HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 02-11-91 M~$ser
(30399)
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ...... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
February 11, 1991
7:30 p.m.
AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL
Call to Order -- Roll Call. All Present.
The invocation will be delivered by The Reverend Charles S.
Hoffler, Pastor, Waverly Place Baptist Church.
Present.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America will be led by Mayor Noel C. Taylor.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public hearing on the request of Virginia Lutheran
Homes, Inc., to amend the conditions proffered in the
October 19, 1987, rezoning of a tract of land con-
taining 18.3 acres, located at 3804 Brandon Avenue,
S. W., identified as Official Tax No. 5180304, from
RS-l, Residential Single Family District, to RM-2,
Residential Multi-Family, Medium Density District,
which amendment more specifically involves a change in
the site plan proffered as a condition to the rezoning.
Mr. Edward A. Natt, Attorney.
Adopted Ordinance No. 30398 on first reading. (7-0)
C-1
CONSENT AGENDA (Approved 7-0)
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED
TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE
MOTION IN THE FORM LISTED BELOW. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DIS-
CUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL
BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
A report of the City Manager requesting approval of a pro-
posed schedule for the fiscal year 1991-92 Budget Study process.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in recommendation.
(1)
C-2
C-3
C-4
A report of the City Manager with regard to o request for
funding by the Williamson Road Area Business Association for
completion of the beautification/landscaping project at
Breckinridge Middle School.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
A report of the City Manager with regard to Recommendation
No. 10 contained in the Mayorts 1989 State of the City Address
relating to establishment of linear parks with flowers, street
scenes, benches and wa lkways at the proper points on both sides
of the N & W railroad.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
A communication from Mrs. Hortense W. Ruddick tendering her
resignation as a member of the Mental Health Services Board of
Directors, effective ~arch 1, 1991.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file the communication and
accept the resignation with regret.
REGULAR AGENDA
3. Hearing of Citizens Upon Public Matters:
Request of the Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation to
address Council with regard to the City's involvement in
economic development and community enhancement through pre-
servation. Mr. D. Kent Chrisman, President.
Remarks of Mr. Chrisman were received and filed with
appreciation.
The City Manager was requested to provide Council with a
long range planning report with regard to a building under
option by the City located at 348 Campbell Avenue, S. W.,
other properties that potentially could be purchased by the
City in the Campbell Avenue area, and the Jefferson High
School building, such report to include information per-
taining to that impact on growth around the properties, tax
income to the City, potential development around the pro-
perties, and impact on the streetscape, etc. The City
Manager was further requested to submit his report to
Council by mid March, 1991.
4. Petitions and Communications:
A communication from Mr. Robert Szathmary, Attorney,
representing Mr. William R. Weeks, transmitting a peti-
tion appealing a decision rendered by the Architectural
Review Board in connection with denial of his client's
request to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness for
property located at 112 Albemarle Avenue, S.
(2)
A motion to affirm the decision of the Architectural
Review Board was defeated by a 4-3 vote of the Council.
The Architectural Review Board was
Section 36.1-345(b), of the Code of
(1979), as amended, i.e.:
requested to review
the City of Roanoke
"(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to pre-
vent the ordinary maintenance of any building, struc-
ture or historic landmark in the district. Ordinary
maintenance shall include such things as painting, roof
and window repair and replacement, installation of
siding, awnings, or other similar modifications, and
other routine or necessary maintenance for structural
preservation."
After conducting a public hearing(s) on the matter, the
Architectural Review Board was requested to submit a
report and recommendation to Council with regard to
clarification of the abovestated language.
2. A report of the Architectural Review Board with regard
to the above matter. Mr. W. L. Whitwell, Chairman.
A communication from The Honorable W. Alvin Hudson,
City Sheriff, recommending transfer of $333.00 to pro-
vide funds for the local cash match necessary to
receive federal funds for continuation of a staffed
G.E.D. program for inmates in the Roanoke City Jail.
Adopted Ordinance No. 30399-21191. (?-0)
2. A report of the City ~anager concurring in the above
recommendation.
Received and filed.
Reports of Officers:
a. City Manager:
Briefings:
I. A verbal briefing with regard to the City's recycling
program.
No Action.
Items Recommended for Action:
o
A report recommending award of a contract to Dewberry
and Davis, Architects, Engineers, Planners, Surveyors,
in the amount of $44,400.00, to provide architectural
and engineering services in connection with the design
(3)
of a new Crisis Intervention Center to be located on
City-owned property at Coyner Springs; and
appropriation of funds therefor.
Adopted Ordinance No. 30400-21191 and Resolution No.
30401-21191. (?-0)
w
A report recommending authorization to certify to the
Virginia Housing Development Authority the City's
approval of financing to be provided by VHDA for reha-
bilitation of approximately 72 apartment units at the
Park 21 Apartments, located on Fallon Avenue, S. E.
Adopted Resolution No. 30402-21191. (7-0)
Adopted Resolution No. 30403-21191 consenting to the
lease of Parcel 4 within the Roanoke Centre for
Industry and Technology· (7-0)
b. City Attorney:
A report transmitting a Resolution expressing Council's
support for the Cable Television Consumer Protection
Act of 1991.
Adopted Resolution No. 30404-21191. (?-0)
c. City Clerk:
A report requesting that certain dates be
in connection with the selection process
Board Trustees.
established
for School
1) Monday, March 11, 1991, 6:00 p.m.
2) Monday, March 25, 1991, ?:00 p.m.
3) Monday, April 1, 1991
4) Monday, April 8, 1991
5) Thursday, April 25, 1991, ?:00 p.m.
(Hour is tentative)
6) Monday, May 13, 1991
Reports of Corranittees: None.
Unfinished Business: None.
Introduction and Consideration of Ordinances and Resolutions:
a. A Resolution memorializing the late Jack C. Smith.
Adopted Resolution No. 30405-21191. (?-0)
Motions and Miscellaneous Business:
Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City
Council.
(4)
10.
Adopted Ordinance No. 30406, on first reading, extending
the franchise of Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc., to operate a
cable television system in the City for an additional sixty
day period and providing for a one percent (1%) increase in
the franchise fee payment from four to five percent of
gross revenues. (7-0)
Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and
committees appointed by Council.
Other Hearings of Citizens:
(5)
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, Vtrg~nta 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
February 13, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
File #60
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear ~lr. Herbert:
Your report requesting approval of a proposed schedule for the
fiscal year 1991-92 Budget Study process, was before the Council
of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
February 11, 1991.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, Council con-
curred in the proposed schedule.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
pc: Mr.
Mr.
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr, William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration
Public Safety
Mr. Barry L. Key,
and
.Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Office of the City Manager
February 11, lggl
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
Subject: Proposed Budget Study Schedule
Fiscal Year 1991-92
On January 14th and, again on January 30th, I forwarded
to you a proposed schedule for the Fiscal Year 1991-92 budget
study process. My letters requested that you review the
proposed schedule and advise my office if any of our
suggested dates and times conflicted with your schedules. In
that we have received no comment from any member of Council,
this is to request that you formally approve the attached
schedule of activities, dates and times in order that we
might finalize all the arrangements necessary to move forward
with the budget study process.
Attachment
Sincerely,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
cc:
Assistant City Manager
Chairman, Roanoke City School Board
City Attorney
City Clerk
Deputy Director of Finance
Director of Administration and Public Safety
Director of Finance
Director of Human Resources
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities and Operations
Manager of Management and Budget
Superintendent of Schools
Room 364 Municipol Building 215 Churd~ Avenue, S.W Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703)98t-2333
PROPOSED BUDGET STUDY SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 1991-92
Date and Time
Monday, April 15
10:00 a.m.
Monday, April 15
11:00 a.m.
Monday, April 15
2:00 p.m.
Monday, April 15
Monday, April 22
1:00-2:00 p.m.
Monday, April 22
7:30 p.m.
Wednesday, May 1
9:00 a.m. - 12 noon
Thursday, May 2
9:00 a.m. - 12 noon
Thursday, May 2
1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Friday, May 3
9:00 a.m. - 12 noon
Monday, May 6
2:00 p.m.
Monday, May 6
or
Activity
City Manager's press conference to release
Reconunended Budget
City Manager briefs department managers on
Recommended Budget
Public presentation of Recommended Budget
to City Council
Advertisements of public hearings on Rec-
ommended Budget and tax rates appear in
newspaper
City Council meets with City Administra-
tion to prepare for public hearings
Public hearings on Recommended Budget and
tax rates - Civic Center Exhibit Hall
City Council/City Administration Budget
Study Session
City Council/School Board Budget Study
Session
City Council/City Administration Budget
Study Session
Final City Council/City Administration
Budget Study Session. Afternoon session
can be scheduled if needed.
City Council adopts FY 1991-92 Budget and
related ordinances and resolutions.
City Council authorizes a special 2:00
p.m. meeting of Council for Thursday, May
9, to adopt the FY 1991-92 Budget and re-
lated ordinances and resolutions.
Note:
Ail budget study sessions will be held in Room 306, Third
Floor - Municipal North.
MARY F. PARKER
Ci'cy Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF TI-IE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, 5 W. Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
February 13, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~y Clerk
File #46?-488
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke. Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
Your report with regard to a request for funding by the
Williamson Road Area Business Association for completion of the
beautification/landscaping project at Breckinridge Middle School,
was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, February.il, 1991.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the report ~vas
received and filed.
Sincerely, ~c~
Mary F. Parker. CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
pc: Mr. Ted H. Key, Executive Director, Williamson Road Area
Business Association, P. 0. Box 5892, Roanoke, Virginia
24012
Office of the City Manager
February 5, 1991
Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: City Council Pending Item: July 9, 1990
Request for funds for Breckinridge Landscaping
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
Mr. Ted Key, Executive Director of the Williamson Road Area
Business Association, addressed Council on 3uly 9, requesting $9,494.00
for the completion of the beautification - landscaping project at
Breckinridge Middle School.
Since that time our Parks and Recreation Department has worked with
Mr. Key in attempting to develop plans that would break the project into
six (6) phases, thereby allowing for completion of the project as WP~
raises the necessary funds.
WRABA will accept bids for the first three (3) phases of the
project in the next few weeks, and is hopeful that starting on the
project will spur outside donations for its completion.
City staff will continue to provide technical advice, and will
assist in overseeing the work of the contractor. The City will also
maintain the landscaped area as the phases are completed.
If further information on the project is desired, I would be
pleased to provide it for you.
Sincerely,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/GNF/hw
Raorn 364 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 240t t (703)981-2333
Office of the Cily Manager
February 5, lg91
Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: City Council Pending Item: August 14, 19gl
Linear Parks Along Railroad
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
The Mayor's lg89 state of the City address included a
recommendation to establish linear parks with flowers, streetscapes,
benches and walkways at appropriate points on both sides of the
railroad.
Following this recommendation, city staff from our Parks and
Recreation/Grounds Maintenance Department reviewed the recommendation
and the proposed site, located between the Transportation Museum and
Williamson Road.
There are practical and financial limitations to implementing this
project at this time including:
(1)
Limited City owned right-of-way in the proposed area greatly
restricts any significant landscaping. Overcoming this
restriction would require a reduction in the width of the
adjacent streets.
(2)
Any major right-of-way changes would affect Norfolk Southern
property, including fences, signal lines, utility poles, and,
in many places, tracks (located in close proximity to the
roadway).
(3)
A major factor in the proposing of this project was the
unsightliness of the area along the fence, on the north side
of Norfolk Avenue, directly behind the new Dominion Tower
Building. This approximately 1.5 foot wide strip of
right-of-way will be planted with a hedge as a part of the
total landscaping plan for the Dominion Tower project. No
City funds will be required for this improvement, though the
City will assume maintenance of the area.
Room 364 Municipal Building 2 t5 Church Avenue, 5.W. Roanoke, Vir§inia 240 t t (703)981-2333
Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Page 2
February 5, 1991
This project concept will continue to receive attention. It may be
possible to implement portions over a period of time as it moves higher
on the priority list and the City's financial condition improves.
Sincerely,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/GNF/hw
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S w, Room 456
Raanoke. Virg~ma 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
February 13, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy Oty Clerk
File #22
Ms. Hortense W. Ruddick
3339 Frontier Road, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Dear MS. Ruddick:
Your convnunication tendering your resignation as a member of the
~ental Health Services Board of Directors, effective ~arch 1,
1991, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on ~onday, February 11, 1991.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the com-
munication was received and filed and your resignation was
accepted with regret.
The Council requested that I express its sincere appreciation for
the many services you have rendered to the City of Roanoke as a
member of the Board. Please find enclosed a Certificate of
Appreciation issued by the Mayor on behalf of the Members of City
Council.
Sincerely, //~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
pc: Dr. Fred
Services
Virginia
P. Roessel, Jr., Executive Director,
of Roanoke Valley, 301 Elm Avenue, S.
24016
Mental Health
W., Roanoke,
3339 Frontier Road,
Roanoke, VA 24012
February 1, 1991
Dr. Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, $. W.
Roanoke, VA 24011
For
Board of
appointed
February,
Virginia,
the City's
Dear Mayor Taylor:
the past four years I have been honored to serve on the
Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley as an
representative of the City of Roanoke. During
my husband and I will be moving to Chesapeake,
to be with our family. Therefore, I have to resign as
representative to this Board effective March 1, 1991.
As you know, my interest and involvement in the provision of
these community services spans more than twenty of the thirty
years I have been in Roanoke. In this regard, it has been my
pleasure and privilege to work closely with you and so many other
members of City Council over the years. I am indebted to all for
the kindness and consideration shown me personally. I am deeply
appreciative of your continuing commitment to and support of
those served by Mental Health Services, as well as for the staff
who serve them.
Life is filled with changes and new beginnings and each one
is faced with a mixture of emotions. I leave Roanoke with a
wealth of memories and enduring friendships. I return to a
Tidewater far different from the one I left, but the majority of
my family (which now includes great-grandchildren) is there and
the time is come when it is of prime importance to spend my
golden years with them.
My best wishes will be ever with you and the fine people of
Roanoke who have touched and enriched my life.
Very sincerely yours,
CC:
Bob Herbert
Fred Roessel
Hortense W. Ruddick
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
2't 5 Church Avenue, $ W, Room 456
Roanoke, Virg~ma 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
February 13, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
File #2-249
Mr. D. Kent Chrisman, President
Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation
P. O. Box 1558
Roanoke, Virginia 24007
Dear Mr. Chrisman:
Your remarks with regard to the City's involvement in economic
development and convnunity enhancement through preservation, were
before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting
held on Monday, February 11, 1991.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the remarks
were received and filed with appreciation.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Pa ricer,
City Clerk
CMC/AAE
MFP:ra
ROANOKE VALLEY PRESERVATION FOUNDATION
· ~ P.O. BOX 1558
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24007
February 6, 1991
Mrs. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
City of Roanoke
Room 456, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Mrs. Parker:
Subject: Council Meeting 2/11/91
This is to request that we be placed on the agenda of
City Council for Monday evening, February, 11, 1991 to
address City Council and recognize them for their involvement
in economic development and community enhancement through
preservation.
Respectfully subm~itted,
w. ~.en~: ~ risman
President
TRANSCRIPT ITEM 3.a.
February 11, 1991
MR. FITZPATRICK: Thank you Mayor. Mr. Chrisman and Ms. Boxley both
deserve a great deal of credit for what they've done. We appreciate
your coming and telling us about the book, I'm looking forward to
reading that. I would like to delve into this just a little bit. Its
really important for a city to be nominated for the award that you all
are talking about and to look at the list as I just read in the book
of the other cities that we are being reviewed with. There is no
other city our size that I~m aware of in that list of ten cities.
think that's a great compliment to this community, but perhaps more
than anything it's a compliment to you all and to people who have gone
before us in creating the opportunity for you to be here tonight to
talk about such a thing. I don't think we always understand what pre-
servation is or what it can be, what impact it has and many many of us
are laymen and are not totally aware of the long term benefits, so it
takes an organization like yours to come in and explain sometimes some
of these things. And if I had to say one thing tonight I think it
would be that I really appreciate the pragmatic and practical approach
that you all have taken in many of the projects that you've had to
deal with in bringing before the City and the community as a whole. I
know Kent with your time with Downtown Roanoke you were vitally
involved in many of the things beginning to come to fruition that are
so important and I hope that we will continue to see leadership from
all segments as we address preservation and/or those things that go
along with it to help make this a much better place. With that in
mind and since we're on the subject of buildings I would like to
digress one moment and ask the City Manager a couple of things not
directly related but perhaps very appropriately related. We talked
last week, and as you know, voted to option a piece of property on
Campbell Avenue. There have been many discussions about the use of
the Campbe l l Avenue property that Mr. Chrisman has talked about
tonight in regard to potential use for City buildings. Based on our
decision last week it seems like in recognition of what's come before
us tonight, it would be really good for us to have a long range
planning report given to us prior to the date of that option ending so
that we can evaluate not only the buildings that we bought on Campbell
Avenue, but the building that we potentially could buy, and I would
add in addition to that Jefferson High School, because I have recently
thought through the process and remembered those people approached us
about using their space for the same services that we have talked
about possibly going into the Campbell Avenue structure that is
optioned and also the Campbell Avenue property that we own. I think
it would be helpful for us as ~4embers of Council to have all three of
those evaluated and what kind of impact they have in growth around
them, tax income to the City, potential development that would take
place around them, what impact it has on the streetscape, just a long-
range review, if you will, of what impact one project has on another.
When Kent talked about how much development has taken place there has
been a multiplier effect in the investment made downtown by the City.
And I think the multiplier has some
we may create development with
Department and the Police Academy.
and kind of lump them together and give Council a prospective
deals with some of the preservation issues along with those normal
legitimacy as it relates to where
the Fire Department, the Water
I'd like to ask that we take those
that
economic development issues prior to having to make a quick decision
on it. I think the Jefferson thing while not directly there in terms
of the two properties we've talked about is very much related because
it is preservation and because the citizens of the City have said now
we have voted to put $3.5 million in there, this Foundation group can
come up with their $2 million and that ought to be kind of evaluated.
I think in the terms of the meeting, Mr. White stated and I agree with
him that we ought to have
see where it can be used.
better facilities for those folks
all appropriate City property evaluated to
We want to be make sure that we provide
that are going to be needing to move
out of the building on Kirk and our goal is to do that. But I think
it would be interesting if we were going to spend $815,000.00 on the
Campbell Avenue building, the 348, and potentially have additional
remodeling charges, we approach close to the one million that we've
talked about being necessary for the old historic structures. If we
went to Jefferson and we've already got our potential money in that
because the voters have said they want it done, we might conceivably
end up with a million dollars that we wouldn't need to spend, and that
money could be put into Hotel Roanoke, it could be put into developing
additional sites in the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology.
So I would just like to have a prospective of what we're dealing with
prior to us having to make a decision on that option and it would be
that request
maybe have
April 17
form of a
my thought at this point to ask Council just to concur in
as it relates to preservation in downtown development and
that by mid ~arch, doesn't the option end about
MR. WHITE: Mr. Fitzpatrick, do you want to put that in
motion?
MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes sir, that we have that report by mid March so
the City staff has all that in prospective for us before we would get
that, it seemed appropriate to talk about that based on ......
MR. WHITE: Well I second the motion, I agree with you.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, Virglma 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
February 13, 1991
SANORA H. EAKIN
DepuTy C~y Clerk
File #2-249
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. ~erbert:
At the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held
on Monday, February 11, 1991, you were requested to provide
Council with a long range planning report with regard to a
building under option by the City located at 348 Campbell Avenue,
S. W., other properties that poteatially could be purchased by
the City in the Campbell Avenue area, and the Jefferson High
School building, such report to include information pertaining to
impact on growth around the properties, tax income to the City,
potential development around the properties, and impact on the
streetscape, etc. You were further requested to submit your
report by mid March, 1991.
Sincerely, ~l~.~_
Viary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W ,Room 456
Roanoke. Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
February 13, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
File #249
Mr. W. L. Whitwell, Chairman
Architectural Review Board,
1255 Keffield Street, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Dear Mr. Whitwell:
At the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held
on Monday, February 11, 1991, Mr. Robert Szathmary, Attorney,
representing Mr. William R. Weeks, appealed a decision rendered
by the Architectural Review Board in connection with denial of
his client's request to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness
for the removal of a slate roof and construction of an asphalt
roof on a structure located at 112 Albemarle Avenue, $. W.
A motion to affirm the decision of the Architectural Review Board
was defeated by a 4-3 vote of the Council.
The Architectural Review Board was requested to review Section
36.1-345(b), of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended; viz:
"(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to
prevent the ordinary maintenance of any building,
structure or historic landmark in the district.
Ordinary maintenance shall include such things as
painting, roof and window repair and replacement,
installation of siding, awnings, or other similar
modifications, and other routine or necessary main-
tenance for structural preservation."
After conducting a public hearing(s), the Architectural Review
Board was requested to submit a report and recommendation to
Council with regard to clarification of the abovestated language
as it pertains to roof replacement.
Sincerely, ~~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Mr. W. L. Whitwell
February 13, 1991
Page 2
Mr. Robert Szathmary, 32?3 Avenham Avenue, S. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24014
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Ms. Evelyn S. Gunter, Secretary, Architectural Review Board
Hollins College :
Roanoke, Virginia
2402O
(70:3) 362 6000
FAX (703) 362-6642
19 February 1991
Mrs. Mary Parker
City Clerk
City of Roanoke
Office of the City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, Room 456
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Mrs. Parker: RE: File #249
Thank you for your letter of 13 February about the action at
the 11th February meeting of the City Council.
Mrs. Gunter and I will work closely to facilitate the public
hearing as Council requested. Thank you for clarification of
the issue to be considered.
We will submit a report and recommendation to Council with
regard to the language of Section 36.1-345 (b) as soon as
possible after the hearing.
Thank you for your interest and consideration.
WLW :em
cc: Mrs. Evelyn Gunter
Mr. Steve Telvi
Partial transcript of remarks requested by Council Member Harvey
at the regular meeting of Council held on Monday, February 11,
1991, with regard to a request of Mr. Robert Szathmary, Attorney,
representing Mr. William R. Weeks, to appeal a decision of the
Architectural Review Board in connection with denial of his
client's request to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness to
replace a slate roof with an asbestos roof at 112 Albemarle
Avenue, S. W.
Mr. Szathmary: May I respond to what Mr. Dibling said?
Mayor Taylor: Yes, you may.
Mr. Szathmary: Mr. Dibling seems to be asking you to define
ordinary maintenance. He seems to be telling you that it isn't
defined. I tell you and I believe you will see if you look at
page 2 of the remarks that I gave you that have Section
36.1-345(b) that its defined in the Ordinance. If I may read it
one more time. In fact, I would like to read the last part of it
and then read the whole thing again. The last part says, "and
other routine or necessary maintenance for structural preserva-
tion.'' What that ends up saying is that roof replacement, repair,
window repair are necessary maintenance for structural preser-
vation and there may in fact be some other things. If I may read
it, I hate to be redundant, but it seems necessary. "Nothing in
this section shall be construed to prevent the ordinary main-
tenance of any building structure or historic landmark in the
district." Then we get to the point. "Ordinary maintenance
shall include." I don't know what could be clearer. "Such
things as painting, roof and window repair and replacement,
installation of siding, awnings or other similar modifications
and other routine or necessary maintenance for structural
preservation."
Mr. Harvey: I've got to, if I may continue and I'm gonna have to
go back to Mr. Dibling. If, in fact, his copy of this Section
36.1-345(b) is correct, the language, I'm not an attorney, but it
looks to me like if it says ordinary maintenance shall include
such things as painting, roof and window repair and replacement.
Mr. Dibling: But what you're not reading is important, Hr.
Harvey. What you're not reading is, "and other routine or
necessary maintenance for structural preservation" which modifies
all which goes before.
Mr. Harvey: Well, that's an awful bad language I think. If ~ou
can read it half way down and the last three or four words, which
is typical law, er language, [ understand that. Somebody coul~i
read this two different ways. Well, to finish m~ little spiel
up, Mr. Mayor, I've got a real problem with us being able to
tell someone, in an instance of a leaking roof, and a contractor
comes up and I know of one case where a contractor went to this
lady and said look, this was a tile roof, this wasn't a slate
roof and said, "It's impossible for me to repair this tile roof.
I can't do that." It was a large home out on Grandin Road, so it
had to be torn off and an asbestos shingle roof put on. Now, if
we are going to pass laws up here that are so prohibitive of what
people can do with their own property, that they can't replace a
roof without coming down here and going to some Review Board and
having that turned down and coming up here and taking our time up
to decide whether it's right to replace a roof or not, there's
something wrong. That's all I've got to say.
Mr. Harvey: Mr. Mayor, I'm not going to get into a political
speech. The only thing I can see, if this Council wants to make
some kind of different rules than what's right here in front of
me and the only thing I've got to go by is this right here. Mr.
White said that this man bought this property after this City
Code section had gone into effect, and I agree with him. But if
you were a judge, if you were sitting on the bench and I had this
case in front of me, and that's what we're asked to be doing
right now, is deciding this, based on what we feel like is the
interpretation of this ordinance and is this man wrong in saying
that this ordinance says he can replace a roof without going to
the Architectural Review Board or, on the other side if you have
to go down and read the last paragraph, which still doesn't make
sense to me, and says "and other routine or necessary maintenance
for structural preservation." I really don't see where that
changes anything. We're being asked to make a decision, as I see
it tonight, based on this that we have in front of us. And this
that we have in front of us tells me that this man doesn't have
to go before the Architectural Review Board to replace a roof.
Now, if that's wrong, then I'm wrong. I hope we can get it
straightened out so that the people in Old Southwest will know
exactly what they are going to be dealing with, but this thing
right here doesn't tell me, and I'm sure it doesn't tell you
people what it deals with. My worry is not the guy who's going
over here, the absentee landowner, such as I am in Old Southwest,
and you all didn't ask me to but [ did try to make that house
b~ck that [ had look at least somewhat similar to what it looked
like, it looks pretty good too. gut what bothers me is the
elderly homeowner over there who's roof is leaking, is in bad
repair, its a 50 or 60 year old building and if its in bad enough
shape where a man goes up to repair it and everytime he touches
something, it falls apart worse, is this person going to be able
to afford to fix up this house? Is that roof going to cost
$21,000.00 where another roof could have cost $1800.007 I mean
somewhere along the line you've got to look at you know what
something costs and who can afford to pay that, and I understand
that people when they buy a house over there, they understand
this, but what about those folks that are already there. [ have
no problem with historical preservation. I do have a problem
when it gets in to the point, suppose you had an eave that had
handcarved woodwork on it. As David called that, whatever that
structure you called that. Suppose that thing rotted out. Where
in the world would you ever get something like that replaced? And
you are going to insist that this person has to put back exactly
what was there and what rotted out over a 50 year period. The
fancy little arms on the top of the posts, and I agree with this
lady, you don't want to take those pillows down and put up two by
fours. But where are you going to find those arms, that fancy
handcarved painting?
Mr. Bowers: Mayor, I don't believe Council has thus taken any
action. The matter before Council was to affirm the decision.
That was denied. I'm not sure, was that necessarily a reversal
of the decision? For that reason, I would like to move that the
matter be returned, or remanded, to the ARB for further con-
sideration and perhaps a consideration in particular of a compro-
mise on the matter.
Mayor Taylor: Is there a second to the motion? Mr. Bowers is
suggesting that we return the matter to the Architectural Review
Board for further study and clarity and hopefully for a compro-
mise situation. That's in essence what you are saying.
Mr. Harvey: Mr. Mayor, May I make, do you need a second to that,
or can I make a substitute?
Mayor Taylor: We need a second. Is there a second to his
motion? Mr. Bowers, the motion is lost for the lack of a second.
Mr. Harvey: Mr. Mayor, in view of the confusion, and David, I
understand what you were trying to do but I don't see where it
would do a bit of good to send it back to the Architectural
Review Board and have them go through this hazzle again and have
it end up back here again. I would like to move that we ask the
City Attorney to get together with some representatives of the
Architectural Review Board and bring us back a recommendation
clearing up the language of this code so that we will have
something definite that we would go by. And I would like to
further ask that this happen, and Ms. Parker, you don't have to
write all of this down, that won't be part of my motion, but I'd
like to get the people from Old Southwest to contact your office,
give you their viewpoint and also with the Planning Corrgnission,
talk to them about this. In other words, get a big round robin
opinion on this before you bring us a recommendation as to how
the language should read in this. If I have made myself clear.
Mr. Dibling: Mr. Harvey, may I respectfully request that you
refer the matter to the Architectural Review Board for the con-
duct of public hearings and report back to Council with respect
to this issue.
-3-
Mr. Harvey: For a public hearing on this? Alright, I dontt have
any problem with that. I'll so move. I'll send it back for a
public hearing based on this part, then with that, ! still want a
recommendation back from you with the language change for this
Code.
Mr. Dibling: Whatever the policy decision of the ARB and the
policy decision of the City Council is, I will give you language
that matches that policy decision.
Mr. Harvey: Well, excuse me, Mr. ~yor, it's not a policy deci-
sion for the ARB, its a policy decision for this Council I think.
So, to meet that end, I don't know how you'll do it.
Mayor Taylor: That was in the form of a motion, Mr. Harvey, and
Mr. Bowers offered the second to that.
Mr. Szathmary: I'm concerned about the action that you appear to
be ready to take and what effect it has. Your City ordinance
again defines the appeal process and says, "Any property owner
aggrieved by any decision of the Architectural Review Board may
present to City Council a petition appealing such decision pro-
vided such petition is filed within 30 days after the decision is
rendered by the Board. The City Council may reverse or modify
the Board's decision in whole or in part or it may affirm the
decision of the Board." It doesntt say anything about sending it
back to the ARB. And [ wonder what effect this will have because
we would like to end this once and for all.
Mr. Dibling: Mr. Szathmary is exactly correct on that and I hope
no one thought that the discussion relating to the future had
anything to do with this case.
Mr. Szathmary: I was certainly confused. Has a decision been
made to grant approval in this instance or is this still under
discussion? I am confused about that.
Mr. Bowers: I raise a point of order that the motion to affirm
the decision was denied.
Mayor Taylor: That's true.
Mr. Bowers: If I might ask Mr. Szathmary to read the points
again that Council can decide on --- it says affirm, modify.
Mr. Szathmary: What the options are --- it says that the City
Council may reverse or modify the Board's decision in whole or in
part or it may affirm the decision of the Board.
-4-
Mr. Bowers: Did we, in effect, reverse it, Mr. Dibling?
Mr. Dibling: I think you did, in effect, if you want to make it
abundantly clear, the motion would be to find that the action
requested by the applicant is ordinary maintenance and requires
no Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mayor Taylor: Ms. Parker, will you read that last motion made by
Mr. Harvey, and seconded by Mr. Bowers.
Ms. Parker: The language of Mr. Harvey's motion is that the
language contained in the Ordinance be referred to the
Architectural Review Board to conduct a public hearing and report
back to Council on the issue. And the motion was seconded by Mr.
Bowers.
The motion was adopted with Mr. White voting no.
-5-
February 11, 1991
Honorable Mayor Noel C. Taylor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Good evening Mayor Taylor and Members of City Council.
My name is Robert Szathmary; my mailing address is 3273
Avenue, SW, Roanoke, Virginia 24014.
Avenham
The stated reason for my being here tonight is to appeal a decision
of the Architectural Review Board -- a decision denying a request
for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement
of a roof at 112 Albemarle Avenue, SW, Roanoke, Virginia -- a
multi-family dwelling in a H-2 Neighborhood Preservation District.
This is, however, only an appeal in form; the substance of our
appearance is based upon the firmly held contention that Section
36.1-345(b) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979) ("City Code")
exempts roof repairs and replacement from the Architectural Review
Board's purview. We are here this evening asking Council to
confirm our position.
Section 36.1-345(a) of the City Code explains when a
Certificate of Appropriateness is required and reads
as follows:
Page 2
Sec.36.1-345.District regulations; certificate of appro-
priateness. (a) In order to encourage the preservation and
enhancement of the district and encourage rehabilitation
and new construction in conformance with the existing
scale and character of the district, the architectural
review board shall review and approve the erection of new
buildings or structures, the demolition or moving of
existing structures and buildings, and the structural
enlargement of structures and buildings, or reduction
in their floor area, including the enclosure or removal
of a porch and no such erection, demolition, moving,
enlargement or reduction of a structure shall be under-
taken without the issuance of a certificate of appro-
priateness by the board.
City Code Section 36.1-345(b) declares ordinary maintenance to be
exempt from Architectural Review Board review. It reads:
(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to pre-
vent the ordinary maintenance of any building, struc-
ture or historic landmark in the district. Ordinary
maintenance shall include such things as painting, roof
and window repair and replacement, installation of siding
awnings, or other similar modifications, and other routine
or necessary maintenance for structural preservation.
Page 3
City Code Section 36.1-23. General Construction Of Language
states: "The word "shall" is mandatory." To restate, City Code
Section 36.345(b) states "ordinary maintenance shall include such
things as painting, roof and window repair and replacement, etc."
The Section's language speaks for itself. Roof repair/replacement
is structural preservation per se.
There are some people who would imply that a roof is a "structure"
and, therefore, falls within the Architectural Review Board's
purview. For example, a letter recently submitted to Council
cites, as justification for this interpretation, the first sentence
of City Code Section 36.1-25, "Definitions "(page 2901) --
Structure: "Anything which is constructed or erected with a fixed
location on the ground, or attached to something having a fixed
location on the ground." The omitted second and final sentence of
the definition reads: "Among other things, structures include
walls, buildings, fences, signs, and swimming pools" Section 36.1-
23. General Construction of Language states: "The word "includes"
shall not limit a term to the specified examples, but is intended
to extend its meaning to all instances of circumstances of like
kind or character." We respectfully submit to Council that roofs
do not fall within the classification, "structure."
Some people have attempted to distort my client's concern for
"economics." I would respectfully submit to you that my client is
Page 4
sensitive to
economics.
between his
the aesthetic of his buildings, as well as their
Moreover, I would like to emphasize the correlation
costs and the modest rents paid by his predominantly
working class tenants.
Some people also have expressed concern that any changes made to
multi-family dwellings may impede their reconversion to single
family dwellings in the future. While this concern may well be
germane in some instances, it is not in this one. 112 Albemarle
Avenue, SW was constructed in the early 1900's as a multi-family
dwelling.
I would like to end my presentation by reading a brief excerpt from
the December 13, 1990 Architectural Review Board Transcript. This
dialogue is found at the bottom of Page 43 and the top of Page 44.
(Mr. Timm Jamieson, ARB Boardmember) "Excuse me, I want,
Steve, I want to ask. Do you want to ask? I believe
this is ordinary maintenance on that roof. I misunder-
stood the double negative here. I believe this based on
the code, the way I read it, this is being done in the
spirit of ordinary maintenance."
(Mr. Whitwell, ARB Chairman) "And therefore, you are
granting his petition which is in essence for ordinary
Page 5
maintenance."
(Mr. Jamieson) "That's what I'm basically only
reason I'm going to begin to"
(Mr. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney) "Mr. Jamieson, if
it is ordinary maintenance then they do not need a certi-
ficate of appropriateness."
(Mr. Whitwell) "Then why are we all sitting here?"
Mayor Taylor, Members of City Council, we thank you for giving us
the opportunity to place this matter before you.
Thank you very much,
Robert Szathmary, Attorney at Law
3273 Avenham Avenue, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
January 14, 1991
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council:
Please accept the attached Petition for Appeal of the
Roanoke City Architectural Review Board's December 13, 1990
denial of my client's application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for 112 Albemarle Avenue, S.W., Roanoke,
Virginia.
With thanks for your consideration, I remain
Yours truly,
Robert Szathmary
cc: William Ronnie Weeks
Mr. and Mrs. William Hicks
VIRGINIA:
Attachment 1
IN THE COUNt:IL OF THE CITY OF RO3J~IOKE
IN THE MATTER OF
112 Albemarle Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24016
PETITION FOR APPEAL
This is a Petition for Appeal from a decision of the
Architectural Review Board under Section 36.1-642(d) of the
Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended.
1. Name of the Petitioner(s): William R0nnie Weeks
2. Doing business as (if applicable): Weeks Construction
3. Street address of property which is the subject of this
appeal: 112 Albemarle Avenue, S.W.. Roanoke· Virainia 24016 ·
Overlay zoning (H-i, Historic District or H-2,
Neighborhood Presez-~ation District) of property or
properties which is the subject of this appeal:
Date the hearing before the Architectural Review Board
was held at which the decision being appealed was made:
12-]3-90
Section of the Code of the City of Roanoke under which
the Certificate of Appropriateness was reqn/ested from
the Architectural Review Board (Section 36.1-327, if
H-i, or Section 36.1-345, if H-2): 36.] - 345
Description of the request for which the Certificate
Appropriateness was sought from the Architectural
Review Board: Request to replace roof.
of
Grounds for appeal: Subsection (b) of Section 36.l-345 clearly states
that roof replacement falls outside the purview of the Architectural
Review Board. Subsection (b) states: "Nothin~ in this section shall be
construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance of any buildinq, structure
or ~lstorlc landmark in the district. Ordinar~ maintenance shall include
suc~ things as painting, roof and window repair and replacement,
installation of sidin9. awnings, or other similar modifications, and
other routine or necessary maintenance for structural preservation."
Name, title, address and telephone number of person(s)
who will represent the Petitioner(s) before city
Council: Robert Szathmarv. Ese.
3273 Avenham Avenue. SW
Rnanoke._Virginia 24014
(703) 342-4756
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner(s) requests that the action
of the Architectural Review Board be reversed or modified
and that a Certificate of Appropriateness be granted.
Signature of Owner(s)
(If not Petitioner(s)):
Name: Wilh'n J, I-I,'aks
(Print or Type)
Name: ' 0,
r Type)
Signature of Petitioner(s)
or, where applicable,
representative (s):
Name: KoDer~ Szathmary
(Print or Type)
Name:
(Print or Type)
TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK:
Received by: ~~:~ /~.~.A .~ /~/'~'
Date: ' ' '~'7.~
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Ch urch Avenue, $ W, Room 456
Roanoke, V~rgm~a 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
January 15, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
File #249
Mr. Robert Szathmary
Attorney
3273 Avenham ~venue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear ~4r. Szathmary:
I wish to acknowledge receipt of your petition which was filed
in the City Clerk's Office on Monday, January 14, 1991, on behalf
of Mr. William R. Weeks, to appeal a decision rendered by the
Architectural Review Board on Thursday, December 13, 1990, in
connection with denial of the request of your client to obtain a
Certificate of Appropriateness for property located at 112
Albemarle Avenue, S. W.
Pursuant to your request, the petition will be placed on the
agenda of the Roanoke City Council on Monday, February 11, 1991.
The meeting will convene at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council
Chamber, fourth floor of the Municipal Building.
MFP:ra
APPEAL.3
pc:
Sincerely,
~4ary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
Mr. W. L. Whitweli, Chairman, Architectural
1255 Keffield Street, ~. W., Roanoke, Virginia
~r. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Ms. Evelyn S. Gunter, Secretary, Architectural
Review Board,
24019
Review Board
WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR.
CITY ATI*ORN Ey
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595
February 7, 1991
WILLIAM X PARSONS
MARK ALLAN WILLIAMS
STEVEN J. TALEVI
KATHLEEN MARIE KRONAU
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re:
Appeal from decision of Architectural Review Board -
William J. Hicks, 112 Albemarle Avenue, S.W.
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
This matter is on appeal from the Architectural Review Board
("ARB"). By Order dated December 13, 1990, the ARB denied the
issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Certificate
had been sought by the Applicant for the removal of a slate roof
and the construction of an asphalt roof on a structure located at
112 Albemarle Avenue.
This is the first instance in which City Council has been
asked to address the merits of an appeal from a decision of the
ARB. Several appeals from a decision by the ARB have been filed
before this date, but they have been all withdrawn, settled by
agreement, or decided on a procedural basis. The purpose of this
letter is to assist City Council in the hearing of this matter.
In general, §36.1-345 of the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended ("City Code"), provides that the demolition or
construction of all structures in the H-2, Neighborhood Preser-
vation District, requires the issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the ARB. A roof is a structure according to
§36.1-25 of the City Code. The guidelines to be applied in
determining whether to issue a Certificate are contained in
§36.1-347(a). However, §36.1-345(b) provides that "[n]othing in
[§36.1-345] shall be construed to prevent the ordinary
maintenance of any building, structure or historic landmark in
the district. Ordinary maintenance shall include such things as
painting, roof and window repair and replacement, installation of
siding, awnings, or other similar modifications, and other
routine or necessary maintenance for structural preservation."
(Emphasis added.) So that you can be familiar with the ordinan-
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
February 7, 1991
Page 2
ces relating to the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District, I am
enclosing copies of §§36-1-342 through 36.1-349.
Since a roof is a structure (936.1-25) and part of the intent
of Council in adopting the historic zoning provisions was to
encourage preservation of structures (§36.1-342(a)) and to mini-
mize alteration of structures (§36.1-347(b)), my Office has taken
a conservative view toward destruction of slate roofs and their
replacement by asphalt roofs. Our view has been that destruction
of a slate roof and replacement by an asphalt roof is not per-
mitted without first obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness;
if the Architectural Review Board finds that such drastic action
is required for the structural preservation of a building, then
it may issue a Certificate. Although replacement of an asphalt
roof with another asphalt roof of similar style may be per-
missible under §36.1-345(b), we do not believe that the removal
of a slate roof and replacing it with an asphalt roof is
"ordinary maintenance" or that it is "routine." Such draconian
building alteration should be permitted only when necessary for
structural preservation.
Notwithstanding the foregoing views, we must candidly concede
that §36.1-345(b) could be clearer. Whatever Council's decision
in this matter, we encourage the revision of this section to
clearly reflect Council's intent so that future controversy can
be avoided.
From a procedural standpoint, the Applicant, or his represen-
tative, should be permitted to present his position. The Chair-
man of the Architectural Review Board, Mr. William L. "Tony"
Whitwell, should then be permitted to discuss the contents of his
letter to City Council or to answer any questions City Council
may pose to him concerning the ARB's decision. Members of the
audience, including representatives from Old Southwest, Inc.,
should also be permitted to state their views on the issue before
Council. City Council should then consider a motion to affirm or
modify, in whole or in part, the ARB's decision. If you believe
that the Applicant is entitled to the exemption under §36.1-345(b)
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
February 7, 1991
Page 3
of the City Code, then the Certificate should be issued. If you
believe that the Applicant is not entitled to the exemption, then
you must nonetheless determine whether he is entitled to a
Certificate pursuant to the guidelines in §36.1-347 of the City
Code. Inasmuch as the Applicant has the burden of proof in this
matter, a ma0ority of the members of Council present at the
meeting must vote in favor of the motion before the Certificate
may be issued. The Applicant's recourse, in the event he is
unsuccessful, is to appeal to the Roanoke City Circuit Court.
As always, I stand ready to answer any legal questions which
you may have.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
~.mWilburn C. Dibling,
City Attorney
WCDj/SJT:sm
Enclosures
CC:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
William F. Clark, Director of Public
Evie S. Gunter, Planner
Works
Jr o
§ 36,1-$$1 ROANOKE CODE
(d) In order to fall within the provisions of this section, an offer
to sell must be made within one (1) year after a final decision by
tile city council. Thereafter, in order to raze or demolish a build-
ing, structure, or historic landmark an owner must renew his
requeSt to the city council to approve such razing or demolition.
(e) Any appeal taken pursuant to the previous section shall not
affect the right of the owner of a building, structure, or historic
historic landmark to make the bona fide offer to sell referred to
above. (Ord. No. 28611, § 2, 4.27.87)
Secu. 36.1-332--36.1-341. Reserved.
Subdivision D. H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District
The designation of the H-2; neighborhood preservation district
is intended to ensure the preservation of buildings which, in
their aggregate or individually, are of special community signifi-
cance. The general intent includes, among others, the following
specific purposes:
(a) Encourage preservation, protection, and enhancement of
streetscapes, structures and areas of architectural, historic or
cultural importance;
(5) Encourage new construction, or alterations which are com.
patible with the existing scale and character of surrounding
properties;
(c) Encourage the rehabilitation and continued use of existing
buildings rather than their demolition. (Ord. No. 28611, § 2,
4-27-87)
Sec. 36.1-343. Designation.
The city council may, in the manner provided for amending,
supplementing or changing this chapter, including the official
zoning map, designate as an H-2 district appropriate areas:
(a) That contain landmarks, buildings, or structures on the
Virginia Landmarks Register or on the National Register of His-
2958
toric Places, which ar,
which individually o-
entity of local historic
(b) Adjacent to lan,
giuia Division of Hist
ings, structures, land:
architectural or cultw
(c) That contain b~
occurred or which ha
architectural or other
heritage of the com~
warrant conservation
4-27-87)
Sec. 36.1-344. Appli
Any H-2 district de
as an overlay to the
nation H-2 on the offi
provisions in this di,
underlying zoning
minimum lot require
imum height, accessc
the regulations appli
H-2 district is superir
provisions of this di~
districts, the more rE
28611, § 2, 4-27-87)
Sec. 36.1-345. Distri
ness.
(a) In order to enco
the district and encou
conformance with the
the architectural revi,
tion of new buildings
existing structures a
ment of structures an,
including the enclosu
Supp. No. 18
us of this section, an offer
: after a final decision by
raze or demolish a build-
~ owner must renew his
ch razing or demolition.
previous section shall not
ng, structure, or historic
e offer to sell referred to
Preservation District
ood preservation district
~ of buildings which, in
~ecial community signifi-
mg others, the following
and enhancement of
xchitectural, historic or
terations which are com-
~aracter of surrounding
mntinued use of existing
(Ord. No. 28611, § 2,
provided for amending,
r, including the official
appropriate areas:
:s, or structures on the
.~ational Register of His-
ZONING § 36.1-345
toric Places, which are eligible for inclusion on such registers or
which individually or collectively represent a distinguishable
entity of local historic, cultural or architectural importance;
(b) Adjacent to landmarks designated as historic by the Vir-
ginia Division of Historic Landmarks or adjacent to other build-
ings, structures, landmarks, or areas having important historic,
architectural or cultural interest; or
(c) That contain buildings or places in which historic events
occurred or which have special public value because of notable
architectural or other features relating to the cultural or artistic
heritage of the community, or are of such significance as to
warrant conservation and preservation. (Ord. No. 28611, § 2,
4-27-87)
Sec. 36.1-344. Application of the district.
Any H-2 district designated by the city council shall be shown
as an overlay to the existing underlying district with the desig-
nation H-2 on the official zoning map, as amended. As such. the
provisions in this division shall serve as a supplement to the'
underlying zoning district regulations. The uses, housing, types,
minimum lot requirements, minimum yard requirements, max-
imum height, accessory uses and signs shall be determined by
the regulations applicable to the other districts over which the
H-2 district is superimposed. Where a conflict exists between the
provisions of this division and those of any underlying zoning
districts, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. (Ord. No.
28611, § 2, 4-27-87)
Sec. 36.1-345. District regulations; certificate of appropriate-
neee,
(a) In order to encourage the preservation and enhancement of
the district and encourage rehabilitation and new construction in
conformance with the existing scale and character of the district,
the architectural review board shall review and approve the erec-
tion of new buildings or structures, the demolition or moving of
existing structures and buildings, and the structural enlarge-
ment of structures and buildings, or reduction in their floor area,
including the enclosure or removal of a porch and no such erec-
Supp. No. 18 2959
§36.1-~5 ROANOKE CODE
tion, demolition, moving, enlargement or reduction of a structure
shall be undertaken without the issuance of a certificate of ap-
propriateness by the board.
(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the
ordinary maintenance of any building, structure or historic land-
mark in the district. Ordinary maintenance shall include such
things as painting, roof and window repair and replacement,
installation of siding, awnings, or other similar modifications,
and other routine or necessary maintenance for structural
preservation.
(c) Whenever a certificate of appropriateness is required, no
building permit shall be issued until the certificate of appropri-
ateness has been granted. The zoning administrator shall make
routine inspections of the work being performed pursuant to such
building permit to ensure compliance with the terms of the certif-
icate of appropriateness.
(d) This section shall not prevent the demolition or razing of a
building, structure, or historic landmark which the building com.
missioner certifies in writing is required for public safety because
of an unsafe or dangerous condition.
(e) After an area has been zoned H-2, the architectural review
beard may recommend to the city planning commission that more
specific regulations be adopted for that particular district. This
section shall be amended as provided for in section 36.1-690, et
seq. (Ord. No. 28611, § 2, 4-27-87)
Sec. 36.1-346. Procedure for obtaining a certificate of
appropriateness.
Where a certificate of appropriateness is required, the prece-
dure for obtaining said certificate shall be as set out in section
36.1-642. (Ord. No. 28611, § 2, 4-27-87)
Sec. 36.1-347. Guidelines for new construction or structural
enlargement or reduction.
In order to achieve the purposes of the H-2 district, the archi-
tectural review board shall be guided in its decisions by the
stated intent of t
lines set forth be
(a) Where new
or reductions are
or enhance those
district is establ
buildings, orient
tures such as pot
(b) Every reas
ation of the strut
(c) Contemperl
to existing prope
ing characteristi
(d) Where des
tally adopted for
tion or structura
in conformance ~
Sec. 36.1-348. I
The board sha
litton of a build
district where it
(a) Loss of the
the public intert
to the district.
(b) Demolitim
ter and surroum
(c) Where den
of the site, such
district. (Ord. Nc
Sec. 36.1-349.
In addition to
the owner of a
the district, sha
Suplr No. 18
2960 Supp. Na is
duction of a structure
of a certificate of ap-
strued to prevent the
cture or historic land-
ce shall include such
air and replacement,
~imilar modifications,
aance for structural
;eness is required, no
:ertificate of appropri-
dnistrator shall make
*reed pursuant to such
the terms of the certif-
molition or razing of a
hich the building com.
public safety because
e architectural review
commission that more
· rticular district. This
in section 36,1-690, et
ing a certificate of
is required, the proce-
e as set out in section
~uction or structural
-I-2 district, the archi-
its decisions by the
ZONING
§ 36.1-349
stated intent of the H-2 district and by the standards and guide-
lines set forth below:
(a) Where new buildings, structures, or structural enlargements
or reductions are proposed, the design should be compatible with
or enhance those special visual and spatial qualities that the H-2
district is established to protect, including height and scale of
buildings, orientation, spacing, site coverage, and exterior fea-
tures such as porches, roof pitch and direction and landscaping.
CO) Every reasonable effort should be made to minimize alter-
ation of the structure or site and its environment.
(c) Contemporary design for new construction and enlargements
to existing properties should be compatible with the distinguish-
ing characteristics of the surrounding properties and the district.
(d) Where design guidelines have been established and offic-
ially adopted for a district or portion of a district, any new erec-
tion or structural enlargement or reduction in floor area shall be
in conformance with those guidelines. (Ord. No. 28611, § 2, 4-27~7)
Sec. 36.1-348. Demolition.
The board shall issue a certificate of appropriateness for demo-
lition of a building, structure, or historic landmark within the
district where it finds that:
(a) Loss of the structure would not be adverse to the district or
the public interest by virtue of its uniqueness or its significance
to the district.
Co) Demolition would not have an adverse effect on the charac-
ter and surrounding environment of the district.
(c) Where demolition is in conjunction with a proposed new use
of the site, such uso satisfies the intent and standards of the H-2
district. (Ord. No. 28611, § 2, 4-27-87)
Sec. 36.1-349. Demolition; offer to sell.
In addition to the right of appeal az set forth in section 36.1-643,
the owner of a building, structure or historic landmark within
the district, shall have the right to demolish such historic land-
No. 18 2961
§ 36.1-349 ROANOKE CODE
mark, building, or structure in accordance with the application
and sale provisions of section 36.1-331. (Ord. No. 28611, § 2,
4-27-87)
Secs. 36,1-350--36.1.359.
Subdivision E. FLOODPLAIN ZONE REGULATIONS
Sec. 36.1-360. Intent.
The intent of the regulations in this division is to prevent the
loss of property and life, the creation of health and safety has-
ards, the disruption of commerce and governmental services, the
extraordinary and unnecessary expenditure of public funds for
flood protection and relief, and the impairment of the tax base by:
(a) Regulating uses, activities and development which, acting
alone or in combination with other existing or future uses, activi-
ties and development, if unregulated, will cause unacceptable
increases in flood heights, velocities and frequencies;
(b) Restricting or prohibiting certain uses, activities, and de-
velopment from locating within areas subject to flooding;
(c) Requiring all those uses, activities, and developments that
do occur in flood-prone areas to be protected and/or flood-proofed
against flooding and flood damage; and
(d) Protecting individuals from buying lands and structures
which are unsuited for intended purposes because of flood has-
ards. (Ord. No. 28611, § 2, 4-27-87)
Sec. 36.1-361. Floodplain districts; definitions.
(a) For the purpose of the regulations prescribed in this divi-
sion, there are hereby created various floodplain districts, which
shall consist of those araes in the city subject to inundation by
waters of the one hundred (100) year flood as indicated and des-
iguated in the flood insurance study for the city prepared as a
part of the National Flood Insurance Program by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administra-
tion, dated May 4,1981, and the accompanying flood boundary
and floodway map and flood insurance rate map, as such may be
Supp. Nb 18
2962
amended. A copy of t!
maps; as amended, s~
a~d'the city engineer
following:
(1) Floodway diso
flood boundar~
fined in the ftc
includes that a
nel of a river o
that must be
capable of car
increasing th~
than one (1) fo
(2) Flo°dway-ftin
be that area (
included in ti
aries of this ~
flood elevatio~
insurance stu
floodway ma]~
(3) Approximatec
plain district
detailed flood
one hundred
proximated os
the specific o
be dstermim
such as the fl
Corps of Eng
Quadrangles
velopmant ~
in accordanc~
techniques.:
undertaken
demonstrated
ods used cor~
cepts. Studi~
mittod to th
allow a thor,
~ No. 18
February 11, 1991
Honorable Mayor Noel C. Taylor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Appeal of Architectural Review Board Decision
112 Albemarle Avenue, S. W.
I. Background:
Mr. William Weeks, contractor for Mr. William Hicks,
applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness in late
November, 1990, to remove a slate roof at 112
Albemarle Avenue, S. W., and replace it with an
asphalt shingle roof. The application was submitted
with two other requests for removal of slate roofs
at 412 and 416 Allison Avenue, S. W. The
applications were made after the contractor advised
the Building Department that he was replacing an
asphalt shingle roof with asphalt shingles of a
different color and acquired a building permit.
After work had begun, a stop work order was issued
when it was discovered that a slate roof was being
removed instead of asphalt shingles.
Section 36.1-345(a) of the Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended ("City Code") provides
that the Architectural Review Board ("Board") must
review and approve the erection of all new
structures. A structure is defined in Section
36.1-25 of the City Code as "anything which is
constructed or erected with a fixed location on the
ground, or attached to something having a fixed
location on the ground." However, Section
36.1-345(b) of the City Code provides that "nothing
in this section shall be construed to prevent the
ordinary maintenance of any building, structure or
historic landmark in the district. Ordinary
maintenance shall include such things as painting,
roof and window repair and replacement, installation
of siding, awnings or other similar modifications,
and other routine or necessary maintenance for
structural preservation."
Members of Council
Page 2
February 11, 1991
Staff and counsel for the Board had previously
discussed the matter of roof removal and
reconstruction in the historic district. It was
counsel's opinion, in which staff concurred, that a
determination of whether roof construction is
ordinary maintenance must be made on a case-by-case
basis. In that re~ard, a determination must be made
as to whether the construction is required for
structural preservation. In general, if a roof is
being repaired or reconstructed for the purpose of
preserving the structural elements of the building,
it is "ordinary maintenance" and not subject to the
Board's jurisdiction. If, however, the roof is
being reconstructed for another purpose, for example
appearance, convenience of repair, economics, etc.,
then the construction is not ordinary maintenance
and is, therefore, subject to the Board's
jurisdiction.
At the Board's hearing on December 13, 1990, it was
stated by the owner, Mr. Hicks, that the removal of
the slate and installation of the asphalt shingles
was for "pure economics". The contractor, Mr.
Weeks, acknowledged that he had not inspected the
roof at 112 Albemarle Avenue to see if it could be
repaired without removing all of the slate shingles,
but had recommended to the owner that it be replaced
"since we were goin~ to do the other two (on
Allison Avenue)". He specifically stated that the
roof at 112 Albemarle was "in better shape than the
other two roofs" on Allison.
After viewing the subject properties and others on
the day of the hearing, there was much discussion by
the Board and citizens regarding the significance of
slate roofs to the architectural character of th~
historic district. Several persons, both residents
and business owners, spoke of the need to maintain
and preserve this disappearing and distinctive
architectural feature in the Southwest Historic
District. Representatives of Old Southwest, Inc.,
presented slides showin~ the condition of two of the
roofs and the unique qualities of the slate roofs
(architectural patterns, stron~ shadow lines, light
reflection, etc.). After a long discussion of the
condition of the roofs in question, the Board
found that there was lack of sufficient evidence for
the need to preserve the structure at 112 Albemarle
Avenue by removin~ the slate shingles and installin~
asphalt shin~les. Therefore, the Board denied the
applicant's request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness at 112 Albemarle Avenue.
Members of Council
Page 3
February 11, 1991
II. Current Situation:
III.
Appeal of the Board's decision was filed on January
15, 1991.
Certificates of Appropriateness were issued for 412
and 416 Allison Avenue in January, 1991, after
further information was submitted to the Board.
Issues:
Appeal of the Board's decision to deny the removal
of slate shingles and replacement with asphalt
shingles.
Aesthetic quality of specific architectural features
in the Southwest Historic District.
Clarification of intent of Section 36.1-345(b) of
the City Code.
IV. Alternatives:
Affirm the decision of the Architectural Review
Board.
Request to remove slate shingles and replace
with asphalt shingles denied. Slate roof must
be repaired.
Aesthetic quality of slate roofs in the
historic district maintained. District
encouraged to maintain these features.
Intent of City Council for Section 36.1-345(b)
clarified. Board has jurisdiction to consider
the removal of a slate roof when replaced by
asphalt shingles, if such is not done for
structural preservation.
Overturn the decision of the Architectural Review
Board.
Request to replace the slate roof approved.
Slate can be replaced with asphalt shingles.
Aesthetic quality of slate roofs in the
historic district not an issue.
Intent of City Council for Section 36.1-345(b)
clarified. Either the Board does not have
jurisdiction to consider the removal of any
part of, or all of, any roof, even when such
Members of Council
Page 3.1
February 11, 1991
removal is not needed to preserve or protect a
structure; or, the Board has jurisdiction to
consider such matters, but incorrectly applied
the law to the facts in this case.
V. Recommendation:
The Architectural Review Board, by a unanimous vote of
6-0 (Mr. Jones absent), denied the request for a
Certificate of Appropriateness. Based upon facts
presented at the meeting, it was the Board's
determination that there was insufficient reason shown
that the slate roof should be replaced. It was the
Board's finding that the architectural character of the
slate roof was important to the structure and the
district and that removal of the slate and replacement of
it with asphalt shingles was not necessary for structural
preservation. Therefore, the slate roof should be repaired.
Respectfully submitted,
W.~el~1%, man
Architec~ural~ard
WLL:ESG:g
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
Assistant City Attorney
Director of Public Works
Chief, Community Planning
Building Commissioner/Zoning Administrator
Secretary, Architectural Review Board
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
APPLICAT. ION FOR CERTIFICAT~ OF APPROPRIAT~D~ESS
Application is hereby made to the Architectural Review Board of the
City of Roanoke, Virginia, for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
make the modifications or improvements described below to the
property or properties in the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation
District, in the City of Roanoke.
1. Name of Applicant: II_)l / I'~ ~t.'~
2. Doing business as ~ ~S 00 ~
(if applicable): ~ ~i
4. Telephone (office): ~V~-~7~a (home):
Location (address) of property or properties for which the
Certificat~ ~f ~4~propr%ate~es. ~s, ~eq]~ste~
e
Attach to this application the names and addresses of owners
of the lots or properties immediately adjacent, to the rear,
and directly opposite the property.
General desc~ription, of ea..ch modification or improvement:
Se
Attach scaled drawings, photographs, materials, samples and
any other items which detail your request.
Will these modifications or improvements be visible
public street, alley or right-of-way?
from any
10.
Is there an application relevant to this property and the
subject modifications or improvements pending or contemplated
before the Board of Zo~g Appeals, City Planning Commission
or City Coun6il? If so, specify:
11.
Who wili represent the applicant before the Architectural
Review Boa;~,d (representative should have authority to commit
applicant(~ ~ake .changes that may be suggested by the Board)?
Title or relationship to aDDlicant:~
Address:
~ ~ I~' ,~ --/ - (zip code)
Telephone:
Signature of Owner:
Signature '~_~"
(please print or type)
Signature of applicant or agent:
(where applicable)
Signature
(please print or type)
TO BE COMPLETED BY ARB STAFF ONLY:
Received by:
Date:
Scheduled for ARB meeting
on:
Zoning:
Tax No.:
Historic District
Zoning:
Roanoke City Architectural Review Board
December 13, 1990
Meeting Transcript
The regular meeting of the Roanoke City Architectural Review
Board was held on Thursday, December 13, 1990, in the City
Council Chambers. Mr. W. L. Whitwell called the meeting to
order at 4:00 p.m., and read the rules of procedure.
Attendance was as follows:
Present:
Henry B. Boynton
John W. Creasy
Timothy L. Jamieson
Richard L. Meagher
Kenneth L. Motley
W. L. Whitwell
Absent: Richard L. Jones
(Mr. Whitwell) Our first item of business is to ask for
approval of the minutes of November 8, 1990. Gentlemen.
(Mr. Jamieson) So moved.
(Mr. Whitwell) Thank you and second.
(Mr. Meagher) Second
(Mr. Whitwell) Any comments? Ail in favor.
(Ail Members) Aye.
(Mr. Whitwell) Thank you. We'll move on then to our consent
agenda with no old business. New business, the request from
Mr. Thomas L. Guthrie for a certificate of appropriateness
approving a sign 209 Market Street. You were just down there
this afternoon. Is there any discussion on the consent agenda.
So moved. Mr. Boynton. Thank you and second.
(Mr. Meagher) Second.
(Mr. Whitwell) Ail in favor.
(Ail) Aye
(Mr. Whitwell) So moved. Thank you very much. We'll move on
then to the regular agenda. Under old business, the request
from Ted Baden for certificate of appropriateness approving
existing rear deck on the structure at 378 Allison Avenue. Mr.
Baden? Gentlemen, we have been there this afternoon, the deck
on the rear of the house. Are there any questions for Mr.
Baden or Mr. Baden do you have anything you want to present?
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 25
December 13, 1990
(Mr. Whitwell) Old Southwest, any comments?
(Ms. Brigham - from audience) Well, Joel and I have an
argument about who is going to say this. Uh, we are here so
often opposing things and trying to get things changed that I
would just like to say that what Ben Bono and Debbie Caldwell~
Bono are doing there makes Old Southwest feel so good, what
they have done, they were our inspiration for this year's
parlor tour. They, first of all, probably in along with the
Lucas and Boatwright building What they have
done there ~uality of work, the way they approached
it. They worked like dogs getting ready for the parlor tour
and they opened it up
(Mr. Whitwell) Thank you.
(Mr. Jamieson) I'll make a motion that we approve the pavement
scheme presented to us.
(Mr. Whitwell) Thank you. Is there a second? And moved and
seconded then that we approve the scheme as presented to us
that part which we can approve. All in favor?
(Ail) Aye.
(Mr. Whitwell) Thank you very much. We'll look forward to
seeing you when you come to the sign.
(Mr. Bono) Thank you.
(Mr. whitwell) Do you want me to combine these two Steve?
(Mr. Talevi) Sir?
(Mr. whitwell) Do you want me to combine all the Weeks ones or
take them separately?
(Mr. Talevi) Separate.
(Mr. whitwell) Separately. Okay. Our next request from William
Weeks, Weeks Construction, certificate of appropriateness for
approving removal and replacement of a slate roof and secret
guttering at 112 Albemarle Avenue. Mr. Szathmary.
(Mr. Szathmary) Mr. Chairman I am not going to serve as
spokesperson on this. I did want to ask your permission to
speak with your counsel for about 30 seconds before Mr. Hicks
if that's necessary.
(Mr. Whitwell) Steve?
(Mr. Talevi) Sure.
(Mr. Szathmary) Thank you.
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 26
December 13, 1990
(Mr. Whitwell) Two minute recess then. Go ahead.
(Mr. Whitwell) Are you representing Mr. Weeks.
(Mr. William Hicks) I'm the owner of the property.
(Mr. Whitwell) Okay. And you're going to speak to the issue.
(Mr. Hicks) Well I will and if there is any questions he is
going to attend if there is any questions he can answer.
(Mr. Whitwell) Go ahead please.
(Mr. Hicks) My name is William Jackson Hicks, 3566 Cedar Lane
Roanoke, 24018. Uh, I have talked to I believe it was my
obligation when I set to was told I was going to meet with the
Board to get the various homeowners adjacent to the property to
be changed to get their addresses and upon doing this I also
notified all of them and had discussions with them. And with
the exceptions of properties at 415 Allison and 409 Allison,
which are directly across the street from two of my properties,
everyone said they had no problems with it. I spoke to Robert
W. Hooper, who owns the property at 420 Allison, just last
night. He expressed that he was not going to be able to get
here today. He said he had no problem with it. He would like
to see it stay but he understood the way everything was
deteriorating with the building and had no problem with what I
had discussed with him on the phone about changing it. I think
Ms. Richert has had the largest, Ms. Richert or Old Southwest
Incorporated has had the largest, uh been upset about it the
most. Which I want to apologize to everybody about that, but to
me it's just a think of pure economics. I have spent many a
Saturday and many a Sunday on those roofs trying to patch and
trying to fix and all I come up with is more holes and more
problems and you were supplied with pictures of the problems
that I'm having. One large area on, I believe its on 412, on
the back of 412, don't even know whether you can, on 416,
excuse me, I don't even know whether you can see it, I put a
patch on it. One area is patched 12 feet long three feet wide
and I still have a water problem. And it's not from where the
patch is, it's getting in from somewhere else. I have
pictures of the adjoining properties, of which I think two of
them are slate other than the two I own on that street. And I
think the other ones are tile. There is one more that is some
type of tile.
(Mr. Whitwell) Thank you.
(Mr. Hicks) You no doubt did go out and look at the buildings.
Did you see the extensive water damage? Did you see the damage
around where the hidden gutters are? Did you see the damage
where the, where other damages is, I mean where the water is
causing a concern. Alright, gentlemen this uh, my problem is
purely financial, just like everybody else's. Uh, I will be
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 27
December 13, 1990
able to go back with a 20 year fiberglass gray shingle. Also,
if you gentlemen will look on there there is property taking on
27th and Carolina that Mr. Weeks did. If you would like, I
could come up and point it out to you. Uh, it's the way he
wishes to do these buildings. And you can look at the work,
let me point it out to you.
(Mr. Whitwell) We better see that, yes.
AT THIS POINT, I BELIEVE MR. WEEKS WERE LOOKING FOR PHOTOS.
(Mr. Whitwell) While you're looking through your pictures, do
you have a sample of what you propose to put on those roofs
with you.
(Mr. Hicks) There is one of the roofs.
(Mr. Whitwell) Do you have an actual shingle?
(Mr. Hicks) can run out there and get you one somewheres
off the roof, it's a gray, just the same thing that's right
there, the same color, that's on that one right there.
(Mr. whitwell) Do you want to see a submission?
(Mrs. Gunter) That's only in H-1 that you have to get that
detailed, unless the Board feels like that that's important in
these particular roofs.
(Mr. whitwell) We could ask for that. Steve?
(Mr. Talevi) Sure, if you think it'd be helpful.
(Mr. whitwell) Are you done with your presentation sir?
(Mr. Hicks) Well, uh I was looking for a few more photographs,
which__ you can see exactly
(Mr. Whitwell) Well that's alright. That'll give us an idea,
that'll give us
(Mr. Hicks) Here's where that
in
Nothing change
(Mr. whitwell) Leave that one here. Thank you.
(Mr. Hicks) Hold on one second.
(Mr. Weeks) I can run and get a sample of the shingle real
quick if you would like
(Mr. Whitwell) That would be very helpful.
(Mr. Motley) Color too?
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 28
December 13, 1990
(Mr. Whitwell) An actual sample of the shingle.
(Mr. Jamieson) Actual color.
(Mr. Whitwell) Yes
(Mr. Hicks) Uh, all I'm saying is gentlemen to me it's purely
economical. I'm trying to do the best I can with what I have
to work with and I don't know what other alternatives I would
have. You can just wait til he comes back and you can see
(Mr. Whitwell) Thank you. We'll hear from the audience now.
Mrs. Richert?
(Mrs. Richert) I do acknowledge that I live at 415 Allison and
own 409 Allison and 423 Allison.
(Mr. Whitwell You own them.
(Mrs. Richert I do own them. I have painted them. I have
Band-Aids periodically to show it. Um, first of all I want you
all to know that he got a building permit telling them he was
replacing asphalt with asphalt and I went over and took a piece
of the slate to the building department and presented it to
them as a piece of asphalt that was being removed. So they put
a stop work order on it and to this date he has not done
anything to my knowledge, up there, except to put the uh it's
not tar paper, what do you call it, felt paper up to protect
the wooden part of the back roof of 412 which he removed pretty
much in total. Um, as he was proceeding that morning. I had
my slate roof redone. I know people who do it. I know that it
can be done and repaired properly. It does not take a can of
tar, roofing tar, you do not slap that on top of slate. That's
not the repair procedure. Um, I know that I have a man that's
working for me right now in the name Richard Bruce who went and
looked at it with me from my house, said he would be happy to
give him a reasonable price on repairing it and it wouldn't
cost him exorbitant amount. It wouldn't cost him what it
would cost him to replace one of those roofs, okay, not one of
them with asphalt. And he's talking about three buildings.
And he could have them all repaired with what it cost him to do
one. Okay with the asphalt. Uh, I highly reco~end that the
slate that is remaining be on there. It is appropriate. I do
not think it is, we looked at 112 Albemarle, I did not feel
that that one was in any way damaged to the extent that it
could not be repaired in a short while. I, slate roofs will
last 80 years or more and I think we need to think of that too.
And of course the character of the neighborhood with the slate
that's up there. I have slides taken from my third floor
window of his roofs if I may show those.
(Mr. Whitwell) Go ahead.
SETTING UP FOR SLIDES
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 29
December 13, 1990
(Mr. Whitwell) We can see. You can start in with that. Joel
do you want to stand to the other side.
(Mrs. Richert) Yea I just have to get where I can see. This
is not very helpful, but it doesn't show any big repair spots
at all. This is the front. Try another one Petie. I took
eight of them. See how good a condition it's in here. This is
the back part back in there you can see the paper over the top
but this is the front pediment or whatever it's called.
There's another one. See the spots, these dark spots and that
could be easily repaired. This is part of the ridge row. This
is of Hooper's house which is at 420 Allison. I just wanted to
show it, it's not quite in focus. There, get the fish scales.
Want to go to the next one. Here's some of the tar that he's
put on. See the globs here and here's a little bit here. But
that's very easily repaired. The fellow who owned it before
him had it repaired properly. Okay, that's just another one
of that other one it just shows a couple of small spots here.
(Mr. Talevi) What is the address of the house that you have
been discussing up to this point?
(Mrs. Richert) Uh, there are three homes. One was 412, the
one with the big pediment, the 416 was the one with the mini
dormers. And the third one was 420. I did not address 112
Albemarle. But it was obvious that one was in excellent
condition for the most part that we looked at.
(Mr. Talevi) Are you going to make these slides part of the
record?
Mrs. Richert) What does that require?
Mr. Talevi) Give them to the secretary.
Mr. Richert) Uh no. I would give you prints of them.
Mr. Talevi) That's fine.
Mr. Whitwell) Is that it Mrs. Richert? Is there anybody else
in the audience who wishes to speak to this.
(Mrs. Richert) He has a comment.
(Mr. Whitwell) Mr. Bono.
(Mr. Bono) Uh yes, Ben Bono, 302 again. I would just like to
say that I'm also slate experienced. I took all the Slate off
that roof at 302 and put it back on and did it much cheaper
than what it would have cost to have an asphalt roof put on.
Not that I wanted to. Uh, I would also like to comment that
when it's rental property I think that there should be no
consideration given towards expenses and so forth because that
home was purchased as rental property and in doing so and being
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 30
December 13, 1990
in the historical district you know what you have to maintain
and what's required of you. Being it's rental property I think
that that is a big factor. If it was his own home and we're
talking about expenses that he really doesn't have then there
might be some consideration given. Thank you.
(Mr. Whitwell) Thank you.
(Mr. Talevi) Mr. Whitwell.
(Mr. Whitwell) Yes
(Mr. Talevi) Let me just make two comments. First of all,
member from Old Southwest is going to make prints of those
slides part of the record. And prints only of these slides
that were shown this afternoon. Correct.
the
(Mr. Whitwell) Fine.
(Mr. Talevi) Uh, the second point is, uh, Mr. Bono who just
spoke is correct. The guidelines under 347 do not permit the
Board to take into consideration expense in determining whether
a certificate of appropriateness should be issued.
(Mr. Whitwell) Thank you. She was first.
(Mrs. Deborah Caldwell-Bono) I'm Deborah Caldwell Bono one of
the owners of 302 Associates. I don't really have a lot of
construction experience nor am I an advocate at this point with
Old Southwest, but as a citizen I'm becoming more proud of that
area everyday. And I think one of the charms of the Old
Southwest since we did the roof is the slate roof. I never
noticed them before. But when you go through now you notice
things when you've been doing it. I just think it would be a
cheapening of the area to allow the slate to be removed and the
evidence here today seems to indicate that that slate could be
preserved without any economic hardship. I would be in favor
of having the slate replaced if it can be done.
(Mr. Whitwell) Thank you. Mrs. Richert.
(Mrs. Richert) My one additional comment uh concerns rental
property. Ben brought up an interesting point. Many people
say because it's rental property I can't spend x amount of
dollars, uh, but many of the homes in Old Southwest that were
rental property. My own home was three apartments before I
moved in and turned it back to a single family. Uh, I think
in the future these homes a lot of them are being, well
currently and in the future, are being turned back into single
family homes so that we need to preserve the character as much
as rental property on the exterior as we do as a single family
home because it preserves the character of the whole
neighborhood.
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 31
December 13, 1990
(Mr. Whitwell) Thank you. Mr. Szathmary.
(Mr. Szathmary) First I, I need to say the prejudice against
owners of rental property disturbs me and you shouldn't be
prejudice against them either. Second I'd like to say that Mr.
Hicks misspoke in the sense that he did not mean that he was,
his only concern was economic. He is concerned with the
aesthetics. If he could in fact put slate on he would have no
problem reason__ The third thing I would like
to say is that there is no way that any roofer or any other
person can tell the shape of a roof without going on it.
That's a plain and simple fact. You can stand there, you can
talk about, but if you haven't gone up on it you don't have
anything to talk about. The last thing I would like to say
I've discussed with your counsel here is 36.1-346 which
specifically, in my opinion, says that anyone can replace a
roof as they please. It doesn't say a portion, it doesn't say
with the same material or anything like that. That's a
separate issue. Trust that we will not have to get into that.
Thank you very much
(Mr. Whitwell) Do you want to get into that Steve?
(Mr. Szathmary) We discussed it.
(Mr. Talevi) I don't think there is any need to.
was referring to 345 (b) and if this Board
I think he
(Mr. Whitwell) I'm afraid we need a copy of that. That's not
what I have in front of me.
(Mr. Talevi) 345(b)
(Mr. Whitwell) Oh, okay. No section, nothing in this section
is to be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance of any
building - Mr. Szathmary that's what you're referring to?
(Mr. Szathmary) COMMENTS WERE NOT MADE AT MICROPHONE AND WERE
NOT RECORDED
(Mr. Whitwell) I've got it right here in another form. This
needs to go in the record. Mrs. Richert you want to speak
again.
(Mrs. Richert) Yes I do. On the day that I brought the sample
in of the quote unquote shingle, the slate piece, I went down
to talk to the building department. I talked to Nancy Wells,
uh Ron Miller, Evie Gunter was pulled into the discussion
upstairs, and uh Ruth Armstrong, who has left I think today
here. Uh, I understood there was a letter floating around from
Steve Talevi, the attorney here, discussing that particular
issue. I do not have a copy of it but Evie should.
(Mr. Whitwell) Now what's this?
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 32
December 13, 1990
(Mrs. Richert) She doesn't Ruth Armstrong's gone. But that
letter was made, Ron Miller gave me, showed me that letter and
it discussed, perhaps you could fill me in, but it discussed uh
replacing the same material with the same material versus
replacing it asphalt with slate. And I would certainly like to
at least postpone this issue or something until that letter is
available. Unless I misunderstood, I mean
(Mr. Whitwell) I don't understand what this letter.
(Mrs. Richert) Well, in other words. Okay I'm just bringing it
up. He was, you were talking about roofing materials
replacing. Correct? You're saying he could replace it with
anything or does he have to replace it with
(Mr. Whitwell) We're not saying anything yet, a copy of the
code has been, a copy of the code has been passed out here.
(Mrs. Richert) Correct. Okay.
(Mr. Whitwell) Okay
(Mrs. Richert) Yea.
(Mr. Whitwell) That's as far as we've gone. Nothing about any
letter that I know about.
(Mr. Talevi) Mr. Whitwell, I assume that any letter that I
would write to Mrs. Gunter would be contain legal advice and
Mrs. Gunter, being my client, would be entitled to release that
letter but surely I would think she would have to release that
letter.
(Mr. Whitwell) I see a piece of shingle has come in.
BEGINNING AT THIS POINT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, NOTES WILL BE TAKEN
FROM THE WRITTEN SHORTHAND AS THE TAPE IS NOT CLEAR FORT HE
NEXT EIGHT AND ONE-HALF MINUTES
(Mrs. Caldwell-Bono) If possible to retain the spirit of the
neighborhood, I think you should consider that once this slate
is gone what is the chance of getting it back.
(Mr. Robert Szathmary) I did replace the slate at my home but
the color did not match and it probably would not have met the
standards of Old Southwest.
(Mr. Whitwell) Mr. Hicks, did you want to say anything else?
Please come up here. What we're saying is that three separate
petitions here 112 Albemarle, 416 Allison and 412 Allison.
Technically, in the eyes of the law we are dealing with only
112 Albemarle just 112
Auchitectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 33
December 13, 1990
(Mr. Whitwell) Alright, is there any further discussion from
the audience on this, on this issue? Are we discussing two or
just one
(Mrs. Richert) 112 is in the best condition, 412 half has been
removed, 416 no work has been done
(Mr. Jamieson) I want to ask Mr. Hicks a question about the
condition. You're not the contractor you're the owner, is that
right? Is your contractor here? Can you come up and I ask you
some questions about the condition I think we need some
clarification. Uh, you've been up on all three of these roofs?
You haven't been up on one of the roofs?
(Mr. Weeks) I have been up on two of the roofs.
(Mr. Jamieson) So one of the house's roof is being replaced
without your having looked at it. In your professional
capacity you are convinced that these roofs need to be replaced
as opposed to patching them.
(Mr. Weeks) These have been worked on and patched before.
There is no way to fix them without replacing them.
(Mr. Jamieson) If you were given the charge of replacing these
with slate could you replace the slate just as cost effectively
as you could reroof them.
(Mr. Weeks) No it would be more costly.
(Mr. Whitwell) Any further comment?
Mr. Jamieson talked about the shingles that were proposed to be
used and stated there were fiberglass shingles which looked
more like slate than the ones proposed to be used. He asked if
that had been discussed.
(Mr. Parkhill) Couldn't the slate be taken off, sheetinq
replaced and then the slate put back on?
TAPE RESUMES
(Mr. Szathmary) Ail the way. Is this better? Is this great? We
like it. Alright. Anyway. The roofer may not have discussed
slate shingles with Mr. Hicks but I have and I also have looked
at them. And I don't know if Mr. Jamieson have seen ones
better than the ones that I've seen. The ones I saw didn't
look any better than this and were quite expensive. They were
talking three dollars a square foot or something as opposed to
I think four to six on slate. I think the other point that I
wanted to make, actually have you seen something else?
(Mr. Jamieson) I missed your point. I didn't
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 34
December 13, 1990
(Mr. Szathmary) I don't think the so called slate shingles
even though they are much more expensive look any better than
regular shingles and I did discuss this matter with Mr., Mr.
Hicks. The second point I wanted to make is that in fact you
have as Mr. Hicks said earlier, in fact you have mostly
shingled roofs over there. This would not be in any great
disconformity with what you in fact have. What to do. Thank
you.
(Mr. Whitwell) Thank. Any other comment on this issue? Steve
do you want say?
(Mr. Talevi) Mr. Whitwell, let me just make sure I understand.
Mrs. Richert do you have any additional slides that pertain to
416 Allison Avenue or 412 Allison Avenue?
(Mrs. Richert) Besides the ones I showed you?
(Mr. Talevi) Correct.
(Mrs. Richert) No sir.
(Mr. Talevi) Okay. Thank you.
(Mrs. Richert ?) Do you want those slides left with you or do
DISCUSSION OF LEAVING SLIDES)
(Mr. Talevi) Our staff I suppose can make the copies.
(Mrs. Caldwell-Bono) one quick response to the
last if there are more shingles over there now than
slate I don't know I haven't taken a poll but I'd be interested
to know if that was before or after the Architectural Review
Board came into affect.
COMMENT FROM SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE ABOUT KEEPING SLATE ROOFS
IN AREA.
(Mr. Motley) Seems like we get more and more issues that
become harder and harder to make a decision on and I think this
Board has to be careful that we don't get tied up in emotions,
uh, it's my opinion I would certainly like to see slate on
every house that is built because I think it's such a nice
material. This Board is charged with making the decision as to
whether we think it adversely affects the character of the
neighborhood if something is done. My personal feeling is that
this does not. To, uh, put asphalt shingles, fiberglass
shingles on these houses does not adversely affect the
character of the neighborhood. Therefore, I would make a
motion to approve it.
(Mr. Whitwell) Thank you. Is there a second to that? Thank
you Mr. Creasy for seconding. Alright, it has been moved and
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 35
December 13, 1990
seconded we approve the petition as presented. We have lumped
together the three, we've lumped together the three buildings.
The petition reads to tear off existing slate roof and replace
with fiberglass shingles, color to be used dove gray. You've
just submitted your shingle sample. Is that amending the
application Mr. Talevi.
(Mr. Talevi) No, submitting the shingle does not amend the
application.
(Mr. Whitwell) What I want to know is, I want to be sure that
shingle is part of the application. That's what I'm getting
at.
Mr. Talevi) That's fine.
Mr. Whitwell) Is that alright? It seemed, yes
Mr. Jamieson) Is this in discussion.
Mr. Whitwell) This is discussion then
Mr. Jamieson) Go ahead and make your point.
Mr. Whitwell) I was going to say, it seems we're almost in
conflict here between section b that Mr. Szathmary pointed out,
nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the
ordinary maintenance of any building, structure or historic
landmark in the district. Ordinary maintenance shall include
such things as painting, roof and window repair and replacement
and so forth. Then section a under 36.1-347 design compatible
with or enhance to those special visual and spatial qualities
that the H-2 district is established to protect. This is the
dilemma that Mr., that Mr. Motley was, was discussing. I'm
really not supposed to recognize you when the discussion is
this far but I will.
(Mr. Bono) I just have one question. If Mr. Weeks as a
contractor is so qualified who went and took out the permit to
tear asphalt shingles and replace with asphalt shingles. I
means somebody tried to pull the wool over somebody's eyes
here, and would like to know if it was the contractor or the
owner.
(Mr. Whitwell) Well now I don't think we can, I don't think we
really want to get into that issue. There's a motion on the,
there's a motion on the floor and it's been duly seconded. I I
really think we really want to stay out of that, we want to
.stay out of that approach to it completely. That really
doesn't come in under our purview. We've got an issue in front
of us.
(Mr. Bono) Well, if I could just clarify why I asked it. They
made that statement, asked that question was only because Mr.
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 36
December 13, 1990
Jamieson asked him as a qualified contractor what he knew about
slate and the condition of that roof. And if he's the one who
that went and took, went down to the City and took out the
permit then I think that anything that he had to say, asked by
Mr. Jamieson, should not be held as the gospel.
COMMENT MADE FROM BACK OF AUDIENCE BY MR. SZATHMARY
(Mr. Whitwell) Not from back there, I'm afraid our members
can't hear you.
(Mr. Szathmary) Does Mr. Bono have a copy of the document he's
speaking of. Have you seen this document
(Mr. Whitwell) Really, let's stay out of this one.
Ms. Gunter?
Steve?
(Mrs. Gunter) Yes, one thing before you all do, do take a
vote, uh, you are voting on all one three things in one motion.
Um, the applications for 412 and 416 also call for boxing in
the secret guttering. The application at 112 does not indicate
any boxing in of secret guttering, uh, so in addition to
removal of the slate for the roofs you also need to deal with
the secret guttering too.
(Mr. Whitwell) We'll handle the secret guttering after the
slate, asphalt issue in a separate motion. I think in light of
what's gone on it's probably better to do, probably better to
do that. Gentlemen is there any further comment from the
Board?
(Mr. Jamieson) I agree with Mr. Motley, uh except for two
points. I disagree with the sort of nature of putting these
three houses together as if they all are the same and these
roofs are all the same petition. I would like to think that,
uh by this contractor's admission he hadn't been on a roof, on
the roof of one of these homes to know, even though he can see
that it has been patched, whether the best part of valor would
be to replace the slate on any one of these three houses or
patch it with slate as opposed to just sort of generally
saying, so I can't vote for this motion. Secondly, if I was
voting positive for this motion or voting in favor of it I
would like to think that it'd be an attempt on the contractor
or the owner's part to upgrade this roof to a roof that might
be more compatible, just for the sake of both his interest in
the property and the Old Southwest, and mine in particular, so
I can't support the motion on that basis. It makes it more
complicated I guess.
(Mr. Whitwell) Anyone else? Mr. Boynton you've been
remarkably quiet on the end down there.
(Mr. Boynton) I know it. I'm puzzled by the whole deal just
like you.
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 37
December 13, 1990
(Mr. Whitwell) Well we have a motion and a second. We have a
motion and a second on the floor. Are you ready for the vote?
Do you want a voice vote or a recorded vote. Alright we're ask
for a recorded vote please. Let's be sure we understand the
motion now. If you vote yes for this motion it is a vote to
approve the fiberglass shingles, if you vote no it is a vote to
deny the petition and leave the slate. That's the way the
motion was worded.
(Mr. Jamieson) Would you repeat that?
(Mr. Whitwell) If you vote yes, you allow the new fiberglass
shingles.
(Mr. Jamieson) That's not right.
(Mr. Whitwell) That's the way the motion was made.
(Mrs. Franklin) The motion was to approve the request.
(Mr. Whitwell) See, the motion was made to approve the
request. So if you vote yes, a yes vote means you approve the
fiberglass shingles, if you vote no you deny the petition
meaning you allow the slate to stand.
(Mr. Creasy) May I ask a question?
(Mr. Whitwell) Yes.
(Mr. Creasy) Some of the roof, the slate on one of the roofs
at least has been torn away already. It has to be replaced with
something. Would this denial of this imply that that roof had
to be put back in slate?
(Mr. Talevi) Denial of the certificate would mean that the
removal of the slate was done inappropriately without a
certificate when a certificate should have been obtained.
(Mr. Whitwell) Mr. Motley
(Mr. Motley) I'd like to ask the attorney, I would like to ask
you if it would be possible to (stand?) what we've decided
earlier by handling it all three in one motion and handling
them separately. I think that, I'm in complete agreement with
Mr. Jamieson said about maybe we should look at them separately
rather than
(Mr. Talevi) That's fine. Sure you can split it up.
(Mrs. Richert from audience) I've got a really interesting
idea and I've got to present it, I'm sorry. Throw me out. Why
couldn't if even if he was allowed to do one he could use the
leftover slate that's good from the other two on the other two
and you don't have to lose three in a row.
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 38
December 13, 1990
(Mr. Whitwell) Alright, are you asking to start over again?
(Mr. Motley) Yes. I'd like to withdraw my motion.
(Mr. Whitwell) Alright, you withdraw your motion. Does the
seconder withdraw his second.
(Mr. Creasy) Yes.
(Mr. Whitwell)
on the table.
motion?
Now we're back to square one. We need a motion
Mr. Motley would you like to make another
(Mr. Motley) I've got to get all my papers straight.
(? someone from audience ) But if you approve all three being
taken up
(Mr. Whitwell) That's gone. That's gone. Those motions are
withdrawn. We're starting over again. You need a checklist
Ken?
(Mr. Motley) We need to find out which house is in the worst
shape. 112 Albemarle
(Mr. Whitwell) From whom do you want to get a description?
From the contractor? Mr. Weeks, would you like to come up here
again? Mr. Motley wants to ask you about each building.
(Mr. Motley) Could you explain the condition of 112 and what
has happened to that particular one.
(Mr. Weeks) Is that the one on Albemarle.
(Mr. Motley) Yes.
(Mr. Whitwell) That's correct.
(Mr. Motley) 112 Albemarle.
(Mr. Weeks) Okay, I just went up and took a look at that. He
had fixed a soffit where he had been having some water damage.
He had patched the valleys on the back side of it. There's
really no way for me to where the leak is coming in on the
slate cause you can't get over there and walk on it. So I just
suggested to him that since we were going to do the other two
that we'd just take that one off and fix that one also with the
fiberglass roof.
(Mr. Motley) You have not been on that roof?
(Mr. Weeks) That's the roof I have not been on. I just seen
the damage on the ground where he had patched it.
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 39
December 13, 1990
(Mr. Whitwell) Okay, that's your description of number 112.
Now would you describe for Mr. Motley 416 Allison Avenue? 416
Allison Avenue is the next one. Would you describe the
condition of the slate roof on that?
(Mr. Weeks) That has been patched in several places, uh, like
I say, where people have been getting on it and patching it
with they have cracked it and there's a lot of tar on it so I
just recommended it be tore off and a new roof put on it.
(Mr. Motley) Did you do an on the roof inspection of this
particular one.
(Mr. Weeks) Yes sir.
(Mr. Whitwell) So you've been on 4167
(Mr. Weeks) Yes.
(Mr. Whitwell) Okay. Ken is that alright?
(Mr. Motley) Is that the one that has already had part of it
removed?
(Mr. Weeks) Yes.
(from audience) No.
(Mr. Weeks) 4127 412 is the one that is already in place.
(Mr. Whitwell) Do you want to move to 412 then Ken? Are you
ready to move to 4127 Alright, would you describe 412 Allison
Avenue in the same terms you have described the other two?
(Mr. Weeks) It was worse than 416
the same block.
(Mr. Whitwell) And you've been up on 4127
(Mr. Weeks) Yes.
(Mr. Whitwell) And you characterize those problems as as
patched and cracked with tar and needs a new roof. Correct?
(Mr. Weeks) Yes, in order for me to, if I were to fix it right
and guarantee it not to leak, that's the only way I can do it.
(Mr. Whitwell) And you see what you've done then, you've got a
characterization of each one, does that help?
(Mr. Motley) No
(Mr. Whitwell) No, what can we do for you? Gotta do something
now, you're on the spot.
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 40
December 13, 1990
(Mr. Jamieson) If you are to rank the conditions of these three
roofs from 112 to 216, 416 to 412, would you say one or the
other by visual inspection is in any better shape than the
other.
(Mr. Weeks) The one on Albemarle is in better shape than the
other two.
(Mr. Jamieson) That's the one you haven't been up on.
(Mr. Weeks) Yes sir.
(Mr. Whitwell) Which is the one with the big hole in it that
Mr. Szathmary characterized?
(Mr. Weeks) That's a 412.
(Mr. Whitwell) That's 412 Allison Avenue has the hole in it
that he hopes it isn't going to rain into.
(Mr. Motley) 412 is the one that the roof has been removed.
(Mr. Weeks) Yes sir.
(Mrs. Richert) No, yes, I'm sorry.
(Mr. Whitwell) Okay, does that help? Do you want to make
motions on each group, starting with 112. Go ahead.
(Mr. Motley) On number 112 Albemarle, I'll make a motion that
we deny the request.
(Mr. Whitwell) Would you like to offer a little rationale for
that new motion.
(Mr. Motley) The reason is that I feel that there has not been
sufficient reason shown that the roof should be replaced.
(Mr. Jamieson) Second.
(Mr. Whitwell) Alright, it's been moved and seconded on number
112 Albemarle that we deny the request because not enough
reason has been shown for the removal of the, removal of the
roof. Okay. If you vote yes on this, it's a vote to deny.
Okay? Um, Mr. Jamieson seconded it. Timm seconded it so we're
all set. Alright, all in favor.
(Ail) Aye.
(Mr. Whitwell) Okay, that one has been denied. Alright.
want to make a motion on number 416. I need a motion.
Somebody's got to make a motion. Can I make a motion.
You
(Mr. Talevi) The chair can't make a motion, Mr. Whitwell.
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 41
December 13, 1990
(Mr. Whitwell) Steve did you want to make
(Mr. Talevi) Chair can't make a motion, no, someone can move
that a certificate be granted, and it can even be seconded, but
if no one votes in favor of it would of course lose.
(Mr. Creasy) I make a motion that we deny it.
(Mr. Whitwell) Mr. Creasy has moved that we deny the motion on
416, 416 Allison Avenue. Second to that.
(Mr. Meagher) Second.
(Mr. Whitwell) Second. Okay. Would you, Mr. Motley, would
you read the characterization of that? Did you copy down what
Mr. Weeks said about this?
(Mr. Motley) Not entirely.
(Mr. Whitwell) I didn't either but I copied down that this is
patched, cracked with tar and in his opinion it needs a new one
and he has been on this roof.
(Mr. Motley) Could I ask for a little of explanation as to why
whoever made the motion is denying it?
(Mr. Whitwell) Yes, that's perfectly legitimate. Mr. Meagher.
(Mrs. Franklin) Mr. Creas¥ made the motion.
(Mr. Whitwell) I'm sorry, Jack, I'm sorry.
(Mr. Creasy) I think we've heard enough evidence from other
people about, uh this thing of being able to be resolved. Some
people are saying that it can't be resolved, uh other people
are saying that it can and so I, I would rather see us try to
have it resolved by leaving it on there.
(Mr. Talevi) Mr. Creasy, I take it then that you are finding
that what is going on at 416 Allison Avenue is not ordinary
maintenance. Is that correct?
(Mr. Creasy) Yes.
(Mr. Whitwell) Are we ready for a vote on this? Gentlemen? A
vote on this one, a vote yes is a vote to deny approval.
(Mr. Creasy) Same as the other one.
(Mr. Whitwell) Same as the other one. Alright. Do you want a
role call vote on this one. Yes. We'd like a role call vote on
this. Martha.
(Mrs. Franklin) Mr. Boynton
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 42
December 13, 1990
Mr. Boynton) Yes
Mrs. Franklin) Mr. Meagher
Mr. Meagher) Yes
Mrs. Franklin) Mr. Creasy
Mr. Creasy) Yes
Mrs. Franklin) Mr. Whitwell
(Mr. Whitwell) No
(Mrs. Franklin) Mr. Jamieson
(Mr. Jamieson) No
(Mrs. Franklin) Mr. Motley
(Mr. Motley) No
(Mr. Talevi) Uh, Mr. Whitwell, I'd really rather not have to
explain the reason why, but suffice it to say that there should
be a motion that a certificate of appropriateness be granted.
Okay? And then the gentlemen should vote as their conscience
leads them to.
(Mr. Whitwell) What are we going to do about this one then?
(Mr. Talevi) Well, it doesn't grant the certificate, but
believe it or not it doesn't deny it either. Let's go ahead
and have a motion to grant the certificate of appropriateness.
(Mr. Whitwell) On 412. What do you want to do back into 416
again?
(Mr. Talevi) No on 416, on 416.
(Mr. Whitwell) The one we just did.
(Mr. Talevi) Correct and then you know vote as you think its
appropriate. In other words, someone should have to make,
someone should make a motion that a certificate be granted, uh,
and state the basis for that motion and then let's go ahead and
vote on it.
(Mr. Whitwell) Okay, so we're going to wash that other one out?
(Mr. Talevi) That's correct. I'd be happy to explain it to
you later, but
(Mr. Whitwell) Alright. Mr. Szath, how's Mr. Szathmary in the
back of the room?
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 43
December 13, 1990
(Mr. Jamieson) I'll move that we
(Mr. Whitwell) Grant, us the word grant
(Mr. Jamieson) I grant, what
(Mr. Whitwell) Use the word grand
(Mr. Jamieson) I move we grant a certificate of appropriateness
for 416 Albemarle, Allison Avenue, excuse me.
(Mr. Whitwell) Steve?
(Mr. Talevi) State the basis for the motion, if you would.
(Mr. Jamieson) I'm convinced that, uh, or I'm going to go on
faith of this contractor's estimate, estimation that this roof
could be more easily repaired using this material. My only
personal interest is an upgrading be considered. And I realize
we can't officially make that part of the motion, but uh, I'm
going to go on faith on this one.
(Mr. Whitwell) Okay, so a yes vote here now allows him to put
on the fiberglass shingles, it grants his petition.
(Mr. Talevi) Mr. Jamieson, again I understand that uh even in
making the motion you are finding that this is not ordinary
maintenance that is occurring here.
(Mr. Jamieson) I don't understand your question.
(Mr. Talevi) Is it your belief that what has been described
today, taking into account all of the evidence, that what is
occurring at 416 Allison Avenue is not ordinary maintenance.
(Mr. Jamieson) Yes
(Mr. Whitwell) Did you want to say something?
(Mrs. Franklin) We need a second to that motion.
(Mr. Whitwell) Alright, let's just have a second quick.
Second. Mr. Meagher seconded it.
(Mr. Jamieson) Excuse me, I want, Steve, I want to ask. Do
you want to ask? I believe this is ordinary maintenance on
that roof. I misunderstood the double negative here. I
believe this, based on the code, the way I read it, this is
being done in the spirit of ordinary maintenance.
(Mr. Whitwell) And therefore, you are granting his petition
which is in essence for ordinary maintenance.
(Mr. Jamieson) That's what I'm basically only reason I'm going
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 44
December 13, 1990
to begin to
(Mr. Talevi) Mr. Jamieson, if it is ordinary maintenance then
they do not need a certificate of appropriateness.
(Mr. Whitwell) Then why are we all sitting here?
(Mr. Jamieson) Yes, I mean I defer to the legal counsel there.
We are being confronted with an application and I've just made
a statement in my best judgement as to what we, I see it to be.
If that's your, if that's your opinion then
(Mr. Talevi) Well, I'm not rendering an opinion on whether its
ordinary maintenance, Mr. Jamieson. What I'm saying is that
under 345(a) all structures are subject to the jurisdiction of
the ARB, however, if the erection of those structures is quote
ordinary maintenance end quote under part b then the Board does
not have jurisdiction to issue a certificate of
appropriateness. A homeowner can perform ordinary maintenance.
(Mr. Jamieson) Therefore, I withdraw my motion.
(Mr. Motley) Mr. Chairman can I make a motion.
(Mr. Whitwell) Now wait a minute, wait a minute,
minute. He withdraws his motion and his second.
get back to you.
wait a
Ken, we'll
(Mr. Motley) I'll make a motion, I'd like to make a motion
that we hold over to our January meeting a decision on n~mber
416 Allison Avenue.
(Mr. Whitwell) Alright, is there a second to that?
(Mr. Creasy) Second.
(Mr. Whitwell) Are you tabling that?
(Mr. Motley) I just said hold over.
(Mr. Whitwell) Okay, moved and seconded we hold that over.
(Mr. Talevi) We would need consent of the applicant to do
that.
(Mr. Whitwell) We need consent of the applicant to hold this
over til the January meeting.
(Mr. Hicks ?) 4167
(Mr. Whitwell) Right.
(Mr. Hicks ?) Okay.
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 45
December 13, 1990
(Mr. Whitwell) Okay, all in favor of Mr. Motley's motion say
aye.
(Ail) Aye
(Mr. Whitwell) Alright, that one is held over til the January
meeting. Now we pass on to 412 Allison Avenue, which the
contractor has characterized as quote worse, same problems,
needs a new roof, and this is the one with the hole on it, hole
in it. We now need a motion on 412 Allison Avenue to grant or
to deny granting the certificate of appropriateness. Correct.
May I have a motion to get it on the table?
(Mr. Motley) I make a motion that we hold over number 412
Allison Avenue to our January meeting.
(Mr. Jamieson) I second.
(Mr. Whitwell) And that's been seconded once, seconded once
again.
(Mr. Hicks) I have a problem with that being the back of the
building is exposed to the weather and the worst of the weather
is now starting. We've been very fortunate up to this point.
I don't think we are going to be that fortunate.
(Mr. Whitwell) Alright, Mr. Talevi, therefore the petitioner
doesn't want it held over. Now what?
(Mr. Talevi) Then you folks need to make a determination and
of course once the determination is made, he can either appeal
it or wait a year
(Mr. Whitwell) Okay, so it's backed in our, it's backed in our
court now and we have to make a determination on this at the
request of the petitioner so that motion's over. We need
another motion on 412 Allison Avenue to get it on the table.
(Mr. Motley) Is there anyway that he could agree to do that
with a temporary covering of that space?
(Mr. Whitwell) They're shaking their heads. They want a
decision.
(Mr. Jamieson) We can't render a decision.
(Mr. Motley) I don't think we can__
(Mr. Whitwell) Steve, if the Board, what if the Board refuses
to make a motion.
(Mr. Talevi) Pardon me.
(Mr. Whitwell) What if the Board refuses to make a motion.
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 46
December 13, 1990
Can we table in the face of the opposition of the petitioner.
(Mr. Talevi) Well, Mr. Jamieson, uh Mr. Whitwell uh you could
table it. What would occur then is the owner would have the
option of appealing your decision to table it.
(Mr. Whitwell) To City Council?
(Mr. Talevi) That's correct.
(Mr. Whitwell) Do you want to do that?
(Mrs. Richert from audience) Tony, I really think I have a
compromise
(Mr. Whitwell) I'm sorry, everybody's had a lot of say and
it's up here, it's go to be up here now.
(Mr. Jamieson) I withdraw my second.
(Mr. Motley) And I withdraw my motion.
(Mr. Jamieson) And I'll make a new motion that we table this.
(Mr. Whitwell) He's moved that we table and different
circumstances, there are different circumstances for tabling.
Do I have a second on that?
(Mr. Meagher) Second.
(Mr. Whitwell) Alright, Mr. Meagher.
debatable under parliamentary, alright
motion to table on 412 Allison Avenue.
A motion to table is not
so all in favor of the
Aye or nay.
(Ail) Aye
(Mr. Whitwell) Alright, that is now tabled and the issue is
over and the conseguences fall. Now Martha would you please
read the action taken on the three roofs of the buildings in
question. 112 Albemarle Avenue.
(Mrs. Franklin) Yes,
to deny the request.
approved 6-0.
on 112 Albemarle Avenue a motion was made
It was properly seconded and it was
(Mr. Whitwell) 416 Allison
(Mrs. Franklin) 416 Allison. A motion was made that we hold
over the decision on 416 Allison Avenue until the January
meeting. The motion was seconded and the petitioner did approve
of of the holding over and it was approved by the Board 6-0.
(Mr. Whitwell) Okay and then on 412 we just did that and the
motion to table
Architectural Review Board Meeting Transcript
Page 47
December 13, 1990
(Mrs. Franklin) table 412 was approved.
(Mr. Whitwell) Approved. Okay are we all clear on that?
Secret gutters. That's part of the petitioner. What's your
pleasure on that?
(Mr. Meagher) Mr. Chairman you can't do anything with secret
gutters until you fix your roof.
(Mr. Whitwell) Fair enough. It's a moot point.
(Mr. Jamieson) It deals with the roof in its entirely, you
can't deal with it as a separate structure.
(Mr. Whitwell) Okay, onward. Under other business the
informal review of the Church Avenue parking facility is next
on our list. Gentlemen, who's presenting that.
(Mr. Jamieson) Can we deal with Carner first?
(Mr. Whitwell) Oh, Carner. Mr. Carner. I gather there has
been a compromise made. We need to undo the Carner motion very
quickly. Who made the motion?
(Mr. Meagher) I did. I'll withdraw it.
(Mr. Whitwell) withdrawn, who seconded it. Withdraw the
second. A new motion on Carner. Mr. Jamieson.
(Mr. Jamieson) If I can speak for you and I think, Dan we
talked about this gentleman's willingness to paint the porch
columns, the facia board, and the skirt boarding a light color
to match the house and leave the infill dark, a darker color to
match the other trim color, and then in effect it would become
part of that fabric of that street like the houses below it.
And I think we all agreed that was the best we could hope for
and the owner would want to do that.
(Mr. Whitwell) You're speaking for the owner. Okay let's have
a quick motion.
(Mrs. Franklin) Can we have the details, I did not get the
details.
(Mr. Jamieson) Maybe afterwards, can we talk to you
afterwards about it.
(Mrs. Gunter) Put it on the record, you need to put it on the
record.
(Mr. Whitwell) The essence of it Martha is that the verticals
will be painted white, the existing lattice will be left a dark
color,
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, V~rglma 24011
Telephone; (703) 981-2541
February 13, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~:y Clerk
File #60-121-123
Hr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30399-21191 amending and
reordaining certain sections of the 1990-91 General and Grant
Funds Appropriations, providing for an increase in the revenue
estimate in the Grant Fund by $2,993.00 in federal funds and
transferring $333.00 in local cash match from Recovered Costs in
the City Jail account, in connection with funds needed for con-
tinuation of a staffed G.E.D. program for inmates in the Roanoke
City Jail. Ordinance No. 30399-21191 was adopted by the Council
of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
February 11, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
pc: The Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, City Sheriff Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and
Public Safety
Mr. Kenneth S. Cronin, Manager, Personnel ~anagement
Mr. Barry L. Key, ~anager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF '£~t~ CItY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The llth Day of February, 1991.
No. 30399-21191.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 1990-91 General and Grant Funds Appropriations, and providing
for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1990-91 General and Grant
Funds Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained to read as follows, in part:
General Fund
Appropriations
Non-departmental $13,210,129
Transfer to Other Funds (1) ......................... 11,165,006
Public Safety 27,237,724
Jail (2) ............................................ 3,835,005
Grant Fund
Appropriations
Public Safety $ 920,129
Adult Basic Education FY 91 (3-4) ................... 3,326
Revenue
Public Safety $ 920,129
Adult Basic Education FY 91 (5-6) ................... 3,326
1) Transfers to
Grant Fund (001-004-9310-9535) $ 333
2) Reimbursements (001-024-3310-8005) (333)
3) Temporary Employee
Wages (035-024-5002-1004) 3,089
4) FICA (035-024-5002-1120) 237
5) Local Match (035-035-1234-7086) 333
6) State Revenue (035-035-1234-7085) 2,993
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing,
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
this
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
February 11, 1991
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject:
State Department of Education
Adult Basic Education Funds
Dear Members of City Council:
I. Background:
In 1987~ Governor Baliles initiated a Literacy Program for inmates
incarcerated in the Virginia Department of Corrections. This program was
intended to reduce recidivism among inmates by encouraging inmates to
obtain a G.E.D. level of education and thereby increase their abilities
to obtain jobs once released from custody.
In fiscal years 1988-89 and 1989-90, limited grant funds were made
available to local jails to initiate and/or augment established
educational programs for inmates at the local level. The Roanoke City
Jail applied for and received grant funds to employ a part time teacher
to initiate a program for the inmates in the Roanoke City Jail so they
may obtain a G.E.D. level of education.
In fiscal year 1990-91~ the Roanoke City School Division again requested
and received funds for an "institutional adult plan" to continue to
provide funding for the G.E.D. program being operated in the Roanoke
City Jail. This request was submitted as part of the Annual Program
Application for adult education under the State Adult Literacy and Adult
Education Act. These funds are administered by the Adult Education
Service of the State Department of Education through local school
divisions.
Federal funds in the amount of $9~500.00 were approved to
reimburse Roanoke City for 90% of the total cost to continue the
employment of a part time teacher to operate a G.E.D. program in
the Roanoke City 3ail for 35 weeks of the fiscal year.
Roanoke City was required to provide a local 10% cash match in the
amount of $1~055.56 in order for the Roanoke City Jail to
participate in this program. City Council approved this local cash
match on July 23, 1990.
The Roanoke City Jail G.E.D. program has proven to be successful since
its beginning in fiscal year 1988-89. Utilizing a paid part time teacher
in addition to community volunteers from St. Gerard's Catholic Church
and the First Baptist Church, the jail has been able to provide quality
educational opportunities to inmates within the jail.
A total of 158 inmates have been enrolled in the G.E.D. program to
date.
CITY COUNCIL
A total of 24 inmates have obtained their G.E.D. certificates while
still incarcerated in the Roanoke City Jail; six additional inmates have
just recently taken their tests to receive their certificates and are
awaiting the test results; and there are presently 20 more inmates
enrolled in the program as of this time.
II. Current Situation:
III.
IV.
Roanoke City School Division requested and received approval for
additional funding of the Roanoke City Jail's G.E.D. program for fiscal
year 1990-91. Because the original grant request approved in July 1990
only provided funding for a part time teacher for 35 weeks of the
current fiscal year, additional funding was requested to continue the
G.E.D. program during the current fiscal year. These funds are
administered by the Adult Education Service of the State Department of
Education through local school divisions. (See attached letter dated
December 13, 1990.)
Federal funds not to exceed the amount of $2~993.00 have been
approved to reimburse the City of Roanoke for 90% of the total
cost to continue to pay a part time teacher to operate the G.E.D.
program in the Roanoke City Jail for another 11 weeks of the
current fiscal year.
o
Roanoke City is required to provide a local 10% cash match or
$333.00 in order for the Roanoke City Jail to continue to
participate in this program.
The total cost of the program will be $3~326.00. The program cost
will not exceed $2.993.00 from the State Department of Education
plus a $333.00 local cash match.
Continuation of a staffed G.E.D. program in the Roanoke City Jail to
sufficiently meet the educational needs of the inmates.
B. Funding.
Alternatives:
City Council authorize the transfer of $333.00 from the City Jail's
"Recovered Costs" account (001-024-3310-8005) to the Grant Fund account
(035-024-5002) to provide the local 10% cash match necessary to receive
federal funds for this program and appropriate $3,326.00 to accounts as
presently established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund.
1. Continuation of a staffed G.E.D. program within the Roanoke City
Jail to serve the inmates' educational needs would be
accomplished.
2. Funding of the $3,326.00 would be accomplished by authorizing the
Director of Finance to increase the revenue estimate for FY
2
CITY COUNCIL
WAH/gm
1990-91, since additional federal funds of $2,993 will be received
by the City of Roanoke and $333.00 in local cash match is
available from the City Jail's "Recovered Costs" account.
De not authorize the transfer of $333.00 in local cash match as required
to receive federal funding for the continuation of a staffed G.E.D.
program in the City Jail.
Continuation of a staffed G.E.D. program would not be possible and
the City Jail's G.E.D. program would revert to utilizing ah all
voluntee~ staff which has proven in the past to lack certain
expertise, stability, and continuity.
2. Funding of the $333.00 would not be necessary.
Recommendation is that City Council concur with Alternative "A" by authorizing'
the Director of Finance to:
Increase Revenue estimate in the Grant Fund in the amount of $2,993.00
in federal funds and $333.00 in local cash match to be transferred from
the City Jail's "Recovered Costs" account (001-024-3310-8005).
Increase the required expenditure account (035-024-5002) in the Grant
Fund (Personal Services) in the amount of $3,326.00.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Alvin Hudson
Sheriff
< )onoke
.C!ty public Schools .
Division of Instruction · RO. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031
Depam-nent of Vocational Education & Insm,~'tional Technology (703) 98t-2661
December 13, 1990
},ir; W. Alvin Hudson, Sheriff
City of Roanoke
P. O. Box 494
Roanoke, VA 24003
Dear Sheriff Hudson: '
I am pleased to inform you that the Department of Education has approved
additional funds for the GED program In the jail. The amount of $2,993
has been allocated for the program in the Roanoke City Jail. You will need
to match this with a local expenditure of $333.
We asked for $5,315.49 on your behalf, but were granted only the amount
listed above. I am sorry that the total amount was not granted, but I have
been informed that no othe{ funding is possible at this time.
Since!ely,
Lloyd W. Enoch, Director of
Vocational & Technical Education
LWE:rs
Excellence in Education
Roanoke, Virginia
February 11, 1991
The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: State Department of Education - Adult Basic Education Funds
This is to concur in the recommendations of the attached report submitted
by Sheriff W. Alvin Hudson.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:EBRJr:mp
cc:
Sheriff W. Alvin Hudson
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Manager, Office of Personnel Management
Roanoke, Virginia
February 11, 1991
The Honorable Noel C. Taylor and
Members of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor and Members of City Council:
Please reserve time on Council's agenda for a briefing by Ms. Laura Wasko,
Roanoke's Recycling Program Coordinator, on the start-up of the City's recycling
program.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/ga
Release Date: Fobr,mry 1 1: 1 qql
Contort: ~
' Officer
Roanoke Launches Recycling Program
Start-Up to Begin in Harch
The city of Roanoke announced today it will begin the first phase of its
new recycling program in March with 4,000 residences located throughout the
city. Up to 9,000 residences are scheduled to be on-line by the end of 1991.
Roanoke City Recycling will be phased in over a three to four-year period,
with total implementation to some 38,000 residences. The program was approved
by the Roanoke City Council in February 1990. Residences will be provided with
free recycling receptacles, and weekly curbside collection on the same day as
regular trash collection.
"Roanoke citizens have indicated a desire to recycle and prefer the city
pick up at their residences," said Laura Wasko, Roanoke's recycling program
coordinator, referring to a 1989 citizen survey on recycling. Studies have
shown that although curbside collection results in the highest participation
rates, it is also more expensive than other alternatives, such as drop-off
centers.
"This program will not only address what citizens want, it will also help
us work towards meeting the state mandate requiring 25 percent of a community's
waste be recycled by Dec. 31, 1995," said Wasko. "If that goal isn't met, it
could mean daily fines for the city of $25,000 a day." She added that recycling
- more -
O~ce of Public Information Municipal Building, Room 364 215 Church Ave., S.W. Roanoke,VA 24011 (703) 981-2336
will also help prolong the life of the current landfill, and provide cost
savings to th-e city as materials are recycled and diverted from the landfill.
In selecting the neighborhoods for the first phase of this program, staff
evaluated the following:
* A representation of the city's social, racial and educational diverse
citizen base
* Non-alley refuse collection (all recyclables will be collected at the
curb because the recycling truck can not easily maneuver in alleys.)
* Two routes from each day of the existing refuse collection routes (i.e.
two Monday routes, two Tuesday routes, etc.)
Portions of the following neighborhoods were selected for the initial
phase: Fairview, Wilmont Farms, Shenandoah West, Round Hill, Garden City,
Monterey Hill, Colonial Heights, Edgehill, Franklin Road, and Greater Raleigh
Court (see enclosed map).
Materials to be collected include steel, bi-metal and aluminum food and
beverage cans, newspaper, glass bottles and jars, and plastic soft drink and
milk containers. Each residence will be provided a 32-gallon, forest green
roll out receptacle to use free of charge. Additional receptacles carts will
be available for $21 each.
For Phase I, the city has purchased 9,000 receptacles at a cost of $180,000,
and the first recycling truck which cost $75,000. The truck is a side-loading
vehicle with a 31 cubic yard capacity and segregated compartments for each
material. The Roanoke City Recycling logo, a green star designed from the
three arrows used in the International Recycling Symbol, is displayed on the
new truck.
- more -
At the press conference announcing the program, Jeff Foote, from the
National Sof~ Drink Association, presented Mayor Noel C. Taylor with a $10,000
check to support public education for the recycling program.
"The crucial task now is the implementation of our public education cam-
paign,'' Wasko said. "We want all residents of the city to know and understand
the value of recycling, and we specifically want to target those in the start-up
neighborhoods to take an active role in the program." Residents in the start-up
neighborhoods will be notified by mail in the upcoming weeks, and receptacles,
along with informational brochures, will be delivered in early March.
Citizens who will be reached in later phases can start or continue recycling
by utilizing recycling drop-off centers at the following Kroger Stores:
Crossroads Mall in Roanoke, Cave Spring Corners in Roanoke County, and Lake
Drive Plaza in Vinton. The Clean Valley Council operates a recycling station
on Broadway Street, off 1-581 at Wonju, and several local companies will pur-
chase certain recyclables. More information on local recycling can be obtained
by consulting the yellow pages or by calling the Roanoke City Recycling Hotline
at 981-1455.
- 30 -
MARY E. PARKER
C~ty Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S w, Room 456
Roanoke, Virg~ma 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
February 13, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
File #304-305
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City qanaqer
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution Ho. 30401-21191 authorizing
execution of a contract with Dewberry & Davis to provide certain
architectural and engineering services, specifically design,
plans, specifications and related construction documents, and
contract administration, in connection with construction of the
Crisis Intervention Center to be located at Coyner Springs, in
the amount of $44,400.00. Resolution Ho. 30401-21191 was adopted
by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, February 11, 1991.
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Mr. William Lowery, Dewberry & Davis, 5238 Valley Point
Parkway, N. W., Suite lB, Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
~r. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
~s. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources
Ms. Anne Krochalis, Manager, Crisis Intervention Center
~r. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The llth Day of February, 1991.
No. 30401-21191.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION authorizing execution of a contract with
Dewberry & Davis to provide certain architectural and engineering
services, specifically the design, plans, specifications and
related construction documents, and contract administration, in
connection with the Crisis Intervention Center for the City of
Roanoke to be located at Coyner Springs.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the
City Clerk are hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the City,
to execute and attest, respectively, an agreement with Dewberry
Davis, for the provision by such firm of architectural and engi-
neering services for the design, plans, specifications and
related construction documents, and contract administration for
the Crisis Intervention Center for the City of Roanoke to be
located at Coyner Springs, as more particularly set forth in the
City Manager's
said agreement
Attorney.
the
report to this Council, dated February 11, 1991,
to be in such form as approved by the City
2. The contract authorized by this resolution shall be in
amount of $44,400.00.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roa0oke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
February 13, 1991
SANORA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
File #60-304-305
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear ~r. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30400-21191 amending and
reordaining certain sections of the 1990-91 General and Capital
Funds Appropriations, providing for an appropriation of
$547,850.00, in connection with construction of a new Crisis
Intervention Center to be located on City-owned property at
Coyner Springs, $44,400.00 of the total appropriation to be used
for a contract with Dewberry and Davis, Architects, Engineers,
Planners, Surveyors, to provide architectural and engineering
services for design of said new facility. O~dinance No.
30400-21191 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, February 11, 1991.
Sincerely, ~~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
pc: Mr
Mr
Mr
Ms
Mr
.~s
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources
Anne Krochalis, Manager, Crisis Intervention Center
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN 'r~ COUNCIL OF T~X CITY OF ROANOKE, VI~GINIA
The llth Day of February, 1991.
No. 30400-21191.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 1990-91 General and Capital Funds Appropriations, and
providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1990-91 General and Capital
Funds Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained to read as follows, in part:
~Fund
A ro riations
Nondepartmental $13,194,411
Transfers to Other Funds (1-2) ...................... 11,139,256
A o riations
General Government
Crisis Intervention Center
Revenue
(3-4) ....................
$ 6,688,794
547,850
Due from State - Department of Corrections (5) ...... $ 4,187,139
1) Transfers to Debt
Service Fund
2) Transfers to
Capital Fund
3) Approp. from
General Revenue
(001-004-9310-9512)
(001-004-9310-9508)
(008-052-9637-9003)
$(267,850)
267,850
267,850
4) Approp. from
State (008-052-9637-9007) $ 280,000
5) Due from State -
Dept. of
Corrections (008-1270) 280,000
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
February 11, 1991
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Award Architectural/Engineering Full Service Contract
Crisis Intervention Center
For City of Roanoke at
Coyner Springs, Virginia
I. Background:
Advertisement of Public Notice to seek
architectural/engineering services for Crisis Intervention
Center to be located at Coyner Springs, Virginia, was adver-
tised in the local paper on December 9, 1990.
B. Eleven (11) architectural/engineering firms responded to the
request for services. They were:
Frantz-Chappelear, Associates, P.C.
Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc.
Hughes Associates
Cox and Associates
Balzer and Associates, Inc.
Jones and Jones
HDH Associates, P.C.
The Architects Design Group
Homer & Associates, P.C.
Dewberry & Davis
Smithey & Boynton, P.C.
All eleven firms were intervlewd by the selection committee
on January 9, 10, and 11, 1991.
Dewberry & Davis was selected as the best qualified
architectural/engineering firm for this particular project;
they had designed a similar project recently for the City of
Bristol, Virginia. In addition, one of their team members
has had experience with children in the same capacity as
those that will be accommodated by the Crisis Intervention
Center.
Page 2
Project consists of the design of a new Crisis Intervention
Center to be located on City-owned property at Coyner
Springs. It is envisioned that the facility will have the
following: two bedrooms for three children each, four
bedrooms for two children each and one single bedroom, six
offices (two for manager and secretary, four for outreach
workers), a clinic and a conference room, a central multi-
purpose area for dining, recreation, and parlor, a large
kitchen, storage, etc. The facility will be approximately
6,000 square feet.
Funding from the Virginia Department of Corrections is in
this year's State Budget and must be encumbered by June 30,
1991 or it will be returned to the General Fund.
II. Issues:
A. Qualification of firm
B. Timin~ of award
C. Reasonableness of fee
D. Availability of funds
III. Alternatives:
Award a full services architectural/en~ineerin$ contract to
Dewberry & Davis, Architects, Engineers, Planners, Surveyors,
of Roanoke, Virginia, for the design, construction documents,
assistance in bidding, contract administration, including
periodic inspection of construction, for the following lump
sum fee:
Basic Services
Additional Services
Reimbursable Expenses
$39,840.00
2,560.00 *
2~000.00 *
Total $44,400.00
* Expenditure of these fees will be administratively approved.
Estimated cost of Construction $413~000.00
Reimbursable Expenses: The architect/engineer provides ten
(10) sets of plans and specifications as a part of his basic
services. This item is to cover the cost of additional
contract documents (which could be as many as thirty sets),
out of town travel, if required, telephone and other approved
incidental expenses in connection with this work.
Page 3
qualification of firm was verified during the proposal
review and interviews for this project. Dewberry and
Davis have just completed a similar facility in Bristol,
Virginia. One of their team staff members has worked
with children in similar circumstances to the children
in this facility.
Timin8 of award is such that the City of Roanoke is
required to obligate the funding from the Virginia
Department of Corrections by June 30, 1991.
Reasonableness of fee has been established by nego-
tiation with the selected firm. The quoted fee is also
within the limits for fees for projects of this size and
complexity of design as established by the Commonwealth
of Virginia as delineated in the Capital Outlay Manual.
Availability of funding for this
architectural/engineering services contract and project
cost is $280~000.00 from the Virginia Department of
Corrections and $267,850.00 from the Debt Service
Account in General Fund Account No. 001-004-9310-9512.
(Land value is ~16,000.00 which is part of the City's
contribution.)
B. Do not award an architectural/en~ineerin~ full services
contract at this time.
Qualification of firm will still have to be established
prior to award of any architectural/engineering services
contract.
Timin8 of award would be delayed which would also delay
the bid date. The State Department of Corrections
matching funds should be obligated by June 30, 1991.
Reasonableness of fee would have to be established for
any architectural/engineering firm selected in the
future.
4. Availability of funding would remain unobltgated at this
time.
IV. Recommendation is that City Council take the following action:
A. Concur with the implementation of Alternative "A".
Page 4
Authorize the City Manager to execute an
architectural/engineering full service contract, in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney, with Dewberry & Davis for
design development, construction documents, bidding super-
vision, and construction admin~stration of the Crisis
Intervention Center for the following fee:
Basic Services
Additional Services
Reimbursable Expenses
$39,840.00
2,560.00 *
2~000.00 *
Total $44,400.00
* Expenditure of these funds to be administratively approved.
Appropriate $547,850.00 to an account to be established by
the Director of Finance in the Capital Projects Fund.
Funding is as follows:
General Fund Account
001-004-9310-9512,
Transfers to the Debt
Service Fund
$267,850.00
Establish Accounts
Receivable from Virginia
Department of Corrections
$280,000.00
$547,850.00
WRH/LBC/mm
Attachment:
CC:
Proposed Budget
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Human Resources
City Engineer
Manager, Crisis Intervention Center
Construction Cost Technician
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
CRISIS INTERVENTION CENTER
FOR CITY OF ROANOKE
COYNER SPRINGS, VIRGINIA
PROPOSED PROJECT BUDGET:
1. Building: 5,900 sq.ft, x $70.00
2. Contingency (6%)
3. A/E Fee
4. Advertise for A/E Services
5. Estimated Sewer Service
6. Estimated Water and F~re Service
7. Site Evaluation (Soil Bearing Capacity Also)
8. Furnishings
9. Advertise for Contractors
10. Roadway: 21,000 sq.ft.
TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET
$413,000.00
25,000.00
44,400.00
200.00
12,000.00
7,000.00
1,000.00
15,000.00
250.00
30,000.00
$547,850.00
IDENTIFIED FUNDING:
1. Virginia department of Corrections
2. Bond Debt Service Account
$280,000.00
267,850.00
TOTAL $547,850.00
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, $ W, Room 456
Roanoke, Vlrglma 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
February 13, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
File #178
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear ~lr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30402-21191 approving the
rehabilitation of approximately 72 apartment units located on
Fallon Avenue, S. E., in the City, and authorizing execution of a
Certificate of Approval for the units certifying said action to
the Virginia Housing Development Authority. Resolution No.
30402-21191 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, February 11, 1991.
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/~E
City Clerk
~4FP: ra
Enc,
pc: Mr. John F. Hastings, Senior Development Officer,
Housing Development Authority, 601 South Belvadere
Richmond, Virginia 23220
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner/Zoning
Administrator
Virginia
Street,
Daniel Pollock, Housing Development Coordinator
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The llth Day of February, 1991.
No. 30402-21191.
A RESOLUTION approving the rehabilitation of approximately 72
apartment units in the City, and authorizing the execution of a
Certificate of Approval for the same.
BE
1.
(1950),
IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
In accordance with §36-55.39(B), Code of Virginia
as amended, Council hereby certifies to the Virginia
Housing Development Authority its approval of the proposed multi-
family residential housing development called Park 21 Apartments,
consisting of the rehabilitation of approximately 72 units located
on Fallon Avenue, S. E., in the City, such development to be financed
in whole or in part by Virginia Housing Development Authority.
2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the requisite
Certificate of Approval certifying to the Virginia Housing Develop-
ment Authority the action of Council taken hereby.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S w, Room 456
Roanoke. Virgm~a 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
February 25, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy CiTy Clerk
Mr. John F. Hastings
Senior Development Officer
Virginia Housing Development Authority
601 South Belvadere Street
Richmond, Virginia 23220
Dear Mr. Hastings:
Pursuant to Resolution ~o. 30402-21191 adopted on Monday,
February 11, 1991, copy of which was forwarded to you by letter
under date of February 13, 1991, approving financing for the
rehabilitation of Park 21 Apartments, [ am enclosing a
Certificate of Approval which was signed by the Mayor on Friday,
February 22, 1991.
Sincerely, ~
~4ary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
CITY OF ROANOKE
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
DATE: February 22, 1991
TO: Mayor Taylor
FROM: H. Daniel Pollock~ Housing Development Coordinator
SUB3ECT: City's Approval of Financing for Rehabilitation of Park 21 Apartments
1. Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) has asked for the City's
approval or disapproval of a proposal to renovate seventy-two apartment units at
Park 21 Apartments in Southeast Roanoke.
2. On February 11, 1991~ City Council endorsed this project with acceptance
of the attached Resolution.
3. VHDA provided a specific format for your signature evidencing the
City's endorsement~ and has asked for this in addition to the formal Resolution
attached.
4. Recommendation.; please sign the attached form to certify the City's
approval of the proposal~ as authorized by the Resolution approved by City
Council on the llth. Please return the certification form to the City Clerk's
office for forwarding to VHDA.
HDP:rs
Attachments(2)
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The llth Day of February, 1991.
No. 30402-21191.
A RESOLUTION approving the rehabilitation of approximately 72
apartment units in the City, and authorizing the execution of a
Certificate of Approval for the same.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. In accordance with §36-5§.39(B), Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, Council hereby certifies to the Virginia
Housing Development Authority its approval of the proposed multi-
family residential housing development called Park 21 Apartments,
consisting of the rehabilitation of approximately 72 units located
on Fallon Avenue, S. E., in the City, such development to be financed
in whole or in part by Virginia Housing Developmen~ Authority.
2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to eKecute the requisite
Certificate of Approval certifying to the Virginia Housing Develop-
ment Authority the action of Council taken hereby.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAT~
In accordance with virginia Code Section 36-§5.39(B), the
City Council of .~oanoke
, Virginia, hereby
certifies to the Virginia Housing Development Authority its
approval of the proposed multi-family residential housing
development called Park 21 Apartments
#
as expressed in its resolution duly adopted on Fe~bruar~ 11
19.91 , a certified copy of which is attached hereto.
City Council of
Roanoke
V
Its Mayor )
Roanoke, Virginia
February 11, 1991
;~onorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Background:
Proposed VHDA Financing for Renovation et Apartments-
Park 21 Apartments~ Fallen Avenue, SE
A. Owner of Park 21 Apartments on Fallen Avenue, SE
has requested Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA)
to provide $320,000 in loans for renovation of 72 units.
Tentative commitment of $1#1,000 in financing from
the Department of Housing and Community Development
(DHCD) to support the renovation has also been received by the owner.
C. Expected improvements to units include:
1. New heat pumps
2. Window replacement
3. Roof replacement and ventilation
New hot water heaters
5. Repairs or replacement of exterior doors
6. Refinishing or replacement of kitchen cabinets
7. New carpet and vinyl
8. New kitchen appliances
9. Repairs to parking lot
10. Improvement of site drainage
11. Additional landscaping
12. Repairs to swimming pool
Conditions of the financing from VHDA and DHCD include:
1. At least 40% (29) of the units must be reserved for occupancy
by households with incomes not exceeding 60% of the area median
income ($19,300 for a family of 3); for the 30-year term of
the financing; and
2. A maintenance/replacement reserve escrow account be established
to finance continued required upkeep.
Current rents are approximately $245 for a one-bedroom unit and
5275 for a two-bedroom unit. Projected rents after renovation are
approximately $275 for a one-bedroom unit and $325 for a two-bedroom
unit.
Fo
Approximately 20-25 of the units are vacant now~ with about 16
unrentable_, reportedly because of being "cannibalized" to keep
other units rentable.
II. Current Situation:
A. VHDA has invited, as required by law~ the City's formal endorsement
of the request. Conversely, the City mays by resolution~ submit
negative comments~ if desired (see attached letter from VHDA).
B. City is allowed 60 days (expiring March 5, 1991) to comment by
formal resolution of Council.
C. Arrangements for financing from VHDA cannot be finalized until
comments are received, or the 60 day comment period is elapsed.
February 11,
Page 2
III. Issues:
A.
B.
1991
Probability of VHDA approval of request for funding
Consistency with the recommendations of the Housing Development
Strategic Plan Task Force
Effect on City's housing stock
Cost to the City
IV. Alternatives:
Authorize the Mayor to certify to VHDA the City's endorsement of
the request for financing to be provided by VHDA for improvements to
the Park 21 Apartments, as provided by the attachment.
1. Probability of VHDA approval of request for funding will be en-
hanced by City's endorsement of the proposal.
2. Consistency with the recommendations of the Housing Development
Strategic Plan Task Force would be met by:
a. Attracting alternative sources of favorable funding for
repairs to substandard units (Goal #, Objective ~, Activity 2);
b. Increasing and improving the supply of decent low cost
housing units (Goal 7, Obiective A, Activity l)l
Pursing financing subsidies for rental property improvements
that provide for appropriate mixes of income groups within
large developments (Goal 7, Objective B, Activity 2).
3. Effect on City's housing stock would be positive, in that
substandard units in the 72 - unit development would be
renovated, and the entire development will be improved overall.
#. Cost to the City would be nothing. All funds are provided to
the property owner by VHDA. Revenues to the City likely will be
increased through increased tax assessments on the property.
The City incurs no liability of any kind by giving favorable
comment to the development.
Authorize the Mayor to certify to VHDA the City's disapproval of
the request for VHDA financing of improvements to the Park 21
Apartments, as provided by the attachment.
1. Probability of VHDA approval of request for funding would be
practically eliminated. City's disapproval probably would
cause VHDA to reject the funding request, in that event.
2. Consistency with the recommendations of the Housing Development
Strategic Plan Task Force would not be met.
February 11, 1991
Page 3
Effect on City's housing stock would be negative. If project
were not funded, property owner may be unable to arrange
acceptable alternative financing to continue to upgrade the
apartment units. This may eventually result in the property's
deterioration to a serious degree, to the detriment of the
surrounding residential community.
Cost to the City would be nothing initially, but tax revenues
from the property may decrease if improvements are not made.
C. Do not offer any comments to VHDA concerning the proposed VHDA
financing.
Probability of VHDA approval of request for funding would be
reduced by City's lack of explicit support. VHDA could not
reach a final determination until the end of the 60-day
comment period.
Consistency with the recommendations of the Housing Development
Strategic Plan Task Force would not be actively advanced by
foregoing the opportunity to encourage such attractive financing
and property improvement.
3. Effects on City's housing stock would depend on whether VHDA
approves the funding request·
Cost to the City would be nothing initially, with the effect
on tax revenues dependent on whether VHDA approves the funding
request.
Recommendation:
Adopt Alternative A, thereby authorizing the Mayor to certify to VHDA
the City's endorsement of the request for financing to be provided by
YHDA for improvements to the Park 21 Apartments, pursuant to the
guidelines noted in the attached letter.
Attachment
WRH:HDP:rs (CR.45.1,2,3)
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Building Commissioner
Housing Development Coordinator
R&ectfully submitte~
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
V H 1) ,4
January 4, 1991
Jgq 0 8
The Honorable Noel C.
Mayor
City of Roanoke
Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24011
Taylor
RE: Park 21 Apartments
City of Roanoke
Dear Mayor Taylor:
Pursuant to Section 36-55.39(B) of the Code of Virginia, a copy of
which is enclosed, you are hereby notified that the Virginia
Housing Development Authority is considering the financing of the
multi-family residential housing development described in the
enclosed Attachment "A", which is to be situated in your locality.
Should you desire additional information regarding the development
proposal, please contact Mr. William B. Litton, Harvey Lindsay
Commercial Real Estate, 999 Waterside Drive, Norfolk, VA 23510.
If you desire to disapprove the development proposal, you may do so
by certifying to the Authority in writing within sixty days of the
date hereof. A certified copy of any resolution disapproving the
development proposal should accompany the above certification. We
would ask that any such certification be in the form attached
hereto though the statement of any reasons for your action is
optional.
You will note that Section 36-5§.39(B) also provides that the
governing body of a locality may, by resolution, approve the
proposed housing development. If you desire to approve the
development, we would ask that such approval be in the form
attached hereto. A certified copy of the resolution approving the
development must accompany the approval form.
Very truly yours,
~ ' D~va~~icer
cc: William B. Litton
~ Robert Herbert,
VIrgm/a Housing Development Authority
6,01 Sc.,.,ln Be/waere Stree~ R, chmon~ VA 23220
~804~ 782.1986
,V TDD 804-783-6705)
City Manager
ATTACHMENT ~A'
The existing development consists of approximately 72 units of
housing to be financed under Virginia Housing Development
Authority's Conventional Multi-Family Loan Program and situated on
2101, 2111, 2113, 2117, 2119, and 2125 Fallon Avenue in the City of
Roanoke.
MARY F, PARKER
Cit), Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215ChurchAvenue. S W,Room456
Roanoke. V~rg~ma 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2S41
February 13, 1991
SANDRA H. EAK~N
Deputy O~y Clerk
File #207
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution Ho. 30403-21191 consenting to
the lease of Parcel 4 within the Roanoke Centre for Industry and
Technology by Arden Associates, L.P., to Conopco, Inc.
Resolution No. 30403-21191 was adopted by the Council of the City
of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, February 11,
1991.
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Eric.
pc:
Mr. Alan T. Lingerfelt, P.E., Chairman & CEO, Lingerfelt
Companies, 12 South Third Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219
qr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Ms. Deborah J. qoses, Chief of Billings and Collections
qr. Brian J. ~ishneff, Chief of Economic Development
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The llth Day of February, 1991.
No. 30403-21191.
A RESOLUTION consenting to the lease of Parcel 4 within the
Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
Council, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Restrictive
Covenants for the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology,
hereby consents to the proposed lease by Arden Associates, L.P.
of Parcel 4 within the Centre to Conopco,
having been purchased by Arden Associates,
1990, from the City pursuant to an Option
Inc., such parcel
L.P. on November 16,
Agreement between the
City of Roanoke and Elizabeth Arden Company dated September 28,
1990 and assigned to Arden Associates, L.P. by Elizabeth Arden
Company.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
February 11, 1991
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
I. Background:
A. Arden Associates L.P., purchased Parcel 4 (Tax Map Number
7210101) in the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology
(RCIT) for the purpose of constructing an office/warehouse
facility to be leased to Elizabeth Arden Company.
B. Closing occurred on November 16, 1990.
II. Current Situation:
A. Elizabeth Arden Company is held by CONOPCO, Inc., a holding
company for UNILEVER, the parent company.
B. Arden Associates L.P. and CONOPCO, Inc., wish to enter a lease
agreement on Parcel 4 in the RCIT.
C. Deed of Restrictions for RCIT (number 12) states that "No
purchaser from the City of property in the Centre shall lease
such property without the prior written consent of the City,
which shall not be unreasonably withheld."
III. Issues:
A. Good faith.
B. Economic Development.
IV. Alternatives:
A. City Council pass a resolution agreeing to permit a lease
agreement between Arden Associates L.P. and CONOPCO, Inc., on
Parcel 4 (Tax Map Number 7210101) in the RCIT.
1. Good faith by the City will be shown by complying with
number 12 of the Deed Restrictions for the RCIT.
2. Economic development will be enhanced in the City.
Members of Council
Page 2
B. City Council not pass a resolution agreement to permit a lease
between Arden Associates L.P. and CONOPCO, Inc.
1. Good faith will be breached by the City.
2. Economic development opportunity will be missed.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council pass a resolution agreeing to
permit a lease agreement between Arden Associates L.P. and CONOPCO,
Inc., on Parcel 4 (Tax Map Number 7210101) in the RCIT.
Respectfully submitted,
WRH/EDC:kds
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Chief of Economic Development
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
MARY F. PARKER
C~ty Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, V~rglnla 2401 ~
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
February 12, 1991
SANORA H. EAKIN
Deputy CIzy Clerk
File #448
The Honorable John C. Danforth
qember, United States Senate
Room 249, Russell Senate Office Buildinq
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Oanforth:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30404-21191 expressing
Roanoke City Council's support for the Cable Television Consumer
Protection Act of 1991. Resolution No. 30404-21191 was adopted
by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, February 11, 1991.
Sincerely, ~~
~4ary F. Parker, C~4C/AAE
City Clerk
~FP:ra
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
Oty Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, V~rg~ma 24011
Teiepmone: (703)981-2541
February 12, 1991
SANORA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~:y Clerk
File #448
The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings
Member, United States Senate
Room 125, Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Hollings:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30404-21191 expressing
Roanoke City Council's support for the Cable Television Consumer
Protection Act of 1991. Resolution No. 30404-21191 was adopted
by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, February 11, 1991.
Sincerely, ~//~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Telephone: (?03) 98~-2541
February 12, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
File #448
The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.
Member, United States Senate
Room 393, Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Gore:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30404-21191 expressing
Roanoke City Council's support for the Cable Television Consumer
Protection Act of 1991. Resolution No. 30404-21191 was adopted
by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, February 11, 1991.
Sincerely, ~~
Mary F. Porker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church &venue. S W , Roon', 456
Roanoke, Vlrg*nla 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
February 12, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy Cl~y Clerk
File #448
The ~onorable James R. Olin
Representative, United States Congress
Room 1314, Longworth House Office Huilding
~ashington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Olin:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30404-21191 expressing
Roanoke City Council's support for the Cable Television Consumer
Protection 4ct of 1991. Resolution No. 30404-21191 was adopted
by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, February 11, 1991.
Sincerely, ~~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP : ra
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, V~rgm~a 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
February 12, 1991
SANORA H. EAKIN
Deputy CITy Clerk
File #448
The Honorable Charles S. Robb
Member, United States Senate
517 Hart Office Building
Washington, O. C. 20510
Dear Senator Robb:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30404-21191 expressing
Roanoke City Council's support for the Cable Television Consumer
Protection Act of 1991. Resolution No. 30404-21191 was adopted
by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, February 11, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, V~rg~ma 24011
Telephone: (703) g81-254~
MARY F. PARKER SANDRA H. EAKIN
City Clerk Deputy City Clerk
February 12, 1991
File #448
The Honorable John W. Warner
Member, United States Senate
Room 225, Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Warner:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30404-21191 expressing
Roanoke City Council's support for the Cable Television Consumer
Protection Act of 1991. Resolution No. 30404-21191 was adopted
by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular, meeting held
on Monday, February 11, 1991.
Sincerely, ~~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
IN THE COUNCIL FOR THE CITY
The llth day of February, 1991.
No. 30404-21191.
OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION expressing this Council's support for the Cable
Television Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
WHEREAS following the adoption by the United States Congress
of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, rates for cable
television services have been deregulated in approximately 97% of
all franchises areas including the City of Roanoke; and,
WHEREAS, cable television subscribers in the City have no
opportunity to select between competing cable systems and cable
television rates have risen dramatically since rate deregulation;
and,
WHEREAS, the Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1991,
introduced on January 14, 1991 in the Senate of the United
States, would restore the rights of local authorities to regulate
cable rates.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke as follows:
1. That this Council supports passage of Senate Bill 12, the
Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1991 which insures
carriage on cable television of local news and other programming
and restores the right of local regulatory authorities to regu-
late cable television rates.
2. That the City Clerk is directed to forward a copy of
this resolution to Senator Albert Gore, Jr., Senator Ernest F.
Hollings, Senator John C. Danforth, Senator John Warner,
Charles S. Robb and Representative Jim Olia.
ATTEST:
Senator
City Clerk.
WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011 - 1595 ?'~
February 11, 1991
WILLIAM X PARSONS
MARK ALLAN WILLIAMS
STEVEN J. TALEVI
KATHLEEN MARIE KRONAU
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS
The Honorable Chairman and Members
Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: Re-regulation of Cable Television
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
At the regular meeting of Council on Monday, January 28,
1991, I was requested to draft a communication to be forwarded to
Senator Albert Gore, Jr., Senator Ernest F. Rollings, and Senator
John C. Danforth supporting their efforts to introduce legisla-
tion which will provide more control to local governments
regarding the regulation of cable television.
Attached for your consideration is a proposed resolution in
support of the Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1991
which was introduced in the United States Senate on January 14,
1991.
I will be pleased to respond to any comments or questions you
may have with regard to this matter.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Very truly yours,
WCDJr/MAW:dlj
Attachments
cc: W. Robert Herbert,
Wilburn C. Dibling,
City Attorney
City Manager
Jr.
MARY Ic. PARKlcR
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, Virg~ma 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
February 15, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
DeputyC~:yClerk
Fi le #467
The Bonorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
Please note the following dates on your calendar with regard to
the School Board selection process:
On Monday, March 11, 1991, at 6:00 p.m., in the Lobby of the
Municipal Building, Council will hold an informal meeting
(reception), which will be open to the public, with all can-
didates for school trustee.
On Monday, March 25, 1991, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, Council will review
and consider all candidates for the position of school
trustee. At such meeting, Council will review all applica-
tions filed for the position and may elect to interview can-
didates for such positions.
On Monday, April 1, 1991, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, Council will, by
public vote, select from the field of candidates those can-
didates to be accorded the formal interview and all other
candidates will be eliminated from the school trustee selec-
tion process. The number of candidates to be granted the
interview will not exceed three times the number of positions
available on the Roanoke City School Board, should there be
so many candidates.
On Monday, April 8, 1991, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, Council will hold a
public hearing to receive the views of citizens.
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Page 2
February 15, 1991
On Thursday, April 25, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. (tentative), in the
City Council Chamber, Council will hold a meeting for the
purpose of conducting a public interview of the candidates
for the position of school trustee.
On Monday, May 13, 1991, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter
as the matter may be heard, Council will hold an election to
fill the vacancies on the Roanoke City School Board.
If you desire additional information, or if I may be of assis-
tance in any way, please do not hesitate to call me.
~ith kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk
CMC/AAE
MFP:ra
SB.DATES
pc: Mr. James ~. Turner, Jr., Chairman, Roanoke City School
Board, P. 0. Box 1689, Salem, Virginia 24153
Dr. Frank P. Tota, Superintendent of Schools, P. 0. Box
13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031
Mr. Richard L. Kelley, Executive for Business Affairs and
Clerk of the Board, P. O. Box 13105, Roanoke, Virginia 24031
Ms. June S. Nolley, Secretary to the Superintendent and
Deputy Clerk of the Board, P. 0. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia
24031
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke. vir§ima 24011
Telephone: {703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
February 11, 1991
File #467
The Honorable Mayor and ~embers
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
Pursuant to Chapter 9, Education, of the Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, establishing a procedure for the
election of School Board Trustees, Council must hold certain
meetings and take certain actions during the months of March,
April and May to conform with the selection process. Therefore,
it is respectfully requested that Council establish specific
dates for the following:
(1)
On or before March 20, Council shall hold an informal
meeting which shall be open to the public with all can-
didates for school trustee.
On or before March 31, Council as a Corr~ittee of the
Whole, shall at a regular meeting, review and consider
all candidates for the position of school trustee. At
such meeting, Council shall review all applications
filed for the position and Council may elect to inter-
view candidates for such positions.
(3)
On or before April 20, Council shall, by public vote,
select from the field of candidates, those candidates to
be accorded the formal interview and all other can-
didates shall be eliminated from the school trustee
selection process. The number of candidates to be
granted the interview shall not exceed three times the
number of positions available on the Roanoke City School
Board, should there be so many candidates.
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Page 2
February I 1991
(4)
Prior to the public interview of candidates for school
trustee required by §9-21 and prior to April 30, Council
shall hold a public hearing to receive the views of
citizens.
On or before April 30, Council shall hold a meeting for
the purpose of conducting a public interview of the
remaining candidates for school trustee.
(6)
Subsequent to the interview and on or before Ma~ 15,
Council shall hold an election at a regular or special
session of the Council to fill the vacancies on the
Roanoke City School Board.
Your assistance in establishing specific dates will be appre-
ciated in order that applicants may be apprised of the proposed
schedule.
Sincerely, /~
rffary F. Parker, CrffC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
SB.ESTAB
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
2'15 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, Virgima 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
February 13, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Cler~
File #80
Mrs. ~elissa ~. Smith
201 Park Crest Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mrs. Smith:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30405-21191 expressing
deepest regrets upon the passing of your dear husband, Hr. Jack
C. Smith, and extending to you and your family ~he sympathy of
the ~ayor, the Members of City Council, and the citizens of the
City of Roanoke whom he faithfully served. Resolution ~o.
30405-21191 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on ~onday, February 11, 1991.
Sincerely,
Ma ry F. Pa rkor, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc .
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The llth Day of February, 1991.
No. 30405-21191.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION memorializing the late Jack C. Smith.
WHEREAS, Jack C. Smith, a long-time resident of the Roanoke
Valley, passed away on February 4, 1991;
WHEREAS, Mr. Smith was Executive Vice President of the Roanoke
Valley Chamber of Commerce from 1960 to 1988;
WHEREAS, Mr. Smith served in numerous leadership positions in
local, regional and State-wide organizations, including
of the Industrial Development Authority of the City and
of the City's Airport Advisory Commission;
WHEREAS, Mr. Smith was instrumental in promoting the economic
welfare of the Roanoke Valley, and through his efforts a number of
businesses were organized in the valley or relocated to this area;
WHEREAS, Mr.
the citizens of
and
WHEREAS, this Council desires to take special note of Mr. Smith's
passing and pay respect to his memory;
chairmanship
chairmanship
Smith worked tirelessly and unselfishly on behalf of
the area in his many professional and civic endeavors;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
that:
1. The Council adopts this means of recording its deepest
regrets at the passing of the late Jack C. Smith and extends to Mrs.
Melissa Moultrie Smith, his widow, and their children the sympathy
this Council and that of the citizens of this City.
2. The City Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of
this resolution to Mrs. Smith.
ATTEST:
of
City Clerk.