Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 01-02-96PARROTT 32802 ROANOKE CITY CO UNCIL REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER JANUARY 2, 1996 12:30p. m. AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL Call to Order -- Roll Call. Council Member Parrott arrived following the tour of the jail, and Council Members McCadden and Wyatt were absent. A. Tour of the Roanoke City Jail. (12:40 - 1:30 p.m.) A report of the City Attorney requesting an Executive Session to discuss a matter of probable litigation, specifically a collection matter being considered for filing in the near future, pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. (1:30 - 2:00 p.m.) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in request for Council to File #132 convene in Executive Session. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION: (4-0) C. Hearing of Citizens Upon Public Matters: None. D. Recess until 2:00 p.m. ROANOKE CITY CO UNCIL REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER JANUARY 2, 1996 2:00p. m. AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL 1. Call to Order -- Roll Call. Council Member McCadden arrived late. The Invocation was delivered by Mayor David A. Bowers. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor David A. Bowers. Welcome. Mayor Bowers. ANNOUNCEMENTS: The Mayor presented correspondence from Roanoke's Sister City of Florian§polis, Brazil, with regard to flooding conditions which resulted in the loss of homes of 7,500 persons, and requesting assistance from the City of Roanoke. The matter was referred to the City Manager and the Sister Cities Committee for appropriate response. File #60-132-237-327 C-1 The Roanoke City Council and the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a joint luncheon meeting on Monday, January 8, 1996, at 12:15 p.m., at The Hotel Roanoke & Conference Center. CONSENT AGENDA (APPROVED 5-0) ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. A communication from Mayor David A. Bowers requesting an Executive Session to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in request for Council to convene in File #110-132 Executive Session. REGULAR AGENDA m HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: None. 4. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A communication from Vice-Mayor John S. Edwards tendering his resignation as Vice-Mayor and a Member of Roanoke City Council, effective December 31, 1995. The resignation was accepted. File #132 2 A communication from David C. Helscher, Attorney, transmitting a petition from the Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virginia appealing a decision of the Architectural Review Board in connection with a request to demolish structures located at 1010 and 1014 First Street, S. W., and requesting that the matter be continued until the regular meeting of Council on Tuesday, January 16, 1996; and a report of the Architectural Review Board in connection with the matter. The matter was tabled until the regular meeting of Council on Tuesday, January 16 at 7:00 p.m. File #51-249 5. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: a. CITY MANAGER: A report with regard to services offered by the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium. (15 minutes) Received and filed. File #109-246 ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: A report recommending execution of an agreement with KDL Investments, L.L.C., prov/ding for the loan of $85,000.00 in Community Development Block Grant funds for Phase I rehabilitation of 14 East Campbell Avenue, and an additional grant of up to $5,000.00 in CDBG funds for facade rehabilitation. Adopted Resolution No. 32802-010296. (5-0) File #32-200-216-236-277-450 A report recommending adoption of a proposed Citizen Participation Plan in connection with receipt of funds under the Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Parmerships, and Emergency Shelter Grant Programs. Adopted Resolution No. 32803-010296. (5-0) File #72-165-178-200-236-488 A report recommending appropriation of funds from the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program in connection with various operational needs of certain City depm:i~iients. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 32804-010296. (5-0) File #5_32.34.60-62-67-70-72-121-183-200-202-262-268-270- 299-354-410-472 A report recommending execution of a contract and memorandum of agreement with the Depa~hnent of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, for acceptance of a Virginia Innovative Homeless Initiatives Program grant, in the amount of $70,483.00; and appropriation of funds in connection therewith. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 32805-010296 and Resolution No. 32806-010296. (5-0) File #22-60-72-76-178-236-314-335 6. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: None. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. Se INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: 4 Ordinance No. 32782, on second reading, amending and reordaining subsection (f) of Section 19-20, When tax payable: installment payment; penalty for late pa_vment: report and collection of delinquencies, of Article I, In General, of Chapter 19, l.~, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to provide for interest to commence on the first day of the month following the month in which business license taxes are due and continuing until said taxes are paid in full at the maximum amount authorized by the State Code. Adopted Ordinance No. 32782-010296. (5-0) File #1-24-34-79-106-111-301-322 Ordinance No. 32786, on second reading, amending Ordinance No. 16380, adopted April 19, 1965, establishing building setback lines on both sides of Colonial Avenue, S. W., from Brandon Avenue, S. W., to Overland Road, S. W. Adopted Ordinance No. 32786-010296. (5-0) File #32-51-514 Ordinance No. 32801, on second reading, authorizing the City Manager to execute a Boundary Line Agreement with James L. Mayhew to establish the boundary line between the respective properties. Adopted Ordinance No. 32801-010296. (5-0) File #166-169-468 9. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: a. Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City Council. b. Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council. 10. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: None. At this point, Council Member McCadden entered the meeting. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTION SESSION. (6-0) Appointed Brenda L. McDaniel as a member of the Roanoke Public Library Board for a term ending June 30, 1998. File #15-110-323 Appointed Gloria P. Manns as a member of the Roanoke Public Library Board to fill the unexpired term of Zaman K. McManaway, resigned, ending June 30, 1996. File #15-110-323 Appointed James E. Blackwell, Jr., as a member of the Personnel and Employment Practices Commission for a term ending June 30, 1998. File #15-110-202 Motion to convene in Executive Session to discuss a personnel matter with regard to appointment of public officers, specifically a member of Council to fdl the vacancy created by the resignation of John S. Edwards for a term ending June 30, 1996, pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. (6-0) File #132 CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. (6-0) The City Attorney was requested to prepare the proper measure recognizing the athletic accomplishments of Virginia Tech and the University of Virginia for presentation at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, January 16, 1996. File #80-258-388-393 The nomination of Robert A. Garland to fill the vacancy on the Roanoke City Council created by the resignation of John S. Edwards for a term ending June 30, 1996, was defeated by a 3-3 vote of the Council. File #132 6 City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11,1996 W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of the following measures that pertain to your department: Ordinance No. 32782-010296 Ordinance No. 32786-010296 Ordinance No. 32801-010296 Resolution No. 32802-010296 Resolution No. 32803-010296 Budget Ordinance No. 32804-010296 Budget Ordinance No. 32805-010296 Resolution No. 32806-010296 The aboverefemncad measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Er'lc, City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11,1996 Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director Human Resources Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Radcliffe: I am attaching copy of the following measures that pertain to your directorate: Resolution No. 32803-010296 Budget Ordinance No. 32804-010296 Budget Ordinance No. 32805-010296 Resolution No. 32806-010296 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia Janua~11,1996 Diane S. Akers Budget Administrator Office of Management and Budget Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Akers: I am attaching copy of the following measures that pertain to your department: Ordinance No. 32782-010296 Resolution No. 32802-010296 Resolution No. 32803-010296 Budget Ordinance No. 32804-010296 Budget Ordinance No. 32805-010296 Resolution No. 32806-010296 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. ~,~ e..~ "~.Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11,1996 Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr. City Attorney Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Dibling: I am attaching copy of the following measures that pertain to your department: Ordinance No. 32782-010296 Ordinance No. 32786-010296 Ordinance No. 32801-010296 Resolution No. 32802-010296 Resolution No. 32803-010296 Resolution No. 32806-010296 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc, City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11, 1996 James D. Grisso Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Grisso: I am attaching copy of the following measures that pertain to your department: Ordinance No. 32782-010296 Ordinance No. 32786-010296 Ordinance No. 32801-010296 Resolution No. 32802-010296 Resolution No. 32803-010296 Budget Ordinance No. 32804-010296 Budget Ordinance No. 32805-010296 Resolution No. 32806-010296 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11, 1996 Ronald S. Albright, Clerk General District Court Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Albright: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertains to your department: Ordinance No. 32782-010296 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11,1996 The Honorable Arthur B. Crush, III Clerk of Circuit Court Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Crush: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertains to your department: Ordinance No. 32782-010296 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, ~::~, "~O.~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11, 1996 The Honorable Julian H. Raney, Jr., Chief Judge The Honorable George W. Harris, Jr., Judge The Honorable John L. Apostolou, Judge The Honorable Vincent A. Lilley, Judge The Honorable William D. Broadhurst, Judge General District Court Roanoke, Virginia Dear Judge Raney, Judge Harris, Judge Apostolou, Judge Lilley and Judge Broadhurst: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertains to the General District Court: Ordinance No. 32782-010296 The abovereferanced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11, 1996 The Honorable Roy B. Willett, Chief Judge The Honorable G. O. Clemens, Judge The Honorable Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge The Honorable Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge The Honorable Richard C. Pattisall, Judge The Honorable Robert P. Doherty, Judge Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit Roanoke, Virginia Dear Judge Willett, Judge Clemens, Judge Weckstein, Judge Strickland, Judge Pattisall and Judge Doherty: I am attaching copy of'the following measure that pertains to the Circuit Court: Ordinance No. 32782-010296 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11, 1996 The Honorable Joseph M. Clarke, II, Chief Judge The Honorable John B. Ferguson, Judge The Honorable Philip Trompeter, Judge The Honorable Joseph P. Bounds, Judge Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Roanoke, Virginia Dear Judge Clarke, Judge Ferguson, Judge Trompeter and Judge Bounds: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertains to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court: Ordinance No. 32782-010296 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm EriC. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11, 1996 Patsy A. Bussey, Clerk Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Bussey: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertains to your department: Ordinance No. 32782-010296 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11, 1996 The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell Commonwealth's Attorney Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Caldwelh I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertains to your department: Ordinance No. 32782-010296 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, ]t~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January11,1996 Kit B. Kiser, Director Utilities and Operations Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Kiser: I am attaching copy of the following measures that pertain to your directorate: Ordinance No. 32801-010296 Budget Ordinance No. 32804-010296 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11, 1996 William F. Clark, Director Public Works Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Clark: I am attaching copy of the following measures that pertain to your directorate: Ordinance No. 32786-010296 Ordinance No. 32801-010296 Resolution No. 32802-010296 Resolution No. 32803-010296 Budget Ordinance No. 32804-010296 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to cell me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11,1996 George C. Snead, Jr., Director Public Safety Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Snead: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertains to your directorate: Budget Ordinance No. 32804-010296 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Offioe City of Roanoke, Virginia Janua~ 11,1996 Phiilip F. Sparks, Chief Economic Development Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Sparks: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertains to your department: Resolution No. 32802-010296 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11, 1996 M. Craig Sluss, Manager Water Department Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Sluss: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertains to your department: Ordinance No. 32801-010296 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11, 1996 Evelyn D. Dorsey Zoning Administrator Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Dorsey: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertains to your department: Ordinance No. 32786-010296 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11,1996 Ronald H. Miller Building Commissioner Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Miller: I am attaching copy of the following measures that pertain to your department: Ordinance No. 32786-010296 Resolution No. 32803-010296 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11, 1996 Mariam K. Alam Neighborhood Partnership Coordinator Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Alam: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertains to your department: Resolution No. 32803-010296 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Eric. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, V~rginia January 11, 1996 John R. Marlles, Chief Planning and Community Development Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Marlles: I am attaching copy of the following measures that pertain to your department: Ordinance No. 32786-010296 Resolution No. 32802-010296 Resolution No. 32803-010296 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11,1996 Lori S. Spencer Grants Monitor Office of Grants Compliance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Spencer: I am attaching copy of the following measures that pertain to your department: Resolution No. 32802-010296 Resolution No. 32803-010296 Budget Ordinance No. 32805-010296 Resolution No. 32806-010296 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, 7~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia Janua~ 11,1996 Gordon E. Peters City Treasurer Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Peters: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertains to your department: Ordinance No. 32782-010296 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, V~rginia January 11, 1996 D. Darwin Roupe, Manager Supply Management Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Roupe: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertains to your department: Budget Ordinance No. 32804-010296 The abovereferencedmeasure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11, 1996 Michael Meise Acting Law Librarian Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Meise: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertains to your department: Ordinance No. 32782-010296 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11,1996 Bobby D. Casey Office of the Magistrate Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Casey: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertains to your department: Ordinance No. 32782-010296 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. City Clerk's Office City of Roanoke, Virginia January 11, 1996 Charles M. Huffine City Engineer Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Huffine: I am attaching copy of the following measures that pertain to your department Ordinance No. 32786-010296 Ordinance No. 32801-010296 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 2, 1996. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm El3c. WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR. CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY 464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 215 CHURCH AVENUE, SW ROANOKE, VI RGIN IA 24011-1595 TELEPHONE: 540-981 2431 TELECOPIER: 540-224-3071 January 2, 1996 WILLIAM X PARSONS STEVEN J, TALEVI GLADYS LYATES GARY E. TEGENKAMP ASSISTANT CITY AI~ORNEYS The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Re: Request for Executive Session Dear Mayor Bowers and Council Members: This is to request that City Council convene in Executive Session to discuss a matter of probable litigation, specifically a collection matter being considered for filing in the near future, pursuant to ~2.1-344(A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. With kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely yours, Wilburn C. Dxbling, Jr City Attorney WCD:f CC: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Mary F. Parker, City Clerk MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540) 981-2541 Fax: (540) 224-3145 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 4, 1996 File ~60-132-237-327 W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dr. Robert F. Rot~ President Sister Cities Committee 5011 Balsam Drive, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Gentlemen: I am enclosing copy of a communication from Roanoke's Sister City of Florian(Spolis, Santa Catadna, Brazil, with regard to flooding conditions which resulted in the loss of homes of 7500 persons, and requesting assistance from the City of Roanoke, which communication was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, January 2, 1996. The matter was referred to the City Manager and the Sister Cities Committee for appropriate response. Sincerely, MFP:sm Enc. pc: Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk Mr. David K. Lisk, 909 Carrington Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015 ~ PREFEITURA DA CIDADE DE FLORIAN~POLI$ I The Hc~erable David A. Bowez.~, ~or OFFICE OF 7~ MAYOR 215 Church Avenue, $.W., Ro~m 452 Roanoke, VirElnia USA on behalf' of the F]orianopolls population, please allow m~ to ask y~ for help by the flood FloPia~polls Just went This trs~edy i~ppened du~ing 7 da~s sequentially, r~sulting in mo~e .than 7500 p~op]e ~shelte~ed. ~ clty wo~ld need; - F~lds to ~e. palr sbout 7~O houses of poor f~llles with an ~a app-0_ ximate of ,35 ~ for each house; - Bedclothes, tablelinen, and b~thin~ costt~nes; - Clothing in Eener~Ll and pricipally fbr cbgLldr~n b~tween the age of' 0 14; -Dcmestic instruments; - 14~dicine$; - Tends. For the fln~acial helps ~here is a special bank account in the n~me of AFL SL~¥~A~I~ SOGI3%L, ~JTe nation, al 'bank r~ber' lB 167, tile ~¢o~t ru.ber is 4~6 - x , and is lee&ted at Pn~a XV de Nov~bm~(Squar~) - Flo~sn6polis (BRASIL). The 'bank's nam~ is BANGO DO B~IL. %~e hope it carl be se~lt by THANSBRAMIL AIRLINES wieh w~ are msns~in~ & lTee tl-anspol-tat ion, )V 3O ~C ~ PREFEITURA DA CIDADE DE FLORIAN~POrI~S ! Please sztvise us ~f you are send~ng materials to us, we c~ contel the We ~ y~ P~l~ly lb~ yo~ soll~ity. DAVID A. BOWERS Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 452 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1594 Telephone: (540) 981-2~44 Fax: (540) 224-3145 Janua~ 2,1996 The Honorable Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: I wish to request an Executive Session to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Sincerely, David A. Bowers Mayor DAB:sm MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540) 981-2541 Fax: (540) 224-3145 SANDRA }I. EAKIN Deputy C ~ry Clerk January18,1996 File #132 The Honorable John S. Edwards P. O. Box 1179 Roanoke, Virginia 24006-1179 Dear Mr, Edwards: Your communication tendering your resignation as Vice-Mayor and as a Member of the Roanoke City Council, .effective December 31, 1995, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, January 2, 1996. On motion, duly seconded and adopted, your resignation was accepted with regret. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm DAVID A. BOWERS Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 December 22, 1995 Mayor David A. Bowers and Members of City Council 215 Church Avenue S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 Council Members: Elizabeth T. Bowles John S. Edwards Delvis O. "Mac" McCadden John H. Parrott William White, Sr. Linda F. Wyatt Dear Mayor and Members of Council: I am tendering my resignation as Vice-Mayor of Roanoke and member of Roanoke City Council effective December 31, 1995. As you know, I will be sworn in as a member of the Senate of Virginia representing the 21st Senatorial District on January 10, 1996. During the time I have been privileged to serve with you on Council, we have achieved important progress for the citizens of Roanoke. I have especially enjoyed a warm personal friendship with each of you. I also want to thank you for your generous comments and the resolution of commendation you gave me at my last regular Council meeting. My family and I also appreciate very much the lovely reception in my honor at the Jefferson Center on December 20, 1995, your warm remarks, and the many nice gifts. I look forward to continuing to work with you in the years ahead. Best wishes for the new year! Sincerely, S. Edwards Vice-Mayor JSE/smo CC: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk w. Robert Herbert, City Manager Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney James E. Grisso, Director of Finance Robert H. Bird, Municipal Auditor Willard N. Claytor, Director Real Estate Valuation REMARKS UPON RESIGNATION AS VICE-MAYOR AND MEMBER OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL BY JOHN S. EDWARDS December 18, 1995 Mr. Mayor and my fellow Council members, as you know, I will be resigning from Roanoke City Council at the end of this month in anticipation of being sworn in as a member of the Virginia Senate at the beginning of the 1996 General Assembly Session scheduled for January 10, 1996. I have enjoyed enormously the opportunity to serve on Council over the last two years and the last 18 months as Vice-Mayor. On a personal level, the opportunity to serve on the Council that my father once served on and the opportunity to serve the citizens of the City I grew up in and love has been satisfying and rewarding. I have also enjoyed the collegial and warm personal relations with members of two Councils. I am particularly grateful to those Council members who over two years ago first appointed me to this position -- my good friend the Mayor, David Bowers, my friends Howard Musser and Jimmy Harvey, perhaps the closest team ever to serve on Council, my good friend Bill White, my long-time friend Elizabeth Bowles, and "Mac" McCadden, with whom I earlier served on the Civic Center Commission. These last 18 months, in which I have been honored to serve as Vice-Mayor, I have enjoyed immensely serving with new council members Linda Wyatt and Jack Parrott. The personal friendships and experiences we on Council have enjoyed will be treasured. On most issues we have agreed; on those issues where there has been disagreement, it has been civil and respectful, and we have learned from one another's different perspectives. It is a credit to this Council that disagreements have never become personal and that mutual respect and affection have remained even after disagreements have been expressed. PROGRESS OF THE CITY. It has been particularly rewarding to be on Council at a time when the City has made so much progress. The groundbreaking of the Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center occurred a few weeks after I was sworn in on November 1, 1993, and it opened in April of this year. This is one of the most important projects this City has undertaken in recent years; it builds on the revitalization of the Market Square area, named this year as one of the top 63 Best Public Places in America. More importantly, the Conference Center links continuing educational programs with economic development efforts and job creation. I have been delighted to have had the opportunity to vote on a number of measures and appropriations which have made this important project possible. I recall the excitement we all felt when the final designs were approved for the Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center and later the pedestrian bridge. This important link between the Hotel and downtown has already reaped important benefits to both. After the improvements to the Transportation Museum and construction of a linear park -- which our voters approved overwhelmingly last year -- the next great downtown project should be the Henry Street project. I know that Council, working with the Housing Authority and the Henry Street Committee, will want to move this important project along. DEDICATED CITY EMPLOYEES. that its greatest asset is its Every employer should understand employees. Our City Manager, the City Attorney, Finance Director, Municipal Auditor, Real Estate Valuation Director and City Clerk -- all appointed by Council -- are first-rate. Our citizens should be proud of the high caliber of Council-appointed officials we are privileged to have. I want to thank personally Bob Herbert and his staff, Will Dibling and his staff, Jim Grisso and his staff, Bob Bird and his staff, Will Claytor and his staff, and of course Mary Parker and her staff. Each of you truly makes the City proud. I also want to thank Jim Ritchie, Assistant City Manager, and our directors, Bill Clark, Kit Kiser, Glenn Radcliffe and Chip Snead. You have been wonderful to work with and our citizens are well served by your dedication and hard work. Public service should never be demeaned. I view public service as an honor and an opportunity to make life better for our community. I believe our City employees feel the same. Our City employees do the hard, unsung work without which Roanoke would not be what it is and without which our citizens would not have the quality of life we enjoy. Our citizens are well-served and our employees deserve to be treated with the greatest respect and dignity and to be paid accordingly. I am particularly proud that we have now begun a program to reduce the cost of health insurance through the utilization of prevention measures and that our City retirees will have lower cost health insurance available to them. A CITY THAT CARES ABOUT PEOPLE. I am also proud of the fact that our City cares about people. From increasing the eligibility for a freeze on real estate taxes for the elderly and the disabled to supporting child health care and delivering important social services, our City has been sensitive to the needs of our citizens. And our police have reduced the crime rate through the highly successful Community Oriented Police Efforts in our neighborhoods and the DARE program in our schools. We also understand the importance of education as the most important investment in our future. Education funding for the City has continued to increase more than other areas because we understand as a community the importance of public education. HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER. As we look to the future, Roanoke needs a Higher Education Center so that our students can obtain a four-year public college degree without leaving the Valley. This will be a priority of mine as I go to Richmond; to obtain the funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia to build a Higher Education Center for the Roanoke Valley. FIELD HOUSE. I also strongly believe that the development of a multi-sport indoor athletic field house is a priority whose time has come. I am sorry I will not be on Council to see this project to completion, and I urge Council to move ahead with building a Field House. Our young people need it, our middle and high school track and field teams need it, our ice hockey team needs it, the many who participate in gymnastics, volleyball and other indoor sports need it, and the Commonwealth Games needs it. LOCAL COOPERATION. In the last two years, we have seen tangible progress toward more local cooperation. City Council is 4 now meeting regularly with the County Supervisors. I am glad to have been a part of this progress, and I hope it continues. REGIONAL ECONOMIC VISION. The City should continue to build a regional economic vision, working with the New Century Council, because our future is linked to the broader region. COMMONWEALTH AS PARTNER IN BUILDING FOUNDATIONS OF PROGRESS. I also believe the Commonwealth must continue to be a partner with the localities in building the infrastructure of economic development, which is education, transportation, and quality of life resources. That is why I look forward to going to Richmond, to continue serving this Valley that I love by working to see that the Commonwealth continues to be a major partner with the localities in building these Foundations of Progress. We have an exciting future, but there is much to do to build that future. I have enjoyed these two years immensely. Thank you members of Roanoke City Council and citizens of the City of Roanoke for giving me a wonderful 26 months. I look forward to continuing to work with you in the Senate of Virginia. MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540) 981-2541 Fax: (540) 224-3145 January4,1996 SANDRA H, EAKIN Deputy City Clerk File #51-249 David C. Helscher, Attorney Jolly, Place, Fralin & Prillaman, P. C. P. O. Box 20487 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0049 Dear Mr. Helscher: A petition of the Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virginia appealing a decision of the Architectural Review Board in connection with a request to demolish structures located at 1010 and 1014 First Street, S. W., and requesting that the matter be continued until the regular meeting of City Council on Tuesday, January 16, 1996, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, January 2, 1996. On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the matter was tabled until the regular meeting of Council on Tuesday, January 16, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm pc; W. L. Whitwell, Chairperson, Architectural Review Board, 1255 Keffield Street, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Perle Cavendish, Chairperson, Old Southwest, Inc., 406 Walnut Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Ms. Joel Richert, 415 Allison Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Evelyn S. Gunter, Secretary, Architectural Review Board Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney LAW OFFICES JOLLY, PLACE, FRALIN & PRILLAMAN, P. C. December 22, 1995 FAX: 224-3145 AND REGULAR MAIL Mary F. Parker Clerk, City of Roanoke 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24011 Re: Appeal by Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virginia of ARB Ruling Dear Mary: I am writing to request that the hearing date before Roanoke City Council on the above-captioned matter be postponed to January 16. The matter was originally scheduled for January 8, 1996, and this was acceptable to us. However, when City Council decided at its meeting in December to change meeting dates for 1996, that decision moved the date forward to January 2. That change presents a hardship to my client in preparing for its presentation before Council. As you can imagine, the week before the meeting is the week between Christmas and New Year's and it will be difficult to do the necessary preparation because of vacation and travel plans that have already been made by a number of people associated with this matter. I would be most appreciative if you could take an informal poll of the Council members to determine whether there would be opposition to this request. I am advised by Wil Dibling that the request must be made in person before Council at the January 2 meeting, and I am certainly willing to do so. However, it will obviously help in our preparation for that meeting to know whether we are going to have to present our appeal at that time or if our request will be granted to provide us with additional preparation time. Mary F. Parker December 22, 1995 Page 2 Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions in this regard. Yours truly, JOLLY, cmh c: Wil Dibling (via fax: 224-3071) Evie Lander (via fax: 224-3088) City of Roanoke CITY CLERICS OFFICE (540) 981-2541 Fax: (540) 224-3145 transmittal to: I Mayor and Members of City Council from: I Mary F. Parker, City Clerk date: I December 27, 1995 re: I Appeal of a decision of the Architectural [ Review Board by Episcopal Diocese of Southwesten Virginia page: [ 3, including cover sheet. NOTES: David Helseher, Attorney, has filed a petition on behalf of the Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virginia, appealing a derision of the Architectural Review Board, and has requested that the hearing date for his client's appeal be postponed until the regular meeting of City Council on Tuesday, January 16, 1996. Mr. Helscher plans to be present at the Council meeting on January 2 to formally request a postponement; however, he has asked me to take an informal poll of the Mayor and Members of Council to determine whether there would be opposition to his request. I will telephone the Members of Council on Thursday morning, December 28, in order to determine whether any Member of Council has concerns about granting a postponement. LAW OFFICrS JOLLY, PLACE, F'I~IN ,~PRIELAHAN, P.C. December 22, 1995 FAX~ ~4-314S AND ~J~AR MAIn Mary F. Parker Clerk, City of Roanoke 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24011 Re: Appeal by Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virginia of ARB Ruling Dear Mary: I am writing to request that the hearing date before Roanoke City Council on the above-captioned matter be postponed to January 16. The matter was originally scheduled for January 8, 1996, and this was acceptable to us. Mowever, when City Council decided aC its meetinG in December to change meeting dates for 1996, that decision moved the date forward to January 2. That change presents a hardship to my client in preparing for its presentation before Council. As you can imagine, the week before the meetinG is the week between Christmas and New Year's and it will be difficult to do the necessary preparation because of vacation and travel plans that have already been made by a number of people associated with this matter. I would be most appreciative if you could take an informal poll of the Council members to determine whether there would be opposition to this request. I am advised by Wil Dibling that the request must be made in person before Council at the January 2 meeting, and I am certainly willing to do so. However, it will obviously help in our preparation for that meeting to know whether we are going to have to present our appeal at that time or if our request will be granted to provide us with additional preparation time. P.01 Mary F. Parker December 22, 1995 Page 2 Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. contact me if you have any questions in this regard. cmh Please Yours truly, JOLLY, PLACE,_~.R~,INDaYi~C~.Hel~s.c~& !RI~LAMAN, P.C. Wil Dibling (via fax: 224-3071) £vie Lander (via fax: 224-3088) TOTI:~_ P. 82 D~5C-22-1995 16: ~ c34Z P. 02 WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR. CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY 464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 215 CHURCH AVENUE, SW ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595 TELEPHONE: 540-981-2431 TELECOPIER: 540-224-3071 WILLIAM X PARSONS STEVEN J. TALEVI GLADYS I- YATES GARY F- TEGENKAMP ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS December 12, 1995 David C. Helscher, Esquire Jolly, Place, Fralin a Prlllaman, P.C. P.O. Box 20487 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0049 Re: Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virginia Petition for Appeal of Decision of the Architectural Review Board Dear Mr. Helscher: AS you know, your client's appeal of the Architectural Review Board's decision in the above-captioned matter was scheduled to be heard on Monday, January 8, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. As you further know, that was the last date on which the appeal could be heard because the 60-day time period was scheduled to run on or after January 9, 1996. Please be advised that on December 11, 1995, City Council decided to change its meeting schedule. As of January 1, 1996, City Council will meet on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of each month, except when those days are legal holidays during which the City is closed. Accordingly, your client's appeal will be considered at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, January 2, 1996, at 2:00 p.m. I apologize sincerely for any inconvenience the change may cause you or your client. As always, if you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yo~ Steven J. Tale~i Assistant City Attorney SJT: snh / cc: W.~tlburn C. Dlbling, Jr., City Attorney ~Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Evie G. Lander, City Planner WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR. CrTY ATTORNEY CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY 464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 215 CHURCH AVENUE, SVV~ - ROANOKE, VI R'~IA 240'11','1595 ~ ~ '.! TELEPHONE; 540-981-2431 TELECOPIER: 540-224-3071 December 1, 1995 WILLIAM X PARSONS STEVEN J. TALL=VI GLADY$ L. YATES GARY F- TEGENKAMP ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS David C. Helscher, Esquire Jolly, Place, Fralin & Prtllaman, P.C. P.O. Box 20487 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0049 Re; Episcopal D~ocese of Southwestern V~rginia Petition for Appeal of Decision of the ArchitectUral Review Board Dear Mr. Helscher= As you know, the above-captioned matter is pending your client's appeal of the Architectural Review Board's decision. Section 36.1-642(d) requires that City Council schedule a public meeting and render its decision within sixty calendar days of the date of the filing of your petition. Your Petition for Appeal was filed on November 9, 1995. In accordance with our discussion on November 30, 1995, your client's appeal will be scheduled for consideration by City Council on Januar~ 8, 1996, at 7=00 p.m. You and your client should be prepared to proceed at that time. I anticipate that a staff report will be prepared before that date. Of course, if you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me. SJT: snh Very truly ¥our84~ Assistant City Attorney cc: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager ~l~burn C. Dlbling, Jr., City Attorney -~raryF. Parker, City Clerk Erie G. Lander, City Planner LAW OFFICES ' JOLLY, PLACE, FRALIN & PRILLAMAN, P. C. ROANOKE, VIRGINIA E4018--4564 SALENI~ VA. 24153-374S November 9, 1995 HAND DELIVER Mary F. Parker Roanoke City Clerk 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24011 Re: Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virginia Petition for Appeal of Decision of the Architectural Review Board Dear Ms. Parker: Enclosed for filing is a Petition for Appeal regarding the above-captioned matter. Thank you for your assistance. JOLLY, Yours truly, PLACE, FRALIN & PRILLAMAN, P.C. David C. Helscher cmh Enclosures VIRGINIA: IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF SOUTHWESTERN ) VIRGINIA ) PETITION FOR APPEAL This is a Petition for Appeal from a decision of the Amhitectural 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: Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virginia (hereinafter "Petitioner"). 2. Address: 1000 First Street, SW, Roanoke, Virginia 24009. 3. Overlay Zoning of the property which is the subject of this appeal is H-1/C-2. 4. The hearing before the Architectural Review Board was held October 12, 1995. 5. The Certificate of Appropriateness was requested from the Architectural Review Board pursuant to the City of Roanoke Code Section 36.1.-327. Petitioner requested approval in concept of scale and massing of proposed addition to existing structure located at 1000 First Street, SW, known as Evans House and acknowledgement that the proposed addition would be of consistent architectural appearance with the existing structure. The request also asked for permission to demolish the structures located at 1010 and 1014 First Street, SW, adjoining the existing structure in the event that Petitioner was unable to find a party that was willing to remove the houses located on said two lots. Petitioner, as a part of the request, volunteered to donate the structures on said lots and further volunteered the sum of Thirty-six Thousand Dollars ($36,000.00) to be contributed toward costs of moving the said structures, said removal to be accomplished prior to April 1, 1996. 6. Grounds for appeal: Petitioner feels that the ruling of the Architectural Review Board in denying its request to demolish the structures represented an abuse of discretion by said Board in that it ignored the economic realities associated with moving and rehabilitating said structures. Petitioner also feels that this ruling is inconsistent with previous rulings of the Board which have permitted demolition after a reasonable period of time was afforded to locate interested parties, if any, who would be willing to bear the removal and repair costs associated with the removal. Petitioner also questions the historic significance of the property located at 1014 First Street, SW, and would further note that the structure located at 1010 First Street, SW, is not unique as evidenced by the fact that there is an older structure of identical design located less than a block away at 921 First Street, SW. 7. Petitioner will be represented by David C. Helscher of the law firm of Jolly, Place, Fralin & Prillaman, P.C., 3912 Electric Road, SW, Roanoke, Virginia 24018; (540) 989-0000. WHEREFORE, your Petitioner requests that the action of the Architectural Review Board be reversed or modified and that a Certificate of Appropriateness be granted. Signature of Petitioner, Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virginia Bishop A. Heath Light TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK: RECEIVED aY: %.~*'~z~.~ ~ ~ .~?,~r-.~ cH-.3 DATE: 12/22/95 Mary: RE: Appeal of Episcopal Diocese ARB Decision 1010, 1014 First Street, S. W. Attached is the report for City Council's package on 1/2/96. Tony VVhitwell and Don Harwood of the ARB will be at Council's meeting and will speak to the matter. Let me know if you have any questions. Evie Roanoke City Architectural Review Board January 2, 1996 The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council: Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virginia Appeal of Decision of the Architectural Review Board ADolication for a Certificate of Aoorooriateness (Exhibit A) was filed with City Architectural Review Board (ARB) on September 28, 1995 for:. ao Approval in concept of the scale and massin(3 of a proposed addition tn ~ at 1000 First Street, S. W. Approval in concept that the proposed addition will be consistent in architectural aooearance with the existing Evans House. Approval for the removal bv demolition of two structures at 1010 and 1014 First Street. if no party is willinq tO mov~ the structures by April 1, 1996. ARB heard the matter at their oublic meetinc~ on 10/12/9,~. After considerable discussion by the Board, representatives of the Diocese, representatives of Old Southwest, Inc., and the public, the Board voted 4-0 to aoorove the removal, but not demolition, of the buildin(3s to an aoorooriate location iR thr~ Old Southwest Historic District. and to aoorove in concept the Drooose(1 addition to the Evans House (1000 First Streefl. consistent with the general scale, mass and architecture as discussed with the Board. Messrs. Manetta, Jones, Harwood, and Whitwell voted in favor of the motion (Mr. Jamieson was absent from the meeting). Messrs. Motley and Deck abstained from the consideration of the matter because the architectural firm with whom they are associated is involved with the project. A Certificate of Appropriateness was issued, Number 95-035, in accordance with the Board's action and is attached as Exhibit B. Room 162 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2344 Members of Council Page 2 The Board's decision was based uoon its findina that the loss of the buildin? at 1010 and 1014 First Street. S. W. would be adverse to the district bv virtu, of their architectural uniaueness and sianiflcancn Both buildings, especially 1010 First Street, contribute to the historic and architectural character of the Southwest Historic District; therefore, demolition was not considered appropriate. The Board encouraged the Diocese to work further with Old Southwest and others regarding moving the houses to an appropriate location in the neighborhood. Once a new location was established, a Certificate of Appropriateness would be required to erect the structure on the new lot. The minutes of the ARB meeting are attached as Exhibit C. Aooeal of ARB decision was filed with the City Clerk on 11/9/9,r,. Section 36.1-642 of the City Code requires that City Council schedule a public meeting and render a decision within sixty days of the receipt of a petition for appeal. The matter was scheduled for 1/8/96, an evening meeting, but was re-scheduled for 1/2/96 to meet Council's schedule and appeal hearing requirements. B. ~ is: "Petitioner feels that the rulina of the Architectural Review Board in denyinq its reauest to demolish the structures reDresented an abuse of discretion bY .,%~J.qL~_q..~ in that it ignored the economic realities associated with moving and rehabilitating said structures." "Petitioner also feels that this rulina is inconsistent with orevious rutinq~ of thn Board which have permitted demolition after a reasonable period of time was afforded to locate interested parties, if any, who would be willing to bear the removal and repair costs associated with the removal." "Petitioner also auestions the historic sianificance of the orooertv located at 1014 First Street. SW. and would further note that the structure located hi 1010 First Street. SW. is not uniq~? as evidenced by the fact that there is an older structure of identical design located less than a block away at 921 First Street, SW." III. Issues: As stated in Section 36.1-342 of the City Zoning Ordinance, ~ H-2. Neiohborhood Preservation District. is "to ensure the Dreservation of Members of Council Page 3 buildinas which, in their aaareaate or individually, are of soecial community ~. The general intent includes, among others, the following specific purposes": "Encourage preservation, protection~ and enhancement of streetacapss, structures and areas of architectural, historic or cultural importance;" "Encourage new construction, or alterations which are compatible with the existing scale and character of surrounding properties;" o "Encourage the rehabilitation and continued use of existing buildings, rather than their demolition." Section 36.1-348 of the City Code provides that the ARB shall issue a Certificate of ADorooriateness for demolition in the district where it find~ that: "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." "Demolition would not have an adverse effect on the character and surrounding environment of the district." '~/Vhere demolition is in conjunction with a proposed new use of the site, such use satisfies the intent and standards of the H-2 district." Co ARB adooted Architectural Desion Guidelines for the H-2 District to assist them in reviewing applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness. The applicable guidelines for new construction and demolition are included as Exhibit D and recommend: The size, proportion, and location of new buildings in relation to existing buildings is important in maintaining the appearance of the H-2 District. New buildings that reflect the traditional site planning and architectural characteristics of the neighborhood without copying the architecture provide a link between the past and present. Demolition of a building should only be considered if altamatives for rehabilitation are not feasible and the loss of a building will not adversely affect the integrity of the district. Members of Council Page 4 Preservation of a building in its existing location is preferable to it~ relocation. When relocation is unavoidable, the building, as well as adjacent buildings, must be stabilized to protect important architectural and structural features. Structures at 1010 and 1014 First Street. S.W. are si(3nificant architectural b_.~L[[.~;JJD~ within the H-2 district. Both are listed as contributing buildings in the National Register of Historic Places Inventory for the Southwest Historic District in Roanoke, Virginia. Mrs. Leslie Giles, Architectural Historian, for the Roanoke Regional Office of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, advised the ARB that "both structures reflect the history and architectural variation of the district" and "contribute to the historic character of First Street streetscape due to their high level of integrity". The building at 1010 First Street, S. W. is unique and especially contributing to the district because of its outstanding Queen Anne architecture. The building is a featured building on the information and marketing poster produced by the City for the Southwest Historic District, and it is included in on page 123 of W. L Whitwell's book, The Architectural Heritaoe of the Roanoke Valley. Previous history of demolitions in the historic district include the following: 1. 10/11/90 331,343 Day Avenue, S. W., First Baptist Church · Demolition for parking lot approved by ARB (Certificates No. 90-065, 90-066); ARB found that the buildin(3s were not unioue and loss of buildin(3s would not be adver$~ to the district. 2. 1/14/91 1001 Third Street, S. W, St. Mark's Lutheran Church · Demolition for parking lot denied by ARB; approved on appeal by City Council (Certificate No. 91-001). 3. 1~09~3 510 Marshall Avenue, S.W., Bob Hall & Nick Eades · Demolition of building approved by ARB (Certificate No.93-054). ARB found that because of the ooor condition of the buildino and it,~ location, its loss of buildin(3 would not be advers~ to the district. Members of Council Page 5 4. ~0~95 325, 327 Day Avenue, S. W., First Baptist Church · Demolition after 5/9/95 for parking lot approved by ARB (Certificates No. 95-004, 95-005). ARB found that the buildin(3s were not unioue and their Ios~ ~ to the district. They also found that the proposed new development was consistent with the City's Franklin Road/Elm Avenue Master Plan. Ninety day delay in demolition was crovided to allow the ch~lrch and nei(3hborhood to discuss oossible movino and/or f . F. Ootions to be considered other than demolition, include: Movin(3 of the structures to another location within the H-2 district - Episcopal Diocese has offered the properties to any party willing to move them and has offered $36,000 to assist with that effort. Use of other vacant oroDertv for construction of exoal~i0F! - Several vacant properties exist in the immediate area. Offer to sell orooertie~ - Section 36.1-349 of Zoning Code of City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, permits the owner of a property to demolish a building in a historic district after having applied to city council to demolish the building and having offered the property for sale for preservation and restoration for a specified period of time, based upon its market value, in accordance with Section 36.1-331 of the City Code. IV. Alternatives; ~ of the ARB. Deny the issuance of a Certificate Of ~ for demolition of the buildings at 1010 and 1014 First Street, S. W., but permit the removal of the contributing structures to another lot in Old Southwest. 1. Intent of the district suooorte~. o Review ouidelines and findin(~s of the Board sustainecl Loss of the buildings would be adverse to the district. Buildinos are architecturally important and contributinq to the district. 1010 First Street is architecturally unique to the district. Members of Council Page 6 Action would be consistent with oast ARB action~ regarding the demolition of important architectural buildings. 5. OPtions other than demolition of the buildinos can be our~qed. B. ~ of the ARB. ~ of the ARB. (This alternative would prevent the option to sell the property for rehabilitation.) D. ~J~EJJ]~ to the ARB. The Architectural Review Board respectfully requests that City Council affirm the Board's decision of October 12. 1995. to aoorove the removal, but not demQliti0n, of the buildings to an appropriate location in the Old Southwest Historic District, and to approve in concept the proposed addition to the Evans House (1000 First Street), consistent with the general scale, mass and architecture as discussed with the Board. Loss of the buildinos at 1010 and 1014 First Street. S. W. would be adverse to tho district bv virtue of their architectural uni(3ueness and si(3nificanc? Both buildings, especially 1010 First Street, contribute to the historic and architectural character of the Southwest Historic District; demolition is not considered appropriate. Respectfully submitted, ~an Archite,~ural Review Board "q'Y OF ROANOKE, VIRGINI/' ; t EXHIBIT APPUCATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 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 property or properties in the H,2, Neighborhood Preservation DistricL 1. NameofApplicant: Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virsinia A Doing business as (if applicable): N.A. Address of Appllcant: lOOO First St:reet;, SW Roa,~oke, V:l.r$t. nia 24009 Telephone (office): (540) 342-6797 (home): Location (address) of property or properties for which the Certificate of Appropriateness is requested: [000, [0].0 & 1014 First: St:feet:, SW AFl'ACH TO THIS APPLICATION THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF OWNERS OF THE LOTS OR PROPERTIES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO, TO THE REAR, AND DIRECTLY OPPOSITE THE PROPERTY. General description of each modification or improvement (please attach scaled drawings, photographs, materials, samples and any other items which detail your request). The Episcopal Diocese presents C/lllcr. IlIllaLdrawings for ARB review and will reappear before the ARB at a later date for approval of the 6,,li,~.d design. Currently. the Episcopal Diocese requests: 1. Allllmt/~_iV_.~tl~ of scale and massing of the proposal addition to Evans House (structure at 1000 First Street). 2. Alllmlt/ni.k~la~ that the proposed addition will be of an architectural appearance consistent with the existing Evans House. 3. ~ to ~move by demolition the strUctures at 1010 & 1014 Fn'st 8u'~et if no party wi~llng to move the suuctu~s from the property accepts tho offer of the Episcopal Diocese to donam tim two structures and a financial contribution (estimst~l cost of demolition) toward their move, or if such a party fails to remove the structures from the property by the commencement of construction of the ARB approved fi~.~?ed design. Construction is not expected to be~in prior to April 1. 1996. THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED IN INK. ANY INCOMPLETE FORM OR FORM LACKING REQUIRED A'FI'ACHMENTS, WILL NOT BE SCHEDULED FOR BOARD ACTION. Is there any application relevant to this property and the subject modifications or improvements pending or contemplated before the Board of Zoning Appeals, City Planning Commission or City Council? yes xx no (if yes, please specify) Who will represent the applicant before the Architectural Review Board (representative should have authority to commit applicant to make changes that may be suggested by the Board)? Name: Alan Boyce Episcopal Diocese S~eetAddrsss: lOOO First Street, SW Ben Motlev/Ron Dulanev Motley & Associates 310 First Street, Suite 30( City/State/Zip: Roanoke, VirKinia 24009 Roanoke. Vir~iBia 240ll Telephone No.: (54O) 342-6797 Signature of owner: S~gnature (540) 344-1212 Signa'~'fl:~of applicant or agent: (please print or type name) (please' print or ~y'~e) TO BE COMPLETED BY ARB STAFF: Received by: Date: Tax No.: Historic District: EXHIBIT B Roanoke City Architectural Review Board O~ober 19, 1995 Mr. Alan Boyce Episcopal Diocese 1000 First Street, S. W. Roanoke, VA 24009 DearMr. Boyce: Su~ect: Application for Certificate of Appropriateness Certificate No. 95-035 On October 12, 1995, The Architectural Review Board of the City of Roanoke, Vir/inia, considered your request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal and demolition of the structures at 1010 and 1014 First Street and the conceptual approval of the scale, massing, and arch/tecture ora new building as per submitted plans. After considerable discussion by the Board, representatives of the Diocese, representatives of Old Southwest, Inc., and the public, the Bcard voted 4-0 to approve the removal, but not demolition, of the buildings to an appropriate location in the Old Southwest Historic District, and to approve in concept the proposed addition to the Evans House (1000 First Street), consistent with the general scale, mass and architecture as discussed with the Board. Messrs. Manetta, Jones, Harwood, and Whitwell voted in favor of the motion; Messrs. Motley and Deck abstained from the discussion; and Mr. J'amieson was absent from the meeting. The Board's decision was based upon its finding that the loss of the buildings at 1010 and 1014 First Street, S. W. would be adverse to the district by virtue of their architectural uniqueness and significance. Both buildings, especially 1010 First Street, contn'oute to the historic and architectural character of the Southwest Historic District; demolition was not considered appropriate. There was no time limit established for the Certificate that was issued. The Board encouraged the Diocese to work further with Old Southwest and others regarding moving the houses to an appropriate location in the neighborhood. It was noted that once a new location was established, a Certificate of Appropriateness would be required to erect the structure on the new lot. Room 162 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (540) 981-2344 Mr. Alan Boyce Page 2 October 19, 1995 Pleese contact me if you should have any questions regarding this matter. % Sincerely, Roanoke City Architectural Review Board /esl attachment cc: Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Winston Corbett, Zoning Inspector Ben Morley, Motley + Associates Dick W'tliis, Old Southwest, Inc. Roanoke City AmhitecturaJ Review Board CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS No. 95-035 Dat~: October 12, 1995 On October 12, 1995, the Roanoke City Architectural Review Board granted this Certificate of Appropriateness to the Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virginia, approving the removal, but not demolition, of buildings at 1010 and 1014 First Street, S.W., to an appropriate location in the Old Southwest historic district, and approval in concept of the proposed addition to the Evans House (1000 Fu~ Street, S.W.), tach addition to be cons~tent with the general scale, m~s and architecture as discussed with the Board. Architectural Review Board Room 162 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (540) 981-2344 EXHIBIT C Architectural Review Board Page 7 October 12, 1995 parking area, and painting or staining of treated lumber within one year. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harwood and approved 6-0. Eoiscooal Diocese of Southwestern Viraini;i 1000. 1010 and 1014 First Street. S,W, Set out below is a full transcript of the above-referenced agenda item. Tony Whitwell - Our next request from the Episcopal Diocese of Southwest Virginia, certificate of appropriateness for addition to the structure 1000 First Street, S.W., and demolition of 1010 and 1014 First Street, S.W. Mr. Motley. Ken Motley - Mr. Chairman I would like for the record to show that I'm stepping down for a possible conflict of interest. Tony Whitwell - Mr. Deck? Kevin Deck - Yes, myself as well. Tony Whitwell - Thank you very much. Before we go on with this request, I would like to ask the petitioners and the members of the audience to limit their comments to a reasonable amount of time. Please not to repeat each other and the procedures of the Board are that the questions from the audience come to the Board not to the petitioners. So the petitioners are not to be in the situation of being questioned directly by the members of the audience. With that in line, we'll have the petitioners start with their presentation please. Steve Talevi - Mr. Whitweil, while the architects are still setting up, let me. point out that a certificate for any action taken in cor~nection with this project will require three votes out of the four. Tony Whihve#- correct Steve Talevi - I would also like to point out that Mr. Motley, it is my understanding, is at least one of the ownem of the architectural firm appearing in front of us today, and Mr. Deck, I believe, is employed by that same company. Tony Whitwell - Would you clarify also since we have a quorum, because of the way it works, what happens in the case of a split vote. Steve Talevi - The request for the certificate would be denied. They need a majority of those present and voting. Architectural Review Board Page 8 October 12, 1995 Tony Whitwell - okay. Ben Motley - Good afternoon. My name is Ben Motley. I'm the president of Motley and Associates, representing the Episcopal Diocese of Southwest Virginia. I would like to introduce to you as well Mr. Alan Boyce, who is the Deputy Administration for the Episcopal Diocese and Mr. Ron Dulaney, from our office as well. Mr. Boyce would like to make some opening comments please. Tony Whitwell - Thank you. Mr. Boyce. Alan Boyce - A complete copy of Mr. Boyce's comments are attached as Exhibit A to these minutes and made a pert thereof. Tony Whitwell - Thank you very much. Ben Ben Motley - We ara seeking today concept approval in three major categories; (1) the scale and massing of the proposed design; (2) the general character of the proposed design; and the removal of the structures at 1010 and 1014. You have been involved throughout ~ process, as Mr. Boyce indicated, in an informal way, so now we are coming to you formally. I am going to present the proposed scheme. We are not going to present, unless you want us to, the other schemes that have been looked at. So now I'll go ahead and present the proposed scheme. A little bit of orientation, looking at First Street the Episcopal Diocese is, of course, on the corner of First Street and Highland, and this is what we refer to as the 1010 property, the Queen Anne House, and 1014 property. You already know that the edge of the historical district is dght here at the back of the alley, the H-2 overlay. And, of course, you know that this is in a C-1, commercial district. So, this is a photograph showing the front of the houses and the existing site plan at a larger scale. There are some limits and challenges, of course, with this project. The basic proposal included removing these two historic structures on adjacent properties. You'll find more detail in our presentation booklet. It talks about the options. Of course, that means that everyone would.., the highest desire would be if these could be retained and relocated to somewhere else. One of the things we really tried to concentrate on is the scale and massing. Keeping the new, the replaced structures in conformance with one, the general character of the existing Episcopal Diocese and also with the character of the street. Even though the ~ relxaser~ a one sto~ facility, which I might mention is very important to the functionality and programmatic needs of the diocese, its roof line is very close the existing roof line there on the street. You can see here that the top of the roof line on the photograph is approximate to the top of the roof lines of the two existing residential structures and in the proposed plan you see that as well. We've also taken extreme care to mass program the spaces in a way which will mimic the scale of the street. Also the roof line I think is evident, reflects the existing Episcopal Diocese and also we believe is compatible with the fabric of the neighborhood. The parking would still come back from the alley, off of the alley, and this sc, hame allows us to meet the increasing demands for peddng for the diocese. It will require some minor vadance to obtain this parking. We have Architectural Review Board Page 9 October 12, 1995 discussed that with the zoning board. One of the few things that is also worth mentioning. This is a commercial district. It is not a residential district. The marketability and the ongoing maintenance of these existing residences, if this plan is not approved, is a concern, I think to the entire community. We believe that this project will provide a stable edge to the H-2 district. There's obviously a lot of commercial structures and all right behind the property, at the edge of the historical district. With the type of construction which is proposed, which is masonry and slate roofs and the like, again we believe will provide a very stable edge and be a good neighbor in this important area. Check my notes real quick to see if there's other points. The style of the building of the Episcopal Diocese, there is a precedent in other structures throughout Old Southwest, with the churches, in particular, so we believe it is compatible in that regard. That is basically our presentation at this point. We'll be glad to answer any questions. Tony Whitwell - Thank you. To begin with, are there questions from the Board members? Richard Jones -You put forth three proposals and the later was the demolition of those two homes. Wouldn't that be better to be the first thing that we should consider inasmuch as if that is defeated the other two proposals are moot, are they not? Ben Motley - Let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying that we should first consider the demolition? Richard Jones - Yes, because without the demolition you can't build the project. Ben Motley - Well, my first proposal is to offer the houses to some interested party so that they are relocated. I think that would be the most desirable. Richard Jones - Oh, certainly. Robert Manetta- Do I understand then at at this point you're not requesting demolition? Ben Motley - We're requesting removal. Tony Whitw~:-Now we don't gat into semantics here. Counselor? Your petition is for removal, not ~ demolition? Ron Dulaney - If no party comes forth to accept the houses, then the proposal is to demolish the structures at that point. Tony Whitwell - So the certificate that you are asking to have issued is to read demolition or removal? Counselor? Architectural Review Board Page 10 October 12, 1995 Steve Talevi - I've understood they ere seeking both - either removal or demolition. Well, Ms. Gunter has just pointed out to me that the application states that they are seeking approval only for removal by demolition. Tony Whitwell - That's what it says here on the application. Steve Talevi - Excuse me, I take that back. Tony Whitwell - Down here on number 3. Steve Talevi - Okay, she has pointed out to me the full text of that paragraph, they are in fact seeking both - removal by demolition and permission to permit someone to remove the structures. Tony Whitwell - Do we need to clarify this issue at the very beginning of this discussion or not? Steve Talevi - I think we've just clarified it Mr. Whitwell. I think they are seeking permission to either demolish it or remove it and in either case whether it's demolished, as I understand it, or removed, they want to erect what he has just described to you. Tony Whitwell - Right, correct. Does that clear it up for everybody? Ben Motley -If I could, semantics aside, the diocese obviously wants to offer them first, offer them for (silent??) second, demolition as the final option. Tony Whitwell - Right, that shows up in the report too. Is there more Board comment, do you want me to open up to the audience? Don Hanvood - I just have one question for clarification. Is there a specific time line you are then looking at tt~t at · certain point if the houses have not been dealt with by way of removal, that you would ask for, that you would ask or you would assume that you could begin demolitJo~ TonY Whitwe#- That's in your report, Apdl 1, 1996. Am I correct? Unidentified - yes Don Hanvood - Tha~s when construction begins. Is that the date you're... Tony Whitwell - That's the date at which time demolition would take place. It's modeled on the pattern that we had for the Baptist church over here. Don Hanvood - April 1 would be the date? Architectural Review Board Page 11 October 12, 1995 Tony Whitwell - April 1 would be the date you're asking for?. Ben Motley - Yes. Tony Whitwell - And that would become part of a motion, one way or another. Steve Talevi - I'm sorry Mr. Whitwell, April 1, is the date, April 1, 1996, is the date for what? Tony Whitwell - Is the date for demolition. Pdor to that time negotiations for removal. It's exactly the same thing as we did.with the Baptist church. Stave Talevi - I would like to point out that regardless of whether they remove it ~ demolish it, I believe the standards the Board has to apply are in 36.1-330. Even if the structure is removed, for all practical purposes, that is a demolition. If the structure is lost and on we go. Tony Whitwell - We have in front of us 36.1-348. Steve Talevi - 348? Tony Whitwell - 348. 36.1-348 demolition. Steve Talevi - I'm sony I was looking at the H-1. The standard for H-2 demolition is in 348. Tony Whitwell - Okay, that's the one we're guided by in this. Don, did you want to say something else? Don Harwood - Not at this time, no. Tony Whitwell - Ben if I could ask you to move the display boards maybe in back of the podium if you wouldn't mind. Ben Motley - Sure Tony Whitwell - Thank you. I'll open this up now for audience comment. Dick Willis - My name is Dick Willis. I am president of Old Southwest, Inc., the neighborhood association within which these structures reside. Thank you very much for the presentation. We have, as the architects have inferred, been involved with this plan since its inception. The diocese has been gracious in allowing us, in hearing our ideas, and being, listening to our concerns about their plans. And in our opinion, the basic question is cost benefit of the properties in question. The two structures are shown, are a non- hazard, they're not falling down, they are in good shape. We don't feel that there is any need to replace them with another structure and from the ordinance and from the Architectural Review Board Page 12 October 12, 1995 guidelines that have recently been developed by the city, it is relatively clear that it is only in a case where the benefit to the neighborhood is great enough to justify the loss of the structures that those ~ should be removed. We believe that the streetscape as is would be irreparably changed by putting in this new building. As much as the architects have worked on our behalf to make it harmonious with the streetscape, it's different and it will not be the same as it was with the buildings that are there now. We feel it is very clear that once these buildings are removed, whether that's demolished or relocated, the tone of the street will change, the tone of the neighborhood will change. As soon as they are demolished we will have lost that resource forever and it will be historic resources within the neighborhood will be diminished. And therefore based on the what we see today, I don't see there's anyway that we should allow this continue. The renovation, the development of the new project is not going to be of benefit to our neighborhood. It will be of benef'~ to the diocese. It will not be a benefit to our neighborhood. We do not see any way in shape or form that the removal of these structures will be of benefit to our neighborhood. Thank you. Tony Whitwell - Thank you. Did you wish to speak sir? Frank Roupas - My name is Frank Roupas - R O U P A S - members of the board, only have 2 minutes to speak here - just a few words. I have been a Roanoke property owner for 35 years, since age 19. That's when I became a landlord. I admire old buildings and old houses. I also love old care. I have 3, 40-year old Buicks with all 3 having over 200,000 miles on them. They are in better running condition than I am. I hope and pray that the board will vote against raising the two beautiful buildings on First Street. I own two houses in southeast that were built in 1890. A southeast church has offered me big money so they can raze these beautiful old structures. They have been after me to sell to them for 20 years. I will not sell to this church. In 1890, when those 2 houses were built, they've only had one more roof. In other words, 2 roofs now since 1890. They don't build old houses like thaL I hope the board will vote to save these two beautiful mansions on First Street. These houses are precious and they should not be razed. Thank you. Tony Whitweil - Jan, did you wish you say something? rm just going back in the audience. Perle? Leslie? Leslie Gilee - I dm't normally have a prepared written statement I decided to do that today because there are such important issues surrounding this particular property. I have a copy of my letter (A COPY OF LESLIES STATEMENT IS A'I'rACHED AS EXHIBIT B AND MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES.) Tony Whitwell - Thank you Leslie. PUt that into the record. Is tYmre someone else from the audience who would like to speak? Heath Light - My name is Heath Light. I'm the bishop of the Diocese of Southwestern Virginia and obviously have a vested interest in this. Episcopalians very seldom are Architectural Review Board Page 13 October 12, 1995 accused of being insensitive to historic issues. In fact most of the criticisms that we get is that we're so deeply rooted in history sometime we're not flexible enough in the present moment. I'm under the impression that this committee is not here to determine in terms of elevations what is a suitable or an unsuitable office of the diocese of southwestern Virginia, which would impact either Swift Print or being across the street. I am under the impression that this committee is here in order to consider the best possible move for the preservation of a historic area in the state, in that part of the city. And I would suggest to you that the matter that is being proposed before you would in essence establish a barrier between Old Southwest and the encroachment of commercial, real estate, and busyness of Jefferson Street and would form Marietta anappropriate gateway utilizing histodc architectural things in Tudor style which would be consistent with significant edifices in the City. I suggest to you that quite apart from whatever considerations might be with reference to potential damage to the neighborhood that the proposal would be a tremendous enhancement and gateway to Old Southwest. I ask for your approval. Tony Whitwell - Thank you sir. Is there anybody else in the audience? Jan, please. Jan WilkJns - My name is Jan Wilkin~ and I am a resident of Old Southwest and also vice president of the organization Old Southwest Incorporated. I just wanted to say that we've bccn at this for many years with similar confrontations and it's never pleasant, but I feel like we've come a long way in the years and one of the significant demonstrations in that fact is this book here (holding a copy of the Architectural Design Guidelines for the H-2 District), which is developed after many, many years of citizen input. These are guidelines that say in pdnt what ought to be happening in these districts and they cleady say this should not be happening. It's a last resort situation and we've not reached the last resort. The taxpayers of this city spent $45,000 to develop this book and I think that to ignore what's in here and to trash $45,000 would be perfectly silly. Thank you. Tony Whitwell - Thank you. Somebody else from the audience wish to speak? Ms. Bethel did you want to speak. Evelyn Bethel ~ no Tony Whitw~ll - Mr. Willis? Dick Willis - Thank you for hearing me again. I would just like to respond to some of the comments that have been made by other people from the audience. The comment that by putting this building in place we'd then have a gateway, a buffer zone between Old Southwest and a commercial zone is in my opinion ludicrous. This building that we put in place constitutes in itself an encroachment on Old Southwest. It is not of historic nature. It is readily apparent to all those who see the plans for it that it does not, that it mimics in some respects, their house-like structures. It is not a historic type building. It is not close to anything on that street. It is a gateway of some sort in that is a large building, permanently placed and therefore be viewed by many people. So as far as a gateway to Architectural Review Board Page 14 October 12, 1995 Old Southwest as representative of its architecture, I feel that it is incorrect. And as far as the board is concerned about the comparison between demolition, from our experience with First Baptist in moving the houses on Day Avenue, we were again offered that opportunity to move the houses and as the board knows, we were unable to do that. It is very expensive to move houses and the houses on Day Avenue had significant rental income potential and the banks were ten to fifteen thousand dollars away from us being able to get a deal dosed. Right now, and that was with a contribution from the church, I believe, Mr. Motley is incorrect in saying that this is the first time a church has actually donated any money toward moving the property. That is not true. First Baptist also made that offer but it was insufficient for us to move (me house, much less two houses. And these houses are smaller and they are going to be harder to turn around quickly into rental property. Basically if we count on the houses being removed, you can count on them being demolished. Thank you. Tony Whitwell - Thank you. Mr. Motley, you wish to speak again? Ben Motley - I did not comment on the issue of First Baptist Church. That was not my comment. Tony Whitwell - Do you wish to say anything else? Perle? Perle Bdgham - I'm Perle Brigham and I'm a resident of Old Southwest and I haven't been here for a very long time. I'm a former board member of Old Southwest. I have been a resident for 8 years and I'm starting to get a little discouraged because so much of Old Southwest's energy has to go into things of this nature. I think what we're after in Old Southwest is not mimicry. When I was on the board of directors of Old Southwest I had the privilege of often going on the van dde with you guys prior to the meetings and was pdvy to your conversations and on a few occasions sew you go by infill projects that you had approved in the past that hadn't quite worked out. And every time a replacement building goes in where something else was the architects usually will expound upon how it works, how the mass is like and the angles and everything are like what used to be there. But really so many of those projects have never, they don't look right in the neighborhood. And as far as demolitions go, once a vacant lot is there or a parking lot all you've got is a fiat surface with no mass and no angles and no roof line. I'm starting to get real nervous about what's happening in the neighborhood. I've had complete confidence in Old SouthwasL I grew up in Raleigh Court, lived in New York, Kay West, New York City, up- state New York, New Jersey, came back to Roanoke and chose Old Southwest. I'm starting to see it sort of fall apart and our edges of our biggest problem and I would ask you to turn this down. Thank you. Tony Whitwell - Thank you. Ron Oulaney - I would just like to say that the houses ware referenced as being in good condition and the preliminary assessment that we've given that is not the case with these Architectural Review Board Page 15 October 12, 1995 houses. At best these houses are in fair condition. In particular, the BMRC has experienced periodically extensive leaking of the roof which has caused damage on the intedor and we suspected that in the structure and decking of the roof to give an example of that. I would also like to say that in terms of feasibility and the options that were presented by Ms. Giles, the diocese has made every effort to feasibly remain in their current location. I think that to talk about expansion, unless the plan is approved, there is no option for the diocese to expand in their current location and would involve a move. So the issue is not without expanding to a differant location then the one that we've considered here, but would force a move on the part of the diocese. In terms of the fact or the statement that razing houses in the past has contributed to vacant parking lots, that is specifically why we, in this request, have stated that the removal, the demolition of those houses would not occur until we reappeared before the Board with the finalized design. So I think fundamentally the issue is the diocese has been a good resident of this neighborhood, bccn there for a long time, been there for 50 years. Unless they have some options to expand in their current location, they will not be able to remain where they are and what the point is, they are suggesting a significant investment in the neighborhood and we feel like what we've done here, while it does perhaps not, it is not a wooden structure, it is not replacing a like structure in its place, it is in fact of a consistent scale and character to the existing Evans house and a consistent scale to the other properties in the neighborhood. Thanks very much. Tony Whitwell - Thank.you. Any further audience comment? We'll turn back the Board then. Gentlemen? Mr. Marietta Robert Manetta - Well, I like win-win solutions, and fortunately, most of the time when we set up here we have an opportunity to have them. Occasionally, we don't and I'm unfortunately seeing, at least from my own perspective, that in this situation, the interests and desires of the Episcopal Diocese may not be compatible with what my responsibilities are in helping the City of Roanoke manage this histodc district and make sure that it is, we abide by both the ordinances and the policies that have been set up concerning the management of those, in particular, when it comes to the question of demolition. In this particular case, I think Ms. Giles has stated fairly clearly a position that although it would not be of benefit to the Episcopal Diocese, it is to the benefit of the historic district as a whole. I believe it's in the economic interest of the City of Roanoke and the landowners within that area it is consistent. I believe that those properties and I'11, well you heard us mentioning earlier the demolition ordinance, one of the things we must look at is the loss of a structure would not be adverse to the district or the public interest, by virtue of its uniqueness or its significance to the district. I can't speak to the other building, but the Queen Anne building has been pointed out by numerous individuals who have testified here and in discussions with the architects in prior meetings, is a fairly unique building to this district. I believe there is one other somewhere nearby in the district. This in fact may be the very building that wes used by Old Southwest as part its logo. Whether or not it is the one or just like it, it is certainly typical of the neighborhood and a very contributing, it is contributing to the neighborhood historically, I mean architecturally, and for that and the Architectural Review Board Page 16 October 12, 1995 other reasons laid out in Ms. Giles' submittal, I intend to vote in opposition of the request and would so move. Tony Whitwell - Now we have to be very dear what you are moving here. Are you dividing this into the 3 components or are you just moving number 3? I'm referring to the application sheet. Robert Manetta - I would submit, and I would, may be Counsel could clari~ for us, that at this point we have a Certif'Kate of Appropriateness application here which includes 3 items, but obviously the removal or demolition of theea 2 buildings is a key element without which none of the rest can follow, so I'm moving the denial of the certificate. Tony Whitwell - The denial of the certificate for the demolition? So you're leaving out points 1 and 2 from your motion? Is that correct? Points 1 and 2 from the application. Robe~ Manetta - Well at this point, Mr. Chairman, I'm moving the denial of the certificate so the other point to me would be irrelevant. Tony VVhitwell - Alright, is there a second to that? Richard Jones - I will second that and that's based upon, I think, motion number 3 predicates the other 2. I would be willing to vote for the first and the second, but of course if you don't demolish those buildings that's a moot point, so I will second that motion. Tony Whitwell - Alright, we have a motion on the floor then. It is to deny the application for the certificate of appropdataness, correct? All understand? Marthal we're clear on that. Counselor? All set? Steve Talevi - Yes, sir. I understand that Mr. Manetta had moved to deny the application for a certificate of appropriateness. Tony VVhitwell - Correct. Steve Talevi - That motion, es I understand it, provides that Mr. Manetta would not support either the removal or the demolition of the structure. Robert Menetta - If I read the ordinence correctly and lhe way you have already stated that in your opinion earlier, there really is no difference. Steve Talevi - Mr. Manetta, I believe that it is theoretically, when I said that there in no difference, what I meant was that the Code section applies, 36.1-348 applies, to both a removal and a demolition. That is all that I meant that there is no difference. Architectural Review Board Page 17 October 12, 1995 Tony Whitwell - I would like to hop in and say here we have got to give this process time to work itself out. The Episcopal Diocese has offered $36,000 towards the moving. Has the moving of the structures been completely explored? They put that offer on the table. If we completely deny this this afternoon or the vote goes the other way, we have no options. We've lost all our flexibility. The church has held its hand out to Old Southwest and other people and put money in the hand. You have to let the process go down the line a little further. Steve Talevi - Mr. Manetta, do you understand that your motion is a denial of both removal and demolition? Robert Manetta - If you can point out the difference in that particular section of the ordinance or some olYmr ordinance that pertains to removal as opposed to demolition and there is an alternative to just approving removal and not demolition, then I'd be happy to modify my motion, but at this point, in re-reviewing, in looking at this ordinance again I see no reference to removal. Either it applies to removal or it doesn't Steve Talevi - Mr. Manatta, in my opinion Section 36.1-348 does apply to a removal setting. However, it is theoretically possible for a Board member to believe that the removal of these structures replaced by what has been proposed today is acceptable to the Board, whereas demolition, even replaced by what has been proposed today is unacceptable. That is why I am asking that you clarify that your motion to deny the certificate is a motion to deny both removal and demolition. Richard Jones - It seems to me like they are one in the same. I mean, the way this petition has been handed to us, I don't see as that we have any choice but to consider that it is demolition. Robert Manetta - May I ask you this question then Counselor, if I may continue? Tony Whitwell - Please Robert Manetta - If I modified my motion so that it only allowed removal and the archdiocese came at some time in the future and said that we want a permit to demolish these buildings based on what the certificate would read based on my supposed motion, the City would deny that? Steve Talevi - I'm sorry Mr. Manetta I didn't follow what your question was. Robert Marietta - Alright, presuming that I modify my motion and the second also agrees to that so that if we do approve removal but not demolition, Steve Talevi - correct Architectural Review Board Page 18 October 12, 1995 Robert Manatta- and at sometime in the futura the Archdiocese wishes to demolish the premises and doesn't come back before this Board and asks to have a certificate of appropriateness to tear down the buildings, ~ instead comes straight to the city and says we'd like to have a permit to remove these two buildings by demolition, that request would be denied? Steve Talevi - They would be unable to demolish pursuant to a certificate of appropriateness. They can, of course, apply to City Council for permission to demolish under another Code section, but that Code section does not involve the issuance (end of tape)... · Robert Manetta- (beginning of tape).., removal of the buildings and then to go ahead and move the certificate of appropriateness to include removal but not demolition and other two items within the proposal. Don Hanvood - I'm a little bit of a legal layman hera and so I'm not real sure about what's going on, but I'd like to ask a simple question and I think this is maybe what you all ara getting to. Is there, and let me back up for a moment and to also respond to what Mr. Whitwell said. I think that the diocese has offered something that is the best offer that has been put out so far. I urxJerstand that there's been monetary offedngs befora and I feel that should be given its due process to go through that. I, as a board member, would be very much against the demolition of the buildings, however, if there was a way to word this or ask that the group would reword this to state that they would be asking for removal only and removal be defined as the moving of the structure to another location and not to be demolition then I would think that would be an appropriate move. Is that what you all were getting to? Tony Whitwatl - That's the direction I was headed. But, Martha, how well can we remember what we did with the Baptist church. Martha Franklin - I'll be glad to go downstairs and check Tony Whitwe#- What rm trying to say is what we did with th~ Baptist church is we gave them a time frmne and a relatively long time frame and we said, "do your negotiations within this time frame," and on that date, I believe, it was to be May 1st, am I correct? "On May 1st you may demolish if you can't do removal before then. Evie Lander- You granted them a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the structures after a certain date. Tony Whitwetl - Correct. No, you don't like that. You want to stay with your removal then? Robert Manetta - Removal only. Architectural Review Board Page 19 October 12, 1995 Richard Jones - Mr. Harwood mentioned to another location. I'd like to tie that down to the location would be in Old Southwest, that area. Tony Whitwell - Robert, what I'd like you to do then is to reframe your motion and I'm sure your seconder will go along with it. Robert Manetta- Removal of buildings at 1010 and 1014 First Street, S.W., to an appropriate location in Old Southwest Roanoke within the historic district, let's put it that way, and approval in concept of proposed addition to Evans house, such addition to be consistent with the general scale~ mass and architecture discussed with the Board. And let me so state now that I've made my motion, if you don't mind, I very much like their project because of the scale and because of their attempt to try to keep the new structure consistent with at least scale and mass of that portion of the neighborhood. If those were two vacant lots, this would not be a complicated issue in my mind. Steve Talevi - Mr. Manetta, you are also specifically denying their request for a certificate to demolish those two structures? Robert Manetta- My motion is only for removal, specifically not for demolition. Tony Whitwell - Alright that motion is - your second will still stand? Richard Jones - yes. Tony Whitwell - Okay Don Hanvood - I would just like to play devil's advocate for a moment and ask if we need to further define removal to another location. If it was to be something where the building was set temporedly on a base to where it would not be further developed and therefore at some point fall prey to vandalism or further destruction, with that possibility out there, could we, is it viable at all to state that it needs to be set on a permanent foundation at another location? Do you know what I'm getting at? Steve Talevi - Mr. Harwood, before they could erect the removed structure, they would still need a certificate of appropriateness as long as it was in the H-2 district. Don Harwood - okay, that answem my question. Tony Whitwell - Mr. Boyce, did you want to make another comment? Alan Boyce - Thank you Mr. Whitwetl. At this point, we have delayed our process by at least a year, in looking, exploring the various options, talking to the neighborhood. What we would like to have is your decision. We think that we have chased the rabbit long enough, the rabbit that takes and works on moving the houses with the Old Southwest. Architectural Review Board Page 20 October 12, 1995 We've made our offer, we've offered to contribute the houses, we've offered to contribute $36,000 to go with the houses and we would be hopeful that someone would come forward to take the houses and would be able to save the houses. But at this point, I think for us to move on and for us to explore then our options, we need your decision that says that we can remove by demolition those two properties, because if we have you say today that you're approving only continuous construction based upon their removal to somewhere else, then that puts the burden primarily on us at this point to move those houses. Steve Talevi - Sir, Mr. Manetta's motion is to permit removal if that occurs and to deny demolition. Alan Boyca - Well, but we don't want to have, I think, as the only option to us, moving the house. Steve Talevi - I understand that. Alan Boyce - Okay, so the only thing I can think of it might come to a point where the houses would need to be demolished and we want that option. Steve Talevi - I understand that. At least Mr. Manetta seems to be of the opinion that he is not in favor of permitting that option. Richard Jones - What we're doing is modifying his request, saying we'll let him move it but we won't let him demolish it.. There's no legal problem with that? Steve Talevi - no Don Harwood - In essence we're denying the demolition Steve Talevi - you're giving him half of what he asked for. Tony Whitwell - With no time frame Richard Jones- Well, obviously ha can't proceed with his constn.~ction with the project until those buildin~ are removed. Robert Manetta- Mr. Chairman, I think if that situation were to change and they would want to come forward again with another application for demolition, that that certainly is something they are going to be capable of doing. But at this point, I'm not putting a time frame on there because I don't think we're dealing with marginally contributing structures. I think we are dealing with a significant structure in Old Southwest and I think at least it's clear in my mind what role I must play in this, which is to prohibit the demolition of that building. Architectural Review Board Page 21 October 12, 1995 Dick Willis - Dick Willis again. I would like to thank the Board for their comments supporting the fact that these houses are contributing structures to our neighborhood. The neighborhood's feelings with regards to if the diocese is forced to forego these plans and since the expansion is a requirement for them to continue to operating, if therefore the only option is either to do this or go elsewhere, the neighborhood regretfully would allow that. We do not feel that it is going to be a contributing factor to trade the houses for the structure as much as we regret losing the diocese as a neighbor. Steve Talevi - Mr. Chairman, I believe we have a motion and I don't recall whether the motion was seconded. Tony VVhitwell - It was, Mr. Jones seconded it. I'm trying to allow as much discussion as possible here. I have one question Mr. Boyce. How long has the $36,000 offer been on the table. Alan Boyce - It was in September, I think around mid-September, about September 13. Tony VVhitwell - So it's been there since September. Alan Boyoa - Correct. Tony Whitwell - That's not a terribly long time. I would address the architectural firm, how long does it take to get these house moving plans underway? Ron Dulaney - Hill House Movers have said it's about a 6-8 week process Tony VVhitwell - From the time somebody signs the contract with him until it happens, or Ron Dulaney - That's how long the job would take. Tony Whitwell - That's how long the job would take. Ron Dulaney - right Tony Whitwell - Mr. Boyoa, you want to speak again? Alan Boyce - I would once again like to request, maybe I don't understand all the wranglings with the motion, but I would like to have our motion we presented either voted yea or nay. Tony Whitwell - In order to do that I have to ask Mr. Marietta to withdraw his motion and I'm not sure he's willing to do that. That's not only parliamentary procedure, but that's just the way board's like this work. He's made a motion. Now I can ask him as Chairman to Architectural Review Board Page 22 October 12, 1995 withdraw it, but he has a perfect right to say no. And the seconder has to go along with it too. Robert Manetta- I have no desire to withdrew my motion. Tony Whitwell - There we are, so that is the motion sitting on the table at this Board and even as chairman there is really not very much I can do about it. I am trying to keep the discussion going hoping someone doesn't call for a question and out off the debate completely. I am trying to keep it open and going so there is a good exchange of views and everybody gets chance to say what they want to say. Don. Don Harwood - It's my interpretation of the motion that's on the floor really does answer the diocese question, we would be denying, if it was voted and it was passed, that we would be denying the request for demolition, but allowing for the removal of. So it's a conditional situation, but it would definitely give you an answer as to where the board would stand. Tony Whitwell - It also, if I°m correct allows the petitioner to come back with a demolition request. Is that correct? Steve Talevi - Well, he's already made that request Mr. Whitwell. Tony Whitwell - But he can make it again now can't he? Steve Talevi - I suppose ha could. Richard Jones - Isn't there a time limit after a person has refused a ccartificate? Tony VVhitwell - I think there is. That's in there somewhere, there is a time limit on that. What's your pleasure gentlemen you want to put a vote on the table and be done with it? Perle Perle Brigham - Something that I think is being overlooked that usually is a concem for us and the ARB i~ the ~ of the streetscape and that the houses, especially the Queen Anne, may be significant and contributing structures to the neighborhood and they are contributing in the place that they are in now. Given the fact that the thought of moving them is so financially unfeasible anyway it seems to be like the latest move in approaching Old Southwest and say we'll give you these if you can move them. But that destroys the neighborhood in and of itself. Even if we could move them, it changes very much what's there now and the way the pieces interlock and that might not be true if we could move it down the street or ac~-o~s the street and that is something I don't think anybody has really talked about, but I know you all consider in porch enclosures and front yard fences and that sort of thing, that streetscape is a major concept in preservation. Architectural Review Board Page 23 October 12, 1995 Tony Whitwell - Thank you. Steve Talevi - Mr. Chairmen, under 36.1-642(f) the City Code provides as follows: "in the case of disapproval of an application before the board, the board shall briefly state its reasons in writing and it may make recommendations to the applicant. In the case of disapproval accompanied by recommendations, the applicant may again be heard before the board if he files an amended application that addresses the recommendations of the board within 90 days." Tony Whitwell - There we go, so.they can come back in 90 days? Don Harwood - to respond to recommendations that this board would make. Steve Talevi - right Tony Whitwell - It would appear to me that since the $36,000 has only been on the table since September and as we directed Motley Associates to do, they were to come up with feasibility studies and specific costs with the moving and contacting Mr. Hill and so on and so on, it seems its reasonable to allow the process to go down the street a little longer. Mr. Willis? Dick Willis - In response to your comment about, do we have figures for what it would cost to move these properties? Tony Whitwell - We have tentative figures, yes. Dick Willis - Okay, we have tentative figures as well. I'm just trying to figure out what kind of numbers are we looking at because in our analysis, it wes no way, a snowball's chance. Robot. Manetta- I have at the top of a page somewhere in the middle of it, it says house moving companies and estimated cost of moving the 1010 structure to the Carillon parcel mentioned above, and it says the assessed value of parcel and gives the amount of $24,000, estimated possible cost of building new foundation and move house to above parcel, $75,000, estimated total investment to move $100,000. Tony Whitwell - correct Dick Willis - thank you Robert Manetta - and that's for the 1010 property and I presume there's probably discussion of one of the other properties. Architectural Review Board Page 24 October 12, 1995 Tony Whitwell - There are a lot of factors to be considered as we mentioned, they are talking about a Carilion property there and there are other things to be thought about in terms of moving, but yes the $100,000 is a ballpark figure. Robert Manetta- Can I ask Counsel a question? Tony Whitwell - yes Robert Manetta- Do you interpret the motion that is currently before this body as a denial with recommendations or just a plain partial approval? Steve Talevi - Well, frankly Mr. Manetta I'm having some difficulty with how you can have recommendations relating to a demolition. I really don't understand how they could come back at a later date and again request the demolition and address recommendations. This is not like your ordinary case where somebody comes wanting to change a structure and you folks deny it with some recommendations and they come back within 90 days and reeppmach you and ~ approval. It seems to me that this is a demolition setting. They either demolish it or they don't. You seem to be of the position that demolition is not acceptable to you and I really don't see how you can make any recommendations with respect to demolition. The question was raised so I felt like I had to at least had to point you toward that Code section. Robert Manetta- Call the question. Don Harwood - I only have one other comment and this is in response to Mr. VVhitwell's Tony Whitwell - Excuse me, shall we let him do that? Robert Marietta - I withdraw my cell if Mr. Harwood want Don Hanvood - I just feel that Ihe motion on the table will allow for the proposed moving of the houses to go through their due process because they ara offedng no other alternative if it's approved a~ such. Tony Whitwell * And they can come back. Robed Manetta- Call the question. Tony Whitwell - Alri'ght - Call the question is a matter that's technically not debatable. Martha, can you go back to the original motion? Martha Franklin - I can tn/- Mr. Manetta moved removal of buildings at 1010 and 1014 First Street, to an appropriate location in Old Southwest historic district, and approval in concept of the proposed addition to the Evans house, such addition to be consistent with Architectural Review Board Page 25 October 12, 1995 the general scale, mass, and architecture discussed with the Board. And that's the motion I have down. Tony Whitwell - It was seconded by Mr. Jones. Now, a yes vote means you're voting for Mr. Manatta's motion. A no vote means you're voting against Mr. Marietta's motion. Are we all clear on that. Richard Jones - Ask one question prior to the vote. The wording there does it specifically prohibit demolition. Steve Talevi - What she just read, ;~ does noL It was my understanding that the motion did include a specific denial of demolition. Robert Manetta- I think the language I eventually settled on was removal but not demolition. Steve Talevi - That's what I thought. Tony Whitwell - Is that alright with you to take that in there? Pete? Richard Jones - sure Tony Whitwell - Is that alright Martha? Martha Franklin - Yes, I guess. Tony Whitwell - Would you mind reading the motion again Martha? Martha Franklin - Okay, I do not know where the removal, you're going to have to insert where the demolition comes in because I do not have that as part of the motion. Robert Manetta- If I may, as the staff had originally drafted, the original draft said demolition of buildings at, the substitute would have been the removal, but not demolition of buildings, at, and everything else in there, and also the inclusion of the language concerning removal to · suitable location in Old Southwest, historic district. Martha Franklin - So the motion reads, removal, but not demolition, of buildings at 1010 and 1014 First Street, to an appropriate location in the Old Southwest historic district and approval in concept of the proposed addition to the Evans House, such addition to be consistent with the general scale, mass and architecture discussed with the Board. Tony Whitwell - Do we all understand that? Architectural Review Board Page 26 October 12, 1995 Heath Light - I really came fonvard for a point of clarification, which I believe has now been made where the general discussion has focused around 1010. I hear the motion including both 1010 and 1014, both necessitating relocation, so I wanted to cladfy that even though I think it is probably irrelevant to us. Robert Manetta - Mr. Chairman, I think as the speaker just stated, it is probably irrelevant if one of them stays, they both stay and the project as they've designed it could not go forward anyway. And also, particularly in light of the report provided by Ms. Giles, in which she also included both of these buildings in her recommendations, I will just stick with the motion as made. Tony Whitwell - Lefs just clarify once more again. A yes vote here allows them to do the demolition. A no vote here has what consequences. Robert Manetta - If I may, please Counselor, a yes vote is for my motion. The motion would allow for removal but not demolition. Tony Whitwell - a no vote Robert Manetta - A yes vote would allow for removal but not demolition, a no vote would just be a denial of the certificate. And I see Counsel nodding his head. Comment from Bishop Light in the back of the room - I believe that as a technical matter, a no vote then.., the original question. Interrupted by Mr. Talevi advising that the question had been called. Tony Whitwell - Yes, I think you're right on that sir. I'm trying very hard. Okay, are we ready for the vote? We'll have a roll call vote please. Martha Franklin- Mr. Harwood Don Hanvood' yes Martha Franklin - Mr. Jones Richard Jones - yes Martha Franklin * Mr. Manetta Robert Manetta - yes Martha Franklin - Mr. Whitwell Architectural Review Board Page 27 October 12, 1995 Tony Whitwell - yes Martha Franklin - The motion is approved. Steve Talevi - We're still in session for the hearing. Tony Whitwell - Oh yes, I'm sorry, Is there any other business that needs to come before us? Anything else. Call for adjoumment. Robert Manetta- so moved. Tony Whitwell - Thank you There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. COMMENTS TO THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD DEPUTY FOR ADMINISTRATION EPISCOPAL DIOCESI~ OF SO--STERN VIRGINIA Thank you for the opportunity for us to make a formal application to the Architectural Review Board concerning the motior~ before you. The offices of the Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Vh'ginia have been resident in Old Southwest since our inception in 1919 - only back then it was not old, it was new! Your approval today is paramount to our remaining in this neighborhood. Our interest in expanding and enh .~cing the offices of the Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern V'irginia goes back to the fall of 1986 - aimost 10 years of being in dialogue with the diocese and with the Old Southwest Neighborhood Association regarding this very matter. Why do we wish to expand and enhance the offices of the Diocese of Southwestern Virginia?? 1) Current facilities were constructed in 1948 - almost 50 years ago. 2) The fadl/fies am not physically challenged accessible. 3) There are six (6) staff members of the Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virginia that do not have office space in the current facility. This figure represents 50% of diocesan staffthat do not have office space in Evans House. 4) Certain committees / commissions of the diocese have 25 - 30 members. The existing facilities have space for no more than 15 persons. 5) One of the most sisnificant ministries of the diocese is the Bishop Marmion Resource Center for educational resources. Not only is it detached, but also considerably inadequate in ten'ns of its space and user capabilities. 6) Existin& ptopmy does not lend it. seffto adequate parking. There are only eight (8) parking spac~ available in out gravel parking area. With 25 - 30 people attending some meetings, thisin · siguific~ problem. 7) We h~ve determined through our studies with Motley and Associates that the combination of 1010 and 1014 First Street pmpertias with 1000 F'trst Street are virtually inadequate structurally, inappropriate asthetically and impossible fmancinlly in order to be incorporated in our plans. Let me share with you some highlishts of our efforts toward alternatives: !) The Episcopal Diocese first offered 1010 First Street property to the Old Southwest Neighborhood Association in the Fall of 1986. 2) Based upon recommendations of Motley & A.ssociatas fi.om their informal discussions · with the Architectural Review Board and the Old Southwest Neighborhood Association, the diocese expended thousands ofadditionsi consulting dollars and delayed its fundralsing plans by a year to look at two alternatives: "Wrap around existing Bishop Marmion Resource Canter and raze the Ma,-y Moore Property to accomodate the expansion needs of ,the diocese. Pick up Bishop Marmion Resource Center and move to the site of the Mary Moore Property, and then build an e~ension between the These alternatives were looked at in detail by the diocesan executive board as options tim were not leas/hie due to the incremental cost, staff'utilization, physically challenged assas~'bility and appearance. The Letitia Pate Evans Foundation expressed to Bishop Light its pledge to contribute $395,000 (one-half the cost of our plans) to expand Evans House. This is because, Letitia Pet~ Evans, in 1948, paid for the total construction of our existing facility. The Foundation was adamant with Bishop Light that their challenge pledge to the diocese wu based upon the condition that any expansion and enhancement plans be based upon a consistency and continuity of architectural design. In addition, the desire of the foundation was to maintain the integrity of the existing structure that she personsHy funded in her lifetime. We believe that we have acted in good faith as both a neighbor in the historic Old Southwest Neighborhood u well as trying to be good stewards of the churches resources. We have had meetings with the Architectural Review Board and the Old Southwest Neighborhood Association. Since 1986, we have offered our house, 1010 First Street, S.W. to anyone wishing to have it. In 1995, we offered our houses, 1010 and 1014 First Strenk S.W. to anyone wishing to have them. Based upon our informal meeting with you on J*uly 13, 1995, X heard you say, "Mr. Boyce, please stretch ,little beyond simply offering houses.' Based upon your request, we have offered not only housa~ valued in excess of $100,000, but also andin addition, $36,000 to assist any interested pan'y to receive and move them prior to construction.. We believe that the plan before you h tbe most aesthetic and economic that could be offered based upon our needs, space ass_,"*____,_ments and our exhausive review of the options. We feel that our early offerings of property, am/now, our offering of financial assistance to encourage the moving of these houses should be accepted by the Architectural Review Board u a good faith effort on the part of the church to be sensitive to the neighborhoods desire to save the houses. In our rasenrch, we find no other church has offered not only property, /ntt a/so cash contribution and this level of effort, to be used by the Neighborhood Association or any other entity, to keep and maintain their interest in a particular building or house. We trust your careful consideration of our plans for the expansion and enhancement of the offices of the Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virgini~ H. Aleunde~ Wbe, Jr., Director John R. Kern, Dim~ot Roanoke Red,mi OITm~ COMMONWEALTH o[ VIR( INIA Department of Historic Resources 12 October 1995 221 Gove~am' ~ Richa~ Vi~iaia 23219 Fnmm: (804) 786-3143 1030 Penmar Ave., Roeeo4~. Virsini~ 24O13 Pboae: (703) 857-7585 Chairman and Members Roanoke City Architectural Review .Board Room 162, Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Gentlemen: Spenklng as Architectural Historian for the Depa~iment of Historic Resources' regional office here in Roanoke-and in that position es an informal, yet regular, advisor to this board on interpretation of preservation issues-I come before you today to express my opinion. The point of business that I address today is the proposed demolition of buildings located at 1010 and 1014 First SUeet, SW. The "Relocation and Demolition" guidelines recently published by the city for the H-2 district clearly state that "Demolition of a building should only be considered if alternatives for rehabilitation are not feasible and the loss of the building will not adversely affect the integrity of the district" Let me address the second oftbeso criteria first: the two houses at 1010 and 1014 First Street, while of different levels of ax/hitectural si~iHcanco, are both considered to be contributing historic resources in the Virginia Landmar~ Register- and National Register of Historic Placas- listed Southwest Historic District in Roanoke. Both reflect the history and architectural variation typical of the district and both still contribute to the historic character of the First Slreet streetscape due to their high level~ of integrity. Each has high potential for rehabilitation as an income-prodm:ifi~ property and would qualify to participate in the federal rehabilitation tax credit program, which Wam~ a federal income mx credit equal to 20% of the cost of a rehabilitation v, oject to property investors. The loss of either or both of the buildin~ would deny this redevelopment opportunities; more importantly, it would also have an adver~ affect upon the integrity of the immediate neighborhood along First SUeet. This street, located in the Southwest Historic District between Jefferson Slreet and Franklin Road, is pan of an area already subjected to numerous demolitions. If the pece of demolitions continues at its current level, soon the critical mass and concentrntion of resources necessary to define this area as a historic district may be lost altogether. Regarding the first of the two criteria for approval of demolition requests-"Demolition of a building should only be considered if alternatives for rehabilitation are not feasible...": the An Equal Opponun#~, A~ene~ Roanoke City Architectural Review 12 October 1995 2 architects for the Concept for Improvement to the Offices of the Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virginia prepared a feasibility study that asserts the property owners "cannot reasonably utiliz~ the structures at 1010 and 1014 First Street." While I concede that the property owner, due to design constraints imposed by a major funding source for the proposed changes, "cannot reasonably utilize the structures" themselves, other alternatives for their rehabilitation--such as sale or long-term leases of the building to outside parties-seem not to have been explored. This altem, ative would require that the Episcopal Diocese seek land elsewhere for their expansion needs. But the possibility of seeking other-site alternatives ~eems to have been rejected in October 1994 when the Episocopal Diocese decided that it would not be financially feasible to relocate its Offices. The Episcopal Diocese is to be commended for desiring to remain in its current location, within the historic district and downtown Roanoke. But in very close proximity to the Evans House (e.g., across the slreet or the alley), several vacant or underutilized lots with high redevelopment potential do exist. To date, I see no evidence that the Episcopal Diocese has seriously considered acquisition of these parcels for their expansion needs (other than a brief mention of the Swift Print property on Jefferson St.), as alternative development sites-although this option could negate the presumed need to demolish or relocate two contributing resources in the historic district. The purchase of parcels such as these could be financed through the sale of the 1010 and 1014 properties m parties willing and able to rehabilitate them in situ, and would not place the additional burden of their demolition or relocation costs upon the Episcopal Diocese. Therefore, I as.sen that the property owner has not developed a strong case that there are no feasible alternatives to demolition or relocation of the buildings at 1010 and 1014 First Street, SW; that demolition of one or both of these buildings would have a negative effect upon the historic and architectural character of the Southwest Historic District, especially along the First Street corridor, and suggest that the Roanoke City ARB reject the applicant's request for demolition of the buildings. I do accede that relocation, allowing the preservation of the contributing architectural resot~rces, should be approved if that alternative becomes a reality. Thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns for the historic district with you at this time. Sincerely, . Architectural Historian Roanoke Regional Preservation Office CC: Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virginia Motley & Associates Old Southwest, Inc. Roanoke, Virginia January 2, 1996 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Members of Council: Please reserve space on Council's Agenda Tuesday, January 2, 1996, for a briefing on the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH:gr MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 240I 1-1536 Telephone: (540) 981-2541 Fax: (540) 224-3145 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 4, 1996 File #32-200-216-236-277-450 Leman Dudley KDL Investments, L.L.C. P. O. 3003 Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Dear Ms. Dudley: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 32802-010296 authorizing execution of an agreement with KDL Investments, LL.C., for use of Community Development Block Grant funds in connection with rehabilitation of the facade and the building located at 14 East Campbell Avenue in the H-l, Histodc District. Resolution No. 32802-010296 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, January 2, 1996. MFP:sm Enc. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk INTHECOUNCILOFTHECITYOF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 2nd day of January, 1996. No. 32802-010296. A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of an agreement w/th KDL Investments, L. L.C. for use of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in connection with the rehabilitation of the facade and the building located at 14 East Campbell Avenue in the H-I Historic District. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roenoke as follows: 1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manger and the City Clerk are hereby authorized on behalf of the City to execute and attest, respectively, an agreement with K.DL Inve~ht~,% L.L.C. for the use of the CDBG Downtown Facade Grant funds to provide for a grant to KDL Investments of up to $5,000.00 to be used in rehabilitating the facade of the above building and to further provide for the use of the CDBG funded Economic Development Investment Fund to provide for an unsecured loan to KDL Investments in an amount not to exceed $85,000.00 for the rehabilitation of some or ail of the above building, aH as more particularly set forth in the City Manager's report to Council dated January 2, 1996. 2. The form of the agreement shah be approved by the City Attorney. ATTEST: City Clerk. January 2, 1996 96-01 The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia SUBJECT: Approval of Agreements for use of the CDBG funded Economic Development Investment Fund and Historic Building Matching Grant Program Dear Mayor Bowers and Membem of Council: I. BACKGROUND: Economic Development Investment Fund is a CDBG funded program authorized by City Council, Resolution No. 32476-050895 adopted May 8, 1995. Purpose of the program is to provide funding for the rehabilitation of eligible historic properties located within the DoWntown Service District. 2. EulllLgui.0rdia~ are as follows: a) b) may be a grant or a loan buildings must be in a historic district or eligible for historic designation Historic Building Matching Grant Proglam (facade grant) is a CDBG funded program authorized by City Council, Resolution No. 32476-050895 adopted May 8, 1995. Purpose of the program is to encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of historically significant structures in the City of Roanoke by providing a financial incentive. 2. ~ are as follows: b) d) eligible structures are existing commercial, industrial, or mixed- use (residential and commercial) structures, at least 50 years old that are located in an H-l, Historic District maximum matching grant amount is $5,000 Historic Building Design Review Committee and the City's Amhitectural Review Board must approve the completed design for the improvements Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation will apply to each project The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor and Members of City Council Page 2 January 2, 1996 CURRENT SITUATION: Ao /~0.glicali.o~ to participate in the Economic Development Investment Fund and the Historic Building Matching Grant Program have been received by the City from Leman Dudley, representing KDL Investments, L.L.C. Public Notic~ requesting comments on the project has been published in the Roanoke Times. No comments were received. ~ to be renovated is located at 14 East Campbell Avenue and is subject to H-1 historic designation in the Downtown Service District. R.OlabJlilali~ of this structure is proposed by KDL Investments, L.L.C. in a two-phase process at a total cost of $600,000. ~l-.agtg. gllltal proposing the following terms will be negotiated by the applicant and the City. $85.000 will be loaned to KDL Investments, L.L.C. to assist in Phase I of the rehabilitation of 14 East Campbell Avenue. Phase I is a $430.000 investment. 12.000 square feet of rehabilitated commercial space will be available due to the project. A minimum of five new jobs will be created by June 1, 1997 and three of these jobs will be filled by low-moderate income persons. 4. ~ rate is 3% commencing on June 1, 1996. Term of the loan is 10 years with the first installment due on June 1, 1997. o The loan will be unsecured, but evidenced by a promissory note signed by KDL Investments, L.L.C. and Leman Dudley. Up to $5,000 in additional funding will be made available as a grant to match private funds to rehabilitate the facade. ~ will be rehabilitated in accordance with the plans approved by the Architectural Review Board on October 12, 1995. The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor and Members of City Council Page 3 January 2, 1996 HI. ISSUES: A. Funding. C. Compliance with applicable regulati0n~. E. Economic/Community development. IV. ALTERNATIVE: Authorize the City Manager to execute an Agreement with KDL Investments, L.L.C., loaning $85,000 in CDBG funds for the Phase I rehabilitation of 14 East Campbell Avenue and providing an additional grant of up to $5.000 in CDBG funds for the facade rehabilitation on the terms and conditions set forth above. ~ in account numbers: 035-095-9537-5201 ($5,000) 035-095-9530-5136 ($85,000) Iilxfing is critical in that KDL Investments, L.L.C. desires to begin work as soon as possible. Compliance with applicable regulations is assured through contract review by the City Attorney's office and project monitoring by the City's Office of Grants Compliance. Historic Preservatioll program by the City will be enhanced by the rehabilitation of an historic structure. Economic Development program of the City will be advanced in terms of new revenue creation, enhanced downtown image and the creation of new jobs providing employment opportunities for City residents. The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor and Members of City Council Page 4 January 2, 1996 Bo Do not authorize the City Manager to execute an Agreement with KDL Investments, L.L.C., loaning $85,000 in CDBG funds for the Phase I rehabilitation of 14 East Campbell Avenue and providing an additional grant of up to $5.000 in CDBG funds for the facade rehabilitation on the terms and conditions set forth above. 1. Faladiag for future projects will remain in existing accounts. Timing will not be met for KDL Investments, L.L.C. to begin work expediently. 3. Compliance with applicable regulations is not an issue. 4. Historic Preservation program will not be enhanced. 5. F~am~g2~ll~ opportunity will be lost. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend Alternative A. authorize the City Manager to execute an Agreement with KDL Investments, L.L.C., loaning $85,000 in CDBG funds for the Phase I rehabilitation of 14 East Campbell Avenue and providing an additional grant of up to $5.000 in CDBG funds for the facade rehabilitation on the terms and conditions set forth above. WRI-I/EDC/kdc cc: City Attorney City Clerk Director of Finance Assistant City Manager Office of Grants Compliance Economic Development Specialist City Planner Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, $.W. Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia ?.4011-1536 Telephone: (540) 981-2541 Fax: (540) 224-3145 January 4, 1996 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk File #72-165-178-200-236-488 Joseph K. Aversano, Director Community Planning and Development U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 3600 W. Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23230-4920 Dear Mr. Aversano: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 32803-010296 approving the proposed Citizen Participation Plan regarding Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnerships and Emergency Shelter Grant Programs, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Citizen Participation Plan and any change thereto which does not constitute a substantial amendment to such plan. Resolution No. 32803-010296 was adoptecl by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, January 2, 1996. Sincerely, MFP:sm Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk Enc. Roanoke, Virginia January 2, 1996 95 -49 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Adoption of the Proposed Citizen Participation Plan Regarding Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Programs. A A Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) is required to receive funds under the CDBG, HOME and ESG programs of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The CPP sets forth policies and procedures with respect to how and when citizens will participate in the development of the City of Roanoke's Consolidated Plan (including annual updates) for the CDBG, HOME and ESG programs, substantial amendments to the Consolidated Plan and performance reports. City Council approved the present Consolidated plan for submission to HUD by Resolution No. 32476-050895, adopted May 8, 1995. The City's current CPP must be modified to comply with new CPP guidelines promulgated by HUD in January 1995. These guidelines provided that the City's current CPP would not need to be modified until the beginning of the 1996/97 planning cycle. Modifications involved changes in format and content, including defining what would constitute "substantial amendments" to either the CPP or Consolidated Plan and, therefore, be subject to public review and comment. Bo A proposed revision to the current CPP has been prepared to meet the new guidelines. The pro_nosed revision to the CPP was issued for public comment during the period from November 17 to December 1, 1995. In addition to ads appearing at the beginning of the review period, advance written notice was provided to some 200 individuals and groups to encourage public comment. Comments were also individually solicited from two dozen key City and Housing Authority staff. Members of Council Page 2 III. Issues: Consideration has been given to all comments received from citizens and City staff. Changes have been made to the CPP, where feasible and appropriate, to accommodate these comments. A. Compliance with Federal Requirements B. Costs to the City C. Timing IV. Alternatives: Ao Adopt the Proposed CPP. authorizing the City Manager or Assistant City Manager to execute the document (Attachment A) and any changes thereto which do not constitute "substantial amendments to the CPP" in accordance with 24 CFR 91.105(a)(3). Compliance with Federal Requirements will be achieved. The proposed CPP is modeled on and addresses all required content areas indicated in the applicable federal regulations. 2. Costs to the City would not be a factor. Timing is important. The City must implement a CPP which complies with the latest federal requirements as part of the 1996/97 budgeting process, which is now beginning. B. Do not adopt the Proposed CPP. Compliance with Federal Requirements will not be achieved. The current CPP does not address all required content areas indicated in the applicable federal regulations. Costs to the City: in the absence of a satisfactory CPP, potentially include loss of over $2.5 million in new HUD funding and suspension of authority to expend funds from prior allocations. 3. T. illlJllg would not be a factor. Members of Council Page 3 WRH/feb Attachment Concur with Alternative A to adopt the Proposed CPP and authorize the City Manager or Assistant City Manager to execute the document (Attachment A) and any changes thereto which do not constitute "substantial amendments to the CPP" in accordance with 24 CFR 91.105(a)(3). Respectfully submitted, City Manager C~ Assistant City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Public Works Director of Human Development Chief, Planning and Community Development Budget Administrator Housing Development Coordinator Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Coordinator Office of Grants Compliance Attactmmnt A City of Roanoke Citizen Participation Plan Prepared by the Office of Grants Compliance Adopted By City Council: Table of Contents I. Purpose I1. Adoption and Effective Date II1. Encouraging Participation IV. Public Comment on the Citizen Participation Plan and Amendments V. Development of the Consolidated Plan VI. Criteria for Amending the Consolidated Plan VII. Performance Reports VIII. Public Hearings IX. Meetings X. Availability to the Public XI. Access to Records XlI. Technical Assistance XIII. Complaints XlV. Jurisdictional Responsibility Attachment I Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance Plan Pa~e 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 Citizen Participation Plan Flow Chart 10 .I. III. Purpos~ This Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) sets forth the City of Roanoke's policies and procedures for citizen participation with respect to activities funded under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) programs of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Adoption and Effective Date (91.105(a)(1)) The City of Roanoke has had in effect a CPP which addresses the requirements of Section 104(a)(3) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. With the implementation on February 3, 1995, of final rules regarding the Consolidated Plan~, the existing CPP must be modified to comply with the new rules. This modified CPP is effective upon its adoption by the Roanoke City Council. Encouraging Particinatioll (91.105(a)(2)) The City encourages citizen participation in the development of the Consolidated Plan (which, hereinafter, shall be taken to include annual updates), substantial amendments to the Consolidated Plan and performance reports. This encompasses seeking to involve all citizens, including minorities, the non-English speaking and the disabled, but in particular residents of Iow- and moderate-income neighborhoods where CDBG-, HOME- and/or ESG-funded programs are to be undertaken. Methods for obtaining citizen participation are described in this CPP and include, but are not necessarily limited to: advance notifications of opportunities to participate; public hearings; opportunities to review and comment on the CPP and Consolidated Plan; provision of technical assistance; and procedures for resolving complaints. Unless otherwise noted herein, all comments, recommendations, views, complaints and other information offered by citizens, public agencies and interested parties regarding the CPP, Consolidated Plan, substantial amendments to either of these documents and performance reports shall be submitted to: Office of Grants Compliance 541 Luck Avenue, S.W. Suite 221 Roanoke, Virginia 24016 (540) 981-2141 Fax (540) 224-3144 The City will consult with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) in order to encourage the participation of residents of public and assisted housing developments, along with other Iow-income residents of the targeted areas where the developments are located in the process of developing and implementing I The Consolidated Plan is a document submitted to HUD by "entitlement communities" such as the City of Roanoke in application for, and as a prerequisite to receiving, CDBG, HOME and ESG funding, The City's current five-year (1995 to 2000) Consolidated Plan was submitted in May of 1995. the consolidated plan. The RRHA will be kept informed of consolidated plan activities related to its developments and communities in order that it may make such information available at its annual public hearing required under the Comprehensive Grant program. IV. Public Comment on the Citizen Participation Plan/Amendments (91.105(a)(3)) This CPP will be made public, including offering a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment on the original plan and substantial amendments. For the purposes of this CPP: Reasonable Opportunity to Comment on the CPP and Substantial Amendments to the CPP shall mean providing a period of not less than 15 calendar days from the publication of a notice in one or more area newspapers of general circulation to the date upon which comments must be received; and Substantial Amendment of the CPP shall mean a revision to the CPP which affects the public's ability to (1) attend hearings, meetings or other forums, (2) review and comment on the CPP, the Consolidated Plan, substantial amendments to either of these documents or performance reports, or (3) resolve complaints with respect the CPP, Consolidated Plan, substantial amendments or performance reports. In addition, this shall include revisions to the amount of advance notice given prior to hearings and meetings, the length of review and comment periods, and time limits for submitting complaints. Upon request, the CPP will be provided in a format accessible to persons with disabilities. Depending upon the circumstances, this may include obtaining interpretive services from appropriate state or local agencies such as the Department of the Visually Handicapped. Develooment of the Consolidated Plan (91.105(b)) Before adopting the Consolidated Plan, information will be disseminated to citizens, public agencies and other interested parties, including the expected funding and program income, range of allowable activities and estimated amount to benefit Iow- and moderate-income persons. At least one public hearing shall be held during the development of the Consolidated Plan at which such information will be among the subjects discussed. (See Section VIII. below for information regarding public hearings.) In developing and implementing the Consolidated Plan, the City will minimize displacement and assist any persons displaced. The types of assistance which will be rendered are addressed in the Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance Plan, which is included at Attachment 1 to this CPP. The proposed Consolidated Plan will be published in a manner which provides a reasonable opportunity to citizens, public agencies and other interested parties to 2 review and submit comments regarding its content. For the purposes of this CPP: O Reasonable Opportunity to Comment on the Proposed Consolidated Plan shall mean providing a period of not less than 30 calendar days from the publication of a notice in one or more area newspapers of general circulation to the date upon which comments must be received. The notice publicizing the availability for review and comment of the proposed Consolidated Plan will summarize its content and purposes and will list the locations where it may be examined. Copies of the proposed Consolidated Plan will be placed at the City Clerk's Office, the Office of Grants Compliance, the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority and at each branch of the City public library. In addition, a reasonable number of free copies of the Consolidated Plan will be made available to citizens and groups that request it. All comments or views of citizens received in writing, or orally during public hearings, shall be considered in preparing the final Consolidated Plan. A summary of these comments or views, including reasons for not accepting a comment or views, will be attached to final plan. VI. Criteria for Amendino~ the Consolidated Plan (91.105(c)) Citizens shall be offered reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment on substantial amendments to the Consolidated Plan. For the purposes of this CPP: Reasonable Notice and Opportunity to Comment on Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan shall mean that, commencing upon the appearance of a notice in one or more area newspapers of general circulation summarizing the proposed substantial amendment, a period of not less than 30 calendar days will be provided to receive in writing, or orally during public hearings, if any, the comments and views of citizens before the amendment is implemented; and O Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan shall mean an action which (1) adds, deletes or fundamentally alters the primary focus (but not necessarily the scale) of a project or (2) increases or decreases the funding of a project by more than 25% and at least $25,000. All comments or views of citizens received in writing, or orally during public hearings, if any, shall be considered in preparing the substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan. A summary of these comments or views, including reasons for not accepting a comment or view, will be attached to amendment. VII. ~ (91.105(d)) Citizens shall be offered reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment on performance reports. For the purposes of this CPP: 3 Reasonable Notice and Opportunity to Comment on Performance Reports shall mean that, commencing upon the appearance of a notice in one or more area newspapers of general circulation, which shall coincide with the date on which the Performance Report is placed at review locations, a period of not less than 15 calendar days will be provided to receive in writing, or orally during public hearings, the comments and views of citizens before the report is submitted to HUD. All comments or views of citizens received in writing, or orally during public hearings, shall be considered in preparing the performance report. A summary of these comments or views, including reasons for not accepting a comment or view, will be attached to the report. VIII. Public Hearings (91.105(e)) At least two (2) public hearings will be held each year to obtain citizen views and to respond to proposals and questions. The hearings will be conducted at a minimum of two (2) different stages of the program year. Together, the hearings will address housing and community development needs, development of proposed activities, and review of program performance. In order to obtain and benefit from citizen views on housing and community development needs, including nonhousing community development needs, at least one of these public hearings will be held prior to publishing the proposed Consolidated Plan for comment. Not less than 15 calendar days in advance, citizens will be notified of upcoming public hearings through notices in one or more newspapers of general circulation. Notices will provide the date, time, and location of the hearing and a description of the subject in sufficient detail to permit informed comment by citizens. Hearings will be held at times and locations convenient to potential and actual beneficiaries, including reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities. In order to facilitate attendance by as many citizens as possible, hearings will be held primarily during evening hours and, to the maximum extent possible, at sites located on or near public transit routes and at times consistent with bus schedules. o At least one (1) of the public hearings will be held at a site within a Iow-to- moderate-income neighborhood. o The criteria for selection of public hearing sites will include accessibility to persons with disabilities or other special needs. In the case of a public hearing where a significant number of non-English speaking residents can reasonably be expected to attend, participation of such individuals will be facilitated by obtaining translators from local colleges, public schools or other sources within the community. 4 · IX. Meetings (91.105(f)) Xo In developing the Consolidated Plan, substantial amendments to the Consolidated Plan and performance reports the need may arise for local meetings, apart from the public hearings considered above. Citizens will be provided reasonable and timely access to such local meetings which are public in nature. Access will be provided in the manner indicated for public hearings in Section VIII. above. Availability to the Public (91.105(g)) The adopted Consolidated Plan, substantial amendments and the performance report will be available to the public from 8:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Office of Grants Compliance, 541 Luck Avenue, S.W., Suite 221, Roanoke, Virginia, and from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 2624 Salem Turnpike, N.W., Roanoke, Virginia. Upon request, the adopted Consolidated Plan, substantial amendments and the performance report will be provided in a form accessible to persons with disabilities. Instances of such special needs will be handled on a case-by-case basis in consultation with appropriate state and local agencies such as the Virginia Department of Rehabilitative Services. Xl. ~C,~LtOJ~ (91.105(h)) Citizens, public agencies and other interested parties will be provided with reasonable and timely access to information and records relating to the Consolidated Plan and the use of assistance under the CDBG, HOME and ESG programs during the preceding five years. Such information and' records will be made available from 8:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Office of Grants Compliance, 541 Luck Avenue, S.W., Suite 221, Roanoke, Virginia. XlI. Technical Assistance (91.105(i)) Upon request, technical assistance will, at a minimum, be provided to groups representative of Iow- and moderate-income persons. This may include, but need not be limited to assistance in developing proposals for funding under any of the programs covered by the Consolidated Plan. The level and type of assistance rendered will be administered in an equitable and consistent manner, taking into account the specific circumstances of each request. Technical assistance shall not be in the form of funds to the groups. Xlll. _~ (91.105(j)) Complaints from citizens related to the development or implementation of the Consolidated Plan, amendments and performance reports will be handled in accordance with the following procedures. 5 o All complaints must be committed to writing, identify the requirements not met and provide relevant data, if applicable, which supports the complaint. o Complaints shall be submitted to: Office of Grants Compliance 541 Luck Avenue, S.W. Suite 221 Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Complaints must be received and/or postmarked within 30 calendar days following the end of the review and comment period for the Consolidated Plan, substantial amendment or performance report. The Office of Grants Compliance will investigate all written citizen complaints and respond in writing within 15 work days, where practicable. In the event the complaint is not resolved, within 10 work days following the date of the response from the Office of Grants Compliance (or the date by which a response should have been provided) the complainant may request that the City Clerk place the issue on the agenda for presentation to and resolution by the Roanoke City Council. O In the event the complaint is still not resolved, within 10 work days following the date of the response from the Roanoke City Council (or the date by which a response should have been provided) the complainant may submit the complaint to the following for review: Richmond Area Office U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development P.O. Box 90331 Richmond, Virginia 23230-0331 XlV. Jurisdictional Res_oonsibilitv (91.105(I)) In accordance with HUD regulations, the requirements for citizen participation do not restrict the responsibility or authority of the City of Roanoke for the development and execution of its Consolidated Plan. In accordance with 24 CFR 91.105(k), the undersigned certifies that the City of Roanoke, Virginia, shall adhere to the policies and procedures set forth in this Citizen Participation Plan with respect to activities funded under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) programs of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. City Manager/Assistant City Manager Date 6 Attachment 1 Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance Plan Attachment 1 City of Roanoke Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance Plan Under Section 104 (d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended II. Consistent with the goals and objectives of activities assisted under the Act, the City of Roanoke will take the following steps to minimize the displacement of persons from their homes: A. Promote better maintenance of public and private property by coordinating code enforcement with rehabilitation and housing assistance programs. B. Where property acquisition is necessary, all reasonable measures will be followed to acquire unoccupied property or sparsely occupied property. C. Stage rehabilitation of apartment units to allow tenants to remain during and after rehabilitation by working with empty units or buildings first. Distribute information regarding local housing counseling programs which could alert homeowners and renters to assistance available to help them remain in their neighborhood in the face of revitalization pressures. The City will replace all occupied and vacant occupiable Iow/moderate-income dwelling units demolished, or converted to a use other than as Iow/moderate-income housing, in connection with an activity assisted with funds provided under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, as described in 24 CFR 570.606(c)(1). All replacement housing will be provided within three years of the commencement of the demolition or rehabilitation relating to the demolition or conversion. Before entering into a contract committing the City to provide funds for an activity that will directly result in demolition or conversion for which replacement housing is required, the City will publish in one or more newspapers of general circulation, and submit in writing to the HUD Field Office, the following information: 1. A description of the proposed assisted activity; 2. The location on a map and number of dwelling units by size (i.e. number of bedrooms) that will be demolished, or converted to a use other than as Iow/moderate-income dwelling units, as a direct result of the assisted activities. 3. A time schedule for the commencement and completion of the demolition or conversion; 8 Attachment 1 ,, The location on a map and the number of dwelling units by size that will be provided as replacement dwelling units. If such data are not available at the time of general submission, the City will identify the general location on an area map and the approximate number of dwelling units by size, and provide information identifying the specific locations and number of dwelling units by size as soon as it is available; 5. The source of funding and a time schedule for providing the replacement units; The basis for concluding that each replacement dwelling unit will remain a Iow/moderate-income dwelling unit for at least 10 years from the date of initial occupancy; and Information demonstrating that any proposed replacement of dwelling units with smaller units (e.g., a 2-bedroom unit with two l-bedroom units) is consistent with the housing needs of lower-income households in the City. B. Optional Relocation Assistance The City may provide relocation payments and other relocation assistance to persons displaced by activities that are not subject to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA) or Section 104(d). The City may also provide relocation assistance to persons receiving assistance under the URA or section 104 (d) at levels in excess of those required by Chapters 1 through 7 of the Tenant Assistance, Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Handbook. In circumstances when relocation is not required by law, the provision and level of relocation assistance shall be at the discretion of the City. The City has elected to furnish and provide the assistance in forms such as, but not necessarily limited to, security deposits, rental assistance or other necessary and reasonable relocation costs. This assistance will be provided in an equitable manner within each class of displaced persons. III. The City's Office of Grants Compliance, (540) 981-2141, is responsible for tracking the replacement of housing and ensuring that it is provided within the required period. IV. The Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, (540) 983-9261, is responsible for ensuring requirements are met for notification and provision of relocation assistance, as described in 570.606(c)(2), to any lower-income person displaced by the demolition of any dwelling unit, or its conversion to another use, in connection with an assisted activity conducted by the Authority. 9 CPP/Substantial Amendment Prepare draft plan/amendment Ad announces availability for public comment (15 calendar days) Comments due City Council approves plan/amendment Implement plan/amendment Citizen Participation Plan Flow Chart Consolidated Plan Annual Update Consolidated Plan Substantial Amendment Notice of public hearing on needs, programs and performance Public hearing on needs, programs and performance (15 calendar days after notice) Prepare draft amendment Ad announces availability for public comment (30 calendar days) Comments due Program/proposal solicitation and development City Council approves amendment Proposals due (minimum of 10 calendar days) Implement amendment Prepare draft plan Notice of public hearing on draft plan (15 calendar days in advance) Public comment period begins Public hearing on draft plan Comments due (30 calendar days after beginning of comment period) City Council approves plan Performance Report Prepare draft report Ad announces availability for public comment (15 calendar days) Comments due Submit report 10 IN THE COUNCZL OF THE CZTY OF ROANOKE, The 2nd day of January, 1996. No. 32804-010296. Government of the exist. THEREFORE, AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1995-96 General, Utility Line Services, and Management Services Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 1995-96 General, Utility Line Services, same are part: and Management Services Fund Appropriations, be, and the hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in A ro 'at'o Judicial Administration General District Court (1) ...................... General Government City Treasurer (2) .............................. Public Safety Building Inspections (3) ........................ Police Patrol (4-5) ............................. Fire Operations (6-7) ........................... Public Works Communications (8) Building Maintenance (10) ....................... Parks Maintenance (11-12) ....................... Health and Welfare Social Services - Income Maintenance (13-14) .... Community Development Planning and Community Development (15-16) ...... $ 4,036,926 58,573 $ 10,115,679 754,976 $ 35,923,613 705,218 7,780,707 10,313,630 $ 22,758,609 2,424,064 114,052 3,238,947 22,677,446 $ 18,974,195 3,898,756 $ 1,362,162 763,235 FundBalance Reserved CMERP - City (17) ...................... Utility Services Fund A r ' t' s Operating Utility Line Services (18) ...................... Utility Line Services - Capital Outlay (19) ..... Retained Earnina~ Retained Earnings - Unrestricted (20) ........... Manaoement Servioes Fund A o 'a ' s Operating Management Services (21) ........................ Retained Earnings Retained Earnings - Unrestricted (22) ........... $ 3,848,722 $ 3,243,383 2,837,233 406,150 1,743,350 $ 496,930 459,070 292,889 1) Furniture and Equipment >$1,000 $ 7,880 2) Furniture and Equipment >$1,000 (001-020-1234-9005) 3,035 3) Other Equipment(001-052-3410-9015) 2,502 4) Wearing Apparel(001-050-3113-2064) 19,729 5) Other Equipment(001-050-3113-9015) 14,607 6) Wearing Apparel(001-050-3213-2064) 7,590 7) Expendable Equipment <$1,000 (001-050-3213-2035) 3,898 8) Other Equipment(001-050-4130-9015) 62,177 9) Chemicals (001-052-4140-2045) 11,486 10) Maintenance Third Party Contract (001-052-4330-3056) 7,500 11) Project Supplies (001-052-4340-3005) 25,000 12) Maintenance - Buildings (001-052-4340-2050) 32,500 13) Other Equipment(001-054-5313-9015) 2,650 14) Expendable Equipment <$1,000 (001-054-5313-2035) 1,134 (001-070-2120-9005) 15) Fees for Professional Services (001-052-8110-2010) $ 12,000 16) Expendable Equipment <$1,000 (001-052-8110-2035) 819 17) Reserved CMERP - City (001-3323) (214,507) 18) Expendable Equipment <$1,000 (016-056-2625-2035) 3,030 19) Other Equipment(016-056-2626-9015) 66,227 20) Retained Earnings - Unrestricted (016-3336) (69,257) 21) Expendable Equipment <$1,000 (015-002-1617-2035) 765 22) Retained Earinings Unrestricted (015-3336) ( 765) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, virginia January 2, 1996 96-301 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Fund Appropriations I. Background on the subject in chronological order is: The Capital Program has for various Maintenance and Equipment Replacement identified various operational needs City departments. The items and projects identified are needed to continue the efficient and effective performance of assigned responsibilities and tasks. A listing of items costing less than $75,000 is identified on Attachment "A" of this report. The City Manager, by authority designated by Council, can approve expenditures less than $75,000 once the Funds have been appropriated by Council. Items to be purchased either have already been bid or will be in accordance with the procurement section of the Code of the City of Roanoke. II. Current Situation is: It is necessary for City Council to appropriate Funds from the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program and Prior Year Retained Earnings to provide for the acquisition of the items listed on Attachment "A" of this report. III. Issues in order of Importance are: A. Need B. Funding C. Timing Fund Appropriations Page 2 IV. Alternatives in order of Feasibility are: City Council appropriate $284f52~ to various departmental accounts to provide for the items and projects listed on Attachment "A". Need for the requested items and projects have been justified as essential. Funding is available in the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program and various department Prior Year Retained Earnings Accounts to provide for these purchases. Timing will allow for the requested items to be procured in the most efficient manner. B. City Council not appropriate $284f529 to various accounts as requested. 1. Need for the acquisition of necessary items would not be addressed. 2. Fundinq designated for the requested items would not be expended at this time. Timing for the acquisitions would not be accomplished in the most expedient manner. Recommendation is that City Council concur with Alternative "A" and appropriate $284~529 as follows: $214~507 from General Fund Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program as follows: 1. $7~500 to Building Maintenance account 001- 052-4330-3056 2. $25~000 to Parks and Grounds account 001-052- 4340-3005 3. $32~500 to Parks and Grounds account 001-052- 4340-2050 Fund Appropriations Page 3 4. $12~000 to Planning Department account 001- 052-8110-2010 5. $819 to Planning Department account 001-050- 8110-2035 6. $3~898 to Fire-EMS account 001-050-3213-2035 7. $7~590 to Fire-EMS account 001-050-3213-2064 8. $2,650 to Social Services account 001-054- 5313-9015 9. $1,134 to Social Services account 001-054- 5313-2035 10. $14~607 to Police department account 001-050- 3113-9015 11. $19~729 to Police department account 001-050- 3113-2064 12. $11~486 to Snow Removal account 001-052-4140- 2045 13. $62~177 to Communications account 001-050- 4130-9015 14. $2~502 to Building Inspections account 001- 000-0000-9015 15. $3~035 to City Treasurers account 001-020- 1234-9005 16. $7~880 to General District Court account 001- 070-2120-9005 $3~030 from Utility Line Services Prior Year Retained Earnings account to 016-056-2625-2035 $66~227 from Utility Line Services Prior Year Retained Earnings account to 016-056-2625-9015 Fund Appropriations Page 4 $765 from Management Services Prior Year Retained Earnings account to 015-002-1617-2035 Respectfully Submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager CC: City Attorney Director of Finance City Clerk Directors Manager, Supply Management Attachment "A" Funds designated from Current Year Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program Building Maintenance Remodel Magistrates Office Parks and Grounds Reforestation Program - Phase II 65 Trash Receptacles for Downtown Area Planninq Greenway Planning Facsimile Machine $ 7,500 25,000 32,500 12,000 819 Fire-EMS Replace 4 Sofas and 8 Chairs 13 Sets of Turnout Gear Social Services 1 - Rotary File add on unit to existing system 2 Electric Typewriter Replacement 2 - Computer Workstations Police Interview Room Recording System 9 - Light Bars and Related Equipment for Patrol Units 75 - Armored Vest 3,898 7,590 1,450 1,134 1,200 4,460 10,147 19,729 Snow Removal 2 - Replacement Snow Plow Hitches 2 - Replacement Chemical/Salt Spreaders Communications 10 Batteries for Backup for Communication System 14 Elevator Telephones 58 Portable Radio Batteries Replace 18 Radios and 3 Charging Units 1 - Zetron Paging System 10 - Mobile Radios 1 Intercom System for City Sheriff Building Inspections Office Work Stations City Treasurer Replace 1 Batch Encoder 1,500 9,986 1,621 4,838 2,862 17,520 14,117 13,364 7,855 2,502 3,035 General District Court 8 - Backsaver Judges Chairs 7,880 Attachment "A" Page 2 II. Funds designated from Prior Year Retained accounts. Utility Line Services Replace 2 Pavement Breakers Replace 3 - 3 inch diaphragm pumps Replace 2 - Vibratory Ditch Compactors Replace 2 - Rock Drills Replace 1 - Copy Machine Replace 1 - Loader/Backhoe Replace 1 - Air Compressor Manaqement Services Replace Facsimile Machine in Personnel Department Earnings 1 200 1 830 4 080 2 320 4 800 44 527 10 500 765 Total $284,529 MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540) 981-2541 Fax: (540) 224-3145 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 4, 1996 File #22-60-72-76-178-236-314-335 Dr. Timothy A. Kelly, Commissioner Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services P. O. Box 1797 Richmond, Virginia 23218 Dear Mr. Kelly: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 32806-010296 accepting the Virginia Innovative Homeless Initiatives program grant award made to the City by the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Service, Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services; and authorizing execution of the necessary grant documents on behalf of the City to comply with terms and conditions and requirements pertaining thereto. Resolution No. 32806-010296 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, January 2, 1996. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. Dr. Timothy A. Kelly Jan~,-ary 4, 1996 Page 2 pc; Neva J. Smith, Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 2624 Salem Turnpike, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Joseph K. Aversano, Director, Community Planning and Development, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 3600 W. Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia 23230-4920 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 2nd day of January, 1996. No. 32806-010296. A RESOLUTION accepting the Virginia Innovative Homeless Initiatives program grant award made to the City from the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Service, Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services; and authorizing execution of the necessary grant documents, on behalf of the City, to comply with the terms and conditions and requirements pertaining thereto. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City of Roanoke does hereby accept the Virginia Innovative Homeless Initiatives program grant made by the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Service, Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, amounting to $70,483.00 in funding to provide six months of temporary staffing resources for the "Homeless Assistance Team" to enhance existing outreach and shelter services during the winter months of 1995-1996, upon the terms and conditions as set out in the Council report dated January 2, 1996. 2. The City Manager, or the Assistant City Manager is authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the City, the requisite grant agreement and related documents, including, but not limited to, the necessary Memorandum of Agreement with the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, thereby agreeing on behalf of the City, to comply with the terms and conditions of the Grant Agreement, applicable law and regulations and all requirements of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, now or hereafter in effect, pertaining to the assistance provided. ATTEST: City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 2nd day of January, 1996. No. 32805-010296. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1995-96 Grant Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal city of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to Government of the exist. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 1995-96 Grant Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Health and Welfare $ 2,413,991 Virginia Innovative Homeless Initiative Grant (1).. 70,483 Revenue Health and Welfare $ 2,413,991 Virginia Innovative Homeless Initiative Grant (2).. 70,483 1) Virginia Innovative Homeless Initiative Grant (035-054-5192-2154) 2) State Grant Funds (035-035-1234-7213) 70,483 70,483 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. January 2, 1996 95-535 Honorable Mayor David A. Bowers and Members of City Council ~UBJECT: VIRGINIA INNOVATIVE HO~ELESS INITIATIVE (VIHI) ~RANT AWARD ~LOC~TION I. B~CK~ROUND ae Be The plight of homeless individuals and families has been at the forefront of the community's attention for many years. The number of homeless persons relying on local services has increased significantly in recent years. The state Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Substance Abuse Services developed the Virginia Innovative Homeless Initiative (VIHI) program utilizing funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to enhance existing outreach and shelter services in metropolitan areas during the winter months of 1995 - 1996. Roanoke was included in the Virginia Innovative Homeless Initiatives Program. The city Manaqer's Committee on Homelessness recommended to the state that a "Homeless Assistance Team" (HAT Team), cooperatively administered by the City and Blue Ridge Community Services be established in Roanoke as a part of the VIHI program. II. CURRENT SITU~TION A VIHI ~rant allocation of $70,483 has been awarded to the City of Roanoke for six months to provide temporary staffing resources for the "HAT Team". An additional $15,035 is being awarded to Blue Ridge Community Services for the provision of client services, office space, and training. Be De A local in-kind match in SUDDortive service~ for six months is required of four state affiliated agencies referred to as "providing agencies" including Roanoke City Health Department, Roanoke City Social Services, the Department of Rehabilitative Services, and Blue Ridge Community Services. Supportive services are defined as any service provided to a client which will stabilize the their situation or promote their self-sufficiency. Such services may include providing bus passes, rehab counseling, casework, emergency financial assistance, prescription medication, etc. At least 390 homeless individuals and their families will be provided outreach services by the HAT Team working in cooperation with the Providing Agencies and other local service providers from December 18, 1995 through May 18, 1995. The Droaram will be ~ointlv administered by the City and Blue Ridge Community Services. The Shelter Plus Care Steerina committoo comprised of representatives from the Shelter Plus Care partner agencies including Salem Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Total Action Against Poverty, Blue Ridge Independent Living Center, Blue Ridge Community Services, Roanoke Area Ministries, Roanoke City Health Department, Blue Ridge AIDS Support Services, and the Roanoke AIDS Project, the Housing Authority, and City will serve as a vehicle to provide guidance, facilitate effective communications, enhance cooperation among agencies, and to insure that necessary match documentation is provided. There are currently no outreach services available to homeless persons who are not veterans or who do not hav~ a diagnosed mental illness. The Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Salem and the Blue Ridge Community Services "Street Team" provide outreach limited to veterans and individuals with mental illness. ZZZ. ZBSUE8 Impact on Services in the City. Cost to City. Timinq. IV. ~LTEI~TIVES ae Authorize the City ManaGer to accept the Virginia Innovative Homeless Initiatives program grant award of $70,483 from the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, and execute the required grant documents on behalf of the City and the necessary Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services to insure compliance with federal regulations and grant application; appropriate funds to an account to be established in the Grant Fund by the Director of Finance and increase the revenue estimate in the grant fund. Impact of Services in the City would be positive. At least 390 homeless citizens will receive outreach services this winter in order to secure temporary or permanent housing and develop a plan of action. Cost to the City would be the provision of in-kind match services by the Department of Social Services. No additional monies would be required. The Roanoke City Health Department, the Department of Rehabilitative Services, and Blue Ridge Community Services will also provide matching supportive services. Timing is important. Outreach should commence as soon as possible because homeless persons living in accommodations not intended for sleeping such as under bridges, in cars, and vacant buildings endure greater burden and are the most vulnerable during cold weather. It is the intend of this program to provide outreach during the winter months. Do not authorize the City Manaqer to accept the Virginia Innovative Homeless Initiatives program grant award of $70,483 from the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services Impact on Services in the City could be neqativm. Many homeless people in Roanoke will not receive the outreach services which only the HAT Team could avail to them. Cost to the City would be the loss of a valuable source of funds for the community, and possible increased demand on other funds for providing outreach and supportive services to homeless, e disabled citizens. Timinq would not be an issue. RECOIOIEND~TION Concur with Alternative A, and authorize the City Manager to execute the required grant documents with Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, and execute necessary Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse. Bt Appropriate $70,483 for the Virginia Innovative Homeless Initiatives Program to an account to be established in the Grant Fund by the Director of Finance and increase the revenue estimate in the Grant Fund. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH:DSN/dsn cc: James Grisso, Director of Finance Wilburn Dibling, City Attorney Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director of Human Development Donna S. Norvelle, Human Development Coordinator Neva Smith, Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment Housing Authority Office of Grants Compliance and AGREEMENT # 966-96 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN: The undersigned representatives of Roanoke departments of health services, mental health/substance abuse services, social services, and rehabilitative services (or other employment assistance agency) hereinafter referred to as Providing Agencies; AND The Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (DMHMRSAS), P.O. Box 1797, Richmond, Virginia 23218, hereinafter referred to as Contracting Agency; AND IS DATED November 20,1995 In as much as DMHMRSAS requires certain services and the Providing Agencies have agreed to provide such services, by result of negotiation between the parties, and for and in consideration of the respective undertakings of the parties to this document, the following agreements are made: 1.0 PURPOSE: The purpose of this agreement is to provide local match for $85,518 in funds from the Virginia Innovative Homeless Initiative (IHI) Grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development provided to the following Roanoke based homeless services organizations for outreach and shelter activities for a twenty six (26) week period beginning November 1, 1995; IHI Funded Organizations Funding Amount City of Roanoke Blue Ridge Community Services $70,483 $15,035 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK: The Providing Agencies shall: 2.1 Each provide staffing resources not less than an average of ten (10) hours per week for a twenty six (26) week period beginning November 1, 1995 to accomplish comprehensive assessments, care planning, referrals, and linkages to existing services and housing for homeless persons participating in the Roanoke Innovative Homeless Initiative in coordination with the IHI Funded Organizations named above and as described in the attached contract between the IHI Funded Organizations and the Contracting Agency. The Contracting Agency shall: 2.2 Compensate the IHI Funded Organizations for a twenty six (26) week period beginning November 1, 1995 to reach and serve 390 homeless persons from November 1, 1995 though April 30, 1996 in the Roanoke Innovative Homeless Initiative in coordination with the Providing Agencies and as described in the attached contract between the IHI Funded Organizations and the Contracting Agency. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The parties have caused this Memorandum of Agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. Health Services: Address Contact Name Agency Name .Signature Phone / Fax ./ M.H./S.A. Svcs.: Address Contact Name Agency Name Phone / Fax Signature Social Services: Address Contact Name Agency Name Phone / Fax .Signature Rehab/Employ Svcs.: Agency Name Address Contact Name .Signature Phone / Fax / Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services STANDARD CONTRACT CONTRACT NUMBER: #966-96 This contract entered into this 20th day of November, 1995, by The City of Roanoke and the Blue Ridge Community Services, hereinafter called the "Grant Recipient(s)" and the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, hereinafter called the "Granting Agency." WITNESSETHthat the Grant Recipient(s) and the Granting Agency, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and agreements herein contained and/or attached, agree as follows: SCOPE OF SERVICES: The Grant Recipient(s) shall provide the services to the Granting Agency as set forth in the Contract Documents. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: Upon Final Contract Execution through ~JLc3_Q,__I.,9_~, to include services beginning on November 1, 1995. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT: The Grant Recipient(s) shall be paid by the Granting Agency a total award amount(s) not to exceed the following: City of Roanoke Blue Ridge Community Services $70,483 $15,035 One-sixth (16%) of the total award amount(s) shall be payable upon contract execution and monthly thereafter. Payments shall be made within 30 days, upon the Granting Agency's receipt of a valid invoice and report of expenditures to date. All invoices must be made on official letterhead of the Grant Recipient(s) and shall display in a prominent place the contract number assigned to this contract and mailed to the following address: DMHMRSAS - Fiscal Office P.O. Box 1797 Richmond, Virginia 23218 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: The contract documents shall consist of this signed contract, the Specific Terms and Assurances, Budget, Service Definitions, Data Collection Requirements, Data Collection Forms, Pages 5004 and 5005 of the Federal Register/Vol. 60, No. 16, and the attached General Terms and Assurances. Specific Terms and Assurances Virginia Innovative Homeless Initiative The Virginia Innovative Homeless Initiative is designed to build upon existing outreach and shelter services in metropolitan areas in order to expand capacity and improve outcomes for an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 homeless persons. In Roanoke, the participating Grant Recipients shall reach and serve 390 homeless persons from November 1, 1995 through April 30, 1996. The daily operations of the program in Roanoke shall include outreach efforts designed to locate homeless clients during the day and facilitate their entry into participating shelter and human services programs. The participating Grant Recipients shall work closely with staff (identified in the attached Memorandum of Agreement) from the local Departments of Social Services, Health, Rehabilitative Services (or other equivalent employment assistance agency), and the Community Services Board to effectuate meetings with identified clients to conduct comprehensive needs assessments and a determination of eligibility for public services. Grant Recipients shall also work with the above named public agencies to facilitate the development of an individualized care plan and will share in the tasks required for its implementation. This intensive assessment and intervention is designed to quickly assist homeless clients access all of the various services required to improve their health and mental health, increase their income through entitlements and job placements, and secure housing and/or supportive housing in the community. Grant Recipients, where applicable, shall insure that shelter staff provide appropriate supervision throughout the night and shall assist clients in working on their responsibilities outlined in the individual care plans, which may include such things as attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and other support groups, working on budgeting and other daily living skills, and re- establishing ties with family and other support networks. Funds may be expended (as shown in the attached budget) to help clients meet their immediate needs and responsibilities while participating service organizations work to provide access to permanent services and supports. As clients are placed in other housing situations, the Grant Recipients or other participating organizations may provide short-term follow up while transitions are made to the mainstream service systems. Grant Recipients individually and collectively agree to provide services to eligible homeless individuals or families as defined in the attached "Virginia Innovative Homeless Initiative - Service Definitions" and the attached "Federal Register/Vol.60, No.16 of Wednesday, January 25, 1995, pages 5004 and 5005" and to collect and report information as defined in the attached "Virginia Innovative Homeless Initiative - Data Collection Requirements." Grant recipients do hereby certify that they are either units of general local government as defined in section 102(a) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302) or are non-profit organizations which: (1) No part of the organization's net earinings inures to the benefit of any member, founder, contributor, or individual; (2) In the case of a private non-profit organization, has a voluntary board of directors; (3) Practices nondiscrimination in the provision of assistance; and (4) Maintains a functioning accounting system that meets the criteria below. Grant recipients further certify that their organization's accounting system provides for the fo.!owmg: (1) Accurate, current and complete disclosure of the financial results of this federally sponsored Project; (2) Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federally sponsored activities; (3) Effective control over and accountability for all funds, property and other assets; (4) Comparison of outlays with budget amounts; (5) Written procedures to minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services and the use of the funds for program purposes; (6) Written procedures for determining the reasonableness, allocability and allowability of costs; and (7) Accounting records including cost accounting records that are supported by source documentation. Scope of Work, Roanoke: The City of Roanoke shall employ the grant funded staff for the Blue Ridge Community Services' Homeless Services Team (as outlined in the attached budget) and shall provide administrative supervision jointly with the Blue Ridge Community Services to accomplish the goals and objectives of the project including scheduling, evaluation, and completion of all required reporting. Blue Ridge Community Services shall create, train and supervise a Homeless Services Team (as outlined in the attached budget) to provide outreach, intake, assessment, transportation, case management, referrals, and other necessary services for homeless participants. Staff shall work to identify and meet the needs of participants to move from homelessness to self-sufficiency and shall network with other homeless services providers including Total Action Against Poverty, Roanoke Area Ministries, Rescue Mission, Salvation Army, TRUST, Samaritan inn, the Roanoke City Police Department, and the Roanoke SRO and Shelter Plus Care programs and shall serve as the focal point for coordination and linkage with services provided by the local Departments of Health, Social Services, Rehabilitative Services (or other Employment Assistance), and the Community Services Board. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The parties have caused this Contract to be duly executed intending tO ~e bound thereby. City of Roanoke Address: By: Date: Name: Title: Blue Ridge Community Services Address: By: Date: Name: Title: Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services By: ~Ti~OOthy~. Kelly~C~missioner Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services A I I'ACHMENT A - CONTRACT #966-96 General Terms and Assurances 1.0 Authorities: Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as authority for either party to make commitments which will bind the other party beyond the scope of services contained herein. Furthermore, the Providing Agency shall not assign, sublet, or subcontract any work related to this agreement or any interest he/it may have herein without the prior written consent of the Granting Agency. 1.1 Confidentiality: Patient/Resident rights shall be honored at all times and all records and information shall be treated as confidential in accordance with all statutes and regulations regarding confidentiality or patient/resident records. 1.2 Compliance: By Signature below, the Grant Recipient(s) certify that it (they) is (are) and will remain in full compliance with: The Federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986; The Virginia Conflict of Interest Act; The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, where applicable; Section 11-51 (Employment Discrimination Act) of the Virginia Public Procurement Act; The Virginians with Disabilities Act; The Americans with Disabilities Act; Sections 11-77 and 11-78 (Ethics in Public Contracting) of the Virginia Public Procurement Act; The Antitrust laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Virginia Privacy Protection Act The Federal Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records 1.3 Performance: All services provided by the Grant Recipient(s) pursuant to this agreement shall be performed to the satisfaction of the Granting Agency, and in accord with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. The Grant Recipient(s) shall not receive payment for work found by the Granting Agency to be unsatisfactory, or performed in violation of federal, state, or local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations. 1.4 Modification of Agreement: The Granting Agency may, upon mutual agreement with the Grant Recipient(s), issue written modifications to this agreement, including the scope of work, budget and compensation. Any and all modifications to this agreement shall be in writing and signed by the parties below or their official designee. 1.5 Availability of Funds: It is understood and agreed between the parties herein that the Granting Agency shall be bound only to the extent of the funds available or which may hereafter become available for the purpose of this agreement. 1.6 Financial Records Availability: The Grant Recipient(s) agrees to retain all books, records, and other documents relative to this agreement for five (5) years after final payment, or until audited by the Commonwealth of Virginia, whichever is later. The Granting Agency, its authorized agent, and/or State auditors shall have full access to and the right to examine any said materials during said period. 1.7 Drug Free Workplace: The unlawful or unauthorized use, manufacture, distribution, dispensing, or possession of alcohol or other drugs, or the impairment or incapacitation from the use of alcohol or other drugs is prohibited in the workplace by the Providing Agency or his/her employees utilized to provide services herein. 1.8 Copyrights: The Grant Recipient(s) assure(s) that, unless otherwise provided by the terms of the agreement, when material is developed in the course of the agreement which can be copyrighted, the Grant Recipient(s) may copyright the material or permit others to do so. However, the Granting Agency shall have royalty-free, non-exclusive, and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize others use, the material developed under this agreement. 1.9 Cancellation: This contract may be cancelled by the Granting Agency upon 30 days written notice to the Grant Recipient. If this contract is terminated, the Granting Agency shall be liable only for the funding expended at the effective date of termination. 1.10 Liability: The Granting Agency shall not be held liable for any injury(s) or loss suffered by the Grant Recipient(s) or patient/resident(s) which results from any services provided or procured with any funds herein granted to the Grant Recipient(s). Virginia Innovative Homeless Initiative Budget City of Roanoke Personnel Coon~inator Case Managers 3FTF @ 11,730 Case Manager 0.5FTE Cledcal Staff 0.75 FTE Fdnge Total Personnel Blue Ridge CSB Office Rent Staff Training Utilities Office Supplies Telephone Local Travel Client Flex Funds Total Total Roanoke 13,750 35,190 5,865 6,071 9,607 70,483 2,000 244 691 6O0 700 1,000 9,800 15,035 85,518 Roanoke u. I. ~ of I.k~ming amd Url~ D~v. kqwner~ Vifgini~ State CY~ ~ 3600 C, enlm 3600 Weet Bfold St~eat P.O. BOX 9O331 Richmond, VA 232~1 October 13, 1995 Dear Grantee: This letter is being sent to all U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) homeless assistance grantees end participants in the Single Family Property Disposition Homeless Initiatives program (SFPDHI) concerning a recent audit by the Department's Office of Inspector General. This audit indicates the need to maintain adequate documentation on the eligibility of persons to be served by .HUD homeless assistance programs. Ir, addition, the audit found that some grantees did not have documentation to verify whether clients were pan-0f the specific population targeted in the approved application. PARTICIPANT ELIGIBILITY The audit identified that a number of grantees have not adequately documented the eligibility of clients. Without adequate documentation, the Department cannot determine if the prog~'ams and limited resources they provide are reaching the homeless persons intended to be served by these programs. Below is specific guidance on what documentation the Department considers as adequate in determining whether someone is eligible to be served by HUD's homeless assistance programs. This documentation needs to be maintained by grantees and available for review by HUD. Persons Cominl~ From the Su'eets HUD recognizes that the homeless persons that may present the most difficult challenge to document as eligible for our assistance are those living in public or private places not designed for, or ordinarily used as, regular sleeping accommodations (i.e., on the streets, in cars, or other inappropriate places). The grantee should verify this type of living condition by information obtained during the intake process. This may include names of other organizations or outreach workers who have assisted them in thc past, names end addresses of friends or relatives, whether the client receives any general assistance checks, where the checks are delivered end any other information regarding the client's activities in the recent past which might provide a means of verification. If you are unable to verify this type of living condition, prepare a short written statement about the client's previous living place, have the client sign the statement end date it. Persons Coming From Emeruencv Shelter or Referral Aiencv If persons indicate they are coming from en emergency shelter, you should receive written verification from that shelter's staff. A record of this verification should be dated and filed. For persons referred by intake or social services agencies, the grantee should receive written verification (e.g., intake forms) from the refen'ing organization's staff as to where the persons have most recently been living. This verification should be dated and flied. Persons Cominn from Transitional Housimz for Homeless Persons For persons who come from a transitional housing facility you must receive written verification from that facility's staff that the person lived on the streets or in an emergency shelter prior to living in the transitional facility. A record of this verification should be dated and filed. Persons At Risk of B'ecomimz Homeless In cases where persons are at imminent risk of' homelassness because they face immediate eviction, and do not have sufficient resources to find replacement housing, there should be evidence of eviction proceedings and information regarding the income of the persons. If persons are living in an institution and are at risk of homelessness because they are about to be released from the institution with no subsequent residence identified and no resources or support network necessary to obtain housing, the file should contain evidence regarding income, as well as documentation of attempts made by the individual and/or institution to identify other housing and, 3r support network such as family, friends, religious and social groups, and similar organizations. SERVING THE TARGET POPULATION The audit also concluded that some participants being served were not part of the population explicitly targeted in the grantee's approved application and/or leasing organization's. HUD wishes to emphasize that its regulations for homeless assistance programs (i.e., Supportive Housing and Shelter Plus Care Programs and SFPDI-ff) with target populations (families with children, persons with mental illness, etc.) currently require that significant proposed changes to an approved program must receive prior HUD approval. The category of persons to be served, or target population, is one specifically mentioned significant change. As such, before changing the target population of its program, a grantee must contact the local field office and receive written approval for the change. For further assistance regarding participant documentation requirements, you may contact John Baker, Homeless Coordinator, at (804) 278-4503. Very sincerely yours, Community Planning and Development Division Virginia Innovative Homeless Initiative Service Definitions Outreach: Activities designed to seek out and find homeless persons living on the streets or in other places not designed for, or ordinarily used as, regular sleeping accommodations such as parks, cars and public transportation facilities. Other outreach strategies may include activities such as offering meals, medical screening, and drop-in centers which are intended to attract homeless persons and engage them in services. Shelter: The provision of emergency shelter with appropriate support and supervision to help ensure that homeless individuals and families receive adequate lodging and referral to necessary service providers or housing finders. Shelter may be provided in distinct public or private facilities, and may include the emergency use of hotel or motel rooms. Assessment: Activities designed to determine the immediate and longer-term needs of homeless persons and the eligibility for health and human services which help meet those needs. Assessment may be provided at several points in time by various participating organizations to determine an individual's homeless status, immediate health, social and economic concerns, potential eligibility for local public or private services, and actual eligibility for specific services. Care Planning and Case Management: Activities designed to plan and coordinate the provision of services and supports necessary to assist a homeless individual or family in ameliorating the causes of homelessness and obtaining adequate housing and assistance. These activities are provided directly by, or under the supervision of, staff of local departments of health, mental health and substance abuse services, social services, and rehabilitative (or employment) services. Innovative Homeless Initiative (IHI) Data Collection Requirements ' The following data elements must be collected for each recipient of an IHI funded service. Providers must collaborate and share pertinent information about recipients in order to coordinate services and avoid duplication. All information shall be maintained and disclosed in a confidential manner. For example, outreach workers should regularly count the numbers of persons seen each day, and the name, age, gender and race of persons who are found to be homeless and referred for shelter, further assessment, or other services. Shelter staff, and those providing care planning and case management, should collect the remaining data as services are provided to participants. OUTREACH/REFERRAL DATA ELEMENTS (AT FIRST CONTACT! Referral Sources: [Document total number of persons contacted by source) 01. Self 02. Street Outreach Workers 03. Emergency Shelter Staff 04. Psychiatric Hospital Staff 05. Other Hospital or Medical Clinic Staff 06. Mental Health Outpatient Program 07. Alcohol or Other Drug Program 08. Other Social Service Staff 09. Police 10. Housing A~thority 11. Other (specify) CONTACTS NOT RESULTING IN PARTICIPATION Reasons: [Document total from above who do not participate by reason) 1. Refused to Participate 2. Not Homeless 3. No Vacancies 4. Not Otherwise Eligible (specify) 5. Unknown 6. Other (specify) PARTICIPANT DATA ELEMENTS (HOMELESS RECEIVING ASSESSMENT & SERVICESi Age: 1. 17 and under 3. 31 to 50 2. 18 to 30 4. 51 and over Gender: 1. Male 2. Female Ethnicity: 1. Hispanic 2. Non-Hispanic [Note: "ethnicity" is not "race ") Race: 1. Asian/Pacific Islander 2. Black 3. Native American/Alaskan Native 4,. White Families: Living Situation: Adult's age & gender Child(ren)'s age & gender (Note: count separately from individuals, (Document current and prior to current homeless episode~ 01. Streets 02. Emergency Shelter 03. Transitional Housing 04. Psychiatric Facility* 05. Substance Abuse Treatment Facility* 06. Hospital* 07. Jail/Prison * 08. Domestic Violence Situation 09. Living with Relatives/Friends 10. Rental Housing 11. Home Ownership 12. Other (specify) (* ff the current living situation of an individual or family head is one of the noted treatment facil/t/e~. for a per/od less than 30 days and the prior living situation was on the street or in emergency shelter, that person or family shou/d be counted in either the street or shelter category, as appropriate.) Primary Disability: Monthly Income: Monthly Income Change: O. No Disability 1. Severe Mental Illness (SMI) 2. Chronic Alcohol or Other Drug Abuse (A&OD) 3. Dually Diagnosed (SMI/A&OD) 4. AIDS or Related Diseases 5. Other Disabilities (specify) (Document at program intake and discharge & see "Fam#y" belov O. No Income 1. $1 to 250 2. ~251 to 500 3. $501 to 1,000 4. $1,001 to 1,500 5. $1,501 to 2,000 6. $2,000 or more 9. Unknown (Document income change from intake to discharge. O. No Change 1. Increase up to $25 2. Increase from $26 to $100 3. Increase from $101 to $250 4. Increase from $251 to $500 5. increase over $501 6. Decrease in Income 9. Unknown Income Source/ Assistance: Length of IHI Participation: (Note: For families, document only adults' income, 00. No Financial Resources 01. Employment Income 02. Unemployment Benefits 03. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 04. Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) 05. Social Security 06. General Public Assistance 07. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) 08. Child Support 09. Veterans Benefits 10. Medicare 11. Medicaid -- 12. Food Stamps 13. Other (specify) First Date of Services 1. Served Up to 3 Months 2. Served 3 to 6 Months 3. Served over 6 Months (Document per service agency and in the aggregate, IHI Program Discharge: 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08, 09. 10. 11. Discharge (Document per service provided and length of participation, Last Date of Services 01. Needs Change - Needs Greater than Services Provided Needs Change - Needs Less than Services Provided Needs Change - Death Needs Change - Other Needs Change (specify) Involuntary - Violence/Destructive Behavior Involuntary - Non-payment of Rent Involuntary - Alcohol/Other Drug Abuse Problems Involuntary - Other Problems (specify) Other- Unknown Other - Left Voluntarily Other (specify) Destination: 01. Housing with Support Services 02. Other Subsidized Independent Housing 03. Unsubsidized Housing 04. Living with Family or Friends 05. Psychiatric Hospital 06. Alcohol or Other Drug Abuse Treatment Facility 07. Other Hospital 08. Jail/Prison 09. Unknown 10. Places Not Meant for Habitation (e.g. Street) '-11. Emergency Shelter 1 2. Other (specify) FUNDING INFORMATION IHI Funds, Spending Categories: (Aggregate expenditures by applicable categor~ Outreach Shelter Case Management Life Skills (Other than Case Management) Mental Health Services Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services AIDS Related Services Other Health Care Services Education Employment Assistance Child Care Children's Services Housing Assistance (see below) Follow-Up (Through Housing) Other Services (specify) IHI Funds, Housing Assistance: (Per address for initial rent and deposit expenditure<~ SRO/Efficiency Apt. - $ Amount, # of Units, # of Persons 1-Bedroom Unit - $ Amount, # of Units, # of Persons 2-Bedroom Unit - $ Amount, # of Units, # of Persons 3-Bedroom Unit - $ Amount, # of Units, # of Persons Larger Bedroom Unit - $ Amount, # of Units, # of Persons OTHER GRANT REQUIREMENTS In-Kind Staffing: (Document service, # of Hours, and # of Persons Serve. Health Services Mental Health Services Substance Abuse Services Social Services Rehabilitative (or Employment) Services Intake Date NAME REFERRAL SOURCE CODE NO PARTICIPATION CODE INTAKE LIVING PRIOR LIVING DISABILITY Discharge Date Participation Length COde INDIVIDUAL IHI DATA COLLECTION FORM (Keep on File) AGE SEX-CODE ETHNIC-CODE RACE-CODE (if #11: (if #6: CODE (if #12: CODE (if #12: CODE (if #5: INCOME SOURCE CODE(S) INTAKE MONTHLY INCOME CODE ASSESSED NEEDS (IMMEDIATE): ) ) ) ) ASSESSED NEEDS (LONGER TERM): REFERRALS: DISCHARGE MONTHLY INCOME CODE MONTHLY INCOME CHANGE CODE PROGRAM DISCHARGE CODE DISCHARGE DESTINATION NOTES: INCOME SOURCE CODE(S (if #11: (if #12: Intake ADULT ADULT CHILD CHILD CHILD Date Discharge Date Participation Length Code FAMILY IHI DATA COLLECTION FOBM (Keep on File) AGE SEX-CODE ETHNIC-CODE RACE-CODE AGE SEX-CODE ETHNIC-CODE RACE-CODE AGE SEX-CODE ETHNIC-CODE RACE-CODE AGE SEX-CODE ETHNIC-CODE RACE-CODE AGE SEX-CODE ETHNIC-CODE RACE-CODE REFERRAL SOURCE CODE NO PARTICIPATION CODE INTAKE LIVING ' ~ CODE PRIOR LIVING CODE DISABILITY CODE INTAKE MONTHLY INCOME CODE ASSESSED NEEDS (IMMEDIATE): (if #11: (if #6: (if #12: (if #12: (if #5: INCOME SOURCE CODE(S) ) ) ) ) ASSESSED NEEDS (LONGER TERM): REFERRALS: DISCHARGE MONTHLY INCOME CODE MONTHLY INCOME CHANGE CODE PROGRAM DISCHARGE CODE DISCHARGE DESTINATION INCOME SOURCE CODE(S) (if #11: (if #12: ) AGGREGATE PI%OGRAM DATA R~PORT FORM x. REFERPJtLS: 01. SELF 02. OUTREACH 03. SHELTER 04. PSYCH.HOSP. 05.. HOSP./MED. 06. M.H. OUTPT. 07. A&OD PROG. 08. SQC.~VC. 09. POLICE 10. HOUS.AUTH. 11. 11. 11. 11. 11. TOTAL: 9 A~CEPTED * # NOT ACCEPTED 1. Refused 2. Not Homeless 3. No Vacancies 4. 5. Unknown 6. o # IND IVIDU~S # F;tMILIES (Submit Every 60 Days) 9 NOT* # IN F;~4ILIES II. PARTICIPANTS DATA ELEMENTS: AGE/SEX: # INDIV. M 1. Up to 17 2. 18 to 30 3. 31 to 50 4. 51 & over # INDIV. F FAMILY M I~E: # INDIV. M 1. Asian/PI 2. Black 3. Ntv.Amer. 4. White # INDIV. F # F~ILY M ETHNICITY: # HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC FAMILY F FAMILY F LIVING SITUATION: 01 O2 03 04 O5 O6 O7 Streets Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing Psychiatric Facility* Substance Abuse Tx. Facility* Hospital* Jail/Prison* # CLTRRENT # PI~IOR 08. 09. 11. 12. 12. 12. 12. 12, Domestic Violence Situation Living with Relatives/Friends Rental Housing Home Ownership PRIMA~Y DISABILITY 0. NO Disability 1. Severe Mental Illness 2. Chronic Alcohol/Other Drug Abuse 3. Dually Diagnosed (SMI/A&OD) 4. AIDS or Related Diseases 5. o INDIVIDUALS # IN FAMILIES MONTHLY INCOME @INTAKE #INDIV./#FAMILY 0. No Income / 1. $1 to 250 / 2. $251 to 500 / 3. $501 to 1,000 / 4. $1,001 to 1,500 / 5. $1,501 to 2,000 / 6. $2,000 or more / 9. Unknown / @DISCHARGE #INDIV./#FAMILY / / / / / / / / INCOME CHANGE 0. NO Change 1. Increase up to $25 2. Increase $26 to $100 3. Increase $101 to $250 4. Increase $251 to $500 5. Increase over $501 6. Decrease in Income 9. Unknown @DISCHARGE #INDIV./#FAMILY / / / / / / / / INCOME SOURCE 00 O2 O3 04 05 06 O7 08 09 10 11 12 13 13 13 13 13. # INDIVIDUALS NO Financia~l Resources Employment Income Unemployment Benefits Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Social Security Disability Ins. (SSDI) Social Security General Public Assistance Aid to Families w/ Depend. Child. (AFDC) Child Support Veterans Benefits Medicare Medicaid Food Stamps PROGRAM PARTICIPATION First Date of Any Service 1. Served Up to 3 Months 2. Served 3 to 6 Months 3. Served over 6 Months / / INDIVIDUALS PROGRAM DISCHARGE Last Date of Any Service / / 01. Needs Greater than Services ~-fov~-i-d~-d-- 02. Needs Less than Services Provided 03. Death 04. Other Needs Change (specify) 05. Violence/Destructive Behavior 06. Non-payment of Rent 07. Alcohol/Other Drug Abuse Problems 08. Other Prob. 08. Other Prob. 08. Other Prob. 08. Other Prob. 08. Other Prob. 09. Other - Unknown 10. Other - Left Voluntarily 11. 11. 11. INDIVIDUALS # FAMILIES FAMILIES FAMILIES 11. ll. DISCHARGE DESTINATION 01. Housing with Support Services t~. Other Subsidized Independent Housing 0~. Unsubsidized Housing 04. Living with Family or Friends 05. Psychiatric Hospital 06. Alcohol or Other Drug Abuse Tx. Facility 07. Other Hospital 08. Jail/Prison 09. Unknown 10. Not Meant for Habitation 11 Emergency Shelter 12 12 12 12 12 (e.g. Street) III. IHI FUND EXPENDITURE CATEGORIES: Outreach Shelter Case Management Life Skills (Other than Case Management) Mental Health Services Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services AIDS Related Services Other Health Care Services Education Employment Assistance Child Care Children's Services Housing Assistance (see below) Follow-Up (Through Housing) Other Services Other Services Other Services Other Services Other Services TOTAL INDIVIDUALS .# FAMILIES AMOUNT HOUSING ASSISTANCE: ADDRESS $ AMOUNT # UNITS # PERSONS IN-KIND STAFFING: .TYPE* AGENCY ~ HOURS ~ iNDTV. # FAMILIES ~l~--~ealth, Mental Health, Substance--~--~-use,~ Services, Rehabilitative Employment, OtheT (Specify) $OOd. FederiJ F,q,~Jr / Vol. 60. No. 16 / We<lnesd4y. ~au&..y --,. 1lll I Nc~k:ls Appefld;- B--Applicom C~rtificatiofl$ ~tiM~ 1. It ~il comply wl~: Title ~ of ~ ~vil ~ ~ 1~ (42 O.3.~ 2~d))'~d ~bti~s (12 U.S.C 170t(~)). ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ptice: pundit ~e~o (Title 14 ~ ~ I], impiemea~ ~t~ ~!1. on ~e ~ of M. ~lor ~eat basible, emplo~eot. ~flin8 ~ of ~e ~t b ~vea e copy ~ neU~ o~n. b txcl~d~ ~ ~d con~ opposes ~s~ ~ ~ty ~ w~ch ~..~t ~.i~ ~m. ~ ~d ~, ~,~. ~toly ~e ~y ~ ~ to eff~4~ ~s a~nL f, ~ S~ of ~. Reh4biU~U~ ' ~ · Wi~ ~b~o~ to ~ mi pm~y ud ~ ~ 1973 (~ U.S,C 7~).. ~ b mp~r ~ ~l of ~pm~ ~ ~e aid of F~e~ iflvol~n8 ~e pro~ of simi~ mOM b. ~e Fe~ Hogans ~ (42 U.S.C md ~h~ons at 24 ~ ~ !~, ~ (o p~bit ~m~a~oo m h~ b~p. ~ iici ~t~ ~ ~o~ ~ ~ of ~y ~ m~, L T~ ~ M b follo~I K~OGS. o~. ~d e~r ~ p~ ~fi~ ~ta~fl8 to ~ M a ws~er to a~ly ~ ~ ~s~. For h~ ~ ~ ~ ~d ~e Fair Hous~ A~ ~d ~e~ ~ ~e mt~ ~ ~ ~, ~eflt ~plementinS ~ta~ t. ~fl~v, iff Hou~L u ~*ud~ by ~ IO7 '6-~.~ p~bit ~on t~t~S, ~p., p. 3391 ~ ~plemen~l~41~ ~ormofa~a~ - ~L~d,e~ Feder*! RaS:lf~or / Vol. ~. No. 1~ / Wodn,day. Janus,/ ~$. ~ut~ to ~d~M ~ ~ ~eld O~ce c~Ove ~meflu) ~ ~el ~i ~ by submlttin~ e m~ "Diem of *ub~plen~ ~ m~ ~d dlml~ l~3~} ~ (~) ~. P~o~l f~. ~e ~ ~vemd ecco~ly. by ~e ~Uon e~e~s ~1 ill ~is ~ifl~ti~ is I mate~el i~n~ ~der ~e s~flc ~t be~ ~fl ~p~mation of faa ~ wbi~ lo~ O. H~fl. ~n Ndle To.er. ~on wes ~de ~ ente~ ~1o. ~, A~si~ ~U~ ~ of t0~0. M ~.~slle br m~ m u;~ Into ~e~. ~ ~ ~plemn~ ~s ~ofl ~ ~ ~ 4. It Mil ~ply ~ ~ who &ih to ~e b ~ 4821~. ~d ~b~U~ ~lty of n~ h ~n i10,~ ~ of S. h Mfl [i) am enter ~to e ~uu~ f~l~. ~t~. ~iv~l~. bM. ~. ~ its ~ of ~M~ ~ ~ I ~ of pm~y to ~ vol~t~ u~ty nd MI. fl~- Billy ~ (SO1} 32~lt31. SO ~d ~'s app~d of ~ . O. ~ eppli~t ~Sfl ~t ii ~ ipp~uOon; (ii) supply ~ ~ l~ p~n~b (m 24 ~ 24.10S(p)J: ~o~U~ n~ b ~ to i. ~ not p~nOy d~. ~ ~7 IppU~k ~ntll sus~nd~, pm~ d~nt. {~em) ~ L ~. 1~1S W ~t ~Up~ m~ ~ ~ 24 ~A 24.110) by ~y F~I (313} ~ ~ ~ ~t air,ate oitm ~ de~nt or ~n~: ~m) e. ~ spp~t u~a~ ~at: F~ b~bn~d ~b ~d. by or on or ~r hd i ~/~d~t ~d~ SS~;~ {41S) S~S7. bb~ or ~e ~. to uy ~r~u a8~ ~em f~ ~ of br ~ m mem~ m em~em~ ~. ~. bA~. S~ ~ ~ h~te TMr ~ U Ob ~ ~p~ or ~y ~l~ ~ ~ Of ~. ~. 633 ~plo~ Ore ~of~ ~ ~On ~ ~ e~ ~y O~ ~i,,:ly M d~y~ nfo ~m~ ~ ~ ~on ~F~~CI~. ~: Secretary of Health end ~N*N~W~hy~..~te i~ ~ Tebpb~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540) 981-2541 Fax: (540) 224-3145 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 4, 1996 File #1-24-34-79-106-111-301-322 Raymond F. Leven Public Defender Suite 4B Southwest Virginia Building Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Mr. Leven: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 32782-010296 amending and reordaining subsection (f) of Section 19-20, When tax payable: installment payment: penalty for late payment: reDort and collection of delinquencies, of Article I, ~, of Chapter 19, LJ~._~, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to provide for interest to commence on the first day of the month following the month in which business license taxes are due and continuing until said taxes are paid in full at the maximum amount authorized by the State Code. Ordinance No. 32782-010296 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday, December 18, 1995, also adopted by the Council on second reading on Tuesday, January 2, 1996, and will be in full force and effect ten days following the date of its second reading. Sincerely, MFP:sm Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk Eric. MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE Ci~Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540) 981-2541 Fax: (540) 224-3145 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 4, 1996 File #1-24-34-79-106-111-301-322 Evelyn Jefferson Vice-President - Supplements Municipal Code Corporation P. O. Box 2235 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Dear Ms. Jefferson: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 32782-010296 amending and reordaining subsection (f) of Section 19-20, When tax payable: installment payment: penalty for late payment: report and collection of delinauencies, of Article I, JD_G_~, of Chapter 19, L.J~J3~_T~, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to provide for interest to commence on the first day of the month following the month in which business license taxes are due and continuing until said taxes are paid in full at the maximum amount au{horized by the State Code. Ordinance No. 32782-010296 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday, December 18, 1995, also adopted by the Council on second reading on Tuesday, January 2, 1996, and will be in full force and effect ten days following the date of its second reading. Please include Ordinance No. 32782-010296 in Supplement No. 35 to the Roanoke City Code. Sincerely, MFP:sm Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk Enc. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 2nd day of January, 1996. NO. 32782-010296. VIRGINIA, AN ORDINANCE amending and reordalning subsection (f) of S19- 20, When tax payable; installment payment; penalty for late payment; report and collection of delinquencies, of Article I, I__n General, of Chapter 19, License Tax Code, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to provide for interest to commence on the first day of the month following the month in which business license taxes are due and continuing until said taxes are paid in full at the maximum amount authorized by the State Code. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. Subsection (f) of S19-20, When tax payable; installment payment; penalty for late Dayment; report and collection of delinquencies, of Article I, In General, of Chapter 19, License Tax Code, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: Sec. 19-20. When tax payable; installment payment; penalty for late payment; report and collection of delinquencies. (f) The failure to pay the tax assessed, or due to have been assessed, on a license on or before the due date as set forth in subsections (a) and (b), or to pay such installment thereof as is required by subsection (d), or at such other time as the same shall become due and payable, shall subject the person so failing to the payment of a penalty of ten percent (10%) of the license tax remaining unpaid on such date, such penalty to be added and collected by the treasurer. In addition, interest at the maximum yearly rates authorized by the general law of the Commonwealth, as provided for in section 58.1-3916, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, shall be assessed and collected on such delinquent tax and penalty remaining ungaid from the first day of the month following the month in which such taxes, or any installment, are due to be paid, until paid. ATTEST: City Clerk. CITY OF ROANOKE TREASURER'S OFFICE P.O. BOX 1451 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24007-1451 TELEPHONE: (540) 981-2561 TELECOPIER: (540) 224-3019 GORDON E. PETERS TREASURER DAVID C. ANDERSON CHIEF DEPUTY December 18, 1995 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council: subject: Monthly Interest on Unpaid Business Licenses Baok~round: City Council on November 27, 1995, by Ordinance #3278-112795 amended the City Code to provide that 1996 and future business license taxes are due on or before March 1. City of Roanoke (Treasurer, Commissioner of the Revenue, Department of Finance, Office of Billings and Collections, City Information Systems) has upgraded the current business license system with payments being mailed directly to the Treasurer, effective March 1, 1996. II. Current situation: Business License System requires renewal payments be mailed directly to the City Treasurer on or before March 1st. city Code Section 19-20(f) provides for interest at the maximum annual rate authorized by Section 58.1-3916, Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). Interest is earned on unpaid taxes and penalty remaining unpaid from the first day following the day such taxes are due and continues until paid. Personal property taxes do not begin earning interest until the 1st day of the month following the month in which personal property taxes are due. III. ~SSUSS~ Efficiency: City would be uniform and accrue interest on unpaid business licenses on a consistent basis with personal property and city-wide accounts receivables. IV. Alternatives: ao City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending the Code of the City of Roanoke Section 19-20(f) to provide for interest commencing on the first day of the month following the month in which business license tax is due until paid at the maximum amount authorized by the State Code. Honorable Mayor and Members of Page 2 November 17, 1995 City Council B. City Council not adopt the attached ordinance and not authorize a uniform date to commence monthly interest. Recommendation: City Council approve alternative A and adopt the attached ordinance to provide a uniform and consistent method to apply interest to unpaid taxes (business license/personal property) and accounts receivables. Gordon E. Peters Roanoke City Treasurer Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Marsha Compton Fielder, Commissioner of the Revenue James D. Grisso, Director of Finance W. Robert Herbert, City Manager JAMES D. GRISSO Director of Finance CITY OF ROANOKE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 215 Church Avenue S.W~ ~Room 4~1 P.Q. Sox 1220 ,- Roanoke, ~?i~ginia 24006-1220 Telephone: (540) 981-2821 Fax: (540) 981-2940 December 18, 1995 JESSE A. HALL Deputy Director Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Re: Interest Accrual on Unpaid Business License Tax Dear Mayor and Members of Council: We concur with the City Treasurer's request to change the interest accrual on unpaid Business License Tax from the first day following the due date to the first day of the following month. This will provide a uniform method to accrue interest on unpaid business license tax, personal property and accounts receivable. I would be pleased to address any questions related to this matter. Sincerely, ~es so ' Director of Finance JDG:s C: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Gordon E. Peters, City Treasurer Marsha Compton Fielder, Commissioner of the Revenue Deborah J. Moses, Chief, Billings and Collections MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540) 981-2541 Fax: (540) 224-3145 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 4, 1996 File #32-51-514 George A. McLean, Jr., Attorney P. O. Box 1264 Roanoke, Virginia 24006 Dear Mr. McLean: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 32786-010296 amending Ordinance No. 16380 adopted April 19, 1965, establishing building setback lines on both sides of Colonial Avenue, S. W., from Brandon Avenue to Overland Road, each of said setback lines to be measured 45 feet from the centerline of Colonial Avenue, S. W., between said streets; and providing that Ordinance No. 16380 shall remain in full force and effect in all other respects. Ordinance No. 32786-010296 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday, December 18, 1995, also adopted by the Council on second reading on Tuesday, January 2, 1996, and will be in full force and effect ten days following the date of its second reading. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. pc: Mr. Roy E. Foutz, 1006 Clearfield Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKEt VIRGINIA, The 2nd day of January, 1996. No. 32786-010296. AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No. 16380, adopted April 19, 1965, establishing building setback lines on both sides of Colonial Avenue, S.W., from Brandon Avenue, S.W., to Overland Road, S.W. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 16380, adopted by City Council on April 1965, established building setbacks along Colonial Avenue, from the centerline Avenue; WHEREAS, including the this Council, 16380 should be amended to hereinafter provided. of Colonial Avenue from 60 feet to 45 feet from the centerline of Colonial after considering all of the evidence submitted, City Manager's report dated Decen~ber 18, 1995, to the Council is of the opinion that Ordinance No. establish building setback lines as 19, S.W., said setbacks measuring 60 feet from both sides of the centerline of Colonial Avenue, S.W., between Brandon Avenue, S.W., and Overland Road, S.W.; WHEREAS, a residential structure at 1006 Colonial Avenue was constructed before the adoption of Ordinance No. 16380; WHEREAS, a portion Of the aforementioned structure lies within the boundaries of the setback established by Ordinance No. 16380; WHEREAS, the property owner of 1006 Colonial Avenue, S.W., has requested that the building setback lines established by Ordinance No. 16380 be reduced on both sides THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that Ordinance No. 16380 be amended to establish building setback lines on both sides of Colonial Avenue, S.W., between Brandon Avenue, S.W., and Overland Road, S.W., each of said setback lines to be measured forty-five (45) feet from the centerline of Colonial Avenue, S.W., between said streets; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that Ordinance No. 16380 shall remain in full force and effect in all other respects. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia December 18, 1995 95-205 The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Request fi.om Roy E. Foutz, represented by George A. McLean, attorney, for the City to amend Ordinance No. 16380 to reduce established building line setbacks along a certain area of Colonial Avenue, S.W. Ordinance NO, 16380 was adopted by City Council on April 19, 1965, establishing certain building line setbacks along Colonial Avenue, S.W. ~ were thereby provided and established to regulate and require that "all buildings hereinafter erected on any of the real estate abutting on Colonial Avenue, S.W., fi.om Brandon Avenue, S.W. to Overland Road, S.W., shall be erected in relation to the building setback lines established by the provisions of this ordinance." Construction or alteration of buildings were thereby and thereafter prohibited within any part of this setback area as measured at 60 feet from the centerline of the current and existing Colonial Avenue. The intent of this ordinance was to provide for a future widening of the Colonial Avenue right-of-way to 120 feet. Roanoke Vallev Area Transportation Plan (1990-2015) subsequently and thereafter established a lesser right-of-way width of 90 feet for the future widening of this section of Colonial Avenue, S.W. Rights-of-way established by this official plan were measured at 45 feet fi.om the centerline of the current and existing Colonial Avenue, S.W. ~ under the provisions of Section 36.1-404 (setback lines fi.om major arterial highways) regulates and prohibits construction or alteration of buildings or structures within or adjacent to any rights-of-way established on the Roanoke Valley Area Transnortation Plan unless such building or structures are setback at least 25 feet from said rights-of-way. Members of Council Page 2 Construction. reconstruction or alteration of buildings and structures along this section of Colonial Avenue, S.W. is therefore regulated and prohibited within the setback area so designated and established as follows: Within 60 feet of the centerline of the current and existing rights-of-way of Colonial Avenue, S.W. (Ord. No. 16380). Within 25 feet of the rights-of-way of Colonial Avenue, S.W. as designated and established on the Roanoke Valley Area Transoortation Plan ( 1990- 2015) for future street widening (Section 36.1-404, zoning ordinance). ~ of 45 feet from the centerline of Colonial Avenue, S.W..as established on the Roanoke Valley Area Transportation Plan (1990-2015) and the additional 25 foot building line setback imposed by Section 36.1-404 of the zoning ordinance (total setback 70') exceeds the building line setbacks established by Ord. No. 16380. Buildings and structures or nortions thereof constructed prior to the City's adoption of Section 36.1-404 of the zoning ordinance that are located within the setback area established by the Roanoke Valley Area Transportation Plan (1990-2015) are classified under the provisions of the zoning ordinance as nonconformim, structures (36.1-593). Residence existing at 1006 Colonial Avenue, S.W., constructed in 1953 is located, in part, within the setback areas established by Ordinance No. 16380 and the Roanoke Valley Area Transportation Plan (1990-2015), ~ is located approximately 11.6 feet from the current and existing right-of- way of Colonial Avenue, S.W. Rear porch and concrete appurtenances are located within six feet of said existing right-of-way. Owner of the residence and property at 1006 Colonial Avenue, S.W. has recently applied for and obtained a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the building's encroachment into the front yard setback (15') as required by Section 36.1-402(b)) of the zoning ordinance. Variance aranted to ~[he owner did not, however, address the building's encroachment (nonconforming status) into the minimum building line setbacks established by Ord. No. 16380 or the Roanoke Valley Area Transportgtion Plan (1990-2015) as regulated by Section 36.1-404 of the zoning ordinance. Members of Council Page 3 Property owner has submitted a request for the City to amend Ord. No. 16380 to reduce the building line setback as established therein from 60 feet as measured from the centerline of Colonial Avenue to 45 feet. Covenant restrictions set by the subdivision in which the owner's property is located also established a building line setback from the adjacent street, Clearfied Road, S.W. This additional setback legally prevents the owner from rebuilding or relocating the structure on the lot in the event that the same should be damaged in the future to the aforementioned extent (see attached Map A). Location of the building line setbacks established by Ord. No. 16380 and the Roanoke Valley Area Transportation Plan (1990-2015) encumbers this residential structure to the extent that it could not be rebuilt or relocated on the lot in any manner that would accommodate its existing dimensions or living area. ~ has advised that the City's future street widening plans for this section of Colonial Avenue will require additional right-of-way of only 45 feet as measured from the centerline of the existing Colonial Avenue, S.W. Traffic Engineer further advises that a reduction in this building line setback, as requested, shall not in any way affect or restrict the City's future right-of-way needs for the widening of Colonial Avenue between Overland and Clearfield Roads, S.W. Amendment of Ord. No. 16380, if adopted, would reduce the limits of the building line setbacks from 60 feet from the centerline of Colonial Avenue, S.W. to 45 feet. Owner will still need to reapply to the Board of Zoning Appeals for an additional variance from the building line setback requirements imposed by Section 36.1-404 of the zoning ordinance. III. Issue~: A. Need and convenienc~ of the affected property owners. B. Effect on the City's future street widening plans. IV. Alternatives: Approve the r~uest from ROy Foutz for the City to amend Ordinance No. 16380 to reduce the established limits of the building line setback from 60 feet from the centerline of Colonial Avenue, S.W. to 45 feet from the centerllne of Colonial Avenue, S.W. as the same lies and extends between Overland and Clearfield Roads, S.W. Need and convenienc~ of the affected property owners. Amendment will effectively disencumber the existing structure at 1006 Colonial Avenue, S.W. Members of Council Page 4 from the building line setback restrictions imposed by Ord. No. 16380. Owner will still have to obtain an additional variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals in order for the structure to be rebuilt in a reasonable manner should it be damaged at any future time in the manner as described in Section 36.1-593(b) of the City's zoning ordinance. Effect on the City's future street widenine plans. Traffic Engineer has advised City staffthat a reduction in this building line setback area from 60 feet to 45 feet should not in any way affect the City's future needs or plans to widen Colonial Avenue in this area. ~ of Roy Foutz to amend Ordinance No. 16380 to reduce the established limits of the building line setbacks from 60 feet from the centefline of Colonial Avenue to 45 feet from the centerline of Colonial Avenue, S.W., as the same lies and extends between Overland Road and Clearfield Road, S.W. 1. Need and convenienq:e of the affected property owner will not be met. Effect on the City's futur0 street widening plgns Denial of the request will have no effect on the City's future plans for street widening. V. Recommendation: ~ thereby approving the affected property owner's request for the City to amend Ordinance No. 16380 to reduce the established build line setbacks from 60 feet from the centerline of the existing right-of-way of Colonial Avenue, S.W. to 45 feet. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH:ERT:mpf attachments cc: City Attorney Director of Finance City Engineer Building Commissioner Chief of Planning and Community Development Zoning Administrator IN THE (:oI]N(:IL O~ THE CiTY OF ROANOKE, VIR(IINIA, No,, 16300. AN ORDINANCE establishing building setback lines on both sides of Colchis1 Avenue, S. W., ~'rom Brandon Avenue ~o OvePlalld Road, S. W. WHEREAS. after due fl~ld proper notice thereof published a~ r~guired by law~ public hearin~, Co~encln~ on She First da~ of FebruarY, 1965, and ~=Eulsrly ~onbinued to Msrch 1965, ~nd to April 5, ]965, were held befor~ ~he Count31 the time and pla0e pl. ovided In said notices, on the queatlon of eo~abl]flhln~ building ~e~back lln~8 on both sides of Colonial Avenue, S. W., o~l~nally p~oposed to ex, end Brandon A~enue. S, W. to the ~[by's sou~h oorpoTabe' !~mlts and center line o~ Colollial Avenue, aS all of which public hearings, all pro~$r~Y owners In the affected area and all other Derson~ were ~wen an opportunity to be.heard on ~he question; and WHE~AS, ~he CI~y Plannln~ Co~les~on h~ving Initially ~eco~ended ~e~back linem measured 80 fe~ from said censer line bus havln~, upon ~econs~dera~lon of ~he reco~ended that ~aid building setback lines, measured 60 feeb from bhe ~tree$'a cenSe~ line, he established on both s~de~ of Colonial Av~:~ue ~rom Brandon ~ven~e, 8, W, to Head, S. W.I and aa hereinafter provided and as most recently recommerld~d by said City ?lannlng 0ommisslon. THEREFORE, BE IT OHDAINED by th~ Co,nell of the City Roanoke that bulldlnE setback lines be, and ~he ~ame Brandon Avenue, 8. W. to' 0verlan~ Road, S. W., each said setbaok line to be measured 60 feet from the established to P]an No. 489~, conslsbinE o~ ~ sheets prepared by and on fils In the office of the City El~Eine~r, a ~opy o~ which plan i8 oB fils tn the offic~ of the City Clerk. BE IT ~H(THER ORDAINED tha~ all buildings hereinafter ereoted on any o~' th~ r~ak ~st~te ~buttl:]g on ~ald Golo~]lal Av~nue~ S. W. from Br~ndon Avenue, S. W. to Overland Road, S. W. sh~ be ereut~d in ~.e]at[on to the building s~tba~k mstabllsh~d by th~ provisions of ~his ATTEST: City Clerk. C I '33 ~ O A'~ I N~I~E RDE PARTME NT ROANOKE COMM~[NICATION DATE: September 21, TO: Evelyn D. FROM: Robert K. SUBJECT: Colonial 1995 Dorsey, Zoning Administrator Bengtson, P.E., Traffic Engineer J~.~.l'~ Avenue At this time, the City of Roanoke does not have a specific project planned for widening Colonial Avenue, S.W. However, the Roanoke City Thoroughfare Plan (1990-2015) and the Roanoke Valley Arq~ ~95g Range Transportation Plan (1995-2015) both include the widening of Colonial Avenue as a desired highway improvement that could be built before the year 2015. Both of t~se plans are useful as planning documents, but do not commit the City of Roanoke to actually constructing any project in the plans. The w~dening proposed in these plans is for a ~our-lane divided roadway which would require a total right-of-way of 90 feet, This would only require 45 feet from the centerline, as opposed to the 60 feet from the centerline as presently shown on Colonial Avenue mapping for the area between Clearfield Road and Overland Road. This office has no objection to waiving the 60-foot setback, and changing same to a 45-foot setback at this location. gpe/ ~ / / // ~u~/~ ~' TELEPHONE: 540 / 982-8430 FACSIMIhE: 540 / 982-I728 GEORGE A. MC 1.~<,4, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 302 WASHINGTON AVENUE, S.W. ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MAILING ADDRESS: POST OFFICE BOX 1264 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24006 December 4, 1995 Mr. John Marlles, Chief Planning Department 215 Church Avenue Room 162 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Re: 1006 Clearfield Road, SW 0~C 5 199~ CITY OF ROAI'40~(E DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY BE~LOPMENT Dear Mr. Marlles: I represent Roy E. Foutz who is the owner of the above property. Mr. Foutz requested that Ordinance Number 16380 dated April 19, 1965 be amended to change the 60 foot set back line along Colonial Avenue, SW to a 45 foot set back line. The property at 1006 Clearfield Road, SW was built in 1953 by Mr. Foutz's parents and would be grandfathered from the 60 foot set back ordinance. This property remained in the Foutz family until it was scheduled to be sold last September. At that time it was discovered that if the house suffered a casualty it would be impossible to rebuild on the lot because the 60 foot set back line would make the lot unbuildable. By changing the set back line from 60 to 45 feet this would no longer be a problem. appreciate your assistance in this matter. Sin.corel ? George A. McLean, Jr. GAMjr/vas MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE City Cl~rk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540) 981-2541 Fax: (540) 224-3145 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 4, 1996 File #166-169-468 Apur R. Patel, Attorney 1401 Franklin Road, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Dear Mr. Patel: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 32801-010296 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Boundary Line Agreement with James L Mayhew to establish the boundary line between property owned by the City and Mr. Mayhew, as shown on a survey attached as "Schedule A" to a report of the Water Resources Committee under date of December 18, 1995, said agreement to be upon form approved by the City Attorney. Ordinance No. 32801-010296 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday, December 18, 1995, also adopted by the Council on second reading on Tuesday, January 2, 1996, and will be in full force and effect ten days following the date of its second reading. Sincerely, MFP:sm Enc. pc: Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk Claude D. Carter, Attorney, P. O. Box 13206, Roanoke, Virginia 24032 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 2nd day of January, 1996. No. 32801-010296. VIRGINIA, AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to execute a Boundary Line Agreement with James L. Mayhew to establish the boundary line between the respective properties. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the City Manager, or his designee, and the City Clerk, are hereby authorized to execute and attest, respectively, a Boundary Line Agreement with James L. Mayhew, establishing the boundary lines between property owned by the City and Mr. Mayhew, as shown on the survey attached as Schedule "A" to the report of the Water Resources Committee dated December 18, 1995, said agreement to be upon form approved by the City Attorney. ATTEST: City Clerk. December 18, 1995 Report No. 95-358 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Establishment of Boundary Line Carvins Cove Watershed in The attached staff report was considered by the Water Resources Committee at its regular meeting on December 11, 1995. The Committee recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to execute a Boundary Line Agreement with James L. Mayhew to establish the boundary line between the City's and the Mayhew's property as shown on the survey attached as Schedule "A", in accordance with conditions stated in the attached report. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairperson Water Resources Committee ETB:KBK:afm Attachments cc: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities & Operations D. D. Daniels, Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer M. Craig Sluss, Manager, Water Department Apur R. Patel, Esq. Alonzo H. Long, Esq. Report No. 95-358 CITY OF ROANOKE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION DATE: December 11, 1995 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ~,,~ember~, Water Resources Committee Br~_e~r D~gctor, Utilities and Operations thru '~"~V~. ~'b--~ H'e~:~rt, City Manager Establishment of Boundary Line in Carvins Cove Watershed Background in chronological order is as follows: A Complaint in Condemnation for the taking of the property of James L. Mayhew in the Carvins Cove Watershed area was filed by the United States of America on October 13, 1994. The property is to be used for the Appalachian National Scenic Trail for the benefit and enjoyment of the public, and contains approximately 46.08 acres. Subject to existinq easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads, and pipelines, the estate being acquired for the public use is fee simple title. II. Current Situation is as follows: The City of Roanoke owns a parcel of land adjacent to the property of James L. Mayhew. The City is a defendant in the condemnation case, because the exact boundary line between the property belonging to James L. Mayhew and the City is unclear. B. The City filed an answer to the Complaint in Condemnation denying that it had any interest in the property which is the subject of the condemnation case. A survey of the property was prepared as part of Mr. Mayhew's attempts to settle this case. That survey establishes a boundary line between Mr. Mayhew's property and the City's property. Members, Water Resources Committee Condemnation of Property in Carvins Cove Watershed December 11, 1995 Page 2 Mr. Mayhew has requested that the City enter into a Boundary Line Agreement based on the Survey of Tract 475-27 of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail prepared by L M W, P. C., dated 10-13-95. A copy of the survey is attached as Schedule "A". II1. Issues in order of importance are: A. Public need B. Boundary Line Establishment C. Cost to City IV. Alternatives in order of feasibility are: Committee recommends that City Council authorize the City Mana.qer to execute a Boundary Line Agreement with James L. Mayhew to establish the boundary line between the City's and Mayhew's property is as shown on the survey attached as Schedule "A". Public need for the proper administration, preservation, and development of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail will be met. 2. Boundary line between properties will be established. 3. Cost to City would be zero. Committee recommends that City Council not authorize the City Mana.qer to execute a Boundary Line Agreement with James L. Mayhew to establish the boundary line between the City's and Mayhew's property is as shown on the survey attached as Schedule Members, Water Resources Committee Condemnation of Property in Carvins Cove Watershed December 11, 1995 Page 3 Public need for the proper administration, preservation, and development of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail will be met by proceeding to trial on condemnation case during which the court will establish the boundary line between the properties. Boundary line between properties will be established through a much more expensive process. Cost to City would be cost of the survey, and preparation of a legal defense. Committee's Recommendation is that City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a Boundary Line Agreement with James L. Mayhew to establish the boundary line between the City's and Mayhew's property is as shown on the survey attached as Schedule "A". WRH/KBK/SEF/ Attachment CC: City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Public Works Director of Utilities and Operations Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations City Engineer Manager, Water Department Apur R. Patel, Esq. Alonzo H. Long, Esq.