1 ~} at maturity, one (1}tree shall be planted every 15 linear feet. 3. A row of small evergreen trees, five (5) feet at time of planting, with an ultimate height of not less than fifteen (15) feet at maturity, one (1) tree shall be planted for every 15 linear feet adjacent to the fire station property line that parallels the rear of the existing First Team Hyundai & Suzuki showroom and service building. J ROANOKE COUNTY A1oticants name: First Team Auto Malt DEPARTMENT OF A~ntication: SRecial Use COMMUNdTY DEVELOPMENT Tam Mai No. 27.13-4-2 -r-y AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO FIRST TEAM AUTO MALL FOR MAJOR AUTOMOBILE REPAIR TO BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF PETERS CREEK ROAD AND BARRENS ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 27.13-4-2), HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, First Team Auto Ma11 has filed a petition for a special use permit for major automobile repair to be located at the northeastern corner of Peters Creek Road and Barrens Road (Tax Map No. 27.13-4-2) in the Hollins Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on December 5, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on November 14, 2000; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on December 19, 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 First Team Auto Mall for major automobile repair to be located at the northeastern corner of Peters Creek Road and Barrens Road (Tax Map No. 27.13-4-2) in the Hollins 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) Along the entire property line (between the proposed facility and the property line adj acent to the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church) the existing vegetation shall remain intact 100 feet inward from that property line. (2) On the exterior sides of the screening fence for the storage area for damaged U:\WPDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\first.team.sup.wpd 1 r-~ vehicles the following additional plantings shall be required: One row of small evergreen trees, five feet at time of planting, with an ultimate height of not less than fifteen feet at maturity, one tree shall be planted every fifteen linear feet. (3) A row of small evergreen trees, five feet at time of planting, with an ultimate height of not less than fifteen feet at maturity, one tree shall be planted for every fifteen linear feet adjacent to the fire station property line that parallels the rear of the existing First Team Hyundai & Suzuki showroom and service building. (4) The development of the site shall be in substantial conformity with the concept plan prepared by Balzer & Associates, Inc. dated October 27, 2000. 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\first.team.sup.wpd 2 r-'I r 1 LJ MANAGER • • 1 THOMAS R. k BRENDA C. FERNATT 7328 BARRENS ROAD ROANOKE. VA 24079 TAX MAP / 27.73-3-23 ZONE: RI USE: RESIDENTIAL EXISTING CURB INLET EXISTING WA1ER MANHOLE WILLWM ROONEV DWEN 6446 PETERS CREEK ROAD ROANOKE. VA 24079 TAX MAP / 27.73-3-23 ZONE: C2 USE: BUSINESS EXISTING SAN. SEWER MANHO ~ ` _ ~ ! 2 J~ ' ~o~ tl n C.7 C If I 5 \~~o 1~ ®~ l R~w rF/I ~q~ • ~uRneRt . A11C)RRC1~ . BNOING88f •WRVBTORf 19W C~d~ CSeel• ReMeYL Vkplnl~ NO/0 Pllo~ NO/1T~oY0 N1%: NO/P]~106Y 901 81vwM/~Y RuE 9+la 100 RIp~1Rgl,0, VaOYW AT]6 Ptve~ 90H1D,-M1i FAY' BM(1Da-8893 11093 LAMr100s Pvkw~y 9.ale 1 AMIYfO, WOVfh X9003 Plv~: 804/380.4888 FAY HW,b80•M6] J J U Q N ? ~ z oQ ~- g Q d ~ F- w Z ~ ~ Qo ~ O Z Z Q ~ ~ _~ DRAWN BY: DESIGNED BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: OCT 27, 2000 REVISIONS: SCALE: SHEET N0. 1 JOB N0. X00007 ~s.oo AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 ORDINANCE 121900-15 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A .574-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN THE 5200 BLOCK OF PETERS CREEK ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 37.08-1-2) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2, CONDITIONAL, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2. GENERAL COMMERCIAL, UPON THE APPLICATION OF TIM T. SNYDER WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 14, 2000, and the second reading and public hearing were held December 19, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on December 5, 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 .574 acres, as described herein, and located in the 5200 block of Peters Creek Road (Tax Map Number 37.08-1-2) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District, conditional, to the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District, removing conditions imposed on this property in June of 1987. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Tim T. Snyder. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the north side of State Highway #117, 110.60 feet east of a concrete highway monument; thence N. 33 deg. 56' 30" W. 247.32 feet to an iron pin; thence N. 55 deg. 30' 10" E. 100.01 feet to an iron pin; thence S. 33 deg. 56' 30" E. 248.29 feet to an iron pin; thence S. 56 deg. 03' G: \COMMON\Dec19\snyder.rzn.frm .~ 30" W. 100 feet to the place of beginning, and as shown by a plat made by David Dick and Harry A. WAII, SCE, dated 3/11 /66. 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 Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Minnix, Church, Nickens, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Hol on, CMC Deputy 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 G: \COM MON\Dec19\snyder. rzn. frm 2 ~~.~ ~~ ~.~c~ • .~~ G%~ ~ .1 ~ ;n.~ ~~~~; ~~ ~~,~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~~. .~ ~n~ ~. . ~ %~.M~t /~ U~ ROAIVOI~E COUIYT~' ,dc~n~s name: Tim Snyder DL~'FART~$NT OF Rezor~.ting j`rmn Existing C2C To progoosed Zoning C2 COMMUNITY DEYELOPM.ENT ~.~ Mai No. 37. D8-1-2 y ~~~,~. .~~" /< ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~.~.~.. ~~;,, ~ ~~~. ~;, ~~.~ •~~ ~r, .. PETITIONER: Tim Snyder ~.~..~' CASE NUMBER: 35-12/2000 Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 5, 2000 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: December 19, 2000 A. REQUEST This is a request to rezone a vacant .574 acre parcel in the 5200 block of Peters Creek Road from C-2 conditional to C-2. In 1987 the property was rezoned from Manufacturing and Agricultural to B-2 with use restrictions and a proffered site plan. The applicant was requesting to remove the conditions for possible future construction for his business use or to market the site. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS No citizens spoke on the petition. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Murphy presented the staff report for the Commission. Mr. Witt inquired about the possibility of this opening up more area for off premise signs. Mr. Snyder indicated that he is not interested in allowing any billboards. Mr. Ross asked the applicant to describe plans for the property. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Ross made a motion to forward the petition to the Board of Supervisors with a favorable recommendation. The motion carried 5-0. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan ~ Vicinity Map Staff Report _ Other Terrance arri on, Secretary Roanok County Planning Commission STAFF REPORT PETITIONER: Tim T. Snyder CASE NUMBER: 35-12/200 PREPARED BY: DATE: 1215/00 PART I A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY David 1=lolladay 7s This is a request to rezone .574 acres from C2C to C2 in order to remove proffered conditions from a 1987 rezoning. The site is designated Transition in the future land use guide of the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. Office, institutional, and small-scale retail uses are encouraged land use types. Due to the small size of the site, and access limited to southbound Peters Creek Road traffic, use of the property will likely be limited to offices, institutional or small scale retail and service uses. B. DESCRIPTION Tim Snyder petitions to rezone .574 acres from C2C to C2, in order to remove conditions from a 1987 rezoning. The parcel is located in the 5200 block of Peters Creek Road, in the Hollins Magisterial District. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Site Development Review by Roanoke County will be required. Entrance permit would be issued by the City of Roanoke. PART II A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Back ound - In June, 1987, this property was rezoned from Ml Manufacturing and Al Agricultural to B2 with conditions. The conditions reference uses listed in the 1985 zoning ordinance, and conformance with a concept plan. Staff suggests that the use proffer is no longer relevant or necessary. In addition, the concept plan proffer also is not necessary. The design of the site is already limited due to the lot dimensions, and current site development standards. Given current parking standards, setbacks, and screening and buffering requirements, the most efficient use of the site would not deviate much from the original concept plan. TS The existing proffered conditions are as follows: Any use permitted in Office and Residential District B-1 except residential. Commercial uses serving the needs of a community, such as banks, retail stores, food sales, wearing apparel shops, home appliance sales and service, barber and beauty shops, office, hotels, motels, theaters, assembly halls, coin-operated laundries and small dry cleaning and laundry establishments, new car dealerships which may include service facilities and used car lots, restaurants of a type which do not offer food or beverages for consumption outside the building: provided, that they are located whithin continuous shopping building complexes or as part of the operation of a motel and personal and professional services. Only merchandise intended to be sold at retail on the premises shall be stocked. 2. Development will occur in substantial accord with the concept plan. Topoaraphy/Ve~etation -The site was graded flat in the past to prepare for development. Most of the lot is grassed. The rear boundary of the lot contains a mixture of trees and shrubs. Surrounding Neighborhood -Adjoining property to the west is zoned C2. The petitioner's business, GSS Computer Technology, is located on the adjacent property. Adjoining properties to the north are zoned R2, and contain two-family homes. The adjoining frontage property to the east is zoned C2C, and is vacant. Across Peters Creek Road, in the City of Roanoke, most parcels are zoned LM, Light Manufacturing, and one is zoned Cl Commercial. Land uses include an auto repair shop, and offices. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture - No specific land use or site design is proposed. The original site plan from the 1987 rezoning is included in the application as an example of how the lot would likely be developed. The petitioner wishes to remove the existing proffered conditions in order to gain more flexibility in developing and/or marketing the property. The petitioner is considering constructing an office building for his business, plus tenant space. The petitioner is also considering marketing the lot for sale or lease. Access/Traffic Circulation -Access would be via a new commercial entrance, to be issued by the City of Roanoke. Parking and driveway design would likely be very similar to the original 1987 concept plan. No median cut is available to/from northbound Rt. 117. The closest median cuts are in front of the Executive Park, and just south of Simpson Tharp Funeral Home. Lack of a median cut limits development of certain land uses on this property. Approval of a new median cut in front of the petitioner's property is unlikely. Fire & Rescue/LJtilities -Fire and rescue service will continue as currently provided by the Hollins Fire Station. 2 ~~. !~~ Public water is available from an 8-inch service in Centurion Road. Sanitary sewer service is available from an 8-inch service in front of the property. C. CONFORMANCE WITII ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The site is designated Transition in the future land use guide of the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. Office, institutional, and small-scale retail are encouraged land use types. An existing pattern of strip commercial development exists on both sides of Peters Creek Road. C2 Commercial zoning exists on the frontage properties of Peters Creek Road. Due to the small size of the site, and access limited to southbound Peters Creek Road traffic, use of the property will likely be limited to offices, institutional or small scale retail and service uses. D. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The site has ample space to conform with county development standards. The original 1987 rezoning concept plan demonstrates a typical site design. Screening and buffering will be required where the site adjoins property zoned R2. Anew commercial entrance permit will be required from the City of Roanoke. .PART III A. STAFF CONCLUSIONS The petition to remove all proffered conditions from the property is generally consistent with the Transition future land use designation of the Roanoke County Community Plan. Due to the size of the parcel, and access limited to southbound Peters Creek Road, future development will likely be office, institutional, and small-scale retail and service uses. The petitioner wishes to remove the existing proffered conditions in order to gain more flexibility in developing and/or marketing the property. No negative traffic or land use impacts are anticipated. ,'" ~,, °~ ~, -: r ~ i s mss, ~' ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~. _. ~~ . ,~ ~ ,~ .~:{.~ ~,. ~. ~. ~ ~R~ -..~a - - .-, ~. _ ;, ~~ ~, . ~. ~. ~. ROANOIfE COUNTY ,d~icaas~s Horne: Tim Snyder DEFA.RT~fL'NT ~1F Rezoning from Exist~ang C2C To proposed Zoning C2 COMMUNITY DEY.~LDPMFNT Tux Map No. 37. D8-1-2 1~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A .574-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN THE 5200 BLOCK OF PETERS CREEK ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 37.08-1-2) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2, CONDITIONAL, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2. GENERAL COMMERCIAL, UPON THE APPLICATION OF TIM T. SNYDER WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 14, 2000, and the second reading and public hearing were held December 19, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on December 5, 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 certain tract of real estate containing .574 acres, as described herein, and located in the 5200 block of Peters Creek Road (Tax Map Number 37.08-1-2) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District, conditional, to the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District, removing conditions imposed on this property in June of 1987. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Tim T. Snyder. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the north side of State Highway #117, 110.60 feet east of a concrete highway monument; thence N. 33 deg. 56' 30" W. 247.32 feet to an iron pin; thence N. 55 deg. 30' 10" E. 100.01 feet to an iron pin; thence S. 33 deg. 56' 30" E. 248.29 feet to an iron pin; thence S. 56 deg. 03' 30" W. 100 feet to the place of beginning, and as shown by a plat made by David Dick and Harry A. WAIL, SCE, dated 3/11/66. 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: \W PDOCS\AGENDA\ZONING\snyder. rzn.frm .~- 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\snyder.rzn.frm ~ ACTION # ITEM N-UMBER / ~'~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW CABLE TELEVISION ORDINANCE AND APPROVING A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WHICH RENEWS THE RIGHT OF BLACKSBURG/SALEM CABLEVISION, INC., D/B/A ADELPHIA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, TO ERECT, CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM (CATV) AND REPEALING ORDINANCE 102594-12 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: /J Q~~~ BACKGROUND: The original franchise agreement between the County of Roanoke and Blacksburg/Salem Cablevision Inc. (the successor to Booth American Company, the original cable franchise holder), doing business as Adelphia Cable Communications (hereafter Adelphia) expired in October, 1999, simultaneously with that company's cable franchise with the City of Salem. Since October, 1999, the County's franchise with Adelphia has been extended by successive three month periods to permit the completion of negotiations by Adelphia first with the City of Salem and then subsequently with the County. The City of Salem adopted a new franchise agreement and ordinance extending Adelphia's franchise for a minimum of ten years and a maximum of fifteen years in September, 2000. Negotiations between the County's cable television committee and a representative of Adelphia have been successfully completed. The terms of the proposed new franchise agreement and ordinance closely follow the documents approved and adopted by the City of Salem. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The negotiating team appointed by the Board of Supervisors has reached agreement with representatives of Adelphia to operate a franchise for a cable television system (CATV) in the Catawba and a small portion of the Windsor Hills Magisterial Districts for a term of a minimum of ten years and a maximum of fifteen years. The franchise will run simultaneously with the City of Salem's franchise. The proposed Cable Television Franchise Ordinance is in most major respects identical to the revised Ordinance adopted in September by the City of Salem. This will insure that Adelphia's operations will be governed by the same rule in each jurisdiction. / -lam follows: The major changes in the terms of Adelphia's new franchise agreement and operations are as Adelphia will undertake a rebuild of their cable system in a hybrid fiber-coaxial cable configuration in order to have at least a 750 MHZ bandwidth capacity which will permit a minimum of 84 standard video channels. This will be completed within seven years of the effective date of the new franchise agreement. If the rebuild is completed within five years, the term of this agreement will be extended for an additional five years; if completed within six years, the franchise agreement will be extended for three years; and if completed within seven years, the extension will be for two years. 2. Adelphia has committed to continue to provide the County with an educational and governmental access channel located on Channel 3 on their system. This will insure that RVTV Channel 3 will be available to all County citizens subscribing to a cable television service. Adelphia has further committed to make available up to two additional government access channels at such time as the existing channel is programmed an average of eight hours per day, not including repeat programming. These channels would be carried on Adelphia's Basic Service tier. Adelphia will provide three activated signal insertion points at locations designated by the County. 3. The density requirement for extension of service by a cable operator is reduced to 20 housing units per mile. Service must be provided for any cable drop of up to 250 feet with actual installation charges only assessed beyond that distance. 4. Adelphia has agreed to pay a capital grant of $41,760 to the County, to be used in furtherance of educational goals (including library support). This grant will be paid within three months of receipt of a written request from Roanoke County. 5. Adelphia will continue to provide free basic cable service to every County governmental building, fire station, library or school building within its franchise area. The agreement reflects this continuing commitment. Furthermore, Adelphia has agreed to provide one free bi-directional high-speed Internet installation using their Adelphia Power Link Service and one broadband cable modem to each public and accredited private school and public library in their service area. Adelphia will waive all installation and continuing access fees for this Internet service. A franchise agreement will be executed between the County and Adelphia which will reflect the provisions of this ordinance and other technical matters to insure that, to the extent feasible, Adelphia's operations substantially match those provided to customers of Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc. in the County. FISCAL IMPACT: Adelphia has agreed to provide a monetary or capital grant of Forty One Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Dollars ($41,760.00) which represents an increase in the grant made to Roanoke County in 1994 based upon the prorata increase in County subscribers since that time. The franchise fee of 5% of gross revenues derived from Adelphia's operation of their cable system, to be paid on a quarterly basis, remains the same. Any increase in franchise fee revenues to the County will be the result of increases in Adelphia's cable system revenues, including fees received from Internet services, which will also be subject to the 5% franchise fee. 2 ~~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the adoption of this franchise agreement and cable franchise ordinance. ly submitted, Jo h B. benshain S or Ass stant County Attorney Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: ACTION VOTE Church Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens No Yes Abs 3 .. 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW CABLE TELEVISION ORDINANCE AND APPROVING A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WHICH RENEWS THE RIGHT OF BLACKSBURG/SALEM CABLEVISION, INC., DB/A ADELPHIA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, TO ERECT, CONSTRUCT OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM (CATV) AND REPEALING ORDINANCE 102594-12 WHEREAS, Blacksburg/Salem Cablevision, Inc., doing business as Adelphia Cable Communications, currently holds a franchise granted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia to operate a cable televison system within portions of Roanoke County as a counterpart to their operation of a cable television system within the City of Salem, Virginia; and WHEREAS, negotiations have continued over a period of several months in tandem with negotiations between Adelphia Cable Communications and the City of Salem for the renewal of this franchise which originally expired on October 4, 1999, and during which time Adelphia's franchise has been extended for successive periods of three months until January 1, 2001; and WHEREAS, these negotiations have produced agreement between Adelphia and Roanoke County as to the terms of a new cable televison ordinance and franchise agreement which will provide for a substantial upgrade and rebuild of Adelphia's cable system, for continued free cable service to county government buildings, for free Internet service for schools and libraries in Adelphia's service area, for possible increase in the number of public government and educational access (PEG) channels, for continuation of the current five percent (5%) franchise fee payments based upon Adelphia's gross revenues from their cable service and for a substantial monetary grant to permit continued support for the county's educational goals; and ----~ ~~~ WHEREAS, Blacksburg/Salem Cablevision, Inc. is prohibited by federal law from operating a cable televison system within any jurisdiction without a franchise agreement or extension as defined by federal law; and WHEREAS, following adequate public notice, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 5, 2000, and a public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on December 19, 2000, at each of which meeting the public was afforded opportunity for comment. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the attached Cable Television Franchise Ordinance be enacted as Title of the Roanoke County Code and the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute the attached Cable Televison Franchise Agreement or such other documents necessary to grant anon-exclusive franchise for the operation of a cable televison system in the County of Roanoke to Blacksburg/Salem Cablevision, Inc., d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications. 2. That "ORDINANCE 102594-12 AMENDING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 2308 WHICH GRANTS TO BOOTH AMERICAN COMPANY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN, D/B/A SALEM CABLE TV, THE RIGHT, FOR THE TERM AND UPON CERTAIN CONDITIONS HEREIN STATED TO ERECT, CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISON (CATV) SYSTEM. adopted October 25, 1994, is hereby repealed. That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and after the first day of January, 2001. G:\ATTORNEYVBO\CABLET V\Salemadelpha.renew\Cableord.122000.2.wpd AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 ORDINANCE 121900-16 ADOPTING A NEW CABLE TELEVISION ORDINANCE AND APPROVING A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WHICH RENEWS THE RIGHT OF BLACKSBURG/SALEM CABLEVISION, INC., D/B/A ADELPHIA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, TO ERECT, CONSTRUCT OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM (CATV) AND REPEALING ORDINANCE 102594-12 WHEREAS, Blacksburg/Salem Cablevision, Inc., doing business asAdelphia Cable Communications, currently holds a franchise granted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia to operate a cable televison system within portions of Roanoke County as a counterpart to their operation of a cable television system within the City of Salem, Virginia; and WHEREAS, negotiations have continued over a period of several months in tandem with negotiations between Adelphia Cable Communications and the City of Salem for the renewal of this franchise which originally expired on October 4, 1999, and during which time Adelphia's franchise has been extended for successive periods of three months until January 1, 2001; and WHEREAS, these negotiations have produced agreement between Adelphia and Roanoke County as to the terms of a new cable televison ordinance and franchise agreement which will provide for a substantial upgrade and rebuild of Adelphia's cable system, for continued free cable service to county government buildings, for free Internet service for schools and libraries in Adelphia's service area, for possible increase in the number of public government and educational access (PEG) channels, for continuation of the current five percent (5%) franchise fee payments based upon Adelphia's gross revenues from their cable service and for a substantial monetary grant to permit continued support for the county's educational goals; and WHEREAS, Blacksburg/Salem Cablevision, Inc. is prohibited by federal law from operating a cable televison system within any jurisdiction without a franchise agreement or extension as defined by federal law; and WHEREAS, following adequate public notice, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 5, 2000, and a public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on December 19, 2000, at each of which meeting the public was afforded opportunity for comment. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the attached Cable Television Franchise Ordinance be enacted as Title 7-A of the Roanoke County Code and the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute the attached Cable Televison Franchise Agreement or such other documents necessary togrant anon-exclusive franchise for the operation of a cable televison system in the County of Roanoke to Blacksburg/Salem Cablevision, Inc., d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications. 2. That "ORDINANCE 102594-12AMENDING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 2308 WHICH GRANTS TO BOOTH AMERICAN COMPANY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN, D/B/A SALEM CABLE TV, THE RIGHT, FOR THE TERM AND UPON CERTAIN CONDITIONS HEREIN STATED TO ERECT, CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISON (CATV) SYSTEM..." adopted October 25, 1994, is hereby repealed. z 3. That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and after the first day of January, 2001. 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: ~~~~ ~ ~~~ Brenda J. Holton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney Lon Carruth, General Manager, Adelphia Cable Forest Jones, Salem City Manager Robert R. Altice, Chairman, Roanoke Regional Cable TV Committee Kathi Scearce, Director, Community Relations Dr. Jane James, Director, Media Services, Roanoke County Schools James B. Dickey, 3440 Wedgewood Road, SW, Roanoke, VA 24018 Harry C. Nickens, Roanoke Regional Cable TV Committee 3 r-~ COUNTY OF ROANOKE FRANCHISE. AGREEMENT (ADELPHIA) - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROPOSED FINAL VERSION - Preamble: Identifies parties to Agreement (Roanoke .County and Adelphia). I. Franchise Grant: Specifically grants to Adelphia anon-exclusive Franchise to erect, operate and maintain a Cable System and to provide Cable Services and Other Communications Services throughout all portions of the County not actually being served by any other franchised provider of cable services. II. Term: Term commences on date Franchise is accepted by Adelphia and expires October 18, 2010. Provides for incentive extensions for up to an additional five years, based on timing of completion of the rebuild of the existing cable system. III. Franchise Acceptance; Warranties: Contains language of Franchise acceptance by Adelphia, and warranties concerning legal organization, authority to enter into Agreement, financial status, and that no matters exist to prevent Adelphia from performing under the Agreement. Without limiting entitlement of Adelphia to provide service throughout all portions of the County not being served by another cable service provider, defines its current Service Area as majority of Catawba Magisterial District and a portion of Windsor Hills Magisterial District. IV. Cable System Rebuild: Obligates Adelphia to complete a rebuild of the Cable System into a hybrid fiber-coaxial configuration within seven years after Effective Date of Franchise. V. Additional Channel and Facilities Requirements: Services, facilities and equipment specified are in support of Public, Educational and Governmental (PEG) channel requirements and will be provided on a no-cost basis to County; costs will not be counted against Franchise Fee payments, unless required by preempting federal law or regulation. A. Standard Governmental Support. Establishes requirement for free basic and cable programming service to all current and future government buildings, fire stations, police stations, libraries and other County-owned or occupied buildings, including Regional Fire Training Center. Standard cable drops may be internally extended by the County without imposition of a charge by Adelphia. Cable installed in government buildings to be maintained by Adelphia at its cost, without markup. B. Government Channels. Reaffirms Adelphia's obligation to continue reservation of Cable Channel 3 for use by County. Requires activation, within six months after request, of up to two additional channels for exclusive use and control by Page 1 of 3 r- ~ County government, with each to have signal insertion points at up to three locations specified by County, provided that channel usage requirements must be met on existing channels before any additional channels are requested, and signal insertion points must be identified by County as soon as possible after Adelphia gives six months advance notice of completion of system design of Rebuilt System. To extent technically feasible, requires Adelphia to provide, by negotiations with other cable operator, for all programming inserted on Government Channels to be simultaneously carried on other government channels activated on other cable system. C. Educational Support. Establishes requirement for free basic and cable programming service to all current and future public and state-accredited private elementary and secondary schools within Service Area; internal extension is permitted by the County without any charge by Adelphia. Subject to advance coordination between County and Adelphia, future educational structures will receive one free energized outlet per classroom and two energized outlets in main office area. Adelphia is to provide and install, as requested, at its cost with no markup, additional cable within each educational facility for closed-circuit cablecasting. Adelphia is to provide, at cost, maintenance services for all cable installed in educational facilities within Service Area. Subject to pre-existing contractual commitments, Adelphia is to give the school system first purchase rights on any studio or headend equipment being phased out of use or being replaced, to be used for production and/or videocasting of video programming. Adelphia will provide 50 copies of Cable in the Classroom each month. D. Monetary Grant. Within three months after a request, Adelphia is to provide up to a $41,760 grant to the County (unused portions can be drawn on at any later time); grant money is intended to further educational goals and for County library support. E. Internet Services. Subject to availability and advance notice, Adelphia is to provide free high-speed Internet (not networked) to public and state-accredited private elementary and secondary schools and public libraries, and shall waive all installation and continuing access fees for Internet. F. Roanoke Valley Television. Adelphia is to exert best efforts to ensure that RVTV programming is provided via live fiber feed from other cable operator's headend for carriage on Adelphia's Channel 3. If live fiber feed becomes unavailable, Adelphia is to exert best efforts to obtain programming directly from RVTV's studios. G. Future Needs Assessment; Duty of Cooperation. Establishes a requirement for future cooperative efforts by the County and Adelphia (upon request by either party) to identify ways to utilize the cable system's future technological capabilities (for, among other things, intra-County data transmission and automatic meter reading), to determine economic and technological feasibility of meeting the community's future needs, and to negotiate ways to meet those needs that are technologically and economically feasible. Page 2 of 3 `~' H. Digital Compatibility. If Adelphia provides digital programming that is incompatible with television sets in use by County or schools, Adelphia is to provide free converters to allow continued use of affected television sets. VI. Maintenance of Existing Services; Non-Duplication: Nothing in Agreement excuses Adelphia from its prior obligations to provide services to the County under pre- existing agreements. If Adelphia has already met certain requirements specified in Agreement, nothing in this Agreement requires Adelphia to duplicate those requirements. VII. Miscellaneous: This section covers exceptions or modifications to the Ordinance that are related specifically to Adelphia. A. If any claim against the County arises, as to which Adelphia has a duty of indemnification, Adelphia has the right and obligation to defend against such claim. B. If increases are required in Adelphia's insurance coverage, Adelphia has the right to demonstrate to the County's reasonable satisfaction that an alternative way exists to render the County secure. C. Transfers to entities related to Adelphia or its majority shareholder shall not require approval, nor shall approval be required for pledges of stock or assets as security for financing purposes. VIII. Incorporation by Reference. This incorporates the provisions of the Cable Television Ordinance in the Franchise Agreement, and allows the County to alter the Ordinance in the future, consistent with its police powers, but not to alter it unilaterally in any way to impair Adelphia's contractual rights under the Franchise Agreement. Page 3 of 3 r~ CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT Between Roanoke County, Virginia and Blacksburg/Salem Cablevision Inc. d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications For and in consideration of the provisions and conditions herein contained and the mutual benefits to be derived herefrom, the County of Roanoke, Virginia, hereinafter known as the County, acting through its duly elected Board of Supervisors pursuant to Section 15.2-2108 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and Blacksburg/Salem Cablevision, Inc., d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications, hereinafter known as the Company, do hereby enter into this Agreement, intending by the signatures of their duly authorized representatives appearing below to be bound by the provisions hereof. I. Franchise Grant. The County, after a public hearing at which testimony was heard concerning the economic consideration, the impact on private property rights, the impact on public convenience, the public need and potential benefit, and such other factors as considered relevant, having found that the grant of a franchise to the Company will enhance the public welfare, hereby grants to the Company, its duly approved successors and assigns, a non- exclusive Cable Television Franchise. Pursuant to the Franchise hereby granted, the Company shall have the right to erect, operate and maintain throughout any and all portions of the County not actually being served by any other existing cable service provider holding a license, franchise or certificate of public convenience for the area being served by such other provider, poles, cables, and all other electrical equipment, structures, or fixtures necessary and incidental to the construction, operation and maintenance of a Cable Television System, and to utilize such Cable Television System so constructed, operated and maintained to provide Cable Service and Other Communications Services for the use of the residents and citizens of said County and the persons, firms and other entities doing Page 1 of 16 business therein, in accordance with and limited by the provisions of this Agreement and the Ordinance of the County known as the "Cable Television Franchise Ordinance," and any duly enacted amendments thereto. Il. Term The Term of the Franchise hereby granted shall commence on the date this Agreement is accepted by the Company (the "Effective Date"), and it shall expire on October 18, 2010, which date is acknowledged by the parties as being the same date on which the Company's franchise expires for the jurisdiction within which the Company maintains its headend for the System to which this Franchise applies. Subject to the Company's request therefor, accompanied by a certification by the Company that the Cable System Rebuild has been completed within one of the following specified completion periods, and substantial compliance with the provisions of this Agreement and the Cable Television Franchise Ordinance, the Term shall be extended by Resolution adopted by the County for an additional number of years, as set forth below: (a) Upon completion of the Cable System Rebuild (as described in Section IV of this Agreement) within a period of 5 years following the Effective Date, the Term shall be extended an additional five years; (b) Upon completion of the Cable System Rebuild (as described in Section IV of this Agreement) within a period of six years following the Effective Date, the Term shall be extended an additional three years; or (c) Upon completion of the Cable System Rebuild (as described in Section IV of this Agreement) within a period of seven years following the Effective Date, the Term shall be extended an additional two years. Page 2 of 16 T~ III. Franchise Acceptance; Warranties. The Company hereby accepts the Franchise granted herein by the County and agrees to erect, operate, and maintain a Cable Television System, to extend, maintain and operate Cable, and to provide Cable Service throughout its Service Area in accordance with and as specified and required by this Agreement. Without limiting in any way the Company's entitlement under this Agreement to provide Cable Service throughout all portions of the County not actually being served by any other existing cable service provider, the Company agrees that its current Service Area (as defined in the Cable Television Franchise Ordinance) shall mean and include the following: (a) All of the Catawba Magisterial District except for an area bounded by Lock Haven Road, continuing south to Peters Creek Road, and continuing north to the Hollins Magisterial District; and (b) That portion of the Windsor Hills Magisterial District which includes the west side of Keagy Road to Walton Lane and from Walton Lane southwest to the Catawba Magisterial District including Fairway Forest Subdivision. As a specific condition to the grant by the County of the Franchise granted by this Agreement, the Company warrants, represents, acknowledges and agrees, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, that: A. The Company is duly organized, legally exists and is in good standing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. B. The Company has the power and authority under applicable law and its bylaws and articles of incorporation or other organizational documents, has obtained all necessary resolutions and consents of its board of directors or other governing body, and has obtained all consents which are required to be obtained as of the Effective Date of this Agreement to enter into and legally obligate the Company to this Agreement and to take all Page 3 of 16 %~ actions necessary to perform all its obligations hereunder, and its execution and performance of this Agreement will not result in the breach or violation of any statute, regulation, agreement, judgment or decree to which it is subject. C. The Company is financially able to perform all its obligations under this Agreement. D. To the Company's best knowledge and belief, after due investigation and inquiry, there are no actions, investigations or proceedings pending or contemplated against the Company which, if concluded adversely to the Company, would or could impair its ability to perform its obligations hereunder. IV. Cable System Rebuild. The Company currently owns, maintains and operates a Cable System that provides to Subscribers Cable Service throughout the Service Area as defined above. The Company agrees that it will, no later than seven years following the Effective Date of this Agreement, complete a rebuild (the "Rebuild") of its Cable System in a hybrid fiber-coaxial cable configuration, whereby after completion of such Rebuild the Cable System will have both upstream and downstream capability, with at least a 750 MHZ bandwidth capacity and the capability of simultaneously carrying no less than 84 standard NTSC video channels. The Rebuild shall also include the inherent capability for two-way (i.e., upstream and downstream) communication paths, which shall be implemented when the Company reasonably determines that such implementation is technologically and economically feasible. Upon completion of the Rebuild, standby power shall be available which shall be capable of operating any hub site within the County for a minimum period of twenty-four (24) hours. Such standby power shall be arranged so that signal distribution will be furnished at a minimum through the first active device on each trunk run from the headend (which as of the date of this Agreement is located outside the geopolitical boundaries of the County) and Page 4 of 16 from any hub sites of the System located within the County. In addition, upon completion of the Rebuild, the Company will provide at a minimum one shared-usage portable generator which can be dispatched to the scene of a commercial power outage; the said portable generator may be utilized for any portion of the Company's System served by the same headend, whether or not such portion is located within the Company's Service Area. Following completion of the Rebuild, emergency back-up power shall be provided to each System node in which the optical serving area of that node has, for any consecutive three calendar month period, experienced more than six hours of aggregated electrical power-related Cable service outage during each of those three consecutive months; provided, however, that service outages caused by force majeure, including acts of God and natural disasters, shall not be considered in determining whether a requirement exists for installation of emergency back-up power. Such emergency back-up power shall be provided within six months following the third month in which the immediately foregoing sequence of electrical power-related service outages has occurred, and shall be capable of powering the affected node for at least two hours of continuous operation. Completion of the Rebuild shall include the requirement for activation and delivery of service on the upgraded Cable System to all Subscribers or other lawful users within and throughout the Company's defined Service Area. In connection with the Rebuild of the Company's Cable System, upon request the Company shall provide to the County Administrator monthly written progress reports after the County has been notified that the Company has begun the upgrade. If requested, the Company agrees that it shall periodically present to the Board of Supervisors such information concerning the status of the Cable System Rebuild as the Board may reasonably require. Page 5 of 16 T~ The Company agrees that it shall, to the maximum extent reasonably possible, provide advance notice to affected Subscribers of any planned Cable Service outages caused by the Cable System Rebuild and shall keep the Director of Community Relations apprised of areas within the County where Rebuild activities are in progress. During the course of the Cable System Rebuild, the Company agrees that it shall minimize disruption to or interruption of Cable Service provided to Subscribers and maintain all regularly provided programming and other services. Recovery of that portion of the Company's Rebuild costs properly attributable or allocable to regulated cable services shall be in accordance with the FCC's rules established for Cable Rate Regulation. V. Additional Channel and Facilities Requirements The Company agrees and acknowledges that its provision of the services, facilities and equipment as set forth below, all of which, unless otherwise specified, are in support of the County's public, educational or governmental ("PEG") channel requirements and shall be provided on a no-cost basis to the County, is not and shall not be deemed as an in-kind equivalent to any Franchise Fee payment unless required by preempting federal law or regulation. Unless otherwise specified below, the Company agrees to and shall comply with all additional channel requirements described in this Section V upon the earlier of completion of the Cable System Rebuild or at such time as System channel capacity is available therefor, and agrees that it shall exert reasonable efforts to so comply at the earliest possible date. The availability of system channel capacity shall be as initially determined by the County, provided, however, that in the event of any disagreement by the Company as to such availability, the Company shall have the right to present to the County in a public hearing its contrary views concerning such availability before any final determination thereon shall be made. In making such final determination, the County shall Page 6 of 16 ~~ not be obliged to consider whether greater economic gain would accrue to the Company from alternative channel usage. A. Standard Governmental Support. The Company agrees to provide within its Service Area one free standard cable drop, one free converter/descrambler (if required), one energized outlet (and up to three additional energized outlets at a location or locations specified by the County, subject to one month's advance notice by the County), and Basic Service and Cable Programming Service, each as defined by the Cable Act, at no charge to each governmental building (including the County's Regional Fire Training Center), fire station, police station, library, and other buildings occupied by the County or agencies thereof (excluding housing units, outbuildings, storage facilities and buildings owned by the County but not used for governmental purposes), located within 250 feet of the Company's distribution system and within the Company's Service Area, as requested by the County or such other agency or entity that exercises dominion or control over the facility to which the provisions of this Subsection A apply. Any attached structures shall be treated as separate buildings if so identified. The Company agrees to provide or extend the foregoing to any future buildings or facilities of the above-described nature that are established within the County, including such future buildings or facilities that are occupied by the County at the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology. Any standard cable drop provided hereunder may be internally extended by the County without imposition of any fee therefor by the Company. The Company agrees that it shall, as requested by the County, at a charge equal to its cost with no markup, maintain all Cable installed or to be installed within all of the afore- described governmental buildings, fire stations, police stations, libraries, and other buildings occupied by the County or agencies thereof; provided that cost reimbursement for such maintenance shall not be considered as part of the Company's Gross Revenues. Page 7 of 16 _"j"~ fa B. Government Channels. The Company has reserved Cable Channel 3 exclusively for use by the County, pursuant to the terms of the franchise agreement under which the Company has been providing Cable Service to the County prior to the date of this Agreement. Without altering the Company's obligation to continue the reservation of Cable Channel 3 for the County's exclusive use, which obligation is hereby acknowledged and reaffirmed by the parties, the Company agrees that, not later than six months after any request therefor by the County, the Company shall provide and make available for exclusive use of and control by the County up to two additional separate activated channels, which shall at all times be carried as part of the Basic Service tier offered to Subscribers by the Company. The County agrees that it shall make no request for either of the aforesaid two additional separate activated channels until such time as each existing government channel (as described in this Subsection B of Section V) is programmed an average of at least eight hours per day, not including any repeated video programming, as determined from any three week period during the immediately preceding five week period. If and when activated, each such additional channel shall be configured to permit the introduction of live and videotaped programming from up to three activated signal insertion points at locations designated by the County within the Company's Service Area; provided, however, that, unless previously advised by the County of the desired locations of the activated signal insertion points, the Company shall give the County at least six months notice prior to completion of system design of the Rebuilt System, and the County shall as soon thereafter as possible, and consistent with the Company's design requirements, notify the Company of such desired locations. If activated, each such additional government-controlled channel shall be used for the carriage of programming to be determined by the County, including live videocasts of Board of Supervisors meetings, videotaped or live public safety programming, Page 8 of 16 ~" (.~ educational programming and other events or programming of County-wide interest as determined by the County. To the extent technically and economically feasible, the Company agrees that it will exert its best efforts, through negotiated agreement with any other franchised cable operator providing cable service to portions of the County outside the Company's Service Area, to provide for the simultaneous cablecasting of programming carried on each such additional government-controlled channel on one other County government channel provided on such other franchised cable operator's system. C. Educational Support. The Company agrees to provide one free standard cable drop, one free converter/descrambler (if needed), and one energized outlet and Basic Service and Cable Programming Service at no charge to all public and state-accredited private elementary and secondary schools within the Company's Service Area, and shall also provide or extend the foregoing to any future public and state-accredited private elementary and secondary schools in the Company's Service Area. Each standard cable drop so provided may be internally extended by the County without imposition of any fee therefor by the Company. With respect to any future educational structures or facilities established within the Company's Service Area, the Company agrees that it shall, subject to advance coordination between the County and the Company, provide one energized outlet within each classroom (whether such classroom is a permanent structure or otherwise) and two energized outlets in the main office area for each such future educational structure or facility. In addition, the Company shall provide and install, at a charge equal to its cost with no markup, additional Cable as required by the Roanoke County School Division, for the purpose of closed circuit cablecasting within each educational structure or facility; provided that cost reimbursement for such additional Cable shall not be considered as a part of the Company's Gross Revenues. Page 9 of 16 The Company agrees that it shall, as requested by the Roanoke County School Division, at a charge equal to its cost with no markup, maintain all Cable installed or to be installed within the educational structures or facilities established within the County and located in the Company's Service Area; provided that cost reimbursement for such maintenance shall not be considered as part of the Company's Gross Revenues. The Company further agrees that it shall offer for purchase by the Roanoke County School Division, prior to the Company's sale or offer to sell to any Person other than entities to which it has pre-existing contractual commitments, any studio or headend equipment being phased out or replaced that, in the Company's reasonable estimation, would be required or appropriate for use by Roanoke County Public Schools in the production and/or videocasting of video programming. The Company agrees that it shall provide 50 copies of the magazine Cable in the Classroom each month to the Roanoke County School Division for subsequent distribution to the County's educational facilities. D. Monetary Grant. As an indication of the Company's interest in and support of the County's future cable-related needs, the Company agrees, within three months after a request in writing therefor is made by the County, to provide to the County a grant of funds in an amount not to exceed $41,760, which amount represents asubscriber-based prorata increase in the monetary grant made by the Company at the date of initial franchise grant, which date was October 4, 1994. Any unused portion of said amount is to be made available to the County thereafter if requested, subject to the aforesaid three months advance notice in writing. Such grant funds are intended, if requested by the County, to be used in furtherance of such educational goals (including support of County libraries) as the County deems appropriate. Page 10 of 16 ~~ E. Internet Services. The Company agrees that it shall, as soon as reasonably possible after receipt of a request therefor and subject to the availability thereof, provide and install one free bi-directional high-speed Internet installation (Adelphia's Power Link Service), not networked, and one broadband cable modem to each public and state- accredited private elementary and secondary school and to each public library within the Company's Service Area, and shall waive all installation and continuing access fees for the provision of Internet service. F. Roanoke Valley Television. The County maintains a television production studio operating under the name of Roanoke Valley Television ("RVTV"). RVTV produces for live or time-delay cablecasting programming of general interest to the County's residents, including live cablecasts of meetings of the Board of Supervisors. Programming produced by RVTV is provided to the Company's headend via a live fiber feed from the headend of the franchised cable operator providing cable service to portions of the County outside the Company's Service Area. The Company agrees that it shall exert its best efforts, through negotiated agreement with such other franchised cable operator, to ensure that RVTV's programming continues to be available through such live fiber feed and is carried on the Company's System on Cable Channel 3, consistent with the arrangements existing at the time of execution of this Agreement. The Company also agrees that, in the event that the RVTV programming becomes non-available through the live fiber feed, it shall exert its best efforts to obtain such programming directly from RVTV's studios for continued carriage on Cable Channel 3. G. Future Needs Assessment; Duty of Cooperation. The County has expressed an interest in future utilization of the broadband transmission capabilities inherent in the Company's System for, among other things, insertion and transmission of data between remote locations within the County and for automatic meter reading by the County's Utility Page 11 of 16 ~,." Department. The parties recognize, however, that the prospective costs and technical feasibility (including availability of sufficient upstream bandwidth) of providing such services are, as of the date of this Agreement, not subject to ready or accurate determination. The parties also recognize that future technological changes may allow the Company's System to be utilized in ways that are not presently contemplated or visualized, and that development of a means whereby the parties may together explore future technological applications of the Company's System would be in the County's and the Company's mutual interest. Accordingly, the County and the Company agree that either party may, during the Term of the Franchise granted by this Agreement, initiate discussions with the other party for the purpose of further assessing the developing technological needs of the County, to determine the adaptability of the Company's System to those needs, and to identify mechanisms whereby the County's developing needs may more effectively be met by the Company's System. Upon initiation of such discussions by either party, each party agrees that it will exert good-faith efforts, if requested by the other: (i) to assist in developing and disseminating community-based needs assessment surveys to more accurately determine the community's cable-related needs in light of such technological developments as may then be available or contemplated; (ii) to assist in determining the economic and technological feasibility of implementing, through the Company's System, the community- based needs identified through such needs assessment surveys as are developed and disseminated and such other community input as may be available, including input from the County's representatives; and (iii) to enter into meaningful negotiations directed toward implementation of such needs as are determined to be economically and technologically feasible. Page 12 of 16 T~ H. Digital Compatibility. In the event that the Company provides digital or other video programming signals on either or both of the Basic Service tier or the Cable Programming Service tier, if such video programming signals are incompatible with television sets then used at any County-occupied buildings or any public or state-accredited private elementary and secondary school located within the Company's Service Area, the Company shall at no cost to the County or other affected agency, division or department provide such converters as are required to allow reception of such video programming signals by all such television sets then in use. VI. Maintenance of Existing Services; Non-Duplication. The Company, as an existing Franchisee, currently provides certain services to County governmental agencies and departments (including police and/or fire protective organizations), educational and civic organizations and structures within the County. The Company agrees that nothing contained herein shall constitute consent from the County to discontinue such services as the Company has already, under any pre-existing franchise or other agreement, provided to such governmental, educational and civic organizations and/or structures, and the Company agrees to continue to provide such services notwithstanding the execution of this Agreement by the parties. The County agrees that, to the extent the requirements established herein have been previously met or substantially complied with by the Company prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement and represent the current state of the Company's services or its System, nothing herein shall be construed to require the Company to duplicate such requirements as a condition of this Agreement. VII. Miscellaneous. A. In the event that any suit, judgment, execution, claim or demand arises, as to which the County asserts a right of indemnification pursuant to Subsection (a) of Section 7 (Franchisee Liability; Indemnification) of the Cable Television Franchise Ordinance, the Page 13 of 16 T-G County agrees to refer .the defense thereof to the Company, and the Company shall thereafter have the right and the obligation to defend, settle or compromise such suit, judgment, execution, claim or demand, in which effort the County shall cooperate fully. B. In the event that the County shall notify the Company of any required increase in the Company's general liability or comprehensive automobile liability insurance coverage, pursuant to Subsection (b) of Section 7 (Franchisee Liability; Indemnification) of the Cable Television Franchise Ordinance, the Company shall have the right to demonstrate to the County's reasonable satisfaction. the existence of alternative means of adequately insuring the County against loss, and should the County reject such alternative means as unacceptable, the County shall provide in written form, in objectively articulable terms, its rationale for such rejection. C. For purposes of Section 14 (Approval of Transfer) of the Cable Television Franchise Ordinance, no sale, assignment, transfer or lease shall be deemed to occur when the Franchise is sold, assigned, transferred or leased to a company owned, managed or controlled by Adelphia Communications Corporation, any of its subsidiaries, John J. Riggs or any member of his immediate family, or the assets or stock of the Company are pledged to a financial institution as security for refinancing purposes. VIII. Incorporation by Reference. The above-cited Cable Television Franchise Ordinance, including the Definitions set forth or referenced therein, is hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein, and the County and the Company do hereby agree to be bound by the terms, conditions, and provisions set forth therein and to be bound by the terms, conditions, and provisions of any duly enacted amendment thereto. Without altering the County's authority to make such future amendments to the Cable Television Franchise Ordinance as the County deems necessary or appropriate in the exercise of its police powers, the County Page 14 of 16 T~ ~ shall not amend or change unilaterally such Ordinance in any way that would serve to impair the Company's contractual rights and entitlements under this Agreement, and it is agreed by the parties that, in the event of any conflict between this Agreement and the Cable Television Franchise Ordinance, as it exists now or may be amended in the future, the provisions of this Agreement shall control. The Company, by its acceptance of the Franchise hereby granted, acknowledges that the incorporation of the Cable Television Franchise Ordinance in this Agreement constitutes written notice of the County's intention to enforce the Customer Service Standards set forth in FCC Rule §76.309(c). have set our hands and seals to this Agreement below. EXECUTION Approved the day of , 2000. EFFECTIVE DATE: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we, the authorized representatives of each of the parties, EXECUTED: COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA By: Date: Title: County Administrator ATTEST: By: County Clerk Date: Page 15 of 16 .~ ACCEPTED: BLACKSBURG/SALEM CABLEVISION, INC., d/b/a ADELPHIA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS By: Title: Date: ATTEST: I hereby certify that I am the of and that is of the Company and has duly executed and accepted the Franchise granted by this Franchise Agreement. By: Title: Date: Page 16 of 16 T- ~ COUNTY OF ROANOKE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE ORDINANCE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROPOSED FINAL VERSION - Preamble: Establishes the purposes and objectives of the Ordinance, i.e., sets legal framework for awarding new cable franchises and renewing or extending existing franchises for Cable Service and Other Communications Services. Also makes the Ordinance applicable to extensions (without renewal) of any existing franchise. Section 1. Short Title: States that Ordinance shall have Short Title of "Cable Television Franchise Ordinance." Section 2. Definitions: Provides definitions for terms of art used throughout Ordinance. Among other things, defines "Service Area" as including all areas contiguous to existing plant with density of 20 homes per linear mile (within 250 feet of plant); includes Internet revenues as part of definition of "Gross Revenues."; and defines Roanoke Valley Cable TV Committee. Section 3. Grant of Authority: Establishes County's authority to grant, extend or renew nonexclusive franchises to applicants, subject to each applicant's agreement and obligation to provide cable service within Franchisee's Service Area, and to comply with Ordinance and any Franchise Agreement. Establishes requirements for non-discriminatory provision of services. Establishes maximum term of any franchise as 15 years. Section 4. Roanoke Valley Regional Cable TV Committee. Affirms continued participation in and support of CATV Committee; establishes scope of Committee's responsibilities as extending to cable systems providing service within all three jurisdictions comprised of County, City and Town of Vinton; defines membership, organization and duties. Section 5. Rates: Establishes right of County to regulate rates consistent with relevant law. Section 6. System Operation: Requires each Franchisee to operate its cable system consistent with federal regulations, and to submit performance tests upon request. Section 7. Franchisee Liability -Indemnification: Requires each Franchisee to indemnify and hold harmless the County from any harm or loss arising from negligence by a Franchisee or its subcontractor in construction, operation or maintenance of a cable system. Sets minimum standards for insurance coverage and prevents the rating of any insurance carrier from dropping below "A-". Section 8. Maintenance and Service Complaint Procedures: Requires each Franchisee to maintain its system in good working condition. Imposes Customer Service Standards set by FCC Rule § 76.309(c) and establishes refund or credit policy for service outages. Section 9. Filings with County: Requires submission of system strand maps upon request, and establishes County's right to reject proposed installations or require change it T~ location or alteration of existing installation; establishes right of review of as-built maps of existing facilities. Requires annual submission of names of each Franchisee's officers and directors and notice of any change constituting a transfer of control. Requires Franchisee to file, if requested, copies of rules and regulations adopted for conduct of business. Requires applicants for initial or renewal franchise to submit information required by County and to give notice to existing franchisees if proposing to provide service within another franchisee's area. Section 10. Construction and Installation of System: County reserves right to inspect all construction and installation work; requires prior approval for construction of poles, underground conduits, or other wire holding structures. Requires minimal interference with travel on public streets and existing utility services. If requested by County, requires each Franchisee to install one additional conduit (at actual cost of labor and materials) for use by County, at time any trench is opened. Requires compliance with existing building codes, zoning requirements and other standards, and payment of normal costs and fees for permits and licenses: Requires Franchisee to provide service to all County residents requesting service, provided that costs for extending cable more than 250 feet from existing trunk line shall be paid (without markup) by requesting homeowner. Requires restoration of disturbed areas to as good condition as before work began. Requires Franchisee to relocate facilities if needed to accommodate changes in streets. Prohibits installations that interfere with gas, electric or telephone fixtures, water hydrants, mains or sewers. Requires moving wires or cable to accommodate building-moving activities, subject to payment for costs incurred. Gives Franchisees right to trim trees to avoid interference with cable or wires, subject to supervision and direction of County or Highway Department; trimming can be prohibited if it would destroy or damage the tree. If utilities are underground, all cable facilities shall be underground, and if utilities are moved underground, Franchisee must follow within 90 days; allows Franchisee to share in any federal, state or local grant money made available to utility companies to the extent such money can lawfully be made available to a Franchisee. Requires identification of vehicles and persons engaged in Franchisee's operations. Section 11. Emergency Override Capability. Each renewal Franchisee and each extended Franchisee has one year after renewal or extension to provide all-channel audio override capability for emergency messages, along with written messages superimposed on video portion. Shared use of emergency override capability is allowed with other franchising authorities in areas contiguous to County. Relief from requirement is available if County determines that compliance with federal Emergency Alert System (EAS) standards will meet its needs. Section 12. Limits on Rights of Way. Makes clear that the County is not giving any right-of-way usage for any areas not controlled by the County. Section 13. Subscriber Bill Itemization: Allows Franchisees to itemize on bills only costs expressly permitted by FCC Rules, i.e., franchise fee and identity of franchising authority, amount of bill assessed to support Public, Educational and Governmental (PEG) channel requirements, and fees (taxes) imposed on transaction between cable operator and subscribers. Section 14. Approval of Transfer. Requires prior approval for any transfer of a franchise, with reimbursement to County for costs incurred in evaluating and approving transfer request, not to exceed $5,000.00. T- ~ Section 15. County Right in Franchise. County retains right to adopt additional requirements of general applicability, consistent with County's police powers. County can supervise and inspect all installation and construction work, and can order interruption of cable service in event of emergency for transmission of emergency announcements. Reiterates time requirements for implementation of emergency override capability and compliance with EAS standards. Specifies that all rights-of-way shall remain property of County or Highway Department. Establishes performance bonding requirements for each Franchisee and procedures for imposition of monetary forfeitures for failure to comply with Ordinance or Franchise. Section 16. Payment to County: Establishes a quarterly payment of a Franchise Fee of 5.0%, unless a lesser amount is specified in a Franchise Agreement. Provides interest at 18.0% for any Franchise Fee paid late; payment is required within 30 days after end of prior quarter. Payments are to be accompanied by summary report showing Gross Revenues on which fee is based. Establishes audit rights, with cost compensation to County if Gross Revenues have been understated by more than 3.0%. Requires Franchisees to submit certification signed by officer of company confirming compliance with payment obligations. Allows Franchise Fee to be increased if legally permissible, subject to 90 days advance notice, provided that Franchise Fee can only be increased to amount that can be directly passed through to subscribers. Makes clear that BPOL tax is not part of Franchise Fee (can be charged in addition to Franchise Fee). Section 17. Records and Reports: Gives County access during normal business hours to locally available Franchisee's records, subject to federal privacy laws relating to customer-identifiable information; establishes two week advance notice requirement for material not available locally. Section 18. Franchise Revocation: Establishes procedures for revocation of a Franchise, including mechanism for determining payment in event of a forced sale or County acquisition of the cable system. Section 19. Hearing Requirements for Matters Affecting Franchises: Establishes public hearing, notice and other requirements for significant franchise-related matters. Section 20. Costs: Requires initial franchise applicants to compensate County for franchise award costs. Section 21. Open Video System Operation; Virginia Law: Imposes, to the extent legally permissible, the requirements of the Ordinance (including franchise fee payments) upon any provider of Open Video Services (which look very much like cable TV services, except that a franchise is not required). Also specifies that Virginia and federal law override any conflicting provisions of the Ordinance. Section 22. Severability: Standard provisions concerning continuing validity of Ordinance if any one or more provisions are declared invalid. Section 23. Acceptance of Franchise: Establishes manner in which Franchise is to be accepted by a Franchisee. CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE ORDINANCE Preamble An Ordinance, pursuant to Section 15.2-2108 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, establishing the policies and procedures whereby the County of Roanoke, Virginia may grant unto certain companies, their successors and assigns, anon-exclusive franchise, or may renew or extend an existing franchise, to erect, operate and maintain poles, cables and all other electrical equipment, structures, or fixtures necessary and incidental to the construction, operation and maintenance of a Cable Television System under, over, upon and across the streets, alleys, sidewalks and public places of the County and to provide Cable Service and Other Communications Services to the residents and citizens of said County, and to the persons, firms, and corporations doing business therein, and to use the property of other companies in furtherance and support of the objectives of this Ordinance and any franchise granted hereunder upon such arrangements and under such conditions as to which the companies may agree. For the purposes of this Ordinance, the term "Franchise" shall apply, unless otherwise distinguished, to an initial franchise, an extended franchise or a renewed franchise. (a) The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all Franchises granted or renewed after the date of adoption of this Ordinance, and shall also apply to all Cable Television Franchisees existing as of the date of such adoption in the event and as of the date of any extension of an existing Franchise requested by such Franchisee. Section 1. Short Title This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE ORDINANCE." T- b Section 2. Definitions For the purpose of this Ordinance the following terms, phrases, words, and their derivations shall have the meanings given herein. Terms of art not otherwise defined herein, whether capitalized or not, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in Title VI (Cable Communications) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 521, et seq. (hereinafter the "Cable Act"). When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future, words in the plural number include the singular number and words in the singular number include the plural number. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not merely directory. (a) "Cable," whether capitalized or not, shall mean the closed transmission paths by which video programming and related Signals, and Signals related to Other Communications Services, are transmitted through and along a Franchisee's Cable System, and shall include coaxial cable, optical fiber and any other closed transmission path utilized therefor. (b) "Board" shall mean the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia. (c) "Cable Television System" (or CATV, or Cable System, sometimes hereinafter referred to as "System") shall have the same meaning as ascribed to the term "cable system" in the Cable Act. (d) "Chief Executive" shall mean the administrator of a county, manager of a city, or manager of a town, as the context may require. (e) "City" shall mean the incorporated portions of the City of Roanoke, Virginia. (f) "Council" shall mean the City Council of the City of Roanoke or the Town Council of the Town of Vinton, as the context may require. (g) "County" shall mean the incorporated portions of the County of Roanoke, Virginia. 2 1 _°' (h) "Elementary and Secondary Schools", whether capitalized or not, shall mean all institutions operated for the purposes of teaching students enrolled in the elementary (including kindergarten), middle and high school grades. (i) "FCC" shall mean the Federal Communications Commission or its successor. (j) "Franchise Area," for the purposes of establishing any entitlement to regulate rates charged by a Franchisee pursuant to §623 of the Cable Act, or any subsequently adopted counterpart thereof or governing regulatory provision relating thereto, shall mean and be deemed as being conterminous with a Franchisee's Service Area; provided, however, that until a Franchisee offers Regular Subscriber Service throughout such Service Area, a Franchisee's Franchise Area shall be such lesser portion of its Service Area to which it offers Regular Subscriber Service. (k) "Franchisee" shall mean the grantee of rights under a Franchise granted pursuant to this Ordinance. (I) "Governing Body" shall mean the board of supervisors of a county, council of a city, or council of a town, as the context may require. (m) "Gross Revenues" shall mean all compensation and other consideration in any form received by a Franchisee from or in connection with the operation of that Franchisee's Cable System within its Service Area, including any compensation or other consideration received from the provision of Internet services on a Franchisee's System; but excluding uncollected bad debt, Subscriber deposits, and any sales, service, rent or other excise tax to the extent such taxes are required to be charged separately by a Franchisee in addition to other charges imposed by such Franchisee and are remitted by the Franchisee to the taxing authority, and excluding, further, any cost reimbursement or aid-of-construction fee received by a Franchisee pursuant to §§ 10(a), 10(c) and 10(g) hereof, and fees received in connection with Non-Subscriber Services. 3 T-~ (n) "Highway Department" shall mean the Virginia Department of Transportation. (o) "Home" shall mean any single family dwelling unit whether a house, apartment, trailer or mobile home, rented room or otherwise. (p) "Local Government Occupied .Buildings" shall mean those buildings owned in whole or in part by a county, city or town, as the context may require, or occupied in whole or in part by local government officials or other persons in furtherance of local government objectives, and shall include,- without limiting the generality of the foregoing, all volunteer and paid fire and/or rescue companies located within a county, city or town. (q) "Non-Subscriber Services" shall mean services provided to Persons other than a Subscriber or User of the services provided by or carried on a Franchisee's Cable System. (r) "Other Communications Service" shall mean any service provided by a Franchisee utilizing transmissions along or through and compatible with the closed transmission paths established or maintained for the operation of the Franchisee's Cable System. (s) "Person" shall mean any individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company, trust, governmental entity or organization of any kind. (t) "Public Schools", whether capitalized or not, shall mean all buildings operated by the School Division of a county, city or town for the purposes of teaching and learning. (u) "Regular Subscriber Service" shall mean the simultaneous delivery by a Franchisee to the television receivers (or any other suitable type of audio-video communications receivers) of all Residential Subscribers and to public or governmental facilities or buildings within the Franchisee's Service Area of all signals, excluding those carried on an institutional network, that are carried by or on the delivering Franchisee's Cable System, subject to payment of permissibly imposed subscription, installation and other fees or charges associated with the delivery and receipt of such signals. 4 T-~ (v) "Residential Subscriber" shall mean a purchaser in good standing of any service that the Franchisee delivers to any Home ,provided that service is not utilized in connection with a business, trade, or profession. (w) "Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee" (or "CATV Committee" or "Committee") shall mean the advisory committee comprised of individuals from the County of Roanoke, the City of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton, having responsibilities as set forth in this Ordinance concerning any cable television system which provides service within or to any portion of all of the aforesaid three jurisdiction. (x) "Senior Citizen" shall mean any Residential Subscriber who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older. (y) "Service Area" shall mean any area in a county, city or town, as the context may require, not actually being served by another Franchisee, contiguous to a given Franchisee's existing plant with a density of at least twenty (20) Homes per linear mile. For the purposes of this Ordinance, all Homes within 250 feet from any roadway or other right-of-way suitable for cable trunk installation shall be counted in density determinations, and shall be considered as being within the Service Area as defined herein. (z) "Signals" shall mean and refer to all frequencies, and the modulating intelligence (including digital modulation) imposed or carried thereon, provided by or permitted to be inserted by a Franchisee on the Cable System operated by such Franchisee. (aa) "Standard Cable Drop" shall mean the closed signal transmission path from the cable operator's distribution system to a given Subscriber's Home or other location authorized to receive cable service, provided that any length of said signal transmission path in excess of 250 feet shall not be a Standard Cable Drop. (bb) "Streets" shall mean all public streets, roads, avenues, highways, boulevards, concourses, driveways, bridges, tunnels, parkways, waterways, docks, bulkheads and alleys, 5 T- ~ and all other public rights of way and public grounds or waters within or belonging to a county, city or town, as the context may require. (cc) "Subscriber" or "User" shall mean any person or entity lawfully receiving any service provided by or carried on a Franchisee's Cable System. (dd) "Town" shall mean the incorporated portions of the Town of Vinton, Virginia. Section 3. Grant of Authority (a) After having approved a Franchise applicant's legal, character, financial, technical and other qualifications and the adequacy and feasibility of the applicant's construction arrangements, the County shall have the authority, subject to compliance with the relevant provisions of §15.2-2108 of the Code of Virginia and the Cable Act, to grant to such applicant, who shall thereafter be a Franchisee hereunder, a nonexclusive initial, extended or renewed Franchise upon such terms as the County and such applicant may agree, which shall authorize such Franchisee to construct, erect, operate and maintain, in, upon, along, across, above, over and under the Streets, alleys, public ways and public places now laid out or dedicated, and all extensions thereof, and additions thereto, in any part of the County, poles, wires, cable, underground conduits, manholes, and such other conductors and fixtures as are useful or necessary for the maintenance and operation in the County of a Cable Television System and to thereafter provide Cable Service and Other Communications Services within any part of the County, subject to such applicant's agreement and obligation to provide Cable Service within the Franchisee's Service Area and to otherwise comply with all provisions of this Ordinance and any agreement relating to the initial grant, extension or renewal of the Franchise. (b) No Franchisee shall, as to rates, charges, service, facilities, rules, regulations or in any other respect, make or grant any preference or advantage to any person, nor subject any person to any prejudice or disadvantage, provided that nothing in any Franchise granted 6 t6 hereunder shall be deemed to prohibit the establishment of a graduated scale of charges (1) to "Senior Citizen" subscribers and (2) for multiple installations at the same hour or building. (c) Any Franchise granted hereunder as an initial authorization and any renewal thereof shall be governed by the provisions of the Cable Act and any amendments or superseding legislation, and shall be for a term not to exceed 15 years. Section 4. Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee As of the date of adoption of this Ordinance, the political subdivisions comprised of the County of Roanoke (the "County"), the City of Roanoke (the "City") and the Town of Vinton ("Vinton") have, pursuant to ordinances duly adopted by each of them, jointly established an advisory committee known as the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee (the "CATV Committee"). By adoption of this Ordinance, the County does hereby affirm its continued participation in and support of the CATV Committee, which shall be comprised 11 members and have the duties and responsibilities as set forth below: (a) Members. One member shall be provided from each of the Governing Bodies of the County of Roanoke, the City of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton; three members shall be the Chief Executives (or their designees) from each of the County, the City and Vinton; one member shall be appointed by each of the Roanoke County and Roanoke City School Boards; one member-at-large shall be appointed by each of the Governing Bodies of the County of Roanoke, the City of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton. (b) Chairperson. The CATV Committee shall select a chairperson from its membership, who shall serve for a period of one .year or such other term as the CATV Committee may deem appropriate. (c) Terms of Office. The terms of office of the three members-at-large shall be for three years each, provided that such terms shall be staggered, with a continuation of the staggered sequence established by the CATV Committee immediately prior to the adoption of 7 ~~ this Ordinance; members from the Governing Bodies of each of the jurisdictions and those appointed by their respective School Boards shall serve for such terms as are determined by their respective appointing authorities. (d) Meetings. Meetings of the CATV Committee shall be held not less than once per year, and at such more frequent times as the Chairperson or the Committee shall determine; a quorum shall consist of five members. The committee may adopt such procedures and bylaws as it deems necessary for the proper exercise of its responsibilities. (e) Scope. The CATV Committee shall fulfill its responsibilities with respect to any Franchise or applicant for a Franchise as to which the Cable Service provided or proposed shall extend within or to any portion of all of the three jurisdictions addressed herein. (f) Franchisee Attendance. The General Manager (or his or her designee) of each Franchisee within the scope of the CATV Committee's responsibilities shall be afforded the opportunity to attend each meeting of the CATV Committee, with at least 10 days advance notice to be provided whenever reasonably possible, except when the CATV Committee meetings are in executive session. (g) Powers and Duties. The CATV Committee shall: (i) Advise affected Governing Bodies concerning any applications for Franchises. (ii) Monitor each Franchisee's compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance and any Franchise granted hereunder, and advise affected Governing Bodies of matters that may constitute grounds for a monetary forfeiture or Franchise revocation. (iii) Advise affected Governing Bodies concerning the regulations of Cable rates. (iv) Receive, record and consider Subscriber complaints that have not been resolved by a Franchisee; attempt to resolve and respond to all such complaints, maintaining a 8 ~G record of all resolutions; and report annually to each Governing Body the results of its actions with respect to such complaints. (v) Review any proposed transfer of a Franchise and recommend whether such transfer should be approved. (vi) Coordinate review of each Franchisee's records as may be required by this Ordinance. (vii) Encourage the use of such Public, Educational or Governmental ("PEG") Channels as are required under this Ordinance or any Franchise by the widest range of institutions, groups and individuals within the Service Areas of the respective Franchisees. (viii) Review budgets prepared by departments within affected jurisdictions for PEG Channel usage, and coordinate the expenditure of any capital grant funds provided by any Franchisee to maximize the potential and provide for the full development of PEG Channel usage. (ix) Advise the Governing Bodies of the jurisdictions addressed herein as to proposed rules and procedures under which a Franchisee may use unused PEG Channel capacity for the provision of other services, and under which such Franchisee use shall cease. (x) Coordinate programming and activities on PEG Channels, develop appropriate policies and procedures therefor, and assist in preparation and review of budgets for all cablecasting activities on PEG Channels. (xi) Maintain records in accordance with statutory requirements. Section 5. Rates The County specifically retains all rights to regulate rates charged by any Franchisee for Cable Service, subject to the provisions of relevant Federal and State legislation and the rules and regulations of administrative agencies with authority. 9 Section 6. System Operation Every Franchisee shall operate its Cable System as required by the FCC's Rules and Regulations, and shall ensure compliance with all applicable provisions of FCC Rule §76.605 (Technical Standards), and any amendments thereto, throughout the entire Service Area. Upon request, every Franchisee shall submit to the County copies of all performance test data required pursuant to FCC Rule § 76.601 and any other performance tests that may be required by subsequent amendment of the FCC's Rules and Regulations. Section 7. Franchisee Liability; Indemnification (a) Every Franchisee, as a condition to its continued entitlement to hold a Franchise hereunder, shall save the County harmless from all loss sustained by the County on account of any suit, judgment, execution, claim, or demand whatsoever, resulting from negligence on the part of the Franchisee and its independent contractors and subcontractors in the construction, operation or maintenance of its Cable Television System in the County; provided, however, that the County shall give to an indemnifying Franchisee prompt and timely written notice of any such suit, judgment, execution, claim or demand made to which the immediately foregoing indemnification provisions apply. (b) Each Franchisee shall take out and maintain throughout the term of its Franchise comprehensive general liability insurance against personal injury with coverage of not less than $5,000,000 for injury to any person and $5,000,000 for any one accident, and insurance against property damage, including damage to County property, in an amount not less than $1,000,000, and shall maintain comprehensive automobile liability insurance, including non-owned and hired car as well as owned vehicles coverage, with minimum bodily injury coverage for each occurrence of $1,000,000 and property damage coverage of not less than $100,000 per occurrence. The above policies shall be written by a company licensed to do business in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the County shall be named as an additional 10 T-~ insured thereunder, provided that such company shall be rated not less than "A" by Best's rating service at the time of initial policy issuance, and such rating shall not fall below "A-" at any time thereafter. A certificate of these policies shall be furnished to the County as a condition to the grant of any Franchise hereunder. The County reserves the right, no more frequently than once every three years, and upon six months advance notice to a Franchisee, to require an increase in the immediately foregoing basic coverages by an amount not to exceed the percentage by which the County has increased its general liability insurance coverage for the three years immediately preceding the date of such notice from the County. (c) Every Franchisee shall obtain workmen's compensation insurance as required by the laws of the State of Virginia, with such insurance to be written by a company licensed to do business in the Commonwealth of Virginia, provided that such company shall be rated not less than "A" by Best's rating service at the time of initial policy issuance, and such rating shall not fall below "A-" at any time thereafter. (d) Each Franchisee shall ensure that independent contractors and subcontractors maintain comprehensive general liability coverage sufficient to protect the County from any loss arising from work pertormed on such Franchisee's behalf. (e) No insurance policy shall be cancelable or non-renewable until 30 days after receipt by the County of notice of intention to cancel or non-renew. Section 8. Maintenance and Service Complaint Procedures (a) Throughout the term of its Franchise, every Franchisee shall maintain all parts of its Cable System in good working condition. (b) Within ninety days after the grant of any Franchise hereunder or of the extension of any Franchise existing as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance, each affected Franchisee shall comply with the Customer Service Obligations established by FCC Rule §76.309(c), or any subsequently adopted amendments thereto; provided, however, that no Franchisee shall adopt !' standards less stringent than those imposed by FCC Rule §76.309(c) in effect on the date of this Ordinance without the express consent of the County. Subject to notification and request by affected Subscribers, and to reasonable verification by a Franchisee of any reported Cable Service outage, every Franchisee shall provide apro-rata refund or, at its option, an equivalent credit of the fee charged to any Subscriber for each calendar month in which such Subscriber has experienced more than 24 hours of Cable Service outage, with the refund or credit being based on the total hours of outage compared to the total number of hours available in the month to which the rebate or credit applies. Every Franchisee shall keep a record in its offices of every complaint received and a memorandum of same indicating the manner or disposition thereof. Complaint records shall be kept for not less than two (2) calendar years. The Franchisee shall make information pertaining to its complaint records available to the County upon request, for review and inspection during normal business hours. Section 9. Filings with County (a) In addition to other filings that may be set forth herein, every Franchisee shall file with the County Administrator, upon request, true and accurate strand maps of all existing and proposed installations, and the County hereby reserves the right at all times to reject any proposed installation whose manner or place of construction it deems contrary to public interest, and may order and direct the Franchisee to move the location or alter the construction of any existing installation wherever the Board or the Highway Department deems it is in the public interest to require such removal or alteration, having due regard for the equities of the parties concerned and the purpose of a Franchise granted hereunder. Every Franchisee shall also, upon request, make available at its local office, for review by the County, true and accurate as- built maps of all existing installations. (b) Every Franchisee shall file annually with the County Administrator a statement setting forth the names and addresses of all its directors and officers and the position that each 12 holds, which statement may consist of the Franchisee's annual report. In the event of a change constituting a transfer of control (as defined by the FCC's rules) of a Franchisee, the Franchisee shall promptly file information setting forth such change with the County Administrator. (c) Upon request, every Franchisee shall file with the County Administrator copies of rules, regulations, terms and conditions adopted by the Franchisee for the conduct of its business. (d) An applicant for an initial or a renewal Franchise hereunder shall include in its application all information requested by the County or its designated representative, subject to the provisions of governing law or regulations, as the County deems reasonably appropriate to allow it to evaluate such applicant's legal, financial and technical qualifications. (e) ff an initial applicant proposes to serve an area then actually being served by an existing Franchisee, the application shall be submitted with proof of service of a copy of its application upon such Franchisee. (f) The County shall provide all existing Franchisees on whom service is required under Subsection (e) above with an opportunity to be heard and to make presentations pertaining to such application. (g) In evaluating an application, the County shall be governed by and comply with all relevant Federal and State Statutes. Section 10. Construction and Installation of the System (a) The County shall have the right to inspect all construction or installation work performed by a Franchisee within the Service Area, and to make such inspections as the County deems necessary to insure compliance with the terms of this Ordinance, other pertinent provisions of law and any Franchise granted hereunder. No poles, underground conduits, or other wire-holding structures shall be erected by a Franchisee without prior approval of the County or its duly authorized personnel or abutting property owners where the County does not 13 7- ~ own the area in which such are to be erected. To the extent possible, the Franchisee shall negotiate agreements with the appropriate parties to permit it to utilize the existing poles and underground conduits throughout the County. Any poles, underground conduits or other fixtures that a Franchisee is authorized by the County to install must be placed in a manner to not interfere with or obstruct the usual travel on the public Streets or to interfere with any existing utility services. If so requested by the County, at the time any trench is opened for installation or maintenance of conduit or underground cable, a Franchisee shall install one additional conduit of such dimension as specified by the County, for exclusive use by the County, at a charge no greater than the actual cost of labor and materials for such conduit. All construction activities of a Franchisee shall be conducted in a manner that will cause minimum interference with the rights and reasonable convenience of the property owners directly affected thereby. Every Franchisee shall maintain all structures, cable and related CATV equipment that are located in, over, under, and upon the Streets in a safe, suitable, substantial condition and in good order and repair at all times. (b) All construction and installation by a Franchisee shall be effectuated in a manner that is consistent with the FCC's Rules, relevant local building codes, zoning and other regulatory requirements, the National Electrical Safety Code, and other standards of general applicability to Cable Systems. No Franchisee shall commence any construction without obtaining all local zoning and other approvals, permits and other licenses generally applicable to other entities performing such construction, and paying all costs and fees normally imposed or charged therefor. (c) No Franchisee shall be required to extend energized trunk cable in and/or through any portion of the County beyond and outside the limits of its defined Service Area; provided, however, that a Franchisee may elect to provide Cable Service outside its defined Service Area; and provided, further, that any initial Franchisee proposing to serve less densely 14 "~" populated areas as an inducement to the County to award it a Franchise may be required to provide such proposed service. In the event that the owner of any Home or other structure not within a Franchisee's Service Area agrees in writing to pay the excess cost of extending cable service to that location, then a Franchisee so requested by such owner shall provide Cable Service to such Home or other structure, provided that such owner's payment obligation shall only apply to the actual costs incurred, without markup, in extending cable more than 250 feet from any trunk line. (d) In case of any disturbance of pavement, sidewalk, driveway or other surfacing, a Franchisee shall, at its own cost and expense and in a manner approved by the County replace and restore all paving, sidewalk, driveway or surface disturbed in as good condition as before said work was commenced. (e) In the event that at any time during the period of a Franchise the County or Highway Department shall elect to alter or change the grade of any street, alley or other public way, the affected Franchisee, upon reasonable notice by the County or the Highway Department, at its cost shall remove, relay, and relocate its poles, wires, cables, underground conduits, manholes and other fixtures. (f) No Franchisee shall place any poles or other fixtures where the same will interfere with any gas, electric or telephone fixture, water hydrant, main, or sewer, and all such poles or other fixtures placed in any Street shall be placed in accordance with the County's requirements. (g) A. Franchisee shall, on the request of any person holding a building moving permit issued by the County, temporarily raise or lower its wires or Cable to permit the moving of buildings. The expense of such temporary removal, raising or lowering of wires or cable shall be paid by the person requesting the same, and the Franchisee shall have the authority to 15 ~=L require such payment in advance. The Franchisee shall be given not less than seven (7) days advance notice to arrange for such temporary wire or cable changes. (h) Every Franchisee shall have the authority to trim trees upon and overhanging Streets, alleys, sidewalks and public places of the County so as to prevent the branches of such trees from coming in contact with the wires and cables of the Franchisee, provided that all trimming shall be done under the supervision and direction of the County or the Highway Department and at the expense of the Franchisee. The County or Highway Department specifically reserves the right to prohibit the trimming of any tree where it deems that such trimming would damage or destroy the tree. (i) No Franchisee shall install above-ground facilities in any portion of its Service Area where all public utility lines are underground, and every Franchisee shall be obligated to relocate its existing facilities underground in any portion of its Service Area within 90 days after all public utility lines in that portion of its Service Area have been placed underground. In the event that a Franchisee is required to relocate its facilities as a consequence of relocation of public utility lines, such Franchisee shall share proportionately with utility companies in any federal, state or local monetary grant made available for such purposes to the extent that such monetary grant is lawfully available to a Franchisee. (j) Vehicles owned or leased by a Franchisee and used in the installation, construction or repair of the Franchisee's System shall be marked with the Franchisee's identity, and all employees, contractors and subcontractors of a Franchisee shall carry identification, to be produced upon request, as to their names, local business address and local business telephone numbers. Section 11. Emergency Override Capability In addition to, and not in lieu of, the Emergency Alert System ("EAS") standards established by Part 11 of the FCC's Rules (47 C.F.R. 11), each initial Franchisee shall, upon 16 ~° initial system activation, and each renewal Franchisee and each Franchisee existing as of the date hereof whose Franchise is extended shall, no later than one year following the date of any such renewal or extension, establish for use by and access to such authorized persons as are designated by the County an emergency override capability whereby the audible portion of all programming carried on all channels may be interrupted for the insertion of emergency information, and whereby a written supplemental emergency message may be superimposed on the video portions of all such programming; provided, however, that shared usage of such emergency override capability shall be allowed by other franchising authorities having cognizance over any portion of a Franchisee's Cable System contiguous to the County; and provided, further, that relief from this requirement may be given if the County determines at its sole discretion that a Franchisee's compliance with the EAS standards will provide an acceptable means of disseminating emergency information to Subscribers. Section 12. Limits on Rights of Way This Ordinance shall not be construed to mean that the County, by granting any Franchise hereunder, is giving any entity the right to use any right-of-way controlled by the Highway Department or by any person other than the County. Every Franchisee hereunder shall be required to meet any and all Highway Department regulations and requirements set forth for the use of such rights-of-way controlled by the Highway Department and shall be required to separately obtain from private parties and others necessary consents, not otherwise preempted by governing Federal statute or regulation, to use any other rights of way not controlled by or vested in the County prior to the installation of any Cable on, under or over the property so affected. Section 13. Subscriber Bill Itemization. Unless the provisions of this Section are preempted or otherwise rendered unenforceable by law or relevant FCC rule, no Franchisee shall itemize on any subscriber bills 17 ~' ~' any costs other than those expressly permitted to be itemized by FCC Rule §76.985(a), to-wit: (i) the amount of the total bill assessed as a franchise fee and the identity of the franchising authority to which the fee is paid; (ii) the amount of the total bill assessed to satisfy requirements imposed on the Franchisee by the Franchise Agreement to support Public, Educational or Governmental channels or the use of such channels; and (iii) the amount of any other governmental fee or assessment directly imposed on a transaction between the cable operator and a Subscriber. Section 14. Approval of Transfer No Franchisee shall sell, assign, transfer or lease its plant or system to another person, nor transfer any rights under a Franchise to another person without Board approval upon such reasonable terms and conditions as it may impose. No sale, transfer, assignment or lease shall thereafter be effective until the vender, assignee, transferee or lessee has filed in the office of the County Administrator an instrument, duly executed, reciting the fact of such sale, assignment, transfer or lease, accepting and agreeing to be bound by the provisions of this Ordinance and a Franchise granted pursuant hereto, and agreeing to perform all the conditions that may be imposed by the Board pursuant to its consent. Consent for the transfer, sale, assignment or lease shall not unreasonably be withheld; provided, however, that any costs incurred by the County in evaluating and/or approving such transfer, sale, assignment or lease, not to exceed $5,000.00, shall be paid within 30 days after the submission of an invoice therefor by the County, and no such transfer, sale, assignment or lease shall become effective until such payment is made. The requested transfer, sale, assignment or lease shall be deemed as approved if the County does not respond within 120 days of its receipt of a written request for such approval. 18 r-~ Section 15. County Right in Franchise (a) The right is hereby reserved by the County to adopt, in addition to the provisions herein contained and in existing applicable ordinances, such additional regulations of general applicability as it shall find necessary in the exercise of its police power. (b) The County shall have the right to supervise all construction or installation work performed by a Franchisee subject to the provisions of this Ordinance and to make such inspections as it shall find necessary to insure compliance with governing Ordinances. (c) The County reserves the right to order the interruption of Cable Service in the event of emergency and shall have the right to require the insertion of emergency audio messages or announcements on any or all of a Franchisee's channels carried on its System in the event of an emergency. Every Franchisee providing service in the County prior to the date of this Ordinance shall, as a condition to any renewal or extension of its Franchise, be deemed at the time of such renewal or extension to agree that it shall within one year following the renewal date implement at no cost to the County the aforedescribed insertion capability, and every other Franchisee shall implement such capability upon initial system activation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, every Franchisee shall comply with the Emergency Alert System ("EAS") standards, including timing requirements for implementation of such standards, established by Part 11 of the FCC's Rules (47 C.F.R. 11). (d) All rights, rights-of-way, and easements hereinabove designated shall remain the property of the County or the Highway Department. Until such time as poles or other equipment are actually installed by a Franchisee, and in the event of future removal of said poles or other equipment, said rights shall remain vested in or immediately revert to the County or the Highway Department and, in the event of removal, a Franchisee's rights therein shall automatically be canceled. 19 ~ '"a (e) At the time a Franchise becomes effective, the County may require the Franchisee to furnish a bond to the County, in such form and with such sureties as shall be acceptable to the County, guaranteeing the payment of all sums which may at any time become due from the Franchisee to the County under the terms of this Ordinance and any Franchise granted, and further guaranteeing the faithful performance of all obligations of the Franchisee under the terms of this Ordinance and the agreement reflecting the grant of the Franchise. The maximum bond shall be based on the following schedule: Maximum Bond Amount $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 Basic Service Subscribers 0 500 1000 1500 2000 For each additional 500 Subscribers served, the bond amount may be increased by five thousand dollars ($5,000). In the event of default under this Ordinance or a Franchise granted pursuant to this Ordinance, the County shall not assume any liability, obligation or responsibility, but shall instead be entitled to levy on and collect from such bond all amounts necessary to render the County whole. (f) If at any time after the date a Franchisee's Cable System is energized the Franchisee shall fail materially to comply with the terms of this Ordinance or any Franchise granted, and shall continue to fail to comply or fail to commence taking steps reasonably calculated to cause such compliance for a period of thirty (30) days after receiving notice in writing of non-compliance from the County, the Franchisee shall be assessed a monetary forfeiture by the Office of the County Administrator of not less than $25.00 nor more than $250.00 for each day's failure to comply from the date of the first non-compliance, with each day's failure to comply being a separate and distinct offense. The provisions of this sub-section 20 tip shall not apply if non-compliance is occasioned by events beyond the control of the Franchisee, provided that such events were not proximately caused by the Franchisee's acts or failure to act. In the event the Franchisee shall in good faith contest its liability or the amount of any forteiture imposed under this Section, no further forfeiture shall be assessed until such liability is established by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, and should such liability be established by the Board of Supervisors, such determination shall be final, and the Franchisee shall have thirty (30) days within which to comply and within which to pay all forfeitures assessed. In the event the Franchisee does not then comply and pay all forfeitures assessed the County shall have the option (i) to initiate judicial collection procedures; (ii) to collect upon any bond posted; or (iii) to terminate the Franchise and declare the bond forfeited. Section 16. Payment to County (a) Unless a lesser amount is specified in a given Franchisee's Franchise Agreement, each Franchisee shall pay the County on a quarterly basis a fee (a "Franchise Fee") of five percent (5%) of its Gross Revenues derived from the immediately preceding calendar quarter. The Franchise Fee for each calendar quarter shall be paid to the County no later than 60 days after the end of the calendar quarter on which such fee is based; interest shall accrue on any payment made after the date on which it is due at the rate of 18.0% per year. Each Franchise Fee payment shall be accompanied by a summary report showing Gross Revenues received by the Franchisee from its operations within the County during the preceding quarter and such other information as the County shall reasonably request with respect to the Franchisee's service within the County. The County shall have the right to verify by an audit conducted by an independent Certified Public Accountant of its own choosing, reasonably acceptable to a Franchisee, that such Franchisee has correctly reported Gross Revenues, and if such audit discloses that a Franchisee's reporting of its Gross Revenues has been understated by 3% or more, said Franchisee shall compensate the County for the audit 21 7- ~ expenses. Access during any such audit shall be limited to the Franchisee's documents and information reasonably relevant to verification that the Franchisee has correctly reported Gross Revenues. Consistent under-reporting of a Franchisee's Gross Revenues shall be grounds for termination of a Franchise. Notwithstanding the County's right to require an independent audit, not less than annually each Franchisee shall submit a certification executed by an officer of the Company, certifiying to the accuracy of all Franchise Fee payments made for the immediately foregoing four quarters and the compliance of those payments with the requirements of this Ordinance and any Franchise granted hereunder. (b) In the event that Federal, State, or other regulatory agencies permit a greater Franchise Fee than set forth in this Ordinance, such payment obligation may be increased to the maximum amount permissible, upon approval of such increase by the County pursuant to duly adopted resolution and not less than 90 days advance notice to each affected Franchisee; provided, however, that the Franchise Fee shall not increase above the maximum percentage that may be passed through directly to Subscribers pursuant to governing federal law or regulations. (c) Consistent with applicable law, no fee, tax or other payment required to be made by a Cable System operator to the County, including payment of a Business, Professional or Occupational License fee or tax, shall be deemed as part of the Franchise Fee payable to the County hereunder, so long as such fee, tax or other payment obligation is imposed on a non- discriminatory basis on other entities doing business within the County. Section 17. Records and Reports The County shall have access during normal business hours to all of a Franchisee's locally available plans, contracts, and engineering, accounting, financial, statistical, and, subject to the provisions of § 631 of the Cable Act, customer and service records relating to the Cable 22 T-G. System and its operation within the County by the Franchisee and to all other records required to be kept hereunder; provided that a Franchisee shall be provided two weeks advance notice 'for production of such material as is not locally available. Section 18. Franchise Revocation (a) Whenever any Franchisee shall refuse, neglect or willfully fail to construct, operate or maintain its cable television system or to provide service to its Subscribers in substantial accordance with the terms of this Ordinance or any applicable rule or regulation, or materially breaches its Franchise Agreement, or practices any fraud or deceit upon the County or its Subscribers within the County, or fails to pay Franchise Fees, or if such Franchisee becomes insolvent, as adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction, or is unwilling or unable to pay its uncontested debts, or is adjudged bankrupt, or seeks relief under the bankruptcy laws of the United States or any state, then the Franchise may be revoked. (b) In the event the County believes that grounds for revocation exist or have existed, it may notify the affected Franchisee in writing, setting forth the facts on which such belief is grounded. If, within thirty (30) days following such written notification, the Franchisee has not furnished reasonably satisfactory evidence that corrective action has been taken or is being actively and expeditiously pursued, or that the alleged violations did not occur, or that the alleged violations, except those involving financial matters, were beyond the Franchisee's control, the County may call and give notice of a hearing, pursuant to the Hearing Requirements for Matters Affecting Franchises as set forth in this Ordinance to consider revocation of the Franchisee's Franchise. If the County, following such hearing, finds that grounds for revocation exist, it may by Resolution duly adopted revoke for cause the Franchise granted to such Franchisee. (c) In the event that the Franchise has been revoked, the County shall, to the extent then permitted by existing law, have the option to: 23 T~ (i) acquire, at fair market value excluding any value attributable to the Franchise itself, all the assets of the Franchisee's system located within the County; or (ii) to require the sale, at fair market value excluding any value attributable to the Franchise itself, of all such assets of the Franchisee's system to another person; or (iii) to require the removal of all such assets from the County. Unless some later date is agreed to by the Franchisee, such option must be exercised by the County within one year from the date of the revocation of the Franchise, or the entry of the final judgment by a court reviewing the question of the revocation, or the entry of a final order upon appeal of same, whichever is later. In any Franchise revocation proceeding, if the County and a Franchisee cannot agree upon the fair market value excluding any value attributable to the Franchise itself of the Franchisee's assets located within the County, then the County and the Franchisee shall each at their own cost select a different independent appraiser (each of whom shall be an active member of and be certified by the American Society of Appraisers), who shall each provide an appraisal of the value at issue. If the greater appraised value does not exceed the lesser appraised value by more than 10% of such lesser value, then the two appraised values shall be averaged and the resultant value shall be binding upon the County and the Franchisee; if the greater appraised value exceeds the lesser appraised value by more than 10%, then the two previously-chosen appraisers shall together choose a third independent appraiser, who shall have no knowledge of the prior appraised values, and who shall provide an appraisal of the value which shall then be averaged with the two previous appraised values and the resulting value shall be binding upon the County and the Franchisee. Any valuation determined in accordance with the immediately foregoing procedure shall conclusively be deemed as an equitable price, as specified at § 627 of the Cable Act. 24 .,,,.- ~~ (d) The termination of a Franchisee's rights as set forth herein shall in no way affect any other rights the County may have under the Franchise Agreement with such Franchisee or under this Ordinance or any other provision of law or ordinance. Notwithstanding the pendency or culmination of any proceedings terminating a Franchise, the County may nonetheless by resolution extend for a period of not more than two years beyond the proposed or actual date of termination the entitlement of the affected Franchisee to operate the Cable System, during which period all provisions of this Ordinance and the applicable Franchise Agreement shall govern such operations. Section 19. Hearing Requirements for Matters Affecting Franchises Whenever a requirement is set forth herein for a public hearing or meeting to be called concerning any matter related to the evaluation, modification, renewal, revocation or termination of any Franchise issued pursuant to this Ordinance, such hearing or meeting shall not be held unless the County shall have advised the Franchisee in writing, at least thirty days prior to such hearing or meeting, of the time, place and general purpose of such hearing or meeting, and published a notice setting forth the time, place and general purpose of such hearing at least ten days before such hearing or meeting in a newspaper of general circulation within the County. In addition, the County may require the affected Franchisee to, and when so required the Franchisee shall, give notice of such hearing, and any continuation thereof, by announcement on its cable system in such manner, on such channels and at such times as both parties shall find to be reasonable under the circumstances. Any such hearing may be adjourned from time to time without further notice other than the announcement, at the time of adjournment, of the time and place of the continued hearing and such announcement, if any, as the County may require the Franchisee to make on its Cable System. 25 ~~ Section 20. Costs The County may require that each applicant for an initial Franchise compensate the County for its direct, out of pocket costs incurred in the award of a Franchise hereunder, including the County's expenses incurred for special counsel or consultants retained to assist it in such award. A bill for such costs as are then determinable may be presented to the Franchisee by the County upon the Franchisee's filing of its acceptance of an initial Franchise hereunder, and if so presented shall be paid at that time, and such additional costs as are determined as payable by the County shall thereafter be paid within 14 days of presentment to the Franchisee. Section 21. Open Video System Operation; Virginia Law (a) In the event that any entity shall obtain certification as an Open Video System ("OVS") operator and thereafter offer or continue to provide service within the County as an OVS operator, then all portions of this Ordinance which are applicable under governing statute or regulation fo OVS operators, including payment of required fees which may otherwise be imposed upon cable television operators (including, without limitation, franchise fees), shall apply without interruption or abatement to such entity except to the extent expressly prohibited by law or regulation. (b) Any provision of federal or Virginia law relating to cable television systems shall override and supersede any inconsistent or conflicting provisions of this Ordinance and any Franchise granted pursuant to this Ordinance. Section 22. Severability The provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. If any of its sections, provisions, exemptions, sentences, clauses, phrases or parts be held unconstitutional or void, the remainder of this Ordinance shall continue in full force and effect, it being the intent 26 T-~ now hereby declared that this Ordinance would have been adopted even if such unconstitutional or void matter had not been included therein. Section 23. Acceptance of Franchise No Franchise shall be deemed as granted or renewed pursuant to this Ordinance unless such grant or renewal be approved by the Board and, within 14 days after its receipt of a writing provided by the County, the applicant therefor acknowledges its acceptance of the provisions of this Ordinance and any additional conditions imposed in consideration of such grant by its execution and return of such writing, and provides payment of all sums due hereunder and submits all documentation required herein. Passed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia on the day of ATTEST: COUNTY CLERK APPROVED: CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 27 ~~~ AGENDA ITEM NO. (.~ APPEARANCE REQUEST PUBLIC NEARING -ORDINANCE ~CITI2EN COMMENTS ~^ r';8 SUBJECT: .-~ " 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: r n~ ADDRESS: ~~ ~ l 'i~~ ~~:~~~ r" ~~ r f" ; r,~ j~ r~d~ f ~~'~ ~ ~~~ <, ,.-? r PHONE: ~~~~'~~~~ __ AGENDA ITEM NO. APPEARANCE REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ~ CITIZEN COMMENTS sus.iecr: ~s ~ - ~ ~3 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 i~ 'p NAME: DDRESS: ~ ~ ~ j `~~J ~d ~ ~ ~ ~ Q A PHONE: ~6~- ~~ ~ C~ AGENDA ITEM NO. APPEARANCE REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE vl ~ CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: -~- 3 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/HES 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: l.~ ~~'~ 1 U ~l r-~ I C~~"~ ADDRESS: 5~2_~ G-~~ r~~~ l_~.~~~ 2 `~~ I PHONE: 7 .~ 1~ ~ ~ l c~ AGENDA ITEM NO. APPEARANCE REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: `~-S1~ ~~ ~3 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: i 0 t!G //// ADDRESS: ~- 7 ~ 3 ~IFC~ j{,~ tl~ ~'-(,(j l~l~s` ~~ PHONE: 7~~-~~~ o.~~r*o ~ AGENDA ITEM NO. APPEARANCE REQUEST PUBLIC NEARING -ORDINANCE =CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~-~ ~~ 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 T NE BOARD NAME: ~\:17 A1~r~ ~ VS ~QVZ`f~ ~~ ADDRESS: ~ ~ U Z. ~ I v~ Q L a ~ ~-`J PHONE: ' \ ~a d ~9 Q ~OI 0 a~ r ~~ m ~ ~ O H c °' ~ " i ~ " c ~ ~ ~' ~ ~~ ~ C a~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~(!~ Q Q ~ ~ . '~ -g ~ N ~ ~ C ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ . _ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~, _ ~ 4a- N C L ~ a~ 7 d ~o G Y LS l0 .~ ~~ W= D ~, ~~ ~~ .~ ~~ •~ ~ ~s 3 ~ CS ~ C Y ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ a, O ~ p 'C ~ ~ w ~ ~~ v .U ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 47 ~ s w. `o ca W ~ C ~ O ~ 'C O ~ w ~ ~~ r^ ~ ., ~ .~ r l7 // < ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ f~ ~;~ o ~ ~ .- , o, ~~ ~ ~:. ~I~ I d 9 ,~ r •~_ ~N cis -~ ~ ~ _ CV ~~ .R ',. , . O ~.- ~ s'F-sf _ a ~ . s _ ~ c._ C ~ `~ .O r~ ~ ~ ~ r r ~ ~ ~ h ~f a 'i ~ {V '.l -~ ti ` O _ ~ ti ~ ~ _~~7 ~ ~, _ ~ ao ~ -. ~. ~, _ . cn r E., r T n;~/~ (~ 1~ ~' :~ i9 - ~ ~^7 } C Gi f ~ ~ ~ r^~ bA ~ ~ + r ~~ ~• 9 v ~, .~ a, .. ~ --.~ N ~+ ! ,~T r s ., i bA ~"f ~; ~ ;~_~.:_ ,J !~ r ~ _ ~ atM r-. ..} m U 'lf ~ ° ~ .~ r ~ _ ~~ ~ "'~' u~ :~r- ~' ca ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. W ~ f` ~ ~: r,` ~v ~ ~a O N 01 _ f~- ~ Y ~ ~ ~ '~ O O . LL ~~ __ ~ 'g 41 ~ra~ ~~rl .~ t~ fp W ~~ ~ ~ •y, "~ ~.._,~ - .~ ~ + 'fr _, ~~, Jy ~ O _ /~/~ ~ ~.i./ }__ ~ '. .~i' ,• 7 I~~ ~ ~~~ ~' ,_ _.._~- L L l .~ Q.. H ~, 0 b ~. P, ~ ,.~. ur ^ ~ ~ o M N G1 a ~~ O ~ h+ .~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =r' ~• ~ x ~, ' o ~+ ~ r. ~~ ~ ~v ~ 4~s co `~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ a. a ~ a ~ .. ~, ~ ~- ~ 4. ~ , ~.` ~ ~ - W 1 O i 1 r • ~~ LL ,• ~ . ~~ ^ I r ~~ 3 C ~. r~ ~ ~ a. ~~ 0 0 0 N N .--~ 4..a .~ bA c~" F-~ _~ Y-i '~ i-i .S= O bA cd A-, z 0 0 0 N N .-~ ..., bA c~ H U~ ~, O .-: 'd N ~, 3 ¢, r" ~-H O bA C~ W A d f y w ~ :J ~ .? O o ~ H ..K r~ 7' y rp.+n ry CC J O rG r +' ci ~' G ..~ ~ R ~'°` O d ~~ ,"~ ice o ~ s ~ O ~~ V A ,~ •~ ~, ~ ~ O ,O y ~ :d cry d ~_ r ~ O ~ ^.~- c 'J~ CC O ~. ~° a~i ~ o 0 N ~, r, , ~' N ~ `d O N ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ^. ~ r' ~ (j N ~ ~ .~ ~ y ~ ~ ° `° o • 3 U ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ cT3 ~ p ~ r J y ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ Q Vii N ~ U W R U ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ • 3 o ~ N ~, ° p 3 ~ N o v ~ G ~. G ~~ •~ ~ ~ o ~ O ~ _ ~ -p r+ ~ ~ O ,,, +~ Q. N O ' ~ y `~ ~ ° ~ Cd N ~ `d ~ ' ~ T O ' ~ ~ ,. cC ~ O ~ ` ~ ~ c ~ ~ y ~ ~i N C~ O ' R Y ~+ ~n p, ~ O ~ L; ,}, +~ .. A ~~ G rr . r ~ ' ~cd A 'r N ~ y~ d- 7 ~, O R ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ U ~ ~ N i U N ~ U r1 y r ~ 1 y ~ ~ ~., ~ ~ ~ ~ R 6' w ~ F~ 'O 6' N R c~C ~ ~cd G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,fl ~ on ~ ~ ce ?+ 'd ~+ U °J ~.+ ~ ~ ~ M ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ v~ ~ o ~ C ~ : 3 0 ~, °~ y '~ '3 y ~ .°. 3 0 `~ R o r, . .~ :. V L ~ ~ ~ r' A 7 ~ ~ r H ' O ~ Z, U y r, /1 /'~ ~ ~ ~ 'J C~ ~ ~ ' ~ A ~ ~ ° ~ O y ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ o ° o~ ° ~ U ~ ° ° ~ r, ~ ''• v ~ ~ d, ~ O ~ ,T ~ ~ `fl ~ `~ ~ o '~ O ~ oo ~ a~ r W ~ ~ ~ ~ O Y (~+ ~' ~ i ~ ° ?' ~ O ~ ~ a / ~ ~ (~, Q ~ yT 00 4+ 4. tin `O ~ ~ ¢ ; o ~ a° °, ° 'd " ~ ° ~ ° U ° ' ~ o ~ o dy, ~ ~ ~., o ~, U ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ o ~ $ O o ~ o 4 G ~, ° ~ Ca " O ~ ~ y O cC ~. ° C ~, U r~~ ~ y o~ ~ a R V ~ oo O ° U ~ O ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ' N G o ~ O °~ ~ ~ ~' y ~ ° ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y o o O • ~ ,~ ~ U cC O ~ a ~, ~ `~ ° ~ y. a~ ~ d . O +~ ~ ~ M N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W C O U~ a c~ ~. N t~ O O O o° ~ a ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~~ o c ~ O ° ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ O ~ a D ~~ c c c ~o r o ' ° ~ ' ~ a, ' °` C ~ r oo a ~ c o, a cn ~ o ~ H ~ H -fDS y ~ ~] ~ H 0 0 0 0 0 ~ m ~ w O ~~ ~ w O ~ w ~~ O ~ w w w n O ~~ w J ~ p n ~~~ z x' z ~ y ~ ~ c ~ y cv ~ ~ A~ u ~ o o ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, _ ` p ~ o o ~ ,~ cu o ~ o '' o ~ ~. ~ o w o ~ ° o o ~ `° o cn o ~ 7y o R° ~' (~ ~ ° C~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ CD ~ ~' a' ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ o CD ~ ~ ~o 0 0 0 ~ o ~'0~~~ ~. ~ °~~ o'er ~ ~~. ~. ~ ~ av ~ ~~ ~ rn ~~ cu o o, cn ~. cu ~, cn ~ tra ° cn , ,-. ~ z ~ ~ ~ co z 7 '* r. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ., ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ p ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ o w z ° ~~_ ~_ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ a. ~ a ~ ~ `D CD o o ~ 0 ~ 0 yz ~°~ ~ e o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ O n ..+ •, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R. R ~ ~ ~ ~ ` . ,~ ~ y co a -C a a. ~. a w ~ '~ a w ~ a ~ a, a ~ i--i ' ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ° c a o ~° ~ c o 'v ~ ~ im ~ c~'`u X fD ~ a. ~ ~ ~~ ~, ~ ~, ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ `< , ~' ~ a- ~. . ` `~ ~ ~ ~ ° ° o a o ~' ° ~ ~~ a + ~., ~ = „ ~ N ^_ O ~P o~ ~ ... o ~. ~ .~ ° c `~ o ~ ~. a' ~. ~ a~ o ~' ~z ~~ ~ C o ~ ~~ ~ '~ ~~ c9 a~ a~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A. -C ~ cn ~ a ~ a . ~. o/ a a. ~ ~ °~ ~ ~ °' c~ ~ . ~ • ~ C "C ~ m C a. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ' ~ a ~ ~ ~ o w ~ ~ a' ~ cpu' ,~' w ~ iv ~ y °o o ~ ~, ~, a, ~ ^° oa' ~ ~ m ~ ~ o `~ ~~ ~ v, 0 ° ~~ .A 00 .. a ~ ~ ~~ d ~~ ~~~ a~ a~ ~ . x . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ a a a ~• ~ ' w ,~ a .o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a va ~ w ~ i--+ °' .A ° °' ~ ~ `C ~ a u o ~ e o c ~ ~,~ c ~ ~ n ° x ~ ~ . ~. ~ ~ ~ p- ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ a~ a: ~ ~ ~' 0 ~ °o ~ ~ a a~ ~ O w ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ o ~ `ti o 0 ~~ cro a~ o ° .r-, ~~ co oz x o d ~ o ° ~ N ~' ir"3 a ~ 0 o ~ c ' ~ ~ ~ °-r e ~ a ~ p- o `D ~ a ~ ~ ~• ~ p, ~ ~. ~' a ~ co .~ G. w a CD ~ ~, 7~ ~" a. a uo' ~ ~ ~ ~ a o ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ a~ ~ c~ c~c w CD ~s a `< cau w ~" °+ ~ o ~- 0 o ~ o o ~ ~, a ° p- ~~ ~ ~ !V `_' ~ ° a`~~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ '" o ~ ~ ~n `'~ ~ • o a ~ ~ ~ ~ n a. o ~ ~ ~ w ~ z a~ x ~ ~ d " ~~ °° ~' ~3 o a ~ p o C ~ CD c O ~ cfl ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~_~ '~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ a, rn a i c ~ ~~ a w ~. o.. a. "' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~" ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ rn a. ~ o ~ a ~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~ tea: ~ ~ ' o ~ a r. ~ ~ `rt . 0 a a co ~ a: ` ° 0 o ~ ~ ~o ~ o ~ 0 ~ ~ ~' . ¢' ~ ~ ~ • rn `ts w ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O co ~ N c~ ~; o ~, `h n i v i . ~ o • ~ co a. ~ .-. o~ ~ a ~' ~ c~ co a. ~z ~, o ~ c°~o' ~ a p- ~, ~. a a a a m" 0 0 a a: 0 a' '"d as c~ N O J ~a a' CD a 0 ."'i_+ CD .--~ '.3' N N O O O U c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ H ' H ' H ' H ' ~ O .A ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ '~ N ~ O ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ r -+ X11 ~ ~ .A ~ ~ W t-+ ~ ~ -+ N r-+ ~ ~ r o ~ ~'~' o ~ ~'~' r ~~ °~~ ~~ ~~ r o o ~:~ ~o ~:.~ r ~ ~~ ~~ r . ~ . < ~ O o w w ~ ~ O ~ w ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~' m ~ ~ ~' ~ ` ° ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ CD ° ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ o ~ _ ~ rn co i ~o co ~ ~ o co co ~ ~ cv c o p p '~ i G-'. ~ (~ V " ~ . ~ (~ " "~ ~ O ~ (~ v'" N ~ (~ ~" ~ ~ . vi (~ " N ~p vi (~ "S " C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n r~3 O co to v, C ~ ~ fo O O v, ~ ~ ~ O ~' ~ ~ ~ O ~' rn ~ O O ~ co O rn v, ~ O ~ O '~ .-. ~ G N 3 k ~ O O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ -t ~ ~ ~ ~~ -f o ~ O ~ ~. } ~ O ~ C• ~ ~. - t ~ O ~~ { qq fD ~' ~ K n p~ N O H O ~ N O .*, p~ ro O ~ ~ U ~ ~' ~ O O '~-. O ~ ~ ~ N ~ O ~ ~ ~ C o o ~ G o ~ ~ ~ ~' '~ ~ ~ O ~ QQ ~p '~' c u -n c o ~ ~ O O w O "'t ".~ ,y ~ ~ M II....1~I F...1 ~ O w O fD O w O (D O w p w Qq fD O w O w Uo fD ~ a a~ ° w ` ° ~ a° ~ `° w ' ~ `; oo ~. a~ w ~. . ~ ' ~ ~ v, ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ a cfl n ~ ~ ~ ~, a cfl A ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ rn re n ~ ~ ~ 5 n ~ a : ~ A u c a ~ a. ~ a ~. ., ~ a ~ ~ w a w a w a Q. ~ w a ~ . . ~ ~. i ~ G C ~, w ~ ~ ~ ~ ' w a w cro ~ m ~ ~ ~ CD a. a a ' a ' ~ ~ ~ a. a. a a. I `C ~ ~ `C ~ 7~ ~ ~ os, ~' ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ 0 0 o cn a' o, cr ^ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ^ ~ ! ~ ,~ ! ~ cn co t ~ cn cu s w ~ ^~ ~ w ~~ ~ m ~ X O ~ ~ ~ ~+ o ~ ~ re ~ ~ o ~ x ~ ~ , ~ d ~ o ° m ~ C w m w d p ~ ~ w ~ C w ~ ~ w . - ~. ° A. ~, A. w Ci. co td w ~ w ~ A. _ ~ ~ co o ~ ° G cu ~ ~ ~ ~ o `° a ~ C ~' w G o ~ ~ ,~'.' Q' •A w ~ ~ A. ~ N w c n o ° o ~ o .-. O a " ° c ~' cn N o0 y ° o ~ ~' v o ~ ~ o A ? ~ O a. ~ ~ ~ s . ~o '- ~ C . ~ ~ . cc cc cc ~ ~* •, ~ ~ , G . cn a; r. O ~] _ ~ ~ pq W ~ O O ~ O ~ ~~ O a. ~ n 0 ~ (D ~-' c''n .. c o r. ~, ~ °' c`'u ,.~ O ~ o ~ ~ ,~ i-S M ~ _ w ~ w M ~ C7 ~ 0 o a ~ CD ~ ~ ~ a' ~ o _ rn pi .~. ~ a ~ ~ w ~ ~ C ~ m m a'o.., . ~ CD rn ~ ' 0 c~ .+ o ~ ~ - 0 , . ,. ~ ' ~ ~ ° co a ~ °N ^o~ o° ~ b ~ c a c ~ ~ CD °° `~° ~ cr4 ~; CI4 co o ~ a ,~ N a w ~ o ~D ~ O O ~ J a 0 Uo CD N N O O O • v ~ ~~ ~ oo~ ~ J~ ~ c,~ ~' -r oo ~ v ~s a, -~ ~ ~ .y O .y "~ "~ N n N .y N .y N .y c.n "~ O Oo O w ~ cu p w O ~ O w .p p w O A p w ~1 O w O J p w c~ o w ~, y ~x~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ,-. c~o ~ ° co .~. cu .~. co ,--. co ~ cn ,-. cu cn O ~ ~ '".''~ O (D 'r7 ~~.. ~ O ~ ~ • O ~ ,.'y • ~ O N '.3 ~ N .'3 "~"' O N ~ • N C'"TD ~ • 'r1' Oho .~ ~ O~ •v'.. ~ .`3 n O~ p ~~ ~ `r7 W .~'.i ~ OHO ~ p 'r7 O .v'i ~ O ~v'.. ~ ~ ° O ~ vpi O O ~ ° O ~ ° O ~ O O N ° O ~ ° ~ ° O ~ O ~ ~ ~ W ~ O ° ~ O W ~ O ~q ~ O W N O ~ ~ O ~ (D O fD CD fD ,~,~ ~ vii ~' CAD ~ „".~, J ~ ~, J N .~'~.. Oo ~ ~ Oo ti ~ J ~ ~ J ~ _ N _ N N N vi c.n ~y o ~ ~: ~ v, tp o o ~ o ~ rb o ~ ~ o v, 7y o .r 7y o ~ 0 oa` :; ° o`'' o o`'' o o°O o 00 0 00 ° ~,o rn ~ ~ w ~ o ~. w ~~ ~ w ~ w (D .-~ ~ (D N CD ~p CD N CD .-~ CD ~ O ~ ~ O O ~ O ~ fD~ '~' p w" fD~ " ,* w fD " ~ w ~ " w cC ~ cu ~ cAo' n ~ cu p a n ~ cn ~- n ~ ~ ~- ~~ w w ~~ R. ~~ ~~ w ~ R. w w w ~~ a w ~ ~ ~ ~ a' co a' ~ cr ° ~' ° ~' '~-r ~ cn '+ w .+ w N w w w o ~• ~ < o. a a a. h ~ w ~w-1 H a ci. a a ~, o ~ ~ 7y ~ ~ ~ vo ~i ~ ~ as rJ ~ ~ ao ~i 'v, v, a- ~, w o. w ~ sS ~ o ~~ o a o o ,BCD-. o a o ~ o a o o a w CD O~~ ~ w o~~ ~ m '~~ ~ ~ '~~ ~ ~ :° ~~x c~ ~ ~~k ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ O w ~ O w O w O w R. ~ co w o. co ~ w o ~ w o ~ w ~ " ~ cn ° ~ ~ cu cu w ~ ~ w ~ w ~ w ~ x ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ p ~ N ~. ,j~ ~, ~ W ~ .A p n `' n coo O ~ R. c~u ~ cpo ~ rn N A. v '1 :D O ^ tip-. ~ .^-~ '~ ° ~ ° o °o '. ~ ~'. ~ cc coo ~ ~ G. ~, uo ~ co ro ~~ ~~ ~~ o ~ `~ `~ °< o o w o a' or .may O ~• N ~ ~' O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~_ n ~ cu cu ti ~ ~ ~ O ~ (~D ~ O O " p. ° O. cu cv F'C ~. o cn a co ~ ~ ~ co co ~ rn ~ ~' p O .* CS' CD a O Q+ .=+ .~-+ N N O O O c ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ -.~ ~ ~3 ~s y ~ ~ ~ H a ~ W C ~ N II ~ ~ a N `~ ~ N '~ ~ . N , N „ , N , , cfl ~ N cfl W N cfl N N rp rr N cp O F-+ r ~~ ~x xx r ~=~ ~x ~x r ~ ~~:x ~~x r ~~o~ r ~~ ~~ ' ~~ ~'~ p ' • O . J O~ O O O J~ O~ O~ O ~~ O N ~ 0 0 O O N N w O O p ~ p p ~ . p ~ `'G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, r. N CD ~ r. N CD ~, p '. CD CD ~ .+ "~ •~ ~ r. CD .-. CD O Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~.,, In ~ O O ~ O O ~ x ~' rn~. 7' ~ C ' ~ ~ ~' C ~ ~ ~ ~ O N ~ . O + O ~ . O / O p~ D . O p ~~ J ,~.' O~ O~ „O* O N O N J a i O N O N G~ v' n ,O* O O X 0 0 `~ ~ O ~ ' O ~ ` O ~ O p ~ ~ C3~" ~ -' .v'i Q I v O O~ p . ~ .~~+ CD . ~ CD -- . p ,~. CD . ~ fD .p G. ~ ~ N . ~ (D N ~ CD~ q' O ^ O ~ ~ CD v~ (D [n ~ CD v, CD to ~ [n .~•. ~ ~ rn G. ~ O . ~ CD ~o ~o ~ ~o ~o o ".o ~ w.o ..,o ~,o~ ~ ~~ O J N J N O J T J~ '~ w ~ W p~~ O oo O O oo O "'*+ o O~ `~ D1 "*+ O O 7y O cu O ~ c O ~ ~ ~ Oo ~„ ~ p `~ w ~ p ~p ~ O 0 0 o ~t ~ ~ ~ O~ ~ O O ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ G G N N CD O\ O ~ N ,A ~+ N r ~.y ~..{ w o w ~ ~ w ~ o w ~' ~ w ~ o w ~ ~ w ~ o '~ w ~ o ~ ~ n ~ o. ~ a ~. ~' ~ ~O ~. °' ~ a. ~. ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ cra ~ A ~ ~ O `~' ~ n .. ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ o ~ `~' ~ A •~ ~ ~ to ~ .y ~ rn m • ~ a: a: o ~ a a: M ~C a G'- o ~C a q- ~ a: a: O ~ ~.. w ~ ~ w w ~ o rn ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w 'O ~ w ~ a o" a o a o' a a . ~ ~ •, . ~ . ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ w ~ ~ ~' w ~ w ~ w ~ w ~ °.° ~ m w a. a. a. a a C~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ C1 ~ ~ ~ 7~ 0 0 o ~ ~ w " C ~ C ~ C ~ ~ C ~ C ~ f 9 Q- f D p- f D ~-- f D f D v, 'U m ~ co ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x O O o o ~' o ~' o ~' o o ~~ a: a: o: a a: k ~ cc co cn cu cn o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a. a. a a a ~-* cc .y c~ ..I co .y co .y rn !~ _N O O CD ri> ~._. O O -' . CD O co Q. rn a W UG CD O ~-~; J O' c~ R. O QQ a ~_ .~ N N O O O . ~- V N ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~' N ~ ~ ~ N •~ ~ C' N ~ 'A ~ ~ N ~ ~ N fD ~ N fD ~1 N fD ~ N fD 7~g~x 7~~x C'" 7~~:x xx r 7yo ~x ~ ~x r o, ~x °~ x C" 7~~x ~x rn co 0 o cn o co rn o cn ° co ~ ~ ~ co ~" ~ ~ cP p o co ~ ~ O ~ ~ O W ~ A~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ A~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ N ~ A ~ O ~ ~ (D ~ ~ .-r O ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O O~ ~ ~ O ~ O O~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O O O~ ~ N ~ O p O O~ ~ ~ O N O ~ ~ ^ r ~ ~ nom' ~D ~' ~ ~ p '~. ~ "~ ~] .~ ~ ~-' ~ ~' `-~ ,~.3 ~ ~ O ~_ I ~-f ~ 1 ~ 1 ~~}' 1 ~-F O ~~., I M I «O«~ ~ I O 1 ~ I ~ I e-f "! '"I '~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ J~ ~~qq vO O ~ O (D rn H ~ (D v, N rn _ .p vi Q1 ~ rn O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ '^-' ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ ~ D1 `nO O C ~p.-~ ~p~ ~~ O ~. O vp O O J W J W o O ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ OZ ~ O OZ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ o .p .p O O ~ 1-h b4 C ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ a= '~ ~. °' ~ ~ ~. ~' ~ '-~ ~. ~ ~ CD w °; ~. ~' ~ coo ~ R'~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ tra °' w ~ c ~ o `C ~ ~ o `C ~ ~ o `C ~ m' p. ~ ~ a. w a w_ cu ,..~ p c~ W ~ ~ ~ N W N Sv N Sv .fl .~+ Lu ~ O C .. O ~ O ~ O ~ C cu cu ~ ~ ~ a o a. o o ~, m R. ~ a A. coo R. ~ A. p° ~ Q. w ~ a. a. a `~ p- `~ p- ~ a. cv ~ 'C3 cu ~ ~ "~ rn ~ C b cn ~' o co ~ 'C c~ co ~. ~~ a o cua o Boa o °~~ a o ~a. ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ m C ~ ~ m C ~ p " R. ~ C ~ o. w Q. ~ ,~ '~° c° a ~ ~ cfl a ~, ~s ~ a a ~ ' ~ f D w ~' b ~ ~ w o ~ ~ w ° f~D ~ wa ~ ~ ~ ~ o rn ° f~9 ~ ~ o O ~ O ~ O O ~. G ~ ~ G ~' pq • :r ~ ~ • Co ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Oo J 'L5 ~` p "" a: p ~ O a: ~ O ~- G1 Vi a ,..,, Qr Q. p.: O 0 0 ~ ~ o ~ o 0 o ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ a `° cv ~ a •, o u o ~ ~ o ~ Q. ce io o cn cu o ': ° ': R. O O p'~ ~~ ~ W ~ ~ o .Y -» o ~~ ~ 0 0 O O O ~ C ai tv ~ Ai O C3 C3 a ~ a a o ~ a' ~ `~° m ~, .t ~ w °' w .0 0 0 ~' ~• coo coo ~ `-' ~ ~ ~ u °o ~ ~ ~ ~ k a a b o ,.. ~ ~ ~ y coo ~ ~ ~_ ~ `~ O J A O' CD a O ~-: Cl~ N ~1. CD ~=+ .--+ N \U N 0 0 0 o ~ ~~ c c y o y o H o a ~ ~ W N W ~ F"~ W ~ O N ~ ~ N ~;' ~ 't O "S ~D `S ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ r ~'~ ~~ x~ r o~ ~ W~ r o ~'~ ~:~ r ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ f9 . UQ. vii '.~ ~ '.~ ~ f7 . N ~ ~ ~ ~y n ~~r ~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ `C ~' ~C r7 A7 . `G A~ O ~ `G ~y ~< Sy .~ o O O ~ p ~s o ~ O O ~. O O O~ ~''~ ~ O ~ o O ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rn ~ ~ ~ O `~ O O `~ "~ O `~ `~ `~ `G O `G o `G O X 0 0 cn O D ''"'~ N O O cn '-'~ N ~ ^; O h O ~p ~ - O O ' "' '~ O ~ O cn ~ O G O O '-h 00 0 0 M o0 A7 ~ ~ C.'. CD k.'. ~~ r yy ~ ~..i ~ G. ~ r 1 ~ C.'. ~ '--~ + ~ G ~ ~ ~ C~ ~~ '.y ~o c ~ u ~ C1. W o O ~ W ~ . a.~ . ~ a ~ Q4. ~ ~ ~ .~oo 0 ~'~ ~-. o o ~ ~.O . ~, O .~O Nom... 0 N.r p O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ N p- O ~ .-~ O ~' w .+ ~' W O O N N O O ma M o ~ Ch N , y. cn (D ~ ~ w ~ d w ~ d w w d o ~ ' o a ~ o ~ ~ a '~' ~ ~ o ~ o a. ~ cu ~ ~ ~ ~ ... a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ' O ' ~ A • ~ ' a ~o ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ a ~ ~ d f9 ~ ~ ~ m c~ ~ c v •, ~ . ~ ~ a . ~ " •- o ~ . c~ ~ co Q' ~ ~ ~ `C ~ c u ~ ~ `C ~ c''o a ~ a w ~ ~ `C ~ ~ a w O ~ `C ~ ~ m ~ o ~ .n ~ ~, o. a a. ~ p., ~ a p c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w a ~ a w ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ° '" ~ ~ ~ ~; ?; UQ ~ ~ ~ a m a a a a. O ~ ~ "S o O ~ -t o ~ co ~ " a "~ N 'S ~n ~,o o ~ o ~ ~ ~ O CD O co . ~ ~' p ~ w ~ ~ ~ m ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ k ~ ~ o ~ O O " w C1. ~ G. ,~ a O w C7 p- O ~ p: ii o: ~ ~ ~ ~, 'r a; .r ~ ~ ~- o ~. a a. o x ~ a. • " O ^ Ua co ~ ~' a ~'. o ~ ac ~ ~ 0 ~ o p. N ~A. o „ ~ '+ ~ ~ O C ~ ~~ C ~ O "'' . . O .,a ~ ~ ~ w p' ~ cOo W ~ ~ M O O ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O a a ~- . ~ R CD e-r ~ i b OG ('D 0 NO NEW BUILD I-73 FIX 220/581 by TSM I-73 Location Study Public Hearings Come and Support the TSM Alternative! VDOT's Options: 1) No Build - do nothing 2) Build - Construct a totally new highway bypassing 220. 3) TSM -Fix US-220/1-581 in every way possible. We support TSM, a compromise position between two extremes. Don't select any of the Build routes, select the TSM Option! What you can do: Sign and Mail the enclosed letter. E-mail official comments to VDOT from our website: http://www.civic.bev.net/cca73 Attend a public hearing and make a comment. Or mail a written comment, due by January 12. Contact your elected officials. Public Hearings: Monday, December 11 Martinsville Middle School 30 Cleveland Avenue Martinsville Tuesday, December 12 Benjamin Franklin Middle Sch. 375 Middle School Road Rocky Mount Wednesday, December 13 Thursday, December 14 Hotel Roanoke Ballroom Wells Ave., Roanoke Format of all hearings: 2:00 to 9:00 PM -review displays and make comments orally or in writing in a relaxed setting. These will be part of the record submitted to the Commonwealth Transportation Board. 7:00 to 9:00 PM -make THREE MINUTE oral formal comments. VDOT encourages bringing a written copy, which can be much longer than 3 minutes. Virginians for Appropriate Roads (VAR) P.O. Box 2153, Rocky Mount, VA 24151. A wr Citizen Comments to Roanoke County Board of Supervisors December 19, 2000 My name is Kristin Peckman, and I reside at 813 I Webster Dr., in the Hollins District. As you may be aware, VDOT issued its Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Interstate 73 just before Thanksgiving, and comments are due by January 12. This gives us very little time to consider the issues; however, as our elected representatives, you have a responsibility to either consider them fully or request an extension from VDOT. I understand you made a resolution in 1998 to support this highway, before much was known about it or about the options. I understand you also amended this resolution two weeks ago, to oppose construction of I-73 along the Western corridor. I commend you for your willingness to consider new information at that time, and I hope that you will continue to consider new information, and to update your resolution where appropriate. I would also like to see the text of the resolution, and if someone could get me a copy of it, or show me where to find it online, I would appreciate that. There is an option in VDOT's DEIS which, according to VDOT spokesperson Laura Bullock (quoted in The Roanoke Times of Friday, December 15, 2000, page B I ), was only inserted to satisfy National Environmental Policy Act requirements. This is the TSM, or Transportation System Management, option. Despite the short shrift which VDOT has given to this option, it has gained much popular momentum in the short time since the DEIS was released, and for good reason. The TSM option is the only environmentally, socially, and fiscally responsible option, and here are some of the reasons why. I . It will not destroy our waterways, pollute our air, or violate our scenic vistas. 2. It will not destroy the farms that supply our local farmers' markets with fresh food. 3. It can be done at a tenth the cost of a new highway. 4. It will not bring extra through traffic, with its accompanying crime and drug traffic. 5. It can provide a safe route to the North Carolina border in just a few years, not the twenty years or more that building a new highway would take. 6. It will help the residents of Southeast Roanoke County, as well as those of Southwest Roanoke County. The residents of Mt. Pleasant, Rutrough Rd., and Pitzer Road have homes, too. Proponents of building a new Interstate base their argument primarily on the economic benefit that they claim it will provide to our area. However, they steadfastly refuse to provide any data to compare the costs with the alleged benefits. The fact is that no cost/benefit analysis has been done to justify the $1.4 billion or the lost homes, farms, scenery, air and water. What if we were to build a new interstate, and twenty years later, we were to discover that the Emperor was not wearing any clothes? No self-respecting private company would ever allow its officials to make a $1.4 billion investment without a cost-benefit analysis having been done. ,~ .. 4 There also are reasons why building a new I-73 would be detrimental to Roanoke County's economy. For one, it would make a ghost town of the Roanoke Regional Airport. For another, it would destroy the very environment that attracts young professionals to our area. At the VDOT public hearings in Roanoke on Wednesday and Thursday last week, 3 I speakers favored a new interstate, while 56 favored either no-build or TSM, while 16 wanted no Western route while not stating any other preference. Several people suggested a combination of TSM and rail would solve the congestion as well as the safety problems. Clearly there is a need for you to re-evaluate your position. May I suggest that you not accept any of the existing alternatives, but ask VDOT to expand its TSM alternative to cover the areas where congestion exists, as well as those with safety problems, and to consider studying rail alternatives to lighten truck traffic on this route. They could also consider TSM for the part of the route that runs through Roanoke and Franklin counties, and an interstate format for Henry County south, if that is what the people in that area want. Kristin B. Peckman 813 I Webster Dr. Roanoke, VA 24019 Attached are: I . An independent study by Emily Manetta, a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania, under a grant from the Cabell Brand Foundation, entitled I-73: Weighing the Costs. 2. Pages 2-21 through 2-28 of the Draft Environmental Impact Study, detailing the projects included in VDOT's TSM Alternative, as well as a map from other VDOT documentation which shows where those projects are located. 3. Copy of a December 10, 2000 article from the Richmond Times-Dispatch which shows that other states along the I-73 route are either rejecting I-73 or building it to less than interstate standards. Weighing the Costs I-73: Weighing the Costs An independent review of modern highway economics and an application of this information to the I-73 decision-making process Emily Manetta Summer 2000 .•.••••••••••••••a••••a••••••••r•aa••••a•••aaaaaaaaa INTRODUCTION Page 1 of 1 This report was conceived in order to address the lack of information available to the general public on the economic impact of the proposed I-73 project in the Roanoke Valley of Virginia and surrounding areas. The author reviews current trends in highway economics from sources such as the Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Highway Administration, then reveals those benefits and costs of the I-73 project which have not yet been thoroughly calculated. The report contains rates of return and benefit cost ratios for nationwide highway construction and maintenance projects. It emphasizes the inefficiency of investment in new, rural highways and therefore suggests close scrutiny of the I-73 project. The author outlines what information would be necessary to calculate a benefit-cost ratio for the I-73 project, then demonstrates that very little of this information is currently available, either from Virginia Deparment of Transportation or the Economic Impact Study commissioned by the City of Roanoke.This report recommends that a detailed benefit-cost analysis of the I-73 project be performed before the citizens and community leaders proceed. •+•••••••••••••••••••••••a•••aaaaa••a•••••••••••••aa This report is being made available to the public through this website. You can view the report either in its original Power Point form or in a text version. View the Power Point Presentation I-73 Weighing the Costs View the Paper I-73 Weighing the Costs aa•••a•••a•••••••a••aaara•••raaaaaa•a•••••••••••aaaa THE SMALL PRINT Research and presentation of this report was made possible by the Cabell Brand Center for International Poverty and Resource Studies. All statements other than those cited are my own and do not represent the opinions held by this or any other group or organization. Please feel free to print and reproduce this report for the purposes of discussion of I-73 or other highway-related economic issues. However, I would like to know when it is being used. If you plan to cite or disseminate this report, please email me at emanetta~asas.upenn.edu just to let me know. Thank you. http://www.geocities.com/seventythree2000/73.htm1 12-19-2000 I-73 web page paper Return to Homepage I-73: Weighing the Costs An examination of highway economic analysis and its application to the I-73 project Emily Manetta Summer 2000 Page 1 of 7 1. ABSTRACT: The proposed I-73 project, a new terrain interstate highway to be built through Southwestern Virginia, leaves local residents with a number of pressing questions. Residents are concerned about the way that such a large road could transform their region, and have a right to know about the potential impact of I-73 on the economy and quality of life of the Roanoke Valley and surrounding areas. This report presents the information which is currently available on trends in highway economics across the nation. The steps which are used to calculate the economic potential of a highway project are outlined and examined in detail. This close study of highway economics prompts the following question: Has enough economic analysis of the I-73 project been performed to ensure area leaders that it is a viable investment? The answer appears to be no. Due to a nationwide trend of plummeting highway profitablity, this report calls for a thorough benefit-cost analysis of the I-73 project before the region comes to any decision on the issue. 2. SOURCES: The information on the highway economics of the past forty years came from three primary sources. The first was a review of infrastructure spending by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) which sought to track the efficacy of various forms of infrastructure investment. The second source was an internal review of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) entitled "Contribution of Highway Capital to Output and Productivity Growth in the US Economy and Industries" performed by a New York University economist. Both of these studies were published in 1998. The third primary source was a review essay on infrastructure investment published in the Journal of Economic Literature by economist Edward Gramlich, who is now a member of the Federal Reserve Board. Additional sources include a reanalysis of a benefit-cost study performed by Indiana Department of Transportation on a proposed highway project. Information on employment figures came from a 1999 report entitled "Highway Capital and Economic Productivity" published by the Surface Transportation Policy Project. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) recently released by VDOT was briefly examined, along with other VDOT statements. Finally, the economic analysis of I-73 commissioned by the City of Roanoke and performed by the Economic Development Research Group, was a source of limited economic information available specifically on the I-73 project. This analysis, entitled "Economic Impact of I-73 Alignments on the city of Roanoke" will be herein referred to as the EIR. For further information on sources and' citations, please see the footnotes and works cited page. 3. HIGHWAY INVESTMENT AND ECONOMIC POTENTIAL 1960-2000: This nation spends a great deal of money on our interstate highways. A number of economists, government offices, and concerned citizens have begun to scrutinize whether this money is being well spent. Using various statistical tools, analysts can determine how highway profitability is http://www.geocities.com/seventythree2000/paper/paper.html 12-19-2000 I-73 web page paper Page 2 of 7 changing and what types of highway investment will spark the greatest economic development in the present and future. 3.1 Highway Spending As it was originally designed, the Interstate Highway System (IHS) was scheduled to be near completion thirty years ago. However, real highway spending is currently increasing. In Figure 3.1.1, it is clear that highway investment initially dropped after the 1965 peak. Normally one would expect this trend to continue until the spending flat-lined at a maintenance level. In the early 1980s, however, spending increased sharply, and this alarming trend has continued through the year 2000. Notice, also, that this trend is not echoed in the other sectors of infrastructure but is instead limited to highways alone. Figure 3.1.11 Billions of 1997 Dollars .3 ~~LVr'A VS .`,~ :D I~ 1D D '~1'atnr Resources '~ V t .. ' '~ ;~ ~ • • ''. ~'~ ~ ~ .. ~ f ~ ~ - .. .~- .. Aviation ~ . ,~ .. ~ . .~ . .~ ~~~ ' .. ~~- u~ _ .. . .~ ~ . ... r ; ~- 'IYai~sit W~s'te~uvaater ~.• andRaii -`~..-~ ~r f 145i 196D :9~4 1968 19T: 19T6 ]980 1984 1911 199? ]996 2~~0 3.2 The Viability of Highway Investment With the knowledge of the increasing resources which the nation devotes to highway spending, it is unsettling to discover that new highways no longer necessarily result in economic development in the regions where they are built. In fact, the amount of economic development brought by highways has decreased so sharply over the last thirty years that most investments in new highway construction cannot break even. Figure 3.2.1 demonstrates this fact using an economic tool called an internal rate of return. A rate of return equates the present value of benefits with the present value of cost, including "opportunity cost" or gains which are forgone by not putting invested funds to their most attractive use. For example, if a rate of return for a particular project is 14%, then for every dollar invested in that project, $1.14 in benefits would result. Figure 3. 2.1 2 http://www.geocities.com/seventythree2000/paper/paper.html 12-19-2000 I-73 web page paper Page 3 of 7 It is clear from Figure 3.2.1 that highway investments demonstrated a high rate of return in the 1950s and 1960s, during the first decades of the IHS. Since the completion of the IHS, however, the rate of return has precipitously and continuously declined. It is not only important to know that the rate has declined, but also to know if the rate of return is efficient. That is, is enough economic development resulting from highway construction to justify the investment at all. There are two ways to measure the efficiency of highway capital. The first, used by the FHWA, stipulates that highway capital is oversupplied once the rate of return to highway capital drops below the rate of return to private capital. A second method, advocated by Edward Gramlich, is that highway investment is worthwhile only as long as the rate of return to highway capital exceeds the long term interest rate. Figure 3.2.2 compares the falling rate of return to highway capital from Figure 3.2.1 (the red series) with the rate of return to public capital (the blue series) and long term interest rate (the green series). Figure 3. 2.23 Imrerage dal Ra2,es c~ Ret~to h~aQes~er~t at Ii~may Cap8n1,1§rvate Cap8a1, andthe hiteres[ Rate 60 50 40 30 20 10 Highway capital Private capital Interest rate As is shown above, there is a comfortable margin between the rate of return to highway capital and to private capital through the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1980s, however, the rate of return to highway capital drops below the rate of return to private capital, indicating that highway capital is generally http://www.geocities.com/seventythree2000/paper/paper.html 12-19-2000 1960-69 1970-79 1980-91 1.991 I-73 web page paper Page 4 of 7 oversupplied according to the FHWA. This trend continues through 1991. Using Gramlich's method, there is again a significant margin between the rate of return to highway capital and the long term interest rate even in the 1980s, indicating that on average, some economic development is resulting from highway construction. By the 1990s, however, the rate of return to highway capital and the long term interest rate have converged, demonstrating that continued investment in highway infrastructure may no longer be worthwhile. 3.3 The Economic Potential of Highway Maintenance Verses Highway Construction Relying on data from the CBO, it is clear that highway maintenance is more efficient that new highway construction. This means that dollar for dollar, investment in maintenance projects such as road resurfacing or widening contribute more to economic growth than new construction. This fact is clearly demonstrated by Figure 3.3.1, which compares the 1994 rate of return of four types of highway projects: maintenance of existing roadways, new urban construction, upgrading of below minimum sections, and new rural construction. Figure 3.3.14 While maintenance of existing highway infrastructure nets a very high 35% rate of return, urban construction produces less that half that. Upgrading below minimum sections of highway is still lower, and lowest of all is new rural construction, whose rate of return is listed as negligible and could possibly be negative (Note that I-73 is a rural highway project, not an urban one, since the vast majority of its length runs through rural areas). According to both the CBO and the FHWA, maintenance of exiting highways is more efficient and brings more economic development than any form of new construction. In addition, rural construction is the least efficient type of construction, meaning that the most money is spent resulting in the least economic gain, and possibly even economic loss. Another analytic tool, the benefit-cost ratio, allows further examination of the efficiency of maintenance in Figure 3.3.2. A benefit-cost ratio is the present value of all discounted current and future benefits of a project divided by the discounted sum of all its costs. A ratio of 1 means that the project will break even, and the benefit-cost ratio for a given project is 2, then for every dollar invested in the project, $2.00 in benefits will result. This ratio frequently takes into account social costs and benefits. These are effects of a project which do not have obvious quantities, but can be quantified through the methodology of this type of analysis. For instance, increased air pollution would be a social cost, and increased park land would be a social benefit. Each would be quantified and included in a benefit-cost analysis. Figure 3.3.2 gives the benefit-cost ratios of four types of maintenance: road alignment, resurfacing without shoulder work (1), resurfacing with shoulder work (2), and lane-widening. All of these maintenance projects exhibit acceptable, and some very advantageous, benefit-cost ratios. Figure 3.3.2 http://www.geocities.com/seventythree2000/paper/paper.html 12-19-2000 I-73 web page paper UNAVAILABLE Page 5 of 7 A final economic comparison of highway maintenance and new highway construction indicates that maintenance can employ up to 40% more individuals than a highway construction project. 3.4 Summary The information given above indicates that on average, new rural highway construction is inefficient, demonstrating little to no potential for economic development. A project of this type may even be built at a loss. It is efficient, however, to invest in maintenance of exiting highway infrastructure, and this type of investment provides greater potential for economic benefit to an area. 4. IS THERE BENEFIT-COST DATA FOR THE I-73 PROJECT? Given the overall inefficiency of new rural construction and the drop in economic benefit brought by highway investment nationwide, it is essential to examine whether I-73's potential to bring economic development is not also outweighed by its costs. Unfortunately, there is no up-to-date and thorough benefit-cost analysis or rate of return calculated for the various possible routes of I-73. In fact, much of the basic information necessary to do a benefit-cost calculation is not available. The following is an examination of the parameters for the benefit-cost analysis. Neither VDOT nor the EIR has designated monetary figures for the simplest benefits and costs, much less the complex social and indirect elements. 4.1 The Steps to a Benefit Cost Analysis According to Dr. Neal Johnson of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University, there are four steps to calculating abenefit-cost ratio for a project. The first is to identify the benefits and costs: direct, indirect, social. The analyst must not be limited to those which are easily quantifiable. The second step is to assign, through economic equations, monetary values to each benefit and cost. The third step is to discount those benefits and costs which accrue over time, and then the analyst may calculate the benefit-cost ratio. Sections 2-4 identify the benefits and costs of the I-73 project and examine for which of these a monetary value has been calculated. 4.2 Identifying the Benefits and Costs Benefits are broken into three categories. User benefits are the direct benefits to those individuals traveling on the new highway such as reduced travel time and improved safety. Tourism benefits are the benefits to an area through increased tourism brought by the highway, main. Productivity gains is the largest category of benefits, and include decreased cost of good production and business attraction and expansion. Costs are also of three types, project development, project maintenance, and environmental impact. Many of these costs are incurred before, during, and long after construction, so estimating the cost effectiveness of a project over the long term is essential. 4.3 What monetary values are so far assigned to these benefits and costs? Benefits Under the category of user benefits, both VDOT's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the EIR estimate what the reduced travel times might be from and to various points on the I-73 route, but neither estimate what savings that might bring to travelers. Improved safety is listed in the Purpose and Need statement of the DEIS and accident reduction is a theme throughout the report, however this benefit has not been quantified either. Furthermore, no estimates have been made in the changes in vehicle operating costs if I-73 is constructed. In terms of tourism benefits, the EIR has estimated a possible annual $40-60 million in additional hotel and lodging revenues and $2-3 million in additional restaurant and hotel tax revenues. No estimates have been made of the travel cost savings as a result of the highway. Under the final benefit category of productivity gains, the decreased cost of producing goods and services has not been estimated. Both VDOT and EIR have addressed the possibility of business http://www.geocities.com/seventythree2000/paper/paper.html 12-19-2000 I-73 web page paper Page 6 of 7 attraction and expansion through job availability and have produced a range of different estimates for job increases from the hundreds into the thousands. Costs VDOT has allocated a total of $15 million dollars for past and future planning and design of the I-73 project. Construction itself is estimated to cost $1.12-1.37 billion. The cost of long term maintenance of this highway was not given. While the DEIS did address the environmental issues of air and water pollution, it did not estimate the costs of these impacts to the community. The effect of increased traffic congestion was also not measured in terms of additional cost. Finally the EIR mentioned but did not quantify costs such as increased city investment in roads and public transit, and lost revenues from any possible decrease in downtown access. The DEIS did estimate that annual tax revenues lost from displaced business could be in the millions of dollars for some I-73 routes. 4.4 Incomplete Information Out of the fifteen sample benefits and costs identified above, only four monetary figures were available for abenefit-cost ratio. Even those that are given maybe outdated and are difficult to compare in some cases. Abenefit-cost analysis of I-73 could not yet be be performed, because much of the supporting information and quantification is not available. 4.5 Conclusions Because of the precipitous drop in the efficiency of highway investment and the risk associated with investment in highway construction over highway maintenance, it is essential to scrutinize the economic potential of any new rural highway project. It seems, however, that the economic information is not yet available to allow area citizens and leaders to make an informed decisions about the costs and benefits of I-73 and its alternatives. While the DEIS was not required to make such an analysis, the regulations concerning the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 suggest that it be incorporated if it is relevant to the decision making process. Many were hoping that the DEIS would contain abenefit-cost analysis, and now feel a lack of economic and comparative environmental information to allow them to choose the best option for the Roanoke area. 5. RECOMMENDATIONS: This report recommends that several impartial benefit-costs analyses be completed for the routes and alternatives of the I-73 project which incorporate direct, indirect, and social costs and benefits in a quantitative manner. Furthermore, in light of the information contained in this report, the benefit-cost analyses must allow for comparison between the economic advantages of I-73 construction and maintenance of existing highway infrastructure. Works Cited 1. Congressional Budget Office: "The Economic Effects of Federal Spending on Infrastructure and Other Investments" June 1998. 2. Federal Highway Administration: "Contribution of Highway Capital to Output and Productivity Growth in the US Economy and Industries" by I. Nadiri; August 1998. 3. Edward Gramlich of the Federal Reserve Board: "Infrastructure Investment: A Review Essay" Journal of Economic Literature, September 1994. http://www.geocities.com/seventythree2000/paper/paper.html 12-19-2000 I-73 web page paper Page 7 of 7 4. Neal Johnson of School of Public and Environmental Affairs, IN "A Reevaluation of the Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Southwest Indiana Highway" May 1997. 5. Hank Dittmar of Surface Transportation Policy Project: "Highway Capital and Economic Productivity" February 1999. 6. Economic Development Research Group: "Economic Impact of I-73 Alignments on the City of Roanoke" January, 2000. (herein EIR) 7. Virginia Department of Transportation: "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the I-73 Project" Summer, 2000. http://www.geocities.com/seventythree2000/paper/paper.html 12-19-2000 TABLE 2.4-1 (CONTINUED) NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMMED CONSTRUCTION IN THE STUDY CORRIDOR # Locality Road Location Type of Phase Im rovement 34 Martinsville Liberty At Clearview Drive and Liberty Street PE through 1999; Street Stultz Road Intersection RW through 2000; im rovements Construction throu h 2002 35 Martinsville Common- Extension from Fairy Street Extension - 4 lanes PE through 2001; wealth to East Church Street RW through 2004 Boulevard 36 Martinsville Fayette At Norfolk and Southern Widening and PE through 2001; Street Railroad under ass - 2 lanes RW throu h 2004 37 Henry U.S. At Route 902 intersection Intersection Construction through 1999 Count Route 220 im rovements Source: Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board 1998-1999 Six Year Improvement Program, VDOT and Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. This program is currently being amended by the tentative Virginia Transportation Development Plan, 2000 - 2001 (VTDP). As of this date, the final version of the VTDP has not been approved by the CTB. Certain improvements such as I-81 have been amended in the 2000 -2001 Transportation Development Plan to reflect a 4 - 8 lane widening of I-81. Other changes in this table may be anticipated upon final adoption of the VTDP. Roanoke Vallev Area Long Range Transportation Plan 1995-2015, VDOT and the Fifth PDC, August 1996. FY 1998-2000 Transportation Improvement Program for the Roanoke Vallev Area Metropolitan Planning Or a~9_ nization, Fifth PDC, August 1997. Note: Preliminary Engineering Phase: Preliminary field survey, utility location, environmental/historical studies, road design alternatives, drawings, final field inspections, and public hearings are completed. z Right of Way Acquisition: Negotiations with property owners take place, payments are made and arrangements with utility companies are finalized to obtain the necessary land for the project. 2.5 TSM ALTERNATIVE This alternative would include all of the improvements in the No-Build Alternative plus improvements to upgrade U.S. Route 220 to design standards for a rural principal arterial system (GS-1) using a design speed of 50 miles per hour (80 kilometers per hour) from the North Carolina state line to Roanoke. Figure 2.5-1 shows the typical cross section of VDOT's rural principal arterial and Table 2.5-1 indicates the minimum geometric standards for this type of road. Sight distance improvements and crossover elimination in selected locations on U.S. Route 220 are included to enhance safety. Improvements are not recommended, however, where the grades are in excess of 5 percent for short distances except where sight distances at the crest of a grade are less than the desirable distance in the vicinity of high accident locations (See Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, for high accident locations). Table 2.5-2 lists the type and location of the TSM Alternative geometric improvements. There is no regulatory basis for considering the TSM alternative. The impetus to consider a TSM alternative goes back approximately 20 years when significant advances were being made in computers and communication. Planners saw TSM as an inexpensive solution for addressing congestion while minimizing environmental impacts. Information on the purpose and intent of the TSM alternative is limited, with the only source being FHWA's Technical Advisory T6640.8A. The TSM alternative was intended to be a stand-alone alternative that completely addresses the purpose and need for the project. The intent of the TSM alternative is to maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation system, therefore, it should only consist of minor improvements with little work outside the right-of-way. Major improvements such as the addition of lanes, the wholesale correction of geometric deficiencies, or the reconstruction of an entire route would be considered a separate build alternative and not a TSM alternative. I-73 Location Study 2-21 Draft Environmental Impact Statement ocrover, zooo MEDIAN EXIST.OR 8' 10' 24' 20'MIN. 24' 13' 1.8m) (3Dm) Q.2m) (Bm) Q.2m) .9m) DITCH SHOULDER TRAVEL LANES _ TRAVEL LANES SHOULDER SBL 3' NBL 8' (0.9m) . 8. ~(2.4m) .4m)~ PAVEDlSTABILIZEO SHOULDER TSM ALTERNATIVE TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE A barrier may be required for median widths less than 40 feet (12 meters). I-73 Location Study FIGURE 2.5-1 TSM ALTERNATIVE TYPICAL SECTI(]N l-73 Location Study 2-~~ Draft En vlronmenta! Impact Statement TABLE 2.5-1 RURAL PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS Im rovement Characteristic Variable Distance Minimum width of lane 12 feet 3.6 meters Minimum width of grade shoulders -fill 13 feet 3.9 meters - cut 10 feet 3.0 meters Paved/stabilized shoulder width - ri ht 8 feet 2.4 meters - left 3 feet 0.9 meters Width of ditch front sloe 6 feet 1.8 meters Minimum degree of curvature En lish 7 degrees 30 minutes Minimum radius of curvature 755 feet 230 meters Stopping sight distance -desirable 475 feet 140 meters -minimum 400 feet 113 meters Maximum Grades - rollin terrain 5 ercent -mountainous terrain 7 percent Source: VDOT Geometric Design Standards for Rural Principal Arterial (GS-1 ). TABLE 2.5-2 TSM ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS Number Location Deficienc Im rovement 1 Roanoke County - 0.08 miles Sight distance 325 feet Rebuild approximately 2,000 feet (600 (0.13 kilometers) north of (100 meters). meters) roadway to increase sight distance Route 789 South (north of to 475 feet (140 meters). Blue Ridge Parkway crossin From 1 to 2 Roanoke County - 0.08 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.13 kilometers) north of substandard shoulder Route 789 South (north of width. Blue Ridge Parkway crossing) to Route 679 Clearbrook 2 Roanoke County -Route 679 High Accident Rate. Remove raised median and widen pavement (Clearbrook) to Route 930 enough to introduce a 12-16 feet (3.6-4.9 meters wide center turnip lane. 3 Roanoke County -Route 930 Narrow median and Close all median openings and widen to Route 668 inadequate crossover median to 20 feet (6 meters). s acin . 4 Roanoke County -Route 668 Narrow median and Close all median openings except at Route to Back Creek inadequate crossover 676 and Route 668 and widen median to 20 s acin feet 6 meters . 5 Roanoke County -Back Narrow median and Close all median openings except at Route Creek to Route 715 North inadequate crossover 657 and widen median to 20 feet (6 meters). s acin . From 5 to 6 Roanoke County -Route 715 Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. North to Intersection Route substandard shoulder 677 North and South width. Source: U.S. Route 220 Safety Report, VDOT, Traffic Engineering Division, September 27, 1994. Notes: * Locations that were identified with high accident rates and corresponding primary roadway deficiencies. Assumes: VDOT Geometric Design Standards for Rural Principal Arterial System (GS-1) - Other Principal Arterials, Rolling Terrain, 50 mph design speed. 1-73 Location Study 2-23 Draft Environmental Impact Statement October, 2000 TABLE 2.5-2 (Continued) TSM ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS Number Location Deficienc Im rovement 6 Roanoke County - High accident rate - Rebuild southbound lane to raise lane to Intersection Route 677 steep crossover with level of northbound lane and increase sight (North and South) inadequate sight distance on both approaches to 475 feet distance. (140 meters) minimum. Adjust grade on Route 677 west as re uired. From 6 to 7 Roanoke & Franklin counties Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. -Intersection Route 677 substandard shoulder (North and South) to Route width. 613 7 Franklin County -Route 613 High accident rate - Rebuild approximately 5,000 feet (1520 to Maggodee Creek inadequate horizontal and meters) of northbound lane with alignment vertical geometry, and grade adjacent and parallel to northbound lane. southbound lane. Close all median openings except at Route 824 and Route 613. From 7 to 8 Franklin County -Maggodee Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. Creek to Route 919 substandard shoulder width. 8 Franklin County -Route 919 High accident rate - 7 Rebuild approximately 4,100 feet (1250 to Route 691 North percent grade and meters) of both lanes to reduce grade to 6 inadequate sight percent and increase sight distance on crest distance. of rade to 475 feet 140 meters minimum. From 8 to 9 Franklin County -Route 691 Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. North to Route 691 South substandard shoulder width. 9 Franklin County -Route 691 7 percent grade and Rebuild approximately 3,200 feet (975 South to Route 693 inadequate sight meters) of both lanes to reduce grade to 6 distance. percent and increase sight distance to 475 feet 140 meters minimum. From 9 to 10 Franklin County -Route 693 Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. to Intersection Route 697 substandard shoulder North width. 10 Franklin County - 6 percent grade and Rebuild approximately 1,700 feet (520 Intersection Route 697 North inadequate sight meters) both lanes to increase sight distance distance. on crest of grade to 475 feet (140 meters) minimum Rebuild Route 697 north to west as re uired. From 10 to 11 Franklin County - Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. Intersection Route 697 North substandard shoulder to Intersection Route 697 width. South 11 Franklin County - High accident rate - 7 Rebuild approximately 2,800 feet (850 Intersection Route 697 South percent grade, meters) both lanes to reduce grade to 6 inadequate sight percent and to increase sight distance on distance, con ested area. crest of rade to 650 feet 200 meters . From 11 to 12 Franklin County - Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. Intersection Route 697 South substandard shoulder to 0.4 miles (0.65 kilometers) width. south of Blackwater River Source: U.S. Route 220 Safetv Report, VDOT, Traffic Engineering Division, September 27, 1994. Notes: "Locations that were identified with high accident rates and corresponding primary roadway deficiencies. Assumes: VDOT Geometric Design Standards for Rural Principal Arterial System (GS-1) - Other Principal Arterials, Rolling Terrain, 50 mph design speed. 1-73 Location Study 2-24 Draft Environmental Impact Statement October, 2000 TABLE 2.5-2 (Continued) TSM ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS Number Location Deficient Im rovement 12 Franklin County - 0.4 miles High accident rate, steep Rebuild approximately 4,700 feet (1430 (0.65 kilometers) south of grades, inadequate sight meters) both lanes to reduce grades to 5 Blackwater River to 1.5 miles distance, congested area. percent maximum and increase sight (2.4 kilometers) south of distance to 475 feet (140 meters) minimum, Blackwater River except at crest of grade in southbound lane at 0.6 miles (0.97 kilometers) from Blackwater River sight distance should be increased to 650 feet 200 meters . From 12 to 13 Franklin County - 1.5 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (2.4 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Blackwater River to 0.03 width. miles (0.05 kilometers) south of Route 619 South 13 Franklin County - 0.86 miles Steep grades. Rebuild approximately 3,850 feet (1170 (1.38 kilometers) south of meters) of both lanes to reduce grade to 5 Route 40 to 0.79 miles (1.27 percent maximum. kilometers) south of Pigg River From 13 to 14 Franklin County - 0.79 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (1.27 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Pigg River to 0.03 miles width. (0.05 kilometers) south of Route 619 South 14 Franklin County - 0.03 miles Steep grades. Rebuild approximately 4,000 feet (1200 (0.05 kilometers) south of meters) of both lanes to reduce grade to 5 Route 619 South to 0.79 percent maximum. miles (1.27 kilometers) south of Route 619 South From 14 to 15 Franklin County - 0.79 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (1.27 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Route 619 South to 0.56 width. miles (0.90 kilometers) south of Route 755 15 Franklin County - 0.56 miles Steep grades. Rebuild approximately 4,000 feet (1200 (0.90 kilometers) south of meters) of both lanes to reduce grade to 5 Route 755 to 1.31 miles percent maximum. (2.10 kilometers) south of Route 755 From 15 to 16 Franklin County - 1.31 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (2.10 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Route 755 to 0.31 miles width. (0.50 kilometers) north of Route 827 16 Franklin County - 0.31 miles Steep grades. Rebuild approximately 3,900 feet (1190 (0.50 kilometers) north of meters) of both lanes to reduce grade to 5 Route 827 to 0.42 miles percent maximum. (0.68 kilometers) south of Route 827 Source: U.S. Route 220 Safetv Reoort, VDOT, Traffic Engineering Division, September 27, 1994. Notes: * Locations that were identified with high accident rates and corresponding primary roadway deficiencies. Assumes: VDOT Geometric Design Standards for Rural Principal Arterial System (GS-1) - Other Principal Arterials, Rolling Terrain, 50 mph design speed. 1-73 Location Study 2-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement October, 2000 TABLE 2.5-2 (Continued) TSM ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS Number Location Deficient Im rovement From 16 to 17 Franklin County - 0.42 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.68 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Route 827 to 0.39 miles width. (0.63 kilometers) north of Route 724 17 Franklin County - 0.39 miles Steep grade and Rebuild approximately 1,500 feet (450 (0.63 kilometers) north of inadequate sight meters) of both lanes to reduce grade to 5 Route 724 to 0.02 miles distance. percent maximum and increase sight (0.03 kilometers) north of distance on crest of grade to 475 feet (140 Route 724 meters minimum. From 17 to 18 Franklin County - 0.02 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.03 kilometers) north of substandard shoulder Route 724 to 0.31 miles width. (0.50 kilometers) north of Big Chestnut Creek 18 Franklin County - 0.31 miles Steep grade, inadequate Rebuild approximately 2,000 feet (600 (0.50 kilometers) north of Big sight distance, and meters) of both lanes to reduce grade to 5 Chestnut Creek to 0.91 miles narrow crossover width. percent maximum, increase sight distance (1.46 kilometers) north of on crest of grade to 475 feet (140 meters) Route 618 minimum and eliminate crossover located 0.31 miles (0.50 kilometers) north of Big Chestnut Creek. From 18 to 19 Franklin County - 0.91 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (1.46 kilometers) north of substandard shoulder Route 618 to 0.61 miles width. (0.98 kilometers) north of Route 618 19 Franklin County - 0.61 miles Steep grades. Rebuild approximately 7,000 feet (2100 (0.98 kilometers) north of meters) of both lanes to reduce grades to 5 Route 618 to 0.21 miles percent max. (0.34 kilometers) south of Route 608 From 19 to 20 Franklin County - 0.21 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.34 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Route 608 to 0.34 miles width. (0.55 kilometers) south of Route 605 From 20 to 21 Franklin & Henry counties - Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. 0.18 miles (0.29 kilometers) substandard shoulder south of Route 609 to 0.24 width. miles (0.39 kilometers) north of Mountain To Court 21 Henry County - 0.24 miles Hazardous location. Close median opening. (0.39 kilometers) north of Mountain To Court From 21 to 22 Henry County - 0.24 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.39 kilometers) north of substandard shoulder Mountain Top Court to 0.25 width. miles (0.40 kilometers) north of Route 987 Source: U.S. Route 220 Safety Report, VDOT, Traffic Engineering Division, September 27, 1994. Notes: * Locations that were identified with high accident rates and corresponding primary roadway deficiencies. Assumes: VDOT Geometric Design Standards for Rural Principal Arterial System (GS-1) - Other Principal Arterials, Rolling Terrain, 50 mph design speed. I-73 Location Study 2-26 Draft Environmental Impact Statement October, 2000 TABLE 2.5-2 (Continued) TSM ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS Number Location Deficient Im rovement 22 Henry County - 0.25 miles Inadequate crossover Close median opening. (0.40 kilometers) north of spacing. Route 987 From 22 to 23 Henry County - 0.25 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.40 kilometers) north of substandard shoulder Route 987 to 0.16 miles width. (0.26 kilometers) south of Route 987 23 Henry County - 0.16 miles Hazardous location. Close median opening. (0.26 kilometers) south of Route 987 From 23 to 24 Henry County - 0.16 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.26 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Route 987 to 0.21 miles width. (0.34 kilometers) north of Route 657 24 Henry County - 0.21 miles 6 percent grade. Rebuild approximately 1,000 feet (300 (0.34 kilometers) north of meters) of both lanes to reduce grade and Route 657 increase si ht distance at crest of rade. From 24 to 25 Henry County - 0.21 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.34 kilometers) north of substandard shoulder Route 657 to Route 657 width. 25 Henry County -Route 657 to High accident rate, 7 Rebuild approximately 3,100 feet (950 0.63 miles (1.01 kilometers) percent grade and meters) of both lanes to reduce grade and south of Route 657 inadequate horizontal increase sight distance on crest of grade. geometry. Rebuild approximately 3,100 feet (950 meters) of southbound lane with alignment arallel to northbound lane. From 25 to 26 Henry County - 0.63 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (1.01 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Route 657 to 0.79 miles width. (1.27 kilometers) north of Route 669 North 26 Henry County - 0.79 to 0.45 Inadequate horizontal Rebuild approximately 1,500 feet (450 miles (1.27 kilometers to geometry. meters) of northbound lane with alignment 0.72 kilometers) north of adjacent and parallel to southbound lane. Route 669 North From 26 to 27 Henry County - 0.79 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.45 kilometers) north of substandard shoulder Route 669 North to 0.10 width. miles (0.16 kilometers) north of Route 699 North 27 Henry County - 0.10 miles Inadequate horizontal Rebuild approximately 700 feet (215 meters) (0.16 kilometers) north of geometry. of northbound lane with alignment parallel to Route 699 North southbound lane. From 27 to 28 Henry County - 0.10 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.16 kilometers) north of substandard shoulder Route 699 north to Route width. 669 South Source: U.S. Route 220 Safety Report, VDOT, Traffic Engineering Division, September 27, 1994. Notes: "Locations that were identified with high accident rates and corresponding primary roadway deficiencies. Assumes: VDOT Geometric Design Standards for Rural Principal Arterial System (GS-1) - Other Principal Arterials, Rolling Terrain, 50 mph design speed. I-73 Location Study 2-27 Draft Environmental Impact Statement odober, zooo TABLE 2.5-2 (Continued) TSM ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS Number Location Deficienc Im rovement 28 Henry County -Route 669 Inadequate horizontal and Rebuild approximately 800 feet (240 meters) South to 0.03 miles (0.05 vertical geometry, of northbound lane with alignment parallel to kilometers) south of Route northbound lane. southbound lane. Rebuild approximately 669 South Inadequate vertical 1,000 feet (300 meters) both lanes to reduce geometry, southbound grade and improve sight distance. lane. From 28 to 29 Henry County - 0.03 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.05 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Route 669 South to 0.08 width. miles (0.13 kilometers) south of Reed Creek 29 Henry County - 0.08 miles Hazardous location. Close median opening. (0.13 kilometers) south of Reed Creek From 29 to 30 Henry County - 0.08 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.13 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Reed Creek to Route 1310 width. 30 Henry County -Route 1310 High accident rate, 6 Rebuild approximately 1,900 feet (580 to Route 1301 percent grade and meters) of both lanes to reduce grade to 5 inadequate crossover percent max. and increase sight distance on spacing. crest of grade. Add right turn lane to Drewry Mason High School to provide safe entry for buses. Close median openings at 0.10 and 0.24 miles (0.16 and 0.39 kilometers) north of Route 1310. From 30 to 31 Henry County -Route 1301 Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. to 0.10 miles (0.16 substandard shoulder kilometers) north of Route width. 902 31 Henry County - 0.10 miles Inadequate crossover Close median opening. (0.16 kilometers) north of spacing. Route 902 From 31 to 32 Henry County - 0.10 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.16 kilometers) north of substandard shoulder Route 902 to 2.52 miles width. (4.05 kilometers) north of the Virginia/North Carolina State line 32 Henry County - 2.52 miles Steep crossover. Close median opening. (4.05 kilometers) north of the Virginia/North Carolina State line From 32 to Henry County - 2.52 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. State Line (4.05 kilometers) north of the substandard shoulder Virginia/North Carolina State width. line to the Virginia/North Carolina State line Source: U.S. Route 220 Safety Report, VDOT, Traffic Engineering Division, September 27, 1994. Notes: "` Locations that were identified with high accident rates and corresponding primary roadway deficiencies. Assumes: VDOT Geometric Design Standards for Rural Principal Arterial System (GS-1) - Other Principal Arterials, Rolling Terrain, 50 mph design speed. I-73 Location Study 2-28 Draft Environmental Impact Statement October, 2000 . ~j~m l~~-~ I~J~-?~r~~~ (v~~~ ~'C ~~1! l ~~~rr;<:~rr r;c~~tZ rr~~ ~, ~~ " ~~ ~~~.. ~. `-- I r ~~~ ,~7 ~~ ~ y .~ •~ <.l Virginia Focus: A Vast Highway Divide ~;me C~ out ore of fi~+~ .~tR~~` .~~ +Cc~ssfie+d Emipc~y~nent Sections 1~~1~... Dec 10, 2000 Virginia Focus: A Vast Highway Divide Old plans for a new road Residents, business leaders disagree about proposed I-73 BY REX BOWMAN TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER Page 1 of 4 COOPERS COVE Jennie Deese buried her husband 20 years I-73 info ago in the family cemetery next to her house and she Phone: (540) 387-5320 Toll free: (888) I73- doesn't fancy digging him up and moving him now. PLAN On the Web: http://www.pbid.net/I73/studyareaframes. html E-mail: saleminfo@vdot.state.va.us Only, she might have to. The 72-year-old Deese's Franklin County home sits in the middle of one of the routes proposed for Interstate 73, a theoretical swath of asphalt that its many backers envision will one day run from eastern Michigan to Myrtle Beach, S.C., sprinkling the communities it runs through with glittering economic prosperity and burgeoning industrial development. But the decade-old plans for I-73, which in Virginia would run from Martinsville to Roanoke, and then west to West Virginia, have created - or perhaps merely revealed -avast divide between business leaders and government officials on one end and, on the other, rural residents whose green lawns and rolling pastures could eventually be paved over. Local officials and business leaders see I-73 as an economic opportunity. Many landowners, from Michigan to South Carolina, see it as a looming personal disaster. "We're all against it," said Deese. "All these people in Coopers Cove -their fathers and grandfathers have lived here for 200 years. We've lived here all our lives, gone to school here and gone to church here. If I-73 comes anywhere through here, it would tear this whole community to pieces." "I've never meet an average person who's for it, never," said Coopers Cove resident Arnold Hurt, who said his wife is descended from one of the pioneers who settled the area in 1779. "I did run into one guy, a 19-year-old boy, who was for it, but he thought that it was going to make anybody who owned property along it into a millionaire." This week, the Virginia Department of Transportation plans to hold four hearings -one each in Martinsville and Rocky Mount and two in Roanoke - to let the public speak about the agency's draft report on I-73's potential environmental impact. The 550-page document lays out four basic routes for the interstate from Martinsville to Roanoke and projects the cost could range from $1.1 billion to $1.35 billion. The document also notes that, depending on which, if any, route is chosen, between 340 and 707 homes would be displaced, and possibly as many as 147 businesses. Understandably, those numbers have made homeowners in Roanoke, Franklin and Henry counties panicky. Business leaders, meanwhile, have embraced the costs of the interstate as a necessary sacrifice in the name of progress. http://info.timesdispatch.com/printv.../MGBOODD4KGC.htm1&oaspagename=printthispag 12-19-2000 Virginia Focus: A Vast Highway Divide Page 2 of 4 "It's absolutely vital for this area to have this north-south axis," said George Gorman, general manager of Professional Distribution Services in Martinsville and chairman of the Martinsville- Henry County Chamber of Commerce's transportation committee. "Eighty percent of new industries in the country develop within 25 miles of an interstate. I-73 is going to be a tremendous benefit. This will not just benefit western Virginia, but all of Virginia." The Martinsville area has lost thousands of jobs, mostly in the textile industry, in the past year. An interstate, Gorman said, would bring businesses and tourists. While landowners and business leaders in Martinsville and Roanoke have exchanged arguments, VDOT has tried to assure everyone that it is completely neutral, keeping an open mind about a road it might decide in the end not to build and taking extra measures to keep everyone abreast of its studies. "The decision hasn't been made to build I-73," said VDOT spokeswoman Laura Bullock. "We're mandated to show a whole range of options, from not doing anything to building a whole new interstate, and that's what we're doing. But no decision has been made." In the end, she said, any VDOT decision on I-73 is not about which side has the most people or clout, it's about which decision is best for Virginia. VDOT's mandate to consider building I-73 has its roots outside the state, in Bluefield, W.Va., where a decade ago the local chamber of commerce decided the city needed better access to the rest of the nation. Figuring that no local road project would get off the ground unless it was part of a bigger national project, business leaders dreamed up aDetroit-to-Charleston interstate that would pass through Bluefield. Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., was soon on the job, and in 1991 Congress declared construction of the road a high priority. Three years later, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia and North and South Carolina were busy choosing corridors for the road. In Virginia, local officials and business groups from Lee County to Alleghany County clamored to be on the chosen route. The Commonwealth Transportation Board eventually decided the road would enter the state at Bluefield, follow U.S. 460 to Christiansburg, connect to Interstate 81 via Virginia Tech's high-tech "smart road," then follow I-81 north to Roanoke. (Members of the Roanoke business community lobbied for the inconvenient detour to the city, which would force motorists driving south on I-73 to drive north on I-81 for 30 miles.) From Roanoke, the road would again turn south, following or paralleling heavily traveled U.S. 220 to Martinsville. The Roanoke-to-Martinsville plan galvanized residents along the study corridor. They formed opposition groups, including Friends of Franklin County, Virginians for Appropriate Rural Roads, Blue Ridge Concerned Citizens, the I-73 Regional Impact Network and Citizens Concerned About I-73. The groups, some of which oppose only particular routes in the corridor, have collected thousands of petitions, crowded into gymnasiums to attend hearings, pestered local and state officials and fired off voluminous letters to the editor of local newspapers. They plan to be out in full force during this week's hearings. Meanwhile, outside Virginia, public pressure has altered the initial concept of the road. Charleston residents, for instance, said they didn't want I-73: they already had Interstate 26. The new southern terminus became Myrtle Beach, which had long wanted an easier route for http://info.timesdispatch.com/printv.../MGBOODD4KGC.htm1&oaspagename=printthispag 12-19-2000 Virginia Focus: A Vast Highway Divide Page 3 of 4 tourists. South Carolina is studying routes to the beach, and North Carolina has actually built segments of the interstate. I-73 has suffered a different fate in the north. In Michigan, residents have fought vociferously against the interstate, swamping public hearings and, last month, helping to elect local officials who oppose it. A Kentucky consulting firm hired by the Michigan transportation department plans this week to take public input on its recommendation to study the feasibility of building I- 73, but the consultant is focusing on ways to improve existing roads instead. Hugh McNichol, manager of the I-73 feasibility study for the Michigan Department of Transportation, said the state, facing huge costs in maintaining the interstates it already has, might abandon the whole idea of I-73. "If we think we can solve existing problems with something less than a freeway, we don't have a problem with that," McNichol said. In West Virginia, officials hope to upgrade an existing road, U.S. 52, and rename it I-73. But Ohio, facing public opposition and a limited transportation budget, this year shelved the I-73 project altogether. That means I-73 might run only from Myrtle Beach to the Ohio-West Virginia state line. In Virginia, VDOT is also studying a "no-build" option that would forgo building an interstate and simply improve U.S. 220, a winding, hilly highway noted for its heavy truck traffic and many wrecks. The agency's draft report says upgrading U.S. 220 would cost $146 million and dislocate only six houses. Gerald Slotnick, of Friends of Franklin County, said the interstate isn't necessary, and improving U.S. 220 is the best option for several reasons. It doesn't scar the landscape or dislocate hundreds of homes, and VDOT already has funding to begin work on 37 improvement projects along the four-lane highway. Furthermore, Slotnick said, the safety problems cited as one reason for building I-73 are predominantly U.S. 220 safety problems. If the state fixes U.S. 220, it makes the road safer and I-73 unnecessary. However, Congress mandated in 1995 that the Michigan-to-South Carolina road be built to interstate standards. Patsy Napier, I-73 project manager for VDOT, said the state couldn't choose to improve U.S. 220 and then call the improved road an interstate, even though the road improvements are listed as one of VDOT's options. Napier also noted that the draft study found that spending $146 million to improve the road would improve safety only marginally. That leaves VDOT the "no build" option -which would still include the 37 improvement projects along U.S. 220 -and four alternative routes, some east of U.S. 220 and some to the west. The four alternative routes, though, have interchangeable segments, which means VDOT could choose from among at least 11 routes. Several of those routes lie atop long stretches of U.S. 220. While opponents have been the most vocal during. the past year, Gorman, the Martinsville businessman, said he is confident that civic-minded business leaders and government officials will attend this week's hearings to let VDOT know there is still a lot of support for I-73 in Virginia. "I really believe in this project," said Gorman, who is also a Methodist minister. "Our most valuable asset is our people. And I take the jobs of these people very, very seriously. If we can http://info.timesdispatch.com/printv.../MGBOODD4KGC.htm1&oaspagename=printthispag 12-19-2000 Virginia Focus: A Vast Highway Divide Page 4 of 4 get the interstate, we can attract new jobs, and tourists can get here easier. We've got all these state parks, the Martinsville Speedway and the Virginia Museum of Natural History. We have to get people down here to see them." Deese, the elderly Coopers Cove woman who might have to rebury her husband if the interstate comes through her property, said she hopes VDOT will listen to residents. But she added that she can't help but be pessimistic: "They want to go where they want to go, I guess." Contact Rex Bowman at (540) 344-3612 or rbowman@timesdispatch.com This story can be found at : htt~/Lwww.timesdispatch.com vametro/MGBOODD4KGC.html http://info.timesdispatch.com/printv.../MGBOODD4KGC.htm1&oaspagename=printthispag 12-19-2000 New-Build is not a federal requirement. • Part of North Carolina's segment of I-73 was built using the TSM /Fix-220 Option. • West Virginia's segment of I-73 is a four- lane road much like the TSM /Fix-220 Option. • There is no federal or state requirement to build Virginia's portion of I-73 to full interstate standards. • An upgraded 220 will carry the I-73 banner. A New-Build Highway will not bring prosperity. • VDOT predicts the creation of gas station, motel and fast food jobs from the New-Build Options, not good-paying jobs with benefits that can support families. • Current research and federal data say that the economic return from new highways does not cover their cost. • A New-Build Option will divert traffic from US-220, killing many businesses. • Iron Gate, Low Moor, Covington, Rocky Gap, and Hillsville have gained little from being located on interstates. New-Build is fiscally irresponsible. • A New-Build Option will cost at least $ l . Billion. • The TSM /Fix-220 Option is estimated to cost $146 million -almost $1 billion less. New-Build construction is environmentally irresponsible • Stream crossings: TSM: 25 New-build: 76-166. • Floodway crossings: TSM: 4 New-build:6-28. • Acres of water /wetlands impacted: TSM: 4.4 New-build: 11.8-35.6. • Acres of forest impacted: TSM: 98 New-Build: 1909-4714. • Acres of cultivated fields impacted: TSM: 38 New-Build: 1203-2241. • TSM will generate less air pollution than New-Build due to steady but slightly slower speeds. • New Build construction will expose between 411 and 3316 homes to hazardous noise levels of 67db or more. The TSM /Fix-220 Option is best for safety. • VDOT has stated that the TSM /Fix-220 Option will safely handle traffic loads as forecast for the next 20 years. • The addition ofrail-freight will enhance the efficiency of a TSM alternative. • The high accident rate on I-81 proves that interstates are not always safer. • The TSM /Fix-220 Option will improve safety in a fraction of the 20 years estimated to complete aNew-Build highway. • Funding aNew-Build Option will delay the start of construction for many more years. The VA funding for the TSM /Fix-220 Option is available today. The New-Build Options will decrease property values. • The amounts paid for condemned properties are seldom satisfactory. • Roanoke Valley realtors estimate that properties within sight and sound of an interstate will decrease in value by 25% and be harder to sell. The New-Build Options will be ugly. • All New-Build options will cut across mountains and be seen and heard from throughout the valley. • Interstates bring crime and drug traffic. A New-Build highway will not get you there much faster. • TSM will get you from Roanoke to Martinsville in one hour. Anew Build highway would save 6 minutes. • TSM will get you from Roanoke to Rocky Mount in 35 minutes. Anew Build highway would save 3 minutes. • TSM will get you from Roanoke to Smith Mountain Lake in 49 minutes. Anew Build highway would save 6 minutes. ROANp~ O~ ~ "' R > h~; '. ~ Z'~ ~ ~ .- _ z °v : a 1838 ~~~ ~~ ~or~xxY.~r.~..~ Board Sup rvzsors P. O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VA 24018-0798 H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Chairman Cave Spring Magisterial District Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Vice-Chairman Catawba Magisterial District Mr. Robert H. Lewis 1135 Deer Run Drive Vinton, V-At 24x179 M-~Lir~l~ l~' Dear ~.s: Bob L. Johnson Hollins Magisterial District Joseph McNamara Windsor Hills Magisterial District Harry C. Nickens Vinton Magisterial District January 24, 2001 The members of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors have asked me to express their sincere appreciation for your service on the Roanoke County Social Services Advisory Board. Allow me to personally thank you for your many years of capable and dedicated service on this Board. Citizens, like you, who are responsive to the needs of their community and are willing to donate their time and talent toward making Roanoke County a better place to live are special people. Roanoke County is fortunate to have benefitteci from your unselfish contribution to our community. As a small token of appreciation, we enclose a Certificate of Appreciation for your service to Roanoke County. Sincerely, I ". ~~ H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisor Enclosure cc: DR. Betty McCrary, Director, Social Services OFFICE: FAX: VOICE MAIL: E-MAIL: (540) 772-2005 (540) 772-2193 (540) 772-2170 bos@co.roanoke.va.us O~ ROANp,~~ ~ c: 9 z 1838 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 BRENDA J. HOLTON MARY H. ALLEN, CMC (540) 772-2005 CLERK TO THE BOARD DEPUTY CLERK FAX (540) 772-2193 Internet E-Mail: bholton@H,H„N.co.roanoke.va.us Internet E-Mail: mallenQwww.co.roanoke.va.us December 22, 2000 The Honorable C. Richard Cranwell, Co-Chair House Finance Committee P. O. Box 459 Vinton, VA 24179 The Honorable John H. Chichester, Chair Senate Finance Committee P. O. Box 904 Fredericksburg, VA 22404-0904 The Honorable Harry J. Parrish, Co-Chair House Finance Committee 8898 Bond Court Manassas, VA 20110-4327 Dear Delegates Cranwell, Parrish and Senator Chichester: Attached is an attested copy of Resolution 121900-1 to the General Assembly supporting tax exemption of property owned by DePaul Family Services, Inc. and used for its charitable, education, and recreational purposes on anon-profit basis. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, December 19, 2000. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Brenda J. Holton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Attachment cc: Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney David Porter, Director, Economic Development The Honorable R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue The Honorable Alfred C. Anderson; Treasurer John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Herb Beskar, Executive Director, DePaul Family Services, Inc. Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Danial Morris, Director, Finance ® Recycled Paper P AN ,I. F ~ • ., 9 z 1838 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 BRENDA J. HOLTON MARY H. ALLEN, CMC (540) 772-2005 CLERK TO THE BOARD 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 December 22, 2000 Rev. Dusty Fiedler Covenant Presbyterian Church 1831 Deyerle Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 Dear Reverend Fiedler: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I would like to thank you for offering the invocation at our meeting on Tuesday, December19, 2000. We believe it is most important to ask for divine guidance at these meetings and the Board is very grateful for your contribution. Thank you again for sharing your time and your words with us. It was good to have you with us. With kindest regards, ~.c~ Joseph McNamara, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ® Recycled Paper POANp,I.~ G ~ ,, z a 1838 i P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD Internet E-Mail: matlen@www.oo•roanoke.va.us Mr. Lon Carruth, General Manager Adelphia Cable 21 South Bruffey Street P. O. Box 827 Salem, VA 24153 Dear Mr. Carruth: (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 December 22, 2000 BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK Internet E-Mail: bholton@www.co.roanoke.va.us Attached is a copy of Ordinance 121900-16 adopting a new cable television ordinance and approving a franchise agreement which renews the right of Blacksburg/Salem Cablevislon, Inc., D/B/A Adelphia Cable Communications to erect, construct, operate and maintain a cable television system (CAN) and repealing Ordinance 102594-12. This ordinance was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, December 19, 2000. if you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Brenda J. Hol on, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors bjh Attachments cc: Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney Forest Jones, Salem City Manager Robert Altice, Roanoke Regional Cable TV Committee Kathi Scearce, Director, Community Relations Dr. Jane James, Director, Media Services, Roanoke County Schools James B. Dickey, 3440 Wedgewood Road, SW, Roanoke, VA 24018 Harry C. Nickens, Roanoke Regional Cable TV Committee ® Recyded Paper ROAN ,`. F L ti ~ 9 ~ ~ az 1838 ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC 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 December 22, 2000 Mr. Robert R. Altice, Chairman Roanoke Regional Cable TV Committee P. O. Box 338 Vinton, VA 24179 Dear Mr. Altice: This will inform you that at the December 19, 2000 meeting of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, Ms. Kathi B. Scearce was appointed to the Roanoke Regional Cable TV Committee to serve as the designee of Roanoke County Administrator Elmer C. Hodge. Ms. Scearce, Director of Community Relations, is replacing Ms. Anne Marie Green, who is not the County's Director of General Services. However, the Board has asked Ms. Green to continue serving on the Cable TV Negotiation Committee If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: Mary F. Parker, CMC, Roanoke City Clerk Carolyn S. Ross, Vinton Town Clerk Kathi B. Scearce, Director, Community Relations Anne Marie Green, Director, General Services ® Recyded Paper pOAN ,1. F '', ,'s> z ~ - a, C~~a~~# ~a~ ~~xx~.~.~.~ 1 38 P.O. BOX 29800 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD Internet E-Mail: mallen@www.co.roanoke.va.us 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 December 22, 2000 Mr. Lon Carruth, Adelphia Cable P. O. Box 827 Salem, VA 2415 General Manager Dear Mr. Carruth: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK Internet E-Mail: bholton@www.co.roanoke.va.us This will inform you that at the December 19, 2000 meeting of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, Ms. Kathi B. Scearce was appointed to the Roanoke County Cable Television Committee. Ms. Scearce, Director of Community Relations, is replacing Ms. Anne Marie Green, who is now the County's Director of General Services. Would you please update your records and mailing list to reflect this change. If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, mac.-a.~ ~ . ~`~.,.,~.._ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: Forest Jones, Salem City Manager Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney Kathi B. Scearce, Director, Community Relations Anne Marie Green, Director, General Services ® Recycled Paper pOANp,I.~ L ~ ~ :az ~~ ~~ ~~~~.~t.Q ~~~ 1 38 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD Intemet E-Mail: mallen@www.co.roanoke.va.us Mr. Gary Kelly 7119 Rabbit Run Road Roanoke, VA 240189 Dear Mr. Kelly: (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 December 22, 2000 BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK Internet E-Mail: bholton@ww,a.co.roanoke.va.us The members of the Board of Supervisors wish to express their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors. Citizens so responsive to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too scarce. I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, December 19, 2000, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as a member of the Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors. This term is for three years and will expire on December 31, 2003. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed, or re-appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, ~a.,...~- ~• ~-~ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Enclosures cc: Mr. S. James Sikkema, Executive Director, BRCS ® R~,yC~ p~ R ANp,I,F a, p z ~ az C~~a~xx~# ~~ ~~xx~~.~.~ 1838 P.O. BOX 29800 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD Internet E-Mail: mallen@www.co.roanoke.va.us 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK Internet E-Mail: bholton@ww,w.co.roanoke.va.us December 22, 2000 Mr. Rodney P. Furr, Chairman Bluer Ridge Community Services 301 Elm Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24016-4026 Dear Mr. Furr: This will inform you that at their meeting on Tuesday, December 19, 2000, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to ratify the appointment of John M. Hudgins, Jr., for a three year term asthe at-large member of the Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors. His term will expire December 31, 2003. On behalf of the supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please convey to MR. Hudgins our sincere thanks and appreciation for his willingness to accept this appointment. Very truly yours, .~Q~ ~. Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Enclosures cc: Mr. John M. Hudgins, Jr. S. James Sikkema, Executive Director, BRCS Clerk, Vinton Town Council Clerk, Roanoke City Council Clerk, Salem City Council Clerk, Botetourt County Board of Supervisors Clerk, Craig County Board of Supervisors ® Recycled Paper 0~ <;OANp~~ ~ •~ A z ~ a ~~~~~ ~~ ~~xx~~.~.~ 1838 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ELMER C. HODGE FAX (540) 772-2193 JOSEPH McNAMARA, CHAIRMAN (540) 772-2004 WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX, VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JOSEPH B. "BUTCH" CHURCH December 27, 2000 CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (540) 772-2005 Furman Whitescarver, Jr. Esquire Salem Rotary Club 418 East Main Street Salem, VA 24153 Dear Mr. Whitescarver: On December 19, 2000, The Board of Supervisors accepted the generous $1,000 donation from the Salem Rotary Club to be used by the Roanoke County Police Department for their School Resource Program. Your donation will assist our Police Department in providing programs that reach our young people in the school system and increase their trust in and support for law enforcement officers. Thank you again. cc: Ray Lavinder, Police Chief Sincerely, ~~~- `~ Joseph McNamara, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Internet E-Mail ®Recycled Paper Internet E-Mail ehodge ~www.co. roanoke.va.us bos ~www.co.roanoke.va.us ~. AN 4.~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (540)772-2004 f i ~~ ,, ;~ ~.~, C~~~xn~~ ~f ~Z.a~x~~~e P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (540) 772-2193 January 8, 2001 Ms. Audrey J. Bower 3777 Tomley Drive, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Ms. Bower: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JOSEPH McNAMARA, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX, VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JOSEPH B. "BUTCH" CHURCH CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (540) 772-2005 Enclosed is a resolution of appreciation upon your retirement which was unanimously approved at the December 19,.2000 Board Meeting. On behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County and its citizens, I wish to offer my appreciation for your many years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to the County. I am pleased to send you this resolution, and notification that Roanoke County has purchased a $100 Savings bond in recognition of your years of employment with the County. This bond will be forwarded to you from the Federal Reserve Bank at a later date. If you would like to have your resolution framed, please bring it to the Clerk's Office, at the Roanoke County Administration Building, 5204 Bernard Drive, at any time. It has been our experience that framed resolutions may be damaged when mailed. On behalf of each member of the Board and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept this Resolution and savings bond with our best wishes for a productive retirement and continued success in the future. McNamara, Chairman .e County Board of Supervisors Attachment cc: Joseph Sgroi, Director, uman Resources Arnold Covey, Director, Economic Development Internet E-Mail ®gecycled Pap.r Internet E-Mail ehodge~www.co.roanoke.va.us bos®www.co.roanoke.va.us VJ LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on December 19th, 2000 in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Tim T. Snyder to rezone a .574 acre parcel from C2-C to C2; the purpose of the request is to remove all previously proffered conditions on this property located in the 5200 block of Peters Creek Road in the Hollins Magisterial District. A copy of this proposal is available for inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: November 30th , 2000 Mary Allen, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, December 5th , 2000 Tuesday, December 12t" , 2000 Direct the bill for publication to: Snyder Service Bureau 5238 Peters Creek Road Roanoke, VA 24019 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: MARY ALLEN, CLERK TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 V LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on December 19th , 2000 in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of First Team Auto Mall Inc. for a Special Use Permit for Automobile Repair, Major, to allow the construction of a automobile body shop located at 6520 Peters Creek Road, in the Hollins Magisterial District. A copy of this proposal is available for inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: November 30th , 2000 Mary Allen, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, December 5th , 2000 Tuesday, December 12th , 2000 Direct the bill for publication to: Mr. David M. Dillon VP/General Manager First Team Auto Mall 6900 Peters Creek Road Roanoke, VA 24019 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: MARY ALLEN, CLERK TO THE 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 December 19th, 2000 in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petitions of the Roanoke County Planning Commission to (1) amend the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan, as amended, by the addition of Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District, (2) amend the official zoning map of Roanoke County Virginia by rezoning approximately sixty-six (66) parcels from their existing zoning of AV Agricultural Village and/or AR Agricultural Residential to C-2 General Commercial, said parcels comprising approximately 133.6 acres and generally located east and west of Route 220, South of the Blue Ridge Parkway, and North of Suncrest Heights subdivision in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and (3) amending the zoning ordinance of Roanoke County by the creation and addition of new zoning development standards for the Clearbrook Village Overlay District, and, by ordinance, amending the official zoning map of Roanoke County by applying said district standards to the approximately sixty-six (66) parcels referenced above. A copy of this proposal is available for inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: November 30th, 2000 Mary Allen, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, December 5th , 2000 Tuesday, December 12th , 2000 Direct the bill for publication to: Roanoke County Department of Community Development P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: MARY ALLEN, CLERK TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 Mary Allen -Legal Notices -Reply Page 1 From: Legals Staff <legals@roanoke.com> To: <MALLEN@co.roanoke.va.us> Date: 12/1/00 4:07PM Subject: Legal Notices -Reply Ad will run Dec. 5 & 12 -cost $139.30....the other one was killed, and a different one was sent to replace it...thanks NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to Section 33.1-70.01 of the Code of Virginia, 1990, as amended, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, jointly with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation (V DOT) will conduct a Public Hearing on the 2001-2007 Secondary System Six-Year Plan. This Public Hearing shall also be for a review of the budget for the expenditure of improvement funds for fiscal year 2001-02. The Public Hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, December 19, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the County Board of Supervisors Room at the Roanoke County Administration Building. Complete copies of the Six- Year Plan and 2001-02 budget are available for inspection at the office of the Director of Community Development and at V DOT Salem Residency Office. Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board (1567924) ~~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ~ Pursuant to Section 33.1-70.01 of the Code of Virginia, 1990, as amended, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, jointly with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation (V DOT) will conduct a Public Hearing on the 2001- 2007 Secondary System Six-Year Plan. This Public Hearing shall also be for a review of the budget for the expenditure of improvement funds for fiscal year 2001-02. The Public Hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, December 19, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the County Board of Supervisors Room atthe Roanoke CountyAdministration Building. Complete copies of the Six- Year Plan and 2001-02 budget are available for inspection at the office of the Director of Community Development and at V DOT Salem Residency Office. Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board PLEASE PUBLISH IN THE ROANOKE TIMES ON: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1999 TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1999 Direct the bill for publication to: Arnold Covey, Director Roanoke County Community Development P. 0. Box 29800 Roanoke, V A 24018 Mary-Aller; -regal Ad -Six Year Plan Page 1 From: Mary Allen To: Agnes Engl Subject: Legal Ad -Six Year Plan I got the legal notice for the six year plan and have two questions: (1) Did you all send it to the newspaper or do you want me to? (2) The publication dates are incorrect. You have SUNDAY, December 5 and 12 and those dates should be TUESDAY, December 5 and 12. It it hasn't gone to the newspaper yet, I can change it before it goes, but if it has, we need to contact the Roanoke Times. Mary Allen Mary Allen-'rZe: Legal Ad -Six Year Plan Page 1 From: Agnes Engl To: Mary Allen Date: 11 /27/00 9:34AM Subject: Re: Legal Ad -Six Year Plan (1) (2) Please change date and send. Thank you. »> Mary Allen 11/22/00 01:20PM »> I got the legal notice for the six year plan and have two questions: (1) Did you all send it to the newspaper or do you want me to? (2) The publication dates are incorrect. You have SUNDAY, December 5 and 12 and those dates should be TUESDAY, December 5 and 12. It it hasn't gone to the newspaper yet, I can change it before it goes, but if it has, we need to contact the Roanoke Times. Mary Allen f ac s imil e T RAN S MITTAL To: Martha Plank Fax #: 981-3415 Date: November 30, 2000 Subject: Legal Ad -New Cable TV Ordinance and Franchise Agreement Pages: 2 (including this cover sheet) COMMENTS: Any documentation or information included as part of this transmittal, including, without limitation, this cover sheet and any and all attachments or exhibits, is intended solely for the use of the person shown as the recipient hereon and is confidential and privileged attorney- client information unless otherwise indicated Attached is a legal ad for publication on December 5"' and December 12~'. I will also e-mail the ad to you. Thanks. 11 -~~' -OD Fmm the desk of... Wanda G. Riley, CPS Roanoke County Attorney's Office 5204 Bernard Drive, S.W. Post Office Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 540-772-2071 FAX 540-772-2089 r ~ r s PUBLIC NOTICE P '`~ + Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on December 19, 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 may be heard, will hold a public hearing and second reading on the following matter, to-wit: ORDINANCE ADOPTING ANEW CABLE TELEVISION ORDINANCE AND APPROVING A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WHICH RENEWS THE RIGHT OF BLACKSBURG/SALEM CABLEVISION, INC., D/B/A ADELPHIA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, TO ERECT, CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM (CATV) AND REPEALING ORDINANCE 102594-12 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. ~''~~-~--t;~-~• C~~~.~_e_~-yam-~; Mary H. Allen, CMC/AAE Clerk to the Board Please publish on the following dates: Tuesday, December 5, 2000 Tuesday, December 12, 2000 Send invoice to: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 :Vickie Huffman -.Legal Notice. ... .. .,..: .v-., ...:.......... ~ .... .~ --~~ ..::......:- .....:. ,-:.Page_.1 From: Vickie Huffman To: Legals~roanoke.com Date: 12/1 /00 11:37AM Subject: Legal Notice Martha: Attached is the Notice we discussed earlier and which I have also faxed to you. Please give me a call if you have any trouble receiving it. Thanks, Vickie L. Huffman Sr. Assistant County Attorney (540)772-2071 email: vhuffman~co.roanoke.va.us facsimile T R A N S M I T T A L to: Martha Plank fax #: 981-3415 r~e: Legal Notice date: December 1, 2000 pages: 2, including cover Any documentation or information included as part of this transmittal, including, without limitation, this cover sheet and any and all attachments or ezhibits, is intended solely for the use of the person shown as the recipient hereon and is confidential and privileged attorney-client information unless otherwise indicated. comments: Attached is the legal notice we discussed earlier. I will also be e-mailing this to you. Please feel free to contact me if you should have any questions. Thank you for your assistance. From the desk of... Vickie L. Huffman Sr. Assistant County Attorney County of Roanoke 5204 Bernard Drive, S.W. Roanoke, Vrginia 24018 540-772-2071 Fax: 540-772-2089 E-Mail: vhuffman~co.roanoke.va.us E ~~-~ ~~ LEGAL NOTICE ~ ~ ! Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, will hold a public hearing at the Roanoke County Administration Center, Board Meeting Room, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia, on Tuesday, December 19, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter maybe heard, to take action on the following: ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF A 15-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON PLAT ENTITLED `SUBDMSION OF THE ORCHARDS, SECTION 2, APPLEWOOD', PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 112, AND FURTHER SHOWN AS "EXISTING 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT (P.B. 9 PG. 112)" IN PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 59, AND LOCATED IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Any member of the public may appear at the time and place aforesaid and address the Board on said matter. A copy of the documents related to this action may be examined in the office of the Department of Community Development, located at the Roanoke County Administration Center. Given under my hand this 1st day of December, 2000. ~Z~ Mary H. Allen, CMC, Clerk to the Board Roanoke County Board of Supervisors PLEASE PUBLISH IN THE ROANOKE TIMES ON: Tuesday, December 5, 2000 Tuesday, December 12, 2000 Direct the bill for publication to: Mr. Larry Merrill 2401 Penny Road Suite 107 High Point, NC 27265 (Phone: 336-889-6740, ext. 323) Mail affidavit to: Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board County of Roanoke P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Mary Allen -Legal Notices Page 1 From: Mary Allen To: Legals@roanoke.com Date: 11 /27/00 11:18AM Subject: Legal Notices Please publish the attached Roanoke County legal notices on Tuesday, December 5, 2000 and Tuesday, December 12, 2000. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. Mary H. Allen CMC Clerk to the Board County of Roanoke 540-772-2003 Mary Allen -Legal Ad -vacation in Orchards Page 1 From: Mary Allen To: Agnes Engl Subject: Legal Ad -vacation in Orchards I was getting ready to prepare the legal ad for the vacation in the Orchards and noticed there is no phone number for Larry Merrill. The Roanoke Times now requires phone numbers for those who will be billed for the legal notice. Do you have a phone number for Mr. Merrill? Thanks. Mary Allen MEMO To: Mary Allen, Clerk to Board of Supervisors From: Arnold Covey, Department of Community Development Subject: Legal Notice Date: November 20, 2000 Please advertise the following notice in The Roanoke Times: ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF A 15-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 112, SUBDIVISION OF THE ORCHARDS, SECTION 2, APPLEWOOD, AND TO VACATE A PORTION OF A 100- FOOT DRAINAGE RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 59, NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE FOR PUBLIC USE BY F. & W. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SITUATED IN HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. Thank you. LARRY MERRILL 2401 PENNY ROAD SUITE 107 HIGH POINT, NC 27265 Mary Allen - Re' Legal Ad -vacation in Orchards Page 1 From: Agnes Engl To: Mary Allen Date: 11 /27/00 9:36AM Subject: Re: Legal Ad -vacation in Orchards Mr. Merrill's number is 336-889-6740, ext. 323. »> Mary Allen 11 /22/00 01:25PM »> I was getting ready to prepare the legal ad for the vacation in the Orchards and noticed there is no phone number for Larry Merrill. The Roanoke Times now requires phone numbers for those who will be billed for the legal notice. Do you have a phone number for Mr. Merrill? Thanks. Mary Allen LEGAL NOTICE Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at their 7:00 p.m. session on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 ir~the Board Meeting Room at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive S. W. to vacate a portion of a 15-foot drainage easement recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 112, Subdivision of the Orchards, Section 2, Applewood, and to vacate a portion of a 100-foot drainage easement recorded in Plat Book 13, Page 59, new drainage easement being granted to the County of Roanoke for public use by F&W Community Development Corporation situated in the Hollins Magisterial District. A copy of the documents related to this request may be examined in the office of the Department of Community Development, located at the Roanoke County Administration Center. Given under my hand this 29th day of November , 2000. Ma H. Allen, CMC, Clerk to the Board Roanoke County Board of Supervisors PLEASE PUBLISH IN THE ROANOKE TIMES ON Tuesday, December 5, 2000 Tuesday, December 12, 2000 Direct the bill~for publication to: Mr. Larry Merr~Jl 2401 Penny Ro~,ad Suite 107 ~', High Point, NC '27265 (Phone Number:~;36-889-6740, ext. 323; Mail affidavit to: Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board `~ County of Roanoke P. O. Box 29800 ~~~ R w, // Cct-/ / Roanoke, VA 24018 L~9Q ~5 LEGAL NOTICE ROANQKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on December 19th, 2000 in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission to rezone fourteen parcels of land in the Catawba Magisterial District. The purpose of this rezoning petition is to implement the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan, Future Land Use Plan. These parcels are specifically described as follows. Roanoke County tax parcel 64.03-1-16, approximately 19.5 acres, owned by Richard L. Stroupe. This parcel is currently zoned R-1 residential, and is proposed to be rezoned to C-2 Commercial. Roanoke County tax parcel 63.04-1-8, approximately 37.65 acres, owned by the College of Health Sciences Educational Foundation. This parcel is currently zoned AR Agricultural /Residential and is proposed to be rezoned to I-1 Industrial. Roanoke County tax parcels 63.04-1-9, 72.02-1-1, and 72.02-1-2, totaling approximately 145.59 acres, owned by the Appalachian Power Company .These parcels are currently zoned AR Agricultural /Residential and are proposed to be rezoned to I-1 Industrial. Roanoke County tax parcels 63.04-3-11, 63.04-3-12, 63.04-3-13, 63.04-3-14, and 63.04-3-15, totaling approximately 13.41 acres, owned by the Salem Stone Corporation. These parcels are currently zoned AR Agricultural /Residential and are proposed to be rezoned to I-2 Industrial. Roanoke County tax parcels 63.00-1-7 and 63.00-1-13, totaling approximately 61.02 acres, owned by the Salem Stone Corporation. These parcels are currently zoned AG-3 Agricultural and are proposed to be rezoned to I-2 Industrial. Roanoke County tax parcel 63.00-1-14, approximately 70.50 acres, owned by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors This parcel is currently zoned AG-3 Agricultural and is proposed to be rezoned to I-2 Industrial. Roanoke County tax parcel 63.00-1-15, approximately 43.5 acres, owned by Energetic Solutions. This parcel is currently zoned AG-3 Agricultural and is proposed to be rezoned to I-2 Industrial. A copy of this proposal is available for inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: November 30th , 2000 Mary Allen, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, December 5th , 2000 Tuesday, December 12th , 2000 Direct the bill for publication to: Roanoke County Department of Community Development P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: MARY ALLEN, CLERK TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P.O. BOX 29800, ROANOKE, VA 24018 ALTON L. ICNIGHTON, IR. 540 983-7632 INTERNET: knioht0ll~woodsrO~erS.COm VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Elmer C. Hodge Roanoke County 5204 Bernazd Drive, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 WOODS, ROGERS & H[AZLEGROVE Attorneys at Law December 12, 2000 In re: North Cross School; Tax-Exempt Financing Deaz Elmer: ~~° ,~ In order that we might be in a position to close the North Cross financing by the end of the yeaz, I would like to begin collecting signatures on some of the closing documents. To that end, I am enclosing seven copies of a certificate to be signed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. After the Boazd acts on the resolution for the financing, assuming that it acts favorably, I would appreciate your having all seven copies of the enclosed certificate executed by the Clerk or a Deputy Clerk. The seal of the Board of Supervisors should also be affixed to each copy. Please leave the certificate undated. We will insert the date of closing, once that date is known. If you will call me once the certificates have been executed, we will send someone to pick them up. We would like to have these back no later than December 22. Many thanks for your assistance. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE, P.L.C. v "~ Alton L. Knighton, Jr. ALKjr/jp Enclosures RKE# 0676140.WPD P. O. Box 14125 / Roanoke, Virginia 24038-4125 C/M:089680-00005-01 10 South Jefferson Street, Suite 1400 / Roanoke, Virginia 24011 540 983-7600 /Fax 540 983-7711 Internet - mailQwoodsrogers.com Offices also in Charlottesville, Danville and Richmond,Virgiiiia CERTIFICATE OF CLERK OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The undersigned Clerk or Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (the "Board"), hereby certifies as follows: 1. A meeting of the Board was duly called and held on December 19, 2000, at which meeting a quorum was present and acting throughout. 2. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board at such meeting. Such resolution was adopted by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Board present at such meeting. Such resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended and is, as of the date hereof, in full force and effect. The votes of the members of the Board on such resolution have been recorded in the minutes of the Board, and such minutes describe how each member voted. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Board, this day of December, 2000. E~erif-ar Deputy Jerk, Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (SEAL) RKE# 0674487.WPD C/M:069850-00005-01 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGIh1IA WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Salem, Virginia (the "Authority") has considered the application of North Cross School (the "Borrower") requesting the issuance of one or more of the Authority's revenue bonds or notes in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in financing the construction, expansion, renovation and equipping (including landscaping) of various buildings and other facilities on the Borrower's campus (the "Project"), wlvch is located at 4254 Colonial Avenue, S.W., in Roanoke County, Virginia (the "County"), and which Project will be owned and operated by the Borrower, and the Authority has held a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, it has been requested that the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds, and such approval is required for compliance with Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Borrower, as required by said Section 147(f), to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. The Board concurs with the resolution adopted by the Authority on November 1, 2000 with respect to the Bonds and the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by said Section 147(f), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Borrower or otherwise indicate that the Project possesses any economic viability. The Bonds shall provide that neither the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Commonwealth") nor any political subdivision thereof, including the County, the City of Salem (the "City") and the Authority, shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on the Bonds or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and receipts pledged therefor and that neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, including the County, the City and the Authority, shall be pledged thereto. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. RKE# 0871142.WPD C/M: 089850-00005-01 ALTON L. KNIGHTON, JR. 540 983-7632 INTERNET: kniahton a,woodsro~ers.com WOODS, ROGERS & HfAZLEGROVE Attorneys at Law November 6, 2000 VIA HAND DELIVERY TO PERSONS ON THE ATTACHED LIST In re: North Cross School; Tag-Exempt Financing Ladies and Gentlemen: ~.,.~~y~~~-~- `'~~~,~~ c; ~ ~2-~~' --p ~ ~ rpm Enclosed for your consideration are drafts of the documents to be used in obtaining the required public approval for North Cross' financing through the Salem Industrial Development Authority. The documents include a notice of the public hearing, resolutions for the Authority, the Board of Supervisors and the City Council, a report of public hearing and a fiscal impact statement. If you believe any changes to be necessary in the notice, please give me those changes no later than November 15. If you desire any changes in the other enclosures, I would appreciate your giving me your comments on those by the end of this month. The fiscal impact statement needs to be completed. I would appreciate Susan giving me the necessary information to fill in the blanks on that form. That information would likewise be needed by the end of the month. A representative of North Cross will be at the public hearing on December 7, and we will be there as well. I would appreciate Steve's thoughts as to whether anyone needs to be at the City Council meeting on December 11. Elmer has indicated that he sees no need for anyone to be present when the Boazd of Supervisors considers its resolution. We would appreciate Elmer putting the proposed resolution for the Board on its agenda for the December 19 meeting. We would also ask that Steve have the proposed resolution for City Council placed on its December 11 agenda. Executed and completed copies of the report of public hearing and fiscal impact statement will be furnished to the two governing bodies prior to their meetings. RKE# 0870972.WPD C/M: 089650-00005-01 P. O. Box 14125 / Roanoke, Virginia 24038-41 25 10 South Jefferson Street, Suite 1400 / Roanoke, Virginia 24011 540 983-7600 /Fax 540 983-7711 Internet -- mail@woodsrogers.com Of fices also in Charlottesville, Danville and Richmond,Virginia November 6, 2000 Page 2 I shall look forward to hearing from you. Please let me know if you should have any questions. Sincerely, WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE, P.L.C. ~e Alton L. Knighton, Jr. ALKjr/jp Enclosures RKE# 0870972.WPD C/M: 089850-00005-01 Mr. John C. Parrott, II Salomon Smith Barney 213 South Jefferson Street Roanoke, VA 24011 540-345-1555 540-345-2181 (fax) Mr. Bittle W. Porterfield, III Rice Management 30 Franklin Road, S.W. Suite 504 Roanoke, VA 24011 540-342-2366 540-342-2387 (fax) Mrs. Susan G. Copty North Cross School 4254 Colonial Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24018 540-989-6641, Ext. 304 540-989-7299 (fax) Mr. Patrick K. Dixon First Union National Bank 213 South Jefferson Street Roanoke, VA 24011 540-563-6059 540-563-6320 (fax) Mr. Stephen M. Yost Jolly, Place, Fralin & Prillaman, P.C. 105 North Colorado Street Salem, VA 24153 540-389-2349 540-389-9560 (fax) Mr. Elmer C. Hodge Roanoke County 5204 Bernazd Drive, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24018 540-772-2004 540-772-2193 (fax) RKE# 0870972.WPD CfM: 089850-00005-01 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REVENUE BOND FINANCING BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA Notice is hereby given that The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Salem, Virginia (the "Authority") will hold a public hearing on the application of North Cross School (the "Borrower"), 4254 Colonial Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018, requesting the Authority to issue up to $8,000,000 of its revenue bonds or notes (the "Bonds") to assist the Borrower in financing the construction, expansion, renovation and equipping (including landscaping) of various buildings and other facilities on the Borrower's campus (the "Project"), which is located at 4254 Colonial Avenue, S.W., in Roanoke County, Virginia (the "County"). The Project will be owned and operated by the Borrower. Neither the Commonwealth of Virginia nor any political subdivision thereof, including the Authority, the County and the City of Salem, shall be obligated to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds except from the revenues from repayment of a loan made by the Authority to the Borrower. The public hearing, which may be continued or adjourned, will be held at 4:00 p.m. on December 7, 2000, before the Authority in the City Council Chambers, Salem City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia. All persons interested in the issuance of the Bonds or the location or nature of the Project are invited to appear at the hearing and present their views or submit written comments prior to the hearing to the Chairman of the Authority at the Authority's office at Jolly, Place, Fralin & Prillaman, 105 North Colorado Street, Salem, Virginia 24153. The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Salem, Virginia RKE# 0871170.WPD C/M: 089850-00005-01 RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SALEM. VIRGINIA WHEREAS, there have been described to The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Salem, Virginia (the "Authority") the plans of North Cross School (the "Borrower") to construct, renovate, expand and equip a number of facilities (the "Project") in Roanoke County, Virginia (the "County"); WHEREAS, the Borrower has described the benefits to the County and to the City of Salem, Virginia (the "City") and has requested the Authority to agree to issue one or more of its revenue bonds or notes (the "Bonds"), under the Virginia Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act (the "Act"), in an amount not expected to exceed $8,000,000, to finance the cost of the construction, renovation, expansion and equipping of the Project; WHEREAS, the Authority has held a public hearing with respect to the issuance of the Bonds; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA: 1. The Authority hereby recommends that the Boazd of Supervisors of the County (the "Boazd") and the City Council of the City (the "Council") approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds. 2. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to deliver to the Boazd and the Council (a) a reasonably detailed summary of the comments expressed at the public hearing held with respect to the issuance of the Bonds, (b) a fiscal impact statement concerning the Project in the form specified in Section 15.2-4907 of the Code of Virginia, and (c) a copy of this resolution, which constitutes the recommendation of the Authority that the Boazd and the Council approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. RKE* 0671171.WPD C/M: 069850-00005-01 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY. VIRGII~IIA WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Salem, Virginia (the "Authority") has considered the application of North Cross School (the "Borrower") requesting the issuance of one or more of the Authority's revenue bonds or notes in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in financing the construction, expansion, renovation and equipping (including landscaping) of various buildings and other facilities on the Borrower's campus (the "Project"), which is located at 4254 Colonial Avenue, S.W., in Roanoke County, Virginia (the "County"), and which Project will be owned and operated by the Borrower, and the Authority has held a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, it has been requested that the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds, and such approval is required for compliance with Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Borrower, as required by said Section 147(f), to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. The Board concurs with the resolution adopted by the Authority on November 1, 2000 with respect to the Bonds and the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by said Section 147(f), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Borrower or otherwise indicate that the Project possesses any economic viability. The Bonds shall provide that neither the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Commonwealth") nor any political subdivision thereof, including the County, the City of Salem (the "City") and the Authority, shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on the Bonds or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and receipts pledged therefor and that neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, including the County, the City and the Authority, shall be pledged thereto. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. RKEN 0871142.WPD C/M: 089850-00005-01 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM. VIRGINIA WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Salem, Virginia (the "Authority") has considered the application of North Cross School (the "Borrower") requesting the issuance of one or more of the Authority's revenue bonds or notes in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in the fmancing of the construction, expansion, renovation and equipping (including landscaping) of various buildings and other facilities on the Borrower's campus (the "Project"), which is located at 4254 Colonial Avenue, S.W., in Roanoke County, Virginia (the "County"), and which Project will be owned and operated by the Borrower, and the Authority has held a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, it has been requested that the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Salem, Virginia (the "City") approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds, and such approval is required for compliance with Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"); BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA: 1. The Council approves the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Borrower, as required by said Section 147(f), to permit the Authority to assist in the fmancing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by said Section 147(f), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds, the creditworthiness of the Borrower or the economic viability of the Project. The Bonds shall provide that neither the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Commonwealth") nor any political subdivision thereof, including the City, the County and the Authority, shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on the Bonds or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and receipts pledged therefor and that neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, including the City, the County and the Authority, shall be pledged thereto. 3. The Bonds are hereby designated as qualified tax-exempt obligations for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, but only to the extent the Bonds are issued during 2000. The City has not designated, and will not designate, more than $10,000,000 of obligations to be issued during 2000 as qualified tax-exempt obligations for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. RKE# 0871187.WPD GM: 089850.00005-01 REPORT OF PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing was conducted by The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Salem, Virginia (the "Authority") at 4:00 p.m. on December 7, 2000 on the application of North Cross School (the "Borrower") requesting the Authority to issue up to $8,000,000 of its revenue bonds or notes (the "Bonds") to assist the Borrower in the construction, renovation, expansion and equipping of various buildings and other facilities (the "Project"). Notice of such hearing was published on November 23, 2000 and November 30, 2000 in The Roanoke Times. The Project will be located on the Borrower's campus in Roanoke County, Virginia. The public hearing was held in the City Council Chambers, Salem City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia. At the meeting those persons interested in the issuance of the Bonds or the location and nature of the Project were given the opportunity to present their views. The public comments, if any, received at the meeting are summarized in Exhibit A attached hereto. After such hearing, the Authority voted to recommend the approval of the Bonds to the Boazd of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (the "Boazd")and the City Council of the City of Salem, Virginia (the "Council"). Accordingly, the Authority hereby recommends to the Board and the Council that they approve the issuance of the Bonds, as required by Section 14'7(f J of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Dated December 7, 2000. THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA By chairman RKE~ 0871110.WPD C/M: 089850-00005-01 Exhibit A to Report of Public Hearing The following public comments were received: None. RKE# 0671110.WPD C/M: 069650-00005-01 r ~. FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: December 7, 2000 Applicant: North Cross School Facility: Various buildings and other facilities located on the Applicant's campus in Roanoke County, Virginia. 1. Maximum amount of financing sought $ 8,000,000 2. Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property to be constructed in the municipality $ 3. Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates $ 4. Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates $ 5. Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates $ 6. a. Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased from Virginia companies within the locality $ b. Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality $ c. Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from Virginia companies within the locality $ d. Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality $ 7. Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis 8. Average annual salary per employee $ RKE# 0871091.WPD C/M:069850-00005-01 Signature: Authority Chairman The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Salem, Virginia If one or more of the above questions do not apply to the facility, indicate by writing "N/A" on the appropriate line. RKE# 0671091.WPD CMI: 089850-00005-01 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY. VIRGINIA WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Salem, Virginia (the "Authority") has considered the application of North Cross School (the "Borrower") requesting the issuance of one or more of the Authority's revenue bonds or notes in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in financing the construction, expansion, renovation and equipping (including landscaping) of various buildings and other facilities on the Borrower's campus (the "Project"), which is located at 4254 Colonial Avenue, S.W., in Roanoke County, Virginia (the "County"), and which Project will be owned and operated by the Borrower, and the Authority has held a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, it has been requested that the Boazd of Supervisors (the "Boazd") of the County approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds, and such approval is required for compliance with Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the fmancing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Borrower, as required by said Section 147(f), to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. The Boazd concurs with the resolution adopted by the Authority on November 1, 2000 with respect to the Bonds and the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by said Section 147(f), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Borrower or otherwise indicate that the Project possesses any economic viability. The Bonds shall provide that neither the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Commonwealth") nor any political subdivision thereof, including the County, the City of Salem (the "City") and the Authority, shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on the Bonds or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and receipts pledged therefor and that neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, including the County, the City and the Authority, shall be pledged thereto. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. RKE~t 0871142.WPD C/M: 089850-00005-01 ALTON L. KNIGHTON, JR. 540 983-7632 INTERNET: kniQhton~woodsroQers.com VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Elmer C. Hodge Roanoke County 5204 Bernard Drive, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE Attorneys at Law December 8, 2000 In re: North Cross School; Tax-Exempt Financing Dear Elmer: Enclosed are the materials which the Board of Supervisors is to receive before it votes on the proposed resolution for the North Cross financing. The materials include the executed report of public hearing, the executed fiscal impact statement, the Salem Industrial Development Authority's resolution recommending approval by the Board, the proposed resolution for the Board and the resolution to be considered by the Salem City Council. While it is not a part of the public approval process, I am also enclosing a copy of the inducement resolution adopted by the IDA, as the Board's resolution provides for concurrence with the inducement resolution. As previously indicated, we would appreciate your putting the proposed resolution for the Board on its agenda for the December 19 meeting. Please let me know if you should have any questions. Sincerely, WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE, P.L.C. aE Alton L. Knighton, Jr. ALKjr/jp Enclosures RKE# 0675435.WPD P O. Box 14125 / Roanoke, Vir mia 24038 -4125 C/M: 069650-00005-01 10 South Jefferson Street, Suite 1400 / Roanoke, Virginia 24011 540 983-7600 /Fax 540 983-7711 Internet -- mail@woodsrogers.eom Of fices also in Charlottesville, Danville and IZicltmond,Virginia Office of the County Administrator MEMO To: Chairman and Members of the Roanoke County Planning Commission Date: December 15, 2000 I have withdrawn Roanoke County's request for rezonings at Dixie Caverns. Attached is a copy of the report to the Board that I am placing on the agenda for December 19 explaining my reasons for doing so. The Planning Commission and staff have worked very hard on Dixie Caverns for a long time and I appreciate that effort very much. I want to try a different approach to bring future economic development requests to you. Rather than having the County staff identify areas and parcels and bringing them to you piecemeal, I would like to spend some time next year with you, the planning staff, economic development staff, and others that you may wish to include, to see if we can develop an overall process or plan for developing the nonresidential tax basis. I am sensitive to the need for you as Commissioners, as well as the staff, to be impartial in a review of rezonings as they are brought to us. I do not want us to be judges and jurors at the same time. I just believe that since the Board has placed a high priority on economic development that we need to work together. That begins with me and my staff. I cannot imagine how difficult it has been for you to work with the piecemeal items that we previously brought to you. I look forward to working with you on this and as a first step, I invite your Planning Commission Chairman to participate in our Annual Board Retreat that will be held on January 27. I wish we could invite all Planning Commission members, but space will be limited at the meeting facility. Board Chairman Joe McNamara has suggested that we dedicate that entire day to economic development. I appreciate your work and wish you the best during the holiday season. c Arnold Covey Terry Harrington Janet Scheid Attachment C~ l~~ From the desk of... Elmer C. Hodge, Jr., County Administrator Roanoke County P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2004 Fax: (540) 772-2193 Brenda Holton - Re: Dixie Caverns Title Page 1 From: Terry Harrington To: Brenda Holton Date: 12/13/00 2:48PM Subject: Re: Dixie Caverns Title brenda... here is modification: Second reading of an ordinance on the petition of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to rezone nine parcels of property in the Twine Hollow Road area of the Catawba Magisterial District as follows: 74.43 acres owned by Salem Stone Corporation to be rezoned from AG-3 and AR to I-1 Industrial; 70.50 acres owned by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to be rezoned from AG-3 to I-1 Industrial; and 43.5 acres owned by Energetic Solutions to be rezoned from AG-3 to I-1 Industrial; to implement the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan Future Land Use Plan (Terry Harrington, County Planner) THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS CANCELLED Terrance L. Harrington, AICP County of Roanoke 540-772-2106 Brenda Holton -Dixie Cavern Rezonings Page 1 From: Terry Harrington To: Mary Allen; Sue Patterson-Bane Date: 12/13/00 1:03PM Subject: Dixie Cavern Rezonings With the consent of 3 BOS members, Elmer has decided to withdraw the Dixie Cavern rezonings. Public hearing will not be held. Agenda should indicate that item has been withdrawn. Terry Terrance L. Harrington, AICP County of Roanoke 540-772-2106 CC: Paul Mahoney NORTH CROSS SCHOOL 4254 COLONIAL AVENUE ROANOxE, VA 24018 -4090 540-989-6641 FAX: 540-989-4888 CEEB: 471-941 G. WILLIAM STACEY IV, ED.D. HEAD OF SCHOOL SAMUEL P. COX DIRECTOR OF UPPER SCHOOL LISA G. T~JRNER DIRECTOR OF COLLEGE COUNSELING SCHOOL PROFILE 2000-2001 THE SCHOOL AND COMMUrIITY: North Cross School is an independent, non-sectazian, coeducational, college-preparatory day school for students in Junior Kindergarten through Grade 12. It provides a rigorous program supported by a variety of electives and co-curricular activities. The Upper School student-faculty ratio is 11-1 with an average class size of 15. At North Cross School, issues of honesty are matters of major importance. Our strict Honor Code encourages all members of the School community to work in an open and honest manner. THE ENROLLMENT: The total student enrollment is 542 with 145 in the Upper School and 35 in this yeaz's senior class. The average graduating class size is 40. The student body reflects the economic and ethnic diversity of the Roanoke metropolitan azea. Students commute from Bedford, Botetourt, Franklin, Montgomery, and Roanoke Counties. The majority of pazents hold professional or managerial positions. ACCREDTI'ED BY: Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and the Virginia Association of Independent Schools. It is the only school that is a member of the National Association of Independent Schools within a 75-mile radius SENIOR PROJECT: Completion of the senior project is required for graduation. The project includes the production of a formal research or thesis paper, or original work of art, music, or creative writing. Each senior works closely with a faculty advisor and completes a journal describing the process of the project. The final work is graded, and each senior subsequently prepares and makes an oral presentation for the entire Upper School student body and faculty. NATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY: Students must have an overall semester average of 94 (A) or better to be considered for nomination to the National Honor Society. ADVANCED PLACEMENT: We believe that all of our upper level courses offer appropriate preparation for the Advanced Placement exams, though no course is singled out as AP. This past year 46 students (63% of whom aze seniors) took one or more AP exams. 75 exams were taken with 75% receiving a score of 3 or higher. Bre~"Ja Holton -Fwd: Re: Stormwater Phase II, NPDES Requirements From: Elmer Hodge To: George Simpson; Mary Allen Date: 12/12/00 3:48PM Subject: Fwd: Re: Stormwater Phase tl, NPDES Requirements Mary, Put this on the agenda as a request for work session -first meeting in Jan. Thanks Elmer Hodge Roanoke County Administrator 540-772-2001 Page 1 '~ Bre. a Holton - Re: Stormwater Phase II, NPDES Requirements Page 1 From: George Simpson To: Elmer Hodge Date: 12/ 12/00 11:34AM Subject: Re: Stormwater Phase I1, NPDES Requirements I would like for you or Joe to accept the RVARC's invitation to work with the other localities in conjunction with the PDC to pursue regional isuues related to Phase II requirements. (Mayor Smith has agreed on behalf of Roanoke City). I would also like to have a work session with the board after the first of the year to bring everyone up to speed on what the requirements are and how they will affect Roanoke County. Let me know if you want me to draft a response. Thanks. George »> Elmer Hodge 12/08/00 01:54PM »> What does proceed mean? What do you want to do? I am with you. Elmer Hodge Roanoke County Administrator 540-772-2001 CC: Arnold Covey Mary Allen -Fwd: Re: DePaul Family Services Page 1 From: Mary Allen To: Paul Mahoney Subject: Fwd: Re: DePaul Family Services I'm going to send a fax to HCN with your a-mail, if that's O.K. Then you can let me know whether or not it can be deferred. Is that O.K. with you? Mary »> Paul Mahoney 11/27/00 08:45AM »> "problem" =HCN request to defer consideration until 12/19 meeting. If this legislation must be pre-filed thru legislative services by 12/18, this would effectively eliminate DePaul's opportunity to have this special legislation considered by the 2001 General Assembly. »> Mary Allen 11/27/00 08:32AM »> Let me know about DePaul so I can let HCN know and add to the agenda. Not sure what "problems" you are talking about....? Mary »> Paul Mahoney 11/27/00 08:28AM »> I will have problems doing so. I have a major zoning enforcement trial on Wednesday 12/6, so I am preparing all my citizen witnesses this week (7 or 8), plus we are interviewing secretary candidates. Dr. Nickens' request may be a problem. I think all tax-exempt legislation must be pre-filed by 12/18. I will have to check this. »> Mary Allen 11/22/00 01:55PM »> Are you planning on doing this? Mary Allen 1. Request for appropriation as a result of operations for the year ended June 30, 2000. (Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer) CONTINUED UNTIL AFTER BUDGET WORK SESSION T. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing for citizen comment on the petition of DePaul Family Services, Inc. to adopt a resolution supporting its request to the Virginia General Assembly to exempt from taxation certain property owned by DePaul in the County of Roanoke. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) BLJ MOTION TO DELAY ACTION UNTIL 12/5/00 -URC STAFF TO CHECK OUT OPERATION LOOK AT COMPENSATION OF EMPLOYEES AND PROVIDE SITE MAP. U. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. (WITHDRAWN 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 Richardson Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of U. S. Cellular. WITHDRAWN 2. Second 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. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) 0-111400-7 JPM MOTION TO ADOPT ORD URC 3. Second 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. (Terry Harrington, County Planner) 10 Mary Allen -DePaul Family Services Page 1 From: Mary Allen To: Brenda Holton Subject: DePaul Family Services If Hank Beskar calls me, it is about his request for Tax Exempt Status. Paul Mahoney called him from my office this afternoon and left a message on his voice mail that we would like to delay the request until the December 19 meeting because one of our Board members cannot attend the Dec. 5 meeting. Paul told him he needed to send us a salary schedule for his employees and also told him he needed to get a delegate to sponsor his request to the General Asssembly. Paul said if he had questions to call him or me. If he has legal questions, transfer him to Paul's office. Also, if HCN calls and asks about this, let him know that PMM and I left a message for Mr. Beskar that we are delaying action until Dec. 19 and that we requested salary information. Mary Mary l•`,IIeY~ - f-,wd: RE: Mondays Page 1 From: Mary Allen To: Paul Mahoney Subject: Fwd: RE: Mondays Since he wants to discuss this at the 12/5 meeting, I assume at this point it would be a brief work session on changing board meeting dates? Mary »> Paul Mahoney 11/16/00 02:40PM »> here is Joe's response. Mary Allen - RE: Mondays Page 1 From: "McNamara, Joe" <jmcnamara@a4healthsystems.com> To: 'Paul Mahoney' <PMAHONEY@co.roanoke.va.us> Date: 11 /16/00 2:05PM Subject: RE: Mondays Paul, Please put something together to discuss at the next Board Meeting. I will send a letter to all Board members before our next meeting discussing the possible change. Thanks Joseph McNamara Director -National Accounts A4 Health Systems 3247 Electric Road, Suite 2C Roanoke, VA 24018 phone 540.725.8264 www.jmcnamara@a4healthsystems.com -----Original Message----- From: Paul Mahoney [mailto:PMAHONEY@co.roanoke.va.us] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 11:11 AM To:jmcnamara@a4healthsystems.com Cc: Elmer Hodge Subject: Mondays Mr. McNamara: You asked me about any problems with moving the BOS meetings from Tuesdays to Mondays. The BOS establishes its meeting schedule at the organizational meeting of the Board, which is scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2001 at 9:OOam. This change should be accomplished at that time. The BOS establishes its meeting schedule by Resolution. A quick review of the 2001 calendar does not reveal any major problems with a Monday meeting date, if we meet on the second and fourth Mondays of each month. There are several instances where one of those days falls on a national holiday, which would require moving the meeting date to the next day, Tuesday (Memorial Day 5/28 and Columbus Day 10/8). Since Roanoke City Council meets on the first and third Mondays, we would have to meet on the second and fourth Mondays, to avoid conflicts with cable tv scheduling. I have called Elaine Simpson (of RVTV) to see if there are any other scheduling problems. When she calls me back, I will call you if there are any other problems. There is also the "Tradition" problem. Roanoke County Board has always met on Tuesdays. Changing the meeting date may cause confusion for the citizenry. There are many documents (Citizen Handbooks, Voters Guides, other publications and brochures) that show our meeting date on Tuesdays. These would have to be changed at considerable cost. I will ask Ms. Allen to try to identify all these documents and the possible costs to revise or re-publish. Mary Alleti~ - ~: Mondays Page 2 Do you want Ms. Allen and I to prepare a draft calendar for 2001 showing Monday meetings dates (second and fourth Mondays), and distribute it to you and other BOS members for review at your 12/5 or 12/19 meeting? Paul M. Mahoney ~ / ,• y t ~~ i J ~ ~~ N T E R O F F I C E Roanoke County Board of Supervisors To: Board of Supervisors ~ ~ From: Harry C. Nickens l~~ Subject: Change in Meeting Day for 2000 Date: November 22, 2000 I will NOT be able to attend the December 5 Board of Supervisors meeting. I would like to request that we schedule a work session at the December 19 meeting to discuss Chairman McNamara's suggestion that we change our meeting days from Tuesdays to Mondays. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. CC: Elmer Hodge