HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 03-16-8728562
Bowl~s )
REGULAR WEEKLY
SESSION ...... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
March 16, 1987
2:00 p.m.
AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL
Call to Order -- Roll Call· (M~. Tro~ wa~ abse~xt.)
The invocation will be delivered by The Reverend Robert A.
Fiedler, Associate Pastor, Second Presbyterian Church. Pr~e~u~.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America will be led by Mayor Noel C. Taylor.
BID OPENINGS
Bids for a Fire Suppression System, Halon 1301
Computer Room in Municipal North. Fou~ bicb~ w~e relied to a
committee composed of M~s~. Ga~and, Chairman, Snead and K~.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public hearing on a proposal to impose a special
tax on the consumers of telephone service in the
City, in the amount of forty-six cents ($.46) per
month per telephone line, for the purpose of par-
tially defraying the costs of an enhanced 911
telephone system. Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City
Manager.
2)
3)
A report of the City Manager with regard to a spe-
cial tax on purchasers of local telephone service
for certain costs of enhanced emergency telephone
service. Adopted Ordinance No. 28562 on fY.~t ~eadin~. (6-0)
A report of ~he City Manager concurring in a
report of the 8id Committee with regard to the
Computer-Aided Dispatch System (C.A.D.), ~id
Number ~6-7-56. Adopted O~dinance No. 28565 16-0)
(4)
A report of the City Manager concurring ~n a
report of t~le Bid Committee with regard to an
Electronic Communications Control Center and
related RF-Digital Data Network with Mobile Data
Terminals, and appropriation of funds therefor.
Adopted Ordinance No. 28564 and Ordinance No. 28565 (6-0)
(1)
CONSENT AGENDA (Approved 6-0)
ALL MATTERS LISTEO UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSII)ERED
TO BE ROUTINE BY THE C[[Y COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE
MOTION IN THE. FORM LISTED 8ELOW. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE
CUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL
BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIOERED SEPARATELY.
C-1
C-2
Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Monday,
February 9, 1987, and the special meeting held on Friday,
February 13, 1987.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Dispense with the reading thereof and
approve as recorded.
A report
participation
Blue Shield.
of the Director of Finance with regard to employee
in the Pre-Tax Section 125 Plan for Blue Cross/
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
C-3
C-4
Qualification of Lee S. Anthony as a member of the City
of Roanoke Transportation Safety Commission for a term of four
years ending October 31, 1990.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
Qualification of Sandra H. Eakin as Deputy City Clerk for
the City of Roanoke, Virginia, effective March 9, 1987.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
Requ~$~ of the C~ty Manag~for ExecuZ~LvA S~sio~ on: 1)dxlsposl~tion of pubt~Le~!y
held property, 2)acquisition-of real property for public purpose, and 3) legal
' REGULAR AGENDA ~f~tegu~.
Hearing of Citizens Upon Public ~atters:
a. Request of Larry L. Fenzel to address Council on three
matters of business for implementation by the City. Re~_Ju~ed to the
Commiasionerof Revenue and City Manag~ for study, repor~and recommendation to
Petitions and Communications: Coun~L1.
a. (t)
A communication from Alzon L. Knighton, Jr., Attorney,
representing the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority, requesting approval for the making
of loans by the Housing Authority wit~ respect to
residences located in areas of the CiZy which are not
designated as redevelopment areas, conservation areas
or rehabilitation districts. Adopted R~olu~tion No. 28566
(2) A report of the City Manager with regard to the
abovedescribed request. Rece~Lved and f~]led.
(2)
Reports of Officers:
a. City Manager:
Briefings: None·
Items Recommended for Action:
Reports of Committees:
1. A report recommending that $55,000.00 be appropriated
to supplement certain accounts in connection with snow
emergency operations in January and February, 1987.
Adopted Ordinance No. 28567 (6-0)
2. A report recommending the appropriation of $7,293.08
to provide for the purchase of a Whirlpool Bathing
System for the City Nursing Home· Adopted Ordinance No. 28568
3. A report recommending the award of an engineering
contract to Subsurface Technology, Inc., in the amount
of $14,550.00, for compaction testing of the grading
for Advance Stores Co. , Inc., at Roanoke Centre for
Industry and Technology· Adopted Ordinance No. 28569 (6-0)
4. A report recommending authorization to execute an
agreement with Valley Developers, Incorporated, and
The Park-Oak Grove, L.P. , for participation in costs
for improvements to the Norwood Sanitary Sewer System,
to assure capacity for service in the Norwood area·
Adopted Ordinance No. 28570 (6-0)
None.
(6-0
Unfinished Business: None.
Introduction and Consideration of Ordinances and Resolutions:
Ordinance No. 28550, on second reading, rezoning a certain
tract of land containing two acres, more or less, located
at the southeast corner of Che intersecCion of Route 419
and Woodmar Drive, S. W., designated as Official Tax No.
5090207 and a portion of Official Tax No. 5090205, from
C-1, Office and Institutional District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, subject to certain proffered con-
ditions. Adopted Ordinance No. 28550 (6-0)
Ordinance No. 28551, on second reading, permanently
vacating, discontinuing and closing a paper alley, ten
feet wide and 150 feet in length, running between Lots 16
and 17, Block 3, Map of Rosalind Hills. Adopted Ordinance No. 28551
(6-0)
Ordinance No. 28559, on second reading, granting a revo-
cable license for the construction of certain building
appendages encroaching over and into a portion of Campbell
Avenue, S. W., First Street, S. W., and Kirk Avenue, S. W.,
located at 34 Campbell Avenue, S. W., Official Tax No.
1011701, upon certain terms and conditions· Adopted Ordinance
No. 28559 (6-0)
(3)
10.
Ordinance No. 2~561, on second reading, authorizing the
Mayor to enter into a certain contract between t~e City,
Roanoke County and the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission;
and further authorizing the Mayor to execute on behalf of
the City a quitclaim deed conveying to such Commission cer-
tain real property of the City dedicated to airport use,
excepting the real property known as Fire Station No. 10.
Adopted Ordinance No. 28561 (6-0}
An Ordinance to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1986-87 General Fund Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
for an emergency. Adopted Ordinance No. 28571 (6-0)
Motions and Miscellaneous Business:
Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and members of City
Council.
Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and
committees appointed by Council.
Other Hearings of Citizens:
(4)
Office of the Ci~, Clen~
March 18, 1987
File #~
NCR Corporation
7001 West Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23229
Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 28563, accepting your propo-
sal far a public safety Computer Aided Dispatch System, including
hardware and software, in an amount not to exceed $709,560.00,
which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 16, 1987.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
~4FP:ra
Enco
cc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Afr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration
Public Safety
Mr. Warren E. Trent, Manager, Civil Defense
Mr. M. David Hooper, Superintendent of Police
Mr. Jerry W. Kerley, Fire Chief
Mr. Alfred Beckley, Jr., Superintendent of Communications
Mr. Archie Harrington, Manager, City Information Systems
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, ilanager, General Services
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Air. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
and
I~oom 456 Munlcll:~l Building 2t5 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 240t t (703) 981-2541
Office of ~ City Cle~
March 18, 1987
File #301
P.S.W.3
1390 Market Street, Suite 908
San Francisco, California 94102
Hewlett Packard
Tanglewood West Building,
3959 Electric Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Suite 240
Burroughs Corporation
536 McClanahan Street
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
I. D. M. Corporation
111 Franklin Plaza
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Command Data Systems
6250 Village Parkway
Dublin, California 94568
McDonnell Douglas Computer System
12 Alfred Street
Woburn, Massachusetts 01801
Atkinson System Technologies
Company
P. 0. Box 1168
Sacramento, California
95826
Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 28563, accepting the propo-
sal of NCR Corporation for a public safety Computer Aided
Dispatch System, including hardware and software, in an amount
not to exceed $709,560.00, which Ordinance was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, March 16, 1987.
On behalf of the Council, I would like to express appreciation
for submitting your proposal for a public safety Computer Aided
Dispatch System.
Sincere ly,~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
Room456 MuniclpolBulldlng 215 ~nurch Avenue, S.W. Roanohe, Vlrglnla24011 (703)98t-254¢
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 16th day of March, 1987.
VIRGINIA,
No. 28563.
AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of NCR Corporation for a
public safety Computer Aided Dispatch System, including hard-
ware and software, upon certain terms and conditions, and
awarding a contract therefor; authorizing the appropriate
City officials to execute agreements with NCR Corporation
and NCR Credit Corporation relating to such procurement;
rejecting all other bids made to the City for such system;
and providing for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by
1.
public
in full
the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
The bid of NCR Corporation made to the City for a
safety Computer Aided Dispatch System, such bid being
compliance with the City's mandatory specifications
therefor and as provided in the contract documents offered
said bidder, which bid is on file in the Office of the City
Clerk, is hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and
the City Clerk are hereby authorized on behalf of the City
to execute and attest, respectively, contracts with NCR
Corporation and NCR Credit Corporation
owned subsidiaries of NCR Corporation,
riding for the terms and conditions of
Computer Aided Dispatch System,
ware, and the financing thereof.
and other wholly
such contracts pro-
the sale of the
including hardware and soft-
3. The cost to the City of
System, including hardware and software,
$709,560.00, which may be paid in sixty
of $11,826 each.
4. The above-described contracts with NCR Corporation
and NCR Credit Corporation and other wholly owned subsidi-
aries of NCR Corporation shall be in such form as is
approved by the City Attorney.
5. Any and all other bids made to the City for the
aforesaid system are hereby REJECTED, and the City Clerk is
directed to notify each such bidder and express to each the
City's appreciation for such bid.
6. In order to provide for the usual daily operation
of the municipal government, an emergency is deemed to
exist, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect
upon its passage.
the Computer Aided Dispatch
shall not exceed
(60) monthly payments
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
March 16, 1987
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Bids For Computer Aided Dispatch
System (C.A.D.), Bid Number 86-7-66
I concur in the recommendation of the bid committee relative
to the above subject and submit it to you for appropriate action.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:DDR:jb
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
March 16, 1987
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
I. BACKGROUND
II.
SUBJECT: BIDS FOR COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH
SYSTEM (C.A.D.), BID NUMBER 86-7-66
July 1985, City Council authorized by motion, the City Manager to
proceed with the implementation of an E9-1-1/C.A.D. communication
system.
Bo
Specifications were developed for a modern state-of-the art public
safety computer aided dispatch system to effectively and efficiently
provide essential communication capabilities for police, fire and
rescue services.
Specifications were sent specifically to forty-two (42) vendors and
were also advertised in the Roanoke Times and World News.
September 3, 1986, a pre-bid conference was held to discuss project
specifications and requirements. Eleven (11) firms were represented
at this conference.
go
October 24, 1986, seven (7) bid responses were received, after due
and proper advertisement, publicly opened and read at 2:00 p.m., by
the Manager of General Services. Bid tabulation is attached.
Responsive bidder is "a person, or firm, who has submitted a bid
which conforms in all material respects to the invitation to bid
(including specifications)".
CURRENT SITUATION
All bid responses were evaluated by representatives of the following
departments:
1. Administration and Public Safety
2. General Services
3. City Information Services
4. Communications
5. Police
6. Fire
Detail evaluation of bid responses including references, brochures
and statistical documents, resulted in identifing NCR Corporation as
the only firm meeting all mandatory specifications (see attachment
"A").
Representatives of departments noted in "A" above, visited two (2)
NCR site locations to secure additional data relative to the
proposal.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Computer Dispatch System
Page 2
Do
The implementation committee, with assistance of the City Attorney
began a contract development process with NCR Corporation.
The contract developed for a Computer Aided Dispatch System is shown
as Attachment "B".
III. ISSUES IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE
1. Need of Equipment
2. Compliance with Bid Specifications
3. Fund Availability
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Vo
Award the bid, by contract, to furnish and install a Computer Aided
Dispatch System in accordance with City of Roanoke contract with NCR
Corporation for the amount of $11~826.00 per month for a period of 60
months not to exceed $709,560.00.
Need of Equipment - proposed equipment is necessary to accom-
plish the objectives of and efficent and effective E9-1-1 and
Computer Aided Dispatch Program as authorized by Council, July
1985.
Compliance with Bid Specifications - the proposal as submitted
by NCR Corporation meets all mandatory requirements.
Fund Availability - funds necessary to secure the proposed
C.A.D. System will be provided for by the per telephone line tax
charge as approved by an earlier report.
B. Reject all bids.
Need of Equipment - necessary equipment to accomplish the C.A.D.
objective would not be accomplished.
Compliance with Specification - would not be a factor in this
alternative.
Fund Availability - funds to be received as the result of the
established special tax would not be expended for the purpose
intended.
RECOMMENDATION
Council concur with Alternative "A" - award the bid to furnish and
install a Computer Aided Dispatch System in accordance with City of
Roanoke contract with NCR Corporation for the amount of $11,826.00
per month for a period of 60 months not to exceed $709,560.00.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Computer Dispatch System
Page 3
Authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with NCR Corporation
for a Computer Aided Dispatch System.
Respectfully submitted,
Committee:
GCS/DDR/ms
Archie Harrlngto~
D. Darwin Roupe
CC:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Administration & Public Safety
Director of Public Works
A'I'[ACIII~NT "A"
Bid Evaluation
for
Co{uter Aided Dispatch System
Bid Number 86-7-66
Bid Response
Atkinson System
Technologies Company
2. Burroughs Corporation
3. Command Data Systems
Hewlett-Packard and
The Software Group
IBM Corporation and
PSW3 Incorporated
McDonald Douglas Computer
Systems Company
Bid Evaluation
1. Hardware proposal not complete
2. Requires additional charges to meet
specifications
3. Hardware maintenance does not meet
specifications
4. Delivery 365 days, not 180 days as requested.
5. Higher Cost
1. No Bid or Performance Bond to cover
application software
2. Company does not have license for software.
3. Higher Cost
1. No console installation
2. VCIN/NCIC 3270 emulation does not meet
requirements
3. No real time transfer - tape only
4. No system printer
5. Monthly maintenance cost not provided
1. Bid from software supplier, The Software
Group, could not comply with bond require-
ments.
2. Bid does not include matinenance cost for
system software
1. Took exceptions to CRT requirements
2. System implementation requires 8 months
3. Higher cost
1. Did not provide requested information as
required by bid specifications
2. Additional charges for interface
3. Higher cost
7. NCR Corporation 1. Lowest responsible bid meeting mandatory
requirements of the the bid specifications
g
g
g
g
Lat Purser& Associate~lnc.
230 South Tryon Street, Suite 240' Charlotte, North Carolina 2820~' Telephone (704) 374-0999
LAT PURSER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
.HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Headquartered in Charlotte,
Lat Purser & Associates, Inc., from its inception, has been
in four basic areas of commercial real estate - development,
brokerage, mortgage brokerage, and property management. In recent
years, the firm has opened both a leasing division and an acquisition
division.
North Carolina and established in 1961,
involved
commercial
Induslrial / Commercial-DeveloDment, Sa,~s, Leasing, Managemenl, Morlgage Banking, and ApDra~$mg
Following is a brief summary of the company's six divisions and
our involvement with each.
During the past twenty-five years, Lat Purser & Associates, Inc.
has been involved in the development and/or leasing of
approximately eighty shopping centers. These developments, located
primarily in North and South Carolina, Georgia and Virginia, have
varied in size from 30,000 square feet to slightly over 650,000
square feet. Currently, the major concentration is on the 50,000
to 100,000 square foot shopping center with fifty percent of the
space being occupied by small shops. Additionally, a diversification
program is underway with emphasis on office development,
particularly build to suits for anchor tenants and office/warehouse
combinations. The firm is also involved in the development of
some limited land subdivisions and resort condominiums.
The development process is responsible for taking the project
from an idea to completion and management in-house, including the
lease-up, construction, and financing, as well as the placement
of equity.
The commercial brokerage division concentrates primarily on
commercial and industrial sales ~as well as leasing. The major
geographic emphasis is on the Charlotte/Mecklenburg MSA, but a
substantial portion of the division's income is generated by
way of income property brokerage transactions throughout the
Southeast United States.
Client orientation, either by representation of prospective users
or buyers of income property, is the major effort of this division.
Activity in the mortgage brokerage division of the company is at
an all time high, principally due to liquidity in the market as
well as interest rates. Since 1962, the company has been the
exclusive correspondent in North and South Carolina for Connecticut
Mutual Life Insurance Company. Correspondent relationships are
maintained with several other regional life companies as well as
strong working associations with numerous major savings and loans,
commercial banks, and a substantial number of additional life
insurance companies.
In addition to financing our own projects, we handle both interim
and long term placements for a number of other developers and
owner/occupants throughout the South Atlantic region of the
United States.
During 1983, the management department became the largest retail
management operation in the Carolinas. The geographic concentration
of this division is in North and South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia,
and Tennessee. The company's ownership of a Navajo Chieftain
aircraft enables it to quickly react to any management problems
and opportunities in these states. The department currently
manages shopping centers, apartments, office buildings, office
condominiums, and residential condominiums, and is actively
pursuing multi-tenanted office/warehouses.
In addition to our own accounts, management is provided for
Balcor/American Express, Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company,
Royalnest Shipping, The Heritage Group, Ketchikan, N.V., and a
number of individuals, partnerships, and corporations.
Formerly incorporated in the management section, the leasing
division has, as its total concentration, the full occupancy of
all the company's new developments as well as the fee contract
management agreements. Its young and aggressive staff prides itself
on maintaining a very high level of occupancy in all properties
and an outstanding ongoing relationship with most of the major
national, regional, and local retailers in the South Atlantic
region. Communication with these retailers on a consistent basis
has been a hallmark of this team.
The recently opened acquisitions division is aimed towards a
market segment of first generation income producing properties
that have either been underutilized, underleased, or undermaintaine,
and, with their current proven location, have the opportunity to
be upgraded into a 1980's development. This effort requires a
great deal of due diligence in the underwriting phase to assure
that the property is well situated for turn-around. Subsequently,
after the acquisition phase, careful attention to detail is
necessary for the restoration to be effectively completed.
Retail and office opportunities in the larger urban markets
throughout the Southeast United States are the prevailing direction
The total package size will vary from approximately $2,000,000 to
$6,000,000 in size, with the ownership initially acquired by
way of the company's line of credit. Eventually, ownership is
assigned to a partnership at the time of equity placement. Market
analysis is a key ingredient in the analysis phase of the
underwriting, and one for which the firm has staffed explicitly
in order to remain consistently abreast of changing demographic
patterns of growth.
LAT PURSER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
APPROACH TO INCOME PRODUCING PROPERTIES
There are varied approaches to income producing property, but
Lat Purser & Associates, Inc. has, through the years, taken the
approach that it is an asset that by itself, however, does not
automatically create value. Through intensive and aggressive leasing
coupled with a good financing program, attention to detail and, most
importantly, an ongoing high quality maintenance and management program,
the likelihood of the respective property achieving its highest and
best return is enhanced.
The company has never taken the approach that you underwrite properties
on an after-tax basis - that it should be a strong positive cash-on-cash
yield from the day the project opens its doors. To go from pro forma
to a positive double digit cash-on-cash yield comes essentially from
three ingredients. First, the location - does it have growth
opportunities or not? Secondly, the underwriting of the transaction
itself in essence, how the deal is put together combined with an
understanding of the market forces projected over the next five to ten
years. Finally, providing timing and some degree of stability in the
financial markets holds, pure and simple hard work is the catalyst to
successful completion. We have always taken the attitude that persistence,.
perseverance, and being dogmatic with good underwriting and a good
location will lead to the value adding process we undertake on each
development.
Client relationships are the other major factor considered essential
to our success. Our major customers have always been the user of space.
This may be in the form of a retailer, an office tenant, or an owner/
occupant, but is always oriented towards providing the best quarters
with the best location in the tightest time frame possible for each
occupant. We work extremely hard at maintaining open lines of
communication with those expanding organizatiorsin our geographic
region who know they can rely on us to deliver a product of quality
in a location to suit their needs in a timely fashion.
As a result of providing quality space in an efficient, timely manner
over the past twenty-five years, we have developed a certain capability
and sensitivity to the respective type of client's needs. We feel
that this understanding of the marketplace and its numerous facets
gives us a marked edge in providing this major service as well as the
impetus necessary to continue the growth trend we expect and demand
of ourselves.
OFFICERS AND MANAGEMENT
Thomas E. Norman - President
Tommy Norman has over sixteen years experience in commercial development
and related fields. Prior to his association with Lat Purser & Associates
in 1972, he held positions in construction management as well as
commercial lending with Chemical Bank, New York City.
Mr. Norman holds an Undergraduate degree from Wake Forest University
in Business Administration and a graduate degree from New York University
with a concentration in Finance and Investment. He is licensed as a
broker in North and South Carolina, a member of the Urban Land Institute,
International Council of Shopping Centers, the Mortgage Bankers
Association of America, the Mortgage Bankers Association of the
Carolinas, the North Carolina Income Property Association, and the
National Association of Realtors.
Civically, he has chaired or served on the boards of the Charlotte
Summer Pops Orchestra, Inc., the Mecklenburg County Department of
Social Services, the Greater Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, the
Charlotte Children's Theatre, the Outdoor Education Center, Goodwill
Industries, the Coliseum 100 Committee, Open House Counselling
Service, Inc., the Light Factory, the Arts and Science Campaign and
United Way, as well as the Board of Deacons of Myers Park Baptist Church.
Additionally, Mr. Norman is a Trustee of the Central Piedmont Community
College Foundation, is a member of the Board of Visitors of
Johnson C. Smith University, and a member of the Board of Trustees
of the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics.
Lat W. Purser, III - Vice President and Assistant Secretary
Lat Purser, III has been associated with the firm for twelve years in
the commercial leasing, mortgage banking, and development divisions.
Mr. Purser is a graduate of Washington & Lee University with a B.A.
in Commerce and holds an M.B.A. from the University of North Carolina
with a major in both Finance and Economics. He is licensed as a
broker in both North and South Carolina, a member of the Mortgage
Bankers Association of America and the Mortgage Bankers Association
of the Carolinas, the National Association of Realtors, the International
Council of Shopping Centers, the North Carolina Income Property
Association, and the Greater Charlotte Chamber of Commerce. He is
chairman of the Athletic Committee of Washington & Lee University
and past chairman of Alumni-Admissions, Washington & Lee University.
Michael R. Weinberg - Comptroller
Mike Weinberg oversees the company's financial operations and advises
on the structuring of various projects. Prior to joining the company,
he was a supervisor with the tax department of Ernst & Whinney, a
Big Eight accounting firm. There, he had extensive experience with
the real estate industry.
Mr. Weinberg is a graduate of the University of North Carolina with a
degree in accounting. He is a licensed Certified Public Accountant in
North Carolina, and is a member of the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants and the North Carolina Association of Certified
Public Accountants.
Helen Oxendine - Secretary/Treasurer
As head of the Accounting Department, Helen Oxendine supervises the
accounting procedures for all properties managed by the company as
well as being responsible for the corporate accounting of the firm.
In December, 1984, she was appointed Secretary/Treasurer of the
Corporation by the Board of Directors.
L.R. Miller, Jr. - Vice President/Mortgage Banking
Linn Miller has over fourteen years experience in real estate finance,
both construction and permanent and related functions. He held executive
level positions for ten years with a large savings and loan institution
before joining Lat Purser & Associates, Inc. in 1983.
Mr. Miller holds an undergraduate degree in Business Administration
with a major in Finance from Western Carolina University. He is a
licensed real estate broker in North Carolina, a member of the Board
of the Charlotte Certified Development Corporation, the National
Mortgage Bankers Association, the Mortgage Bankers Association of
the Carolinas, the North Carolina Income Property Association, and
has substantial appraisal experience. He is also the author of several
published articles concerning Income Property Finance.
David C. Smith - Director of Leasing
David Smith has five years experience in residential and commercial
construction and development in North Carolina and Colorado. Mr. Smith
and his staff are responsible for the leasing of over 2,000,000 square
feet of commercial property.
Mr. Smith is a 1981 graduate of the University of North Carolina with
a degree in Geography/Urban Studies.
William H. Wilson, Jr. - Director of Property Management
Bill Wilson is responsible for the marketing, budgeting, maintenance,
and overall supervision of the property management division. Formerly,
Mr. Wilson was with SYNCO Properties, Inc. as Vice President of leasing
and management and Balcor/American Express of Charlotte, North Carolina.
He is a graduate of the University of North Carolina with a B.S. degree
in Business Administration and the Mingle Institute of Real Estate.
Geoffrey M. Curme - Director of Acquisitions
Prior to joining Lat Purser & Associates, Inc. in 1984, Geoffrey Curme
was a commercial lending officer for the Bank of New York. From 1979
to 1984, he was with SYNCO, Inc., a then emerging real estate firm,
placing equity in company sponsored limited partnerships.
Mr. Curme is responsible for acquisition analysis and placing of equity
with joint venture partners. He is a graduate of the University of
Virginia, and is licensed as a real estate broker in North Carolina.
Stephen J. Horvath - Brokerage
Steve Horvath joined the firm in 1984 and has been involved in both
the leasing and commercial brokerage areas since that time. He
specializes in multi-family land, retail sites, and income properties.
Mr. Horvath is a graduate of Wake Forest University with a double
major in Business and Communications. He is a licensed real estate
salesman in North Carolina.
Richard V. Hechenbleikner - Development
Richard Hechenbleikner has been active in real estate since 1972.
He has specialized in commercial/industrial sales for the past eleven
years in areas ranging from business sites on major thoroughfares to
large, income producing investment properties.
In addition to holding a B.B.A. degree from the University of Georgia,
Mr. Hechenbleikner has obtained the CCIM designation from the Realtors
National Marketing Institute. He is a licensed real estate broker in
North and South Carolina and Georgia.
E. Judson McAdams - Development
Judd McAdams came to Lat Purser & Associates, Inc. as Director of
Leasing over the company's commercial properties. Since that time,
he has moved into the development division as a project manager,
developing and managing new projects.
Prior to joining the company, Mr. McAdams was a leasing agent with
Spaulding & Slye Company, a national office development company, and
First Charlotte Corporation, an investment banking firm.
He is a graduate of Hampden-Sydney College and is a licensed real
estate broker in both North and South Carolina.
Robert R. Harkness - Development
Robert Harkness joined the firm in 1985 as a project manager in the
development division, developing and managing new projects for the
company. Prior to his association with Lat Purser & Associates, Inc.,
Mr. Harkness was with Wachovia Bank as a lending officer.
Mr. Harkness holds an undergraduate degree from the University of
North Carolina and an M.B.A. degree from the same institution with
a concentration in Finance and Real Estate.
Eric Karnes - Acquisitions
Eric Karnes has been involved in various aspects of real estate for
over fifteen years, including property management, market research,
and acquisitions. Formerly, Mr. Karnes was Vice President/Market
Research for SYNCO, Inc.
He is a graduate of the University of Kentucky and a licensed real
estate broker in North Carolina.
John R. Hurley - Acquisitions
John Hurley has been involved in the management and leasing of retail
properties since joining the firm in 1981. Previous to acquisitions,
he served as Director of Property Management over the company's
portfolio of retail and office properties. Currently, he is involved
in the selection, review and improvement of income properties for
the acquisition division.
Mr. Hurley is a graduate of the University of Georgia with a degree in
Finance. He has obtained a CSM designation in property management from
the International Council of Shopping Centers and is licensed as a
real estate broker in North Carolina.
Charles J. Dulin, Jr. - Mortgage Banking
Charlie Dulin joined Lat Purser & Associates, Inc. in 1985 as an
associate in the mortgage banking division specializing in financial
placement for income producing properties.
Mr. Dulin is a graduate of the University of North Carolina and holds a
B.S. degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Finance.
He is licensed as a real estate salesman in North Carolina and Florida,
and a member of the Mortgage Bankers Association of America, the
Mortgage Bankers Association of the Carolinas, and the North Carolina
Income Property Association.
Frank S. Alexander, Jr. - Brokeraqe
Frank Alexander specializes in the brokerage of business sites and
income properties. Prior to joining the firm, he was a Senior Sales
Representative with Harris-Lanier.
Mr. Alexander is a graduate of the University of North Carolina with
a B.A. degree in Political Science, and is licensed as a real estate
salesman in North Carolina.
Jean Shook - Lease Administrator
Jean Shook supervises the administration of the Property Management
Information Systems (data processing). Information Systems is the
operation of computer and program production.
Ms. Shook has over fourteen years experience in Information Systems,
including construction, restaurants, and commercial real estate.
0
0
0
LAT PURSER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
INCORPORATED
STOCKHOLDERS AND DIRECTORS
CLIENTS
North Carolina - 1961
Board of Directors
Mr. Thomas E. Norman
Mr. Lat W. Purser, III
Mrs. Lat W. Purser, Jr.
Stockholders
Mr. Thomas E. Norman
Mr. Lat W. Purser, III
Lat W. Purser Trust
Thomas E. Norman - Trustee
W. Bradley Blair, II - Trustee
Balcor Income Properties, Ltd.
Skokie, Illinois
Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance
Company
Hartford, Connecticut
North Carolina National Bank
Charlotte, North Carolina
The Heritage Group
Santa Monica, California
Carley Capital Group
Charlotte, North Carolina
Royalnest Corporation
Manhasset, New York
First Union National Bank
Charlotte, North Carolina
RETAIL CLIENTS
BANK REFERENCES
Food Lion Stores, Inc.
Salisbury, North Carolina
Mr. Robert R. McAuliffe, Jr.
Harris Teeter/Food World
Charlotte, North Carolina
Mr. Sam Kendrick
Eckerd Drug Stores
Charlotte, North Carolina
Mr. Larry Raley
Revco Drug Stores
Twinsburg, Ohio
Mr. Marvin Solganik
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
Charlotte, North Carolina
Mr. Elwood Penny
Rose's Stores, Inc.
Henderson, North Carolina
Mr. George M. Harvin
Mack's Stores
Sanford, North Carolina
Mr. Wayne Burriss
North Carolina National Bank
Charlotte, North Carolina
Mr. George J. Hoh
Senior Vice President
Mr. James E. Nash, Jr.
Vice President
First Union National Bank
Charlotte, North Carolina
Mr. David L. Anderson
Senior Vice President
BANK REFERENCES
CONSTRUCTION LENDERS
LICENSES AND MEMBERSHIPS
Chemical Bank (Delaware)
Wilmington, Delaware
Ms. Nancy McArthur
Vice President
Mutual Savings & Loan Association
Charlotte, North Carolina
Mr% Lenoir C. Keesler
President
North Carolina National Bank
Charlotte, North Carolina
First Union National Bank
Charlotte, North Carolina
Chemical Bank (Delaware)
Wilmington, Delaware
State of North Carolina
Real Estate License
State of South Carolina
Real Estate License
State of Tennessee
Real Estate License
Mortgage Bankers Association
of America
International Council of
Shopping Centers
Better Business Bureau
Charlotte, North Carolina
Greater Charlotte Chamber of
Commerce
Urban Land Institute
National Association of
Realtors
CURRENT
PROJECTS DEVELOPED AND/OR OWNED BY
LAT PURSER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Glen Meade Shopping Center
Gold Park Shopping Center
Golden Gate Shopping Center
Hilltop Village Shopping Center
Pine Needle Square
Mooresville Plaza
Lumber River Shopping Center
Winyah Village Shopping Center
Pawtuckett Shopping Center
300 South Tryon Street
Tyvola Mall
Federal Point Station
Live Oak Village
Murraysville Post Shopping Center
Sardis Village Shopping Center
Maiden Plaza Shopping Center
Long Leaf Mall
Edenton village Shopping Center
The Village Courts
Fairway Villas
Hudson Plaza
The Courtyard
South Whiteville Shopping Center
Wilmington, North Carolina
Wilson, North Carolina
Greensboro, North Carolina
Oxford, North Carolina
Smithfield, North Carolina
Mooresville, North Carolina
Lumberton, North Carolina
Georgetown, South Carolina
Charlotte, North Carolina
Charlotte, North Carolina
Charlotte, North Carolina
Carolina Beach, North Carolina
Southport, North Carolina
Wilmington, North Carolina
Charlotte, North Carolina
Maiden, North Carolina
Wilmington, North Carolina
Edenton, North Carolina
Lynchburg, Virginia
Blowing Rock, North Carolina
Hudson, North Carolina
Charlotte, North Carolina
Whiteville, North Carolina
Five Forks Village
Randleman Plaza
Shipp's Corner Shopping Center
Oh~ Brians Restaurant
Southgate Business Park
New Hanover Business Park
Franklin Courts
King, North Carolina
Randleman, North Carolina
Virginia Beach, Virginia
Charlotte, North Carolina
Oxford, North Carolina
Wilmington, North Carolina
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
In addition, over the past twenty-four years, the firm has been
involved in the development of eighty other projects throughout
the South Atlantic region.
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
February 9, 1987
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: PNCH rezoning on Route 419
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
This is in regard to the request of PNCH, a North Carolina
General Partnership, to rezone a tract in the City at the inter-
section of Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, from C-1, Office and
Institutional District to C-2, General Commercial District.
Petitions have been filed with the City by citizens of the City
opposed to the rezoning. Sufficient signatures have been set out
in these petitions to invoke the provisions of §62(5) of the
Roanoke City Charter which provides with reference to amendments
to the City's Zoning Map, in pertinent part, as follows:
"Such regulations, restrictions, and boundaries may
from time to time be amended, supplemented, changed,
modified or repealed. In case, however, of a protest
against such change signed by the owners of twenty per
centum or more either of the area of the lots included
in each proposed change, or of those immediately ad-
jacent in the rear thereof, or of those directly
opposite thereto, sueh amendment shall not become
effective except by the favorable vote of five-
sevenths of all the members of the Council."
As shown on the attached map, there are five lots in the City
adjacent to the one proposed to be rezoned. (There are three
parcels in Roanoke County across Route 419; none of the owners of
these parcels signed the petitions.) According to City records,
the owners of these lots are as follows:
Barry L. Flora
Woodmar Drive, So W.
Off. Tax No. 5090208
D. E. and Eula Underwood
4935 Woodmar Drive, S.W. Off. Tax No. 5090210
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
February 9, 1987
Page 2
Angel R. and Karen H. Zayas, Jr.
4929 Woodmar Drive, S.W. Off. Tax No. 5090211
F-M Assooiates
Grandin Court Extension, S. W.
Off. Tax No. 5090205
Southwest Plaza Associates
4953 Grandin Road Extension, S. W. Off. Tax No. 5090201
As Angel R. and Karen H. Zayas, Jr., have signed the petition
in opposition to this rezoning, I am of the opinion that the requi-
site twenty percent of the owners of the lots immediately adjacent
in the rear of the lot proposed to be rezoned has been met in order
to invoke the requirements of §62(5) of the Charter.
I would be pleased to respond to any questions that the members
of Council may have with regard to this matter.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr.
City Attorney
WCDJr:WMH:fcf
Attachment
Edward A. Natt, Esquire
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
-'
6
.el
Roanoke Cily Planning Commission
February 9, 1987
The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Request from PNCH, a North Carolina general partnership,
represented by Edward A. Natt, Esquire, that a tract of
land lying at the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar
Drive, designated as Official Tax Ne. 5090207 and a
portion of 5090205, containing 1.88 acres, more or less,
be rezoned from C-i, Office and Institutional District to
C-2, General Commercial District, such rezoning to be
subject to certain conditions proffered by the
petitioner.
I. Back,round:
Purpose of the rezoning request is to expand the existing
shopping center.
Parcel Nos. 5090207 and 5090205 are currently being reviewed
by the City Planning Office for subdivision purposes. A
preliminary plat has been filed.
Remainin~ rear portion of tax no. 5090205 was rezoned in
December, 1986, from RS-1 and C-1 to RG-2 for an elderly
apartment complex.
Petition to rezone was filed on 12/17/86. Proffered
conditions were:
That new construction on the property will not exceed
25,000 square feet.
That the height of structures will not exceed one (1)
story.
3. Construction will be brick or masonry.
Ingress and egress will be limited to one entrance area
and one exit area on Woodmar, one entrance on Route 419,
and an interconnection with the existing shopping center.
Room 355 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, 5W. Roanoke, Virginia 2401t (703) 981-2344
That all lighting will be shielded away from adjacent
residential property.
That on the east of the property will be planted a single
row of evergreen trees five to six feet tall on fifteen
foot centers. Such plan shall continue on the north side
of the property to the point of entrance on Woodmar
Drive. Between said entrance and Route 419 and along the
419 frontage will be deciduous trees on fifty foot
centers.
Plannin~ Commission public hearing was held on 1/7/87.
Several issues were discussed, including how the property
could be used, traffic, storm drainage and sewer line
improvements. Neighborhood residents were concerned with the
rezoning request as was proposed and presented a petition with
68 signatures in opposition to the request. The Commission
delayed action on the request to allow the petitioner time to
meet with the residents on the project and to clarify, in
writing, the conditions of the rezoning.
Amended petition to rezone was filed on 1/12/87. Proffered
conditions were:
That the parcel to be rezoned will contain one main
parcel to be developed with one building as an addition
to the existing shopping center together with no more
than one outparcel containing one building. That the
total new construction on the property will not exceed
25,000 square feet.
That the height of structures will not exceed one (1)
story.
3. Construction will be brick or masonry to grade.
Ingress and egress will be limited to one entrance area
and one exit area on Woodmar, one entrance on Route 419,
and an interconnection with the existing shopping center.
That the following uses will be prohibited on said
property: fast food restaurants, convenience stores, gas
station, used car lot.
Neighborhood meetin~ was held on 1/15/87.
Prior to the second Plannin~ Commission hearing, another
amended petition to rezone was filed on 1/16/87. The
conditions of the rezoning are presently:
II.
That the parcel to be rezoned will contain one main
parcel to be developed with one building as an addition
to the existing shopping center together with no more
than one outparcel containing one building. That the
total new construction on the property will not exceed
25,000 square feet.
me
That the height of structures will not exceed one (1)
story.
Construction will be brick or masonry to grade on all
sides of the buildings to be constructed.
Ingress and egress will be limited to one exit area on
Woodmar which shall be constructed so as to permit only a
west turn, one entrance and exit on Route 419, and an
interconnection with the existing shopping center.
That the following uses will be prohibited on said
property: fast food restaurants, convenience stores, gas
stations, used car lot, car wash.
A representative development plan was submitted at the 1/21/87
Planning Commission hearing and is attached for your review.
Second Plannin~ Commission public hearing held on 1/21/87.
Mr. Angel Zayas of 4929 Woodmar Drive appeared before the
Commission and presented a petition of 60 residents in
opposition to the rezonin~ request as proposed along-~ith a
written statement of concerns (see attached). Residents'
opposition centered on the proposed exit on Woodmar Drive.
There was discussion of the need for the exit by the
residents, the Comm~ission members and the developer. The
petitioners' attorney advised that the property was currently
zoned for commercial use (C-i) which would permit access onto
Woodmar and that the developer felt the exit was needed to
provide adequate and safe access for the future tenant of the
outparcel. He further indicated that the developer had made a
reasonable and effective compromise for the exit onto Woodmar
by restricting the exit to left turn out only) towards Route
419). It was felt that the impact of the limited access on
the neighborhood and on Woodmar was negligible.
Issues:
Zonin~ is presently C-1. Zoning for the remaining portion of
tax no. 5090205 was recently changed from C-1 and RS-1 to
RG-2 for an elderly apartment facility. Zoning along Route
419 is C-1 and C-2. Zoning for the residential neighborhood
and most of the north side of Woodmar Drive is RS-1. A 14-
acre tract on Grandin Road Extension, adjacent to the existing
shopping center was also recently rezoned for condominiums.
Co
Land use is presently vacant. Tax no. 5090207 had been used
by Sovran Bank as a temporary branch location until recently.
Five single family residences are located along the north side
of Woodmar Drive. Southwest Plaza is adjacent to the area
requested for rezoning. The plaza was recently acquired by
the petitioner. Oak Grove Plaza and Oak Grove Elementary
School are located across Route 419 in Roanoke County.
Proposed new developments in the general area are shown on an
attachment to this report.
Utilities for water and sewer are available, however, sewer
service in the area is limited. Off-site improvements to the
existing system have recently been studied and a plan
developed to meet the service needs for the new developments
proposed for the area. These improvements must be undertaken
before a building permit can be issued for the projects.
Storm water management for the area is handled by the Norwood
storm drain system which has had problems in the past. Recent
upstream improvements to the system have been undertaken to
restrict the flow entering the system and reduce the
downstream impacts at Chesterton and Deyerle Road areas.
Careful study of the proposed storm water management plan will
be required and a zero percent increase in the rate of runoff
from the site will have to be achieved.
Traffic access will be provided primarily from Route 419. At
present, the existing Southwest Plaza has one entrance on
Grandin Road Extension and two (right-turn in and out) on
Route 419. The Grandin Road Extension intersection is
signalized. The proposed development plans one entrance on
Route 419 which probably will correspond to the existing
median cut on Route 419 at Grandin Road Extension in the
County (street location zig-zags from that in the City). A
restricted left turn out access is also proposed onto Woodmar
Drive. A traffic study was prepared which indicates that the
total traffic volumes generated by the new shopping area
(existing center and new development) will not be much greater
than those that could be generated under current zoning and
that most traffic would be already existing in the area.
Neighborhood has been the subject of many recent development
issues (storm drain and sewer systems) and rezoning requests
(Grandin Road Extension condominiums and Woodmar apartments
for the elderly). Two neighborhood groups are active in the
area: the Hidden Valley Civic League and the Greater Deyerle
Neighborhood Association. Past concerns of the organizations
with development in the area have related to traffic issues,
storm water management and sewer system needs. A neighborhood
meeting was held on 1/15/87. Residents' concerns relate to
traffic access on Woodmar Drive.
G. Comprehensive Plan recommends that:
Development of new or existin~ commercial areas be
carefully planned and designed to promote quality
development and good land use.
Neighborhood character and environmental quality be
protected. Changes in land use in or near residential
areas should be carefully evaluated and designed to
conserve and enhance neighborhood quality.
III. Alternatives:
A. Approve the rezoning request.
Zonin~ becomes conditional C-2. Conditions somewhat
limit the use of the property as well as the manner of
development.
Land use is limited to all other C-2 uses exclusive of a
fast food restaurant, a convenience store, gas station,
car wash or used car lot. A maximum of two, one-story
buildings no greater than 25,000 square feet may be
built.
Utilities will require off-site sewer improvements to be
undertaken. A plan for improvements has recently been
completed by the City Engineer. At present, the subject
property is under subdivision review which will establish
a proportionate cost for needed improvements and bond the
project for its share.
Storm water management will be addressed in detail during
site plan and subdivision reviews. The City Engineer
will require zero increase in the rate of runoff.
Careful study and evaluation will be needed to ensure
protection of downstream areas.
Traffic study indicates generated volumes would not
significantly affect the area. Neighborhood residents
still have expressed their concern for the proposed
entrance on Woodmar Drive, although the developer has
restricted the entrance from what was originally
proposed.
Neighborhood concerns have been resolved except for the
access onto Woodmar Drive. At present, the access would
be a left-turn out only which directs all exiting traffic
to Route 419.
7. Comprehensive Plan would be followed.
Deny the rezoning request.
1. Zoning remains C-1
2. Land use restricted to office or other uses permitted in
a C-1 zone.
3. Utilities for any development still an issue.
4. Storm water management still an issue.
5. Traffic could be a concern, depending on the C-1 use.
Neighborhood would still be affected by a new C-1
development, including access onto Woodmar Drive.
7. Comprehensive Plan could be followed.
IV. Recommendation:
The Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-0 (Mr. Sowers absent),
recommended approval of the rezoning request. The development of
the property as an expansion of the existing shopping center is an
appropriate and reasonable alternative to development for office
use. The conditions of the rezoning address concerns regarding the
development of the property. Sewer and storm water management
issues can be adequately dealt with during subdivision and site
plan review.
The proposed access onto Woodmar Drive was discussed indepth.
While residents ' concerns for the exit were understood by the
Commission, it was felt that the developer had made concessions and
that in the long-term such an access may even be desirable for the
neighborhood. The developer felt that the access point was
necessary to the future development of the property, however, he
agreed that when a tenant was secured, an effort would be made to
consider access solely from Route 419.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan S. Goode, Chairwoman
Roanoke City Planning Conm~ission
ESG:mpf
attachments
cc: Assistant City Attorney
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
Building Commissioner/Zoning Administrator
Petitioner
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
IN RE:
A parcel of land containing 1.88 acres
more or less, situate at the south-
east corner of the intersection of
Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, in the
City of Roanoke, from C-l, Office
and Institutional District, to C~2,
General Commercial District subject
to certain conditions -.
) SECOND
) AMENDED
) PETITION
) TO
) REZONE
)
)
)
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND M~MBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROANOKE:
1. The Petitioner, PNCN, a North Carolina general
partnershiP, has a contract to purchase a certain tract of
land located in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, containing
two (2) acres, more or less, located at the southeast corner
of the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, in the
City of Roanoke, and designated on Roanoke City Appraisal
Maps as Official Tax Nos. 5090207 and a portion of 5090205;
the said tract is currently zoned C-l, Office and
Institutional District. A map of the property to be rezoned
is attached as Exhibit A.
2. Pursant to Article VII and Article'VIII of
Chapter 36, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
the Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned
from C-l, Office and Institutional District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, for the purpose
expanding a shopping center.
3. The Petitioner believes
the said tract of
of constructing and
that the rezoning of
land will further the intent and purposes
of the City's Zoning~i~c--e' and its comprehensive plan,
in that it will provide for the orderly expansion of a
commercial district by utilizing the property in conjunction
with existing use for expansion of the existing shopping
center. ..
4. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that
if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning
will be subject to, and that the Petitioner will abide by,
the following conditions:
(1) That the parcel to be rezoned will contain
one main parcel to be developed with one building as an
addition to the existing shopping.center together with no
more than one outparcel containing one building. That the
total new construction on the property will not exceed
25,000 square feet.
(2) That the height of structures will not exceed
one (1) story.
(3)
Construction will be brick or masonry to
grade on all sides of the buildings to be constructed.
(4) Ingress and egress will be limited to one
one exit area on Woodmar which shall be constructed so as to
permit only a west turn, one entrance and exit on Route 419,
and an interconnection with the existing shopping center.
(5) That the following uses will be prohibited on
said property: fast food restaurants, convenience stores,
gas station, used car lot, car wash.
5. Petitioner will comply with all City ordinances
and regulations including, but not limited to, sewer and
storm drainage requirements.
6. Attached as Exhibit B are the names and addresses
of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately
adjacent to or immediately across a street or road from the
property to be rezoned.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-
described tract be rezoned as requested in accordance with
the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke.
Edward A. Natt, Esquire
Osterhoudt, Ferguson, Natt,
Aheron & Agee, P.C.
1919 Electric Road, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
PNCH, a North Carolina
General Partnership
Of COu~ns e 1
LOCATION
Iml
..~ ~ 4~9~
~m~
Ill
//
II
L
ONGOING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS: GRANDIN ROAD AND ROUTE 419
Murchison Company was granted a rezoning to permit construction of
192 condominium apartments. A development plan has not been
submitted for approval.
The Park-Oak Grove Limited Partnership was granted a rezoning to
construct 93 congregate housing units for the elderly. A
development plan has not been submitted for approval.
PNCH, a general partnership, is seeking to rezone property from C-1
to C-2 to construct up to 25,000 square feet of retail space.
Matter is before the Planning Commission.
Valley Developers Inc. are proposing to construct a 40 unit
apartment complex (rental). Property is zoned RG-1. Project is in
the preliminary design stage.
W. E. Cundiff has submitted a preliminary subdivision plat creating
20 single family lots.
F & B Developers has received subdivision approval for four single
family lots.
As ~ou know a neighborhood meeting was held last Thursday with the developers of
Southwest Plaza Shopping Center. Over 30 concerned property owners attended, and
67 had signed the petition opposing the entrance/exit proposed for Woodmar
Drive. At the meeting the developers informed us that they would amend the
request to an exit only. By nhanging the plan to an exit only on Woodmar does
not alter our opposition to the plan.
To emphasize this opposition let me point out that in the short time we had to
draw a new petition in response to the developers altered plan, we have obtained
60 signatures opposing the exit only.
The residents of Woodmar Drive are already at a disadvantage because our
property is adjoining commercial land. We ask the Commission to take every
avenue available to ensure our residential integrity. An exit on Woodmar is
another foot in the door of commercial effect on our residents. As homeowners
our property is our largest investment and we feel every effort should be taken
to maintain our residential status and to minimize the impact of commercial
development on Rt. 419 and Woodmar Drive.
Although the petition has been amended am~ only an exit is proposed on Woodmar,
the homeowners feel this exit is detrimental to our property and will set a
precedent for more commercial efficacy on this street. However the people feel
they can support the expansion of the Southwest Plaza if it is done in a manner
which will not place UNNECESSARY traffic into our neighborhood or THREATEN OUR
RESIDENTIAL SOUNDNESS.
Realizing we will be neighbors we wish to maintain a friendly relationship with
the developers. An alternative plan to their amendment is to have a circular
drive around the proposed bank. It would be advantageous to the public to have
access to both North and South of Rt. 419 AND by placing a right turn only lane
at the entrance/exit, traffic would flow North, making it UNNECESSARY for an
exit onto Woodmar Drive.
Therefore, the neighborhood is asking for your help to PROTECT OUR RESIDENTIAL
INTEGRITY. We have good homes in our development so why not give us the benefit
and protect us from being commercialized by choosing this acceptable
alternative.
The alternative to the developere's proposal for an exit only on Wocdmar is
shown on a sketch map which I have Just given to each of you members of the
Commission,
As you can see from the dotted lines on the sketch map, the traffic route is
designed so that the traffio enters from Route 419 flows around the proposed
bank and then exits on Route 419.
This is a widely used traffic flow pattern in this area.
I have included photographs of four bank sites, three on Route 419 and one on
Mud Lick & Brandon Road which use this type of traffic pattern. We feel that
this configuration is practical and feasible and it should be employed here.
PETITION
We, the Undersigned qualified voter(s), freeholders(s) and/or person(s)
affected, who as residents of the Southwest city of Roanoke, Virginia do
hereby express our opinion that we do not desire the proposed rezoning of
land lying at the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, to expand the
Southwest Plaza Shopping Center.
The developers propose to place an ~l~.ex~ I~ onto Woodmar Drive. We
feel this proposal will increase traffic flow significantly throughout our
neighborhood.
Name
Address Zip Code
Phone #
ION
We, the undersigned qualified voter(s), freeholders(s) and/or person(s)
affected, who as residents of the Southwest city of Roanoke, Virginia do
hereby express our opinion that we do not desire the proposed rezoning of
land lying at the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, to expand the
Southwest Plaza Shopping Center.
The developers propose to place a~/exit onto Wood[nar Drive. We
feel this proposal will Increase traffic flow s~gnificantly throughout our
neighborhood.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
PETITION
We, the undersigned qualified voter(s), freeholders(s) and/or person(s)
affected, who as residents of the Southwest city of Roanoke, Virginia do
hereby express our opinion that we do not desire the proposed rezoning of
land lying at the intersection of Route 419 and Woodrnar Drive, to expand the
Southwest Plaza Shopping Center.
The developers propose to place an ~m~!l~a~/exit onto Woodrnar Drive. We
feel this proposal will increase traffic flow significantly throughout our
neighborhood.
Name Address
4
5
Zip Code Phone #
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
PETITION
We, the undersigned qualified voter(s), freeholders(s) and/or person(s)
affected, who as residents of the Southwest city of Roanoke, Virginia do
hereby express our opinion that we do not desire the proposed rezoning of
land lying at the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, to expand the
Southwest Plaza Shopping Center.
The developers propose to place an'ellff~l~/exit onto Woodmar Drive. We
feel this proposal will Increase traffic flow significantly throughout our
neighborhood.
I~ame Address Zip Code Phone #
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
PETITION
We, the undersigned qualified voter(s), freeholders(s) and/or person(s)
affected, who as residents of the Southwest city of Roanoke, Virginia do
hereby express our opinion that we do not desire the proposed rezoning of
land lying at the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, to expand the
Southwest Plaza Shopping Center.
The developers propose to place an exit onto Woodmar Drive. We feel this
exit is detrimental to our property and will threaten our residential soundness.
Name
Address Zip Code
11
Phone #
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
PETITION
We, the undersigned qualified voter(s), freeholders(s) and/or person(s)
affected, who as residents of the Southwest city of Roanoke, Virginia do
hereby express our opinion that we do not desire the proposed rezoning of
land lying at the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, to expand the
Southwest Plaza Shopping Center.
The developers propose to place an exit onto Woodmar Drive. We feel this
exit is detrimental to our property and will threaten our residential soundness.
Name Address Zip Code
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Phone #
ROANOKE TIMES & WORLD-NEWS
AD NUMBER - 12IL?q-7?
PUBLISHER'S FEE-
EDWARD A NATT
I919 ELECTRIC RD SW
CiTY b(..L OF F: ICE
ROANOKE VA 24018
STATE OF ¥IRGINIA
S ITY OF RCANDKE
AFFIDAVIT DF PUBLICATION
I~ (THE UNDERSIGNED) AN OFFICER OF
TIMES-WOF~LD COF:PORATIONt WHICH COP-
PORATION IS PUBLISHER OF THE ROANOKE
TIMES & NORLD-NEWS~ A DAILY NEWSPAPER
PUBLISHED IN ROANOKEt IN THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA! DO CERTIFY THAT THE ANNEXED
NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN SAID NEWSPAPERS
GN THE FOLLOWING DATES
01/23/87 MORNING
OI/30/B? MORNING
"ITNESS, THIS~O DAY OF FEBRUARY 1987
........
OFFICER'S S IGN~TUP, E
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Pursuant to the provisions of Article VII of Chapter 36, Code
of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Council of the
City of Roanoke will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, February 9,
1987, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber in the Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., in the said city, on the
question of rezoning from C-1, Office and Institutional District,
to C-2, General Commercial District, the following property:
A certain tract of land located in the City con-
taining two acres, more or less, located at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Route 419 and
Woodmar Drive, and designated as Official Tax No.
5090207 and a portion of 5090205.
This rezoning is to be subject to certain conditions prof-
fered by the petitioner. A copy of this proposal is available
for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456,
Municipal Building. Ail parties in interest and citizens may
appear on the above date and be heard on the question.
GIVEN under my hand this 20th day of January
, 1987 .
p ~
lease publish,in full twice, once on
Friday, January 23, 1987, and once on
Friday, January 30, 1987, in The Roanoke
Times and Worl~ News, Morning Edition.
Please send publisher's affidavit to:
Ms. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Room 456, Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Please bill to:
Mr. Edward A. Natt
Attorney
1919 Electric Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018-1699
~lce of n~e ~ty ~
January 29, 1987
File
Mr. Edward A. Natt
Attorney
1919 Electric Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Mr. Natt:
I am enclosing copy of a report of the City Planning Commission
recommending that the Council of the City of Roanoke grant the
request of your client, PNCH, a North Carolina general partner-
ship, that a certain tract of land containing 1.88 acres, more
or less, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of
Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, S. W., designated as Official Tax
No. 5090207 and a portion of Official Tax No. 5090205, be rezoned
from C-1, Office and Institutional District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, subject to certain proffered conditions.
Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the
City of Roanoke at its meeting on Monday, April 6, 1981, a public
hearing on the abovedescribed request has been set for Monday,
February 9, 1987, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber, fourth
floor of the Municipal Building.
For your information, I am also enclosing copy of a notice of the
public hearing and an Ordinance providing for the rezoning, which
were prepared by the City Attorney's Office. Please review the
Ordinance and if you have any questions, you may contact Mr.
William M. Hackworth, Assistant City Attorney, at 981-2431.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
Room456 MunicipalBu(ldlng 2150'~urchAve~que, S.W. Roanoke, Vlrglnlo24011 (703)981-2541
Mr. Edward A. Natt
Page 2
January 29, 1987
CC:
Mr. Barry L. Flora, 3529 Lakeland Drive, S. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. D. E. Underwood, 4565 Cresthill Drive, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Angel R. Zayas, 4929 Woodmar Drive, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. W. Wilton Little, 5923 Woodmar Drive, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
F-M Associates, P. O. Box 90, Roanoke, Virginia 24002
Southwest Plaza Associates Limited Partnership, 230 South
Tryon Street, Suite 240, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Oak Grove Shopping Center, Mountaineer Investment Company,
Suite 1, West Salem Place, 135 West Salem Avenue, Salem,
Virginia 24153
Roanoke County School Board, 526 College Avenue, Salem,
Virginia 24153
Gofland, 1919 Electric Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24018
Mr. Phillip W. Hammond, 4905 Norwood Street, S. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Jonathan Rogers, 3734 Lake Drive, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. Gordon N. Dixon, Executive Director, Fifth Planning
District Commission, P. O. Box 2569, Roanoke, Virginia 24010
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Assistant City Manager
Mrs. Susan S. Goode, Chairman, City Planning Commission
Mrs. Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mr. Kit 8. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner and Zoning
Administrator
Mr. L. Elwood Norris, Chairman, Board of Zoning Appeals
Mr. Von W. Moody, III, Director of Real Estate Valuation
Ms. Doris Layne, Office of Real Estate Valuation
Mr. William M. Hackworth, Assistant City Attorney
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Office of the City Clerk
January 16, 1987
File #51
Mrs. Susan S. Goode
Chairman
City Planning Commission
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mrs. Goode:
Pursuant to Section 36-538 of the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of a second amended
petition from Mr. Edward A. Natt, Attorney, representing PNCH, a
North Carolina general partnership, requesting that a certain
tract of land containing 1.88 acres, more or less, located at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar
Drive, S. W., designated as Official Tax No. 5090207 and a por-
tion of Official Tax No. 5090205, be rezoned from C-1, Office and
Institutional District, to C-2, General Commercial District, sub-
ject to certain proffered conditions.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
Enc o
CC:
Mr. Edward A. Natt, Attorney, 1919 Electric Road, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mrs. Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Zoning Administrator
Mr. William M. Hackworth, Assistant City Attorney
Room456 MunldpalBuildlng 215(]~urc~A',~'~ue, S.W. Roonc~e. Vlrglnla24011 (703)981-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
IN RE:
A parcel of land containing 1.88 acres ) SECOND
more or less, situate at the south- ) AMENDED
east corner of the intersection of ) PETITION
Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, in the ) TO
City of Roanoke, from C-i, Office ) REZONE
and Institutional District, to C-2, )
General Commercial District subject )
to certain conditions )
.~partnership,
land located
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROANOKE:
The Petitioner, PNCH, a North Carolina general
has a contract to purchase a certain tract of
in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, containing
two (2) acres, more or less, located at the southeast corner
of the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, in the
City of Roanoke, and designated on Roanoke City Appraisal
Maps as Official Tax Nos. 5090207 and a portion of 5090205;
the said tract is currently zoned C-i, Office and
Institutional District. A map of the property to be rezoned
is attached as Exhibit A.
2. Pursant to Article VII and Article VIII of
Chapter 36, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
the Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned
from C-I, Office and Institutional District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, for the
expanding a shopping center.
3. The Petitioner
the said tract of
purpose of constructing and
believes that the
land will further the intent
rezoning of
and purposes
of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its comprehensive plan,
in that it will provide for the orderly expansion of a
commercial district by utilizing the property in conjunction
with existing use for expansion of the existing shopping
center.
4. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that
if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning
will be subject to, and that the Petitioner will abide by,
the following conditions:
(1) That the parcel to be rezoned will contain
one main parcel to be developed with one building as an
addition to the existing shopping~center together with no
more than one outparcel containing one building. That the
total new construction on the property will not exceed
25,000 square feet.
(2) That the height of structures will not exceed
one (1) story.
(3) Construction will be brick or masonry to
grade on all sides of the buildings to be constructed.
(4) Ingress and egress will be limited to one
one exit area on Woodmar which shall be constructed so as to
permit only a west turn, one entrance and exit on Route 419,
and an interconnection with the existing shopping center.
2
(5) That the following uses will be prohibited on
said property: fast food restaurants, convenience stores,
gas station, used car lot, car wash.
5. Petitioner will comply with all City ordinances
and regulations including, but not limited to, sewer and
storm drainage requirements.
6. Attached as Exhibit B are the names and addresses
of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately
adjacent to or immediately across a street or road from the
property to be rezoned.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-
described tract be rezoned as requested in accordance with
the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke.
Edward A. Natt, Esquire
Osterhoudt, Ferguson, Natt,
Aheron & Agee, P.C.
1919 Electric Road, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
PNCH, a North Carolina
General Partnership
Of Counsel
3
L~,.v OFFICES CITY
OSTEP~HOUDT, FER_GUSON, NATT, AHER. ON g AGEE
1919 ELE~IC RO~, S. W.
KOANOKE, VIRGINIA
January 16, 1987
Mary F. Parker, Clerk
City of Roanoke
Room 456, Municipal Bui Iding
215 Clqurch Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Mary:
Enclosed please find the Second &nended Petition to Rezone
in the requst of PNCH. It is my understanding that this matter
will be heard by the Planning Conmission on January 21, 1987, and
by the City Council on February 9, 1987. By copy of this letter,
I am asking Mr. Hackworth to make the necessary arrangements for
placing the matter on the City Council agenda for February 9, 1987.
Very truly yours,
C~I~ICIJDT, FERCI. raCN, NATI',
~HERON & AC~E, P.C.
Edward A. Natt
F_AN/pc
Enc I osure
CC:
WilliamM. Hackworth, Esquire
Evie Gunter
John Hurley
Richard Burrow
Richard Stroupe
Daniel.le Rand
Office of the City Oenk
January 16, 1987
File #51
Mrs. Susan S. Goode
Chairman
City Planning Commission
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mrs. Goode:
Pursuant to Section 36-538 of the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of an amended petition
from Mr. Edward A. Natt, Attorney, representing PNCH, a North
Carolina general partnership, requesting that a certain tract
of land containing 1.88 acres, more or less, located at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar
Drive, S. W., designated as Official Tax No. 5090207 and a por-
tion of Official Tax No. 5090205, be rezoned from C-1, Office and
Institutional District, to C-2, General Commercial District, sub-
ject to certain proffered conditions.
Si ncerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City C1 erk
MFP:se
Enc o
cc: Mr. Edward A. Natt, Attorney, 1919 Electric Road, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mrs. Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Zoning Administrator
Mr. William M. Hackworth, Assistant City Attorney
Room456 MunicipalBulldlng 215C~urchAve~ue, S,W. Roano~e, Virginla24011 (703)981-254t
IN THE COUNCIL OF ~flD~O~NOKE, VIRGINIA
IN RE: '87 J~l ~ 1717!~
A parcel of land containing 1.88 acres )
more or less, situate at the south- ) AMENDED
east corner of the intersection of ) PETITION
Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, in the ) TO
City of Roanoke, from C-l, Office ) REZONE
and Institutional District, to C-2, )
General Commercial District subject )
to certain conditions -- )
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROANOKE:
1. The Petitioner, PNCH, a North Carolina general
partnership, has a contract to purchase a certain tract of
land located in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, containing
two (2) acres, more or less, located at the southeast corner
of the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, in the
City of Roanoke, and designated on Roanoke City Appraisal
Maps as Official Tax Nos. 5090207 and a portion of 5090205;
the said tract is currently zoned C-l, Office and
Institutional District. A map of the property to be rezoned
is attached as Exhibit A.
2. Pursant to Article VII and Article VIII of
Chapter 36, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
the Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned
from C-l, Office and Institutional District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, for the purpose
expanding a shopping center.
3. The Petitioner believes
the said tract
of constructing and
that the rezoning of
of land will further the intent and purposes
of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its comprehensive plan,
in that it will provide for the orderly expansion of a
commercial district by utilizing the property in conjunction
with existing use for expansion of the existing shopping
center. --
4. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that
if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning
will be subject to, and that the Petitioner will abide by,
the following conditions:
(1) That the parcel to.be rezoned will contain
one main parcel to be developed with one building as an
addition to the existing shopping center together with no
more than one outparcel containing one building. That the
total new construction on the property will not exceed
25,000 square feet.
(2) That the height
one (1) story.
(3) Construction
grade.
(4) Ingress and
entrance area and one exit
Route 419,
of structures will not exceed
will be brick or masonry to
egress will be limited to one
area on Woodmar, one entrance on
and an interconnection with the existing shopping
center.
2
(5) That the following uses will be prohibited on
said property: fast food restaurants, convenience stores,
gas station, used car lot.
5. Petitioner will comply with all City ordinances
and regulations including, but not limited to, sewer and
storm drainage requirements.
6. Attached as Exhibit B are the names and addresses
of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately
adjacent to or immediately across a street or road from the
property to be rezoned.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-
described tract be rezoned as requested in accordance with
the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke.
Edward A. Natt, Esquire
Osterhoudt, Ferguson, Natt,
Aheron & Agee, P.C.
1919 Electric Road, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
PNCH, a North Carolina
General Partnership
Of CounseA
LAW OFFICES
RECElVEO
OSTERHOUDT, FEtLGUSON, f~T~VTf~.;~Ht~E~ g AGEE
KOANOKE, V1KGINIA
January 13, 1987
Ms. Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Room 456, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Mary:
Enclosed please find an Amended Petition to Rezone
in the request of PNCH. Mr. Hackworth will make arrangements
with you to see that the matter is set for the February 9th
Roanoke City Council meeting. The matter will be heard by
the Roanoke City Planning Commission on January 21st.
Please coordinate with Mr. Hackworth to see that
this matter is properly advertised.
Very truly yours,
OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT,
AHERON & AGEE, P.C.
Edward A. Natt
/bp
Encl.
cc: William M. Hackworth, Esq.
Assistant City Attorney
464 Municipal Building
Roanoke, VA 24011
Mr. John Hurley
Lat Purser & Associates
230 S. Tyrone Street
Ste. 240
Charlotte, NC 28202
CITY
LAW OFFICES
OSTERHO UDT, FERGUSON, NATT, AHER~x~
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
24018 1699
January 9, 1987
Ms. Evelyn S. Gunter
Planner, Office of Community Planning
Room 355 Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Evie:
,tAN li 198"(
Enclosed please find an Amended Petition to
Rezone, which I think incorporates all of the conditions
which we discussed following the Planning Commission meeting
on Wednesday.
It is my understanding that this matter will be
heard on January 21, 1987, at 1:30 p.m. before the Planning
Commission. It would then go on to City Council for
consideration at the Council's meeting in February.
As we discussed, we arranged a meeting with the
citizens for Thursday, January 15, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. at the
Oak Grove Church of the Brethren. I have contacted Col.
Becket and have talked with Danielle Rand, as well as Mr.
Zayas.
I will keep you advised, if there are any changes
in this matter.
With best, personal regards, I am,
Very truly yours,
OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT,
AHERON & AGEE, P.C.
Edward A. Natt
EAN/sb
CC:
Mr. John Hurley
Lat Purser & Associates
230 S. Tyron Street, Ste 240
Charlotte, NC 28202
Mr. Richard Stroupe
1772 McVitty Road. SW
Roanoke, VA 24015
Mr. Richard Burrow
Burrow Corporation of
Roanoke
101 S, Jefferson Street
Roanoke, VA 24011
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
IN RE:
A parcel of land containing 1.88 acres
more or less, situate at the south-
east corner of the intersection of
Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, in the
City of Roanoke, from C-i, Office
and Institutional District, to C-2,
General Commercial District subject
to certain conditions
)
) AMENDED
) PETITION
) TO
) REZONE
)
)
)
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROANOKE:
1. The Petitioner, PNCH, a North Carolina general
partnership, has a contract to purchase a certain tract of
land located in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, containing
two (2) acres, more or less, located at the southeast corner
of the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, in the
City of Roanoke, and designated on Roanoke City Appraisal
Maps as Official Tax Nos. 5090207 and a portion of 5090205;
the said tract is currently zoned C-I, Office and
Institutional District. A map of the property to be rezoned
is attached as Exhibit A.
2. Pursant to Article VII and Article VIII of
Chapter 36, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
the Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned
from C-i, Office and Institutional District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, for the purpose of constructing and
expanding a shopping center.
3. The Petitioner believes that the rezoning of
the said tract of land will further the intent and purposes
DSTERH~UDT, F£RBUSDN
NATT, AHERDN & AGEE
ATTDRN£YS-AT-LAW
RDANDEE~ VIRBINIA
of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its comprehensive plan,
in that it will provide for the orderly expansion of a
commercial district by utilizing the property in conjunction
with existing use for expansion of the existing shopping
center.
4. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that
if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning
will be subject to, and that the Petitioner will abide by,
the following conditions:
(1) That the parcel to be rezoned will contain
one main parcel to be developed with one building as an
addition to the existing shopping center together with no
more than one outparcel containing one building. That the
total new construction on the property will not exceed
25,000 square feet.
(2) That the height of structures will not exceed
one (1) story.
grade.
(3) Construction will be brick or masonry to
(4) Ingress and egress will be limited to one
entrance area and one exit area on Woodmar, one entrance on
Route 419, and an interconnection with the existing shopping
center.
2
(5) That the following uses will be prohibited on
said property: fast food restaurants, convenience stores,
gas station, used car lot.
5. Petitioner will comply with all City ordinances
and regulations including, but not limited to, sewer and
storm drainage requirements.
6. Attached as Exhibit B are the names and addresses
of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately
adjacent to or immediately across a street or road from the
property to be rezoned.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-
described tract be rezoned as requested in accordance with
the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke.
Edward A. Natt, Esquire
Osterhoudt, Ferguson, Natt,
Aheron & Agee, P.C.
1919 Electric Road, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
PNCH, a North Carolina
General Partnership
By Q~} ~ ~')tl'~
Of Counsel
3
~O ~ CItY C%F~R~ O~ ~ CItY O~ RO~O~, VIRGINIA
'8? "'
?~AININ~ ~O ~ R~ONIN~ OF:
Request from PNCH, a North Carolina general partnership, )
represented by Edward A. Natt, Esquire, that a tract of )
land lying at the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, )
designated as Official Tax No. 5090207 and a portion of 5090205,)AFFI-
containing 1.88 acres, more or less, be rezoned from C-i, Office)DAVIT
and Institutional District to C-2, General Commercial District, )
such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions proffered by )
the petitioner. )
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) TO-WIT:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that
she is a Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is
competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit
states that, pursuant to the provisions of ~15.1-341) Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of
Roanoke she has sent by first-class mail on the 12th day of January, 1987,
notices of a public hearing to be held on the 21st day of January, 1987, on
the rezoning captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels listed
below at their last known address:
PARCEL
5090208
5090210
5090211
5090213
5090205
5090207
5090201
OWNER, AGENT OR OCCUPANT
Barry L. Flora
D. E. and Eula Underwood
Angel R. and Karen H. Zayas
W. Wilton and Sandra S. Little
F-M Associates
Southwest Plaza Associates
Limited Partnership
Oak Grove Shopping Center
Mountaineer Investment Co.
County
ADDRESS
3529 Lakeland Drive, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24018
4565 Cresthill Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
4929 Woodmar Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
5923 Woodmar Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
P.O. Box 90
Roanoke, VA 24002
230 S. Tryon St., Suite
240
Charlotte, NC 28202
Suite 1, West Salem Place
135 West Salem Avenue
Salem, VA 24153
County Roanoke County School Board 526 College Avenue
Salem, VA 24153
County Gofland 1919 Electric Road, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, this 12th day of January, 1987.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
OF'VICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
January 9, 1987
Edward A. Natt, Esquire
o/o Osterhoudt, Ferguson,
1919 Electric Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Natt, Aheron & Agee
Re: Request from PNCH
Dear Ed:
This is to encourage you to file as soon as possible with
the City Clerk an amended petition setting forth the proffered
conditions which you verbally offered during the Planning Com-
mission's hearing on this matter on January 7, 1987. I will
not submit this matter for publication unless and until an
amended petition is filed in the City Clerk's Office. The dead-
line for filing an amended petition in order to meet the adver-
tising requirements will be Tuesday, January 20, 1987. If it is
not filed by then, the matter will not be heard by City Council
until its meeting in March. I am sure that the Planning Commis-
sion would appreciate the filing of an amended petition much
earlier than the 20th, so that they can receive copies in ad-
vance of their meeting on January 21, 1987.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
William M. Haokworth
Assistant City Attorney
WMH:fc~
/
cc:/Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, Planning Commission
PE-T-r ON
CITY
TO THE CITY CLERK OF
PERTAINING TO THE REZONING OF: '86
Request from PNCH, a North Carolina general partnership, )
represented by Edward A. Natt, Esquire, that a tract of )
land lying at the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, )
designated as Official Tax No. 5090207 and a portion of 5090205,)AFFI-
containing 1.88 acres, more or less, be rezoned from C-i, Office)DAVIT
and Institutional District to C-2, General Commercial District, )
such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions proffered by )
the petitioner. )
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
)
CITY OF ROANOKE )
TO-WIT:
The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that
she is a Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning CoF~ission, and as such is
competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit
states that, pursuant to the provisions of ~15.1-341) Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of
Roanoke she has sent by first-class mail on the 29th day of December, 1986,
notices of a public hearing to be held on the 7th day of January, 1987, on
the rezoning captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels listed
below at their last known address:
PARCEL OWNER, AGENT OR OCCUPANT ADDRESS
5090208
5090210
Barry L. Flora
D. E. and Eula Underwood
3529 Lakeland Drive, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24018
4565 Cresthill Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
5090211
Angel R. and Karen H. Zayas
4929 Woodmar Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
5090213
W. Wilton and Sandra S. Little
5923 Woodmar Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
5090205
5090207
5090201
F-M Associates
Southwest Plaza Associates
Limited Partnership
P.O. Box 90
Roanoke, VA 24002
230 S. Tryon St., Suite
240
Charlotte, NC 28202
County
Oak Grove Shopping Center
Mountaineer Investment Co.
Suite 1, West Salem Place
135 West Salem Avenue
Salem, VA 24153
County
County
Roanoke County School Board
Gofland
526 College Avenue
Salem, VA 24153
19t9 Electric Road, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
~fartha Pace Franklin
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, this 29th day of December, 1986.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ROANOKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Roanoke City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on
Wednesday, January 7, 1987, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor,
Municipal Building, in order to consider the following:
Request from PNCH, a North Carolina general partnership,
represented by Edward A. Natt, Esquire, that a tract of land lying
at the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, designated as
Official Tax No. 5090207 and a portion of 5090205, containing 1.88
acres, more or less, be rezoned from C-l, Office and Institutional
District to C-2, General Commercial District, such rezoning to be
subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner.
A copy of said application is available for review in the Office of
Community Planning, Room 355, Municipal Building.
Ail parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date
and be heard on the matter.
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary
Roanoke City Planning Commission
Please run in the morning edition on Tuesday, December 23, 1986
Please run in the evening edition on Tuesday, December 30, 1986
Please send affidavit of publication to:
Office of Community Planning,
Room 355, Municipal Building,
Roanoke, VA 24011
Please bill:
Edward A. Natt, Esquire
Osterhoudt, Ferguson, Natt, Aheron & Agee, P.C.
1919 Electric Road, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24018
Off~¢e of the Qty Qerk
December 19, 1986
File ~51
Mrs. Susan S. Goode
Chairman
City Planning Commission
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mrs. Goode:
Pursuant to Section 36-538 of the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of an amended petition
from Mr. Edward A. Natt, Attorney, representing PNCH, a North
Carolina general partnership, requesting that a certain tract of
land containing 1.88 acres, more or less, located at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar
Drive, S. W., designated as Official Tax No. 5090207 and a por-
tion of Official Tax No. 5090205, be rezoned from C-1, Office and
Institutional District, to C-2, General Commercial District, sub-
ject to certain proffered conditions.
Si ncerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
EnCo
cc: Mr. Edward A. Natt, Attorney, 1919 Electric Road, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mrs. Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Mr. Ronald H. Miller,' Zoning Administrator
Mr. William M. Hackworth, Assistant City Attorney
I~:x~n4,,56 MunicipalBulldlng 21§ Church Avenue, S.W. Roonoi~,Virglnla24~11 (703)981-2541
O~flce of ~e ~iry
December 18, 1986
File ~51
Mrs. Susan S. Goode
Chairman
City Planning Commission
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mrs. Goode:
Pursuant to Section 36-53~ of the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of a petition and list of
property owners from Mr. Edward A. Natt, Attorney, representing
PNCH, a North Carolina general partnership, requesting that a
certain tract of land containing 1.88 acres, more or less,
located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Route 419
and Woodmar Drive, S. W., designated as Official Tax No. 5090207,
be rezoned from C-1, Office and Institutional District, to C-2,
General Commercial District, subject to certain proffered con-
ditions.
Sincerely,
1.!ary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
Enc o
cc: Mr. Edward A. Natt, Attorney, 1919 Electric Road, S.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
~Irs. Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Zoning Administrator
Mr. William M. Hackworth, Assistant City Attorney
Room456 Munlcil:~lButldlng 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, V~rginia24~11 (703)981-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
IN RE:
RECEIVED
VIRGINIA
'86 F I=
A parcel of land containing 1.88 acres )
more or less, situate at the south- )
east corner of the intersection of )
Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, in the )
City of Roanoke, from C-l, Office )
and Institutional District, to C-2, )
General Commercial District subject )
to certain conditions )
PETITION
TO
REZONE
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROANOKE:
partnership,
land located
The Petitioner, PNCH, a North Carolina general
has a contract to purchase a certain tract of
in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, containing
two (2) acres, more or less, located at the southeast corner
of the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, in the
City of Roanoke, and designated on Roanoke City Appraisal
Maps as Official Tax No. 5090207; the said tract is
currently zoned C-l, Office and Institutional District. A
map of the property to be rezoned is attached as Exhibit A.
2. Pursant to Article VII and Article VIII of
Chapter 36, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
the Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned
from C-l, Office and Institutional District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, for the purpose of constructing and
expanding a shopping center.
3. The Petitioner believes that the rezoning of
the said tract of land will further the intent and purposes
of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its comprehensive plan,
in that it will provide for the orderly expansion of a
commercial district by utilizing the property in conjunction
with existing use for expansion of the existing shopping
center.
4. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that
if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning
will be subject to, and that the Petitioner will abide by,
the following conditions:
(1) That new construction on the property will
not exceed 25,000 square feet.
(2) That the height of structures will not exceed
one (1) story.
(3) Construction will be brick or masonry.
(4) Ingress and egress will be limited to one
entrance area and one exit area on Woodmar, one entrance on
Route 419, and an interconnection with the existing shopping
center.
(5) That all lighting will be shielded away from
adjacent residential property.
(6) That on the East of the property will be
planted a single row of evergreen trees five to six feet
tall on fifteen foot centers. Such plan shall continue
on the North side of the property to the point of entrance
on
2
OGTERHQUGT, FERGUGON
NATT, AHERGN & AGEE
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
RQANDKE, VIRGINIA
Woodmar Drive. Between said entrance and Route 419 and along
the 419 frontage will be de$iduous trees on fifty foot centers.
5. Attached as Exhibit B are the names and
addresses of the owner or owners of all lots or property
immediately adjacent to or immediately across a street or
road from the property to be rezoned.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-
described tract be rezoned as requested in accordance with
the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke.
Edward A. Natt, Esquire
Osterhoudt, Ferguson, Natt,
Aheron & Agee, P.C.
1919 Electric Road, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
PNCH, a North Carolina
General Partnership
Of Counsel
3
EXHIBI'
£/~060~
0.1~060~
~ .
o
EXHIBIT B
LIST OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
Barry L. Flora
3529 Lakeland Drive,
Roanoke, VA 24018
SoWo
D. E. and Eula Underwood
4565 Cresthill Drive, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24018
Angel R., Jr. and Karen H.
4929 Woodmar Drive, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24018
Zayas
W. Wilton, Jr., and Sandra S. Little
4923 Woodmar Drive, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24018
F-M Associates
P. O. Box 90
Roanoke, VA 24002
Southwest Plaza Associates
4953 Grandin Road Extension,
Roanoke, VA 24018
Oak Grove Shopping Center
Mountaineer Investment Co.
Suite 1, West Salem Place
135 W. Salem Avenue
Roanoke, VA 24011
Roanoke County School Board
526 College Avenue
Salem, VA 24153
Gofland
1919 Electric Road,
Roanoke, VA 24018
SoWo
Office of t~e CJty Clerk
March 18, 1987
File #169-514
Ms. 'Maryellen F. Goodlatte
Attorney
P. O. Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Dear Ms. Goodlatte:
~ am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 28559, granting a revocable
license to C$S Partnership for the construction of certain
building appendages encroaching over and into a portion of
Campbell Avenue, $. W., First Street, S. W., and Kirk Avenue,
S. W., located at 34 Campbell Avenue, S. W., Official Tax No.
1011701, upon certain terms and conditions, which Ordinance was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on
Monday, March 9, 1987, also adopted by the Council on second
reading on Monday, March 16, 1987, and will take effect ten days
following the date of its second reading.
Please have your client sign and return three copies of the
Ordinance to the City Clerk's Office, Room 450, Municipal
Building, Roanoke, Virginia 24011.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enco
Roo~'n 456 Municipal Building 2 t 5 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24~ 11 ~703) 98t-2541
Ms. Maryellen F.
Page 2 .-
March 18, 1987
Goodlatte
cc: Mr. Robert E. Glenn, Attorney, Glenn, Flippin, Darby, P. Oo Box 2887, Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Mr. Ronald M. Martin, AIA, CSI, Martin and Associates,
Box 4561, Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Mr. T. D. Steele, Martin and Associates, P. O. Box
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building
Administrator
Mr. J~ome S. Howard, ~r., Comm~ssion~of Revenue
Feldman and
P. O.
4561,
Corr~issioner/Zoning
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 16th day of March, 1987.
No. 28559.
AN ORDINANCE granting a revocable license for the construe-
tion of certain building appendages encroaching over and into a
portion of Campbell Avenue, S.W., First Street, S.W., and Kirk
Avenue, S.W., located at 34 Campbell Avenue, S.W., Official Tax
No. 1011701, upon certain terms and conditions.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. A revocable license shall be and is hereby granted the
current owners, CSS Partnership, their grantees, assignees or
successors in interest of the property bearing Official Tax No.
1011701, otherwise known as 34 Campbell Avenue, S.W., within the
City of Roanoke, to construct
and finish system, 18 awnings,
encroaching approximately 41~
and maintain an exterior insulation
and a perimeter cornice
inches to 51~ inches, 3 feet 6 inches
and 5 feet 0 inches, and 24 inches, respectively, over and into
the public right-of-ways of Campbell Avenue, S.W., First Street,
S.W., and Kirk Avenue, S.W., in compliance with all applicable
zoning and building code requirements, as more fully described in
the report of the Water Resources Committee dated ~rch 9, 1987,
on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
2. Said license, granted pursuant to §15.1-376, Code of
Virginia (1950),
of this Council,
in the aforesaid
as amended, shall be revocable at the pleasure
and is subject to all the limitations contained
§15.1-376.
3. It shall be agreed by the licensee that, in maintaining
such encroachments, said licensee, its officers, agents, assigns
or successors in interest shall indemnify and hold harmless the
City of Roanoke from any and all claims, legal actions and
judgments advanced against the City and for any expense the City
regard arising out of the encroachments per-
may incur in this
mitted hereunder.
4.
interest
maintain
Licensee, its grantees, assignees or successors in
shall, for the duration of this permit, acquire and
in effect a liability insurance policy which serves to
insure the City, its officers, employees and agents against
liability resulting from the erection, construction, existence,
maintenance, inspection and removal of such encroachments. Such
policy shall be one issued by an insurance company authorized to
do business in this state and shall provide a minimum of
$100,000.00 for injuries to one person and $300,000.00 for two or
more persons, together with property damage coverage of at least
$50,000.00 for any one accident.
5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect at such
time as a copy duly signed, sealed, attested and acknowledged by
licensee has been admitted to record at the cost of the licensee
in the Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, and
shall remain in effect only so long as a valid current eertifi-
cate evidencing
graph 4 above is
the public liability insurance required in para-
on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
ACCEPTED and EXECUTED by the undersigned this
, 1987.
day of
CSS PARTNERSHIP
By
(title)
STATE OF VIRGINIA §
§
CITY OF ROANOKE §
I hereby certify that
ledged before me this
CSS Partnership.
My Commission expires:
the foregoing
day of
the
instrument was aeknow-
, 19 , by
of
Notary Public
RECE~VF.O
'~? ~4~'; ? Roanoke, Virginia
March 9, 1987
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Encroachment into Street Right of Way - 10 Block
Campbell Avenue, S.W., 200 Block First Street, S.W.,
and 10 Block Kirk Avenue, S.W.
The attached staff report was considered by the Water Resources
Committee at its meeting on February 23, 1987. The Committee recom-
mends that Council authorize a revocable license for encroachments in
conjunction with exterior renovations at 34 Campbell Avenue, S.W., in
accordance with the attached report, with the form of the license to
be approved by the City Attorney.
ETB:KBK:afm
Attachment
CC:
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman
Water Resources 6ommittee
City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Building Commissioner
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Glenn, Flippin, Feldmann & Darby
INTE RDEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
RE:
February 12, 1987
Members~ Water Resources Committee
4~it B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Encroachment into street right-of-way 10 block, Campbell Avenue, S.W.
200 block, First Street, S. W., and 10 block of Kirk Avenue, S.W.
Official Tax No. 1011701
I. Back~round:
Buildin~ at 34 Campbell Avenue~ S. W. has existed at that loca-
tion for a number of years. It was formerly occupied by Miller
and Rhoads.
B. Property was recently acquired by CSS Partnership.
C. Structure abuts the right-of-way line of Campbell Avenue,
$. W., First Street, S. W. and Kirk Avenue, S. W.
II. Current Situation: CSS Partnership in accordance with the attached
letter, desires to install the following:
A. Exterior insulation and finish system which is 4-1/2" to
5-1/2" thick on the outside of the structure.
Eighteen (18) awnings are to be installed between 8'-8" and
11'-0" above the sidewalk, and will project over the sidewalk
between 3'-6" and 5'-0".
Existin~ cornice around the entire perimeter of the structure
currently projects approximately 18" from the face of the
building. The proposed design scheme requires the existing
cornice to be replaced with approximately 243 lineal feet of
new cornice projecting 24" from the face of the building. All
cornice work will be approximately 72'-0" above the sidewalk
elevation. The new cornice has been designed to deter pigeon
roosting and will help the overall appearance of the building.
III.
A. Need
B. Timin~
C. Insurance requirements
IV. Alternatives:
Committee recommends to City Council that it authorize the
appropriate City Officials to execute a revocable license upon
compliance with applicable zoning and building code require-
ments with appropriate insurance, and requiring indemnification
on behalf of the City, permitting encroachment over a portion
of Campbell Avenue, S. W., First Street, S. W. and Kirk Avenue,
S. W. to allow for exterior insulation and finish, 18 awnings
and new cornice on the property at 34 Campbell Avenue, S. W.
1. Need by property owner to renovate structure is met.
2. Timing to permit scheduling of renovations in a timely
manner is met.
3. Insurance requirements of $10~000 per person; $300,000, 2 or
more persons; $50,000 property will be stipulated.
Committee not recommend that City Council authorize a revocable
license for encroachments by exterior renovations on the struc-
ture at 34 Campbell Avenue, S. W.
1. Need for license to allow encroaching renovation is not met.
2. Timin~ of renovation is not met.
3. Insurance requirements will not be an issue.
Recommendation: Committee recommends to City Council that it
authorize a revocable license for encroachments in
conjunction with exterior renovations at 34 Campbell Avenue,
S. W. in accordance with Alternative "A", with the
form of the license to be approved by the City Attorney.
JGB/KBK/hw
Attachments
cc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Building Commissioner
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Glenn, Flippin, Feldmann & Darby
Law OFFICES
GLENN, FLIPPIN, FELDM_ANN
ROANORE,VIRGINIA 24001
(703) 3~= 3000
~Ax (703) 344 - 7805
January 30, 1987
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Municipal Building, Room 456
215 Church Avenue
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Re: First Campbell Square
Dear Ms. Parker:
This is to confirm our phone conversation on Friday,
January 30, when I advised you that we represent CSS
Partnership, the owner of the Miller & Rhoads building in
the City of Roanoke. I advised you that renovations to the
building will result in an encroachment on the City's right-
of-way. I am enclosing a copy of a letter dated January 21,
1987 from Martin & Associates describing the nature of the
anticipated encroachments. Along with that letter I am
enclosing a copy of the rendering discussed in the letter
which depicts the location of the proposed encroachments.
You have agreed to refer this request to the appropriate
office prior to placing the matter on Council's agenda. I
advised you that we are most anxious to have this matter
reviewed by Council as quickly as possible so as not to
delay the construction project.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,
Maryellen F. Goodlatte
MFG:jry:011010
Enclosures
cc: CSS Partnership
martin
'87
£:!5 ;:? :7 r'~at)l · 5007 Carriage Drive
Floanoke, Vir§inia 24015
(703) 989-9700
3anuary 21, 1987
Mr. Robert E. Glenn
Glenn, Flippin, Feldman & Darby
P. O. Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24001
RE: FIRST CAMPBELL SQUARE
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Dear Bob:
During our discussions with the City of Roanoke, on the above referenceO project, they have
indicated that several items will need the approval of City Council. For your use, I am
enclosing a copy of the rendering, which indicates the location of these items. Also, the
following is a brief description of each individual item:
ITEM ~1: The existing building was constructed on the property line and has approximately
486 lineal feet of exterior walls directly adjacent to the City of Roanoke Public
Right-of-Way. As we rehabilitate this existing building, our design scheme requires the
addition of an exterior insulation and finish system which is either ~.-1/2" or 5-112" thick,
depending on its location. The finish system encroaches upon the Right-of-Way for a total
of 230 lineal feet, approximately 47% of the total building frontage. This encroachment
consists of 178 lineal feet of 4-1/2" projection and 52 lineal feet of 5-1/2" projection. I am
advised by the Building Official that this will require approval by City Council.
ITEM #2: The proposed design scheme requires the installation of eighteen (18) awnings,
which will be applied to all sides of the building. These awnings are to be installed between
8~-8" and IP-0" above the sidewalk, and will project over the sidewalk between 3'-6" and
5'-0", (6 (a 3'-6"; 10 (~ #'-0" and 2 ~t 5'-0"). The Building Official advises that he does not
anticipate a problem with this, however, it is generally a formality for City Council to
approve these matters.
ITEM #3: The existing cornice around the entire perimeter of the structure currently
proiects approximately 18" from the face of the building. The proposed design scheme
requires for the existing cornice to be replaced with approximately 243 lineal feet of new
cornice projecting 18" and 243 lineal feet of new cornice projecting 2t~,, from the face of
the building. All cornice work will be approximately 72'-0" above the sidewalk elevation.
Hopefully, the new cornice has been designed to deter pigeon roosting and will help the
overall appearance of the building. Again, the Building Official advises that this projection
into the Right-of-Way be submitted to City Council for approval.
architecture ® plannin9 · construction management
Mr. Robert E. Glenn
F~rst Campbell Square
Page 2
Bob, in my earlier discussions with T. D. Steele, he indicated that you would file the
necessary paperwork to have the above items reviewed by City Council. The above outline
information is provided for your use in this matter. Our office would be §lad to assist you in
any manner, and could make the rendering and/or model available for the Council member's
review. Please advise if you need our assistance, or if we can provide you with any
additional information.
Very truly yours,
Ronald M.~artin~ AIA, CSI
Martin & Associates
cc: Mr. T. D. Steele
vO
Office of ~e City Cler~
March 18, 1987
File #2-9-70
The Honorable Noel
City of Roanoke
Roanoke, Virginia
C. Taylor, Mayor
Dear Mayor Taylor:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28561, authorizing you to
enter into a certain contract between the City, Roanoke County
and the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission; and further
authorizing you to execute on behalf of the City a quitclaim deed
conveying to such Comraission certain real property of the City
dedicated to airport use, excepting the real property known as
Fire Station No. 10, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council
of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday, March 9, 1987,
also adopted by the Council on second reading on Monday, March
16, 1987, and will take effect ten days following the date of its
second reading.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc o
cc: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Robert C. Poole, Manager, Airport
Room 456 MunlcJ~t Building 2t50~urch Avenue, S,W. Roanoke, ~rginia 2401 t (703) 981-2541
Office of ~ne City Clen~
March 18, 1987
File #2-9-70
Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, Jr.
Roanoke County Administrator
P. O. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Mr. Hodge:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 28561, authorizing the Mayor
to enter into a certain contract between the City, Roanoke County
and the Roanoke Regional Airport Corr~dission; and further
authorizing the Mayor to execute on behalf of the City a
quitclaim deed conveying to such Commission certain real property
of the City dedicated to airport use, excepting the real property
known as Fire Station No. 10, which Ordinance was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday, March
9, 1987, also adopted by the Council on second reading on Monday,
March 16, 1987, and will take effect ten days following the date
of its second reading.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enco
cc: Mr. Bob L. Johnson, Chairman, Roanoke County Board
Supervisors, P. 0. Box 29800, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
of
P, oom456 MunlclpalBulldlng 215 Church Awnue, S.W. Roanoke, V~rglnla24011 (703)98t-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 16th day of March, 1987.
No. 28561.
AN ORDINANCE
contract between
Regional Airport
authorizing the Mayor to enter into a certain
the City, Roanoke County and the Roanoke
Commission; and further authorizing the Mayor to
execute on behalf of the City a quitclaim deed conveying to such
Commission certain real property of the City dedicated to airport
use, excepting the real property known as Fire Station No. 10.
WHEREAS, this Council and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County have previously adopted resolutions creating the Roanoke
Regional Airport Commission, and this Council is now desirous of
authorizing the Mayor of the City to enter
tract between the City, Roanoke County and
Airport Commission and further authorizing
into a certain con-
the Roanoke Regional
the Mayor to enter
into a quitclaim deed conveying to such Commission certain real
property of the City dedicated to airport use, excepting the real
property known as Fire Station No. 10;
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke as follows:
1. The Mayor is hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the
City, to enter into a contract between this City, Roanoke County
and the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission relating to the
financial contributions to be made by each participating political
subdivision to the Commission and other terms and conditions of
their participation.
2. The form of such contract shall be approved by the City
Attorney, and execution shall not occur until the Mayor has been
advised by the City Attorney that the City has received a written
opinion from competent bond counsel that Section 15 of the
contract constitutes a valid and binding obligation of the County
and is enforceable against the County in accordance with its
terms.
3. The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized, for
and on behalf of the City, to execute and to seal and attest,
respectively, a deed to remise, release and quitclaim to the
Commission the real property of the City currently dedioated to
airport use, excepting Fire Station No. 10 and such additional
adjacent real property as may be determined by the City Manager
to be necessary for the efficient operation of a fire station;
said quitclaim deed shall be for a nominal consideration and
shall be in such form as is approved by the City Attorney.
4. The City Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy
of this resolution to the Clerk of the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors and to the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission for
filing among the permanent papers of the Commission.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Office of the City Clem
March 18, 1987
File #60
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28571, amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1986-87 General Fund
Appropriation Ordinance, to provide for the appropriation of
$99,500.00, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City
of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, ~larch 16, 1987.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
~FP: ra
Enc.
cc: Mr.
Mr.
W. Robert Herbert,
Wilburn C. Dibling,
City Manager
Jr., City Attorney
Room 456 Municipal Building 2t5 (~ul~h A',~uel S.W. Roonoke, Virginia 2401t (703) 981-254.1
IN TtlE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGI~IIA,
The 16th day of March, 1987.
No. 28571.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1986-87 General Fund Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1986-87 General Fund
Appropriation Ordinance be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained, to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Non-Departmental
Miscellaneous (1) .................................
Fund Balance
Fund Balance
$9,797,154
234,350
- Reserved for Insurance Claims (2) .... $ 350,500
(1) Self-Insurance
Liability Claim
(2) Fund Balance
Reserved for Ins.
Claims
(001-004-9140-2172)
(001-3327)
$ 99,500
(99,500)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT B
THIS CONTRACT. made and entered into this 17th day of
March. 1987..between NCR CORPORATION. party of the first
part, hereinafter referred to as "NCR". and the CITY OF
ROANOKE. a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. party of
the second part, hereinafter referred to as "City";
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, NCR has been awarded a contract by the City for
a state of the art public safety computer aided dispatch
system, including all necessary hardware, software, mainte-
nance and support service required in order to successfully
install, implement and operate the system, all of the fore-
going hereinafter referred to as the "System"; and
WHEREAS. NCR has entered into a performance bond, with
surety in the penalty of 100 percent of the contract sum,
payable to the City of Roanoke. conditioned upon the faith-
ful performance of this contract;
NOW, THEREFORE. FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sums of
money hereinafter specified to be paid by the City to NCR
for the System. the parties hereto covenant and agree as
follows:
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this contract, the following words and terms
shall have the following meanings:
"Aoceptance" means written notice to NCR by the City
after successful completion of the 30-day acceptance test
that the System has proven to the
meet the City'e specifieations as
and all functional requirements.
"Acceptance test" means a trial period
of operation commencing on a date mutually
satisfaction of the City to
to speed, accuracy, reliability
of 30 consecutive days
agreed to by the City
and NCR during which a determination is made whether the System
meets the City's specifications as to speed, accuracy, reliabi-
lity and performance of all functional requirements in actual
operation.
"Certification" means written notice given by NCR tO the City
that the equipment specified by the City has all been delivered,
installed, successfully passed diagnostic tests, meets all NCR
performance criteria and is ready for operation.
"City" means the City of Roanoke, Virgiaia.
"NCR" means NCR Corporation or any of its subsidiaries.
"System" means a computer aided dispatch system and related
software, including all configured hardware and software deve-
loped or provided by NCR to track, monitor and assist in dispatch-
ing of police, fire and emergency medical personnel, along with
maintenance and support service required in order to install, im-
plement and enable the City to operate the System and interfaces
and integration with the mobile digital terminals and other cri-
minal justice information systems as defined in the City's speci-
fications. ("City's specifications" or "specifications? wherever
used in this Contract. shall refer to both the Computer Aided
Dispatch System Specifications. dated August i1, 1986 (Exhibit I)
and Addendum No. ! thereto, dated September 19, 1986 (Exhibit 2).
SECTION 2. SCOPE OF CONTRACT.
NCR covenants and agrees with the City to deliver, in-
stall and render operational the System in good and workman-
like manner in accordance with this contract and within the
time stipulated,
SECTION 3. ELEMENTS OF CONTRACT.
NCR shall perform all work in strict accordance with
this contract which consists of the following, all of which
are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this contract:
a, This document, dated March 17, 1987;
bo Computer Aided Dispatch Specifications, dated
August 11, 1986 (Exhibit 1);
c. Addendum No. 1 to Computer Aided Dispatch
Specifications, dated September 19, 1986
(Exhibit 2);
d. NCR Bid Response, including the Universal
Agreement attached thereto, dated October
17, 1986 (Exhibit 3);
e. NCR's letter of December 10, 1986, from John
Buchanan to D. Darwin Roupe (Exhibit 4);
f. NCR's letter of December 18, 1986, from John
Buchanan to D. Darwin Roupe (Exhibit 5);
g. NCR'a letter of February 25, 1987, from William
E. Shanks to D. Darwin Roupe (Exhibit 6);
h. Hardware Maintenance Agreement (Exhibit 7);
i. Revised Software Maintenance Program (Exhibit 8);
and
j. NCR's letter of February 26, 1987, from John Buchan-
an to D. Darwin Roupe (Exhibit 9).
SECTION 4. CONFLICTS.
Should any conflict or inconsistency exist between this
document, dated March 17, 1987, and any other document, then
this document shall govern. Should any conflict or any in-
consistency exist between the City's specifications and
any other document other than this document, then the City's
specifications shall govern.
SECTION 5.
(a)
contract upon such date as is established and fixed for such
commencement by written notice to proceed given to NCR by
the City's City Manager. Such date shall not be earlier
than ten (10) days following the date of such notice unless
an earlier date of commencement shall be accepted in writing
TIME OF COI~NCEMENT AND COmPLETiON.
NCR shall commence the work to be performed under this
and agrees to fully complete deli-
render operable the System, as pro-
within 150 consecutive calendar
by NCR. }~R covenants
very, installation and
vided by this contract,
the day of commencement fixed and established by
the essence by this contract.
acceptance by the City of the
failure by the System to
specifications more than thirty (30) days
29, 1987 (scheduled acceptance date), the
days after
such notice, time being made of
(b) NCR agrees that if the
System is delayed, because of a
meet the City's
after September
be entitled to liquidated damages in the amount
for each day, up to a maximum of one hundred
that such acceptance is delayed. The scheduled
date shall be delayed one day for each day
the acceptance period is delayed
failure to comply with any of its
City shall
of $200.00
(100) days,
acceptance
that the beginning of
because of the City's
- 4 -
obligations under this contract. Such liquidated damages
shall be the ~sole remedy of the City for any delay in ac-
ceptance by the City of the Syatem. This paragraph is sub-
ject to paragraph 12 of the Universal Agreement.
SECTION 6. PAYMENT.
Payment shall be made or caused to be made by the City
to NCR at the bid price which shall constitute payment in
full for furnishing all materials, labor, tools, equipment.
and appurtenances necessary to complete the work in a satis-
factory manner as required by the City's specifications.
Payment shall be made or caused to be made in accordance
with the schedule attached to the letter of February 25,
1987. from William E. Shanks to D. Darwin Roupe (Exhibit 6).
In no case, shall the City be required to pay for any part
of the System prior to delivery, installation and certifi-
cation to the City by NCR.
SECTION 7. WARRANTIES.
(a) The City cannot itself verify System capability in
advanee of equipment delivery and has relied upon NCR's Bid
Response and letters, which are specifically incorporated
by reference as Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9, respectively,
respecting the capability of the System to perform applica-
tions of, or produce certain results for, the City. NCR,
therefore, commits itself
the City's specifications
below.
to performance in accordance with
and gives the warranties set out
- 5
(b)
and fit
cations.
(c)
the City,
ment and
NCR warrants that the System shall be merchantable
for the purposes enumerated in the City's specifi-
For 90 days commencing upon certification by NCR to
NCR warrants that the System, including the equip-
software which shall be installed, shall operate in
conformance with the City's specifications.
(d) Based on the volumes and data enumerated in the
City's specifications, NCR warrants that the equipment as
installed shall have adequate capacity to handle the
expected volume of calls for service and other transactions
set out in the City's specifications for the police, fire
and emergency medical operations while maintaining a re-
sponse time of less than two seconds on all complaint and
dispatch CRTs and with sufficient capacity for the Geo-Base
and related files and tables.
(e) NCR warrants that the equipment and operating sys-
tem software provided pursuant to this contract shall be
free of any defect in workmanship or materials for a period
of 90 days following certification by NCR to the City.
(f) NCR warrants that the application software will
perform as specified in the City's specifications and will
be free of any defects in workmanship or materials for a
period of 90 days following certification by NCR to the City
of all application software.
- $ -
(g) NCR represents
the software-and has the full right
the software and that upon delivery
and warrants that it is the owner
to deliver to the City
the City shall have
of
the license and right to use the same free of any liens,
claims, charges or encumbrances so long as the City shall
control the equipment, including additions and replacements.
or any substantial part thereof; provided that the City
shall have no right to sublicense or assign its rights with
respect to the software or any part thereof.
SECTION 8. MAINTENANCE.
(a) For periods of 90 days commencing from the dates
that NCR's 90-day warranties described in the preceding sec-
tion expire, NCR shall provide free maintenance of all
equipment which is part of the system and all operating and
application software provided by NCR and part of the system.
Such maintenance shall be provided on a seven day per week,
24 hour per day basis and shall include free labor and
replacement parts. Other terms of such maintenance shall be
pursuant to NCR's standard policy for maintenance of equip-
ment as set out in Section 13 of the NCR Universal Agreement
and Exhibit 7. attached hereto and incorporated by reference,
and NCR's Extended Software ~intenance Program which is
described in Exhibit 8, attached hereto and incorporated by
reference.
(b) Upon expiration of the 90 day period described in
subsection (a) above, NCR shall offer to the City its stan-
- 7 -
dard maintenance agreements with respect to equipment and
software at the rates stated in NCR's Bid Response for seven
day per week. 24 hour per day maintenance.
SECTION 9. SUPERVISION.
(a) NCR shall be responsible for delivering, installing,
developing and rendering operable the System. NCR ghall be
responsible for all subcontractors and subcontractor pro-
duets and work. NCR. as an independent contractor, will
supervise and direct the work and be solely responsible for
the means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures of
delivery, installation and rendering operable of the System.
(b) NCR will employ and maintain on the work site a
qualified Project Manager who shall have been designated in
writing by NCR as NCR's representative at the site. The
Project Manager shall have full authority to act on behalf
of NCR and all communications given to the Project Manager
shall be binding as if given to NCR. The Project Manager
shall be present on the site at all times as is required to
perform adequate supervision and coordination of the work.
(c) The City shall designate in writing to NCR a Pro-
ject Manager who shall be the City's representative at the
work site and serve as liaison between NCR and City manage-
merit.
SECTION 10. INSPECTION.
The City may station inspectors at
report as to the progress of the work,
the work site to
the manner in which
it is being performed and also to report whenever it appears
that material.furnished and work performed by NCR fails to
fulfill the requirements of this contract and the specifi-
cations. Such inspectors may direct the attention of NCR to
any failure or infringement, but such inspection shall not
relieve NCR from the obligation to furnish acceptable
materials and to provide completed work that is satisfactory
in every particular. The City's inspectors are not autho-
rized to revoke, alter, enlarge, relax or release any re-
quirements of this contract
Inspectors shall in no case
duties for NCR or interfere
by NCR. Direct control and
and agents shall be solely
or the City's specifications.
act as foremen or perform other
with the management of the work
supervision of NCR's employees
the responsibility of NCR.
SECTION I1. PROTECT[ON OF FINISHED OR PARTIALLY
FINISHED W~RK.
NCR shall properly guard and protect all finished or
partially finished work and shall be responsible for the same
until certification of the System to the City by NCR.
SECTION 12. CLEANUP AND RESTORATION.
Upon the completion of performance under this contract,
NCR shall remove from City property all rubbish, apparatus
and waste materials resulting from NCR's work or caused by
its employees, agents or subcontractors. NCR shall restore,
in a manner suitable to the City, the work site and any
facilities and property damaged or altered by NCR during the
course of the work.
- 9 -
SECTION 13. TRAINING.
Prior to .final acceptance of
vide, without additional charge,
forth in NCR'a bid response. All
shall be conducted at locations
the City in Roanoke, Virginia.
shall be designed, as concurred
the System, NCR shall pro-
the training classes as set
CAD application training
designated and prepared by
CAD application training
in by the City and NCR, to
achieve the objectives set out in NCR's bid~r~esponse and
shall be of a duration and depth appropriate for the skill
levels represented by the City's employees. Ail VRX/E
courses will be conducted at NCR offices in Dayton, Ohio.
Tuition charges for the VRX/E courses for the number of
City employees trained shall be at the unit price for each
course set forth in NCR's Bid Response. The City shall be
responsible for travel and other expenses associated with
its employees attending VRX/E courses. All training
described in NCR's Bid Response shall be made available to
the City prior to final acceptance of the System. Train-
ing to be provided by NCR away from the City shall be
offered Monday through Friday, and the City's Project },~na-
get shall be given at least ten (10) days written notice of
such training.
SECTION 14. INDEM}~IFICATION.
(a) NCR shall have no obligation
under this contract, its warranty, or
nished pursuant to this contract
NCR, the City shall:
or responsibility
any maintenance fur-
if without the approval of
10 -
exceed the System specifications, file and tran-
saction loads as set forth in NCR's Bid Response;
or
(2) utilize the System for a purpose whieh is unre-
lated to the operation of NCR's CAD system; or
(3) make modifications or additions or take any other
actions which will have an adverse impact on the
System specifications as set forth in NCR's Bid
Response; or
(4)
fail to maintain the
the System described
Response; or
environmental conditions for
to the City by NCR's Bid
(5)
fail to implement a backup plan for manual dis-
patch of emergency services in the event of Sys-
tem downtime; or
(6)
(7)
allow the System to be used by operators who have
not been trained by NCR to operate the System; or
fail to carry out technical instructions concerning
the operation of the System given to the City by
NCR prior to the event or oceurrence giving rise
to the issue of NCR liability.
(b) The NCR Computer-aided Dispatoh System (CAD) is a
tool designed to assist qualified police, fire, and other
emergency service professionals. It is not intended to be a
substitute for the exercise of judgment or supervision. EX-
CEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS CONTRACT. THE OPERATION AND P£RFOR-
MANCE OF THE PRODUCT CANNOT BE WARR~ED FOR ANy FUNCTION.
SERVICE OR APPLICATION NOT SPECIFIED IN THIS CONTRACT. THERE
ARE NO EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF r~RCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR ~aNY FUNCTION, SERVICE OR APPLICATION (3THER THAN
THOSE SPECIFIED IN THIS CONTRACT. Both parties acknowledge
that the primary responsibility for providing police, fire.
or other emergency services always rests with the City, its
employees, and members of its staff, and not with NCR and/or
11 -
NCR Products. Accordingly. both parties agree that NCR SHALL
NOT BE LIABLE.TO THE CITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR ANY EXPENSE
INCURRED BY THE CITY, WHETHER INTERNAL TO THE CITY OR PAID
BY THE CITY TO ANY THIRD PARTy, WHICH MAy ARISE OUT OF THE
PRODUCT, ITS OPERATION OR USE, OR ITS FAILURE TO OPERATE
AS ANTICIPATED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS CONTRACT. The
City agrees to accept full responsibility for the operation
of its emergency services, including the dispatch of police,
fire, and emergency medical personnel.
(c) With respect to claims for bodily injury, or proper-
ty damage not to exceed $1,000,000, the City shall indemnify
and hold harmless NCR for any judgment rendered against NCR,
or amount paid by NCR in settlement of any claim or contro-
versy, arising out of the City's use of the system in a man-
ner inconsistent with this contract. With respect to claims
for bodily injury, or property damage not to exceed $1,000,000,
NCR shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers,
agents and employees, for any judgment, or amount paid in
settlement of any claim or controversy, arising out of the
failure of the System to perform as specified in this contract.
SECTION 15. REGULATIONS AND PERMITS.
(a) With respect to work to be performed by NCR under
this Contract, NCR shall fully comply with all local, state
and federal building and fire codes, ordinances, laws and
regulations, including without limitation all applicable
sections of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the
Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and obtain all re-
12 -
quired licenses and permits and pay all charges and expenses
connected therewith.
(b) With respect to work to be performed by NCR under
this Contract, NCR shall be responsible for arranging all
inspections of local authorities for compliance with all
building code requirements, ordinances and regulatiohs.
SECTION 15. RISK OF LOSS.
During the period any portion of the System is in tran-
sit or in the possession of the City prior to certification
of the System by NCR, NCR shall have sole responsibility
for all risk of loss or damage to the System, except such
that may be caused by the City's negligence or that of its
officers, employees or agents.
SECTION 17. NONDISCRIMINATION.
NCR shall comply with all applicable federal, state and
municipal laws concerning the prohibition of discrimination
on the basis of race, religion, color, sex or national ori-
gin, including §23.1-20, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979),
as amended, a copy of which was included and incorporated by
reference in the City's specifications, dated August 11, 1986.
SECTION 18. ASSIGNMENT.
NCR shall not assign, sublet or transfer any interest in
this contract without the prior written consent of the City.
SECTION 19. ARBITRATION.
Section 19, Disputes, of the Universal Agreement, in-
cluded as a part of the Bid Response of NCR, dated Ootober
17, 1986, is deleted.
-13
SECTION 20.
If any part or parts,
clause or phrase of this
to be unconstitutional
SEVERABILITY.
section or
contract is
or invalid by
subsection, sentence,
for any reason declared
any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this contract.
SECTION 21. COMPLETENESS OF CONTRACT.
This contract and the exhibits hereto, which are incor-
porated by reference, constitute the entire contract between
NCR and the City and supersede all prior negotiations,
representations or agreements, either oral or written.
SECTION 22. AMENDS~NTS.
The City may. from time to time, require changes in the
work to be performed pursuant to this contract. Such
changes, which are mutually agreed to between the City and
NCR, shall be incorporated in written amendment to this
contract.
SECTION 23. LAWS OF VIRGINIA.
This contract shall be governed by the laws of the Com-
monwealth of Virginia, both as to interpretation and perfor-
mance.
SECTION 24. EXECUTION.
This contract shall be executed in duplicate, any copy
of which may be considered the original.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused their
names to be subscribed and their corporate seals to be here-
- 14
to affixed, duly attested, by their proper officers, respec-
tively, this the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
NCR CORPORATION
By
Johann Oosthuizen, Vice-President
ATTE ST:
CITY OF ROANOKE
Mary F. Parker. City Clerk
By
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
-15
Office of the City Clerk
March 18, 1987
Fi le #~I
Motorola Comwunications & Electronics,
5531Heatherhill Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 28565, accepting your propo-
sal to supply an electronic communications control center and
related RF-digital data network with mobile data terminals, in
the total amount of $621,700.00, which Ordinance was adopted by
the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, March 16, 1987.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
cc: Mr.
Mr.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration
Public Safety
Mr. Warren E. Trent, Manager, Civil Defense
Mr. M. David Hooper, Superintendent of Police
Mr. Jerry W. Kerley, Fire Chief
Mr. Alfred Beckley, Jr., Superintendent of Communications
Mr. Archie Rarrington, Manager, City Information Systems
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
and
Roo~'n 456 Municipal Building 215 O~urch Avenue, S.W, Roanoke, Vlrglnk3 24011 (703) 98t-2541
IN THE CO~{CIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 16th day of March, 1987.
No. 28565.
AN ORDINANCE aceepting the bid of Motorola Communications and
Electronics, Incorporated, to supply an electronic communications
control center and related RF-digital data network with mobile
data terminals, upon certain terms and conditions, and awarding a
eontract therefor; authorizing the proper City offieials to exe-
cute the requisite contract for suoh work; rejecting all other
bids made to the City for the work; and providing for an
emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The bid of Motorola Communications and Electronics,
Incorporated, made to the City in the total amount of $621,700.00
for supply of an electronic corm~unications eontrol center and
related RF-digital data network with mobile data terminals, such
bid being in full compliance with the City's plans and specifica-
tions made therefor and as provided in the contract documents
offered said bidder, which bid is on file
City Clerk, be and is hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City Manager or the Assistant
in the Offiee of the
City Manager and the
City Clerk are hereby authorized on behalf of the City to execute
and attest, respectively, the requisite contract with the suc-
cessful bidder, based on its proposal made therefor and the
City's specifieations made therefor, said contract to be in such
form as is approved by the City Attorney, and the cost of said
work to be paid for out of funds heretofore or simultaneously
appropriated by Council.
3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the afore-
said control center are hereby REJECTED, and the City Clerk is
directed to notify each such bidder and to express to each the
City's appreciation for such bid.
4. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the
municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this
ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Office of ~ne City C]e,~
March 18, 1987
File #301
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28564, amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1986-87 Capital Projects Fund
Appropriations, by appropriating $1,000,000.00 in connection with
the award of a contract to Motorola Communications and
Electronics, Incorporated, to supply an electronic communications
control center and related RF-digital data network with mobile
data terminals, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 16,
1987.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enco
cc:
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and
Public Safety
Mr. Warren E. Trent, Manager, Civil Defense
Mr. M. David Hooper, Superintendent of Police
Mr. Jerry W. Kerley, Fire Chief
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
Mr. William Fo Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Alfred Beckley, Jr., Superintendent of Communications
Room 456 Municil:~al Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, ¥1rginia 24011 (703) 981-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 16th day of March, 1987.
No. 28564.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1986-87 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations and providing for an
emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1986-87 Capital Projects
Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained, to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
General Government
Eg-i-1/CAD Communications
$12,066,128
System (1) ............. 1,000,000
Fund Balance
Fund Balance - Unappropriated (2) .................. $
(1) Approp. from
General Rev.
(2) Fund Balance -
Unapprop.
(A008-052-9514-9003)
(X008-3325)
$ 1,000,000
(1,000,000)
97,504
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
March 16, 1987
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
SUBJECT:
BIDS FOR ELECTRONIC CO[~NICATIONS CONTROL CENTER
AND RELATED RF-DIGITAL DATA NET~ORK~ITH MOBILE
DATA TERMINALS - BID NUMBER 87-1-1
I concur with the recommendation of the bid committee relative to the above
subject and recommend it to you for appropriate action.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/DDR/ms
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
March 16, 1987
The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
and Members of Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Bids for Electronic Communications
Control Center and Related RF-Digital
Data Network with Mobile Data Terminals
BID NUMBER 87-1-1
I. BACKGROUND
August 1984, City Council included in the Five Year
Capital Improvement Program funding for E9-1-1/CAD
Communications System.
July 1985, City Council authorized the City Manager to
proceed with implementation of an E9-1-1/CAD Communi-
cations System.
Primary use of requested equipment is the implemen-
tation of E9-1-1/CAD project scheduled for valley-
wide turn-on October 5, 1987. The requested communi-
cations hardware will consist of communications dis-
patch consoles, radio network, radios and data
terminals in Police and Fire vehicles.
Request for bids were sent specifically to six (6)
firms as shown on the City's current bid list.
Bids were received, after due and proper advertisement,
in the Office of Manager of General Services on
February 11, 1987, at which time all bids so received
were publicly opened and read.
II. CURRENT SITUATION
A. Three (3) bid responses were received:
1. Motorola Communications and Electronics, Incor-
3.
Bid was
cations
porated - $621,700.00
ElectroCom Automation, Incorporated - No Bid
Mobile Data International, Incorporated - No Bid
evaluated by representatives of the Communi-
and General Services Departments.
City Council Report
Bid Number 87-1-1
March 16, 1987
Page 2
Ce
Stringent requirements limit system designer's pre-
ro~atives and possibly number of vendor responses.
Retain operational control of existing City
Communication Systems. Currently the City
operates seventeen (17) conventional radio net-
works with direct interface into the Communica-
tions Center.
e
Provision for future ~rowth consistent with
existinq technoloq¥. Modular concept is the only
viable approach. This allows for expansion of
systems as currently configured and with virtually
unlimited growth.
e
Provision for new technology. The Federal
Communications Commission, in allocating new
frequency spectrum for Public Safety services,
mandated the use of new technology to include
trunking and other schemes which prove to be
spectrum efficient.
has
City's obligation to inter-a~ency coordination.
Both City Council and the County Board of Super-
visors expressed concern that the purchase of any
new communications hardware by either community
be compatible so as not to preclude consolidation
in the future. This bid will meet that
commitment to the maximum extent technology
will allow.
III. ISSUES in order of importance:
A. Need
B. Compliance with Specifications
C. Fund Availability
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Accept the lowest responsible bid submitted by Motorola
Communications and Electronics, Incorporated, to supply
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS CONTROL CENTER AND RELATED
RF-DIGITAL DATA NETWORK WITH MOBILE DATA TERMINALS, for
the total amount of $621,700.00, and authorize City
Manager to enter into a contract, in a form approved by
the City Attorney.
City Council Report
Bid No. 87-1-1
March 16, 1987
Page 3
Need - The purchase of this communications equip-
ment is essential to and is part of the E9-1-1/CAD
project City Council authorized the City Manager
to implement July 22, 1985.
Compliance with specifications - The bid from
Motorola Communications and Electronics, Incor-
porated meets all required specifications.
Fund Availability - Funding for this project was
included in the Five-Year Capital Improvement
Program adopted by City Council in August 1984.
B. Reject all Bids
Need - E9-1-1 in Roanoke City would not be timely
implemented October 5, 1987 with other valley
governments. Essential communications equipment
would not be in place.
Se
Compliance with specifications - would not be an
issue in this alternative.
Fund Availability - designated funds would not be
expended.
RECOMMENDATION
City Council concur in Alternative "A" - Accept the
lowest responsible bid submitted by Motorola Communi-
cations and Electronics, Incorporated to supply
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS CONTROL CENTER AND RELATED
RF-DIGITAL DATA NETWORK WITH MOBILE DATA TERMINALS, for
the total amount of $621,700.00, and authorize City
Manager to enter into a contract, in a form approved by
the City Attorney.
Appropriate $1,000,000 from Undesignated Captial Funds
to an account entitled E9-1-1/CAD Com~nications System
to be established by the Director of Finance.
The difference in amount required for bid and
appropriation would be used as specified in the E9-1-1
cost breakdown attached. All funds will be expended
in accordance with the Code of the City of Roanoke,
Section 23.1, Procurement, (1979), as amended.
City Council Report
Bid No. 87-1-1
March 16, 1987
Page 4
AB/r
CC:
Chairman:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Respectfully submitted,
William F. Clark
~'-~~-Alf~ed Beckley, Jr
D. Darwin Roupe
E9-1-1 BREAKDOWN OF CAPITAL COSTS
C & P Installation
(Authorized City Ordinance
No. 27783)
C & P Increases in Installation Costs
(Based on more accurate projection
of costs than earlier estimates)
CAD Capital Equipment
(Consoles & Mobile Data
Terminal Network)
(Current Bid)
$143,733
16,267
621,700
Structural Modifications to
Emergency Communications
Center Area (Estimate)
UPS-Uninterruptable Power
Supply for CAD and
Digital Communications
Equipment
(Estimate)
Geographic Data Base File
(Cost of Temporary Field
and Technical Personnel
to collect raw data,
confirm geographical
address information
and load data into
system)
(Estimate)
(Estimate)
Contingency Reserve
TOTAL CAPITAL AND
INSTALLATION
75,000
40,000
35,000
68,300
1,000,000
March 3, 1987
MINUTES CONSIDERED AT THIS COUNCIL MEETING
MAY BE REVIEWED ON LINE IN THE "OFFICIAL MINUTES" FOLDER~
OR AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Office of the City Oe~
March 18, 1987
File #1-58-79-184
i~r. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
Your report with regard to employee participation in the Pre-Tax
Section 125 Plan for Blue Cross/Blue Shield, was before the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, ~iarch 16, 1987.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the report was received and
filed.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
itFP:ra
cc: Air. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Room456 Munlcll~alBuilding 215 C~urch Avenue, S.W. Roano~e, V1rgin~o24.011 (703) 981-254t
March 16, 1987
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Joel M. Schlanger
Pre-Tax (Section 125 Plan) Blue Cross/Blue Shield
Employee Participation
City Council approved the Section 125 Plan on December
15, 1986, to be effective for the January 7, 1987, payroll. This
plan provides the employer the right to offer each employee an
option to pay the employees cost of medical insurance with wages
not subject to payroll taxes (federal, state and social security
tax).
The employee participation in the plan was excellent.
Fifty-eight percent of employees participating in the medical
insurance program elected the pre-tax option to pay their medical
insurance premiums. The attached chart provides a detail analysis
of employee participation by type of medical insurance contract.
This new employee benefit provided each employee the
option of reducing annual taxable wages of up to $1,268 annually
(family plan). This report is provided to you for information
only and requires no action on your part. It is strictly a
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Page 2
March 16, 1987
follow-up so that you would know the results of your approval of
this additional employee benefit.
D~ctor of Finance O
JMS:dp
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN SECTION 125 PLAN
Annual Employee
Premium Cost
After Tax:
No. of Participants
Percentage of Total
Pre-Tax:
No. of Participants
Percentage of Total
Totals:
No. of Participants
Percentage of Total
Type of Medical Insurance Contract
Single
Single
Plus One Married
Totals
$114.96 $496.08 $1,268.88
N/A
388 47 193 628
50% 35% 34% 42%
384 88 378 850
50% 65% 66% 58%
772 135 571 1,478
52% 9% 39% 100%
C-7
CY~ce of the City Clem
March 18, 1987
File #15-20
Mr. Robert K. Bengtson, Chairman
City of Roanoke Transportation
Safety Commission
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Bengtson:
This is to advise you that Lee S. Anthony has qualified as a
member of the City of Roanoke Transportation Safety Commission
for a term of foar years ending October 31, 1990.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Room 456 Municipal Building 21,5 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanol,,,e, Virginia 240t I (703) 98'~-254t
0-2
Oafh or Affirmation of Office ....
'87 t4~!~' -9
Sf~ oI Virginia, CiVil o] Roanoke, to .~:
I, L~ ~ Anthony , do solemnly swear (or ~)
I w~l sup~ the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of V~glnia, and that
I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as
a member of the City of Roanoke Transportation Safety Commission
for a term of four years ending October 31, 1990,
according to the best of my ability. So help me God.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this_
Office of the O~y Clerk
October 24, 1986
/
File #15-20
Dr. Lee S. Anthony
3779 Carvins Cove Road
Salem, Virginia 24153
Dear Dr. Anthony:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held
on Monday, October 20, 1986, you were reelected as a member of
the City of Roanoke Transportation Safety Commission for a term
of four years ending October 31, 1990.
Enclosed you will find a certificate of your reelection and an
Oath or Affirmation of Office which may be administered by the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, third floor of
the Roanoke City Courts Facility, 315 Church Avenue, S. W.
Please return one copy of the Oath of Office to Room 456 in the
Municipal Building prior to serving in the capacity to which you
were reelected.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
Enc.
cc: Mr. Robert
K. Bengtson,
Traffic Engineer
Room 456 Municl~x~l Building 2t 5 (~urch Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Vl~glnta 2401 '1 (703) 981-2541
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) To-wi t:
CITY OF 'ROANOKE )
I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the
Council of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof,
do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council held on
the 20th day of October, 1986, LEE S. ANTHONY was reelect6d as
a member of the City of Roanoke Transportation Safety Commission
for a term of four years ending October 31, 1990.
Given under my hand and seal of the City of Roanoke this
24th day of October, 1986.
City Clerk
0-2
Oath or Affirmation of Office
8tate olf Virginia, (~it~ o] Roanoke, to .mit:
Sandra H. Eakin , do solemnly swear (or ~[trm) that
I,
I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Virginia, and that
I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as
Deputy City Clerk for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, effective
March 9, 1987.
according to the best of my ability. So help me God.
this 10th_ ~ day of Maro~h, 1~r~7
Subscribed and sworn to before me, -
~ ~~ , lerk
F'[CE!'~'F [
CITY CLEt i[! ,';ili%~
Roanoke, Virginia
March 16, 1987
Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
Please reserve space on today's agenda for an Executive Session to discuss
a matter involving the disposition of publicly held property, pursuant to
Section 2.1-344(a)(2) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
WRH/ga
cc:
~Res~ectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Finance Director
Roanoke, Vir§inia
March ]6, 1987
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Please reserve space on Council's Agenda for an Executive Session
to discuss acquisition of real property for public purpose in accordance
with Section 2.1-344(a)(2) of the Code of Virginia.
Respectfully submitted,
~. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:KBK:afm
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
'87 13 I o'~-~an°ke' Virginia
' ~ M-arch 16, 1987
Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
Please reserve space on Council's agenda for Monday an Executive Session to
discuss other legal matters within the jurisdiction of the public body, pursuant
to Section 2.1-344(a)(6) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/ga
cc: Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Finance Director
Office of the City Clerk
March 20, 1987
File #79-144-192
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Mr. Jerome S. Howard, Jr.
Commissioner of Revenue
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
I am attaching copy of a statement from Mr. Larry E. Fenzel, with
regard to a tax freeze on property which has been remodeled,
Civic Center operations and refuse collection, which statement
was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, March 16, 1987.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, that portion of the state-
ment regarding a tax freeze on property which has been remodeled
was referred to the Co~missioner of Revenue for study and report
to Council. The City Manager was requested to report to Council
on that portion of the statement dealing with the Civic Center
and refuse collection.
Sincerely, ~1~,~.~.4~._
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
cc:
Mr. Larry E. Fenzel, 1719 Grandin Road, S. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24015
Mr. George C. Snead, Director of Administration and Public
Safety
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Room456 MunlcipalBuildlng 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke,'~rginla24011 (703)981-2541
Mayor Taylor
Members of City
Municipal Bldg.
Roanoke, Va.
Council
1719 Grandin Rd.S.W.
Roanoke, Va. 24015
February 25, 1987
982-0585 (0) 345-8298
Dear Council Members,
This letter is being written to ask you to consider three
matters of business for implementation by the city.
The first item I would request is that some plan of
notification be implemented to inform property owners, remodelers,
professional contractors, realtors and investors that a five
year tax freeze is available under certain circumstances for
property renovation. I personally experienced a jump in tax
value from $4,000 to $44,000 on a building I remodeled on 1982.
But, my concern is brought on by a gentleman named Naymon Mack
who suffered a similiar fate. Having gone through the RRHA
Rental Rehab program he still was not informed of this freeze
availibilty. I will give you more details when I address you
in person.
My second item for your consideration is to consider a
study of our civic center operation especially in regard to
the approximate $500,000 income deficit. There are circumstances
under which what is normally considered an "asset" becomes a
"liability." Such is the case with our civic center which incurs
revenue shortfalls yearly. As you well know the county paid
Salem to take their joint "asset" because it had become a
liability. If we could still have all the benefits of the civic
center without the yearly subsidizing, that would be in the
city's best interest. Accomplishing that feat may be possible
if the center was sold, leased, or some combination of the two
to a for-profit organization. I believe a study could give
us that information.
Thirdly, I believe in the interest
property owners the city ought to serve
apartment complexes with dumpsters just
of being fair to all
those businesses and
as they do for those
with trash cans.
they pay taxes just like every other property owner.
service should of course require extra payment, but
service should be extended on similair terms to
owners. I shall give you more information when
personally.
I appreciate your consideration of
our city to progress and prosper.
They should receive reasonable service since
Extra
standard
all property
I address you
these measures enabling
Respectfully,
L. L. Fenzel
SPEECH TO CITY COUNCIL MARCH 16, 1987 2:00 P.M.
Mayor Taylor and members of City Council I appreciate this
opportunity to address you concerning three items of business
which I wrote to you about briefly in a letter dated 2/25/87.
The first item of business pertains to the tax freeze available
to those who do substantial remodeling work. In 1982 I renovated
a shell of a building which had a tax valuation of $4,000. Upon
completion of this work the property's valuation jumped to $44,000.
I did not recieve a tax freeze because I was not aware of it's
availability. The additional expense to me in taxes over these
5 years is some $2,000. But, I am
but neither have I ever since that
available tax freeze.
not crying over spilled milk,
time failed to obtain the
But, my concern at this time is brought about by a gentleman
named Naymon Mack who renovated a duplex at 1321-23 Melrose Ave.N.W.
Mr. Mack gutted that structure installing new furnaces, new wiring,
new walls, new plumbing, new windows etc. He even bricked the
exterior. The tax valuation before renovation was $3,000. The
after renovation tax valuation is $33,900. Not only has Mr. Mack
improved his neighborhood, but he is penalized to the tune of $2,000
over a five year period for doing so. This ought not to be. Mr.
Mack went through the RRHA Rental Rehab Program and obtained the
necessary permit from the city's building dept. yet he still was
not informed of this available tax freeze program.
If we are to see neighborhood revitalization we must make
known ~ to everyone the available economic advantages of
property renovation. I suggest we implement an information program
to all property owners, contractors, realtors, and investors
as soon as possible. We have mailings available twice a year to
all tax payers and once a year to all who hold city business
licenses. Let's avail ourselves to inform people by utilizing
this source which would be at a very small expense. Let's be
sure the housing authority informs the investors they deal with
and that the information is available at the building department
where building permits are issued. You may have other ideas, but
I believe these are the minimum steps we should implement. The
cost would be small but the return is revitalized neighborhoods
could be great.
Since we are now in the budget preparation stage and few
changes !~ ever come after the public hearing I present two
requests for your consideration.
The first request is ~about because of the $500,000
income deficit caused by the Civic center. At this size loss each
citizen in our city pays $5.00 to keep the center solvent. I
know there is some income generated to our city from center activities,
but this size loss year after year should be unacceptable to you.
There are times, especially ~ real estate, that what normally
is considered an "asset" is actually a "liability" because of having
to continually spend money to keep it viable. I remind you that
Roanoke County actually paid Salem to take over full ownership
to their Civic center to avoid having to continually subsidize
its operation.
If our city could maintain the same economic benefit without
having to subsidize the center year-in-and-year-out this would be
in everyone's best interest.
center were (1) sold (2) leased
(4) some combination of these.
believe this is possible if the
(3)J~management-lease agreement
I have spoken to one individual who
has the capability to run a civic center operation who would be
interested in some type of business arrangement should this council
prove responsive to this request. I would ask that in the up-coming
budget you appropriate some funds for such a study.
Lastly, I believe in the interest of being fair to all property
owners the city ought to provide trash pick up services to businesses
and apartment complexes with dumpsters. (Quote from budget book
pages V, VII.)
In 1986 I built 10 new apartments on Brandon Ave. At that
time I was as much as told by the city planner my site plan would
not be approved if I used trash cans instead of a dumpster. Under
the code I could have legitmately used trash cans. The city would
pick up a maximum of 10 per week without extra charge. But the
planning department would not approve such a plan therefore, I
have to pay a private firm to pick up my dumpster. My project has
brought in over $3,000 a year to the city plus the personal property
taxes from tenants which is probably over $1,000 a year, yet I
am not entitled to the most basic city service-that of trash
collection!
Ail other businesses and residences have this service available
at no charge. The city even runs collection services six days a
week downtown, yet I can not get even minimum once a week service
for my complex. I am not asking the city for extra-ordinary
service just the standard service available to each resident. I
would ask you to study the costs to the city and implement a
policy fair to all tax payers.
Thank you for your willingness to hear all citizens and
trust that together we can see our city progress and prosper.
Office cfi fi~e City Clerk
March 18, 1987
File #178
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
[ am attaching copy of Resolution No. 28566, approving the making
of loans by the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and ltousing
Authority with respect to residences located in areas of the City
of Roanoke which are not designated as redevelopment areas, con-
servation areas or rehabilitation districts, which Resolution was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held
on Monday,
March 16, 1987.
Sincerely, ~/~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP: va
cc:
Mr. Alton L. Knighton, Jr., 105 Franklin Road, S. W., P. O.
Box 720, Roanoke, Virginia 24004-0720
Mr. Herbert D. McBride, Executive Director, Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority, P. 0. Box 6359, Roanoke,
Virginia 24017
Mr. Donald J. Bean, Neighborhood Development Director,
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, P. 0. Box 6359,
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Corrgnissioner/Zoning
Administrator
Mr. Daniel Pollock, Housing Development Coordinator
Room 456 Muntclpol Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. RoanoNe, Virginia 24011 (703) 98t-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 16th Day of March, 1987
No. 28566.
VIRGINIA
A RESOLUTION approving the making of loans by the City of
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority with respect to resi-
dences located in areas of the City of Roanoke which are not
designated as redevelopment areas, conservation areas or rehabi-
1 itation districts.
WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housin~
Authority (the Authority) proposes to issue from time to time its
revenue bonds or notes and to loan the proceeds from the sale
thereof to individuals to finance the (a) rehabilitation and (b)
acquisition and rehabilitation of one- to four-family residences,
at least one unit of each of which will be occupied by an owner
of such residence (Residences) located in the City of Roanoke,
Virginia (the City), a portion of which Residences may be located
in areas which have not been desiqnated, pursuant to Section
36-51, 36-51.1 or 36-52.3 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended (the Virginia Code), as redevelopment areas, conservation
areas or rehabilitation districts (Non-designated Areas); and
WHEREAS, the Authority proposes to make such loans with
respect to Residences located in Non-designated Areas pursuant to
authority granted to redevelopment and housin~ authorities under
Section 36-19(f3) of the Virginia Code; and
WHEREAS, Section 36-19(f3) of the Virginia Code permits the
making of loans with respect to Residences in Non-designated
-1-
Areas
such loans; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City (the
the interests of the City would be served
only if the local governing body approves the making of
Council) believes that
if the Authority were
permitted to make loans to lower-income persons with respect to
Residences located in Non-designated Areas of the City;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke as follows:
1. The Council approves the making by
loans to finance the (i) rehabilitation and
the Authority of
(ii) acquisition and
rehabilitation of Residences located in Non-designated Areas in
the City, provided that any such loan with respect to a Residence
located in a Non-designated Area shall be made only to one or
more persons whose aggregate income is 80% or less of median
gross income for the City, determined by taking family size into
account.
2. The foregoing approval shall apply to any such loan made
at any time hereafter, but shall not apply to any loan made prior
to the adoption of this resolution.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-2-
WOODS, ROGERS 8¢ H_~ZLEGROVE
982-4232
March 5, 1987
Ms. Mary F. Parker,
Clerk of City Council
Municipal Building
Roanoke, VA 24011
In re: City of Roanoke Redevelopment & Housing Authority;
Mortgage Loans
Dear Mary:
On behalf of the Housing Authority, I am enclosing a
proposed resolution for City Council. I would be most
appreciative if you would place this on Council's agenda for
March 16, 1987.
The Authority has on several past occasions issued its
tax-exempt bonds to provide funds to lend for the rehabilitation
or acquisition and rehabilitation of owner-occupied residences.
Due to changes in the tax laws, the lenders which have previously
participated in the bond program are no longer willing to
purchase tax-exempt bonds. Consequently, the Authority and the
lenders have agreed to participate in a taxable bond issue.
To satisfy the requirements for tax-exempt issues, the
Authority has in the past limited its loans to residences located
in areas of the City which have been designated as redevelopment
areas, conservation areas or rehabilitation districts. Since
this restriction will not be applicable to a taxable issue, the
Authority proposes to lend the proceeds of the new issue
throughout the City. For areas which have not been so
designated, however, the Authority proposes to make loans only to
borrowers whose incomes are less than 80 percent of the City's
median income.
Page Two
Ms. Mary F. Parker,
Clerk of City Council
March 5, 1987
It is arguable that, under Virginia law, the Authority
cannot make loans in areas which have not been so designated in
the absence of City Council approval of those loans. The
enclosed resolution is intended to effect this approval. The
resolution would limit the approval to loans for persons meeting
the income test, thereby directing the loans in non-designated
areas to lower-income borrowers.
Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter.
Please let me know if you should have any questions.
Sincerely,
WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE
Alton L. Knighton, Jr.
ALK/tmc
enclosure
cc: Mr. Donald J. Bean
Mr. Daniel Pollock
Wilburn C. Dibling,
(w/enc.)
(w/enc.)
Jr., City Attorney
(w/enc.)
Roanoke, Virginia
March 16, 1987
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Request of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
Concerning Private Rehabilitation Loan Program
I. Background
Private Rehabilitation Loan Program is CDBG supported program by which
the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority makes mortgage loans to
homeowners for rehabilitation or purchase/rehabilitation of their
homes, most recently (3 9% interest.
Funds for Private Rehabilitation Loan Program have been obtained by
tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds sold by the Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority to local financial institutions, secured by a loan
loss reserve from the City equal to 10% of each bond issue.
Program has been in operation for five years, during which time 12t~
loans have been made totalling $3,200,000, all in Conservation Areas,
Rehabilitation Districts, and Redevelopment Areas.
II. Current Situation
Tax Reform Act has made tax-exempt bond issues for this type of program
unattractive to bond investors. Accordingly, RRHA has negotiated with
local financial institutions to buy taxable bonds for continuation of
the program.
B. Terms of the continued program would allow for loans to homeowners at
the rate of 9% interest over a 20-year period.
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority and bond buyers propose to
make these loans available to low-moderate income homeowners/homebuyers
in all areas of the City. In addition, loans would be available for
homeowners/homebuyers of higher incomes in the targeted areas
(Conservation Areas, Rehabilitation Districts and Redevelopment Areas.)
D. City approval is necessary under Virginia law for the Authority to make
loans in areas not designated as these target areas.
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority is requesting Council
approval for the continuation of the Rehabilitation Loan Program,
including its extension to low-moderate homeowner/homebuyers in non-
targeted areas of the City. (Attachment)
March 16, 1987
Page 2
III. Issues
B.
C.
D.
E.
IV.
Impact on neighborhood revitalization.
Assistance to lower income homeowners/homebuyers.
Cost to the City.
Timing.
Legal concerns.
Alternatives
A. Approve the continuation and extension of the Private Rehabilitation
Loan Program to allow the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
to make such loans to low-moderate homeowners/homebuyers in areas not
designated as Conservation Areas, Rehabilitation Districts or
Redevelopment Areas.
Impact on neighborhood revitalization will be positive, in that
another source of financing for rehabilitation will be available in
targeted areas to homeowners/homebuyers of whatever income, and to
houses elsewhere in need of repair.
Assistance for lower income homeowners/homebuyers, will be provided
where such assistance has not been available in the past, namely in
parts of the City not designated as targeted areas.
Additional cost to the City will be nothing. All funds
necessary to renew the Rehabilitation Loan Program have been
previously budgeted from CDBG funds and are currently available.
Timing is such that mortgage revenue bond sale necessary to
reactivate the Program may be held in mid-March with loan funds
available by the end of the month.
Legal concerns would be met by Council's authorization to the
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority to provide such loans
outside designated areas. Such extension of the Program is
consistent with CDBG and other federal regulations.
B. Do not approve the extension of the Private Rehabilitation Loan Program
to low-moderate income homeowners/homebuyers in nondesignated areas;
approve continuation of the Program in targeted areas only.
Impact on neighborhood revitalization may be hindered in that
houses in need of rehabilitation outside of designated areas could
not take advantage of this source of financing.
Assistance for lower income homeowners/homebuyers would be limited
to the designated areas with no similar type of assistance
available to low-moderate income homeowners/homebuyers outside of
these designated areas.
March 16, 1987
Page 3
3. Cost to the City would be nothing. CDBG funds are budgeted for
renewal of the Program on whatever terms.
Timing would still be such that the bonds could be sold in
mid-March with loans available in the designated areas only by the
end of the month.
Legal concerns are such that the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority could not make loans outside the designated areas without
City Council approval.
V. Recommendation
Adopt Alternative A, thereby approving the continuation and extension of the
Private Rehabilitation Loan Program to allow the Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority to make loans to low-moderate income homeowners/
homebuyers in areas not designated as Conservation Areas, Rehabilitation
Districts or Redevelopment Areas.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Attachment
CC:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Building Commissioner
Housing Development Coordinator
Grants Monitoring Administrator
Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
Alton L. Knighton, 3r., Woods Rogers & Hazelgrove
WOODS, ROGERS ~ H~ZLEGROVE
982-4232
March 5, 1987
Ms. Mary F. Parker,
Clerk of City Council
Municipal Building
Roanoke, VA 24011
In re: City of Roanoke Redevelopment & Housing Authority;
Mortgage Loans
Dear Mary:
On behalf of the Housing Authority, I am enclosing a
proposed resolution for City Council. I would be most
appreciative if you would place this on Council's agenda for
March 16, 1987.
The Authority has on several past occasions issued its
tax-exempt bonds to provide funds to lend for the rehabilitation
or acquisition and rehabilitation of owner-occupied residences.
Due to changes in the tax laws, the lenders which have previously
participated in the bond program are no longer willing to
purchase tax-exempt bonds. Consequently, the Authority and the
lenders have agreed to participate in a taxable bond issue.
To satisfy the requirements for tax-exempt issues, the
Authority has in the past limited its loans to residences located
in areas of the City which have been designated as redevelopment
areas, conservation areas or rehabilitation districts. Since
this restriction will not be applicable to a taxable issue, the
Authority proposes to lend the proceeds of the new issue
throughout the City. For areas which have not been so
designated, however, the Authority proposes to make loans only to
borrowers whose incomes are less than 80 percent of the City's
median income.
Page Two
Ms. Mary F. Parker,
Clerk of City Council
March 5, 1987
It is arguable that, under Virginia law, the Authority
cannot make loans in areas which have not been so designated in
the absence of City Council approval of those loans. The
enclosed resolution is intended to effect this approval. The
resolution would limit the approval to loans for persons meeting
the income test, thereby directing the loans in non-designated
areas to lower-income borrowers.
Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter.
Please let me know if you should have any questions.
Sincerely,
WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE
Alton L. Knighton, Jr.
ALK/tmc
enclosure
cc: Mr. Donald J. Bean (w/enc.)
Mr. Daniel Pollock (w/enc.)
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
(w/enc.)
Or, ce a~ the Ci~ Qe~
March 18, 1987
File #60-410--/~
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
~ am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28567, amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1986-87 General Fund
Appropriation Ordinance, to provide for the appropriation of
$55,000.00 to supplement certain accounts in connection with snow
emergency operations in January and February, 1987, which
Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting held on Monday, March 16, 1987.
Sincere ly,
~ary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Erlc o
CC: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
W. Robert Herbert, City ~anager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
William L. Stuart, Superintendent, Street Maintenance
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Q'~urch Avenue, S.W. R~oanoke, Vkginia 2401 t (703) 981-2541
IH THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 16th day of March, 1987.
No. 28567.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1986-87 General Fund Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1986-87 General Fund
Appropriation Ordinance be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained, to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Public Works
Snow Removal (1-4) ................................
Mon-Departmental
Contingency (5) ...................................
(1) Overtime
(2) FICA
(3) Motor Fuels
& Lubricants
(4) Chemicals
(5) Contingency
(A001-052-4140-1003) $ 17,000
(A001-052-4140-1120) 1,000
A001-052-4140-2038) 6,000
A001-052-4140-2045) 31,000
A001-002-9410-2199) (55,000)
$15,313,574
188,145
9,642,654
119,867
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Roanoke, Virginia
March 16, 1987
Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Subject: Snow Emergency Operations - January & February, 1987
I. Background on this subject is:
Major snowstorms occurred in the Roanoke Valley on January
22, 25, 26, and again on February 16-17, 1987. These storms
deposited nearly forty-six (46) inches of snow accumulation
at the Roanoke Regional Airport.
B. In all of 83-34, 84-85, and 85-86, only twenty-six (26)
inches of snow fell at the Roanoke Regional Airport.
1986-87 budget included $83,145 for snow removal from the
City streets and rights-of-way, for overtime salaries and
chemicals; other operating accounts are used for regular
salary and equipment costs. An additional $50,000 was
appropriated by City Council on February 17, 1987, for
overtime expended during the January snowstorms.
Do
Airport snow removal operations also occurred by departments
not funded in the General Fund. Those operations, while
significant, are not included in this report.
II. Current situation on this subject is:
City employees worked continuously during these periods
in an effort to combat the unusual accumulation of snow.
Extra manpower and equipment operated at night and on
weekends responding to specific requests for service from
citizens.
Approximately 9,447 hours of regular time and 7,749 hours of
overtime was expended by City personnel plowing and salting
streets, keeping equipment in service, etc. The salary cost
was approximately $166,000.
City equipment was operated for 8,870.5 hours. The cost
for fuel, parts, and supplies was approximately $29,000
and the wear and tear on equipment is almost incalculable.
D. 2,638.5 tons of rock salt was spread on streets and bridges.
The value of this product is $98,943.75.
Mayor and Council Members
March 16, 1987
Page 2
E. Total cost to the City for snow removal efforts this season
has been approximately $545,000.
III. Issues in order of importance are:
A. City personnel have again returned to normal duty.
B. City equipment has again been cleaned, checked, and repairs
made.
Supplies and materials have been restocked; approximately
900 tons of rock salt are available at this time.
Overtime salaries and fringe benefits, motor fuels and
lubricants, and the chemical accounts need supplemental
appropriations.
$82,145 has been appropriated for overtime salaries
and fringe benefits and approximately $95,000 has
been expended.
2o
$5,000 was originally budgeted for motor fuels and
lubricants, and approximately $9,513.50 has been
expended.
IV.
$44,000 was originally budgeted for chemicals, and
approximately $99,000 has been expended; some of these
chemicals were purchased in the 85-86 budget.
Recommendation is that City Council appropriate $55,000 from the
General Fund Contingency Account No. 001-002-9410-2199 into the
following accounts:
Snow Removal Overtime 001-052-4140-1003
Snow Removal FICA 001-O52-4140-1120
Motor Fuels and Lubricants 001-052-4140-2038
Chemicals 001-052-4140-2045
$17,000
$ 1,000
$ 6,000
$31,000
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:WFC:gs
pc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Manager, Street Maintenance
Of~,ce of the City Cle~
March 18, 1987
File #60-44
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
f am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28568, amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1986-87 General Fund
Appropriations, to provide for the appropriation of $7,294.00 in
connection with the purchase of a Whirlpool Bathing System for
the City Nursing Home, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council
of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March
16, 1987.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
CC: Mr.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling. Jr., City Attorney
Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources
Miss Bernice F. Jones, Manager, City Nursing Home
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration
Public Safety
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
and
ROOm 456 Municl~m::ll Building 2t 5 Church Avenue, S.W. Roonoke, ",~rginla 240t ¢ (703) 981-254t
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 16th day of March, 1987.
No. 28568.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1986-87 General Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke,
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by
an emergency is declared to
the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1986-87 Generall Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained, to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Health and Welfare Nursing Home (1) .................................
Fund Balance
Capital Maintenance & Equipment Replacement Program
City Unappropriated (2) ........................... $
$10,310,724
1,000,264
883,011
(1) Other Equip. (A001-054-5340-9015) $ 7,294
(2) CMERP - City (X001-3332) (7,294)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
March 16, 1987
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
SUBJECT: FUND APPROPRIATION - CAPITAL MAINTENANCE AND
EQUIPHENT REPLACENENT PROGRAI~
BACKGROUND
A. Funds have been designated in the Capital Maintenance and Equipment
Replacement Program to provide for the purchase of a Whirlpool Bathing
System for the City Nursing Home.
B. Bids were publicly opened and read at 2:00 p.m., on February 20, 1987,
the office of Manager of General Services.
II. cln[RENT SITUATION
A. Requested Whirlpool Bathin~ System is necessary to provide appropriate
services to bedridden nursing home patients.
B. The equipment requested will not exceed the cost of $10,000.00.
III. ISSUES
A. Need
B. Timeliness
C. Fund Availability
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A.
City Council approve the request to appropriate $7,293.08 to provide for
the purchase of a Whirlpool Bathing System for the City Nursing Home.
1. Need - requested equipment is needed to provide appropriate care to
bedridden City Nursing Home patients.
2. Timeliness - purchase can be expediently procured by code procedures
for purchases less than $10,000.00.
3. Fund Availability - funds have been designated in the Capital
Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program to provide for this
purchase.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
· Fund Appropriation - Nursing Home
Page 2
B. Council not approve the appropriation request to allow for the purchase of
a Whirlpool Bathing System for the City Nursing Home.
1. Need - for appropriate services to bedridden patients would not be
accomplished.
2. Timeliness - would not be a factor in this alternative.
3. Fund Availability - designated funds would not be expended.
A. Council concur with Alternative "A" - appropriate $7,293.08 to City
Nursing Home Account 001-054-5340-~015 to provide for the purchase of a
Whirlpool Bathing System.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/DDR/ms
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
C~ce of ~he City Clerk
March 18, 1987
File #207
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28569, authorizing you to
enter into a contract with Subsurface Technology, Inc., to pro-
vide compaction testing for site grading for the Advance Stores
Company, Inc. project at Roanoke Centre for Industry and
Technology, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on ~onday, March 16,
1987.
Sincerely,
~ary F. Parker, C~C
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc o
cc:
Subsurface Technology, Inc., 3646 Aerial Way Drive,
Suite 1, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Assistant City ~ianager
~lr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Hr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Charles M. fluffine, City Engineer
Mr. Robert K. Bengtson, Traffic Engineer
Mrs. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
S. W.
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roonoke, V~rginia 24011 (703) 981-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 16th day of March, 1987.
No. 28569.
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract
with Subsurface Technology, Inc., to provide compaction testing for
site grading for the Advance Stores Co., Inc. project at Roanoke
Centre for Industry and Technology; and providing for
an emergency.
BE
1. The City Manager or Assistant City Manager and the
shall be authorized to execute and to attest, respectively,
agreement with Subsurface Technology, Inc., for compaction
IT ORDAINED BY THE Council of the City of Roanoke that:
City Clerk
an
testing for
site grading for the Advance Stores Co.. Inc. project at Roanoke
Centre for Industry and Technology. as more particularly set forth in
the City Manager's report of March 16, 1987 to Council.
2. The maximum compensation to be paid to Subsurface Technology,
Inc., under the contract authorized by this ordinance shall not exceed
$16,550.00 without further approval of City Council.
3. The form of such contract shall be approved by the City
Attorney; and
4. In order to provide for the usual daily operation
municipal government,
nance shall be in full
an emergency is deemed to exist, and
force and effect upon its passage.
ATTEST:
of the
this ordi-
City Clerk.
~c~ '~ Roanoke, Virginia
CITY ~
March 16, 1987
Honorable Mayor and City Cou~l ~
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Compaction Testing for Site Grading,
Advance Stores Co., Inc. at Roanoke Centre
for Industry and Technology - Award of
Engineering Contract
I. Background:
Specifications for site grading, Advance Stores Co., Inc.,
indicate testing is to be at the owner's (City of Roanoke)
expense. This gives the City better control to assure that
proper compaction is performed.
B. Council, on February 17, 1987, awarded contract to Thomas
Brothers, Inc. for the grading contract.
II. Current Situation:
Engineering services qualification proposals for compaction
testing were publicly advertised on February 13, 1987, and
four (4) proposals were received on February 18, 1987.
B. Selection of the firm for consideration was based on the
following criteria:
1. Qualification of personnel.
2. Time available to meet the schedule.
3. Experience in testing on similar projects.
4. Ability to produce project on time.
5. Familiarity with local conditions.
6. Firms quality control procedures.
7. Stability of firms personnel and management structure.
8. Capacity of firm's work load.
9. Response to request for proposal.
10. Past record with the City of Roanoke.
Page 2
III.
Interviews were scheduled with all four (4) firms. Staff
team included Charles M. Huffine, P.E., City Engineer, M.
John Khan, Civil Engineer I and Versal R. Dearing,
Engineering Technician I.
Negotiations were conducted with that firm determined to be
the most qualified, (Subsurface Technology, Inc.) for the
compaction testing.
Scope of work includes observing fill placement and compac-
tion, by the grading contractor, Thomas Brothers, Inc., per-
forming field density tests, logging test locations and
elevations, and reporting test results to City.
Issues in evaluating the proposal awarding a contract to a firm
known to be qualified are:
A. Inclusion of proper work scope.
B. Ability to meet time schedule.
C. Reasonableness of fees.
D. Funding availability.
IV. Alternatives for providing the necessary work are:
Award engineering contract to Subsurface Technology, Inc. for
compaction testing of the grading for Advance Stores Co.,
Inc. at Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology.
1. Inclusion of proper work scope has been reviewed and
verified.
2. Ability to meet time schedule has been demonstrated and
firm is ready to begin immediately.
3. Reasonableness of fee has been established by nego-
tiations.
Fundin~ is available for this engineering contract in
the contingencies of the grading contracts for Orvis and
Advance Auto, RCIT Site Preparation, Account No.
008-052-9506-9003.
Page 3
B. Do not award engineering contract to Subsurface Technology,
1. Inclusion of proper work scope would have to be deferred
to other soils engineering firms felt to be qualified.
2. Ability to meet the time schedule would be jeopardized.
3. Reasonableness of fee cannot be assured.
4. Funding would still be available.
Recommendation is that City Council award engineering contract to
Subsurface Technology, Inc., in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney, in the amount of $14~550.00, not to exceed $16~550.00
without approval of City Council; a contingency of $2~000.00 for
additional services as required.
WRH/VRD/mm
cc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Construction Cost Technician
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Office of the City Clen~
March 18, 1987
File #2?
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28570, authorizing the City
to enter into an agreement providing for certain improvements to
the Norwood Sanitary Sewer System, which Ordinance was adopted by
the Council of the Cit~ of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, March 16, 1987.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
cc:
Valley Developers Incorporated, 7106 Woods Crossing Drive,
S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014
The Park-Oak Grove, L. P., P. 0. Box 90, Roanoke, Virginia
24002
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mso Delores C. Daniels, Citizen's Request for Service
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Charles M. f!uffine, City Engineer
Mrs. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-254'~
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
The 16'th day of March, 1987.
ROANOKE,
VIRGINIA,
No. 28570.
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City to enter into an agreement
providing for certain improvements to the Norwood Sanitary Sewer
System; and providing for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized to
execute and attest, respectively, in form approved by the City
Attorney an agreement providing for the City's participation in
certain improvements to the Norwood Sanitary Sewer System to
replace an existing 2000 foot section of eight (8) inch sewer
forth in the report to this Council
line as more particularly set
dated March 16, 1987.
2. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of
municipal government an emergency is deemed to exist, and this
ordinance shall be in force and effect upon its passage.
ATTEST:
the
City Clerk.
R~C[I '~[] Roanoke, Virginia
CITY C!r!'~''' !'I'~!C~7 March 16, 1987
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Developer Participation in Costs for
Improvements to the Norwood Sanitary
Sewer System to Assure Capacity for
Service in the Norwood Area.
I. Background:
A. Two (2) firms have requested sewer availability from the
City of Roanoke for their individual developments:
Valley Developers Inc. - regarding the development of a
1.81 Acre parcel to be known as the Royce Apartments.
This development will be facing on the Grandin Road
Extension at the intersection with Airview Road, S.W.
The Park-Oak Grove, L.P. - regarding the subdivision and
development of a 4.05 Acre parcel facing on Woodmar
Drive off of a Route 419 in southwest Roanoke. This
development will be known as Congregate Housing.
Flow monitorin~ and field surveys have established that a
2000 foot section of sewer line downstream from the proposed
developments does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate
the additional flow demands generated by the proposed deve-
lopments and any other development that may occur in the near
future.
Further analysis and calculations have confirmed that the
existing 2000 foot section of eight (8) inch sewer line will
have to be replaced with a minimum twelve (12) inch line to
properly convey the additional sewage demands of these two
(2) developments and future development that may occur within
this service area. The critical section of sewer involved
extends from the back of Lot No. 30 of the Westchester
Subdivision off of Westchester Avenue, runs along portions of
Westchester and Norwood Street, and terminates on Norwood
Street in front of Lot No. 19 for a total distance of
approximately 2000 feet.
Under the provisions of the Virginia Local Planning
Legislation, Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Code of Virginia, 1950
(as amended), Section 15.1-466, Paragraph (J) and Section
26-8, Code of the City of Roanoke, 1979, as amended, these
two developers are being asked to participate in the cost
of design and construction of the improvements necessary to
bring the above section of sewer line to adequate capacity in
accordance with the agreement attached as part of this
report.
Page 2
II.
III.
Compliance with the policies of the City of Roanoke in
issuing proper and adequate sewer availability to on-going
development within this service area.
Amount of cost to be shared by each participating party in
the attached agreement and reimbursemetn through availability
charges.
C. Fundin~ for construction.
Alternatives:
A.
Authorize the execution and implementation of the attached
agreement between the City of Roanoke and the two (2) parties
concerned in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
Compliance with the City of Roanoke's policy of
providing proper and adequate sewer availability to on-
going development would be met.
Amount of cost to be shared by each participating party,
as defined in Exhibit A of the attached agreement is
fair and reasonable in accordance with Paragraph (J),
Section 15.1-466, Local Planning Legislation, Code of
Virginia, 1950 (as amended). An availability charge, in
addition to the prevailing connection fee, of $195.43
per each equivalent residential connection will be
collected for each connection during the time the reim-
bursements are being made.
3. Fundin$ will be identified in the bid recommendation
report.
B. Reject authorization to execute and implement the attached
agreement.
Compliance with the City of Roanoke's policy of pro-
viding sewage availability could be met only by refusing
to issue availability or by absorbing the full cost of
improvements necessary to bring the lines to capacity.
Amount of pro rata share in funds to the participating
parties would be an issue only to the City of Roanoke if
improvements are made to the Norwood Sewer Line at this
time without the agreement. City would have the option
of charging an availability charge to recover some of
its costs.
Page 3
wRa/~s/mm
CC:
IV.
Fundin~ would not be an issue with the other two (2)
parties but would still remain an issue to the City of
Roanoke if the improvements are made.
Recommendation is that City Council authorize the execution and
implementation of the attached agreement in a form acceptable to
the City Attorney.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities & Operations
City Engineer
Citizen's Request for Service
Construction Cost Technician
This AG~Tmade and entered into this 6th .day of March
1987, by and between:
i. Valley Developers Incorporated, 7106 Woods Crosaing Drive, Roanoke,
Virginia
2. The Park-Oak Grove, L.P., Box 90, Roanoke, Virginia.
(hereafter jointly and severally referred to as "parties of the first part")
and the City of Roanoke, (party of the second part, hereinafter referred to as
"City");
WHEREAS, the parties of the first part and the City desire to provide for
the improvement and extension of approximately 2000 feet of Norwood Sanitary
Sewer System more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at manhole No. 92, located at the back line of Lot
No. 30, Block i, Section No. I of the Westchester Subdivision,
thence west along said back line to Westchester Avenue; thence
southeast along Westchester Avenue to the intersection of Norwood
Street; thence west along Norwood Street to a drop manhole
(No. I00) located in front of Lot 19, Block 6, Section No. 1,
Westchester Subdivision, and running a total distance of
approximately 2,000 feet.
For good and valuable consideration, including the mutual promises con-
rained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. The parties of the first part agree to design or cause to be designed
plans for the Project in accordance with ail applicable local, state, and
federal regulations and to submit said design to the City Engineer of Roanoke,
Virginia and other necessary agencies for review and approval. Said design
shall include plans for replacing the existing eight (8) inch sanitary sewer,
within the limits described herein, with a twelve (12) inch sanitary sever suf-
ficient to acco,.~odate the service area, and to construct the same vithin
existin$ easements. In no event shall the cost for such design plane exceed Ten
Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00).
2. Upon approval by City of the Project plane, City shall advertise in
accordance with Chapter 23.1, Procurement, of the Code of the City of Roanoke,
(1979), as amended, for bids for the construction of the Project. Parties of
the first part shall be entitled to receive copies of all bids received for the
project.
3. Prior to award of the bid each of the parties of the first part shall
pay to City in lump sum the following percentages of the lowest responsible bid
plus a ten (10) percent contingency:
Valley Developers, Inc. 24.11%
The Park-Oak Grove, L.P. 24.43~
4. The successful bidder shall be paid on a unit price basis and the
contract shall be administered by the City utilizing City's normal method of
contract administration. The parties of the first part shall be entitled to
receive copies of any Project inspection reports or invoices.
5. At Project completion, the actual final cost of the Project shall be
reconciled with the initial lump sum payments. The par~£es of the first part
agree to be responsible for the percentage of any and all costs of the Project
as set forth in Paragraph 3 above, including any change orders or unexpected
work reasonably necessary to complete the project. In the event the final
Project cost should be less than the amount initially paid by the parties of the
first part, the City agrees to return the pro rata percentages of the excess in
accordance with paragraph 3 above.
-2-
6. C£c¥ agrees Co collect an ava£1ab£1£C¥ charge from any person, ocher
chon the parC£ee of the first parC, who connects Co the eewer line, provided
thac the ¢onnecclon is made wlChin ten (lO) years from the compleClon dace of
the san£tary sewer work under the agreement. The availahillcy charge Co be
collected shall be equal Co the pro rata share of the initial construction cost,
wh£ch share is based on the capaclcy of the san£Cary sewer £nlClally extended
versus the flow through the connecClon Co be made and the pro rata portion of
the footage iovolved. Flow so used shall be the peak flow as computed by the
sCaCe~s sanitary sewer regulations for design flows. The availability charge so
collected shall be equal to $195.43 per equivalent Cwo bedroom connection and
shall be refunded by the City to the parties of the first parc on a pro rata
basis in accordance with the percentage ratioe sec forth as follows:
Valley Developers, Inc., 24.11% of $195.43 or $47.12
Park-Oak Grove, L.P., 24.43~ of $195.43 or $~7.7~
And the City of Roanoke retaining 51.46% of $195.43 or $100.57;
provided, however, chat the amount ~o be refunded to each of the par=ies of the
~irst part sha~l not exceed the cost of the construction of the Project co each
of the parties of the firs~ part.
WITNESS ~he following signatures:
VALLEY DEVELOPERS, INC.
-3-
ATTEST:
PARK-OAK GROVE, L. P.
William W. ~r~ III
A General Partner
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
By
City Clerk
Its
Office o~ the City Oerk
March 18, 1987
File #51
Mr. Edward A. Natt
Attorney
1919 Electric Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Air. Natt:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 28550, rezoning a certain
tract of land containing two acres, more or less, located at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar
Drive, S. Wo, designated as Official Tax No. 5090207 and a por-
tion of Official Tax No. 5090205, from C-I, Office and
Institutional District, to C-2, General Commercial District, sub-
ject to certain proferred conditions, which Ordinance was adopted
by the Council of the City of Roanoke on ~irst reading on Monday,
March 9, 1987, also adopted by the Council on second reading on
Monday, March 16, 1987, and will take effect ten days following
the date of its second reading.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 (D~urch Av,~que. S.W. Roonoke. V~rginia 2401 t (703) 98t-2541
Mr. Edward A. Natt
Page 2
March 18, 1987
Mr. Barry L. Flora, 3529 Lakeland Drive, S. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. D. E. Underwood, 4565 Cresthil! Drive, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Angel R. Zayas, 4929 Woodmar Drive, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. W. Wilton Little, 5923 Woodmar Drive, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
F-M Associates, P. 0. Box 90, Roanoke, Virginia 24002
Southwest Plaza Associates Limited Partnership, 230 South
Tryon Street, Suite 240, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Oak Grove Shopping Center, Mountaineer fnvestment Company,
Suite 1, West Salem Place, 135 West Salem Avenue, Salem,
Virginia 24153
Roanoke County School Board, 526 College Avenue, Salemj
Virginia 24153
Gofland, 1919 Electric Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. Phillip W. Ha~ond, 4905 Norwood Street, S. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Jonathan Rogers, 3734 Lake Drive, S.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. Gordon N. Dixon, Executive Director, Fifth Planning
District Commission, P. 0. Box 2569, Roanoke, Virginia 24010
Mr. W. Robert Herbertj City Manager
Mr. Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Assistant City Manager
Mrs. Susan S. Goode, Chairman, City Planning Commission
Mr. John R. Marllesj Chief of Community Planning
Mrs. Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
~r. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner and Zoning
Administrator
Mr. L. Elwood Norris, Chairman, Board of Zoning Appeals
Mr. Von W. Moody, III, Director of Real Estate Valuation
Ms. Doris Laynej Office of Real Estate Valuation
~r. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. William M. Hockworth, Assistant City Attorney
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 16th day of March, 1987.
No. 28550.
AN ORDINANCE to amend §§36-3 and 36-4, Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 509, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City
of Roanoke, to rezone certain property within the City, subject to
certain conditions proffered by the applicant.
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of
Roanoke to have the hereinafter described property rezoned from C-1,
Office and Institutional District, to C-2, General Commercial
District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the applicant;
and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, which after giving proper
notice to all concerned as required by §36-541, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended and after conducting a public hearing on
the matter, has made its recommendation to Council; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said application by the City
Council at its meetings on February 9, 1987 and March 9, 1987, after
due and timely notice thereof as required by §36-541, Code of the City
of Roanoke (1979), as amended, at which hearing all parties in
interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard, both for
and against the proposed rezoning; and
WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the aforesaid applica-
tion, the recommendation made to the Council by the Planning
commission, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the matters presented
at the public hearing, is of the opinion that the hereinafter
described property should be rezoned as herein provided.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke
that ~§36-3 and 36-4, Code or the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
and Sheet No. 509 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, be
amended in the following particular and no other:
Property described as a certain tract of land located in
containing two acres, more or less, located at the southeast
the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, designated on Sheet
No. 609 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as Official
Tax Nos. 5090207 and a portion of 5090205 be, and is hereby rezoned
from C-1, Office and Institutional District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, subject to those conditions proffered by and set
forth in the Fourth Amended Petition to Rezone filed with the City
Clerk on March 2, 1987, and that Sheet No. 509 of the Zone Map be
changed in this respect.
the City
corner of
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT, AHERON
24018 - 1699
February 23, 1987
[;ITY,., ......... · , '" '
& AGEE
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: PNCH Rezoning on Route 419
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council
This is to advise that on behalf of my client I am
now pleased to be able to proffer the condition that there
will be no exit or entrance on Woodmar Drive in the above
zoning. My client has discussed the matter with prospective
tenants and is willing to proffer this condition.
Accordingly, I am providing a Fourth Amended
Petition to Rezone for your consideration.
We will appear before City Council at its meeting
on March 9, 1987, and would respectfully request council
consideration of our request.
Very truly yours,
OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON,
AHERON & AGEE, P.C.
Edward A. Natt
NATT,
EaN/sb
CC:
Mr. John Hurley
Lat Purser and Associates
230 S. Tyron Street, Suite 240
Charlotte, NC 28202
Mrs. Susan S. Goode, Chairman
City Planning Commission
Room 355, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24011
Mr. John Merithew
City Planning Commission
Room 355, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24011
William M. Hackworth, Esquire
Assistant City Attorney
Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, SW
Raonoke, VA 24011
Mr. Angel R. Zayas
4929 Woodmar Drive,
Roanoke, VA 24018
SW
Ms. Danielle Rand
3571Mudlick Road,
Roanoke, VA 24018
SW
Mr. Richard Burrow
Burrow Corporation of Roanoke
101S. Jefferson Street
Roanoke, VA 24011
Mr. Richard Stroupe
1772 McVitty Road, SW
Roanoke, VA 20415
Olin R. Melchionna, Jr., Esquire
Wetherington & Melchionna
P. O. Box 90
Roanoke, VA 24002
IN RE:
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
A parcel of land containing 1.88 acres
more or less, situate at the south-
east corner of the intersection of
Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, in the
City of Roanoke, from C-I, Office
and Institutional District, to C-2,
General Commercial District subject
to certain conditions
ViRGi N i£lT'f~ ;" ""
'87 ff; f?-2 ?
FOURTH
AMENDED
PETITION
TO
REZONE
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROANOKE:
I. The Petitioner, PNCH, a North Carolina general
partnership, has a contract to purchase a certain tract of
land located in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, containing
two (2) acres, more or less, located at the southeast corner
of the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, in the
City of Roanoke, and designated on Roanoke City Appraisal
Maps as Official Tax Nos. 5090207 and a portion of 5090205;
the said tract is currently zoned C-1, Office and
nstitutional District. A map of the property to be rezoned
s attached as Exhibit A.
2. Pursant to Article VII and Article VIII of
Chapter 36, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
the Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned
from C-1, Office and Institutional District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, for the purpose of constructing and
expanding a shopping center.
3. The Petitioner believes that the rezoning of
the said tract of land will further the intent and purposes
of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its comprehensive plan,
in that it will provide for the orderly expansion of a
commercial district by utilizing the property in conjunction
with existing use for expansion of the existing shopping
center.
4. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that
if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning
will be subject to, and that the Petitioner will abide by,
the following conditions:
(I) That the parcel to be rezoned will contain
one main parcel to be developed with one building as an
addition to the existing shopping center together with no
more than one outparcel containing one building. That the
total new construction on the property will not exceed
25,000 square feet.
(2) That the height of structures will not exceed
one (I) story.
(3) Construction will be brick or masonry to
grade on all sides of the buildings to be constructed.
(4) Ingress and egress will be limited to one
one entrance and exit on Route 419, and an interconnection
with the existing shopping center. There will be no exit or
entrance on Woodmar.
OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSDN
NATT, AHER~N & AGEE
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
(5) That the following uses will be prohibited on
said property: fast food restaurants, convenience stores,
gas station, used car lot, car wash.
5. Petitioner will comply with all City ordinances
and regulations including, but not limited to, sewer and
storm drainage requirements.
6. Attached as Exhibit B are the names and addresses
of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately
adjacent to or immediately across a street or road from the
property to be rezoned.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-
described tract be rezoned as requested in accordance with
the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke.
Edward A. Natt, Esquire
Osterhoudt, Ferguson, Natt,
Aheron & Agee, P.C.
1919 Electric Road, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
PNCH, a North Carol ina
General Partnership
Office af the City Cle~
March 5, 1987
File #51
Mr. Barry L. Flora
3529 Lakeland Drive, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. D. E. Underwood
4565 Cresthill Drive, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Angel R. Zayas
4929 Woodmar Drive, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. W. Wilton Little
5923 Woodmar Drive, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
F-M Associates
P. Oo Box 90
Roanoke, Virginia
24002
Southwest Plaza Associates
Limited Partnership
230 South Tryon Street, Suite 240
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is to advise you that the enclosed communication is included
on the agenda of the Council of the City of Roanoke for its
meeting on Monday, March 9, 1987, said meeting to begin at
7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber on fourth floor of the
Municipal Building.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
Room 456 Municipal Building 21,5 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, 'vl~inia 240t 1 (703) 98't-254't
Office of ~ne City C]e~
March 5, 1987
File #51
Oak Grove Shopping Center
Mountaineer Investment Company
Suite 1, West Salem Place
135 West Salem Avenue
Salem, Virginia 24153
Roanoke County School 5oard
526 College Avenue
Salem, Virginia 24153
Mr. Phillip W. Ba..~lond
4905 Norwood Street, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Jonathan Rogers
3734 Lake Drive, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is to advise you that the enclosed communication is included
on the agenda of the Council of the City of Roanoke for its
meeting on Monday, March 9, 1987, said meeting to begin' at
7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber on fourth floor of the
Municipal Building.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:$e
Eno.
Rocx'n 456 Municipal Building 2t5 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Vlrglnia 2401 t (703) 981-2541
Office of ~he Ci~/Clerk
March 5, 1987
File #51
Ms. Danielle Rand
3571Mudlick Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. Richard Burrow
Burrow Corporation of Roanoke
101 South Jefferson Street
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Mr. Richard Stroupe
1772 McVitty Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Mr. Olin R. Melchionna
Attorney
P. O. Box 90
Roanoke, Virginia 24002
Dear Ms. Rand and Gentlemen:
This is to advise you that the enclosed communication is included
on the agenda of the Council of the City of Roanoke for its
meeting on Monday, March 9, 1987, said meeting to begin at
7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber on fourth floor of the
Municipal Building.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP: se
Enc.
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 C~urch A~enue, S,W. Roonoke, V~rglnia 24011 (703) 981-254'~
Office of the City Cler~
March 2, 1987
File #51
Mrs. Susan S. Goode
Chairman
City Planning Commission
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mrs. Goode:
Pursuant to Section 36-538 of the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, [ am enclosing copy of a fourth amended
petition from Mr. Edward A. Natt, Attorney, representing PNCH, a
North Carolina general partnership, requesting that a certain
tract of land containing 1.88 acres, more or less, located at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Route 419 and Woodmar
Drive, S. W., designated as Official Tax No. 5090207 and a por-
tion of Official Tax No. 5090205, be rezoned from C-1, Office and
Institutional District, to C-2, General Commercial District, sub-
ject to certain proffered conditions.
Si ncerely ,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
Enco
cc:
Mr. Edward A. Natt, Attorney, 1919 Electric Road, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. John R. Marlles, Chief of Community Planning
Mrs. Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Zoning Administrator
Mr. William M. Hackworth, Assistant City Attorney
Room456 MunlclpalBulldin~ 2150-~utchA,.~que, S.W. Roanc:i~,VIrglnia24011 (703)981-2541
Office of the City C]en~
February 11, 1987
File #51
Mr. Edward A. Natt
Attorney
1919 Electric Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Mr. Natt:
At the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke on
Monday, February 9, 1987, Council held a public hearing on the
request of your client, PNCH, a North Carolina general partner-
ship, that a certain tract of land containing 1.88 acres, more or
less, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of
Route 419 and Woodmar Drive, S. W., designated as Official Tax
No. 5090207 and a portion of Official Tax No. 5090205, be rezoned
from C-1, Office and Institutional District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, subject to certain proffered conditions.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the public
hearing was continued until the regular meeting of Council on
Monday, March 9, 1987, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541
Mr. Edward A. Natt
Page 2
February 11, 1987
cc:
Mr. Barry L. Flora, 3529 Lakeland Drive, S. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. D. E. Underwood, 4565 Cresthill Drive, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Angel R. Zayas, 4929 Woodmar Drive, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. W. Wilton Little, 5923 Woodmar Drive, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
F-M Associates, P. O. Box 90, Roanoke, Virginia 24002
Southwest Plaza Associates Limited Partnership, 230 South
Tryon Street, Suite 240, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Oak Grove Shopping Center, Mountaineer Investment Company,
Suite 1, West Salem Place, 135 Nest Salem Avenue, Salem,
Virginia 24153
Roanoke County School Board, 526 College Avenue, Salem,
Virginia 24153
Gofland, 1919 Electric Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24018
Mr. Pnillip W. Hammond, 4905 Norwood Street, S. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Jonathan Rogers, 3734 Lake Drive, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. Gordon N. Dixon, Executive Director, Fifth Planning
District Commission, P. O. Box 2569, Roanoke, Virginia 24010
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Hr. Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Assistant City Manager
Mrs. Susan S. Goode, Chairman, City Planning Commission
Hr. John R. Marlles, Chief of Community Planning
Mrs. Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner and Zoning
Administrator
Mr. L. Elwood Norris, Chairman, Board of Zoning Appeals
Mr. Von W. Moody, III, Director of Real Estate Valuation
Ms. Doris Layne, Office of Real Estate Valuation
Mr. William M. Hackworth, Assistant City Attorney
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
For the past six weeks the neighborhood bordering the Southwest Plaza Shopping
Center has been frightened and annoyed by a proposed rezoning of the shopping
center.
At a meeting with the developers we learned that the plan included a traffic
entrance and a traffic exit onto Woodmar Drive.
We vigorously opposed this plan with a petition of 68 signatures.
The developers then proposed a traffic exit only on Woodmar Drive.
However the proposal eliminating the entrance and retaining the exit does not
alter our opposition to the plan.
At a final hearing on January 21, the Planning Commission approved retention of
the traffic exit despite our presentation of a second petition of 60 signatures
opposing the exit.
Such is the situation tonight, as the rezoning matter comes up before you for
your consideration.
We still oppose this traffie exit on Woodmar Drive, and we are asking each of
you to help us.
As lightly as the developers and the Planning Commission may have considered our
request we feel that this exit onto Woodmar is an UNNECESSARY INCURSION into our
neighborhood and will be detrimental to our property. It will cause a
through-way of traffic onto Woodmar and connecting streets. The increased
traffic will be a menace to our children and elderly. The roads will become
congested, our neighborhood will become littered.
The proposed exit also creates a potential traffic hazard. Generally traffic
exits into the flow of traffic not against traffic. City Traffic Engineers say
they have never seen this configuration and say it may be a dangerous one.
Even though the exit is being constructed in a way that would make it difficult
to make a right turn, some motorist will swing wide and use our lawns to make
the turn to avoid traffic on Route 419, bringing about a precarious condition
for our children playing on our front lawns.
At the Planning Commission hearing Mr. Natt said and I quote ''The shopping
Center owners wanted to keep the exit road so they would have more options for
the development plan for the expansion area''. This exit will set a precedent
for more INCURSION onto Woodmar, more entrances, more exits in the future. To
take a healthy residential street and introduce commercial traffic is a serious
mistake.
The Southwest Plaza shopping center has a TOTAL of FIVE entrances/exits, three
on Route 419 and 2 on Grandin Road Extension. Tanglewood M~ll, as large as it is
has FIVE entrances/exits, same number as Southwest Plaza.
Please do not punish Woodmar residents because of our proximity to Route 419.
We recognize that Southwest Plaza is a prime location for business, and although
we are apprehensive with the expansion, we feel we can support the expansion if
it is done in a manner which will not place UNNECESSARY traffic into our
neighborhood or THREATEN OUR RESIDENTIAL SOUNDNESS.
The following information from The Traffic Impact Report prepared by the
developers substantiate our alternative plan which we will present to council
concerning traffic movement.
''It should also be noted that over the years traffic studies have demonstrated
that where two shopping areas are adjacent to one another, traffic flows between
the shopping areas as shoppers tend to make quick additional stops. In the case
of the existing Southwest Plaza and the new shopping area, the traffic will flow
within the interconnecting parking lots.''
''The existing traffic signal at Route 419 and Carriage Drive provides very good
vehicle turning and crossing opportunity for this entire section of Route 419.
The cross parking lot connection proposed between existing Southwest Plaza and
the proposed new shopping expansion area should aid vehicles of both areas
desiring to gain access to the Route 419 travel corridor.''
The expansion should be carefully designed to conserve and enhance neighborhood
quality, not destroy it.
We presented a fair and reasonable alternative plan to the Planning Commission
and Developers eliminating the proposed exit. A plan which has distinctive
qualities characteristic for a first rate shopping center. A plan which will
preserve our residential soundness, a plan which the Planning Staff and members
of the Commission thought to be REASONABLE and FEASIBLE.
The alternative which we presented to the developers proposal for an exit only
on Woodmar is shown on a sketch map which I have Just given to each of you.
As you can see from the dotted lines on the sketch map, the traffic route ia
designed so that the traffis enters from Route 419 where an existing crossover
provides full assess to all traffic movement, it flows around the proposed site
and then exits on Route 419, and by placing a right turn only lane at the
Entrance/Exit traffic would flow North making it UNNECESSARY for an exit onto
Woodmar.
This is a widely used traffic pattern in this area.
I have included photographs of 4 bank sites, three on Route 419, and one on Mud
Lick and Brandon Road which use this type of traffic pattern.
Let me add still another aspect for consideration in this matter. Thirty five
percent of the City's residential properties have been revalued. Homeowners in
the Southwest City adjoining the County were hit with high property assessment,
reflecting our strong neighborhood soncept. We feel this exit will have a
devastating impact on our residential values.
Therefore the Southwest City residents are asking you to preserve our
residential status and family environment. To us it means our life and our
homes. To the Developers it is only an exit, and an UNNECESSARY one at that!
As homeowners our property is our largest investment and we hope that Council,
being committed to strong neighborhood, will strengthen its position by denying
this request and sending it back to the Planners for the purpose of eliminating
this UNNECESSARY exit.
III