HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/19/1997 - Adopted Board RecordsAT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997
RESOLUTION 081997-1 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY
OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO REIMBURSE ITSELF
FROM THE PROCEEDS OF ONE OR MORE TAX-EXEMPT FINANCINGS FOR
CERTAIN EXPENDITURES MADE AND/OR TO BE MADE IN CONNECTION
WITH THE ACQUISITION, RENOVATION, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF
CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR SCHOOL PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the
"County") and the School Board of the County have undertaken and completed a
comprehensive facilities study to determine and prioritize critical capital improvement
needs for the County's public schools.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County has determined that the
acquisition, construction, renovation and equipping of the Projects described on Exhibit
A (the "Projects") are essential projects.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County or the School Board expects
to pay, after the date hereof, certain expenditures (the "Expenditures") in connection with
the acquisition, renovation, construction and/or equipping of the Projects. -
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has determined that any moneys previously
advanced no more than 60 days prior to the date hereof (and other moneys advanced for
which an exception applies) and those moneys to be advanced on and after the date
hereof to pay the Expenditures are available only for a temporary period and it is
necessary to reimburse the County or the School Board for the Expenditures from the
proceeds of one or more issues of tax-exempt bonds, including the Loan (the "Bonds").
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Board of Supervisors hereby determines that the acquisition, construction,
renovation and equipping of the Projects is essential to the Roanoke County public school
system.
2. The Board hereby declares its intent to reimburse itself or the School Board with
the proceeds of the Bonds for the Expenditures with respect to the Projects made on and
after that date which is no more than 60 days prior to the date hereof. The Board of
Supervisors reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse the Expenditures
with the proceeds of the Bonds.
1
3. Each Expenditure will be either (a) of a type properly chargeable to capital
account under general federal income tax principles (determined in each case as of the
date of the Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with respect to the Bonds, (c) a
nonrecurring item that is not customarily payable from current revenues, or (d) a grant to
a party that is not related to or an agent of the County so long as such grant does not
impose any obligation or condition (directly or indirectly) to repay any amount to or for the
benefit of the County.
4. The maximum principal amount of the Bonds expected to be issued for the
Project is $47,720,000.
5. The School board will request advances from the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors on an as -needed basis, through future resolutions.
6. The County will make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation
by the County that evidences the County's use of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse an
Expenditure, no later than 18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure
is paid or the applicable Project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more
than three years after the date on which the Expenditure is paid. The County recognizes
that exceptions are available for certain "preliminary expenditures," costs of issuance,
certain de minimis amounts, expenditures by "small issuers" (based on the year of
issuance and not the year of expenditure) and expenditures for construction projects of at
least 5 years.
7. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
On motion of Supervisor Eddy to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
Mike Stovall, Chairman, School Board
Dr. Deanna Gordon, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools
2
EXHIBIT A
• Construction of a new South County High School
• Renovation of existing science laboratories at Northside High School, Glenvar High
School, and Cave Spring High School
• Additions and improvements to Glenvar Middle School
• Construction of a new Bonsack Elementary School
• Renovations and additions to Burlington Elementary School
• Renovations and additions to Clearbrook Elementary School
3
A-081997-2
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER Z —/
AT A REGULAR. MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997
AGENDA ITEM: Submission of subscriber complaints regarding Cable Programming
Services (C.P.S.) tier rates of Cox Cable Roanoke to F.C.C.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S` COMMENTS: .e OL
BACKGROUND:
Recent changes in Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.) regulations have
removed the ability of individual cable consumers to file complaints directly with the F.C.C.
which raise objections to rate increases for the cable programming services tier (C.P.S.).
Cox Communications/Cox Cable Roanoke has announced increases in their rates for cable
customers for both basic cable service and for the C.P.S. tier of cable services effective
March 1, 1997. A cable customer has 90 days from the effective date of an increase in
cable rates to file a complaint regarding C.P.S. rates with the franchising authority. The
franchising authority must receive such complaints from at least two customers before it
may file a request with the F.C.C. to review an increase in C.P.S. rates. The County has
received an opinion from its outside legal counsel for cable television issues that these rate
increases instituted by Cox Communications are within the range permitted by F.C.C.
regulations. (See Attachment 'W', letter from Brian T. Grogan, dated January 24, 1997.)
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Roanoke County has received complaints or protests from twelve citizens requesting
a review of the announced intentions of Cox Cable Roanoke to increase the rates for its
C.P.S. tier effective March 1, 1997. The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, as the
franchising authority, made an initial determination at its May 13, 1997, meeting that
these subscriber complaints were received within 90 days from the date the rate increase
at issue went into effect and that such rate increase pertains to the C.P.S. tier. Roanoke
County then sent a written notice, including a draft FCC Form 329, to Cox
Communications/Cox Cable Roanoke to inform them that these complaints are pending
with the County.
,E_ J
Cox Communications has submitted a response to the County following this Board's
action on May 13, 1997, to provide notice to Cox of the number of subscriber complaints
received and the County's option to file a Form 329 with the F.C.C. Cox Communication
has submitted an amended form FCC 1240 which justifies their rate increases as within the
range permitted by the F.C.C. as reasonable. (See Attachment "B", letter from John W.
Bingham, CPA, Business Manager, dated June 5, 1997.) Roanoke County has 180 days
from the effective date of the rate increase in question to file the FCC Form 329, along
with any response from the cable operator, with the F.C.C. I have received notification
that the City of Roanoke has filed a FCC Form 329 with the F.C.C. as to these same rates
effective July 14, 1997.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Authorize the County Administrator to execute a Form 329, as prepared by
the County Attorney and forward to the Federal Communications
Commission (F.C.C.) prior to August 28, 1997.
2. Decline to file a rate complaint on the C.P.S. tier, Form 329, with the F.C.C.
and rely upon the review of rate increases previously conducted on behalf of
the County by outside legal counsel.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #2.
E-1
Approved (x)
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
cc: File
Joseph
Motion .• -- B. Eddy
substiAhte motion MKITITMI-NAMP-01
•
Respectfully submitted,
JOsbh BACIbenshain
Assistant County Attorney
VOTE
No Yes Absent
Eddy
X
Harrison
x
Johnson
x
Minnix
x
Nickens
X
B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney
LAW OFFICES
MOSS & BARNETT
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
4800 NORWEST CENTER
90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-4129
BRIAN T. GROGAN TELEPHONE (612) 347-0300
(612) 347-0340 FACSIMILE (612) 339-6686
WRITER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS
GroganB@mosslaw.com
January 24, 1997
Mr. Joseph B. Obenshain
Senior Assistant County Attorney
P.O. Box 28800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
Re: Proposed Rate Increase by Cox Communications
Dear Joe:
ATTACHMENT "A" v
r•, w--, ---- -
JAN w
Per your request we have reviewed Cox Communications proposed rate increases for
member communities of the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee
("Committee"). In particular, we have reviewed FCC Forms 1240 and 1205 which were
submitted to each of the Committee's member communities. Based on our review of those forms
using an FCC approved spreadsheet formatted for "excel," we have determined that no
mathematical errors have been made by Cox and that the proposed rate increases are consistent
with FCC rate regulations.
Please note, however, we have not attempted to verify the accuracy of the information
used by Cox to calculate the entries included in its rate regulation forms. However, we see
nothing in our review which would suggest that the numbers used by Cox are significantly out of
line with similarly situated communities and therefore have no reason to recommend that a more
detailed audit is necessary at this time.
The member communities of the Committee need not take specific action to approve
Cox's proposed rates but rather can simply allow the time period for review to expire thereby
resulting in an implied approval of the rate increases.
As you may know, subscribers may still complain regarding the reasonableness of the
proposed rate increases and each community has the option to forward these complaints on to the
FCC using FCC Form 329. For your review and consideration I have enclosed herewith a copy
of applicable FCC rate regulations, instructions and Form 329 which will explain to you the
process to be used by any community wishing to submit a complaint to the FCC. If you should
have any questions regarding these materials please feel free to contact me.
E -/
MOSS & BARNETT
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
Joseph B. Obenshain
January 24, 1997
Page 2
I hope this information is responsive to your request. If you should desire a more detailed
review and/or audit of the forms submitted by Cox please feel free to contact me. Otherwise, as
always I am available to answer any questions regarding this letter or the rate regulation forms
submitted by Cox.
Very truly yours,
MOSS & BARNETT,
A Professional Association
1 f
Brian T. Grogan
BTG/slo
85492/1TYS01!.DOC
Enclosures
June 5, 1997
County of Roanoke, Virginia
PO Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018
ATTN: Joseph Obenshain
Senior Assistant County Attorney
Dear Mr. Obenshain:
ATTACEMW "B"
I��r�r� r�i�lll
5400 Fallowater Lane SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
(540)776-3845 /
(540776-3847 fax
C Olt
COMMUNICATIONS
The purpose of this letter is to provide the County of Roanoke with the required Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) form 1240 to support our CPS tier rate. The County has indicated intent to file a
complaint with the FCC concerning our March 1, 1997 rate change and this is our response to your letter
of intent.
Upon reviewing your draft of the FCC Form 329, the current rate (excluding franchise fees on the rate
change) should be stated as $18.35 rather than $18.43. The prior rate of $16.90 is correct and does not
include franchise fees. Franchise fees have not been included in the computations of permitted rates on
FCC Form 1240 as they are treated as an external cost and added directly to the permitted rates on our rate
card. Included in the supporting documents are copies of rate cards for your review.
I have enclosed an amended FCC 1240 for our CPS tier. The form has been amended due to contract
changes in programming cost that were unforeseen at the time of the original filing. The change affects the
beginning programming rate for CAPS channels on Worksheet 2 CAPs Method for the Projected Period.
The change is due to programming contract revisions for Home Team Sports and Speedvision networks.
If the County decides to file a complaint after reviewing, please forward a copy of our response to the FCC
with your complaint.
If you should have any questions please contact me at 776-3844 extension 155. I will be glad to assist you.
Sincerely,
John
!Bingham, CPA
Business Manager
Enclosures
cc: Gretchen Shine, VP & GM
Martin Corcoran, Cox Communications, Inc.
Kathy Payne, Cox Communications, Inc.
Public File
ACCOUNTING SUPPORTICUSTLTRSTA151
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY,VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER,TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997
RESOLUTION 081997-3 TO ENDORSE THE ROANOKE COUNTY
BUSINESS PARK PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE GLENN -
MARY SITE, DESIGNATED ON THE ROANOKE COUNTY LAND
RECORDS AS TAX MAP #54.00-1-2, #54.00-1-3, AND #64.00-1-1, FOR
USE AS THE DESIGN GUIDELINES IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND
REZONING PROCESS
WHEREAS, by Resolution #031197-5, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County
approved an Option to Purchase Agreement dated February 26, 1997, wherein Glenn -
Mary Associates granted unto the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, an
option to purchase approximately 463 acres of real estate designated on the Roanoke
County Land Records as Tax Map #54.00-1-2, #54.00-1-3, and #64.00-1-1, ("the Glenn -
Mary Site"); and,
WHEREAS, Roanoke County has identified the Glenn -Mary Site as a strategic
location for a new business park, to promote and encourage economic development in the
County of Roanoke through increased employment and business investment, which
constitutes a valid public purpose and is an important function of local government; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to authorization of the Board of Supervisors, a Design Team
for the Glenn -Mary Site has conducted feasibility studies and has facilitated a Community
Visioning Process with the neighboring residents and local business leaders to develop
a preliminary concept plan which addresses critical issues compiled by the Community
Advisory Committee and the Technical Resource Board; and,
WHEREAS, on July 22, 1997, the Design Team presented to the Board of
Supervisors the "Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan" for the Glenn-
Mary Site, which has been endorsed by the Community Advisory Committee, and the
Design Team recommended purchase of the property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, that the "Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan" for
the Glenn -Mary Site be, and it is hereby, endorsed for use as the design guidelines in the
development and rezoning of the property into a new business park in western Roanoke
County and that said Plan be, and it is hereby, transmitted to the Roanoke County
Planning Commission for such actions as may be necessary and appropriate in
accordance with this resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: Supervisor Eddy
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Melinda J. Cox, Economic Development Specialist
Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
2
ROANOKE COUNTY BUSINESS
PARK PRELIMINARY CONCEPT
PLAN
DESIGN GUIDELINES
OUTLINE STATEMENT AND
SITE QUALIFYING DOCUMENT
JULY 17, 1997
HILL STUDIO P.C.
PLANNING
LANDCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ARCHITECTURE
120 WEST CAMPBELL AVE.
ROANOKE, VA. 24101
Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan
Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY............................................................................................................................ 3
COMMUNITYADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................... 4
CRITICALSUCCESS FACTORS.................................................................................................................. 4
SITEISSUES....................................................................................................................................... 4
LANDISSUES..................................................................................................................................... 4
SITEANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................ S
GEOTECHNICAL................................................................................................................................. S
ARCHEOLOGICAL.............................................................................................................................. S
ENVIRONMENTALSITE ASSESSMENT................................................................................................... 6
UTILITIES.......................................................................................................................................... 6
STORMWATER................................................................................................................................... 6
SLOPEAND ASPECT............................................................................................................................ 7
VEGETATION...................................................................................................................................... %
VIEWS............................................................................................................................................... S
WORKSHOPPROCESS.............................................................................................................................. S
PRELIMINARYCONCEPT PLAN- DESIGN GUIDELINES OUTLINE................................................................ S
CORPORATEVILLAGE.......................................................................................................................... S
CORPORATECIRCLE........................................................................................................................... 9
TECHNOLOGYDISTRICT...................................................................................................................... 9
"LONE EAGLE DISTRICT.................................................................................................................... 9
LANDSCAPEBUFFERS......................................................................................................................... 9
WATERWAYSAND GREENWAYS.......................................................................................................... IO
INTERNALROADWAYS....................................................................................................................... 10
SITEACCESS........................................................................................................................I..........I..... 10
GLENMARYI................................................................................................................................... 11
GLENMARYII.................................................................................................................................. 11
DOWHOLLOW ROAD...................................................................................................................... 11
460/11 BRIDGE ACCESS I................................................................................................................ 11
460/11 BRIDGE ACCESS II...............................................................................................................12
SCHEDULE............................................................................................................................................ 12
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................ 13
APPENDIX............................................................................................................................................. 14
DESIGN TEAM
COUNTY OF ROANOKE CONTACTS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTE
TECHNICAL RESOURCE BOARD
Context Map
Preliminary Concept Plan
Plan Detail
Buffer Section and Road section
Corporate Circle Section
Perspective Dry Corporate Circle
Perspective of Bridge
Aerial Photograph
Site Photographs
Map of existing conditions
Slope Map
Road access options diagram
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan
Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document
E`= 2
On March 11, 1997, Roanoke County announced plans to purchase land for a proposed new
business park in West Roanoke County, located along Interstate 81, Virginia's Technology Corridor.
This document is intended to be a guide for the development of this new business park if the Board
chooses to exercise its option to purchase the 463 acre site from Glenn -Mary Associates.
Over the past five months Roanoke County and a Design Team have worked with citizens in a
community visioning process, a method of open dialog and input with the public in the design process.
Community involvement was in the form of an Advisory Committee, made up of citizens living close to
the business park site, the business community in West County, and a Technical Resource Board, profes-
sionals in the Roanoke Valley with expertise in engineering and economic development. This process
has shown that proposed development is compatible with current site conditions. It is recommended
Roanoke County purchase the property and proceed with the rezoning process. It is also recommended
that the Preliminary Concept Plan and the Design Guidelines Outline Statement be used as a guide in the
development process for the site.
This property offers an opportunity to develop a unique mixed-use planned business park which
strives to attract new and progressive businesses in the areas of technological research and development
and business administration located in a picturesque natural setting in Roanoke County. Imagine a tree -
lined parkway entry to a business setting of the future.
• A village center with businesses and commercial buildings clustered around a tree -lined pond.
• A corporate heart, with corporate buildings and select commercial businesses forming an ellipse
around a woodland hollow, just below the village center.
• A technology district; a campus -like setting of new and progressive technology businesses
encircling the village center and corporate.
• The Lone Eagle District, a backdrop of this business: park with select building sites nestled in
the saddles of the wooded ridges..
Adequate public water and sewer facilities presently exist within close proximity to the site which
could be extended to benefit the business park and adjoining residential areas. A Phase I Environmental
Assessment of the property identified no environmental impediments to development. Aphase I archeo-
logical study was also conducted which indicated possibly one archeological site warranting further
study. A preliminary geotechnical report concluded that soil conditions are favorable for development,
mass rock could be encountered in limited areas of the site and the three of the ponds will require
improvements to meet construction standards. The study of topography revealed the major portion of
development will be located in the southern half of the site. In general favorable conditions for develop-
ment.
Natural buffer zones are proposed along boundaries adjoining private property to screen develop-
ment. Critical to success of this project will be extensive but reasonable protective codes covenants and
restrictions imposed on development above and beyond those imposed by the zoning process to ensure
proper and appropriate development and also enhance and protect public and private development
within the property. The covenants will be offered as proffered conditions to rezoning of the property
and will be permanently associated with the property.
Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan
Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS
�-z
Citizens recruited to serve as members of the advisory committee gathered feedback from the
community, compiled this information, and made recommendations back to the Design Team for incor-
poration into the Preliminary Concept Plan.
Members of the committee attended formal meetings with County staff, the Technical Resource
Board, business community leaders, and the Civic League Presidents from West County. They also
collected information on an informal basis with co-workers and neighbors.
The following list represents statements made by the County to the Advisory Committee and other
citizen participants during the Design Workshop for the Business Park. The following items have been
incorporated into design guidelines for the preliminary concept plan and will serve as proffers for the
terms of purchase.
SITE ISSUES
• No access road will be routed from Glenvar Heights Boulevard or Prunty Drive.
• Height restrictions will be established in the development of each park district.
• Public water and sewer will serve the park with no corporate use of on-site wells.
• No operation shall be permitted which produces objectionable smoke, dust, odors, soot, radia-
tion, noise, vibrations, electrical interference, glare, gases, liquid waste, or any similareffects, or
which creates excessive demands on internal roads, drainage, sanitary system or other service or
utility. kLevel of objectionability to be determined)
• No heavy industry.
LAND ISSUES
• Roanoke County will form a Design Review Board to evaluate whether proposed
structures meet the design guidelines outlined in the preliminary concept plan.
• Development of a zoning code to incorporate the mixed land uses.
• Minimum standards will be created for signage, lighting, parking, loading docks, security,
traffic, construction of buildings, buffers, greenways, and landscaping.
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
At the beginning of community input, critical and key issues were determined critical to the suc-
cess of the project which were addressed in the design process :
• Public Trust
Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan
Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document
• Avoiding "The Preconceived Plan"
(Use the workshop process to distill the "Smoke and Mirrors" attitudes)
• Widening of Routes 460/11
• Insure that the end result is a saleable product
• Use park to stabilize residential taxes
• Seek out clean business/industry
• Property tax impact - will homes hold value?
• Buffer zones
• Industry & building restrictions
• Access roads denied to neighborhoods
• Preserve and maintain property integrity
(Insure conditions such as mass, scale, color, design, etc. are harmonious to site)
• Avoid pollution to air, ground, and water (especially during construction)
• Traffic control
• Installation of water and sewer on site
• Avoid negative effects of blasting on private wells
(A comprehensive list of critical issues developed by the advisory committees is included as part of
the critical success factors and considered in the design process. A complete list is available through
Roanoke County.)
SITE ANAI,YSIS
As part of the design process , site analysis information was gathered to allow informed -design
decisions during the workshop. Complete copies of the subconsultants reports related to site analysis are
available for review through Roanoke County.
GEOTECHNICAL
Engii>eering Consulting Services completed a preliminary subsurface exploration report which
investigated depth of bedrock, soil type, and the conditions of the dams for the four small farm
ponds on site. The study was contained to the southern half of the property to reduce the scope
of the study to areas which can accommodate large-scale development. The method of
exploration was 22 soil borings to a depth of 20 to 25 feet and visual inspection of the dams. The
study revealed that soil types are typical for this area of the Roanoke Valley. The presence of
highly plastic silts and clays which suggest that earthwork activities should be limited to late
spring, summer and fall during dry weather. Auger refusal from drilling was encountered in six
borings at depths of 8-12 feet. Further investigation is required to determine the extent and
density of rock. In general the site is suitable for development and the costs should be "normal"
for the immediate vicinity.
ARCHEOLOGICAL
Lockwood Greene Technologies performed a _Phase I Archeological study of the site. This in-
cluded research into the written history of the site, and an on-site inspection of historic re
sources with test digs in several locations. The study revealed
that the property was traveled by Native American people and white
W1
Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan
Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document
settlers cleared the lower areas for pasture and lived on the southern fringes of the site. A ,
chimney remains from a cabin next to Calahan Branch. Inspection of the chimney construc-
tion dates the cabin to the early 1900's. A standing cabin exist in the lower southeast corner
of the site. This cabin was relocated for I-81 to its current location and
extensively remodeled, which lowers its historical significance. Test digs revealed several areas
with Native American and early settler artifacts in the pasture areas of the site, with one area
eligible to receive further research. The State of Virginia will decide is this area warrants further
study.
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Lockwood Greene Technologies performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the
site. This included on-site inspection and research into property ownership of the site and the
adjacent landowners for any evidence of previous environmental hazards. The study re-
vealed no history of significant environmental issues and the on-site inspection determined that
current conditions show no serious environmental concerns, only minor issues such as oil stains
from farm equipment and the evidence of some refuse near the existing farm buildings at the south-
ern boundary of the site.
UTILITIES
Engineering Concepts, Inc. performed a preliminary review of current and proposed utility
demands. This included review of maps available at the Workshop for utility issues and discus-
sion with several service providers of current and proposed utility demands.
Adequate public water and sewer facilities presently exist, or are -planned to be extended, at
locations near the boundary of the site. Preliminary investigations indicate that these services
could be extended to the property via existing public rights-of-way to minimize impacts.
Other utilities such as telephone (with provision for voice and data transmission, ISDN lines,
fiber optic capability, etc.), cable, electrical service, and natural gas are available in the vicinity
of the site. The respective utility companies have indicated their willingness in having further
discussions to coordinate further planning efforts and capacity/demand evaluations.
Sewer extensions should be planned utilizing gravity flow where possible to avoid the additional
costs. The capacity of the receiving sewer in Glenvar Heights Boulevard will need to be evaluated
as a first step in the detailed utility planning process. Building location studies should
incorporate evaluation of the water pressure zones and sewer service potential. The Lone Eagle
Districts should be evaluated for service by well and septic field development, due to their loca-
tion at the periphery of the development.
STORMWATER
Engineering Concepts, Inc. performed a preliminary review of current and proposed stormwater,
runoff impacts and water quality issues. This was also performed during the Workshop
with available maps.
0
Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan
Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document
The site is roughly bisected from northwest to southeast by Callahan Branch
and it's associated tributaries. The Callahan Branch basin drains the majority of the site
and a sizable portion of off-site area to the northwest, exiting the property in the extreme
southeast corner of the site through box culverts under Interstate 81. A main tributary to Callahan
Branch parallels the eastern boundary and intersects the main channel just
upstream of the I-81 culverts. The Callahan basin features two existing ponds, one elevated
pond in the western side of the site, and one large pond located in the main stem of the branch,
2000 feet north of the I-81 culverts. A smaller basin occupies the lower southwest corner of the
property, draining through culverts under Glenmary Drive and I-81. This basin features two exist-
ing farm ponds. The large pond on the stem of Callahan Branch is a more developed, yet all of the
ponds are observed to be utilized mainly for agriculture purposes and have no mechanical controls
for flow control / overflow protection.
Management of stormwater from the development of the property should be accomplished on-site
to minimize the downstream effects on the I-81 culverts. The Design Team believes this can be
accomplished. Existing drainage ways are also the best method of achieving some natural water
quality management due the established stream ecosystem. The ponds should be enlarged and
modified to serve larger stormwater requirements. This will serve to manage the increase in flow
quantity expected in the main stem as well as the flow from the Corporate Village, Corporate
Circle, and Technology District areas of the development.
With proper design, stormwater control can assist in the lowering of runoff
temperature, which can lessen the impact of thermal loading on a natural stream or body of
water. Other methods can include: the incorporation of plant and landscaping materials, shade tree
plantings to block areas prone to thermal loading (roofs, pavement), the establishment of forebays
upstream of discharge points to the natural channels.
SLOPE AND ASPECT
Hill Studio P.C. developed a computer 3-D model of the site to study the slope and solar aspect of
the slopes. It revealed that the most developable portions of the site, areas which will accommo-
date large footprint buildings, are focused in the southern half of the property. The upper wooded
drainages revealed small areas in the saddles of the ridgelines which could accommodate small
footprint building types. The aspect study showed that the main stream drainage which
bisects the site from northwest to southeast, creates small drainages in the upper half the site
pointing primarily to the south. The result is that a majority of the site contains areas sloping to the
south with good solar exposure.
VEGETATION
Hill Studio P.C. investigated vegetation through on site inspection and the study of aerial photo-
graphs. The investigation revealed that the upper half of the site is predominantly deciduous
woodland consisting of oak, hickory, beech, ash, tulip poplar, and maple, with evergreen along
the fringe or disturbed areas and in the deeply shaded north sloping areas. The southern half o
the site contains pockets of deciduous woodland left after clearing for pasture. Black locust and
Empress Trees have established in select disturbed, rocky areas and wet tolerant trees, such as
willow, ash and sycamore, have established along the stream corridors..
7
VIEWS
Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan
Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document
E -Z
Hill Studio P.C. investigated view impacts to and from the site through on site inspections .
The investigation revealed the site is not visible along the I-81 corridor directly adjacent to the
property, except for a limited view of the cabin on the site in the southeast corner of the prop-
erty. This is due to the extreme difference in elevation between I-81 and the property. Views of
portions of the site are possible from the I-81 corridor in select locations to the north of the site.
The topography to the south on I-81 restricts views of the site. Views of portions of the site
are possible from several adjacent land owners on each side of the property. Woodland on the
eastern boundary greatly restricts views into the site at times of year when leaf cover is present.
Views of the site are feasible from select locations on the opposite side of Interstate 81 along 460/
11 and other high points in the Roanoke Valley.
Views on-site from the pasture area looking to the south capture beautiful views of Poor
Mountain and the associated ridgeline. View from the pasture area looking to the north capture
beautiful views of Fort Lewis Mountain and the associate ridgeline. Views to the northeast
reveal Downtown Roanoke and Mill Mountain.
WORKSHOP PROCESS
The Design Team's five day workshop was a way of directing community input and ideas into the
design process. The workshop was.held at the Spring Hollow Water Treatment Facility along Routes
460/11 in Roanoke County. A hands-on intensive collaborative effort between staff, consultants and
citizens resulted in a preliminary concept plan created by all parties involved. The Preliminary Concept
Plan will serve as a guiding principle for further development of the site. The workshop has shown that
community involvement and collaboration is essential to the design process.
PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN- DESIGN GUIDELINES OUTLINE
The proposed Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan strives for the integration
of proposed building development with the natural topographic character of the site and the established
woodland hollows. Like the construction practices of earlier settlers in the Roanoke Valley, the develop-
ment works with the lay of the land and not against it. The design focuses the most developed portions
of the site around the intermittent stream, called Dry Branch, and woodland hollow, upstream from the
larger and perennial Calahan Branch. The following Preliminary Concept Plan and Design Guidelines
Outline explain the different zones within the park, and set the stage for fully developed design criteria.
ORPORATE VILLAGE
The corporate Village is the commercial center of the development. Located at the upper end of
the Dry Branch. The clustering of commercial buildings creates a village atmosphere focusing
views onto a central pond and wetland doubling as a stormwater management facilities. The two to
three story buildings step down the slope with parking toward the access road. Such com-
mercial business may include copying and printing, restaurant, day care, coffee shop, service
station and small corporate offices.
8
CORPORATE CIRCLE
Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan
Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document
Corporate Circle is the corporate office potential district. Located around the main portion
of Dry Branch and its established hardwood enclave, the buildings step down the slope and
direct into the trees around Dry Branch. The buildings are two to three story linked together
with a pedestrian trail and boardwalk which will skirt the edge of the hollow. The main access road
and parking will be located around the Corporate Circle. Such commercial businesses include
corporate offices, hotels or travelers accommodations and restaurants.
TECHNOLOGY DISTRICT
The Technology District is the new technologies potential district. Located around the Corpo-
rate Village and Corporate Circle, this district accommodates campus -like clean manufacturing
facilities. An emphasis will be placed on facilities which specialize in new technologies, such as chip
and circuit board manufacturing, research and development industries specializing in electronics,
software publishing companies and telecommunications related to electronics and specialty equip-
ment, automotive components manufacturing and "Smart Road" related manufacturing. The build-
ings will be generally one story which integrate specialty manufacturing and research with business
or office. The technology district emphasizes clean businesses with light to medium work force
and distribution requirements.
"LONE EAGLE DISTRICV9
The Lone Eagle District occupies the steep wood areas on the north and eastern portions of the
site. This district is served by a standard two-lane road. The development consists of large
lot, high-end residential, residential with home business or professional business of ten employees
or less. Home or professional businesses are strictly service oriented, non -manufacturing,
with minimal requirements for client parking and truck service. Examples of businesses may in
clude architecture, engineering, computer software consulting, attorney, accountant, marketing
and financial advising. The lot development for this district is depicted in the concept layout plan.
It emphasizes large lots to minimize disturbance. The buildings and parking are located in
predetermined areas, also depicted in the concept layout plan. These locations, identified as
Limit of Building Zones (LBZ), focus development on the flatter benches and saddles in the
terrain, protecting the ridgeline and ridgetop treeline from development. The remaining
portions of these lots are restricted from lot clearing, excluding a access drive to each LBZ.
LANDSCAPE BUFFERS
The property is completely surrounded by a minimum 100' landscape buffer. The landscape
buffer on the eastern boundary of the site is extended to the perennial stream, significantly
larger than 100'. The upper eastern and northern boundaries are protected by natural buffers
from lot restrictions within the Loan Eagle District. In areas where additional buffering is neces-
sary, the planting will be a mixture of native evergreens and deciduous trees and shrubs. The buffers
will be landscaped to provide solid screening and blend with the natural wooded areas within the
site and along the edge of the property.
9
WATERWAYS AND GREENWAYS
Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan
Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document
The stream corridors are key amenities and set the stage for development. The three
main drainage features; Dry Branch, Calahan Branch and the unnamed stream to the east of Calahan
Branch flow together and leave the site under Interstate 81 along the southeastern boundary of the
site. The two larger and two smaller ponds will serve as amenities and focal points for develop-
ment. All streams or waterways warrant protection guidelines to maintain their natural character.
A greenway system overlays the streams as a defined protection areas. Some of the greenways
incorporate a trail system available to residents and businesses within the site. The trail
system allows a connection between the developed areas and the natural areas of the site.
INTERNAL ROADWAYS
The roadway system is a mix of road types. The entry roadway is large enough to
accommodate traffic needs for a completely developed business park. This consists of approxi-
mately two travel lanes in each direction with a variable -width median. The support amenities,
planting, lighting and signage, help define the roadway and promote the character of the
business park. The main internal roadway will accommodate a large portion of the business park
traffic and connect to the entry roadway. The size and number of lanes needed will be carefully
studied as the concept plan is developed. Topography and traffic volumes effect
the road design. The road would be approximately three to four lanes and in some areas a
separation median could be provided. The secondary internal roadways will accommodate traffic
for select businesses. Further study will determine the exact size, probably two lanes with a separa-
tion island in some areas. The woodland roadway accommodates traffic for the Lone Eagle Dis-
trict only. This would be a standard road and designed to meet minimum standards, which
allows a roadway with minimum impact the steep wooded areas.
SITE ACCESS
The workshop revealed that development of the proposed business park would require improve-
ments to the access road to meet future traffic requirements. A study was performed during the work-
shop of alternative site access roads, including upgrades to the existing road, Glenmary Drive. The
options were studied and compared for economic, social and engineering opportunities and constraints.
The options are listed in order of relative cost, Glenmary I access being the most cost effective.
GLENMARY I
This option upgrades the existing Glenmary Drive to accommodate future traffic volumes, and
develop the entry of Glenmary Drive at the intersection of Dow Hollow Rd., as the entry to the
proposed business park. This alternative is the most cost effective and would be a likely candidate
for initial site access. Careful planning in conjunction with I-81 improvements is required to make
this alternative cost effective.
Benefits: Existing road corridor in place, Visibility to I-81, consolidates impacts, cost effective
Disadvantages: Single loaded corridor, Future I-81 issues, Impacts Glenmary and Prunty Drive,
potential unplanned commercial growth along Glenmary Drive, limited space to beautify road.
10
GLENMARY II
Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan
Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document
As in the previous alternative, this scheme upgrades Glenmary Drive . It further redesigns the
entry
of Glenmary Drive to bend to the north of the existing commercial development on the corner of
Dow Hollow and Glenmary Drive, realigning this entry to connect directly into Dow Hollow. As
in the previous alternative, careful planning in conjunction with I-81 improvements is required to
make this alternative cost effective.
Benefits: Safer, streamlined entrance system, Improves entrance to Dow Hollow Road, Better
Utilizes interchange exit
Disadvantages: Impacts Prunty and Glenmary Drive and private property, Future I-81 issues
Dow HOLLOw ROAD
This alternative uses a new access point into the site by improving Dow Hollow
Road at the southern end. The new access road would bend to the east and enter the site as Dow
Hollow passes Gospel Baptist Church, midway along the western boundary, adjacent to Prunty
Drive. By using the topography in this area of the Prunty neighborhood, the new access road would
pass under Prunty Drive and a new section of Prunty Drive would fly over the access road.
Benefits: Upgrades neighborhood entrance road, parkway -like corridor, central location into
site, catalyst for proper interchange development, no access to Prunty Drive
Disadvantages: impacts on private property, impacts around Prunty Drive with bridge
460/11 BRIDGE ACCESS I
This alternative connects route 460/11 and the site directly with a bridge over I-81 and Glenmary
Drive. This would require a vertical realignment to 460/11 at the bridge to allow adequate gain in
elevation to clear traffic on I-81.
Benefits: Distinct corporate entrance, removed from neighborhoods, improved safety, reinforces
established commercial corridor along 460/11, short entrance road.
Disadvantages: Cost
460/11 BRIDGE ACCESS II
This alternative also connects route 460/11 and the site directly with a bridge over I-81 and Glenmary
Drive. This alternative would require changing the vertical and horizontal alignment of 460/11 at
the bridge to allow adequate gain in elevation to clear traffic on I-81. entry and the continued
growth of commercial development along route 460/11.
11
Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan
Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document
Benefits: Distinct corporate entrance, removed from neighborhoods, improved safety, rein
forces established commercial corridor along 460/11, short entrance road.
Disadvantages: Cost
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Some of the next steps in further development of this project will include:
1. Site Master Plan - Development which takes as the basis for design the included plan and in more
detail focuses on road access, business types, road design, stormwater, utilities and other crucial
site development elements with extensive involvement from the advisory committees.
2. Phase lI Geotechnical Study- More accurately determine soil conditions and rock locations.
3. Phase I Wetland Study- Accurately Determine wetland locations, if any, and exact stream corri-
dors and, types, to fullfill the Army Corp of Engineer requirements with pond and stormwater
improvements and road crossings of streams.
4. Phase II Archeological Study (If necessary)- One archeological site encountered during the
phase T study was identified as warranting further study. The State of Virginia will decide if further
study is necessary.
5. Comprehensive Design Guidelines -Develop in conjunction with the site plan employing a
methodology involving the advisory committees.
6. Proforma/ financial analysis in conjunction with the master plan and guidelines to better identify
markets and assess the plans financial costs and benefits.
7. Take the master plan through the rezoning process to as a Planned Business District (PBD) or
comparable planning designation.
8. Develop a set of codes, covenants and restrictions (CC&R's) which would convey with land
sales or long term leases.
Some of the many issues to develop specific criteria for include:
• Architectural guidelines
• Site planning guidelines, such as setbacks, entry sequence design, openspace percentages and
connections, etc.
• Parking and road design
• Size, height, types of material and theme for signage
• Lighting intensity, height and style
12
Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan
Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document
• Best management practices for stormwater and water quality
• Types of plants, theme of planting and percentage of construction budget
• Maintenance and ease of replacement for planting
• Use of recycled materials in construction
• Existing vegetation protection and replacement ratios
• Budget allocation for the arts on site such as statues and sculpture
CONCLUSION
The Preliminary Concept Plan and Design Guidelines Outline incorporate innovative and site re-
sponsive development methods. It allows the opportunity to develop a carefully crafted and rigorously
controlled business park which protects and enhances natural resources, while facilitating high-quality,
leading edge, mixed used development.
The Proposed Roanoke County Business Park is compatible with site conditions, including access
to public utilities, road systems and the concerns of West County citizens and businesses. It provides
Roanoke County the opportunity become a part of technological growth of this portion of the state.
It is therefore recommended that Roanoke County purchase the property and begin the process of
rezoning and use the Preliminary Concept Plan and Design Guidelines Outline Statement as a guiding
principle in the design process for the site.
13
APPENDIX
DESIGN TEAM
David Hill, ASLA, Workshop Captain
John Schmidt, ASLA, Project Coordinator
Hill Studio, P.C.
120 W. Campbell Avenue
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
540.342.5263
540.345.5625 (fax)
Carlton Abbott, FAIA Workshop Partner
Carlton Abbott & Partners, Inc.
Duke of Gloucester Street
P. O. Box
Williamsburg, Virginia 23187
757.220.1095
757.229.8604 (fax)
Mike Circeo, P.E.
Engineering Consulting Services, Inc.
Geotechnical Services
5320 Peters Creek Road
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
540.362.6000
540.362.1202 (fax)
Jeff Cochran, P.E.
Lockwood Greene Technologies
Environmental Ind Archeological Services
1201 Oak Rid e Turnpike y
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37631
423.220.4300
423.220.4310 (fax)
Larry Wallace, P.E.
Engineering Concepts
Civil Engineering Services
4656 Brambleton Avenue
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
540.776.5715
540.776.8543 (fax)
Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan
Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document
14
COUNTY OF ROANOKE CONTACTS
Fenton E "Spike" Harrison, Jr.
Member, Catawba Magisterial District
Board of Supervisors
1638 Weaver Road
Salem, Virginia 24153
540.389.3054 (h)
540.772-2193 (fax)
Elmer C. Hodge
Administrator
County of Roanoke
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
540.772-2004 (w)
540.772-2193 (fax)
Timothy W. Gubala
Director
Economic Development Department
County of Roanoke
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
540.772-2069 (w)
540.772-2.030 (fax)
Melinda J. Cox
Economic. Development Specialist
Economic Development Department
County of Roanoke
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
540.772-2185 (w)
540.772-2030 (fax)
Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan
Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document
COMMUNrrY ADVISORY COMMITTE
Robert A. Archer David W. Shelor
General Manager Representative
Blue Ridge Beverage Company Glenvar Heights Neighborhood
Salem, Virginia Salem, Virginia
Carole Brackman
Board of Directors Member Winton Shelor, Sr.
Industrial Development Authority President
Salem, Virginia Fort Lewis Civic League
Salem, Virginia
James H. Brock
President
RUSCO Window Company, Inc.
Salem, Virginia
James F. Garlow
President
John W. Hancock, Jr., Inc.
Salem, Virginia
Martha Hooker
Member
Roanoke County Planning Commission
Salem, Virginia
Reverend Samuel J. Huntley
Pastor
Gospel Baptist Church
Salem, Virginia
Charles L. Landis
Representative
Glenvar Heights Neighborhood
Salem, Virginia
Karen Montgomery
Representative
Prunty Drive Neighborhood
Salem, Virginia
John Pecaric
Vice President & Division Director
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company
Salem, Virginia
Ben R Powers
President
Cherokee Hills Civic League
Salem, Virginia
15
Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan
Design Guidelines Outline Statement and Site Qualifying Document
TECHNICAL RESOURCE BOARD
Fred Altizer, Jr.
District Administrator
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Salem, Virginia
Arnold Covey
Director
Engineering & Inspections Department
County of Roanoke
Roanoke, Virginia
Beth Doughty
Executive Director
Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership
Roanoke, Virginia
Timothy W. Gubala
Director
Economic Development Department
County of Roanoke
Roanoke, Virginia
Terry Harrington
Director
Planning & Zoning Department
County of Roanoke
Roanoke, Virginia
John S. Phillips
Economic Development Officer
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, Virginia
Gary Robertson
Director
Utility Department
Kessler Mill Service Facility
Salem, Virginia
Wayne Strickland
Executive Director
Fifth Planning District Commission
Roanoke, Virginia
16
=ROM :»Hill Studio, P.C. PHONE NO. : 540 345 5625 Aug. 14 1997 10:19AM P1
ADDENDUM
ROANOKE COUN'T'Y BUSINESS PARK PRE[JMINARY CONCEPT PLAN
DESIGN GUIIJELINES
OUTLINE S7"AiEMEN7' AND SITE QUALIFYING DOCUMENT
This addendum only includes changes to the original report dated July 17, 1997
shown in: italic text. The complete report is available through Roanoke County.
AUGUST 14, 1997
HILL STUDIO P.C.
PLANNING
LANOCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ARCHITECTURE
120 WEST CAMPBELL Avg.
ROANOKE, VA- 24101
FROM Hill Studio, P.C. PHONE NO. : 540 345 5625 Rug. 14 1997 10:19RM P2
ADDENDUM
UTILITIES
Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concc:pj plan
ines 01i41inc Statement and Silc 6-711 ging
Engineering Concepts, Inc. performed a prelirainary review of current and proposed utility
demands. This included review of maps available at the Workshop for utility issues and discus-
sion with several service providers of current and proposed utility demands.
Adequate public water and sewer facilities presently exist, or are planned to be extended, at
locations near the boundary of the site, Preliminary investigations indicate that these services
could be extended to the property via existing public rights-of-way to minimize impacts.
Other utilities such as telephone (with provision for voice and data transmission, ISDN lines,
fiber optic capability, etc.), cable, electrical service, and natural gas are available in the vicinity
of the site. The respective utility companies have indicated their willingness in having further
discussions to coordinate further planning efforts and capacity/demand evaluations.
Sewer extensions should be planned utilizing gravity flow where possible to avoid the additional
costs. The capacity of the receiving sewer in Glenvar Heights Boulevard will need to be evaluated
as a first step in the detailed utility planning process. Building location studies should
incorporate evaluation of the water pressure zones and sewer service potential. The bone Eagle
Districts poses physical constraints for public utility .service and should he evaluated further:
Public utility service should he a long term goal fpr this district.
PRELTMJNARX CONCEPT PLAN- DESIGN GUIDELINES OUTLINE
The proposed Roanoke County Business Park Preliminary Concept Plan strives for the integration
of proposed building development with the natural topographic character of the site and the established
woodland hollows. Like the construction practices of earlier settlers 17.1, the Roanoke Valley, the develop-
ment works with the lay of the land and not against it. The design focuses the most developed portions
of the site around the intermittent stream, Gal led Dry Branch, and woodland hollow, upstream from. the
larger and perennial Calahan Branch. The following Preliminary Concept Plan and Designs Guidelines
Out] ine explain the different zones within the park, and set the stage for fully developed design criteria.
CORPO'AA'1'F VILLAGE
The corporate Village is the commercial center of the development. Located at the upper end of
the Dry Branch. The clustering of buildings in this district creates a village atmosphere focusing
views onto 4 central, pond and wetland doubling as a stormwater management facilities. The, two to
three story buildings step down the ilope with parking toward the access road. This divtrict will
primarily he commercial oriented with a possible business and nfee use within the commercial.
structure. The specific, commerical and biainess types will become clearly defined with further
developent of the preliminery site plan, design guidelines and further marketing reseraclz and
development by Roanoke County.
CORPORATE CTRCLE
Corporate Circle is the corporate office potential district. Located around the main portion
of Dry Branch and its established hardwood enclave, the buildings step down the slope and
C�
FROM Hill Studio, P.C. PHONE NO. : 540 345 5625 Aug. 14 1997 10:20AN P3
ADDENDUMRoanoke County Business Park Prelitninmy Conacpt PJan_
Design Guidelines Oudine Statcinetit ind Sue Qualifyin¢t Document
direct into the trees around Dry Branch. The buildings are two to three story linked together
with a pedestrian trail and boardwalk which will skirtthe edge ofthe hollow. The main access road
and parking will be located around the Corporate Circle. 7h e Vecifc commerical and business
types will become clearly def reed with further d evelop�:.rct of thce prelirrainc:ry .site Alcan, design
guidelines and ft4rlher marketing reserach and development by Roanoke. C ougv.
TECHNOLOGY DisTRICT
The Technology District is the new technologies potential district, Located around the Corpo-
rate Village and Corporate Circle, this district accommodates campus -like clears manufacturing
facilities. An emphasis will be placed onfacilities which specializ e in new technologies and "Smart
Road" related rnanufacturingwith light to medium workforce and distribution requirements. The
buildings will be generally one story which integrate specialty manufacturing and research with
business or office. The .specific business types will he.conie clearly defined with
further developent of the preliminery site plan, design guidelines andfurther marketing reserach
and development by Roanoke County.
"LONF EAGLE )DISTRICT')
The Lone Eagle District occupies the steep wood areas on the north and eastern portions of the
site. This district is served by a standard two-lane road.. The lot development for this district is
depicted in the concept layout plan. It emphasizes large lots to minimize disturbance. The buildings
and parking are located .in predetermined areas, also depicted in the concept layout plan. These
locations; identified as Limit of Building Zones (LBZ), focus
development on the flatter benches
and saddles in the terrain, protecting the ridgeline and ridgetop treelinc from development. The
remaining portions of these lots are restricted from lot clearing, excluding a access drive to each
LBZ. This district will be high end residential and small service business oriented. Because of
physical site constraints the business use within this district will be limited and strictly enforced.
The speck residential and husine.ss typces will become clearly def ned with further developent of
the prelirninery ,site plan, design guidelines and further Inarketing reserach
and development by Roanoke County.
FROM': Hill Studio, P.C. PHONE NO. : 540 345 5625 Aug. 14 1997 10:21AM P4
ADDENDUM Roanoke County ,Business Paris Preliminary Concept Plan
Design Guidelines Outline SI. Mcnt and Sitc Qualifying Document
PREL MINARX CONCV.PT PLAN
The attached plan includes revisions to the original plan in the report date July 17, 1997. The
revisions effect the conceptual bui ldings depicted within the Corporate Circle District and the Technol-
ogy District located along the existing AEP Power line which runs north to south through the site. The
buildings have been modified to reflect an adequate clearance zone along the power line and to clearly
shown that no future building development will be located under the powerline.
ACTION NO.
A-081997-4
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997
AGENDA ITEM: Action to Select Recycling Alternative
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
In October 1987, Roanoke County began a pilot program to study
curbside collection of recyclables. The original program consisted
of source separation, with homes in some areas receiving stackable
bins for newspaper, aluminum and glass for collection on a biweekly
basis. In 1989, this program was expanded into another area of the
County. The participation rate for this program has averaged
between 25-35% per biweekly collection. In the early 1990's, the
County began automated commingled collection, with selected homes
receiving 65 gallon containers in which to commingle mixed paper,
aluminum, plastic and cardboard. With a monthly pickup schedule,
participation rates have ranged from 70% to 80%.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
During the past year, The Board asked staff to review this pilot
program along with possibilities for providing this service
equitably on a County -wide basis. Staff determined that expansion
of curbside recycling opportunities to all households would require
additional equipment and staff. The projected cost for source
separated collection is $902,500 capital and $227,948.80 annual
operating (Attachment A). The projected cost for automated
commingled collection is $1,332,560 capital and $129,499.52 annual
operating (Attachment B). Utilizing drop-off centers around the
County was presented as an option. At the March 25th work session
the consensus of the Board was to pursue privatization of drop-off
centers through the RFP process, which would allow all County
households an equal opportunity to recycle.
Two RFP's were received, neither of which included a curbside
option. The proposal that was favored utilized private business
properties in high traffic areas. These businesses desired the
traffic and would pay the rent on the containers. Waste Management
would pay the screening costs since not all the sites were in the
county that required screening. The estimated annual cost for this
proposal was approximately $75,000 for the pulling fees ($80.00 per
container per week) and $10,000 for educational materials for a
total of $85,000. The concern that non -County users would use
these sites was articulated by the Board and staff was directed to
I
find locations on County property in each magisterial district.
Six possible sites are: Starkey Park, Mt. Pleasant Fire Station,
Hollins Fire Station, Oak Grove Park, Ft. Lewis Fire Station and
Masons Cove Fire Station. The projected annual operating cost for
this method and siting is $28,000 startup and $99,720 annual
operating.
No revenues or tipping fee avoidance figures are projected due to
unknown quantities and price fluctuations. For example, newspapers
bring $2.00 per ton while we must pay $40.00 per ton to dispose of
collected recyclable plastic. Clear glass brings $5.00 per ton
while colored glass has no value. Aluminum brings 34 cents per
pound. With this pricing we must recycle 20 tons of newspaper to
offset the cost of recycling 1 ton of plastic. The pulling costs
and container rentals are over and above these costs.
0 0A 0 PAV 610 CTIXWM
1) Expand commingled recycling to the entire County at a cost of
$1.33 million in capital and $129,500 in annual operating
costs. This will provide the service equally to all County
residents, but at a large capital startup cost.
2) Expand source separated recycling to the entire County at a
cost of $.9 million in capital and $227,948 in operating cost.
While this would expand the service to the entire County, the
participation rate is not as high, and the service has a
larger ongoing cost.
3) Negotiate and execute a contract with a private vendor to
provide recycling services with drop-off centers placed
at County facilities at a cost of $28,000 startup and
$99,720 in operating cost.
4) Conclude curbside pilot program and replace with an education
program to utilize existing recycling facilities.
5) Maintain current recycling program.
Res ec full 4 4- 4-- --1
William J. Rand, III
Director of General Services
Approved by,
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens No Yes Absent
Denied ( ) motion to approve alternative Eddy
Received ( ) #4 - to conclude curbside Harrison -x
Referred ( ) Drogram Johnson __X_
To ( ) Minnix x
Nickens X_
cc: File
William J. Rand, III, Director, General Services
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
ATTACHMENT A
SOURCE SEPARATED
RECYCLING _'6
1 pick up / month
Number
Explanation INeededl I Each Cost Total
Capital Expenditures
Vehicle Cost
Dual side load, 6 bin,
source separated
3
X
$100,000.00
$300,000.00
Container Cost
3 stackable bin sets
for each home
24,100
X
$25.00
$602,500.00
Total Capital
Expenditures
$902,500.00
Start-up
Cost
Labor
8 man crew per week
3
X
$5,081.00
$15,243.00
Equipment
3 rental trucks per
week
3
X
$1,563.00
$4,689.00
Educational
Materials
Mailings
1
X
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
Total Source
Separated Start-up
Costs
$29,932.00
Annual Operating Costs
Drivers
Grade 14 - Midpoint +
fringes
4
X
$29,749.76
$118,999.04
Collectors
Grade 10 - Midpoint +
fringes
2
X
$24,474.88
$48,949.76
Maintenance &
Fuel
Fuel & Maintenance
for new trucks
3
X
$20,000.00
$60,000.00
Total Annual
Operating Costs
$227,948.80
Total First Year Start-up and Operating Cost
$1,160,380.80
NOTE: No revenue or avoidance costs are included due to fluctuating prices and
unknown quantities.
8/12/97
AUTOMATED COMINGLE ATTACHMENT B
RECYCLING
1 pick up / month
Number
Explanation INeededl I Each Cost Total
Capital Expenditures
Vehicle Cost
Automated Side -
loader
2
X
$100,000.00
$200,000.00
Container Cost
65 gallon Toter Carts
24,200
X
$46.80
$1,132,560.00
Total Captial
Expenditures
$1,332,560.00
Start-up Cost
Labor
9 man crew per week
4
X
$5,812.99
$23,251.96
Equipment
3 rental trucks per
week
4
X
$1,563.00
$6,252.00
Educational
Materials
Mailings
1
X
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
Total Automated
Comingle Start-up
Costs
$39,503.96
Annual Operating
Costs
Labor Cost
Grade 14 - Midpoint
+ fringes
2
X
$29,749.76
$59,499.52
Vehicle Cost
Fuel & Maintenance
for trucks
2
X
$35,000.00
$70,000.00
Total Annual
Operating Costs
$129,499.52
Total First Year Start-up and Operating Cost
$1,501,563.48
NOTE: No revenue or avoidance costs are included due to fluctuating
prices and
unknown quantities.
8/12/97
Drop Off Box ATTACHMENT C
Recycling.
6 sites on County property
1 dump / week per container
Number
Explanation Needed Each Cost Total
Start-up Cost
Preparation
Screening for each site
6
X
$3,000.00
$18,000.00
Educational
Materials
Mailings
1
X
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
Total Drop-off Start-
up Costs
$28,000.00
Annual Operating
Costs
Container
Rental
3 containers per site
6
X
$4,140.00
$24,840.00
Dump Fees
1 dump per week, 3
containers per site
52
X
$1,440.00
$74,880.00
Total Annual
Operating Costs
$99,720.00
Total First Year Start-up and Operating Cost
$127,720.00
Note: No revenue has been included due to fluctuating prices and unknown
quantities.
8/12197
A -081997-5.a
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997
AGENDA ITEM:
Review hearing on appeal by Belle Grove Development Corporation of findings and
decisions of the Director of the Department of Engineering and Inspections related
to Erosion and Sediment Control and Subdivision Ordinance enforcement in Belle
Grove Subdivision.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: 6d7�
-?4 jf �O,
BACKGROUND:
By letter dated May 30, 1997, Belle Grove Development Corporation requested an
appeal to the Board of Supervisors for review of County requirements in connection
with Belle Grove Subdivision. The requirements are specified in a letter dated April
25, 1997, to Belle Grove, a copy of which is attached, and are imposed pursuant to
`Article 4. Erosion and Sediment Control Law.,' of Chapter 5, Title 10.1 of the Code
of Virginia (1950 as amended), and the Roanoke County Erosion and Sediment
Control Ordinance, including but not limited to Sections 8-4, 8-5, and 8-6, and
pursuant to Virginia Code §15.1-465, et seq., and the Roanoke County Subdivision
Ordinance, including but not limited to Sections 17-3, 17-6, 17-18, 17-19 and 17-24.
Staff recommends that the Board deny Belle Grove Development Corporation's
appeal and support the decision and notice to comply of its Director of Engineering
and .Inspections.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
On January 5, 1995, LMW, P.C. Engineering (the "Consultant") submitted
subdivision plans on behalf of Belle Grove Development Corporation (the
"Developer") for review by Roanoke County (the "County") staff and the Virginia
Department of Transportation ("VDOT"). As a part of this review, Roanoke County
1
Engineering and Inspections specifically questioned whether the stormwater detention
pond discharged into a natural water course, as it was not so delineated on the plat.
The Consultant claimed to have addressed the comment in a subsequent transmittal.
On March 6, 1995, VDOT commented in their review letter that there was an area
noted on the plans as being a "natural drainage swale" and that the area would be
reviewed in the field to determine if it met all of the legal requirements to be
classified as such. The County reiterated the concern that VDOT had raised about the
"natural drainage swale" and felt that the determination needed to be made prior to
plan approval. In response to VDOT's and the County's concerns regarding the
determination of the "natural drainage Swale," the Consultant, on April 11, 1995,
wrote that VDOT had indicated that the natural drainage swale was a scoured channel
and would provide adequate drainage. On April 13, 1995, VDOT approved the
subdivision plans for the Belle Grove Subdivision. On May 22, 1995, the County
approved the subdivision plans for construction based in part on VDOT's assurances
and approved the erosion and sediment control plans as well.
On June 5, 1995, the Developer submitted a Land Subdivider's Agreement between
the Developer and the County in evidence of their willingness to construct, install
and provide at the said subdivider's sole expense "...those certain improvements
described and shown on the stamped approved construction plans..." in accordance
with the Subdivision Ordinance (Land Subdivider's Agreement, p. 2, ¶1). On the
same date, the Developer entered into an Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement
as well that. requires the developer to ensure the installation, maintenance and
performance measures provided for on approved plans or revisions thereof for the
control of siltation and erosion (Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement, ¶7).
Letters of credit to guarantee proper and satisfactory installation according to
approved plans were also submitted with these agreements.
In June of 1995, construction of storm drainage, water and sewer facilities and roads
began at the Belle Grove Subdivision and continued without incident until the
summer of 1996. During that period, sinkholes appeared in the stormwater
management pond and on the adjoining Nyna Murray property (Tax Map #28.09-02-
04), through which the drainage channel runs.
Immediately after receiving an inquiry from the Murray family regarding their
concerns about the amount of run-off crossing their property and the sinkholes that
had developed, the County visited the site and assessed the Murrays' concerns. It was
determined that the area delineated on the subdivision development plans prepared
by the Consultant was not a natural watercourse. On July 8, 1996 the County wrote
the first of many letters to the Developer requesting that they take steps to correct the
situation of the pond discharge to an adequate channel. On July 15, 1996, the County
wrote the Developer to advise them that the stormwater basin/sediment basin was not
2
functioning properly and that corrections to the pond were necessary as water was
discharging as rapidly as it was entering.
On October 10, 1996, a geologist hired by the County to evaluate the detention basin
provided information about repairing the Murray's sink hole. His suggestions
included piping the surface water into a natural drainageway to prevent it from
entering the groundwater regime and contributing to further sink hole development,
or making the sediment pond as watertight as possible using a liner and diverting the
discharge from the dam away from the sink hole on the Murray's property.
A letter from the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) was received by
the County on October 16, 1996. The letter contained observations made by DCR in
response to the adjacent property owner's complaints about the stormwater
management basin and its outfall of stormwater from the basin. DCR observed that
there was no defined channel exiting the basin. Five days later, the County and VDOT
conducted an. inspection, of the roads and drainage facilities, and in writing suggested
to the developer that he should comply with all the recommendations outlined in the
geologist's report. In response to the letter sent by the DCR, the Consultant (LMW),
on November 11, 1996, reaffirmed his own conclusions as to the disposition of the
outfall of water from the detention pond onto the Murray's property and rejected the
recommendations of the official sources hereinbefore noted.
Per letter dated November 26, 1996, the County required that the Developer submit
revised Erosion and Sediment Control plans and accompanying calculations that
addressed the concerns of the County and DCR by December 15, 1996. The
Developer responded that the letter from DCR had many deficiencies and that no
problems were cited concerning on-site or off-site stormwater management nor were
they able to cite any soil and erosion problems. Also, the Developer stated that he
was unaware of any specific concerns expressed by the County.
On December 20, 1996, the County reiterated its concerns pursuant to its authority to
require amendments to approved plans under Erosion and Sediment Control
Ordinance, Section 8.1-6(D) and 8.1-8, and the Virginia Erosion and Sediment
Control Law, Section 10.1-563(C), as well as under the County Subdivision
Ordinance, Section 17-18(d). The County requested that the Developer provide
modifications to the pond to compensate for the sink hole; provide receiving channel
calculations and demonstrate their adequacy; show embankment slope grades and
methods for stabilization; provide revised calculations for the detention pond; show
the adequacy of the drainage inflow ditch systems into the pond and provide
emergency spillway calculations. The Developer was given until December 31, 1996
to comply with the request.
3
4ee-- 4��
On December 31, 1996, the Developer objected to the County's request to require
amendments to the approved plan. He also stated that the concerns about the
embankment slope would be studied and if the grade was excessive, the problem
would be corrected. The County responded on January 24, 1997 about the objections
to the required amendments to the approved plans, and once again enumerated the
deficiencies that remained unaddressed by the Developer. The Developer was given
another deadline of February 7, 1997 for corrective action.
Rather than take the corrective action requested by the County, the Developer instead
restated his position, in a letter dated February 4, 1997, that the County had
overstepped its moral and legal bounds in asking him to resubmit modifications to the
plans. More than a month later, the Consultant, in correspondence dated March 25
and 26, 1997, merely verified his firm's original calculations and observations.
The County hired Mattern and Craig, an independent consulting engineering firm, on
March 4, 1997 to review the plans and calculations. It was revealed in the Drainage
Review submitted by the indeperident consultant (M &C) dated March 26, 1997, that
the existing Swale conveying the stormwater pond's outflow across the Murray
property did not meet the definition of a "natural watercourse" as asserted by the
Developer, as it was not a "definite channel with bed and banks" per the VDOT
Drainage Manual. Therefore, it was again recommended that outflow water either be
piped across the Murray property or that an open parabolic ditch be constructed in the
same location for drainage. Either option required that the Developer obtain an
easement (p. 3, Drainage Review, Mattern & Craig, March 26, 1997).
On May 02, 1997, the Murray family submitted to the County and to the Developer
a list of demands (attached) to be met before they would grant a drainage easement
across their property for which they would require payment of $ 100,000.00. The
County met with the Developer during the first week of May and asked the Developer
to present the County a plan to allay the County's concerns, which the Developer
agreed to do after consultation with his engineer. The Developer refused, both in his
meeting with the County and again in correspondence dated May 09, to attempt to
purchase an -easement from the Murrays, claiming that such an action was not
"feasible" per the family's demands.
In an effort to resolve the situation, County Administrator Elmer Hodge wrote a letter
of proposal to the parties on June 25, 1997, a copy of said letter being attached hereto.
None of the parties agreed to the County Administrator's terms. By letter dated July
17, 1997, Mr. Hodge notified the parties that this matter would be placed on the
August 19th agenda for the Board's consideration.
4
ALTERNATIVES:
Deny the appeal by Belle Grove Development Corporation and require that the
corrections described in the April 25, 1997 letter from the Director of
Engineering and Inspections be completed within thirty (30) days of this
proceeding. If said corrections are not completed within the time limit, then
the County should draw upon the Letters of Credit deposited in surety of the
Developer's Land Subdivider's and Erosion and Sediment Control Agreements
in order to complete the improvements.
2. Approve the appeal by Belle Grove Development Corporation, but grant the
approval with such modifications as the Board of Supervisors deems equitable
and in accordance with State and local law.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends Alternative # 1.
Arnold Covey, Director
Engineering & Inspections
E -4.A
APPROVED BY:
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION
VOTE
Approved (x)
Motion by: Harry
C. Nickens No
Yes Absent
Denied ( )
action to deny appeal
by Belle Eddy
_x_
Received ( )
Grove Development
Corporation Harrison
x_
Referred ( )
Johnson
x
To ( )
Minnix
x
Nickens
X
cc: File
Arnold
Covey, Director,
Engineering & Inspections
Vickie
Huffman, Assistant County Attorney
pc: Vickie Huffman, Assistant County Attorney
5
7b Kz -•
\ _ - le
� ��>✓ I2 9 aa�
A
24
Lq� e O 25
25
23
zz
(. RT 605 ._ _ —_~ 27 =
m ` z
APPROX.
20 DRAINAGE
— � E S MT. 4
•s, o.
LOCATION OF
POND
ROANOKE COUNTY BELLE GROVE SUBDIVISION WITH APPROXIMATE LOCATION
UTILITY OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS THE HURRAYS PROPERTY
DEPARTMENT
rn
O� POANO��
v a
783E DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS
DIRECTOR, ARNOLD COVEY
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, GEORGE W. SIMPSON, III, P.E.
April 25, 1997
CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT
Mr. Terry Parsell
Belle Grove Development Corporation
1007 First Street
Roanoke, VA 24016
Re: Belle Grove Subdivision
Project No. 95 -SB -00001
Review of Design and Construction of Stormwater Management Facilities
Dear Mr. Parsell:
Based on problems that have arisen with the stormwater management facilities and the sinkholes that
have developed over the past several months, we retained the consulting engineering firm of ivlattern
& Craig to review the design and construction of stormwater management facilities in the above
referenced subdivision. The results of that review are enclosed for your information.
Additionally, we continue to have major concerns because of the sinkholes that have developed in
the detention pond and at the outfall of the detention pond. There is reason to suspect that due to
karst geology and the appearance of these sinkholes that the pond embankment may be underlain
by a sinkhole that could compromise the integrity of the embankment structure. Please see previous
correspondence from the Department of Conservation and Recreation and copy of the preliminary
geotechnical report that we requested from Baratta & Associates.
As a result of the above and our letter to you of 01/24/97, we are requiring the following;
A permanent drainage easement must be acquired across the adjacent property below
the outfall of the detention pond. The easement must extend to a natural watercourse
or adequate channel as defined in the VDOT drainage manual, the Roanoke County
Drainage Standards, and State of Virginia Erosion & Sediment Control Regulations.
A pipe must be installed to adequately convey the runoff, from the appropriate storm,
from the detention outfall across this easement.
2. A geotechnical analysis, to include soil borings, must be conducted to address
failures that have occurred within the pond and downstream from the pond. The
report should address deficiencies and recommendations for ensuring that the pond,
embankment, and outfall structures are adequate and safe.
P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018 • (540) 772-2080 • FAX NO. (540) 772-2108
®. Printed on Recycled Paper
Mr. Terry Parsell
Belle Grove Subdivision
Project 995 -SB -00001
Page 2 of 3
3. Inside embankment slopes shall be constructed to a minimum of 2:1 slope or as
recommended in the geotechnical report. Field measurements reveal that this 2:1
slope standard has not been met. Outside embankment slopes shall be constructed
to a minimum 3:1 slope, as shown on the plans, or as recommended by the
geotechnical report.
4. Field density tests for the embankment shall be submitted to ensure a minimum of
95% density in accordance with Section 303 of the VDOT Road and Bridge
Standards and Roanoke County Drainage Standards.
5. Show the limits of the "Stormwater Management Detention Pond Easement" as
shown on the current Record Plat. This easement must be identified and described
by metes and bounds and submitted for review and approval.
6. The two drainage ditches discharging runoff from the roadways into the 'pond were
not shown on the plans and are not constructed in accordance with standards.
Calculations must be submitted showing the proper design and proposed construction
for these ditches.
7. The energy dissipator at the end of the pipe from D.I. r 17 must be installed and the
head wall backfilled to provide positive drainage.
8. Upon reaching final grades and necessary revisions, the pond shall be seeded and
stabilized as specified on the plans.
9. A licensed professional engineer will be required to certify that the above
deficiencies have been corrected and that the stormwater facility complies with
applicable regulations and accepted engineering practice.
Mr. Terry Parsell
Belle Grove Subdivision
Project #95 -SB -00001
Page 3 of 3
This action will be taken pursuant to `Article 4. Erosion & Sediment Control Law.', of Chapter 5,
Title 10.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 (as amended), and the Roanoke County Erosion & Sediment
Control Ordinance, including but not limited to Sections 8-4, 8-5 and 8-6, and pursuant to Virginia
Code Section 15.1-465, etse ., and the Roanoke County Subdivision Ordinance, including but not
limited to Sections 17-3, 17-6, 17-18, 17-19 and 17-24. Should the above corrections not be
implemented by May 15, 1997, Roanoke County will draw upon your letter of credit and have the
corrections made.
Please advise if you have questions.
/"Ybl s truly,
i JAL
mold o y, Dire r
Engineering & Inspections,
PC: Mr. Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
Mr. George Simpson, Assistant Director, Engineering & Inspections
Mr. Doug Meredith, LMW, P.C.
Mr. George Assaid, Development Review, Engineering & Inspections
Mr. G. Lyn Hayth, Bank of Buchanan
AC/kcf
c•
SENDER:
■ Complete items 1 , r 2 for additional services.
I : Nish to receive the
N
■Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b.
following services (for an
... -. _-. _ -*-- • • • - d
■Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this
extra fee
card to you.
■Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not
1. ❑ Addressee's Address
.-- --- -
y
permit.
■ Write'Return Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below
the article number.
2. ❑ Restricted Delivery
r
■The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered
and the date
_
delivered.
Consult postmaster for fee.
0
-
3. Article Addressed to:
4a. Arficle Number
P 452 708 241
E
MR. TERRY PARSELL
4b. Service Type
w BELLE GROVE DEVELOPMENT
CORP
❑ Registered Certified
IG07 FIRST ST.
❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured
W
a:
ROANOKE, VA 24016
Retum Receipt for Merchandise ElCOD
P
a7.
Date of Delivery .2
G
z
m
_
5. Receive¢ By: jPrInt NaMe)
j
8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested
and fee is paid)
L
Ilr
/BELLE
6. Signa re: ( e o Agent) �--
GROVE DEVELOPMENT
'
995—SB-00001
T
X
PS Form 1, December 1994
Domestic Retu� n Receipt
F 452 708 241
us Postal Service
N7-1
eeeipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for international Mail (See relate)
Sent to _
S oot 8, Numcer
_. C
Post VAp 24016
._� t�ce, .� Zl od_ i
Postace S
i V
__
I
Car �5ed Fee
special
Foo
I
i
- Restricted Delivery FeeLn I
LnPF1Returneipt Showing to
ate Delivered
Qipt Siww ng to Whom,
�_.
OVE
Qessors Address
Ostage 3 Feesco
or Date;. oRIL 25 1997 -
BELLE GROVE B
001
- n
. - ... ,- -. - r r.0 ._:......._._.. �..�-.+�.cw+_..... ....vim. .. .r u_. »✓.N!......t...s...� .._.�.. .-._ .. .
... .. ...z_.c_ .�. u.-r-a..�..-.-v.. _._. . F:_--.._�:-a. u=.�I. -s a..... .. f _l✓ n_r.v ........ ...,r -_.-.._Y.._...._ _ - z .--
� ... .. ._ .. ...!. ._R .._.__... .. .. .G1: .�.. ..t "Y.Rr •:.:.. ... -c., . . ..r_ we .^. _.�..:.._.._.Y^zl... �
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
(540) 772-2004
(flaultba of Yva'Anake
P.O. BOX 29800
5204 BERNARD DRIVE
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798
FAX (540) 772-2193
June 25, 1997
Mr. Terry E. Parsell
Belle Grove Development Corporation
1007 First Street, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Ms. Nyna Murray
7920 Shadwell Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Dear Ms. Murray and Gentlemen:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
B08 L. JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN
HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS, VICE-CHAIRMAN
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
LEE B. EDDY
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FENTON F. "SPIKE" HARRISON, JR.
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
H. OOELL. "FUZZY" MINNIX
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
(540)_772-2005
Mr. Mike Murray-.
7950 Shadwell Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
In the last few days, my staff and I have spoken with all of you in an
effort to resolve the issue of storm water management on your properties.
We now find ourselves at the point where the County has notified the Belle
Grove Development Corporation that it intends to draw the bond to make the
necessary repairs for proper drainage across the Nyna Murray property. The
Murrays have indicated that they are unwilling to sell the easement until
they know what the plans are and until they receive an amount of money
acceptable to them. Belle Grove maintains that they will oppose the
County's calling of their bond and that they have no obligation to perform
or pay for any further work in that area. All of our meetings, phone
calls, and letters have been unsuccessful. Despite the fact that the
County maintains that it has no financial responsibility in this matter, I
am proposing the following solution in an effort to resolve this situation
as soon as possible.
It is proposed that Nyna Murray be paid $5,000 compensation for the
easement across her property. In addition, storm water will be piped
underground to the existing easement along Shadwell Drive. County
engineers will work with the Murrays to design and construct the pipe to
minimize any impact on future use of their property and, in fact, improve
its value. This is estimated to cost $20,000. Nyna Murray further agrees
to grant Belle Grove access to the property to repair the sinkhole.
Belle Grove agrees to repair, as required by a professional
geotechnical engineer, the sinkhole that has developed since the.
construction of its subdivision has taken place. In addition, Belle Grove
agrees to pay one-half of the cost of putting the pipe across the Murray
property as described above. The County agrees to pay the other half.
Roanoke County will maintain the drainage easement in perpetuity,_ and Belle
Grove agrees to maintain the storm water detention pond, which is on its
property.
This agreement is intended to resolve all off-site issues among the
three parties. This agreement does.not relieve Belle Grove Development
Corporation of any on-site corrections noticed by Roanoke County. If we
are not able to reach agreement ApAea ibed above, I will take to the
Mr. Terry Parsell
Ms. Nyna Murray
Mr. Mike Murray
Page 2
June 25, 1997
Board of Supervisors Belle Grove's appeal of the County's requirements as
outlined in the letter dated May 30, 1997, from Terry Parsell. In doing
so, I will ask that the Board support the County's action to draw the Belle
Grove letter of credit to pay for any and all work necessary to correct
this problem. At the same time, I will recommend that the County proceed
with condemnation of the Murray property for a simple, open drainage
easement and will offer to pay the Murrays an amount calculated by the
formula usually used for such purposes. This amounts -.to an approximate
maximum of $1,100, depending on location. Belle Grove will then be
requested to maintain this drainage easement.
I hope that you will see that it is to the benefit of all of us to
resolve this issue no later than July 7, 1997. As such, I am asking that
you indicate your concurrence by signing below, as I have done, and
returning a copy of this letter to my office. If you have any questions
that we may answer, please call me at 772-2004 or Arnold Covey at 776-7111.
I would like to get this resolved during the current construction season.
Sincerely,
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ECH/meh
Enclosure
cc_..- Mr. G. Lyn Hayth, III
Bank of Buchanan
P. O. Box 339
Buchanan, Virginia 24066
I concur with the agreement outlined above:
Nyna Murray
7920 Shadwell Drive
Roanoke, Virginia- 24019 _
Elmer C. Hodge
Roanoke County Administrator
Mike Murray
7950 Shadwell Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Terry E. Parsell
Belle Grove Development Corporation
Water dispute for Murray property on Shadwell Dr, Hollins District
water being discharged from Belle Grove Sub Division
05/01/97
Fixes needed{or Murray Property
Shadwell Dr
Hollins District
Roanoke County VA
POND PROBLEMS
Geotextile Liner to keep water from preameating ground.
Rip Rap over top(on overflow area) of dam added to protect dam
Work plans to be approved by State Engineer(Dept of Conservation & Recreation)
Murray Property
Sinkhole will be repaired as per State Dept of Conservation & Recreation specs with approval of
Murray's, with an inspector to be on site as work done.
All damages or injuries incurred during or associated with construction will be the responsibility
of Roanoke County or their contractors or the developer or his subs. The Murray's will hold NO
liability and will be named as insured on the policy for project. Bond & Insurance to be on record
with a copy provided to the Murray's.
Any easement agreement will be used only to access property for work to be done on Murray
property. NOT to be used as access for maintainence or work of any sort on dam or pond itself. This will
not he a road through property.
Any easement is for use of a drainage pipe from pond of Belle Grove only, unless agreed upon in
writing at a future date.
- All trees destroyed or damaged will be replaced with either comparable size and type of trees or
8 foot min. white pines. Both on Murray property and in buffer zone recorded in Belle Grove Plat.
Any Easement will run paraell to end of house of Mike & Joy Murray at least 40' from end of
house on a pre agreed and staked path.
Any pipe Mli be located at least below the frost line so as not to interfere with Mowing of hay or
yards.
Any and all manholes, or other above ground structures are to be agreed upon and approved.by
Murrays before plans approved by county.
Land will be returned to its orginal condition after pipe is installed. All top soil soil will be
replenished with at least 6"-10" on all disturbed areas.
There will be an inlet at dam to contain any water from overflow on dam. The pipe shall be large
enough to handle flows of all water for a 100 year flood.
If pipe shall become clogged or silted more than a depth of 1/4th the diameter of pipe in future,
the Engineering Dept of Roanoke County, VA shall be responsible(to see work done or to see developer
does job or homeowners association) to see that the pipe is cleaned.
Water dispute for Murray prop,;i-ty on Shadwell Dr, Hollins District g..
water being discharged from Belle Grove Sub Division
05/01/97
- Core drillings will be done by an independent firm on Murray property to check for the extent of
damages, with a copy of their report being given to Murray's and will be responsibility of developer and
Roanoke County to see that damages incurred during this tenure are corrected.
Well of Mike & Joy Murray, will be replaced with a suitable water supply(type to be agreed upon
prior to implementation, with all costs for pipe, pump drilling, etc not to be born by the Murray's.
All recording costs and legal fees for easement will be paid for by County or Developer. Actual
recording will be done by Murray's attorney.
Taxes will be reduced for easement tract.
type of pipe will be PVC larger than 16" with rubber gasket joints to prevent leakage as water
crosses property unless another type is agreed to by Murrays in writing prior to construction.
The costs of the easement across the Murray property, to be approximately 400'x20' will run in
the neighborhood of $100,000.
The allowing of an easement across the Murray property and the filling of the sinkhole in NO
way releases nor holds harmless Belle Grove Inc., Roanoke County or any other group or company nor its
successors from responsibilities for any other damages past or future that may occur due to the dumping of
water onto the Murray property.
No solution can be had on the Murray property until the pond itself upstream is fixed.
)O
Q- r2 l +o '4;s pro eO s J 1 s f e-, Lui ��O w #�
fo f". A� 4k:, l e. e r --O a e- t o n
cc: Jimmy Edmonds, Dept of Conservation & Recreation
A -081997-5.b
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER
MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997
AGENDA ITEM:
Approval of the Roanoke County Bonding Committee's recommendation to formally declare
Belle Grove Development Corporation to be in default under their Land Subdividers
Agreement dated June 5, 1995 and Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement, dated June 5,
1995.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
-54r
0�
BACKGROUND:
Reference is made to the immediately preceding agenda Item #E -5.a. for background
information regarding Belle Grove Subdivision and Bell Grove Development Corporation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Roanoke County Bonding Committee recommends the following to the Board:
That Belle Grove Development Corporation be formally declared in default on the
above -referenced project;
2. That the Director of Engineering and Inspections be authorized to make demand
of the surety (The Bank of Buchanan) on Belle Grove Development Corporation's
Letters of Credit for payment of the funds in full for application to completion of
the project, pursuant to Section IX, Subsection B.3. of the Roanoke County
Bonding Policy;
3. That the Director of Engineering and Inspections be authorized to contract for and
on behalf of Roanoke County for completion of the project, pursuant to Section IX,
Subsection B.3. of the Roanoke County Bonding Policy; and
1
4. That the County Attorney be authorized to institute such other measures as he may
deem appropriate to enforce the provisions of the Roanoke County Bonding Policy,
the Land Subdivider's Agreement dated June 05, 1995, and Letter of Credit, the
Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement dated June 05, 1995, and Letter of
Credit, and all applicable local, state and federal code provisions, pursuant to
Section IX, Subsection B.1. of the Roanoke County Bonding Policy.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Belle Grove Development Corporation is constructing Belle Grove Subdivision, which is
more particularly described as tax parcel number 28.09-3-1 through 26, in the Hollins
Magisterial District. On June 5, 1995, the Developer submitted a Land Subdivider's
Agreement between the Developer and the County in evidence of their willingness
to construct, install and provide at the said subdivider's sole expense "...those certain
improvements described and shown on the stamped approved construction plans..."
in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance (Land Subdivider's Agreement, p. 2,
¶1). On the same date, the Developer entered into an Erosion and Sediment Control
Agreement as well that requires the developer to ensure the installation, maintenance
and performance measures provided for on approved plans or revisions thereof for the
control of siltation and erosion (Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement, ¶7).
Letters of credit to guarantee proper and satisfactory installation according to
approved plans were also submitted with these agreements.
Currently, public water and sanitary sewer facilities have not been accepted by the County
because adequate as -built plans have not been provided. Additionally, all requirements that
will allow the roads to be accepted into the secondary system of state highways have not
been completed. An adequate and acceptable method for transporting stormwater runoff
from the subdivision streets to a natural water course must be provided prior to the Virginia
Department of Transportation acceptance.
On April 23, 1997, the County notified the Developer in accordance with Section IX,
Subsection A of the Roanoke County Bonding Policy that their Land Subdividers Agreement
and Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement were due to expire within ninety (90) days and
that a completion schedule must be provided to the County no later than May 15, 1997. The
County has not received any correspondence regarding this request.
On July 29, 1997, a letter was sent to the Developer explaining that the Bonding Committee
of Roanoke County has found them in default of their agreements with Roanoke County.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approval of Roanoke County Bonding Committee's recommendation to formally
declare Belle Grove Development Corporation in default on Belle Grove Subdivision
and approval of all additional recommendations of the Bonding Committee as
2
specifically4set forth above. Consistent with the decision of the Board on preceding
action E ,K.a., authorize and direct the Director of Engineering and Inspections and
the County Attorney to initiate said approved actions, if all corrective actions and
subdivision improvements have not been completed and accepted by the County and
State agencies within thirty (30) days of this proceeding.
2. Decline to approve the Bonding Committee's recommendations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends Alternative # I above.
SUBMITTED BY:
/Bonding Committee of Roanoke County
ij� J 5
i
0— or—.
e f
Arnold Covey, Director
Engineering & Inspectic
n .
aim)&
Paul M. 4ahony
County Attorney
Don C. Myers
Assistant County Administrator
E -4.B
APPROVED BY:
6L I -0, -
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C Nickens No Yes Absent
Denied ( ) motion to approve alternative Eddy x_
Received ( ) #1 - Bonding Committee Harrison _x
Referred ( ) Recommendations Johnson x. —
To ( ) _ Minnix X_
Nickens
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Vickie Huffman, Assistant County Attorney
3
A -081997-5.c
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.�C-
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997
AGENDA ITEM: Authorization To Proceed With Acquisition, As Provided By Law, Of
A 20' Drainage Easement Across Property Owned By Nyna Murray To
The Existing Drainage Easement Along Virginia Secondary Route 605
(Shadwell Drive).
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: �u
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This agenda item is for staff to obtain authorization to proceed with acquisition, as
provided by law including initiation of eminent domain proceedings if necessary, of a 20'
drainage easement for the management, collection, transmission and distribution of any
form of drainage, including but not limited to stormwater drainage, across property owned
by Nyna Murray. The approximate location of the proposed easement, extending from the
stormwater detention pond in Belle Grove Subdivision to the existing drainage easement
along Shadwell Drive, is shown on the attached map.
BACKGROUND:
Reference is made to the immediately preceding agenda Item No. Ela. and Item No. E -
1$.b. for background information regarding Belle Grove Subdivision and the Nyna Murray
property.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Nyna Murray is the owner of property, designated on the Roanoke County Land Records
as Tax Map #28.09-2-4, located on Shadwell Drive. The rear property line adjoins Belle
Grove Subdivision and its stormwater detention facility, which discharges into the
"drainage Swale" across the Murray property.
During construction of Belle Grove Subdivision, numerous storm events impacted the
Roanoke Valley and it was discovered that the Belle Grove stormwater detention and
drainage facilities installed at the site required additional corrective action. Nyna Murray
has since made extensive demands upon the County and the developer (Belle Grove
Development Corporation) to resolve issues associated with the sink holes that developed
on the properties and stormwater management. Although staff has repeatedly attempted
to address areas of concern to Murray, the situation remains at an impasse.
Among Murray's demands is that a drainage easement be obtained by the County for the
sum of $100,000 and the easement would be subject to stringent conditions. Staff has
estimated that the fair market value of the proposed drainage easement, based upon the
real estate tax assessment, is an approximate maximum of $1,100 depending on location.
An independent appraisal has not yet been obtained, but will be required in order for staff
to proceed.
In an effort to resolve the situation, the County Administrator extended a settlement offer
to the developer and the Murrays by letter dated June 25, 1997, a copy of which is
attached. Murray responded on July 4, 1997, with the following: "...., we hereby request
that the terms of the said proposal be left open until we have had time to adequately
consult counsel. Also, we will need further specifics with regard to the proposal." No
further word on the settlement proposal has been received from the Murrays or their
counsel.
By letter dated July 17, 1997, the County Administrator notified the parties that this
matter, as well as the two preceding items related to Belle Grove Subdivision, would be
placed on the agenda for consideration and action by the Board.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Staff recommends that all costs associated with this authorization be paid for from the
funds drawn on the developer's letters of credit for completion of Belle Grove Subdivision,
in accordance with the previous recommendation of the Bonding Committee. Such costs
may include but will not be limited to expenses for an independent appraisal, a survey,
easement consideration and related closing costs, engineering, and construction, with the
possibility of court costs and an additional award by the court in condemnation
proceedings, if necessary.
2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Authorize staff to proceed with acquisition, as provided by law, of a 20'
drainage. easement to extend from the Belle Grove stormwater management facility to the
existing drainage easement along Route 605 (Shadwell Drive), and authorize payment of
all costs associated with such acquisition from the funds drawn on Belle Grove
Development Corporation's letters of credit and in a manner consistent with the action of
the Board on the preceding agenda Item No. E-O.b.
2. Decline to authorize acquisition of the easement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1 above.
FWA
Af iold Covey, Director
Engineering & Inspections
E-4.0
APPROVED BY:
Y-4XZ-1
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens No Yes Absent
Denied ( ) motion to approve proceeding Eddy X
Received ( ) With acquisition Harrison x
Referred ( ) Johnson _x
To ( ) Minnix X_
Nickens _X
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Vickie Huffman, Assistant County Attorney
3
NOR TH
to v - 10 40 _ 133-1
r K
2 n
16
17
Ole, 3-2;A102
393sIG
2.85 ILC 19
23 20�
jA
RT 605-♦
_ ( ,,,, 2s
3 APPROX. S
i f _ 20'DRAINAGE
ES ItMT.
LOCATION OF
POND
ROANOKE COUNTY
UTILITY
DEPAR TMENT
BELLE GROVE SUBDIVISION WITH APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS THE MURRAYS PROPERTY
•» n.9
r; Pro,
nAa
r� S
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
(540) 772-2004
%!,ouutij of AV'a'nvkt
P.O. BOX 29800
5204 BERNARD DRIVE
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798
FAX (540) 772-2193
June 25, 1997
Mr. Terry E. Parsell
Belle Grove Development Corporation
1007 First Street, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Ms. Nyna Murray
7920 Shadwell Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Dear Ms. Murray and Gentlemen:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BOB L. JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN
HOWNS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS, VICE-CHAIRMAN
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
LEE B. EDDY
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FENTON F. "SPIKE" HARRISON, JR.
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
(540)_772-2005
Mr. Mike Murray.
7950 Shadwell Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
In the last few days, my staff and I have spoken with all of you in an
effort to resolve the issue of storm water management on your properties.
We now find ourselves at the point where the County has notified the Belle
Grove Development Corporation that it intends to draw the bond to make the
necessary repairs for proper drainage across the Nyna Murray property. The
Murrays have indicated that they are unwilling to sell the easement until
they know what the plans are and until they receive an amount of money -
acceptable to them. Belle Grove maintains that they will oppose the
County's calling of their bond and that they have no obligation to perform
or pay for any further work in that area. All of our meetings, phone
calls, and letters have been unsuccessful. Despite the fact that the
County maintains that it has no financial responsibility in this matter, I
am proposing the following solution in an effort to resolve this situation
as soon as possible.
It is proposed that Nyna Murray be paid $5,000 compensation for the
easement across her property. In addition, storm water will be piped
underground to the existing easement along Shadwell Drive. County
engineers will work with the Murrays to design and construct the pipe to
minimize any impact on future use of their property and, in fact, improve
its value. This is estimated to cost $20,000. Nyna Murray further agrees
to grant Belle Grove access to the property to repair the sinkhole.
Belle Grove agrees to repair, as required by a professional
geotechnical engineer, the sinkhole that has developed since the
construction of its subdivision has taken place. In addition, Belle Grove
agrees to pay one-half of the cost of putting the pipe across the Murray
property as described above. The County agrees to pay the other half.
Roanoke County will maintain the drainage easement in perpetuity,_ and Belle
Grove agrees to maintain the storm water detention pond, which is on its
property.
This agreement is intended to resolve all off-site issues among the
three parties. This agreement does not relieve Belle Grove Development
Corporation of any on-site corrections noticed by Roanoke County. If we
are not able to reach agreement a®Rs3Aaawgibed above, I will take to the
Mr. Terry Parsell
Ms. Nyna Murray
Mr. Mike Murray
Page 2
June 25, 1997
Board of Supervisors Belle Grove's appeal of the County's requirements as
outlined in the letter dated May 30, 1997, from Terry Parsell. In doing
so, I will ask that the Board support the County's action to draw the Belle
Grove letter of credit to pay for any and all work necessary to correct
this problem. At the same time, I will recommend that the County proceed
with condemnation of the Murray property for a simple, open drainage
easement and will offer to pay the Murrays an amount calculated by the
formula usually used for such purposes. This amounts:to an approximate
maximum of $1,100, depending on location. Belle Grove will then be
requested to maintain this drainage easement.
I hope that you will see that it is to the benefit of all of us to
resolve this issue no later than July 7, 1997. As such, I am asking that
you indicate your concurrence by signing below, as I have done, and
returning a copy of this letter to my office. If you have any questions
that we may answer, please call me at 772-2004 or Arnold Covey at 776-7111.
I would like to get this resolved during the current construction season.
Sincerely,
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ECH/meh
Enclosure
cc_. - Mr. G. Lyn Hayth , I I I
Bank of Buchanan
P. O. Box 339
Buchanan, Virginia 24066
I concur with the agreement outlined above:
Nyna Murray Mike Murray
7920 Shadwell Drive 7950 Shadwell Drive
Roanoke, Virginia- 24019 _ Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Elmer C. Hodge Terry. E. Parsell
Roanoke County Administrator Belle Grove Development Corporation
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997
ORDINANCE 081997-6 AUTHORIZING THE EXERCISE OF AN OPTION TO
PURCHASE AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION AND ACCEPTANCE OF
APPROXIMATELY 463 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE (BEING IDENTIFIED AS
COUNTY TAX MAP PARCELS 54.00-1-2, 54.00-1-3 AND 64.00-1-1) FROM
GLENN -MARY ASSOCIATES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES
WHEREAS, by Resolution #031197-5, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County
approved an Option to Purchase Agreement dated February 26, 1997, wherein Glenn -
Mary Associates, a limited partnership, granted unto the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, an option to purchase approximately 463 acres of real estate designated
on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 54.00-1-2, 54.00-1-3 and 64.00-1-1
(the "Property"), for the sum of $3,000,000.00; and,
WHEREAS, said option provides for payment of the purchase price in three equal
annual installments, with the first payment of $1,000,000.00 to be paid at settlement, and
with future installments to be paid by deferred purchase money note bearing interest at the
Adjusted Federal Rate for short-term loans in effect on the date of settlement (not to
exceed 6%), and secured by a properly recorded first lien Deed of Trust on the Property;
and,
WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, the option must be exercised on
or before August 31, 1997; and,
WHEREAS, the property is required for the development of a new business park
to promote and encourage economic development in the County of Roanoke, Virginia,
through increased employment and corporate investment; and,
1
WHEREAS, increased employment and investment constitutes 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 July 22, 1997; the second reading was held on
August 19, 1997.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to exercise the option to
purchase from Glenn -Mary Associates the following described real estate, to -wit:
All those parcels or tracts of land, with improvements, situate in the County
of Roanoke, Virginia, described as follows:
BEING Parcel I, containing approximately 325 acres; Parcel II, containing
approximately 80.64 acres; and Parcel III, containing approximately 73.60
acres, all three parcels together known as Glenn -Mary Farm.
LESS AND EXCEPT the following parcels:
1) That portion of the above property conveyed to the Commonwealth
of Virginia for Rt. 1-81 by deed from Glenn 0. Thornhill and Mary F. Thornhill
dated October 25, 1962, recorded in Deed Book 703, page 429.
2) 7.499 acres on the south side of 1-81 conveyed to Joseph C. Thomas
and Joseph C. Thomas, Jr., by deed from Glenn -Mary Associates dated
January 12, 1989, recorded in Deed Book 1340, page 1254.
3) 1.49 acres conveyed to Edgar Dickerson and Lottie B. Dickerson by
deed from Glenn 0. Thornhill and Mary F. Thornhill, dated November 10,
1966, recorded in Deed Book 815, page 448.
E
2. That the sum of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) is hereby appropriated
from the General Fund Unappropriated Balance for the initial payment of the land
purchase. The remaining payments will be appropriated in future fiscal years.
3. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is
hereby authorized to execute a non-recourse promissory note and a first lien deed of trust
in accordance with the terms of the Option Agreement, and such other documents as may
be necessary, in connection with the seller's financing of the remainder of the purchase
price for the property, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
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 are necessary to accomplish the exercise of the option and the
acquisition and acceptance of 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 Harrison to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Melinda J. Cox, Economic Development Specialist
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997
ORDINANCE 081997-7 AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 13-19
AND 13-23, OF ARTICLE II "NOISE" OF CHAPTER 13 "OFFENSES -
MISCELLANEOUS" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, IN ORDER TO
LIMIT THE TIME PERIOD FOR THE PERMISSIBLE GENERATION OF
SOUND FROM COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS,
AND TO PROVIDE A WAIVER PROCEDURE THEREFOR
WHEREAS, on October 27, 1992 the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County
adopted a noise ordinance for Roanoke County, declaring it to be the public policy of the
County to promote an environment for its citizens free from excessive noise that
jeopardizes their health or welfare or degrades the quality of life within the County; and,
WHEREAS, this ordinance contained an exception for sound generated from
commercial and industrial zoning districts which are necessary and incidental to the uses
permitted therein; and,
WHEREAS, the Board finds that this exception is too broad, that it has resulted in
numerous complaints from citizens, and that it has effectively eliminated meaningful
enforcement; and,
WHEREAS, the Board finds that late night noises emanating from commercial and
industrial zoning districts have a deleterious effect upon neighboring persons and
constitute a noise disturbance; and,
WHEREAS, the Board recognizes the importance of commercial and industrial uses
to the local economy, and intends to balance the needs and interests of residential
neighborhoods affected by this noise and the needs of the businesses to produce their
products and services, and the employment created thereby; and,
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Board by the adoption of this ordinance to
narrow the scope of said exception and to provide for a waiver procedure to mitigate
serious economic hardship without the corresponding substantial benefit to the public,
which may be caused by the application of this ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 22, 1997, and the
second reading was held on August 19, 1997.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, as follows:
1
1) That Article II of Chapter 13 of the Roanoke County Code be amended and
reenacted as follows:
ARTICLE II. NOISE
Sec. 13-19. Exceptions from this article.
The provisions of this article shall not apply to:
(5) Sound generated in commercial and industrial zoning districts
"
which are necessary
and
incidental to the uses permitted therein; and
(6) Sound for which a ice v'ai has been granted in accordance with
section 13-23 of this article.
(Ord. No. 102792-12, § 1, 10-27-92)
Sec. 13-23. Undue hardship waiver.
(a) Any person responsible for a noise source may apply to the board of
supervisors for a waiver, or partial waiver, from the provisions of this article. The board
of supervisors may grant such waiver, or partial waiver, upon a finding that either of the
following circumstances exists:
(1) The noise does not endanger the public health, safety or welfare; or
(2) Compliance with the provisions of this article from which a waiver is
sought would produce serious economic hardship without producing
substantial benefit to the public.
(b) In determining whether to grant such waiver, the board of supervisors shall
consider the time of day the noise will occur, the duration of the noise, whether the
noise is intermittent or continuous, its extensiveness, the technical and economic
feasibility of bringing the noise into conformance with this article and such other
matters as are reasonably related to the impact of the noise on the health, safety and
welfare of the community and the degree of hardship which may result from the
enforcement of the provisions of this article.
ONo waiver, or part'
al waiver, issuedued
Fa
pursuant to this article shall be granted for a period to exceed one year, but any such
waiver, or partial waiver may be renewed for successive Like periods if the board of
supervisors shall find such renewal is justified after again applying the standards set
forth in this article. No renewal shall be granted except upon written application
therefor.
(Ord. No. 102792-12, § 1, 10-27-92)
2) That this ordinance shall be effective on and from August 19, 1997.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
A
l.
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
3
cc: File
Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Circuit Court
Roy B. Willett, Judge
Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge
Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge
Richard C. Pattisall, Judge
Robert P. Doherty, Jr., Judge
Jonathan M. Apgar, Judge
Steven A. McGraw, Clerk
Juvenile Domestic Relations District Court
Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge
Philip Trompeter, Judge
John B. Ferguson, Judge
Joseph P. Bounds, Judge
Jacqueline F. Ward Talevi, Judge
Ruth P. Bates, Clerk
Intake Counsellor
General District Court
George W. Harris, Judge
William Broadhurst, Judge
Vincent Lilley, Judge
Julian H. Raney, 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
Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
0. Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Gary Robertson, Director, Utility
Michael Lazzuri, Court Services
William J. Rand, III, Director, General Services
Thomas S. Haislip, Director, Parks & Recreation
Elaine Carver, Director, Procurement
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
4
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997
ORDINANCE 081997-8 AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 9-21 OF
THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE AND ORDINANCE NO.121796-13 WHICH
ESTABLISHED A BOARD OF APPEALS AND PROCEDURES AND
REQUIREMENTS TO HEAR APPEALS FROM DECISIONS MADE UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 9, "FIRE PREVENTION AND
PROTECTION", OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, Section 27-98 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, provides that
a local governing body may establish procedures and requirements for the administration
and enforcement of the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code; and,
WHEREAS, appeals concerning the application of this Code by the County Fire
Marshal shall first lie to a local board of appeals and then to the State Building Code
Technical Review Board; and,
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 121796-13 the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County designated itself as the board of appeals and established procedures and
requirements for appeals of enforcement decisions made under the provisions of Chapter
9, "Fire Prevention and Protection" of the Roanoke County Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Virginia Board of Housing and Community Development adopted
certain amendments to the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code, which became
effective April 15, 1997; and,
WHEREAS, certain of these amendments address the administrative appeals
system, and the qualifications of members of the board of appeals; and,
01
WHEREAS, said amendments require certain changes in the previous action taken
by this Board; and,
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 22, 1997, and the
second reading of this ordinance was held on August 19, 1997.
BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, as follows:
That Section 9-21, "Appeals" of Chapter 9, "Fire Prevention and Protection"
of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended and reenacted as follows:
Section 9-21 Appeals.
i:•i:•iso}ii:•iiii:?1.i}i:4:iy:?�i:{::: •i:•i }iiii:•i :•i:•: F:4:: •::. �:: •
:iii':v::4:%:':i:):i.:;:;.; .:'; :i:;:;}i;:;::i;i'i •':: ::::: �.::�"::::k;i:;iL;::i:;:;iY::::::is>%':':%'.:5:!}:{:•?iii:;:Y ::::{;:i;:::y:::%':';l . ... .. y ..
::<:•iii:.ii:•ii:aii•c;•i:.i:;:•i: �::: �'.>::;•:_ is•i:;•:t;>":.:`.:;:r:;:;::.;:: •:::;:::::: �:::;:::::::;::;::<is::i;::::::iv;;:C:::::`:i;::::Fi �':::::%:::�<:'�'.`%>:`:;'::.';::%'::i::'': �":::;::::%::::'<:::%;i::::i::`::.. ..
i tuft
............
•: ::.:? Fh:^:'•iii".}}ii:ii!?:•i"i4:?'i•:?i!.} �'{ti!i•i:•iii:SiS:^ii:: ';ii?v:': �ii:4 iivi:'i: i:i'':iiiii:i:' "?iii::::i":iYii:iFii'i !v:i:i::: :::. .. . .
efts::::::.�::::::::::::::::::..9�::::.A::::.:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.�::.:::.::.�:::::::.:.........................9....................�............................................
..�1�'"t n iofessEai�l<�wtti� mechartr ; I�tmbin en �►���...::
� m�e��nlc�l c�� plcttl�b►r.'t�{;t✓o�#r�ct�r �t�t�:::::::,::�.::::::::::.:::>::::.Y.:::.::.::.;::..::::: a.:::�:.::�,:::::
::::.iii:.iii>'.»:;<.i:.ii:;.;i::i::.<;;::.:>::>::>:':»::>i::>;:«:::i;::>:•<::::>::>:;-::i:::::;:i::::<::>i:>i'.::':>:<::«:>�<::»::;.::::i:.::«:>:<i';::::;:<::<:>:<:;:<:::.
>.:><whl:sha1:>v<een>'ir
.:.t:;(:est<'.>' .ears:<e .:ecine>fu
..f
l..o........................................................................
t MaWf c aMr::.' 8
:...::::.:::.:::::.�:::::::::.::::.::::::.:::::.�:::::.::.:::.:::::.:i'.�:.i:.ii:.:>:.i:".i:.i::: i•:•.i:.:i....:::.i:.;i:.;:.::.:::;::;.;:.iiii:..;.:;.::;.::.i:.iii:.ii:.:.::..:iii:.i:.:;.i::�:<:»::><:<::::::::<:>:::>:::::>:::::::f>::>::;::>:>::>:>;::::
tsredres�oesst�raC:wx;pr:.:.enrcrrerngprxrpx
.::..:....::..:
rertegElanrrctaf afi les 'I (..earxpine, fv...... hrch stlii:i.::
.::;'::;:::.ii•;;:;ii<::.iiii::.:;.ii:.i:.iii:.::.i:;::..i::::.::.;::, :,i:
E
1997.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after August 19,
On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
3
cc: File
John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator
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
Jacqueline F. Ward Talevi, Judge
Ruth P. Bates, Clerk
Intake Counsellor
General District Court
George W. Harris, Judge
William Broadhurst, Judge
Vincent Lilley, Judge
Julian H. Raney, 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
Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
O. Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Gary Robertson, Director, Utility
Michael Lazzuri, Court Services
William J. Rand, III, Director, General Services
Thomas S. Haislip, Director, Parks & Recreation
Elaine Carver, Director, Procurement
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
N
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997
RESOLUTION 081997-9 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM L 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
August 19, 1997 designated as Item L - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved
and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 8, inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of Minutes - June 24, 1997, July 7, 1997 (joint meeting
with Roanoke City Council), July 8, 1997, and July 22, 1997.
2. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Industrial
Development Authority and Social Services Advisory Board.
3. Request to approve Courthouse Maintenance Funds Expenditures.
4. Authorization to accept a vehicle leased by Blue Ridge Volunteer
Fire Department and Rescue Squad, Inc. to Read Mountain Fire
and Rescue Department, Inc., and to increase the number of
vehicles in the County fleet.
5. Request for acceptance of Afton Lane and April Lane into the
Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System.
6. Acceptance of water and sanitary sewer facilities serving
Summerfield, Section 2.
7. Authorization to add State Compensation Board funded position in
Commissioner of Revenue's Office and to increased the number of
1
full time County positions.
S. Request to donate surplus Metrocall pagers to Commonwealth
Search and Rescue.
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where
required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any
such item pursuant to this resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution after discussion of
items 3, 4, and 7, and with understanding that the lease mentioned in Item 4 does not
need approval by the Board of Supervisors, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: File
John M Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator
William J. Rand, III, Director, General Services
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Circuit Court
Gerald Holt, Sheriff
Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney
Richard Burch, Fire & Rescue Chief
Gary Robertson, Director, Utility
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
R Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
Joseph Sgroi, Director, Human Resources
Elaine Carver, Director, Procurement
2
A -081997-9.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: August 19, 1997
AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the
Industrial Development Authority and Social
Services Advisory Board
SUM -MARY OF INFORMATION •
The following nominations were made at the July 22, 1997 meeting,
and should now be confirmed.
Industrial Development Authority
Supervisor Minnix nominated Neil Gallagher to complete the
unexpired four year term of Guy Byrd who has resigned. The term
will expire September 26, 1999.
Social Services Advisory Board
Supervisor Johnson nominated Patricia W. Thompson to serve a four
year term, representing the Hollins Magisterial District. The
term will expire August 1, 2001.
Supervisor Harrison nominated Ed Wold to another four year term,
representing the Catawba Magisterial District. His term will
expire August 1, 2001.
Supervisor Minnix nominated Betty Lucas to another four year term
representing the Cave Spring Magisterial District. Her term will
expire August 1, 2001.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the above appointments be confirmed by the
Board of Supervisors.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board
Approved by,
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
L --
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to No Yes Absent
Denied ( ) approve Eddy
Received ( ) Harrison x_
Referred ( ) Johnson _X_
To ( ) _ Minnix x_
Nickens X_
cc: File
Industrial Development Authority File
Social Services Advisory Board
A -081997-9-b
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: August 19, 1997
AGENDA ITEM: Request to Approve Courthouse Maintenance Funds Expenditures
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
In 1991, a courthouse maintenance account was established by the Board of Supervisors when the
General Assembly authorized localities to receive $2.00 per criminal or traffic case filed. As of
June 30, 1997, there was approximately $40,770 available in this account. We normally receive
$37,000 in revenues per year and the only on-going expense coming from the account is the
$10,363 rental for the parking lot.
Staff has occupied the Roanoke County Courthouse facility for nearly 12 years and only minimal
repairs and cosmetic improvements have been made. Some of the carpeting is in need of
replacement and other areas need repairs and painting to the walls and trim.
The Department of General Services has obtained pricing for this type of renovation and suggests
that up to $65,000 be appropriated from the Courthouse Maintenance Account to begin the needed
painting and carpeting. Judge Willett has met with the Constitutional Officers located at the Court
complex and they concur in this prioritized list of improvements.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Courthouse maintenance account had a balance on June 30, 1997 of $40,770, should receive
$37,000 this fiscal year, and only has $10,363 obligated for the rental of the parking lot. The
Board of Supervisors can appropriate the needed monies of up to $65,000 to begin the painting
and carpeting project from this account.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Appropriate the $65,000 from the Courthouse Maintenance Account and authorize the
Department of General Services to proceed with the needed repairs, subject to the approval
of the Judge and his committee.
L-3
2. Do not appropriate this amount and hold the repairs until they are prioritized in the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 1 to appropriate the $65,000 from the Courthouse
Maintenance Account and authorize the Department of General Services to proceed with the
needed repairs, subject to the approval of the Judge and his committee.
Respectfully submitted, Approved by,
John M. Chambliss, r. Elmer C. Hodge
Assistant County Administrator County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to No Yes Absent
Denied ( ) approve Eddy x
Received ( ) Harrison x
Referred ( ) Johnson _x
To ( ) Minnix --X_
Nickens X_
cc: File
John M Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator
Roy Willett, Judge, Circuit Court
William J. Rand, III, Director, General Services
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Circuit Court
Gerald Holt, Sheriff
Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney
A -081997-9.c
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: August 19, 1997
AGENDA ITEM: Request to Increase the Number of Vehicles in the County Fleet by One to
Allow Read Mountain Fire and Rescue to Acquire an Ambulance and
Become a Transporting Agency
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
Read Mountain Fire and Rescue began its operation strictly as a fire department operation until
its members could be adequately trained in the provision of emergency medical services. As their
membership became trained and certified, they began operating as a First Responder agency to
provide immediate medical care until an ambulance arrived on the scene.
Read Mountain Fire and Rescue Department is now in the process of obtaining its state licensure
as an emergency medical transporting agency. Currently, Read Mountain Fire and Rescue is an
agency licensed only to respond to the scene of a medical emergency, and not transport to a
hospital. As an insured and registered ambulance is necessary before Read Mountain can be
officially licensed to transport to a hospital, Blue Ridge Volunteer Fire and Rescue Squad has
agreed to lease an ambulance to Read Mountain Fire and Rescue until their new ambulance
arrives. The costs associated with this lease are the sole responsibility of Read Mountain Fire and
Rescue.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Read Mountain Fire and Rescue has applied for and received a grant to purchase and equip their
own ambulance and all matching monies will be raised by their organization. This is the same
practice followed when Back Creek began operating its own ambulance several years ago.
It is requested that the County of Roanoke increase the number of authorized vehicles for the
Department of Fire and Rescue by one adding the ambulance to the County's insurance policy.
Until such time as the vehicle is insured and registered by Roanoke County, Read Mountain Fire
and Rescue Department is unable to apply for its state transporting license.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Read Mountain Fire and Rescue Department will be responsible for all costs incurred in
connection with the use and operation of the ambulance during the lease term.
Maintenance costs for the ambulance will be paid with funds from the operating budget of Read
Mountain Fire and Rescue Department. Read Mountain will also pay for the matching monies
required to acquire and equip the new ambulance.
Insurance expenses for the ambulance will be paid from the Risk Management budget.
No additional appropriations are required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the lease agreement of the said
ambulance, allowing Read Mountain Fire and Rescue Department to apply for its state
transporting license and increase the County Fleet by one.
Respectfully submitted, Approved by,
Richard E. Burch, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge
Fire and Rescue Chief County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION
VOTE
Approved
(x) Motion by: -Bob L. Johnson to
No Yes Absent
Denied
( ) approve with the understanding
Eddy
X
Received
( ) that the lease agreement does
Harrison
x
Referred
( ) not need approval by the Board
Johnson
To
( ) of Supervisors
Minnix
_X
Nickens
X
cc: File
Richard Burch, Fire & Rescue Chief
William J. Rand, III, Director, General Services
L—
AGREEMENT OF LEASE made and entered into this day of ,
1997, by and between the BLUE RIDGE VOLUNTEERFIRE DEPARTMENT AND RESCUE
SQUAD, INC., hereinafter called Owner, and the READ MOUNTAIN FIRE & RESCUE
DEPARTMENT, INC., hereinafter called Lessee.
WITNESSETH
That for and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and other
good and valuable considerations, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereto do hereby agree as follows:
1. LEASE OF VEHICLE The Owner hereby leases to the Lessee,and the Lessee
hereby hires from the Owner, the vehicle, more fully des:ribed as a 1982 Ford Ambulance,
License No. 5757, Identification No. 1FDKE301-1CHB16296 to be picked up by the Lessee
under the terms as hereinafter provided. The vehicle leased hereunder shall be titled
and/or registered in the name of Owner or its designee. The Lessee shall at no time have
any right, title or interest whatsoever, legal or equitable, in orto the said vehicle except the
right to use it under the terms hereof.
2. LEASE TERM- The lease term of said vehicle shall be one (1) year, beginring
on
the other party.
and ending when either party gives one month notice, in writing, to
3. USE OF VEHICLE: The Lessee, or any other legally qualified person
authorized by him, shall use the vehicle leased hereunder only for lawful purposes within
the United States. The Lessee shall comply (a) with all applicable requirements, and (b)
with all conditions of the policies of insurance on said vehicle. The Lessee shall not sublease
1
the said vehicle leased hereunder; nor shall the Lessee except with written consent of the
Owner, assign this lease or the Lessee's rights or interest in said vehicle. All equipment
currently available on this vehicle (Botetourt County Low Band Radio, stretcher, oxygen
regulator) will remain with the vehicle and will be returned with the vehicle at the end of
the agreement.
4. RENT: The Lessee shall pay Owner a sum of money as rent for the said
vehicle payable in advance at the commencementof the lease in the amount of One Dollar
($1.00). The Lessee shall pay all costs, expenses, tolls, fees, andcharges, including any fines
and penalties, incurred in connection with the use and operation of the said vehicle during
the lease term. The Lessee shall maintain the said vehide in good operating condition and
appearance at all times during the lease period. The Lessee shall pay all costs connected
with normal fuel and all usage and routine servicing. The Lessee shall pay all damage or
injury to the said vehicle caused by neglect, negligent driving, parking and operation of tlm
said vehicle during the term of this lease. Normal maintenance and repairwork caused by
normal wear and tear will be completed by Lessee at the Lessee's expense. At the end of
any termination of the lease term the Lessee shall surrender the vehicle in as good conditirn
as received, ordinary wear and tear expected.
5. INSURANCE: The Lessee will provide, in accordance with the State Code,
collision and comprehensive, and primary liability insurance coverage. A certification of
insurance will be provided to the Owner. The Owner, of the said vehicle will accept the
offer made by the Lessee's insurance company if the said vehicle is involved in an accident
and the said vehicle is beyond repair.
2
6. WARRANTIES: The Owner makes no warranties, either expressedor implied
as to the condition of the vehicle leased hereunder.
7. INSPECTION BY LESSEE: The Lessee herein acknowledges that he has
inspected the vehicle leased hereunder and accepts the said vehicle as is and acknowledges
that the said vehicle is in good and safe operating condition, and agrees to accept all rik or
loss occasioned by the operation of said vehicle.
8. INDEMNITY. Lessee agrees to indemnify Owner from all losses and expenses
insured on account of the negligence or claims of negligence committed by Lessee, Lesee's
employees, or agents.
9. AGREEMENT. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement betveen the
parties hereto and no modification is expressed in a written instrument signed by the partie
hereto.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
READ MOUNTAIN FIRE & RESCUE
DEPARTMENT, INC.
Approved as to form:
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
C:\OFFICE\ W PW IN\ W FD005\FORMS\ AMBULANCUSE
3
BLUE RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE
DEPARTMENT AND RESCUE SQUAD,
INC.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR
MEETING ON THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 1997, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING:
RESOLUTION 081997-9.d REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF AFTON LANE AND
APRIL LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SECONDARY SYSTEM.
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR -5(a), fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision
Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form
SR -5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-
of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded
to the Resident engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Recorded Vote
Moved By: Supervisor Johnson
Seconded By: None Required
Yeas: Supervisors Eddy, Harrison, Minnix, Nickens, Johnson
Nays: None
Absent: None
A Copy Teste:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Virginia Department of Transportation
PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY
DESCRIPTION:
NORTH
is
4740 .
1) Afton Lane - From the
State Route 606, to the
south
intersection with
Layman
Road,
east
cul-de-sac.
2) April Lane - From the east
north cul-de-sac.
intersection
with Afton Lane
to the
LENGTH:
RIGHT OF WAY:
(1)
(1)
0.27
MILES
(2)
0.12
MILES
PAVEMENT WIDTH:
(1)
50
32
FEET
FEET
(2)
50
FEET
SERVICE:
(1)
3
HOMES
(2)
26
FEET
(2)
3
HOMES
ROANOKE COUNTY
ENGINEERING &
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
APRIL'S MEADOW
L-5
b
On
t
Q
0
0
2
2
/
J
�
2
/
@
;
C. i
�2
.
) §
\
\
.
J u
\
�
2
�
a
■
z
z
k
§
§
.
,
k E
% \
CD
/
/
K
5
\
#
/
z
�
cm)
§
—
\
2
2
]
b
!
3
A
A
0)
E
\
\
k
ƒ
C
«
i
\
\
§
to
7
d
}
}
'9j
79}
\
ƒ
e\ƒ
e
CL/
}
}
j
k
•.
(/
11
e
2
I
e
e
_
E
a
e
E
a
e-_
5}
\
2
2
\
2
Q
£
7
k
o
\
w
\
7�
.
k
)
J
J
L,— 5
c
A -081997-9.e
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER 2--' �*'
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Water and Sanitary Sewer Facilities Serving Summerfield, Section 2
COUNTY ADM NISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: 1�
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Developers of Summerfield, Section 2, have requested that Roanoke County accept the Deed
conveying the water and sanitary sewer facilities serving the subdivision along with all necessary
easements.
The water and sewer facilities are installed, as shown on plans prepared by Lang Engineering entitled
Project #93 -SB -01092.2, which are on file in the County Engineering Department. The water and
sanitary sewer facility construction meets the specifications and the plans approved by the County.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The value of the water and sanitary sewer construction is $35,520.00 and $12,132.00 respectively.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the water and sanitary sewer facilities serving
Summerfield, Section 2 along with all necessary easements, and authorize the County Administrator
to execute a Deed for the transfer of these facilities.
SUBMITTED BY:
iL ?�P, & �z-
Gary Robe son, P.E.
Utility Director
Approved (x)
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
APPROVED:
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION
Motion by: Bob L Johnson to
approve -
L -G
VOTE
No Yes Absent
Eddy
x
Harrison
.x
Johnson
X
Minnix
_X—
Nickens
_X_
cc: File
Gary Robertson, Director, Utility
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
THIS CHATTEL DEED, made this 15th day of Ap r i 1 , 192Z by and between:
Fralin & Wa1dron, Inc 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:
As shown on the plan entitled . SMrjjUjafCjd -- Section , made by, Robert G. +Cantley,
and on file in the Roanoke County Engineering Department,
Page 1 of 3
The Developer does hereby covenant and warrant that it will be responsible for the proper
installation and construction of the said water and/or sewer systems including repair of surface areas
affected by settlement of utility trenches for a period of one (1) year after date of acceptance by the
Board and will perform any necessary repairs at its cost.
Eimer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the
execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance of this conveyance pursuant to Resolution No.
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the
day of , 19
WITNESS THE FOLLOWING signatures and seals:
Developer:2sLf,
By:
As:
State of 'Virginia
County/City of Roanoke , to wit:
The foregoing instrument was ac knowlesi9 d before me this:
1 45- day of 19,
B and
Duly authorized officer Title
/7—
on behalf of u-��
Public
My Commission expires: q -J0- �J
Page 2 of 3
L 4P
Approved as to form: Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia
By (SEAL)
County Attorney Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
State of: VirWnia
County/City of: Roanoke , to wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this:
day of , 14 ,
by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia.
Notary Public
My Commission expires:
Page 3 of 3
56
—;0—lE S:E SIEET 4 CF 25 v♦;C,-�yE SEE Sr
V
i
27 25
SEC 1 26 SEC I
80 I <� i _ k-� LOT 27 SEC 1 LOT 2
��j 57� �� .w�. __;• LOT 26
SEC 2 56 i .59 60 61 - - 62 28
LOT 6 SEC 2 SEC 2 SF'C 2 SEC 2 SEC 2 SEC 1 3r1: 3v�Gc,
61 `:�'a, <. LOT 5 LOT 4 LOT 3 LOT 2 LOT I LOT 28
SFC 2 I .R i• e Y (110c 2;1.7Gc)
LOT 7 I t� —� =
I w I 1w I x w UMMERFIFLI)
C2
S 2 I �` Izc u,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ / _ L _ _ _ _ _ T� —�/.,, �' a ,^.•, ts4�
! LOT B � � K ` ua, y:.vs rJ 1_'<;- -, tr�� - �.oa.,•
a�, .o,..: .gra nr • c.rt ^ y\ I al
126 127 128 129 130 29 I•_ , 1
30 SEC 1
j
SEC 2 SEC 2 SEC 2 SEC 2 SEC 'L SEC 2 � � , t � SEC 1 LOT 30
�y LOT 10 LOT tI LOT 12 LOT 13 LOT 14 LOT 15 ( LOT 29
EC 2
LOT 9
s
131 I i. I� 117
SEC 2
�84I ( I 125p, SEC Z ..., _�- LOT 2 111
144 LOT 165
—
143 I I" --------- - ---'r
'y " I
�>0 SE
324 .=`c x~132 'v ' 1.16
85 ( I \�' SEC 2 �$ (- 1j e I LOT 21
( ^ I 145 ''/ LOT 17 I ii I
112
SEC�2
ti -
i 66 I ( I 123 \ i (8 5133EC LOT
2 7-%\ �, '.'J'\ 20 I
t_ -r,------1- \� LOT 18
________ I 146 I ( 141 \ /11-t\\,
87 I 122 (,�.I ( 134
1 I SEC 2
LOT 19
I I 140
s.,..,,121 347 1
135:
\ l /
\ \ 120146 I>,, lag 136
I ice, 1 / A
' I 89 \\\ \\ r4' 11g I iTl I 137
tae / / t0z "
'\ 118 I I
J) o �� I ► ��'� / 101 /
ROANOKE COUNTY ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES SERVING
UTILITY SUItN ERFIELD — SECTION 2
DEPARTMENT
A -081997-9.f
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER
—7
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
FETING DATE: August 19, 1997
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of additional State Compensation
Board funded position in the Commissioner of
the Revenue's Office and increase the number
of full-time positions
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
In 1996, the State Compensation Board developed a position
reallocation policy for Commissioners of the Revenue Offices to
determine the appropriate level of Compensation Board funded
positions required for each commissioner's office. Thirty offices
required one or more additional full-time positions and 16 offices
have one or more positions in excess of the staffing standards.
The Compensation Board also asked for input from the Commissioners
of the Revenue Association of Virginia regarding the reallocation
of positions from offices which exceeded the staffing standards to
offices which showed a need for additional positions.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Based upon the 1996 policy adopted by the Compensation Board,
Roanoke County's Commissioner of the Revenue's Office has been
allocated one additional full-time position. This position will be
funded by the State Compensation Board.
Before the position can be allocated to Wayne Compton's Office, the
Compensation Board requires that the Board of Supervisors concur
with the additional position in writing.
It will also be necessary to approve increasing the approved number
of County full-time positions by one to 743.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This position will be funded by the State Compensation Board so no
additional funds are required.
Z_, I
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors concur in writing to
the State Compensation Board that the Commissioner of the Revenue's
Office be allocated one additional position and that the total
number of full-time County employees be increased to 743.
Approved (x)
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
Respectfully Submitted by:
dm",_ 9�1�_
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION
Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to
approve
cc: File
R Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
Joseph Sgroi, Director, Human Resources
Bruce W. Hayes, Executive Secretary, State Compensation Board
VOTE
No Yes Absent
Eddy
Harrison
X_
Johnson
_2L
Minnix
Nickens
cc: File
R Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
Joseph Sgroi, Director, Human Resources
Bruce W. Hayes, Executive Secretary, State Compensation Board
JUNE R. FUNKHOUSER v BRUCE W. HAYNES
AIRMAN �Ma EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
DANNY M. PAYNE JAMES W. MATTHEWS
W. N Y M. PA NESKI Qw• ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
EX -OFFICIO MEMBERS " .®MM®NWEALTri ® f VIRGINIA
`Y COMPENSATION BOARD
P. O. BOX 710
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23218-0710
August 1, 1997
The Honorable R. Wayne Compton
Commissioner of the Revenue
County of Roanoke
P. O. Box 20409
Roanoke, VA 24018-0513
Dear Mr. Compton:
I write regarding the Compensation Board's Position Reallocation Policy and its effect on your
office.
As you may know, the Compensation Board requested the input of the Commissioner of the Revenue ,
Association of Virginia regarding the reallocation of . positions from offices which exceeded
Compensation Board staffing standards to offices which showed a need for additional positions.
Your association and the Compensation Board find it difficult to justify to the General Assembly the
need for additional positions when your own workload -based staffing standards show some offices
as having excess positions. Based upon the input of the Commissioner of The Revenue Association of
Virginia, the Compensation Board adopted the attached policy, effective July 1, 1996.
Based upon this policy, and the Compensation Board staffing standards, your office has been
allocated an additional position as follows:
1 Full -Time Equivalent Position
All position allocations will be contingent upon the written concurrence of the governing body.
Please contact Charlotte Luck, James W. Matthews, or me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bruce W. Haynes
Executive Secretary
Copy to: Governing Body
James W. Matthews, Assistant Executive Secretary
Charlotte W. Luck, Senior Fiscal Technician
hAworftealun pos gain.cr
kml-8/1/97
FAX (804) 3't-0235 ADMINISTRATION (804) 736-0786 (V7D0) (804) 786-0786
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING
THE COMPENSATION BOARD'S
POSITION REALLOCATION POLICY FOR
COMMISSIONERS' OF THE REVENUE OFFICES
MAY 1, 1997
The mission of the Compensation Board, as set out in §14.1-51, Code of Virginia, is to "...fix
and determine what constitutes a fair and reasonable budget for the participation of the
Commonwealth toward the total cost of the office." In order to ensure the fair and equitable
distribution of the Commonwealth's limited resources (i.e., positions) amongst the 650 offices,
the Compensation Board requested each association to develop workload based staffing
standards. Each of the five associations responded, and the Board adopted the standards
verbatim, as recommended by each association. These standards did not consider all duties
performed by all Constitutional Officers. Instead, the standards considered duties mandated by
the Code of Virginia. In commissioners' offices, for example, the standards do not consider
multiple billings or utility collections.
When we calculated the appropriate level of Compensation Board full-time equivalent positions
required for each commissioners office this year, we found that 30 offices require one or more
additional Full -Time Equivalent (F.T.E.) positions, and 16 offices have one or more F.T.E.
positions in excess of Compensation Board staffing standards.
Herein lies the fundamental question addressed by the proposed reallocation policy: how
should the Compensation Board address this apparent inequitable distribution of resources?
In 1995, the Compensation Board proposed a position reallocation policy to address this issue,
and asked your association for input. The executive board approved the policy proposed by the
Compensation Board.
No one should consider the offices in excess to be "overstaffed." Instead, based upon a fixed
number of duties, these offices have Compensation Board reimbursed positions in excess of
other offices having the same duties. As previously noted, the staffing standards do not address
duties which are discretionary on the part of the commissioners, and funding is not
appropriated to the Compensation Board to provide_ positions for discretionary duties .
Consequently these duties, while performed by many commissioners' offices, are not
considered in the staffing standards. Likewise, positions have been provided over the years to
commissioners' offices to perform tasks that are now automated. While the positions were
certainly justified 10 or 15 years ago, it certainly appears logical to revisit the allocation of
positions as conditions change.
There are some alternatives to the proposed reallocation policy.
(Over)
1-,7
The Compensation Board has been required by law for some years to reallocate jail
overcrowding positions in sheriffs' offices each year. On May 1 of each year, the
Compensation Board notifies the sheriff or sheriffs that as of July 1, Compensation Board
funding for a position or positions will terminate and the position will be abolished. Unless the
local government agrees to fund the position, the employee is laid off.
This legislative remedy could be applied to all Constitutional Officers and not just the sheriffs.
Instead of the proposed policy, which allows for a multi-year grace period, excess positions
could be eliminated. We are all aware of the private sector response to a decline in work -flow:
employees are laid off.
Simply put, ignoring the offices in excess status will invite the attention of other parties (e.g.,
the legislature or the Department of Planning and Budget) and is a disservice to the 30
commissioners' offices which clearly need one or more additional Compensation Board funded
Positions.
" Let's make a number of assumptions so that the "outcome" of the proposed policy can be better
N .explained. Let's assume that the data used to calculate workload is verified as correct, the
commissioner has a vacancy during FY98, and the commissioner's argument based upon
"unique situations" is not accepted by the Board. The commissioner would then have the
' option of not filling the position which becomes vacant, not filling another position of a lower
grade, or reducing his or her hourly wage budget equivalent to the salary of a full-time
't equivalent position. No matter which option is chosen, the commissioner's budget would not
be reduced- in the fiscal year in which the vacancy occurs. In February of 1998, the
commissioner would submit his or her workload for CY97. If the latest workload data showed
a continued need for the position, it would not be abolished in FY99. If the workload data
resulted in the office remaining in excess status, the position would be abolished by the
Compensation Board, effective July 1, 1998, and reallocated, in priority order according to
staffing standards, to the commissioner's office having the greatest need.
Commissioners who wish to verify their workload data should call Charlotte Luck at 804-786-
0777. Questions regarding the policy should be directed to Jim W. Matthews or Bruce W.
Haynes at 804-786-0786.
HAW0RD\REALCIN.CRFY98
Comper.s.ation Board Policy 4-7
Position Reallocation
Preface: The General Assembly, through Chapter 853 Item 80, has recognized the value
of staffing standards for constitutional officers, mandating that all new positions be
allocated using established standards. The next step in the equitable allocation of the
Commonwealth's limited resources is the establishment and implementation of a policy on
the reallocation of positions in offices with positions in excess of the number specified by
the staffing standards.
Purpose: To establish policy which institutes the procedures for the reallocation of
N- positions exceeding the number specified. by staffing standards.
Effective Date: July 1, 1996
General Policy: Positions which become vacant after July 1, 1996 in any office in which
the number of F.T.E. positions exceeds the position count by one or more positions based
upon the Compensation Board's adopted staffing standards shall not be filled. For the
remainder of the fiscal year in which the vacancy occurs those vacancy savings may be
transferred within the office according to standard transfer procedures. Positions shall be
held unfilled in the order in which vacancies occur. The Compensation Board may, with
the concurrence of the specific constitutional officer, provide for the vacancy of an
alternative position of a lower grade within the office. Officers losing positions in
accordance with this policy may request the Board's reconsideration of the decision to
:. reallocate the positions) on the basis of unique, .office -specific. situations._ Prior to
abolishing any permanent positions, the Compensation Board will remove.from an affected
officer's approved budget, a full time equivalency. of temporary funding for each position
to be abolished.
Any vacant positions held open by the Compensation Board will be abolished and
reallocated during the next budget cycle and will be available to be filled on or after July 1
of the following fiscal year in the office identified by the staffing standards as having the
highest need.
Application: Constitutional Officers with full time equivalent positions which exceed the
Compensation Board's staffing standards by one or more positions will be notified of that
excess on May 1 of each year. When any Compensation Board funded position in the
office becomes vacant, the Constitutional Officer will notify the Board through a Form CB
10 of the vacancy. The position will remain vacant and unfilled in that office's budget for
the remainder of the fiscal year. The Compensation Board will abolish the position(s) in
the fiscal year budget following the year in which the vacancy occurs.
roval: This policy shall remain in effect until further amended by the Compensation
$ d.
June R Funkhouser ate
Chairman, Compensation Board
A-081997-9.9
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETI]aG DATE : August 19, 1997
AGENDA ITEM: Request to Donate Surplus Metrocall Pagers to
Commonwealth Search and Rescue
COUNTY ADMINISTRATnR'S COMMENTS: C�7t���✓� d�=� �,
BACKGROUND:
Commonwealth Search and Rescue (formerly Botetourt Mounted
Search and Rescue, Inc.) has requested that the County of Roanoke
donate surplus Metrocall pagers to their organization to assist in
alerting their members of need for their service. This
organization has assisted the County on several occasions and has
night vision equipment, ground searchers, air scent search dogs and
mounted searchers to provide help as needed.
The County of Roanoke has 20 of the older style Metrocall
pagers which have been turned in as surplus property for disposal.
Since this is the same system of pager used by the CSAR group,
staff is suggesting that these items be declared surplus by the
County and that staff be authorized to donate these 20 units to
Commonwealth Search and Rescue.
These units cost $49 each when new and would not bring more
than a few dollars each at a surplus auction. While the dollars
will not be realized through the surplus auction, the benefit from
the services provided to the County of Roanoke by CSAR more than
offsets the value.
1. Donate the 20 surplus pagers to Commonwealth Search and
Rescue.
2. Retain the surplus pagers and dispose of them at the normal
auction of surplus property item.
Staff recommends Alternative 1 to declare the pagers surplus
and to donate them to Commonwealth Search and Rescue.
Respectfully submitted., Approve-' by,
_ ' "
John M. Chambli s, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge
Assistant Administrator County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to No Yes Absent
Denied ( ) approve Eddy
Received ( ) Harrison _x
Referred ( ) Johnson x_
To ( ) Minnix _x
Nickens
cc: File
John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator
Elaine Carver, Director, Procurement
Rick Burch, Chief of Fire & Rescue
William J. Rand, III, Director, General Services
Roger L. Marcum, President( Commonwealth Search and Rescue
ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
August 1, 1997
%L/Ount-V of Ywanoke
Mr. Roger L. Marcum, President
Commonwealth Search and Rescue
P. 0. Box 568
Daleville, Virginia 24083-0568
Dear Mr. Marcum:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your recent letter asking
that Roanoke County donate to your organization the Metrocall
pagers that we are replacing. As you are aware, we normally
auction off surplus property but, by copy of this letter, I will
ask that these pagers be put aside until the method of their
disposal has been decided.
A report regarding your request will be presented to the
Board of Supervisors at their meeting on August 19, and you will
be advised promptly of the action taken by the Board. If they
approve donation of the pagers, we will make them available to
you forthwith.
If you have any questions about this transaction, please do
not hesitate to call me..
Very truly yours,
John M. Chambliss, Jr.
Assistant County Administrator
meh
cc - Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator
Ms. M. Elaine Carver, Director; Procurement Department
Ms. Mary H. Allen, Clerk; Board of Supervisors
P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 • (540) 772-2002 • FAX (540) 772-2089
Recycled Paper
BOARD OF
DIRECTORS:
Roger Marcum, President
Ernie Warm, rice President
Chris Laing, Secretary
Sarah File, Treasurer
James Litchford, Operations Officer
Harold Chrimes, Training Officer
Parliamentarian
WauyReed
COMMITTEES:
By -Laws / S.O.P.
Bob W1ngffel4 Chairperson
Chris Laing
Jaynes Lilchford
Leoneaa Linchjord
Mike Moore
Roger Marcum
Fund Ralshie
Sarah File, Chairperson
Roger Marcam
Handbook
Lisa Dyq Chairperson
Judy Burleson
Theresa Denson
Roger Marcum
Histodcal
James Lhchford Chairperson
Michelle Fisherpoff
RogerMarcurn
Hua -A -Tree
Mike Moore, Chairperson
77u rera Denson
Ernie Ward
Bob Wingfield
Marketing / Public Relations
Don Johnson, Chairperson
Michelle Flsherpoff
Roger Marcum
Members] -di)
Lisa D^ Chairperson
Donna Johnson
Dick Rudolph
Roger Marcum
Nominating
Lisa Dye, Chairperson
Bob Wingfield
WauyReed
Training
Harold Chrimeg Chairperson
Bob Wingfield
Roger Marcum
Commonwealth Search and Rescue
P.O. Box 568 �—
Daleville, VA 24083-0568
July 29, 1997
County of Roanoke
Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, Jr.,
County Administrator
5204 Bernard Drive, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Mr. Hodge;
Commonwealth Search and Rescue is the Fortner Botetourt Mounted Search and Rescue, Inc. that
has been in existence since the late 1970's. When the unit was originally formed, it was done so
with the idea of providing mounted searchers to help the local Sheriff find lost persons in Botetourt
County only. Today, we are a diverse search and rescue group that provides horse teams, air scent
dog teams and numerous ground teams to any location in Virginia and the surrounding states.
We are all certified by the Department of Emergency Services in Richmond at many different levels
of search skills. Enclosed is an informational sheet that will explain our capabilities. I might add
that we are the ONLY multi -disciplined unit in the state of Virginia, and CSAR is based in
Roanoke. Our membership comes from as far away as Chesapeake, but the majority are from the
Roanoke Valley, Martinsville and New River Valley area. We are a member of the Virginia Search
and Rescue Council that meets quarterly in Richmond. We are also incorporated and have
501(c)(3) non-profit tax status. Our monthly training and business meetings are held the third
Wednesday of every month at the Hollins College Stable Lounge. - -
As a County employee (Solid Waste Coordinator), it is my understanding that there are several
County owned pagers that have had service provided by Metrocall and are being exchanged for
pagers from Bell Atlantic, as a cost saving measure for the County. These pagers will not work with
any service other than Metrocall and are therefore headed for surplus. Commonwealth Search and
Rescue is currently under contract with Metrocall to provide statewide paging service to dispatch
our members to the scene of a search anywhere in the State. It would benefit our organization
greatly if you would consider donating all of the surplused Metrocall pagers to our non-profit group.
Commonwealth Search and Rescue has assisted Roanoke County authorities with several incidents
within the County where persons were lost in the wilderness. It is our responsibility to respond
when needed, where needed, to any part of the state, and especially in our own back yard. If more
of our 35 members were afforded the opportunity to carry pagers, we could reduce our response
times and stay informed of a search progress by the codes that we have developed.
Thank you in advance for your consideration and please feel free to contact me, at 387-6072 should
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Roger L. Marcum, President
Commonwealth Search and Rescue
pc: William J. Rand, III, Director General Services
Enclosures (1)
Emergency Unit Pager 1-540-201-0514
VA D.E.S. Emergency Operations Center 1-800-468-8892
(.(Mbit) I.AL II
S1�1�1t CH �'� li IA 1#IJI:
Formerly: Botetourt Mounted Search and Rescue, Inc.
P.O. Box 568, Daleville, VA 24083-0568
CONTACT: D.E.S. - 1-800-468-8892 (Request the resources you need)
CSAR PAGER - 1-540-201-0514 (Dispatcher will contact you)
1-800-767-3393 Pin # 083 1 (Dispatcher will contact you)
PRESIDENT - 1-540-201-0899 (Roger L. Marcum - digital pager)
DESCRIPTION:
Commonwealth Search and Rescue (CSAR) is a state resource and member organization of the Virginia Search and Rescue
Council, an advisory group to the Department of Emergency Services (DES), Richmond. The organization is 501(c)(3) and
incorporated as a volunteer search and rescue group dedicated to providing assistance to lost or injured persons in the out-of-
doors. Members will respond to emergencies anywhere in the Commonwealth of Virginia where wilderness, mountainous
orurban areas require specialized techniques and equipment. Each member supplies and carries their own provisions and
gear. Depending on the location and time of alert, teams can be in route within two hours with horses or considerably less
without horses. CSAR's members are covered by Sections 2.1-526.8 and 44-146.23 of the Code of Virginia protecting
them from liability the same as a State employee, and also, Section 65.2-101 of the Code of Virginia affording them the
opportunity to be covered under the State's Worker's Compensation in the event of an injury while responding to, or
A
participating in, and authorized search.
CAPABILITIES:
BASE OF OPERATIONS: Upon request, CSAR can provide trained Incident Command Staff to establish
a base of operations and set up a strategy for the search. They operate from USGS Topographical maps and have
the necessary maps to cover the surrounding areas of the Roanoke Valley - up to a 50 -mile radius. It is stressed
that they are here to ASSIST you, and will only run the search at YOUR request!
COMMUNICATIONS: CSAR is licensed by the FCC to operate up to 30 units on frequencies 155.16000
and 155.20500 under the call sign WNRW534. They currently have a base station capable of transmitting up to
six miles, and posses several hand held portables for field use. Also, some of the members own their own mobile
radios and can setup relays when necessary. CSAR has the ability to interface communications with other local
agencies when needed.
NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT: CSAR is the bata test unit for ITT Night Vision and has 6 night
vision units that can be utilized at any search called upon. Use of the night vision units are restricted to night
vision trained CSAR members for liability reasons. However, CSAR team members will work with local
volunteers or trained searchers as necessary to insure the night vision units are used to their full potential.
GROUND SEARCHERS: Members of CSAR have been trained in SAR operations, land navigation,
orienteering, victim evacuation, technical (rope) rescue, wilderness survival, wilderness medical care, radio
protocol, CPR and basic first aid and many of the members are EMT's. Some members carry their search gear
with them at all times and can be in route immediately upon notification.
AIR SCENT SEARCH DOGS: CSAR has dogs that are in various stages of training and can respond
to local wilderness searches. The dogs do not require a scent article as they alert on any human scent. All
handlers have the same training and qualifications as the above listed Ground Searchers.
MOUNTED: CSAR's mounted teams are TRAINED searchers on horseback that will provide rapid mobility,
increased scope of operation, and an elevated vantage point. All horses have been tested and certified by state
standards to be "safe" and a qualified resource for search and rescue.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: CSAR works closely with D.E.S. and all other search groups in the state.
At your request, CSAR will contact additional trained resources from elsewhere in Virginia to provide the
assistance needed to locate the lost person as quickly as possible.
OUR SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE TO YOU FREE OF CHARGE!
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997
RESOLUTION 081997-10 CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS
HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements
by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this certification resolution
applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Certification Resolution and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Executive Session
A -081997-11.a
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. S-1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997
AGENDA ITEM: Petitions of Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc.
and Shenandoah Homes, Inc. for tax exempt status
pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the
Constitution of Virginia
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Petitions of Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. ("SHRV") and by
Shenandoah Homes, Inc. ("SH") are seeking tax exempt status in accordance
with the Constitution of Virginia.
The real estate owned by Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc.
consists of 17.5 acres located east of Airport Road north of the terminus
of Woodbury Street (Tax Map No. 38.14-1-5). The current assessed value
of this undeveloped real estate is $385,000 and the real estate taxes
are $4,350.50. Anticipated development of this property owned by "SHRV"
is estimated to increase the assessed value of the property -to
approximately $11,541,203; real estate taxes, should the exemption not
be granted, would approximate $130,415, depending on the actual assesed
value.
The real estate owned by Shenandoah Homes, Inc. consists of 5 acres
located at 5300 Hawthorne Road, N.W. (Tax Map No. 38.14-1-34). The
current assessed value of this real estate is $3,767,300; if this
proeprty were taxable, the real estate taxes would. be $42,570.
Shenandoah Homes, Inc. is not currently paying any real estate taxes on
this property.
"SHRV" and "SH" and the County have entered into a Memorandum of
Agreement whereby:
1. "SHRV" and "SH" agree that the portion of the property to be exempt
from taxation is their personal property and their buildings and as much
land as is reasonably necessary to the use of their buildings, provided
such personal and real property shall be used by "SHRV" and "SH"
1
exclusively for charitable and benevolent purposes on a non-profit basis.
The parties agree that all of the property of "SH" shall qualify for such
tax exempt purposes. "SHRV" and "SH", non-profit organizations, will
petition to the General Assembly for the Commonwealth of Virginia to be
designated a charitable and benevolent organization within the context
of Section 6(a)(6) of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia for such
agreed upon property.
2. In consideration of the County's adoption of a resolution in
accordance with the provisions of Section 30-19.04 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950 as amended, and the County's support of "SHRV"'s and
"SH's" petitions to the General Assembly designating a portion of the
property of "SHRV" and all of the property of "SH" exempt from local
taxation, "SHRV" and "SH" agree to pay to the County an annual service
charge in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the County's real
property tax levies, which would be applicable to the designated property
of "SHRV" and "SH" in the County of Roanoke, were "SHRV" or "SH" not
exempt from local taxation, for so long as "SHRV" or "SH" is exempted
from state and local taxation. In the event approval of this legislation
is not received from the General Assembly, "SHRV" and "SH" may, at their
option, void this agreement, and in such event the parties will revert
to their status immediately prior to this Agreement. It is expressly
understood that once the tax exemption is accorded "SHRV" and "SH" under
the terms of this Agreement, "SHRV" or "SH" shall not have any right or
remedy available to it at law or in equity to treat this Agreement or any
part thereof as a nullity, unconstitutional or otherwise contest by any
means the validity hereof. This agreement to pay is subject to the
following:
A. "SHRV" shall pay real estate taxes and any other applicable
local taxes on that portion of the Project designated on the 6/9/97
conceptual site plan (Exhibit 1) as Independent Living (9.75 acres),
and that portion of the Project identified as Congregate Care
Facilities (1.75 acres).
B. "SHRV" will accept assessment for payment and pay when due,
without contest, a service charge to be assessed in an amount equal
to twenty percent (20%) of the County's real property tax levies on
that portion of the Project designated as Assisted Living and the
"Galleria" (6 Acres), except any retail areas in the Galleria,
which retail area shall be taxed at 100% of the value of the prorata
share of space utilized by the retail business, as to the total
square footage of the Galleria, as shown on Exhibit 1, which would
have been assessed against it if said property were not to be
designated exempt from taxation.
2
S_)
BACKGROUND:
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
governing body, before action by the General Assembly.
"SHRV" and "SH" have submitted petitions to the County for tax exempt
status, which are attached.
This matter was considered by the Board on July 8, 1997, during the
rezoning request of "SHRV."
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The applicable provisions of the Constitution are as follows:
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 Board shall conduct a public hearing on these requests before
adopting resolutions supporting or refusing to support such exemptions.
Before adopting any such resolution the Board shall consider the
following questions:
1. Whether the organization is exempt from taxation pursuant to Section
501 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954;
2. Whether a current annual alcoholic beverage license for serving
alcoholic beverages has been issued by the Virginia Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board to such organization, for use on such
property;
3. _ Whether any director or officer of the organization is paid
compensation in excess of a reasonable allowance for salaries or
3
S-'-1
other compensation for personal services which such director or
officer actually renders;
4. Whether any part of the net earnings of such organization inures to
the benefit of any individual, and whether any significant portion
of the service provided by such organization is generated by funds
received from donations, contributions or local, state or federal
grants. As used in this subsection, donations shall include the
providing of personal services or the contribution of in kind or
other material services;
5. Whether the organization provides services for the common good of
the public;
6. Whether a substantial part of the activities of the organization
involves carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to
influence legislation and whether the organization participates in,
or intervenes in, any political campaign on behalf of any candidate
for public office;
7. No rule, regulation, policy, or practice of the organization
discriminates on the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex
or national origin;
8. The revenue impact to the locality and its taxpayers of exempting
the property; and
9. Any other criteria, facts and circumstances which the governing body
deems pertinent to the adoption of such resolution.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
If all of the real estate of "SHRV" and "SH" were taxable, then local
real estate taxes would be approximately $172,985. It is estimated that
the 20% service fee will generate approximately $13,705 for the "SHRV"
property and $8,514 for the "SH" property. It is also estimated that the
taxable portion of "SHRV" will generate approximately $61,885 plus any
real estate taxes generated in the retail area of the Galleria.
ALTERNATIVES:
After the public hearing the Board may decide to support these exemptions
by the approval of the attached resolutions; or it may decide to refuse
to support these exemptions.
4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the
attached Resolutions.
It is also recommended that the Board approve the Memorandum of Agreement
and authorize the County Administrator to execute same on behalf of the
County.
Approved
Denied
Received
Referred
To
cc: File
espectfully submitted,
GtJ.d
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
-------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
(x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson No Yes Absent
( ) motion to approve memorandum Eddy X.
( ) of understanding Harrison _x
( ) Johnson x
( ) Minnix X_
Nickens _X
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
The Honorable R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
The Honorable Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Ed Natt, Attorney for Shenandoah Homes, Inc. And
Retirement Village, Inc.
5
Shenandoah
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997
RESOLUTION 081997-11.1b TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
SUPPORTING TAX EXEMPTION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY
SHENANDOAH HOMES RETIREMENT VILLAGE, INC.
WHEREAS, Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. has petitioned this Board
for support of a bill to be introduced at the 1998 Session of the Virginia General Assembly
to exempt certain property of Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc. 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 Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village, Inc.'s request was held by the
Board on August 19, 1997; 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
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follow:
1. The County supports the petition of Shenandoah Homes Retirement Village,
Inc. seeking exemption from State and local taxation. 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.
2. The current assessed value of the property owned by Shenandoah Homes
Retirement Village, Inc. is $385,000; the property tax is $4,350.50. The Tax Parcel No.
is 38.14-1-5. Anticipated development of the property owned by Shenandoah Homes
Retirement Village, Inc. is estimated to increase the assessed value of the property to
$11,541.203. Real estate taxes, should the exemption not be granted, would total
$130,415.00.
3. The property to be designated as exempt from local real estate property
taxation is that portion of the real estate designated as "Assisted Living" and the "Galleria"
(except that portion of the Galleria utilized for retail commercial purposes) as shown on a
conceptual site plan dated 6/9/97, which is incorporated herein and attached hereto as
Exhibit 1. The "Independent Living" and "Congregate Care Facilities" shall not be exempt
from taxation.
4. 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 and to the Institute.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
The Honorable R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
The Honorable Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Ed Natt, Attorney for Shenandoah Homes Retirement, Inc.
2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997
RESOLUTION 081997-11.c TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
SUPPORTING TAX EXEMPTION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY
SHENANDOAH HOMES, INC.
WHEREAS, Shenandoah Homes, Inc. has petitioned this Board for support of a bill
to be introduced at the 1998 Session of the Virginia General Assembly to exempt certain
property of Shenandoah Homes, Inc. 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 Shenandoah Homes, Inc.'s request was held by the Board on August 19,
1997; 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
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follow:
1. The County supports the petition of Shenandoah Homes, Inc. seeking
exemption from State and local taxation. 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.
2. The assessed value of the property owned by Shenandoah Homes, Inc. is
$3,767,300; if this property were taxable, the property tax would be $42,570. The Tax
Parcel No. is 38.14-1-34.
3. 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 and to the Institute.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
The Honorable R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
The Honorable Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Ed Natt, Attorney for Shenandoah Homes, Inc.
2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997
ORDINANCE 081997-12 TO AMEND CONDITIONS ON A PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ORIGINALLY CONSISTING OF 38.22
ACRES LOCATED AT MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD AND WOLF RUN
(ORIGINALLY TAX MAP NO. 50.04-3-73 NOW COMPRISED OF TAX MAP
NOS. 50.04-4-1 THROUGH 50.04-4-37, INCLUSIVE, 50.04-3-73, AND
50.04-3-73.1) IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT UPON THE
APPLICATION OF WOLF CREEK, INC.
WHEREAS, by Ordinance 102495-10 the zoning classification of a 38.22 -acre tract
of real estate located at Mountain View Road and Laurel Glen Lane, north of the Blue
Ridge Parkway (Tax Map No. 50.04-3-73) was changed to PRD, Planned Residential
Development District; and
WHEREAS, the owner voluntarily proffered in writing, and the Board accepted,
conditions which were made a part of the rezoning ordinance and were set out in detail in
"A Rezoning Application: Planning and Design Documents for Wolf Creek Planned
Community, County of Roanoke, Virginia, Roanoke County's First Planned Residential
Development (PRD), Wolf Creek, Inc., Owner & Developer, Hill Studio, P.C., Planner &
Landscape Architect, June 23, 1995, updated September 13, 1995, September 29, 1995,
and October 17, 1995."
WHEREAS, Wolf Creek, Inc. has now made application to amend these conditions,
said amendments being attached to this ordinance and entitled "Wolf Creek One -Year
Check -Up, Revised July 31, 1997"; and
WHEREAS, the owners of various lots in this PRD have joined in this application
to amend these conditions; and
1
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 22, 1997, and the
second reading and public hearing were held August 19, 1997; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on August 5, 1997; 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 attached amendments entitled "Wolf Creek One -Year Check -Up,
Revised July 31, 1997," to the Planned Residential Development known as Wolf Creek
located at Mountain View Road and Wolf Run, originally consisting of 38.22 acres (Tax
Map No. 50.04-3-73) now comprised of Tax Map Nos. 50.044-1 through 50.04-4-37,
inclusive, 50.04-3-73, and 50.04-3-73.1 in the Vinton Magisterial District, are voluntarily
proffered by the Owners, are hereby accepted by the Board of Supervisors, and are
hereby made a part of and incorporated into "A Rezoning Application: Planning and
Design Documents for Wolf Creek Planned Community, County of Roanoke, Virginia,
Roanoke County's First Planned Residential Development (PRD), Wolf Creek, Inc., Owner
& Developer, Hill Studio, P.C., Planner & Landscape Architect, June 23, 1995, updated
September 13, 1995, September 29, 1995, and October 17, 1995."
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Wolf Creek, Inc.
3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Tax Map Nos. 50.04-4-1 through 50.04-4-37, inclusive, 50.04-3-73, and 50.04-3-
73.1.
BEGINNING at comer #1, said point located on the northerly right-of-way of Virginia
Ea
Secondary Route #651, said point also being the southeasterly corner of Lot 1,
Section 7, Falling Creek Estates (PB 12, page 170); thence leaving Route #651 and
with Section 7, Falling Creek Estates, N. 14 deg. 41' 52" E. 1043.04 feet to corner
#2, said point located on the southerly boundary of Section 3, Falling Creek Estates
(PB 9, page 71); thence continuing with Section 3, Falling Creek Estates, N. 67
deg. 14' 20" E. 779.21 feet to corner #3, said point located on the westerly side of
Section 5, Falling Creek Estates (PB 9, page 146); thence continuing with Section
5, Falling Creek Estates, S. 16 deg. 54'06" E. 491.70 feet to corner #4; thence with
the new boundary lines of Lot 6 for the following three courses comprising the
southerly portion of Lot 6, Section 5, Failing Creek Estates, S. 89 deg. 15'46" W.
20.00 feet to corner #5; thence S. 16 deg. 42' 00" E. 224.60 feet to corner #6;
thence N. 73 deg. 05' 54" E. 20.00 feet to corner #7, said point located on the
original Lot 6 boundary line; thence continuing with the southerly boundary of Lot
6, S. 16 deg. 54'06" E. 312.03 feet to corner #8, said point being the northwesterly
comer of Cindy F. Ross property; thence leaving Lot 6 and with Ross S. 16 deg. 54'
06" E. 514.98 feet to corner #9, said point located on the northerly right-of-way of
Laurel Glen Lane, said point also being the southwesterly corner of property of
Cindy F. Ross (DB 1376, page 943); thence leaving Ross and with Laurel Glen
Lane for the following three courses, S. 66 deg. 28' 05" W. 203.72 feet to corner
#10; thence S. 47 deg. 43' 04" W. 29.58 feet to corner #11; thence S. 63 deg. 22'
10" W. 514.79 feet to corner #12, said point located at the intersection of Laurel
Glen Lane and Virginia Secondary Route 651; thence leaving Laurel Glen Lane and
with Virginia Secondary Route 651 for the following four courses: thence with a
curve to the left which said curve is defined by a delta angle of 13 deg. 05' 55", a
radius of 577.37 feet, a chord of 131.71 feet and bearing N. 75 deg. 18' 09" W. to
comer #13; thence with a curve to the right which said curve is defined by a delta
angle of 27 deg. 18' 49", a radius of 481.01 feet, a chord of 227.14 feet, and
bearing N. 68 deg. 11' 43" W. to corner #14; thence N. 47 deg. 52' 47" W. 362.91
feet to corner #15; thence N. 49 deg. 26' 32" W. 202.61 feet to corner #1, the place
of beginning and containing 38.22 acres.
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 Nickens to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
3
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
4
srr—r —o a
I A
5.16
V I C I N I T Y hi A Paq
51
WOLF CREEK, INC.
DEPAPMM= OF PL.AlqNIN-G 50.04-3-73
AND ZONING R-1 TO PRD
p TI
NORTH
REVISED - July 31, 1997
WOLF CREEK ONE-YEAR CHECK-UP
77-
1
This document is submitted to the Planning Commission and County Board as a one-year
adjustment to the PRD masterplan and guidelines for the Wolf Creek Community.
CHANGES TO SPECIFIC MASTERPLAN AND GUIDELINES WITH ONE YEAR
PERSPECTIVE
STATEMENT OR GUIDELINES TO CHANGE
The following pages of the Wolf Creek Planned Community Rezoning Application book are
amended, as through one year of review, they have proven difficult to understand, or
unworkable. The sentence (s) are shown below in their original form, and revised, with revised
words double underlined:
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
14,17,20 Master Plan Base Map
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
The masterplan will be revised to show changes to lots 8, 36 and 37. Lot 8 has a
retention pond and 36 and 37 have been redivided to have three attached deckhomes.
worked around the large oaks.
Note this update will also affect the subtotals on the chart, page 18. Please see
attached concept plan and elevation.
15 Modeled after Williamsburg dwellings, substantial houses (1650 to 2150 sf) of 1-1/2
to 2 stories are placed closely creating courtyards and motorcourts, with large blocks of
common open space adjacent.
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
Modeled after Williamsburg dwellings, substantial houses (1650 min. sf) of 1 to 2
stories aboverg ade are placed closely creating courtyards and motorcourts; with large
blocks of common open space adjacent.
COMMENTS
The sizes of houses will change over completion of the project. People are requesting
all single floor houses.
Note this also applies to the first drawing following page 54.
Wolf Creek Design Guidelines
One Year Check-up
Page 2
REVISED -July 31, 1997
l
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
16 All major park amenities are built by the Developer, during Phase I of the Proiect.The
lands will be conveyed for the meadow as adjacent construction is complete and
ourside edge details complete, at the conclusion of Phase IV.
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
All major park amenities are built by the Developer during the construction of each
related phase, and prior to conveying lands to the National Park Service. The lands will
be conveyed for the meadow as adjacent construction is complete and outside edge
details complete, at the conclusion of Phase IV.
COMMENTS
The final size and location of structures in the village and deck home neighborhoods
(Phases 3,4, and S) will effect the final alignment of park property boundaries, and
the location of trails and other park amenities. It makes sense not to construct these
items until their final location can be tied down.
Note this change also applies to page 21.
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
20 The map shows the words "shaded playground" under a revision calling our "Picnic
Grove.'
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
Picnic Grove is correct.
COMMENTS
This is a clarification.
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
20 In the legend: 1. A wildflower meadow in the front of the property, surrounded by a
low dry -lav stone wall adjacent to Mountain View Drive.
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
In the legend: 1. A wildflower meadow in the front of the property, is adjacent to
Mountain View Drive.
COMMENTS
The stone wall is not desired in the project.
wolf CreeK uesign umaellnes
,.One Year Check-up
Page 3
REVISED - July 31, I997
-sr
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
23 These guidelines are not meant to be all-inclusive and approval will be based on quality
of construction as well as materials used.
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
These guidelines are not meant to cover all site-specific adaptations nor should thev be
used as a substitute for common sense and in each case should be applied to better the
objective, described above. The Architectural Review Committee shall review design
solutions taking into consideration the overall quality ofthe _design, materials and colors
to be used.
COMMENTS
This is a clarification.
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
24 The 5' sidewalk, part of Meadow Trail, is setback from the trees on the north side.
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
Meadow Trail is setback from the curbs as topography allows.
COMMENTS
The previous guideline was too specific. The final size and location sidewalks and
trails should vary according to specific topography and site resources. For example,
the boulders found during road construction in this area allow for a trail varying 3'
to 6', which is a much better design than a standard 5' trail.
Note this change also applies to pages 19, 20, 25
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
25 The 5' walk, an extension of Meadow and Streamside trails, will be on one side of the
road in the sidewalk zone (see plan), a 14' wide alignment that can vary with utilities
and trees.
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
The variable -width 3' to 6' walk, an extension of Meadow and Streamside trails, will
be on one side of Wolf Run in the sidewalk zone (see plan), a 14' wide alignment that
can vary with utilities and trees.
COMMENTS
This is a clarification to better coordinate with the plan on page 20.
wou c;reeK liesign vwaennes REVISED - July 31, 1997
One Year Check-up
Page 4
7/
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
26 ... the 20' resin and pebble road is aligned with rusticated curbs.
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
the 20' brown pebble road is aligned with rusticated curbs.
COMMENTS
After searching nationally, there is not a reliable construction process of pebble and
resin. Specifications are now being finalized for an asphaltic pebble construction,
which will produce similar visual results.
Note the same change applies to pages 19, 31, 46, 27
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
28 The opposite side will have have bank garages...
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
The opposite side may have some bank garages...
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
30 The house plans and elevations have been supplied to the planning team by the
developer.
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
The house plans and elevations have been supplied to the planning team by the
developer. A company or subcontractor of the developer Plans to build all of the village
1
homes.
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
30,31 Materials and Architectural Considerations
Materials and architectural considerations proposed for the Village and Deckhomes are
listed below. Predominant first -phase materials are underlined.
1. Exterior walls materials:
1, board and battten wood siding, board on board wood siding or clapboard
wood siding,
2. tongue and groove or shiplap vertical wood siding,
3. wood shingles, featured colors for the wood materials is medium gray, dark gray,
grayish -brown, dark gray -brown, garyish-buff or soft mutted earth colors.
4. native stone with gray or dark mortar,
—LI c.accn LlG.l1SA1 vuaucuuw tCLVmzu - July J1, 1Vii
One Year Check-up
Page 5
5. synthetic or simulated composite building_ products that approximate the wood
patterns described above (vinyl or aluminum),
6. gray brick with gray mortar,
7. brick that is grayish -brown, gray, reddish -brown and other dark or grayish earth
colors. All of these will have buff or gray mortars.
2. Chimneys shall be brick or native stone with gray or dark mortar.
3. Roof materials:
1. wood shakes or shingles,
2. standing seam copper,
3. architectural grade fiberglass or asphalt shingles with texture. Colors include
medium to dark gray, charcoal, grayish -brown, grayish -buff or dark brown.
Other soft earth tone colors that are of medium to dark value are acceptble,
4. roof vents, chimney caps and plumbing vents will match the color of the roof, or
will be black, dark gray or bronze.
5. skylights will have black, bronze or gray trim,
6. dormers will be featured on some 1-1/2 story building and on 2 story houses if
there are 1 1/2 story wings.
Architectural Elements
Building Mass and Shape - the following guidelines apply:
1. gable roofs, _
2. hip roofs,
3. chimneys,
4. porches,
5. roof overhangs,
6. garage doors which open away from the front,
7. multiple plan roofs,
8. breaking the large mass of one gable roof into several gable roofs.
9. having the structure step up and down with the natural slope
Landscape Architectural Elements
Site appurtenance details - the following guidelines apply:
1. poles, posts, light stansions, gates and other site details will be black, gray,
grayish -brown or natural earth tones in color. White, galvanized metal, bright
colors and other visually intrusive materials will be avoided.
2. Utilities will be underground and heat pumps and other appurtenances screened.
2. Site details and landscaping - the following guidelines apply:
1. mot6rcourts and parking will be dark in color, with pebble and resin
2. utilize natural landforms and exisitng vegetation to screen building from
neighbors.
One'Year Check-up
Page 6 -
3. designed drainage ways to blend with natural landforms,
4. use plant materials native to the area. Avoid exotic plant materials.
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
Materials and Architectural Requirements
Materials and architectural requirements proposed for the Village and Deckhomes are
listed below. Predominant first -phase forms, materials and colors are underlined.
Exterior walls :
1. board and batten wood siding, board on board wood siding or clapboard
wood siding,
2. tongue and groove or shiplap vertical wood siding,
3. wood shingles, featured colors for the wood materials is medium gray, dark gray,
grayish -brown, dark gray -brown, grayish -buff or soft mutted earth colors, shown
in the palette below.
4. native stone with gray or dark mortar,
5. synthetic or simulated composite building_ products that approximate the wood
patterns described above (vinyl or aluminum),
6. gray brick with gray mortar,
7. brick that is grayish -brown, gray, reddish -brown and other dark or grayish earth
colors. All of these will have buff or gray mortars. .
8. Colors for the exterior walls will be from or Equal to the Williamsburg Palette of
Exterior Paint Colors by Martin Senour paints the Original Color Palette of
Cabot's OXT. solid color stains, or the Palette of Semi -transparent or semi- solid
stains, by CabotStains as edited and included as an appendix to this book No
more than 35% of the houses in each phase will be of one color
9. Trim will be the same ora compatible tertiary color to the exterior wall colors
chosen from the included color palettes
2. Where used, chimnevs shall be brick or native stone with gray or dark mortar.
3. Roofs:
1. wood shakes or shingles, with colors natural or as shown on the Palette of Semi-
transparent or semi- solid stains by CabotStains as edited and included as an
appendix to this book.
2. standing seam copper,
3. architectural grade fiberglass or asphalt shingles with texture. Colors include
medium to dark gray, charcoal, grayish -brown, grayish -buff or dark brown.
Other soft earth tone colors that are of medium to dark value are acceptable,
4. roof vents, chimney caps and plumbing vents will match the color of the roof, or
will be black, dark gray or bronze.
5. skylights will have black, bronze or gray trim,
6. dormers will be featured on some 1-1/2 story building and on 2 story houses if
there are 1 1/2 story wings.
( ;e Year Check-up
Page 7
Architectural EIements Recommendations
XI-CVlzr1u - July s1, 15VI
1. Building Mass and Shape - the following guidelines apply, (illustrated in the sketches
accompanying the single family home guidelines pages 39-44) Where applicable the
village homes and deckhomes will feature:
1. gable roofs, or hip roofs and breaking the large mass of one gable roof into
several gable roofs,
2. chimneys,
3. porches,
4. covered entries,
5. garage doors which open away from the front,
6. multiple plan roofs,
7. having the structure step up and down with the natural slope
Landscape Architectural Requirements
Site appurtenance details :
poles, posts, light stansions, gates and other site details will be black, gray,
grayish -brown or natural earth tone colors. White, galvanized metal, bright colors
and other visually intrusive materials will be avoided, and where required by
code, screened by vegetative buffers.
2. Utilities will be underground and heat pumps and other appurtenances screened.
2. Site details and landscaping _:
1. motorcourts and parking will be darker than gray #3 in color, with brown pebbles
as..a finish on the paving.
2. Utilize berm landforms and/or existing vegetation to partially screen deckhomes
and village homes from adiacent single-family neighbors -
3. designed drainage ways to blend with natural landforms,
4. use -Plant.. materials in compliance with the palette pages 51-53.
COMMENTS
A company or subcontractor of the developer plans to build all of the village homes
and deckhomes, so there will be more thorough control over the guidelines. Since
these areas are the most visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway, strictest compliance
will be necessary. The additional material written in the guidelines will provide clear
rules for compliance.
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
31 The following five pages illustrate the proposed homes for village and deckhome
neighborhoods...
wou t_;reex uesign vuiueunes KE-VISED - July 31, 1997
One Year Check-up
Page 8 71)
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
The following five pages illustrate the design guidelines applied to demonstrate the
quality of proposed homes for village and deckhome neighborhoods...
COMMENTS
The house facades will vary, depending on new products availahle for future phases.
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
37 Colonial precedent is required.
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
Colonial precedent is required in the form material and color of houses
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
37 These guidelines are not meant to be all-inclusive and approval of the Architectural
Committee will be based on the quality of construction as well as materials used.
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
These guidelines are divided into two categories Requirements illustrate the basic level
of minimum acceptability, and unacceptability. The Recommendations are -encouraged
to provide an overall sense of community. The list of recommend6d l;uidelines is not
meant to be all-inclusive. Approval of the Architectural Review Committee will be
based on the quality of construction, site specific problems and adaptations as well as
materials used.
COMMENTS
This is a clarification.
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
37,38 Materials and Architectural Considerations
1. Exterior walls - Acceptable materials:
1. board and battten wood siding, board on board wood siding or clapboard wood
siding,
2. tongue and groove or shiplap vertical wood siding,
3. wood shingles, Preferred colors for the wood materials is medium gray, dark
gray, grayish -brown, dark gray -brown, garyish-buff or soft mutted earth colors.
4. native stone with gray or dark mortar,
5. synthetic or sirriulated composite building products that approximate the wood
Wolf Creek Design Guidelines
One Year Check-up
Page 9
REVISED - July 31, 1997
T-1
patterns described above (vinyl or aluminum),
6. gray brick with gray mortar,
7. brick that is grayish -brown, gray, reddish -brown and other dark or grayish earth
colors. All of these will have buff or gray mortars.
8. stucco or synthetic stucco utilizing the above color schemes.
Unacceptable materials:
1. brick that is bright red, orangish-red, pink, light red, white or other colors which
would be visually out of character with traditional architecture,
2. siding that is white, whitish -gray, pink, bright silver, red, bright green, blue or
other colors that would draw attention or be otherwise visually out of character
with the surrounding properties,
3. white mortar
4. exposed concrete block, exposed concrete or parged cement foundations.
2. Chimneys shall be brick or native stone with gray or dark mortar.
3. Roof - acceptable materials:
1. wood shakes or shingles,
2. standing seam copper,
3. architectural grade fiberglass or asphalt shingles with texture. Preferred colors
include medium to dark gray, charcoal, grayish -brown, grayish -buff or dark
brown. Other soft earth tone colors that are of medium to dark value are
acceptble,
4. roof vents, chimney caps and plumbing vents should match the color fo the roof,
or should be black, dark gray or bronze.
S. skylights should have black, bronze or gray trim,
6. dormers will be allowed on 1-1/2 story building and on 2 story houses if there are
1-1/2 story wings.
Unacceptable materials:
1. shiny metal roofs, whether metal, aluminum or galvanized metal,
2. metal shingles or stamped metal decorative roofing panels,
3. flat roofs or primary roofs with a pitch of less than 8:12,
Architectural Elements:
1. Building Mass and Shape - the following guidelines are encouraged:
1. gable roofs,
2. hip roofs,
3. chimneys,
4. porches;
•• 1 \.144A L4J1 E',31 V LLtU4ll /14J
One Year Check-up
Page 10
111"V 1JGLJ - t1Ug UJl O, 1"/
70-
5.
roof overhangs,
6. garage doors which open away from the front,
7. multiple plan roofs,
8. breaking the large mass of one gable roof into several gable roofs of different
sizes.
9. having the structure step up and down with the natural slope rather than force
unnatural excavation or platforming of the lot,
2. Building details - the following guidelines are encouraged:
1. awnings should be medium to dark earth color. Avoid white, stripped patterns
and colors that attract attention,
2. greenhouses, storage buildings and fences should be oriented so that entrances do
not face the front or the neighbor's front.
3. all outbuildings, including attached garages should match the color, texture and
material of the main house.
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
Materials, Colors and Architectural Requirements
Exterior walls will be constructed out of the following list of acceptable materials:
1. board and batten wood siding, board on board wood siding or clapboard wood
siding,
2. tongue and groove or shiplap vertical wood siding,
3. wood shingles. Colors for the wood materials is described in the palette below,
4. native stone with gray or dark mortar,
5. synthetic or simulated composite building product' that approximate the wood
patterns described above (vinyl or aluminum),
6. dark earth -tone brick.
7. stucco or synthetic stucco utilizing the above color schemes.
8. Colors for the exterior walls shall be from or equal to the Williamsburg Palette of
Exterior Paint Colors by Martin Senour paints the Original Color Palette of
Cabot's O.V.T. solid color stains or the Palette of Semi -transparent or semi- solid
stains. by CabotStains as edited and included as an appendix to this book No
more than 35% of the houses will be of one color.
9. Trim shall be the same or a compatible tertiary color to the exterior wall colors
chosen from the included color palettes.
LO. gray brick with gray mortar
11. brick that is gravish-brown gray reddish -brown and other dark or grayish earth
colors. All of these should have buff or gray mortars
Unacceptable materials:
1. brick that is bright red, orangish-red, pink, light red, white or other colors which
would be visually out of character with traditional architecture,
2. siding that is reflective, pink, bright silver, bright red, bright green, bright
One Year Check-up
Page 11
2.
3.
4.
blue or other colors that would draw attention or be otherwise visually out of
character with the surrounding properties,
3. white brick and/or mortar
4. exposed concrete block, exposed concrete or parged cement foundations.
Exterior appurtenances - a minimum of 5% of the house square footage will be
required to be added in stoops, covered decks, patios, porches.
Chimneys, where used, shall be brick or native stone with gray or dark mortar.
Roofs:
1. wood shakes or shingles, with colors natural or similar to or as shown on the
Palette of Semi -transparent or semi- solid stains, by CabotStains, as edited and
included as an appendix to this book.
2. standing seam copper,
3. architectural grade fiberglass or asphalt shingles with texture. Preferred colors
include medium to dark gray, charcoal, grayish -brown, grayish -buff or dark
brown. Other soft earth tone colors that are of medium to dark value are
acceptable;
4. roof vents, chimney caps and plumbing vents should match the color of the roof,
or should be black, dark gray or bronze.
5. skylights should have black, bronze or gray trim,
Unacceptable roof materials and forms for all single family houses:
1. shiny metal roofs, whether metal, aluminum or galvanized metal,
2. metal shingles or stamped metal decorative roofing panels,
3. Flat roofs as the predominant component of the roof system.
Architectural Elements Recommendations:
Building Mass and Shape - the following guidelines are encouraged, illustrated on
pages 39-44:
1. gable roofs, or hip roofs, and breaking the large mass of one gable roof into
several gable roofs of different sizes.
2. dormers are encouraged on 1-1/2 story building and on 2 story houses if there are
1-1/2 story wings.
3. Roof slopes 6:12 or ffeater
4. chimneys,
5. porches,
6. covered entries,
7. garage doors which open away from the front,
8. multiple plan roofs,
9. having the structure step up and down with the natural slope rather than force
unnatural excavation or platforming of the lot.
wou c:reex vesign vwaeunes
One Year Check-up
Page 12
2. Building details:
1c-r-Y1JCv -July 31, IW/
T-
1. awnings should be medium to dark earth color. Avoid white, striped patterns and
colors that attract attention,
2. greenhouses, storage buildings and fences should be oriented so that entrances do
not face the front or the neighbor's front.
3. all outbuildings, including attached garages should match the color, texture and
material of the main house.
COMMENTS
The major concerns have been addressed by these changes. There is a clear list of
required and desired traits.
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
39 1. Building Mass and shape - the following_ guidelines are encouraged:
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
The following sketches on gages 39-44 are provided to illustrate the architectural design
recommendations enumerated on page 38.
1. Roofs:
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
40 A minimum of 5% of the house square footage will be required to be added in stoops,
covered decks, patios, porches.
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
(This requirement has been moved to the requirements section).
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
41' Roof overhangs are never used in proper Colonial dwellings.
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
;."a
Roof overhangs are never used in proper Colonial facades.
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
43 Platform fills of greater than 8' or remaining cut -sloped banks higher than 8' are not
permitted.
.rvu %'iccn ICLViJru - July S1, IVY/
One Year Check-up
Page 13
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
This statement is moved to the revised landscape architectural elements section of the
report.
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
44 14. Building details - the following are encouraged:
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
Delete this section. It is repetitive of the one on page 38.
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
44 -45 Landscape Architectural Elements
Site Structures
1. tennis courts should use dark green or dark tan colors.
2. tennis court fencing should be black vinyl -clad chain-link,
3. swimming pools should be hidden to the extent possible. Site plan orientation,
landscape plantings and board fencing should be used to visually screen the
swimming pool from neighbors. Also swimming pool equipment, pumps,
utilities and service areas should be screened.
4. poles, posts, light stansions, gates and other site details should be black, gray,
grayish -brown or natural earth tones in color. White, galvanized metal, bright
colors and other visually intrusive materials should be avoided.
5. Utilities will be underground and heat pumps and other appurtenances screened.
2. Setback and the Landscape Protection Zone
1. Houses will be setback 30' from the edge of right-of-way for public roads, 20'
from the sideyard, and 20' from the rear yard. No site or landscape structures may
be built in the back 20' of rearyard.
2. No tree with a girth of over 6" caliper shall be removed unless necessary for
construction of the primary residence. Virginia Pines may be excluded from this
rule. A tree survey is required to be reviewed by the Architectural Committee,
with all 6"cal. and over trees denoted.
3. No tree above 6" cal. will be removed in the front of the house between house and
roadway, except for a 12' swath for a driveway. This should be delineated on the
tree survey, mentioned .above. _
3. Site details and landscaping - the following guidelines are encouraged:
1. driveways should be dark in color,
2. utilize natural landforms and existing vegetation to screen building from
neighbors.
vvyii nex Lmcbign uuiuennes REVISED - July 31, 1997
4 One Year Check-up
Page 14
3. design drainage ways to blend with natural landforms,
4. use plant materials native to the area. Avoid exotic plant materials.
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
44 - 45 Landscape Architectural Requirements
1. Site grading, materials and amenities requirements
1. Platform fills of greater than 8' or remaining cut -sloped banks higher than 8' are
not permitted
2. Where used, tennis courts should use dark green or dark tan colors.
3. Tennis court fencing will be black vinyl -clad chain-link,
4. Utilities will be underground and heat pumps and other appurtenances screened.
5. poles, posts, light stansions, gates and other site details shall be black, gray,
grayish -brown or natural earth tones in color. White, galvanized metal, bright
colors and other visually intrusive materials should be avoided.
2. Setback and the Landscape Protection Zone
1. Houses will be set back 30' from the edge of right-of-way for public roads, 20'
from the sideyard, and 20' from the rear yard. No site or landscape structures may
be built in the back 20' of rearyard.
2. No tree with diameter over 6" caliper shall be removed unless necessary for
construction of the primary residence. Virginia Pines and other hazard trees may
be excluded from this rule. A tree survey with all 6"cal. and over trees denoted is
required to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee and the Roanoke
County planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Trees which are
so close to the house as to be compromised during construction or present a
possible danger after construction despite careful and prudent construction
activity, may be excluded from these requirements after review and approval of
the Architectural Review Committee and county planning staff.
3. For those lots situated in the woods, no tree above 6" cal. will be removed in the
front of the house between house and roadway, except for a swath the desired
width for driveway paving with as much as 3' allowed on each side beyond the
edge of pavement. This shall be delineated on the tree survey, mentioned above.
Landscape Architectural Recommendations
Site -grading, materials and amenities recommendations
swimming pools should be hidden to the extent possible.. Site plan orientation,
landscape plantings and board fencing should be used to visually screen the
swimming pool from neighbors. Also swimming pool equipment, pumps,
utilities and service areas should be screened.
2. Site details and landscaping - the following guidelines are encouraged:
Wolf Creek Design Uuidelines
One Year Check-up
Page 15
2.
3.
4.
5.
COMMENTS
REVISED - July 31, 1997
driveways should be darker than grey #3 in color,
utilize natural landforms and existing vegetation to screen building from
neighbors.
design drainage ways to blend with natural landforms,
use plant materials native to the area. Avoid exotic plant materials.
Colors for site appurtenances should be compatible with the architectural palettes.
Colors should be from or equal to the Williamsburg Palette of Exterior Paint
Colors by Martin Senour paints, the Original Color Palette of Cabot's OXT. solid
color stains, or the Palette of Semi -transparent or semi- solid stains by
CabotStains, as edited and included as an appendix to this book.
By arranging these into recommendations and requirements, there is a clearer set of
rules. Many of these points are clarifications, rather than revisions.
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
46 Each public pedestrian walkway shall be lined with planting beds.
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
Each public pedestrian walkway shall be punctuated with planting beds in areas that do
not already feature natural amenities.
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
47 ...pockets of 2' wide planting beds...
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
...pockets of varying -width planting beds...
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
47 Single Family Home Landscape Guidelines
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
Delete this section. It is too prohibitive and in the woods, it's not necessary.
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
48 Walls shall be constructed of field stone and mortar, or dry -laid.
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
Walls shall be constructed of jhck or field stone and mortar, or dry -laid.
wort f,:reex uesign uuiuennes REVISED - July 31, 1997
One Year Check-up
Page 16
PAGE PREVIOUS STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
51 Seventy-five percent of the plants chosen for the individual landscapes will come from
this list.
REVISED STATEMENT OR GUIDELINE
Seventy-five percent of the plants chosen for the individual landscapes will come from
a revised and expanded list, to be a part of the revised document
COMMENTS
The small plant list is too prohibitive, with the variety of plants available locally, and
conditions of the site.
SPELLING and GENERAL HOUSEKEEPING
The following spelling, syntax, and/or typographical errors are hereby proposed to be amended.:
PAGE ERROR
2 on the following page.
41 ameteurs
46 orcrds
accomodates
avreaging
responsibiity
47 landsape
responsibiity
CORRECTED
following page 14...
amateurs
orchards
accommodates
averaging
responsibility
landscape
responsibility
Following approval of the proposed amendments by the Board, updated pages will be supplied
to the County for the inclusion into individual Wolf Creek PRD Rezoning Application 3 ring
binder books.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997
DENIAL OF ORDINANCE 081997-13 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
TO CHRISTOPHER POLLOCK TO OPERATE A CAMP WITH DAY CARE
FACILITIES AND A PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR GATHERINGS LOCATED
ON YELLOW MOUNTAIN ROAD ONE-HALF MILE OFF OF ROUTE 220
SOUTH (TAX MAP NO. 99.00-2-6.2), CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DIS-
TRICT
WHEREAS, Christopher Pollock has filed a petition to operate a camp with day
care facilities and a permit for outdoor gatherings Located on Yellow Mountain Road one-
half mile off of Route 220 South (Tax Map No. 99.00-2-6.2) in the Cave Spring Magisterial
District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
August 5, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on July 22, 1997; the second reading and public hearing on this
matter was held on August 19, 1997.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to deny granting the special use permits, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTS:
Clerk to thH. e Board of Supervisors
GMG
cc: File
Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997
ORDINANCE 081997-14 TO CHANGE THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF A 14.69 -ACRE TRACT OF REAL
ESTATE AND TO GRANT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT MINI WAREHOUSES LOCATED IN THE 5000
BLOCK OF BENOIS ROAD WEST OF THE RAILWAY
TRACKS (TAX MAP NO. 87.10-2-4) IN THE CAVE SPRING
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF 1-2 TO THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF 1-1 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE
APPLICATION OF RON KNUPPEL
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 22, 1997, and the
second reading and public hearing were held August 19, 1997; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on August 5, 1997; 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 14.69
acres, as described herein, and located in the 5000 block of Benois Road west of the
railway tracks (Tax Map Number 87.10-2-4) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is
hereby changed from the zoning classification of 1-2, Industrial District, to the zoning
classification of 1-1, Industrial District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Ron Knuppel.
3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the
following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby
accepts:
(1) Vegetation shall be maintained on any cut slopes.
(2) The buildings shall be of neutral, earth tone colors.
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
BEGINNING at an iron pin corner on the westerly side of Va. State Route 633
(formerly Route 753) which is the southeasterly corner of a two -acre parcel
designated as Parcel II in the deed from Robert S. Brown and Mary M. Brown to Old
Dominion Homes, Inc., dated June 5, 1969, and of record in Deed Book 877 at
page 226 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County; thence
with the line of the Beasley & Place .80 acre parcel for a distance of 278.00' N. 350
04' 13" W. a total distance of 746.48' to an iron pin corner; thence S. 620 55' 47" W.
715.21' to an old pipe corner; thence S. 280 23' 44" W. 475.10' to a pipe corner;
thence S. 660 05' 20" E. 582.52' to an iron pin corner; thence N. 450 06' 40"
E.636.18' to an iron pin corner which is the northeasterly corner of the PAL Finance
Co. property (Deed Book 732, page 429); thence with the line of the PAL Finance
Co. property aforesaid, S. 350 15'E. 238.18' to a point; thence S. 450 10' 20" W. 40'
to a point; thsnce S. 350 15' E. 41.75' to a point on the westerly side of Va. State
Route 633; thence with the said westerly line of Va. State Route 633, N. 450 10' 20"
E. 208.20' to a point of curve; thence continuing with the westerly side of Va. State
Route 633 with a curve to the left the radius of which is 875.40' and the delta angle
of which is 20 39' for an arc distance of 40.52' to the place of Beginning; and,
LESS AND EXCEPTING that certain parcel of land conveyed to the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County by deed dated November 17, 1978, which is more
particularly described as follows:
Starting at a point on the southerly side of a 20 -foot wide easement to Meadowlark
Road which is the southeasterly corner of the property now or formerly owned by
Gramco, Inc.; thence with the southerly side of said 20 -foot wide easement N. 620
24' E. 192 feet to a point which is the southwesterly corner of an existing well lot,
property of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, the Actual Place of
Beginning; thence with the well lot N. 590 35' 10" E. 100 feet to a point; thence with
three new lines through the property of Old Dominion Homes, Inc., S. 590 35' 10"
W. 100' to a point; and N. 301 24' 50" W. 100 feet to the Place of Beginning, and
containing 0.23 acre, and being known as the reservoir lot as shown on plat made
by Buford T. Lumsden & Associates, P.C. dated 10 November 1978; and
5. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Ron
2
Knuppel to construct mini -warehouses located in the 5000 block of Benois Road west of
the railway tracks (Tax Map No. 87.10-2-4) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District is
substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the
provisions of Section 15.1456 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special
Use Permit is hereby approved.
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 Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
3
2.Pl4
' = DEPAP.2ME�1'!' OF PLANNING ROV KNUPPEL
I-2 TO I -I
AND ZONING 87.10-2-4•
Ci
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997
ORDINANCE 081997-15 THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
A 35.69 -ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED
BETWEEN MERRIMAN ROAD AND THE INTERSECTION OF
STARKEY ROAD AND BUCK MOUNTAIN ROAD (TAX MAP
NO. 97.01-1-5) IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-3
AND I-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-1, WITH
CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF JOE R.
BLACKSTOCK
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 1997, and the
second reading and public hearing were held June 24, 1997, and, August 19, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on June 3, 1997, and August 5, 1997; 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 35.69
acres, as described herein, and located between Merriman Road and intersection of
Starkey Road and Buck Mountain Road, (Tax Map Number 97.01-1-5) in the Cave Spring
Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-3, Medium
Density Multi -Family Residential District, and 1-1, Industrial District, to the zoning
classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Joe R. Blackstock.
3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the
following conditins which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts:
(1) The subdivision shall have no more than 29 lots.
(2) All lots shall be served by public water and sewer.
(3) All lots shall have frontage on a state maintained road.
(4) Only one street connection shall be made to Starkey Road. Driveway
connections to Starkey road shall be prohibited.
(5) A 20 foot pedestrian easement shall be created adjacent to Starkey
Road. A six foot wide mulched walkway shall be constructed in the
easement.
(6) Type "D" screening, as described in the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance shall be provided along the western boundary Line where
existing 1-1 zoning is rezoned to R-1 zoning.
(7) Grading of the site shall generally conform and be limited to that
portrayed on the Preliminary Layout for "Summerplace", prepared by
Lumsden Associates and dated June 16th, 1997.
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
BEGINNING at Comer #1, said Corner #1 being the corner common to said 35.69
acres, property of Rodney W. McNeil and Norma M. McNeil as recorded in DB
1263, page 1311 and the southerly right-of-way line of Starkey Road (Virginia
Secondary Route 904); thence along the line common to said 35.69 acres and said
Starkey Road the following courses and distances: N. 60130' 52" E. 233.44 feet
to Corner #2; thence N. 700 40' 26" E. 191.71 feet to Corner #3; thence N. 750 05'
04" E. 99.40 feet to Corner #4; thence N. 780 00'29" E. 350.00 feet to Corner #5;
thence N. 80139'47" E. 25.02 feet to Corner #6; said Corner #6 being the corner
common to said 35.69 acres, property of Eugene B. Knighton, recorded in DB 1328,
page 731 and the southerly right-of-way line of said Starkey Road; thence along the
line common to said 35.69 acres and property of Eugene B. Knighton the following
courses and distances, 236.21 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, whose
radius is 212.50 feet, central angle is 630 41' 15", whose tangent is 131.98 feet and
chord bearing and distance is S. 200 09' 51" W. 224.23 feet to Corner #7; thence
S. 520 00' 29" W. 20.54 feet to Corner #8; thence N. 780 00' 29" E. 108.18 feet to
Corner #9; thence N. 800 39' 47" E. 211.54 feet to Corner #10; thence N. 710 58'
27" E. 160.07 feet to Comer #11; thence N. 750 30'29" E. 67.70 feet to Corner #12;
said corner #12 being the corner common to said 35.69 acres, said property of
2
Eugene B. Knighton and property of G.H. Board as recorded in DB 1038, page 240;
thence along the line common to said 35.69 acres, said property of G.H. Board and
Graceland Subdivision as recorded in PB 9, page 350, the following course and
distance, S. 030 25'40" E. 1203.54 feet to Corner #13, said Corner #13 being the
corner common to said 35.69 acres, said Graceland Subdivision and property of
T.R. Hackley and recorded in DB 291, page 214; thence along the line common to
said 35.69 acres and property of T.R.Hackley, the following courses and distances,
N. 880 03' 12" W. 100.50 feet to Corner #14; thence N. 68146' W. 264.00 feet to
Comer #15; thence S. 850 28' 11" W. 237.60 feet to Corner #16; thence N. 720 01'
49" W. 330.00 feet to Corner #17, said Corner #17 being the corner common to
said 35.69 acres, said property of T.R.Hackley and property of the County of
Roanoke, as recorded in DB 1288, page 1003; thence along the line common to
said 35.69 acres and said property of County of Roanoke the following courses and
distances: N. 480 46'49" W. 150.00 feet to Corner #18; thence S. 410 13' 11" W.
150.00 feet to Comer #19; thence S. 480 46'49" E. 150.00 feet to Corner #20, said
Corner #20 being the corner common to said 35.69 acres, said property of County
of Roanoke and said T.R.Hackley; thence along the line common to said 35.69
acres and said property of T.R.Hackley the following courses and distances: S.410
13' 11" W. 180.00 feet to Corner #21; thence S. 690 58' 11" W. 313.50 feet to
Corner #22; thence S. 800 58' 11" W. 211.20 feet to Corner #23; thence N. 120 13'
11" E. 211.20 feet to Corner #24, said Comer #24 being the corner common to said
35.69 acres, said property of T.R.Hackley and said property of Rodney W. McNeil
and Norma M. McNeil; thence along the line common to said 35.69 acres and said
McNeil property the following courses and distances: N. 810 58' 11" E. 52.14 feet
to Corner #25; thence N. 151 04' 13" E. 845.49 feet to Corner #26; thence N. 270
55' 30" W. 158.62 feet to Corner #27; thence N. 170 29' 56" E. 59.78 feet to Corner
#1, the point of Beginning, containing a computed acreage of 35.69 acres.
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 Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
K
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
4
.r q
.........
I
............
JOE R. BLACKSTOCK
DEPART,.VT OF PI ANWING 97.01-1-5
AM ZONTNG R-3 & I-1 to R-1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997
ORDINANCE 081997-16 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO JUNIOR
L. CONNER TO REPLACE AN EXISTING CHURCH AT 7424 COVE HOLLOW
ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 82.00-1-7), CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Junior L. Conner has filed a petition to replace an existing church located
at 7424 Cove Hollow Road (Tax Map No. 82.00-1-7) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August
5, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading
on this matter on July 22, 1997; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was
held on August 19, 1997.
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 Junior L.
Conner to replace an existing church located at 7424 Cove Hollow Road (Tax Map No.
82.00-1-7) in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985
Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.1-456 of the 1950 Code of Virginia,
as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final
passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to
amend the zoning district map to reflect -the change in zoning classification authorized by this
ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
31.33 Ac' -1" v
\� 122A0A U
I ��•• 37.1
-------------------
DEPARM-M T OF PLANNING JUNIOR;L, CONNER
-AM ZONING SPECIAL USE PERMIT
82.00-1'-.7
NORTH
/P/0 72.00-1-1
1" = 400'
\� 122A0A U
I ��•• 37.1
-------------------
DEPARM-M T OF PLANNING JUNIOR;L, CONNER
-AM ZONING SPECIAL USE PERMIT
82.00-1'-.7