9/28/2004 - Regular
September 28, 2004
721
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
September 28, 2004
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of September, 2004.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Flora called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Richard C. Flora, Vice-Chairman Michael W.
Altizer, Supervisors Joseph B. “Butch” Church, Joseph
McNamara (arrived at 3:17 p.m.), Michael A. Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County
Administrator; Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County
Administrator; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; Teresa
Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Reverend Bruce Tuttle, Cave Spring United
Methodist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
September 28, 2004
722
Mr. Hodge added a closed session pursuant to the Code of Virginia
Section 2.2-3711 A (3) discussion of the acquisition of real property for public purposes,
namely park purposes.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Joint proclamation declaring October 2004 as Building Character
Month in the Roanoke Valley
Stuart Harris, founder of
Chairman Flora presented the proclamation to
the Greater Roanoke Valley Character Coalition (GRVCC).
2. Proclamation declaring October 3-9, 2004 as Fire Prevention
Week in the County of Roanoke
Chairman Flora presented the proclamation to the following
representatives of the Fire and Rescue Department: Fire Marshal Gary Huffman,
Lieutenant Randy Spence, and Officer Spot - the Roanoke County Fire and Rescue
Safety Dog.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding proposed
amendments to the fiscal year 2004-2005 budget in accordance
with Section 15.2-2507, Code of Virginia. (Diane D. Hyatt, Chief
Financial Officer)
Ms. Hyatt advised that the County is required by the Code of Virginia to
hold a public hearing when there are proposed budget amendments in excess of
September 28, 2004
723
$500,000 at any single meeting. She stated that today’s meeting has amendments in
excess of that amount, and advised that a notice of the public hearing was published on
September 21, 2004. This time has been set aside for a public hearing on the following
items:
Appropriation of an amount not to exceed $30 million for the construction and
equipping of a Public Safety Facility
Appropriation of an amount not to exceed $236,000 in grants for the CORTRAN
program
Appropriation of an amount not to exceed $679.06 for dual enrollment revenues
for schools
Appropriation of an amount not to exceed $1,275 for grant from the Virginia
Commission for the Arts for schools
Ms. Hyatt stated that action on each of these items would occur later in
the meeting. There were no citizens present to speak at the public hearing.
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
Supervisor Wray moved to approve the first readings and set the second
readings and public hearings for October 26, 2004. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
1. First reading of an ordinance to rezone 2.37 acres from C1C
Office District with conditions to C1C Office District with amended
conditions and rezone .28 acres from R1 Low Density Residential
September 28, 2004
724
to C1C Office District with conditions in order to construct a
general office located at 3640 Colonial Avenue and a portion of
3612 Parkwood Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the
petition of Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc.
2. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to
operate a commercial indoor sports and recreation facility located
at 5205 Starkey Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the
petition of Roanoke Cheerleading Academy.
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Second reading of an ordinance amending ordinance 52488-12
authorizing an amendment to the lease with Ingersoll-Rand
(Bogar, LLC) to provide for an early termination of a recreational
lease. (Jill Loope, Assistant Director of Economic Development;
Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation & Tourism)
O-092804-1
Ms. Loope advised that the first reading of this ordinance was held on
September 14 and there have been no changes in this matter since that time.
Supervisor Wray questioned what it will cost to relocate the facilities. Mr.
Haislip advised that nothing has been moved at this point and the County still has
access to the site. He stated that the only permanent structure on the site is the
backstop, so it will not involve a significant cost.
September 28, 2004
725
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 092804-1 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 52488-12
AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE WITH INGERSOLL-
RAND (BOGAR, LLC) TO PROVIDE FOR AN EARLY TERMINATION
OF A RECREATIONAL LEASE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That on February 9, 1988, the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance
authorizing the lease of approximately 5 acres from Ingersoll-Rand for recreational
purposes (Ordinance No. 2988-6). The term of the lease was for a 25-year period.
2. That on May 24, 1988, the Board amended this lease to provide for a 3-
year renewable term (Ordinance No. 52488-12).
3. That Bogar, LLC purchased the Ingersoll-Rand property and is the
successor-in-interest to Ingersoll-Rand. It has requested an amendment to the lease to
provide for an early termination upon 90 days written notice.
4. That pursuant to the provisions of § 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke
County, a first reading of an ordinance amending the lease was held on September 14,
2004; a second reading on this matter was held on September 28, 2004.
5. That the amendment to the lease by Roanoke County from Ingersoll-
Rand, now Bogar, LLC, of approximately 5 acres for recreational purposes to provide
for an early termination of said lease is hereby authorized and approved.
6. That the County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator, is
authorized to execute such document and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke
County as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form
approved by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Grievance Panel
September 28, 2004
726
It was the consensus of the Board to nominate Lee Blair and Joanne
Thompson, Alternates, to serve additional three-year terms which will expire on October
10, 2007. Confirmation of these appointments will be placed on the October 12 consent
agenda.
2. Library Board
Supervisor Altizer nominated Lisa Boggess, Vinton Magisterial District, to
complete the remaining portion of an unexpired four-year term and an additional four-
year term that will expire on December 31, 2008. He requested that confirmation of this
appointment be added to the consent agenda at today's meeting.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
R-092804-2; R-092804-2.b; R-092804-2.g
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 092804-2 APPROVING AND CONCURRING
IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED
AS ITEM K - CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for
September 28, 2004, designated as Item K - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is,
approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section
designated Items 1 through 8, inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – September 14, 2004
September 28, 2004
727
2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the Roanoke Valley Resource
Authority
3. Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Philip J. Patrone, Police
Department, following twenty-five years of service
4. Request from Unified Human Transportation Services (RADAR) to accept and
appropriate a grant in the amount of $208,000 for the purchase of vans and to
appropriate Section 5311 monies in the amount of $28,351 for operating
costs
5. Request from schools to appropriate a grant in the amount of $1,275 from the
Virginia Commission for the Arts
6. Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment revenues in the amount
of $679.06
7. Request to appropriate funds in an amount not to exceed $9,000 from the
Board contingency account to Chandler Planning
8. Request to approve resolution authorizing the County of Roanoke to enter
into a commercial credit card relationship with SunTrust Bank Card
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required
by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item
pursuant to this resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 092804-2.b EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE
RETIREMENT OF PHILIP J. PATRONE, POLICE DEPARTMENT, AFTER
TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Philip J. Patrone was first employed by Roanoke County on
May 1, 1979, as a Deputy Sheriff, and advanced to the rank of Captain; and
WHEREAS, Captain Patrone was one of the original members of the
Police Department which was established in 1990; and
WHEREAS, Captain Patrone spent most of his career as a detective in
investigations and became a polygraph examiner; and
WHEREAS, Captain Patrone was promoted to sergeant in 1998 and
worked in the Professional Standards Unit until 2002; and
WHEREAS, Captain Patrone managed the investigations function and the
Uniform Division prior to his retirement from Roanoke County on September 1, 2004,
after twenty-five years of service; and
WHEREAS, Captain Patrone, through his employment with Roanoke
County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens.
September 28, 2004
728
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of
PHILIP J. PATRONE
the citizens of Roanoke County to for twenty-five 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.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 092804-2.g AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY OF
ROANOKE TO ENTER INTO A COMMERCIAL CREDIT CARD
ACCOUNT RELATIONSHIP WITH SUNTRUST BANK CARD, N.A.
(“BANK”)
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke desires to enter into a commercial credit
card account relationship with SunTrust Bank Card, N.A. (the “Bank”) and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
1. That the County of Roanoke enters into a commercial credit card account
relationship with SunTrust Bank Card.
2. That the County Administrator or designee is authorized to enter into and
execute on behalf of the County any agreements or documents the Bank may require in
order to establish the commercial credit card account relationship upon form approved
by the County Attorney.
3. That the County shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the
agreements, all as now existing or as amended from time to time.
4. That the undersigned is authorized and directed to furnish said Bank a
certified copy of this resolution, which resolution shall continue in full force and effect
until written notice of modification or revocation of this resolution has been received by
the Bank and the Bank has had reasonable time to act on such notice, and to furnish
said Bank the names and specimen signature of the authorized person named herein,
and such persons from time to time holding above positions.
5. That the appropriate officers are hereby authorized and directed to execute,
deliver and file all documents, certificates and instruments and to take all such further
action as may be necessary or desirable in connection with and that are in conformity
with the purposes and intent of this resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
September 28, 2004
729
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Altizer moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance
3. Board Contingency Fund
4. Future Capital Projects
5. Accounts Paid – August 2004
6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for
the month ended August 31, 2004
7. Proclamation signed by the Chairman
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 3:43 p.m., Supervisor Flora moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (30) discussion
of the award of public contracts involving the expenditure of public funds, and
discussion of the terms or scope of such contracts where discussion in an open session
would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body,
namely public safety center; and Section 2.2-3711 A (3) discussion of the acquisition of
September 28, 2004
730
real property for public purposes, namely park purposes. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: WORK SESSION
1. Work session to discuss proposed spot blight abatement
program. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
The work session was held from 3:47 p.m. until 3:58 p.m. Mr. Mahoney
advised that he had provided the Board with the State Code legislation which enables
localities to implement this type of program. He presented an overview of the proposed
process to be implemented by the Board and advised that the process will allow the
Board to evaluate each situation on a case by case basis. It was noted that if
implementation of the program is approved, there has been no appropriation of funds to
cover related expenses. It was the consensus of the Board to proceed with the
proposed action at the evening session.
2. Work session to brief the Board on Virginia’s Explore Park.
(Debbie Pitts, Executive Director)
The work session was held from 3:58 p.m. until 4:58 p.m. Staff present
included Debbie Pitts, Executive Director; Tom Brock, President - The River
Foundation; Stan Lanford, Past Vice-Chair - Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority
(VRFA); Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation & Tourism. Also present were Bart
September 28, 2004
731
Wilner, The River Foundation; Paula Johnson, VRFA; Penny Lloyd, Administration and
Marketing Director; and Jo Nelson, Development Director.
A Power Point presentation was made which outlined the core values and
core programs at Explore Park. An update was provided on the Explore Now! initiative,
and the Board was briefed on the upcoming development of a master plan for the park.
It was the consensus of those present that revenue generating activities are needed at
the park.
The Board requested that The River Foundation, the VRFA, and Explore
Park staff pursue the development of a large scale amphitheater on the park grounds
that could accommodate approximately 5,000 seats. In addition, the Board requested
that the City of Roanoke be contacted regarding the possibility of this project being
developed as a joint venture between the City and the County.
3. Work session to brief the Board on the joint funding of Capital
Improvement Programs (CIP) with Roanoke County schools.
(Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; Penny A. Hodge, Director
of Budget and Finance)
The work session was held from 5:11 p.m. until 5:40 p.m. Ms. Hyatt and
Ms. Hodge presented the proposed plan for joint funding of the CIP for both Roanoke
County and Roanoke County schools. The process would establish a major and minor
capital fund for both the County and schools, and would also expand an existing fund
for debt payment reserve which would be a combined County-School Fund. The
September 28, 2004
732
County and schools would each contribute $150,000 in fiscal year 2005-2006 for a total
contribution of $300,000.The contribution amount would be doubled in each
subsequent year, allowing for growth of the fund. The process would establish a
recurring cycle of two years of funding for school projects followed by one year of
funding for County projects.
It was the consensus of the Board to schedule a joint work session with
the School Board on October 26, 2004, to discuss the proposed CIP funding.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
The closed meeting was held from held from 5:55 p.m. until 6:40 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R-092804-3
At 7:05 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 092804-3 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS
HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members
knowledge:
September 28, 2004
733
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: RECOGNITIONS
Chairman Flora recognized Rick Pingry, Troop Leader, and the following
members of Scout Troop 49 who were present at the meeting to complete their merit
badge requirements: Sterling Jones, Taylor Woolwine, Josh Seahorn, and Lawrence
Kersey.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of a
comprehensive agreement pursuant to the Public-Private
Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 to design,
develop and construct a new public safety facility and certain
radio system upgrades, to amend a contract with Construction
Dynamics Group for construction management and value
engineering, and to appropriate funds for these purposes. (Dan
R. O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator)
R-092804-4
September 28, 2004
734
Mr. O’Donnell advised that since July 2004 staff, along with the assistance
of the consultant team of Construction Dynamics and RCC Communications, have been
involved in detailed design proposal review and competitive negotiations with Northrop
Grumman Corporation and Public Facility Consortium, LLC for the provision of a new
Public Safety Building and Emergency Communications Center and the relocation and
upgrading of the current emergency radio system. These negotiations are now nearing
completion and staff is prepared to recommend an award of a comprehensive
agreement for the project. He stated that after a detailed review of proposals,
qualifications of proposers and proposed project designs, in accordance with the criteria
set forth in the Public Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA),
staff, in consultation with the Construction Dynamics Group, has determined that the
proposal submitted and the comprehensive agreement currently being negotiated with
Northrop Grumman Corporation is the best proposal and will provide the best alternative
for the citizens of Roanoke County. Mr. O’Donnell reported that the criteria upon which
the recommendation is made are found in the County’s PPEA guidelines entitled
“Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 – County of Roanoke
Procedures” and was included in the information received by the Board.
With respect to the Public Safety Building scope, Mr. O’Donnell advised
that the need for the Public Safety Building has been well documented and accepted by
the Board as a top capital project priority. The scope of this project will meet the needs
of the public for a fully functional public safety communications center, and will provide
September 28, 2004
735
for a secure location for the County’s public safety agencies. He stated that the scope
of the project is as follows: (1) A New Public Safety Building of approximately 80,000
square feet, housing the following departments: Police, Fire and Rescue, Information
Technology. (2) A New Emergency Communications Dispatch Center including 14 new
completely equipped dispatch stations, a new Computer Aided Dispatch System, and
new 911 telephone equipment. The Center is designed in accordance with National Fire
Protection Association Section 1221 standards for emergency communications centers
ensuring security and stability in the provision of emergency communications services.
(3) A New Emergency Operations Center which serves as the command and control
center for the management of major emergencies. (4) The relocation of the emergency
radio system from the existing Public Safety Building, with communications capabilities
remaining functional during the transition. Please note that the emergency radio system
is not being upgraded to a digital system as part of this project due to recommendations
of both proposers and RCC Communications. The current analog radio system
functions well, but due to its nearing the end of its life cycle in the next several years,
the transition to digital will need to be planned and pursued in the very near future. As
the radio system is shared by the City of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton, this
upcoming project will need to be pursued on a regional cooperative basis. (5) An
upgraded microwave system which will provide enhanced equipment compatible with a
migration path to a digital radio system in the future. (6) Secure parking for 120
employees and open parking for 100 visitors. (7) Security enhancements including
September 28, 2004
736
closed circuit television systems, security fencing for employee parking areas, a
proximity reader card system for building access, bullet resistant materials for crucial
portions of the building and a structural design to withstand natural disruptions including
high winds and earthquakes. (8) Several out-buildings for storage of materials not
suitable for storage in the main structure. (9) The site work includes a graded pad for
the construction of a school warehouse.Although the construction work for the
replacement school warehouse is not included in the comprehensive agreement,
$500,000 is being requested in the project budget for the warehouse construction. This
will be handled under a separate contract and the contractor has yet to be determined.
The Memorandum of Understanding between the Board of Supervisors and the School
Board approved by the Board of Supervisors at the July 27, 2004 Board meeting
provides that the Board of Supervisors will provide funding for the replacement of the
warehouse currently on the site.
In addition to the award of the Comprehensive Agreement, Mr. O’Donnell
reported that staff is recommending that the current agreement with Construction
Dynamics Group, including RCC Communications as their partner, be amended to
include construction management and value engineering services. This amendment will
be done in accordance with the Request for Proposal (RFP) issued for technical
assistance for this project which allows for the inclusion of these services. He stated
that it is crucial that construction management and design review be included in this
September 28, 2004
737
project as the County needs to be able to ensure complete quality control on this vital
public safety facility and its technical systems.
Mr. O’Donnell stated that the third component of this action is the
appropriation of the project budget. The resolution calls for the appropriation of the
project budget, and Mr. O’Donnell advised that Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer, was
present and would be available to answer questions relating to the financing of the
project. He indicated that the detailed budget is for the Comprehensive Agreement,
which is a not-to-exceed contract cost limit with Northrup Grumman Corporation totaling
$26,030,769. The construction management and value engineering contract with
Construction Dynamics Group totals $799,874. He further advised that the budget
includes a contingency which is three percent (3%) of the Comprehensive Agreement
and totals $780,923. In addition, $500,000 is included for the warehouse construction,
as well as issuance costs for the bond totaling $157,507 and bond discount costs of
$11,467. This brings the total budget to $28,280,540.
Mr. O’Donnell reported that the sale of bonds through the Virginia
Resources Authority 2004 fall pool sale was closed on June 30, 2004. The County
issued $22,170,000 of bonds in this sale. The balance that will be needed to complete
this project is available in the Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance. He stated that
staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the resolution which does the
following: (1) Authorizes the County Administrator to execute the Comprehensive
Agreement with Northrop Grumman Corporation for the amount of $26,030,769 upon
September 28, 2004
738
completion of review of the draft agreement by legal counsel. (2) Staff involved in
reviewing the proposals in conjunction with Construction Dynamics Group and RCC
Communications has determined that this is the best proposal and will provide the best
long-term value to the County based on the selection criteria which was provided to the
Board. Staff believes choosing this proposal is in the best interest of the County based
on the building design, the utilization of the site, facility security and the technological
components of this proposal. (3) Authorizes the County Administrator to amend the
existing contract with Construction Dynamics Group for the provision of Construction
Management and Value Engineering Services for $799,874. In order to ensure the high
quality of design, construction and systems integration that this vital project calls for,
staff strongly recommends that Construction Dynamics Group (CDG) be retained to
perform these services. CDG has been actively involved in proposal review and contract
negotiations for this project and has an excellent track record of providing construction
management services for a wide variety of public projects. (4) Appropriates the project
budget in the amount of $28,280,540 with revenue sources of $22,170,000 lease-
revenue bonds and the remaining project balance from the Capital Fund
Unappropriated Balance.
Mr. O’Donnell reported that some of the features of the building include:
(1) The building is designed on three levels with a public entrance in front and secure
employee parking in the rear of the facility.(2) The site plan is compact due to the fact
that the building is built on three levels, thereby allowing room for future expansion and
September 28, 2004
739
for the building to be set back from the road. (3) The staff lobby is located in the center
of the building and is open to the rear of the building.The first floor will contain
technical services for the Information Technology (IT) Department, evidence storage,
offices for the Police Department, exercise and locker rooms, and the vice squad office
which is located in the lower level. The main floor includes the central dispatch center,
IT development and administration, Central Records Department, Police Department
Uniform Division, and the Fire Department. The top floor includes the emergency
operations center, briefing and conference rooms, and the remainder of the Police
Department (Administration, Special Operations, CID, and the Professional Standards
Unit).
Mr. O’Donnell stated that one of the key features of the proposal is the
upgrade of the microwave system. The microwave system is a star configuration where
the main signal goes out in a radial pattern to each of the tower sites. He stated that
Northrup Grumman has designed a new system that will have a loop pattern with
redundant signals so if any one link is knocked out, it still allows full coverage. In
addition by having the revised microwave system, it eliminates the need for a tower of
150 to 190 feet. This will be replaced with a 30 foot antenna which eliminates the need
for a large tower in the neighborhood.
Supervisor Flora requested that Mr. O’Donnell provide a brief history of
the public safety building for the benefit of the viewing public. Mr. O’Donnell reported
that the public safety center is currently housed in a 40,000 square foot former school
September 28, 2004
740
building. He stated that the facility is half the size of what is needed and has roof
problems. While the building is structurally sound, it has outdated electrical systems
and is not in a secure location. In spring 2003, the Board approved the PPEA
guidelines and Northrup Grumman submitted an unsolicited proposal. Once the
proposal was reviewed, the Board authorized opening up the process for competition.
The County received two additional proposals at Phase I. Mr. O’Donnell advised that
one firm decided to withdraw from the process, and PFC and Northrup Grumman
moved forward and submitted Phase II proposals. Last June detailed design proposals
were submitted. Since that time, staff has been reviewing and analyzing the proposals
and competitive negotiations have taken place. The recommendation is based on the
analysis by staff and the consultant group. He further advised that the existing public
safety building was built in the late 1930s and the County moved into the facility in the
1980s.
Supervisor Wray inquired what is being stored in the warehouse that will
be built for the schools that is estimated to cost $500,000. Supervisor Flora advised
that the schools have a warehouse located on the site and it must be demolished in
order to construct the new Public Safety Building. The County will be replacing it with
the same amount of square footage that will be demolished. He stated that the
warehouse is used to store furniture and refrigerated foods.
Supervisor Wray questioned what type of services Construction Dynamics
Group (CDG) will be providing for $800,000. Ed Newman of CDG advised that their
September 28, 2004
741
scope from this point forward is to act as the County’s agent to help manage the
process with Northrup Grumman. Their goal is to ensure quality design that meets the
needs of the County, has good value, and to work as the County’s eyes and ears to
ensure that what is being built meets the terms of the contract. Mr. O’Donnell stated
that the contract with Northrup Grumman calls for several different design submittals
and reviews and cost estimates will be done on these to ensure that costs are accurate.
The project is at about 30% design submission now, and Mr. O’Donnell reported that
there will be a 35% design submittal and review, it then goes to value engineering, and
then goes to 65% design and review followed by quality control, and then up to 90-95%
followed by a final review. He stated that there are four engineering and architectural
reviews that CDG will conduct during the design process, followed by an 18 month
construction period. In addition, the cost includes RCC Communications’ oversight of
the implementation of the technical systems.
Supervisor Church stated that the County is in dire need of this project,
and he noted that there are approximately 80,000 citizens to protect. He advised that at
times water comes in through the roof in the existing facility that could damage radio
systems and the emergency operations could be in jeopardy. He stated that a new
building is long overdue and is desperately needed. He indicated that the County is
planning for the future and he requested clarification regarding the proposed site for the
facility. Mr. O’Donnell advised that the site for the new facility is directly in front of the
school administration building on Cove Road next to Glen Cove Elementary School.
September 28, 2004
742
Supervisor Altizer advised that as part of his orientation as a new Board
member, he participated in a tour of the existing public safety building and found plastic
hanging from the ceiling over the radio equipment. He also recalled electrical problems
that could not be resolved by electricians.He noted that the County is now responsible
for handling wireless 911 calls which were formerly handled by the State Police, and
this created the need for five additional dispatcher positions which further cramped the
space. He stated that now is the right time to do this project due to low bond rates and
the ability to develop a facility that will serve the County for many years.
Supervisor McNamara congratulated Mr. O’Donnell and staff on a job well
done. He thanked both firms that submitted proposals.
Mr. Hodge expressed appreciation to the three firms that participated in
the process. He stated that all three were excellent firms that had great concepts. He
indicated that it was a difficult decision, but staff feels they have valid reasons for the
choice that was made. He advised that the contract tightens down the cost to the
County. He noted that the schools contributed as a partner to this project by allowing
the County to use the site for the proposals; in turn, the County will provide the
warehouse. He thanked the Board and staff, and stated that the County will have a
product that comes closer to meeting the needs and expectations than ever. He stated
that he supports the staff’s recommendation.
Supervisor Flora stated that one of the things that he noted when touring
the existing facility was the need for additional space and the inability to expand on the
September 28, 2004
743
existing site. He advised that there was no option other than to relocate, and he noted
that the timing was right and the project came together.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 092804-4 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE
TO
EDUCATION FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2002
DESIGN, DEVELOP AND CONSTRUCT A NEW PUBLIC SAFETY
FACILITY AND CERTAIN RADIO SYSTEM UPGRADES, TO AMEND A
CONTRACT WITH CONSTRUCTION DYNAMICS GROUP FOR
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND VALUE ENGINEERING, AND
TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR THESE PURPOSES
WHEREAS, Roanoke County, Virginia, (the "County") has an urgent need for a
new public safety facility and radio system upgrades (the “Project”), and the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, (the "Board") has included in its Capital
Improvement Program plans for building such facilities;
WHEREAS, the means traditionally used to procure new facility design and
construction could result in limited flexibility in design and longer lead times for delivery
of these facilities than desirable;
WHEREAS, the General Assembly enacted the Public-Private Education
Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (“PPEA”), which provides an alternative to
traditional methods for procurement of new design and construction services;
WHEREAS, the Board adopted its implementation procedures for the PPEA on
May 13, 2003;
WHEREAS, the Board subsequently received an unsolicited proposal pursuant to
the PPEA from Northrop-Grumman Corporation to construct an emergency
communications/public safety center and determined that it would be advantageous to
the public to proceed under the PPEA;
WHEREAS, the Board determined that proceeding with the procurement under
the PPEA was likely to be advantageous to the public and that use of "competitive
negotiation" procedures under the PPEA for the procurement of these facilities was
likely to be more advantageous to the County and the public based upon (1) the
September 28, 2004
744
probable scope, complexity, or urgency of the project, or (2) risk sharing, added value,
economic benefit from the project that would not otherwise be available;
WHEREAS, the Board then accepted the unsolicited proposal and invited
competing proposals for the procurement of the emergency communications/public
safety center;
WHEREAS, the County received proposals from three offerors; Northrop-
Grumman Corporation, Public Facilities Consortium, LLC and SafetyFirst;
WHEREAS, The County engaged the services of qualified professionals not
employed by the County to provide to the County independent analysis regarding the
specifics, advantages, disadvantages, and long- and short-term costs of the proposals
for this Project;
WHEREAS, County staff has engaged in negotiation of a comprehensive
agreement with Northrop Grumman Corporation, and a draft copy of the negotiated
comprehensive agreement has been provided to the members of the Board of
Supervisors;
WHEREAS, the negotiated comprehensive agreement is within the scope of the
procurement and the procurement's terms and conditions, is in the public interest, and
the qualifying project for which it provides serves the public purpose under the criteria of
Va. Code § 56-575.4.C.;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
(1) The Board of Supervisors hereby finds that the qualifying Project to be
performed under the negotiated comprehensive agreement with Northrop Grumman
Corporation serves the public purpose under the criteria of Va. Code § 56-575.4.C;
(2) The Board hereby determines in writing that Northrop Grumman
Corporation is most qualified to implement this Project, and that it has made the best
proposal.
(3) The County Administrator is authorized to execute the comprehensive
agreement on behalf of the County to build this Project, upon form approved by the
County Attorney, and to take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate to
implement the purposes of this resolution.
(4) The Board recognizes that, given the length of the comprehensive
agreement and the schedule within which it was negotiated and drafted, further minor
revisions to it, primarily of a technical nature, may be necessary or desirable, and it
therefore authorizes the County Administrator to execute on its behalf the
comprehensive agreement with Northrop Grumman Corporation and, prior to execution,
to make any technical changes to it agreed upon by him and Northrop Grumman
Corporation that do not materially affect its terms and conditions, provided that the
County Attorney concurs with such technical changes.
(5) The Board authorizes an amendment to the contract with Construction
Dynamics Group to provide construction management and value engineering services
for this Project.
September 28, 2004
745
(6) The Board authorizes funding for the replacement of the school
warehouses currently on the Public Safety Building site. For this purpose, $500,000 is
included as part of the appropriation in Item 7 below.
(7) The Board hereby appropriates the sum of $28,280,540 to the Public
Safety Building Project. This project is funded from $22,170,000 of lease revenue
bonds sold through Virginia Resources Authority on June 30, 2004, and $6,110,540
transferred from the Capital Unappropriated Balance.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
2. Request to adopt a resolution establishing a program for spot
blight abatement. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
R-092804-5
Mr. Mahoney advised that the Board has received citizen complaints
regarding deteriorating and dilapidated structures in the County. He stated that the
Board has observed many of these same deteriorating conditions, and noted that two
work sessions have been held on this topic. He advised that the proposed action is to
adopt a resolution which will establish a spot blight abatement program. This program
is specifically authorized by State Code, and he advised that information from the State
Code was provided in the Board’s agenda materials.
Mr. Mahoney advised that the definitions in state law are specific as to
what constitutes a blighted condition and includes the following: buildings where
dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement of design, lack of
ventilation, light, sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use or
obsolete layout, or any combination of these factors that by themselves or in
September 28, 2004
746
combination, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.
He stated that he has developed a proposed process that would implement this type of
spot blight abatement program for Roanoke County, and the draft resolution would
direct the County Administrator to develop administrative procedures to implement the
process. He stated that the exhibit included in the agenda materials includes suggested
procedures to be followed which are designed to protect the due process rights of the
land owner and would provide for written notice to the land owner, public hearings
before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, a specific plan would have
to be put together, and specific findings would have to be made. After satisfying all the
due notice and public hearing procedures, the County would have the power to repair or
demolish the structure and place a lien on the property to recover the costs incurred.
Mr. Mahoney stated that staff will bring each case to the Board for individual review to
allow them to make a determination. He stated that the land owner always has the
opportunity to fix the property themselves.
There was no discussion on this item.
Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 092804-5 ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM FOR SPOT
BLIGHT ABATEMENT IN ROANOKE COUNTY
September 28, 2004
747
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has
determined blighted or deteriorated areas and properties are developing in Roanoke
County, and,
WHEREAS, these blighted or deteriorated areas are defined as areas with
buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence,
overcrowding, faulty arrangement of design, lack of ventilation, light, and sanitary
facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any
combination of these and other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals or
welfare of the community; and,
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the establishment of a spot blight abatement
program in accordance with the provisions of Section 36-49.1:1 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, is necessary and appropriate, and
WHEREAS, that certain blighted, deteriorated or deteriorating areas are
susceptible of conservation through appropriate public action and the elimination or
prevention of the spread or increase of blight or deterioration in such areas is necessary
for the public welfare and is a public purpose for which public money may be spent and
private property acquired by purchase or by the power of eminent domain.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia,
1) That there is hereby established a spot blight abatement program for
Roanoke County, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36-49.1:1 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended.
2) That the County Administrator shall develop procedural guidelines for the
implementation of this program and the exercise of the spot blight abatement powers
authorized by the Code of Virginia, in substantial conformity with Exhibit A, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The County Administrator is authorized to
delegate functions and activities as he deems appropriate.
3) That the County Administrator is granted the power and authority as may
be necessary to commence spot blight abatement in Roanoke County, as provided in
this Resolution and consistent with the provisions of law.
4) That this Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
Mr. Hodge advised that earlier today, the County of Roanoke declared a
state of emergency as a result of the damage sustained by tropical storm Jeanne. He
September 28, 2004
748
noted that the City of Roanoke and the City of Salem had also declared a state of
emergency. Late this afternoon, the Governor declared a state-wide emergency for the
localities that have been affected. Mr. Hodge reported that this action authorizes some
benefits to the citizens affected by the storm, including the possibility of low interest
loans and state assistance. There were numerous road issues as well as property
damage.
Mr. Hodge stated that the declaration of emergency will need to be ratified
by the Board within 14 days. He noted that the flooding was similar to the flood of 1985
because it occurred after a period of many rains. He stated that in the Route 221/Back
Creek area there were more than 25 mud slides and downed trees that blocked the
roads. At one time, there were approximately 38 roads either blocked or closed in
Roanoke County. Many of the road shoulders were either washed out or softened by
the rains, so caution should be exercised when driving. He advised that damage
estimates for County parks is still pending and he noted that access to the County’s
Kessler Mill facility was blocked due to flooding.
Mr. Hodge advised that County staff will work as long as necessary
throughout the weekend to assist in clean up and removal of debris. In addition, staff
will assist in relaying messages to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) or
to County drainage crews.He requested that the Board adopt the resolution ratifying
the declaration of the emergency at the Board retreat scheduled for Saturday, October
2, 2004.
September 28, 2004
749
Supervisor Flora advised that as of mid-afternoon, none of the Roanoke
County schools had water from the flooding in them.
IN RE: FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING OF ORDINANCE
1. First reading of an ordinance to amend the Roanoke County Code
Section 21-73, General Prerequisites to Grant of Division 3.
Exemption for Elderly and Disabled Persons of Chapter 21.
Taxation to increase the various asset threshold amount
provisions for real estate tax exemption for the elderly and
handicapped. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney stated that state law authorizes localities to adopt a program
of exemption from or deferral of local real estate taxes to disabled or elderly citizens. In
addition, those qualifying individuals must meet certain income and net worth
qualifications to be eligible for the program. Roanoke County has an exemption
program and the Board has budgeted approximately $600,000 in the current year for
this purposes. There are approximately 1,300 individuals in the program. Mr. Mahoney
stated that in the 2004 session of the General Assembly, the following amendments to
the legislation were adopted. He outlined these changes, some of which are
recommended for approval: (1) Increase from $6,500 to $10,000 the net combined
financial worth of a relative of an eligible property owner who lives in the dwelling but
does not otherwise qualify. Mr. Mahoney recommended approval of this change. (2)
Provide an opportunity for exempting from income of a relative or spouse who moves
September 28, 2004
750
into a home and provides some care for an eligible person to help the eligible person
avoid going into a nursing home or convalescent facility. Mr. Mahoney recommends
approval of this change. (3) Increase the total combined net worth from $100,000 to
$200,000. This change is not recommended. (4) When net worth is totaled, you are
allowed to delete from the calculation the value of your home and up to one (1) acre of
land. The proposed amendment would allow deleting the value of the home and up to
10 acres of land. This change is not recommended on the basis that it is excessive and
applies more to affluent communities.
Mr. Mahoney advised that the purpose of the program is to alleviate the
excess tax burden on some citizens while balancing the tax burden among the citizenry
as a whole. As previously noted, the County has budgeted $600,000 in the current
budget for this purpose. Mr. Mahoney stated that the recommended changes can be
incorporated within the existing budget. He advised that the Commissioner of the
Revenue supports the proposed changes. If the ordinance is favorably considered, the
second reading will be held on October 12 and would commence for the tax year
beginning January 1, 2005.
Supervisor Church stated that the County recognizes the limitations faced
by our elderly and disabled citizens and as times and needs change, the County does
not penalize its citizens. He noted that some of the elderly citizens in the County need
to work and the County is taking the right step to assist them.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
September 28, 2004
751
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first reading and set the
second reading for October 12, 2004. The motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. This item was originally scheduled to be heard by the Board of
Supervisors on September 28. It has been continued at the
request of the Planning Commission until October 26, 2004.
Public hearing to receive public comments on a proposal to adopt
a revised Community (Comprehensive) Plan for Roanoke County,
Virginia. The proposed Community Plan is comprised of both text
and maps. Once recommended by the Planning Commission and
adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the plan will serve as a
general guide for long-range use and development of all land
within Roanoke County. The proposed plan has been prepared in
accordance with guidelines contained in Sections 15.2-2223 and
2224 of the Code of Virginia, and Section 30-8-1 of the Roanoke
County Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Flora confirmed that this item has been continued until October
26, 2004.
September 28, 2004
752
2. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 6.15 acres from R1 Low
Density Residential District to R3 Medium Density Multi Family
District with conditions in order to construct townhouses located
at the northerly end of Byron Road, Catawba Magisterial District,
upon the petition of Pinkerton Properties, LLC. (Janet Scheid,
Chief Planner)
O-092804-6
Ms. Scheid advised that this request is to rezone approximately 6.15 acres
of R-1 Low Density Single Family Residential to R-3 Medium Density Multi-Family
Residential. She stated that the applicant intends to develop 28 single story patio
homes which will be one story, two bedroom units. Access to the development will be
an extension of the existing Byron Road, which currently ends in a cul-de-sac. She
stated it has not been determined whether the applicant will develop a public or a
private road into the proposed development.
Ms. Scheid stated that on Thursday, July 29, a community meeting was
held and approximately 40 residents of the neighborhood were present. A majority of
the concerns expressed at the meeting addressed either storm water runoff in the
neighborhood or traffic concerns. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
the petition at their meeting on September 7 with two conditions: (1) The property will
be developed in substantial conformity with the submitted concept plan dated August
20,2004. (2) Wherever possible, existing vegetation shall be preserved and
September 28, 2004
753
incorporated into the buffering requirements. Screening and buffering in that area of the
development adjoining Tax Map No. 036.19-01-12.00 shall utilize Type (A) Buffer,
Option 2 with an eight (8) foot vinyl screening fence instead of the six (6) foot screening
required.
Ed Natt, attorney for the petitioner, and Mr. Pinkerton were present at the
meeting. Mr. Natt stated that at the neighborhood meeting two basic concerns were
expressed: traffic and storm water management. He stated that Mr. Pinkerton has
since revised the plan and when he appeared before the Planning Commission, he had
the support of several of the residents in the community. Mr. Natt stated that with
respect to storm water management, the property can be developed with 19 single
family residential units detached. With the proposed rezoning, the storm water
management facilities will have to meet County standards and as a result of this
development, there will be no increased runoff down stream. It will be controlled on site
and dispersed at no greater rate and can, potentially, improve the down stream
situation. With respect to traffic, Mr. Natt advised that staff had requested that the
petitioner determine how many single family lots they could develop. He advised that
19 was the number that could be developed by right and the traffic generated from this
quantity of housing would be very comparable to the volume generated by 28 patio
homes. He stated that the proposal meets the County’s comprehensive plan in every
respect, and the proffers include screening and buffering which would not be required if
the by right use was implemented.
September 28, 2004
754
Supervisor Wray inquired why the traffic could not be routed in another
manner rather than through the neighborhood. Mr. Natt advised that there is no other
access to the site because VDOT will not allow you to access residential property
through commercial property. He indicated that this is the best route according to the
engineers.
Supervisor Wray stated that when this matter was presented to the Board
for a first reading on August 24, there was also a request to develop a storm water
management pond which was subsequently withdrawn. He inquired why the petition for
the storm water management pond was withdrawn. Mr. Natt responded that on the rear
of Mr. Pinkerton’s commercial property, he already has a storm water management
facility that serves his business. He stated that part of the initial request was to move
the pond so that it could serve the commercial property as well as this property; but
upon further examination, it was determined that this approach would not be cost
effective.
Supervisor Wray inquired further if there is sufficient storm water
management for the site. Ms. Scheid stated that when a site plan is submitted, it will be
reviewed and staff will ensure that it meets all the storm water management
requirements.
Supervisor Church questioned how many additional town homes would
have been allowed if the petition for the storm water management pond had not been
September 28, 2004
755
withdrawn. Mr. Natt stated that the petition would have moved the regional pond to this
site and reduced the number of units that could have been built by 3 or 4 units.
Supervisor Church voiced concerns about storm water management and
indicated that he visited the site at daybreak this morning. He stated that there are
some neighbors located extremely close to the site. He inquired about the type of
buffering that will be provided. Ms. Scheid stated that there is a combination of
screening and buffering proposed for the site.Buffering includes an area to be left
undeveloped, and screening includes vegetation in the form of trees and shrubs, or a
combination of vegetation and a fence. She advised that the options that have been
discussed with Mr. Tim Murphy, an adjoining property owner, included a 15 foot buffer
and instead of what would normally be required as a six foot fence; Mr. Murphy has
requested a vinyl eight foot fence. These have been recommended to the Board as
proffers by the Planning Commission.
Supervisor Church inquired about the distance between the larger trees.
Ms. Scheid responded that the ordinance requires that the large evergreen trees be six
to eight feet in height at the time of planting and are planted at 20 foot on center. These
trees will ultimately reach a height of 50’.
Supervisor Church inquired about the possibility of amending the height of
the trees in the proffer to a 10 foot minimum planted at 15 foot on center. Ms. Scheid
stated that if the trees were required to be taller at planting that would be beneficial to
September 28, 2004
756
the neighbors. She advised that reducing the space between trees may not be
advisable due to the health concerns for the trees.
Supervisor Church stated that he is aware of a petition signed by
approximately 60-70 adjoining homeowners who are not supportive of the development.
He advised that the County needs to consider the concerns of the neighbors closest to
the property. He noted that storm water management concerns would be addressed in
the County’s review process and he also indicated that he was comfortable with the
traffic information that was presented.Ms. Scheid stated that the buffering would be
less if this property were developed according to the by right use, and noted that the lot
lines would go right to the adjoining property lines.
Supervisor Church recommended that the proffer be amended to include a
10 foot minimum height for the trees. Mr. Natt and Mr. Mahoney concurred that state
law mandates that proffers must be voluntarily signed and submitted by the applicant
prior to the public hearing; therefore, they cannot be amended at this meeting.
Supervisor Church advised that he does not want to hold up a project that can be done
by right anyway. He advised that he trusts that Mr. Pinkerton will abide by the request
to plant 10 foot trees.
Supervisor McNamara asked if there is a reason why the cluster
ordinance is not being used in this scenario. Ms. Scheid advised that it is up to the
developer to determine whether or not to use the cluster ordinance, and she is not
aware of any reason why it could not be used on this site. Supervisor McNamara
September 28, 2004
757
inquired if using the cluster ordinance would have increased the potential number of
units to more than 19. Ms. Scheid stated that the number of units may have been
limited by the length of the road. She also noted that sometimes engineering firms do
not think to use the cluster ordinance. Mr. Natt advised that sometimes site plans incur
additional costs when using the cluster ordinance.
Supervisor Altizer inquired at what point in the process do the detention
ponds and buffering have to be completed within the development. Mr. Covey advised
that there are several stages in the development. The detention pond starts out as a
sediment basin until the development is completed. Once the area is stabilized, it
moves from a sediment basin to a detention pond by removing certain structures and
adding others to make the conversion. He stated that part of the requirement for final
acceptance is the submission of plans, and this sometimes necessitates modifications.
He stated that this is a staged process.
Supervisor Church thanked Mr. Pinkerton for his willingness to
communicate with respect to this project.
, 5620 Ambassador Drive, spoke in support of the
Timothy Murphy
rezoning request. He asked two questions: (1) How will the street lights affect the
neighbors; and (2) when will the buffering be installed. Mr. Covey stated that street
lights are at the option of the developer and are not a requirement of the County. They
normally are confined to the immediate area. Ms. Scheid advised that these may be
private roads with no street lights. Ms. Scheid further reported that the fencing and
September 28, 2004
758
buffering plan will be developed as part of site plan review and will be implemented as
the development progresses.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 092804-6 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
OF A 6.15-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT THE
NORTHERLY END OF BYRON ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 036.19-01-12.01
AND PORTION OF TAX MAP NO. 036.19-01-40) IN THE CATAWBA
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
R1 LOW DENSITY TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R3 MEDIUM
DENSITY MULTI FAMILY DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO
CONSTRUCT TOWNHOUSES UPON THE APPLICATION OF
PINKERTON PROPERTIES, LLC
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 24, 2004, and
the second reading and public hearing were held September 28, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on September 7, 2004; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing
6.15 acres, as described herein in order to construct townhouses, and located at the
northerly end of Byron Road (Tax Map Number 036.19-01-12.01 and portion of Tax
Map Number 036.19-01-40) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from
the zoning classification of R1, Low Density District, to the zoning classification of R3,
Medium Density Multi family District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Pinkerton Properties, LLC.
3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the
following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
hereby accepts:
1. The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the
“Revised Townhouse Development August 20, 2004, Proposed 28
September 28, 2004
759
Townhouses Proposed Zoning R-3, 6.15 Acres”, prepared by T. P.
Parker & Son attached hereto.
2. Wherever possible, existing vegetation shall be preserved and
incorporated into the buffering requirements. Screening and
buffering in that area of the development adjoining Tax Map No.
036.19-01-12.00 shall utilize Type (A) Buffer, Option 2 with an eight
(8) foot vinyl screening fence instead of the six (6) foot screening
required.
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
PARCEL 1:
BEGINNING at a point at the northwest corner of Lot 12, Block 18,
Section 4, Montclair Estates (PB 10, PG 7); said point being at the
northeast corner of Byron Drive; thence S. 65° 00’ 30” W 191.02 feet to a
point; thence N. 24° 55’ 30” E, 180.31 feet to a point; N. 71°19’ 24” E.
57.68 feet to a point; thence with a curved line to the right having a chord,
bearing and distance of S. 66°48’ 03” E. 200.26 feet, a distance of 219.26
feet to a point; thence S. 24°55’ 30” E. 7.07 feet to the point and place of
BEGINNING.
PARCEL 2:
BEGINNING at a point at the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 5, Montclair
Forest, as said point intersects with the line of Section 4, Montclair
Estates; thence with the line of Montclair Forest S. 71° 03’ 00” W. 464.08
feet to a point; thence with a new division line through the property of
Pinkerton Properties, LLC, (Tax Map No. 36.19-01-40) ___________ to a
point; thence N. 71° 03’ 00” E. 364.22 feet to a point; thence S. 24° 55’ 30”
E. 463.33 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING.
5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
3. Second reading of an ordinance amending Sections 7-71 Building
Permit Fees and 7-72 Trade Permit Fees, and establishing a new
Section 7-73 Miscellaneous Fees of Article 5, Chapter 7, Building
September 28, 2004
760
Regulations of the Roanoke County Code, and providing for an
effective date. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community
Development)
O-092804-7
Mr. Covey advised that this is a request to update the building regulations
ordinance and particularly, to update the method used to estimate construction costs for
the purpose of calculating permit fees. The County is currently working with Novalis
Technologies on an integrated land records management solution. Phase One of the
HP migration project is developing a new software package for land development which
includes Community Development, Real Estate Valuation, and Business License. He
stated that the current method to establish construction value is the construction cost
table published by BOCA International in 1991, which has since become defunct and
the table is no longer published. The method staff is requesting to implement is the
construction value base rate as determined annually by the County Real Estate
Valuation Department. Linking the permitting software to the property assessment
software will provide an accurate method to calculate the cost that is updated
automatically on an annual basis.
Mr. Covey stated that this would result in a substantial increase in permit
fees if no other adjustment is made. To offset this effect, it is staff’s intention to create a
new permit type for construction performed under the International Residential Code,
specifically one and two family dwellings. This permit will be called a "Residential
September 28, 2004
761
Construction Permit" and will cover all work necessary to complete the project as
described on the application.It is hoped that this will produce efficiencies within the
department by reducing the number of permits issued by approximately 1,500, thereby
providing staff with additional time to assist customers.
Mr. Covey advised that the following areas will also be considered for fee
increases: (1) existing building certificate of occupancy - $35.00; (2) elevator periodic
inspection - $35.00; (3) amusement devices: kiddie rides - $15.00, circular rides or flat
rides that can be inspected from less than 20 feet above ground - $25.00, all other types
of devices - $45.00 (amusement device fees reduced 50% when a private inspector is
used). He also reported that re-inspection fees will increase to $50.00 on the third re-
inspection of the same item. The minimum permit fee is also increased from $25.00 to
$30.00.
Mr. Covey indicated that at the September 14 meeting, the Board
requested that staff provide a breakdown of estimated revenues from the current and
proposed fees. He stated that this analysis was provided to the Board as Attachment 1.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item and there was no
discussion.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
September 28, 2004
762
ORDINANCE 092804-7 MENDING SECTIONS 7-71. BUILDING PERMIT
FEES AND 7-72. TRADE PERMIT FEES, ESTABLISHING A NEW
SECTION 7-73. MISCELLANOUS FEES, OF ARTICLE 5 OF CHAPTER
7. BUILDING REGULATIONS OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, as part of the HP migration project the Department of Community
Development is implementing a new software system to track building permits and to
calculate permit fees; and
WHEREAS, Novalis Technologies, Inc. is developing an integrated land records
management solution for the County; and
WHEREAS, this new software system will address the problem of the under-
reporting of annual construction values in the County; and
WHEREAS, the new method of calculating these permit fees will be based upon
building construction values as determined by the County’s Real Estate Valuation
Office; and
WHEREAS, the first reading was held on September 14, 2004; and the second
reading and public hearing was held on September 28, 2004.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Article V. Fees of Chapter 7. Building Regulations be amended to read
and provide as follows:
ARTICLE V.
FEES
Sec. 7-71. Building permit fees.
Permit fees are determined by calculating a value of construction. In order to derive this
valuation, the square footage of the structure is multiplied by the building construction
value base rates as adjusted annually by the County Real Estate Valuation Office.
An estimated cost of construction is obtained from the applicant and is used to
determine the permit fees for applications that do not correspond to the square footage
construction value base rates as described above. This includes, but is not limited to,
interior and exterior alterations, roofing and siding construction, and demolitions.
There is hereby established the following schedule for fees for building and demolition
permits as set out on Attachment A.
Sec. 7-72. Trade permit fees.
September 28, 2004
763
There is hereby established the following schedule for fees for trade permits (trade
permits include permits for heating, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing). The following
schedule for trade permits is based upon the valuation as calculated pursuant to section
7-71 as modified by a percentage factor for the use groups and the type of trade permit,
as shown on Attachment B:
In excess of $5,000.00 the fee shall be $75.00 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof.
No trade permit shall be issued for less than $30.00.
Sec. 7-73. Miscellaneous fees.
There is hereby established the following schedule of miscellaneous fees:
rd
Reinspection on Construction: $50.00 (applies on 3 re-inspection of same item
Certificate of Occupancy:
Commercial - $25.00
Temporary – Single Family - $10.00
Temporary – Commercial - $25.00
Existing Building CO - $35.00
Elevator Periodic Inspection $35.00
Amusement Devices:
Kiddie Rides - $15.00
Circular rides or flat rides that can be inspected from less than 20 feet above ground
- $25.00
All Other Types of Devices - $45.00
(Amusement Device Fees reduced 50% when a private inspector is used)
2. The Director of Community Development is granted the authority to implement these
fees when the software package from Novalis Technologies, Inc. becomes operational.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
September 28, 2004
764
Steven Williams, 8336 Strathmore Lane, voiced concerns about a safety
hazard in Bentley Park. He stated that Olsen Road has a narrow and blind curve which
is bordered by large boulders on the road side and presents a serious risk to vehicles
meeting on the road. He indicated that a police report that he obtained showed three
accidents in the last nine months. He stated that 132 signatures have been gathered on
a petition requesting that the boulders and foliage be removed to enhance visibility. The
owners of the property are agreeable to whatever measures need to be taken, and have
agreed to donate the land to Roanoke County. He stated that all parties are in accord
with widening the road, and he requested that the Board give consideration to finding a
solution to this problem.
, 8346 Cardington Drive, thanked Steven Williams for taking
Al Bedrosian
the initiative to do something about this problem. He also stated that this is overdue,
and he noted that there were 132 voters who signed the petition. He requested a site
visit by the Board to consider possible solutions to the problem.
Supervisor Flora inquired whether this road is on the VDOT six year road
plan. Mr. Covey responded that it is not; however since concerns have been
expressed, staff will follow up on those. Supervisor Flora requested that VDOT be
asked to examine this issue. Mr. Covey responded that staff will look at this as part of
the six year road plan, as well as for the revenue sharing plan. He advised that minor
curb improvements might be an option, but any proposed improvements will be
competing with other needed improvements throughout the County.
September 28, 2004
765
Supervisor Flora requested that VDOT be contacted to see if there are
maintenance improvements that can be done to increase visibility.
Supervisor Church noted that Roanoke County is not responsible for
roads and there are situations throughout the County that mirror similar concerns. He
remarked that having the participation of the property owners helps with any needed
improvements.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Church
: He thanked the citizens who braved the weather to
attend the meeting tonight. He stated that the rain and flooding washed out roads in the
County and there will be significant losses to individual property. He stated that he saw
a Hollins #5 truck in the Salem station this morning which illustrates jurisdictional
cooperation in an emergency. He expressed gratitude that there was no loss of life and
he encouraged the citizens to “hang in there” during these difficult times.
Supervisor Wray:
(1) He stated that there were 25 landslides on Route
221 which blocked the road. He stated that every area was hit hard by the unexpected
downfall. He noted that there are cutoff valves available that will prevent sewage
backup and advised that there may be state funds available to offset some of the cost of
these devices. Mr. Hodge advised he was not certain if funds were available for this
purpose. (2) He advised that on Monday, September 21, he visited the Mennel flour mill
in North Carolina. He noted that this is a state of the art facility. He stated that a
community meeting will be held to present information to the public in the near future.
September 28, 2004
766
Mr. Hodge advised that when information is received from Mennel Mills, staff will be
ready to proceed with the meeting. (3) He assured citizens that procedures previously
employed by Roanoke County will remain in place under the Western Virginia Water
Authority and he wanted to calm any fears about the transition.
Supervisor Altizer:
(1) He reminded Arnold Covey to contact Mr. Cole
regarding possible solutions to his concerns. (2) He noted that County Fire and Rescue
staff are still out performing their jobs, and he commended them for a job well done.
Supervisor McNamara:
He voiced appreciation to the individuals
working so hard for the benefit of the valley citizens during this period of disaster.
Supervisor Flora:
He thanked the staff for the work they have done
today in assisting with roads that are blocked due to flooding.
N RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Flora adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. to Tuesday, Saturday,
October 2 at 8:00 a.m. for the annual Board of Supervisors Retreat, Bernard’s Landing
Resort and Conference Center, 775 Ashmeade Road, Moneta, Virginia, and at the close
of that meeting, adjourn to Monday, October 4 at 5:30 p.m. for the purpose of a work
session to discuss the community plan, Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204
th
Bernard Drive, 4 Floor Training Room, Roanoke, Virginia.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________________________________
Diane S. Childers Richard C. Flora
Clerk to the Board Chairman