Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1/24/2012 - Regular
z ►o ME Fir ppa Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda January 24, 2012 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for January 24, 2012. Regular meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3, and will be rebroadcast on Thursday at 7:00 p.m. and on Saturday at 4:00 p.m. Our meetings are now closed- captioned, so it is important for everyone to speak directly into the microphones at the podium. Individuals who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772 -2005 at least 48 hours in advance. Please turn all cell phones off or place on silent. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 p.m.) 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation: Pastor Diane Hoffman Church Victorious 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to Gladys M. Walters, Library Services, upon her retirement after forty -four (44) years of service D. BRIEFINGS 1. Annual update on services delivered by Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare (Tim Steller, Executive Director of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare) Page 1 of 4 2. Annual report from the Roanoke Regional Partnership (Beth Doughty, Executive Director) E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for appropriation of funds for assessment for Appalachian Power Company (APCo) negotiations (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) 2. Discussion of the moratorium on approval of new street lights (B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator) F. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending Section 23 -3.4. "Stormwater management facility maintenance agreements" of Chapter 23. "Stormwater Management" of the Roanoke County Code (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) G. APPOINTMENTS 1. Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals (Fire Code Board of Appeals)(appointed at large) 2. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (appointed by District) 3. Clean Valley Council 4. Roanoke County Community Leaders Environmental Action Roundtable (RCCLEAR) H. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY 1. Confirmation of appointment to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals (Fire Code Board of Appeals); Ninth District Development Financing, Inc.; Roanoke County Community Leaders Environmental Action Roundtable (RCCLEAR); Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 2 of 4 2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to Jane D. Olsen, Library Assistant, upon her retirement after more than twenty -one (21) years of service I. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS J. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS K. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS L. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency 4. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy as of December 31, 2011 5. Report of Claims Activity for the Self- Insurance Program 6. Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of December 31, 2011 7. Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances as of December 31, 2011 8. Accounts Paid — December 2011 9. Quarterly Report — Community Development Activities M. WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to discuss fiscal year 2012 -2013 budget development (B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) Page 3 of 4 EVENING SESSION — 7:00 P.M. N. NEW BUSINESS 1. Discussion of membership in ICLEI —Local Governments for Sustainability (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) O. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 1. Public hearing and resolution to amend the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan to include the Glenvar Community Plan (Amanda Micklow, Planner II) P. CITIZENS COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Q. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. Charlotte A. Moore 2. Michael W. Altizer 3. Joseph B. "Butch" Church 4. Eddie "Ed" Elswick 5. Richard C. Flora R. ADJOURNMENT TO WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2012 AT 6:00 P.M. FOR A JOINT MEETING WITH THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, FOURTH FLOOR TRAINING ROOM, 5204 BERNARD DRIVE, ROANOKE, VA Page 4 of 4 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C -1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: January 24, 2012 Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to Gladys M. Walters, Library Services, upon her retirement after forty -four (44) years of service Deborah C. Jacks Clerk to the Board B. Clayton Goodman III County Administrator gfJ� COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY of INFORMATION: Gladys M. Walters, Library Services, retired on December 31, 2011, after forty -four (44) years and two (2) months of service. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution. Page 1 of 1 AT REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2612 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO GLADYS M. WALTERS, LIBRARY SERVICES, UPON HER RE'T'IREMENT AFTER FORTY -FOUR (44) YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Gladys M. "Totsie" Walters was First employed by Roanoke County on October 36, 1967 by Library Services; and WHEREAS, Ms. Walters retired from Roanoke county on December 31, 2011 as Bent Mountain Branch Librarian, after forty -four (44) years and two (2) months of service; and WHEREAS, Ms. Walters offered friendship and assistance to everyone who visited the library, transforming it into a welcoming community center and a true educational resource for the people of Bent Mountain; and WHEREAS, she opened the world of reading to generations of children who came to the library for storytimes and after school; and WHEREAS, during her tenure, Ms. Walters oversaw many changes in the Bent Mountain Branch Library, including the construction of a new library in 1986 and a later addition in 2665; the expansion of library operational hours; the introduction of new formats and services, such as DVDs, computers with Internet access and e- books; and WHEREAS, Ms. Walters, through all the changes, exemplified the highest standards of calm, courteous, reliable and positive public service; and WHEREAS, Ms. Walters, through her employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Page 1 of 2 Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to GLADYS M. WALTERS for forty -four (44) years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its Kest wishes for a happy and productive retirement. Page 2 of 2 ACTION No. ITEM No. D -1 AT A REGULAR MEETING of THE BOARD of SUPERVISORS of ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE,COL.INTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 AGENDA ITEM: Annual update on services delivered by Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare SUBMITTED BY: Deborah C. Jacks Clerk to the Board of Supervisors APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman III County Administrator 'J.D'V COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY of INFORMAwnON: Tiny Steller, Executive Director of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, has asked for time on the agenda to provide an overview of services provided to Roanoke County residents. Page 1 of 1 Blue Rid Behavioral Healthcare Directl Funded Pro - FY 2011 Performance Contract Roanoke Count Unduplicated Client Count Number of Units of Total Costs of (bv Service) Units Service Services Mental Health Services Acute Psych IP 22 87 BD 67,682 Outpatient Services 690 8,334 SH 1,083,518 Case Management Services 580 13,763 SH 1,146,816 Assertive Community Treatment 18 1)769 SH 221,973 Day Treatment/ Partial Hospitalization 117 42,166 DSH 1,075,607 Ambulatory Crisis Stabilization 0 01 DSH 0 Rehabilitation 35 12,295 DSH 198,174 Highl Intensive Residential 0 0 BD 0 Residential Crisis Stabilization 61 382 BD 195,497 Intensive Residential Services 0 0 BD . 0 Supervised Residential 2 162 BD 12,234 Supportive Residential Services 29 2,721 SH 308,777 MH Subtotal 1,554 81,679 $4,3109278 Developmental Services Case Management Services 223 9,669 SH 642,727 Rehabilitation 39 3,172 DSH 29,701 Sheltered Employment 2 182 DoS 6,516 Individual Supported Employment 2 47 SH 1,749 Intensive Residential Services 12' 4,176 BD 907,069 Supervised Residential Services 2 730 BD 123,044 Supportive Residential 3 330 SH 13,145. MR Subtotal 283 18 306 $197239951 Substance Abuse Services Outpatient Services Case Management Services Day Treatment Services Residential Crisis Stabilization Intensive Residential 166 11 17 59 51 2$066 593 1;237 256 4,032 SH SH DSH BD BD 234,089 116,385 47,322 128,503 80,933 SA Subtotal 304 8,184 $607 ..Services Outside of Pro Area Emergency Services Consumer Monitoring Services Assessment and Evaluation Services Early Intervention Services 361 2 429 80 3,920 95 1,101 359 SH SH SH SH 357,663 4)274 96,586 32,634 SA Subtotal 872 5,475 $491,157 Services , Prevention MH Prevention Services SA Prevention - 736 328 PH PH 69,956 27,470 Prevention Subtotal 1 Z 064 0% _ $97,426 Grand Total 3,013 114,708 $7$230,044 FY 2011 Local Tax Share $162,000. .Service value per local dollar $44.63 Units of Service: SH=Service Hour, DSH =Da Support Hour, DoS=Da of Service, BD=Bed Da PH= Prevention Hour ACTION NO. ITEM NO. D -2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 AGENDA ITEM: Annual report from the Roanoke Regional Partnership (Beth Doughty, Executive Director) SUBMIT "QED BY: Deborah C. Jacks Clerk to the Board of Supervisors APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman III County Administrator - COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: "rhis time has been set aside for Beth Doughty, Executive Director of the Roanoke Regional Partnership, to provide the partnership's annual report to the Board. Page 1 of 1 cil Irac O N Ron CD CD CD CID CD CD ca z 0 OQ M LLI O X 70 tn LLJ LLI be Z 0 IN= z 0 4 I= am Atli, � 0 0 o CY) ( (.C) LO LO qqt � N c y ) - � N (3) C:) c u � UD 00- C) C:) � � N UO) CY) CY) C/) C/) U) U) 0 m cn U) C/) (D (D U) N to U •� U Q a � C/) 0 c3 m 0 0 0 LU 0 > 0 � N M N �� O M O M � N � �� � L LO M I� mi CL O X 3 tn UJ LLI � Z 0 1�= zix 0 I= 2V cn cn L. :3 a) O 0 — N a) C: CU . ° -0 - :3 O � 4-1 o cn C: a) }, o U cn C: •— .U) le c� m a) — C: 0 E 0 J a) ' a) M C: a) 0 O E 0 O cn 4-0 C: C: a) —_ � to :3 cu I :3 C/) U) < < J E O � E . _ co a) O oo :3 U . _ O cn :3 4-1 � cn cn — o U — � : o U. a) c� c� O o z — c O :3 j .� •O -4--1 M .O -4--1 O LL O O O m O m C m � O O -�- ® O � O U - �--� to - 0 4.5 O C U) W� O� m O O O > c U E LL O O D U mi CL O X 3 tn UJ LLI � Z 0 1�= zix 0 I= 2V L aw Mft 9pm TM cm W a FM 61% 0 W O Cl) w J Z O � W m Q Ow V Z O Q N Z Q C7 O 2 LO N 60 11 m 0 2 2 1 0 o Q� � 47 O O H LO Z Z Z 61% O pp r LO J F Q Z a U Cl) 2 W H W W H W J m 6 . LO LO O O � CV r N (M M N M � LO U) Z W D W W J Q DC Q J Z U W H U LL a O C� 2 J Q W 2 D W H Z a a Z Z w a w U) TOM W DC H Z W � � Q � ~ H O Z OG w 0 W O � W W Z � = o LL 0 � Fm Q O � c/� W � Ix W W Z Y O F- Q� ° tea 1 w Z F a a z U � U o� F x W w « H LU Q a Lr) � F � H d' Q a a O� D U LL >= H a` x ? c7 c� a _ w W CID Y w >= 25 w > a LL a a Z Z w a w U) TOM W DC H Z W � � Q � ~ H O Z OG w 0 W O � W W Z � = o fA 0 Mft wFidil I I -A C'l �j 0 70 LLJ LLI be Z 0 IN= z 0 CL I= Prid& fA w N Lr) r-I rN Lr) N C 4w E 4h c a) 4w 0 Z (UI + J, a , ox � z (:) X ZB (n Laix I= LLJ OIMM z Iwo= X OH oNw FM U)� 0 O X 70 kn LLI W LLJ 0 z 0 NMI w 0 fA 0 O z W V) 0 CL Z 0� Qz L L I � Ix LF) ININI z > L OAN, Mo l�l Mae LAJ MOONS E ►� R� '� Q a� E� NZ F� CS �e D w 7 v t I 904 z W4 0 0 CQ rA 0 fk �N LL 9 H LLJ 1093 0 CL LL R CL 0 LL, 'o 0� LL u LIJ V) I� w P> CD ■ 0 � L m a) � NP c 0 DI m C*4 l qq E 0 lai z kD w Ix LU LLI � Z z C) I= 0 70 LLJ LLI be Z 0 IN= z 0 I= ,Nwm W CD 0 70 LLJ LLI be Z 0 IN= z 0 I= ,Nwm NMI W Qi O X LAJ IX w LLJ PEA '� C) I= O N O O FA m N O O O t� 00 1` N M N 1` N N 1` O M N ti L 00 to N r 1` 1` qq 00 �? r O LO N O M w CD CD N O 00 00 N 00 N w M 1` cc O 1` N O O O CD LO � � O p t� w � � N O O co t� N M 00 0% N = r W 0 0 0 N O O ® O I m m O O � N N • • • • r AMEMELL 0 O X LAJ IX w LLJ PEA '� C) I= 0 70 LLJ LLI be Z 0 IN= z 0 I= Atli, fA Of LP W—j CL LAJ w LLJ LLJ � Z z du ki F. ch Ozo W—j CL LAJ w LLJ LLJ � Z z fA VI OEM L z O X LAJ IX w LLJ LLJ � Z C) � mm z C) I= O X I LLI LLI 'Z C) O X kn LAJ IX w LLJ LLJ I C) Z O OQ LU U Cl) LU LU ~ z FM Z 0 Rj ICL O X o Ix uj LLJ tie Z z 1 0 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E -1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 AGENDA ITEM: Request for appropriation of funds for assessment for Appalachian Power Company (APCo) negotiations SUBMITTED BY: Anne Marie Green Director of General Services APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman County Administrator K COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County and Roanoke County Schools are members of the VMLIVACo Steering committee, which consists of local government officials within the Appalachian Power Co. (APCo) service area. The committee was established to negotiate reduced electric service charges with APCo for the local governments. Prior to the formation of this committee, the localities negotiated individual contracts with APCo, which required the localities to hire consultants and attorneys during the process. There have been no assessments since September, 2009. Since that time, the Committee has provided the following services to the localities: • Participated in the State Corporation Commission hearings in which APCo sought increases in its 2010 and 2011 fuel factor, resulting in a reduction of $110 million • Actively participated in APCo's 2011 biennial base rate case, resulting in a reduction of the revenue increase of $'126.4 million sought by APCo to $71.3 million (The State Corporation Commission adopted the position of the Steering Committee on many important issues) • Actively participated in APCo's application for an environmental rate adjustment of $77 million, which was reduced by $30 million • Participated in APCo's application for authority to purchase an electric generation plant in Dresden, Ohio and to recover the company's cost and to recover the company's costs for two wind projects purchased by it. Page 1 of 2 It is estimated that the reductions in the cases described above amounted to more than $225 million and that the Public Authorities directly benefited by about $13.5 million. The Steering Committee is currently working with counsel and consultants on negotiating for the extension of the current Public Authority contracts for rates and services which are due to terminate on .June 39, 2912. FISCAL IMPACT: The current assessment from the committee, which is based on Kilowatt hours used, is $259,000, and Roanoke County's share is $14,998. Based on usage, the Roanoke County schools are responsible for $10,198.55, and the County is responsible for $4,889.35. rhese funds are available in the Board Contingency Account. AUrERNATIVES: 1. Approve the payment of $4,889.35 to the VMLIVACo AEP Steering committee from the Board Contingency Fund. 2. Negotiate separately with APCo. The county would have to employ a consultant, which would also require an expenditure of funds, probably in excess of the assessment from the Steering Committee STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E -2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of the moratorium on approval of new street lights SUBMITTED BY: B. Clayton Goodman III County Administrator APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman III County Administrator Ktk COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMAnON: Time has been set aside to hold a discussion of the moratorium on approval of new street lights as requested by Supervisor Joseph B. "Butch" Church. Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. F -1 V)#Oe- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMIT'rED BY: January 24, 2012 Ordinance amending Section 23 -3.4. "Stormwater management facility maintenance agreements" of Chapter 23. "Stormwater Management" of the Roanoke County Code Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney i COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This is the second reading and public hearing of an ordinance to amend the Stormwater Management chapter of the Roanoke County Code. The first reading was held on September 13, 2011. This amendment imposes additional obligations on developers for bonding, maintenance, inspection and notification of homeowners associations (HOAs) for stormwater detention facilities. After the first reading of this ordinance staff met on October 19, 2011, with the Roanoke Regional Homebuilders Association (RRHBA), explained the background and purpose of this ordinance, provided examples of problems which the ordinance is designed to address, and answered questions. The RRHBA was provided an opportunity to submit a written response to this proposal. A copy of its response dated December 1, 2011, is attached to this report. Roanoke County environmental engineers have been inspecting stormwater detention facilities throughout the County. Inspection reports identifying deficiencies and maintenance or repair obligations have been prepared and sent to the owners and responsible parties, including HOAs. Many of the HOA representatives have claimed that they had no knowledge of these responsibilities. During community and civic association meetings, many citizens have requested that the County require the developer to notify them of any transfer of responsibility for these stormwater facilities. Many citizens have complained that the stormwater facility has deteriorated due to lack of maintenance by the Page 1 of 2 developer. This ordinance attempts to address several of these complaints by requiring (i) a maintenance bond in the amount of twenty percent (20 %) of the original construction cost, (ii) inspection of the facility by the County before transfer of maintenance responsibility; and (iii) written acceptance of maintenance responsibility by any assignee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board consider the adoption of this ordinance. Page 2 of 2 Roanoke Regional H ONE B - Aders Mission Statement: "To serve, support & represent the building industry" A s s December 1, 2011 President Mr. Paul M. Mahoney Neal Frank- Rempel County Attorney Vice President Roanoke County Brad Graham PO Box 29800 Secretary Roanoke, VA 24018 -0798 Barry Wright Dear Paul: Treasurer Frank Caldwell IV On behalf of the Roanoke Regional Home Builders Association ( RRHBA), I VP/Associate Michelle Diomedi thank you for the time you and other County staff members took to meet with us on October 19, 2011, and for the continued opportunity to offer our comments on the lr Past President Brent Fortenberry amendments to the Storm Water Ordinance. We truly value our relationship proposed Y P with Roanoke County and welcome these opportunities to be part of the process. Executive VP Melody Williams Over the past month desi nated members have met to further discuss the P ► our g proposed changes to the Storm Water Ordinance. After reviewing the proposed Directors amendments to the ordinance, meeting with County staff, and reviewing the concerns Rich Backus Brett Bennett outlined in your letter dated October 25, 2011, we believe we understand the County's B❑ Bohon concerns. While we agree that the County is facing some challenges with the Ron Boothe Matt Clark maintenance of existing storm water facilities, we do not think that requiring the Fred Corbett developer to post an additional maintenance bond is the best option at this time. Bob Flynn Suzi Fortenberry RRHBA agrees with and supports the County policy of conducting biannual Sean Horne inspections of the storm water maintenance facilities. We think these inspections will Ba bar telsen likely produce the results needed to adequately address all of the County's concerns - Beth Ruffing without the need of additional maintenance bonding. By conducting biannual Earle Shumate inspections, the County is taking the initiative to ensure the ponds are maintained J. B. Smith properly. However, you are also guaranteeing that those responsible will be notified of HBAV Directors the maintenance responsibilities on a regular basis. We believe these inspections will Ron Boothe Shawn Callahan not only eliminate the current problem of ponds going unmaintained For 10 or even 20 Brcnt Fortenberry years, but will also ensure that no one can say they did not have any knowledge of Gary Judd their responsibility, whether they be the developer or the HOA. NAHB Directors In your letter you stated four concerns the County has which led to the Andy Kelderhouse Frank Radford proposed amendments to the Storm Water Management ordinance. Outlined below is g our response to each of these concerns and how we believe they can easily be Legal Counsel resolved - without the need of additional bonding. David Helscher County's Concern: 1 } Unaware of Obligations Unfortunately too many homeowners an homeowners associations are unaware of their obligations to maintain these ponds. RRHBA Response: RRHBA believes developers could be part of a more proactive approach to ensure the HOA is notified of its obligation to maintain the SWM facility. We also agree the County could be notified when the developer fully steps away from any responsibility for maintenance, so the County can hold/attend any meetings with the HOA they so desire. With that being said we suggest the existing SWM agreement be modified to include language that will require these notifications at the appropriate times. 1626 Appersen Drive, Salem VA 24153 * 540 -389 -7135 • FAX 540- 389 -4130 www.rrhba.com County's Concern: 2} Elapsed Time Bet ween Construction and Transfer of SWM: While a development project is still under construction, the developer typically maintains voting and decision making control over the HOA. In addition, the developer/HOA has executed a maintenance agreement with the County. In too many developments, a significant time has elapsed between construction of the pond serving the development and a final transfer of authority and responsibility for maintenance of the pond from the developer to the homeowners in the development. During this elapsed time period no maintenance has been performed on the SWM. RRHBA Response: RRHBA believes the County already has sufficient agreements in place to combat this concern and, when coupled with the new inspection process, should offer plenty of recourse to have the problems resolved. The County currently requires a maintenance agreement requiring maintenance of the facility. The addition of the biannual inspections will allow the County to enforce these agreements on a regular basis - thus keeping the maintenance issues from getting out of hand. A bond would only be one more cost to the developer and would not remain in effect after the developer stepped away from the project. Therefore, it offers no true long term solution while the ongoing inspections do. County's Concern: 3) Lack of Routine Maintenance: In too many developments, routine maintenance has not been conducted for these ponds. When the County inspects these ponds and enforcement of the maintenance is required, in some situations, the developer quickly transfers the responsibility to the homeowners. The homeowners then complain that the developer never maintained the pond, that the homeowners had no notice of this responsibility, that there are no funds in the HOA account to satisfy this responsibility, and that since maintenance had been deferred for so long, the costs to correct the problems are now very expensive. RRHBA Response: RRHBA believes routine inspections will provide for routine maintenance and the best course of action is to give the maintenance inspections time to work. As stated earlier, routine inspections will identify small problems before they become too costly to address. The inspections will also promote regular communications regarding maintenance responsibilities. If the facilities are routinely inspected, there should be no question as to who is responsible for the maintenance - because the County will have a record of any problems, as well as when they occurred. Again, a bond posted by the developer does not solve the long term concerns of the County. However, we believe that the routine inspections do. County's Concern: 4) Disconnect: In too many situations, there appears to be a disconnect between the developer and the homeowners in the transfer of the maintenance responsibility for these ponds. RRHBA Response: As stated in our response to the similar concern stated in #1 above, RRHBA believes that notification of the County and of the HOA should be required Page 2 of 3 12/1/11 RRHBA comments regarding Roanoke County`s proposed Storm Water ordinance Amendments when the developer steps away from the project. This requirement could be easily handled by adding it to the SWM agreement. In summary, RRHBA believes that the newly implemented inspection process should be given time to work. We understand that there are currently significant concerns; however, we think the worst of the concerns are due to lack of maintenance over an extended period of time. It is obvious to us, if any SWM facility goes untouched for 5, 10 or even 20 years, that there will be maintenance issues with that facility. RRHBA is convinced the maintenance issues will be largely mitigated — if the inspection process is given time to work. We believe the requirement of an additional maintenance bond does nothing to combat the long term problem the County is facing and should not be included in the proposed amendments to the Storm Water ordinance. Again, on behalf of our Association, I thank you for the opportunity to be involved in this matter, and we look forward to hearing from you. Should you have questions or need additional information, please contact Melody Williams (540/359- 7135). Sincerely, VP laWr ank -Rempe 1; 2011 RRHBA President cc: Clay Goodman Arnold Covey Tarek Moneir Page 3 of 3 12/1111 RRHBA comments regarding Roanoke County's proposed Storm water ordinance Amendments AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2012 ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 23 -3.4. "STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS" OF CHAPTER 23. "STORMWATER MANAGEMENT" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that many storm water detention facilities are not being maintained and that this poses a threat to public health and safety; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that many homeowners' associations are not notified of their maintenance responsibilities by developers; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that measures to insure maintenance of such facilities such as notification, bonding or other forms of security would alleviate many of these maintenance failures; and WHEREAS, this ordinance is authorized by the Virginia Stormwater Management Law in Title 10.1 of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 13, 2011 and the second reading and public hearing was held on January 10, 2012. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County as follow: 1. That Section 23 -3.4. of Chapter 23. Stormwater Management be amended to read and provide as follows: Sec. 23 -3.4. — Stormwater management facility maintenance agreements. Prior to the issuance of any permit that has a stormwater management facility as one of the requirements of the permit, the permittee or owner of the site must execute Page 1 of 4 an access easement agreement and a formal maintenance covenant that shall be binding on all subsequent owners of land served by the stormwater management faci I ity. (1) Access easement agreement. a. The access easement agreement shall provide for access to stormwater management facilities at reasonable times for periodic inspection by the county, or their contractor or agent, and for regular assessments of land owners to ensure that the facility is maintained in proper working condition to meet design standards and any other provisions established by this chapter. The easement agreement shall be recorded by the county in the land records. b. When any new stormwater management facility is installed on private property, or when any new connection is made between private property and a public storm drainage system, duly authorized employees, agents, or representatives of the county shall be authorized to enter any public or private property at any reasonable time for the purpose of inspection. This includes the right to enter a property when it has a reasonable basis to believe that a violation of this chapter is occurring or has occurred, and to enter when necessary for abatement of a public nuisance or correction of a violation of this chapter. (2) Maintenance covenants. a. Maintenance of all stormwater management facilities shall be ensured through the creation of a formal maintenance covenant that must be approved by county and recorded into the land record prior to final plan approval. The covenant shall identify by name or official title the person(s) responsible for carrying out the maintenance. Page 2 of 4 b. Responsibility for the operation and maintenance of stormwater management facilities, unless assumed by a governmental agency, shall remain with the property owner and shall pass to any successor or owner. If portions of the land are to be sold, legally binding arrangements shall be made to pass the basic responsibility to successors in title. These arrangements shall designate for each land owner, governmental agency, or other legally established entity to be permanently responsible for maintenance. C. As part of the covenant, a schedule shall be developed for when and how often maintenance will occur to ensure proper function of the stormwater management facility. The covenant shall also include plans for periodic inspections to ensure proper performance of the facility between scheduled maintenance and should also include "failure to maintain" provisions. d. In the event that maintenance or repair is neglected, or the stormwater management facility becomes a danger to public health, safety, or the environment, the county reserves the authority to perform the work and to recover the costs from the land owner. (3) Maintenance bonds. a. The county shall require the submittal of a maintenance security or bond with surety, cash escrow, letter of credit, or acceptable legal arrangement, all of which shall be in a form approved by the County to secure the performance of the maintenance covenant provided above. The maintenance covenant and security shall be submitted prior to the release of the performance security or bond provided in Sec. 23 -3.5. The maintenance covenant and security is required to insure that the stormwater facilities Page 3 of 4 are maintained by the permittee or owner as required by the approved stormwater management plan. b. The county shall require a maintenance guaranty in the amount of twenty (20 %) percent of the construction costs which include but are not limited to storm drainage system and stormwater management facilities. C. The maintenance security shall contain forfeiture provisions for failure, after proper notice, to complete work within the time specified, or to initiate or maintain appropriate actions which may be required of the permittee in accordance with the approved stormwater management plan. d. If the county takes such action upon such failure by the permittee, the county may collect from the permittee the difference should the amount of the reasonable cost of such action exceed the amount of the security held. e. The maintenance covenant and security will be the responsibility of the permittee or owner until such time as the permittee or owner provides the county with written notice that a transfer of the maintenance responsibilities is being made to a responsible legal entity which includes a homeowners' association. This notice shall include a list of the names and contact information for the responsible legal entity, and if a homeowners' association, its officers. The county will release the permittee or owner from its maintenance responsibilities and bond once the county has met with the representatives of the new responsible legal entity_ 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption. Page 4 of 4 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: January 24, 2012 Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards Deborah C. Jacks Clerk to the Board B. Clayton Goodman III County Administrator KYL- COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMA`I"ION: 1. Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals (Fire Code Board of Appeals) (appointed at large) The four -year term of Peter O. Fields expires on January 22, 2012. At the request of the Board, Mr. Fields has been contacted to see if he is willing to serve an additional term. Mr. Fields has expressed his willingness to serve an additional term, which will expire on January 24, 2016. Confirmation has been placed on the Consent Agenda. 2. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (appointed by District) The following one -year term expired on August 31, 2011: a) James M. Chewning representing the Vinton Magisterial District, one -year term will expire on August 31, 2011 3. Clean Valley Council The following two -year term expired on June 30, 2011: a) Stephen McTigue, the Board Liaison Page 1 of 2 4. Roanoke County Community Leaders Environmental Action Roundtable (RCCLEAR) Bryan Pittenger, who represents the Hollins Magisterial District has resigned. His term of office was due to expire on August 31, 2012. Supervisor Moore has reappointed Gene Marranoto represent the Cave Spring District for an additional three -year term. Mr. Marrano's term will expire on August 31, 2015. Confirmation has been placed on the Consent Agenda. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2012 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON "SHE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED As ITEM H - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for January 24, 2012, designated as Item H - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 2 inclusive, as follows: 1. Confirmation of appointment to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals (Fire Code Board of Appeals); Ninth District Development Financing, Inc.; Roanoke County Community Leaders Environmental Action Roundtable (RCCLEAR); Roanoke County Planning Commission 2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to Jane D. Olsen, Library Assistant, upon her retirement after more than twenty -one (21) years of service Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. H -1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROAN OKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA rrEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: January 24, 2012 Confirmation of appointment to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals (Fire Code Board of Appeals) (appointed at large); Ninth District Development Financing, Inc.; Roanoke County Community Leaders Environmental Action Roundtable (RCCLEAR); Roanoke County Planning Commission Deborah C. Jacks Clerk to the Board B. Clayton Goodman III County Administrator aQ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMA"rION: 1. Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals (Fire Code Board of Appeals) (appointed at large) The four -year term of Peter G. Fields expires on January 22, 2012. At the request of the Board, Mr. Fields has been contacted to see if he is willing to serve an additional term. Mr. Fields has expressed his willingness to serve an additional term, which will expire on January 24, 2016. Confirmation has been placed on the Consent Agenda. Z. Ninth District Development Financing, Inc. During the closed meeting on January 10, 2012, the Board reappointed Wendy Schultz for an additional two -year term. Confirmation has been placed on the Consent Agenda. Page 1 of 2 3. Roanoke County Community Leaders Environmental Action Roundtable (RCCLEAR) Supervisor Moore has reappointed Gene Marranoto represent the Cave Spring District for an additional three-year term. Mr. Marrano's term will expire on August 31, 2015. Confirmation has been placed on the Consent Agenda. 4. Roanoke County Planning Commission: During the closed meeting on January 10, 2012, Supervisor Moore appointed Gene Marrano to represent the Cave Spring Magisterial District. Mr. Marrano's term will expire on June 30, 2012. confirmation has been placed on the Consent Agenda. Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. H -2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEE'rING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: January 24, 2012 Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to Jane D. Olsen, Library Assistant, upon her retirement after more than twenty-one (21) years of service Deborah C. Jacks Clerk to the Board B. Clayton Goodman III County Administrator BCJa-- COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Jane D. Olsen, Library Assistant, retired on January 1, 2012, after twenty -one (21) years and four (4) months of service. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution. Page 1 of 1 AT REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2012 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO JANE D. OLSEN, LIBRARY SERVICES, UPON HER RETIREMENT AFTER TWENTY - ONE (21) YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Jane D. Olsen was first employed by Roanoke County on September 17, 1990, by Library Services; and WHEREAS, Ms. Olsen retired from Roanoke County on December 31, 2011, as Library Assistant in Technical Services, after twenty -one years and three months of service; and WHEREAS, Ms. Olsen was first a member of the Children's Services staff, providing story times, special programs and literacy activities for the children at the Hollins and Glenvar libraries; and WHEREAS, she opened the world of reading and imagination to children who came to the library for story times; and WHEREAS, Ms. Olsen later transferred to Technical Services, where she assumed responsibility for receiving and processing all new items purchased for the library system; and WHEREAS, during her tenure in Technical Services, Ms.Olsen promptly and efficiently processed hundreds of thousands of books and other materials, making them readily available to library patrons throughout the valley; and WHEREAS, Ms. Olsen also continuously sought to improve processes in her department, resulting in greater efficiencies and appreciable cost savings; and Page 1 of 2 WHEREAS, Ms. Olsen has been a treasured colleague and valued friend and, WHEREAS, through her employment with Roanoke County, Ms. Olsen has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to JANE D. OLSEN for twenty -one (21) years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. Page 2 of 2 GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Audited balance at June 30, 2011 Addition of 2010 -11 operations Balance at January 24, 2012 Amount $ 20 500,000 L -1 % of General Fund Revenue 10.59% * $ 20,572,318 10 .67% ** Note: on December 21, 2004, the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy to increase the General Fund Unappropriated Balance incrementally over several years. * 201 0 -11 a range of 10.0% -11.0 % of General Fund Revenues 2010 -11 General Fund Revenues $189,618,185 10.0 % of General Fund Revenues $18,961,819 11.0 % of General Fund Revenues $20,858,000 ** 2011 -12 - Goal of 11% of General Fund Revenues 2011 -12 General Fund Revenues $192,720,943 11 % of General Fund Revenues $21,199,304 The Unappropriated Fund Balance of the county is currently maintained at 10.67 %. The county's goal is to increase the balance over time to 11.0% Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By B. Clayton Goodman III County Administrator 9.0L L -2 COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL RESERVES Minor County Capital Reserve (Projects not in the C/P, architectural /engineering services, and other one -time expenditures.) Audited balance at June 30, 2011 Addition of 2010 -11 operations August 23, 2011 Purchase of .454 acre of real estate adjacent to the Roanoke County Administration Center from Franklin Real Estate Company September 13, 2011 Appropriate funds for the repair of retaining wall at Vinton Library Balance at January 24, 2012 Maior County Capital Reserve Amount $2 $1 (40,000.00) (17,225.00) $3,253,848.88 (Projects in the C1P, debt payments to expedite projects identified in C1P, and land purchase opportunities,) Audited balance at June 30, 2011 $182,539.00 Addition of 2010-11 operations $775,822.00 Balance at January 24, 2012 $938 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance L -3 RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount From 201 1 -2012 original Budget $ 100,000.00 May 24, 2011 Appropriation for Legislative Liaison (31,020.00) December 13, 2011 Appropriation to remove the delapidated carport structure and install a new rr (10,000.00) at 5915 Garner Road Balance at January 24, 2012 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance $ 58 Approved By B. Clayton Goodman III County Administrator W]3--- ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER L -4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER. MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 AGENDA ITEMS: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of December 31, 2011. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: CASH INVESTMENT: SUNTRUST CON 5 5 GOVERNMENT: SMITH BARNEY CONTRA 1 1 071 1 709.25 SMITH BARNEY 64 WELLS FARGO 12,000,000.00 WELLS FARGO CONTRA 21 77 LOCAL GOVT INVESTMENT POOL: GENERAL OPERATION CD: BRANCH BANKING & TRUST MONEY MARKET: BRANCH BANKING & TRUST MORGAN STANLEY - JAIL SMITH BARNEY STELLAR ONE WELLS FARGO TOTAL 17,113, 732.92 17,113, 732.92 3, 000, 000.00 3,000,000-00 1 13101,002.66 24,141,831.14 1,037,383.86 7 34, 515, 500.39 137, 593, 819.24 01/24/2012 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. L -5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS of ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 AGENDA ITEM: Report of Claims Activity for the Self- Insurance Program SUBMITTED BY: Donald R. Karnes Risk Manager APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman III County Administrator 1 1QQ- COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY of INFORMATION: In accordance with the Self - Insurance Program, Ordinance 0- 061494 -6, Section 2 -86.C, attached is the Fiscal Year to Date claims activity report including - the Second Quarterthat ended December 31, 2011. Attachment A — Auto, Attachment B -- General Liability. FISCAL IMPACT: 0.,- O O N 00 O N LO LO O O O z z O O 00 N (D f` It ti O N O W O W O N ti r N O � O ' > O M M It (D O O O O O ti LL N N L^ O O co O LO M >- V 0 M N Lo M W LO LO O O > N O O N w 6 O O O W LO LO O W r N w Q O O O O O O O O O U U U U U U U O O U U O ^ A LL V / / / / / / / / / / G O O O O O O O O O O O N Q U Q > > > > > > > > > > > r c M � W 7FU m U •U C w W a) > O U L) CL _ 4-0 En W > cu O cn O 7 E5 O a) N L a) En � � V -�e C Ii CU a) 0 0 U a) > � � L a) E W C L a) > 4 :3 r W N c� -a � cu � � U r N M a) 0 - 6 cu r�5 L) O c6 L- O ,U L � •� L L Q W a cu cu O m cn cn 0 U z a) > V � L L L Z U L N O U �_ cn cn cn a ~ En U > }' .. O U N O L a) 0) � (6 to W U L O o Cj) U) n V En Z a W a - cu cm L m O W E E Q O U Q O U E cu 4-a O O 4-a J Z -.-1 o .� O }, W W c ca o o 4-- }, � ca c� �C U O cn cn U -a U U -S c: E U U U Q w O D ca 2 2 E W U) m m U 0- U m J J E < a En o z 06 W W En M 0 cu cu m Q Q �, En L W 0 o ca o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Z ❑ m U) m U) U) m m m U) U) w U) Q > z w W W C) O O O O O O o O O O O W N N N N N N N N N N N N M 00 CO O O 00 O 00 ti O W O U Q N O N N O N O N Q ti ti ti 00 O O O r N N W O O O O O O r Q O O It 00 O M CO I r M O f` O O O O O � O N O N O M O It O LO O LO O O O O O O O _ z N N N N N N N N N N N N U r Q o Z 0� 0 c w o 0 Q 0- > w w U) w w U D F- U) Q o U U r N r M 0- O J � Q U Q > W m H � QC W O CL w U w o o� w W (n w H LV U r N ., V, O >m J J m U U J c J 0L a m : Z n W z W U Z IL W a V V w -0 W � OC cn � �E w a) a L) LV U J a Q m J V O z w w a) cn >- Q w o o o z Q z � � N Q oo w W w Q N O O ' Z � U � O � Q w N O N � O o � a `n C7 °� C LL a) sir' N M (D CY) LO Ltd � I` m m O (D 00 O � LO M M 00 CY) 00 O M 00 CA N 00 r N CO N r � LO O ti LO � 1` � M ti N CA NT 00 00 00 O 6 1 4 N O O CA (D N Ltd O 1` 1` N N r (D L6 4 (D r M N M ' ' r ' M ' (D r N r N i i N i i 1` M (D r O N CA (D M � O ti O ti LO (D O7 1` M U") 00 (4 O 'IT M O M 00 r w d7 O CA 1� LO M 1` CA O 00 N 00 f` (3) r M � 00 O r N O 1` � 00 (9 r (` r LO O 07 O LO M 00 r f` d7 LO CA LO O N N (D r LO 00 M (D LO 00 1` M d) r N 00 CA (D r M 'IT N 'IT ' (D t0 r M N M N r M r N r i i LO r CIA ti N d LO N � LSD v C r O r (D 1` CA O LO r (D O O LO LO d) 00 4- O a� b a co N LO (D O O 00 (D N 00 O 00 Ln N (fl (D 00 ' L O CA CA r O r G; O 00 o0 6 4 O _N O r r N o0 p 6 4 r V a t� � O r LO " M M M M J f` M 4) o, N M � Ea M it r I 'IT LO 1` 00 � M d N m LO LO 1` CA O 00 ;T (D r C N 00 N 00 > 1` 00 1` L 00 O CA MFG � U � � (fl V M (3) O � m a� N 00 ti (D r M 1` (D O N r 00 � N d r (D LO O LO co CA r m CA LO 1` 1` LSD O _ M CY) M O W lq (D L0 O 0 � C) (D O .O O m o O ~ It E - � qm +� t0 > m � Q' O CA 'IT O ♦••' cfl N M (a U Cl) O CA 00 (D LO 4) 0 M M LO s � N N N Z L O LL L N d CL d a } ' E L N N ••� O .o L. M r cn U a p O r C7 U � ICT O 44 a) O m N O N � O o � a `n C7 °� C LL a) sir' N M (D CY) LO Ltd � I` m m O (D 00 O � LO M M 00 CY) 00 O M 00 CA N 00 r N CO N r � LO O ti LO � 1` � M ti N CA NT 00 00 00 O 6 1 4 N O O CA (D N Ltd O 1` 1` N N r (D L6 4 (D r M N M ' ' r ' M ' (D r N r N i i N i i 1` M (D r O N CA (D M � O ti O ti LO (D O7 1` M U") 00 (4 O 'IT M O M 00 r w d7 O CA 1� LO M 1` CA O 00 N 00 f` (3) r M � 00 O r N O 1` � 00 (9 r (` r LO O 07 O LO M 00 r f` d7 LO CA LO O N N (D r LO 00 M (D LO 00 1` M d) r N 00 CA (D r M 'IT N 'IT ' (D t0 r M N M N r M r N r i i LO r � ti N O LO f` � LSD O r LO r (D 1` CA O LO r (D O O LO LO d) 00 O r co O LO (D O O 00 (D N 00 O 00 Ln N (fl (D 00 O O CA CA r O r G; O 00 o0 6 4 O 4 O r r N o0 p 6 4 r O O O � O r LO " M M M M � f` M r LSD N M � M M it r I 'IT LO 1` 00 � M 1` CA LO LO 1` CA O 00 ;T (D r M N 00 N 00 r 1` 00 1` C'7 00 00 O CA O � � � (fl (3) O � O 00 00 ti (D r M 1` (D O N r 00 � N N r (D LO O LO co CA r N CA LO 1` 1` LSD CA r r N M CY) M O 00 lq (D L0 O 0 � C) (D 1 CY) O LO N N ~ It N N 00 qm 00 t0 CA LO � N CA 'IT N 'IT N M (a N ch CA 00 (D LO 1` M M LO (D � N N LO r N LO r } ' M N a) r M r cn cn >' p O r C7 U � ICT O 44 a) O (D a) L N +r O C) C) C) C) C) O O C) C) O C) C) O C) C) C) C) O O LO LO O C) C) O O O O O O O � O O O O O O O O O 4 4 O 1` N V- C) O O O O O O M O O O O O O O O O M O 07 'IT N O O O LO O Lt's O lq O L0 L17 O L0 O L0 O (fl 00 O M It (D 00 1` O O ti LO 1` N N 1` r 1` M O M LO Lf) (D O M 1` (D r CA N q;T (D LO LO O O (D 1� (D r O 'IT 00 r- N lq a) M LS- N r \..J M M 1-- CO N E r .- � O J cn O O U w p U 1` LO 00 (3) 1* 00 (fl r N r O 00 q;T LO O M N M M LO O LO M V - (D 1` 1` N M r N LO CA O CA 1` N 1` (D 07 1` LO 00 r O U M 6 N 6 CA (D a; LSD O O 4 O (D r Ltd Lii N (D r 4 r Lii O M 4 It CA M it M It It It :3 r CO N N ICT M M r r M a) r M � U U m U- 2 0 L Q J a- (D O r 00 N (D 1` � 00 O N O LO � N (D ti M r CA M N CO CA M O CA N o0 q;T M � It LO 1� LO O 1` CY) LA 1� � M CA CY) O 00 N r (D N r O 1` LO N N f` m M r N CA CA M 00 (D (D r 00 'IT q;T M N M 1` q;T LSD N O N 1` 'n (D N It 00 N M LO (D o0 CD (D � 00 (D 'IT N CA M r (D co It LO (D LO 00 O N 1� (D N N a) 1` q;T q;T N � M M r N q;T N N N N N N N M N M M (6 r M r O O O O O O r O O O O O O O ICT O O 44 O O O O 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 o O O o o O (D o 0 0 O O 0 O 0 O o O O O O O o O LO N o O 0 O o O O O o O 0 O 0 O o O Ln N O O o 00 o Ldp r o 1` M LO O O LO O O O O r O LO O I` LO LO O r qlzi 00 CA CD f` O LO d) 00 (D (D (D (D 00 r to N O CA (D LO (D (D � f` M r CA N N LO C CA M qm O r O O it r I 'IT r 1` 1` N r M 00 M L6 r r CM > M (1) (n 00 N TMM cn c a) LL °6 X U A L O cn CL - >> O a- a) > (1) (n cn c a) LL °6 X U m C: (� m O ~ m a) (a ch O O a) Cn 4-- X C: } ' LL a) LL cn cn >' p O U � X O a) O (D a) L N +r O L m O � LL c a) Q) U N X C - c J O 16 L t6 a) m O a) X N U Q) ca O -_ +r O VJ \..J 1-- E u) .- � O J cn O O U w p U a) E - � a U L cn cn L (a (� + r CLn— a E 0 'cn ° x= � X L- � o O o a) a) a) O p O :3 Ca +r O to +r J C to a) a) � U U m U- 2 0 L Q J a- LL U a- 0 O O 'IT CF) O r N M It LO (D 1` 00 CA O O r N � ti 00 r � � V N N N N N N N N N N F M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N CIA 00 (D d CD N p CD v r O 00 O (Q r N O O t0 O CD N 00 co 00 4- O a� a O N CA M (D � M r O) M M � O O O 1- O CD ' L f` (D N Lc; r O p 4 (D L6 w; N r 4 O O O O r O p LC) M V Q N (D N LO It Lt) 1 (D r r d7 J CD 4) o, Lt') Ea M r r r O r d) ti t0 O d N m M 00 07 00 d) � Lid 0 CA O O CD N N N O N (D Ltd N 1- N Ltd LA L M Ldp M MFG � U M c0 N V M 00 N M � Q C4 N N M (D 7 r M (D r M LO 1` 1` O (D N t0 LO Ln r N 00 00 m ti tm M (D r co O _ 1` 00 M CD W 1` L (D r r f` ' w N O OC .° O �, N m o 0 O LO 00 d � E > U) +� m Q' O M N cn O ♦..� to t4 EM O U Cl) CS r 00 00 � 4) d 1� N Q S 0 L O LL L U d CL > E L O �•�/ �+ O . O O U a M O M O O LO d O N O O O O O N M M T" O O O O O m N_ O N � � O O � a `n LL L a) i C.0 (D t0 07 r N LO � O O N � t4 M 1` M (D M O It M O O O (D t0 M 00 r 07 O O 00 'IT 'IT CA LO d) O 00 M O N r O O N O Ci; (9 M L6 6 t4 (D O (D -4 O 6 M N CD O L6 r O O r r r r O N r r r � It N ' r (Y ' LO ' r Re LO LA 00 CO r M r LA CD or) CD 1` r N O 00 07 Lid N to O O r 1� 1` o0 NT M O O O O I` qqr ti O O (D (D r N M CA O N N O ti ti O N N r 00 M CA Lid LO O 1` r 1` CF) O M Lt) CD qm M 1` 00 I` r LO T r LSD 00 Ltd r t0 M ~ ~ r ' CV N N � N CD -r- N 00 c0 co r r 00 (D Lt) CD N p CD M r Ltd 00 O LO r N O O t0 O CD N 00 co 00 r t0 O r CA M (D � M r O) M M � O O O 1- O CD C4 1` f` (D N Lc; r O p 4 (D L6 w; r r 4 O O O O r O p LC) M M N (D N LO It Lt) � CD (D r r d7 � CD LSD N Lt') (9 t0 O CD M r r r O r d) ti t0 O d) � M 00 07 00 d) � Lid 0 CA O O CD N N N O N (D Ltd N 1- N Ltd LA M M Ldp M Ltd N M c0 N CD 00 00 N M CA O N M (D 00 00 M (D r M LO 1` 1` O (D N t0 LO Ln r N 00 00 O ti O (D r co N CY) 1` 00 M CD - 0 1` L (D r r f` ' w N r I* N d) 1` CD LO 00 1` 1` (D M d M CM M N cn CD t4 EM O > r 00 00 � d7 1� N Q 0 r U r (1) Q N � to (n 0 O O O O O O M O M O O LO Ltd O N O O O O O N M M T" O O O O O M O M O N 00 O O 1� O r O ' L c0 O CA CD L O 1` 1` LO O Ln 00 M M Ln O LO O N O - O 1` 00 co Ln Ltd LSD M 00 00 00 c0 O Ltd (D N O 00 O LSD O Q � O M 1` M M (D t4 00 'T M 00 � (D CA � O LO 'IT 'I c ir ) ') 00 00 N N r N (D r - N � LO 00 O 1` O CD � � M N M r to M r M U r N M Cif p c EM CM N N U N N (n L N O U L LL N CA N N M 1` M O Ltd w N r 07 r 00 00 r O r O O r O O CA 00 c0 (D O M LO N q* O M 00 r O M LO r- r O O O O O r L6 Lc; 4 (D Lt; L6 N Lt; 6 N (6 N O 1` (D d6 O O O (0 O O W) � N 00 N � It I r O r N 1` LO (D � LO w r r CA (D t0 d) CO N (D (D r 1` LO 00 O d) r 00 1` M O 1` LCD O O 4 4 CY) CF) O � LO (D Ltd N (D Ltd O M O It O O 1` (D co CD O O N � t0 O O r 00 d) LO M r (D N M 00 00 r M M M (D M CA � (D CD 1` 00 f` 1- O N 1` 00 (D M 1` 0) CA 00 co O r N N (D (D t0 Ltd (D (D O 'IT M 1` N M M l r N 00 M 00 O 1` Co r r N r r r P. w O (D O O o O O o O O O (D O 1� O O O O O 1` 00 c0 T" O M O O O O O O O O O LO 1` O O Lt) 1` O O O N r N Lt) O O 0) O O O r (D O O O 1- r r N N (0 00 Cb O ' d' LO 00 M N 1` (D Lt) � � O (D O (0 rl P.: CV Lf) LA 00 LO 00 LO CO o LO M 00 O Co N r � CD (D 00 CA r O LO r r O 00 N O 07 'IT N CA (9 t0 O CD a- M M r It N N M N U '> cn O N N N 4 N N N 4-j 0 o cn (n U a- Q cn U '> cn O N N cn � E O •L O U •> N cn O O N U CD - 0 L N d N N +�+ cn co O O • L O d N cn N U EM O > U) 0) U) N Q 0 • U (1) Q � (n 0 v ) O L- - � N (a 0 - (D m LL U > c i L N d E N -a cn O U � • U � 'U ' L a) C � J p L O O L 0 N •L O O U O - O •U O LL � LL v �> O (� CL U) N U) Q 1` = O O t6 0 � � N to U . M Cif p c EM CM N N U N N (n L N O U L LL LL L LL a) 0 O (a (L) �_ N • N N C N O O N O O +r + r � j U- N 0� 0� c U U a, a; z U) O w O O L E a U- U cn O O 07 O O r O N 00 O O r (D O O r IrNr M O N O O N O H M H 'T ' H 'T ' H LO Ltd Ltd H (D (D (D 1�- 00 00 00 H 07 H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O N � O O � LL a) i O O M C) C) Ltd 00 0o LO L) CY) CF) r V- r CF) C) Q C7 W) M M LO � r M co ° Co r N N � r M f` f� to W) CY) CF) M (� to N a) ti CD to to O O to (D to M r-- ti W) 1` N r a� a) o r r C) C\j C4 M M M CD to f- V- r 4 4 O O r M N O N ti CD LO L(7 Ltd r r CD co M 00 M CO) N N r fA W N L r N F- F (3) F- f► C) N N � O (a 4- O a� bi) a N ' L _N V Q J �0 Ea d N m L MFG � U V M m Q � N 7 r m O _ LU O OC .o O 2, m o O E - � m Q' O O ♦..� cfl U Cl) o 4) d S L O LL L d CL E �+ O .O L. U a d m N O N � O O � LL a) i O O M C) C) Ltd 00 0o LO L) CY) CF) r V- r CF) C) Q C7 W) M M LO � r M co ° Co r N N � r M f` f� to W) CY) CF) M (� to N a) ti CD to to O O to (D to M r-- ti W) 1` N r a� a) o r r C) C\j C4 M M M CD to f- V- r 4 4 O O r M N O N ti CD LO L(7 Ltd r r CD co M 00 M CO) N N r fA W N L r N F- F (3) F- f► C) M oc C U- L _ d i c0 N M o0 00 In d `O N N O O M � N M 't N G •L 00 00 \O c0 N O \O �t kn M O .-1 I� O o0 INC ' a� v p t� kn N M a � O • L � r- M kn _N IC M l� 00 M O M M V a O N of `O N a1 i O 01 N N �.z O M C1 N M o I- M N o0 01 N M O W W m 00 L N � N to N M `O 00 kn N � M � 01 N I!t kn _ V kn oo N U) V a1 N � oo `O � L = I�t t N O M I�t kn a1 O O O a1 �+ x = a1 I� kn L � `O T l-- O \O I� kn M 01 N V r M ---a ' � W N r o0 t I � •� •tm M ' � O N I ' 'IT i N I m / L O I�t M _ 0 � W 0 o_ O W • L a E c m o m a W W S V O V CD o N w � W L O U N O O • L a W W E c ♦+ m L E O u M oc C U- L _ d i c0 kn M o0 00 In I�t oo `O �T N O `O oo M N N N M 't N 't \c 00 00 \O c0 N O \O �t kn M O .-1 I� O o0 INC ' t� p t� kn N M N N O l� � r- M kn 00 IC M l� 00 M O M M O O N of `O N a1 i O 01 N N �.z O M C1 N M C1 I- M N o0 01 C1 M O 00 00 00 N N O N M `O 00 kn N � M � 01 N I!t kn `O kn oo C1 a1 � oo `O � It O I�t t N O M I�t kn a1 O O O a1 N a1 I� kn � `O kn l-- O \O I� kn M 01 N M ---a ' i O M o0 t I ---a N U O M ' O N I O N I ' 'IT i N I M ' \O kn .--a ' O I�t M 00 \O ---a T--I ---a I�t O O ---a \O In t M M � O \C � O � N � o0 oo O kn M N M M 00 .--� kn I�t `O `O O In `O � N C1 t M 00 O � 01 N `O k I�t t O - O Q\ O `D o0 00 M N C1 M M l 00 l (Z- C\ N \O O M ^� kn N M 06 O In O 41 41 N C1 \O O 00 kn O N 00 I�t o0 00 kn O ---a M r- M `O kn O oo `O I�t N N N 00 - 00 O M M r--O kn `O M N N O O kn M o0 00 In N \O `O N 00 00 M 00 M N 00 l- M � O � kn t l-- � M 1--+ ^� \C 00 M N O � O IF-0 N 00 kn p kn M N kn l� O M kn N `O l� 00 M O M M O O N of `O M a1 a\ O 01 C1 N �.z O M C1 N M C1 O N N a1 ' kn V7 �t OC C1 N O N M `O t� N N M 00 �T en 't ll N .-� N � kr •--O N IF-0 co � N N N C� M O��c 0*) t (7) 11.0 INC k oC� N N kn I�t O 41 In r- 00 I%O kn M M a1 `O C1 O M 00 k a1 a1 M � .--a In kn kn r-- C� kn � � O N o0 O O O N N \O 01 Cl) 00 kn o0 00 00 a1 O In I�t `O N \O \O \O t- kn N Ol� t� In 01 a1 O O N M oo kn O 00 `D M \O \O kn .- : Tzt Tzt kK N M 11 00 In C1 00 O C1 r� M N M O M M r--I `O `O M N N kn C) O � o0 kn N O N � I�t `O t M N �T M r 00 O O O M C1 %C `O O 00 N O O O O O O 0*� \D I�t kn p kn M N kn l� kn ll O �10 l� 00 M O M M O O a; of `O O a1 a\ O 01 C1 N N N O M C1 N M C1 O N N a1 ' �t OC C1 N O N C\ M t� N N M 00 't M N N N M N M N M 't kn O M I�t `O o0 O ^� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M It It It �t kn `O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p p 7 i w U O .� C5 a w •� a rn a a N M N M N M 't kn O M I�t `O o0 O ^� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M It It It �t kn `O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M oc � N 'IV � ^� t� d r-- � N N M •--� O O O O O O O O c •L r••0 � o0 1--� M � �I '".0 C1 .-� o0 oc \C O N oc a� O --a v M O 01 M 01 N O a � C1 • L N 00 O O N _N r+ N O O oc N In \O ' V a oc N ' oc `O N O N a1 O 00 O r- of `O O O O o 00 N O I�t N \C N N � W W m t- L O O INC o0 lzl 00 00 'IV O 01 kn \O \p kn In 'IV ll 00 kn V N U) V kn N kn ll� L = x = O 00 ' L 00 rl T O N M In V r � W N r � •� •tm � r-- m ' L l U ct A-a U W U W Q 0 � W U 0 o_ O W • L a E c m o m a W W a v O V CD o O O O O O O W L O U O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O 00 O 00 O 00 O • L a W W 01 O O 01 C1 O O E c ♦+ m L tQ E O u M oc � CIA �n 'IV � ^� t� ^� a1 r-- � N � N M •--� � � O O O O O O O O O O r••0 � o0 1--� M � �I '".0 C1 .-� o0 oc \C O N oc ' O --a M M O 01 M 01 N O N oc C1 ri N 00 O O N I- r+ N O O oc N In \O ' N oc N ' oc `O N O N a1 O 00 O r- of `O O O O N 00 N O I�t N \C N � O t- N O O INC o0 lzl 00 00 'IV O 01 kn \O \p kn In 'IV ll 00 kn M kn kn ll� O N O 00 ' 00 rl 00 M O N M In -� kn 00 1 1.0 N N - Q\ � a1 `O N O O O � M `O C\ �O N a1 O M `0 kn •-- N o0 � lrj 00 M a\ M \O N M OO 'IV t N kn .-1 N kn N M N N O O T.-O M N N � kn 00 O Q\ N O O N N `C O O O 00 `O I�t I�t t- C\ N M \C \C O 00 \O \c O O O O 01 M 01 N O M C1 N ri N 00 O O M I- N I� O O oc N In \O kn 01 N 01 \C In O INC M O N 01 01 00 � ---a N It o0 00 O 00 T--I O M .-� r--a N In C1 M N N kn ^� N 4 O N O M o0 lzl 00 00 _ LL L _ d i 01 t o0 IC a\ N O oc I�t N N O O O N O O O N N O O O O O 00 oc l-- N M I�t t- kn -� \C o0 I� I� O M O O O O 01 M 01 N O M C1 N ri N o0 � r- N O O oc N In \O kn 01 N 00 M 00 t M 00 M kn O 00 O o0 I�t M OO kn N `O to � 00 O 00 T--I � N kn ^� N 4 O N O M o0 lzl 00 00 l-- 00 C1 01 00 00 I� kr) O O O O In � M M M M o0 O O M M 't 00 �T I�t N kn 01 M �t tn .-1 N kn N 't \O C1 M �10 I�t O M 00 N 01 N 00 M O OD O O O \p In o0 M 01 00 01 M M t- o0 �T kn l� O I� •-- M o0 o0 - C\ N 01 N O O C1 l- \O kn M M O �16 \O 00 01 to M `O o0 M 01 M O kn M k N o0 01 to o0 N `O to ri N M OC a1 N � O ^� N \O r M N 00 O o0 N o0 � M kn N N tn N O O 01 k O O O O O o0 00 1--+ N 00 I�t \O M t- o0 �T kn oc N It M M M In N l- \O \ e M O �16 \O 00 01 to M `O o0 M 01 M O N M k N o0 01 to o0 N `O to ri N M OC a1 N � O ) W 4 N M M oc N \O 00 M N N M C1 In O Tj C1 00 N N O O~ � �' ':; ri C) `,� o � O ) W 4 y W � 7= r-- L l U ct A-a U W U W Q N U rA O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 00 O O 00 O 00 O 00 O 00 O 00 O O 00 O 01 O O 01 C1 O O M N N M C1 In O Tj C1 00 N N O ACTION NO. ITEM NO. L -8 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid -- December 2011 SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman I I County Administrator 1 & -o � COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Direct Deposit Checks Total Payments to Vendors $ - $ - $ 7, 924, 999.43 Payroll 12/09/11 1 90 1 Payroll 12123111 1 95 1 Manual Checks - 1 1,816.50 Grand Total $ 10,341,105.93 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. L -9 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 AGENDA ITEM: Quarterly Report — Community Development Activities SUBMITTED BY: Tarek Moneir Deputy Director of Development Services APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman County Ad rn i n i st rato r COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached is a summary report of Community Development Activities for the Second Quarter of 2011 -2012. The statistics in the attached spreadsheet represents monthly stats of various activities in community development. It compares the average of the first six months of the fiscal year 2012 with the total average of last year's inspections and plan reviews performed by Staff. We also included stats of zoning inspections, business licenses, complaints and other code compliance. You will note that some of these stats are reported as "NA" for not available indicating that we cannot collect such data on a monthly basis due to the complexity of the process. This report is only for information and does not require any board action. Analysis of these figures can be provided upon request. Page 1 of 1 �4-P Or_ CU � Q O cu c o L Ln C) U.- � Q a1 � a i - C o cu W m� z V _ v z in v Z3 z a o O U O j ° o) 5 0 o ° C' o a1 o a 3 .= a o= s s o .° ° V M r W c Q j � o 0 ^ 00 r-1 M Lj) 0 0 � c i a o w �� a N ° ° 4-, v ° a 4 ., �, r�l r1 O\1 cc Qj a • zz v c �, Q� cn a a o o = 3 a ° — a a v� s° o ° -in Qj ° -, a Ln F: o 0 ° E= �' m � 3 Q s v °° o) w o o o a z Q a +a +a a L �4-P Or_ CU � Q O cu c N N eq VN•1 tD V V M W Ln V-1 N N N V M r V�-1 rl N N 0 ^ 00 r-1 M Ln a••+ r�l r1 O\1 cc J L L � O Q 00 l0 r-I w 00 � M LO m 1- N M N 00 1;T 1;T N M 00 m m 00 M w O M O M m N r M o0 01 Ln Ln Ln N O L n O Ln O CT) qt M N r r- r r � r r r N r 0 0 r r `-i N N Ol 00 r U r-I c�-I r-I M L n qt O N F- 2. O = L O N N I� 00 M V MM-I rl I� ��-I ^ m �� -I -I O M N M r-I 00 M m 00 N N r1 \ Q >W E 00 L•L N i 4- 01 M rl LA O t0 ^ 00 N M 01 R* r1 01 N R* Ln Rl m r-I M N N ONO 00 00 M w Ln Ln 00 00 V rq N N 0) N 00 M I� rl r1 O 01 Ln M R* A 00 O N H `- i 4.0 hA � O r1 00 M r1 N le N N O 0) N 00 Ln O •• N O M r1 rq en le N M 00 M W N r-I m w O L a M N r1 r1 M r1 r j r1 00 r1 r1 00 N 1•A r-, 1•A M N N C ; N G a un s L O i O N Ln O qzl M 1- u1 M 1 .0 r In O L LD O O � N N l0 1- � O to 0 00 N (� 0) l0 N r M 0) M N Ln N N M M r-I U) (3) N lD r i r-I 00 3 4-J a O F O Q NO rr-I 00 l0 r-I r N lD r c� N 00 1100 Or •• cM-I O O N Z Z Z Z Z Z O N L cu }' N > 0) N N N r-I c-I 0 Ol r1 N N r-I (V M r-I r-I r M � r-I (:Y) r-I M O M O r-I O l0 Q Q Q Q Q Q Z Z Z Z Z Z o, 1- Z 00 N N � 0 U r M O N l0 O r-I r1 r-I l0 M 00 r-I ri M N r-I l0 I� l0 Cr) - O O I� O `� O ONl Q Q Q Q Q Q 00 N Z Z Z Z Z Z Ql N N N n L cn V) ° cn ° O O Ln cn - 0 - 0 O a) V) Un > E O c0 O _a a C— U +� O p U .p O O U U U — a) Lo � � a) a) U j O , +�, i U) L u i � + O) U ° E Ln O 0- a L U U 4� a) Q a � E X) Ln a� LLl `1' Ln Q U L C Q °� CU a) cu U L o n a) i = � `� ° C o Q U o U a)> a) a) a, Ln c� U v 4° j Q 2 Q ] � tr U Q O > O N O c a z z "� Ln c0 Q- E U E a E O N m a — U a a) ~ m U Ln CE ' o �_ Ul O _ U a) Ln �,; a N p Co ' U }� C6 07j co 2S 0 — ° i V f Q 0� }' o U E a, E L U U `J 0 Z CU a aj a Ln 4 - O m ° kn N •� E C 4-j V a) O E a a) v '} N N L u � � V ACTION NO. ITEM NO. M -1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEE'I•INC DATE: January 24, 2012 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to discuss fiscal year 2012 -2013 budget development SUBMITTED BY: W. Brent Robertson Director of Management and Budget APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman III County Administrator j COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY of INFORMAnON: This time has been set aside to provide an update on - Fiscal year 2012 -2013 budget development. An overview of the following areas will be presented for discussion: • Review mid -year expenditures at 12/31/11 (operating departments) • Update on current year (fiscal year 2011 -2012) revenue projections • Preliminary review of (fiscal year 2012 -2013) local and state revenue projections • Update on pending General Assembly actions Page 1 of 1 M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O� 0 O O LO 0 00 r- LO 0 O O O O O O (c) Cc) O O O O O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 Cc) f- o0 00 O Cc) 00 O 00 O Cc) O) O _ LL O LO LO Lo f` O O 0 Ln O Lo Lo Ln O Lo O O O Ln o N N f` O 00 = O M 4•+ 00 cc) ti `-' N 00 OF) O o LO LO f` N M CF) N 00 � m o ti .... M O Cc) Cc) Cc) f` T .... O O LO N Lc) N O N (c) CO � CO M N CO N O co co O _ � v} LO 6a N f` 00 LO � O f- f` CO � CO co O M Cc) M (c) O f` r_ CO 0 V CO U N co O CO Q m O E 00 N U- ti L>L a CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO f` O N a O N �+ N O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO G O O N CO M O 00 7 f` 00 = M O O O O O O O O O O O O O LSD 'IT O N Lt) M O O Cc) o CD Cc) to _ .2 r O LO O O CO O U) LSD U) Ln O LO Cc) Cc) O O Ln 00 LO f` 00 M Ln f` • T Ltd Cc) � Cc) O f` O f` f` M N U) f` N O O f` Ln 00 Cc) Cc) f� � � 00 00 00 N N Cc) o0 � N LO N •O Cc) 00 co 07 LO co Ul) O N 00 N M T- 00 O � CO M N m M O O L 00 N O O N f` � LO M M (c) O N (c) (c) N L O O o0 ;T f` 00 M d) (c) O o0 � 00 f- N N O � N 00 LO N 00 M as LO O7 N M V O ti (c) M 00 LL a. M LO N M N O M f` N O Q > L 00 N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O as O LSD N O O a ti L O O O Iq O O O O O O O O O r O O M m7 =�Q 00 00 O r O � O O O M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cc) Iq � � � r Q r f` O 0 N 0 CO 0 f` 0 CO 0 U O 0 0 0 O O LO 0 U 0 M O N 00 °) o LO N O N Lo CO N o Lt7 N (� � N Lf) 0) Cc) 0 0 Cc) 0 N 0� LO LO N N c Cc) O LO 00 � M O � 0 o T� (c) 0) O 00 f` Cc) cr) Ni M Lo N M M O LL 07 M O > N O 00 N U- a M r O N 1 N TOM i O N E LL E cn m N � � r O r � r O N ,� ♦••� LL O � O L. E L ♦ O v V ■ 0 L a L V � E L a U) m 4- 0 n U C a) U c ca E (n a) U C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSD 00 O M a r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cc) O O O N o0 00 O m r O O O O O O M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSD � � N � M� O Ln o co N w o 0 o M o 0 o U) o Ln o LO (D (D o M Ls i (D CO Lc) o m o 0 M CO O f` M O O LO N Lc) N O N (c) CO � CO M N CO N O co co O _ � LO LO M N f` 00 LO � O f- f` CO � CO co O M Cc) M (c) O f` r_ CO 0 V CO U N co O CO Q m O E 00 N ti L>L a 6a 69 N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ltd O O O O f- Cc) p CD 'IT 0 O O M N O M N O O O O M O O f` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f` � r N O I LO O N O O L1) Lt) O U f` CD O U LO Ldp 07 U O O V Lid N O 'IT V � Q LO (c) Ln f` 00 LO f` 00 M Ln f` d') 'IT co N 00 Ln O M co Cc) N M 6a M� 69 O E `--' M M V -- M V -- LO N o N LO O r 07 00 N � LO O lq O lq 00 N lq T- 00 O � d) M N (c) LO N f` r- OF) O O O N f` � LO M M (c) O N (c) (c) N L O O o0 ;T f` 00 M d) (c) O o0 � 00 f- N N O � N 00 LO N 00 M LO O7 N M V O ti (c) M 00 LL a. M LO N M N O M f` N O Q > L 00 N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M O LSD N O O a ti L O O O Iq O O O O O O O O O r O O M N 00 00 O r O � O O O M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cc) Iq � � � CM f` O o Cc) r- C) M O LO V f` O O O LO Lo f` Lo N O N Lo f` Lo f` O M Lo f` Lo CO O Cc) I;f � Cc) N Cc) Cc) f` O Ln � LO M O O Lf) 0) Q O M Cc) 'q N Cc) LO LO O O f` Cc) f` LO 00 N � � � 00 f` M (c) 0) O 00 f` Cc) cr) Ni M Lo N M M O LL 07 M O O 00 N a cu U 6c� 69 U) m 4- 0 n U C a) U c ca E (n a) U C O 00 M (c) (c) Cc) o0 N o0 � V LO LO O O M O LO O O O V N'q V O (c) LO d7 LO O O H 00 07 O') f` Lid M O O ti LO N d7 LO LO f` 00 O LO (c) Cc) M N f` 00 CY) r- f` O M O LO (c) r Ltd 00 M (c) f` 00 V LO V (c) M O O 00 N CF) LSi O Ln Ln LC) O f` N O (c) LO OF) 00 N LO O 00 (c) 00 (c) 00 M N LO N N O LO f` Cc) LSD LO (c) N (c) 00 o0 O � ti M 00 N 00 N f` M N N � V f` O M 00 M (c) N M M 07 O Q o0 N ti L>L M O LO f` (M N � 00 f- N (c) � r 00 ti LO O � a f` 07 O 00 00 00 f` M O V V Lid 00 V V � M � N Ln O 00 d7 00 f` C) 'IT 00 O LSD 07 O M B O M� T -- N M M V -- M V -- LO N o N LO O r 07 00 N � LO O lq O lq 00 CF) lq T- 00 O � d) M N (c) LO N f` r- OF) O O O N f` � LO M M (c) O N (c) (c) N M LO O O o0 ;T f` 00 M d) (c) O o0 � 00 f- N N O � N 00 LO N 00 M LO O7 N M V O ti (c) M 00 M LO N M N O M f` N O Q > L 00 N Cc) f` L cn N O LL x X cu U cn O X (6 L W x m cu ��11 W cn � cn c X W C C: En Q � C/) X C o ~ � X C v O U U J�-0 � N U O > cn ° x O U N o N J x cn x 0 S � c6 '> N 0 w c6 ~ O >+ L ~ E a) .— (1) M ~ O C/) cn � U m O cn :3 E cn U J .- � X U N U- N O O W a C: a) :3 - 1--j (6 L M E O cn m N O M O .. C M c: c6 a) L C- N > cn in LL J 4-- O ° _ Of O - c L 5 (� � N - C o - I - , O U +� `� � L �° O O M o U E ° � o � o L C a� � _ O O �• O O -_ �. :3 c6 O O O O � �. O �_ ch -r- � N O N ±� O - > of a O J m m _ O a LL C) W U LL a z 0 w cn U) m 4- 0 n U C a) U c ca E (n a) U C a� L N LA i a) tD ri OJ to c O N r-I 3 a tD 00 C LL m w ° co 0 N 0 co 00 R* Q co L!9 N U 1� an Ln ` c M co N 4J O Q N 0 ' Ln a) lz ri i 0 O i Ln i r-I � ' N � O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O N t/f L � E a E to t/1 H 0) U V 4A O 0 a a m O V Li a� L 16 C i OJ i O u L.L. m L.L. w m a a-1 cn L o Ln M O M N co LL 0 � 0 0 M , r -I 0 suoillIW Q N O O O O O O� LM W >- M •� 0 ca o V u c n `n tD a� L 16 C i OJ i O u L.L. m L.L. w m a a-1 cn L o Ln M O M N co LL 0 � 0 0 M , r -I 0 suoillIW Q O O O O O O� >- M O 01 O U c 00 N � u1 � N N V I- Ol 00 Lr) -::1- r1 110 r-1 N N C ca rn 00 0 m O Lf1 fM OM Ln N m N � cn N to L r-I t I' I\ Ln O r� 'D r-I rl 00 0 N pp r-I M LL Q M O 1O M to L I N 00 r-I M U a r-i Lr 4-0 V C O M rr) Ol O M LL N 1 10 Ol N N O V a Ln ri � 00 LO °° o cn Ln � l0 rl 3 Ol rl 000 QO r-I Ln r-j N O LL � O r-j 00 tip cn L O a N O Ln Q U H a O a� L 16 C i OJ i O u L.L. m L.L. w m a a-1 cn L o Ln M O M N co LL 0 � 0 0 M , r -I 0 suoillIW Ln 41 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O L 00 I� t0 N N I� O Ln m � r-1 M Ln N ^ Ln M 00 00 w O N Ln M O � tD 01 m 3 � � � r-I M N 00 N Ln � M N N W 00 M Lq O N Ln r1 Ln tD M 00 N N I% N O m o M d' M N ^ r M M R* � 4 * M 4 * L d• 4 * � m tD E s O — o Ln Ln N Ln en a O V LA O O M O M m tD m 00 � 00 O O I� ^ O 00 4 * M O LOA N N Ln N L n % O ` - _ N N Ol L!1 O Ln N M O O M tD M N rl ^ 01 O N M W O 0 M y 00 M M N W O r-I O 00 4 * N D: O LJ1 L!1 O % N ^ O N � O; Ol O r-I r-I M M Ol O ^ 01 r ` M N O r-I L!1 N M ^ 01 O r-I 00 N 00 L! 1 O V N w m N r�i 00 Ol Ol N M M � L! 1 N T Ln N N M � 00 rrl I� O% lG O� Ll1 cn T-1 (1) M N Ln tD r1 M i ew ir- � L � L � a O •� N 01 N r-1 Ln 00 00 N %D Ln tD tD O N Ol Ln Ol N r-I Ln V.- � N r-I Ln tD Ol tD r-I M N r-I Ln M r-I N LLn %D tD tD M M O M r M N Q tD I� O Ol N tD N N Ln tD r1 O O Ln Rt r1 I� O Ln 00 m w ^ N N M M � 00 N M M N 00 O O N W 00 00 N � O 01 Ln Ln N U- r-I r-1 00 00 00 N M r-1 M N M R N r-I M N r-I L! 1 t0 r-I M Ln W M 00 tD Ln N Ln = O O O O O O O N O O ^ O O O O O O O O Ln O O W M M -j N M Ln N ++ O m w O O O w It N 0 m r N O tD O O^ N 0 0 T-4 N R* N 00 % O O 00 M N 4* N M N Ln O 00 N O 00 L! 1 00 00 O N � a1 L n O O N r-1 L n v i M 00 M N O� O M O rl R* • % r W L n Ol N L n O R* M N Ol W � ^ r-I O 00 r-1 r�-I 00 N M Ln N M N N 00 00 r1 r1 00 O r-I r1 en M M t0 r-I N M tDD t0 00 N M 111 00 M LL m M N r1 r1 r1 Ln N Ln N 00 N Ln 00 N N r-I M M rl r-I rl O GJ aj O ' a bb r_ } OJ O O M 4J > •GJ C *+ N E w 4 3 O m 4J I i , i p aj O Q O U . N • C GJ •�_ m , L W V d GJ •� _0 - 0 O N c G1 u >, i c ++ 5 > • i to Q Q +�+ GJ v 3 i V ca O D +- 3 • i }' G1 to G1 m U Q Q a U 2 LLI U U c H U 'cV 0 aj 2 °� U w ii U a ii U 0 V O Q) too � � ca ca � L. v aA ca ca +- Q) U i OJ OJ Q Q OJ � 4J N cn [a [a s2 O D � OJ OJ L = 4- O _O O OJ -0 -0 (a v L L- ca [a cn OJ OJ z3 ra > > O CU v CU W W J cc m � C i c O Q a O U a� m tD N a 0 N LL Ln 41 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O L 00 I� t0 N N I� O Ln m � r-1 M Ln N ^ Ln M 00 00 w O N Ln M O � tD 01 m 3 � � � r-I M N 00 N Ln � M N N W 00 M Lq O N Ln r1 Ln tD M 00 N N I% N O m o M d' M N ^ r M M R* � 4 * M 4 * L d• 4 * � m tD E s O — o Ln Ln N Ln en a O V LA O O M O M m tD m 00 � 00 O O I� ^ O 00 4 * M O LOA N N Ln N L n % O ` - _ N N Ol L!1 O Ln N M O O M tD M N rl ^ 01 O N M W O 0 M y 00 M M N W O r-I O 00 4 * N D: O LJ1 L!1 O % N ^ O N � O; Ol O r-I r-I M M Ol O ^ 01 r ` M N O r-I L!1 N M ^ 01 O r-I 00 N 00 L! 1 O V N w m N r�i 00 Ol Ol N M M � L! 1 N T Ln N N M � 00 rrl I� O% lG O� Ll1 cn T-1 (1) M N Ln tD r1 M i ew ir- � L � L � a O •� N 01 N r-1 Ln 00 00 N %D Ln tD tD O N Ol Ln Ol N r-I Ln V.- � N r-I Ln tD Ol tD r-I M N r-I Ln M r-I N LLn %D tD tD M M O M r M N Q tD I� O Ol N tD N N Ln tD r1 O O Ln Rt r1 I� O Ln 00 m w ^ N N M M � 00 N M M N 00 O O N W 00 00 N � O 01 Ln Ln N U- r-I r-1 00 00 00 N M r-1 M N M R N r-I M N r-I L! 1 t0 r-I M Ln W M 00 tD Ln N Ln = O O O O O O O N O O ^ O O O O O O O O Ln O O W M M -j N M Ln N ++ O m w O O O w It N 0 m r N O tD O O^ N 0 0 T-4 N R* N 00 % O O 00 M N 4* N M N Ln O 00 N O 00 L! 1 00 00 O N � a1 L n O O N r-1 L n v i M 00 M N O� O M O rl R* • % r W L n Ol N L n O R* M N Ol W � ^ r-I O 00 r-1 r�-I 00 N M Ln N M N N 00 00 r1 r1 00 O r-I r1 en M M t0 r-I N M tDD t0 00 N M 111 00 M LL m M N r1 r1 r1 Ln N Ln N 00 N Ln 00 N N r-I M M rl r-I rl O GJ aj O ' a bb r_ } OJ O O M 4J > •GJ C *+ N E w 4 3 O m 4J I i , i p aj O Q O U . N • C GJ •�_ m , L W V d GJ •� _0 - 0 O N c G1 u >, i c ++ 5 > • i to Q Q +�+ GJ v 3 i V ca O D +- 3 • i }' G1 to G1 m U Q Q a U 2 LLI U U c H U 'cV 0 aj 2 °� U w ii U a ii U 0 V O Q) too � � ca ca � L. v aA ca ca +- Q) U i OJ OJ Q Q OJ � 4J N cn [a [a s2 O D � OJ OJ L = 4- O _O O OJ -0 -0 (a v L L- ca [a cn OJ OJ z3 ra > > O CU v CU W W J cc m O 0 LM � 0 i C V `n m Ln ~ > O L a a 4A 3 O = E m w m m s O t o - o O V N V-4 ai � b0 it I � L v rc m \° � � o ° r \ i ° r�i O a Ill M N ^ LA L n N 00 01 00 N M w r = O M R* O x N N V N Ln M 01 ` oo O N m N 00 0 00 N 00 r-I M N Ln ri Ln R* O N M N ^ LA V.- i= 70 N 00 01 00 N M w r = O M R* O x N M w M u C o 0 0 0 N M N ^ M O � �N-I ^ 00 r 00 N m O M LL M O C w _O i GJ � L U O _u L y >' O m O 01 01 O cn M M Ln cn cn N rn 00 J F- a� Q) n,o � � c0 OJ 11 ra 4- = N Q) U L � v Q s? OJ OJ � CU CU OJ L = 4- CU _O O OJ -0 -0 (a O L (a (A CU CU z3 ra [a > CU to C LLI w J IY m 0 o a) O % D Al 3 OCT � I I O . a C M O Q c Q Ln F- +% 0 0 0N -I ± 4* %D \ M O LA N i 0R1 LA N CL o o o Ln . W CL O N 0 n Ln % .0 0 cn . � o a) 00 O LA Q oif O Ln N oi X X >' N 0 0 W 0 0 CL 4-j a tD O i o0 o0 N 3 00 IPA tG V II O aA O CL m c O m m V � Mo m a) c � L o O c 0 i U m O Co a ) Q m O aA o ca M CL O F C O 0 F F- L 4- L 4- L 4 O N O W bb Ob bA o 'N o }1 }1 }1 c M u u u u f6 a a a a �n V i \ ca CU tLo a) a) a) a C .� L r �• N N CL M m m m m a O H a� Q) n,o � � c0 OJ 11 ra 4- = N Q) U L � v Q s? OJ OJ � CU CU OJ L = 4- CU _O O OJ -0 -0 (a O L (a (A CU CU z3 ra [a > CU to C LLI w J IY m ACTION NO. ITEM NO. N -1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of Membership in ICLEI -- Local Governments for Sustainability SUBMITTED BY: Anne Marie Green Director of General Services APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman III &J01- County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMA"rION: Supervisor Elswick has asked that this item be placed on the agenda for discussion by the Board of Supervisors. HISTORY Two things happened in the Roanoke Valley in the 1990s which made the local governments very aware of the cost of environmental neglect. First, the citizens of Roanoke County spent over $9 million cleaning up the old Dixie Caverns landfill, which was an EPA superFund site. Second, the US Department of Justice criminally prosecuted the City of Roanoke for improper disposal of hazardous materials, which resulted in heavy fines, including punitive damages, and the city being place on federal probation. As part of that probation, the City sponsored a seminar for local governments promoting implementation of environmental management systems to prevent similar issues from occurring in other localities. It was a message that Roanoke County took to heart, and in August 2001, the Board of Supervisors adopted an Environmental Policy and began implementation of an environmental management system. Environmental management systems provide the framework for an organization to become ISO 14001 certified, which is an international quality standard for - the environment. Adherence to these standards can not only help organizations avoid serious environmental events, but also prevent imposition of punitive measures in the event that an accident Page 1 of 5 occurs. A staff committee reviewed county operations and made changes based on ISO 14001 standards. Due to these efforts, not only did the County meet its commitment to the EPA's Ozone Early Action Plan, but was also able to reduce energy consumption, saving at least $100,000 since 2003. The County received several Environmental Excellence Awards from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality in recognition of its proactive work in this area and citizen surveys have overwhelmingly indicated the support of our residents for a clean environment and ways to access it. ISO 14001 is aimed at the private sector, and became cumbersome to implement in an organization with over 30 buildings and wide variety of operations. Instead, the County joined ICLEI -- Local Governments for Sustainability USA in August 2007, which was a better fit for our operations and includes the citizens in the process. ICLEI's foremost program is Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) and this is the program in which Roanoke County is participating. The Board appointed a ten member citizens group, RC CLEAR, to create a local action plan and help the County and the citizens to reduce energy consumption and save money. One of the most appealing attributes of the ICLEI USA program is the fact that it is voluntary and adaptable to the circumstances existing in individual communities. BENEFITS of MEMBERSHIP: The major benefits of ICLEI membership are: 1. Access to - the tools, software and technical support to reduce energy consumption. The reports from this software showed us that the majority of energy consumption is residential use of electricity, and that the County's largest expense is also for electrical usage. This knowledge allowed us to know quickly where to spend the federal stimulus funding to get the most for the money. 2. Financial savings due to reduced utility costs for the County, businesses and homeowners. This should occur through the actions of RC CLEAR over the next few years. 3. Measurable improvements in air quality contributing to the overall health and well- being of the community. The Roanoke Valley was close to non - attainment of the ozone standard set by the EPA, which could have meant fines and expensive retrofits for gas stations and industries. There is also a growing prevalence of asthma and other breathing disorders here, which will be helped by improved air quality. 4. Stimulus to economic development due to the retention of local "energy dollars" that can be reinvested in the community. As the County and residents save money on energy, it is anticipated that most of those savings will be spent locally on other necessities. 5. Positive recognition for actively participating in a high - profile, environmental organization. Many of our businesses currently have energy saving programs in place related to their particular industries, and ICLEI is the recognized program for local governments. 5. According to the County's Department of Economic Development, prospects look Page 2 of 5 for local governments with respect to the environment and recognize that membership in ICLEI is a sign that the community has made a commitment to maintaining its quality of life ICLEI USA has over 500 members, and there are several in Virginia - Abingdon, Alexandria, Arlington, Augusta County, Blacksburg, Charlottesville, Falls Church, Harrisonburg, James City County, the City of Roanoke and Warrenton. Through our membership in ICLEI USA, the County has partnered with Roanoke and Blacksburg to implement a regional energy conservation educational partnership called Save A Ton. This program, operating through the Regional Commission, will bring awareness to citizens across the Roanoke and New River Valleys on ways to save money by saving energy. This is a unique opportunity for the two valleys to work together with one unified message for residents and businesses. DISCUSSION: At recent meetings of the Board of Supervisors, a few individuals expressed concerns about ICLEI and the county's membership in this organization. In particular, the speakers have raised the following issues: 1. concern about the county's membership in an "NCO ". That term means non - government organization, and is more generally used in the international community — in the United States; these organizations are generally called non- profit. It is true that ICLEI USA is a non - profit organization, similar to others to which the County belongs, such as Chambers of Commerce, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Association of Counties. 2. ICLEI will mandate that the county take certain actions such as establishing Urban Design Areas, restricting citizens' ability to own and develop their land and require that we become a "sustainable" community. The County through its zoning ordinance and community plan already restricts certain activities and land use based on what the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors believe is appropriate and what is constitutionally allowable. As a private nonprofit organization, ICLEI LISA has no method to compel any change in County land use policy; that power is restricted to the Board. As mentioned above, all actions taken by the local government and its citizens are entirely voluntary. 3. ICLEI is apart of the United Nations and a proponent of implementing Agenda 21. While it is true that the initial meeting creating ICLEI was held at United Nations Headquarters in New York City, ICLEI USA is an independent organization and is made up solely of local governments. ICLEI USA does have a program entitled Local Action 21, but Roanoke County does not participate in it. 4. ICLEI'S software is a security risk and allows ICLEI to obtain sensitive information. Additionally, the software is not accurate in its measurements. The software is loaded on a computer in the County's Department of General Page 3 of 5 Services and protected by the county's IT security systems. ICLEI USA does not obtain information from the software, but from the reports that we send to the organization. Our reports are general in nature, and derived from information obtained from VDGT, AEP, and Roanoke Gas. The software takes user - supplied inventory data and uses this to estimate the total energy use and emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxides and other air emissions. According to Dr. Sean McGinnis from Virginia Tech, who has assisted both the city and the County with inputting the data into the ICLEI USA software, it is relatively easy to confirm that the results make sense based on other protocols that estimate emissions. FISCAL I M PACT: Environmental stewardship saves the taxpayers money in several ways: First, reducing costs for county operations saves direct taxpayer dollars. Since 2001, Roanoke county has • Reduced its use of paper annually from 30 tons to 18 tons. • Reduced the usage of gasoline and diesel fuel by driving fewer miles in more energy efficient vehicles. The fleet MPG was 9.3 in 2003, and was 13.99 in 2911. • Saved over $109,999 in natural gas and electricity since - 2003. Second, together with the ether Valley governments, we deflected direct costs to businesses by reducing the ozone in the air enough to avoid being designated a non- attainment area by the EPA. Businesses, including dry cleaners, gas stations, printers, furniture makers and even beverage plants would have had to increase reporting of emissions, and in many cases, purchase new equipment to prevent release of certain gases. Third, through the use of $372,099 in stimulus funding for energy retrofits for County buildings, we will save over $1 million in the next ten years. Additionally, some of that funding was used for energy audits for County residents, who will see reductions in their energy bills if they implement even one of the suggestions. Dues for ICLEI USA are $1200 annuallly, which have already been paid for calendar year 2012. These dues provide the license for using the software as well as newsletters, networking opportunities and support from staff. ALTERNA"rIVES: 1. Continue membership in ICLEI USA, allowing RC CLEAR to continue its activities helping Roanoke County businesses and citizens save money by reducing carbon emissions. This will also allow the group to continue participating in the regional Save A Ton campaign with the other Roanoke Valley and New River Valley jurisdictions, since the ICLEI software will be used to monitor the effectiveness of the campaign. Page 4 of 5 2. Do not renew membership in ICLEI for calendar year 2013. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. ICLEI USA is recognized as an organization of local governments which respect the environment. Roanoke County has been an environmental leader in Southwest Virginia and the citizens and staff have performed a tremendous amount of work in achieving the progress that has been made to date. Without continued access to the ICLEI USA software, however, we will not be able to continue measuring the results of this work. Page 5 of 5 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. 0-1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 AGENDA ITEM: Public hearing and resolution to amend the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan to include the Glenvar Community Plan SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson Deputy Director of Planning Amanda Micklow Planner II APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman II County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMA'rION: Over the past two years, County staff has worked with the citizens of the Glenvar area to develop the Glenvar Community Plan. This Plan will help guide the future growth, development and redevelopment of the Glenvar community for the next fifteen to twenty 05 to 20) years. Community involvement played a major role in the development of the Plan. Efforts to involve the community in the planning process included a community survey, stakeholder interviews, interest groups meetings with citizens and business owners, three community meetings, a visioning exercise, a visual preference survey, an interactive map, a community focus group and several work sessions with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the Plan on November 14, 2011, at the Glenvar Middle School Forum with approximately twenty (20) citizens in attendance. After discussion and careful consideration, the Planning Commission voted to forward the Glenvar Community Plan to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation that the Plan be adopted as part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. County staff reviewed the Plan in a work session with the Board of Supervisors on January 10 The Plan inventories the history, environmental resources, land use and development, community facilities (schools, libraries, public safety, parks and utilities) and Page 1 of 2 transportation facilities in the Glenvar community. The Plan also presents the results of the community's involvement which helped shape the development of the vision statement, goals and recommendations for the Plan. The Glenvar Community Plan presents "housekeeping changes" to the future land use map. In addition to these "housekeeping changes," the Glenvar Focus Group developed three alternative future land use scenarios for both the West Main Street Corridor and the Dixie Caverns area for public review. After public input, the Glenvar Focus Group provided a recommended future land use map for each area. The Plan also identifies recommendations dealing with zoning and design, economic development, streetscape improvements, transportation facilities, residential development, outdoor recreation and parks, viewshed conservation, and community involvement. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the attached resolution approving and adopting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan incorporating the Glenvar Community Plan. 2. Take no action at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2012 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, INCORPORATING THE GLENVAR COMMUNITY PLAN WHEREAS, on November 14, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan incorporating the Glenvar Community Plan, after advertisement and notice as required by Section 15.2 -2204 of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, on January 24, 2012, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan incorporating the Glenvar Community Plan, after advertisement and notice as required by Section 15.2 -2204 of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County, Virginia, has a long and successful history of community planning that has emphasized citizen involvement and participation; and WHEREAS, Section 15.2 -2223 of the Code of Virginia requires that the Planning Commission of every jurisdiction shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development of their jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke County entitled "Glenvar Community Plan" and said plan has been prepared in accordance with Sections 15.2- 2223 2224, and 2229 of the Code of Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: Page 1 of 2 1. That the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by the adoption of the Glenvar Community Plan, with the recommended "housekeeping changes" to the Future Land Use Map as well as the Land Use Map changes for West Main Street and the Dixie Caverns area as recommended by the Glenvar Focus Group and Planning Commission. 2. That this Resolution is effective from and after its adoption. Page of M- ERR F Ai yw A IF .{ I bai LWO]i lk, Ali Vk, At 91 k16, I I WM M Wm' a L Page Intentionally Left Blank 0 Acknowledgments Special thanks are given to all of the citizens, business representatives and organizations who assisted in the development of the Glenvar Community Plan. Additional thanks to Glenvar Middle School, Glenvar Branch Library, Spring Hollow Water Treatment Plant and Fort Lewis Baptist Church for the use of their facilities during the Glenvar Community Planning process. Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Joseph "Butch" Church, Catawba District Michael W. Altizer, Vinton District, Vice Chairman Eddie "Ed" Elswick, Windsor Hills District Richard C. Flora, Hollins District, Chairman Charlotte A. Moore, Cave Spring District Roanoke County B. Clayton Goodman, III, County Administrator Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Joe Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development Jill Loope, Acting Director of Economic Development Glenvar Focus Group Ed Bindas Carole Brackman Kathie Brown Connie Browning Judy Conyers Susan Edwards Barry Garst Bill Hibbert Sarah McHatton Tony Morrison Jay O'Brien David Shelor Robert Rector Leonard Southern Joe Thomas Glenvar Community Plan Project Teav►n, Roanoke County Department of Community Development Amanda C. Micklow, AICP, Planner II, Project Manager Megan G. Cronise, AICP, Principal Planner David R. Holladay, Planning Administrator Darren Jones, GIS Technician II Philip G. Thompson, AICP, Deputy Director of Planning Roanoke Count Planning Cowtwtission Martha Hooker, Catawba District Gary W. Jarrell, Hollins District Rodney W. McNeil, Cave Spring District Jason Peters, Vinton District, Vice Chairman David Radford, Windsor Hills District, Chairman Glenvar Community Plan Page Intentionally Left Blank GIenvar Community Plan 1.1 Purpose 1 -1 1.2 Relationship to Comprehensive Plan 1 -1 1.3 Study Area Boundaries 1 -2 1.4 Study Area Demographics 1 -2 1.5 Planning Process 1 -3 1.6 Plan Adoption 1 -3 1.7 Plan Structure 1 -4 2.1 Early History 2 -1 2.2 Eighteenth Century 2 -2 2.3 Antebellum Nineteenth Century 2 -2 2.4 Construction of the Railroad 2 -3 2.5 Boom Days 2 -5 2.6 Postwar Development 2 -7 3.1 Roanoke River and Tributary Streams 3 -1 3.2 Watersheds and Floodplain 3 -1 3.3 Topography and Geologic Features 3 -3 3.4 Viewsheds 3 -9 4.1 Existing Land Use 4 -1 4.2 Economic Development 4 -1 4.3 Zoning 4 -3 4.4 Future Land Use 4 -5 4.5 County Guidelines and Programs 4 -6 5.1 Schools 5 -1 5.2 Library 5 -3 5.3 Public Safety 5 -4 5.4 Parks, Recreation and Tourism 5 -6 5.5 Utilities 5 -8 GIenvar Community Plan Table of Contents 6.1 Roadway Characteristics 6 -1 6.2 Railroads 6-3 6.3 Proposed Intermodal Facility 6 -4 6.4 Alternative Modes of Transportation 6 -5 6.5 Improvements 6 -8 7.1 Glenvar Community Survey 7 -1 7.2 Digital Communication and Outreach 7 -4 7.3 Traditional Communication and Outreach 7 -5 7.4 Stakeholder Interviews 7 -5 7.5 Interest Group Meetings 7 -6 7.6 Community Meetings 7 -6 7.7 Glenvar Focus Group 7 -9 7.8 Planning Commission 7 -10 7.9 Board of Supervisors 7 -11 8.1 Vision Statement 8 -1 8.2 Plan Goals 8 -1 8.3 Future Land Use Recommendations 8 -1 8.4 Plan Recommendations 8 -9 8.5 Table of Implementation Strategies 8 -15 A Maps B Documents and Images Glenvar Community Plan Chapter 1: Introduction. The Glenvar Community is characterized by natural resources such as the Roanoke River, Poor Mountain and Fort Lewis Mountain, but also by infrastructure resources including Interstate 81, Route 11/460 (West Main Street) and the Norfolk Southern railroad. Most development is clustered in the valley on the flattest land; however, much of this land is in the Roanoke River floodplain. The Glenvar Community is also home to 10,000 residents, several internationally -known businesses and important community resources including the Glenvar Library, Glenvar Schools, Fort Lewis Fire Station, Green Hill Park, Camp Roanoke, Spring Hollow Reservoir and the Western Virginia Regional Jail. 1.1 Purpose The Glenvar Community Plan was initiated to study development and redevelopment issues along West Main Street and in the Dixie Caverns area, in anticipation of the West Main Street widening project and the proposed intermodal facility in Montgomery County. Route 11/460, also known as West Main Street, has been a main route of travel since at least the eighteenth century. Originally known as the "Great Indian Path" and the "Great Road," Route 11 was one of the main thoroughfares traveled by emigrants to Tennessee and Kentucky. Formally expanded in 1947, development along West Main Street at that time was focused on serving automobiles and their owners. The opening of Interstate 81 through the Glenvar Community in 1964 shifted traffic and development to interchanges and reduced customers for businesses along West Main Street. Commercial businesses like the Blue Jay Motel and Fort Lewis Tourist Courts fell by the wayside and were replaced by industrial development. .. w a. Off] d,, J91;.1J_fPr0,15Lr0 : o m ° Graphic 1.02 Blue Jay Motel Vintage Postcard (ca. 1950s) In the 1990s, VDOT began planning the widening of the three -lane section of West Main Street from the City of Salem line to Technology Drive into a four - lane -wide section with raised medians to blend with the rest of West Main Street and eliminate bottlenecks and access management issues. As a result, little development has occurred along this stretch of West Main Street over the past 20 years; however, new development is expected after the widening project is completed. The Glenvar Community Plan focuses on the West Main Street corridor from the City of Salem to Montgomery County to ensure that future development is consistent with the community's vision. Additionally, the proposed Norfolk Southern intermodal facility, planned for just over the county line on Route 11/460 in Montgomery County, may have impacts on transportation, the environment and future development in the Glenvar Community. These potential impacts of the Roanoke Intermodal Facility are also being considered as part of the Glenvar Community Plan. 1.2 Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan The Commonwealth of Virginia requires Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 1.01 Roanoke River Introduction that every locality adopt a Comprehensive Plan for "guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory... which will best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants" (Code of Virginia 15.2-2223). The Glenvar Community Plan, adopted into the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, will aid decision- making for future development in the Glenvar Area. This document is the sixth in a series of area, corridor and community planning studies that aim to provide detailed, area - specific analysis and recommendations for the areas in which they are conducted. 1.3 Study Area Boundaries The study area for the Glenvar Community Plan is the Glenvar Planning Area. Roanoke County's largest planning area, the Glenvar Planning Area stretches east to west from the City of Salem to the Montgomery County border and north to south from the ridge of Fort Lewis Mountain to the ridge of Poor Mountain. Part of the Catawba Magisterial District, the Glenvar Planning Area is bisected horizontally by Hotetuuri 1 oUn15 { C iFY (I lr'ountyke - ft�,.�n�ltis °ry. �lllli3Jr' 6 Caun - ofRoanoke 11 uarg oin vr;, -Cuuur w Fi-ankliri County flu cuuntY - Si1 A Graphic 1.03 Glenvar Planning Area Interstate 81, Route 11/460 (West Main Street) and the Roanoke River. The Planning Area measures 31,744 acres or 49.6 square miles in size, one -fifth the land area of Roanoke County, and contains all or portions of 5,081 parcels. A larger map of the study area is located in Appendix A. 1.4 Study Area Demographics The Glenvar Community is one of the fastest growing areas of Roanoke County. The Community's population grew from approximately 7,800 in 2000 to almost 10,000 in 2010, a 20% increase in population. There is an approximately 50/50 split between male and female with the majority of the population between 30 and 60 years of age, as shown in Graphic 1.04 below. Sex by Age 20 10 US Ce n s us 8 5 rears and t go yea"i 75 Z079 y+ea.s iD 40 M ftd 67w VO4ai 65 and G6 yrors: 62 to e4 0?a ^5 fW arod y1 y-ars 45 to 49 y03r3 4D t4 4A V ear J5 00 A9 VO 30 10 33 eea-s f 51� 29 iedil 20 era a A y e urs 1510 17 yea+ 10 to A Mews i 5 to 9 Mears Under 5 °�ear5 5M Kv wi _W C' 1@1 271} AW Number Graphic 1.04 Glenvar Sex by Age (2010) The majority of residents, 93 %, of the Glenvar Community also identify as "white alone" on the US Census. Four percent identify as "black or African - American alone" and less than one percent identified as American Indian, Asian, some other race or two or more races. In 2 were 3,496 households in the Glenvar Community; the majority of which (73%) are family households. The US Census defines a household as "all of the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence" and a family as a "group of two or more people who reside together and who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. " Of the family households, 83% are defined as a "husband- Glenvar Community Plan Introduction wife family," 12% as a "female householder, no husband present" and 0.04% are "male householder, no wife present." Of the 925 nonfamily households in the Glenvar Community, 90% are householders living alone. 1.5 Planning Process Work on the Glenvar Community Plan initially began in the last quarter of 2008. However, due to a controversial asphalt plant land use application that was under consideration at the time, the planning process did not gain momentum until a revised application was approved in November 2009. visual preference survey were completed by attendees of the second community meetings. Digital communication and outreach played a significant role in planning efforts with the use of a Glenvar Community Plan website, the Roanoke County Planning Services Facebook Page, Twitter, the Community Developments e- newsletter and a Glenvar email list which included citizens involved in the asphalt plant application and community meeting attendees. Traditional mailings and flyers were also utilized, as were local print and online newspaper articles and radio interviews. The Glenvar Community planning process began with an inventory and analysis of existing conditions which included its history, demographic information, environmental resources, existing land use, community facilities and transportation infrastructure. The results of the inventory and analysis are included in Chapters Two through Six, respectively. Community issues, opportunities and assets were identified through a survey, stakeholder interviews, community meetings and visioning exercises. The Glenvar Community Survey was launched in November 2009 and was available online to citizens for five months. To reach key members of the Glenvar Community, stakeholder interviews were conducted in the first half of 2010 and interest group meetings with groups of citizens and business owners were held in 2009 and 2010. Graphic 1.05 Interest Group Meeting at Richfield Retirement Community (February 2010) Three well- attended community meetings were organized in 2010 and 2011 for County staff to present information to the Glenvar Community and to gather citizens input about how Glenvar should develop in the future. To aid in this process, a visioning exercise and The Glenvar Focus Group was created to involve community representatives in developing core components of the Glenvar Community Plan including the vision statement, plan goals and future land use refinements and recommendations. The Focus Group met five times, including a joint work session with the Planning Commission, from January to September 2011. Several staff -led work sessions were held with the Planning Commission throughout the planning process to provide updates and to receive feedback. A work session was also held with the Board of Supervisors at the beginning of the process in 2008 to give an overview of the area and of potential impacts from development proposals in the area. 1.6 Plan Adoption The Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft Glenvar Community Plan at the Glenvar Middle School Forum on November 14, 2011. Following a presentation by staff and a few citizen comments, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Glenvar Community Plan into the County's Comprehensive Plan. The Board of Supervisors considered the draft Glenvar Community Plan at a public hearing held on January 24, 2012. Glenvar Community Plan Introduction 1.7 Plan Structure The Glenvar Community Plan is composed of eight chapters and two appendices which includes related maps and documents. Chapter One includes the Plan's purpose, how it relates to the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, the extent of the Glenvar Study Area, the planning process, the adoption of the Plan and the structure of the document. The second chapter further describes the Planning Area and recounts the history of the Glenvar Community. Environmental resources are detailed in the third chapter including the Roanoke River and its tributaries, watersheds and floodplain, area topography and geology as well asviewsheds. ChapterFourfocuses on land use and development with sections on existing land use, economic development, zoning, future land use and County guidelines and programs. Community facilities are outlined in Chapter Five which provides an overview of area schools, the library, public safety, parks, recreation and tourism and utilities. Chapter Six, Transportation, discusses roadway characteristics, alternative modes of transportation, proposed improvements and plans. The seventh chapter documents all of the methods of community involvement used through the planning process including the Glenvar Community Survey, digital and traditional communication and outreach, stakeholder interviews, interest group meetings, community meetings, the Glenvar Focus Group, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors involvement. The proposed future land use scenarios and plan recommendations are included in Chapter Eight. Appendix A contains maps referenced within the text and Appendix B includes documents cited in the Plan. Glenvar Community Plan Chapter z: History The "Glenvar" name originated in 1891 from the middle name of Mary Glenvar Harmon, the daughter of a prominent land owner in the area. Prior to the late 19th century, the entire area west of Salem was known as Fort Lewis. In the following section, through 1890 the entire area will be referred to as Fort Lewis. From 1891 to 1964, the communities will be referred to separately, Fort Lewis and Glenvar, respectively. And from 1964, the entire area has come to be known as Glenvar following the construction of the high school. 2.1 Early History Prior to the first white settlers arriving in the Fort Lewis community, the area was part of a larger, common hunting ground for several American Indian tribes. Presently referred to as the "Debatable Land," the area was "so fair and valuable that the Indians were continually fighting among themselves for its possession. " The majority of these tribes belonged to the Siouan linguistic stock such as the Monacan, Tutelo, Saponi and Nahyssan. Other major tribes that may have hunted in the area include the Cherokee, Shawnee and those that lived on the shores of the Great Lakes. X Tute n F � Sa poni AMMON mai a , + . ■ a, `� i i�a b . s ■a ca t + ! 11 + Y a � A a `e a` W 'NOW X Graphic 2.01 Native American Tribes in Virginia There are two American Indian archeological sites in the Fort Lewis Area, the Fort Lewis Swamp site and the Thomas - Sawyer site. The Fort Lewis Swamp complex of sites, also known as the Thomas Brothers site, is located three to four miles west of Salem, south of Route 11/460 and 290 yards from the Roanoke River. Fort Lewis Swamp was created by a large spring that emanated near the former site of the Fort Lewis Mansion; animals and hunters alike were drawn to this area. Artifacts found at the Fort Lewis Swamp site include spearheads and projectile points of the Clovis and other prehistoric points. Flakes and scrapers have also been found dating from the Paleo Period (9,000 - 10,000 B.C.) up through and including the Woodland Period (800 -1600 A.D.). Four of the eight extremely rare Clovis points found in Roanoke County were within 0.38 of a mile of this swamp. There have also been indications of a large Woodland village site across Route 11/460 from Fort Lewis Elementary school; however, it is yet to be pinpointed. GLASS I ti �f 5 i ] 1 qY 1 ! r gym: Graphic 2.02 Artifacts from Fort Lewis Excavation The Thomas - Sawyer site is located in west Salem, south of the Roanoke River and just east of Mill Lane. The most significant artifact found at the Thomas - Sawyer site is pottery kiln carbon -dated to 1585; the first such prehistoric kiln found in Western Virginia. Through the valley between Poor Mountain and Fort Lewis Mountain, ran the "Great [Indian] Path." This path was the thoroughfare between the Northern and Southern Indian tribes; as McCauley (1909) describes, "this was the path of migration, the chase, the treaty and savage invasion. Besides its central position, and direct course, the great Appalachian chain could nowhere else be so easily ascended and crossed." The path, later known as the "Great [Wagon] Road" and currently as Route 11/460 (West Main Street) , was a primary route for Scotch - Irish and German emigrants to the Roanoke Valley and pioneers traveling to Kentucky and Tennessee in the Glenvar Community Plan eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It is estimated that over 100,000 pioneers of the western states traveled the "Great Road" before it became wide enough to accommodate wagons. 2.2 Eighteenth Century The earliest acquisition of land in the Glenvar community was that of James Campbell in 1742. On the land of James Campbell, Fort Lewis was constructed in 1755 as a part of a chain of 14 frontier forts extending from Winchester, Virginia to the Tennessee River. The fort was located on a hill midway between the railroad and Route 11/460, approximately 150 feet west of the Fort Lewis Mansion site. It was approximately 60 square feet with bastions and constructed of logs on a foundation of flat field stone. During the French and Indian War, Fort Lewis served as a "place of rendezvous" for Colonel William Byrd's Cherokee Expedition (Sandy Creek Expedition) . The Fort was located in a less dangerous and more convenient place than Fort Vause, 12 miles away in Montgomery County. There was an "abundant supply of water, ample level ground for drilling, abundant forage for the horses and a tolerable supply of provisions for the men. " Troops were likely stationed at Fort Lewis from 1755 through February 1762 at which time the Virginia Regiment was disbanded and paid off. The Cherokee Expedition began and ended at Fort Lewis. Alexander Boyd, Lieutenant and Paymaster of the Virginia Regiment, purchased 98 acres from the estate of James Campbell, which was then army headquarters, and established a general mercantile for the entire Roanoke community in 1760/1. A general mercantile store was operated on the site through the turn of the century under the ownership of prominent merchants Alexander Baine (1771 -1785) and David Ross (1785-1806). The name, "Fort Lewis," became attached to the residence and store of the "Boyd- Ross" Plantation and to the community. Immediately around Fort Lewis were grants to Ephraim Vause (216 acres, 1748) , John Charlton (46 acres, 1768), John Keith (350 acres, 1787), James Mason and William Lewis (700 acres, 1790) and James Smith (350 acres, 1796). Other early acquisitions of land in the community were Thomas Arthur (1774), Peter Deyerle (1767/79) and Thomas Taylor near Dixie Caverns (1796). A map of the earliest land acquisitions in the Fort Lewis area is located in Appendix B. 2.3 Antebellum Nineteenth Century Prior to the Civil War until the "Boom Days" in the 1890s, there were three large farms in the community; the Joseph Deyerle farm (Pleasant Grove), the White farm (Fort Lewis residence) and the Zirkle farm. The Deyerle farm, approximately 1,500 acres, was the oldest in the community, originally lying in both Montgomery and Roanoke Counties. The Pleasant Grove residence and outbuildings, built by Joseph Deyerle in 1853, is one of the "finest and most intact examples of historic domestic architecture in the region." A map showing the location of historic features in the Glenvar Community is available on page 2 -4. The White farm, encompassing 4,500 acres, was south of Route 11/460 and west of Fort Lewis Elementary School, where Fort Lewis once stood. Samuel White, father of Alexander White, began construction of the Fort Lewis Mansion in 1818 and completed the structure in 1822. The Zirkle farm, 1,200 acres, lay east of the White farm. These three farms were of the plantation style and especially large compared to others in Roanoke County at the time. As such, prior to the Civil War, they were operated by slave labor. The chief crops produced were tobacco, Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 2.03 Pleasant Grove corn, wheat and hay. Additionally, before prohibition, liquor was produced and sold from licensed stills on the plantations. Farming continued to dominate the economic and social life of the Fort Lewis community until about 1890, the beginning of the "Boom Days." As very few lived beyond the Deyerle, White and Zirkle farms for the majority of the 19th century, the area of contact for residents barely extended beyond the community itself. Social ties and contacts were formed through visiting and social recreation in the home and through attending school and /or church. The two social institutions of the early community were the one -room school house and Fort Lewis Baptist Church. Graphic 2.04 Old School House The "Old Glenvar Schoolhouse" was built about 1840 on the property of Peter Deyerle and used until the Civil War. Ms. Mollie L. Deyerle was the first to teach in the one -room log building. This white -only school was the first free school in Roanoke County. Fort Lewis Baptist Church was completed and dedicated on August 28, 1855. Prior to its construction (1845- 1855), members had been attending Salem Baptist Church in the "bend" section of the Roanoke River, six miles west of Salem. In 1853, Alexander White, owner of the Fort Lewis estate, deeded one acre to Reverend William L. Hatcher and Lewis Zirkle, trustees of the church. Construction of the original one - room, brick building began in 1854 and was completed in 1855. 2.4 Construction of the Railroad The Fort Lewis community began to change and expand in the mid - nineteenth century as a result of the construction of the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad through Roanoke County. The Virginia and Tennessee Railroad was chartered in 1848 and broke ground for the Lynchburg to Salem section on January 16 1850. By mid - December 1852, the railroad reached the outskirts of Salem and by 1854 -1855, construction was completed through Roanoke and Montgomery Counties. A telegraph line was completed along the entire line in 1857 and sleeping cars were added by 1860. The original stops were at Salem, Charles Thomas' tavern and wagon stand near the boundary with Montgomery County and Big Spring near Elliston. The Virginia and Tennessee Railway merged with two other antebellum railroads in 1870 to form the Atlantic, Mississippi and Ohio Railroad. In 1881, the Atlantic, Mississippi and Ohio Railroad was organized into the Norfolk and Western Railroad. In 1882, there were railroad stops at Salem, Deyerle's Switch and Big Spring. Double- tracking of the Norfolk and Western line began in April 1890 from Roanoke to Big Spring (twenty miles through the Fort Lewis area) and was completed to Bluestone Junction by April 189 1. 1 6r IF Graphic 2.06 Glenvar Train Station Around this same time, the name "Glenvar" became synonymous with the community. According to local history, Mary Glenvar Harmon, daughter of a prominent landowner in the area, was often seen Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 2.05 Fort Lewis Baptist Church (ca. 1935) C3Glenvar Plannin Area Boundar — Route 11/460 Interstate 81 Roads Norfolk and VvIestem Railroad Vir Railwa Roanoke River Historic Feature Cit of Salem ) .\ � Piet- nt"Brick- - , _WW00 po 6_,�_ MeIC ; FwAUNOS � � � . W 1 e T-g_r_ F6rt'R'e-WIS W.qfision Fort,,Lewis BaptistC_ urc'b rF 3 \0 ife.Tarin De Pleasant G-rove. .j-erle Farr j Ooepp 0 , lar aflro �St a tioni Glenvar Post Oiece !;-..$ env ., Ienv I r Canner *1)1,xie Caverns ffice 4 0 Sin 1-Pos NN W X 17 Camp Lucius Onson Mont C.'Ounty, 11 Roanoke Count N Graphic 2.07 Glen r Communit Plan Historic Features 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles *1 Glenvar Communit Nan near the railroad stop known at the time as "Deyerle's Switch." Over time, the train station became known as Glenvar (Graphic 2.06) . When the Norfolk and Western railroad station was established on present day Elmwood Lane, the Harmons opened a store and cannery near the site in 1892. The store later became Red Barn Antiques and is now home to Agape Performing Arts Studio. The Glenvar Cannery is located on the property now owned by Valley Distributing. Harmon also established a post office at his store called "Glenvar," but it was discontinued when he moved to Washington D.C. in the early 20th century. The Glenvar post office was re- established in 1915, when W.O. Goodwin and Company took over the store. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Glenvar community was also served by the "Singer" post office, which was located near the intersection of West River Road and Getty Drive. By the 1930s, both the Glenvar and Singer post office has been discontinued and mail was handled by rural delivery. 2.5 Boom Days In the spring of 1890, the Glenvar Community's first industry, Pierpont Brick Works, was established by George R. Pierpont. Now known as Old Virginia Brick, the Pierpont Yard and Plant was located on a 74 -acre tract of land between the Norfolk and Western and the Virginian Railways. It was said that the output of the plant was so well known for high quality bricks among architects and contractors, that many of them specified the use of "Pierpont" bricks in their construction plans. Pierpont bricks were used to construct the Roanoke County jail, Jefferson Apartments and buildings at Roanoke College and Hollins [College] University. The Virginian Railway (VGN), formerly known as the Tidewater, was built through Roanoke County in 1907 -1908 and parallels the Norfolk and Western for twenty miles deflecting from the latter dust east of the Roanoke /Montgomery County boundary. The Virginian Railway was constructed for the purpose of hauling heavy freight, so mountains were tunneled and valleys were filled or bridged with high trestles to minimize grade. Known for being well- engineered and operating some of the largest and best steam, electric and diesel engines, the Virginian was nicknamed the Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 2.10 Pierpont Brick Works (From N & W Tracks) Graphic 2.08 Goodwin's General Store (ca. 1920) Graphic 2.11 The Virginian Railway and Norfolk and Western Tracks (Glenvar Tower in Background, 1929) Graphic 2.09 Map of Post Offices and Routes (1896) "richest little railroad in the world." Concluding a profitable 50 year history, the Virginian merged with Norfolk and Western in 1959. A large portion of the VGN, including the length through the Glenvar Community, remains in service as part of the Class I Norfolk Southern Railway. In August 1910, Frank Burwell (F.B.) Gordon purchased the "old Fort Lewis" home and completely remodeled it in the Colonial Revival style "presenting an elegance surpassed by few, if any, of the historic homes of the Old Dominion... and a landmark for travelers either by rail or highway." Graphic 2.12 Fort Lewis Mansion (from Route 11/460) Between 1917 and 1927, the Community experienced a 67% increase in population which was almost double the growth for Roanoke County and more than five times greater than the state of Virginia as a whole. This population boom was largely a result of emigration from the counties of Floyd and Franklin and other adjacent areas. By 1930, Glenvar had over 250 homes, many of which are of the "urban type," a post office, a new brick school building (Fort Lewis Elementary built in 1928), five churches, four stores and three industries (two canneries and a brick plant) . Farming was also done on a smaller scale. The increase in population between 1890 and 1930 led to the division of the three large farms, Deyerle, White and Zirkle, into smaller farms. In 1930, the average farm size was 35 acres. The type of farming done in the Glenvar Community also changed; the farms switched from cultivating tobacco to wheat, corn and hay and then to dairy, orchards and poultry to accommodate increased demand in Roanoke and Salem. In 1930, only 28% of the working population of the Glenvar Community was engaged in farming. The remaining 72% were engaged in skilled and unskilled labor, domestic or personal service or business and professional occupations. - AWN "T My ua, Graphic 2.13 Apple Orchard near Glenvar During the first half of the twentieth century, the Glenvar Community became known for outdoor recreation. In 1923, Dixie Caverns was opened to the public and Camp Lucius Johnson, now Camp Roanoke, was opened by the YMCA in 1925. The camp's namesake, Lucius Johnson, was president of the Norfolk and Western Railway from 1904 to 1921. In 1930, the initial 6,000 acres of Havens Wildlife Management Area was purchased. Graphic 2.14 Recreation Cabin on Getty Lane At the same time, numerous recreational cabins were also built in Glenvar Community, especially near the Roanoke River on Getty Lane, River Bend Lane and Poor Mountain Road. The cabins, mostly built . Glenvar Community Plan between 1920 and 1940, were mostly rectangular, log bungalows. The logs were often painted in contrasting colors and ran either horizontally or vertically. Mercy House, a forerunner of Richfield Retirement Community, was opened in November 1934 in an old house on what was then Roanoke County's Poor Farm. The original unit accommodated 55 patients in two buildings, one of which was designated for those suffering from tuberculosis. A new children's building, built in 1937, provided an additional 16 beds. In April 1939, a separate children's tuberculosis cottage was dedicated. By this time, Mercy House had been turned over to the Roanoke Public Health Association to be run as a nursing home. Mercy House was no longer a temporary quarter for destitute citizens, but a sanatorium with additional hospital services and a major factor in the low rate of tuberculosis in Roanoke County. Food was supplied by a 280 -acre farm on the property. Graphic 2.15 Richfield Front Drive In the 1970s, the name of the facility was changed to Richfield Retirement Community in recognition of that the property was once part of General Andrew Lewis' estate which was named Richfield. Over the next three decades, a nursing care center, "home for adults," senior rental housing units, a medical clinic and a pharmacy were opened on the property. Today, Richfield Retirement Community is one of the largest employers in Roanoke County. A map of the historic structures and cemeteries in the Glenvar Planning Area is available in Appendix A. Additional information about these resources is available in Appendix B. 2.6 Postwar Development The Glenvar Community's history for the second half of the twentieth century was characterized by industrial and residential development. Koppers Roanoke Plant was built in 1955 to replace the Norfolk and Western treating plant in Radford, Virginia. Located on a former tomato and strawberry farm, the plant now supplies one million railroad ties to Norfolk Southern and other customers. In 1964, Interstate 81 was opened through the Glenvar Community, running parallel to Route 11/460. One of the top eight truck routes in the United States, I -81 carries tourists, travelers, commuters and more than a third of all college students in the state. Medeco [High Security Locks] moved to the Glenvar Community in 1975. Known for the development of a unique system of angled key cuts and elevating and rotating pin tumblers, Medeco locks allowed for millions of key combinations and a level of security that was unmatched in its time. Over the last 35 years, Medeco has become one of the leading producers of high security locks in the world and employees more than 400 people. Also in 1975, Blue Ridge Beverage Company opened its headquarters in the Glenvar Community. Located on the former site of the Glenvar Cannery, Blue Ridge Beverage is one of the largest wholesale beverage distributors in Virginia. Graphic 2.16 Medeco Building (Late 1970s) The area around Fort Lewis Elementary School was the first to be suburbanized in the 1940s and 1950s with the development of Andrew Lewis Place, Green Hill Terrace and Richland Hills. A map of subdivisions in the Glenvar Community is available in Appendix A. Glenvar Community Plan History The majority of community facilities in the Glenvar area were also constructed in the past sixty years. Glenvar Elementary School was constructed in 1959, Glenvar High School was opened in 1964 and the Glenvar Library was opened in 1978. In 1991, Poor Mountain Natural Area Preserve was established by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Graphic 2.17 Glenvar Elementary Construction (1959) Valley TechPark, located on Technology Drive, opened in 1994. The anchor business is R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, a 277,000 square foot state- of -the- art printing facility. Spring Hollow Reservoir and Dam commenced operation in 1995. County- sponsored growth continued with the opening of the Center for Research and Technology in 2000, the reopening of Camp Roanoke to the public in 2001 and the opening of the Western Virginia Regional Jail in 2009. For additional information on the community facilities in the Glenvar Planning Area, please see Chapter 5, Community Facilities. Glenvar Community Plan Chapter 3: Environmental Resources 3.1 Roanoke River and Tributary Streams 3. 1.1 Roanoke River Biphenyls) , e. coli (escherichia coli) and/or temperature, respectively. In July 2005, the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) issued a Fish Consumption Advisory for PCBs for the entire Roanoke River. The source of The Roanoke River bisects the Glenvar this impairment is unknown. Planning Area, flowing northeast for 10.5 miles between Fort Lewis and Poor Mountains. With its headwaters originating just west of the Planning Area in Elliston, the Roanoke River provides scenic views, recreational opportunities and drinking water for both residents and visitors of Roanoke County. The report also lists the 12.64 -mile section of the Roanoke River from the City of Salem Water Treatment Plant (WTP) to the confluence of the North and South Forks of the Roanoke River as impaired for aquatic life use due to water temperature. The source of the impairment is identified as natural conditions. The waters from the City of Salem WTP to the 3.1.2 Tributary Streams Within the Glenvar Planning Area, there are eight tributary streams draining directly into the Roanoke River. Six of the streams, Callahan Branch, Stypes Branch, Little Bear Rock Branch, Big Bear Rock Branch, Paint Bank Branch and Homers Branch, originate near the ridgeline of Fort Lewis Mountain and flow south through hollows - small valleys surrounded by mountains - into the Roanoke River. The two remaining streams, Dry Branch and Mill Creek, originate near the top of Poor Mountain and flow north into the Roanoke River. See Graphic 3.03, Glenvar Community Plan Water Features, on page 3 -2 for a map of tributary streams in the Planning Area. 3.1.3 Water Quality According to a 2010 report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), portions or all of the Roanoke River through the Glenvar Community is impaired due to PCBs (Polychlorinated Spring Hollow Reservoir water intake are impaired for recreation by e. coli. Sources of this impairment include discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4), livestock grazing or feeding operations, septic systems, sanitary sewer overflows or collection system failures, non -point source discharges and wildlife (other than waterfowl) . Graphic 3.02 Location of E.Coli Impairment 3.2 Watersheds and Floodplain 3.2.1 Watersheds A watershed is the area of land where all of the water drains to a common waterway, such as a stream, river or lake. There are 27 watersheds completely or partially in the Glenvar Planning Area, all of which drain into the Roanoke River. Twenty -six of these watersheds are entirely in Roanoke County, covering 38,049 acres of drainage area. 3.2.2 Floodplaln A floodplain is an area near a river or a stream Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 3.01 Fly Fisherman in the Roanoke River Streams Roanoke River Watershed Boundar Floodplain Floodwa Sprin Hollow Reservoir Glenvar Plannin Area Boundar Dr Branch P int Bank Branch 00 Cole Hollow Branc Butt Hollow Creek 0 Hi SchoelloBrancil Stypes Branch Bi Rock Branch C IT 1' O S ALEM Callahan Branch Bran c h reek Dixie Caverns �' _ Roanoke River Trip. VU Roanoke River Trib-N' Roanoke Ri'verf6b. V1 Saivmfll Hollow Roa oke River Trip. II Roa o - River Trip. IN- Roanoke River Trip. I Roan oke River Trib. V1 I I Roanoke Rive'-,, Roanoke River Trip_ III West Dry Branch Spflnu H0110 'Reservoir Cove liolloNA, N1111 Branch MONTGOMERY COUNTY Dry Hollow la, ROA. COUNTY nian Flollovk Graphic 3.03 GY u r Communit Plan Water Features 0 025 0.5 1 1.5 1) Miles Glenvar Co►►unit Plan that is susceptible to being inundated by water. The floodplain consists of the floodway and the floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of a river or other watercourse and adjacent land that must be reserved in order to pass the 100 -year flood without increasing the elevation more than a designated height. The floodway fringe includes areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding. The floodplain covers 981.45 acres of the Glenvar Planning Area. Of that area, 837.96 acres (85.3 8 %) is parcelized; the remaining 14.62%, is right - of -way or surface water. As show in Table 3.01 below, almost all of the land in the floodplain is zoned for low density residential (R -1) or high intensity industrial (I- 2) uses. The remaining 10% of the floodplain is zoned for agricultural or commercial use. Table 3.01 Zoning in the Floodplain Zoning AG -1 Agricultural /Rural Low Density (acres) 16.00 Floodpla 1.91 AG -3 Agricultural/Rural Preserve 34.02 4.06 AR Agricultural /Residential 27.58 3.29 R -1 Low Density Residential 381.31 45.50 C -1 Office 1.37 0.16 C -2 General Commercial 3.76 0.45 I -1 Low Intensity Industrial 0.44 0.05 I -2 High Intensity Industrial 373.47 44.57 [ Total 837.96 100.00 Within the Glenvar Planning Area, 453 parcels are wholly or partially in the floodplain and subject to the Floodplain Overlay (FO) District regulations as defined by the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. Within this district, a structure is prohibited from being located, relocated, constructed, enlarged or structurally altered unless it fully complies with the standards set forth in the FO District. Such regulations include a prohibition on any use, activity and /or development that adversely affects the capacity of the channels or floodways or any watercourse, drainage ditch or any other drainage facility or system and a requirement that the lowest floor elevation of any new residential structure be at least two feet above base flood elevation. 3.3 Topography and Geologic Features The elevations within the Glenvar Planning Area range from 1,029 feet to 3,831 feet above sea level. The lowest point is located in Green Hill Park's field area. The highest point in the Glenvar Planning Area is found on top of Poor Mountain, located off of Honeysuckle Road near the Montgomery County border. 3.3.1 Slope Designated as steep slopes, 45% of the land area in the Glenvar Planning Area has a slope of greater than or equal to 33 percent. These areas are subject to additional building regulations and present greater challenges for developers to overcome regarding land stabilization, fill additions and deletions, retaining walls and access. The majority of the steep slope land area (85%) is zoned AG -3, Agricultural/Rural Preserve District. The areas with steep slopes are highlighted Glenvar Community Plan with red in the graphic below. The remainder, 55 %, of the Glenvar Planning Area is sloped less than 33 percent. This area is mostly zoned AG -3, Agricultural/Rural Preserve and R -1, Low Density Residential District; less than 10% of this area is zoned for commercial or industrial use. 3.3.2 Fort Lewis Mountain Fort Lewis Mountain extends west from Salem for 11 miles and ranges in elevation from 1,400 feet to a peak of 3,280 feet. Originally known as Butler's Mountain in the west near Lafayette and Deyerle's Mountain in the east near Salem, Fort Lewis' modern name references the pre - revolutionary fort and General Andrew Lewis. 3.3.3 Dixie Caverns Dixie Caverns, located in the southeastern portion of Fort Lewis Mountain, was discovered by Bill McDaniel in 1920. Opened to the public in 1923, Dixie Caverns is Roanoke's only and the southernmost commercial cavern in Virginia. Designated by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) as a conservation site encompassing "land containing one or more biologically significant karst resources," Dixie Caverns is a unique geologic formation. Unlike most caves that lead immediately down into the earth, Dixie Caverns leads up into the Cathedral Room, a massive 160 -foot high space. Since the Caverns' discovery in the early twentieth century, a number of stairs and tunnels have been dug out to provide enough space for visitors to view the formations including the Turkey Wing, Magic Mirror, Leaning Tower, Frozen Waterfall and a 57 -ton, bell- shaped formation with fringed edges called the Wedding Bell. Dixie Caverns is open for tours 363 days -a -year and also features a year -round campsite, rock and mineral shop and an indoor antique mall. See Graphic 3.07 for the location of geologic features discussed in this section. 3.3.4 Havens wildlife Management Area The earliest owned management area by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF), the initial 6,000 acres of Havens Wildlife Management Area (WMA) was purchased in 1930 for $2.61 an acre. Havens WMA presently encompasses 7,190 acres of heavily forested and steep, generally inaccessible terrain. Prior to the VDGIF purchase, the area's primary use was for timber production and the area is slow to recover due to nutrient -poor soils and little water. Ninety -nine percent forested, the area grows a mix of oak, hickory, pine and beech with a few stands of enormous eastern hemlocks. Graphic 3.06 Forested Area within Havens WMA The character of the forest within Havens WMA was notably affected by the chestnut blight of the twentieth century during which chestnut was replaced as the dominant tree species by various oak associations. In the areas where oaks dominate, typical tree species include northern red oak, dwarf chestnut oak, white oak, red maple, striped maple, sweet birch, cucumber magnolia, downy serviceberry, mountain holly, witch -hazel and species of rhododendron and fruit shrubs. Where oak is not dominant, communities of eastern white pine, Virginia pine and tulip tree can be found. alenvar Community Plan Graphic 3.05 Dixie Caverns Entrance - _WmTW1 r . Forf-Tefris Mountain Little Brush Mo u n1a O x E - 1 7 C-rry O 4k E7A80 Fort RewNNI Main Slopes 2L MONTGOMERY COUN-TY R �k 7wa n Ojo e"River DMe Mae Cliff 4A- Poor Mountain 'Goo dwins Poor Mountain N Graphic 3.07 Glenvar Communit Plan GeOlO Features 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Glenvar Communit Nan Karst Features Route 1 1/460 Acavern m Interstate 81 w: �1rltil sinks -Roads ..� Sinkhole -Railroad mVer ston spot Roanoke River Natural Herita Sites - ,Sprm' Hollow Reservoir ,,State Owned Lands Glenvar Plannin Area Boundar - _WmTW1 r . Forf-Tefris Mountain Little Brush Mo u n1a O x E - 1 7 C-rry O 4k E7A80 Fort RewNNI Main Slopes 2L MONTGOMERY COUN-TY R �k 7wa n Ojo e"River DMe Mae Cliff 4A- Poor Mountain 'Goo dwins Poor Mountain N Graphic 3.07 Glenvar Communit Plan GeOlO Features 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Glenvar Communit Nan In a 1997 floral richness inventory of Havens WMA, 248 different plant species were identified including 45 trees, 21 shrubs and 183 types of herbaceous plants. The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) identified the western portion of Havens WMA and Fort Lewis Mountain (site E -1795) as a general location of smooth coneflower (echinacea laevlgata) , one of only nine species of Echinacea native to North America. The smooth coneflower occurs in only 10 counties in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia and is listed by Virginia as a threatened species. The smooth coneflower is federally listed as endangered and globally listed as Grap 3.08 imperiled Smooth Coneflower Havens Wildlife Management Area is also home to populations of white - tailed deer, black bears, red foxes, bobcats, wild turkeys, squirrels and ruffed grouse. Approximately five acres of wildlife clearings are maintained by the VDGIF to provide brood range for game and nongame birds as well as forage for deer. Hunting is permitted in Havens WMA. The WMA is also part of the Virginia Birding and Wildlife Trail of the Roanoke Valley. Black- and - white, hooded, and Kentucky warblers, American redstart, ovenbird and wood thrush are common at lower elevations and black- throated green warbler, scarlet tanager, dark - eyed junco, veery, and rose - breasted grosbeak are found deeper in the undisturbed forestland. MO DCR identified the southeastern portion of Havens _ p •' °a= rc� WMA and Fort Lewis Mountain ® .1.117.96 a (site E -5194) as a general location of the frosted elfin (callophrys lrus) butterfly. Populations of this Graphic 3.09 Frosted Elfin butterfly are often small and local and consequentially the frosted elfin is designated as "very rare or local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range. " Another rare butterfly species, persius duskywing (erynnis persius), is located along the ridgeline of Fort Lewis Mountain and Havens WMA (site E -204) . The persius duskywing is "apparently secure globally, though it might be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery." In addition to hunting and birding opportunities, there are also several hiking trails throughout Havens WMA; however, they are not well marked and very steep due to the geologic formations found on Fort Lewis Mountain. The three geologic formations found within Havens WMA are the Brailler formation, the Chemung formation and the Price formation. The Brallier formation underlies the base of Fort Lewis Mountain from 1,400 to 1,700 feet and "erodes to a series of small, linear hills that are well expressed on aerial photographs. The formation weathers to a soil that is littered with orange to grayish- brown, silty shale chips." The second geologic formation found within Havens WMA is the Price formation, which is exposed along part of the southeastern side of Fort Lewis and Brushy Mountains. The 66 quartzose sandstones and conglomerates in the formation make it one of the best ridge formers in the area. It is well exposed along many of the dirt roads and fire trails on the crest of Fort Lewis and Brushy Mountains. " Graphic 3.10 Exposed Price Formation The Chemung geologic formation crops out in a wide belt along the upper slopes of Fort Lewis Mountain. This formation is estimated to be 1,000 to 1,500 feet thick consisting of "highly fossilized sandstones with interbedded shales and conglomerate outcrops. The formation is typified by steep and very alenvar Community Plan steep slopes." The Price and Chemung formations are the source of most of the sediment (colluvium) that covers the lower slopes of Fort Lewis Mountain. 3.3.5 Poor Mountain Poor Mountain, at 3,928 feet, is the tallest mountain in Roanoke County. As its name suggests, Poor Mountain has predominantly infertile and acidic soils derived from metamorphosed sandstone bedrock. The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) identified 345 acres of "land containing one or more biologically significant karst resources" on Poor Mountain Road near its intersection with Harborwood Road (Goodwins site) . Additionally, the DCR identified over 2,000 acres of "convex spur ridges, narrow ravines, and rugged, steep topography [that] support the largest known population of a globally rare plant species, as well as at least two rare ecological communities. [This site is] biologically significant." The slopes and ridges of Poor Mountain are vegetated with open- canopied, pine -oak woodlands. At the higher elevations most of the trees are low and gnarly and include species such as the chestnut oak, scarlet oak, bear oak, table mountain pine and pitch pine. The understory is comprised largely of shrubs that thrive in acidic soil such as the black huckleberry, mountain laurel and fetterbush. The woodlands on the northeastern slope of Poor Mountain support the world's largest known population of a globally rare shrub known as piratebush. Restricted to only a handful of sites in the mountains of Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina, piratebush is listed as endangered by the state of Virginia. Piratebush grows in clumps and can reach a height of fifteen feet; however, most specimens in the Planning Area rarely exceed waist height. The leaves are two to four inches long, narrow and pale green, which is one indication of its parasitic nature. By tapping into the root systems of neighboring plants, piratebush requires less chlorophyll than most plants, therefore the lighter foliage color. Small green flowers appear in mid - spring at the ends of new shoots and oval- shaped, yellow -green fruits, about an inch long, mature in late summer. In autumn, the leaves of the piratebush turn bright yellow. 3.3.5.1 Poor Mountain Natural Area Preserve The rare piratebush is protected by the Poor Mountain Natural Area Preserve, a 925 -acre preserve maintained by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Poor Mountain Natural Area Preserve was acquired by the DCR in 1991 and recently several hiking trails were installed in the Preserve. Bird watching is also a popular activity with butterflies, ruffed grouse, wild turkeys and pileated woodpeckers all found in Poor Mountain Natural Area Preserve. �.q Graphic 3.12 Wayfinding Signage and Bench in Poor Mountain Natural Area Preserve 3.3.6 Geologic Formations Fort Lewis Mountain and the northern slope of Poor Mountain are part of the Ridge and Valley ecoregion which is characterized by a series of parallel ridges that run northeast to southwest and are separated by narrow valleys. The ridge and southern slope of Poor Mountain fall in the Blue Ridge ecoregion. The terrain of the Blue Ridge ecoregion varies from narrow ridges and hilly plateaus to massive mountainous areas; it is generally rugged on metamorphic bedrock. 3.3.7 Karst Topography Karst features such as sinkholes and caves are commonly found in both the Ridge and Valley and Blue Ridge ecoregions. Karst describes landforms and alenvar Community Plan Graphic 3.11 Piratebush landscapes formed primarily by the slow dissolving, rather than mechanical eroding, of bedrock. Karst areas necessitate additional consideration to prevent contamination of groundwater supplies and to avoid building in these geologically hazardous areas. Twenty -one sinkholes have been identified in the Glenvar Planning Area, the majority of which are on south of Route 11/460. See Graphic 3.07 for a map of the karst features in the Planning Area. 3.3.8 Natural Heritage Data In addition to the sites on Fort Lewis and Poor Mountain, the Department of Conservation and Resources also identified three other Natural Heritage sites in the Glenvar Planning Area. For a map of these sites, please see Graphic 3.07 on page 3 -5. The first site, Dixie Cliff, is located across Route 11/460 from Dixie Caverns. The DCR describes the significance of this 86 -acre site: "a large dolomite slope here supports globally rare ecological communities as well as rare plants. An unexplored cave with tremendous potential for additional rare plant and animal species contributes to the biological significance of this site." The second site is located in the vicinity of the Cherokee Hills neighborhood. This site, E-380, identifies the general location of Addison's Leatherflower (clematis addisonii) . This extremely rare flower is only found in four counties in Virginia. According to the Digital Atlas of the Virginia Flora, Addison's leatherflower tends to be found in open or slightly shaded woods on rocky dry hillsides, banks, ravines and ledges. It prefers well- drained porous soils. Leatherflowers, like most members of the buttercup family, have no petals. Instead the sepals of the leatherflower are modified to look like petals. The sepals are fused towards the base, and curl back at the tips, forming a very elegant urn - shaped flower. Addison's Leatherflower differs from the common species of leatherflower in that it has many leaves, almost all of them simple. The last site identified by DCR is the Roanoke River. The North and South Forks are described as "riparian reaches that provide habitat for one or more rare aquatic plants or animals." 3.3.9 Soils Soil surveys provide insight into some of the development constraints likely to be present in an area. Based upon the type of soil, slope and depth to bedrock, limitations presented by soil profiles can help determine what types of development are appropriate in a particular area. The soil survey for Roanoke County, carried out by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1990, identifies and provides definitions and limitations for the various types of soils within the Glenvar Planning Area. It should be noted that soil surveys provide data based on general location and site - specific information should be collected to determine the limitations presented by soils at those specific locations. The implementation of certain technical and /or design strategies can often reduce the limitations. The predominant soil in the Glenvar Planning Area is Dekalb and Dekalb -Rock outcrop, covering approximately 27% of the area. This soil type, typically found on mountains on uplands, is not suited for any type of development. The Chiswell -Litz soil type covers almost 16% of the Glenvar Planning Area, making it the second most predominant soil type. The Chiswell -Litz soil type is found only south of the Roanoke River on the slopes of Poor Mountain. Like the Dekalb soil type, Chiswell -Litz is also very limited for any type of development. The land area in the valley between Fort Lewis and Poor Mountains consists mostly of loam soils. Glenvar Community Plan� Graphic 3.13 Addison's Leatherflower Loam soils are a mix of sand, silt and clay in relatively equal amounts. Loam is considered ideal for gardening and agricultural uses because it retains nutrients well and retains water while still allowing the water to flow freely. A map of soils in the Glenvar Planning Area is available in Appendix A. 3.4 Viewsheds Fort Lewis Mountain, Poor Mountain and the Roanoke River provide scenic views for residents and visitors to the Glenvar Planning Area. These scenic views support a number of important community elements including the natural environment, quality of life, community character and the local economy. Because of their importance to the community, nine points in the Glenvar Community were identified for viewshed mapping and analysis. The locations include: • Campbell Drive (Campbell Hills) • Center for Research and Technology • Cherokee Hills Drive (Cherokee Hills) • Glenvar Schools • Green Hill Park • Millwheel Drive (Woodbridge) • Pleasant Run Drive • Richfield Retirement Community • Valley TechPark Graphic 3.14 shows the view of Poor Mountain from Campbell Hills. Graphic 3.15 is a computerized representation of the areas visible from Campbell Hills, not including structures or vegetation. It is important to identify critical viewsheds within the Planning Area because these areas contribute to the short -term and long -term quality of life for the community. A combined viewshed map is available in Appendix A. Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 3.14 View of Poor Mountain from Campbell Hills Page Intentionally Left Blank 3 -io � GIenvar Community Plan Ckapter 4: Land Use and Pevelopment 4.1 Existing Land Use Existing land use refers to the current, functional use of a parcel of land regardless of structure type, zoning or future land use designation. For the purposes of this analysis, 5,128 parcels were classified into seven general use categories as defined by the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance (Table 4.01). Vacant parcels are either completely undeveloped or are developed with unoccupied or accessory structures. Vacant land covers nearly 50% of the Planning Area. A large amount of this land is found on the slopes of Fort Lewis and Poor Mountains and is not easily developed due to topography. The predominant land use on parcels within the Glenvar Planning area is residential, with 3,533 parcels (68.9%) on over 10,000 acres of land. Residential use types include single - family dwellings, manufactured homes, mobile homes and patio homes. Civic uses, which include churches, day care centers, schools, parks and other community facilities, are found on 55 parcels, covering 13.45 of land in the Planning Area. Industrial uses such as light and heavy manufacturing, warehousing and distribution and scrap and salvage services account for just over 2.03 % of land area yet ties for second in terms of the number of parcels in the land use. This leads to the conclusion that industrial parcels are on average smaller than those used for civic purposes. Commercial uses cover less than 1 % of the land area in the Glenvar Planning Area. These uses include automobile dealerships and repair services, equipment sales and rental, golf courses and campgrounds. Hanging Rock Golf Course and Dixie Caverns at 116.56 and 45.58 acres, respectively, are the largest commercial uses in the Planning Area. Miscellaneous, office and agricultural uses account for 0.24% of the parcels and 1.29% of land in the Glenvar Planning Area. A map showing the existing land use by parcel in the Glenvar Community is available in Appendix A. Table 4.01 Existing Land Use 4.2 Economic Development 4.2.1 Center for Research and Technology Roanoke County's 483 -acre Center for Research and Technology (CRT) is located on Glenmary Drive near the Dixie Caverns exit off of Interstate 81.Opened in 2000, this publicly owned business park is designed for corporate headquarters, high -tech manufacturing operations and emerging research and development companies. Sites range in size from 26 to 57 acres and are served by natural gas, public water and sewer and several telecommunications companies. CRT has direct access to the Roanoke Regional Airport and Interstate 81, is in close proximity to Virginia Tech and 19 other higher education institutions and has access to a large regional labor market of over 300,000 skilled workers. The Center for Research and Technology also has in place protective covenants and PTD, Planned Technology District, zoning to ensure long -term, high quality growth in the park. The park is also designated as a Technology Zone, which provides regulatory flexibility while seeking to accommodate the requirements of emerging companies. Incentives available to qualifying companies include infrastructure improvement or site preparation grants, tax exemptions and discounts on building and permit fees. Currently, CRT has two tenants: Novozymes Biologicals, Inc., a world leader in enzyme solutions, Glenvar Community Plan Number Percent Land Use of Acrea Plannin Parcels of Parcels Area Agriculture 1 0.02 16.91 0.05 and Forestry Civic 55 1.07 4 13.45 Commercial 27 0.53 233.78 0.76 Industrial 51 0.99 626.97 2.03 Miscellaneous 6 0.12 377.74 1.22 Office 5 0.10 6.19 0.02 Residential 3 68.90 10,071.78 32.60 Vacant 1 28.27 15,406.12 49.87 Total 5 9 128 100.00 30 100.00 4.2 Economic Development 4.2.1 Center for Research and Technology Roanoke County's 483 -acre Center for Research and Technology (CRT) is located on Glenmary Drive near the Dixie Caverns exit off of Interstate 81.Opened in 2000, this publicly owned business park is designed for corporate headquarters, high -tech manufacturing operations and emerging research and development companies. Sites range in size from 26 to 57 acres and are served by natural gas, public water and sewer and several telecommunications companies. CRT has direct access to the Roanoke Regional Airport and Interstate 81, is in close proximity to Virginia Tech and 19 other higher education institutions and has access to a large regional labor market of over 300,000 skilled workers. The Center for Research and Technology also has in place protective covenants and PTD, Planned Technology District, zoning to ensure long -term, high quality growth in the park. The park is also designated as a Technology Zone, which provides regulatory flexibility while seeking to accommodate the requirements of emerging companies. Incentives available to qualifying companies include infrastructure improvement or site preparation grants, tax exemptions and discounts on building and permit fees. Currently, CRT has two tenants: Novozymes Biologicals, Inc., a world leader in enzyme solutions, Glenvar Community Plan and Tecton Products, which designs and manufactures companies. Currently, one 8.45 -acre site is available custom fiberglass pultrusions. for [re]development in Valley TechPark. The Roanoke County Economic Development Department recently completed a $3.5 million construction project in the Center for Research and Technology. Improvements included the construction of a new roadway with all necessary utilities and amenities to Phase II of the park and the grading of three additional sites which are serviced by the new road. Additional landscaping enhancements along the entrances and roadways including the reforestation of the hillside and drainage area adjacent to the newly created sites were also completed. Future construction and improvement plans for the Center for Research and Technology include the continuation of the grading of sites within Phases I and II of the park, ongoing roadway and ground maintenance, utility extensions and improvements to Dow Hollow Road. 4.2.2 Valley TechPark Valley TechPark is a 177 -acre business park located off of West Main Street on Technology Drive. Opened in 1994, Valley TechPark is home to R.R. Donnelley, a global provider of integrated communications, and Synchrony, a technology leader in active magnet bearings and high speed motors and generators. The park is zoned I -2C, heavy industrial with conditions that regulate the use and appearance of the buildings in the business park, and served by natural gas, public water and sewer and three telecommunications 4.2.3 Available Industrial and Commercial Sites The Economic Development Department has targeted eight available industrial properties and one available commercial property for sale and development within the Glenvar Planning Area. The sites are listed below in Tables 4.02 and 4.03. Table 4.02 Available Industrial Sites Site Name Location Acr eage Zonin West River Ashworth Road 30.51 AR Blue Ridge Beverage Barley oad y 9 I -2 Center for Glenmary Research and Road 483 PTD Technolo gy College Harwick of Health Drive 37.35 AR Sciences West Main Country East St. at Garman 15.5 I -2,C -1 Road West River Horn Road 47.63 I -2 R -1 C Salem Vent Technolo gy at Valley Drive 8.45 I -2C TechPark Twine Twine Hollow Road 1 Hollow Road 16.62 I -2C, I -1 Table 4.03 Available Commercial Sites Site Name Location Acrea Zonin Dixie 5753 West 14 C -2 AR, R -1 Caverns Main Street alenvar Community Plan Graphic 4.2 R.R. Donnelley Graphic 4.1 Novozymes Biologicals 4.3 Zoning Every property in Roanoke County has a zoning classification that regulates what land uses are permitted as well as where the building can be located, how tall it can be and how much lot coverage is permitted. Graphic 4.03, Glenvar Community Plan Zoning, shows the location and extent of each zoning district within the Planning Area. As shown in Table 4.04, the majority (70.79%) of land in the Glenvar Planning Area is zoned agriculturally, AG -1, AG -3, AR or AV. These zoning districts account for 21,609.11 acres of the Planning Area and are located primarily on the slopes of Fort Lewis and Poor Mountains. The R -1, Low Density Residential, District is the second largest at 7,146.22 acres or 23.43 of the Planning Area. The remaining 1,770.61 acres or 5.78% of the Glenvar Planning Area is zoned for industrial or commercial use with I -1 and I -2 accounting for 1563.87 acres, 5.1%, of that land area. Only 206.74 acres are zoned C -1, Office, or C -2, General Commercial. Table 4.04 Zoning (As of June 2011) Percent of Zonin District Planning Acreage Area Agricultural AG -1 Agricultural/Rural 1,896.51 6.21 Low Density AG -3 Agricultural/Rural 18 61.28 Preserve AR Agricultural/ Residential 1 3.28 AV Agricultural/Village Center 6.72 0.02 Subtotal 21, 609.11 70.79 Commercial C -1 Office 59.68 0.20 C -2 General Commercial 147.06 0.48 Subtotal 206.74 0.68 Industrial I -1 Low Intensity 183.76 0.60 Industrial I -2 High Intensity 896.61 2.94 Industrial PTD Planned Technology 483.50 1.58 District Subtotal 1,563.87 5.12 Residential R -1 Low Density Residential 7 23.37 R -1 MH Manufactured Housing Overlay 11.53 0.04 Subtotal 7,146.22 23.41 Total 30 100.00 In the last five years, 15 land use applications (rezoning or special use permit) located in the Glenvar Planning Area have been approved by the Board of Supervisors (see Table 4.05 on page 4 -4). The most common request was for a multiple dog permit which is required legally keep, breed or train more than four dogs in a residential area. Two of the land use applications, the corrections facility and the asphalt plant were the most contentious, with several hundred community members in attendance. Glenvar Community Plan Table 4.05 Land Use Applications (2006 -20 1, A ction i 1 �� Affecte Acr eage Ordina Da February Rezonin g I -2 (High Intensity AG -3C (Agricultural/ Corrections West River 2/28/06 2006 and SUP Industrial) Rural Preserve with Facility Road 43 Conditions) July Jul 2006 SUP AR (Agricultural/ ARS (Agricultural/ Religious Meacham Road 26.32 7/25/06 Residential) Residential with a SUP) Assembly R -1 (Low Density R -1 S (Low Density Accessory River Oaks 5/22/07 May 2007 y SUP Residential) Residential with a SUP) Apartment Drive 0 R -1 (Low Densit y Amend May 2007 y Rezoning g Residential) and PTD PTD (Planned Covenants, Conditions Glenmary 25.3 and 5/22/07 (Planned Technology Technology District) and Master Drive (CRT) 545.25 District) Plan for CRT June 2007 Rezoning g -2 (High Intensity AG -3 (Agricultural/Rural Single- Family Beason Lane 35.21 6/26/07 Industrial) Preserve) Dwelling August R -1 (Low Density R -1 S (Low Density Religious West Main 2007 SUP Residential) Residential with a SUP) Assembly Street 1 8/28/07 C -2C (General Unmanned May 2008 Rezoning 1-2 ( High y h Intensit Commercial with Gasoline Shawnee Drive 1 5/27/08 Industrial) Conditions) Station R -1 (Low Density R -1 S (Low Density Multiple Dog West Riverside May 2009 y SUP Residential) Residential with a SUP) Permit Drive 4.33 5/26/09 November SUP I -2 (High Intensity I -2S (High Intensity Asphalt Plant Peaceful Drive 16.7 11/17/09 2009 Industrial) Industrial with a SUP) September p Rezoning g AR (Agricultural/ g AVS (Agricultural/ Construction Twine Hollow 2010 and SUP Residential) Village Center with a Yard and Meacham 6.54 9/28/10 Special Use Permit) Drive October R -1 (Low Density R -1 S (Low Density Multiple Dog Fort Lewis 2010 SUP Residential) Residential with a SUP) Permit Church Road 1.005 10/26/10 R -1 (Low Density R -1 S (Low Density Harborwood April 2011 p SUP Residential) Residential with a SUP) private Stable Road 44.5 4/26/11 R -1 (Low Density R -1 S (Low Density Multiple Dog Elderwood June 2011 SUP Residential) Residential with a SUP) Permit Road 2.24 6/28/11 September Rezonin g R -1 (Low Density AR (Agricultural/ Livestock and Harborwood 5.02 9/27/11 2011 Residential) Residential) Chickens Road alenvar Community Plan 4.4 Future Land Use The Future Land Use designation for an area can be found on the Future Land Use Map, a component of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. Future land use is a tool used by governing bodies, planning commissioners and planning staff to identify the most appropriate and desirable locations in their jurisdiction for specific land uses. The existing land use and zoning of a property are not always consistent with the future land use designation for that area. Over time, as properties develop and redevelop, these classifications should become complementary with each other. Future land use designations are particularly important when parcels are proposed for rezoning from one zoning district to another. Half of the Glenvar Planning Area, over 16,000 acres, is designated as Rural Preserve, which is a future land use area of mostly undeveloped, outlying lands. These rural regions are generally stable and require a high degree of protection to preserve agricultural, forestal, recreational and remote rural residential areas. This designation is located on the slopes of both Fort Lewis and Poor Mountains. Neighborhood Conservation is the second largest future land use area covering 3,367.87 acres or 10.61% of the Glenvar Planning Area. Neighborhood Conservation is intended to preserve and encourage traditional single - family neighborhoods and uses typically found in these neighborhoods such as parks, schools and churches. The majority of the Neighborhood Conservation designation is found north of Route 11/460 and includes developments such as Cherokee Hills, Glenvar Heights and Fort Lewis Estates. Table 4.06 Future Land Use The Rural Village designation, covering 2,930.90 acres or 9.23 is generally located in between suburban development patterns already established in the Glenvar Planning Area and designated Conservation and Rural Preserve areas. The areas around Harborwood Road and West River Road are designated Rural Village. Slightly under 2,900 acres, 9.07%, of the Planning Area is designated as Principal Industrial. This area is intended for industrial uses and regional employment centers and includes the Center for Research and Technology, Valley TechPark and established industrial areas south of Route 11/460. The Conservation future land use area is of particular environmental sensitivity due to topography, existence of unique land characteristics, conservation easements, soil types or location with respect to other State or Federally preserved lands. This future land Glenvar Community Plan Percent of Future Land Use Acreage Plannin Area Conservation 2 8.71 Core 292.57 0.92 Development 2 6.74 Neighborhood Conservation 3 10.61 Principal Industrial 2 9.07 Rural Preserve 16,248.85 51.19 Rural Village 2 9.23 Transition 1 3.52 Total 31,743.86 100.00 The Rural Village designation, covering 2,930.90 acres or 9.23 is generally located in between suburban development patterns already established in the Glenvar Planning Area and designated Conservation and Rural Preserve areas. The areas around Harborwood Road and West River Road are designated Rural Village. Slightly under 2,900 acres, 9.07%, of the Planning Area is designated as Principal Industrial. This area is intended for industrial uses and regional employment centers and includes the Center for Research and Technology, Valley TechPark and established industrial areas south of Route 11/460. The Conservation future land use area is of particular environmental sensitivity due to topography, existence of unique land characteristics, conservation easements, soil types or location with respect to other State or Federally preserved lands. This future land Glenvar Community Plan use area accounts for 2,765.69 acres or 8.71 % of the Glenvar Planning Area and is located on Havens Wildlife Management Area and Spring Hollow Reservoir. Almost 7% of the Planning Area is designated as Development. This future land use area, covering 2,140.88 acres, is where most new neighborhood development will occur, including large -scale planned developments that mix residential with retail and office uses. The Development designation is currently placed on parts of the Woodbridge subdivision, and Campbell Hills, Green Hill Park and near Pleasant Valley Road. The Transition future land use area encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels. Transition areas generally serve as developed buffers between highways and nearby or adjacent lower intensity development. Intense retail and highway oriented commercial uses are discouraged in transition areas, which are more suitable for office, institutional and small - scale, coordinated retail uses. The Transition designation is spread out on both sides of Route 11/460 and covers 1,118.3 3 acres of the Planning Area. The smallest future land use area in the Glenvar Planning Area is Core, where high intensity urban development is encouraged. This designation currently accounts for only 292.57 acres of the Planning Area and is located around Interstate 81 exits 132 and 137. 4.5 County Guidelines and Programs 4.5.1 Route 11/460 West Corridor Design Guidelines As part of the Route 11/460 West Corridor Master Plan, a set of Design Guidelines was developed for the corridor. The Design Guidelines were intended to help new development fit in, both aesthetically and functionally, with existing development in the midst of the Virginia Department of Transportation road widening proj ect planning and construction. The Design Guidelines address preferred building orientation and location, site access and layout, parking and pedestrian circulation, building style and architectural treatment, landscaping, site lighting and signage. While the Design Guidelines are voluntary, County staff encourages applicants submitting land use applications for a special use permit or rezoning to utilize the recommendations. Further, compliance with the Design Guidelines is required of applicants wishing to apply for County funding for assistance with site improvements through the Commercial Corridor Matching Grant Program. 4.5 .2 Commercial Corridor Matching Grant Program The Roanoke County Commercial Corridor Matching Grant Program was created in the early 1990s as a means to assist businesses located on corridors slated for major road improvements. The Matching Grant Program offers up to a 50% County match (up to $20,000 dollars) to business owners for site improvements in compliance with the area's Design Guidelines that also exceed Zoning Ordinance requirements. Examples of improvements include facade renovation, landscaping, site lighting, parking improvements, monument -style signs and site accessories such as wooden fences. To be eligible the property must be: • Located within the defined 11/460 Corridor • Used commercially or industrially (non - residential) • Taxed by Roanoke County • Certified as having no active Zoning Violations The Program has been used twice along the 11/460 West corridor for signs at Fort Lewis Fire Station and Whitt Carpet. Matching Grant Prrgmin Hig ble Parcels Intersiate 81 _Roanoke Rivccr Railroad Ruads " ,Glenvar Planning Area Boundary Graphic 4.05 Commercial Corridor Matching Grant Program Eligible Pai —cell A. A Glenvar Community Plan Chapter s: Communit Facilities 5.1 Schools Communit 9 Facilities Roanoke County schools serving the Glenvar Planning Area include Fort Lewis Elementary School, Glenvar Elementary School, Glenvar Middle School and Glenvar High School. Fort Lewis Elementary is located at the eastern end of the Planning Area on West Main Street and Glenvar Elementary, Glenvar Middle and Glenvar High Schools are located in the central portion of the Planning Area in a campus off of Malus Drive. See Graphic 5.03, Glenvar Community Plan Community Facilities, on page 5 -2. Fort Lewis Elementary School serves the residences in the eastern sections of the Planning Area bordering the City of Salem and the area around Wildwood Road. The Glenvar Elementary school district covers the remaining portion of the Planning Area. Both Glenvar Middle and High Schools serve the entire Glenvar Planning Area. The original one -room Fort Lewis Elementary was built in 1889 and later expanded to four rooms in the early 1900s. In 1928, the present structure opened with seven classrooms and an auditorium. Expansions in 1941 and 1996 have resulted in the fifteen - classroom structure present today. In December 2010, a section of the roof that was completed in 1996 collapsed under the weight of heavy winter snow. No one was injured in the incident and the structure was fully repaired by February 2011. Fort Lewis Elementary is currently undergoing a renovation and expansion of its parking area as a result of the widening of West Main Street. Glenvar Elementary, Middle and High Schools are located in a single campus north of Interstate 81 on Malus Drive. The campus was completed in 1964, with both the high and elementary schools opening at that time. Glenvar High School has served residents of the community as a high school from 1964 -1976 and continuously since 1983. The school served as Glenvar Junior High from 1977 -1982, following the consolidation of the Andrew Lewis and Glenvar High Schools into Salem High School. Glenvar was re- established as a high school in 1983 following the formation of the Salem City Schools system. Glenvar Middle School opened in 1996 following the completion of a 41,000 square foot expansion connected to the existing high school. Enrollment figures for the four schools in the Glenvar Planning Area are listed below in Table 5.01. Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 5.01 Fort Lewis Elementary School Graphic 5.02 Glenvar Middle School Table 5.01 School Enrollment Figures State Police Head Route 111460 SpTin Holl o%v, Wate'r Ti-eatment Facilit Interstate 81 Fort Lewis Fire and Rescue S tat ion Railroad Roads Roanoke Cot School i-m Roanoke River Glenvar Branch Library =Gtenvar Plannin Area Bowidar Spring Hollow Reservoir Business Park- Roanoke Count Park- State Consenation Areas Center f6 wrel Mountain Driver Trainin Center and Firin Ran MONTGOMERY COUNTY Glenvar Hi School ; � Glenvar Middle Scho)DI G lcm*a r Elem en6r lrchoankechnolo I Ile iI,,, oT e Par c !!! qVestern VAL Re Jai IL aly9i'd FPa r h- S spi Hollow Reserv)�olr Propert / ablp Roo noke Fort +CTI Y OF SALEN lenren(a6i Scl0apo"In C.'re e tf� I I i 11, - P5'rk Poor i -a,,. atu "reser've ia ROA-N,-OKT COUNTY 0 0,25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles N - Graphic 5.03 Glenvar Communit Plan Communit Facilities A, Glenvar Communit Nan 5.2 Library The Glenvar Branch Library is located at the intersection of Daugherty Road and West Main Street. The existing 5,100 square foot structure was constructed in 1978. General services and programs available at the Glenvar branch outside of its book collections include story times, computers, wireless internet, office machines, book clubs, Family Movie Night, video services and one meeting room. Graphic 5.05 Glenvar Library Interior The current facility has become inadequate to service the needs of the Glenvar community; there fore, a new building is being constructed. The new Glenvar Branch Library will be 15,000 square feet and incorporate features such as a computer training lab, teen and juvenile room and an after -hours meeting room with a small food preparation space. Graphic 5.06 New Glenvar Library Rendering Overall circulation for the Glenvar Branch Library has increased steadily over the past three years. The number of library programs for adults, young adults and children also increased from 2008 to 2011. Additional circulation and service statistics for the Glenvar Branch Library are listed below in Table 5.02, Glenvar Branch Library Service Report. Table 5.02 Glenvar Branch Library Service Report II. II' 2010- II' 2010 2011 Circulation Adult Fiction 21,471 23,805 24,286 Adult Nonfiction 10,381 9,629 10,058 Total Adult 31,852 33,434 34,344 Juvenile 13,008 14,301 15,382 Young Adult 5,575 5,780 6 Audio 3,321 3,494 3,859 Software 2 0 0 Videos 3,498 2,237 1,611 DVDs 29,119 29,279 27,326 NetLibrary 0 0 99 Grand Total 86,375 88,525 89,132 Services Library Programs Adult: # of Events 11 4 12 Attendance 52 96 235 Young Adult: # of Events 18 28 37 Attendance 165 146 212 Children: # of Events 125 131 131 Attendance 2,113 2,197 2,195 Non - Library Programs # of Events 54 37 45 Attendance 933 569 676 Outreach # of Visits 35 38 47 # of People 2,225 2,825 2,870 User Count 65,334 62,095 62,274 Volunteer Hours 365 121 106 New Registrations 323 275 244 Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 5.04 Glenvar Library Exterior 5.3 Public Safety 5.3.1 Fire and Rescue The Glenvar Planning Area is served by Roanoke County Public Safety Building #9 (Station 9) , Fort Lewis, located at the intersection of Daugherty Road and West Main Street, across from the Glenvar Branch Library. Station 9 is first due for all of west Roanoke County from Montgomery County to the City of Salem and between Fort Lewis and Poor Mountains. The station is also responsible for Interstate 81 from the Montgomery County line to Exit 140 and the entire Richfield complex. Station 9 is manned by both career and volunteer staff. A minimum of eight career staff are in place Monday through Friday from 6:OOAM to 6:OOPM to staff one fire truck and one additional unit (fire or rescue). The eight career staff includes two that are assigned to an ambulance on a 24/7 basis. Twenty- six fire department volunteers also respond from this station. Graphic 5.07 Fort Lewis Public Safety Building Equipment assigned to Station 9 includes one engine, one pumper /tanker combination, one 100' aerial tower ladder, one mobile air unit, one heavy squad, one brush truck, one utility vehicle and two ambulances. The mobile air unit is deployed as needed countywide to refill air bottles; the heavy squad is also utilized as needed, particularly on the entire I -81 corridor in Roanoke County. A total of 12,690 emergency responses were handled by Roanoke County Fire and Rescue in 2010 with 1,603 of these being in Fort Lewis Response Area. Of these 1,603 calls in Fort Lewis, 1,351 were rescue responses and 252 were fire responses. The 1,351 rescue responses resulted in 978 transports to a hospital; of these 978, 57% required advanced life support (ALS) care. Station 9, Fort Lewis, continues to be one of the busier stations in Roanoke County, typically third behind the Cave Spring and Hollins stations. Due to high traffic and call volume, Fort Lewis Station is identified in the 2011 -2015 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as in need of HVAC and sewer repairs. 5.3.2 Roanoke County Police The Roanoke County Public Safety Building, located at 5925 Cove Road, is the headquarter facility for County Police operations. The Public Safety Building, which also houses Fire and Rescue administration and Information Technology for the County, is located approximately seven miles from the center of the Glenvar Planning Area. The populated area of the Glenvar Community is served by the number 7 police district. Within that police district, there are 15 reporting districts, 701- 715. The Roanoke County Police also operate the Laurel Mountain Driver Training Center, located on Twine Hollow Road near the Dixie Caverns interchange. The Driver Training Center is a Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services approved facility for training law enforcement officers in the proper and safe methods of handling of vehicles in a variety of road conditions. Originally built for use by Roanoke County, the 30 -acre training center includes a closed one -mile Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 5.08 Laurel Mountain Driver Training Center course, skid pad, classroom and garage for minor maintenance and repairs. Managed by the Roanoke County Police Department, the Center is the only training facility of its kind west of Richmond. The Roanoke County Firing Range is also located off of Twine Hollow Road near the Training Complex. The Range was recently updated to include a "bullet trap system" designed to neutralize firing range bullets so that they are able to be disposed of easily, saving money on maintenance. 5.3.3 Virginia State Police The headquarters for Division 6 of the Virginia State Police is located at 3775 West Main Street on the north side of West Main Street. Division 6 includes the Counties of Alleghany, Bath and Highland (Area 38) , Botetourt and Rockbridge (Area 39) , Craig, Montgomery, Roanoke and Floyd (Area 40), Bedford and Franklin (Area 41), Henry and Patrick (Area 42) and Pittsylvania (Area 43) . The 11,152 square foot building was built in 1950. 5.3.4 Western Virginia Regional Jail The Western Virginia Regional Jail (WVRJ), which began taking in prisoners on April 9, 2009, is located on a 427 -acre tract off of West River Road on a bend in the Roanoke River. The 264,000 square foot state -of- the -art building is rated for a capacity of 605 inmates with another 200 beds double- bunked for a total of 805 inmates. For future growth, the facility can be further expanded an additional 649 rated capacity. The WVRJ currently houses an average daily inmate (male and female) population of 725. Staff at the Regional Jail averages around 200 including subcontractors (medical, food service, commissary and inmate phones) with Jail employees accounting for about 90% of the staff. The WVRJ was built to relieve the overcrowded and potentially unsafe conditions in the local jails serving the four localities that formed the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority the counties of Franklin, Montgomery, and Roanoke and the City of Salem. After obtaining an exemption from the state moratorium on new jail construction, ground was broken on the Western Virginia Regional Jail Project in February 2007. After two years of construction, the jail was formally dedicated on March 6, 2009 in a ceremony attended by state and local dignitaries and members of the public. Graphic 5.09 Western Virginia Regional Jail The Western Virginia Regional Jail received LEED Certification in April 2010, making it the first correctional facility in Virginia to receive LEED certification and one of the first in the nation. Some of the specific green features included in the Regional Jail' s design are: • A siphonic roof drainage system that works with the Jail's stormwater recycling system which collects and stores 120,000 gallons of rainwater that is filtered and reused in the laundry operations • A pulping system in the kitchen that removes the water and leaves the waste solid but significantly reduced in volume • A vacuum assisted waste system which reduces water use by approximately one -third compared to a conventional gravity waste plumbing system. • An white roof membrane that reduces the heat load on the building and reduces air conditioning costs by reflecting heat away from the building alenvar Community Plan Graphic 5.10 Inmate Population, July 2011 5.4 Parks, Recreation and Tourism There are three facilities maintained by the Roanoke County Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism in the Glenvar Planning Area: Green Hill Park, Wayside Park and Camp Roanoke. For a map of their location, please see Graphic 5.03, Glenvar Community Plan Community Facilities on page 5 -2. 5.4.1 Green Hill Park Green Hill Park, located in the eastern section of the Planning Area at the intersection of Duiguids Road and Harborwood Road, is one of Roanoke County's largest and most utilized parks. Named for the Green Hill estate of Robert Craig that was once located on the site, the Park provides residents with numerous recreational opportunities including access to the Roanoke River and the Roanoke River Greenway, four hiking trails, several athletic fields, two rentable picnic shelters and public restrooms. The grass fields at Green Hill Park hosts many of the region's large special events and athletic tournaments including kitefest and the medieval faire. Green Hill Park Equestrian Center is the only publicly operated facility of its type within the Roanoke Valley. Facilities in the center are open 365 days of the year and include three arenas, a 30+ acre cross - country course, a round pen, day -use stabling and water provisions. Riding at the Center is most popular during hunting season when equestrians are seeking a safe place to ride. Use of the facility requires either a $15 on e -time use fee or an annual membership of $40 for an individual or $80 for a family. The park is available to rent for horse shows and related events such as dressage, hunters and jumpers, western, racking and fun shows. 5.4.2 Camp Roanoke Camp Roanoke, the only camp operated by Roanoke County, is located of off Dry Hollow Road near Spring Hollow Reservoir. First opened by the YMCA in 1925, Camp Lucius Johnson remained in operation until 1985. In 1986, the Camp was purchased by Roanoke County as part of the watershed needed to construct the nearby reservoir. Following a prolonged grassroots effort to restore the facility, Camp Roanoke was reopened to the public in June 2001. The 110 -acre camp facilities include eight, ten - person, air conditioned cabins served by a central bathhouse, a large picnic shelter and a rentable and 84 person dining hall. Other features include an activity shelter housed in a 1920s recreational cabin, an archery range, a disc golf course and basketball court. The Camp hosts wide variety of summer camps for children, challenge course programs, adventure and environmental outdoor programs for all ages. Graphic 5.13 Camp Roanoke Cabins and Activity Field Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 5.12 Green Hill Equestrian Center Graphic 5.11 Green Hill Park 5.4.3 Wayside Park Wayside Park is a small facility located directly off of West Main Street near its intersection with West River Road. The 1.6 -acre roadside park features a boat launch for the Roanoke River and picnic tables. 5.4.4 Master Plans Since the construction of Spring Hollow Reservoir, the County has envisioned the property to serve a dual function of both water supply and recreation. In 1996, the County commissioned the Recreation Master Plan for Spring Hollow Reservoir. This plan calls for a variety of amenities to be installed for recreational use in and around the reservoir. Some of these enhancements include an upgrade of the perimeter road, construction of a visitor's center, picnic facilities, boat access, fishing amenities, restrooms and administrative office space. Parks, Recreation & Tourism's Master Plan, prepared in 2007, researched, inventoried and made recommendations on the county's parks and recreation system. A random sample of 5,000 respondent households was asked a range of questions such as identification of facilities visited over the previous 12 months. Of 28 county facilities listed, Green Hill Park was the most utilized with 38% of users. Camp Roanoke received a four percent user rate, ranking 22nd overall of respondents visiting that facility during the one -year period. Wayside Park was not identified by respondents as part of the study. The Master Plan lists the development of an updated sports complex at Green Hill Park as a "key capital project." The Plan recommends that the sports park be designed to host both adult and youth softball and baseball tournaments with the goal of attracting national, state and regional tournaments to the area and supporting economic development in the area. The master plan also lists the "develop [ment of] a special event area at Green Hill Park to bring in festivals and multiday events" and the improvement and enhancement of "outdoor recreation opportunities at Camp Roanoke including the development of an outdoor adventure park supported by corporate sponsors and partnerships" as vision objective strategies. 5.4.5 Capital Improvements Program The 2011 -2015 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) calls for numerous additions and renovations in Green Hill Park. The first project, the Green Hill Park Loop Trail Connector to the Roanoke River Greenway, is listed as a priority Greenway and Trails Project. This project would construct aone -mile loop around Green Hill Park that would connect to the section of the Roanoke River Greenway that was completed in April 2008, providing a two -mile trail around the periphery of Green Hill Park. The capital cost for the project is estimated at $264,000 and is currently deferred. Green Hill Park: Phase I is also included in the Parks and Recreation section of the 2011 -2015 CIP. The proposed project will continue the development of Green Hill Park by providing an amphitheater, restroom building, a large picnic shelter, installation of electric and water to the existing two shelters, improved security lighting, expansion of existing parking and paving of all areas, expansion of the barrier system, installation of an accessible playground and the addition of fencing and improvements to the landscaping. Additional items include expanding the existing ballfields into a five -field tournament quality "Sports Complex, " the addition of three blueways, replacement of the fishing pier and the construction a maintenance yard and outbuildings. The capital cost estimate for Phase I of the Green Hill Park expansion alenvar Community Plan Graphic 5.14 Spring Hollow Master Plan Phase II is $500,000 with total project costs estimated to be $3,950,000. The project is currently deferred. The 2011 -2015 CIP for Camp Roanoke calls for the completion of the renovation of Camp Roanoke as a residential camp and retreat center. Completed renovations include the upgrading of the dining hall, restrooms and groups, the construction of a lodge, ropes course, three bathroom /shower facilities and trail upgrades. The remaining items to complete the renovation are the construction of a new camp pool, a dock to access the Spring Hollow Reservoir for canoe and kayak programs, parking lot paving and landscape enhancements. Capital costs for these items are estimated at $267,500 and improvements are currently deferred. The 2011 -2015 CIP for the Spring Hollow Reservoir calls for the implementation of the 1996 Spring Hollow Master Plan. The Spring Hollow Reservoir Park project consists of developing the 700 -acre site around the reservoir as a public park for fishing, hiking, picnicking and other appropriate outdoor recreational activities. Development of the reservoir depends upon Health and Water Authority requirements. Capital costs for Phase I of the project are estimated at $962,500 with total project costs estimated to be $3,234,000. The project is currently deferred. 5.5 Utilities 5.5.1 Water The Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) is responsible for providing water, sewer and related services to residents in Roanoke County and the City of Roanoke as well as customers in Franklin County, the Town of Vinton, the City of Salem and Botetourt County. The WVWA treats and delivers 23 million gallons of drinking water per day to more than 15 5, 000 residents via 1,000 miles of water main and 50 pump stations. The Water Authority also maintains 48 drinking water storage tanks and 4,000 fire hydrants within its service area. Within the Glenvar Planning Area, the WVWA operates and maintains 63.24 miles of water mains, five pump stations, two booster stations, 248 hydrants and the Spring Hollow Reservoir and Treatment Facility. Additionally, there are 4.2 miles of non -WVWA water mains, one -mile of private water lines and three active wells within the Planning Area. A map of the water facilities in the Planning Area is available in Appendix A. The WVWA's Funded FY2010 Water System Capital Improvement Program calls for over $900,000 of improvements to Spring Hollow Reservoir. The project is funded over a five year horizon. 5.5.1.1 Spring Hollow Reservoir and Treatment Facility Spring Hollow Reservoir is the main source of drinking water for Roanoke County. A pumping station, capable of pumping up to 80 million gallons per day into the reservoir, pumps water from the Roanoke River when the river's flow is at or above the state- permitted withdrawal level to supply the reservoir. Dedicated in 1994, the reservoir was formed by the Clifford D. Craig Memorial Dam, a 243 -foot high, roller- compacted concrete dam with a crest length of 990 feet. Spring Hollow Reservoir has a working volume of 3.2 billion gallons, a surface area of 158 acres and a drainage area of 540 acres. After being withdrawn from the reservoir, water is oxygenated and treated with chlorine dioxide to oxidize dissolved organic matter, iron and manganese. alenvar Community Plan Graphic 5.15 Clifford D. Craig Memorial Dam Construction Communit 9 Facilities lines not maintained by the WVWA in the Planning Area. A map of the sewer facilities in the Glenvar Planning Area is available in Appendix A. The FY2010 for the waste water system does Treatment at the Spring Hollow Treatment Facility includes clarification, filtration, chlorine disinfection and fluoridation. Once treated, water is stored in a two million gallon storage tank then pumped through the north and south transmission lines to the distribution system. Spring Hollow Water Treatment Facility treats about seven million gallons daily but has the capacity to treat 36 million gallons of water a day. Current usages average 5.19 million gallons a day. During an emergency, standby wells may be used to supplement the source water. 5.5.1.2 Salem Source The Western Virginia Water Authority contracts with the City of Salem to purchase water to supply Andrew Lewis Place, Robin Hood Park and along West Main Street in Roanoke County. 5.5.2 Sewer The Western Virginia Water Authority's Wastewater Operations division is responsible for operating the Roanoke Regional Water Pollution Control Plant, which treats 40 million gallons of wastewater a day from throughout the Roanoke Valley. The Authority also operates and maintains over 900 miles of sewer and gravity mains, 2 2, 000 manholes and 21 lift stations and 10 miles of force mains within its service area. Within the Glenvar Planning Area, the WVWA operates and maintains 27.94 miles of gravity sewer, 4.06 miles of force main, six lift stations and 708 manholes. Additionally, there are 0.2 mile of sewer mains, three manholes and 0.04 mile of private sewer not contain any location specific line items in the Glenvar Planning Area. 5.5.3 Stormwater Management The Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan defines stormwater management as the planned control of surface water runoff that results from rainfall. The goal of stormwater management is to prevent flooding and pollution and to ensure that development impacts are mitigated by stormwater management facilities and water quality best management practices. The primary concerns of stormwater management are to: 1. Minimize the impact of drainage on private property; 2. Alleviate existing stormwater problems; 3. Manage stormwater discharge control; and 4. Protect water and stream quality. Numerous local, state and federal regulations influence stormwater management in Roanoke County, such as the Roanoke County Stormwater Ordinance, the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook, and the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MS -4 Permit (# VAR- 0400220). According to the Roanoke County stormwater management database, there are 47 stormwater management facilities in the Glenvar Planning Area not including those being installed as part of the Route 11/460 widening project. The majority (83 %) of the facilities are detention basins. 5.5.4 Electric Electrical service within the Glenvar Planning Area is provided by Appalachian Power, a subsidiary of American Electric Power Company of Columbus, Ohio. Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 5.16 Spring Hollow Reservoir 5.5.5 Gas The Roanoke Gas Company, a subsidiary of RGC Resources, provides natural gas and propane to residents and businesses within the Glenvar Planning Area. Originally organized in 1883, Roanoke Gas now serves over 70,000 customers in the counties of Roanoke, Montgomery, Franklin, Bedford and Botetourt, the Town of Vinton and the cities of Roanoke and Salem. 5.5.6 Telecommunications Telecommunications - cable, telephone and internet - in the Glenvar Planning Area are largely provided by Cox Communications, Verizon and Comcast. Other telecommunication companies in the Glenvar Planning Area include B2X Online, Dish Network and DirecTV. s -io � Glenvar Community Plan Chapter 6: Transportation. Transportation infrastructure in the Glenvar Planning Area includes roads, railroads, bicycle accommodations, greenways and other pedestrian accommodations. 6.1 Roadway Characteristics There are approximately 145 miles of roads located within the Glenvar Planning Area. As with most roads in Roanoke County, the majority (I 10 miles) are owned and maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). The remaining roads (35 miles) are privately owned and maintained. 6 1.1 Road Classifications VDOT's publicly- maintained roads are described as either rural or urban and then divided into many sub - classifications, several of which are represented in the Glenvar area. Collector roads, like West Main Street, allow moderate levels of traffic movement and property accessibility and local streets, like Technology Drive, supply broad accessibility to property and limit traffic mobility. Table 6.01 Sample Road Classifications 61.2 Average Annual Daily Traffic Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) is an estimate of daily traffic on major road segments for a one -year period. Traffic counts taken in 2010 for West Main Street and Interstate 81 showed that more vehicles travel on these roadways closer to the City of Salem line and fewer vehicles travel on the western portions of these roadways towards Montgomery County. Tables 6.02 and 6.03 show the AADT for the different segments of West Main Street and Interstate 81, respectively. Table 6.02 VDOT 2010 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume Estimates, West Main Street Startin Point Urban , Montgomery Interstate 81 north of Interstate 81 south of Interstate Southbound West River Road Exit 132 Exit 132 Dow Hollow Road Wildwood Road: 11,000 Principal A 14,000 Alleghany Drive Four -lane section in None Arterial Wildwood Road (Exit 13 7) 50,000 Wildwood Road L_ (Exit 13 7) Salem 58,000 Minor Arterial None None Major — Twelve West Main Street: O'Clock Knob Road east of West River West Main Street: Collector Road west of West River Diu uids Lane g Road Barley Drive Minor - None Andrew Avenue Cherokee Hill Drive Givens -Tyler Road Local Dow Hollow Road Technology Drive peaceful Drive 61.2 Average Annual Daily Traffic Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) is an estimate of daily traffic on major road segments for a one -year period. Traffic counts taken in 2010 for West Main Street and Interstate 81 showed that more vehicles travel on these roadways closer to the City of Salem line and fewer vehicles travel on the western portions of these roadways towards Montgomery County. Tables 6.02 and 6.03 show the AADT for the different segments of West Main Street and Interstate 81, respectively. Table 6.02 VDOT 2010 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume Estimates, West Main Street Startin Point E Point AADT Montgomery West River Road 7,900 County Line Southbound West River Road Dow Hollow Road 7,900 Dow Hollow Road Daugherty Road 11,000 Daugherty Road Alleghany Drive 14,000 Alleghany Drive City of Salem Line 18,000 Table 6.03 VDOT 2010 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume Estimates, Interstate 81 61.3 Level of Service Level of Service (LOS) indicates the ability to travel based on speed, congestion and overall mobility on a road. LOS is measured on the following scale: LOS A: Free flow traffic with individual users mostly unaffected by other drivers; LOS B: Stable flow with a high degree of freedom to select speed and operating conditions with some influence from other drivers; LOS C: Stable restricted flow with significant interactions with other drivers; comfort level and convenience declines noticeably; Glenvar Community Plan AADT Startin Point Ending Point Northbound Southbound Montgomery Dow Hollow Road 47,000 County Line (Exit 132) Dow Hollow Road City f Salem Line y 50,000 (Exit 13 2) City f Salem Line y Wildwood Road (Exit 13 7) 50,000 Wildwood Road L_ (Exit 13 7) City f Salem Line y 58,000 61.3 Level of Service Level of Service (LOS) indicates the ability to travel based on speed, congestion and overall mobility on a road. LOS is measured on the following scale: LOS A: Free flow traffic with individual users mostly unaffected by other drivers; LOS B: Stable flow with a high degree of freedom to select speed and operating conditions with some influence from other drivers; LOS C: Stable restricted flow with significant interactions with other drivers; comfort level and convenience declines noticeably; Glenvar Community Plan .C3 GIenvar Planning Area Boundary Roanoke e River I , .. Spring Hollow Reservoir — Railroad Road Classification .-arterial B onded ' Collector N Local 1 'w"ildwuod Rd Darned Driveway; Private Read Parkwa Interstate '-F � L yale Dr 1. �O' v r � .. . Prpoe Intcrruodal --� Facility i y � L � Roanoke CountV Montgomet County miles Graphic 6.01 Glenvar CPlan Transportation Network GIenvar Community Plan Transportation LDS D: High- density flow with speed and maneuverability severely restricted; LDS E: Unstable flow at or near capacity levels with poor convenience and comfort levels; These intersections typically have poor levels of service, undesirable operational characteristics and /or access management issues. Table 6.04 Number of Accidents at Intersections with West Main Street (2005 -2008) LDS F. Forced traffic flow with volume approaching a point exceeding capacity. The Interstate 81 Corridor Improvement Study graded and projected levels of service for the entire stretch of I -81 in Virginia for the years 2004 and 2035. Both urban and rural segments of the interstate located in western Roanoke County performed at LOS C for the year 2004. The 2035 portion of the study assumed a "no- build" scenario and was projected at LOS E /F. It is expected that some degree of improvement will be made to I -81 in Glenvar before 2035 which should lessen the effects of any potential no -build scenario. 61.4 Accident Data Roanoke County Police Department statistics indicated that 261 crashes were reported within the Glenvar Planning Area from November 16, 2005 - December 23, 2008, the majority of which (43 %) occurred along West Main Street (Route 11/460) . Of these 113 crashes, one fatality occurred at the intersection of Dow Hollow Road and West Main Street. Two other fatalities occurred away from West Main Street during the three year period; one at the intersection of Gum Springs Road and Wildwood Road and one at Bohon Hollow Road and Hillcrest Road. Table 6.04 lists the number of accidents at intersections with West Main Street from 2005 -2008. Intersectin Road Dow Hollow Road Number of Accidents 17 Daugherty Road 12 Alleghany Drive 11 West River Road 9 Fort Lewis Church Road 8 VDOT accident data for 2009 and 2010 documented an additional 25 accidents along West Main Street. In 2009, 22 accidents occurred with one fatality and 11 injuries. In 2010, only three accidents were recorded along West Main Street with one fatality and no injuries. Both accidents resulting in fatalities involved a fixed object located off of the roadway. Eight of the 25 accidents were rear -end collisions, another eight involved fixed objects off of the roadway and six were documented as a collision with a deer or another animal. 6.2 Railroads Roanoke County is part of the Virginia Rail Heritage Region, which was established by the Virginia General Assembly in 2010 to highlight and promote the rich railroad heritage of the state of Virginia. The Glenvar Community demonstrates this rich heritage as it was transformed in the mid - nineteenth century with the construction of the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad through the area. The Norfolk and Southern Railway, originally Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 6.02 Interstate 81 Graphic 6.03 Daugherty Road Intersection known as the Virginia and Tennessee Railway, was constructed through the Glenvar Community in 1853 and 1854. By 1857, a telegraph line was completed along the entire line and sleeping cars were added by 1860. The original stops were at Salem, Charles Thomas' tavern and wagon stand near the boundary with Montgomery County and Big Spring near Elliston. In 1882, after merging into the Norfolk and Western Railway, there were railroad stops at Salem, Deyerle's Switch and Big Spring. Double- tracking of the Norfolk and Western line began in April 1890 from Roanoke to Big Spring, twenty miles through the Fort Lewis area. These tracks are now part of Norfolk Southern's Heartland Corridor, a multi -state project that will significantly improve the freight shipping time between the Port of Hampton Roads in Virginia and markets in the Midwest. The Virginian Railway, formerly known as the Tidewater, was built through Roanoke County in 1907 -1908. The Virginian parallels the Norfolk and Southern for twenty miles deflecting from the latter just east of the Roanoke /Montgomery County boundary. 6.3 Proposed Intermodal Facility 6 3.1 Heartland Corridor Rail Improvement Initiative As part of the Heartland Corridor multi -state freight rail improvement initiative between Virginia, West Virginia and Ohio to reduce shipping time to Chicago by a day and a half, Virginia has committed to several infrastructure improvements along the Heartland Corridor. The improvements include increased tunnel clearances to allow double stack freight traffic on the rail corridor in Virginia and the construction of a new intermodal facility in the Roanoke Region to provide both east -west (Heartland Corridor) and north -south (I -81 Rail Corridor) capacity for freight rail traffic. Graphic 6.05 Heartland Corridor There are 26.82 miles of railroad tracks and 19 railroad crossings in the Glenvar Planning Area. Six of the crossings are underpasses, five are signalized crossings, one has a sign but no signal and seven have no sign or signal. A map of the railroad crossings showing signalization is available in Appendix A. 63.2 Roanoke Regional Intermodal Facility The Roanoke Regional Intermodal Facility is planned fora 65 -acre site in Montgomery County, about a half of a mile from the Roanoke County border (Graphic 6.06, Elliston Site). The Elliston site is relatively flat and near the mainline rail elevation. The site is on the double -track of the Heartland Corridor and is directly accessible to the Shenandoah and Altavista rail lines. It also has truck access to I -81 to the east at Dixie Caverns (Exit 132) and to the west at Ironto (Exit 128). The site would require relocation of the existing Cove Hollow Road and a new highway bridge over the Roanoke River. The construction cost of an intermodal facility at the Elliston Site is approximately $35.5 million -full build -out plus a new highway bridge and relocation of Cove Hollow Road. Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 6.04 Men Work on Tracks (ca. 1930s) develop park greenways and hiking and walking trails within County parks that offer opportunities for close - to -home opportunities for walking, jogging, hiking, bicycling and (2) develop greenways outside existing County parks that will link or connect parks with resources such as schools, neighborhoods, playgrounds and other parks, forests, rivers and other natural areas, historic sites and businesses." 63.3 Potential Impacts of the Intem2odal Facility The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation's (DRPT) Economic Assessment Report on the Roanoke Regional Intermodal Facility concluded that the intermodal facility could provide significant economic benefits for the Roanoke Region. Potential economic benefits include an increase in annual employment of up to 2,900 jobs and tax revenues of up to $71 million annually. The facility, as part of the Heartland Corridor project, could reduce the number of long haul trucks on area highways such as I -81 and Route 460 by 150,000 trucks per year. 6.4 Alternative Modes of Transportation 64.1 Greenways Greenways are open space corridors that can be managed for conservation, recreation, or alternative transportation. The only completed greenway in the Glenvar Planning Area is a one -mile segment of the Roanoke River Greenway located in Green Hill Park. Dedicated in April 2008, this segment is proposed to connect with the Roanoke River Greenway after a greenway between Green Hill Park and Mill Lane is constructed. A Comprehensive Master Plan for Parks and Facilities was completed by the Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department and adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2007. The Master Plan supports continued greenway and trail development with a two - pronged development approach, " (1) The 2007 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan, prepared by the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission and the Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission (RVARC) and adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2007, has several components, including identifying and prioritizing greenways and trails to be constructed throughout the Roanoke Valley. The following segments are located or proposed within the Glenvar Planning Area. • Roanoke River Greenway (Greenway Plan #31): Establishment of the Roanoke River Greenway from Montgomery County to Franklin County through Roanoke County, the City of Salem, City of Roanoke and Town of Vinton is the Plan's first priority. In the Glenvar Study Area, cone -mile- long stretch along the river in Green Hill Park was completed in 2008. A phase of the Roanoke River Greenway West, from Spring Hollow Reservoir to Green Hill Park, was identified (and unfunded) in the 2011 -2015 Roanoke County Capital Improvements Program (CIP). This phase Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 6.06 Elliston Site Graphic 6.07 Greenway in Green Hill Park Transportation JO GIenvar Plannin Area Boundar Roads Railroad Roanoke River Spring Hollow Resen-oir Public River Access Roanoke Count Parks State Conservation Areas Public Trails Birdin and Wildlife Trail Bikewa Plan Priorit Vision Greenwa Plan �Existin Greenwa Proposed Greenwa�,s �O Dixie Caverns � NNa N"a i'= Llaven� NVildfife W, �&� 7 7") OWEI 0 J .,,Green,Hill Par L X NMUIF �"� PoorMouutain Area N.. urall-Peeserve 460 "'T1 inu HolloW-Re-servoir Camp Roanoke N,k OkONVL �)A 0 d L AOO Mont Count Roanoke Count - 0 0.25 0.5 1 1 5 2 Miles Graphic 6.08 Gl n ar Communit Plan Bikeways, Er n a and Trails Glenvar Communit Nan includes preliminary engineering and the initial phase of right -of -way acquisition with a cost estimated at $450,000 dollars. The segment of greenway between Green Hill Park and Mill Lane in both the County of Roanoke and the City of Salem is currently being designed and engineered. Construction of the greenway is anticipated in 2014. Green Hill Park Trails (Greenway Plan #16): A network of natural surfaced trails has been built since 2007 connecting the Roanoke River Greenway and lower fields to the meadow at the top of the hill. In addition, the Green Hill Park Loop Trail Connector is identified in the FY2011 -2015 Roanoke County CIP. The proposed one - mile -long loop trail around part of Green Hill Park would connect to the existing Green Hill Park segment of the Roanoke River Greenway. The estimated project cost is $264,000 dollars but is currently unfunded. Havens Wildlife Management Area Trails (Greenway Plan #18): The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries maintains this area primarily for hunting and wildlife management purposes. In addition to hunting opportunities, there are also several hiking trails throughout Havens WMA; however, they are steep and not well marked. As of January 1, 2012, an Access Permit will be required for visitors who are age 17 and older, unless they possess a valid Virginia hunting, freshwater fishing, or trapping license, or a current Virginia boat registration. Perimeter Trail (Greenway Plan #28): A proposed multi -use, long- distance trail connecting and incorporating Roanoke Valley trails and features including Carvins Cove, Havens Wildlife Management Area, Green Hill Park, Spring Hollow, the Blue Ridge Parkway, Explore Park and the Jefferson National Forest. Poor Mountain Preserve (Greenway Plan #29): A state preserve managed by the Natural Heritage Division for protection of the endangered piratebush. A network of natural surface trails has been built since 2007. • Spring Hollow Trails (Greenway Plan #33): A network of trails is proposed in the County's master plan for that area. A map of the greenways planned for the Glenvar Community is shown on page 6 -6. 64.2 Virginia Birding and Wildlife Trails Several Birding and Wildlife Trails are identified as Mountain Phase Loops in the Roanoke area by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). The Roanoke Valley Loop is described by VDGIF as follows: "In addition to montane forests, these venues offer riverside views, riparian corridors, and open fields. Birding is at its peak during migration when songbird density can be especially attractive to visitors." As shown in Graphic 6.08, three Birding and Wildlife Trails are located within the Glenvar Study Area: • Havens Wildlife Management Area; • Green Hill Park; and • Poor Mountain Natural Area Preserve. 64.3 Bikeways The 2005 Bikeway Plan for the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning organization was established to "facilitate development of a regional transportation network that accommodates and encourages bicycling as an alternative mode of travel and as a popular form of recreation in the MPO study area." The Priority List alignments reflect regional priorities for bicycle improvements that connect greenway and transit systems, activity centers and other important locations. Shown in Graphic 6.08, the Priority List in the Glenvar Community includes West Riverside Drive from the City of Salem to Diuguids Lane for bicycle accommodations. The Vision List Glenvar Community Plan Transportation alignments support the Priority List and include gaps in accommodations. This list designates Twelve O' Clock Knob Road from Route 221/Bent Mountain Road to West Riverside Drive and Wildwood Road from the City of Salem to Interstate 81 /City of Salem also for bicycle accommodations. The Rural Bikeway Plan prepared by the Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission (RVARC) in 2006 was intended as a planning resource for bicycle accommodations in the rural areas of the RVARC service area. As shown in Graphic 6.08, bicycle accommodations are recommended for West Main Street from the Metropolitan Planning Organization boundary at Dow Hollow Road to the Montgomery County line. 6 4.4 Park and Ride Facilities The 2009 Ride Solutions Park - and -Ride Study inventoried existing official and unofficial park -and- ride lots in the Roanoke and New River Valleys. While there are no official park- and -rides in the Glenvar Planning Area, locations of nearby facilities are as follows: Official lots are those owned or leased by VDOT. Unofficial lots are parking lots that VDOT recognizes as being used for commuter parking but are not official lots. Park - and -ride lots provide connections to transit service such as the Smart Way commuter bus which runs between the Campbell Court transfer station in downtown Roanoke City to Squires Student Center at Virginia Tech with several stops along the route, including the Roanoke Regional Airport. Park- and -pool lots, such as those at the Orange Market and Hanging Rock Park, serve carpoolers. The Park - and -Ride Study identified a parking deficit at the I -81 Exit 140 lot with 58 spaces provided and 74 cars utilizing the lot, for a deficit of 16 spaces. Since the Park - and -Ride Study was completed, this lot has been expanded to pave the grassed area adjacent to the parking lot being used for parking (Graphic 6.09) . The Orange Market /Hanging Rock lot is typically half -full (49 %) and the Interstate 81 Exit 128 lot is minimally used (13 %). 6.5 Improvements 65.1 VDOT Six -Year Improvement Program The Six -Year Improvement Program (SYIP) is the Commonwealth Transportation Board's program for allocating funding for rail, public transportation, commuter assistance, bicycle, pedestrian, interstate and primary highway projects. To identify new capacity or expansion projects, local governments work with residents and Virginia's transportation agencies to develop a transportation plan that anticipates land use changes and travel patterns more than two decades into the future. The following two Six -Year Improvement Program projects are planned or under construction in the Glenvar area. 65.1.1 Interstate 81 Partial preliminary engineering has been funded for major widening of I -81 from four to eight lanes. However, the preliminary engineering funds are Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 6.09 I -81 Exit 140 Lot Expansion Area Table 6.05 Park - and -Ride Facilities only a small percentage of the total engineering fund estimates. Construction funds have not been allocated. Two bridge replacement projects are also listed in the SYIP. The bridges over Wildwood Road and Alleghany Drive are scheduled to receive funding in FY2016 and FY2017. In addition to the bridge replacement projects, bridge deck repairs are currently underway on the Dow Hollow Road and Fort Lewis Church Road bridges. 65.1.2 Route 111460 Widening Project VDOT is in the process of reconstructing a 2.1 -mile segment of West Main Street (Route 11/460) from the Salem city limits to one -tenth of a mile west of Technology Drive. This project has been on the state's Six Year Primary Improvement construction list for many years and is one of two primary highway reconstruction projects underway in Roanoke County. Begun in spring 2010, this section of West Main Street will be built as a four -lane divided highway with a continuous 12 -foot paved shoulder, a raised median and turn lanes. Included in the construction is a 44- foot long bridge over Little Bear Rock Branch and sidewalks around Fort Lewis Elementary School, connecting with existing sidewalks to the east. The traffic signals at Alleghany Drive and Daugherty Road will be replaced. The FY2012 Six -Year Improvement Program lists engineering, right -of -way and construction costs estimates at $45,375,000. Work is expected to be completed by Fall 2013. A map of the widening project is available in Appendix A Graphic 6.10 VDOT Rendering of the Completed West Main Street Widening Project (Looking South) 65.2 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program VDOT's Revenue Sharing Program annually provides Roanoke County the opportunity to receive State matching funds for the construction and improvement to primary and secondary roads in the State's highway system. In FY2011 -2012, the Commonwealth of Virginia provided $103 million for this matching program. Currently, the maximum state participation is $10 million per locality. County and VDOT staff continuously review and evaluate street and drainage improvement projects throughout the year for possible inclusion in the Revenue Sharing program. In deciding which projects to include in the program, County and VDOT staff consider the following criteria: traffic counts, vehicular and pedestrian safety, existing and future development in the adjacent area, existing pavement width, overall pavement condition, drainage, roadway geometrics, and the economic benefits of the project. Three current revenue sharing projects in the Glenvar area are listed below, followed by a brief description of the project. • Daugherty Road: Replace existing box culvert near 4144 Daugherty Road. Added to project list in FY2006 -07; • Wildwood Road: Widen for guardrail, sight distance and typical section improvements from Zana Road to near Gum Springs Road. Added to project list in FY2008 -09. Additional funds added in FY2011 -12 and FY2012 -13 ; and • Fort Lewis Church Road: Drainage improvements from I -81 to Cherokee Hills Drive. Added to project list in FY2011 -12. 6 5.3 Rural Addition Projects Streets added under the Rural Addition Program may exist as a result of past development, but were not initially proposed for maintenance by VDOT. Previously funded as incidental construction services in the VDOT Secondary Six Year Improvement Program, Roanoke County has not received any new funding for rural additions since FY2005 -2006. alenvar Community Plan The existing program balance of approximately $430,000 will be used for projects currently under design or construction. Other projects on the revenue sharing list, including the three projects listed below, will remain identified for future construction until such time that funds are available, or the projects are removed from the list. • Williams Drive: Approximately 300 feet in length; right of way and easements needed; 6 families served; • Dow Hollow Road: Approximately 3,000 feet in length; widening and possible drainage improvements; 3 families served; and • Grey Fox Lane /Uphill Drive: Approximately 2,000 feet in length, possible drainage and grade problems; 11 families served. alenvar Community Plan Graphic 6.11 Uphill Drive (Existing Condition) Chapter 7: Community involvement When the Glenvar Community Plan was initiated in 2008 the national and regional economies were sliding into a recession. As budgets tightened, Roanoke County staff was challenged to find creative and inexpensive ways to involve Glenvar residents and businesses in this planning effort. The resulting strategies included a heavy emphasis on digital communication tools such as Facebook, email newsletters and invitations, an interactive Glenvar Community Plan website and local news blogs. Significant personal interaction was also a critical component of community involvement with several community meetings, stakeholder interviews and the creation of a Glenvar Focus Group. 7.1 Glenvar Community Survey The Glenvar Community Survey was available to complete online for approximately five months, from November 24, 2009, to April 16, 2010. The initial invitation to complete the survey was emailed to 380 recipients of our December 2009 Community Developments e- newsletter which included interested citizens, professionals, County staff and elected and appointed officials. Links to the survey were also included in five subsequent Community Developments e- newsletters and the survey was advertised at the January 2010, Community Meeting, the Glenvar Library and Richfield Retirement Community. The survey included questions about community likes and issues, housing supply, future development types, satisfaction with p ublic services and environmental features, needed Graphic 7.01 transportation improvements and Community Survey respondent demographics. Graphic A total of 195 surveys were submitted with 168 surveys (86 %) completed online and 27 surveys (14 %) filled out in hard copy form. The paper surveys were available at the Roanoke County Administration Center and at the Glenvar Library. The Glenvar Community Survey and a summary of the results can be found in Appendix B. Communit y involvement 7.1.1 Community Likes The survey respondents were asked the question, "What do you like most about your community ?" The most common answers included the rural character of the area and the quiet and peaceful setting while not being too far away from amenities in Salem or in Christiansburg; views of the mountains; the Roanoke River; the feel of the community, that it is close -knit and safe; the Glenvar schools and the Glenvar Library. 7.1.2 Important Issues Today When asked to identify the three most important issues facing your community today, respondents answered with the following topics: Issue 1 • Maintaining the community feel of the area • Traffic /congestion and appearance of Route 11/460 • Unwanted industrial businesses and heavy industry Issue 2 • Traffic • Loss of jobs and unemployment • Condition and funding of the schools and library • Governmental representation • Lack of youth recreation, family activities and a community center Issue 3 • Environmental issues (air and water quality, protecting open space) • Property values and takes • Lack of commercial development • Safe options for alternative modes of transportation 7.1.3 Important Issues in the Next Five to Ten Years Answers to the question to identify the three most important issues facing your community in the next five to ten years included: Issue 1 • Impact of industry on the community Glenvar Community Plan • Improving the Glenvar Library and schools • Impact of the proposed intermodal facility • Jobs creation and retention • Road maintenance and traffic issues • Public service staffing • Housing issues (quality and affordability) • Environmental concerns (air, water quality and floodplain) Issue 2 • Lack of amenities (restaurants and businesses) • Overcrowding in schools and funding of schools • Water quality concerns • Current zoning • Residential growth • Increasing traffic on West Main Street • Appearance of West Main Street • Industrial development Issue 3 • Protection of rural character • Governmental transparency • Property values and takes • Lack of commercial businesses • Traffic congestion • Lack of safe options for alternative modes of transportation • Lack of community recreational activities • Increasing crime 7.1.4 Housing Supply Respondents were asked to rate the supply of housing by category with the responses "need a lot more" , "need a little more" , "do not need any more" or "no opinion" for the housing types of rental housing/ apartments, elderly /assisted living, mobile homes, single family homes and townhouses /condominiums. Responses indicated that no additional rental housing/ apartments, elderly /assisted living or mobile homes are needed in the Glenvar area. Survey respondents would like some additional single - family homes and townhouses /condominiums available in the community. How would you rate the supply of housing by category in the Gl enva r area? I Be ■ NGQd a Lc i Mom 1 = Ne-ed ; Liac rbre a Da Nod Need Arry Mrwe 1 •:°; No Opirr -Dn IDD B0 6 f ' 10 KOM.al HouieiV Apar[mcnU ElderNylAisium Lj-lq MoLaic Hornt9 Kousing Type Snit Nino Graphic 7.02 Housing Supply Chart 7.1.5 Future Development When asked what kinds of future development should be encouraged in Glenvar, respondents wish to strongly encourage new park and recreational facilities, encourage new residential and commercial development and strongly discourage new industrial development. I n plann ing: fo r the future what types of d evelopm ent woul d you li ke to gee enaMiraged in the Glenvar a rea ? 1.1 !;tF �-ncnuragc r 170 :Take No Atrjrm ■ v9r.0Ur Lso 60 Z 03 1] CAMYPV €0 OtreleN-nCM Irrcf EHM Dt- 66PIMC 1 f idenr.Jl utreksprnm iPrkdM f4 cr-nvxr °al T Fpe of Devesopment Graphic 7.03 Future Development Types Chart 7.1.6 Businesses and Services The top five answers to the question, "What types of businesses and /or services would you like to Glenvar Community Plan see in y our communit ? are as follows: 1. Restaurants (sit-down, famil 2. Personal Services (barber shops, salons, spas, etc.) 3. Retail Establishments 4. Professional Offices 5. Grocer Stores What t of businesses and/or services would y ou like to see In y our communit Ole Fl" �corei ti.a. Loym; wNwa, ra emi 5 Car D"erihips 1�klweWftw StorlyGal Suribilt P irLarqc W 0 LeF;&rtg Irts tftv ti a h L Gqrdm C-cPhs-%ff1wdWzar_ Storim -3o Mdml Offires. 92 rqt r m '. 1Z F-•rziXQ1 .5 rams tWrbcr:sh s.� qfli, % 4;M 109 PNmumL PCs; C"Cc* 74 97 Remuraria ifasT fo4* Maurarn (vtx*ff, �mllrf S4 PenH EmbliMrw-hu W,; U hidu&Lr H ev I mko Lr N wyi b-e v -a II R es-p lu n ee5 Graphic 7.04 Business and Services Chart 7.1. 7 Communit Facilities and Services A q uestion was also asked re levels of satisfaction with 14 public services. Please rate y our sat isfacti-o n -with the util ities, com. mu nit faci litles and services listed below. d Abpvc Amp a 5arn-r.N,-,cd for z G rqaa r N ea�d ft r 1rmrpr&vtn)-.-tYi No Opi-riQn bic and pedestrian trail s/ a s and rec services. Please rate y our sat isfactia n with the util itieR, communit faCirlifieS an services listed below. 0 Aho we A vera g e .4& gbffE C U Sorne Need Fat' Impmvein-mm a -Great Need for Improvemeni Nn Q 41 4 r Rrr�:i,r% &crocm 'A kw v r S4; rv, c c7i Storm Wow Weer SoreKG Yw-h Urioa �r*iCe Graphic 7.06 Communit Facilities and Services Chart (2) 7.1.8 Transportation Improvements Surve respondents chose several transportation improvements that are needed for the Glenvar area. The top five answers were: 1. Bike Lanes 2. Improvin Existin Roads 3. Greenwa 4. Sidewalks 5. Communit Identification Si (Welcome to Glenvar) Please list the location c an transportation improvements that y Gu feel are n eeded in y our com rn urn it Rik=g 'Ljnrs N5 KDLJ1=-43LJ3 SCO .. ... . .. .P• S (WeL-car- to Gewri {�reerMrla }s 5r Gwrd RwIs LLI 1m Exignn RDAs n r i! r3 c c dan .1 rrp n7m m r nts UFMK4Pe MtAAM 17 ;PL I Reduced Traffir. Car X Trft, Si T Lr7iirg LnEi E Ne A 40 Yj bg 18 EQ HUMbeltIMI Re"Fk9eA F" and Rescm G 3 r X C_o.il I K t tnp LjEffwPm ;Lj I-. Cc m r-twu rqi ty Fa aw Serra e Graphic 7.05 Communit Facilities and Services Chart " Satisfactor y " was the most common response with re to animal control, fire and rescue, g arba g e collection, libraries, police, schools, sewer services, storm water draina water service and y outh recreation. "Some need for improvement was chosen most fre for adult recreation and parks. "Great need for improvement was indicated most often for Graphic 7.07 Transportation Improvements Chart Glenvar Communit Plan 60 AdL4- P-trymievi Ani�W Cmimp' Blc d Abpvc Amp a 5arn-r.N,-,cd for z G rqaa r N ea�d ft r 1rmrpr&vtn)-.-tYi No Opi-riQn bic and pedestrian trail s/ a s and rec services. Please rate y our sat isfactia n with the util itieR, communit faCirlifieS an services listed below. 0 Aho we A vera g e .4& gbffE C U Sorne Need Fat' Impmvein-mm a -Great Need for Improvemeni Nn Q 41 4 r Rrr�:i,r% &crocm 'A kw v r S4; rv, c c7i Storm Wow Weer SoreKG Yw-h Urioa �r*iCe Graphic 7.06 Communit Facilities and Services Chart (2) 7.1.8 Transportation Improvements Surve respondents chose several transportation improvements that are needed for the Glenvar area. The top five answers were: 1. Bike Lanes 2. Improvin Existin Roads 3. Greenwa 4. Sidewalks 5. Communit Identification Si (Welcome to Glenvar) Please list the location c an transportation improvements that y Gu feel are n eeded in y our com rn urn it Rik=g 'Ljnrs N5 KDLJ1=-43LJ3 SCO .. ... . .. .P• S (WeL-car- to Gewri {�reerMrla }s 5r Gwrd RwIs LLI 1m Exignn RDAs n r i! r3 c c dan .1 rrp n7m m r nts UFMK4Pe MtAAM 17 ;PL I Reduced Traffir. Car X Trft, Si T Lr7iirg LnEi E Ne A 40 Yj bg 18 EQ HUMbeltIMI Re"Fk9eA F" and Rescm G 3 r X C_o.il I K t tnp LjEffwPm ;Lj I-. Cc m r-twu rqi ty Fa aw Serra e Graphic 7.05 Communit Facilities and Services Chart " Satisfactor y " was the most common response with re to animal control, fire and rescue, g arba g e collection, libraries, police, schools, sewer services, storm water draina water service and y outh recreation. "Some need for improvement was chosen most fre for adult recreation and parks. "Great need for improvement was indicated most often for Graphic 7.07 Transportation Improvements Chart Glenvar Communit Plan Communit y involvement 7.1.9 Resource Preservation When asked about satisfaction with nine environmental resources in the community, "satisfactory" was the most common response for forest conservation, preservation of wildlife habitat and hunting /fishing areas, protection of groundwater resources and stormwater management. "Some need for improvement" was entered most often for outdoor recreation activities, protection of surface water resources (watersheds, streams, ponds, floodplains) and for Roanoke River canoe/kayak access. "Great need for improvement" was chosen most frequently for maintenance /improvement of air quality, and respondents offered "no opinion" most often for viewshed protection. Please rate your satisfaction with eac h of the following item s in your co mmu n Ity -- &Move Aver C 3r.+ 57 a�' Sgmc Nt c4 dor I mprovL -mwn 8G ■ Grm NvrA for I mpr- D -emerr o Nd Oporeom ?b i r 60 w I 50 6C s. Z �f or rvnt�an M-orrt Nnrdirripr rra-ik & L 0w0Qor K1Kr% ACrMQCs F1Nv -,- =Qr- 01 W141 ie H-b =r QW11[Y to Hunelr isirq +s. Relaupte Graphic 7.08 Resource Preservation Chart Please rate your satisfaction nth each of the fallowing items in your cc� �'17F'�'ELJ11j y. it Abov Aiterage S,tjsfrctorf Some fired for IrVmv.: i i ■ QrCZT Nmd Fo r I rryproveryr=r•• - f No Cpfrilo- 1 E F h ix 1 . I I r c ^.w• d F _ :m• Dr Surfxe RcarA a Rr+er SharmwateT M U% nenL V,--cashed Palter_ r `A- .) - 3 :arrrrav (•rtr7SCr. N04.- - 01. -ran aKwak Access grrQ3 pwdt. Poodol5mi Resoupte Graphic 7.09 Resource Preservation Chart (2) 7.1.10 Demographics Survey respondents were more frequently female (60.1 %) than male (39.9%). The most common age range of respondents was 35 to 49 years old (72 respondents), followed by the 50 to 64- year -old age range (56 respondents) and the 65 to 80- year -old age range (35 respondents.) Most people who completed the survey live in the Glenvar area (86.9%), while 12.6% of people work in the community and 1.6% own a business. Respondents' Age 56 t F 3 ct is ti �s i 4 0 i Under 18 18.24 25.34 35 -49 50 84 -65.M 130 argil d1der Age (in years) Graphic 7.10 Respondents' Age Chart Respondents' Connection to the Studer a Live in the W ork in the Ar ea, Glenvar Area, 86.9 12.6 O wn a k. LL FA A Business in the Glenvar Area, 1.6 Graphic 7.11 Respondents' Connection to Study Area Chart 7.2 Digital Communication and Outreach 7.2.1 Glenvar Community Plan Webslte The Glenvar Community Plan website, www. roanokecountyva.gov /GCP, was created to both provide and to receive information throughout the planning process. Information about the Glenvar area Glenvar Community Plan including maps and meeting materials was posted online, as was a link to the survey and the final survey results. The website also included an interactive map highlighting potential development and redevelopment properties with the capability to submit comments or photos of redevelopment possibilities. 7.2.2 Social Media The Glenvar Plan was the first community plan to utilize social media as a primary method of outreach. The Roanoke County Planning Services Facebook Page was utilized to post community meeting notices and requests for comments on proposed Future Land Use scenarios for the Glenvar Community Plan. Upcoming meeting dates and reminders were also tweeted on Roanoke County's Twitter account to reach followers. Greetings[ After only 6 months, Community G e(opments subscriptions hags,,; increased by 15CY: .' Each n nth. the Roanoke County Departmen of Community Develops ient sends out this e.nevsletter to update. you an broth interne and external projects that affect your Community. BeI.-ween newAeW AaN Wernied through our website or by fbila.v)ng+ us facebwli -end twitter. Tharik. you for ma0ng our e. news letter a sruccess G lenvar Community Plan Update The first community meeting for the Gtenvar Comrnunit�! Han was held on January 11, AM in the Glenva Mid dLe School Auditoriuria Over 150 citizens attended this meeting - the greatest number for an area plan community meeting to date - to learn about and become involved in the Glenvar Community Kan The Community Meeting was Mcked Doff Yjith ka vve(corne by Board of SLiperAsor . Chairman, qtr. Butch Church of the Catawba Magisterial C»strict. Fcftvving his welcome, a presentation .-,s liven by several Planning staff rnenil such as existing conditions., curie zoning future land use - environmental constraints and r . . _. o Len question and answer session followed. Before and after the formal presentation severak large i11 disptaying the presentation information were avaitabLe for vie dng pc orn i n Meeti in the front € f th T`ou can view the -4 rnap online -r in person at the Glenvar Library, = Citizens are also er?r.ouraoed to take the Glenvar Febnwar -16 0, 6pm is.omrrr4rnity Survey online, 7rdcrjpies available in the i V_. Glenvar Library ar kan -Oke County Adninistratian *2A de ) r:o VGk W M O iuu�;l a rs GO H iC. Mt.Ute ON O iC _,1kJ I ounriik . Citizens can al..so comment can the deveiop,mr n d potential of eS hUin Street thruusgl� interactive rnaa Graphic 7.12 Community Developments E- newsletter Glenvar Community Plan meeting notices were included in the Community Development Department's e- newsletter, Community Developments, as were links to the survey, survey results, future land use scenarios and to other materials. Additionally, a `Glenvar Community Plan' email list was generated from those involved in the asphalt plant rezoning and special use permit process and well as those who signed up to receive electronic communications at a community meeting. Prior to each community meeting, a customized e -vite was sent out to this list. 7.3 Traditional Communication and Outreach In addition to digital means of notifying citizens about meetings and progress updates, meeting notices were mailed out to interested citizens without email access, meeting flyers were left at the Glenvar Library and Richfield Retirement Community, meeting information was posted on the Glenvar Schools message board and several articles were written about the Glenvar Community Plan in The Roanoke Times So -Salem section and on OurValley. org. Staff members were also interviewed by WFIR in preparation for the first community meeting that was held in January 2010. r,r, � ., , 7 1 7 1 2 Graphic 7.13 Glenvar Schools Message Board Advertising the Third Community Meeting 7.4 Stakeholder Interviews To receive comments and feedback from key members of the Glenvar community, 17 stakeholder interviews were conducted by County staff in 2010. A list of the stakeholders interviewed is available in Table 7.01 on the next page. The most common topic in the interviews was future industrial and commercial development in the community. The need for more commercial uses in the Glenvar Community Plan Planning Area came up in almost every stakeholder interview conducted, noting that the nearest restaurants and grocery stores are in Salem or Christiansburg. Property and business owners were also concerned about the impact of industrial development and the proposed intermodal facility on the environmental and scenic resources in the community. Table 7.01 Stakeholder Interviews Name Orga nization/Affiliation Don Band Bandy Property Owner, West Main Street Dr. Gene Bane Ft. Lewis Property Owner Pleasant Grove Residents Historic Property Owners p y (Beason) Bob Benninger, Gary Western Virginia Water Robertson Authority Chief Richard Burch, Roanoke County Fire and Division Chiefs Rescue Gary Ellis Owner, Salem Auto Sales Joe Hafey, Sonya Klein, Principals, Glenvar High School p g Jamie Soltis Martha Hooker Planning Commissioner, Catawba Magisterial District Bruce Ingram Outdoor Writer, Enthusiast Greg Martin Manager, Camp Roanoke Roger and Debbie Rardin Tyler Rose Owners, Residents Chief Operating Officer, Robert Rector Richfield Retirement Community David Shelor Property Owner, Ft. Lewis Mtn. Susan Short, Joyce Waugh y g Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce Leonard Southern Pastor, Ft. Lewis Baptist Church John Vest Head Librarian, Glenvar Library Ralph Williams Realtor, Thalheimer Real Estate 7.5 Interest Group Meetings Five meetings on the Glenvar Community Plan were held with groups of citizens and business owners with specific interests in late 2009 and 2010. County Planning staff delivered similar presentations to 14 members of Citizens for Positive Growth, 25 attendees at Richfield Retirement Community, 15 representatives from the Glenvar business community, 15 members of the Glenvar Rotary Club and to 20 employees of Novozymes and Tecton. Comments and observations from these groups included the need for ancillary commercial uses such as restaurants for employees and questions about impact of the West Main Street widening project. 7.6 Community Meetings The Glenvar Community was invited to three community meetings over the course of 18 months. Significant numbers of participants attended the meetings where County staff presented information, listened carefully and recorded ideas about the future of the Glenvar Community. 7 6.1 First Community Meeting Approximately 150 people attended the first Glenvar Community Meeting on January 11, 2010, at the Glenvar Middle School Auditorium. A presentation was delivered that described the study area, demographic information, development trends, motivating factors for initiating this study such as the West Main Street Widening Project and the proposed Intermodal Facility, community facilities, zoning analysis, future land use analysis, environmental constraints including steep slopes and floodplain and the community involvement process and survey. The meeting agenda and presentation are located in Appendix B. Questions and comments from this meeting included how much input the community would have in the planning process, what can be done Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 7.14 Glenvar Business Meeting - April 2010 about existing blighted properties along West Main Street and the timeline of the road widening project. 7 6.2 Second Community Meetings Two separate community meetings, identical in format, were held at Fort Lewis Baptist Church in June and July of 2010 to focus on two distinct areas of the Glenvar community. The first meeting, in June 2010, focused on the developed end of the West Main Street corridor from the City of Salem to about Technology Drive. The Dixie Caverns area, focused around the Dow Hollow Road interchange at Interstate 81, was discussed at the second meeting in July 2010. The press release issued and newspaper articles regarding the meetings are located in Appendix B. Approximately 80 people attended the West Main Street Corridor meeting on June 29, 2010 and about 60 people came to the meeting focusing on the Dixie Caverns area on July 15, 2010. Both meetings began with a PowerPoint presentation on the results of the Glenvar Community Survey. Following the presentation, attendees were separated into small groups to complete a visioning exercise. The visioning exercise asked participants to imagine the West Main Street area or the Dixie Caverns area of Glenvar in 20 years, to describe how that vision is different from the community today and what steps could be taken now to achieve that vision. Participants shared their thoughts with the small groups and group facilitators wrote all ideas on flipcharts. The most common themes are listed below: West Main Street Corridor • Emphasis on landscaping; integrated into site • Pedestrian -scale development; sidewalks • Interconnectivity through greenways, trails and bikeways • Clustered commercial uses; less industry • Community center; neighborhood scale parks • Underground utilities; junkyards eliminated Dixie Caverns Area • Buildings designed to fit in with surroundings; preserve historic /rural character • Gateway corridor • Built -out technology parks; hotels and restaurants at interchange • Improvements to Dow Hollow Road and intersection • Greenway connectivity • Emphasis on outdoor recreation; parks; tourism The Visioning Exercise handout and the resulting comments for both areas are located in Appendix B. . Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 7.15 First Community Meeting - January 2010 Graphic 7.16 Second Community Meeting Presentation July 2010 Graphic 7.17 Second Community Meeting Break -Out Group June 2010 Community meeting attendees were also asked to complete a Visual Preference Survey. This type of survey is used to identify and rate visual and aesthetic preferences for designated features such as buildings, landscaping, architectural styles and signs. The visual preference survey assembled for Glenvar included regional images of currently permitted commercial land uses in the West Main Street corridor such as grocery stores, banks, offices and restaurants. Industrial building, multifamily residential, sign and streetscape images were also included in the 108 image survey. A total of 101 surveys were completed at the two meetings and online. 1. TO, Ii. i�Ac11 I'lR110 OI AN 01.110 L 141111 ?ING u- m{eved MMT Prelrarw Le Atf f ®d `3 •2; - l 4 1 2 3 •3 •2 -1 0 1 2 3 3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Graphic 7.18 Glenvar Visual Preference Survey Page The results of the survey showed that citizens prefer: • Variation in facades using materials of either brick or stone, and architectural details including eaves, rooflines, windows and entryways • Visible landscaping around the building and landscaping integrated into the site • Pedestrian - friendly features including lighting • Parking farther back or at the rear of the site • Limited signage, monument -style signs with landscaping around the base • Grassed or landscaped medians • Bicycle lanes • No overhead power lines The complete results of the Visual Preference Survey are located in Appendix B. N I rrrd A 7.6.3 Third Community Meeting The final community meeting was held on May 2, 2011, at the Glenvar Middle School Forum. Approximately 45 people attended the meeting which began with a presentation about the Glenvar Focus Group, the results of the visioning exercise and visual preference survey from the second community meeting, the Glenvar Community Plan Vision Statement and four proposed Future Land Use scenarios. After the presentation, attendees spent time looking at the West Main Street and Dixie Caverns Future Land Use scenario maps and speaking with Focus Group and County staff about the proposed alternatives. Future Land Use Scenario handouts and comment sheets for both West Main Street and for Dixie Caverns were given to meeting participants to provide feedback on the proposed changes. Both sets of handouts and comment sheets are located in Appendix B. The comments provided indicated that citizens preferred the Glenvar Village Scenario for the West Main Street Corridor. There was no clear preference indicated for the Dixie Caverns Area. For additional information about the Glenvar Focus Group, see Section 7.7. Details regarding the Future Land Use scenarios are located in Chapter 8 and in Appendix A. Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 7.19 Third Community Meeting, Future Land Use Scenario Discussion with Glenvar Focus Group Members May 2011 7.7 Glenvar Focus Group � � 0 1 Communit Involvement The Glenvar Focus Group was created as a means to involve key members of the community in crafting core components of the Glenvar Community Plan — the Vision Statement and the Future Land Use Scenarios. The Focus Group was comprised of 17 residents, business representatives, community leaders and civic organization members. Through five meetings over nine months, the group worked together to successfully complete both tasks. The Focus Group presented their Vision Statement and recommended Future Land Use Scenario to the Planning Commission and these components are included in Chapter 8 and in Appendix A of the Glenvar Community Plan. A list of the Glenvar Focus Group members and their affiliations is located in Appendix B. 7 7 1 First Focus Group Meeting The first Glenvar Focus Group meeting was held on January 24, 2011, at the Glenvar Library. A presentation reviewed the Comprehensive Planning process and the differences between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, discussed the tasks to be completed and showed existing zoning and environmental constraints in the area. County staff from the Economic Development Department also talked about the industrial parks in the Glenvar area, industrial lands in the County and the current business climate. Results of the Glenvar Community Survey, the Visual Preference Survey and the Visioning Exercise were also reviewed. With the survey results in mind, Focus Group members offered their thoughts about what Glenvar should be like in the future for use in crafting a Vision Statement. 7.7.2 Second Focus Group Meeting Glenvar Focus Group members met for the second time on February 17, 2011, at Fort Lewis B aptist Church. The draft Vision Statement was finalized at this meeting: The Glenvar area strives to be a visually appealing, healthy and sustainable community that encourages a mix of land uses in a manner that is consistent with the community rural character. The Focus Group also reviewed Roanoke County's Future Land Use designations, proposed "housekeeping" changes to Glenvar's future land uses and then worked in three small groups with large maps to determine what potential future land use changes may be appropriate for the West Main Street and Dixie Caverns areas. Three scenarios for both West Main Street and for Dixie Caverns were generated and discussed with the larger group. The Future Land Use changes proposed are discussed further in Chapter 8 and are shown on maps located in Appendix A. Graphic 7.21 Second Focus Group Meeting February 2011 7.7.3 Third Focus Group Meeting The third Focus Group meeting was held on March 31, 2011, at the Spring Hollow Water Treatment Plant. Focus Group members were shown digital versions of the future land use maps marked up at the second meeting. They also considered the new "Mixed Use" and "Glenvar Village" designations as well as proposed Glenvar- specific refinements to the Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 7.20 First Glenvar Focus Group Meeting January 2011 existing Principal Industrial, Development and Core future land use designations. The format of the third Glenvar Community Meeting was discussed, including how the future land use scenarios would be presented and the role of the Focus Group at that meeting. Graphic 7.24 Glenvar Focus Group Recommendation Dixie Caverns Area 7.7.4 Fourth Focus Group Meeting The Focus Group members considered all of the West Main Street and Dixie Cavern future land use scenario changes at the fourth Glenvar Focus Group meeting on June 16, 2011. By deciding which individual land use changes were most preferable, the group agreed upon the Glenvar Focus Group Recommended Future Land Use Scenarios for both West Main Street and the Dixie Caverns area as shown in Graphics 7.23 and 7.24, Glenvar Focus Group Recommendations. J A Graphic 7.23 Glenvar Focus Group Recommendation West Main Street Corridor Larger maps are located in Appendix A and descriptions of the future land use designations are available in Chapter 8. 7 7 5 Joint Glenvar Focus Group /Planning Commission Work Session The Glenvar Focus Group members joined the Planning Commission on September 20, 2011, to present and explain the Vision Statement and Glenvar Focus Group Recommended Future Land Use Scenarios 7.8 Planning Commission Beginning in December 2008, the Planning Commission discussed the Glenvar Community Plan at several work sessions and several community and /or stakeholder meetings. After meeting with the Glenvar Focus Group and holding a special public hearing on the document in Glenvar, the Planning Commission forwarded the draft Glenvar Community Plan to the Board of Supervisors with a favorable recommendation. 7 8.1 Work Sessions County staff held eight work sessions with the Roanoke County Planning Commission to receive feedback and to provide updates throughout the planning process. The concept of the Glenvar Community Plan was first presented to the Planning Commission at a work session on December 15, 2008. Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 7.22 Third Focus Group Meeting March 2011 7 Communit q involvement The next work session held on August 18, 2009, provided an overview of the document outline and the area's features, zoning, existing land uses, future land use designations and environmental constraints. A work session was held on December 1, 2009, to review the Glenvar Community Survey to date, the Glenvar Community Plan Webpage and other digital means of communication for the Glenvar Community Plan. 7 8.3 Public Hearing The Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft Glenvar Community Plan at the Glenvar Middle School Forum on November 14, 2011. Following a presentation by staff and a few citizen comments, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Glenvar Community Plan into the County's Comprehensive Plan. Complete Glenvar Community Survey results were shared at the March 16, 2010, work session. County staff also updated the Planning Commission on the stakeholder interviews held to date, the presentations given at Richfield Retirement Community and at the Glenvar Area Business Meeting and progress on the Glenvar Enforcement Task Force. The work session held on June 1, 2010, reviewed the complete results of the Glenvar Community Survey, the stakeholder interviews and outlined the content of the second community meeting. An update was provided to the Planning Commission on August 17, 2010, regarding the second community meetings. A comparison of results from the first and second community meetings was discussed along with the results from the three surveys conducted. The January 18, 2011, work session covered the planning process including the formulation of the Glenvar Focus Group. The Visual Preference Survey and Visioning Exercise results were also presented. The third Community Meeting was summarized at the May 17, 2011, work session. The Vision Statement, Glenvar Focus Group Future Land Use Scenarios and future land use designation refinements were also reviewed. 78.2 Joint Glenvar Focus Group /Planning Commission Meeting A joint Planning Commission and Glenvar Focus Group meeting was held on September 20, 2011. The purpose of the joint meeting was for the Focus Group members to present the Vision Statement and Glenvar Focus Group Recommended Future Land Use Scenarios for the West Main Street and the Dixie Caverns areas. 7.9 Board of Supervisors 7 9.1 Work Sessions A work session was held with the Board of Supervisors on October 28, 2008, to review existing conditions, potential plans for the Roanoke Regional Intermodal Facility, the new Western Virginia Regional Jail, the impending widening of West Main Street and proposed improvements to Interstate 81 in the vicinity of the Glenvar area. On January 10, 2012 a work session was also conducted with the Board of Supervisors to review the draft Glenvar Community Plan. 7 9.2 Public Hearing Glenvar Community Plan Page Intentionally Left Blank GIenvar Community Plan Chapter s: Plan. Recommendations The Glenvar Community Plan will be implemented using a hierarchy of vision statements, goals and objectives. The overall community vision is at the top of the hierarchy. The vision statement expresses the desired future of the community. A set of goals with supporting objectives and strategies form the implementation framework and provide direction for the future growth and development of the community. 8.1 Vision Statement 4. Provide a diverse, affordable and sustainable housing mix for a varied population, while preserving the natural resources and rural character of the community. 5. Conserve and appropriately use the Glenvar community's natural resources in a manner that ensures their long -term viability and recreational, natural, scenic and economic value. 6. Preserve, enhance and promote the unique, historic and cultural richness of the Glenvar community. The Glenvar community's vision for the 7. future emerged during the community meetings held in 2010 and was refined by the Glenvar Focus Group. The following vision statement is a broad but concise description of what the community desires to be in the future and was used as a guide when developing goals and future land use scenarios and determining plan recommendations. The Glenvar area strives to be a visually appealing, healthy and sustainable community that encourages a mix of land uses in a manner that is consistent with the community's rural character. 8.2 Plan Goals In addition to an overarching vision, it is important to have more specific goal statements that can be achieved through implementing the plan recommendations. The goals of the Glenvar Community Plan are: 1. Ensure that public services and facilities will adequately serve the needs of residents and businesses within the Glenvar community and that such services and facilities are adaptable to future growth. 2. Develop a safe, efficient transportation system that provides a range of transportation choices, and reinforces the livability of neighborhoods. 3. Provide a mix of environmentally - sensitive commercial and industrial uses at appropriate locations in the Glenvar community that meet the needs of current and future residents. Maintain a healthy, safe and sustainable community that ensures opportunities for a multi - generational community to live, work, recreate and raise a family. 8. Develop a comprehensive system of public and private parks, trails and open spaces that meet the needs of all age groups within the Glenvar community [and Roanoke County] . 8.3 Future Land Use Recommendations 8.3.1 Future Land Use Designation Refinements Roanoke County utilizes different future land use (FLU) designations to identify areas around the county where certain activities occur, are anticipated or are encouraged. The designations are broad, allowing them to be applied throughout the County; consequently, the location and types of uses desired within the Glenvar Planning Area need to be refined for three designations: Principal Industrial, Development and Core. Principal Industrial FL UDeslgnatlon Technology -based businesses and low intensity industrial uses are most appropriate for the principal industrial designation in the Glenvar Planning Area. Uses which have the potential to be dangerous or extremely obnoxious are not appropriate. Industrial development should be located in existing technology parks such as the Center for Research and Technology (CRT) and Valley TechPark. If businesses are not able to locate in an existing technology park, high Glenvar Community Plan intensity industrial uses should be located south of Route 11/460. Low intensity or technology -based industrial uses are appropriate for either side of Route 11/460. Industrial development should be sensitive to the natural environment and include a high degree of architectural and creative site design that is compatible with the rural and historic character of the community. The principal industrial designation does not preclude commercial uses from being developed. Route 111460: Industrial uses should not be prominent in the corridor and should be buffered from the right - of -way. High intensity uses should be located south of Route 11/460. Low intensity or technology -based industrial uses are appropriate for either side of Route 11/460. Roanoke River /Floodplain: Development or expansion of industrial uses along the Roanoke River and in the floodplain should be limited. Appropriate uses include: • Manufacturing, storage, marketing and wholesaling of agricultural products; • Low intensity industrial uses and custom manufacturing; and • Warehousing and distribution. Poor Mountain Road: Uses should be limited to environmentally sensitive small manufacturing and low intensity industrial along the Roanoke River and railroad tracks. Cen ter for Res earch and Technology/ Valley TechPark: These areas are the most appropriate for high -tech manufacturing operations, research and development companies and corporate headquarters. Uses, site design and aesthetics are regulated by each park's respective covenants, master plan and /or conditions. Twine Hollow Road: Development or expansion of industrial uses along Twine Hollow Road should be limited to: • Manufacturing, storage, marketing and wholesaling of agricultural products; • Low intensity industrial uses and custom manufacturing; • Warehousing and distribution; and • Mining and resource extraction. Development FLU Designation Development is a future land use designation where most new neighborhood development should occur. In the Glenvar Planning Area, development should be consistent with the existing land use pattern. Appropriate uses include: • Conventional residential - single - family attached and detached dwellings on conventional lots; • Cluster or planned residential - single- family developments with gross density similar to conventional subdivisions but houses are clustered to preserve open space or a critical environmental feature; and • Community activity centers - uses that serve neighboring residents including parks, schools, community clubs and meeting areas connected to residential areas by sidewalks, bikeways and /or greenways. Core FLU Designation In the Glenvar Planning Area, the core future land use designation is utilized around interstate off- ramps at exits 132 (Dow Hollow Road and Route 11/460) and 137 (Wildwood Road). These areas serve as a gateway to both the Glenvar community and Roanoke County. Development that enhances the rural and historic character of the area is encouraged. The core designation is appropriate for higher intensity commercial development that includes hotels, restaurants, mined use and highway - oriented retail uses. Truck stops should be avoided. Restaurants and other businesses serving travelers should be distinctive in appearance and include a high degree of architectural and creative site design. Industrial uses should be redirected to land designated as Principal Industrial. Glenvar Community Plan Plan Recommendations intensity industrial uses should be located south of Route 11/460. Low intensity or technology -based industrial uses are appropriate for either side of Route 11/460. Industrial development should be sensitive to the natural environment and include a high degree of architectural and creative site design that is compatible with the rural and historic character of the community. The principal industrial designation does not preclude commercial uses from being developed. Route 111460: Industrial uses should not be prominent in the corridor and should be buffered from the right - of -way. High intensity uses should be located south of Route 11/460. Low intensity or technology -based industrial uses are appropriate for either side of Route 11/460. Roanoke River /Floodplain: Development or expansion of industrial uses along the Roanoke River and in the floodplain should be limited. Appropriate uses include: • Manufacturing, storage, marketing and wholesaling of agricultural products; • Low intensity industrial uses and custom manufacturing; and • Warehousing and distribution. Poor Mountain Road: Uses should be limited to environmentally sensitive small manufacturing and low intensity industrial along the Roanoke River and railroad tracks. Cen ter for Res earch and Technology/ Valley TechPark: These areas are the most appropriate for high -tech manufacturing operations, research and development companies and corporate headquarters. Uses, site design and aesthetics are regulated by each park's respective covenants, master plan and /or conditions. Twine Hollow Road: Development or expansion of industrial uses along Twine Hollow Road should be limited to: • Manufacturing, storage, marketing and wholesaling of agricultural products; • Low intensity industrial uses and custom manufacturing; • Warehousing and distribution; and • Mining and resource extraction. Development FLU Designation Development is a future land use designation where most new neighborhood development should occur. In the Glenvar Planning Area, development should be consistent with the existing land use pattern. Appropriate uses include: • Conventional residential - single - family attached and detached dwellings on conventional lots; • Cluster or planned residential - single- family developments with gross density similar to conventional subdivisions but houses are clustered to preserve open space or a critical environmental feature; and • Community activity centers - uses that serve neighboring residents including parks, schools, community clubs and meeting areas connected to residential areas by sidewalks, bikeways and /or greenways. Core FLU Designation In the Glenvar Planning Area, the core future land use designation is utilized around interstate off- ramps at exits 132 (Dow Hollow Road and Route 11/460) and 137 (Wildwood Road). These areas serve as a gateway to both the Glenvar community and Roanoke County. Development that enhances the rural and historic character of the area is encouraged. The core designation is appropriate for higher intensity commercial development that includes hotels, restaurants, mined use and highway - oriented retail uses. Truck stops should be avoided. Restaurants and other businesses serving travelers should be distinctive in appearance and include a high degree of architectural and creative site design. Industrial uses should be redirected to land designated as Principal Industrial. Glenvar Community Plan 8.3.2 Future Land Use Map Changes One of the most important components of a community plan's recommendations is the amendments to the future land use map. The future land use map should be updated to account for recent development or redevelopment as well as for the anticipated [re] development of key areas. Section 8.3.2.1 discusses the housekeeping changes identified by staff and supported by the Glenvar Focus Group. Sections 8.3.2.2 and 8.3.2.3 present the three future land use scenarios developed by Focus Group members at their second meeting. The last section, 8.3.2.4, presents the Glenvar Focus Group's recommended future land use scenario. This scenario was developed based on input received at the third community meeting and the Focus Group's decision regarding which individual future land use changes were most preferable. 8.3.2.1 Housekeeping Changes The housekeeping changes incorporated into the future land use map were based on existing land use, current zoning and topography. The ten housekeeping changes and the reasons for their incorporation are listed in Table 8.01, Housekeeping Changes. Table 8.01 Housekeeping Changes Location FLU Change Rezonin Slopes and Rural Preserve to Mountains are ridgeline of Fort Conservation an importance Lewis Mountain Conservation resource and need and Poor Mountain to be protected; and Fort Lewis consistency with Church Boulevard other community Between Glenvar Development to plans; topography Wildwood Road Rural Preserve Consistency with (Zana Road and and Development existing land use Lawyer Drive) to Neighborhood and current zoning Kings Crest Drive; Conservation Preserve entrance Fieldgate Road; Preserve road to Camp Coronado Drive Roanoke; AEP Skyview Road Neighborhood Economic Conservation to development Transition identified parcel Location FLU Change Rezoning Termini of Joe Rural Preserve Consistency with Carrol Road, to Neighborhood existing land use Daugherty Road, Conservation and current zoning Stanley Farm Road and Fort Lewis Church Boulevard Between Glenvar Development to Consistency with Heights Boulevard Neighborhood existing land use, and Cherokee Hills Conservation current zoning and Subdivision topography Dry Hollow Road Transition to Rural Preserve entrance Preserve road to Camp Roanoke; AEP owned and used parcels - low development potential South of Valley Principal Industrial Consistency with TechPark near to Rural Village existing land Bohon Hollow use, surrounding Road future land use and topography Adjacent to Development and Consistency with railroad tracks and Principal Industrial existing land Beason Lane to Rural Village use, surrounding future land use and topography Green Hill Park Development to Consistency with Neighborhood other County Conservation Parks; most appropriate Future Land Use Designation for such a facility Woodbridge Development to Consistency with Subdivision (Stone Neighborhood existing land use Mill Drive to Conservation and current zoning Woods Meadow Lane) Table 8.01, Housekeeping Map Changes, reflects the changes described above and the future land use breakdown incorporating only the housekeeping changes is shown in Table 8.02. The largest housekeeping changes were in the conservation and rural preserve future land use designations. This is due to the slopes and ridgelines of Fort Lewis and Poor Mountains being changed from rural preserve to conservation. Glenvar Community Plan 8.3.2.2 West Main Street Corridor Proposed Changes West Main Street Scenario 1 Table 8.02 Housekeeping Future Land Use Breakdown by Acres and Percent of the Planning Area FLU Designation 2005 Housekeeping Map Conservation 2,765.69 10,508.26 (8.71%) (33.10%) Core 292.57 292.65 (0.92%) (0.92%) Development p 2,145.06 1,458.62 (6.76%) (4.59%) Neighborhood 3,368.36 4,201.60 Conservation (10.61%) (13.24%) Principal Industrial p 2,878.97 2,626.06 (9.07%) (8.27%) Rural Preserve 16,242.66 8,367.82 (51.57%) (26.36 %) Rural Village g 2,933.06 3,391.37 (9.24%) (10.68%) Transition 1,118.43 897.72 (3.52%) (2.83%) West Main Street (WMS) Scenario 1 calls for the land from Technology Drive to Hawley Drive between the railroad and Interstate 81 to be changed from Principal Industrial and Transition to the proposed Mixed Use future land use designation. A map of WMS Scenario 1 is show below in Graphic 8.02. The proposed Mixed Use designation (indicated by blue on the map) recognizes the existing mixture of uses and zoning districts and provides for a mix of uses to be preserved and developed. This future land use designation allows for more choice and /or opportunity in how the land can be [re]developed. A high degree of architectural and creative site design is encouraged to enhance the rural and historic character of the area as well as pedestrian and vehicular connectivity between properties. Land use types proposed for the Mixed Use designation include: • Community Activity Centers - Public and private facilities serving surrounding residents including parks, schools, community clubs and meeting areas connected to residential areas by sidewalks, bikeways and /or greenways; • Commercial - Planned small -scale or clustered commercial including specialty businesses, personal services and sit -down or family -style alenvar Community Plan Graphic 8.01 Housekeeping Map Changes Graphic 8.02 West Main Street Scenario 1 restaurants. Also included are small, highway - oriented retail establishments providing goods and services to passing motorists. Such facilities should be designed to complement the character of the community; 0 0 0 0 0 0 General Retail Shops and Personal Services - Planned shopping centers and clustered retail uses are encouraged. These centers should incorporate greenways, bike and pedestrian accommodations into their designs to link to surrounding development; Limited Industrial - Low intensity industrial uses are encouraged. Such development should be clustered and should not have an adverse impact on air or water quality, the natural environment or scenic viewsheds; Mixed Use - Developments that combine retail, service or other commercial uses with office and/ or residential use in the same building or on the same site; Office and Institutional - Planned office parks and independent facilities in park -like surroundings are encouraged. Such developments should be designed to enhance the rural and historic character of the area; Parks and outdoor Recreation /Ecotourism - Public and private recreation from small -scale community based facilities to regional attractions with greenway linkages and bike and pedestrian accommodations. Also encouraged are eco- and sustainable tourism businesses; and Residential - Townhouse, low density multi - family, single - family attached and two - family dwellings. Clustering and connectivity are encouraged. Land use determinants for this designation are: Existing Land Use Pattern - Locations where commercial or industrial uses have been developed or will likely be developed; • Existing Zoning - Locations where commercial or industrial zoning exists; • Access - Locations served by collector street system; and • Utility Availability - Locations where water and sewer service exist or can be provided. West Main Street Scenario 2 West Main Street Corridor Scenario 2 calls for area between Technology Drive and the City of Salem line to be changed from Principal Industrial and Transition to the proposed Glenvar Village future land use designation. A map of WMS Scenario 2 is provide in Graphic 8.03 below. The proposed Glenvar Village designation, identified by bright green on the map, is intended to serve as focal point for the community. This stretch of West Main Street is home to community identifiers such as the new Glenvar Library, Richfield Retirement Community, Fort Lewis Fire and Rescue Station, Fort Lewis Elementary, entrance to Glenvar Schools Complex, Pleasant Grove and Fort Lewis Baptist Church. Because of the importance to the community, a high degree of architectural and creative site design is encouraged to enhance the rural and historic character of the area as well as pedestrian and vehicular connectivity between properties. A mix of uses on a parcel and /or along the West Main Street Corridor is encouraged in the Glenvar Village designation. Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 8.03 West Main Street Scenario 2 Land use types proposed for the Glenvar Village designation include: • Community Activity Centers - Public and private facilities serving surrounding residents including parks, schools, community clubs and meeting areas connected to residential areas by sidewalks, bikeways and /or greenways; • Commercial - Planned small -scale or clustered commercial such as local target area shopping centers with specialty businesses, personal services and sit -down or family -style restaurants. Such facilities should be designed to complement the character of the community; • General Retail Shops and Personal Services - Planned shopping centers and clustered retail uses are encouraged. These centers should incorporate greenways, bike and pedestrian accommodations into their designs to link to surrounding development; • Office and Institutional - Planned office parks and independent facilities in park -like surroundings are encouraged. Such developments should be designed to enhance the rural and historic character of the area; • Limited Industrial - Low intensity industrial uses are encouraged to locate south of Route 11/460; such development should be clustered and should not have an adverse impact on air or water quality, the natural environment or scenic viewsheds; • Mixed Use - Developments that combine retail, service and other commercial uses with office and/ or residential use in the same building or on the same site; • Parks and outdoor Recreation /Ecotourism - Public and private recreation from small -scale community based facilities to regional attractions with greenway linkages and bike and pedestrian accommodations. Also encouraged are eco- and sustainable tourism businesses; • Residential - Townhouse, low density multi - family, single - family attached and two - family dwellings. Clustering and connectivity are encouraged. Land use determinants for the Glenvar Village include: • Existing Land Use Pattern - Locations where commercial or industrial uses have been developed or will likely be developed; • Existing Zoning - Locations where commercial or industrial zoning exists; • Access - Locations served by collector street system; and • Utility Availability - Locations where water and sewer service exist. West Main Street Scenario 3 The proposed future land use change along the West Main Street Corridor in Scenario 3 are shown below in Graphic 8.04 and include: • Changing the future land use designation of parcels from the former City of Salem water treatment plant to Crossmill Lane from Principal Industrial to Core; • Changing the future land use designation of parcels north of West Main Street from Daugherty Road to Alleghany Drive from Transition to Core; and • Changing the future land use designation of parcels south of West Main Street from Hawley Drive to the City of Salem line from Transition to Core. Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 8.04 West Main Street Scenario 3 8.3.2.3 Dixie Caverns Area Proposed Changes Dixie Caverns Scenario 1 As shown in Graphic 8.05 below, five changes have been proposed to the future land use map in the Dixie Caverns Area. The proposed modifications include: • Changing the future land use designation of parcels off of Dry Hollow Road and Grey Fox Lane from Transition to Rural Village; • Changing a 16.3 -acre property off of Twine Hollow Road from Principal Industrial to Core; • Changing the future land use designations of parcels along Harwick Drive and on both sides of West Main Street from Dixie Caverns to Campbell Hills from Principal Industrial and Transition to Mixed Use; • Changing the knoll between Campbell Hills and Harwick Drive from Principal Industrial to Rural Preserve; and • Changing the area at the entrance of Campbell Hills from Transition to Development. Dixie Caverns Scenario 2 As shown in Graphic 8.06, the four proposed future land use map modifications in Dixie Caverns Area Scenario 2 include: • Expanding the Core designation around the Dixie Caverns interchange; • Changing the knoll between Campbell Hills and Harwick Drive from Principal Industrial to Rural Preserve; • Changing the parcels on the northern side of West Main Street from Peaceful Drive to Harwick Drive from Principal Industrial to Transition; and • Changing the parcels adjoining Campbell Hills along Interstate 81 from Rural Village to Development. Dixie Caverns Scenario 3 There are six proposed modifications to the future land use map in Scenario 3. • Expanding the Core designation further east along West Main Street; • Changing the parcels on Pleasant Run Drive from Scenery Drive to View Point Avenue from Transition to Neighborhood Conservation; • Changing the northern half of two parcels at the end of Twine Hollow Road from Principal Industrial to Rural Preserve; • Changing the parcels on the southern half of Twine Hollow Road and parts of Meacham Road from Transition to Rural Village; • Changing the future land use designation of seven parcels along Interstate 81 from Transition to Rural Preserve; and alenvar Community Plan Graphic 8.06 Dixie Caverns Scenario 2 Graphic 8.05 Dixie Caverns Scenario 1 • Changing two parcels at the end of Peaceful Drive from Principal Industrial to Transition. The proposed changes are displayed below. Table 8.05 Future Land Use Scenario 3 Breakdown The future land use breakdowns for the three scenarios (West Main Street and Dixie Caverns combined) are as follows: Table 8.03 Future Land Use Scenario 1 Breakdown Table 8.04 Future Land Use Scenario 2 Breakdown Percent of Acreage Plannin Area Conservation 10,511.31 33.11 Core 309.02 0.97 Development 1,518.39 4.78 Mixed Use 571.05 1.8 Neighborhood 4,213.96 13.27 Conservation 4,199.99 13.23 Principal Industrial 2,097.34 6.61 Rural Preserve 8,529.52 26.87 Rural Village 3,465.26 10.92 Transition 547.48 1.72 Table 8.04 Future Land Use Scenario 2 Breakdown 8.3.2.5 Glenvar Focus Group Future Land Use Recommendation Of the future land use changes proposed in the three scenarios described above, the following have been supported and recommended by the Glenvar Focus Group: • Changing the future land use designation of the area between Technology Drive and the City of Salem from Principal Industrial and Transition to the Glenvar Village designation (Graphic 8.08). Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 8.08 Glenvar Focus Group FLU Recommendation Graphic 8.07 Dixie Caverns Scenario 3 8.3.2.4 Complete Future Land Use Scenario Breakdown Percent of Acreage Plannin Area Conservation 10,511.31 33.11 Core 400.66 1.26 Development 1,580.50 4.98 Glenvar Village 376.63 1.19 Neighborhood 4,213.96 13.27 Principal Industrial 4,201.59 13.24 Conservation 8,568.52 26.99 8.3.2.5 Glenvar Focus Group Future Land Use Recommendation Of the future land use changes proposed in the three scenarios described above, the following have been supported and recommended by the Glenvar Focus Group: • Changing the future land use designation of the area between Technology Drive and the City of Salem from Principal Industrial and Transition to the Glenvar Village designation (Graphic 8.08). Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 8.08 Glenvar Focus Group FLU Recommendation Graphic 8.07 Dixie Caverns Scenario 3 8.3.2.4 Complete Future Land Use Scenario Breakdown Percent of Acreage Plannin Area Conservation 10,511.29 33.11 Core 418.14 1.32 Development 1,458.89 4.6 Neighborhood Conservation 4,213.96 13.27 Principal Industrial 2,410.81 7.59 Rural Preserve 8,568.52 26.99 Rural Village 3,450.50 10.87 Transition 715.75 2.25 8.3.2.5 Glenvar Focus Group Future Land Use Recommendation Of the future land use changes proposed in the three scenarios described above, the following have been supported and recommended by the Glenvar Focus Group: • Changing the future land use designation of the area between Technology Drive and the City of Salem from Principal Industrial and Transition to the Glenvar Village designation (Graphic 8.08). Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 8.08 Glenvar Focus Group FLU Recommendation Graphic 8.07 Dixie Caverns Scenario 3 8.3.2.4 Complete Future Land Use Scenario Breakdown Plan R Graphic 8.09 reflects the rest of the FLU recommendations: • Expanding the Core designation further east along West Main Street; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Changing the future land use designation of five parcels off of Dow Hollow Road from Transition to Core and on two parcels off of Twine Hollow Road from Principal Industrial to Core; Changing the future land use designation of parcels off of Dry Hollow Road and Grey Fox Lane from Transition to Rural Village; Changing the parcels on Pleasant Run Drive from Scenery Drive to View Point Avenue from Transition to Neighborhood Conservation; Changing the northern half of two parcels at the end of Twine Hollow Road from Principal Industrial to Rural Preserve; Changing the parcels on the southern half of Twine Hollow Road and parts of Meacham Road from Transition to Rural Village; Changing the future land use designation of seven parcels along Interstate 81 from Transition to Rural Preserve; Changing the future land use designations of parcels along Harwick Drive from Principal Industrial to Mixed Use; Changing the knoll between Campbell Hills and Harwick Drive from Principal Industrial to Rural Preserve; Changing the parcels adjoining Campbell Hills along Interstate 81 from Rural Village to Rural Preserve; and Changing the parcels on the northern side of West Main Street from Peaceful Drive to Harwick Drive from Principal Industrial to Transition. �5 I r Q i 'I C:rler arflanning A% Boundary 4 I Ferrell Roads ks I RUIrnea t - Roanoke River t FuRUre Land Use: we, Rrramnnendetian - i� , �tiansen+atian [are r rl I?evelapment �Miw[P lJse {New @esi"ian) Ndghb- orhacd CinsereMmn }i Primipal industrial Rurti Preserve .. lramlllan Graphic 8.09 Glenvar Focus Group FLU Recommendation The future land use breakdown for the Glenvar Focus Group recommended scenario is shown below in Table 8.06. Large versions of all the future land use scenario maps are available in Appendix A. Table 8.06 Glenvar Focus Group Recommended Scenario Future Land Use Breakdown 8.4 Plan Recommendations 8.4.1 Zoning and Design Recommendations The two proposed zoning overlay districts, the Glenvar Village Overlay District and the Gateway Corridor Overlay District, will encourage higher quality development that is consistent with the rural character of the Glenvar Community. Overlay zoning is a regulatory tool that creates a special zoning district, placed over an existing base zone(s), which identifies special provisions in addition to those in Glenvar Community Plan Acr eage Percent of Plannin Area Conservation 10,508.23 33.10 Core 354.86 1.12 Development 1,458.62 4.59 Glenvar Village 376.18 1.19 Mixed Use 82.96 0.26 Neighborhood Conservation 4,215.45 13.28 Principal Industrial 1,973.56 6.22 Rural Preserve 8,851.63 27.88 Rural Village 3,383.78 10.66 Transition 538.83 1.70 8.4 Plan Recommendations 8.4.1 Zoning and Design Recommendations The two proposed zoning overlay districts, the Glenvar Village Overlay District and the Gateway Corridor Overlay District, will encourage higher quality development that is consistent with the rural character of the Glenvar Community. Overlay zoning is a regulatory tool that creates a special zoning district, placed over an existing base zone(s), which identifies special provisions in addition to those in Glenvar Community Plan the underlying base zone. Where the provisions are in conflict, the overlay district governs. These zoning overlays would be targeted towards new construction and substantial additions or expansions. To adopt the proposed overlays into the zoning ordinance, a separate action must be taken by the Board of Supervisors. Glenvar Village Overlay District The proposed Glenvar Village Overlay District (GVOD) would include the properties along West Main Street that are in the Glenvar Village Future Land Use Designation. The GVOD is intended to serve as focal point for the community. This stretch of West Main Street is home to community features such as the new Glenvar Library, Richfield Retirement Community, Fort Lewis Fire and Rescue Station, Fort Lewis Elementary, the entrance to Glenvar Schools Complex and the historic structures of Pleasant Grove and Fort Lewis Baptist Church. Because of the significance of the features to the community, a high degree of architectural and creative site design is encouraged to enhance the rural and historic character of the area. Architectural and site development standards for properties located within the GVOD could be amended to require: • New development to be connected, via sidewalks and shared use trails, to existing civic, commercial and residential areas; • Increased landscaping that is integrated into sites to create a park -like and rural feel; • Parking to the side or rear of buildings; and • Low profile, monument style signage. The GVOD would provide for a mix of uses that are consistent with the Glenvar Community's vision. It recognizes that some established parts of the proposed Village area are comprised of a variety of compatible uses and the GVOD aims to maintain and enhance the vitality of these areas while encouraging appropriate [re]development on the West Main Street corridor. The Glenvar Community envisions less industry and more commercial and office development in a clustered pattern. Other features envisioned for the GVOD include a community center, higher density residential such as townhouses and condos and public art installations. Gateway Corridor Overlay District The Gateway Corridor Overlay District (GCOD) would provide a higher standard of development for areas that serve as the main entrances to the Glenvar Community. The proposed GCOD would include properties along Route 11/460 from the Montgomery County line to its intersection with Dow Hollow Road and areas around Exits 13 2 and 13 7 off of Interstate 81. The GCOD could prohibit certain uses such as a truck stop or scrap and salvage services that are not consistent with the Community's vision. Development standards for properties located within the GCOD could also be amended to require that parking be located to the side or rear of buildings, that freestanding signs be monument style and landscaping and screening to be increased. Route 11/460 Design Guidelines The existing Route 11/460 Design Guidelines are currently used to determine the merit of Commercial Corridor Matching Grant applications within the Route 11/460 West corridor and for land use applications (special use permits and rezonings) located within the same boundary. The existing Design Guidelines should be amended to incorporate Community preferences derived from the Visual Preference Survey such as a varied facade of brick or stone material, architectural details like eaves and porticos and landscaping around buildings. 8.4.2 Economic Development Recommendations The following incentives and recommendations have been identified to retain viable business and attract compatible, new growth to the Glenvar Community. Commercial Corridor Matching Grant Program The Commercial Corridor Matching Grant Program encourages improvements above and Glenvar Community Plan beyond current building and zoning requirements to business properties for beautification and economic redevelopment of highway entrance corridors in Roanoke County. To improve participation in this program, the boundaries of this program should be expanded to include all properties abutting Route 11/460 West and made applicable to new construction projects. Any changes to the Commercial Corridor Matching Grant Program are subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors. Other potential program changes that should be considered include: 1. Providing templates for monument sign and landscaping design that is consistent with the rural and historic character of the community; incentives to qualified businesses and zone investors located in a designated enterprise zone: Enterprise Zone Job Creation Grants - For companies creating at least four net new qualifying jobs with health benefits and paying at least twice the federal minimum wage rate, a job grant amount of up to $4,000 is available for each job over the four threshold jobs. Companies paying 1.75 times the federal minimum wage rate are eligible for up to $2,500 per qualifying job over the threshold amount. Businesses must qualify for the grants annually. The company makes an application for the grant in the following calendar year and funds are dispersed by mid -year. Qualifying companies may claim the grants on up to a maximum of 350 jobs per year. 2. Retaining an architecture firm to assist business owners in designing options for the potential improvements; 3. Creating incentives through the Departments of Economic Development and Community Development for the use of green building and low impact development techniques; 4. Evaluating tax incentives, coordinated through the Department of Economic Development and the Commissioner of the Revenue, to increase program participation; 5. Establishing tiered levels of funding for different project types, for example: • Facade renovations would qualify for $50,000 • Monument signs would qualify for $20,000 • Landscaping would qualify for $15,000. Virginia Enterprise Zones The purpose of the Enterprise Zone program is to encourage new business activity by providing state and local tax relief and grants, local regulatory flexibility, and local infrastructure development. An enterprise zone is a distinct geographical area of a county, city or town that is designated by the Governor for a period of 20 years. The Enterprise Zone Program offers two state Real Property Investment Grants - Qualified zone investors (entities and individuals) investing in qualifying industrial, commercial or mixed use real property may receive a cash grant. For an investment of $100,000 or greater for rehabilitation projects, grants are issued for up to 20% of anything spent in excess of the $100,000 threshold. For an investment of $500,000 or greater for new construction projects, grants are issued for anything spent in excess of the $500,000 threshold. The Virginia Enterprise Zone designation should be considered for the West Main Street Corridor to include the Glenvar Village Overlay District and both the Center for Research and Technology and Valley TechPark. Virginia Economic Development Incentive Grant The Virginia Jobs Investment Program (VJIP) is one of Virginia's most actively used economic development incentives. The program encourages the expansion of existing Virginia businesses and start- up of new business operations in Virginia by offering customized recruiting and training assistance to companies that are creating new jobs or experiencing technological change. In addition to offering direct funding, VJIP also provides assistance with workforce- . ' Glenvar Community Plan related challenges and organizational development workshops. Virginia Technology Zone A Technology Zone can be a valuable tool for the encouragement of new and expanding technology businesses in a locality. The establishment of a Technology Zone allows localities to create special incentives for qualified businesses locating or expanding operations in a zone. These incentives may include a reduction of user and permit fees, local tax incentives, special zoning treatment, exemption from local ordinances or other incentives adopted by ordinance. Currently, Roanoke County has one Technology Zone located within Roanoke County's Center for Research and Technology. The County should consider expanding the Technology Zone designation to Valley TechPark to attract the types of industrial businesses desired by community residents. 8.4.3 Streetscape Recommendations In addition to the Gateway Corridor and Glenvar Village Overlay District recommendations, streetscape improvements should be considered for the entire West Main Street corridor. The community survey indicated that bicycle lanes, sidewalks, community identification signs and landscaped medians were the streetscape improvements most desired by citizens. Other design aspects that should be considered for streetscape plans include: • Crosswalks with pedestrian signals; • Improved road and pedestrian lighting; • Underground utilities; • Street trees; • Street furniture (benches, trash receptacles, etc.); and • Light post banners. As opportunities arise for the installation of Landscaping Roadways with landscaped medians and street streetscapes improvements, the following general recommendations should be considered for the Glenvar community. Sidewalks The only sidewalk section designed as part of the Route 11/460 Widening project is in front of Fort Lewis Elementary School, connecting with the City of Salem. However, sidewalks are especially needed on the northern side of West Main Street to connect the Glenvar Library, Richfield Retirement Community, existing residential neighborhoods and future commercial development. It is recommended that consideration be given to requiring the installation of sidewalks during the rezoning, special use or site plan review process for new development or redevelopment along the Route 11/460 Corridor. Additionally, Roanoke County should explore other opportunities to install sidewalks along the corridor such as Transportation Enhancement Grants or inclusion into the County's Capital Improvements Plan. Pedestrian Lighting Pedestrian lighting can create and encourage a pedestrian friendly environment, which is especially beneficial to neighborhood business districts. Pedestrian -scale lights improve walkway illumination for pedestrian traffic and enhance community safety and business exposure. Light poles also provide a space to display community identification banners or hang planter baskets. Typically, this type of lighting is positioned over the sidewalk, rather than the street, at about 12 to 15 feet above the sidewalk. Along with sidewalks, pedestrian -scale lighting should be considered for the extent of the Glenvar Village Overlay District and as part of any new development in the Glenvar Community. Pedestrian lighting should be designed to reflect the rural and historic character of the Glenvar community. Glenvar Community Plan trees provide significant aesthetic and environmental benefits for a community. Landscaped medians provide areas or community identification or gateway entrance signs. Street trees provide shade for pedestrians by being planted either between the curb and edge of sidewalk or behind the sidewalk. Every group during the West Main Street Visioning Exercise desired a future corridor with increased landscaping and trees. Landscaped medians also ranked highly in the Transportation Improvements section of the Glenvar Community Survey. With the current fiscal situation, alternative methods of funding and maintenance should be utilized such as citizen - managed landscaping or adopt - a- spot /highways programs or partnerships with local businesses, as discussed in Section 8.4.7, Community Involvement Recommendations. It is recommended that consideration be given to requiring increased landscaping consistent with revised Design Guidelines during the rezoning, special use permit process for new development or redevelopment along entire the Route 11/460 Corridor. Underground Utilities Three out of four groups envisioned underground or buried utilities during the West Main Street Visioning Exercise. Unfortunately, utilities were moved instead of buried as part of the Route 11/460 Widening project; overhead utilities are typically located within the right -of -way, conflicting with proposed sidewalks and landscaping. It is recommended that utilities be buried underground along with the installation of sidewalks and pedestrian lighting over time and as funding allows. 8.4.4 Transportation Recommendations Bicycle Amenities The Community Survey ranked bicycle lanes as the most desired transportation improvement in the Glenvar Community. To achieve the goal of "providing a range of transportation choices, " the County should consider the recommendations of the Bikeway Plan for the Roanoke Valley Areas Metropolitan Planning Organization and Rural Bikeway Plan. The recommendation for bike lane additions should be incorporated into any streetscape modification plans in the Glenvar Planning Area. Roanoke County should also utilize cost - effective techniques to better accommodate cyclists. Some of these techniques include: • Install signage, such as "Share the Roadway" signs; • Striping on the right edge of lanes to provide a paved shoulder for bicyclists; and • Installation of bicycle racks at community facilities such as schools and the library. Access Management Roanoke County should conduct an access management study on Route 11/460 from Technology Drive to the Montgomery County border to identify problematic or insufficient intersections. Transit Extension Currently, the closest Valley Metro stop is at Spartan Square in the City of Salem. Roanoke County should consider expanding public transit service into the Glenvar Community. Extending bus routes along West Main Street (Route 11/460) to Daugherty Road would provide access to job opportunities and an alternative mode of transportation for the residents of Richfield Retirement Community. Glenvar Community Plan Graphic 8.10 Bicyclist on Shoulder of Route 11/460 Additionally, Roanoke County should consider a Smart Way Bus Stop near the Center for Research and Technology and Exit 132. This would provide Glenvar residents with regular bus access to the New River Valley and residents of the New River Valley with access to jobs in and around the Center for Research and Technology. 8.4. S Residential Development Recommendations Currently, there is no multi - family development in the Glenvar community outside of a few duplexes. To attract residents and employers to the community, higher density residential uses should be encouraged near interchanges and business parks. Additionally, the Glenvar Village Overlay District should provide for mixed use — commercial /office and residential development. In order to ensure that this development is consistent with the rural character of the community, standards for townhouse and small -scale multi - family development should be incorporated into the revised Design Guidelines. 8.4.6 Outdoor Recreation and Park Recommendations In order to develop a comprehensive system of public and private parks, trails and open spaces that meet the needs of all age groups within the Glenvar community, the following recommendations should be considered: • Implement the recommendations of the Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism's Master Plan; • Work with the Western Virginia Water Authority and Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism to explore potential recreation opportunities at Spring Hollow Reservoir and consider updating the Spring Hollow Master Plan accordingly; • Construct the Roanoke River Greenway and extensions from Green Hill Park to the Montgomery County line with connections to residential neighborhoods and community facilities; • Explore other opportunities for greenway connections to the Glenvar Village Overlay District and Glenvar Schools Complex; • Improve existing river access at Green Hill Park and Wayside Park by constructing access ramps and related facilities for canoes and kayaks; • Explore opportunities for other river access points on property owned by Roanoke County; and • Promote the recreation opportunities in the Glenvar Community such as hiking and bird watching in Poor Mountain Natural Area Preserve and Havens Wildlife Management Area, caving at Dixie Caverns and mountain biking on Poor Mountain. .T t � 3 z ftq- _ ,••�, a ..'���' �u'�� t r " 3> M � + � �d:.t o� � t ��5 r Graphic 8.11 County Owned Property Adjacent to Roanoke River 8.4.7 Viewshed Conservation Recommendations In the Glenvar Community Survey, the majority of residents listed "views of the mountains and Roanoke River" as what they liked most about their community. To protect views of the mountains, critical viewsheds from and within the Glenvar Community should be identified and protected with appropriate land use tools. Such land use tools could include height restrictions in an overlay district or conservation easements on mountain slopes. The Roanoke River Conservation Overlay District should be also reviewed and amended to ensure adequate protection of the resource. 8.4.8 Community Involvement Recommendations Community involvement has been an essential component of the Glenvar Community Planning Glenvar Community Plan Plan Recommendations Additionally, Roanoke County should consider a Smart Way Bus Stop near the Center for Research and Technology and Exit 132. This would provide Glenvar residents with regular bus access to the New River Valley and residents of the New River Valley with access to jobs in and around the Center for Research and Technology. 8.4. S Residential Development Recommendations Currently, there is no multi - family development in the Glenvar community outside of a few duplexes. To attract residents and employers to the community, higher density residential uses should be encouraged near interchanges and business parks. Additionally, the Glenvar Village Overlay District should provide for mixed use — commercial /office and residential development. In order to ensure that this development is consistent with the rural character of the community, standards for townhouse and small -scale multi - family development should be incorporated into the revised Design Guidelines. 8.4.6 Outdoor Recreation and Park Recommendations In order to develop a comprehensive system of public and private parks, trails and open spaces that meet the needs of all age groups within the Glenvar community, the following recommendations should be considered: • Implement the recommendations of the Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism's Master Plan; • Work with the Western Virginia Water Authority and Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism to explore potential recreation opportunities at Spring Hollow Reservoir and consider updating the Spring Hollow Master Plan accordingly; • Construct the Roanoke River Greenway and extensions from Green Hill Park to the Montgomery County line with connections to residential neighborhoods and community facilities; • Explore other opportunities for greenway connections to the Glenvar Village Overlay District and Glenvar Schools Complex; • Improve existing river access at Green Hill Park and Wayside Park by constructing access ramps and related facilities for canoes and kayaks; • Explore opportunities for other river access points on property owned by Roanoke County; and • Promote the recreation opportunities in the Glenvar Community such as hiking and bird watching in Poor Mountain Natural Area Preserve and Havens Wildlife Management Area, caving at Dixie Caverns and mountain biking on Poor Mountain. .T t � 3 z ftq- _ ,••�, a ..'���' �u'�� t r " 3> M � + � �d:.t o� � t ��5 r Graphic 8.11 County Owned Property Adjacent to Roanoke River 8.4.7 Viewshed Conservation Recommendations In the Glenvar Community Survey, the majority of residents listed "views of the mountains and Roanoke River" as what they liked most about their community. To protect views of the mountains, critical viewsheds from and within the Glenvar Community should be identified and protected with appropriate land use tools. Such land use tools could include height restrictions in an overlay district or conservation easements on mountain slopes. The Roanoke River Conservation Overlay District should be also reviewed and amended to ensure adequate protection of the resource. 8.4.8 Community Involvement Recommendations Community involvement has been an essential component of the Glenvar Community Planning Glenvar Community Plan process to date, but it is also important to the Glenvar Community Plan implementation. The Glenvar Focus Group should continue to function as a core group of community representatives and spokespersons and stay involved in Plan implementation and land use decisions. An example would be involvement in the review and changes to the Design Guidelines to ensure that the Community's vision is represented. Focus Group members should also act as a liaison, updating their respective constituents on implementation progress and any land use actions or development in the Glenvar Community. Public /Private Partnerships With fiscal restrictions, Roanoke County should explore public /private partnerships to implement some of the Glenvar Community Plan's strategies such as the installation of community identification signage, Adopt- a- Highway/Spot Programs and the Comprehensive Roadside Management program. Adopt -a- Highway /Spot Programs The Adopt -a- Highway Program allows volunteer groups and individuals to improve the aesthetics in their community. Volunteers agree to a two -year commitment of "adopting" a two -mile or more stretch of roadway and picking up trash at least four times a year. Similarly, the Adopt -a -Spot Program encourages citizen participation in beautifying specific areas within community such as medians, parks, vacant lots that are not covered by the Adopt -a- Highway Program. Comprehensive Roadside Management Program The Comprehensive Roadside Management Program, administered by VDOT, enables private businesses, civic and community organizations, individuals and local governments an opportunity to improve the appearance and safety of the state maintained right -of -way. 8.5 Implementation Strategies Table A table of the implementation strategies for the Glenvar Community Plan is provided in Appendix B. Glenvar Community Plan Page Intentionally Left Blank GIenvar Community Plan I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Glenvar Community Plan Study Area 1 Glenvar Community Plan 1953 Aerial Glenvar Community Plan 1995 Aerial Glenvar Community Plan 2011 Aerial Glenvar Community Plan Historic Structures and Cemeteries 2 Glenvar Community Plan Subdivisions 2 Glenvar Community Plan Soils 3 Glenvar Community Plan Combined Viewshed 3 Glenvar Community Plan Existing Land Use 4 Glenvar Community Plan Zoning 4 Glenvar Community Plan Future Land Use 4 Commercial Corridor Matching Grant Program Eligible Parcels 4 Roanoke County Police Districts and Reporting Areas 5 Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Boundaries 5 Glenvar Community Plan Water and Sewer 5 Glenvar Community Plan Railroad Crossings 6 Route 11/460 Widening Project 1 6 Glenvar Community Plan Housekeeping Changes 8 West Main Street Corridor Future Land Use Scenario 1 7 8 West Main Street Corridor Future Land Use Scenario 2 7 8 West Main Street Corridor Future Land Use Scenario 3 7 8 Dixie Caverns Area Future Land Use Scenario 1 7 8 Dixie Caverns Area Future Land Use Scenario 2 7 8 Dixie Caverns Area Future Land Use Scenario 3 7 8 West Main Street Corridor Future Land Use Recommendation 7 8 Dixie Caverns Area Future Land Use Recommendation 7 8 Glenvar Community Plan i / / I ,J i i i 1 , Craig County ` t° \ Botetourt County Roanoke County II \\ I \ I I \'\ ity of 'Roanoke 1 � I \ 460 \ Town of Vnton i Glenx Planning Area j r \ 7 Roanoke County , r' I I I i Montgomery County Ir ' r I � , ice'•/ \ Franklin County Floyd County ® Glenvar Planning Area L___; Jurisidictional Boundary Interstate 81 Route 11/460 Blue Ridge Parkway rl Railroad Roanoke River 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 cmenRoanoke County • Depax[ of Community Development Map . lenvar Community Plan Study Area Miles moke. nadDn4 Roanoke, V¢'ginia 24018 (540) 772= 068 Inset Map Oi l Ma Glenvar Community Plan 2011 Aerial 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Ma 4: Glenvar Planning Area Interstate 81 Route 11/460 +� Railroad Roanoke River 2 Roanoke County Department of Community Development M i I es 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 (540) 772 -2068 Inset Map Roanoke County ty' f ow of I Roanoke County M Miles p o � 69 63 �� 'A F 62 •58 60 ti 59 56 ttt / f t (� l 55 51 53 ' �� 54 +--�48 39 38 45 49 50 ` 41 40 44 36 4 1 33 35 t-+-� -/1 2930 2g 30 3225 I �� - -� —J 24 28- ttt 26 s i i 27 j 23 �- i t1819�i 1 1 i ttt ow 1- 13 a� U� 12 �ttt ttt 11 ttt fi g Q 8 4 3 t s s O r/ t21 ttt 5 2 Montgomery County IWW R=Glenvar Planning Area Roads Interstate 81 Route 11/460 Railroad Roanoke River ttt Cemetery Historic Structures o Surveyed by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 o Noted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Miles ® National Register of Historic Places and Virginia Landmarks Register tsar 1 76Z 75 93 - 1 77 79 ' l h < 64 0 o tt t a. ttt i 1 I � -�/ 163 1t5 161 162159 157 -154 156 15Q i 15255 -) ) 153 148 ' +t ttt 145 ` 149 139 X141 i 140 1 \ 142 1 ' ttt ttt 136 134 137 138 ` 144 ttt X35 < r L 124 City of Salem -122 �- c 11912t 117 t 114 i6 115 112 3 106 10 98 - 103 ttt �� ®101 109,,110 11 t t t 104 A , ' 100 moo, .t 96 1 \ m 95 Map 5: Glenvar Community Plan Historic Structures and Cemeteries Roanoke County Department of Community Development 5204 Bernab Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 (540) 772 -2068 Inset Map Roanoke County ty, f pow of I r f M Miles 0 Barrister Estates Kingst Willow Spring Skyview t \\ Stonewood Quail Crossing L ' < Duxbury Fort Lewis Mountain City of Salem \� WestwardlLake Estates Beverly Heights .Bear Rock 'The Highlands r - '�� Glenvar East_ 11 Grandview Gardens Fort Lewis Village i \ Richfield W j 9� J �Cher Heights dkee Hills °' Russlen Farms Glenva reen Hill � Green Hill Terrace Robin Hood Park Barley West Salem Forest Grey Fox Lane 1 \�� \ Big Hill Glen Forest Broadview � Viewpoint.Heights < Alpine Ac i- Chimne flill•Estates 6 Wild- d Estates Campbell Hills Riv n 3 s I r� i Cove Hollow is Montgomery County I / - Y\—Hollow Spring Hollow Estates Glenvar Planning Area Roads Interstate 81 Route 11 /460 Railroad Roanoke River tt Glenvar Subdivision -Y O R bun o a ebb Subdivision � \ ° Lutrier Park Boxwood. H i I Is i Coleman Subdivision 0 a >v Q Hemlock Dell 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Roan C Map 6: Glenvar Community Plan Subdivisions Roanoke County Department of Community Development M iles l es 5204 , V Ber na rtl Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 (540) 772 -2068 Inset Map Roanoke County ry\ f inoke i Tow of Roanoke County 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 Miles 4J r Ci \\ G v i 1 Wildwoo Rd 1 -�A \ City of Salem _ • J 81 �60 Mont Count • j � �►��� ♦ WA 0 0.25 0.5 1.5 2 Roanoke Count Department of Com in rit Development Map 9: Glenvar Communit Plan Existin Land Use 0 5204 Boma .•1 N� D riv e Y Miles Roanoke, Vir A (540) 24 ;. I� I � a O s J I PIMA i MENEM Inset Map Roanoke County ty� f inoke i Tow of Roanoke County r i / r / / ( 1 � � J T - 1 Cj 0 r • t0� s s 460 Montgomery County C� V \ barley ` 1 f / J ti 1 1 -J � 1 / � 8 7 i � l I d O 01 0 a f / i o Glenvar Planning Area Roads Interstate 81 Route 11/460 T� Railroad Roanoke River Police District and Reporting Areas 06 07 0 08 0 30 A 40 Z 50 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 70 Miles .. Map 13: Roanoke County Police Districts and Reporting Areas Roanoke County Department of Community Development 5204 Bernab Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 (540) 772 -2068 Inset Map Roanoke County it of city Salem Roanoke Tow of Glenuar Planning 'V� i on Ar a Roanoke�Coun 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 Miles 0 0 r 1 -� / City of Salem J\ \� cQ !'< CO 0 i i / 0 Barley -Dr. 1 /T �J O J ti 4 L �� Ir 00� 460 �\ f Montgomery County Glenvar Planning Area Roads Interstate 81 Route 11/460 Railroad Roanoke River ON Fire and Rescue Station Fire Rescue Boundaries 0 Back Creek 0 Bent Mountain Catawba Cave Spring 0 City Of Salem 0 Fort Lewis 0 Masons Cove 0 Montgomery County N Map 14: Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Boundaries 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Roanoke County Department of Community Development 5204 Bernab Drive Mil es Roanoke, Virginia 24018 (540) 772 -2068 Inset Map Roanoke County ry\ f inoke i Tow of Roanoke County 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 Miles / � _ 0 / G Montgomery County t .. -,\\\ did 0 / r � of Q J� [MGlenvar Planning Area r Parcels Roads Interstate 81 Route 11/460 r r Railroad 1 Roanoke River wrP Spring Hollow Water Treatment Plant Spring Hollow Reservoir - Water Main ° Hydrant Sewer Main N 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 ' Map 15 • G lenvar Community Plan Water and Sewer Roanoke County Department of Community Development M i I es 5204 Bernab Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 (540) 772 -2068 4J City of Salem `� 11 go �`` • / \) o VON • • / .. 0 r \ � / / \ N.. r ( , / r � of Q J� [MGlenvar Planning Area r Parcels Roads Interstate 81 Route 11/460 r r Railroad 1 Roanoke River wrP Spring Hollow Water Treatment Plant Spring Hollow Reservoir - Water Main ° Hydrant Sewer Main N 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 ' Map 15 • G lenvar Community Plan Water and Sewer Roanoke County Department of Community Development M i I es 5204 Bernab Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 (540) 772 -2068 Inset Map Roanoke County ' y f inoke i Tow of Roanoke County 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 Miles d id 0 1 •� t City of Salem / \\ / Bar f � 1 0 y r r r O� 1 o N a n Montgomery County 1 � 1� 1 r l d� 6 O 0 0 a 1 1 I� C Q Glenvar Planning Area r' Parcels Q Roads Interstate 81 Route 11/460 Railroad ° Roanoke River Railroad Crossings _ & No Signal or Sign 40 Sign No Signal ° 0 Signal and Gate 1 0 Underpass Ma 16: Glenvar Communit Plan Railroad Crossings o 0.25 0.5 I 1.5 Miles Roanoke County Department of Community Development 5204 Bernab Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 (540) 772 -2068 4 p "x 4 I §� .• °• 155 ♦ _ r � 2 *1 El ' A l C a _ - _ - 1„ v, C Ln LU CD ti I N, CC ca O O r / n V _ JO<M+C_ _ IT rTa I 4 A, l r w lG I N .4 I 4 it c : r SA 1 E ®C • #, !,4 yM1 t [ r w c I r* ` _►- V v' .. " " ,r 7+s :. ° - ' .. - 4•. + h[ � ilk °.., � '.: p ,. : ,,: � Y t > - �+_ � - _ ! '�'"" ° I ` ni gar-. f w 4 , Y IP l ° Q g y � e° r s r M t (D : r -- %; - - a ;�• F _ sue ,,. i �. 4` � ° ,. ,. ti 4 I IL y + a C. +•, s R r r- w y • - L 4 IT i r r •' y ,. -.� 4 � : �. 3 ➢ ' + f� ,. rS. y tl L I Y[: r'�• yo. . - -. i Q , i' cy F 'R " , ., ° M , ,, `rh ,`S•° �- : w #. " � x ,: y+ior L_: _ -_�'.. ` �.Y y� M i i • . ,; . y fi a -' '�- .. - .- A I Ail ° _ L WEE L 44 OL _ y d , Y " v _ t - � �. , e x Ca t 'fir r*' - u rF r� L < C xic AI M� / - r dF r Inset Map Roanoke County ty� f inoke i Tow of , J �J I �r I d id 0 11 11-41 1 "M701 City of Salem I I < 0 r 00 In 460 \ ° RAGlenvar Planning Area Roads Montgomery County Interstate 81 — Route 11/460 �—� Railroad Roanoke River Q Housekeeping Changes Future Land Use Designation Conservation Core Development Neighborhood Conservation Principal Industrial Rural Preserve ® Rural Village Transition 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Village Center M iles Map 18: Glenvar Communit y Plan Housekeeping Changes Roanoke County ty Development Department of CommuniDrive 5204 Bernab Roanoke, Virginia 24018 (540) 772 -2068 1 — I I Ln CO LL 13 E I I t I M I ME \V co elk mm- F-Two- I 00 1 • I IN GO VA \ i � elk Fri Ilml WIL - I I i co cc I O O Aga cc CD Ur) LLM ( o v � a Ir > cy c� c o a) a ° o a� 00 ( � E Zn � a) a O cn G1 cv I t to cn i p Q_ > O In G� L C - m L > CC X L L N \ L) L) 0 G z III I t LL I I I � 1 O t \ � J I � I ci 1 l 1 \ CO E \ O I \ 1 T L L U G) L cu N _ 7 CD o L >� L C', O J 1 i 0 S o a� I 'L \ 1 co Gar�P O G� ' ) N ' G) V) D C ( cc ' � J a.� U— cc ca C E CD m Q N o CL cc � \� i a Ln -0 a a z r \` CQ ? N O Q L Q) I 00 !:1- C 1 c i p Q N t ` N G� N -j Q Q _ _ N G 1 O J C LQ > L) c � C cLG C N \ \ U U 0 z iZ I I � I LL. 1 � I I t ci 1 l �1 \\ \ 1 1 CQ ° T �7 m L L ° L N � LLB O r ° V L � - - - - -- � � N v / i � I S I I I \\ N co 1 y. ° I � O ' J a.� cc o� = Q) a N� ca C Co o CL r I f I 1 1 t� I I i_ i' i� i i o U N U a a a \ tD V) O cu 3 L O 7 F (a \\ _� 00 • � O O a) v) L +� cC Co O_ O L O r M V) V) G� r I l- 0 0 S rte'` I O ld Co C J = � V U m o � c � o � a a' L L Q to r n L/ CC CD a M U (D CD i i o U N U a a a \ tD V) O cu 3 L O 7 F (a \\ _� 00 • � O O a) v) L +� cC Co O_ O L O N y M V) V) 4 ' 0 i a; G� = = L O C J cn G� C L p Q +J v cC cv cn O p C N G E V Lf � Lf Lf � M Lf U U 7 � � L Lf in 1 1 \ 1 -7 IO` M O r O O r/ LN 1 IN m\ � I \ i cc cu CD CD Ln LL 0 Ln MCI p p"p,- - Co RM i I . I - cc + O E \\ co CD O L Ln cn Z o . L N cn y G� � v) o o a� N � 00 G� ca E N ca = L G O_ > = ZD > 77 cn O LO V V G z 0o 1 11 1 + LL �r I a / I \ o cu cu L L L � \\ a� L 1 / r / S oC' \ \ � V cn I I ° � J a� cv A I x M M m CD Q (y o Q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Map of Earliest Land Acquisitions in Glenvar Community Fort Lewis Mansion History Historic Structures and Cemeteries List 2010 EPA Water Quality Report Virginia Department of Conservation Natural Heritage Program Data Existing Land Use Breakdown Route 11/460 Design Guidelines Commercial Matching Grant Program Guidelines Classification of Roads in the Glenvar Planning Area Roanoke Regional Intermodal Facility Glenvar Community Plan Survey Glenvar Community Plan Survey Results Glenvar Community Plan Webpage Community Development E- Newsletter Articles Community Meeting Announcements and Press Releases Community Meeting Presentations Visioning Exercise Visioning Exercise Results Visual Preference Survey and Results Third Community Meeting Comment Sheets Media Regarding Glenvar Community Plan Glenvar Focus Group Members and Affiliations Glenvar Focus Group Process Flow Chart Focus Group Meeting Presentations Implementation Strategies Table Board of Supervisors Resolution 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 7 Glenvar Community Plan Page Intentionally Left Blank GIenvar Community Plan a� v 0 Q A 1 ' AM f F W 3 " I! N a 07 6 = w n tt ur rr y fJ 'I I Ir A l� y � M i ly 1 G d {{ 6 in ��fi' # � ifdr3.1,�19 � Yp r,+• + a�s�ri�Jr�SS'F�f,�.y ��` Sw yS* w M 4Y SJM IN tl I ¢ 17 Jf if x u Jr t'l %Y 4 aj 1+ k3 jr rJ 1 • ii [J 1 - v IN Yi N U fJ A"f f✓f d°54.5.1. LI'dR6S'S ?7RFFl ¢�lM , �i. a tia L rJ 1 vr.. ti »� Tr& � �« 4 5 1 II & ° 10 7} � YS JJ7 j � I 94 lr � 1 i4 5 ' ^ ✓ M r- I Y � V I• V p1 W4 7 eu Y q. IL 1.V L rya �r4}y1707 M A 1i Z ^Y V1 ch sib $ It I 41 TL }} r L QT A 4 u qp '� tij 51 4x`•31' n °3 1{ i7 it Y p Q, µ 17 q tL' � IA 71 7 54 I J 1 �J b 7 f VA IN In .! • 16 +� s a y t SUM II ff r I I l '] rr Ji KLi f r it � 6 R S - 5fx Y1 4e y U 54 S� y 59 4 . tiL N t ,y + Jr ..i , � f Historic vy 5 . •iii;,;.: 5 _, # �i.q, 0 t ewi, s '•ii: Y:t i j �• 1, .' r� i�:i :•dr`;�y . • "j c ", r.Yy • Il �f3nn A lf, G yy s 7' is d R A mL , - - it '�� "i, .: 7��•l�i.t •. ;`+�A7r••' � '. • i3. : I �. �_a fir ' 5•r'� :.i;y LS-�': a vim • �' 7.A �1 r7 n : +i HIS ORIC GGFOR LEWIS" Three miles Nest of Salem Ten miles West of Roanoke, Virginia Fite of Pre - `Devolutionary gort M AO'.. Am y -: :. ........ .. .........,.,.. ... ,r.... ... 'r} .,.'�.. . ...71....x: f' z^ N }; r:r ;y c...,..- .:.,:.,.:: ... n i �^ •' .r. {r' . mg. , ... i r ri... fi q r te _ •� ��'::.� 1 �'::: .. I .......:.. �.: x.. } ..... ..... a } F: . i �3. ..., <A , a.. : +v ■ . Y « ■,. } .........:::.._.:.::::. 4 ate" ..: ..... � .. .:. ... ., ..,.. ......:.. .. n. �..,:.....: -. ..... .::, :. ... �. '::::t� .ti ti r . .::::.....:::.. 4} ... .:.:::. qtr. L L '.... .� -s.. r t.. .. ..... ..l................ �. r .. ...:::. r T a.� a TN u ... .. .... ... .. ........ ... ...... ...... .. .... .... ........ ... , . ..:....: ......:....::::::::....:...:.. ..........:.:.::.. .. . ...... A .... .. .. ..... ... a .......... .......... ........ ............ .. ... ..... 1.. .e . 1... ....! ... ...... ..�:::':':.::::: .• ... .. ... .. ... . ...:..- .............:... �r�. ::..: ....... r 7 ..,..,.. r �V ... .... .. ...... .. .. .. .. .... a ...::.... .. ...:: f . .......:...:.:.:........... ............ :.......:...:..... ............. x..... , ...:.: ............ : r ■ . . ............. },. .. ... i .......... . ... ..............v . ... .. R .: • "vi `._- L- acf'_.:���.::.'rf ^•'X -.x,. .. �.a • � r . � ... � .. .:.J.:� .�:R �=.:�::�1 I 'a l + �'la -'al i�.,:'. - - �` Sk ��:+ � L: -.W �.+.s . - . r . r.. ` o..• .^ '�:r. F. # . P ..�..�t .i'�..5 nr_�.� �,.',��?�:' �'.i' +'T ;�,�d: ' ~` •: + �.'���'•R: �.� '`P.� .� � .°i' i 4. . x: :�+,..a:s •i-.4. Y�:� H }, s' .• Im �'x: - ri r . -:�': 5.3, �r .�2J! '� h: -''Y .' y -k. rr G ie --` ��,: �'�'y -�'A - • � � �. � ,� _rats s•°�'�'.� `�:� ��:.' :�'•:, , � � - �'r� i. '�'� ► 'S'': -,fix` .�: 3r,� I'' 4 ' ...T7 7,1' r � ..L'�i �:..�•11 iir'- � .. ii4i'd4�::r � � F '.� � ���.� r k _ s-rars•.1�'y - „fir ^_ �, I. ' P=s it ;�::;•s� Y'` +. . ���� � .,,,er�i' , ,� •ti ,- ;...�.,'. ..., ice: - •i- ' �. }. — r Th e hou i s located three 17.t�Iz- So f eet fro'n iIte h i BIZ vay nd 7s r b vic� of a � -a-lel driveway lG ad- im iT th rou (-Th a bea r•tif ul expanse Of We kept, sha�v law "Fort Lewis" Homestead ISIS beautiful estate is located on the historic Lee Highway, the main highway from the north to the south, three miles from Salem, Virginia, a delightful residence and college town, and ten miles from the heart of Roanoke Cit3P. It is con- venient to churches, schools, colleges, railroads and bus lines. This. estate consists of forty -eight (48) acres of: very fertile` 1`and. The improvements include a Colonial residence with a very large hall through the center; side hall frorn t_ he side porch` and porte-- cochere; beautiful Colonial stairway located in the ` center of the main h 'all with double spiral 'hand - rails; large living room, library, attractive dining room, breakfast " .room finished with tile and brick. In the breakfast room is a faucet connected directly'`with `a spring that supplies the building, so the drinking water is always fresh and cool without coming through the main water system. There is a well arranged `butler's pantry: and a bright,;.airy kitchen with tiled side -walls and cork -tile floor. `our bedrooms, Colonial size, and four tiled baths, a very large sleeping %porch, two: servants' roams and 'bath. ' The.third 'story is finished into one large.recreation. room. The basement has furnace room with hot water heating plant, coal room that will hold a car of coal, fully equipped laundry and storage rooms. The inside walls are soli`d ..b. *6k as well as the outer walls. Tiled front porch and tiled roof. The Colonial home was built in z 8z:z and the bricks were hauled in four -horse wagons from: Lynchburg,` Virginia: The residence is in a perfect state of preservation, with every modern convenience. A delightful swimming 'pool is fed by a bold spring``whch flows `from under a cli$ sur- rounded ` by "'giant oak trees. Another spring supplies ` all `: the `buildings, There is a natural location for a fish` and skating pond which can be filled with the overflow from s. theses springs. g The athhouse s of modern` construction, ::has tiled roof, four :rooms:.and two. lavatories. The outbuildings consist of a caretaker's cottage, a stock -barn, modern dairy barn 3 hay -barn, and garages `for five cars. A young orchard is just coming into bearing, while alfalfa and blue grass fields, to- gether with beautiful shrubbery and extensive flower and vegetable gardens, all join in adding to the beauty of this homestead. This handsome estate is now for sale. All inquiries should be addressed to IP ►YN % 5 f f MR. C. SHELBURNE SPINDLE Telephone 3 18 1 C. S. Spindle & Company, Realtors I r— I Z Liberty Trust Building Roanoke, Virginia _ ry + �'. � � -� .. . _ . - .....- -•;,. • ••� -rte. History of " Fort Lewis" Homestead x. ere . �.... •::.» e a :OM : I� E char ' =� � "::�:::�: ��• =�` . min Colonial h �: . ....J ... -- :: r. g home known as Fort Levis is situated n the south the Lee Highway a ' Lea side of y bout three miles w est of Salem a wa := .::.:::... so called v.: .�; :�-- because it was here that r ok P LER :: Colonel Andrew Lewis Letivis (later general his stand in he -`°` =�` 7= t protection of the frontier from the Indians, b '.. . . .. : -.2 ;�..- a s directed r e c t e d a :..- _:w ... ge neral W ashin g ton gton who had receiv h : is instructions from Governor Dinwiddie. .. : . s: = i `�� : �= The fort built by Colonel Andrew Lewis ' •♦ ,stood at a distance of about one hundred and fifty feet dale west from the center of the present residence. X1r. Alexander White remembered seeing the rubbish of the fort, which w as built of logs on a foundation of flat field stone, and the remains were not entir removed until after the Civil War. 1\4r. Samuel 11 father of Alexander 1.1 hire, bought a boundary of land of four thousand five hundred acres running east and west up the valley between the mountains on the north and Roanoke River on the south, and in I822 built the present residence just east of the old fort. When NIr. 110 - hire was hav the cellar dug, the skeletons of half a dozen men were found buried in one grave, under w i hat s rnoi�° the center hall of the building, and had then The large side veranda and porte-cochere afford a-it inv•itinc place to welcolne 37our guests g i s, Sv i Ye�� •��R .. - t�• � ., � - .AT _ ry + �'. � � -� .. . _ . - .....- -•;,. • ••� -rte. History of " Fort Lewis" Homestead x. ere . �.... •::.» e a :OM : I� E char ' =� � "::�:::�: ��• =�` . min Colonial h �: . ....J ... -- :: r. g home known as Fort Levis is situated n the south the Lee Highway a ' Lea side of y bout three miles w est of Salem a wa := .::.:::... so called v.: .�; :�-- because it was here that r ok P LER :: Colonel Andrew Lewis Letivis (later general his stand in he -`°` =�` 7= t protection of the frontier from the Indians, b '.. . . .. : -.2 ;�..- a s directed r e c t e d a :..- _:w ... ge neral W ashin g ton gton who had receiv h : is instructions from Governor Dinwiddie. .. : . s: = i `�� : �= The fort built by Colonel Andrew Lewis ' •♦ ,stood at a distance of about one hundred and fifty feet dale west from the center of the present residence. X1r. Alexander White remembered seeing the rubbish of the fort, which w as built of logs on a foundation of flat field stone, and the remains were not entir removed until after the Civil War. 1\4r. Samuel 11 father of Alexander 1.1 hire, bought a boundary of land of four thousand five hundred acres running east and west up the valley between the mountains on the north and Roanoke River on the south, and in I822 built the present residence just east of the old fort. When NIr. 110 - hire was hav the cellar dug, the skeletons of half a dozen men were found buried in one grave, under w i hat s rnoi�° the center hall of the building, and had then The large side veranda and porte-cochere afford a-it inv•itinc place to welcolne 37our guests removed and buried elsewhere. He was of the opinion that as these bodies i�rere all buried in one grave, they «-ere billed at the same time in some battle at the fort. Tradition says t he original deed to this boundary of land was signed bi- George III and was recorded in the Courthouse at Fincastle, which record was destroyed by fire some years later, along ivith mane other 1a luable records. It is lino « -n that the original coy of the deed remained in possession of iVIr. Alexander �1' bite until after T RR z�rl7PI3 it 'was to a neighbor to settle some boundary lines, and « -as lost. J As to th general conditions in this section we knout that when the pioneers settled in the Valley and Southi�rest Virginia, the greater part of thit section had ceased to be the settled home of any par ticular Indian tribe. It ii -as the common hunting ground of the Sha�rn.�ees, Cherokees and other southern Indians. Here their met in friendly- chase and here too, they met in d e adly- encounter with the northern tribes who lived near the Great Lakes. It is spoken of as the "Debatable Land," being so fair and valuable that the Indians « ere unwilling that any one tribe should possess it. Since the great Appalachian chain could 11011rhere else be so easily- crossed this was th great thoroughfare between the northern and southern Indians, and their trail, called the "Great Path," passed along near the route of the present macadamized road through the Southwest Virginia counties. Since this section was the path "of migration, of chase and of savage inirasion," it ii-vas very necessary that the wh ites j <<ho came to settle here should have some protection and it was for such service that Fort Lev was erected. This I rich e -v tree o it the f ro jit la it is e tghtee)i f eet high a aid it s aid to be over a h-un d ed vearr old J Although no description leas come down to us of this particular fort it was most probably similar in plan to the other frontier forts of the tinge. SFr. Roosevelt, who carefullv investi- gated all that was written by the earliest writers about old frontier forts, gives a description of them in his "Winning of the NVest." He says, "They i.Nrere a square palisade of upright logs, loopholed, with strong blockhouses as bastions at the corners. One side, at least, was genera L, ,v for:;�ed , , � r� rr ' z r - � , t L the l��c1�s of the cz�b�Ils thenlsel�. �s, all sta�idin �n roar , -.1�d thor v as a great door or gate that could be strongl)f barred in case of need. Often no iron whate was employed in a17y of the buildin The square inside contained the provision sheds and frequently a strong central blockhouse as well. These farts, of course, could not stand against c anno n and they were always in danger w hen attacked with fire; but save for this risk of burning they i -i a v ery effective defense against men tit ithout artillery and wt ere rarely taken, whether by whites or Indians, except by surprise." After the defeat of Braddock, ill 1755, the whole Western frontier NVas left exposed to i ncursions ncursions of the India The history of the Valley abounds in stories of Indian incur- sions and massacres. Located at the very entrance to the V no doubt this community w as often harrassed. While history records a num ber of instances of Indians fighting around the Fort Lewis stockade, space does not permit including these to this brief sketch: Our imagination, however, can picture many instances in w hich the settlers found shelter in Fort Lewis or in which the militia would set out from the Fort to go to the rescue of some harrassed settlement. The citizens of Roanoke Valley will ever gratefully remember Fort Lewis as the place of shelter and protection for their forefathers. - - — x ......... -.. ..- ........ ....... •'icy': '.:t:7 Fort Le is on. the Le Nigh- U. U. S. Route Ti, tlxr•ee miles zc }est of Salem, [ Note dic D. J. R. inar•leer• - S may be seen from the above map, Fort Lewis is located on the Lee Highway, U. S. Route No. Ii. It is within one -half day's automobile drive from some of Virginia's most historical points. One could get in his car in the morning and driving north over the Lee Highway, passing through Roanoke, visit Natural Bridge, a distance of fifty miles from Fort Lewis, then fifteen miles farther, stop at Lexington, the home of Washington & Lee University and Virginia Military Institute, visiting the tombs of Lee and Jackson. Still traveling north on the same highway, a thirty -five -mile drive brings you to Staunton, the birthplace of Woodrow Wilson and one of the most Drell -known educational centers of the state. Turning east at Staunton you cross the Afton Mountain, witnessing some of the most beautiful mountain scenery in this country and, after a forty -mile drive, arrive in Charlottesville, the seat of the University of Virginia. A few miles from Charlottesville is Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson. Richmond, the capital of the state, can be reached from Fort Lewis within four and one -half hours of comfortable driving. Driving west from Fort Lewis we pass through beautiful Southwest Virginia, "The Mountain Empire." Thirty- three miles distant is Blacksburg, the seat of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Other points of interest easily accessible are the famous Virginia Hot Springs, eighty - seven miles from Fort Lewis, and White Sulphur Springs, west Virginia, only sixty - eight miles distant. Inquiries regarding Fort Lewis should be addressed to MR. C. SHELBURNE SPINDLE, of C. S. Spindle & Company 5 i x x z Liberty Trust Building, Roanoke, Virginia From Roanoke Chamber of Commerce Map. Copyrighted by The Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company Ar i.u o o L an d o wn e /s FoiLt Lew.(' -15 P)Lo peAty App 5, 1748- Kiag Ge oAg c T1 o4 Engtand g)caj to Jamez Carneb e.U, t1vLoug h the Kings n p)Lez e ivtat vc Sl('A G iUiam Go Lieutenant G0 vVtn0)t 0 {� U.(A t 11C - h and .6 ix ty .6 c v cn a�a.e�s o .hand, y�.ng and being in the county o6 A ugr.. to on the west .s�.de. o 6 Roanoke Riv 6 0n -the z wii o 6 th O(,t 1= &t Lcw.�s bu.LU 1755. Fcbo u.a)Ly 1 4 , 1 761- King Ge oAg c III o 4 EngZa ;2d, th)LO ugh FiLanc�s (auqu�eA, Li ui tcn_ amt G0 vcneA o6 Uu'cg.(',M4_a, gkan teal t0 At e,xan deA Boyd, Trine ty- e/.ght aCAM 0 Za o t wat o6 the Ro 1ZiV eA �o te z 1v .� ng . Auguz t 14 , 1 71-- Andq.emr Boyd, - Admu.jqi'z txa.twL (pc Ate,xandUL Boyd, conveyed to Ate xandeA Bain, one thaw6' and two hundA duLm Septembeh 13, 7785- G0 WatA�.ck. He.nAy, Go V ULI10)t 06 VULginta,.' conve the Land atong mi-th additionat .hand to David R0.6 .6. Atexan e;L - Bat"n pa,(.d 6 - - poun , 10 6h .np to have hiz 2,200 acne iLe.cmde.d �n the name o 6 David Ro/s s ass payment o 6 a 1710) tg ag c on the P)Lope 1Lty. - Dcccnrb e L . 7806- Joseph Scott, MwLr ha.0 o 6 Viicgin t.a Di6 -V�c�t C 0 ulL t, �s 0.-d � u th0 u,5 and .s�.x hund�.cd and eight aULM t0 Tho rn" No) uAve u a� ad�77.��u�s�a�a�. y o6 the ens tatc 0 6 David Ro.s s . The 6 W71 paid W" $12 r Unknown.; : Th0ma�5 NOju1v� p".6 e.d the. tand t0 S amue ,- Wh t tc, the gi.and.6 on o 6 j a�: d T�O�s f NwaoeU owned the .hand a vuLy .6 h o)Lt -time . Samuet U' mom cd t0 the Zo g 0 4 6icvL,5 q ua. Ltvu6 o 6 O.-d FoiL t L ew.(_-z and tiv e.d .theAe white l c1�GlLe.n weAe. bOkn. Ile. then began co"t)cuc .ern 0 6 the " Fwf,t Lewiz " Mansion in 1878, c0M pZetcd the A tAuctuAe in 18 2 2. He acrd ucAe.d (x totat o6 7500 acicez b e 4 o)Le. W death, L No u e.mb e)t 2 2 , 1831- SW71uet W hit e., in h.r 6 w .0 beq to Atexande)L White the- man.6. on houvs c and paj t o6 the. .-and, the kema�.ndvL o6 the .hand g o. . - o his other ch,�tdAe.n . Wkmi' de n t Andrew JacU 0n u s e,d t0 �s p en d t he n.c.g h t at " F o)L t L e.w� " on h a. iA w y t 0 t h c r � H e Aitag e. " kn Tcnnes e.c. .dune 1906 Roandkc County Cow Lt Awa).dcd 't0 Fannie. Penn White, the man,6�.on Iodize T. and one hund ed 6 6ty thAe.e. and -• j acAe, . She knimed t.a tety 6 oZd t0 W. L. NO. -ejL, one hundAe.d 6okty nin auLa ato with the h0uz c 6 o)L $20 l a -26, 1909 W. L. Not - an cone.ye.d t0 .6 aU71e. PAOPeAty to S. Ea No.-an Aug "t 1.910 -- S.E. NoZan conveyed the pxo puLty to F/.ank BulmeU GoAd on, who com-- pte teZy &cmo deZe.d the rrlanzi' o n with mode)Ln ptw7i cng and eZect, u ci ty. T AcAeag c o 6 10 0 allLa August 9, 19.19 --. F.8, Gm conv th e ho c and un known acAe.ag to W.A. W0 6 6 �m $50,000.000 �e.ccrr�beh 1- :;:.1.92 W. A. W0 � � 0.�d the. � arr�c to GcO��g W. Wayne., 6atheA o 6 m otion ��.ctu�e. y .stat, John W bon $44,900. 00 4es Ye -s. r 3G � Thy ..E,A.ta te. c vco) gc w. Wayne..6 oZd the ho uz c t0 AUai1 L Lu�e� a n ��d '�A�exwut.Zeve , z 0n 0 o Ludi W ens It e.�� -t 04 Wa a. P CCz - p and Wape.'Y C° i ``\ ��, �� •�� \ & y41 � K f : 2.� . - }�� i� ] ■. � � � � � � � � � � � .� � � � .� � � ct cn .� � � � � � � � y . _ . Tr \\ ■���° 4 » °� ■ � 7 I \ \} . ■ *. [ .. , Li 11 116 p q'J A l 1 k4l Historic Structures List Document 3 Map ID Number Address Name Type Surveyed or Noted by VDHR VDHR Number 0 7424 Cove Hollow Road Little Hope Church Church Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -580 1 6418 Dry Hollow Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -582 2 7388 Cove Hollow Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -516 3 6210 Poor Mountain Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -222 4 6204 Poor Mountain Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -561 5 7250 Cove Hollow Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 6 613 8 Poor Mountain Road N/A Log Noted by the VDHR N/A 7 6118 Poor Mountain Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -507 8 6111 Poor Mountain Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -224 9 6107 Poor Mountain Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -223 10 6043 Poor Mountain Road N/A Log Noted by the VDHR N/A 11 6027 Poor Mountain Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 12 6099 Botts Hollow Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 13 6029 Botts Hollow Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 14 7068 Cove Hollow Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 15 5904 Poor Mountain Road 5866 Poor Mountain Road House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -473 16 6960 Cove Hollow Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -581 17 5886 Poor Mountain Road 5862 Poor Mountain Road House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -508 18 5812 Foster Lane N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -220 19 5784 Foster Lane N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -221 20 6197 Peaceful Drive N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -579 21 6202 Joyce Lane N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 22 6163 Peaceful Drive N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 23 5890 Dry Hollow Road 5860 Dry Hollow Road House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -209 24 5672 Poor Mountain Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -510 25 5768 Dry Hollow Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -210 26 5766 Dry Hollow Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 27 5643 Poor Mountain Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -562 28 5628 Poor Mountain Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -217 29 5625 Poor Mountain Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -219 30 5600 Poor Mountain Road Emmaus Road Community Church Church Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -218 31 5607 Poor Mountain Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 32 5784 Dry Hollow Road N/A Store Noted by the VDHR N/A 33 5680 Dry Hollow Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 34 4784 West River Road 4784 Yateman Lane House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -577 35 5676 Dry Hollow Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 36 5652 Dry Hollow Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -515 37 5346 West River Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 38 Dry Hollow Road N &W Railroad Bridge Bridge Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -564 39 5791 West River Road Goodwins Church Church Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -578 40 5408 Poor Mountain Road Cedar Bluff House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -8 41 4743 West River Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -213 42 5269 River Bend Lane N/A Log Noted by the VDHR N/A 43 5558 West River Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -483 44 5588 West River Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 45 5263 Getty Lane N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -211 46 52 79 River Bend Lane N/A Log Noted by the VDHR N/A 47 5250 Getty Lane N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -208 48 5487 West River Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 49 5256 Getty Lane N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -206 50 5290 River Bend Lane 5260 Getty Lane House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -205 51 5293 Getty Lane N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -207 52 4679 West River Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -214 53 4665 West River Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -565 54 5323 Poor Mountain Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 55 5255 Poor Mountain Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -512 56 5248 Poor Mountain Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -559 57 3499 Harborwood Road 3554 Harborwood Road House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -472 58 5757 West Main Street Dixie Caverns Store Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -552 59 5235 Sallie Lane N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -481 60 5724 West Main Street N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -553 61 5167 Poor Mountain Road N/A General Store Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -216 62 5168 Poor Mountain Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -215 63 6419 Meacham Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -480 Historic Structures List 64 3387 Harborwood Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -474 65 5521 West Main Street N/A Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 66 5517 West Main Street N/A Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 67 5149 Beason Lane N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -484 68 5556 Pleasant Run Drive N/A Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 69 5538 Pleasant Run Drive N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -476 70 5380 West Main Street Big Hill Baptist Church Church Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -478 71 5817 Viewpoint Avenue 5817 Pleasant Run Road House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -554 72 5812 Viewpoint Avenue N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -555 73 5345 Pleasant Run Drive N/A Bungalow Noted by the VDHR N/A 74 4911 Poor Mountain Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -482 75 4857 Poor Mountain Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -575 76 4814 Poor Mountain Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -558 77 3104 Harborwood Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -471 78 3065 Powell Drive N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -468 79 2952 Allie Lane N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -470 80 4800 West Main Street Mt. View Farm Farm Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -556 81 4754 Poor Mountain Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -557 82 4958 Glenvar Heights Boulevard N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -551 83 4719 Poor Mountain Road N/A Bungalow Noted by the VDHR N/A 84 4713 Poor Mountain Road N/A Bungalow Noted by the VDHR N/A 85 4709 Poor Mountain Road N/A Bungalow Noted by the VDHR N/A 86 4612 West Main Street N/A Bungalow Noted by the VDHR N/A 87 4625 West Main Street N/A Foursquare Noted by the VDHR N/A 88 4696 Cuningham Drive N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -563 89 4968 Dan Robin Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -475 90 4506 West Main Street N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -574 -479 91 2895 Creekside Drive N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -469 92 4328 West Main Street N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -514 93 2798 Harborwood Road N/A Foursquare Noted by the VDHR N/A 94 2774 Creekside Drive N/A Foursquare Noted by the VDHR N/A 95 4215 West Main Street Fort Lewis Baptist Church Church Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -548 96 4143 West Main Street N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -212 97 2920 Green Hill Drive N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -446 98 4543 Ft. Lewis Church Road N/A Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 99 2551 Creekside Drive N/A Foursquare Noted by the VDHR N/A 100 4556 Thurman Drive N/A Bungalow Noted by the VDHR N/A 101 3510 West Main Street N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -509 102 4968 Ft. Lewis Church Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -550 103 4488 Tobey Road N/A Bungalow Noted by the VDHR N/A 104 4948 Ft. Lewis Church Road N/A Frame Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 105 4606 Ft. Lewis Church Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 106 4620 Ft. Lewis Church Road N/A Bungalow Noted by the VDHR N/A 107 4925 Ft. Lewis Church Road N/A Frame Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 108 4611 Ft. Lewis Church Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 109 3204 West Main Street N/A Foursquare Noted by the VDHR N/A 110 3170 West Main Street N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -573 111 3114 West Main Street N/A Foursquare Noted by the VDHR N/A 112 4929 Stanley Farm Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -549 113 3115 West Main Street Ft. Lewis Elementary School School Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -560 114 4132 Daugherty Road N/A Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 115 3422 Locust Grove Lane N/A Bungalow Noted by the VDHR N/A 116 3933 Alleghany Drive N/A Bungalow Noted by the VDHR N/A 117 441 Mountainview Drive N/A Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 118 4120 Givens Road 4002 Alleghany Drive House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -546 119 4286 Daugherty Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 120 4260 Pharr Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 121 4120 Alleghany Drive N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 122 4359 Daugherty Road N/A Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 123 4503 Alleghany Drive N/A Bungalow Noted by the VDHR N/A 124 4415 Daugherty Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 125 1113 Texas Hollow Road N/A Frame House Noted by the VDHR N/A 126 4431 Alleghany Drive N/A Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -445 127 4416 Alleghany Drive N/A Bungalow Noted by the VDHR N/A 128 772 Givens -Tyler Road N/A Frame Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A Historic Structures List 129 741 Lee Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -204 130 762 Lee Road N/A Bungalow Noted by the VDHR N/A 131 929 Texas Hollow Road N/A Bungalow Noted by the VDHR N/A 132 1026 Joe Carrol Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 133 1083 Joe Carrol Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -547 134 2733 Gum Springs Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -203 135 2715 Gum Springs Road N/A Bungalow Noted by the VDHR N/A 136 2641 Wildwood Road N/A Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 137 1297 Skyview Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -200 138 1114 Skyview Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -202 139 2609 Wildwood Road N/A Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 140 1115 Skyview Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -201 141 2591 Wildwood Road N/A Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 142 1255 Goodwin Avenue N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -587 143 1253 Goodwin Avenue N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -586 144 1279 Goodwin Avenue N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 145 2528 Wildwood Road N/A Log House Noted by the VDHR N/A 146 1301 Goodwin Avenue N/A Bungalow Noted by the VDHR N/A 147 1306 Goodwin Avenue N/A Barn Noted by the VDHR N/A 148 2446 Wildwood Road N/A Foursquare Noted by the VDHR N/A 149 1404 Wildwood Road N/A Foursquare Noted by the VDHR N/A 150 2164 Wildwood Road N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -583 151 1657 Branchside Drive N/A Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 152 1649 Branchside Drive N/A Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 153 1641 Branchside Drive N/A Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 154 1633 Branchside Drive N/A Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 155 1518 Wildwood Road N/A Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 156 1530 Wildwood Road N/A Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 157 1628 Wildwood Road N/A Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 158 1922 Wildwood Road N/A Foursquare Noted by the VDHR N/A 159 1567 Richland Hills Drive N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -584 160 1851 Wildwood Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 161 1719 Wildwood Road N/A House Noted by the VDHR N/A 162 1624 Richland Hills Drive N/A Pyramidal Noted by the VDHR N/A 163 1748 Richland Hills Drive N/A House Surveyed by the VDHR 80 -585 164 1814 Richland Hills Drive N/A Cottage Noted by the VDHR N/A 165 4377 W. Main Street Pleasant Grove House National Register of Historic Places and Virginia Landmarks Register National Italicized Entries Indicated that the Structure has been Demolished • o N O O O ---a �!l _ . �n l! 1 O v� M o O o O �' O O o O O It b — .� pp O O o O -- 00 r M O -- O -- 0 O O ---a N " O O O �n O r- r--a � O � O O '_— O x Zn x O x O � x �n O kn O O O O O O � O N M N Lr) M Lr) 7t O O N O U -� U U U U N U U cU N U d U U p N p v U v U -- U O U U N ct N N U ct U U U U �; U U U U U �; U U ctt ctt a U -� �. a U ct U U U U ct U U U U U U O a1 a1 O fT O O O fT O O O O O O O 00 O O O M O 01 O N M M 00 M d1 � .--a � M N M � N r- zl N ^ 00 h�l U r Ln Ln Con C �j Con cn cn cn Un cn cn cn cn Un Un Un Un En En En En En En En O y .--a .--a .--a .--a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a N ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a ---a W U U � U � U U U � Un U � U cn Un >, ct un o U ct U �. U U un bn -� U U O C U -� � ° cz U O Ln O O~ ^� O O O U U O O bA bA bA bA bA bA bA bA bA bA bA bA bA bA bA O ct bA bA bA bA bA bA bA bA bA bA bA bA bA bA bA bA .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ,.., — — — � � ❑ UU di � -+U+U+ �' di di � di � di � di � di � di � di � di � di �U+ di U d ' � di Q � 3 + di Q�3+ di �-+ �' � di � di � di Q�3+ di �-+ 3 "'' S" v U v L: U � . �s - r r U f f L: La is is C� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O it G� G� O G- O' P4 [ - G CQ Document 4 2010 Water Quality Report This report shows, for the reported geographic area and the reported EPA Impairment group, the state causes of impairments and summaries of the assessed water (assessment unit) size by EPA Waterbody Type for which the state cause of impairment was reported. Only waters that had at least one Water Quality Standard use assessed were included in the calculations. Only state causes that are contained within the National /EPA cause group are listed. Source: http:// www. deq.state.va.us /wqa /ir20lO.html 2010 Waterbody Report for Roanoke River Hil 2 km E ROM t 1 rrii Par Click on the waterbody for an interactive reap State: Virginia Waterbody ID: VAW- L03R_ROA04A00 Location: Roanoke River Mainstem From The Big Bear Rock Branch Mouth Upstream To End Of The Wqs Designated Public Water Supply (Pws) Section Just Downstream Of An Unnamed Tributary At Dixie Caverns. State Waterbody Type: River EPA Waterbody Type: Rivers and Streams Water Size: 5.62 Units: miles Watershed Name: Upper Roanoke Waterbody History Report Data are also available for these years: 2008 2006 Causes of Impairment for Reporting Year 2010 Cause of Impairment Cause of Impairment Group State TMDL Development Status Escherichia Coli (E. Coli) I Pathogens f TMDL completed I PCB(s) in Fish Tissue F Biphenyls (PCBs) F MDL completed Temperature � Temperature r TMDL needed I Temperature, Water Temperature r I TMDLs That Apply TMDL Document Name Roanoke River Middle to this Waterbody TMDL TMDL Pollutant Description Date Apr -09- Polychlorinated Biphenyls 2010 (PCBs) TMDL Pollutant Source Cause(s) of Impairment Type Addressed Point /Nonpoint Source PCB(s) in Fish Tissue No causes of impairment are recorded as attaining all uses for this waterbody. Designated Use Designated Use Description Name Propagation and growth of a balanced, indigenous population of aquatic life including game Aquatic Life fish which might reasonably be expected to inhabit them; wildlife. g Y p , Fish Consumption The protection of human health from toxic effects through fish consumption. i F Recreational Use Primary and secondary contact (i.e. swimming and boating). Designated beneficial uses are the desirable uses that water quality should support. Beneficial uses include drinking water supply, primary contact recreation (such as swimming), and aquatic life support. Each designated use has a unique set of water quality requirements or criteria that must be met for the use to be supported. A waterbody may have multiple beneficial uses. A waterbody is considered impaired when it does not attain the water quality standards needed to support its designated uses. 2010 Waterbody Report for Ro anoke Ri ver To 1 112 _- vied & H ei is t G1 nvar - '& i iii park owles Spring Park 1 km rj a. 5 mi r- r C h c k, ctn the waterbody for an interactive map State: Virginia Waterbody ID: VAW- L03R_ROA03A00 Location: Roanoke River Mainstem From The Salem City Wtp Downtown Intake Upstream To The Big Bear Branch Mouth On The Roanoke River. State Waterbody Type: River EPA Waterbody Type: Rivers and Streams Water Size: 3.4 Units: miles Watershed Name: Upper Roanoke Causes of Impairment for Reporting Year 2010 f Cause of Impairment I Cause of Impairment Group ( State TMDL Development Status I . Escherichia Coli (E. Coli) Pathogens f TMDL completed I f PCB(s) in Fish Tissue Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) F TMDL completed I Temperature Temperature � TMDL needed I Temperature, Water � Temperature TMDLs That Apply to this Waterbody TMDL Document TMDL TMDL Pollutant Source Name Date TMDL Pollutant Description Type Roanoke River Apr -09- Polychlorinated Biphenyls Point /Nonpoint Source Lower 2010 (PCBs) Cause(s) of Impairment Addressed PCB(s) in Fish Tissue No causes of impairment are recorded as attaining all uses for this waterbody. Designated Use Designated Use Description Name Propagation and growth of a balanced, indigenous population of aquatic life including game Aquatic Life fish which might reasonably be expected to inhabit them; wildlife. g Y p , Fish Consumption The protection of human health from toxic effects through fish consumption. Recreational Use Primary and secondary contact (i.e. swimming and boating). Designated beneficial uses are the desirable uses that water quality should support. Beneficial uses include drinking water supply, primary contact recreation (such as swimming), and aquatic life support. Each designated use has a unique set of water quality requirements or criteria that must be met for the use to be supported. A waterbody may have multiple beneficial uses. A waterbody is considered impaired when it does not attain the water quality standards needed to support its designated uses. 2 010 Waterbody Report for Roa Ri ' s f rn } 1000 ft Click can the Waterbody for an interactive map State: Virginia Waterbody ID: VAW- L03R_ROA05A00 Location: Roanoke River Mainstem From The End Of The Wqs Designated Public Water Supply (Pws) Section Just Downstream Of An Unnamed Tributary At Dixie Caverns Upstream To The Roanoke County Spring Hollow Reservoir I nta ke. State Waterbody Type: River EPA Waterbody Type: Rivers and Streams Water Size: 1.41 Units: miles Watershed Name: Upper Roanoke Causes of Impairment for Reporting Year 2010 f Cause of Impairment I Cause of Impairment Group ( State TMDL Development Status I . Escherichia Coli (E. Coli) Pathogens TMDL completed i f PCB(s) in Fish Tissue Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) F TMDL completed I Temperature Temperature � TMDL needed I Temperature, Water F Temperature TMDLs That Apply to this Waterbody TMDL Document TMDL TMDL Pollutant Description Name Date Roanoke River rApr-09- Polychlorinated Biphenyls Upper X2010 (PCBs) TMDL Pollutant Source Cause(s) of Impairment Type (Addressed r Point /Nonpoint Source PCB(s) in Fish Tissue No causes of impairment are recorded as attaining all uses for this waterbody. Designated Use Designated Use Description Name Propagation and growth of a balanced, indigenous population of aquatic life including game Aquatic Life fish which might reasonably be expected to inhabit them; wildlife. g Y p , Fish Consumption The protection of human health from toxic effects through fish consumption. Recreational Use Primary and secondary contact (i.e. swimming and boating). Designated beneficial uses are the desirable uses that water quality should support. Beneficial uses include drinking water supply, primary contact recreation (such as swimming), and aquatic life support. Each designated use has a unique set of water quality requirements or criteria that must be met for the use to be supported. A waterbody may have multiple beneficial uses. A waterbody is considered impaired when it does not attain the water quality standards needed to support its designated uses. 2010 Waterbody Report for Roanoke River State: Virginia Waterbody ID: VAW- L03R_ROA06A00 Location: Roanoke River Mainstem From The Roanoke County Spring Hollow Reservoir Intake Upstream To The Confluence Of The North & South Forks Of The Roanoke River. State Waterbody Type: River EPA Waterbody Type: Rivers and Streams Water Size: 2.22 Units: miles Watershed Name: Upper Roanoke Causes of Impairment for Reporting Year 2010 ( Cause of Impairment f Cause of Impairment Group State TMDL Development Status � I f PCB(s) in Fish Tissue f Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) I I f Temperature � Temperature r I I f Temperature, Water � Temperature I TMDLs That Apply 1 TMDL Document Name Roanoke River Upper Va to this Waterbody TMDL TMDL Pollutant Description Date Apr -09- Polychlorinated Biphenyls 2010 (PCBs) TMDL completed TMDL needed TMDL Pollutant Source Cause(s) of Impairment Type Addressed Point /Nonpoint Source PCB(s) in Fish Tissue No causes of impairment are recorded as attaining all uses for this Waterbody. Designated Use Designated Use Description Name g p Propagation and growth of a balanced, indigenous population of aquatic life including game Aquatic Life fish which might reasonably be e to inhabit them; � � g Y wildlife. p , Fish Consumption The protection of human health from toxic effects through fish consumption. Click on to waterbody for an interacts to nap Public Water Protection of human health from toxic effects through drinking water. This includes maintaining Supply acceptable taste, odor, and aesthetic quality. Recreational Use Primary and secondary contact (i.e. swimming and boating). Designated beneficial uses are the desirable uses that water quality should support. Beneficial uses include drinking water supply, primary contact recreation (such as swimming), and aquatic life support. Each designated use has a unique set of water quality requirements or criteria that must be met for the use to be supported. A waterbody may have multiple beneficial uses. A waterbody is considered impaired when it does not attain the water quality standards needed to support its designated uses. m U O rid C� A 0 U O O ,--o ,--o ct ct ct _rn � c • ^ c1t •� O U N � O ccn O � O � � O ct O •� O � O O o clt clt a� bA Q clt r w o .� � � O � ct o ct o ct o ct o N c c c ct G� Eli Eli G� Ot O •�" c N ct U U U U U ct , ct ct ct ct ct b�A ct bA � � O � .0 u � C t U U G cqt r..� p V1 V1 V1 ct ct A c� a� • �, •�' p rr' c� Ct c� O U ct U V 4-j m O ct ct ct N w w w w • p •� O U ct U O c� p N O c� p N � ,� p Ct c73 p M c73 A by tb � �•� � .--a O U rr� O� p M � N O N O� p� N O O '� p O O • O V1 O bh V1 4� • V1 rr1 N c� V O O U A � ct o ct o ct o ct o N c c c ct G� Ot O •�" c N ct ct , ct ct ct G V r..� p V1 V1 V1 ct ct � � O V 04 O cn N w w w w coo N w w A U U U � U ct U U .� U C U ' u C � ct ct z C,t 4-4 •� � � 4-4 N • � O c �' � � � W O c� O U . P" z � o +� N O O � .O ct � U C� •� 4� 4� O � c � O � N U a� y � U .P 4� 4� Z ct c U �+ N N 4 -' p • ^' +-, �^ N O ct Ct O _ V .--� O ct � ct U En 4--� = ct �o U U a� ct ct ct •� � 4J U .'� C ct U �--+ N O 4� ' U O Document 6 Glenvar Community Plan Existing Land Use Breakdown General Use Category Land Use Description Count Total Area (Acres) Agricultural and Forestry Agriculture 1 16.91 Total I 1 16.91 Civic Cemetery 2 1.17 Clubs /lodge /fraternal organization 1 1.42 Correctional facilities 1 42.66 Day care center 1 1.63 Elementary school 1 4.96 Library 1 3.56 Nursing Home 1 6.07 Public game preserves & open spaces 5 2 Public parks & recreational areas 3 218.56 Religious assembly 18 55.97 Retirement community 6 41.39 Safety services 3 80.16 School 4 94.65 Utility services 8 830.11 Total 55 4,156.32 Commercial Automobile dealership 1 0.80 Automobile rental /leasing 1 5.26 Automobile repair services 4 14.70 Campground 1 45.48 Consumer repair services 2 2.02 Convenience store W/ gas 3 3.36 Equipment sales & rental 6 20.63 Freestanding specialty retail 2 2.29 Garden center 1 2.25 Golf course 1 116.56 Hotel /motel /motor lodge 3 19.24 Studio, Fine arts 1 0.66 Veterinary hospital /clinic 1 0.55 Total 27 233.78 Industrial Asphalt plant 1 16.51 Construction yard 2 7.70 General heavy industry /manufacturing 9 139.10 General light industry /manufacturing 14 231.61 Mini - warehouse 1 3.12 Scrap & salvage services 13 105.10 Warehousing & distribution 11 123.83 Total 51 626.97 Miscellaneous Broadcasting tower 6 377.74 Total 6 377.74 Office General office 4 3.51 Medical office 1 2.68 Total 5 6.19 Residential Mobile home 21 54.35 Mobile home park 1 0.76 Single- family detached 3 10 Total 3, 533 10, 0 71. 78 Vacant Vacant 1 15 Total 1, 450 1 5, 406.12 Document 7 Route 11/460 West Corridor Master Plan — Design Guidelines GOAL: Develop a set of Design Guidelines as a component of the Corridor Master Plan that will serve as a planning tool to help achieve aesthetic and functional compatibility between new and existing development along the Route 11/460 West Corridor as improvements are made to this corridor per roadway plans prepared and implemented by the Virginia Department of Transportation. OBJECTIVES: ■ Proactively plan for quality development along the corridor to include a mixture of residential, office, retail, institutional and industrial uses. ■ Encourage aesthetic and design excellence in all public and private improvements and developments through adherence to the design guidelines included in this Master Plan. Encourage revitalization and redevelopment of properties along the corridor to create an attractive, commercially viable and functionally efficient atmosphere for the development of business centers and community focal points. ■ Encourage designs that produce a desirable relationship between individual parcels, the vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, and adjacent areas. The provision of pedestrian open spaces, such as covered walkways, plazas, courtyards and open passageways between buildings and adjoining developments, are highly desirable. ■ Encourage consolidation of contiguous parcels to provide for development projects that collectively function in a well- designed and efficient manner while discouraging traditional commercial /industrial strip development patterns that require multiple access points and large expanses of parking areas and often result in clusters of architecturally - unrelated buildings. Strive to incorporate visually interesting building facades into designs that effectively engage pedestrian and business interest. ■ Discourage development that creates high traffic volumes directly to and from Route 11/460 West and that contributes to the creation of a strip - commercial character along the corridor. For development that requires drive through facilities and promotes short visits, encourage the utilization of shared access points from Route 11/460 West and interior access drives that direct the main flow of traffic to controlled intersections. Promote the use of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) and techniques that help to preserve and /or improve the water quality of water bodies and drainage corridors, including the use of sub - regional stormwater drainage facilities. The integration of Low Impact Development principals is strongly encouraged. Site planning and design should consider the use of landscape areas as a method of promoting storm runoff flow paths and the construction or bio- retention systems (rain gardens) as an alternative to conventional stormwater management facilities. Create incentives to land developers or owners such as potential reduced costs of site grading, infrastructure construction and long term facility maintenance. ■ Encourage the utilization and implementation of these guidelines by offering financial, zoning, stormwater, and design incentives and programs that are mutually beneficial to the business and the development of the corridor. ■ Compliance is voluntary, but mandatory to receive financial incentives from the County. Analysis of Existing Conditions A. The initial step in site plan formulation should be an inventory and analysis of significant natural and historically significant features that exist on the parcel. Inventory and analysis elements should include, but are not limited to, drainage corridors, areas of steep slopes and /or unstable soils, and significant vegetation. Data generated as part of the analysis should be submitted as part of a preliminary plan submission to Roanoke County for review. B. New development should minimize impacts to significant natural features and should strive to preserve existing individual trees over six inch (6 ") diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree masses that function as natural visual buffers and provide a natural setting for the construction of new buildings. All trees 24" DBH and greater should be protected, preserved and incorporated in the final site design, except where such practice severely limits the site's development options as determined by the Director of Community Development. C. Incorporate into design development the preservation of natural drainage corridors, views, natural ground forms and unique site features. D. All proposed development or alteration should reflect sensitivity to the historical character of the corridor in terms of land use and architectural integrity. New commercial development and existing structure redevelopment should integrate architectural elements that emphasize aesthetically pleasing facade and side wall components visible from the Route 11 \ 460 West corridor. II. Building Orientation and Location A. New buildings and associated structures should be located in a manner that encourages aesthetically pleasing views from the Route 11 \ 460 West corridor. B. Buildings should be sited with respect to the natural topography and any unique cultural, historic features of the site. C. The arrangement of multiple buildings on a single development parcel should be undertaken so as to define workable spaces that promote the safe and efficient interaction of site users. D. Multiple buildings should be arranged to reflect a unified theme for the proposed development and clustered to reinforce a neighborhood style or feeling as appropriate for the corridor. 6 Rite Ar.r.P .q.q A. Access points along the corridor should be minimized and consolidated to the greatest extent possible in order to reduce traffic congestion and facilitate ingress and egress from sites along the corridor. B. Access to each development parcel should be designed so as not to impede traffic along the corridor. Where feasible, development parcels should share access points along the corridor via shared entrance and access drives, interparcel travelways and /or on -site service drives that connect adjacent parcels. C. Individual parcels of land that exist at the time the [Route 11/460 West Corridor Overlay District] is created should not be denied access to a public highway in the event no reasonable joint or cooperative access is possible at the time of development. D. Areas along the rear property lines of parcels should be enhanced to encourage access points, joint access drives and service alleys through the planning of buffer strips and easements with all new and redeveloping businesses. r d Y I I 7 I I f r 1 1 I r 4 1 I r a Y I s 1 i f i I 1 I J Y 1 I i 1 I Y ! 1 f I Y A Y 1 I t 1 1 A I f 1 N 4 I P S 1 1 I r 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 3 d I e I I E. As a condition of project approval for new and redeveloping businesses, property owners should provide a joint easement agreement that allows cross access to and from other properties within the corridor and a unified parking and circulation plan should be formulated wherever feasible. IV. Site Layout, Parking and Pedestrian Circulation A. Site layout should stress the development of an organized pattern of roads, accessways, parking areas, service lanes and pedestrian walkways that work together to provide a safe and efficient internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation pattern. Internal roads, accessways, parking areas, service lanes and pedestrian walkways must be located outside of public right -of -ways and maintained by property owners. B. Provisions for connections to pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems throughout the corridor should be incorporated into site plans. 3 C. Parking lot design should incorporate opportunities for interconnection to adjacent parcels within the corridor wherever feasible. D. Views to parking areas from the roadway corridor should be minimized by locating parking areas to the side and rear of proposed buildings. Landscaped areas should be incorporated adjacent to parking areas as stipulated by Section VI Landscaping. E. Smaller parking areas located throughout an individual development parcel should be deemed preferable to large expanses of parking as these smaller parking areas function to reduce visual and environmental impacts. While the location of all parking areas should be in compliance with the existing zoning ordinance requirements, parking areas are generally discouraged in the front yards of parcels. Multiple smaller parking areas with associated landscaping, sidewalks and signage comprising 30% to 50% each of total required parking is encouraged over single parking areas adequate for the entire parking demand. F. The provision of on -site pedestrian circulation systems should be coordinated with those systems of adjacent properties and with pedestrian circulation patterns throughout the corridor. Develop clearly defined and direct walkways to buildings that will discourage unintentional pedestrian routes that may jeopardize possible landscape opportunities. V. Building Style and Architectural Treatment A. Architectural treatment of buildings, including style, materials and color, should be compatible with the developing character of the neighborhood. Building compatibility should be achieved through the use of similar building massing, materials, scale, colors and /or other architectural features as appropriate. Creation of a strong sense of architectural continuity along the corridor is highly encouraged. B. Where large buildings are proposed, architectural facades and landscaping should be used to reduce their visual and aesthetic impact. The use of vast blank building walls in areas visible from the street or adjacent properties should be avoided or mitigated through the use of fenestration, building articulation, architectural detailing and /or landscape plantings. Building frontages should utilize offsets, projections and /or other distinctive architectural components to add interest to building facades and reduce the impact of expansive structures. C. Building materials should be selected on the basis of their harmony with the developing character of the neighborhood. Exterior materials such as exposed standard concrete block, or metal will not be allowed within 300 feet of the public right -of -way. Preferred materials should include stone, brick, architectural precast concrete, aluminum and glass. Concrete masonry should be limited to ground face, split face or burnished units. D. Building entrances should be designed to be clearly visible and easily recognizable from parking areas and walkways. Special attention should be given to street level design that attracts pedestrians and reinforces street activity. E. Building services associated with solid waste storage or mechanical units should be screened from view to minimize visual impacts from the corridor, parking areas and neighboring properties. 0 F. Accessory buildings associated with individual lots uses such as utility buildings, solid waste storage enclosures and storage buildings should be constructed of materials that are architecturally compatible with the main facility. VI. Landscap�g A. General standards and specifications 1. Landscaping design standards and species requirements should conform to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Sec. 30 -92 Screening, Landscaping, and Buffer Yards with the exception of the following: B. Street frontages 1. Street frontages along the corridor should be devoted to building architecture, landscaping or public green spaces unless site constraints dictate otherwise and with approval of the [Director of Community Development]. Landscaping along the frontage of properties adjoining any road right -of -way should be outside of the road right -of -way and in compliance with all VDOT regulations for roadside landscaping, and should include the following: a) A planting area with a minimum width of 15 feet should be established outside any road right -of -way and utility easement and maintained as open green space. b) Within this planting area, a combination of trees and shrubs should be planted as follows: 1) A minimum of one deciduous shade /street tree should be planted for each forty (40) feet of contiguous property line. 2) A minimum of one flowering ornamental tree should be planted for each forty (40) feet of contiguous property line. 3) A minimum of two deciduous shrubs should be planted for each five (5) feet of contiguous property line. At maturity, these shrubs should attain a minimum height of three (3) feet. One -third of all required shrub plantings should be of evergreen materials. c) In addition, evergreen trees and shrubs, groundcover plants and /or earth berms may be combined with the required street frontage landscaping. d) No uses should be permitted within the street frontage planting area except as follows: permitted entrances, necessary stormwater management facilities, utility crossings and easements, pedestrian and bike trails, and signage as allowed within the Corridor Overlay District. C. Parking areas should conform to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Sec. 30 -92 Screening, Landscaping, and Buffer Yards. D. Building exteriors 1. Areas along the exterior walls of buildings should be landscaped to soften the appearance of the buildings and enhance site aesthetics. Flexibility in the placement of landscape materials around building exteriors should be granted in order to promote a naturalized appearance and in recognition of the occurrence of service 5 areas and utility systems adjacent to buildings. Landscaping around building exteriors should be as follows: a) A minimum of one deciduous shade /street tree should be planted for each thirty (30) feet of side and rear exterior building walls. b) Foundation plantings should be provided along the front facade of buildings as follows: 1) A minimum of one deciduous shade /street tree should be planted for each thirty (30) feet of front building facade. 2) A minimum of one flowering ornamental tree should be planted for each thirty (30) feet of front building facade. 3) A minimum of one deciduous shrub should be planted for each four (4) feet of front building facade. At maturity, these shrubs should attain a minimum height of three (3) feet. One -third of all required shrub plantings should be of evergreen materials. c) In addition, evergreen trees and shrubs, groundcover plants and /or earth berms may be combined with the required building exterior landscaping. d) Landscaped plazas may be used to meet building exterior landscaping requirements but landscaping in these areas should not exceed 50% of the minimum landscaping required for the side and rear exterior building walls and for front building facades. E. Stormwater management areas 1. Above - ground stormwater management areas and facilities should be landscaped with plants adaptable to being temporarily inundated with water consistent with recommended engineering practices for the design of such areas and facilities. Landscaping of such areas and facilities should follow design principles compatible with other required site landscaping and should result in a landscape design that is an aesthetic asset to the overall development. 2. Development of stormwater retention facilities shall follow current county standards and be compliant with guidelines as outlined in the current County of Roanoke Stormwater Ordinance 8 -11A and drainage standards. 3. Development plans that include innovative technologies for stormwater management (open space in parking areas, underground /under parking collection and infiltration, designed bio filter areas, roof collection, and stormwater recycling systems, alternative porous parking areas, velocity dissipation, and stream bank protection, green roofing systems, stormceptors, and other low impact development guidelines) in design should be encouraged when stormwater designs are required. F. Buffer areas a) Buffer areas should be required between properties of different zoning intensities and should be located on the development parcel under consideration. The minimum buffers required between properties of different zoning intensities should conform to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Sec. 30 -92 Screening, Landscaping. 1. As required, buffer areas should be provided along the outer boundaries of development parcels except in locations where access driveways, utility easements and /or site openings are required to be located in those areas. Co 2. Buffer areas should be planted with a combination of landscape materials that conform to the standards stipulated in this ordinance. A mixture of large and small, deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs and groundcover plants and earth berms should be utilized to create a buffer area that effectively screens properties of different zoning intensities. Landscape plans for buffer areas are encouraged to incorporate earth berms with an average height of 3 -4 feet, where physiographically feasible, and other creative landscape features into buffer area design in order to simulate a naturalized landscaped edge between adjoining properties. Where earth berms are used, berm side slopes should be no greater than 2:1; berms side slopes 3:1 or less are preferred. VII. Site Lighting A. Exterior site lighting should not extend beyond 75% of the height of the principal structure with the exception of buildings with a height of twenty (20') feet or less. Buildings with a height of 20' or less should have a maximum height of fifteen (15') feet for exterior lights. Path and landscape lights are encouraged where appropriate. VIII. Signage A. The shared use of signs is encouraged for adjacent businesses. B. Signage spatial allocation should meet the requirements of the Roanoke County zoning ordinance. Signage spatial allocation for shared signs should be the sum of each allowable signage area per business. 1. Signs should be channel lit, ground lit or top lit with shielded laps placed so as to not cast light onto the path of traffic or onto any adjacent road or property. C. Signs should be complemented, accented and enhanced by with a combination of landscape materials that conform to the standards stipulated in this ordinance. The sign landscaped area should be at a minimum one and one -half times the total area of the sign. D. The following types of signs should be prohibited within the overlay district: 1. Off premises signs 2. Portable signs 3. Temporary signs 4. Roof signs 7 IX. Utilities A. All new site utilities should be located underground unless otherwise approved. B. Where feasible, existing overhead utility lines along Route 11/460 West should be relocated underground or to the rear yards of buildings along the corridor. E'? a 916 � O LI l� t of Roanoht C. r a DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Document 8 Purpose Encourage, through a matching grant program, improvements above and beyond current building and zoning requirements to business properties for beautification and economic redevelopment of highway entrance corridors in Roanoke County. Potential improvements can include (but are not limited to): FaVade BUILDING PERMITS DIRECTOR, ARNOLD COVEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, TAREK MONEIR ENGINEERING DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, PHILIP THOMPSON INSPECTIONS COUNTY ENGINEER, GEORGE W. SIMPSON, III, P.E. MAPPING /GIS BUILDING COMMISSIONER, JOEL S. BAKER, CBO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Lighting for Signs, Landscaping, Buildings, Pathways, Parking TRANSPORTATION Commercial Corridor Matching Grant Program Signage Program Summary Purpose Encourage, through a matching grant program, improvements above and beyond current building and zoning requirements to business properties for beautification and economic redevelopment of highway entrance corridors in Roanoke County. Potential improvements can include (but are not limited to): FaVade Covered Entrances, Multiple Plane Roofs, New Veneers, Columns and Awnings Renovation Landscaping In Parking Lots, Around Driveways, Perimeter Plantings, at the Base of Signs, at Building Entrances and to Screen Storage Lighting Light Poles shorter than 25 feet Lighting for Signs, Landscaping, Buildings, Pathways, Parking Parking Shared Parking Lots, Rear Parking and Shared Driveways Signage Monument, Freestanding, Shared Signs Sign Board Portions and Sign Bases of Stone or Brick Site Accessories Wooden Fences, Banisters, Rails, Benches, Brick Walls and Retaining Walls Funding Levels Matching Program 50% of total project cost up to $15,000* per property Maximum Grant for Roanoke County $15 Maximum Grant for the Town of Vinton $5 Minimum Grant Amount $500 * Additional funds up to a total of $20, 000 may be requested from the Board of Supervisors Eligible Applicants Property and business owners of all properties (excluding residential) in the following areas (see attached Commercial Corridor Grant brochure): • Hollins/Williamson Road Corridor • 11/460 West Corridor • Vinton Corridor (see Town of Vinton Downtown Facade Grant Program information) The property owner must pay Roanoke County real estate taxes on the subject property. Business owners, if tenants, must submit the Owner's Consent Form (attached) completed by the property owner stating that the tenant has permission to initiate the proposed project. 1 Revised 5/19/11 Commercial Corridor Matching Grant Program Summary Potential applicants should contact Megan Cronise, Roanoke County Project Planner, at (540)772 -2068 ext. 282 or at mcronisekroanokecountyva. oovv for determination of eligibility. Preparing the Application The applicant is encouraged to work closely with the Project Planner in the early stages of design to ensure that the proposed project is in substantial conformance with the applicable Design Guidelines for the appropriate Corridor. The project must improve the visual appearance of the property and /or the Corridor. If the applicant chooses to use the design services of a licensed Architect, Landscape Architect or Professional Engineer, up to 10 percent of the Matching Grant eligibility can be reimbursed for design services although the total Matching Grant funds requested cannot exceed 50% of the total project cost. For example: Total Project Cost $10,000 50% of Total Project Cost = Total Matching Grant Eligibility (Not to exceed $20,000 maximum) $5 10% of Total Matching Grant Eligibility = Design Services Eligibility $500 Total Matching Grant Eligibility minus Design Services Eligibility = Remaining Matching Grant Funds for Project Cost $4 Three written cost estimates must also be obtained from licensed contractors for each type of work to be performed (such as landscaping, electrical work, carpentry, paving, etc.) It is recommended to add a 10 percent contingency for unexpected costs and overruns. The project cost plus the contingency cannot exceed the maximum Matching Grant amount permitted. Note that if the final project cost is less than originally estimated, the Matching Grant and Design Services eligibilities will be recalculated based upon the final project cost to ensure that no more than 50% of the final project cost is reimbursed. Once approved, changes to the application package must be re- reviewed by the Project Planner, (the Board of Supervisors when applicable,) and the EDA. Failure to have alterations, revisions or changes approved in advance will result in termination of the Contract and forfeiture of Matching Grant funds. Application Package Include all of the following items in your application package: 1) Completed County of Roanoke Commercial Corridor Matching Grant Program Application (attached) and Owner's Consent Letter if applicable (attached); 2) Pictures of the property and the building showing the areas to be improved; 3) Elevations, designs, plat and /or site plan showing the scope of the proposed project including information for or samples of the colors and materials to be used; 4) Three written cost estimates from licensed contractors for each type of work to be performed; and 5) At least one cost estimate for design services (if applicable.) Mail the application package to: Megan Cronise, Project Planner Roanoke County Department of Community Development P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 You may also deliver the application package to the Department of Community Development on the second floor of the County Administration Building located at 5204 Bernard Drive. 2 Revised 5/19/11 Commercial Corridor Matching Grant Program Summary The application deadline is the first Friday of every month. If the application is deemed complete, it will move forward to the Economic Development Authority meeting scheduled for the third Wednesday of the following month. Selection Process The Project Planner will forward the completed application package with a recommendation for approval or denial. The selection process depends upon the grant amount requested: $500 to $15,000 The EDA will approve or deny the request. $15,001 to $20,000 The Board of Supervisors will first approve or deny the increase in funds; the EDA will then approve or deny the request. All applicants will be notified in writing of the EDA decision. Matching Grant Approval If the Matching Grant request is approved, the applicant and property owner must complete the following steps: 1) Review and sign the Commercial Corridor Matching Grant Program Contract; 2) Complete the County of Roanoke Finance Department Tax Information form; and 3) Submit final, detailed plans and specifications to the Community Development Department for issuance of required building permits. Once the building permits are obtained, construction may begin. Roanoke County staff will monitor the project through periodic inspections. Note that once approved, changes to the application package must be re- reviewed by the Project Planner, (the Board of Supervisors when applicable,) and the EDA. Failure to have alterations, revisions or changes approved in advance will result in termination of the Contract and forfeiture of Matching Grant funds. If the application is denied and the applicant wishes to reapply, the applicant must first contact the Project Planner to discuss the application in the context of the Program goals. The application shall be denied if any work commences prior to application submission, Matching Grant approval or execution of the Commercial Corridor Matching Grant Program Contract. All work shall be completed within six (6) months front the date of the executed Commercial Corridor Matching Grant Program Contract. Responsibility of Recipient for Contractor's Obligations The Contractor will obtain and pay for all required permits and contractor's licenses and pay all required fees and taxes. The Contractor will carry comprehensive general liability insurance, automobile liability insurance, and Worker's Compensation Coverage at statutory limits, with minimum limits of $1,000,000. The EDA will be named as an additional insured. Procedure for Payment 1) All work must be completed and all building permits for the property finalized; 2) The Project Planner will conduct a final on -site inspection to check: • Compliance with the approved application; and • Conformance with County regulations 3 Revised 5/19/11 Commercial Corridor Matching Grant Program Summary 3) The applicant shall submit original, detailed cost documentation to the Project Planner, which may include: • Paid invoices; • Canceled checks; and /or • Payroll reports. 4) Once the Project Planner has confirmed and certified the completion of the above tasks, the Project Planner will process a request to the EDA for payment to disburse matching grant reimbursement funds in accordance with the approved application. Expect two to four weeks for check processing. Project Maintenance Roanoke County has an obligation to be a careful steward of public funds; therefore, the County reserves the right to recover Matching Grant funds if the improvements are altered, removed, destroyed or not maintained within five years from the date of project completion. The County may also recover Matching Grant funds if the property is sold or transferred within one year from the date of project completion. Questions?. Contact Megan Cronise, Project Planner, in the Roanoke County Department of Community Development at (540)772 -2068 ext. 282 or at mcronisekroanokecountyva. oovv Attachments 1) Commercial Corridor Matching Grant Program Application 2) Owner's Consent Form 3) Commercial Corridor Grant brochure 4 Revised 5/19/11 Document 9 Glenvar Community Plan Road Classifications Road Classification Segment Miles Segment Miles Bonded Local 4.65 Named Driveway (con't) Coronado Dr 0.24 Spicewood Ln 0.16 Corporate Cir 0.44 Thurman Dr 0.25 Arrowhead Trl 0.24 Fulcher Rd 0.12 Bear Creek Dr 0.24 Garman Cir 0.34 Fieldgate Rd 0.12 Allie Ln 0.68 Avalon Cir 0.03 Windsong Ln 0.16 Kings Crest Dr 0.10 Indian Head Rd 0.72 Aaron's Run Cir 0.17 Yateman Ln 0.25 Foxfield Cir 0.05 Miner Ln 0.06 High Gate Ln 0.26 Carter Ln 0.24 Millwheel Dr 0.38 Grover Rd 0.22 Hidden Falls Dr 0.57 Roger Rd 0.13 Millwood Dr 0.21 Gumwood Dr 0.18 Isabel Ln 0.25 Popcorn Ln 0.54 Clayview Cir 0.08 Lapping Ln 0.58 Mendham Way 0.25 Spillway Ln 0.51 Woods Meadow Ln 0.23 Hook Dr 0.23 Russlen Dr 0.06 Hickory Dr 0.28 River Ridge Ct 0.14 Walking Ln 0.17 Foxfield Ln 0.19 Wabun Ln 0.51 River Oaks Dr 0.32 Foster Ln 0.55 Springmill Rd 0.10 Misty Ln 0.12 Garth Dr 1.36 Named Driveway 16.70 Booher Dr 0.08 Emmett Ln 0.09 Stanley Ln 0.06 Foxsto n e Ln 0.12 Morgan Conner Ln 0.13 Bowling Dr 0.13 Heather Ridge Rd 0.08 Bredlow Cir 0.04 Knollridge Rd 0.50 Media Way 0.44 Maggie Ln 0.10 Cannery Rd 0.11 Forest Acre Ct 1.23 Quince Mountain Rd 0.71 Botts Hollow Rd 0.64 Woodshill Ln 0.03 Lonewood Dr 0.02 Vintage Ln 0.27 Starter Ln 0.23 Shelor Farm Ln 0.18 Malus Dr 0.18 Reese Mountain Rd 1.08 Wanaga Way Dr 0.12 Fort Lewis Church Rd 0.45 Brogan Ln 0.28 Twine Hollow 0.10 Clayton Ln 0.22 Frosty Ln 0.60 Furnace Ln 0.10 Road Classification Segment Miles Segment Miles Private Road 9.62 Rural Local (con't) Southview Dr 0.20 Sundance Rd 0.47 Shirley Rd 0.18 Cherokee Hills Dr 0.98 Westward Lake Dr 0.07 Whispering Wind Dr 0.15 Lake Front Dr 0.90 Millwheel Dr 0.24 Indian Hill Rd 0.15 Millbridge Rd 0.43 Shelor Ave 0.03 Green Hill Dr 0.44 Dow Hollow Rd 0.94 Thomas Dr 0.53 Dellwood Rd 0.15 Malinda Rd 0.18 High Meadow Ln 0.13 Sutherland Cir 0.06 Lawyer Dr 0.32 Louise Cir 0.06 Sawmill Branch Rd 0.32 White Eagle Ln 0.07 Brandy Run Dr 0.21 Buffalo Cir 0.13 Sallie Ln 0.33 Blackhawk Cir 0.04 Brogan Cir 0.18 Tee Pee Ln 0.08 Rob Knob Rd 0.21 Warrior Dr 0.18 Mount Gordon Rd 0.12 Buckskin Ln 0.08 Dix Mill Rd 0.14 Canoe Cir 0.07 Uphill Dr 0.21 Warbonnet Rd 0.03 Grey Fox Ln 0.62 Tomahawk Cir 0.09 Pine St 0.05 Scout Cir 0.09 Getty Ln 0.14 Cove Hollow Rd 1.51 Hillcrest Rd 0.46 Poor Mountain Rd 6.10 Bydawyle Rd 0.31 Lilly Dr 0.22 Luther Dr 0.28 West River Rd 3.10 Whippoorwill Ln 0.41 Harborwood Rd 4.41 Williams Dr 0.07 Barley Dr 0.85 Fort Lewis Blvd 0.13 Dow Hollow Rd 0.18 River Bend Ln 0.10 Dry Hollow Rd 2.04 Sleepy Hollow Rd 0.14 Prunty Dr 0.39 Joyce Ln 0.28 Campbell Dr 0.97 Tyler Rd 0.12 Little Bear Rd 0.29 Honeysuckle Rd 0.71 Gladden Rd 0.89 Dan Robin Rd 0.05 Harwick Dr 0.49 Marshall Dr 0.21 Creekside Dr 1.08 Artri p Ln 0.05 Fort Lewis Church Rd 1.11 Honeysuckle Rd 0.70 Twine Hollow Rd 0.95 Archer Cir 0.06 Rural Local 41.05 Glenmary Dr 0.88 Artri p Ln 0.06 Ellison Ave 0.16 Stanley Farm Rd 0.46 Lancer Dr 0.10 Stoneskeep Ln 0.15 Arrow Dr 0.10 Powell Dr 0.92 Blackwood Dr 0.10 Peaceful Dr 1.45 Stypes Branch Rd 0.24 Tobey Rd 0.43 Road Classification Segment Miles Segment Miles Rural Local (con't) Urban Local (con't) Beason Ln 0.61 Skyview Rd 1.47 Terrace Dr 0.23 Creekwood Dr 0.66 Meacham Rd 0.65 Puckett Cir 0.13 Honeysuckle Rd 2.69 Beaver Brook Rd 0.20 Waldon Ln 0.11 Fernlawn Rd 0.21 Mayfair Dr 0.35 Crown Cir 0.09 Terrace Dr 0.23 Bent Tree Cir 0.07 Kelley St 0.13 Silver Leaf Dr 0.23 Glenvar Heights Blvd 1.20 Ivie Cir 0.26 Fallbrooke 0.16 Gene St 0.12 Dan Robin Rd 0.46 Givens St 0.25 Skycoe Dr 0.30 Rural Major Collector 3.09 Brushy Ridge Rd 0.25 Shirley Rd 0.27 West Main St 1.26 Eddies Rd 0.31 Twelve O'Clock Knob Rd 1.83 Lelia Cir 0.03 Adel Cir 0.03 Urban Collector 10.50 June Cir 0.03 Zana Rd 0.30 West Main Street 4.56 Nellie Cir 0.03 West Riverside Dr 0.98 Westward Lake Dr 0.36 Poor Mountain Rd 0.80 Dot Cir 0.03 Goodwin Ave 0.58 Neta Cir 0.03 Wildwood Road 2.95 Stanford Dr 0.22 Dow Hollow Rd 0.30 Elmwood Ln 0.07 Texas Hollow Rd 0.16 Cunningham Dr 0.05 Barley Dr 0.17 Indian Hill Rd 0.20 Millwood Dr 0.18 Urban Local 28.09 Stone Mill Dr 0.42 Queensmill Dr 0.06 Stonewood Dr 0.23 Kingsmill Dr 0.33 McDaniel Dr 0.45 Millbridge Rd 0.26 Andrew Ave 0.19 Mill Pond 0.25 Ellen Dr 0.36 Shawnee Dr 0.14 Evelyn Dr 0.32 Duxbury Ln 0.15 Hawley Dr 0.46 Brewster Cir 0.04 Fort Ave 0.20 Fresh Meadow Ln 0.17 Mountview Dr 0.20 Cloverleaf Cir 0.04 Calloway Ave 0.26 Green Hill Park Rd 0.19 Givens Ave 0.21 Riverpark Rd 0.69 Locust Grove Ln 0.38 Fort Lewis Cir 0.10 Weaver Rd 0.45 Great Glen Dr 0.19 Ingal Blvd 0.64 Celtic Cir 0.21 Polly Cir 0.03 Gavin Cir 0.07 Road Classification Note: All segment and total mileage lengths are rounded to the nearest one - hundredth of a mile. Source: Virginia Department of Transportation and Roanoke County Department of Community Development. Segment Miles Segment Miles Urban Local (con't) Urban Interstate Nevis Dr 0.07 Interstate 81 2.06 Lomond Cir 0.12 Givens Tyler Rd 1.16 Rural Interstate Alleghany Dr 1.67 Daugherty Rd 1.34 Interstate 81 4.37 Crossmill Ln 0.26 Montvue Rd 0.12 Walter Dr 0.10 Yale Dr 0.37 Gum Springs Rd 0.36 Richland Hills Dr 1.00 Bohon Hollow Rd 0.57 Joe Carrol Rd 0.30 Lee Rd 0.35 Pleasant Run Dr 0.69 Morris Rd 0.03 Parr Rd 0.19 Koppers Rd 0.09 Viewpoint Ave 0.30 Tyler Rd 0.17 Tobey Rd 0.28 Technology Dr 0.38 Country Farm Rd 0.11 Martin McNeil Rd 0.36 Tree Top Camp Rd 0.38 Northwest River Rd 0.22 Southwest River Rd 0.51 Edgewood St 0.19 Maywood Ave 0.24 Dogwood Ave 0.27 Paint Bank Rd 0.61 Garman Rd 0.57 Scenery Dr 0.09 Wildwood Rd 0.33 Branchside Dr 0.06 Ellison Ave 0.03 Note: All segment and total mileage lengths are rounded to the nearest one - hundredth of a mile. Source: Virginia Department of Transportation and Roanoke County Department of Community Development. Document 10 :_: -f)Rs ^ Roanoke Region Intermodal Facility Report Roanoke Region Intermodal Facility Report Executive Summary Introduction This report summarizes the review and recommendations of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) in the evaluation and site selection for the construction of an intermodal rail facility in the Roanoke Region of Virginia by Norfolk Southern (NS). This report was prepared by DRPT in coordination with industry experts and resources sourced through a variety of relevant state agencies, project partners and engineering firms including Norfolk Southern (NS), HDR Engineering, the Virginia Port Authority (VPA), the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP), and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Intermodal Transportation and the Heartland Corridor Initiative The movement of consumer products using a combination of truck and rail is the fastest growing segment of the freight rail industry. In addition to the efficiency of intermodal transportation, a single intermodal train can take as many as 200 long haul trucks off the road to provide additional highway congestion relief. In fact, a recent study by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) indicates that intermodal facility development is the major missing infrastructure link to reduce overall freight congestion on the nation's highway system. Intermodal facilities are often developed to spur local economic development. A notable Virginia success story is the Virginia Inland Port (VIP) in Front Royal, which is credited with creating approximately 7,000 jobs and generating $600 million in local investment since it opened in 1989. Shown in Figure ES -1, this facility is regarded as the major economic engine for the Shenandoah Valley Region in Northern Virginia. Part of VIP's success is attributed to its location near a major rail corridor and interstate highways 1 -81 and 1 -66. Other intermodal facilities that have increased local jobs include the International Intermodal Facility in Huntsville, Alabama; Logistics Park in Alliance, Texas; and the Rickenbacker Intermodal Facility in Columbus, Ohio. In each case, these facilities have successfully attracted companies to locate nearby and created jobs and major economic benefits for their respective regions. a _ n Mr ,f The construction of an intermodal facility in the Roanoke Region is part of a larger multi- state freight rail improvement project referred to as the Heartland Corridor Initiative. The Heartland Corridor is a designated "project of national significance" and is being constructed by Norfolk Southern with support from the Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal March 2008 ES -1 Figure ES -1. The Virginia Inland Port Roanoke Region Intermodal Facility Report Lands Highway Division (FHWA- EFLHD), the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the states of West Virginia and Ohio. The total cost of the Heartland Corridor Initiative is approximately $249 million, not including approximately $68 million for the Commonwealth Railway Mainline Safety Rail Relocation Project in Portsmouth, Chesapeake and Suffolk, Virginia. The Heartland Corridor will double the intermodal rail capacity along the line that parallels Route 460 through Virginia and significantly improve the freight shipping time between the Ports of Hampton Roads in Virginia and markets in the Midwest. The multi -state project includes raising tunnel clearances (four in Virginia) and the development of intermodal facilities in the Roanoke Region of Virginia; Prichard, West Virginia; and Rickenbacker, Ohio. The tunnel clearance projects will increase the clearance heights in rail tunnels (Figure ES -2), which will allow NS to ship double -stack containers and significantly increase the intermodal shipping capacity of the Heartland Corridor route. The project will also realign NS intermodal routing, cutting up to 233 miles and up to 1.5 days off the current shipping time between Hampton Roads and Chicago. The Virginia project components are being funded through a combination of federal funds, Commonwealth funds through the Rail Enhancement Fund, and private sector funds through NS. Figure ES -2. Tunnel Clearance Work Eggleston, Virginia NS currently operates two adjacent main rail lines through the intermodal facility search area in the Roanoke Region. One is the single track V -Line (former Virginian Line) used primarily for coal trains eastbound to Norfolk; the other is the double track N -Line (former Norfolk & Western) Heartland Corridor route used for intermodal shipments, merchandise and westbound empty coal train movements. Tunnel clearance improvements for the Heartland Corridor Project will take place on the N -Line in Virginia, and according to NS, this rail line is significantly more suitable for an intermodal facility from a rail operating perspective. Background Information The Rail Enhancement Fund The Roanoke Region Intermodal Facility and Heartland Corridor tunnel clearance projects are being funded in part by the Commonwealth's Rail Enhancement Fund Program. Under Section 33.1- 221.1:1.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Rail Enhancement Fund was developed within DRPT in support of the public interest for the preservation and development of passenger and freight rail infrastructure and service in Virginia. The Director of DRPT administers the Rail Enhancement Fund Program, receives recommendations on the use of Rail Enhancement funds from the Rail Advisory Board, and receives approval for the funding of Rail Enhancement Fund projects through the Commonwealth Transportation Board. March 2008 ES -2 1 s � Flu Figure ES -2. Tunnel Clearance Work Eggleston, Virginia NS currently operates two adjacent main rail lines through the intermodal facility search area in the Roanoke Region. One is the single track V -Line (former Virginian Line) used primarily for coal trains eastbound to Norfolk; the other is the double track N -Line (former Norfolk & Western) Heartland Corridor route used for intermodal shipments, merchandise and westbound empty coal train movements. Tunnel clearance improvements for the Heartland Corridor Project will take place on the N -Line in Virginia, and according to NS, this rail line is significantly more suitable for an intermodal facility from a rail operating perspective. Background Information The Rail Enhancement Fund The Roanoke Region Intermodal Facility and Heartland Corridor tunnel clearance projects are being funded in part by the Commonwealth's Rail Enhancement Fund Program. Under Section 33.1- 221.1:1.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Rail Enhancement Fund was developed within DRPT in support of the public interest for the preservation and development of passenger and freight rail infrastructure and service in Virginia. The Director of DRPT administers the Rail Enhancement Fund Program, receives recommendations on the use of Rail Enhancement funds from the Rail Advisory Board, and receives approval for the funding of Rail Enhancement Fund projects through the Commonwealth Transportation Board. March 2008 ES -2 Roanoke Region Intermodal Facility Report The Rail Enhancement Fund Program is intended to support the growth of freight and /or passenger rail transportation by assisting other appropriate entities to acquire, lease or improve: • railways or railroad equipment • rolling stock • rights -of -way • facilities Rail Enhancement Fund projects are funded through the combination of a minimum 30 percent cash or in -kind match from local, private or regional sources and 70 percent (or the remaining balance) matched from Rail Enhancement funds. The Rail Enhancement Fund program has several program policy goals and compliance requirements that must be met before further consideration will be given to funding a project. Heartland Corridor Rail Enhancement Fund Agreement In October 2005, NS submitted a Rail Enhancement Fund project application to DRPT to fund the completion of tunnel clearance projects in Virginia and the construction of a new Roanoke Region Intermodal Facility as part of the larger multi -state Heartland Corridor Initiative. The projects funded by this grant are referred to as the "Heartland Corridor — Central Corridor Components." The grant application was approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and in May 2006 a multi -year funding agreement was signed between DRPT and NS. Through the agreement, NS committed to construct tunnel improvements to enlarge clearances at the following four tunnel locations at various mile point (MP) locations on the NS N -Line between Walton (MP N -297) and Glen Lyn, Virginia (MP N- 340.5): 1. Pulaski County —Cowan Tunnel (MP N- 305.43) 2. Giles County — Eggleston No. 1 Tunnel (MP N- 316.15) 3. Giles County — Eggleston No. 2 Tunnel (MP N- 317.02) 4. Giles County — Pembroke Tunnel (MP N- 319.83) The agreement also commits NS to complete the applicable environmental review process and preliminary engineering, including the development of a detailed schedule and budget for final design of the intermodal facility. In addition, road right -of -way and site acquisition, construction and construction management of the tunnel improvements and the proposed intermodal facility are also the responsibility of NS under the terms of the agreement. The original total multi -year budget for the project was estimated to be $31.9 million, with an NS share of approximately $9.6 million and a Commonwealth share of $22.35 million. Public Involvement Beginning in fall 2006, DRPT engaged in a variety of public and agency outreach efforts to ensure local and regional participation in the planning process for the intermodal facility in the Roanoke Region. DRPT established criteria to guide the evaluation process for proposed intermodal sites and DRPT began the site search by requesting site proposals from area localities and from NS as the operating railroad. No site proposals were submitted by the localities, while NS March 2008 ES -3 Roanoke Region Intermodal Facility Report identified ten (10) potential sites as part of its review. Subsequently, DRPT solicited input from citizens, local public officials and other organizations in the region through a 45 -day public comment period which began on November 30, 2006 and ended on January 16, 2007. In addition, a public meeting was held on December 13, 2006 at VDOT's Salem District Office to provide an additional opportunity for the public to learn more about the project and proposed sites, and to provide comments. In April 2007, the City of Salem submitted a modified version of the Colorado Street Site identified by NS for inclusion in the site selection process. All public comments and proposals were taken into consideration as part of the development of this report. A copy of the Public Comment Report by DRPT dated January 7, 2007 is contained in Appendix C. The report includes data on the initial ten site location alternatives. Jurisdictions in the Roanoke Region have expressed support for the tunnel clearance and intermodal facility project. Appendix A contains a joint letter to the Chief Executive Officer of Norfolk Southern and Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine dated June 28, 2006, in which municipalities from across the region expressed their general support of the Heartland Corridor Initiative. Benefits of an Intermodal Facility Upon completion of the Heartland Corridor Initiative, the Commonwealth will be able to offer Virginia businesses in the Roanoke Valley and Southwest Virginia Regions a new, highly competitive freight shipping option. The intermodal facility in the Roanoke Region will ensure that Virginia has access to goods moving along the Heartland Corridor from domestic and international markets in addition to providing new business opportunities so that local businesses in the region can expand their market share and new businesses can be attracted to the region - generating more local jobs, revenue and opportunity. The Heartland Corridor Initiative is designed to provide an intermodal facility in each state along the corridor. Along with the Roanoke Region Facility, facilities will also be located in Prichard, West Virginia and Rickenbacker, Ohio. If the Roanoke Region Facility is not built, these economic benefits will be passed along to other states. The Swedwood Ikea Furniture manufacturing development near Danville is an example of a major economic driver that located in the area in part due to the future business and transportation opportunities that would occur with the development of an intermodal facility in the Roanoke Region. Swedwood Ikea will add approximately 271 jobs in the first of a three -phase development. Swedwood Ikea's three -phase build out will create over 700 jobs in an economically stressed region of Virginia. Economic Impact and Public Benefits The economic impact of a Roanoke Region Intermodal Facility is estimated based on data and assumptions related to construction spending, facility operations and economic development. A summary of the economic analysis and public benefits are shown in Section 3 of this report. The economic impact study and public benefit results are discussed in detail in the Economic Assessment of a Roanoke Region Intermodal Facility Report contained in Appendix B. March 2008 ES -4 Maid Roanoke Region Intermodal Facility Report Site Criteria and Solicitation Site criteria for the proposed intermodal facility were generally selected based on observations of factors which contributed to the successful operation of other intermodal facilities in the United States. In October 2006, the site selection key evaluation criteria included the following: • The proposed intermodal facility must be close to Interstate 1 -81 and allow for reasonably proximate access and egress to the interstate. • The proposed intermodal facility must be located on the Heartland Corridor's rail line between Walton on the western border and the Shenandoah Line Connection on the eastern border. This is necessary to ensure a competitive time advantage for freight shipments and to maximize the usefulness of the facility to serve the 1 -81 freight corridor. • The proposed intermodal facility should be of sufficient size (65 acres minimum if possible), have an appropriate site configuration for freight transfer operations, and be located on relatively flat topography. • The proposed intermodal facility should not create the need for additional grade separation bridges, particularly in congested urban areas. • To the extent possible, the proposed site should seek to minimize associated roadway costs that might be required. • The proposed site should be well configured from a rail operating perspective to avoid degrading other rail traffic, result in more efficient rail intermodal operations and result in lower relative facility development or delivery costs. Also in October 2006, DRPT invited NS, as the operating railway, all Roanoke area localities, and the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in the general search area to submit site proposals for an intermodal facility in the region. Specifically invited jurisdictions and organizations included the following: • Blacksburg /Christiansburg /Montgomery County Area MPO • City of Salem • City of Roanoke • Montgomery County • New River Valley Economic Development Alliance ■ Roanoke County ■ Roanoke Valley Area M PO ■ Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership ■ Town of Christiansburg Although some of the primary site selection criteria were not met, ten (10) intermodal facility sites were submitted by NS in the autumn of 2006. The identified sites were: ■ Blue Ridge Site (Botetourt County) ■ Colorado Street Site (City of Salem) ■ East End Shops Site (City of Roanoke) ■ Roadway Material Yard Site (City of Roanoke) 5 DR :^ Roanoke Region Intermodal Facility Report ■ Elliston Site (Montgomery County) ■ Garman Road [Former Virginian] Site (Roanoke County) ■ Garman Road [Former N &W] Site (Roanoke County) ■ Singer Site (Roanoke County) ■ Horn Site (Roanoke County) ■ Webster Brick Site (Botetourt County) None of the other entities in the search area submitted site proposals to DRPT for consideration in autumn 2006. However, in April 2007 the City of Salem submitted a modified version of the Colorado Street Site for consideration by DRPT, expanding the NS submitted version to include property south of the Colorado Street Site at a location on the NS V -Line (rather then the adjacent NS N- Line). The NS V -Line and N -Line designations refer to the former Virginian Line, and the former Norfolk & Western Line, respectively. DRPT accepted the modified Colorado Street Site and evaluated the site based on the City of Salem's proposal. Figure ES -3 on page ES -7 depicts the general location of the proposed sites in the Roanoke Region that were evaluated in the site evaluation process. Site Selection Criteria DRPT, working with NS as the operating railroad, the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, VDOT and the Virginia Port Authority reviewed the 10 sites and developed general parameters to evaluate the sites based on the site solicitation criteria as described above and reflected in Table ES -1 on page ES -8 of this report. Environmental factors were also evaluated for the three most feasible sites for the location of the intermodal facility. These three sites were: the Colorado Street Site (Figure ES -4 on page ES -9); the Elliston Site (Figure ES -5 on page ES -10); and the Garman Road Site [former Virginian] (Figure ES -6 on page ES -11). The evaluation results are summarized according to their relative adverse environmental impacts (low, medium, or high) in Table ES -2 on page ES -12 of this report. (Area left intentionally blank) March 2008 ES -6 0 0 0 n � n W O `v 0 U) . O v O J Li m M a O E L N O a O L a. M ♦♦ V♦ W i LL LQ ^ . rZ - -- . p Alt t o P ' h r LU Li y 1 T� k L � r m r -v 4 0 _ 41 1� C+ 9 LU 0 OL ui V' o , Ag j v LL. O U t� Ca O N O N O ca O FA a LL m M O O E L N O 0. O L a. L O W- m 'i 'i O ca ca W O r. O N L E O V t ♦♦ V♦ W c� H I x I x I x I I x I I - - ?� _N ca Q U U Q I I O ca L a) . cn O U L- 0 a) a) U to Q O . a) U ca U— ca U- 11 a) O Z .. a) C/) �� C/) cn O 0 m v (� to M ' 0) L C ) (D L > O v, C: L- L- L- 0 CU O m (n m a) O L O M 0 L- M O O cn — cn w W _N ca Q U U Q I I O ca L a) . cn O U L- 0 a) a) U to Q O . a) U ca U— ca U- 11 a) O Z .. M O U� 03 CIO Cl 16 0 TL IS a . Lo LU Lm LL I Cl_ C) CD Jr vim# 0 U_ C � L D ca c7 > " r�r �, - j I �! = J ,a s LU 1+71 . e�i Roanoke Region Intermodal Facility Report Table ES -2: Summary of Environmental Evaluation Results for Proposed Intermodal Facility Sites L Cate g or y Efliston S71ite Garman Road Site ................ Colorado St. Site rA[ (Former Virginian) Natural Environment Wetlands Low Impact Low Impact Low Impact Water Bodies /Rivers Low Impact High Impact g Medium-High Impact g Floodplains Low Impact High Impact High Impact Geotechnical and Slope Stability Low Impact Medium Impact Medium Impact Threatened and Endangered Low Impact Low Impact Low Impact Species Land Use /Social /Human Environment Existing Land Use Medium Impact Low Impact Low Impact Adjacent Land Use Low - Medium Impact High Impact Low Impact Prime Soils and Farm Lands Low Impact Low Impact Low Impact Residential Areas Low - Medium Impact High Impact Low Impact Existing Utility and Drainage Conflicts Low Impact Medium Impact High Impact g Potential for Contaminated Soils Low Impact H i h Impact act g p Moderate Impact Noise Low Impact Low Impact Low Impact Air Quality Low Impact Low Impact Low Impact Approximately 3 industrial roximatel 4 Approximately A roximatel 20 A pproximately facilities affected and Displacements residences and 1 residences and several residences near the required Union Street re a farm affected businesses affected Overpass & Roanoke River Bridge R2- Residential and 1 -2 Industrial and R -1 C HM- Heavy Current Zoning Agriculture Low Density Residential Manufacturing with Conditions March 2008 ES -12 Roanoke Region Intermodal Facility Report Key Findings DRPT has confirmed that NS has complied with the terms of the Rail Enhancement Fund agreement, in which the Commonwealth will provide partial funding for specific elements of the Heartland Corridor Initiative, including the requirements associated with the development of an intermodal facility in the Roanoke Region. The intermodal facility will be a private development owned and operated by NS. In addition, the development of the Roanoke Region Intermodal Facility is consistent with local priorities, as indicated in a letter of project support received by the Commonwealth on June 28, 2006 from public and local elected officials in the Roanoke and New River Valley Area, as well as the findings and recommendations of the Roanoke Valley — Alleghany Regional Freight Study, dated January 2003, prepared by the Roanoke Valley — Alleghany Commission and the Roanoke Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization. Based on the results of this evaluation, DRPT concurs with the selection of the Elliston Site by NS as the location for the Roanoke Region Intermodal Facility as noted in correspondence dated November 21, 2007 (Appendix D). All other site proposals evaluated had fatal flaws relating to rail operations, highway access and required grade separation bridges, significant site constraints, and /or total costs. Table ES -3 provides a summary cost comparison of the three top candidate sites. These estimates include costs to complete the development and construction of the intermodal facility, necessary identified highway improvements and adjustments to the mainline railroad system. Table ES -3: Estimated Construction Costs for an Intermodal facility (Full Build -Out) Elliston Site Garman Road Site Colorado St. (Former Virginian) Ail $52,850,000 $71,600,000 Through evaluation of the ten potential sites, DRPT has determined that the Elliston Site is the only feasible site for the development of a rail-served intermodal facility in the Roanoke region. In addition to cost considerations, the Garman Road Site (Former Virginian) presents environmental and operational challenges that would prohibit the facility from being operated and developed effectively. The Colorado Street Site presents operational challenges that cannot be mitigated. The Elliston Site is the only alternative that meets all of the site selection key evaluation criteria and supports NS requirements for operational efficiency, safety, service, and economy. The construction cost of an intermodal facility at the Elliston Site is approximately $35.5 million (full build -out plus a new highway bridge and relocation of Cove Hollow Road) — which represents the least cost of all site proposals evaluated. An aerial graphic of the Elliston Site with a concept intermodal yard layout is shown in Figure ES -7 on page ES -20. 18 Roanoke Region Intermodal Facility Report It is recommended that NS proceed with the development of the Elliston Site as the Roanoke Region Intermodal Facility, in accordance with the Rail Enhancement Fund agreement executed in May 2006. The Intermodal Facility should be completed and in service along with the other elements of the Heartland Corridor rail improvement initiative by 2010 in order to maximize the potential economic, social and congestion relief benefits for the region and for the Commonwealth as a whole. Delay in construction will result in a higher project cost and will lower the economic and public benefits that are critical elements of the decision to provide public funding for this project. March 2008 ES -19 0 U t� O .� N a 4 �� Document 11 Page 1 Page 2 1. How would you rate the supply of housing by category in the Glenvar Area? Encourage Take No Action Discourage Need a Lot More Rental Housing /Apartments O Need a Little More O Do Not Need Any More O No Opinion O Elderly /Assisted Living O O O O Mobile Homes O O O O Single Family Homes O O O O Townhouses /Condominiums O O O O 2. In planning for the future, what types of development would you like to see encouraged in the Glenvar Area? 3. What types of business and /or services would you like to see in your community? Please check all that apply. F-1 Big Box Stores (i.e. Lowes, Walmart, Target etc.) F-1 Personal Services (barber shops, salons, spas, etc.) Car Dealerships 1-1 Pharmacies Car Washes 1-1 Post Offices Convenience Store /Gas Stations 1-1 Professional Offices F-1 Financial /Lending Institutions F-1 Restaurants (fast food) Garden Centers /Hardware Stores 1-1 Restaurants (sit -down, family) Grocery Stores 1-1 Retail Establishments Medical Offices 1-1 Light Industry F-1 Mini - Warehouses /Storage F-1 Heavy Industry Other (please specify) Page 3 Strongly Encourage Encourage Take No Action Discourage Strongly Discourage Commercial O O O O O Development Industrial O O O O O Development Residential O O O O O Development .. Park and Recreational O O O O O Facilities 3. What types of business and /or services would you like to see in your community? Please check all that apply. F-1 Big Box Stores (i.e. Lowes, Walmart, Target etc.) F-1 Personal Services (barber shops, salons, spas, etc.) Car Dealerships 1-1 Pharmacies Car Washes 1-1 Post Offices Convenience Store /Gas Stations 1-1 Professional Offices F-1 Financial /Lending Institutions F-1 Restaurants (fast food) Garden Centers /Hardware Stores 1-1 Restaurants (sit -down, family) Grocery Stores 1-1 Retail Establishments Medical Offices 1-1 Light Industry F-1 Mini - Warehouses /Storage F-1 Heavy Industry Other (please specify) Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 ���� Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Document 12 GLENVAR COMMUNITY SURVEY The Glenvar Community Plan Survey was available online from November 24, 2009 to April 16, 2010 with limited paper copies available in the Roanoke County Administration Center and the Glenvar Library. Of the 195 surveys completed, 168 (86%) were filled out online and 27 (14 %) in hard copy form. The majority of paper surveys received was from residents and staff at the Richfield Retirement Center. RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS Respondents' Age (189 Answered) 80 and older 65 -80 50 -64 L c 35 -49 tw 25 -34 t 18 -24 Under 18 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Number of Respondents Respondents' Connection to the Study Area (/ 83 Answered) Work in Own a the Glenvar business in area, 12.6% the Glenvar ive in the area, 1.6% Glenvar area, 86.9% Other*, 10.4% Respondents' Sex (188 Answered) Male 39.9% Female 60.1% *Other includes: - Both live and work in the study area; - Visit the study area; and - More detailed description of the connection to the study area GLENVAR COMMUNITY SURVEY What do you like most about your community? - The rural character of the area; quiet and peaceful setting, but not too far away from amenities in Salem or Christiansburg - Views of the mountains, Roanoke River - Feel of the community; close knit and safe - Glenvar Schools and Library Please identify the three most important issues facing your community today. 1 - Maintaining the community feel of the area • - Traffic/congestion and appearance of Route 11/460 - Unwanted industrial business; heavy industry 2 • - Traffic -Loss of jobs /unemployment - Condition of schools and library; funding - Representation in government - Lack of youth recreation, family activities, community center ' - Environmental issues (air /water quality, protecting open space) 6.5' - Property values and taxes - Lack of commercial development Please identify the three most important issues facing your community in the next 5 to 10 ears. - Impact of industry on the community 1 - Improving the Glenvar library and schools - Impact of the proposed intermodal facility - Jobs creation and retention - Road maintenance and traffic issues - Housing issues — quality, affordability - Environmental concerns — air, water quality;floodplain - Lack of amenities — restaurants, businesses - Overcrowding in schools, funding - Current zoning - Residential growth - Increasing traffic and appearance of West Main St. - Protection of rural character - Governmental transparency - Property values and taxes - Lack of community recreational activities - Increasing crime � A N D 1 �. How would you rate the supply of housing by category in the Glenvar area? 160 - 140 - 120 ------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- _. a� c Q 100 ----------------------------------- - - - - -- --------------- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- Ul W DC 0 L 80 ------- - - - - -- ---------------- - - - - -- ---------------- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- Z 60 -- - - - - -- ---------------- - - - - -- ---------------- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- 40 -- - - - - -- - ---------------- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- 20 - -- --------------- - - - - -- ------ - - - --- 0 Rental Housing /Apartments Elderly /Assisted Living Mobile Homes Housing Type ■ Need a Lot More Need a Little More Do Not Need Any More No Opinion Single Family Homes Townhouses /Condominiums What types of development would you like to see encouraged in the Glenvar area? 140 - - - -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ■ Strongly Encourage Encourage Take No Action 120 Discourage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- • Strongly Discourage 100 +------- - - - - -- ------------------------------ - - - - -- ----- -------------------- - - - - -- W r- 80 ------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- -- -- ----------------------- 0 a a� oG 0 L a� E 60 -- - - - - -- --------------------------------------- - - - - -- - - ----------------------- Z 40 - -- --------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - - - -- -------------------- 20 - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- -------------------- 0 Commercial Development Industrial Development Residential Development Park and Recreational Facilities Type of Development GLENVAR COMMUNITY SURVEY •LAND USE What types of business and /or services would you like to see in your community? I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I I Big Box Stores (i.e. Lowes, Walmart, Target etc.) I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I Car Dealerships ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 Car Washes I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 Convenience Store /Gas Stations I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 Financial /Lending Institutions I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 Garden Centers /Hardware Stores ' I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I Grocery Stores ' I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Medical Offices I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 T Vl O U1 1A . 00 I I I I I I I I Mini - Warehouses /Storage I I I 1 I 1 ! 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Personal Services (barber shops, salons, spas, etc.) I ! 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Pharmacies ' I 1 I I ! 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Post Offices ' 1 1 I ! 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Professional Offices ' I I I 1 ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 ! I I I I I I I Restaurants (fast food) ' I I I I I I I I I I I ! 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Restaurants (sit -down, family) l I I I I I I I 1 ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I Retail Establishments I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I Light Industry ' I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Heavy Industry ' I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I ! 1 I I I I I 1 Other* I I I I I I I 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Number of Responses *Other includes: - Childcare services - Community recreational center - Entertainment (movie theater, bowling) - Locally owned /run business - Public transportation - Salem offers these businesses or services I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 180 4 Please rate your satisfaction with the utilities, community facilities and services listed below. 140 1 ---------------------------------- - - - - -- 120 +------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 100 W c O 80 - - - - - -- 0 a� oc 0 L J -I a) 60 - - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- ---------------- - - - - -- - - - - - -- ---------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- Z 40 - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---------- - - - - -- - - - - - -- -------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- 20 - - - -- ---- - - - - -- -- -- - - - - -- -------- - - - - -- - -- 0 ' Adult Recreation Animal Control Bicycle and Pedestrian Fire and Rescue Garbage Collection Libraries Trails /Greenways Community Facility or Service Parks 140 120 100 o 80 CL OC O L O .0 60 3 Z 40 20 0 ■ Above Average Satisfactory Some Need for Improvement ■ Great Need for Improvement No Opinion M Above Average Satisfactory Some Need for Improvement Great Need for Improvement No Opinion ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---------- - - - - -- ----------- - - - - -- ----------- - - - - -- e -------- --- ------- -------- --- ------- Recycling Services Schools Sewer Services Storm Water Drainage Water Service Youth Recreation Community Facility or Service GLENVAR COMMUNITY SURVEY • COMMUNITY FACILITIES Police Please select any transportation improvements that you feel are need in your community. O L a d L a L H *Other includes: - All traffic lights blink yellow after 10PM - Need signalization at the intersection of Campbell Dr. and Route 11/460, Fort Lewis Church Rd. - Maintenance of medians and roadsides - Bridge over the Roanoke River going into the County area of the Woodbridge subdivision - More transportation alternatives of seniors - Repair of Poor Mountain Road - Better study the impact of development on traffic Bike Lanes Bus Routes /Bus Stops Community Identification Signs (Welcome to Glenvar) Greenways ' Guard Rails Improving /Widening Existing Roads Intersection Improvements Landscaped Medians Reduced Traffic Congestion ' Sidewalks Traffic Signs ' Turning Lanes Other* 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Number of Responses Please rate your satisfaction with each of the items in your community. 90 - 80 - 70 - ■ Above Average Satisfactory --- - - - - -- ------------------------------ I Some Need for Improvement ■ Great Need for Improvement No Opinion 60 t - - -- W c 0 = 50 aU 01: 0 --- - - - - -- ---------- - - - - -- ------------------------ L 0 40 -- - - - - -- ------------------ - - - - -- _----------- - - - - -- ------------------- Z 30 -- - - - - -- ------------------ - - - - -- ----------- ------------- - - - - -- Resource 70 - 60 - 50 - 0 1 0 Forest Conservation Maintenance /Improvement of Air Quality Outdoor Recreation Activities Preservation of Wildlife Habitat and Hunting /Fishing Areas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ■ Above Average Satisfactory IL Some Need for Improvement ■ Great Need for Improvement --- - - - - -- --------------------- - - - - -- - - -- _ - - - - -- -� - No Opinion 0 a� 0 40 - - - - - -- a - -,. - .- ___-- .- ___- _. -___ -_ ------------- - - - - -- ------------------ a� oc 0 L a� t 30 - - - - - -- _ ------------- ---- - - - - -- - - -- ---- - - - - -- Z 20 T - - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- 10 - - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- E I M N 0 ----- - - Protection of Groundwater Protection of Surface Water Roanoke River Canoe /Kayak Stormwater Management Viewshed Protection Resources Resources (watersheds, streams, Access ponds, floodplains) Resource Roanoke County, VA - Official Website - Glenvar Community Plan Document 13 Home Contact Us Questions /Comments En Espanol 1D'1P-.-fC)%AN O-K,4F.. A`,-COUNTY -1 1838 "r ir VIR'GINIA , A-- r EST ity Plan Document T RASH tI TI F' V - 47°0 _ MEIiA c� .' �04J T Search Our Site You are here: Home > Departments > Departments H - Z > Planning & Zoning > Community Planning Areas > Glenvar Community Plan About the Plan The Glenvar Community Plan was initiated to study development and redevelopment issues along West Main Street and in the Dixie Caverns area, in anticipation of the widening of West Main Street and the proposed intermodal facility in Montgomery County. The Glenvar Community Plan will study community facility needs, environmental resources /constraints, as well as outdoor recreation resources with adoption anticipated in the fourth quarter of 2011. Study Area The Glenvar Planning Area stretches west to east from the Montgomery County border to the City of Salem, and north to south from Fort Lewis Mountain to Poor Mountain. The planning area measures 31,744 acres in size and encompasses all or portions of 5,081 parcels. View a map of the stud Community Participation The Glenvar Community Plan will engage citizens through several mediums, including community meetings, surveys, stakeholder interviews, and through traditional and social media outlets. Third Community Meeting - May 2, 2011 The third community meeting was held on May 2, 2011 in the Glenvar Forum. Approximately 45 citizens attended the event. The meeting began with a presentation on the results of the visioning exercise and visual preference survey conducted at the second set of community meetings, the Glenvar Focus Group and the alternative future land use scenarios developed by the group. Following the presentation, the future land use scenarios were displayed in an open - house format for public question and comment. Focus Group and staff members were available during this time. Citizens were also able to submit comments after the meeting using an online survey. Glenvar Focus Group The purpose of the Glenvar focus group is to reach consensus on the vision and goals statements, develop future land use map scenarios, and finalize the recommendations that will be taken to the community, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors. Made up of Glenvar residents, community and business leaders, and local elected or appointed officials, the focus group will meet four to five times in the first half of 2011. • Focus Group Resources Second Set of Community Meetings - Summer 2010 The second set of Glenvar community meetings were held on June 29 and July 15 at 7:00 pm in the Fort Lewis Baptist Church Fellowship Hall. Each meeting began with a short presentation and then broke into groups to participate in a facilitated visioning exercise. The two meetings focused on particular areas of the Glenvar Community: • June 29 — West Main Street Corridor • July 15 — Dixie Caverns Viciab- First Community Meeting - January 2010 The first community meeting was held on January 11, 2010, at 7 :00 pm in the Glenvar Middle School Auditorium. About 150 people attended the meeting. For more details, please download the informational flyer and the PowerPoint presentation Survey The Glenvar Community Plan's online survey closed April 16, 2010. View survey results Social Media Stay updated on the status of the Glenvar Community Plan: Follow us on Facebook Twitter or sian up to receive our monthly e- newsletter, Community Developments For More Information If you have any questions or would like more details, please contact Amanda Micklow. Sitemap Privacy Emergency Preparedness Accessibility Powered by CivicPlus Copyright Notices 0 Roanoke County, Virginia I P.O. Box 29800, Roanoke, VA 24018-07981 Ph: (540) 772 -2006 �,, ': • � ,EMA PRINT http:// www. roanokecountyva .gov /index.aspx ?nid =340 Roanoke Community Developments - September 2009 Glenvar Community Plan It's been a busy summer in the Department of Community Development! Statistical Abstract County staff have traded their sunscreen and flip -flops for hardhats and maps. Planning Commission Update Quick Links This e- newsletter will give a brief update on the projects going on in the department. To stay �# Community Development Home informed between newsletters, please visit ouriF website or facebook page. Planning Services Facebook a Statistical Abstract Email Us Glenvar Community Plan *Work Session Time; a Public Hearing Statistica will be held beginning at 7:OOPM Over the past ten months, Community Development Staff have been working on a Statistical Abstract for Roanoke County. The Statistical Abstract provides Join Our Mailing List! public officials, local citizens and others interested in '= the County with basic information and important facts {" about p ast trends as well as current conditions. The Statistical Abstract, part of the County's Comprehensive Plan, will help inform discussions of current policy issues and trends in Roanoke County in addition to providing guidance in community planning efforts. Document 14 The Statistical Abstract's four chapters profile Land Use and Housing, County staff are in the initial planning phases of the Glenvar Community Plan. Planning Commission The Glenvar Planning Area stretches west to east from the Montgomery September 1 @ 4:00 PM* County border to the City of Salem and north to south from Fort Lewis September 18 @ 6:00 PM Mountain to Poor Mountain. October 6 @ 4:00 PM* During the August 18 Planning Commission Work GlenvarStadium Board of Zoning ppeals Session, County planning staff presented to the September 16 @ 7:00 PM Commission an analysis of existing land use in Glenvar, a draft document layout and an overview of Board of Supervisors the planned community involvement process. The first September 8 @ 3:00 PM community meeting for the Glenvar Community plan is tentatively slated for September 22 @ 3:00 PM* October 2009. Stay updated on the status of the plan by visiting the Ia an's website or following the department on facebook. Roanoke Valley Greenways T Commission County staff are out in Glenvar doing field work - if you see one of us, please September 23 @ 4:00 PM stop and let us know your thoughts! *Work Session Time; a Public Hearing Statistica will be held beginning at 7:OOPM Over the past ten months, Community Development Staff have been working on a Statistical Abstract for Roanoke County. The Statistical Abstract provides Join Our Mailing List! public officials, local citizens and others interested in '= the County with basic information and important facts {" about p ast trends as well as current conditions. The Statistical Abstract, part of the County's Comprehensive Plan, will help inform discussions of current policy issues and trends in Roanoke County in addition to providing guidance in community planning efforts. Document 14 The Statistical Abstract's four chapters profile Land Use and Housing, Roanoke Community Developments - September 2009 Population and Other Demographic Information, Community Facilities and Resource Preservation. The first two chapters have been completed on a County -wide basis and the information is available online. The Planning Commission's August 4, 2009 Work Session and Public Hearing were canceled. The Planning Commission reconvened on August 18, 2009 for a Work Session at 6:OOPM in the Roanoke County Administration Center. Topics discussed at the meeting included the Statistical Abstract the Glenvar Community Plan and a brief update on the Vinton Areas Corridor Plan. Additionally, the Commission was given a brief overview of the Private Stable Application that will go to Public Hearing in September. To view agenda with attachments, please click here. The Planning Commission's October 6, 2009 Public Hearing has three items on the act - a petition to rezone approximately 12.5 acres acres from C -2, General Commercial District, to R -3, Medium Density Multi - Family Residential District for the purpose of constructing multi - family and townhouse residential units at 6044 Peters Creek Road; - a petition to rezone 4.64 acres from R -1, Low Density Residential District and R -1S, Low Density Residential District with a special use permit, to C -1, Office District for the purpose of constructing a bank with a drive -thru at 4903 and 5007 Cloverdale Road; - a petition to amend the Planned Residential Development Master Plan related to at -grade golf cart crossing on Pitzer Road for Fountain Head Golf Resort which measures approximately 375 acres. Did you know that any plant, grass or other vegetation covering a substantial portion of a parcel in Roanoke County must be kept shorter than 12 inches tall wit, M That's right - if the growth of grass and weeds exceeds 12 inches, you may receive a notice from the County Code Enforcement Officers requesting you to cut the grass on your property! WmEk The first Virginia Cycling and Pedestrian Awareness Week will occur on September 13 -20. This event is a joint effort of DRIVE SMART Virginia and BikeWalk Virginia, with funding from the Department of Motor Vehicles. With more and more cyclists and pedestrians on the roadways, it is important to raise awareness about sharing the roadway. We all know that car crashes are becoming an increasing cost in the workplace. Educating employees on how to share the road with cyclists and pedestrians helps make roadways safer for all of us. For more information, please view the DRIVE SMART website PESPEC - UE SM - - -_ WE'PE.ALL ON TI4E ROAD TOGET HER Sincerely, Amanda Micklow Planner II Department of Community Development Email Marketing by Roanoke Community Developments - October 2009 Community Developments o low Updates from the Roanoke County Department of Community Development September 2009 Vol 1, Issue 3 Greetings! Autumnal greetings from the Roanoke County Department of Community Development! October is National Community Planning Month and this newsletter will highlight some of the ongoing projects within the planning division as well as provide updates from other divisions within the department. Thank you for reading this month's issue of Community Developments. October is National Community Planning Month What is Planning? Plannin is a dynamic profession that works to improve the welfare of people and their communities by creating more convenient, equitable, healthful, efficient, and attractive places for present and future generations. Plannin enables civic leaders, businesses, and citizens to play a meaningful role in creating communities that enrich people's lives. LI�U,� IN ASIL17Y are to: Good planning helps create communities that offer better choices for where and how people live. Planning helps communities to envision their future. It helps them to find the right balance of new development and essential services, environmental protection, and innovative change. Planning in your Community Planning is one division within a larger Community Development Department. The major functions of the County's Planning Division p � v • Prepare short and long range planning studies for neighborhoods, community planning te , transportation corridors or other special study areas; • Advise the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission, support the Board of Zoning Appeals; • Provide general information to citizens and administration regarding planning, zoning and subdivision procedures and other legislative requirements. Community Planning Update Vinton Area Corridors Plan County staff are still working jointly with the Town of Vinton to create a future development ('nmml inity IIAVAInnmAnt Roanoke Community Developments - October 2009 plan for the major corridors throughout the Vinton area. Over the past ten months, staff has gathered stakeholder input via a community survey and face -to -face interviews, held two community meetings and have presented several future land use scenarios. Planning Commissioners from both localities have also held two work sessions as well as a tour of the corridors as part of the planning process. No public hearings have been scheduled at this time, however, please check back on the plan's website for more information. Glenvar Community Plan t County planning and GIS staff have been working on the initial phases of the Glenvar Community Plan. Several maps have } been posted to the website including existing land use, cultural resources and subdivisions; a community survey will be posted soon. Stay updated on the status of the plan by visiting the Glenvar Community Plan website or by visiting the department on facebook Planning Commission Update The Roanoke County Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing on September 1, 2009 At the work session, staff provided the commissioners with a brief update of the Vinton Area Corridors Plan. During the public hearing, the planning commission heard a petition for a special use permit for a private stable in the Catawba magesterial district. The petition was forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a favorable recommendation and on September 22. 2009 the Board granted the special use permit. The Planning Commission began its September 15, 2009 work session with a tour of the new Green Ridge Recreation Center, which is still under construction. Following the tour of the recreation center, commissioners also toured the Glenvar Area including the proposed asphalt plant site. Commissioners took notice of existing conditions, land use and community facilities /services as well as potential [re]development opportunities. The next Planning Commission work session and public hearing are schedule for October 6, 2009 at 4:OOPM and 7:OOPM, respectively. What is a Temporary Sign? A temporary sign is defined as, "any sign, other than a portable sign, which is temporarily affixed to the ground, a building or other structure, including, but not limited to banners and flags, and /or an on- premise sign applying to a seasonal or brief activity such as, but not limited to, summer camps, horse shows, yard sales, Christmas tree sales, business promotions, auctions and carnivals. For the purpose of these regulations, on- premises real estate signs and signs displayed on active construction projects shall be considered temporary when displayed in accordance with Section 30- 93 -8." Any temporary signs placed within the public right of way are subject to removal. Bicycle User Survey The Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization is conducting an online Bicycle User Survey to assist in updating the 2005 Bikeway and provide general information on bicycle use, perceptions, and preference in the region. The Bikeway Plan covers the cities of Roanoke and Salem, the Town of Vinton, and the Roanoke Community Developments - October 2009 urbanized portions of Botetourt and Roanoke counties. Also visit the Regional Commission's bicycle planning�. age for complete access to all bicycle and pedestrian related planning materials, Until next month, Amanda Micklow Planner II Department of Community Development Email Marketing by Je f wM TRY IT FREE Community Developments - December 2009 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTS Vinton Area Corridors Plan Route 419 Corridor Plan Glenvar Community Plan Survey Planning Commission Update Plannina Commission December 1 @ 4PM* December 14 @ 6PM* January 5 @ 4PM* Board of Supervisors December 1 @ 3PM December 15 @ 3PM* January 12 @3PM* Route 419 Corridor Plan Public Meeting December 3 @ 6PM Greetings! As this year comes to an end, the Department of Community Development is bustling with activity. Staff have gone over the river and through the woods working on community plans, building permits and inspections as they go! Stay updated on their efforts with this month's issue of Community Developments! VINTON AREA CORRIDORS PLAN intended to enhance aesthetics, improve On December, 7, 2009, the Roanoke County Planning Commission and the Town of Vinton Planning Commission will hold a joint public hearing to receive comments on the draft Vinton Area Corridors Plan. The Vinton Area Corridors Plan is a long -range plan Joint Roanoke County and Town of safety and guide future development and redevelopment along the Bypass Road, Vinton Plannina Commission Public Hardy Road, South Pollard Street, Virginia Avenue, Walnut Avenue and Hem December 7 @ 7PM Washington Avenue corridors. Green Ridge Baptist Church Community Mew December 8 @ 6PM Roanoke Valley Greenways Commission December 23 @ 4PM *Work Session Time; a Public Hearing will be held beginning at 7:OOPM Community Development Home Plannina Services Facebook Email Us E n Oar � Joi Mailino List Since the last community meeting in June, County and Town staff have worked with the Roanoke County Planning Commission and the Town of Vinton Planning Commission to update the goals and recommendations, refine the future land use amendments and develop the draft Vinton Area Corridors Plan A draft of the Vinton Area Corridors Plan has been prepared for consideration by the Planning Commissions and is available at the Roanoke County Department of Community Development, the Vinton Planning and Zoning Department and online Following review by the Planning Commissions, the Vinton Area Corridors Plan will be forwarded to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and the Vinton Town Council for their consideration. Ultimately, this plan will be adopted into the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan and the Town of Vinton Comprehensive Plan For more information regarding this notice, please contact Lindsay Blankenship Roanoke County Department of Community Development at (540) 772 -2068 extension 283 or Anita McMillan Vinton Planning Department at (540) 983 -0601. ROUTE 419 CORRIDOR PLAN The Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is partnering with the Virginia Department of Community Developments - December 2009 Transportation (VDOT) to complete a multimodal transportation plan of Route 419 Route 419 is a 9.5 -mile, state highway that extends west from the US 220 Expressway in southern Roanoke County, along the limits of the City of Roanoke, then northwest through the City of Salem and terminates just north of 1 -81. The Corridor Plan will evaluate MPO, various aspect of the corridor over a 25 year planning horizon, including: traffic capacity, bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, transit service, freight, and park -n -ride lots. The planning effort is jointly funded by the Roanoke Area VDOT -Salem District and a grant from the Virginia Intermodal Planning Office. Last April, a citizens' workshop was held to receive input and comments on background work performed on the project at that point in time. On December 3, 2009 from 6:00- 8:OOPM in the Brambleton Center Community Room, a second and more comprehensive meeting will be held to present future corridor alternatives leading to the development of the draft multimodal transportation plan. Representatives from the MPO, VDOT and the study team will be available to answer questions and receive comments regarding this study to determine how to make travel along the Route 419 corridor safer and more efficient. GLENVAR COMMUNITY PLAN SURVEY The Glenvar Community Plan Survey is now available online! The Glenvar Community was initiated to study development and redevelopment issues along West Main Street in anticipation of the widening of West Main Street and the proposed intermodal facility in Montgomery County. The Glenvar Community Plan will also study community facility needs, environmental resources /constraints, as well as outdoor recreation resources with adoption anticipated in 2010. s y The Glenvar Community Plan will be using an online survey as one method of gathering citizen input. Please pass this information on to friends, family or co- workers. Limited paper copies are available in the Glenvar Library and the Cow Administration Center located on Bernard Drive. Please complete the survey and let us know your thoughts! County staff will be compiling the results of this survey for incorporation into the Glenvar Community Plan. The results will be made available on the Glenvar Community Plan website. If you have any questions, please contact the Roanoke County Department of Community Development by phone (540)772 -2068 or by email. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing on November 2, 2009 in the Roanoke County Administration Center. The afternoon work session included the consent agenda for the December 1, 2009 Public Hearing and a staff -led discussion on the County's current sign regulations. During the Public Hearing, Commissioners reviewed 1 land use case: • A petition by Foxhall Properties, LLC, to obtain a Special Use Permit in an 1 -2, High Intensity Industrial District for the purpose of operating an asphalt plant on 16.7 acres located on Peaceful Drive. The Commission recommended approval with eleven conditions. The Planning Commission's November 16. 2009 work session was held on the fourth floor of the Roanoke County Administration Center. The work session included an overview and approval of the Planning Commission Bylaw amendments and staff updates on several of the proposed zoning ordinance amendments including private stables, multiple dog permits, home occupations, exterior lighting and entrance corridor overlay districts. Community Developments - December 2009 The Planning Commission will hold their next work session and public hearing on Tuesday, December 1. 2009 at the Roanoke County Administration Center. The public hearing has one item on the agenda: • A etition by Clifton Ronk to rezone approximately 0.349 acre from R -1, Low Density Residential to WC, Low Intensity Industrial with conditions for the purpose of expanding an existing cabinet shop on Wood Haven Road. The petition of Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust to obtain a Special Use Permit to amend conditions regarding exterior building colors and sign panel colors and to increase the maximum size of a monument sign with a Special Use Permit on approximately 41 acres located in the 5200 block of Franklin Road has been continued to December 14, 2009. On December 7, 2009, the Roanoke County Planning Commission and the Town of Vinton Planning Commission will hold a joint public hearing to receive comments on the draft Vinton Area Corridors Plan. Best wishes for happy holidays and a joyous New Year! Amanda Micklow Planner II Email Marketing by TRY IT FREE Roanoke Community Developments - January 2010 r f e d • - — or a a NF � ! a •14 '� ` F G R • 9 ,i X -106 IF a monthly e.newsletter 7t 7 Plannhj Comm Plate Plan January 2010 Board of Supervisors The first Community Meeting for the Glenvar Community Plan is scheduled for January 11, Greenway Commission 2010 at 7:OOPM in ine Glenvar Middle School Auditorium. The formal Presentation will begin at 7:OOPM, however, maps and County staff will be available before and after the presentation. Some topics that will be discussed include an overview of the Glenvar Glenvar Community M eeting Community Plan and its relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, existing conditions, current and upcoming development, community involvement and the next steps in the planning process. The Glenvar Community Plan will also be using ar online .purvey to gather citizen input. Limited paper copies are available in the Glenvar Librar and the County Administration Center located on Bernard Drive. Please complete the survey and let us know your thoughts! We are also accepting hp otos with comments as part of the community survey. To stay updated on the status of the Glenvar Community Plan, please visit the Plan's website or follow us on facebook! VINTON AREA CORRIDORS PLAN On December 7, 2009 a joint meeting between the Roanoke County and Town of Vinton Planning Commissions was held to receive comments on the draft Vinton Area Corridors Plan A work session with the Vinton Town Council is tentatively scheduled for January 19, 2010 and another is tentatively scheduled with the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors for January 26, 2009. Please visit the Plan's website for more information. HOLLINS AREA PLAN GLENVAR COMMUNITY PLAN Roanoke Community Developments - January 2010 The first annual Hollins Area Plan Update is now available on the plan's website. The document is intended to regularly update Roanoke County citizens and businesses in the Hollins area and throughout the County on the status of the implementation of the Hollins Area Plan PLANTATION ROAD TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM APPLICATION Roanoke County recently applied for funding through the Transportation Enhancement Program, a Federal program through SAFETEA -LU for bicycle, pedestrian and streetscape improvements to Plantation Road between Interstate 81 and Williamson Road (Route 11.) The estimated cost of bicycle lanes, sidewalks, pedestrian signalization at two intersections, pedestrian crossings at two locations, shared use trails to Walrond Park and to the proposed Hollins University segment of the Tinker Creek Greenway, street trees, pedestrian - scaled lighting, landscaped medians and enhanced landscaping at Williamson Road and at Interstate 81 is approximately $2.5 million dollars. The communities receiving funding will be announced in May or June 2010. View the Transportation Enhancement Program application for Plantation Road on issuu.com or on the project's website PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing ors, December 1, 2009 in the Roanoke County Administration Center. The afternoon work session included the consent agenda for the January 5, 2010 Public Hearing and an update on the status of the Glenvar Community which included a brief discussion of the Plan's website, online survey and first community meeting. During the Public Hearing, Commissioners reviewed 1 land use case: A petition by Clifton Ronk to rezone approximately 0.349 acre from R -1, Low Density Residential District to I -1C, Low Intensity Industrial District with Conditions for the purpose of expanding an existing cabinet shop on Wood Haven Road. The Commission recommended approval with the three proffered conditions. The Planning Commission also held a work session and public hearing or December 14. 2009 in the Roanoke County Administration Center. The work session included an update from planning staff on the status of general text amendments to the zoning ordinance. During the Public Hearing, Commissioner's reviewed 1 land use case: A petition of Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust to obtain a Special Use Permit to amend conditions regarding exterior building colors and sign panel colors and to increase the maximum size of a monument sign in a C -2 / CVODS, General Commercial / Clearbrook Village Overlay District with Special Use Permit on approximately 41 acres located on Clearbrook Lane (Continued from December 7, 2009). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the two special use permit amendments with 2 revised conditions as well as 1 new condition. The Planning Commission will hold their next work session and public hearing on January 5, 2010. The Planning Commission will review 1 land use case: • A petition of Green Ridge Baptist Church to obtain a Special Use Permit in a R -1, Low Density Residential District to operate a religious assembly on 0.259 acre on Diplomat Road. M 2010 Planning Commission Hearing and Work Session Dates Roanoke Community Developments - February 2010 Greetings! After only 6 months, Community Developments subscriptions have increased by 150 %. Each month, the Roanoke County Department of Community Development sends out this e.newsletter to update you on both internal and external projects that affect your community. Between newsletters, you can stay informed through our website or by following us or facebook and twitter. Thank you for making our e.newsletter a success! Glenvar Community Plan Update Planning Services facebook Email Us Upc omin g • Planning . Commission Board f Superviso F Greenwav rN The first community meeting for the Glenvar Community Plan was held on January 11, 2010 in the Glenvar Middle School Auditorium. Over 150 citizens attended this meeting - the greatest number for an area plan community meeting to date - t^ Learn about and become involved in the Glenvar Community Ptan The Community Meeting was kicked off with a welcome by Board of Supervisors Chairman, Mr. Butch Church of the Catawba Magisterial District. Following his welcome, a presentation was given by several Planning staff members thQL covered topics such as existing conditions, current zoning, future land use environmental constraints and citizen participatio. citizen question and answer session followed. Before and after the forma! presentation several large maps displaying the presentation information were available for viewing in the front of the auditorium. You can view these maps online or in person at the Glenvar Library. Citizens are also encouraged to take the Glenvar rr)mmunity Survey online hardcopies available in the ikams Glenvar Library or tree Roanoke County Administration Center to voice their thoughts on the future of their LU11 nunity. Citizens can also comment on the development and redevelopment potential of West Main Street through our interactive map Vinton Area Corridors Plan Update February is an important month for the Vinton Area Corridors Plan Moose Lodge The Plan will be going to Public Hearing with the Roanoke County Sp P r ecial Use Board of Supervisors on February�� at the Roanoke County P e Administration Center. mit • Community Development Home Roanoke Community Developments - February 2010 The Plan will also go to Work Session with the Vinton Town Council on February. 2� and Public Hearing on February 16, 2010 - it the Vinton Municipal Building. Community planners use census data to determine where to build new schools, develop public transportation and create new roads; Every year, the federal government can allocate more than $400 billion to states and communities based, in part, on census data; Census data affects your voice in Congress as well as the redistricting of state legislatures, county and city councils and voting districts. With your help, the Census Bureau will continue to produce accurate data, which will directly affect the quality of life in your community. Census Day is April 1, 2010 - Make sure to mail back your form! Route 221 Widening Project Beginning on Sunday, January 18, 2010, the northbound lane of Route 221 (Bent Mountain Road) will be closed from 9 PM to 6AM near Cotton Hill Road in Roanoke Counter Crews will be taking rock ana soa samples Tor the aeveLoprnent or plans for the proposed widening of Route 221. Weather permitting, this lane closure will be in place during nighttime hours Sunday through Thui suay. The work is expected to be completed by Friday, February 6, 2010. During nighttime hours, motorists should expect delays and watch for signs and flaggers directing traffic in this area. Additionally, beginning at 9AM on Monday. ani i ary 7 701 periodic lane closures will be in place on Route 221 in southwest Roanoke County near Cotton Hill Road. .rew�, be cutting trees in tins area in preparation for utility Learn more about the 2010 Census. click here! Roanoke Community Developments - February 2010 work that will be performed as part of the roadway improvements that are planned for this portion of Route 221. This work will continue for approximately three weeks. During that time, motorists should watch for lane closures and flaggers directing traffic on weekdays from 9AM to 3PM. Planning Commission The Roanoke County Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing on Tuesday, January 5, 2010 in the Roanoke County Administration Center. During the afternoon work session, Mr. Steve Azar (Vinton) was elected by the commissioners as Chairman and Mr. Gary Jarrell (Hollins) was elected Vice - Chairman of the Commission. Staff also discussed the Design Handbook with regard to private road and trail /sidewalk standards. At the Public Hearin the Commissioners reviewed one land use case: A petition by Green Ridge Baptist Church to obtain a Special Use Permit in a R -1, Low Density Residential District to operate a religious assembly on 0.259 acre located in the Catawba Magisterial District. The Commission recommended approval with the three conditions. On January 19, 2010 the Roanoke County and Roanoke City Planning Commissions held a joint work session at the Roanoke County Administration Center. This bi- annual meeting was discussion based and covered topics such as the status of current projects, transportation issues and outreach efforts and citizen participation. For the meeting's agenda, click here. The Roanoke County Planning Commission's February 2, 2010 work session and public hearing have been canceled. The Planning Commission will hold their next work session on February 19, 2011 View the 2010 Planning Commission Work Plan Congratulations to After 32 years, Mr. Tim Beard is retiring from the County of Roanoke. Over his career with Roanoke, Tim has been instrumental in the development of numerous long -range and design- related planning documents and has spent innumerable hours patiently assisting hundreds of citizens with zoning, land use, and other miscellaneous questions. Tim also represented Roanoke County on the Rural Technical Committee and on the Transportation Technical Committee of the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization where he assisted in the creation of numerous transportation most recently the Route 419 Corridor Study. The Department of Community Development greatly appreciates and will miss his years of professional, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County. plans and studies, Roanoke Community Developments - March 2010 Greetings! Don't allow springing forward to leave you behind, stay updated about the status of departmental projects and upcoming meetings with this issue of Community Developments! F Community Planning Areas Update Vinton Area Corridors Plan On February 23, 2010 the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors adopted the Vinton Area Corridors Plan as part of the Roanoke Count Com prehensive Plan. The Vinton Town Council also adopted the Plan on February 16, 2010 into the Town's Comprehensive Plan. The Vinton Area Corridors Plan's adoption marks the culmination of year -long joint planning effort between the County of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton. To view the Vinton Area Corridors Plan document, click here. Glenvar Community Plan The deadline for Glenvar Community survey is March 15, 2010. Make sure to let us know your thoughts by filling the survey out online or with a hardcopy available at the Glenvar _ Libra!:y or Roanoke County Administration Center. The Glenvar Communit is also using an interactive map � L of the Route 11 /460 Corridor as another way of _ gaining community input. Click on a highlighted parcel to see detailed property information and to let us know what you would like to see on the site in the future. �] Spring Home Show The Roanoke County Department of Community Development is proud to be one of 170+ exhibitors at the 2010 Spring Home Show sponsored by the Roanoke Regional Home Builders Association. Stop by our booth this year to pick up information regarding our community plans building department, engineering and stormwater management pro and our GIS services. We hope to see you there! i S PRING n0awshow Better Living Expo Roanoke Community Developments - March 2010 Census 2010 We're Counting on You. Be Counted in 2010. Roanoke County proudly supports the 2010 Census. You should be receiving a census form in the mail around March 15, 2010. We can't move forward until you send it back! Census forms are due April 1, 2010. What Does the Census Mean to our Community? Federal dollars to local communities are based on population. The higher a community's population, the more money a locality receives. According to the U.S.Census Bureau, Roanoke County received $292,861,994 in 2008. That's approximately No $3,222.97 per Roanoke County resident or $7,593.98 per household. IVILon V=I 21�+ J Planning Commission Update The Roanoke County Planning Commission work session and public hearing scheduled for February 2, 2010 were canceled. The Planning Commission reconvened for a work session on February 16, 2010 at �e the Roanoke County Administration Center. During the evening work session, staff presented updates on the 2010 Zoning Ordinance Amendments including parking structures, solar energy systems, home occupations, private stables, multiple dog permits and general text amendments as well as a potential gateway corridor overlay district. The Planning Commission's next meeting will be held March 2 2010 in the Roanoke County Administration Center. During the afternoon work session, staff will present an update on the Wind Energy component of the 2010 Zoning Ordinance Amendments. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission will review 1 land use case: A petition of the Roanoke Moose Lodge #284 to obtain a special use permit in a ARCS, Agricultural Residential District with conditions and special use permit, to operate outdoor gatherings on approximately 25 acres on Catawba Valley Drive, located in the Catawba Magisterial District. To stay updated between Community Developments, visit our department webpage or follow us on acebook! Until next month, Amanda Micklow Planner II Email Marketing by Community Developments - April 2010 C omm unity. Ue velopment5 Greetings! N N Planning Commission N N N Huard of Supervisors N N N Greenways N Commission N N Timberbrook N Community Meeting Each April 22nd, we celebrate Earth Day - a day designed to increase awareness and appreciation for the environment. With renewable energy zoning ordinance amendments, an increasing focus on alternative modes of transportation, stormwater management practices ` aimed at improving water quality and a p g q Y new emphasis on paperless communication - in the Department of Community Development, every day is f Earth Day. QC Census Day is April 1st We're counting on you to help Roanoke County receive its share of $300 billion in ML federal funds annually for community services such as roads, programs for schools and seniors, OUR HANDS and hospital services. There are only 10 questions and it takes about 10 minutes. Be sure to send in your form by April 1st! We're counting on you. Be counted in 2010. Trouble with our Online Mapping Application ?* Are you using Internet Explorer 8? The Roanoke County mapping website (IMS) was originally designed to function with Microsoft Internet Explorer browser version 7. However, the release of Internet Explorer version 8 has created some compatibility issues for older websites, including Roanoke County's IMS site. For full website functionality you must enable compatibility view. _3 Rrl �C' y ; makes d Fxx bow; ken b . s Dt r ms oLit a stem , cpr text be c�rr� e;d. I lo in O ur Mailing Li st Community Developments - April 2010 CO)VObbity Devdow Toot Ftr Wv dmsf senger Do se + :-on .b s:, . rasa M044e rata - - For more information: View the Microsoft Help Page View a Short Help Video * Please note: The Current version of the Roanoke County IMS website is o compatible with Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web Browser version 6, 7 and 8. Glenvar Community Plan The Glenvar Community Plan is continuing to gather community input through stakeholder interviews with civic groups, homeowners associations and area businesses. On April 8, 2010, representatives from local business will meet at Richfield Retirement Center's Shenandoah Room to discuss the future of the Glenvar Community. Additionally, the online survey will remain open until April 15, 2010 and an interactive map of the Route 11/460 Corridor is available online for comments. Zoning Ordinance Amendments County staff are in the process of preparing the 2009 -2010 Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Proposed D65te &0WWtg Fork o... Uprwate Brow" Ctrf+' w+; Y I P,eopen Last 6Tc4 i- - [nFlrryate P- *j Ctr1*9*t. +F _ IrPrira a FtftiV Smtbn anticipated public hearing date in Summer 2010. Stwt5trftn Fr Mana Add-am. CO)VObbity Devdow Toot Ftr Wv dmsf senger Do se + :-on .b s:, . rasa M044e rata - - For more information: View the Microsoft Help Page View a Short Help Video * Please note: The Current version of the Roanoke County IMS website is o compatible with Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web Browser version 6, 7 and 8. Glenvar Community Plan The Glenvar Community Plan is continuing to gather community input through stakeholder interviews with civic groups, homeowners associations and area businesses. On April 8, 2010, representatives from local business will meet at Richfield Retirement Center's Shenandoah Room to discuss the future of the Glenvar Community. Additionally, the online survey will remain open until April 15, 2010 and an interactive map of the Route 11/460 Corridor is available online for comments. Zoning Ordinance Amendments County staff are in the process of preparing the 2009 -2010 Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Proposed amendments include wind and solar energies, parking structures, multiple dog permits, private stables, home occupations but and several general text amendments. Staff i- - has been working with the Planning _ Commission throughout the process with an anticipated public hearing date in Summer 2010. Planning Commission Update The Roanoke County Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing on Tuesday, March 2, 2010 in the Roanoke County Administration Center. During the afternoon work session, staff gave an overview of the proposed wind energy systems amendment to the County's zoning ordinance. At the public hearing, the Commissioners reviewed one land use case: Community Developments - April 2010 A petition by the Roanoke Moose Lodge #284 to obtain a special use permit in a ARCS, Agricultural Residential District with conditions and special use permit, to operate outdoor gatherings on approximately 25 acres on Catawba Valley Drive. The Commission recommended approval with nine conditions. Discussion of the proposed wind energy systems amendment to the zoning ordinance continued at the Commission's March 16 work session. At this meeting, discussion focused on small wind energy systems. Staff also gave brief updates on the Peters Creek, Glenvar and Vinton Area Plans. On March 30th the Planning Commission held a Special Work Session in the Plantation Road /Gander Way area to tour the proposed Plantation Road Gateway Corridor Overlay District (GCOD) limits and properties. The boundary would reach from Interstate 81 to Williamson Road along Plantation Road spanning 500 feet on both sides of the Plantation right -of -way and including all of the parcels along Gander Way. The goals of the GCOD are to: 1. Preserve existing light industrial uses; and 2. Retain existing and encourage new high - quality retail and tourism - related businesses such as family restaurants, hotels, regional and national retailers. The Planning Commission's next meeting will be held A ril 6, 2010 in the Roanoke County Administration Center. Commissioners will make a site visit to the Timberbrook /Fincastle Equipment properties located on Clearbrook Lane as part of the consent agenda for May 4, 2010. Following the site visit, staff will present on the solar energy, parking structures, accessory apartment, wind energy and general text amendments to the County's Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission has one public hearing scheduled for May 4, 2010: A petition by Timberbrook Properties IX, LLC and Fincastle Equipment Company, LC to rezone 9.084 acres from AR, Agricultural Residential District to C- 2C/CVOD, General Commercial /Clearbrook Village Overlay District with conditions in order to construct a commercial center located on the northeastern side of Clearbrook Lane in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. Until next month, Amanda Micklow Planner II Community Developments - June 2010 Greetings! School's out, pool's open, sunglasses on. Along with the sun, the summer also brings road improvement projects and this season is no different! Several road projects will be underway this summer in the r,oijnty - ctay updated on the county's transportation homepa Glenvar Community Meeting JUNE 29, 2010 7:00 PM Fort Lewis Baptist Church Fellowship Hall The second Glenvar Community Meeting Will be held on June ?Q ')010 at 7:OOPM in the Fort Lewis Baptist Church Fellowship Hall. The meeting will begin VVILVI a Ull presentation of the Glenvar Community Survey results. The presentation will be followed by small, facilitated group discussions that ask "what do you want for the future of your community ?" These vision statements will then guide the creation of the community plan as well as the development of the community over the next thirty years. For those unable to attend the Community Meeting on June 29, 2010 - another meeting, identical in format, will be held in July 2010. Part of Merriman Road to be Closed to Through Traffic Traffic will be detoured June i 1 - August 23 Beginning at 6:00 a.m. on Friday, June 11,� Merriman Road will be closed to through, traffic between Chaparral Drive and Starkey CLOSED Road in southwest Roanoke County. The intersection of Meadowlark Road and Merriman Road Will also be closed to motorists. Click here for detour information and map. Crews will be working to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Meadowlark Road and Merriman Road as part of traffic improvements to Merriman Road and construction of an entrance to the new South County Library. Community Developments - June 2010 Dry Hollow Road Bridge Replacement June Y 1, 2010 On Friday, June 11, a portion of Dry Hollow Road will be closed to through traffic from 8 a.m. to 4 p.rri. Dry Hollow Roao will be closed from 0.75 mile north of Route 639 to 1.35 miles from the end of state maintenance. The closure is necessary so crews can replace the bridge over Dry Hollow Branch. Additionally, motorists should expect delays and � watch for flaggers directing traffic in this area during daylight hours on Monday, June 14 while crews perform paving work. Section of Colonial Avenue to be Closed to Through Traffic Traffic will be detoured June 14 - July 23 Beginning at 10 a.m. on Monday, June 14, a portion of Colonial Ave. will be closed to through traffic between the entrance to North Cross School and Colonial Place Drive. Click here for detour information. Crews will be working to make sight- distance improvements on Colonial Avenue as part of the second phase of the Colonial Avenue Improvement Project. During the first phase, a roundabout was constructed at the intersection of Colonial Avenue and Penn Forest Boulevard, a significant amount_ of drainage and utility work was performed and a number of trees were cleared to make way for more improvements this summer. The entire project is expected to be completed by late August 2010. Planning Commission Update The Planning Commission's May 4, 2010 work session focused on private road standards. During the first half of the meeting, commissioners and staff toured several private roads in the County to serve as examples and points of reference. Following the tour, planning staff led a discussion of the proposed private road standards. The Roanoke County Fire Marshal, transportation engineer and representatives from the Virginia Department of Transportation were also in attendance to answer the commissioners' questions. The Planning Commission's work session scheduled for May 18 2010 was canceled. Their next work session is scheduled for Jw lnP 1 ?nl n rf lri wAihirh staff wA /ill providon i inri;;fi=cz ran the Glenvar Community Plan Peters Creekf Hollins Community Plan Hollins Area Plan implementation and th Vinton Area Corridors Plan impernentation. Community Developments - July 2010 Greetings! Happy 4th of July from the Roanoke County Department of Community Development! Glenvar Community Meeting Approximately 80 Glenvar residents took part in a visioning exercise and visual preference survey at the community Vie meeting on Tuesday, June 29. Residents were asked to imagine what the West Main Street corridor would like in 20 years - exactly how they would like it to be. Following this - exercise, residents also completed a visual preference survey= - a method for the public to give feedback on planning and design alternatives. The input gathered from these meetings will be used in the development of the Glenvar Community Plan as well as design guidelines for the area. A second visioning meeting will be held on July 15 at 7:00 PM in the Fort Lewis Baptist Church Fellowship Hall. This meeting will focus on the Dixie Caverns area of the Glenvar Community. The More You Know... About Zoning Did you know that any plant, grass or other vegetation covering a substantial portion of a parcel in Roanoke County must be kept shorter than 12 inches tall? That's right - if the growth of grass and weeds exceeds 12 inches, you may receive a notice from the County Code Enforcement Officers requesting you to cut �- the grass on your property! Planning Commission Update The Roanoke County Planning Commission held a work session on June 1, 2010 at the Roanoke County Administration Center. During the evening work session, staff updated the Commissioners on the status of 4 area plans - the Glenvar Community Peters Creek /Hollins Community Hollins Plan Implementation and Vinton Area Corridors Plan Implementation. At the Commission's work session on June 15, 2010 staff and Commissioners discussed the proposed wind energy regulations, private road standards and the gateway corridor overlay district. Community Developments -July 201.0 Community Developments - July 2010 The Planning Commission's next meeting is scheduled for July 6, 2010. At this work session, they will go over the consent agenda for the August 3rd public hearing, elect officers and discuss future Planning Commission meetings. Upcoming Meetings Plannina Commission July 6 @ 4PM July 20 @ 6PM Board of Supervisors July 13 @ 3PM July 27 @ 3PM* Rezoning Application Community Meeting July 22 @ 7PM * Work Session Time, Public Hearing at 7PM Until Next Month, Amanda Micklow Planner II Subscribe to Our Newsletter! Community Developments - August 2010 , . -a _T FE Greetings! ' Community Developments, a monthly e.newsletter b the Roanoke Count Y Y r Department of Community Development, is beginning its second year of publication. Since beginning in August 2009, subscriptions to Community Developments have more than doubled! Thank you for reading our newsletter! Meet: Planning Commission August 3 C 7PM August 17 C 6PM August 10 C 3PM /7PM August 24 C 3pM /7PM VDOT Public Hearing August 31 C 6PM Community Planning Update Glenvar Community Plan The second of two visioning sessions for the Glenvar Community Plan was held on July 15 at the Fort Lewis Baptist Church. This meeting, which focused on the Dixie Caverns area from Valley TechPark to the Montgomery County line, was attended by approximately 60 area residents and business owners. Participants envisioned a community in 20 years that protected and enhanced the area's character with focus on integrating landscaping into site design, alternative modes of transportation, mixed -use development and interconnectivity between parcels. Both the Dixie Caverns and the West Main Street visioning exercises are available for comment online through the Glenvar Community Plan webpae. The Visual Preference Survey is also available for completion online. Transportation Update Merriman Roundabout Work continues on the Merriman Road Roundabout. Check out its progr online! Plantation Road Transportation Enhancement Program Application Roanoke County was notified in late June that the Commonwealth Transportation Board did not select the Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement Application for enhancement funding. The next application deadline for projects not currently funded is December 1, 2011. Roanoke County is currently working on a Community Developments - August 2010 Greenways funding mechanisms to have a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Commission completed for this section of Plantation Road so that design August 25 @ 4PM work may begin on selected improvements along the corridor as funding becomes available. Route 221 Widening Project The Commonwealth Transportation Board awarded a contract to widen a section of Route 221 in Roanoke County. The section of Route 221 starts at Route 897 (Crystal Creek Drive) and extends south approximately one mile to Route 688 (Cotton Hill Road). The purpose of the project is to improve safety by eliminating curves in this section of Route 221. The project will also increase capacity by widening the current two -lane section of Route 221 to a four -lane divided highway with a six -foot grass median and turn lanes. For more information, view the VDOT press release online. Check out the Roanoke County Transportation page for more information on road closures and construction in your area! Planning Commission Update The Roanoke Col.Jnty Planning Commission held a work session on July 6, 2010. During the meeting, the Commissioners elected Mr. Gary Jarrell, Hollins Representative, as Chairman and Mr. David Radford, Windsor Hills Representative, as Vice - Chairman. Following a brief discussion of upcoming meetings, staff led the Commissioners on a tour of the Peters Creek Community Planning Area. The Planning Commission's work session scheduled for July 20, 2010 was canceled. The Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing on August A m µ 3 2010 at 7:OOPM in the Roanoke County Administration n Center, Board Meetina Meeting_ During the Public Hearing, the Commission will hear one land use petition: The petition of Bobby B. Twine to rezone 5.892 acres from AR, Agricultural /Residential, District to I -2, High Intensity Industrial, District for the purpose of operating a construction yard, located near the intersection of Twine Hollow Road and Meacham Road, Catawba Magisterial District. The next meeting of the Roanoke Countv Planning Commission will be a work session on August 17, 2010 6:OOPM. Until next month, Community Developments - January 2011 Greetings! ,, In PN4� .w. Happy New Year from the Department of Community Development! We look forward to continuing to work with you in the new year. Stay updated on meetings and projects in the Department of Community Development using our webpage, e.newsletter or follow s= , us on facebook! Planning Study Updates The Glenvar Community Plan is moving ahead in 2011 with the commencei - rient of the Glenvar Focus Group. A third community meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 2011. Stay updated on the plan's progress on the Glenvar Community Plan webpage. Thy: Peters Creek /Hollins Community Plan is also anticpated to be adopted as part of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan in 2011. Stay updated on plan's progress on the Peters Creek /Hollins Community Plan webpage. In February 2010, the County of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton adopted a future development plan for the major corridors throughout the Vinton area Stay updated on the plan's implementation through the plan's website. Census 2010 and Apportionment The Census 2010 state data are out and immediately raise one really large question: How can California add 3.4 million people and not get any new seats in the House of Representatives, but Texas adds 4.3 million people and has four new seats? The answer is the "Method of Equal Proportions" adopted by Congress in 1941 to take the politics out of the math of reapportionment. If you are interested, the method is detailed here Community Developments - January 2011 The other news for planners is how Census 2010 stacked up against population projections. Take a quick look at the Census Bureau's state by state projections for 2010 compared with the Census 2010 counts just released. Overall, for the nation, the projection and actual count were almost identical, Hr IPA ✓Pr sixteen states and h� R�frir f of ��� � �►� exceeded projections and eleven state- came in below projections least two percent. Localized 2010 Census data will begin to be released in February 2011. View a schedule of data releases. Have a complaint? Use our online complaint form. Available through the Planning an Zoning website, the online form allows citizens to directly input their concerns, with enforcement staff investigating within three business days of its receipt. Planning Commission Update Thin Roanoke County Planning Commission reviewed three lat a use LdSeS aL iL� December 6, 2010 ifleeting: The petition of Timberbrook Properties IX, LLC, and Fincastle Equipment Company, LC, to rezone 9.096 acres from AR, Agricultural Residential, District to C- 2C/CVOD, General Commercial /Clearbrook Village Overlay, District with conditions in order to construct a general commercial, retail sales and restaurant project, located on the northeastern side of Clearbrook Lane and across from the intersection of Clearbrook Lane and Clearbrook Village Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District. The Planning Commission approved the rezoning request (vote 5 -0) from AR to C- 2C /CV0D with eleven proffered conditions. No citizens spoke on this request. The petition of Kingery Bros. Associates to obtain a Special Use Permit in a AV, Agricultural/ Village Center, District for the purpose of operating a construction yard on 3.81 acres, located near the 6000 block of Franklin Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. The Planning Commission approved the special use permit request (vote 5 -0) for a construction yard with six conditions. No citizens spoke on this request. • The petition of Fellowship Community Church to obtain a Special Use Permit in a C -2, General Commercial, District to operate a religious assembly on 4.088 acres, located at 7210 Williamson Road, Hollins Magisterial Community Developments - January 2011 District. The Planning Commission approved the special use permit request (vote 5 -0) for religious assembly with one condition. One person spoke in favor of the request. At their December 14, 2010 meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved the petitions of Timberbrook Properties IX, LLC and Fellowship Community Church and denied the petition of Kingery Bros. Associates. The Planning Commission will review two land uses cases and Private Road Standards at its January 4, 2010 meeting: The petition of Jatin Patel to obtain a Special Use Permit in a C -2, General Commercial, District for the purpose of operating a convenience store and fast food restaurant on 0.844 acre, located in the 8000 block of Plantation Road, Hollins Magisterial District. The petition of Fountain Head Land Company, LLC, to amend the Planned Residential Development Master Plan to decrease the maximum number of cottages, to decrease the maximum number of bedrooms in the clubhouse, to increase the maximum number of residential lots to 110, and to reduce the maximum lot size and road frontage for residential lots south of Pitzer Road, and to amend a proffered condition dealing with an at -grade golf cart crossing on Pitzer Road for Fountain Head Golf Resort (Ballyhack) which measures approximately 375 acres, Vinton Magisterial District. 2011 Planning Commission Public Hearing and Work Session Dates Until Next Month, dm4AX/ Amanda Micklow Planner II Email Marketing by TRY IT FREE Community Developments - April 2011 Community Developments Greetings! April 2011 Spring is a busy time in the Department of Community Development. Make sure you don't miss a beat by reading Community Developments! Peters Creek /Hollins Community Plan Meetings Please join us for a series of community meetings regarding the Peters Creek /Hollins area of Roanoke County. Transportation Thursday, April 14, 2011 from 6:30- 8:30PM Northside Middle School Auditorium ?Open forum format with materials available for public viewing and comment relevant to transportation related issues. Staff will be available to answer questions and take feedback. Economic Development Thursday, May 5, 2011 from 6:30- 8:30PM Green Ridge Recreation Center - Multipurpose Room B Discussion of development opportunities and limitations followed with a visual preference survey to evaluate aesthetics associated with development. Neighborhoods Thursday, May 26, 2011 from 6:30- 8:30PM Burlington Elementary School Cafeteria Open forum format with a brief presentation to discuss residential neighborhood issues. Staff will be available to answer questions and take feedback. Please contact Chris Patriarca at (540) 772 -2068 ext. 267 with any questions or comments. Glenvar Plan Community Meeting May 2, 2011 at 6:30PM Glenvar Middle School Auditorium A Community Meeting for the Glenvar Community will be held on Monday, May 2, 2011 at 6:30PM at the Glenvar Middle School Auditorium. The meeting will begin with a brief presentation by staff on the results of the visioning exercise, visual preference survey and the Glenvar Focus Group. Following the presentation, the three alternative future land use map scenarios that were developed by the Glenvar Focus Group will be available to review for citizen input. In This Issue Peters Creek /Hollins Community Plan Meetings Glenvar Plan Community Meeting Design Handbook Amended Planning Commission Update Design Concept for New Library To Be Revealed Upcoming Meetings Plannina Commission April 5 @ 4PM* April 19 @ 6PM Board of Supervisors April 12 @ 3PM April 26 @ 3PM Greenways April 27 @ 4PM Peters Creek /Hollins Community Plan Meeting April 14 from 6:30 - 8:30PM Glenvar Plan Community Meeting May 2 @ 6:30PM *Work Session Time, Public Hearing @ 7PM Quick Links Department of Community Development Email Us L" Community Developments - April 2011 Glenvar Focus Group members as well as Roanoke County staff will be available during this open house portion of the meeting for comments and questions. r Plan Following the Community Meeting, the Communit Meetin presentation and future land use map scenarios will be available online. There will also be an opportunity to submit i comments online. Please contact Amanda Micklow at (540) 772 -2068 ext. 228 with any questions. & &* &f -&&f & #f irfi dri & - -& **- &&i. i F fair -ir �4i fir ��i =ir �rri- i� aria #� irf #rr. Design Handbook Amended RcQ11DIM n� Amendments to Roanoke County's Design DeglaTP 14 MW bo ak Handbook were adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 22, 2011. Amendments include private road standards, standards for sidewalks, shared use paths private trails and bicycle accommodations. I Planning Commission Update The Roanoke County Planning Commission held two public hearings at its March 1. 2011 meeting • The petition of Ray Craighead to obtain a Special Use Permit in a C -2, General Commercial, District for the purpose of operating a drive -in or fast food restaurant on 0.62 acre, located at 4309 Starkey Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. The Planning Commission recommended approval with one condition (vote 4- 0). Proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments to Articles II (Definitions), III (District Regulations), and IV (Use and Design Standards) would incorporate regulations into the county's zoning ordinance dealing with large wind energy systems and utility wind energy systems. Fifty -two citizens spoke regarding the petition. The Planning Commission postponed any action until the next Planning Commission meeting (vote 4 -0). A work session was held on March 15. 2011 at the Roanoke County Administration Center. At the meeting, the commissioners discussed proposed amendments the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, were updated on the status of the Peters Creek /Hollins Community Plan and Urban Development Areas. The Planning Commission will hold three public hearings at its next meeting on April 5. 2011 in the Roanoke County Administration Center: The petition of Kenneth J. and Linda J. Lapiejko to obtain a Special Use Permit in a R -1, Low Density Residential, District to operate a private stable on 44.5 acres, located at 3525 Harborwood Road, Catawba Magisterial District. Community Developments - April 2011 The petition of Douglas R. and Mary E. McCallum to obtain a Special Use Permit in an AG -1, Agricultural /Rural Low Density, District to operate a small wind energy system on 2.414 acres, located at 4824 Wade Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments to Article I (General Provisions), Article II (Definitions and Use Types), Article III (District Regulations), Article IV (Use and Design Standards), and Article V (Development Standards) would revise and incorporate regulations dealing with, but not limited to: parking and parking structures; solar energy systems; private roads; fuel centers; religious assembly; home occupations; accessory apartments; private stables; multiple dog permits; temporary family health care structures; conditional zoning; enforcement procedures; nonconforming uses; and the board of zoning appeals including reducing the appeal period for certain use violations. Design Concept for New Library To Be Revealed Glenvar Branch Library Community Meeting Wednesday, April 20, 2011 @ 7:OOPM Glenvar Middle School Forum Hall Citizens will have the opportunity to study architectural plans for the new library after James Shook, project architect with Holzheimer Bolek + Meehan I Architects, reviews the final design concept and addresses citizen questions. Library construction is expected to begin this fall and conclude in December 2012. Until Next Month, Amanda Micklow Planner II �'�� ro Community Developments - May 2011 Community Developments an e. news letter NM F--- Menvar Community Meeting Peters Creek /Hollin, Community Meeting Planning Commission Update Building Safety Month Catawba Farmers' Market Glenvar Community Meeting IM %r 2 (a) 6:30PM Koanoke Re gional Housinq S Y r Peters Creek / H ' Community Meeting May 5 @ 6:30PM Lachowicz Rezoning Community Meeting May 9 @ 7PM Board of S Meeting May 10 @3PM Blue Ridge Parkway Broadcast Tower Community Meeting May 17 @6PM Planning Commission Work Session May 17 @ 6:OOPM Board of Supervisors Meeting May 24 @ 3PM Peters Creek /Hollins Community Meeting May 26 @ C - -y �_ Community Fired Us on Facebook 13 1 Join Our List Join Our Mailing List! Greetings! May is a busy month in the Department of Community Development, stay updated on departmental projects and upcoming meetings with this issue of Community Developments! L GLENVAR COMMUNITYMIAEETIN The third community meeting for the Glenvar Community Plan will be held on Monday, May 2, 2011 at 6:30PM at the Glenvar Middle School Forum (4555 Malus Drive). The community meeting will begin with a brief presentation on the results of the visioning exercises and visual preference survey conducted in the summer of 2010, the Glenvar Focus Group and the alternative future land use scenarios developed by the Focus Group. Following the presentation, the future land use scenarios will be displayed in an open -house format for public question and comment. There will also be an opportunity to view the future land use scenarios and submit comments online following the meeting. ,PETERS CREEK/HOL I MAL. k I r ff'Ir I k 1, Please join us for a series of community meetings regarding the Peters Creek /Hollins area of Roanoke County. Economic Development Focus Thursday, May 5, 2011 from 6:30- 8:30PM Green Ridge Recreation Center - Multipurpose Room B The meeting will begin with a discussion of development opportunities and limitations followed with a visual preference survey to evaluate aesthetics associated with development. Neighborhood Focus Thursday, May 26, 2011 from 6:30- 8:30PM Burlington Elementary School Cafeteria The meeting will be open -forum format with a brief presentation to discuss residential neighborhood issues. Staff will be available to answer questions and take feedback. CANNING COMMISSION UPDAT Community Developments - May 2011 The Roanoke County Planning Commission held three public hearings on April 5, 2011 at the Roanoke County Administration Center: The petition of Kenneth J. and Linda J. Lapiejko to obtain a Special Use Permit in a R -1, Low Density Residential, District to operate a private stable on 44.5 acres, located at 3525 Harborwood Road, Catawba Magisterial District. The Commission voted (5 -0) to recommend approval of the request with 2 conditions. No citizens spoke on this request. The Board of Supervisors approved the special use permit request with two conditions (4-0) at their April 26, 2011 meeting. The petition of Douglas R. and Mary E. McCallum to obtain a Special Use Permit in an AG -1, Agricultural /Rural Low Density, District to operate a small wind energy system on 2.414 acres, located at 4824 Wade Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. The Commission voted (5 -0) to recommend approval of the request with 3 conditions (the Commission added a condition to vacate a property line between the two parcels owned by the McCallums so that they would meet the 110% setback from all property lines). There were 4 citizens who spoke on this request. At their April 26 2011 meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved the special use permit request with two conditions, the condition requiring the combination of lots was removed (3 -1). About ten citizens spoke on this request. Proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments to Article I (General Provisions), Article II (Definitions and Use Types), Article III (District Regulations), Article IV (Use and Design Standards), and Article V (Development Standards) would revise and incorporate regulations dealing with, but not limited to: parking and parking structures; solar energy systems; private roads; fuel centers; religious assembly; home occupations; accessory apartments; private stables; multiple dog permits; temporary family health care structures; conditional zoning; enforcement procedures; nonconforming uses; and the board of zoning appeals including reducing the appeal period for certain use violations. The Planning Commission voted (5 -0) to recommend approval of the amendments with one revision to the private stable language and one addition allowing a broadcasting tower as a special use in the Explore Park district. No citizens spoke on this request. The Board of Supervisors public hearing on this ordinance will be May 24, 2011. On April 11, 2011 the Planning Commission held a special meeting to tour a utility scale wind energy system in West Virginia. At their April 19, 2011 work session the Planning Commission discussed urban development areas and continued its discussion of amendments that would incorporate regulations into the county's zoning ordinance dealing with large and Community Developments - May 2011 utility wind energy systems. The Planning Commission's May 3, 2011 public hearing has been canceled. At its May 17, 2011 work session, the Planning Commission will receive an update on the Glenvar Community Plan, urban development areas and large and utility wind energy systems. The Planning Commission will hold four public hearings at its June 7, 2011 meeting: The petition of Sandra Finck to obtain a Special Use Permit in a R -1, Low Density Residential, District to acquire a multiple dog permit for four (4) dogs on 2.24 acres, located at 2929 Elderwood Road, Catawba Magisterial District. The petition of National Park Service /Blue Ridge Parkway, to obtain a Special Use Permit in a AG -3S, Agricultural /Rural Preserve, District with a special use permit to construct a broadcast tower on 27.612 acres, located on Poor Mountain, Windsor Hills District. The petition regarding the Vinton Business Center. The purpose of these Development Guidelines and Protective Covenants are to ensure the orderly development of the Center, to protect the environment, and to provide that the use of the Center will not adversely affect the health and safety of residents and workers in the vicinity of the Center, or the use, or development of property within and adjacent to the Center. The petition of Carol and Jason Lachowicz to rezone 5.46 acres from AG -3, Agricultural /Rural Preserve, District, C -2C, General Commercial, District with conditions, and C -1C, Office with conditions, District to AV, Agricultural /Village Center, District and AG -3, Agricultural /Rural Preserve, District in order to operate a retail shop or general office use, located at 8346 Bent Mountain Road, 8364 Bent Mountain Road, and 8399 Strawberry Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. kY IS gIJILDING SAF MC The goal of Building Safety Month is to raise public awareness of critical safety issues such as the structural soundness of buildings, reliability of fire prevention and suppression systems, plumbing and mechanical systems, and energy efficiency and Sustainability. Four themes will be highlighted throughout May 2011: ME] Week One - Energy and Green Building Week Two - Disaster Safety and Mitigation �m Week Three - Fire Safety and Awareness Week Four - Backyard Safety -W NOW The Catawba Farmers' Market opens May 5, 2011. Held at Community Developments - May 2011 the Catawba Community Center, off 311 at 4965 Catawba Creek Road, the Farmers' Market is open Thursdays from 3:30- 6:30PM. Until next month, Amanda Micklow Planner II T � ® TrY j. Community Developments - December 2011 0 1AA. MA R&O L4 YL Ity P e wents Greetings! Happy Holidays from the Roanoke County Department of Community Development! Glenvar Community Plan Public Hearings At a special meeting on Monday, November 14, 2011, the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Glenvar Community Plan into the County's Comprehensive Plan. A main component of the Glenvar Community Plan is the establishment of the Glenvar Village Future Land Use Designation (indicated by green in the map below) . This Future Land Use Designation includes properties along West Main Street from the City of Salem line to Technology Drive and is intended to serve as a focal point for the Glenvar Community. For additional Plan recommendations, please view the draft document online. West Main Street Future Land Use Map The Glenvar Community Plan is tentatively scheduled to go to Public Hearing before the Board of Supervisors on January 24, 2012. Planning Commission Update The Planning Commission held one public hearing at its November 1, 2011 meeting: In This Issue Glenvar Community Plan Public Hearings Planning Commission Update Upcoming Meetings Planning Commission Dec. 5 @ 4 PM* Dec. 19 @ 6 PM Board of Supervisors Dec. 13 @ 3 PM* Work Session Time, Public Hearing at 7 PM Community Developments - December 2011 The petition of Peter Lundy to obtain a Special Use Permit in a C -2, General Commercial, District for the operation of a used automobile dealership on o.665 acre, located at 3119 Brambleton Avenue, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. The Planning Commission recommended approval. The Board of Supervisors approved the request with three conditions at its November 15, 2011 meeting. On November 14,, 2011, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Glenvar Community Plan into the County's Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission has one public hearing scheduled for its December 5. 2011 meeting: The petition of Glenn L. Reed, to rezone 13.7 acres from AR, Agricultural/ Residential, District to AV, Agricultural /Village Center, District for private/ secondary educational facilities and general office use and to obtain a special use permit in order to operate a convenience store, located in the 960o block of Bent Mountain Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. (Continued by the petitioner from November 1, 2011 Happy Holidays, Amanda Micklow, AICP Planner II Communit Developments - December 2011 X 0 r u 0 ��l�il, A-2A CQN1 L I B� 'A f 2 Y 'P jr.FREF today- NOTICE OF COMMUNITY MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 2010 AT 7:00 PM GLENVAR MIDDLE SCHOOL AUDITORIUM The County of Roanoke will hold its first community meeting for the Glenvar Community Plan on Monday, January 11, 2010. Once adopted, this plan will become a part of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan - a general, long -range policy and implementation guide for decisions regarding growth and development. The Glenvar Community Plan will ultimately help guide the future of your community. We look orward f to seeing you there! For More Information: Please contact the Roanoke County Department of Community Development bv phone at (540) 772 -2068 or by email at nla�n� ,roanokecountvva., Visit the Plan's webpage @ http / /www.roanokecountyva.gov/ GC GLENVAR COMMUNITY MEETING Greetings! The County of Roanoke will hold its first Community Meeting for the Glenvar Community Plan on Mon January 11, 2010 in the Glenvar Middle School Auditorium. Once adopted, this plan will become a part of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan - a general, long -range policy and implementation guide for decisions regarding growth and development. The Glenvar Community Plan will ultimately help guide the future of your community. Please pass this information on to family and friends; we look forward to seeing you there! Glenvar Community Meeting Details: Monday, January 17, 2010 7:00 PM Glenvar Middle School Auditorium for the informational flyer. Quick Links Glenvar Community Plan Webpage Department of Community Development Home Planning Services Facebook Page Sign up for Community Developments #.a0rolaiXWd d.rr C7 ENVISION THE 0 FUTU O F )( OUR COMMUNITY COMMUNITY MEETINGS FORT LEWIS BAPTIST CHURCH FELLOWSHIP HALL DAY I. IUN-E 2 9 :U E�SDAY ULY 15 7:OC dim E NVISIQN THE Fu_ TURE 0 TOUR COM COMMUNITY MEETINGS @FORT LEWIS ]BAPTIST CHURCH FELLOWSHIP HALL DAY E 29 :0( VAL M R6 �)C ,R N_ S o!cu s Z u LL. Z LLJ u L4 �)o 74 ,e C�q lot -14 kkf r-S 0 Ful M MIL cl�f 410y7 0 MENA uf� -LID ROANOKE COUNTY NEWS RELEASE Roanoke County Public Information Office 5204 Bernard Drive, SW • PO Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 -0798 For Immediate Release June 21, 2010 Contact: Teresa Hamilton Hall Roanoke County Public Information Director Office: 540- 772 -2010 Roanoke County to Host Community Meetings in Glenvar Citizens Asked to Envision the Future of their Community ROANOKE COUNTY, VA (June 21, 2010) — The County of Roanoke will host two community meetings in the coming weeks to gather citizen input for the Glenvar Community Plan. Work on the plan, which will help guide future growth and development in the western part of the County, has been underway for several months. The first of the two meetings will be held on Tuesday, June 29 at 7:00 p.m. in the Fort Lewis Baptist Church Fellowship Hall located at 4215 West Main Street. This meeting will focus more on growth and development issues related to West Main Street. The County will host a second community meeting on Thursday, July 15 at the same time and location. This meeting will concentrate mefe on the Dixie Caverns area. Although each meeting will have a particular focal point, citizens are encouraged to attend both meetings. Additional opportunities to comment after the meetings will be available on the County's website and through materials that will be handed out at each meeting and will be available at the Glenvar Library. Once adopted, the Glenvar Community Plan will become a part of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is a general, long -range policy and implementation guide for decisions regarding growth and development. For more information, you may contact David Holladay in the Roanoke County Department of Community Development by phone at (540) 772 -2068 ext. 227 or by email at dholladay(a�,Ro anokeCountyVA. gov Information about the plan is also available on the Roanoke County website at http://www.RoanokeCountyVA.aov/GCP U C7 ENVISION THE 0 FUTU O F )( OUR COMMUNITY COMMUNITY MEETINGS FORT LEWIS BAPTIST CHURCH FELLOWSHIP HALL DAY I. IUN-E 2 9 :U E�SDAY ULY 15 7:OC dim Glenvar Community Meeting Tonight! TUESDAY, JUNE 29 7:00 PM Fort Lewis Baptist Church Fellowship Hall The first of two Glenvar Community Meetings will be held tonight, June 29 at 7:00 PM in the Fort Lewis Baptist Church Fellowship Hall. Tonight's meeting will begin with a short presentation on the results of the community survey and then break into groups to participate in facilitated visioning exercises and a visual preference survey. These exercises will be focused on the question - 'what do you want your community to look like in the future ?' Each meeting will be focused on a specific area of the Glenvar Community. Tonight's meeting will concentrate on the West Main Street Corridor. Citizens are encouraged to join us for both sessions, but participation is not limited to the meetings. There will be opportunities to comment on both areas online and through materials that will be handed out at each meeting and will be available at the Glenvar Library. We hope to see you there! Email Marketing by http: // archive .constantcontact.com /fs04l /l 101684681078 /archive /1103526733432.html[01/17/12 2:03:30 PM] Glenvar Community Meeting Tonight! THURSDAY, JULY 15 7:00 PM Fort Lewis Baptist Church Fellowship Hall The second of two Glenvar Community Meetings will be held tonight, July 15 at 7:00 PM in the Fort Lewis Baptist Church Fellowship Hall. Tonight's meeting will begin with a short presentation on the Dixie Caverns area and then break into groups to participate in facilitated visioning exercises. These exercises will be focused on the question - 'what do you want your community to look like in the future? I Each meeting will be focused on a specific area of the Glenvar Community. Tonight's meeting will concentrate on the Dixie Caverns area. Citizens are encouraged to join us for both sessions, but participation is not limited to the meetings. There will be opportunities to comment on both areas o nline and through materials that will be handed out at each meeting and will be available at the Glenvar Library. We hope to see you tonight! http: // archive .constantcontact.com /fs04l /l 101684681078 /archive /1103566996327.html[01/17/12 2:03:59 PM] The third community meeting for the Glenvar Community Plan will be held on Monday, May 2, 2011 at 6:30PM in the Glenvar Middle School Forum. The meeting will begin with a brief presentation on the results of the community meetings held in the summer of 2010, the Glenvar Focus Group and the alternative future land use scenarios developed by the Focus Group. Following the presentation, the future land use scenarios will be displayed in an open -house format for public questions and comments. There will also be an opportunity to view the future land use scenarios and submit comments online following the meeting. Please pass this in formation on to neighbors, family andfriends. We lookforward to seeing you there! Ell 0 Please contact Amanda Micklow at amicklow @roanokecountyva.gov or (540) 772 -2068 ext. 228 ti with any questions or visit the plan webpage at http:// www. roanokecountyva .gov /GlenvarPlan. F IE 0 r i 11 -4A - II I N h j .. Q:Ountp of ROC1110he p, > DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUILDING PERMITS DIRECTOR, ARNOLD COVEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, TAREK MONEIR ENGINEERING DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, PHILIP THOMPSON INSPECTIONS COUNTY ENGINEER, GEORGE W. SIMPSON, III, P.E. MAPPING /GIS BUILDING COMMISSIONER, JOEL S. BAKER, CBO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TRANSPORTATION April 20, 2011 Dear Glenvar Citizen, The County of Roanoke will hold the third community meeting for the Glenvar Community Plan on Monday, May 2, 2011 at 6:30PM in the Glenvar Middle School Forum. The community meeting will begin with a brief presentation on the results of the visioning exercises and visual preference survey conducted in the summer of 2010, the Glenvar Focus Group and the alternative future land use scenarios developed by the Focus Group. Following the presentation, the future land use scenarios will be displayed in an open -house format for public question and comment. There will also be an opportunity to view the future land use scenarios and submit comments online following the meeting at http:// www. roanokecountyva .gov /GlenvarPlan. Please pass this information on to neighbors, family and friends. Please contact Amanda Micklow in the Department of Community Development at amicklow(.�roanokecountyva. - ov or (540) 772 - 2068 ext. 228 with any questions. Thank you, Amanda Micklow Planner II P.O. BOX 29800 , ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018 • PHONE (540) 772 -2068 , FAX (540) 776 -7155 Glenvar Community Meeting - May 2, 2011 g 6:30PM O'j i�t�no The third community meetinp- for the Glenvar Community Plan will be held on Monday, May 2, 2011 at 6:30PM in the Glenvar Middle School Forum. The community meeting will begin with a brief presentation on the results of the visioning exercises and visual preference survey conducted in the summer of 2010, the Glenvar Focus Group and the alternative future land use scenarios developed by the Focus Group. Following the presentation, the future land use scenarios will be displayed in an open -house format for public question and comment. There will also be an opportunity to view the future land use scenarios and submit comments online following the meeting. Please contact Amanda Micklow at (540) 772 -2068 ext. 228 with any questions or visit the Glenvar Community Plan webpage for more information. ,■ MUMEHIM http: // archive .constantcontact.com /fs04l /l 101684681078 /archive /1105173313594.html[01/17/12 2:05:03 PM] Glenvar Community Plan: Public Hearing - November 14, 2011 0 9 Greetings! 01IL41111 E I INIIt@ The Roanoke County Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, November 14, 2011 at 7 :00 PM in the Glenvar Middle School Forum to receive comments on the draft Glenvar Community Plan document. This plan will become part of the County's Comprehensive Plan, a long -range policy and implementation guide for decisions concerning growth and development in the County. Your input will help guide the future of the Glenvar Community. Roanoke County staff has worked with the Glenvar Focus Group and the Planning Commission to develop the draft Glenvar Community Plan document which includes a survey of existing conditions, recommended future land use scenario, plan recommendations and implementation strategies. A draft of the Glenvar Community Plan is available for review online or at the Roanoke County Department of Community Development. Following review by the Planning Commission, the Glenvar Community Plan will be forwarded to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors for their consideration. Thank you for participating in the Glenvar Community Planning Process, Amanda Micklow, AICP Please contact Amanda Micklow, Planner II, in the Roanoke County Community Development Department by email or by phone at (540) 772 -2068 ext. 228 with any questions or comments. http: // archive .constantcontact.com /fs04l /l 101684681078 /archive /1108552311003.html[01 /17/12 2:05:41 PM] M Document 16 u M E M Zonin District Glenvar Plannin Area Corridor AG-3 A Rural Preserve 18,711.60 169.53 AG-11 A Low Densit 1,896.79 190.82 AR A Residential 1,••6.47 447.00 AV A 0.00 0.00 R-1 Low Densit Residential 7,133.99 1,226.55 R-2 Medium Densit Residential 0.00 0.00 R-3 Medium Densit Multi-Famil Residential 0.00 0.00 R-4 Hi Densit Multi-Famil Residential 0.00 0.00 PRD Planned Residential District 0.00 0.00 R-MH Manufactured Housin Overla 11.53 0.00 NC Nei Conse—tion 0.00 0.00 C-1 Office 58.23 58.23 C-2 General Commercial 148.86 139.85 1-1 Low Intensit Industrial 181.96 100.53 1-2 Hi Intensit Industrial 897.73 786.81 PTD Planned Technolo Development 483.50 197.45 m Glenvar Plannin Area Slope N F Uses (acrea of all parcels with floodplain) M 0% Vacant Rural Homesite SFD Manufactured House Office Warehouse Heav Manufacturin Churches Cold Stora (Freezer) (blank) Public Schools Truck Terminal Li Manufacturin Convenience Store Service Gara Commercial 10% 20% 30% AO% 50% 60% 70% 67.8% Floodplain Acrea affected Zonin in Floodplain ,-Hoodpicin❖ ,.. Environmental Constraints-. u Irp Plan Website + Communit Involvement + Provides updates about the plan Clearin for information • Maps • Results of Surve ( Future ) Submit a photo Links to social media www.roanokecount !W r=�E_ W Department of Communit Development First Communit Meetin Januar 11, 201 + Communit Involvement -Af a monthl e.newsletter 7M r-= Next Steps ❑ Surve open one more month n Follow up anal of information F Stakeholder Interviews r- Second Communit Meeting Envision the Future of Your Community Community Meeting June 29, 2010 Glenvar Community Surve 195 Surveys Completed y y 168 (86 %) online 27 (14 %) hard copy Available from: - a- -- November 24, 2009 —April 16, 2010 Current Community Issues Maintaining community feel of the area • Traffic /congestion and appearance of West Main St. • Condition of schools and library; funding • Lack of youth recreation, family activities, community center • Environmental issues • Property values and taxes • Lack of commercial development • Safe options for alternative modes of transportation MeetineAizenda I. Welcome and Introductions 2. Presentation 3. Visioning Exercise 4. Visual Preference Survey 5. Comments and Questions Community Likes o Rural character of the area; quiet and peaceful setting, but not too far away from amenities in Salem or Christiansburg Feel of the community; close knit and safe • Views of the mountains, Roanoke River ♦ Glenvar Schools and Library oil a � a Future Community Issues Impact of industry on the community; protection of rural character • Lack of amenities — restaurants, businesses * Improving the Glenvar library and schools * Road maintenance and traffic issues; West Main St. Environmental concerns • Job creation and retention o Lack of community recreational activities 1 Visionin Exercise WEST MAIN STREET 2030 Lookin Ahead Jul Is, Fall 2010 2010 Dixie Caverns Area Third Communit Visionin Meetin Meetin Visionin Exercise and Visual Preference Surve Available Online Draft vision statements, g oals and alternative scenarios for communit plan maps Winter 2010 Public Hearin What T of Business and/or Services Would You Like to See in y our Community? Bi Box Stores ( i.e. Lowes, Walmart, Tar etc. Car Dealerships Car Washes Convenience Store/Gas Stations Financial/Lendin Institution Garden Centers/Hardware Stores Grocer Stores .0 Medical Offices Mini-Warehouses/Stora 0 Personal Services ( barber shops, salons, spas, etc. Pharmacies Post Off— Professional Offices Restaurants ( fast food Restaurants ( sit-down, famil Recall Establishments Li Industr Heav Industr Other, MO i 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Number of Responses Visual Preference Surve • Ima are rated from a possible hi of +3 to a possible low of -3. • 96 means that y ou have no opinion or think the ima is neutral. EXAMPLE Less More Preferred Neutral Preferred -3 -2 -1 0 + 1 +2 +3 Envision the Future of Your Community Community Meeting July 15, 2010 I Center for Research &Technology I 4uv Acre Hign iecn inaustr ai varK MeetineAizenda I. Welcome and Introductions 2. PowerPoint Presentation 3. Visioning Exercise 4. Visual Preference Survey 5. Comments and Questions Roanoke Regional I ntermodal Facil Dixie Caverns Area f 1 _- 7� l �V IYX� I Center for Research &Technology I 4uv Acre Hign iecn inaustr ai varK MeetineAizenda I. Welcome and Introductions 2. PowerPoint Presentation 3. Visioning Exercise 4. Visual Preference Survey 5. Comments and Questions Roanoke Regional I ntermodal Facil f 1 Visioning Exercise DIXIE CAVERNS 2030 1 Loo Id n g Ahead July 15, Fall Winter 2010 2010 2010 Dixie Caverns Area Third Community Public Visioning Meeting Meeting Hearings Visioning Exercise and Visual Preference Survey Available Online Draft vision statements, goals and alternative scenarios for community plan maps Visual Preference Survey • Images are rated from a possible high of +3 to a possible low of -3. • means that you have no opinion or think the image is neutral. EXAMPLE Less More Preferred Preferred -3 -2 -1 + 1 +2 +3 L 1/ IIICIIIWCIJ IIVIII tJICIIvQI community Represents residents, businesses, community and civic organizations 2 Main Tasks 1. Vision Statement Development (First Focus Group Meeting) 2. Future Land Use Scenario Development (Second and Third Focus Group Meetings) • Glenvar Community Plan Group • Visioning Exercise Results • Visual Preference Survey • Glenvar Community Plan • Glenvar Community Plan Scenarios • rnmmiinit%, inn, it nnrA nin June 29 and July 15, 2010 Second Round of Community Meetings Januarythrough March 2011 Glenvar Focus Group May 2, 2011 Third Community Meeting • Conducted for both the West Main Street Corridor and the Dixie Caverns Area • Participants were broken into small groups and asked to envision what their community would look like in twenty years. • How is the community different? • What are some of the changes that have occurred? • Community center; neighborhood scale parks • Underground utilities; junkyards eliminated Photo ratings are shown using three figures: Photo 1D The sum adds (or subtracts) each participant's selected rating. The mode is the numerical rating Y F selected the most number of times. F The mean (or average) divides sum: zoo Mode: 3 Mean: 1.98 the sum by the total number of responses. Dixie Caverns Area • Buildings designed to fit in with surroundings; preserve historic /rural character • Gateway corridor • Built out technology parks; hotels and restaurants at interchange • Improvements to Dow Hollow Road and intersection • Greenway connectivity • Emphasis on outdoor recreation; parks; tourism • Variation in fa,ade • Materials - brick or stone • Architecture —eaves, roof lines, windows, entryways • Visible landscaping around building /integrated into site • Pedestrian- friendly, lighting, parking further back /rear of site • Limited signage, monument style signs, landscaping around base • Grass /landscaped medians, bike lanes and no overhead power lines Vision Statement Goal Goal Objective Objective Objective Objective I Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy The Glenvar area strives to be a visuallq appealing, healthy and sustainable 0 community that encourages a mix of land uses in a manner that is consistent with the community's rural character. Community Input Key Themes • Aesthetically pleasing/ cleanup West Main St. corridor • Preserve rural character of community • Balance between business, aesthetics and community • Provide commercial and to limit industrial uses to clean, environmentally - sensitive businesses with attractive building design and surrounding landscaping with unobtrusive signage • Appropriate location for industrial /commercial uses F1 Housekeeping L Change 1 Rural Preserve to Conservation E x' M Housekeeping Change 3 Neighborhood Conservation to Transition a Housekeeping Change 5 Development to Neighborhood Conservation i t .. Housekeeping Change 2 Rural Preserve and Development to _ Neighborhood Conservation .. a ! Housekeeping Change 4 Rural Preserve to Neighborhood Conservation R. � Housekeeping Change 6 Transition to Rural Preserve 16 0 n Housekeeping Change 7 Principal Industrial to Rural Village _ T 3 - k Housekeeping Change 9 Development to Neighborhood Conservation ~ j f Y I fue... }- MY:'k1wr, Fh Fl iaa�..Ii^l Gwa.:f�s - f. Housekeeping Change 8 Development to Rural Village I Y I Housekeeping Change 10 Development to Neighborhood Conservation 10 1 5 B 1 il �� r J J� Y , ;1 I. 11 r ie Land Use Types Land Use Determinants • Community Activity Centers • Existing Land Use Pattern • Commercial • Existing Zoning F • General Retail Shops and • Access Personal Services • Utility Availability F • Limited Industrial • Mixed Use • Office and Institutional • Parks and Outdoor Recreation /Ecotou rism • Residential • Provides for a mix of uses to be preserved and developed • Recognizes existing uses and includes mixture of zoning districts • Allows more choice /opportunity in how the land can be developed • Encourage pedestrian and vehicular connectivity between properties • Encourage a high degree of architectural and creative site design that enhances the rural and historic character of the a rea %. - I WMA • Serve as focal point for the community; New Glenvar Library, Richfield Retirement Community, Fire and Rescue Station, Fort Lewis Elementary, Entrance to Glenvar Schools Complex; Pleasant Grove and Fort Lewis Baptist Church • Provide for a mix of uses on a parcel and /or along the Route 11/460 Corridor • Encourage cluster development and pedestrian /vehicular connectivity between properties • Encourage a high degree of architectural and creative site design that enhances the rural and historic character of the community E I 13 a.r.¢a. n.r.n.y.¢ awmr fw..w. carol w. ser.w�e 7 r + e , - �ba.alYplat¢ � aJ �i��►y �1 �F E xie Cavarrm Ana.. Scenario 1 sue' q, � - - 12 • Technology -based businesses and low intensity industrial uses are most appropriate; • Uses which have the potential to be dangerous or extremely obnoxious F are not appropriate; F Industrial development should be located in existing technology parks; F High intensity industrial uses should be located south of Route 11/460. Low intensity or technology -based industrial uses are appropriate for either side of Route 11/460; Development should be sensitive to the natural environment and include a high degree of architectural and creative site design that is compatible with the rural and historic character of the community; • Does not preclude commercial uses from being developed. Poor Mountain Road: Uses should be limited to environmentally sensitive small manufacturing and low intensity industrial along the Roanoke River and railroad tracks. Center for Research and Technoloav & ValleyTechPark: These areas are - the most appropriate for high -tech manufacturing operations, research and development companies and corporate headquarters. Uses, site design and aesthetics are regulated by each park's respective covenants, master plan and /or conditions. • Serve as a gateway to both the Glenvar Community and Roanoke County; • Development that enhances the rural and historic character of the area is encouraged; F • Truck stops should be avoided; F • Businesses should be distinctive in appearance and include a high degree of architectural and creative site design; • Industrial uses should be redirected to land designated as Principal Industrial. Twine Hollow Road: Development or expansion of industrial uses along Twine Hollow Road should be limited to: Manufacturing, storage, marketing and wholesaling of agricultural products; • Low intensity industrial uses and custom manufacturing; • Warehousing and distribution; and Mining and resource extraction most new neighborhood development should occur. In the Glenvar Planning Area, development should be consistent with the existing land use pattern. Appropriate uses include: • Conventional residential • Cluster or planned residential • Community activity centers ? Main Street Corridor Future Land Use Scenarios • West Main Street Corridor Comment Sheet • Housekeeping Comment Sheet 2. Dixie Caverns Area Future Land Use Scenarios • Dixie Caverns Comment Sheet 3. Future Land Use Refinement Comment Sheet (available after the presentation) Submit comment sheets tonight or at the Glenvar Library K I Comment Online http:// www. roanokecountyva.gov /GLENVARPLAN sow Wast Main Street Scenario 1 1 9 Please join us for open -house portion of the meeting across the hall in the cafeteria. Thank You Coming Tonight! Document 17 West Main Street Visioning Exercise Please take a few moments to relax. Allow yourself to imagine it is today's date — 20 years in the future. Imagine this part of Glenvar is exactly how you would like it to be. As you travel along West Main Street - what does it look like? What kind of buildings do you see? How tall are they? What uses are in them? Do people work or live in them or both? Where do you shop? Go out to eat? Exercise? Take care of other daily needs? How does the street landscape look? How are people moving around? Please take a few minutes and jot down some ideas. - Continued on the hack - Please take some time and reflect on these questions. How is your community different in the future than it is today? What are some of the changes that have occurred? Return to today. What are some steps that could be realistically taken now to initiate any of the changes and help to make your vision of West Main Street a reality? - Please turn in when finished with the exercise - Dixie Caverns Area Visioning Exercise Please take a few moments to relax. Allow yourself to imagine it is today's date — 20 years in the future. Imagine this part of Glenvar is exactly how you would like it to be. As you travel through the Dixie Caverns area - what does it look like? What kind of buildings do you see? How tall are they? What uses are in them? Do people work or live in them or both? Where do you shop? Exercise? Go out to eat? Take care of other daily needs? How does the street landscape look? How are people moving around? Please take a few minutes and jot down some ideas. - Continued on the back - Please take some time and reflect on these questions. How is your community different in the future than it is today? What are some of the changes that have occurred? Return to today. What are some steps that could be realistically taken now to initiate any of the changes and help to make your vision of the Dixie Caverns area a reality? - Please turn in when finished with the exercise - Document 18 WEST MAIN STREET VISIONING EXERCISE COMMENTS Group 1 Question 1: How do you envision the West Main Street Corridor in twenty years? • Streetlights (Big Hill Area) • Clean and inviting • Underground utilities • Grass maintenance • Less industry, more retail (medical, professional offices, shopping centers, restaurants) • Bike lanes • Walkways • Art and sculptures • Park -like seating and shade • Greenway extension • Converting older buildings to apartments • More outdoor recreation • Skate park, youth and children recreation, adventure recreation centers • Industry (more) • Retail • Shuttle bus stops • Clustered commercial (planned) • Senior center at new library • Sports complex for all sports: golf, driving range, putt -putt Question 2: How is your community different in the future? What are some changes that have occurred? • Build sidewalks when road widened • Industrial uses need screening • Restoration of historic buildings for apartments and businesses • Redefine future land use and zoning to define spaces • Prevent mountain top development (no Slate Hill) • Park -like features around Roanoke River • Solicit funds for infrastructure improvements • Encourage businesses to locate in Glenvar (retail, recreational, medical facilities, shopping centers) • Assist residents with home improvements • Increase fines for code violations • Tax incentives for people doing the right thing • Landscaping at water treatment plan • Purchase water treatment plant • Build patio homes • Beautification of water retention ponds W-1 Group 2 Question 1: How do you envision the West Main Street Corridor in twenty years? • Prettier • Greener- trees, shade • Park -like with businesses (rural) • Historical area preserved • Landscaping (percent of greenspace required) • 2 -3 story buildings (designed, integrated landscaping and into community) • Mountain views preserved • No smokestacks, cooling towers, auto storage • No industry in commercial areas — concentrate in industrial area • Mixed -use • Exterior design emphasis • Managed lighting — visible from road • Parking behind buildings • Family friendly amenities • Restaurants, personal care businesses • Village -type —mixed use • Community center • Greenway connection (move easily between areas) • Blueways, river access (human powered recreation) • Water feature (recreation and visual enjoyment) • Pedestrian scale • Buried utilities • Setbacks (min /max) • Businesses /residential facade • Farmers' market Question 2: How is your community different in the future? What are some changes that have occurred? Increased setbacks • Planning • No /reduced continued non - conforming uses • Limited traffic lights • Traffic study; how does traffic flow? Use smart lights • Could start farmers' market • Light /low noise industry on West Main Street • Interconnect Green Hill Park Access • 1 St glimpse of Roanoke County from 1 -81 (traveling north) • Eliminate junkyards, empty buildings • Zoning ordinance review • Incremental improvements • Road expansion — increases property value • Renewed interest, community participation Increase area attractiveness, attract new residents • Economic development plan Group 3 Question 1: How do you envision the West Main Street Corridor in twenty years? • Wider highway with turn lanes — sidewalks and bike lanes, wider shoulders • Restaurants /office buildings — landscaped sites /streetscapes • More parks — neighborhood scale • Shopping center — grocery store, Kohl's • Community center —small Green Ridge, could be private • Going to see more truck traffic • Fort Lewis name lost -> Glenvar • Post office • Professional offices —small cross section of 419 (pretty part) • Residential — elderly, impacts to schools — townhouses /apartments • Public transportation • Commuter parking lot • Walking trail — connecting places • Glen Mary, CRT — trails • Trail to Fort Lewis Mountain • Design guidelines • Junkyards gone /good looking buildings • One -story buildings — up not out • Residential —off highway • Landscaping — maintained • Fence unattractive uses • Public access to Roanoke River • Recreational tourism? Question 2: How is your community different in the future? What are some changes that have occurred? Zoning — uses, setbacks, buildings, landscaping, overlay? • Cleaning up junk areas • Screening /fencing • Zoning enforcement • Perception as dumping ground /publicity of nice places • Tax payer $ -> incentives to clean -up area • Extension of water and sewer lines off main road Group 4 Question 1: How do you envision the West Main Street Corridor in twenty years? • Eliminate junk yards • Underground utilities • Improved air quality • Sidewalks along corridors • Landscaped (trees, shrubs, etc.) • Clean businesses • Family restaurants (sit -down) • Light industry /high -tech jobs • CRT built out • Upscale shopping centers (retail) • Clustered /planned developments — walkable, mixed -use communities (old Salem water treatment plant) • Low profile, aesthetically pleasing monument signs • Blacksburg (decorative facades, high -tech industry, upscale, etc.) • Apartments /condos integrated with businesses (upscale) • Decorative street lights /lanterns • More childcare /day care centers • Improve existing facades of businesses • Extend Roanoke River greenway to Green Hill Park • Smart bus stop in Glenvar/ more transit • Evaluate smart bus route (Glenvar ?) Question 2: How is your community different in the future? What are some changes that have occurred? • Coordinate improvements with road widening • Whitt Carpet and Tile —great example • Landscaping along corridor and interior parking; also along business facades • Evaluate commercial matching grant • Evaluate private /public partnerships • County be proactive about creating incentives to eliminate visually displeasing land uses • County consider purchasing properties • Evaluate zoning and future land use • Use old photos to identify patterns of growth in Glenvar (missed opportunities in past ?); use to guide future development, design • Review /modify local ordinances (evaluate land uses) • Better screening of outdoor storage • Improve /enhance landscaping requirements • Tax incentives for current property /business owners? • Evaluate blighted properties — utilize eminent domain as tool (county) • Develop zoning overlays /district standards /allowable land uses • County -wide support of Glenvar community (take it to next level with elected officials and appointed officials) WEST MAIN STREET VISIONING COMMENTS -M DIXIE CAVERNS AREA VISIONING EXERCISE COMMENTS Group 1 Question 1: How do you envision the Dixie Caverns area in twenty years? • Nice hotels and motels • Parks and river access with boat rentals • Improve Dixie Caverns • Expand greenway (Roanoke River) and connect to rest of system and Montgomery County • More eco- friendly buildings, land development, river access, open space, green space • Buildings to fit in with and compliment the area and landscape • Small commercial area /strip mall that fits in with the landscape • Fully- occupied technology parks • Add center lane on 460 to replace guard rail • Smart bus stops with a park and ride • Bicycle lanes everywhere • Pedestrian crosswalks along 460 • Small grocery store • Nice family restaurants • Family recreation, mini golf • Public access and picnic areas at Spring Hollow • Movie Theater • Doctor's offices • 2 -story mixed use development • Golf course taking advantage of views • Railroad focused excursions, scenic Question 2: How is your community different in the future? What are some changes that have occurred? • Proactive marketing for Dixie Caverns • Promote Dixie Caverns proximity to Intermodal Facility • Expand rail scenic from Roanoke • Incentives for business to locate here • Market entire region for new business location, tie to VT • Public transit (bus service) from Dixie Caverns to Salem and Roanoke • Playground at Green Hill • Community center at the library —focus for redevelopment • Vacant church —turn into community center • West Main Street — village center, nicely landscaped —keep theme to and through Dixie Caverns • Commercial development should have apark -like setting • Dog park a I Group 2 Question 1: How do you envision the Dixie Caverns area in twenty years? • Clean up existing junk sites — Stoneskeep • Dow Hollow median /landscaping maintained, improved -> entrance to Montgomery County • Police coverage improved —more patrols on dead -end trouble spots Question 2: How is your community different in the future? What are some changes that have occurred? • Greenways, parks, river preservation • Unobtrusive buildings • Geared to rural architecture • Great Road — historic aspects • Street improvements on West Main Street • 460 has turn lanes, deceleration shoulders • Keep Wayside Park — build upon • Look at areas for water and sewer extensions — Pleasant Run, sewer, Meacham Road, water and sewer • Small business — clean on Harwick Dr. • Restaurants • Not a truck stop • Parks and greenways • Small clusters of businesses • More businesses in CRT and Valley Tech • Retain rural flavor — limited growth Question 3: What can we do now to help achieve your vision of the Dixie Caverns area? • Start on dump sites • Take a look at land uses • Reexamine existing zoning • Heavy commercial to lighter uses and industry Group 3 Question 1: How do you envision the Dixie Caverns area in twenty years? • Traffic light at intersection of Dow Hollow and 11/460 • More open space /recreational area long interchange (near cemetery, Dixie Caverns) • Focus on preserving land and protecting natural resources • Concerns with more truck traffic due to intermodal facility • Concerns with future widening of 1 -81 • Create inviting gateway at County line • Terrain issues will hinder development on south side of the interchange • Northwest side of interchange developable; promote commercial /industrial development • More commercial development needed on northwest side (retail, restaurants, hotels, etc. — Cracker Barrel) • Focus on river access at Wayside Park -> kayak /canoe rentals • Tie greenways /bikeways with Montgomery County; more parks • Consider less stringent regulations to draw in businesses (Cracker Barrel) • Wayfinding /distance signage • Concerned with growth "explosion" due to intermodal facility (i.e. Front Royal) — not a bad thing, but be proactive with planning • Blue Jay has been very successful —would like to see similar development, as opposed to fast food; typical strip development • Roadway safety along 460 between interchange and Montgomery county (crossovers, no medians, no side pull off areas, etc.) • Strip mall /outlet malls would be great • Renovations /aesthetic upgrades to existing buildings (Dixie Caverns) • Encourage land preservation and protect ecology and animals; land trusts • Scenery Drive Future Land Use (Transition -> Neighborhood Conservation); evaluate future land use • Future Land Use of cemetery parcel south of interchange /Rte. 796 Group 4 Question 1: How do you envision the Dixie Caverns area in twenty years? • More residential /commercial — mixed use • Walking trails, greenways • "Environmentally aware" industry • Upscale hotels and restaurants • Points of interest —tourism; welcome center at interchange • Connectivity with other parts of area /parcels • Sidewalks • "Well designed" buildings • Architecture compatible with surroundings — emphasis on historical designs • Smaller scale businesses • Keep rural feel of area- businesses unique to Glenvar • Small shopping center • Mitigate impact of truck traffic • Single- family; multifamily • Planned neighborhoods — mixed use • Day care facilities • Park — Roanoke River Question 2: How is your community different in the future? What are some changes that have occurred? • Integrate landscaping • Keep industry clustered; technology parks • Preserve character of the area for future generations • Design guidelines • Work with VDOT on current regulations • Commercial development at interchange vs. industrial • Tourism, reservoir, outdoor recreation VISION AND GOAL STATEMENTS The Glenvar Community Plan will be implemented using a hierarchy of vision statements, goals and objectives. The overall community vision is at the top of the hierarchy. The vision statement expresses the desired future of the community. A set of goals with supporting objectives and strategies form the implementation framework and provide direction for the future growth and development of the community. The Vision Statement is a guide to provide direction to the Planning Commission, County staff and community members in the formulation of the goals and objectives of the community plan. Goals are typically very general statements about the quality and character of the community that are not easily quantified or measured. Goals must be translated into measurable objectives that can be prioritized and pursued by implementing specific strategies that will be followed. The goals and objectives are intended to result in a specific quality and character for the Glenvar Community. This will be achieved by following strategies designed to achieve measurable progress toward achieving the community's objectives. These strategies will have to balance the public purposes inherent in planning for the long -range future of the community with the rights of private property owners to develop an appropriate use of their land. Vision: summarizes the ideal state of a place [community] Goal: transforms a vision into a discrete statement of direction Objective: breaks down a goal into tasks that are measurable and time - oriented Strategies: assists the facilitating organization towards accomplishing the stated objectives Vision Statement Goal Goal Objective Objective Objective Objective Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy 10 ' Document 19 VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY RESULTS The visual preference survey (VPS) is a tool that allows the public to rate visual concepts of existing and non- existing building designs, landscape characteristics, architectural styles, signs, streetscapes, etc. The visual preference survey helps community members, business owners, planners and others visualize the type of growth and development that they want for their communities. The VPS presented 108 questions that asked participants to rate each of a series of photos in a common category, on a scale of —3 to +3, with 0 being neutral. Images were selected to demonstrate a range of design possibilities. One hundred and one (101) visual preference surveys were completed at the June and July community meetings and online. The results from the VPS will be used in the formulation of the Glenvar Community Plan and revision of the Route 11/460 Design Guidelines. Photo ratings are shown using three figures: The sum adds (or subtracts) each participant's selected rating. With 101 completed surveys, the highest possible sum is 303 ( +3 x 101) and the lowest is —303 ( -3 x 101). The mode is the numerical rating ( -3, -2,,-1,, 0, +1, +2, +3) selected the most number of times. While this is helpful in seeing a majority preference it does not show the second or third most common rating, which may be an opposing preference. EXAMPLE More Preferred + The mean, or average, divides the sum by the total number of responses providing an accurate reading of overall preference on the scale —3 to +3. Some results show clear negative or positive responses, demonstrated by a mean closer to —3 or +3, while others show either a neutral or polarized response, as demonstrated by a mean closer to zero. For example, Photo 1D with a sum of 200, mode of 3 and mean of 1.98 shows a favorable response to the image. Photo 1C, on the other hand, with a sum of —125, mode of —3 and mean of —1.29 indicates a negative preference for the image. The results of Photo 1F with a sum of —34, mode of —3 and mean of —0.34 shows that while the greatest number of participants rated the photo as —3, a large number also ranked the photo favorably, moving the average to a more neutral range. p Clockwise (from top left): Photo 1D, Photo 1FC and Photo 1F 1. RATE EACH PHOTO F AN OFFICE BUILDIN Sum: 140 Mode: 3 Mean: 1.41 Sum: 165 Mode: 3 Mean: 1.65 Sum: -125 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.29 40 . =' 3 0� 'y �c N U cu N -4 J l L c o 20 M cu '0 cc 0 -3 - - 0 1 Rating 6c 45 a LA 20 au 4 5 2 Rating 4 cu 19 0 cu cc 0 Rating iLVA VrI I r/A i II r 1!I i 409- s� �I 11 ••- ': Sum: -121 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.23 Ak v. j Sum: -34 Mode: -3 Mean: -0.34 N 40 2 O N C O 0 _ _ t Rating 0 20 12 ow 20 -]-jjil3 i C O 10 1 - J—I:P:7 0 —3 _2 -1 0 1 2 3 Rating 30 cu1 9 C O O1 �� 0 -,�- -3 - - a 1 2 3 Rating .. RATE EACH PHOTO OF A BANK Sum: 187 Mode:3 Mean: 1.85 ICU 40 ` N 22 � aL 0 0 .4 2 � 6 ICU 0 �c Rating Sum: -9 Mode: 1 Mean: -0.09 lie a 15 15 a, 0 10 a 4 LA liz Rating Sum: -30 Mode: 0 Mean: -0.31 30 /_a 1 - 1l 11. 0 10 � - �c - - -3 -1 0 1 2 3 Rating • I Sum: 21 Mode: -1 Mean:0.21 30 21_ 17 -- 0 CL LA 1 ICU 0 �c - - — 0 1 2 3 Rating Sum: 15 Mode:1 Mean: 0.15 Sum: 58 Mode:1 Mean: 0.59 30 20 23 w 20 1 13 p 0 &A N a� �c 0 Rating 19 23 19 N CU 2 12 0 C 5 10 0 oc Rating 3 . RATE EACH PHOTO FINDUSTRY Sum: 132 Mode:2 Mean: 1.35 30 9 0 M A 5, z a cu -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Rating Sum: -142 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.46 Sum: -38 Mode: -3 Mean: -0.38 4 ai 30 20 - 8 20 0. LA 10 v - -3 -2 -1 a 1 2 3 Rating ."' MAIM Aft Sum: -193 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.97 60 40 0 - 17 CL 0 2a - -- 0 a 3 2 -1 0 1 Rating Sum: -245 Mode: -3 Mean: -2.47 Sum: 56 77 80 60 0 0 0. 20 1 O e -" Rating c, 10 0 10 cu 0 -1 0 Rating Mode:1 Mean: 0.56 2 cu z 0 8 CL a -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Rating 4. RATE EACH PHOTO OF AN APARTMENT OR CONDOMINIUM NEIGHBORHOOD Sum: -8 Mode: -3 Mean: -0.08 30 T 22 4A .- 1 H 3 C L cc 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin Sum: -50 Mode: -3 Mean: -0.51 Sum: -84 Mode: -9 Mean:-0.28 18 19 &A - '14 cu 20 &A 1. C 0 LA 0 ai w to � 0 -2 0 1 2 3' Ratin 30 [A 44 cu 20 0 14 [A — r- it i� M L 10 4 ML- 1 2 3 Ratin Sum: -27 Mode: 1 Mean: -0.28 Sum: -115 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.19 Sum: 82 Mode: 3 Mean: 0.84 30 24 22 ' 16 - 14 13 0 10 3 0 -3 -2 0 1 2 3 Ratin 40 35 30 r- 20 amp 0 CL 10 10 - 0 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin 2S 22 16 cu 14 0 a 7 7 10 - - _ �-- 0 Rating 5 . RATE EACH PHOTO F A HOTEL OR MOTEL Sum: 68 Mode: 2 Mean: 0.69 Sum: -120 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.21 24 2 H 14 0 'A 10 A l it cc -3 -2 -1 0 3 2 3 Rating _. Z5 &A 161 cu {{ N ,L 0 a LA ai Rating Sum: -140 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.43 4 V1 cu 0 JA N ', 20 7 cc 0 - -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Rating Sum: -52 Mode: -3 Mean: -0.53 Sum: 69 Mode: 2 Mean: 0.70 Sum: -126 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.27 2 1 12 12 10 0 a� 10 �c 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Rating o 2 , 20 20 0 9 CL 10 - �c 0 -3 2 -1 0 1 2 3 Rating 4 %C 30 °' 1 o 20 10 a - 10 0 - -3 2 -1 0 1 2 3 Rating 6 . RATE EACH PHOTO OF A FAMILY RESTAUBANT Sum: 129 Mode:1 Mean: 1.30 Sum: -168 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.73 Sum: 135 Mode:2 Mean:1.36 7! a r cu N 10 0 '. 10 cu 2 a = -3 -2 - 1 0 1 2 Rating N 0 0 1 4i t ai CL 2e 1 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Rating 40 3 5 29 N - cu o 20 12 10 N -_ - CU 10 cc v -3 -1 0 1 2 Rating Sum: -155 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.53 30 19 21 N 0 a 0 -3 - -1 0 1 2 3 Rating Sum: 122 Mode: 2 Mean: 1.22 Sum: -133 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.36 3 C 0 0. 'A 10 4 � cc � —�j 0 -3 2 0 1 2 3 Rating 37 UN MONW , - cu Sum: -155 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.53 30 19 21 N 0 a 0 -3 - -1 0 1 2 3 Rating Sum: 122 Mode: 2 Mean: 1.22 Sum: -133 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.36 3 C 0 0. 'A 10 4 � cc � —�j 0 -3 2 0 1 2 3 Rating 37 cu CU rn 9 I C -- - - -1 0 1 2 3 Rating 7. RATE EACH PHOTO OF A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT GO Aft Sum: 123 Mode: 2 Mean: 1.24 - NOW Z4 c 20 - r_ 0 9 8 cu -3 2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin I- Sum: -19 Mode: 0 Mean: -0.20 30 2,3 20 &A cu 20 12 0. 0 &A j r_ j 2 9 IA 10 4 cu 0 -3 -2 -1 0 7 Ratin Sum: - 123 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.27 40 CL) 0 19 CL LA cu is cc 0 0 7-r Ratin Sum: -77 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.27 -(23 23 21 20 - 0 9 -7 0 Ratin Sum: 120 Mode: 2 Mean: 1.22 20 16 &A r_ 0 0. — - - - 3 'A 10 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin Sum: 68 Mode: 2 Mean: 0.69 3 2,6 CA -� --s cu CA r_ 10 0 a IC 4 c Rating 8. RATiE EACH P H OTO 0 F A STRI P MALL 0 R SMALL COMMIERC I AREA —A� A-3 :: 46irL�l Sum: -205 Mode: -3 Mean: -2.09 Sum: 79 Mode: Mean:.082 Sum: -59 Mode: -3 Mean: -0.62 58 60 4A cu 40 4A r_ 20 0 M fA -, n : , cu - L., a 4 5 .3 cc 0 F -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin 40 14 0 . 20 LA cu jz 10 0 Ratin -30 - 2 23 15 cu 20 - [A r_ 10 0 M LA cu cc -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin Sum: 115 Mode: 2 Mean: 1.16 30 f 21 20 0 20 a fi 10 0 -3 -2 i 0 1 2 3 Ratin 14W N M Sum: -31 Mode: -3 Mean: -0.31 Sum: -223 Mode: -3 Mean: -2.28 30 11 21 &A 13 O 'A 10 0 Ratin ` 6 1 60 cu 2 40 o 'ji a 22 7- 20 0 0 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Rating 9. RATE EACH PHOTO OF A GAs- STATION Sum: 37 Mode: 1 Mean: 0.38 Sum: -81 Mode: -3 Mean: -0.83 Sum: 92 Mode: 2 Mean: 0.93 24 24 19 -- cu 0 9 M fA cu 2 s- o -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin &A ai 20 &A r- 0 IA cu 10 cp 0 -3 Ratin 19 18 22 03 -) 0 9 cu 0 -3 2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin Sum: -87 Mode: -3 Mean: -0.90 Sum: -2 Mode: 2 Mean: -0.02 27 30 21 4A dlb%dF 4) 14 0 10 3 0 z -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin 0 20 21 &A w 20 &A 9 CL 0 r Ratin Sum: -44 Mode: 1 Mean: -0.45 cu 20 13 0 a 7 cu C, Ratin GLENVAR COMMUNITY PLAN VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY RESULTS 10. RATE EACH PHOTO OF AN AuToMOBILE DEALERSHIP it .. Magi Sum: -66 Mode: -3 Mean: -0.68 20 20 20 25 15 cu 0 M cu w 5 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin F= C) FM 406-bm Sum: 39 Mode: 2 Mean: 0.40 2 5 &A cu 2o &A 12 0 'A cu 10 cc 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 3 Ratin Sum: -1 Mode: 1 Mean: -0.01 30 19 22 CU 1 — 0 M " -10 cc cu 1 2 3 Ratin now. T7 Sum: -212 Mode: -3 Mean: -2.14 Sum: -54 Mode: 0 Mean: -0.55 Sum: 94 Mode: 1 Mean: 0.96 6 40,, 25 25 7 8 3 2 0 0 _ -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin 30 - " . 2s 21 &A 20 aj - &A 9 9 'A 10 0 Ratin 23 3 19 cu 0 a CA i - 4 cu -3 -2 1 0 1 2 3 Ratin GLENVAR COMMUNITY PLAN VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY RESULTS 1 1 . RATE E AC PHOTO OF A G R ERST Sum: 100 Mode:1 Mean: 1.01 Sum: 127 Mode:2 Mean: 1.28 Sum: 89 Mode:2 Mean:0.99 CU N 0 cu Rating Sum: 97 Mode:2 Mean: 0.99 22 - . I 17 - N O �. - - - 2 v -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Rating 6C ,. cu N 40 C 0 LA cu - -1 0 1 Rating Sum: -14 Mode: 0 Mean: -0.14 19 -. 14 14 15 14 a, 15: N _ 0 10 C. aj -- - -3 -2 -1 0 1 z 3 Rating cu 20 N O M Z0 - - -3 -2 - 1 0 1 2 3 Rating Sum: -1 Mode: 1 Mean: -0.01 - - 19 -- 15 10 N 0 10 N -- 5 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Rating GLENVAR COMMUNITY PLAN VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY RESULTS 12. RATE EACH PHOTO OF A BIG Box RETAIL STORE Sum: 67 Mode: 2 Mean: 0.70 Sum: -3 Mode: 0 Mean: -0.54 Sum: -53 Mode: 0 Mean:-0.54 25 19 CU 12 13 j 7 - - jj � 0 10 cu -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin 22 &A 20 1 7 .4-Ma N - &A r- 0 COL. IA ai 10 0 T- o Ratin 26 N 20 12 11 0 M ,A cu cc 2 0 llmww -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin r . a M6 MEMO q -lw Sum: 121 Mode: 3 Mean: 1.22 28 28 13 0 7 1 2 3 Ratin Sum: 61 Mode: 0 Mean: 0.64 21 24 &A &A 0 0. 'A A 1 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin Sum: 95 Mode: 1 Mean: 0.98 23 21 cu 20 CA r- �, 10 0 a C U , is 4 D w 0 n -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin GLENVAR COMMUNITY PLAN VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY RESULTS 13. RATE EACH PHOTO OF A SHOPPING CENTER Sum: 79 Mode: 3 Mean: 0.80 20 20 23 cu 2 0 0 M 'A 4 cu 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin I Sum: -1 Mode: 0 Mean: -0.01 13 2 &A CU &A 13 0 9 9 0. LA cu 0 7, 7 -3 -2 -1 0 Ratin Sum: 62 Mode: 1 Mean: 0.63 24 cu 12 0 9 —7 1. M 10 cu -3 -2' -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin Sum: 116 Mode: 3 Mean: 1.18 Sum: 70 Mode: 2 Mean: 0.71 Sum: 124 Mode: 3 Mean: 1.28 3 Z� 19 22 -)o C . 2 46 - oc d2r. 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin 30 &A &A r- 10 0 Q. 'A 0 -3 -2 1 0 1 2 3 Ratin - -)s 2 7 A-- 13 cu 0 's 9 a 6 CA Ic w -3 -2 0 1 2 3 Ratin GLENVAR COMMUNITY PLAN VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY RESULTS 14. RATiE EACH PHOTO OF A RETAIL STORE Sum: 132 Mode: 3 Mean: 1.39 Sum: -191 Mode: -3 Mean: -2.05 Sum: 124 Mode: 2 Mean:1.33 7 (1 2 19 H 20 0 M 7 'A 10 —4 W W tm I M ii 0 1 2 3 Ratin Sum: 39 Mode: 1 Mean: 0.40 3C 30 20 -1w 0 10 10 0 9 6 10 - 0 - - Ratin &A di &A r- 0 0. In ai Ratin 0 , - 21D 22 cwu 20, 0 CL LA 4 CU cc 2 0 WW I WW I -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin E WTC FM DOG& UT mn PET FOODS Sum: 79 Mode: 1 Mean: 0.85 21 &A 16 &A 0 CL 'A 10 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin Sum: -218 Mode: -3 Mean: -2.32 8.11, 66 6C cu Ln r- 4 0 0. CD 7, 2 1 2 0 0 -Mw " $ -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin GLENVAR COMMUNITY PLAN VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY RESULTS 15. RATE EACH PHOTO OF OTHIERCOMMIERCLkL BUSINESSES Sum: -184 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.94 Sum: 72 Mode: 2 Mean: 0.75 Sum: -67 Mode: -3 Mean: -0.69 6 t". - 11 4 6 cu C 20 0 Is CL fA cu cc 2 0 i Ratin 40 31 In N &n Is 00 20 8 LA 6- cc aj 0 T -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin 30 70 12 U 0 LA cc cu 10 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin Sum: -163 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.70 Sum: -103 Mode: 3- Mean: -1.07 60 45 4,0 0 CL 6 14 20 7 0 -3 -2 -1 0 Ratin 40 30 Qj 18 1 � o 2 0,, Lz CL IIJ 10 0 - -3 2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin Sum: 135 Mode: 1 Mean: 1.36 28 27 3 13 CA CU CA r- 0 a CA is w -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin GLENVAR COMMUNITY PLAN VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY RESULTS 16. RATE EACH PHOTO OF SIGNS Sum: -177 Mode: -3 Mean: 1.92 Sum: 143 Mode: 3 Mean: 1.55 Sum: 152 Mode: 2 Mean: 1.63 6C cu 0 16 M cu -0 5 2 0 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin 40 28 In 30 ai Ln 0 2-0 - 0. LA -6 7 cu 4 jz 10 0 Ratin --35 30 cu 0 CL fA CU L0 cc M M 0 W; M; I �q ----r— - ---I -3 2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin Sum: -180 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.94 Sum: -55 Mode: 0 Mean: -0.60 Sum: 21 Mode: 1 Mean: 0.23 60 40 0 CL 4 3 0 0 7 7 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin &A A-14, &A 11 13 r- 0 CL 5 &A aj 3 0 Ratin 21 3 is cu 0 Ratin GLENVAR COMMUNITY PLAN VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY RESULTS 17. RATE EACH PHOTO OF SIGNS Sum: -153 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.66 Sum: 70 Mode: 2 Mean: 0.76 60 4,1 40 31 20 4A IA 1 cu a cu -I (li tA to 4 A "A r- 0 16 0 0 M --6 fA 0 AA LA —7 LA CU i . 0 cu 4 ilu 10 ■. - Jim c 0 0 Ratin Ratin Ratin Ni Sum: -117 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.29 UESDAY T 9 LONNA 4pm — CLOSE Sum: -2 Mode: 0 Mean: -0.02 Sum: -82 Mode: -3 Mean: -0.88 Sum: -146 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.59 -1 � -( 21 I 14 12 10 0 9 9 CL ji 1c cc 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin 30 2 1 20 w &A 14 2 0 13 &A r- 0 CL &A 10 cc Ratin 40 30 -17 o 20 CL 10 2 0 c Isr d� 7 Rating 18. RATE EACH PHOTO OF STREETSCAPE I. vi'l Sum: 11 Mode: 2 Mean: 0.12 -1 14 14 15 2 cu 9 fA r — 1 0 M fA cu 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin Sum: 106 Mode: 2 Mean: 1.18 0 29 3 &A _L7 cu 2 &A 0 0 IA 10 cu 3 0 a_0Alj__ -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin Sum: 102 Mode: 2 Mean: 1.13 to A& %.W cu 20 0 J2 CL a ,A 10 th 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin Sum: 71 Mode: 2 Mean: 0.78 Sum: 140 Mode: 3 Mean: 1.56 Sum: -114 Mode: -3 Mean: -1.19 30 23 CL 7 0 T ; —�-- -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin 33 40 &A 30 22 Qj &A Or- 20 1 CL 8 &A aj 10 1,5 4 3 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Ratin 60 41 CA cu 40 0 a W , , "I cu m '...0 5 __ ___ 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3' Ratin GLENVAR COMMUNITY PLAN VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY RESULTS VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY Use Comments • - Prefer offices that look more "residential;" varying facade, brick or stone material; not `boxy' :. Smaller buildings, look more "residential;" limited signage on building Most buildings received a -3; most preferred was stone fagade, one level — not intrusive with surroundings; landscaping around building Most buildings received a -3; preferences for varying fagade — stone or brick preferred; porches /balconies; not large expanses of apartments- broken up Prefer buildings without balconies, but windows to break up facade — stone or brick; 4 -5 stories max; covered entry way; landscaping visible Prefer variation of materials on fagade; buildings with architectural details — eves, entryways; visible landscaping; limited- non intrusive signage Varied Fagade — stone and stucco; awnings on buildings; landscaping around perimeter of building; architectural details • - - Variation in fagade — stone and stucco; architectural details — varied roof lines; landscaping - . and pedestrian area integrated into site; limited, updated signage(no box signs) . Prefer stone or brick fagade; limited gas canopy size; landscaping ` • • - Limited number of vehicles parked outside —further back from street preferred; limited/ - . - smaller signage Variation in fagade — type and materials — stone and stucco; smaller lighting; integrated landscaping Limited signage on buildings; subdued color scheme, landscaping within site (parking area); variation in fagade Prefer shops that are differentiated with different awnings, fagade type or color; architectural details — eves /roofline; pedestrian scale lighting and sidewalks; landscaping Variation in fagade — material and architecture; landscaping; dislike of large expanses of parking; 2 story at max; subtle colors • Prefer buildings with variation in fagade and architecture; limited signage Monument style preferred; prefer single panel freestanding signs compared to multi- panel; landscaping at base of signs Prefer grass /landscaped medians, sidewalks; area for bikes (bike lane); no above ground . • - utilities Strong dislike of 5 lane, center turn lane highway with overhead powerlines GLENVAR COMMUNITY PLAN VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY SUMMARY Document 20 • Proposed Changes: Housekeeping 1 Rural Preserve to Conservation 2 Rural Preserve and Development to Neighborhood Conservation 3 Neighborhood Conservation to Transition 4 Rural Preserve to Neighborhood Conservation 5 Development to Neighborhood Conservation 6 Transition to Rural Preserve 7 Principal Industrial to Rural Village 8 Development and Principal Industrial to Rural Village 9 Development to Neighborhood Conservation 10 Development to Neighborhood Conservation Like Area Yes I No 0 0 0 0 0 m Comments Glenvar Community Meeting - May 2, 201 1 Glenvar Community Meeting - May 2, 2011 r 4-J , LL ui ed a. 'S ; F y W i i E�� - � � 3 z� 0 Cd J; 0 Q CL OL .0 Y.1 1 •- J i > . ' c E 0 0 Q) 25 F r C CL V V 0 Z CL 0: a � d f •i � �QQ • 1 O ' T M • ' R V EA 4-J cd 3 N cv � Z E V � =, O 4--J_ c S U V ( •� O 4. J (A 4-J • T R ^ (1) L to O O u O a t'�0 s . J > L. O o w (A o °' •� o _� EA au 3 > ON V •J U 3 O o F L N . V •4-J cd X 4- , cd •> - V) O N N s V i •� 4(-Uj V V S V a .� V) O - v Ln o o N X oC LA a a, V, N �- N O bro N > O X V 4-J O � � s v) s a� •X O V S V L (U d cd cd E O Ln O N N cn E _ •4- � •L O O O O U O u u 0 L (U = � � �-J �cicaww V) s � d f a� CL H � •i � �QQ J r � M R O EA 4-J cd L N cv E =, O 4--J_ U ( •� O 4. J V R O a� CL H � V � cv L J cn O 4. L R 0 4-J O w U o •4-J •> - Ln .V V V) Q N X oC > O � � O E _ •4- � o U cd cd EA N � � L tt CL L.. 0 m V V) tv F] o C >00000p LF 1 I�Y _ 3 ' wp aj U) r 0 .O LLB .�O y e 4 1 a 7 - . b.0 c_ N cd �4W 4) E L o C >00000p LF 1 I�Y _ 3 ' wp 7 O cd c u 0 ** O O vi c If*1 w .O i y e 4 - . b.0 c_ N cd �4W 4) E L ® 3 + 4W O U x L L ;. icy �- � � •� •� +c Z a� E O W A 0 0 L L O V 3 440 Id E cd •� � a. a. *V �` + i. > > _ c c L L O CL cc cc cc 3 �r gL cc I L > �,"'� V U � O U a W DC bo r - o a 7 O cd c u 0 ** O O vi c If*1 .O i 4 - . b.0 N cd 4) E L ® 3 O U x L L ;. �- L s cd •L •� Z a� E O a 4-1 _ a4 L L O V •V L V) - 4--) • � cd •� > 0 L O E N L > �,"'� V U � O U a W DC bo r - o a s C.7 cd cc _ ao O V o •�, _ i � cd O O O O N L 4-J (n x a M S V O L > •� 4- ' s > �� L CL L F 0 � N � -00 W O . V ' p W tko L cd M m L • L - 0 '� V E V „y ti to Z O 4 • L •� �n (n _ 17 E �/f L • _ L N cd 4"J O cn W E U 4.1 U a_ O •4-1 4-J ® 4-J 4-J o o • � � L CL L cd O C m A N N > L la S V Q in aj N 0C O cn 0 • N V x L 0 •4 Cn J X ai °E cd = L S V ° 4 - ) V V O cd V cd cd L O O O V) LL `� ai -v L ° a a o s U N cd N L L V cd cd V L cn L > 'O O O °O Cn N O L L CL W W in N V CL • LL U • • • s 7 to a r" 7 O cd c u 0 ** O O vi c If*1 'P- -6 0 j 06 Le >000� .00 36 -4 LU 0 LP NO 0 0 4"j 0 U 0 u f-4 0 0 PF .2 "0 rd 0 (A 0 (A C (A C 0. M m 0 CL 5- 0 > cn 0 > u L . 0 r cL Le >000� .00 36 -4 LU 0 NO 0 0 4"j f-4 PF rd 0 v -A6J 5- 0 > cn 0 > u �dc 0 0 c t* 0 c -0 t! CL 0 c m —1 w — dda tz a 0 0 co m 0 Oj 4) ca 0 1 r 06 W CC CC U 0: W 10 Z U a. UL . ®I 0 NO f-4 PF AA F "wm;R j :(d7 .V%all G'a i _rn=" &I A 1 4 1 6 1 F m F %% o0l 9. 05 Vivi I r >00� 36 Fu Wk 0 U 4-J C 0 iv 0 to 3m CL 0 Z 0 Ln 0 — C — 44n. rl 'L qj . 66 a m > IL 1= cc a: u u 13 z IL im cc t V 0 - lt-j - o T *10 a �jl 0! O-Yoi®relco • Proposed Future Land Use Map Changes Which future land use designation would you like to see for the West Main Street Corridor? (Please select one) Future Land Use Designation Scenario Yes No Yes, with Changes Mixed Use Scenario (New Designation Listed Below) ienvar vi I la a Scenario 2 (New Designation Listed Below) Core Scenario 3 Proposed Future Land Use Designations • Provides for a mix of uses to be preserved and developed • Recognizes existing uses and includes mixture of zoning districts • Allows more choice /opportunity in how the land can be developed • Encourage pedestrian and vehicular connectivity between properties • Encourage a high degree of architectural and creative site design that enhances the rural and historic character of the area Land Use Types Community Activity Centers Commercial General Retail Services and Personal Services Limited Industrial I Mixed Use I Office and Institutional I Parks and Outdoor Recreation/ Eco- tourism I Residential Is the Mixed Use designation located in an appropriate area? Yes / No If no, where should the Mixed Use area be located? What, if any, additional land uses would you propose for the Mixed Use area? (continued on back) Glenvar Community Meeting - May 2, 201 1 Glenvar Community Meeting - May 2, 2011 Proposed Future Land Use Designations (continued) West Main Street Corridor i iii j p�� W 4 �ii 4 L"k-401, 11111111 1 1 • Serve as focal point for the community; New Glenvar Library, Richfield Retirement Community, Fire and Rescue Station, Fort Lewis Elementary, Entrance to Glenvar Schools Complex; Pleasant Grove and Fort Lewis Baptist Church • Provide for a mix of uses on a parcel and /or along the Route 11/460 Corridor • Encourage cluster development and pedestrian /vehicular connectivity between properties • Encourage a high degree of architectural and creative site design that enhances the rural and historic character of the community Land Use Types Community Activity Centers Commercial General Retail Services and Personal Services Limited Industrial Mixed Use Office and Institutional Parks and Outdoor Recreation/ Eco- tourism Residential Is the GlenvarVillage designation located in an appropriate area? Yes / No If no, where should the GlenvarVillage area be located? What, if any, additional land uses would you propose for the GlenvarVillage area? Additional Comments Please share any additional comments here: Thank you for taking the time to comment on the Glenvar Community Plan future land use scenarios. Please share your opinions with us by completing the enclosed comment sheet and placing it in the Comments Box tonight or at the Glenvar Library. You may also your submit comments online at http:// www. roanokecountyva .gov /G/envarP/an. Please submit all comments by May 13, 2011. Glenvar Community Meeting - May 2, 2011 II r V � F7 7 V� �A cd •� 4-) ,O �/� V / V O 0s { 7 y •� o • h i >. • O *4 Ell V) - p ' L r • V V) z ,bq > L ° � 3 > E N N O cd N V °1 N °� U E s to o � o o a 0 V V � L cd cd ( L ) cd °L aj > a� (A oC v c c O o -o o o L O °� cd cd O °� rd O ° 4-J ° cn ° EA C l . °cn ' V ' V ' V °L a a L �A cd •� 4-) �/� V / V O 0s { 7 y •� o • h i >. • O *4 V) - p ' L r • V V) cd ° � 3 > E N N O cd N V °1 N °� O U 4-) °E to V X 4-J M O L E 3 L �. o s u v 4-J p - O o J cd N ( L ) a- W LE U n- W ' /1 � r i - v •> cn DC cn •L cd X v •�, N O v, s • v) s a) L " -v _ o - , -. bo Q 4-J - � � as L � � O ,X ® u o • O V to u O O ® ® — O U C� L (U r- C s �cCQww ro 4 L J go m • 0 % m • 1, to do ' 1{1 q) • r bo 0 .� r V Q d) C 6 0- 3 o mo 0. c+ b u M C 0: I= V V 0 ZOL lize F LL 1 M N O � • ® Ln 4 -J E Y ® fc O — tt O 0 11 s U (A V) o V M 4-1 o a� a� CL o •� d W Cd • V C CL ft • V C CL L aC r--a N cn di Jw- 05pol I F= m D 16, eq L 0 Z > L p T VF bjD 4) C L u 4-0 a o > ra 0 L. VI 4-P E m C ra X -0 > C 0 0 CL a- 0 > OL gz cc u u 0 a t 4PJ :3 LL 0 4-J M O > V) o u 0 CL u - v W 4-J 0 0 cd L. (1) > L. A C: (A bwO (1) v) Cld L. ch 4) m (u F 0 — to U u Z 0 0 0 0 4-J 4-J 4-) 4-J o .-0 .0— —td .2 .2 4-J 4-J • ZA - . 4-J • Lt) . 4-J O ZA Fj Lln j CL m L. F cL tt L. F cd L. F L. CL It U-) 110 CIA m 16, eq TJ E � J LP Iy h I � L 1 � 1 r+ti Ill ri y �P �s r- s � yy L� V IL }_ 1 P 4X � � a � k Ln to to S • 3 in 4 E _ 4e a L aiy 0 ,� r C > CL JI5 lo a. 5 ' L � L PhD +F v 00 ��}} Ul P. 1 • 9 Proposed Future Land Use Map Changes Which changes in each future land use scenario for the Dixie Caverns Area do you like? Future Land UseScenario Area Like Comments Yes No 1 2 4 5 • Provides for a mix of uses to be preserved and developed • Recognizes existing uses and includes mixture of zoning districts • Allows more choice /opportunity in how the land can be developed • Encourage pedestrian and vehicular connectivity between properties • Encourage a high degree of architectural and creative site design that enhances the rural and historic character of the area Land Use Types Community Activity Centers Commercial General Retail Services and Personal Services Limited Industrial I Mixed Use I Office and Institutional I Parks and Outdoor Recreation/ Eco- tourism I Residential Is the Mixed Use designation located in an appropriate area? Yes / No If no, where should the Mixed Use area be located? What, if any, additional land uses would you propose for the Mixed Use area? (continued on back) Glenvar Community Meeting - May 2, 201 1 Glenvar Community Meeting - May 2, 2011 Proposed Future Land Use Map Changes Dixie Caverns Area Which changes in each future land use scenario for the Dixie Caverns Area do you like? Future Land Use Scenario 2 Area Like Comments Yes No 1 2 3 4 Future Land Use Scenario 3 Area Like Comments Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Additional Comments Please share any additional comments here: Thank you for taking the time to comment on the Glenvar Community Plan future land use scenarios. Please share your opinions with us by completing the enclosed comment sheet and placing it in the Comments Box tonight or at the Glenvar Library. You may also your submit comments online at http:// www. roanokecountyva .gov /G/envarPlan. Please submit all comments by May 13,201 I. Ik Third Community Meeting Summary a Community Meeting Approximately 45 citizens attended the third community meeting for the Glenvar Community Plan on May 2, 201 1 at the Glenvar Middle School.The meeting began with a presentation on the Glenvar community planning process to date which included the Glenvar Focus Group, vision statement and future land use map scenario development. Following the presentation, the future land use map scenarios were displayed in an open -house style for public question and comment. Glenvar Focus Group members and Roanoke County staff were available during this time to discuss the process and scenarios with interested citizens. Comment Summary Comment sheets for the West Main Street Corridor, Dixie Caverns Area and the Housekeeping Changes were handed out at the community.The scenarios were also available online for comment.A total of 22 comment sheets were submitted in person and online; 4 for the Housekeeping Changes, 9 for the West Main Street Corridor and 9 for the Dixie Caverns Area. Housekeeping Changes Received 4 hard copy responses total 3 (75 %) had all "likes" selected Comments • Orange going up Big Hill would be commercial /residential purple West Main Street Corridor • Received 9 responses total; 6 hard copy and 3 online • 8 (88%) favored the GlenvarVillage (Scenario 2) and I (12%) favored the Mixed -Use (Scenario I ) Comments • Additional Uses in the Mixed -Use Designation: No Heavy Industrial Additional Uses in the GlenvarVillage Designation: Non -fast food restaurant • Wording in actual zoning statement should make it clear that no high intensity industrial use may be located in the green (GlenvarVillage) area. I object to including `Principal Industrial' in the use description. • Main street in Salem is filled with big box corporations (ie.Wal mart, Applebee's, Kroger,Taco Bell, KFC, McDonalds, etc). It would be nice to have a local foods restaurant or a place selling fresh produce, but please, something LOCAL. I would like to see the GlenvarVillage to be similar to the Grandin Village. I think this would encourage young people to move to the area. Glenvar Focus Group Dixie Caverns Area Received 9 responses total; 4 hard copy and 5 online Future Land Use Scenario I Area Change Like Comments Y Ye N o I TR to RV 2 I � Should be Kept in core + Number 2 makes the most sense! 2 PI to CO 1" 2+ Great Idea,Twine Hollow close to Interstate, commercial use + I like #1 from Scenario 2 better 3 PI to MU and TR to MU 3 1 # # Should be mixed use like in Scenario 1 4 PI to RP 3 1 5 TR to DE 3 1 Future Land Use Scenario 2 Area Change Like Comments Ye Y N o I Expansion of Core 3 *+ I � Should be Kept in core + Number 2 makes the most sense! 2 PI to RP 4 1 3 PI to TR 3 1 # # Should be mixed use like in Scenario 1 4 RV to DE 3 1 Future Land Use Scenario 3 Area Change Like Comments Y es N o I TR to CO 3 1 2 TR to NC 4 1 3 PI to RP 3 1 4 TR to RV 3 1 5 TR to RV 3 1 6 PI to TR 3 1 Comments • Scenario # I [is] the best; all [ofl Twine Hollow should be red core at [the] entrance jL M Glenvar Focus Group Glenvar Community meeting gives residents a say I CapeFearNewspapers.com Document 21 vy ALLACE ENTERPRISE - •ftir o4 C wwr A AFAFok_ Si xi (x'21 �. �� .�- h . - �° ',� ° �I ,P•� «a:. °� - _. - ,_.. �. i .'� ,v 'TR _ _ ��T M I FEN ja il, is: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 Meg Hibbert Meg Hibbert has been editor of the Salem Times - Register and The New Castle Record since July 1999, and holds more than a dozen awards from the Virginia Press Association for feature writing, columns, business articles and education coverage. She and her husband, Bill, live in Salem and are avid University of Georgia Bulldogs. ARCHIVES October 2011 (1) September 201 (62) August 2011 (73) July 2011 (75) June 2011 (62) May 201 - (13) April 201-L (78) November 2010 (6) October 2010 (31) September 2010 (42) August 2010 (36) July 2010 (44) June 2010 (54) May 2010 (53) April 2010 (53) March 2010 (74) February 201( (60) January 2010 (61) December 2009 (98) November 2009 (78) October 2009 (57) September 2009 (13) Glenvar Community meeting gives residents a say By Meg Hibbert GLENVAR - For years, the Glenvar area has been the dumping ground for uses other parts of Roanoke County don't want, residents say. Now citizens from that area have an opportunity to determine what the 31,000 acres in the Glenvar community looks like in the future, county planners promise. BREAKING NEWS: Law enforcement is after a Beulaville resident who is wanted on multiple charges. Police Departments from Kenansville and Beulaville as well as the Sampson... >> Full Story BREAKING NEWS- Updated information in red. by Trevor Normile Storm Debris Bids considered by the town include two lump sum agreements and another in which the town would pay... >> Full Story BREAKING NEWS: RALEIGH - The N.C. Department of Transportation today has about 2,000 members of its staff working to clear roads and bridges of... >> Full Story !BREAKING NEWS From the Onslow Dept. of Administration: The Onslow Board of Commissioners declared a State of Emergency Thursday August 25, effective Friday August 26 at 6... >> Full Story BREAKING NEWS: Pender County issued a State of Emergency for Hurricane Irene at 4:30 p.m. Thursday. Emergency Management is making preparations for a major hurricane, which... >> Full Story More... About 120 people pored over a dozen maps showing current uses Monday night, local and future possibilities with blazes of yellow for existing residents had their first - chance, at a community for industrial, which ringed the Glenvar Middle School Auditorium. meeting for the Glenvar 4 °" Community Plan that is members. There was also Catawba District Supervisor Joe Butch expected to be z. prepared and adopted and closing remarks, and Roanoke County Administrator Clay some time in the next Goodman, who didn't talk. year. It will be a guide Burned by past county government actions, a number of residents for decisions about at the meeting were skeptical their ideas for the future of Glenvar growth, development Glenvar resident Shirl Chittum and her son, Zachary and how the area west of the Salem City Line 8, look at maps of the Glenvar area before the to Montgomery County, Glenvar Community Meeting Jan. 11 at Glenvar south to Poor Mountain Middle School. Photo by Meg Hibbert and north to Fort Lewis Mountain could look in the next five, 10 and 15 years. BREAKING NEWS: Law enforcement is after a Beulaville resident who is wanted on multiple charges. Police Departments from Kenansville and Beulaville as well as the Sampson... >> Full Story BREAKING NEWS- Updated information in red. by Trevor Normile Storm Debris Bids considered by the town include two lump sum agreements and another in which the town would pay... >> Full Story BREAKING NEWS: RALEIGH - The N.C. Department of Transportation today has about 2,000 members of its staff working to clear roads and bridges of... >> Full Story !BREAKING NEWS From the Onslow Dept. of Administration: The Onslow Board of Commissioners declared a State of Emergency Thursday August 25, effective Friday August 26 at 6... >> Full Story BREAKING NEWS: Pender County issued a State of Emergency for Hurricane Irene at 4:30 p.m. Thursday. Emergency Management is making preparations for a major hurricane, which... >> Full Story More... About 120 people pored over a dozen maps showing current uses and future possibilities with blazes of yellow for existing residential, green for conservation, brown for rural village, purple for industrial, which ringed the Glenvar Middle School Auditorium. s Most of the people were middle age to older residents, with a sprinkling of developers, county officials, planning commission rt�^ it members. There was also Catawba District Supervisor Joe Butch Church, who represents the Glenvar area and who gave opening and closing remarks, and Roanoke County Administrator Clay Goodman, who didn't talk. Burned by past county government actions, a number of residents BULLDOGS PREVAIL IN at the meeting were skeptical their ideas for the future of Glenvar SHOWDOWN OF HIGHLY would be heeded RANKED TEAMS Shirl Chittum, who was looking at maps before the meeting with her son, 8- year -old Zachary who attends Glenvar Elementary School, was one of those. "My mother, Elaine Trumbull, fought annexation when Salem tried to annex us, after my parents moved here in 1957. They (Roanoke County government) haven't listened to anything we've ever said. The main problem was they sold us to the higher bidder," Chittum said, mentioning the regional jail located farther out Main Street at Dixie Caverns, Spring Hollow Reservoir - "Which isn't what they promised us from the get go. It was supposed to be a park. It's not open to the public and you have to pay to use anything." Chittum was also steamed about the new $32- million multigenerational recreation center that opened Jan. 1 in North County and about which, she said, Roanoke County citizens knew nothing until it was under construction. Others, such as contractor Sheldon Henderson of G &H construction, were optimistic that the community meeting and Full Story I No Comments >> http:// capefearnewspapers.com /glenvar- community- meeting - gives- residents- a- say/[O1/18/12 9:03:52 AM] Glenvar Community meeting gives residents a say I CapeFearNewspapers.com future talks would open communication between Glenvar residents and county decision makers. "I appreciate that they're paying attention to this end of the county," he said. "I think Glenvar needs a little dressing. We need commercial growth, good commercial development, in this end of the county." Landowner David Shelor spoke out at the end of the meeting, asking for a "ground up instead of top down" input from a committee of citizens. He also asked Church and planners if the county had thought about buying up blighted property that is vacant and for sale, particularly along West Main Street. "I know the county spent a lot of money on a recreation center. We could buy and sell vacant property and make money," Shelor said. Others asked questions about how long four- laning of West Main Street would take - about two years, according to the Virginia Department of Transportation, with construction due to start by May, County Planner David Holladay said - and if landscaping and sidewalks could be added. Sue Williams asked if the planned Intermodal rail -to -truck transfer yard across the Montgomery County line is expected to affect traffic. "Could we possibly end up being a big truck stop, big warehouse area ?" Robert Rector, interim administrator of Richfield Retirement Center, pointed out 750 people live on the 50 -acre campus on West Main Street in Glenvar. "We're probably more affected than any subdivision in Glenvar. I ask the Planning Commission not to forget we've got one of the largest retirement communities in Virginia; let Richfield be one of the players" in developing the Glenvar Community Plan. He particularly emphasized air quality, and how decisions such as the former proposal for an asphalt plant almost next -door to Richfield - which the planning commission voted to recommend for approval but Adams Construction decided to move farther west, near Dixie Caverns - could have affected the health of residents. "We've had people who have had to move because of the quality of air from an industry across the street," he said, referring to creosote air emissions from Koppers, which creosotes railroad ties. County staff said they plan to meet with individuals and groups between now and May to get more ideas, and come back with proposals for the future. Meanwhile, a Glenvar Community Plan survey is available at the Glenvar Library and at the Roanoke County Administration Building, as well as online. Results from the survey will be tabulated and used in developing the community plan, planners promised. The survey is also available online on the county's website, roa n o keco u ntyva . g ov . Results will be made available on the Glenvar Community Plan website ( http : / /tinyurl.com /GlenvarPlan), planners said. Glenvar Community Plan is also on the county's Facebook site and Twitter. Tags: asphalt plant, Butch Church, Catawba, Glenvar, planning, Roanoke County, Salem, Va., zoning This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 at 12:07 pm and is filed under FEATURES, Wallace Enterprise. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Leave a Reply Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) http:// capefearnewspapers.com /glenvar- community- meeting - gives- residents- a- say/[01/18/12 9:03:52 AM] So Salem: Community news from Salem - Roanoke.com » Photos: Glenvar community shows up to take part in Roanoke County planning meeting Photos: Glenvar community shows up to take part in Roanoke County planning meeting Over 100 residents of Western Roanoke County met in the Glenvar Middle School auditorium with the Roanoke County planning department Monday night, January 11 to listen to and to add their input to a detailed presentation about the Glenvar Community Plan. "I just feel like if we want a part in the process, it's important to participate early on," said Cindy Poulton, Glenvar resident. The comprehensive plan is reviewed every five years and then voted on by the planning commission and the county board of supervisors. With the upcoming widening of West Main and the proposed Intermodal Facility just up the road in Montgomery County, the plan will be challenged on how to best divvy up the area's zoning to benefit the area's appearance, finances and exporting potential, and quality of life. Sixty -seven percent of land within Western Roanoke County land tracts with at least some of its acreage within the floodplain is currently classified as vacant, according to the presentation. A whopping 20 percent of all of the floodplain in Roanoke County is located in Western Roanoke County. "If you take a broad view of the properties there's a lot of land out here that's either vacant or for sale from ... [the size of the old Salem water plant] ... to smaller tracts along the corridor that have a lot of potential for redevelopment," said planning director David Holladay. Up to this point, the county has relied heavily on an online survey to gauge and collect likes, dislikes, land use preferences, opinions on community facilities and services, opinions on resource preservation and other concerns of people who live, work, or spend lots of time in the Glenvar area. They are now gearing up to begin a series of interviews with community groups, businesses, and other local stakeholders. They've recently added an interactive zoning map where users can click on a particular tract of land on the map, view a ground -level photo, and provide input. Folks are also welcome to take their own photo and email it to amandamicklow@roanokecountyva.gov or bring it by the county's administration building on Electric Road to speak to the planning department. Paper copies of surveys are also at the administration building on Electric Road and at the Glenvar Library. The county plans on keeping the survey open through February. Citizens at the meeting voiced concerns about how the county's focus on technology without a more deliberated approach on trying to reach every citizen may exclude people who still rely more on older forms of communication. Holladay said they would work on reaching that part of the population, too. The survey, along with information, zoning maps, and contact information can be found at www.roanokecountyva.gov http: / /blogs .roanoke.com /rtblogs /sosalem/ 2010 /01 /12 /glenvar- community- shows- up -to- take - part -in- roanoke- county - planning- meeting /[1/13/2010 8:12:16 AM] Residents foresee a greener, 'prettier' Glenvar I OurValley.org M P VITA, I C t ay -- -389 -9355 RM a 1!a leim Times-Register record Vinton Hessen er n-- IMW n RI Wednesday, June 30, 2010 SEARCH OURVALLEY.ORG Meg Hibbert Meg Hibbert has been editor of the Salem Times - Register and The New Castle Record since July 1999, and holds more than two dozen awards from the Virginia Press Association for feature writing, columns, business articles and education coverage. She and her husband, Bill, live in Salem and are avid University of Georgia Bulldogs. 305 a & C rcni :aicn er --ice ARCHIVES January 2012. (41) December 2011 (96) November 2011 (63) October 2011 (39) September 201 (40) August 2011 (48) July 2011 (32) June 2011 (63) May 2011 (29) April 2011 (32) March 201'. (49) February 201 (3) January 2011 (42) December 2010 (33) November 2010 (41) October 2010 (46) September 2010 (60) August 2010 (59) July 2010 (68) June 2010 (74) May 2010 (82) April 2010 (69) March 201C (102) February 2010 (85) January 2010 (104) December 2009 (132) November 2009 (110) October 2009 (87) September 200: (14) C1kk to learn about ulmorning open hou 2 E Im, Park Estates Discov the best In Independe Retirement L Residents foresee a greener, prettier' Glenvar By Meg Hibbert GLENVAR - Landscaped medians, sidewalks, integrated villages of businesses, doctor's offices, shops and restaurants - and no more heavy industry. That's what residents at a community "visioning" meeting want to see for their Glenvar community along West Main Street within 20 years. They expressed those desires Tuesday night when about 80 people showed up for the first of two Glenvar Community Meetings at Fort Lewis Baptist Church, sponsored by the Roanoke County Planning Department. TA. Tammi Wood from the Roanoke County Planning Department writes down Glenvar residents' ideas of what they want the West Main Street Corridor to look like within the next 20 years. Photo by Meg Hibbert After a brief overview by county planner Dave Holliday about the time line for the process within the next few months, residents split up into four smaller groups to come up with ideas of what they want the West Main Street Corridor to look like. Glenvar -area resident Carole Brackman and her husband, Bill, were in the session led by county long -range planner Amanda Miklow. They looked over photographs of types of businesses, streetscapes and signs in a visual preference survey participants were asked to fill out. In the church pew next to them were Barry and Stephanie Garst, who were among the younger participants in the session. Search & Hit Ent BREAKING NEWS: ROANOKE COUNTY - Trash collection will resume on Wednesday, January 11 - one day after someone vandalized 15 of Roanoke County's trash trucks. The windshields... >> Full Story More... BYRD GIRLS WIN ALL - TIMESLAND MEET, SET FIVE NEW RECORDS IN THE PROCESS Full Story I No Comments >> EVENT CALENDAR MYSC `#'M11 e'Ri�rerti 14u..n �47s.r�l .: amp - I F jk . r Stephanie Garst said her vision for Glenvar 20 years from now "is prettier, greener, with sidewalks." Barry Garst's vision included village -type integrated uses, "such as First and Main in Blacksburg," with a community center with an exercise gym and a 24 -hour pharmacy, "for those of us with sick kids," his wife added. When Miklow asked if people saw heavy industry in their vision for the future, the group answered with a resounding "No!" Thelma Disher and her husband, who have lived in Glenvar for 48 years, were encouraged by the meeting, she said. "It's the first of the planning meetings we have been to," said Disher, who is a retired elementary school teacher who taught third and seventh grades at Fort Lewis and Glenvar elementary http: / /ourvaIley.org/ residents - foresee -a- greener - prettier - glenvar /[01/18/12 9:06:49 AM] Residents foresee a greener, 'prettier' Glenvar I OurValley.org schools. "I'm excited to hear the ideas from the people who live in Glenvar." Planning Commission Member Martha Hooker, at the beginning of the meeting, emphasized, "You all are the ones who are the vital component. We value your input." The church where the meeting was held is a historic structure, as is the home named Pleasant Grove next door, which is on the Virginia and national Historic Register. Both have original sections built by Joseph Deyerle in 1853. Dyerle etched his name into a brick on the front of the church. And both structures have been affected by widening plans for U.S. 11 -460, also known as West Main Street. Old trees have already been cut down and utilities relocated closer to the structures. The changes were to make way for the four- laning of the highway that is temporarily on hold until a legal challenge is settled that was brought by a construction firm that was not awarded the bid. The second community meeting will concentrate on the Dixie Caverns area farther west on U.S. Rt. 11 -460 toward the Montgomery County line. It will be July 15, also at Fort Lewis Baptist Church at 7 p.m. Tags: Fort Lewis Baptist Church, Glenvar, Glenvar Community Meeting, Martha Hooker, Roanoke County Planning Commission, Roanoke County Planning Department, U.S. 11 -460, Va., Virginia, West Main Street This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 30th, 2010 at 9:13 am and is filed under FEATURES, Salem Times Register. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Leave a Reply Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website Submit Comment Copyright © 2012 OurValley.org (Beta). All Rights Reserved. Powered by WordPress. http: / /ourvaIley.org/ residents - foresee -a- greener - prettier - glenvar /[01/18/12 9:06:49 AM] Wednesday, May 4, 2011 Glenvar residents consider plans for community's future By Meg Hibbert GLENVAR — Anna Oyler and neighbor Lenore Kessel looked closely at orange, purple and yellow splotches on a map showing ideas of what the Glenvar Community could look like in the next 20 years. "We're interested because we live right here," said Oyler, pointing out Broadview Subdivision near Dixie Caverns off West Main Street. "I've lived there for 52 years. "Mine was the second house up there," she added. IiK • go i a r - Y icy 1 1 9 Glenvar residents Anna Oyler, left, and Lenore Kessel look at ideas for future possible plans for the community during the May 2 meeting. Photo by Meg Hibbert The two were among about 75 community residents and property owners attending a May 2 community meeting at Glenvar Middle School. They listened to planners' compilations of ideas residents discussed and submitted within the last year, and looked at possible ways their community could be developed — or preserved — in the future. Oyler and Kessel said they were pleased to see scenarios showing land near their neighborhood could be Rural Preserve or Rural Village, rather than future industrial use previously proposed. Three sets of colored maps or Future Land use Scenarios showed possibilities for the West Main Street area starting at the Salem City Line, and three more for the area around Dixie Caverns and west to the Montgomery County Line. r lit A favorite among many people was the the scenario with "Glenvar Village," a name proposed by Glenvar Community Task Force Member Carole Brackman, who lives in the Cherokee Hills neighborhood. 7 Glenvar Village would be centered around the Glenvar Library, the Fort Lewis Fire Department and Richfield Retirement Community. "I really like the idea of Glenvar Village," said Marlene Vonderhaar. Her husband, Jim, agreed. "It would be a real contrast to what we have now," he said, referring to the lack of a center for the community, industries scattered along West Main Street, and vacant commercial buildings. Brackman reminded the couple there used to be a small, green highway sign saying " Glenvar," which, she said, "Somebody took during the asphalt plant discussions." What bonded Glenvar citizens together most recently was a proposed asphalt plant three years ago that more than 300 residents vehemently opposed to being located near Glenvar schools, Richfield and residential neighborhoods. In the face of that unified opposition, represented by Citizens for Positive Growth, the the asphalt plant proposed initially for the former Salem Water Treatment Plant near Glenvar Minute Mart was ultimately relocated to land farther west, off Main Street. A.C. and Jennifer Burke, who are both retired teachers at Glenvar schools said they weren't sure which of the possible scenarios for the Green Hill area they prefer. "We're going to have to study and think about them," she said. Her husband added, "I've been really impressed with the planning for the Glenvar community. It's been very straight- forward — no 'shuck and jive.' " Eight members of the Focus Group, as well as Roanoke County Planning Staff, answered questions about ideas after planner Amanda Micklow, project manager for the Glenvar plan, took the audience through a 45-minute overview of the possible scenarios. The process of collecting citizen ideas for what they want Glenvar to be started last summer with two meetings where residents split into small groups and talked about what they wanted and didn't want. More than 200 people submitted their preferences and vision for Glenvar to planners or on -line. Basically, they agreed they wanted: • an identity for Glenvar instead of the western area of Roanoke County being a "dumping ground" for heavy industry; • family restaurants and professional services; • more landscaping along West Main Street; • clustering of commercial areas; • more pedestrian walkways and ties to the Roanoke River Greenway trails, and • no more junkyards. Monday night, people at the meeting were asked to fill out comment sheets and turn them in or do them online, indicating their opinions on the possible scenarios for the Dixie Caverns Area and the West Main Street area. The Focus Group will convene again in June or July, Micklow said, and by the fall a final Glenvar Community Plan will be presented to the Roanoke County Planning Commission and ultimately, the board of supervisors for adoption. To see the proposed scenarios for the Glenvar area, fill out comment sheets and discussions from the previous Focus Group meetings, go to www. roanokecountyva .gov /GlenvarPlan. Once adopted, the plan will become part of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, a general, long -range policy and implementation guide for decisions on growth and development. Tags: asphalt plant Citizens for Positive Growth Dixie Caverns Fort Lewis Fire Department Glenvar Glenvar Community Glenvar Library Glenvar Middle School Glenvar Minute Mart Glenvar Village industrial Richfield Retirement Community Roanoke County Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Planning Commission rural village Salem Va. West Main Street This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 4th, 2011 at 10:03 am and is filed under FEATURES Salem Times Register You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Glenvar Village endorsed by planning commission I OurValley.org iAIJEi.M. .all ��►d� � R lem Times-Register Vinton Messenger RI Wednesday, November 16, 2011 SEARCH OURVALLEY.ORG Meg Hibbert Meg Hibbert has been editor of the Salem Times - Register and The New Castle Record since July 1999, and holds more than two dozen awards from the Virginia Press Association for feature writing, columns, business articles and education coverage. She and her husband, Bill, live in Salem and are avid University of Georgia Bulldogs. �I ,305 ;Bivulevard. Salem, a & C rcill: mi erica ARCHIVES January 2012. (41) December 2011 (96) November 2011 (63) October 2011 (39) September 201 (40) August 2011 (48) July 2011 (32) June 2011 (63) May 2011 (29) April 2011 (32) March 201'. (49) February 201 (3) January 2011 (42) December 2010 (33) November 2010 (41) October 2010 (46) September 2010 (60) August 2010 (59) July 2010 (68) June 2010 (74) May 2010 (82) April 2010 (69) March 201C (102) February 2010 (85) January 2010 (104) December 2009 (132) November 2009 (110) October 2009 (87) September 200: (14) Glenvar Village endorsed by planning commission By Meg Hibbert GLENVAR - Someday soon, people traveling on West Main Street will be going through Glenvar Village. And unlike today when much of the area is a hodgepodge of industries and vacant buildings, they will be able to tell they are in it. The green area stretching on both sides of West Main Street from the Salem line is the Glenvar Village overlay where mixed uses such as residential and commercial - such as a small grocery store, restaurants and professional offices - would be encouraged. Courtesy Roanoke Co. Planning The village designation and recommendations for the way the main part of Glenvar could look in the next five to 20 years were unanimously endorsed by the Roanoke County Planning Commission's four members present after a public hearing Nov. 14 at Glenvar Middle School. Next the Glenvar Community Plan would go to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors for a vote, expected in January 2012, to adopt to include the amendment into the county's Comprehensive Plan. "The Glenvar Village is a set of special restrictions overlaid on county regulations," Micklow explained. "They would give more Search . & Hit Ent BREAKING NEWS: ROANOKE COUNTY - Trash collection will resume on Wednesday, January 11 - one day after someone vandalized 15 of Roanoke County's trash trucks. The windshields... >> Full Story �SA EVENT CALENDAR myscGper.com S M The village area starts at the Roanoke County -Salem City line on W West Main Street and includes both sides of the road, running to I �f Technology Drive in the vicinity of where the former Glenvar train depot LIU ;- �'r stood. 5 The center would be where the new Glenvar Library will be 8 9 constructed, at the Fort Lewis Fire Department and road leading to �. Elm Park Estates Glenvar schools. Rwno e, VA The new village designation is does not change zoning in the area _ but would be an overlay area to encourage mixed uses such as a 19 small super market and restaurants, as well as keeping the 22 23 residential nature, Planner II Amanda Micklow pointed out to the 25 planning commission and citizens at Monday night's public 27 28 hearing. "The Glenvar Village is a set of special restrictions overlaid on county regulations," Micklow explained. "They would give more Search . & Hit Ent BREAKING NEWS: ROANOKE COUNTY - Trash collection will resume on Wednesday, January 11 - one day after someone vandalized 15 of Roanoke County's trash trucks. The windshields... >> Full Story �SA EVENT CALENDAR myscGper.com S M T W T S 1 2 3 4 5 - F 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 _3 10 11 http: / /ourvalley.org /glenvar- village- endorsed -by- planning- commission /[01/18/12 9:02:49 AM] BUSY WEEK FOR CRAIG COUNTY BOYS Full Story I No Comments >> There are plans for signs saying "Welcome to the Village of Glenvar" - or maybe even "Fort Lewis" as the area was originally known - to be put up after widening of U.S. Rts. 11 -460 is completed. Glenva Villa endorsed b planning commission |o"wallev"rg Leave Reply �� ~~ I Name (re I Mail (will not be published) (re Cop @ 2012 OurValle (Beta). All Ri Reserved. Powered b WordPres.D. http:llourvalle 9:02:49 AM] SMEM Q ƒ� �����. �� AKn��N��� ` EacTia in lipwrl | 46r; control over the aesthetics of new development, to be more m keeping with the brick construction or historic buildings in that are a.' She mentioned spec Fort Lewis Baptist Church and Pleasant Grove, both built by oeyerle brothers in the 1800s, and on the ------ national and state registers of historic landmarks. If the board or supervisors adopts the G|envar Community Plan, G|envarwou|d be one or the county"s only two village designations. c|earbmok|s the other. M|cwow reassured business owners at the meeting that existing businesses are onyndrathered in as they are unless they ask for rezoning. She added that matching grant money |s available for businesses that want to dress up their fronts and add landscaping. Charles Whitt or Whitt Carpet which |s near the proposed village's Salem border was enthusiastic over the plan Monday night. ^z like the village idea. z think it would be really nice,"' he said. The G|envarcommun|ty Plan was developed over the past year' and'a'ha|rand come out orideas from citizens who attended three community meetings, and a 15-person G|envar Focus Group that met regularly during the process. The G|envar Planning Area stretches west toeast from the Montgomery County border to the City or Salem, and north to south from Fort Lewis Mountain to Poor Mountain. The area includes 31 acres in size and encompasses all or part or5 parcels Ta comprehensive plan, Fort Lewis, Fort Lewis Baptist Church, Fort Lewis Fire Department, =~~'.=°~~'Librar =.~~' Villa Poplar Grove, Roanoke Count Board of Supervisors, Roanoke Count Plannin Commission, Salem, Salem Times-~ villa West Main Street, zonin This entr was posted ~ Wednesda November `= and =filed under FEATURES, Salem Times Re You can follow an responses to this entr throu the RSS 2.0 feed. Leave Reply �� ~~ I Name (re I Mail (will not be published) (re Cop @ 2012 OurValle (Beta). All Ri Reserved. Powered b WordPres.D. http:llourvalle 9:02:49 AM] Document 22 Glenvar Focus Group Members and Affiliations Name Organization /Affiliation /Etc. Ed Bindas Scenery Court / Viewpoint Heights Neighborhood Carole Brackman CRT Design Review Team / Cherokee Hills / EDA Kathie Brown Wildwood Estates Neighborhood Connie Browning Dixie Caverns Judy Conyers Citizens for Positive Growth Susan Edwards Bear Rock Neighborhood, Professional Engineer Barry Garst Cherokee Hills Neighborhood Bill Hibbert Barrister Estates Neighborhood Sarah McHatton Novozymes Employee (Cherokee Hills Resident) Tony Morrison R. R. Donnelley Jay O'Brien Salem Stone Corporation, President David Shelor CRT Design Review Team / Glenvar Heights Neighborhood Robert Rector Richfield Retirement Community Leonard Southern Fort Lewis Baptist Church Joe Thomas Campbell Hills Neighborhood Butch Church Board of Supervisors, Chairman; Catawba District Martha Hooker Planning Commission, Catawba District Roanoke County o� 0 Kathie Brown Joe Thomas b 0 0 0 ro 7� o r Montgomery County 0 Bill Hibbert Susan Edwards 4 David Shelor V Judy Conyers 11 RobertRector `11 �'Barry-Garst\ a Carole Brackman Sue Williams Jay O'Brien L onard Southern 4 Sarah McHatton Tonv Morrison EdBindasB 0 0 Connie Browning Q ' City of Salem C3 Glenvar Planning Area Boundary Interstate 81 Route 11/460 Roads Railroad Roanoke River Glenvar Focus Group Representation It Business t Civic Multiple Residential N Glenvar Focus Group Members o 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 � Miles Glenvar Focus Group Purpose: To assist in the development of Vision Statements and Future Land Use Map Scenarios for the Glenvar Community. Task 1: Education and Background Brief Overview of zoning and relationship to comprehensive plan Resource Binder /Website and the planning process; how is this focus group fits into the Maps process —how will end products be used Related Documents Results of Survey Draft vision /goals statements Present results of community input and develop draft vision Contact Information statements. Ad Project Timeline Use to guide development of Future Land Use Scenarios 14 Task 2: Future Land Use Scenario Development 1 Group Focus Group Divided into Multiple Groups (15 -20 members) (5 -7 members) Develop Alternative Future Land Use Scenarios 1 Scenario Multiple Scenarios Focus group members think about scenarios/ discuss with Staff reviews scenarios; determines implementation it group they're representing necessary to achieve desired FLU Task 3: Finalize Recommendations Present alternative scenario(s) and what needs to be done to achieve desired FLU 1 Scenario Multiple Scenarios Determine /discuss how scenarios will be presented at the community meeting; Community input on proposed Future Land Use Map scenairos. Discuss future of the focus group � Spokesperson? Task 4: Community Meeting Task 5: Community Meeting Review /Planning Commission Work Session f • Introductions • The Comprehensive Planning Process and the Role of the Glenvar Focus Group • Existing Conditions • Community Involvement • Vision Statement Development • Economic Development Presentation 0 Second Focus Group Meeting Comprehensive Plan Set of policies, rategies and plans to gui nd improve T a long plannir. the force of law Zoning Ordinance Regulatory mechanism for controlling the Is - ification and regulation of IF jses Land uses Dilated accoM g OV*r FIAMLW Law height, setback and building /lot coverage Controls land uses on the ground today What Do We Have? Research and Analysis What Do We Want? Community Meetings, Survey, Visioning Exercise �i How Do We Get There? Comprehensive Plans Getting There Implementation Glenvar Focus Group PowerPoint Presentation 1/24/2011 2 Glenvar Focus Group Glenvar Focus Group Process Glenvar Focus Group Process Glenvar - - * � 9-;'� Zoning Districts • Please identify the three most important issues facing your community today. • Maintaining community feel of the area • Traffic /congestion and appearance of Route 11/460 • Impact and location of industrial development • Air and water quality • Condition of and funding for schools; library What do you like most about your community? • The rural character of the area; quiet and peaceful setting, but not too far away from amenities in Salem or Christiansburg • Views of the mountains, Roanoke River • Feel of the community; close knit and safe • Glenvar Schools and Library • Please identify the three most important issues facing vour community in the next 5 to 10 vears. Impact of industrial development on the community Jobs creation and retention Lack of commercial businesses and services Improving the Glenvar schools and Library Road maintenance and traffic issues Zoning and development — protection of river and mountains Environmental concerns — air, water quality, floodplain Governmental transparency Lack of safe options for alternative modes of transportation What types of businesses and /or services would you like to see in your community? Photo 3E Sum: -245 Mode: -3 Mean: -2.47 West Main Street • Emphasis on landscaping; integrated into site • Pedestrian -scale development; sidewalks • Interconnectivity through greenways, trails and bikeways • Clustered commercial uses; less industry • Community center; neighborhood scale parks • Underground utilities; junkyards eliminated Photo IF ' Sum: -34 Mode: -3 Mean: -0.34 Dixie Caverns Area • Buildings designed to fit in with surroundings; preserve historic /rural character • Gateway corridor • Built out technology parks; hotels and restaurants at interchange • Improvements to Dow Hollow Road and intersection • Greenway connectivity • Emphasis on outdoor recreation; parks; tourism Photo ratings are shown using three figures: The sum adds (or subtracts) each participant's selected rating. The mode is the numerical rating selected the most number of times. The mean (or average) divides the sum by the total number of responses. Photo 1D Sum: 200 Mode:3 Mean: 1.98 Preference for: • Variation in fagade • Materials - brick or stone • Architecture —eaves, roof lines, windows, entryways • Visible landscaping around building /integrated into site • Pedestrian- friendly, lighting, parking further back /rear of site • Limited signage, monument style signs, landscaping around base • Grass /landscaped medians, bike lanes and no overhead power lines Vision Statement Goal Goal Objective Objective Objective Objective Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy Strategy The City is a diverse community with a historic Downtown and a friendly small town atmosphere. Preserving this unique character for existing and future residents is a high priority for the City. The City strives to balance the needs of its residents now and in the future, while providing excellent cultural, educational, recreational, and employment opportunities; safe neighborhoods for all residents; future growth and redevelopment that strengthens the City's traditional Downtown; and an environment that attracts and retains commercial and industrial investment in the community. Task 2: Future Land Use Scenario Development • 1 Group /Multiple Groups • 1 Scenario /Multiple Scenarios Possible Meeting Dates: • Monday, February 7 or Thursday, February 10 • Thursday, February 17 Our vision is: • To be a welcoming city that builds a healthy and sustainable environment. • To encourage a broad business base in sector, size and related employment and promote high quality development. • To invest in preserving and expanding parks, recreation and community programs. • To invest in efficient, integrated local and regional transportation systems. • To be a city that is responsive to the wants and needs of our citizens. Meeting Location: • Fort Lewis Baptist Church Fellowship Hall • 6:30 PM 9 Community Input Key Themes • Aesthetically pleasing/ cleanup West Main St. corridor • Preserve rural character of community • Balance between business, aesthetics and community • Provide commercial and to limit industrial uses to clean, environmentally - sensitive businesses with attractive building design and surrounding landscaping with unobtrusive signage • Appropriate location for industrial /commercial uses • Welcome • Vision Statement Discussion and Revision • Future Land Use Presentation • Future Land Use Scenario Development (Small Groups) • Third Focus Group Meeting The Glenvar area strives to be a visually appealing, healthy and sustainable community that encourages a mix of land uses in a manner that is consistent with the community's rural character. Used to identify areas around the county where certain activities occur or are anticipated • Conservation (8.71 %) • Rural Preserve (51.17 %) • Rural Village (9.24 %) • Village Center • Neighborhood Conservation (10.61 %) • Development (6.76 %) • Transition (3.52 %) • Core (0.92 %) • Principal Industrial (9.07 %) • Suburban Village • Economic Opportunity • University A future land use area of particular environmental sensitivity due to: • Topography • Unique land characteristics, conservation /open space /greenway easements • Soil types • Proximity to other state /federally preserved lands Land use types include: • Agricultural production • Forest and wood products • Parks • Public lands • Conservation easements • Rural residential Future land use area of mostly undeveloped, outlying lands. These rural regions are generally stable and require a high degree of protection. Land use types include: • Agricultural production • Agricultural services • Forest and wood products • Parks and outdoor recreation facilities • Rural residential • Rural institutional • Mining and extraction operations A future land use area where limited development activity has historically occurred and where suburban or urban development patterns are discouraged. Mill Land use types include: • Rural housing • Rural community centers • Agricultural production and services • Forest and wood products • Small —scale commercial • Rural parks and outdoor recreation .and use determinants: • Existing land use pattern Unique /importantcultural resources that deserve highe level of protection • Resource protection Valuable and irreplaceable natural areas • Access Accessible by existing (un)improved rural roads • Rural Sector Not served by urban services Land use determinants: • Existing land use pattern Agricultural and recreational uses are predominant and encouraged to expand • Existing zoning Agricultural zoning in effect • Rural residential and institutional areas Limited, very low density • Resource protection Valuable and irreplaceable natural areas • Access Accessible by existing ( un)improved rural roads • Rural sector Outside urban service area Land use determinants: • Existing land use pattern Low density residential, institutional and agricultural uses • Existing Zoning Rural residential and agricultural zoning in effect • Rural residential expansion area Small- scale, very low density rural residential housing • Agricultural Existing agricultural uses /activities • Access Accessible by existing (un)improved rural roads • Rural Sector Outside urban service area A future land use area where established sin nei are delineated and the conservation of the existin development pattern is encoura Land use types include: • Sin residential • Nei institutional centers • Nei commercial A future land use area where most new nei development will occur, lar planned developments which mix residential with retail and office uses. Land use types include: • Conventional residential • Cluster residential • Multi-famil residential • Planned residential development • Planned communit development • Communit activit centers A future land use area that encoura the orderl development of hi fronta parcels. Serve as developed buffers between hi and nearb or ad lower intensit development. Land use types include: • Office and institutional • Retail • Multi-famil residential • Sin residential • Parks Land use determinants: • Existin land use pattern Limited densit residential subdivisions platted /developed • Existin Zonin Limited densit zonin established • Expansion areas Expansion of existin development pattern is lo • Infill development Complement surroundin development patter • Access Served b local street s • Urban Sector Served b urban services OW. Land use determinants: • Public facilities Public facilities are ade for increased population concentration • Utilit availabilit Water and sewer exist or are scheduled to serve area • Environmental capacit Natural features provide optimum opportunit for urban residential development • Access Have /provide direct access to ma street • Urban Sector Served b urban services Land use determinants: • Existin land use pattern Limited commercial uses exist • Existin zonin Commercial zonin exists • Access Have direct fronta and access to arterial /ma collector street • Surroundin land use Lo buffer strip between conflictin land use patterns • Orientation Ph oriented toward ma street • Urban Sector Served b urban services A future land use area where high intensity urban development is encouraged. May also be appropriate for larger - scale highway- oriented retail uses and regionally -based shopping facilities. Land use types include: • General retail shops and personal services • Office and institutional uses • Limited industrial uses A future land use area where a variety of industry types are encouraged to locate. Existing /planned regional employment centers and are distributed throughout the county, convenient to major residential areas and suitable highway access. Land use types include: • Agricultural • Small and custom manufacturing • Mining and extraction • Industrial • Industrial parks A future land use area that represents the focus of surrounding, generally lower intensity commercial, institutional and residential growth for a broad mixture of surrounding development. Land Use Types • Agricultural production and services • Parks and outdoor recreation /ecotourism • Residential • Community activity centers • Commercial Land Use Determinants • Existing land use pattern Low- to middle- density uses are established & connected to existing rural residential, agricultural and open space uses • Rural /suburban sector Fringe of urban service area • Access Served by arterial highway and well - designed secondary street • Environmental capacity Physical land characteristics provide opportunity for suburban development • Utility Availability Public water /sewer are close to urban service area and expansion is likely Land use determinants: • Existing land use pattern Commercial uses have been developed /likely to develop • Existing zoning Commercial zoning exists • Access Served by arterial street system • Population center Close proximity to projected population center • Urban Sector Served by urban services 4, Land use daterminantst • V..1f nJstewAr..RwpWenvd supply WdV6N1rlP' PPk9Y36r #fwl4w 4h near future RfMgg zoning .�e�Y & 'flcgs >? system ' Ec4i1Rf►�6c4gt�R►"�iyiv�6��� tt1eMJ1 dd50Rohi,6lv as • TraRiri$W9�dOrPE AWN y area • Em 0o o s y e proximlry rail, airport & TopR8f3P#Yeet systems • Emol%VRW l NWnmentally sensitive manner • Urban sector • Resource protection 7Vo t�rear b�lua� ?e ria ura resources Village center Serves as the commercial and institutional focal point of surrounding rural residential and farming establishments Economic opportunity Guides a mix of commercial, tourist - related and limited industrial uses related specifically to destination resort facilities University Guides a mix of educational, institutional, limited commercial, recreational, and open space uses related to a college or university campus Area of Focus 1 West Main Street Corridor F MW J 0600 Tonight — Small Group Work Prior to the Next Meeting 1. Housekeeping items 1. Staff reviews /cleans up scenarios and distributes to 2. West Main Street corridor GFG 3. Dixie Caverns area 2. Staff begins determining implementation necessary to 4. Other areas not covered achieve desired FLU 3. Focus group members continue to consider designations /scenarios Area of Focus 2 Dixie Caverns Area Glenvar Focus Group PowerPoint Presentation lenvar library Community Meetings Wednesday, March 16, 2011 Glenvar Middle School 7:00 PM Gather citizen input on design and function Wednesday, April 20, 2011 Glenvar Middle School 7:00 PM Unveil design Glenvar Focus Group PowerPoint Presentation pring Hollow Water Treatment Facility M a � WATER AUTHO IT4' ray i Mixed Use D Scenario 1: D. . • Provides for a mix of uses to be preserved and developed • Recognizes existing uses and includes mixture of zoning districts • Allows more choice /opportunity in how the land can be developed • Encourage pedestrian and vehicular connectivity between properties • Encourage a high degree of architectural and creative site design that enhances the rural and historic character of the area a Land Use Tvaes • Community Activity Centers • Commercial • General Retail Shops and Personal Services • Limited Industrial • Mixed Use • Office and Institutional • Parks and Outdoor Recreation /Ecotourism • Residential Land Use Determinants • Existing Land Use Pattern • Existing Zoning • Access • Utility Availability • Serve as focal point for the community; New Glenvar Library, Richfield Retirement Community, Fire and Rescue Station, Fort Lewis Elementary, Entrance to Glenvar Schools Complex; Pleasant Grove and Fort Lewis Baptist Church • Provide for a mix of uses on a parcel and /or along the Route 11/460 Corridor • Encourage cluster development and pedestrian /vehicular connectivity between properties • Encourage a high degree of architectural and creative site design that enhances the rural and historic character of the community a, Land Use Types Land Use Determinants • Community Activity Centers • Existing Land Use Pattern • Commercial • Existing Zoning • General Retail Shops and • Access Personal Services • Utility Availability • Limited Industrial • Mixed Use • Office and Institutional • Parks and Outdoor Recreation /Ecotou rism • Residential o GIen—Planningarea Rannda Parcels Roanoke R-r �� Rallroatl Poads GFG Scenano_1 - C nserva9on - Core Development N elghborhood C.-r aion - Principal l ndus[rlal Pual Preserve - Rural Village Transition - Mixed o 'S4 join r - P Droft • Technology -based businesses and low intensity industrial uses are most appropriate; • Uses which have the potential to be dangerous or extremely obnoxious are not appropriate; • Industrial development should be located in existing technology parks; • High intensity industrial uses should be located south of Route 11/460. Low intensity or technology -based industrial uses are appropriate for either side of Route 11/460; • Development should be sensitive to the natural environment and include a high degree of architectural and creative site design that is compatible with the rural and historic character of the community; • Does not preclude commercial uses from being developed. 9 Route 11/460: Industrial uses should not be prominent in the corridor and /or are buffered from the right -of -way. High intensity uses should be located south of Route 11/460. Low intensity or technology - based industrial uses are appropriate for either side of Route 11/460. lop- q a Serve as a gateway to both the Glenvar Community and Roanoke County; Development that enhances the rural and historic character of the area is encouraged; Truck stops should be avoided; Businesses should be distinctive in appearance and include a high degree of architectural and creative site design; • Industrial uses should be redirected to land designated as Principal Industrial. Roanoke River /Floodplain: Development or expansion of industrial uses along the Roanoke River and in the floodplain should be limited. Appropriate uses include: • Manufacturing, storage, marketing and wholesaling of agricultural products; • Low intensity industrial uses and custom manufacturing; and • Warehousing and distribution Twine Hollow Road Development or expansion of industrial uses along Twine Hollow Road should be limited to: Manufacturing, storage, marketing and wholesaling of agricultural products; • Low intensity industrial uses and custom manufacturing; • Warehousing and distribution; and • Mining and resource extraction. Poor Mountain Road: Uses should be limited to environmentally sensitive small manufacturing and low intensity industrial along the Roanoke River and railroad tracks (Scenario 3). Center for Research and Technoloey & ValleyTechPark: These areas are the most appropriate for high -tech manufacturing operations, research and development companies and corporate headquarters. Uses, site design and aesthetics are regulated by each park's respective covenants, master plan and /or conditions. Developme Draft The future land use area where most new neighborhood development should occur. In the Glenvar Planning Area, development should be consistent with the existing land use pattern. Appropriate uses include: • Conventional residential • Cluster or planned residential • Community activity centers Community Meeting — May 2, 2011 Planning Commission Work Session — Status Update, May 17, 2011 Fourth Focus Group Meeting — Early /Mid -June 2011 Planning Commission Work Session (with Glenvar Focus Group) Planning Commission Public Hearing Board of Supervisors Work Session Board of Supervisors Public Hearing (Plan Adoption) Implementation and Monitoring I Nx qp- NOW Design Concept for New Library to be Revealed Glenvar Library Community Meeting Wednesday, April 20, 2011 Glenvar Middle School 7:00 PM uestions and Comments? L.- -ANOW Glenvar Focus Group Fourth Meeting June 16, 2011 1 , 1 4 I 4 OF I I Wyk s� w % I I. v. NI .y I 1 q 2 wp 1 2 0 Dix� C averns Af*a. Proposed FLU Chan 2 3 The Glenvar area strives to be a visually appealing, healthy and sustainable community that encourages a mix of land uses in a manner that is consistent with the community's rural character. Plan Goals • Community Facilities • Land Use • Natural Resources • Sense of Community • Transportation Provide a mix of environmentally - sensitive commercial and industrial uses at appropriate locations in the Glenvar community that meet the needs of current and future residents. • Encourage the development of planned commercial areas in the Glenvar F community. F • Encourage the continued development and redevelopment of planned industrial areas to provide jobs and increase the County's tax base, while minimizing negative impacts on other land uses. Provide a diverse, affordable and sustainable housing mix for a varied population, while preserving the natural resources and rural character of the community. Preserve, enhance and promote the unique, historic and cultural richness of the Glenvar community. • Preserve and promote the historic character of the Glenvar community F • Encourage the development and redevelopment of the Glenvar area with quality architecture and site design that enhances the rural and historic character of the community. Maintain a healthy, safe and sustainable community that ensures opportunities for a multi - generational community to live, work, recreate and raise a family. • Revitalize the West Main Street Corridor • Encourage new businesses and employment opportunities in the Glenvar community that contribute to the long -term economic health of the County and are compatible with the community's character. needs of residents and businesses within the Glenvar community anc that such services and facilities are adaptable to future growth. • Infrastructure should be maintained and improvements focused in existing neighborhoods. • Work with the Western Virginia Water Authority and other agencies to develop a utility phasing plan for water and sewer expansion in the Glenva area. • Develop a comprehensive system of public and private parks, trails and open spaces that meet the needs of all age groups within the Glenvar community [and Roanoke County]. Conserve and appropriately use the Glenvar community's natural resources in a manner that ensures their long -term viability and recreational, natural, scenic and economic value. • Conserve existing visual resources that are of value to the Glenvar community. • Maintain the Roanoke River as a focal point of the community that is enjoyed from both the land and the water. • Use environmentally - sensitive development practices to minimize the environmental impacts of development. • Maintain and increase efforts to improve air and water quality in the Glenvar community. Transportation Develop a safe, efficient transportation system that provides a range of transportation choices, reinforces the livability of neighborhoods [reduces air, noise and water pollution and lessens reliance on the automobile while maintaining accessibility]. • Maintain and improve the community's network of highways and streets. • Promote alternative modes of transportation. Joint Glenvar Focus Group / Planning 16„ Commission Work Session September 20, 2011 Vision Statement Somcond (FG Meeting First GFG Meeting Future Land Use Scenario Development Vision Statement Development Presented FLU "build" and housekeeping Divided into three small groups changes Developed themes and ideas based on 2) Divided into three small groups community input and personal 3) Focused on two "areas of concern" involvement • West Main Street Corridor Staff put all themes /ideas together in • Dixie Caverns Area one statement (presented at first meeting) Vision Statement Somcond (FG Meeting The Glenvar area strives to be a visually Future Land Use Scenario Development appealing, healthy and sustainable Presented FLU "build" and housekeeping community that encourages mix of changes land uses in a manner that is consistent 2) Divided into three small groups with the community "s rural character. 3) Focused on two "areas of concern" Agen n Somcond (FG Meeting i) Introductions and Background Future Land Use Scenario Development 2) First GFG Meeting - Vision Statement Presented FLU "build" and housekeeping Development changes Second GFG Meeting - Future Land Use 2) Divided into three small groups Scenario Development 3) Focused on two "areas of concern" Third GFG Meeting - Future Land Use • West Main Street Corridor Scenario and Designation Refinement • Dixie Caverns Area Fourth GFG Meeting - Future Land Use Scenario Recommendation Looking Ahead - Tentative Schedule Somcond (FG Meeting Community Input Key Themes Future Land Use Scenario Development Aesthetically pleasing / clean up West Main Presented FLU "build" and housekeeping Street corridor changes o Preserve rural character of community 2) Divided into three small groups a Balance between business, aesthetics and 3) Focused on two "areas of concern" community • West Main Street Corridor o. Provide commercial and to limit industrial • Dixie Caverns Area uses to clean, environmentally - sensitive businesses with attractive building design and surrounding landscaping with unobtrusive signage Appropriate location for industrial or commercial uses Somcond (FG Meeting Future Land Use Scenario Development Presented FLU "build" and housekeeping changes 2) Divided into three small groups 3) Focused on two "areas of concern" • West Main Street Corridor • Dixie Caverns Area 2005 Comprehensive Plan R,�rR,. w W&It Main straal ra fidar: slafiirii@ 1 Tom , ea. — ri a" 2005 Comprehensive Plan R,�rR,. w , ea. — ri a" s�e Wwat W+l Slrt Cenidwr 5twWW 2 '6. : 2005 Comprehensive Plan R,�rR,. w ri a" R,�rR,. w ri a" DCA Scenario 1 r``rJi -• 1 EMIL, Future Land Use Designation Third GFG Meeting May 2, 2011 - Held between third and Future Land Use Scenario and fourth GFG meetings Designation Refinement West Main Street Comments: Comments: Presented FLU scenarios developed at 9 responses; 6 hard co o AddifionaI Uses in the Mixed -Use Designation: p co p y, No Heavy Industrial second meeting to ensure they met the 3 online o Addifional Uses in the GlenvarVillage intent of the focus group Designation: Non -fast food restaurant 8 favored the .:�lenvar Discussed draft FLU designation refinements a Wording in actual zoning statement should Villaa(- (Scenario 2) make it clear that no high intensity industrial use may be located in the green (Glenvar Prepared for Community Meeting Village) area. I object to including'Principal 1 favored the Mixed -Use Industrial'in the use description. -• 1 EMIL, Future Land Use Designation Community Meeting May 2, 2011 - Held between third and fourth GFG meetings West Main Street Comments: Comments: 9 responses; 6 hard co o AddifionaI Uses in the Mixed -Use Designation: p co p y, No Heavy Industrial 3 online o Addifional Uses in the GlenvarVillage Designation: Non -fast food restaurant 8 favored the .:�lenvar a Wording in actual zoning statement should Villaa(- (Scenario 2) make it clear that no high intensity industrial use may be located in the green (Glenvar Village) area. I object to including'Principal 1 favored the Mixed -Use Industrial'in the use description. (Scenario 1) c Main street in Salem is filledwith big box corporations fie. Walmart, Applebee's, Kroger, Taco Bell, KFC, MCDOnaIds, etc). It would be nice to have a local foods restaurant or a place selling fresh produce, but please, something LOCAL. I would like to see the Glenvar Village to be similarto the Grandin Village.I think this would encourage young people to move to the area. -• 1 Future Land Use Designation Refinements Principal Industrial - Use type specification for overall planning area; Route 11 /460; Roanoke River/Fl oodplain; Poor Mountain Road; CRT; Twine Hollow Rd. Development -Appropriate uses include conventional and cluster or planned residential; Community activity centers Core - should enhance character of area; truck stops should be avoided West Main Street Corridor Results: Comments: 0 Additional Uses in the Mixed -Use Designation: 9 responses; 6 hard copy No Heavy industrial 3 online o Addifional Uses in the GlenvarVillage Designation: Non -fast food restaurant 8 favored the Glenvar O Wording in actual zoning statement should Village (Scenario 2) make it clear that no high intensity industrial use may be located in the green (Glenvar Village) I to including'Principal area. object 1 favored the Mixed -Use Industrial'in the use description. (Scenario 1) c Main street in Salem is filledwith big box corporations fie. Walmart, Applebee's, Kroger, Taco Bell, KFC, McDonalds, etc). It would be nice to have a local foods restaurant or a place selling fresh produce, but please, something LOCAL. I would like to see the Glenvar Village to be similarto the Grandin Village.I think this would encourage young people to move to the area. Glenvar Focus Group Future Land Use Recommendation West Main Street Corridor Glenvar Focus Group Future Land Use Recommendation Dixie Caverns Area Mi Additional Planning Commission or Focus Groin Questions /Comments? I �0 coop i o. oho® o�oo Comment: Scenario #1 [is] the best all [of] Twine Hollow should be red core at [the] e Glenvar Focus Group Future Land Use Recommendation West Main Street Corridor Glenvar Focus Group Future Land Use Recommendation Dixie Caverns Area Mi Additional Planning Commission or Focus Groin Questions /Comments? I coop i Glenvar Focus Group Future Land Use Recommendation West Main Street Corridor Glenvar Focus Group Future Land Use Recommendation Dixie Caverns Area Mi Additional Planning Commission or Focus Groin Questions /Comments? Thank You! ����j Tentative Schedule Joint Glenvar Focus Group /Planning Commission Final Document to Planning Commission _. - Planning Commission Public Hearing (in Glenvar) Board of Supervisors Public Hearing Thank You! Document 25 Table of Implementation Strategies Economic Development Recommendations Review and consider expanding boundaries for the Commercial Matching Grant Program along the Route 11/460 Corridor. Identify state incentives for businesses to locate in the Glenvar Community such as Enterprise Zones, Jobs Investment Program and Technology Zones. Streetscape Recommendations Enhance streetscapes to include underground utilities and pedestrian - friendly features such as sidewalks, street trees and furniture, trash receptacles and pedestrian -scale lighting. Transportation Recommendations Timetable Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Implementation Strategy 0 -5 5 -10 10+ Years Years Years Zoning and Design Recommendations Develop Glenvar Village Overlay District regulations that limit uses and implement revised ■ Design Guidelines. Properties that could be included are those along west Main Street and ■ within the Glenvar Village Future Land Use Designation. Develop Gateway Overlay District regulations at major entrance points into the Glenvar Community and incorporate features that reflect the Community's character into signs and ■ streetscape elements throughout the area. Review the existing Route 11/460 Design Guidelines to incorporate sign and screening /landscaping standards that achieve quality commercial and office development ■ that is consistent with the Glenvar Community's vision. Economic Development Recommendations Review and consider expanding boundaries for the Commercial Matching Grant Program along the Route 11/460 Corridor. Identify state incentives for businesses to locate in the Glenvar Community such as Enterprise Zones, Jobs Investment Program and Technology Zones. Streetscape Recommendations Enhance streetscapes to include underground utilities and pedestrian - friendly features such as sidewalks, street trees and furniture, trash receptacles and pedestrian -scale lighting. Transportation Recommendations Conduct an access management study along Route 11/460 from Technology Drive to the Montgomery County line. Consider the recommendations of the Bikeway Plan for the Roanoke Valley MPO and the Rural Bikeway Plan. Utilize cost - effective techniques to better accommodate cyclists. Possible techniques include the installation of signage along the roadway and bicycle racks at community facilities. Explore opportunities to expand public transportation into the Glenvar Community. ■ Residential Development Recommendations Encourage higher density residential uses near interchanges and business parks to attract residents and employers to the community. Develop and incorporate standards for townhouse and small - scale, multi - family developments into revised Design Guidelines. Viewshed Conservation Recommendations Identify and protect critical viewsheds from and within the Glenvar Community using appropriate land use tools. Review the Roanoke River Conservation Overlay District to ensure adequate protection of this natural resource. Community Involvement Recommendations Explore opportunities for public /private cooperation in Community maintenance and enhancement efforts such as street medians and gateway areas. Timetable Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Implementation Strategy 0 -5 5 -10 10+ Years Years Years Outdoor Recreation and Park Recommendations Implement the recommendations of the Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism's Master Plan. Work with the Western Virginia Water Authority and Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism to explore potential recreation opportunities at Spring Hollow Reservoir and consider ■ updating the Spring Hollow Master Plan accordingly. Construct the Roanoke River Greenway and Extensions from Green Hill Park to the Montgomery County line with connections to residential neighborhoods and community ■ facilities. Explore other opportunities for greenway connections to the Glenvar Village Overlay District and Glenvar Schools Complex. Improve existing river access at Green Hill Park and Wayside Park by constructing access ramps and related facilities for canoes and kayaks. Explore opportunities for other river access points on property owned by Roanoke County. ■ Promote the outdoor recreation opportunities in the Glenvar Community such as hiking and bird watching in Poor Mountain Natural Area Preserve, caving at Dixie Caverns and mountain ■ biking on Poor Mountain. Viewshed Conservation Recommendations Identify and protect critical viewsheds from and within the Glenvar Community using appropriate land use tools. Review the Roanoke River Conservation Overlay District to ensure adequate protection of this natural resource. Community Involvement Recommendations Explore opportunities for public /private cooperation in Community maintenance and enhancement efforts such as street medians and gateway areas.