HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 02-17-04Cutler
36617-021704
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR SESSION
FEBRUARY 17, 2004
2:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
AGENDA
Call to Order--Roll Call. (All Council Members were present.)
The Invocation was delivered by The Reverend Shadrach Brown, Jr., Pastor,
Garden of Prayer No. 7 Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Mayor Ralph K. Smith.
Welcome. Mayor Smith.
NOTICE:
Meetings of Roanoke City Council are televised live on RVTV Channel 3. Today's
meeting will be replayed on Channel 3 on Thursday, February 19, 2004, at 7:00 p.m.,
and Saturday, February 21, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. Council meetings are now being
offered with closed captioning for the hearing impaired.
1
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
THE PUBLIC IS ADVISED THAT MEMBERS OF COUNCIL RECEIVE
THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AND RELATED COMMUNICATIONS,
REPORTS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, ETC., ON THE
THURSDAY PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL MEETING TO PROVIDE
SUFFICIENT TIME FOR REVIEW OF INFORMATION. CITIZENS
WHO ARE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF ANY ITEM
LISTED ON THE AGENDA MAY CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S
OFFICE, ROOM 456, NOEL C. TAYLOR MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 215
CHURCH AVENUE, S. W., OR CALL 853-2541.
THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PROVIDES THE MAJORITY OF THE
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ON THE INTERNET FOR VIEWING AND
RESEARCH PURPOSES. TO ACCESS AGENDA MATERIAL, GO TO
THE CITY'S HOMEPAGE AT WWW.ROANOKEGOV.COM, CLICK
ON THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL ICON, CLICK ON MEETINGS
AND AGENDAS, AND DOWNLOAD THE ADOBE ACROBAT
SOFTWARE TO ACCESS THE AGENDA.
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED
TO REGISTER WITH THE STAFF ASSISTANT WHO 1S LOCATED
AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. ON THE SAME
AGENDA ITEM, ONE TO FOUR SPEAKERS WILL BE ALLOTTED
FIVE MINUTES EACH, HOWEVER, IF THERE ARE MORE THAN
FOUR SPEAKERS, EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOTTED THREE
MINUTES.
o
ANY PERSON WHO IS INTERESTED IN SERVING ON A CITY
COUNCIL APPOINTED AUTHORITY, BOARD, COMMISSION OR
COMMITTEE IS REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S
OFFICE AT 853-2541, OR ACCESS THE CITY'S HOMEPAGE AT
WWW.ROANOKEGOV.COM, TO OBTAIN AN APPLICATION.
PRESENTATIONS
NONE.
AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
2
3. CONSENT AGENDA
C-1
C-2
C-3
(Approved (7-0)
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE
CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE MEMBERS OF CITY
COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE
WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. IF
DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM
THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Monday,
November 17, 2003, and recessed until Friday, November 21, 2003; the Special
Meeting held on Tuesday, November 25, 2003; the regular meeting held on
Monday December 1, 2003; the regular meeting held on Monday, December 15,
2003; and the regular meeting held on Monday, January 5, 2004.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Dispense with the reading of the minutes
and approve as recorded.
A communication from D. Duane Dixon tendering his resignation as a
member of the Board of Trustees, City of Roanoke Pension Plan, effective
February 2, 2004.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
File #110-429
Accept the resignation and receive and file
the communication.
Qualification ofLinda D. Frith and Allen D. Williams as Directors of the
Industrial Development Authority.
File #110-207
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
C-4
A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council
convene in Closed Meeting to discuss the disposition of publicly-owned
property, where discussion in open meeting would adversely affect the
bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body, pursuant to
Section 2.3.271 l(A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in the request.
File #2-132-166
REGULARAGENDA
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
5. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
Request of the Roanoke Arts Commission to discuss the Public Arts
Planning process. Mark C. McCormel, Chair, Spokesperson. (Sponsored
by Council Members William D. Bestpitch and M. Rupert Cutler)
Council authorized the expenditure of up to $60,000.00 from the
Percent for Arts allocation to be used by the Roanoke Arts
Commission for development of a Public Art Plan, subject to report
by the City Manager.
File #230
Request to address Council with regard to the Roanoke Express Hockey
Team. Cristy M. Lovelace, Spokesperson. (Sponsored by Council
Members William D. Bestpitch and Linda F. Wyatt)
Petitions were presented in support of keeping the Roanoke Express
hockey team in the Roanoke Valley.
(No Action.)
File #192-346
4
6. REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
BRIEFINGS:
Update on Riverside Centre for Research and Technology. (15 minutes)
(To be held at the conclusion of the Council meeting.)
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
Amendment to the City Code to reflect recent updates to the
Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management
regulations.
Adopted Ordinance Nos. 36617-021704 and 36618-021704.
(7-0)
File #24-356-468
Amendment and reenactment of Ordinance No. 35640-110501 to
vacate, discontinue and close a portion of Salem Avenue, S. W.
Adopted Ordinance No. 36619-021704. (7-0)
File #227-514
Execution of a First Amendment to the Parking Lease Agreement
with Crown Roanoke LLC to permanently reduce the number of
parking spaces in the Williamson Road Parking Garage, 201
Tazewell Avenue, S. E., retroactively to May 1, 2003.
Adopted Ordinance No. 36620-021704. (7-0)
File #373-553
Appropriation of $28,288.00 received from other jurisdictions in
connection with the September 2003 Household Hazardous Waste
Collection Day.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 36621-021704. (7-0)
File #60-144
Endorsement and adoption of the Roanoke Valley Area Ozone
Early Action Plan.
Adopted Resolution No. 36622-021704. (7-0)
File #529
7. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
bo
Report from the City Planning Commission transmitting the 2003 Annual
Report. R. Brian Townsend, Agent, Spokesperson.
Received and filed.
File #200
Report from the Roanoke City School Board requesting appropriation of
$4,178.00 for the Expanded GED Testing Services Program; and a report
from the Director of Finance recommending that Council concur in the
request. Richard L. Kelley, Assistant Superintendent of Operations,
Spokesperson.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 36623-021704. (7-0)
File #60-467
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
9. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: NONE.
10. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
ao
Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Members of
City Council.
With regard to the stadium/amphitheater project, upon motion of
Council Member Wyatt, seconded by Vice-Mayor Harris, Council
voted to place the project on hold until the incoming Council takes
office, effective July 1, 2004. (4-3, Council Members Cutler, Dowe
and Bestpitch voted no.)
File #122
Vacancies on certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees
appointed by Council.
11. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY FOR CITIZENS
TO BE HEARD. MATTERS REQUIRING REFERRAL TO THE CITY
MANAGER WILL BE REFERRED IMMEDIATELY FOR RESPONSE,
RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT TO COUNCIL.
Dr. E. Jeanette Manns, 1826 l0th Street, N. W., spoke with regard to a
vehicle that was towed from her private residence under provisions of the
City's inoperable motor vehicle ordinance. She advised that her
constitutional rights as a low/moderate income citizen have been violated.
File #20-66
Messrs. Brian Wishneff, 2913 Wycliffe Avenue, S. W., Sherman Lea, 1638
Lonna Drive, N. W., and E. Duane Howard, 508B Walnut Avenue, S. W.,
expressed appreciation to Council Member Wyatt for her motion to place
the stadium/amphitheater project on hold until the new Council takes
office on July 1, 2004.
File #122
12. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
In response to recent remarks by a citizen indicating that there were only a
"hand full" of events scheduled at the Roanoke Civic Center during the
month of February, the City Manager reported that 24 events are
scheduled in February, ten of which represent the Roanoke Express hockey
team and the Roanoke Dazzle, and 28 events are scheduled in the month of
March. She stated that the Civic Center is alive and well and is an active
facility.
File #192
The Council meeting was declared in recess and the Council immediately
reconvened in the Council's Conference Room for a briefing on the
Riverside Centre for Research and Technology.
File #540
Certification of Closed Session (7 - 0)
The meeting was declared in recess until 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber.
RO,4NOKE CITY COUNCIL
RE GUL,4R SESSION
FEBRU,4RY17, 2004
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CH,4MBER
,4 GEND,4
Call to Order -- Roll Call. (All Council Members were present.)
The Invocation was delivered by Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was
led by Mayor Ralph K. Smith.
Welcome. Mayor Smith.
NOTICE:
The Council meeting will be televised live by RVTV Channel 3 to be replayed
on Thursday, February 19, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday, February 21, 2004,
at 4:00 p.m. Council meetings are now being offered with closed captioning for
the hearing impaired.
9
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: NONE.
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Request to rezone a tract of land located at 739 Townside Road, S. W.,
containing 3.77 acres, more or less, identified as Official Tax No.
5490307, from C-2, General Commercial District, and C-2, General
Commercial District, with conditions, to LM, Light Manufacturing
District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Todd
D. Conner, Spokesperson.
Adopted Ordinance No. 36624-021704. (7-0)
File #51
Request of LSW-HMW Family Limited Partnership to rezone one tract
of land located at 622 Huntington Boulevard, N. E., containing 1.630
acres, more or less, identified as Official Tax No. 3280102, from CN,
Neighborhood Commercial District, to LM, Light Manufacturing
District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Daniel
F. Layman, Jr., Attorney.
Adopted Ordinance No. 36625-021704. (7-0)
File #51
Amendment to Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to
include the Gilmer Neighborhood Plan. R. Brian Townsend, Agent, City
Planning Commission.
Adopted Ordinance No. 36626-021704. (7-0)
File #165-424
10
Request of the City of Roanoke that a 24-foot wide alley running in an
easterly direction from Franklin Road, S. W., for a distance of
approximately 129 feet; and closure of a 1 O-foot wide alley running in a
northerly direction from said 24-foot wide alley, be permanently vacated,
discontinued and closed. R. Brian Townsend, Agent, City Planning
Commission.
Adopted Ordinance No. 36627-021704. (7-0)
File #514
Proposed encroachment of an awning into the public right-of-way at 105
S. Jefferson Street. Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager.
Adopted Ordinance No. 36628-021704. (7-0)
File #169
Proposed conveyance of a 20-foot wide easement to Appalachian Power
Company across City-owned property located at the Roanoke Academy
for Mathematics and Science to provide underground electric service.
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager.
Adopted Ordinance No. 36629-021704. (7-0)
File #29-467
B. OTHER BUSINESS: NONE.
C. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY FOR CITIZENS
TO BE HEARD. MATTERS REQUIRING REFERRAL TO THE CITY
MANAGER WILL BE REFERRED IMMEDIATELY FOR RESPONSE,
RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT TO COUNCIL.
11
Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., spoke with regard to traffic
calming in the area of Masons Mill Road and Hollins Road, N. E.,
specifically during peak traffic hours; and repair of a City sidewalk (no
location was provided). He expressed appreciation to Ms. Wyatt for
offering the motion to place the stadium/amphitheater project on hold until
the new Council takes office on July 1, 2004.
File #20-57-66-122
Ms. Angela Norman, 1731 Michael Street, N. W., expressed appreciation to
Ms. Wyatt for offering the motion to halt construction of the new
stadium/amphitheater until the incoming Council takes office on July 1,
2004. She requested that Council investigate any means to address
escalating gas heating bills for Roanoke's citizens, specifically the elderly
and those living on a fixed income.
File #122-458
Mr. Robert Gravely, 729 Loudon Avenue, N. W., spoke with regard to the
City of Roanoke as a whole and the City's work force.
File #66-175-184
The Council meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
12
C-I
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION--ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
November 17, 2003
2:00 p.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday,
November 17, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., the regular meeting hour, in the City Council
Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W.,
City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith presiding, pursuant to
Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, City Council, Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure,
Rule 1, Re.qular Meetin.qs, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended.
PRESENT: Council Members M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T.
Fitzpatrick, Jr., C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt, William D. Bestpitch, and Mayor
Ralph K. Smith ................................................................................................. 7.
ABSENT: NONE---; .............................................................................. ~.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City
Clerk.
The meeting was opened with a prayer by The Reverend Charles Calloway,
Pastor, Maple Street Baptist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Mayor Smith.
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
CITIZEN OF THE YEAR: Mr. Harris offered the following resolution
recognizing Alphonzo L. Holland, Sr., as City of Roanoke 2003 Citizen of the Year:
(#36538-111703) A RESOLUTION naming Alphonzo L. Holland, Sr., as
Roanoke's Citizen of the Year for the year 2003.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36538-111703. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
1
N:\ckwb l\drafts~l 11703.wpd
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and
Mayor Smith ......................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0.
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: On behalf of the Members of Council and citizens of
the City of Roanoke, the Mayor advised that he was pleased to recogdize the
Director of Finance and his staff upon receipt of Excellence in Financial Reporting
Awards by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and
Canada relative to the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and the
Annual Financial Report for the City's Pension Plan for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2002. He stated that the awards represent the highest standards in governmental
accounting and financial reporting.
PROCLAMATIONS: The Mayor presented a proclamation declaring
November, 2003 as Home Care and Hospice Month.
CONSENT AGENDA
The Mayor advised that all matters listed under the Consent Agenda were
considered to be routine by the Members of Council and would be enacted by one
motion in the form, or forms, listed on the Consent Agenda and if discussion was
desired, that item would be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered
separately. He called specific attention to one request for a closed session to
discuss vacancies on boards and commissions.
MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Monday,
October 6, 2003, and recessed until Friday, October 17, 2003; the special meeting of
Council held on Wednesday, October 15, 2003; and the regular meeting of Council
held on Thursday, October 23, 2003, were before the body.
(For full text, see Minutes on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with and
that the minutes be approved as recorded. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0.
N:\ckwb l\drafts\l 11703.wpd
COMMITTEES-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor Ralph K. Smith
requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on certain
authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council~ pursuant to
Section 2.2-3711 (A)(I), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to
convene in a Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .................. -- ...................................................................... -7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ --0,
COMMITTEES-BLUE RIDGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE: A communication
from S. James Sikkema, Executive Director, Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare,
advising that the term of office of John M. Hudgins, Jr., as an at.large member of the
Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors, will expire on December 31,
2003, was before Council.
It was further advised that according to §37.1-196, Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, Community Services Board members are eligible to serve three full
three-year terms of office; therefore, it is requested that Council ratify the
reappointment of Mr. Hudgins for a second term of office, commencing January 1,
2004 and ending December 31, 2006.
It was explained that the by-laws of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare require
that appointments of at large Board members be ratified by all Community Service
Board participating localities.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the reappointment of John M.
Hudgins, Jr., as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith ........................................................................................... -7.
NAYS: None ....................................................................................... -0.
3
N;.\elcwh I \drafts\l 11703.wod
COMMITTEES-SCHOOLS: A communication from Michael F. Urbanski
tendering his resignation as a member of the Virginia Western Community College
Board, was before Council.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council accept the resignation and receive and file
the communication. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
COMMITTEES-PARKS AND RECREATION-GREENWAY SYSTEM: A
communication from Brian Shepard tendering his resignation as a member of the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Roanoke Valley Greenway
Commission, was before Council.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council accept the resignation and receive and file
the communication. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ......................... ~ ............................................................. -0.
COMMITTEES-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER-INDUSTRIES-ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW BOARD: The following reports of qualification were before Council:
Debbie Conner as a member of the Roanoke Civic Center
Commission, for a term ending September 30, 2006;
F. Gordon Hancock as a Director of the Industrial
Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, for a term
ending October 20, 2006; and
Jon Stephenson as a member of the Architectural Review
Board, for a term ending October 1, 2007.
N:\ckwb 1 \drafts\l 11703.wpd
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that the report of qualification be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith ........................................................................................... -7.
NAYS: None ....................................................................................... -0~
REGULAR AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Paul Dotson, Realtor, MKB Realtors, and
Glenn Rosendahl, Financial Director, College Lutheran Church, Salem, Virginia,
advised that a lot on Manning Road, N. W., was recently donated to
College Lutheran Church; however, when the Church attempted to sell the lot itwas
discovered that no septic~system or sewer system currently serves Manning Road.
Under the City's newly established sewer line policy, he stated that City staff advises
that it would cost approximately $50,000.00 to install a sewer system to serve the lot
in question, with theCity funding one half of the cost and the property owner funding
the other one half; however, the value of the lot donated to the Church is $13,500.00,
therefore, it would be counter productive for the Church to invest $25,000.00 for a
sewer line to serve the lot. He requested that Council authorize a special permit to
allow construction of a septic tank on the lot donated to College Lutheran Church on
Manning Road.
The City Manager presented a map of the area under discussion and advised
that the lot which was donated to the Church is located at the end of a site where it is
estimated that it would cost approximately $50,000.00 to construct a sewer line; the
sewer line would pass two undeveloped lots and five lots that currently have septic
tanks, and, pursuant to policy adopted by Council several months ago, not only
would the two vacant lots be required to connect to the sewer system upon
development, but if and when septic tanks currently serving the five lots fail, owners
of the lots will be required to connect to the public sewer. She stated that the map
indicates that approximately 60 acres could be served by a sewer line in the area and
City staff has not determined if the other lots are developable in other ways. She
explained that under current provisions adopted by Council, the City could
participate at the 50 per cent level, or authorize installation of a septic tank, and
given that there are a number of lots that could be served by a sewer extension, she
has been unwilling to indicate that a septic tank could be installed on the lot. She
suggested that the City Attorney prepare a measure for consideration by Council to
provide that the City of Roanoke will bear the total cost of the sewer line extension
and prorate costs against those lots that could be served by the sewer line; since
approximately eight lots are involved, the cost would be in the range of $6,500.00 per
lot which is comparable to the cost of a septic tank installation; and as other lots
N :\ckwb 1 \drafts\ 111703.wpd
come on line, or as septic tanks fail, property owners could be assessed the
appropriate amount for connecting to the sewer line. Given the fact that the Council
has expressed an interest in eliminating septic tanks in the City, she advised that the
above referenced suggestion would be the most favorable alternative.
There was discussion in regard to the time frame for construction of the sewer
line; whereupon, the City Manager advised that the sewer line could be cons[ructed
within approximately nine months.
Following discussion with regard to the potential benefit to other lots in the
area, in which it was noted that assuming it will cost $50,000.00 to extend the sewer
line approximately 1200 feet, the next 1200 feet would most likely not amount to
another $50,000.00; therefore, it would be to the City's advantage to look at the
potential benefit to other development in the area.
Without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the matter would be
referred to the City Manager for report to Council with regard to including the entire
60 acre area in the recommended sewer line extension.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
BRIEFINGS: NONE.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
SCHOOLS-EQUIPMENT: The City Manager submitted a communication
advising that in the past, the City has held a semi-annual auction of surplus
property; an average of 85% of proceeds of the sale has been from vehicles and
heavy equipment; in 2002, vehicles/heavy equipment sales totaled $76,525.00 for 46
pieces of equipment; miscellaneous sales, items other than vehicles and heavy
equipment, totaled $13,894.06 in 2002; in mid July 2603, the City began using an on-
line auction (eSurplusAuction.com) to sell vehicles and heavy equipment; and the
City has received $112,000.00 for 43 items, including vehicles and other pieces of
equipment through on-line auction in the first quarter of sales.
It was further advised that with the closure of the warehouse and building of
the new salt barn at the Public Works Service Center, there is no convenient space
for storage and sale of miscellaneous surplus items, such as desks, chairs, file
cabinets, etc; sales of miscellaneous surplus have been less than $14,000.00
annually; and annual cost for surplus sales, excluding the auctioneer's percentage,
is almost $5,000.00, including approximately $2,000.00 for advertising.
N:\ckwb 1 \drafts\ 111703.wpd
6
It was explained that the Roanoke City Public Schools (RCPS) also hOlds semi-
annual auctions of surplus property, and has space for storage of surplus property;
by combining City and Schools miscellaneous surplus, duplicate advertising costs
of approximately $2,000.00 per year would be eliminated, producing higher net
income; and the school system has agreed at an administrative level to follow the
outlined proposal in regard to disposition of surplus property:
Reallocate to City departments.
Attempt to sell vehicles and other items of significant value on the
internet, or by other appropriate means.
Give usable surplus personal property, not disposed of above, to
Roanoke City Public Schools (RCPS) subject to RCPS accepting the
property. RCPS will have the right to decide whether to accept
individual items of surplus property. The decision of whether or not the
Schools will accept the property will be made before transporting the
property to the RCPS storage facility. RCPS will store the property and
dispose of it as they wish from there, including the sale of the surplus
property.
Any surplus property not disposed of as above described will be
disposed of by sending it to the landfill, or other proper disposal
facility, or the property may be recycled, or given to an entity that may
be able to use it.
It was noted that disposal of surplus property in some other way than outlined
above may be done only by separate action of Council; i.e.: a gift of surplus
property to another public body, or to a non-profit agency, will require action by
Council.
The City Manager recommended that Council approve the above described
disposition of surplus property policy, provided that Council may dispose of any City
surplus property in a manner other than that which is above set forth and as may be
deemed appropriate by Council.
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36539-111703) A RESOLUTION setting forth a policy for the disposition of
City Surplus Tangible Personal Property.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
N :\ckwb 1 \drafts\ 111703.wpd
7
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36539-111703. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt~ Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... -0.
HARRISON HERITAGE CENTER.TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY: The City
Manager submitted a communication advising that Total Action Against Poverty
(TAP) has requested funds from the City to support the renovation and equipping of
the Dumas Center for Artistic Development; in July 2002, the original cost of the
project was $4,098,184.00; since that time, the budget has increased to $4,861,496.00.
as the result of a separate addition for the Harrison Museum; the Project is to be
funded from a variety of sources; initially the City was requested to provide
$500,000.00 in project funding over three fiscal years beginning in fiscal year 2002-
2003, which request was later modified to allow funding to be phased beginning in
fiscal year 2003-2004 over a period of five fiscal years; City staff recommended that
the $500,000.00 request be funded in a similar fashion to the Grandin Theater project,
with $100,000.00 being provided each year over five years, beginning with fiscal year
2003-2004; and funding would be provided by agreement as approved by Council,
subject to the following provisions:
· Certification of the availability of matching funds;
City funds will be used sOlely for the construction project, and not for
operation of the Dumas Center;
No future operational support for the Dumas Center will be requested
from the City;
The Dumas Center would continue to be operated as a community arts
and cultural center;
TAP will pay the City real estate taxes on the Center, as assessed by the
City;
The Dumas Center will not be sold or conveyed to another entity
without the prior written consent of the City; and
If the Dumas Center is sold within the five years of the agreement to
other than a non-profit entity, the City will recover its capital investment
from the proceeds of the sale.
N:\ckwb 1 \drafts\l 11703.wpd
It was further advised that funding will be appropriated annually from the
Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program, which has already been
done for fiscal year 2003-2004, with funding available in Account No. 008-310-9799-
9132.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to enter into an
agreement with Total Action Against Poverty, in a form to be approved by the City
Attorney, to renovate and equip the Dumas Center for Artistic Development.
Mr. Harris offered the following ordinance:
(#36540-111703) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to enter into an
agreement between the City of Roanoke and Total Action Against Poverty in.
Roanoke Valley, Inc., to renovate and equip the Dumas Center for Artistic
Development, and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36540-111703. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., inquired as to the amount of
funds requested by Total Action Against Poverty, and whether funds will be used
specifically for a separate addition for the Harrison Museum of African-American
Culture.
It was clarified that TAP and the Harrison Museum have requested an
additional $400,000.00 to be specifically dedicated for a new addition to the older
building, or 100 per cent for the Harrison Museum; however, the Ordinance currently
before the Council provides a mechanism to implement Council's earlier agreement
to provide $500,000.00 over five years for renovating and equipping the Dumas
Center for Artistic Development.
Ordinance No. 36540-111703 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith ........................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
N:\ckwb 1 \drafts\l 11703.wpd 9
FLOOD REDUCTION/CONTROL: The City Manager submitted a communication
advising that utility relocation is a part of the Roanoke River Flood Reduction
Program, which is being designed by the Corps of Engineers; and on March 18, 1991,
the City entered into a contract with Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern, Inc., for work,
including design of all relocations required by the Flood Reduction Program.
It was further advised that due to steep river banks near Hamilton Terrace and
Belleview Avenue, S. E., it is necessary to realign a portion of Piedmont Street near
its intersection with Hamilton Terrace and a portion of Hamilton Terrace, near its
intersection with Belleview Avenue, to accommodate the proposed greenway which
is a part of the Flood Reduction Project; part of the proposed realignment will allow
the proposed greenway to connect to the new pedestrian bridge over the Roanoke
River constructed by Carilion; and cost to design realignments will be $31,212.00.
The City Manager explained that approval by Council is required inasmuch as
the amount of the amendment, combined with two prior amendments, exceed 25 per
cent of the contract amount initially allocated for the project; and funding is available
in Capital Projects Fund, Account No. 08-056-9620, Roanoke River Flood Reduction.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute
Amendment No. 1A3, in the amount of $31,212.00, to the contract with Hayes, Seay,
Mattern and Mattern, Inc., for the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Utility Relocation
Project.
Mr. Harris offered the following resolution:
(#36541-111703) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager's issuance of
Amendment No. 1A3 to the City's contract with Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc.,
for designing realignments for a portion of Piedmont Street near its intersection with
Hamilton Terrace, S. E., and with a portion of Hamilton Terrace, S. E., near its
intersection with Belleview Avenue, S. E., to accommodate the proposed greenway
which is part of the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36541-111703. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS:NONE ........................................................................................ 0.
N:\ckwb 1 \drafts\ 111703.wpd 10
ZONING: The City Manager submitted a communication adviSing that
cUrrently, the Zoning Ordinance provides for a single definition of a medical clinic,
defining such as "an establishment which officers medical - or health - related
counseling or treatment (including diagnosis), including dental, optical and
psychiatric treatment where treatment is offered by more than two licensed
professional medical practitioners."
It was further advised that as indicated by the definition, this use broadly
covers a wide range of medical specialties and practices; while most medical
facilities and clinics have similar physical, functional, and land use characteristics,
there are other types of facilities that, by nature of their operational and functional
needs or characteristics, could have potential adverse impacts on adjacent land
uses; and certain medical clinics which provide services for drug and alcohol abuse
or treatment of mental illness have the potential to exhibit operational hours, parking
needs, and security measures that are unique unto themselves and are not shared
by other medical clinic facilities as contemplated by the City's current zoning
ordinance definition.
The City Manager explained that to address potential adverse impacts of some
types of medical clinics as currently defined by the Zoning Ordinance, one
alternative would be to maintain the current broad definition of medical clinics, and
to regulate the facilities by Special Exception, as opposed to the manner in which
they are regulated today, either by Special Exception, or "by Right" depending on the
applicable zoning district; this option, however, while sufficiently addressing new
locations, would result in allowing any existing medical clinic location to change its
medical specialty or type of practice without obtaining a Special Exception.
It was advised that in order to better define and to regulate certain types of
medical clinics which tend to exhibit unique functional and operational
characteristics, a new definition is proposed to be added to the Zoning Ordinance, as
follows:
"Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Clinic: An
establishment which provides outpatient services related to the
treatment of mental health disorders, alcohol, or other drug or
substance abuse disorders including the dispensing and administering
of controlled substances and pharmaceutical products by licensed
professional medical practitioners."
11
N:\ckwb 1 \drafis\l 11703.wpd
It was explained that the proposed amendments will provide a specific
process or the review and approval of these types of medical facilities, including
general public notice of such proposed use, notification of abutting property owners,
and a public hearing by the Board of Zoning Appeals; and this option allows for
retention of the current definition and regulation of other types of medical clinics as
originally contemplated by the Zoning Ordinance.
The City Manager advised that the City of Roanoke recently became aware of a
plan by a specific company to establish a methadone clinic within the City limits, and
specifically at a location off Hershberger Road, N. W.; when the City first became
aware of the proposal, City staff immediately contacted the appropriate State
department to determine the status of any application; and it was determined that
there is no requirement for the State to advise localities when an application is made.
for such purpose, She explained that under the City's current zoning regulations,
there is a requirement for special exception for certain medical clinics in the C-I and
CN Districts, but no such requirement applies to the C-2 District where the applicant
is currently considering the location of a methadone clinic. She pointed out that the
proposed clinic does not have a license at this time from the Commonwealth of"
Virginia; the applicant has not completed the application process, the City has not
issued a Certificate of Occupancy for the facility; and City staff has attempted to
contact representatives of the methadone clinic, who are in the process of exercising
a lease on the property. In view of the fact that as a community, the City of Roanoke
did not receive notice, or have an opportunity to comment on the type of clinic,
which presents certain challenges in terms of traffic and other issues, she stated
that an amendment to the zoning ordinance is proposed.
The City Manager recommended that Council engage in a joint public hearing
with the City Planning Commission on Monday, December 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or
as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. She advised that it is proposed that
this type of operation would be permitted only in the C-2, General Commercial
District, upon issuance of a Special Exception by the Board of Zoning Appeals; the
proposed action is appropriate given the concern of the community, the Members of
Council and the City administration regarding the placement of these types of
facilities; and the City in no way wishes to suggest that those in need of treatment
should not have an appropriate facility in which to be treated, but it is believed that
the location of this type of facility should come under the purview of the zoning
ordinance and specifically the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution:
12
N:\ckwb 1 \drafts\l 11703.wpd
(#36542-111703) A RESOLUTION initiating on behalf of the Council of the City
of Roanoke, an amendment to §36.1-25, Definitions, and §36.1-204, Special exception
uses, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to permit the
establishment of outpatient mental health and substance abuse clinics as a special
exception use in only the C-2, General Commercial District, of the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36542-111703. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch.
There was discussion as to whether all possible situations have been
addressed; whereupon, the City Manager advised that the proposed definition will
address a number of treatments, mental health disorders, alcohol, drug or substance
abuse disorders, and includes the dispensing of medications; City staff has
attempted to include as many issues as possible, but in a rapidly changing world,
there can be no assurance that all activities have been identified. She added that the
item, which was added to the City's 2004 Legislative Program, will prompt
discussion at the State level about the kinds of activities that should be reported to
localities, and at some time in the future, it may be necessary to further amend the
definition, or to add new definitions.
Brenda Hale, President, Roanoke Branch, NAACP, 3595 Parkwood Drive, S. W.,
expressed concern regarding the proposed methadone clinic at 3208 Hershberger
Road, N.W. She advised that of paramount concern to the northwest community is
the close proximity of the facility to three schools, the potential endangerment of
children, and a potential increase in drugs and criminal activity. She stated that
individuals must also realize that patients are entitled to medical treatment for their
maladies; demographics of opiate addiction affect individuals of all social and
economic conditions; haste to judge and to condemn is not the answer; patients
have the right not to be discriminated against; in January, 2003, the U. S. District
Court, District of Massachusetts, held that a City ordinance which prohibited the
operation of methadone clinics for individuals with opiate addition violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act; the City of Massachusetts had previously enacted a
zoning ordinance against a center that provided methadone treatment for individuals
with drug additions; the ordinance prohibited the methadone treatment center from
operating within two miles of a school, and because every possible location was
within two miles of a school, the center could not operate in the City; in contrast, the
City of Massachusetts allowed other clinics to operate in business or industrial
zones, and the City of Massachusetts was found to be discriminatory against drug
and alcohol rehabilitation Programs, the clients of which are qualified individuals
with a disability; and the City of Massachusetts did not show that the placement of
the methadone clinic in a business or industrial zone posed a significant risk to the
safety of the school community. She called attention to numerous C-2 zoned
13
N:\ckwbl\drafts\l 11703.wpd
buildings in certain areas throughout the City of Roanoke that are not located near
schools; under the Code of Virginia, City Councils have the authority to regulate
operations such as massage and tattoo parlors that are held to stricter regulationS;
and a pending clinic can be regulated referencing issues such as hours of operation,
number of days authorized to be open, parking regulations, sanitation, and
management of bio hazardous waste, etc. She asked that the City maintain an open
book as issues evolve.
Daniel M. Hale, Jr., 4425 Oleva Street, N. W., President, Middle Court
Neighborhood Association, expressed the shock, dismay and outrage of his
neighborhood organization at the proposal of introducing a methadone treatment
center by the Virginia Treatment Center; and residents are shocked that an
application to dispense methadone in Roanoke City has been on file in Richmond for
ov~er a year, yet City officials had no knOwledge of the application until recently. He,
stated that residents are dismayed that past and present City Councils and City
Managers have continued to allow Roanoke City generally, and northwest Roanoke
specifically, to be repositories of negative impact social service programs designed
to benefit the greater Roanoke Valley at the expense of Roanoke City
neighborhoods. He expressed concern that the City Planning Department did not
alert the City's Department of Housing and Neighborhood Services so that
neighborhood organizations could be immediately notified of the proposed
methadone clinic on Hershberger Road. He advised that historically in Roanoke, the
neighborhoods of Iow income and mixed minority citizens appear to be the dumping
ground for objectionable initiatives borne of questionable public policy; therefore,
the citizens of northwest Roanoke demand the following actions from Council: an
immediate report detailing the current status and time line for rewriting the zoning
ordinance, direct the City Manager to design and implement a system to provide
early warning to citizens of future social invested programs as to when they are
going to be introduced into Roanoke City neighborhoods, direct the City Manager to
compile a list of recommendations that will maintain and enhance the quality of life
in the area of the proposed clinic and mitigate any negative impact that the clinic
might have on the neighborhood's quality of life which should include
recommendations on public safety, housing, transportation, and health department
components, and report to the Roanoke Neighborhood Advocates on neighborhood
implications as a result of the proposed clinic. In closing, he advised that Roanoke's
neighborhoods generally believe that the City Manager has done an outstanding job
in helping to improve living conditions.
Resolution No. 36542-111703 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ 0.
14
N:\ckwbl\drafis\l 11703.wpd
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
COMMITTEES-LEGISLATION: Council Member William D. Bestpitch, Chair,
Legislative Committee, presented a written report of the Committee, transmitting the
City's proposed 2004 Legislative Program. He advised that six primary initiatives
were adopted in keeping with the City's practice to limit the number of legislative
requests to no more than five-six, in order to concentrate efforts on a smaller
number of issues, the goal of which is to reach a level of success with a limited
number of items. He reviewed the following legislative requests:
"1.
Advisory Public Referenda-There are numerous issues that may
qualify for advisory public referenda in various localities across
the State. The General Assembly is urged to study the
mechanisms currently in place that allow for such referenda and
consider providing a uniform opportunity for citizens in any
locality to be allowed to hold advisory referenda if the local
governing body determines it would be useful to hold such
referenda to best serve its citizens."
Mr. Bestpitch advised that the City of Roanoke currently does not have the
ability to schedule advisory referenda on a number of issues without acquiring
specific legislation from the General Assembly, whereas, other localities in Virginia
have that capability; it was discovered that there are different requirements from
locality to locality, therefore, it is difficult to know which model would be best for the
City of Roanoke; and the City's request is that the General Assembly will conduct a
study of the various mechanisms and determine a greater degree of uniformity
across the state for all localities.
"2.
Support for Rail Transportation Development Authority-The City
of Roanoke supports the required re-enactment of SB 1279 from
the 2003 General Assembly, which would create the Rail
Transportation Development Authority. This Authority would be
established to finance or assist in the financing of capital
improvements to rail lines and associated facilities."
Mr. Bestpitch advised that legislation was introduced last year by Roanoke's
Senator John Edwards, which legislation is required to come before the General
Assembly for reconsideration in 2004; and, as a railroad town, the City of Roanoke
understands the importance of improving rail capability and the importance of
supporting its Senator on this important initiative.
15
N :\ckwb 1 \drafts\l 11703.wpd
"3.
Vacant Building Registration Fee-The General Assembly should
amend Section 15.2-1127 of the Code of Virginia to increase the
current permitted registration fee of $25 for vacant buildings to
$250 to assist localities in addressing the additional costs of fire,
police and inspection activities related to vacant properties."
"4.
Urban Deer Management Program-As a public safety measure,
the General Assembly should amend Section 29.1-521 of the
Code of Virginia to permit the use of baiting to attract deer to be
culled under the conditions of the Urban Deer Management
Program permit issued by the Virginia Department of Game and
Inland Fisheries."
"5.
Health Department-The City's Health Department needs an
additional appropriation this year of at least $187,598.00 for
furnishings and rent, and $158,990.00 a year thereafter for rent so
that it can consolidate its operations and move into the new
Human Services Building on Williamson Road."
"6.
Absentee Landlord Representation-Section 55.218.1 of the Code
of Virginia requires property owners who own four or more units
in the Commonwealth of Virginia, but who do not reside in the
Commonwealth themselves, to maintain an agent who is a
resident of the State. It is difficult to serve summons and other
notices on property owners who do not live in the same locality,
delaying action to address blight. The General Assembly is
requested to amend this Code section to require that the
property owner's leasing agent or representative operate in the
same locality as the property or in an adjacent locality."
Mr. Bestpitch called attention to two additional items that were received
following the last meeting of the Legislative Committee; i.e.: a recommendation by
the Interim Director of the Department of Social Services in regard to funding for the
Virginia Initiative for Work, or VIEW Program; however, the item will not be included
in the City's formal Legislative Program, but is an issue that legislators should be
aware of. He advised that a second item pertains to the licensure and zoning for
certain substance abuse treatment facilities, and called attention to wide spread
concern by citizens of the City of Roanoke regarding the possibility of a methadone
treatment clinic on Hershberger Road, N.W. He explained that the City learned in the
past two weeks that the State has been aware of the possibility of the proposed
methadone clinic on Hershberger Road for a number of months, but the City did not
receive information until recently. He reviewed the following language which is
recommended by the Legislative Committee for inclusion in the City's proposed 2004
Legislative Program:
16
N:\ckwb l\drafts\l 11703.wpd
Notice of Applications for Methadone Clinics-Section 37.1-179.1, Co'de
of Virginia, should be amended to require the Commissioner of Mental
Health, Mental Retardation, and Substance Abuse to notify localities of
pending applications for methadone dispensing facilities. The
following sentence should be added to Section 37.1-179.1:
"No license shall be issued to any provider unless and until the
commissioner shall have provided notice to the governing body of the
locality in which such provider will be located, and at least thirty (30)
days time allowed for the governing body to submit comments to the
commissioner on the suitability of the proposed location of the provider
and its conformance to the Iocality's comprehensive plan."
Mr. Cutler moved that the above referenced item be included as Item No. 7 in
the City's 2004 Legislative Program. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and
adopted.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following resolution approving the City's 2004
Legislative Program, as above amended:
(#36543-111703) A RESOLUTION adopting and endorsing a Legislative
Program for the City to be presented to the City's delegation to the 2004 Session of
the General Assembly.
(For full text of Resolution, See Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Resolution No. 365430-111703. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
The Mayor advised that he will vote against the City's 2004 Legislative
Program because it will not be approved in its entirety by the General Assembly. He
referred to the item pertaining to advisory public referenda and advised that the City
is requesting the General Assembly to study those mechanisms currently in place
that allow for a referendum, even though numerous cities and towns in Virginia
currently provide for an advisory referenda; sending the request to the General
Assembly for a study in 2004 will ensure that the item will not pass the General
Assembly in 2004 or 2005 inasmuch as the City is asking that the General Assembly
study the issue and not specifically asking for the privilege of holding an advisory
referenda. He added that the citizens of the City of Roanoke have stated that they
want the privilege, under certain circumstances, of having an advisory referenda,
and the recommendation currently before the Council is a way to eliminate the
possibility of an advisory referenda in the coming year by asking for a study.
17
N:\ckwb 1 \drafis\l 11703.wpd
Council Member Fitzpatrick advised that the General Assembly is not likely to
grant the City's request for an advisory referenda until it has a much better
understanding of implications, if any, and even though Council supports an advisory
referenda for citizens of the City of Roanoke, the matter is not likely to be passed by
the General Assembly during the 2004 Session.
Mr. Bestpitch concurred in the remarks of Mr. Fitzpatrick and emphasized that
the process differs from city to city; the City of Roanoke does not have staff
capabilities to perform the study as a City project, compared to the resources that
are available to the State through various State agencies, such as JLARC, etc. He
advised that the majority of the Council has indicated that it supports a study that
will move toward a more uniform process for localities across the Commonwealth of
Virginia, which would be available to the citizens of every Virginia locality on a
consistent basis, regardless of where they live.
Council Member Wyatt spoke in support of an objective study that will be fair
to the citizens by taking politics out of the decision.
Following further discussion, Mr. Fitzpatrick called for the question. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted, Mayor Smith voting no.
Resolution No. 3654-111703 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, WYatt and
Bestpitch ........................................ ~ .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: Mayor Smith ............................................................................... 1.
SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board requesting
approval of the following appropriations and transfers; and a report of the Director of
Finance recommending that Council concur in the request, was before the body.
$142,174.00 from the 2003-2004 Capital Maintenance and Equipment
Replacement Fund to provide monies for musical instrument
replacement, physical education equipment, health equipment,
instructional technology equipment, administrative technology
equipment, Magnet School technology equipment, facility maintenance
equipment, custodial equipment, site-based furniture, maintenance
vehicle replacement, food service equipment, and food service vehicle
replacement.
18
N:\ckwbl\drafts\l ! 1703.wpd
$97,429.00 for the Title I School Improvement program at the Roanoke
Academy for Mathematics and Science; funds will aid the division in its
effort to provide strategies to increase student learning at schools with
a high percentage of free lunch students, which continuing program is
100 percent reimbursed by Federal funds.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36544-111703) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for equipment from
the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program (CMERP) and the
School Food Service Fund balance, and to appropriate a federal grant, amending and
reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004 School and School Food Service
Funds Appropriations and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36544-111703. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................................................................ -6.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was outof the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
LOANS-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board
requesting that Council approve a State Literary Fund loan application, in the
amount of $3.1 million, for improvements to Westside Elementary School, advising
that the loan application includes a resolution for architectural supervision; and debt
service on the loan will increase the School Board's debt service expenditure by
$248,000.00, commencing in fiscal year 2005-06, but no debt service liability will be
incurred until funds are drawn against the loan account, was before Council.
A second communication from the School Board requesting that Council
approve a State Literary Fund loan application, in the amount of $1.6 million for
improvements to Fallon Park Elementary School, advising that the loan application
includes a resolution for architectural supervision; debt service on the loan will
increase the School Board's debt service expenditure by $128,000.00, commencing
in fiscal year 2005-06, but no debt service liability will be incurred until funds are
drawn against the loan account, was also before the body.
19
N:\ckwb 1 \drafts\ 111703.wpd
A report of the Director of Finance advising that included in the adopted
capital Improvement Program for fiscal years 2004 - 2008 is funding of $5.0 million
for improvements to Fallon Park and West Side Elementary Schools; funding for
improvements are to be provided by the Schools using the most financially
advantageous combination of general obligation~ public improvement bonds,
Virginia Public School Authority Bonds and Literary Fund loans; and Literary Fund
loans are advantageous due to the Iow three per cent interest rate which may be
obtained, was before Council.
The Director of Finance recommended approval of the loan applications by
Council.
Ms. Wyatt offered the following resolution:
(#36545-111703) A RESOLUTION authorizing the School Board for the City of
Roanoke to make application for a loan from the State Literary Fund for adding to
and modernizing Westside Elementary School.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Ms. Wyatt moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36545-111703. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ........................................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
Mr. Harris offered the following resolution:
(#36546-111703) A RESOLUTION authorizing the School Board for the City of
Roanoke to expend funds for improving the present school building at Westside
Elementary School and declaring the City's intent to borrow to fund or reimburse
such expenditures.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36546-111703. The motion
was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and adopted by the following vote:
2O
N:\ckwb l\drafts\l 11703.wpd
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ................................................................................................. - .... 6.
NAYS: None ...................................................................................... -6.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
Ms. Wyatt offered the following resolution:
(#36547-111703) A RESOLUTION authorizing the School Board for the City of
Roanoke to make application for a loan from the State Literary fund for modernizing
Fallon Park Elementary School.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Ms. Wyatt moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36547-111703. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ........................................................................................................... -6.
NAYS: None--~ ...................................................................................... -0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was out of Council Chamber when vote was recorded.)
Mr. Harris offered the following resolution:
(#36548-111703) A RESOLUTION authorizing the School Board for the City of
Roanoke to expend funds for improving the present school building at Fallon Park
Elementary School and declaring the City's intent to borrow to fund or reimburse
such expenditures.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36548-111703. The motion
was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and adopted by the following vote:
N:\ckwb ! \drafts\ 111703.wpd 21
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith ...............................................................................................
7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... -0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND
RESOLUTIONS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF"
COUNCIL:
CITY COUNCIL: Assistant City Manager for Community Development, Rolanda
Russell's husband, having recently sustained a serious eye injury, Council Member
Dowe requested that he be remembered in prayer.
CELEBRATIONS-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: Council Member Dowe congratulated
and publicly welcomed back to the City of Roanoke former Assistant City Manager,
Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., who will assume the position of Deputy Executive Director, City
of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, effective December 15; 2003.
CITY CODE.ZONING-SIGNSlBILLBOARDSIAWNINGS: Council at its meeting
on Monday, October 23, 2003, having tabled an ordinance amending Section
36.1-455, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, (1079), as amended, to permit the
relocation of existing roof signs within the H-I, Historic District, Mr. Fitzpatrick
moved that the ordinance be removed from the table. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Harris and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance:
N:\ckwbl\drafts\l 11703.wpd 22
(#36549-111703) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining §36.1-445,
Additional si.qn re.qulations, Division 3, Si.qn Re.qulations, Article IV, Supplementary
Re.qulations, of Chapter 36.1, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended, by amending subsection (c) to permit roof signs within the H-I Historic
District, under certain conditions; and dispensing with the second reading by title of
this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36549-111703. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe.
David Diaz, President, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., referred to a letter of
agreement among those parties that are working to restore the H & C Coffee Sign
and to relocate the sign to the top of the Shenandoah Hotel building as a first
preference.
(The letter of agreement was not filed with the City Clerk.)
There being no discussion, Ordinance No. 36549-111703 was adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and
Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... -0.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council Member Wyatt referred to recent repairs to
the sidewalk at 14th Street, S. E., and installation of ground cover which was recently
destroyed by vandals. She requested that the City make the necessary repairs.
TRAFFIC: Council Member Wyatt requested that appropriate signage be
installed to inform motorists that Campbell Avenue is a two way street, in order to
remove a portion of the traffic from Campbell Avenue to Salem Avenue, S. W.
TRAFFIC: Council Member Wyatt requested confirmation by the City Manager
that Williamson Road will include two lanes of traffic in each direction; whereupon,
the City Manger confirmed that there will be a minimum of two lanes of traffic in each
direction, with some left turn lanes to facilitate traffic.
LIBRARIES: Vice-Mayor Harris commended staff of the Roanoke Public
Library on the Bookfest which was held on November 14 - 15, 2003, and expressed
appreciation to the Roanoke Public Library Foundation for sponsoring the event.
N:\ckwbl\drafls\l 11703.wpd 23
AIRPORT: The Mayor called attention to a September, 2003 article in Womans
World, a national magazine, which alluded to the convenience of Roanoke's airport.
He referred to a web site entry by Air Tran inviting subscribers to vote on those
locations that they would like to be served by Air Tran, and encouraged citizens of
the Roanoke Valley to respond to the web site address at www.airtran.com/Atlanta
and cast their vote for Roanoke, because the more votes that are received from the
Roanoke area, the greater the chance of attracting a discount air carrier to the
Roanoke Valley.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Mayor advised that
Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard; and matters requiring
referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for response,
recommendation or report to Council.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-ARMORY/STADIUM-CITY EMPLOYEES: Mr. John E.
Kepley, 2909 Morrison Street, S. E., referred to an article in the November 13, 2003
edition of The Roanoke Times entitled, "Bids Exceed Allocated Budget for Stadium".
He stated that in this article, as well as other newspaper articles, the City Manager"
has guaranteed that the stadium/amphitheater project will be completed for $18
million or less; bids which were recently opened exceeded the budgeted amount by
$2 million, and major construction such as the pedestrian walkway to be constructed
over Orange Avenue and the football stadium turf were left out of the bids, as well as
other important items. He referred to the Nautilus Waterfront Science Museum in the
City of Norfolk which was constructed during the time that Roanoke's City Manager
served as Assistant City Manager and opened in 1994; the City Council of Norfolk
budgeted $30 million for the project; the Museum went over budget by $22 million,
for a total of $52 million; the $52 million Museum was intended to support itself
through operating income which did not occur due to lack of attendance, therefore,
admissions fees were slashed four times over a five year period from 1994 to 1999,
or a 44 per cent reduction. He added that the Norfolk City Council borrowed money
to continue the City's support of the project, along with other projects that exceeded
the budget; and Norfolk's bond rating went down from a AAA to a AA to an Al
because of the City's slow growth rate and its rising debt. He noted that the City
Council of Norfolk, in order to finance a range of projects, was forced to withdraw its
application for Federal loan guarantees and to borrow money from private banks; in
order to borrow money, the City of Norfolk was forced to put up certain buildings as
collateral (Scope Chrysler Hall and the Waterside Convention Center); and in May
1995, in a effort to help with spiraling debt, higher taxes, fees and fines were
imposed. He called attention to increased fees and fines that have been imposed on
the citizens of the City of Roanoke over the past four years, and within the last five
years real estate taxes have risen 21.3 per cent. He inquired if the citizens of the City
of Roanoke are to share in the same fate as the City of Norfolk, i.e.: a growing debt
load.
N:\ckwbl\drafts\l 11703.wpd 24
Mr. E. Dwayne Howard, 508 Walnut Avenue, S. W., called attention to recent
newspaper articles in connection with a City survey that reveals Iow morale among
Roanoke City Police Officers relative to poor pay and leadership. He stated that Iow
morale is equally pervasive not only among City residents, but with persons
throughout the Roanoke Valley, as it relates to the City Manager, the Chief of Police
and City Council. He referred to a situation where a Police Officer was promoted to
Sergeant with no salary increase, and the wasteful spending of over $2200.00 of
taxpayers' money on a banner at Victory Stadium which should be placed at the
Orange Avenue/Williamson Road site of the proposed new stadium/amphitheater.
Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., commended an adjacent locality
for allowing its voters the right to decide a very controversial issue which
represented the democratic way and set a good example for building character. She
referred to proclamations recently issued by the Mayor in connection with Building
Character and National Historic Preservation Week, which stated that historic
preservation is an effective tool for maintaining community character and is
important in preserving the tangible aspects of heritage that all residents of the City
of Roanoke share. She inquired as to why the Council has taken actions contrary to
both the Building Character and Historic Preservation proclamations by continuing
with plans to construct an unwise, unwanted, expensive and unsafe stadium, a
stadium without seats or a scoreboard, and with a playing field that may be
contaminated, and a stadium where there will be limited parking spaces because the
pedestrian bridge is no longer in the plans. She asked if the City is exposing present
and future generations of Roanokers to an astronomical and unwanted debt in a
toxic environment. She advised that decisions are revokable and knowing when to
cut losses is a key factor to effective management.
Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridge Crest Road, Hardy, Virginia, addressed Council with
regard to renovating Victory Stadium. He referred to the days when VMI and VPI
played their annual Thanksgiving Day Football Games at Victory Stadium, and the
vitality of the stadium and the City of Roanoke overall due to the level of attendance,
all of which generated additional tax dollars for the City of Roanoke. He advised
that the present Victory Stadium could be renovated in order to attract football
games by major colleges and universities which would again generate major tax
dollars for the City's coffers. He commended the City on painting and paving the
roadway surl=ace around Victory Stadium, and advised that there is sufficient parking
in the area of Victory Stadium and the Carillon parking facility, along with on street
parking, to accommodate as many as 20,000 vehicles. He stated that people will use
Victory Stadium if the facility is marketed properly. He again suggested that a United
States Flag be flown at Victory Stadium to honor the memory of World War II
veterans.
N:\ckwbl\drafts\l 11703.wpd 25
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
LIBRARIES: The City Manager commended staff of the Roanoke Public Library
on the success of the Bookfest which was held on November 14 - 15, 2003. She
referred specifically to the young writers group that was recognized during the
event.
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT-CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Manager
acknowledged Chuck Grant, an employee in the City's Department of Planning,
Building and Development, who was recognized by the Regional Home Builders
Association as 2003 Public Employee of the Year.
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT-COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT: The City.
Manager advised that for three consecutive years, the City of Roanoke has been
recognized by the Center for Digital Government as the top digital city for cities in
Roanoke's population category. She further advised that the City of Roanoke is the
only city in the nation to receive this recognition for three consecutive years.
ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER: At the request of a Member of Council, the City
Manager presented an oral report on the status of plans for the pedestrian walkway
from the proposed new stadium on Orange Avenue/Williamson Road to the Roanoke
Civic Center parking lot and other aspects of the total stadium project that were not
included in the recent bidding process.
The City Manager advised that within the $18 million budget, seats, turf and a
pedestrian bridge have been accounted for; however, some are specialty items that
do not require the skills of a general contractor. She stated that approximately $3
million of the total budget for various items has been set aside within an individual
budget for each item, with bids to be received at the appropriate time, as the item
becomes a part of the construction process; therefore, the City will, in effect, serve
as its own general contractor and will avoid the mark up on subcontractors that are
typically employed by the general contractor which could amount to as much as ten
per cent, or approximately $300,000.00.
At 4:15 p.m. the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for one Closed Session.
At 5:15 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber, with Mayor
Smith presiding and all Members of the Council in attendance, with the exception of
Council Member Fitzpatrick.
N:\ckwbl\drafts\l 11703.wpd 26
COUNCIL: Mr. Bestpitch moved that Council convene in Closed Session to
discuss a personnel matter with regard to the position of City Treasurer, pursuant to
Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................................................................ 6.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
At 5:20 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess.
At 6:30 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber, with
Mayor Smith presiding, and all Members of the Council in attendance, with exception
of Council Member Fitzpatrick.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Session just concluded, Mr. Bestpitch
moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her knowledge
that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2) only such
public business matters as were identified in any motion by which any Closed
Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ........................................................................................................... -6.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... -6.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
COMMITTEES-INDUSTRIES: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the
Industrial Development Authority, and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Harris placed in nomination the name of Linda Frith.
There being no further nominations, Ms. Frith was appointed as a
Commissioner of the Industrial Development Authority, for a term ending October 20,
2007, by the following vote:
N:\ckwb l\drafis\l 11703.wpd 27
FOR MS. FRITH: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and
Mayor Smith ................................................................................................. -6.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
COMMITTEES-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: The Mayor advised that there is a
vacancy on the Advisory Board of Human Services, and called for nominations to fill
the vacancy.
Mr. Harris placed in nomination the name of Louis O. Brown.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Brown was appointed as a member of
the Advisory Board of Human Services, for a term ending November 30, 2007, by the
following vote:
FOR MR. BROWN: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. 6.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
Inasmuch as Mr. Brown is not a resident of the City of Roanoke, Mr. Harris
moved that Council waive the City residency requirement in this instance. The
motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and adopted.
COMMITTEES-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: The Mayor advised that there is a
vacancy on the Human Services Committee, and called for nominations to fill the
vacancy.
Mr. Harris placed in nomination the name of H. Clarke (Duke) Curtis.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Curtis was appointed as a member of
the Human Services Committee, for a term ending June 30, 2004, by the following
vote:
FOR MR. CURTIS: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. -6.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
N:\ckwb 1 \drafts\ 111703.wpd 28
COMMITTEES-ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION: The Mayor advised that there is
a vacancy on the Roanoke Arts Commission to fill the unexpired of Michael Brennan,
ending June 30, 2004, and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Harris placed in nomination the name of Terri R. Jones.
There being no further nominations, Ms. Jones was appointed as a member of
the Roanoke Arts Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2004, by the following
vote:
FOR MS. JONES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and
Mayor Smith ................................................................................................... -6.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
Inasmuch as Ms. Jones is not a City resident, Mr. Harris moved that the City
residency requirement be waived. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and
adopted.
COMMITTEES-ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION: The Mayor advised that there
is another vacancy On the Roanoke Arts Commission, and called for nominations to
fill the vacancy.
Mr. Harris placed in nomination the name of Sandra Brunk.
There being no further nominations, Ms. Brunk was appointed as a member of
the Roanoke Arts Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2006, by the following
vote:
FOR MS. BRUNK: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. 6.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
COMMITTEES-SCHOOLS: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the
Virginia Western Community College Board of Directors, created by the resignation
of Michael F. Urbanski, and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Harris placed in nomination the name of William M. Hackworth.
N:\ckwbl\drafis\l 11703.wpd 29
There being no further nominations, Mr. Hackworth was appointed as a
member of the Virginia Western Community College, Board of Directors, for a term
ending June 30, 2007, by the following vote:
FOR MR. HACKWORTH: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt,
Bestpitch and Mayor Smith .............................................................................. -6.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
COMMITTEES-ZONING: The Mayor advised that the three year terms of office
of Joel M. Richert and Philip H. Lemon as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals
will expire on December 31, 2003; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations.
Mr. Harris placed in nomination the names of Joel M. Richert and Philip H.
Lemon.
There being no further nominations, Ms. Richert and Mr. Lemon were
reappointed as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, for terms ending
December 31, 2006, by the following vote:
FOR MS. RICHERT AND MR. LEMON: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris,
Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor Smith .................................................................... -6.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
At 6:30 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess until 7:00 p.m.,
in the City Council Chamber.
At 7:00 p.m., on Monday, November 17, 2003, the Council meeting reconvened
in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215
Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith
presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., William D.
Bestpitch, Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt, and Mayor
Ralph K. Smith ................................................................................................ -7.
ABSENT: NONE ................................................................................... ~.
N:\ckwb l\drafis\l 11703.wpd 30
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Ha'ckworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City
Clerk.
The invocation was delivered by Vice-Mayor C. Nelson Harris.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Boy Scout Troop No. 210, South Roanoke United Methodist Church.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
ZONING: In view of the fact that numerous persons were in the audience in
connection with the proposed methadone clinic to be located in the Hershberger
Road, N. W. area, the Mayor called upon the City Manager to review the action taken
by Council at its 2:00 p.m. session. (See pages 10-14.)
The City Attorney advised that he has been unable to identify provisions that
would require the State to notify a locality of a pending application for a clinic of this
type. He stated that localities should receive notice and an opportunity to comment
on the appropriateness of a proposed clinic and to make a determination as to
whether or not the location is in conformance with the Iocality's Comprehensive
Plan; therefore, Council will request the City's delegation to the 2004 General
Assembly to introduce legislation to include this requirement in the State Code. He
encouraged all interested persons to contact their local Delegates and Senators prior
to the filing deadline of December 8, 2003, for introducing bills before the General
Assembly. He also encouraged interested persons to share their concerns with
Council and the City Planning Commission at a joint public hearing to be held on
Monday, December 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber. He advised
that City staff will continue to research the issue and follow up on other avenues that
appear to be promising as the issue unfolds.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by
Council on Monday, April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing
for Monday, November 17, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may
be heard, on the request of Robert E. Zimmerman that Rorer Avenue, S. W., between
9th and 10th Streets, and two alleys running in a northerly direction from Rorer
Avenue, located between parcels bearing Official Tax Nos. 1112102, 1112103,
1112104, 1112107, 1112108, 1112109 and 1112110, be permanently vacated,
discontinued and closed, the matter was before the body.
N:\ckwb 1 \drafis\l 11703.wpd 31
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on FridaY, October 31, 2003, and Friday, November 7, 2003.
A report of the City Planning Commission advising that the petitioner owns all
of the parcels of land that adjoin the subject portion of Rorer Avenue; the petitioner
also owns all but one of the parcels of land on the southern side of the 900 block of
Salem Avenue where his establishment, Roanoke Electric Zupply, is located; the
petitioner does not own Official Tax No. 1112110 and one of the alleys requested for
closure is adjoined by this parcel of land.
It was further advised that the paved portion of the 900 block of Rorer Avenue
is a dead end that terminates approximately 19 feet east of the edge of the sidewalk
on 10th Street, and the dead end was created on Rorer Avenue after the widening of
10th Street by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).
It was noted that the City Planning Commission does not recommend approval
of the request which is in direct conflict with the general goals of Vision 2001-2020
and the specific recommendation of the Hurt Park/Mountain View/West End
neighborhood plan to re-establish the connection between Rorer Avenue and 10th
Street; in addition, the petitioner has not proposed any specific development plan
that would require vacation of the right-of-way and alleys, or result in a use of the
property that is consistent with the policies and recommendations of the
neighborhood plan. It was further noted that if Council approves the request of the
petitioner, the City Planning Commission recommends that the petitioner be charged
the full amount of $26,600.00, and that closure be subject to certain conditions as
more fully described in the report.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
"AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing a certain
public right-of-way in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as more particularly described
hereinafter; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance."
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Fitzpatrick.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in
connection with the public hearing.
N:\ckwb l \drafts\ 111703.wpd 32
Roy V. Creasy, Attorney, representing the petitioner, advised that his client
wishes to close a portion of Rorer Avenue and certain adjacent paper alleys in order
to further develop his property. He referred to the topography of the land which is
composed of steep terrain and used for undesirable activities such as alcohol,
drugs, and prostitution, etc. He reviewed the following points in regard to the
rationale of the City Planning Commission in recommending denial of the request;
i.e.
Parking - There is considerable parking in the area, therefore,
parking should not be an issue.
Restoring access to Tenth Street from Rorer Avenue - In view of
a steep grade on both sides of Tenth Street, such action would
not be feasible, would require approval by the Virginia
Department of Transportation and necessitate another traffic
signal due to the location of ingress and egress.
No specific proposal was submitted by the petitioner - Not
knowing whether the street and alleys would be closed and not
knowing if a cost would be assessed by the City, Mr. Zimmerman
has been limited in his ability to develop the land, although it is
envisioned that the land could be used for commercial
development. He advised that the City Planning Commission is
recommending that his client pay $26,600.00 for closing
approximately 21,575 square feet; his client invested
approximately $19,000.00 to obtain 25 lots in the area over the
past 18 years, and if one considers what his client paid for the
103,612 square feet that he currently owns, that amounts to
approximately $18.00 per square foot, or $4,000.00.
Notwithstanding the Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan, he
stated that if the property cannot be developed by his client, it is
not likely to be used for residential purposes and the land will
remain vacant.
Ms. Norma Smith, 11 14th Street, S. W., advised that funds were previously
appropriated by the City of Roanoke to clean up the Rorer Avenue area from Fifth
Street to 24th Street, and inquired as to the status of the funds.
N:\ckwb 1 \drafts\ I 11703.wpd 33
This being the second occasion that a reference was made to funds having
been appropriated by the City for the Rorer Avenue area, the City Manager was
requested to respond to any specific allocation of funds; whereupon, the City
Manager advised that she was not aware of any specific allocation of monies for the
Rorer Avenue area; however, she would research the question and advise Council
accordingly.
There being no further speakers, the Mayor declared the public hearing
closed.
In clarification of the rationale of the City Planning Commission in its
recommendation to deny the request of Mr. Zimmerman, the Agent for the City
Planning Commission quoted from the Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan
regarding neighborhood streets; i.e.: "Where possible neighborhood streets should
connect with existing neighboring streets to complete the street grid pattern of the
surrounding area." He explained that this is one area of Roanoke where there is an
intact street grid; and the entire West End and Hurt Park area has a complete street
grid because topography of the land is relatively flat for Roanoke. He added that
when the Mountain View, Hurt Park and West End Neighborhood Plan was adopted
in June 2003, one of the policies contained in the Plan was to restore or maintain
access to Tenth Street at both Norfolk and Rorer Avenues. He advised that the
connection at Tenth Street is difficult from an engineering point of view; a majority of
the members of the City Planning Commission believed that retaining the right-of-
way is important so that if development occurs in the area, there would be an
opportunity to reconnect Tenth Street to Rorer Avenue at that location, and
inasmuch as the City Planning Commission did not have a specific development
proposal from the applicant, the Planning Commission had nothing to weigh the
benefit of what was being proposed versus those policies contained in the
neighborhood plan. He explained that the area currently owned by the petitioner
contains split zoning; Rorer Avenue is the differentiating line between industrial
property on the north side of Rorer Avenue; the south side of Rorer Avenue is zoned
RM-2, Residential Multi-Family, so by closing the street, the zoning issue will not be
addressed and there is the case of a potentially combined parcel of land of almost
2.9 acres spanning a block and one half that contains split zoning without a
definitive development plan.
Following discussion in which concern was expressed that no development
plan was submitted by the petitioner; and unfavorable conditions in the area
associated with prostitution, drug and alcohol use, without objection by Council, the
Mayor requested that the City Manager assist the petitioner in securing his property
in a more healthy neighborhood environment.
N:\ckwb 1 \drafts\ 111703.wpd 34
There being no further discussion, the ordinance was defeated by the
following vote:
AYES: Mayor Smith .............................................................................. 1.
NAYS: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt and
Bestpitch ..................................................................................................... --6.
COMMUNITY PLANNING-ROANOKE VISION, COMPREHENSIVE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Pursuant to instructions by Council, the City Clerk having
advertised a public hearing for Monday, November 17, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., oras soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of the City Planning
Commission with regard to a proposed amendment to Vision 2001-2020, the City's
Comprehensive Plan, to include the Harrison-Washington Park Neighborhood Plan,
the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, October 31, 2003, and Friday, November 7, 2003, and in The
Roanoke Tribune on Thursday, November 6, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report recommending
approval of the Harrison/Washington Park Neighborhood Plan, advising that the Plan
identifies four high priority initiatives:
Encouraging a balance of housing choices in all price ranges and housing
options that promote social and economic diversity;
Promoting general physical enhancement through continued code
enforcement efforts;
Adopting the Neighborhood Design District to encourage compatible infill
housing, and
Improving the appearance and function of major streets.
The Plan also includes a future land use map to guide development and
zoning patterns in the neighborhoods.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
N:\ckwb 1 \drafts\l l 1703.wpd 35
(#36550-111703) AN ORDINANCE approving the Harrison-Washington Park
Neighborhood Plan, and amending Vision 2001 - 2020, the City's Comprehensive
Plan, to include the Harrison-Washington Park Neighborhood Plan; and dispensing
with the second reading of this ordinance by title.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36550-111703. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in
connection with the public hearing.
There being none, he declared the public hearing closed.
Council Member Cutler raised the following questions/points:
Vacant lots in the Washington Park area have become infested
with rodents, and residents have complained that rodents are a
problem along Tenth Street and behind Lincoln Terrace School.
What is the City doing to address the rodent problem?
Housing Conditions - "Lack of maintenance of homes and weed
overgrowth in the area have contributed to blight." Can the City
spend more time and energy on weed control?
Lick Run Greenway - checking sewer lines for storm water
infiltration - He requested that the Utility Lines Department
address leaking sewer lines in the Shadeland Avenue area, which
basically involves treating northwest Roanoke like the rest of the
City is treated.
"Establish a spur from Lick Run Greenway to Lincoln Terrace
Elementary School." A spur should be constructed to Addison
Middle School, as well as to the greenway, so that children
attending both schools can ride their bicycles or walk to school.
Actions to Invite Beautification. There is a need for outdoor art
and public art in northwest Roanoke, i.e. Harrison and
Washington Parks as well as other parts of the City.
N:\ckwb 1 \drafts\ 111703.wpd 36
A map on page 28 shows the Brown Robertson Park as being
separated by certain non public land and Washington Park. What
is located between the two parcels of land and can there be a
kind of connectivity to provide for a major park?
There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Ordinance No.
36550-111703 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch,
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................... 0.
EASEMENTS-CITY PROPERTY: Pursuant to instructions by Council, the City
Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, November 17, 2003, at
7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of the
City of Roanoke with regard to the proposed conveyance of a 30-foot easement on
City-owned property located near Tinker Creek, S. E., Official Tax No. 4321020, to
Plantation Pipeline Company, to relocate an existing valve onto City property, the
matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, November 11, 2003.
The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Plantation Pipe
Line Company has requested a permanent 30-foot easement containing
approximately 0.21 acre on City-owned property located near Tinker Creek, S. E.; the
easement will allow relocation of an existing valve onto City property since the
current valve location is under water part of the year; and since the estimated
assessed value of the easement is Iow, $275.00, City staff recommends that the
easement be granted at no charge.
The City Manager recommended, following the public hearing, that she be
authorized to execute the appropriate documents granting a permanent easement as
above described to Plantation Pipe Line Company, such document to be approved
as to form by the City Attorney.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
N:\ckwb 1 \drafts\l 11703.wpd 37
(#36551-111703) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the donation and conveyance of
a thirty foot wide easement containing approximately 0.21 acre, on City-owned
property located near Tinker Creek, S. E., identified by Official Tax No. 4321020, to
Plantation Pipeline Company, to relocate an existing valve onto City property
because the current valve location is under water part of the year, upon certain terms
and conditions; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36551-111703. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in
connection with the public hearing.
There being none, he declared the public hearing closed.
There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Ordinance No.
36551-111703 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch,
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ -7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
The Mayor advised that Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be
heard; and matters requiring referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately
for response, recommendation or report to Council.
CITY COUNCIL-HOUSING/AUTHORITY-COMPLAINTS-TRAFFIC: Mr. Chris
Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., addressed the following matters:
Requested that the handicapped ramp in the Council's Parking Lot not
be blocked.
Requested that a "No U-turn" sign be installed at Williamson Road and
Orange Avenue, in the vicinity of Sheetz.
Requested that the City address traffic congestion at Masons Mill Road
and Hollins Road, N. E.
N:\ckwb 1 \dra£ts\ 111703.wpd 38
Requested more signage alerting motorists to narrow lanes on Orange
Avenue where the road changes from three to two lanes.
Requested that storm doors be installed on housing units at Lincoln
Terrace.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-ARMORY/STADIUM.ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER: Mr.
Kevin Booze, 1606 Peters Creek Road, N. W., advised that public funds should be
spent on programs that benefit the youth of Roanoke and for pay increases for
Police Officers, rather than on improvements to Victory Stadium, or construction of a
new stadium/amphitheater. He also spoke with regard to the dangers associated
with the shooting of deer in the City of Roanoke, and encouraged the City to
discontinue the sharp shooting program.
TAXES-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER-SPORTS COMPLEX-DEBT POLICY-
SCHOOLS: Mr. John E. Kepley, 2909 Morrison Street, S. E., spoke with regard to the
issue of an advisory referenda, the definition of which is: the principle or practice of
submitting to popular vote a measure passed upon or proposed by a legislative
body. He advised that over the next five years, the City of Roanoke will borrow $344
million for capital projects; however, it should be noted when the current City
Manager assumed her position in January 2000 the City's debt, per person, was
$600.00 and has now risen to almost $2,000.00 per person. He stated that since 1999
to the present, an additional $119 million has been borrowed in debt which involves
taking money out of the pockets of taxpayers to fund projects such as the new
sports complex, and the tearing down of Patrick Henry and William Fleming High
Schools, only to rebuild the schools in the amount of $87 million. He stated that
taxpayers deserve the opportunity to vote on how their tax dollars are spent by the
City of Roanoke.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-ZONING-HUMAN RESOURCES-CITY EMPLOYEES-
WATER RESOURCES: Mr. Robert Gravely, 729 Loudon Avenue, N. W., spoke against
the proposed methadone clinic in northwest Roanoke. He called attention to the
need for more jobs for young people to get them off the streets and to decrease
crime. He spoke in support of increased wages for the City's work force so that the
average worker can afford to purchase a home. He referred to the 2.3 per cent pay
increase that was afforded to City employees in fiscal year 2003, yet real estate tax
assessments continue to increase, police officers do not receive sufficient wages, a
five per cent increase in dental insurance premiums, a 9.1 per cent increase in
insurance, and a 35 per cent increase in water rates.
N:\ckwb 1 \drafts\l 11703.wpd 39
ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridge Crest Road, Hardy,~Virginia,
spoke in support of the renovation of Victory Stadium, and referred to deed
restrictions on the Victory Stadium property which have not been honored by the
City. He advised that Council Members should be mindful of the wishes of the
citizens of the City of Roanoke in regard to Victory Stadium, the Armory, safety in
Roanoke's schools, and other issues of concern because the citizens of Roanoke
will speak on election day.
ZONING-DRUGS/SUBSTANCE ABUSE: The following persons addressed
Council in opposition to the location of a methadone clinic at 3208 Hershberger
Road, N. W.:
Ms. Joylette Stokes, 1523 Main Street, S. W., representing Dr. Chadrack Brown,
Jr., and the congregation of Garden of Prayer No. 7 Church, advised that the
proposed methadone clinic invades the future growth of the Church, which has
recently embarked upon a building program for an educational facility to provide day
activities for seniors and youth, and the Church facility will observe the same hours
of operation as the methadone clinic. She stated that the proposed site of the
methadone clinic is adjacent to Church property, presence of the clinic will not be
conducive to a safe and friendly environment for parents and children using Church
facilities; and the neighborhood is more concerned about drug dealers that might be
attracted to the area than to patients who need help with their addiction. She
advised that the Church is not opposed to those persons needing help, but members
are opposed to the proposed location of the facility.
Ms. Peggy Sue Tolliver, 1460 Fresno Street, N. W., advised that she lives
approximately two and one-half blocks from the proposed site for the methadone
clinic. She called attention to the number of schools and churches in the area and
efforts by residents of northwest Roanoke to improve their neighborhood. She
stated that it has been reported that the methadone clinic will open on December 15,
2003, yet Council and the City Planning Commission are scheduled to hold a joint
public hearing on December 15, which is too late to help the neighborhood. She
asked that the City of Roanoke intervene and do whatever it can to prevent the
methadone clinic from opening.
Ms. Sonya Smith, Westwind Apartments, spoke against the location of the
methadone clinic in an area of the City that is heavily populated by schools and
churches. She also called attention to reports that the methadone clinic is
scheduled to open on December 15, therefore, the joint public hearing by Council
and the City Planning Commission will be too late to help the neighborhood. She
asked that the facility be located in an area where families, churches and children
will not be affected.
N:\ckwb 1 \drafts\ 111703.wpd 40
Ms. Arlene Small, 5321 Deer Park Drive, N. E., spoke on behalf of Garden of
prayer No. 7 Church and the surrounding community in opposition to the methadone
clinic on Hershberger Road. She stated that she did not oppose the clinic itself
because there is a need to help people who are addicted to drugs, however, her
opposition rests with the location of the proposed clinic. She called attention to the
number of schools in the area, the building program of the Church, and existing
traffic congestion on Hershberger Road. She requested that the City find another
location for the proposed methadone clinic.
Ms. Anita Price, 3101 Willow Road, N. W., representing the Roanoke Education
Association, advised that the facility will have a great impact on the community and
the children who attend schools in the area. She strongly encouraged Council to
continue to do whatever needs to be done to stop the methadone clinic, and that.
concerned citizens either lobby and/or write to their representatives to the General
Assembly in support of legislation proposed in the City's 2004 Legislative Program.
Ms. Della Millner, 3084 Swarthmore Avenue, N. W., advised that she lives in
close proximity to the proposed clinic. She called attention to existing traffic
conditions, incidents of shooting in the neighborhood and burglaries, all of which
will be compounded with the proposed methadone clinic.
Ms. Lin Johnson, 5904 Wayburn Drive, N. W., representing Garden of Prayer
No. 7 Church, advised that children are the City's most precious commodity;
therefore, she urged that the City continue to seek legislation to ensure that the
proposed methadone clinic is not allowed to open on Hershberger Road.
Ms. Glendora Goode, 3724 Troutland Avenue, N. W., spoke on behalf of
Garden of Prayer No. 7 Church, and advised that the methadone clinic is needed for
persons with drug addiction, but the facility should be located in another area of the
City away from schools and churches. She expressed concern that the clinic will
attract drug dealers who will pose a threat to surrounding neighborhoods.
Ms. Minnie Stamps, 4223 Holmes Street, N. W., spoke on behalf of Garden of
Prayer No. 7 Church, and called attention to the number of children in the area, and
drug dealers that could be attracted to the area because of the proposed methadone
clinic. She suggested that the methadone clinic be located at the Veteran's Hospital
or in the surrounding area.
Ms. Pernella Wilson, 3045 Willow Road, N. W., advised that the northwest
community stands ready to fight against the location of the proposed methadone
clinic in their neighborhood. She referred to three potential locations for the
proposed clinic which are located across the street from the Police Department on
Campbell Avenue where activities can be monitored by the Police Department.
N:\ckwb I \drafts\ 111703.wpd 41
Ms. Gloria Dowe, 3702 High Acres Road, N. W., advised that the Hershberger
Road area consists of office buildings, single family dwellings, apartment buildings,
seven school districts, churches, etc. Therefore, she asked that the neighborhood
be protected against adverse conditions as a result of the proposed methadone
clinic
At 8:25 p.m., the Council meeting was declared in recess until Wednesday,
November 19, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in the Emergency Operations Center Conference
Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City
of Roanoke for a joint meeting of Roanoke City Council and the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors, to continue discussions regarding the proposed Western
Virginia Water Authority.
The meeting of Roanoke City Council reconvened on Wednesday,
November 19, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215
Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, for a joint meeting of Roanoke City
Council and the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith
and Chair Pro Tem Michael W. Altizer presiding.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler,
Linda F. Wyatt and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ......................................................... -4.
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.,
and C. Nelson Harris ........................................................................................ -3.
ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRESENT: Joseph B.
"Butch"Church, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, and Chair Pro Tem Michael W. Altizer ...... 3.
ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ABSENT: Richard C. Flora and
Chairman Joseph P. McNamara .......................................................................... 2.
OTHERS PRESENT: Representing Roanoke City: Darlene L. Burcham, City
Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance;
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk; and Michael T. McEvoy, Director of Utilities.
Representing Roanoke County: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator;
John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; and Gary L. Robertson, Director of
Utilities.
The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum of Roanoke City Council
Members.
N :\ckwb 1 \drafts\ 111703.wpd 42
The invocation was delivered by Council Member William D. Bestpitch.
On behalf of the City and the County, Mayor Smith and Chair Pro Tem Altizer
welcomed all persons to the meeting.
The Mayor called attention to an item on the agenda with regard to
appointment of Roanoke City and Roanoke County designees to the Western Virginia
Water Authority; i.e.: three representatives from Roanoke City and three
representatives from Roanoke County. He stated that City Manager
Darlene L. Burcham and Council Member M. Rupert Cutler will serve as the City's
representatives; however, Council is not prepared to appoint the citizen
representative at this time.
COMMENTS ON JOINT EFFORTS:
The City Manager advised that the work of the two staffs continues to go well;
staffs remain committed to an inclusive process in terms of including employees of
both localities on the various committees and both staffs remain committed to the
principals that were set forth at the beginning of the process which are to submit the
best recommendations in regard to the proposed Western Virginia Water Authority,
i.e.: the best way to address water and waste water on behalf of Roanoke Valley
residents in the future.
Mr. Hodge concurred in the remarks of Ms. Burcham in regard to the
outstanding work of both City and County staffs. He advised that the Board of
Directors of the Western Virginia Water Authority will discover that staff of the
Authority is way ahead in the process with reports, alternatives and
recommendations.
UPDATE ON ASSET REVIEW AND UTILITY RATES:
Mr. Robertson advised that the asset valuation and rate study, which
addresses a ten year period, has been received from Black and Veatch, Consultants,
and ongoing communication will take place with the consultants to address
necessary revisions, which are anticipated to be finalized within approximately 30
days.
Mr. McEvoy commended Black and Veatch for the quality of their work that
involved review of a large volume of financial data.
N:\ckwb 1 \drafts\ 111703.wpd 43
The City Manager advised that staff intended to brief the Council and the
BOard of Supervisors on the asset and valuation study at this meeting; however,
they are currently engaged in a review of the two documents with the consultant;
therefore, the Council and the Board will be requested to schedule another joint
session in December.
In a discussion with regard to issues to be included in the asset and valuation
rate study, Mr. Hodge advised that Roanoke County is currently undergoing a
change in its water rate structure. He explained that Roanoke County's water rate
structure is similar to few in the Commonwealth of Virginia because it is an outdated
method which uses a step process and conversion will involve extra work for County
staff.
A question having been raised earlier in the meeting with regard to provision
of incentives to promote water conservation, Mr. Hodge stated that the issue will
require guidance from the two governing bodies.
OTHER REPORTS:
The City Attorney advised that in December, the two governing bodies will be
requested to schedule a public hearing at which time the Council and the Board of
Supervisors will act on a resolution adopting Water Authority Board by-laws, and,
following the public hearing, the by-laws will be forwarded to the State Corporation
Commission. He stated that it is proposed to submit an operating agreement in mid
January, 2004; however, much work remains to be done prior to submittal.
Upon question with regard to the types of issues to be addressed in the
operating agreement, the City Attorney referred to the following partial list of items:
assets to be contributed by localities to the Authority, real and personal property,
accounts receivable, a method to address outstanding bills owed to the localities,
water and sewer debts of localities, to what extent will be the liability of the system
to be passed on to the Authority, how will pending claims be resolved, which fiscal
year will be used, how the Authority will be structured as an entity,
personnel/employee benefits, vehicular fleet issues, meter reading, etc.
Question was raised as to whether all current water payment options will be
retained; whereupon, Mr. Hall advised that the intent is to make payments as
convenient as possible via mail, bank drafts, in person, or through collection boxes,
etc.
N:\ckwb l\drafts\l 11703.wpd 44
Once the Board of Directors is appointed, an inquiry was made as to the
method of transitioning from a City/County operation to an Authority operation;
whereupon, Mr. Mahoney advised that the goal is to work toward a July 1, 2004
switch over, at which time the new Authority will be operational. He further advised
that during the first four to five months a dual-hybrid operating system will exist; in
January 2004, both governing bodies will hold a public hearing to consider
concurrent resolutions adopting the Articles of Incorporation, including individual
names of the initial Board of Directors, which will be forwarded to the State
Corporation Commission; it is anticipated that State Corporation Commission
approval will take approximately two weeks; and a charter will be received from the
State Corporation Commission at which time the Authority will become a legally
operating entity, effective July 1, 2004. He stated that the Board of Directors will
then prepare a budget, following State Code provisions regarding notices and public
hearings, in regard to establishing initial water rates, adopt policies, procedures, and
by laws and make decisions as to key officials, all of which will enable the Authority
to be operational on July 1, 2004.
Mr. Hodge advised that initial appointees to the Authority Board of Directors
will meet briefly following this meeting to discuss future meeting dates and duties
and responsibilities. He spoke to the importance of involving and communicating
with citizens of both Roanoke City and Roanoke County to ensure that citizen
suggestions are considered and/or incorporated into procedures.
There was discussion in regard to public involvement in which it was pointed
out that the series of meetings that were held in the City and the County did not
generate a large amount of citizen participation, and rather than schedule stand
alone meetings, there might be an advantage for staff to attend neighborhood
meetings in the City and the County, etc. Other options discussed were to apprize
neighborhood organizations that presentations will be made by City/County staff,
upon request by the organization, or presentations could be made to the City's
Presidents Council which meets on a monthly basis (the Presidents Council is
composed of representatives of City of Roanoke neighborhood associations) and
representatives to the Presidents Council could make reports to their individual
neighborhood organizations.
The City Manager advised that when answers are in place in regard to
questions that have been raised by citizens, there will be more citizen interest and
better participation in meetings; and as the process moves forward, Council and the
Board of Supervisors will be requested to provide guidance to staff with regard to
dissemination of information and/or public meetings.
N:\ckwb 1 \drafts\l 11703.wpd 45
The Director of Finance advised that Finance staff of both localities have
prOvided financial information to the consultant, and both staffs have reviewed the
draft report of Black and Veatch to ensure that financial data was accurately
interpreted. He further advised that the City and the County have closed on Virginia
Resource Authority loans relative to the Waste Water Treatment Plant upgrade in the
context of the current contractual arrangement which will eventually become a part
of the debt of the Authority; and He stated that earlier in the year, the City refinanced
part of its outstanding waste water treatment bonds because the rate environment
was conducive to a lower interest rate, which will become a part of the debt of the
Authority; and the City's debt for water and waste water general obligation debt is
not in revenue bonds, therefore, the City can transfer assets to the Authority without
a restrictive rate and revenue debt. He advised that staff continues to be diligent in
its task and does not under estimate the amount of work yet to be done prior to
July 1, 2004.
DESIGNATION OF CITY/COUNTY MEMBERS TO THE WESTERN VIRGINIA
WATER AUTHORITY:
Representing Roanoke County, Mr. Church moved that the following persons
be appointed to the Western Virginia Water Authority Board of Directors:
H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix - Four Year Term
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator - Three Year Term
Michael W. Altizer - Member, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors -
Two Year Term
The motion was adopted.
Representing the City of Roanoke, Mr. Bestpitch moved that the following
persons be appointed to the Western Virginia Water Authority Board of Directors:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager - Three Year Term
M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member - Two Year Term
The citizen designee will be appointed at a later date.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Bestpitch, Wyatt and Mayor Smith .............. -4.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................ 0.
(Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick and Vice-Mayor Harris were absent.)
N:\ckwbl\drafts\l 11703.wpd 46
OTHER COMMENTS: Mr. Church commended the spirit of cooperation that
has existed between Roanoke City and Roanoke County, and advised that today the
two localities are on the threshold of one of the most important issues that has faced
the Roanoke Valley in many years. He expressed appreciation to his colleagues on
the Board of Supervisors, the Members of Roanoke City Council and the staffs of the
two localities for all of the work that has been done to serve the citizens of the
Roanoke Valley for many years to come.
Mr. Bestpitch also commended City and County staffs and advised that he was
proud to be a part of a Council that has worked with the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors to reach a point that others in the past have only talked about. He
stated that much of the credit is due to the citizens of the Roanoke Valley who have
supported the concept and were ready to work together in a cooperative manner. He
advised that it is hoped that creation of the water authority will be an indication of
the kind of future cooperation and support of a broad array of services; i.e.: fire and
emergency medical services ultimately leading to one department to serve the entire
Roanoke Valley. He referred to a combined library system, parks and recreation
department and a number of other services that will lead to greater efficiencies in
government for both localities.
Ms. Wyatt suggested that letters of appreciation be forwarded to the various
committees commending staff for the work that has already been done and for their
continuing efforts to make the water authority a success.
Mr. Altizer advised that much work remains to be done, time lines are vitally
important and many additional hours of work will be involved to bring the Water
Authority to fruition in July 2004. He echoed his respect for both staffs and stated
that Roanoke City and Roanoke County have set the example of what other localities
can do, and the example that the City and the County have set will pave the path to
future boundaries of regional cooperation with the localities of Botetourt,
Montgomery and Christiansburg, because those areas are looking closely at
accomplishments by local officials of the Roanoke Valley. He advised that the
responsibility lies with Roanoke County, Roanoke City, the City of Salem and the
Town of Vinton to come together on as many issues as possible and once the
barriers of the past are removed, the goal of regional cooperation for the good of the
entire Roanoke Valley will be achieved. He stated that the action taken by Roanoke
County and Roanoke City in regard to the water authority is government at its
highest and best.
The Mayor called attention to the importance of open communication with the
citizens of the Roanoke Valley, and any changes should be communicated to the
citizens as soon as possible which will be the key to a successful beginning for the
Western Virginia Water Authority on July 1, 2004.
N:\ckwb I \drafts\ 111703.wpd 47
There being no further business, at 10:45 a.m., the Mayor declared the meeting
of Roanoke City Council in recess until Friday, November 21, 2003, at 8:30 a.m., at
the Roanoke Higher Education Center, 108 N. Jefferson Street, for the Roanoke City
Council/Roanoke City School Board Retreat.
The meeting of Roanoke City Council reconvened on Friday, November 21,
2003, at 8:30 a.m., at the Roanoke Higher Education Center, 108 N. Jefferson Street,
Room 501, City of Roanoke, Virginia, for a joint meeting of Council and the Roanoke
City School Board, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith and Chairperson Gloria P. Manns
presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler (left the
meeting at 2:30 p.m.) Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. (left the meeting at 12:00 noon), Beverly T.
Fitzpatrick, Jr. (left the meeting at 12:00 noon) C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt,
(arrived at 9:30 a.m.), and Mayor Ralph K. Smith (left the meeting at 1:30 p.m.)----7.
ABSENT: None ...................................................................................... -0.
SCHOOL TRUSTEES PRESENT: Kathy G. Stockburger, David B. Trinkle,
Robert J. Sparrow, Ruth C. Willson, William H. Lindsey, Melinda J. Payne (arrived at
8:15 a.m.), and Gloria P. Manns, Chair .............................................................. 7.
SCHOOL TRUSTEES ABSENT: None ....................................................... -0.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Mary F. Parker, City Clerk; Elizabeth K. Dillon, Assistant
City Attorney; Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools;
and Cindy H. Lee, Clerk to the Roanoke City School Board.
The meeting was facilitated by Lyle Sumek, Lyle Sumek Associates.
The Mayor advised that at a joint meeting of Council and the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, November 19, 2003, Council Member M. Rupert
Cutler and City Manager Darlene L. Burcham were appointed as the City's
representatives to the Western Virginia Water Authority; whereupon, he opened the
floor for nominations for the citizen appointee representing the City of Roanoke.
Mr. Cutler moved that Robert C. Lawson be appointed as the City of Roanoke
citizen representative for a term of four years. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Fitzpatrick and adopted, Council Member Wyatt had not arrived at the meeting.
N:\ckwb l\drafts\l 11703.wpd 48
COUNCIL-SCHOOLS: Mr. Sumek advised that the Council and the School
Board have experienced an interesting and challenging year. He reviewed some of
the issues that were discussed at the Council/School Board retreat in February 2003;
i.e.: revisiting joint meetings of Council and the School Board, joint work teams,
identification of issues and action steps, joint marketing and branding, work force
development, a joint facilities use study, stadium and facilities, funding issues, high
schools renovation/construction, joint lobbying strategy, define responsibilities for
joint cooperation, health care for employees, and citizen involvement.
He suggested a frank discussion between Council and the School Board
looking at first the product that both entities are trying to produce and thinking about
some of the outcomes that Council and the School Board would like to see as a
result of the discussion. He called attention to the need to market a product in the
community; i.e.: how safe are Roanoke's schools which is a product that has value
to citizens.
Ms. Payne entered the meeting at 8:55 a.m.
Mr. Sumek requested that Council and the School Board break out into three
groups to discuss the following question: What is the product you see coming out of
Roanoke's school system?
Following the break out session, the groups reported as follows:
Group No 1:
Ability to think critically
Creation of an environment where individual potential can be achieved
Students become life long learners - continue to open our doors to people
Prepare and develop the workforce
Good citizens
Group No. 2:
Literate, civic minded contributions to the larger community
Positive and enthusiastic attitude toward identifying life long learning
Motivate "self-sufficient" graduates with career goals in mind
Prepare to adapt to the ever changing technological society
N:\ckwb 1 \drafts\l 11703.wpd 49
Group No. 3:
Good citizenship, responsible citizens who know about the community.,
understand laws, vote and participate in the process
Economically productive individual skills with job work ethics- individuals to
reach their goal or potential/work with others
Prepared to parent - basic skills - responsible parenting
Life learning adults, relevant to each useful valued experience in school -
ambassador for the schools/city
The facilitator then asked that the Members of Council and the Members of the
School Board meet in separate rooms for approximately 30 minutes to focus on the
following questions:
What are the challenges you see to produce the product?
What is the message you have for the other body?
Following completion of the exercise, Council and the School Board
reconvened in open session with the facilitator. Staff was asked to leave the room;
however, according to Members of Council who remained in the session, it was the
consensus of the Council that Vice-Mayor C. Nelson Harris would report for the
Council. A portion of the report stated that a majority of the Council has lost
confidence in the School Superintendent's ability to lead the school system and
Council Members believe that the School Board has reacted lethargically to
important business issues.
Following lunch, the meeting reconvened in Room 501 of the Roanoke Higher
Education Center.
Mr. Sumek advised that the remainder of the session would be devoted to a
discussion of future expectations and ways by which the Council and the School
Board can work together more effectively; i.e.: What are critical issues short term
and what are the Council's expectations in order to enhance the relationship with the
School Board and the community.
The following is a summary, as stated by the facilitator, with regard to
expectations by Council of the School Board:
To set overall policy and direction for the schools in the City of
Roanoke;
To govern the school system taking responsibility for the product
(engage in critical thinking and question issues and recommendations);
To compile a real and workable budget with an eye on today and future
needs;
N:\ckwb 1 \drafts\ 111703.wpd
50
To set the standards and give guidance to the Superintendent from the
schools' vision to specific expectations;
To be public advocates by marketing public education and the schools
to the community - a "sales team";
To be sensitive to the job market, training opportunities, and special
training needs;
To seek feedback from the community on performance and issues
visible in the community in dealing with the community to anticipate
and identify issues and needs prior to the issues and needs becoming a
crisis;
To identify services, scopes beyond the School Board's normal range -
community service needs;
· Schools respond to questions/mistakes and clarification.
During a discussion, the following suggestions were offered by individual
Council Members to the School Board:
If the School Board is working on an issue that needs clarification
throughout the community, a member of the School Board could draft
an op ed piece for publication in The Roanoke Times. Council has
taken this approach on several occasions in regard to the water
authority, the City's annual accomplishments, etc. Information was
shared with Council Members prior to forwarding the article to the
newspaper which allowed Council Members an opportunity to provide
input, thus, the article was representative of the Council. There may be
other occasions when an individual School Board Member might wish
to articulate an individual opinion which would not necessarily speak
on behalf of the entire School Board and it should be stated in the letter
that it was the opinion of one School Board member.
Concern has been expressed with regard to lack of attendance by
parents at meetings. The City of Roanoke has established
approximately 35 neighborhood organizations, some of which represent
a large area of the City, therefore, any information that the School
Board would lik® to take to the community could be addressed through
the various neighborhood organizations.
N:\ckwb 1 \draffs\l 11703.wpd 51
The City Manager advised that many times the written word is accepted as the
final word; letters to The Editor in The Roanoke Times could be answered when
clarification is in order; and many times City staff will contact a person who has
written a Letter to the Editor to provide the necessary clarification. She stated that
police officers attend neighborhood meetings on a monthly basis and it might be
advantageous for representatives of the school system to also attend neighborhood
meetings to report on activities in the schools that serve specific neighborhoods,
which could also bring the community closer to the schools.
Parent-Teacher Association meetings, activities and school events
could be reported to the applicable neighborhood association so that
the community that the school serves is aware of the positive things
that are happening in the school.
If there are misperceptions in the community, the Chair, or Vice-Chair,
or a Member of the School Board could schedule a five to ten minute
briefing at a Council meeting to address the specific issue or topic.
Quarterly meetings of Council and the School Board should be held to
address critical issues.
Following a discussion, it was the consensus of the Council and the School
Board that the "buddy system" is working and should be continued.
At 1:30 p.m., the Mayor left the meeting.
The facilitator led the Council and the School Board in an exercise listing
critical issues that need to be addressed in the next two to three months where
dialogue and/or closure is needed in terms of process.
The following is a summary:
To address safety issues in order to rebuild confidence in the school
system:
The School Safety Task Force will report in late February/early
March 2004 (Schools to act)
N:\ckwbl\drafts\l 11703.wpd 52
Rebuild confidence in the school system:
Successes/achievements
Marketing schools
Tours for the community (schools to do)
Invite School Board representative to BizBreak (Breakfast meetings
with representatives of various businesses to discuss issues of
concern.)
3. Communicate a sense of support for teachers and staff (schoolstodo)
Stadium-related issues:
Turf
Leases
Fees/priority of use
Maintenance
5. Accreditation for Schools (schools to do)
School funding resources
Joint lobbying efforts (December meeting with legislators)
Creation of a Public Schools Foundation (schools to do)
Being proactive about the accomplishments of the schools
8. Schools/traffic calming (agreed to remove from list)
School Superintendent expectations/performance/direction (schools to
act on)
10.
School - City communications (This will be addressed if Council/School
Board follow through on some of the above listed items.)
With regard to taking the above listed items to action, the following
suggestions were offered:
Council and the School Board should meet quarterly on the first
Monday of the month.
N:\ckwb l\drafts\l 11703.wpd 53
There was discussion with regard to bids submitted for the turf at the
prOposed new stadium on Orange Avenue/VVilliamson Road; whereupon, the City
Manager advised that the City is negotiating with the Iow bidder on the basis of
natural turf, unless she is told otherwise; and if, at a later point in the process, the
school system is willing to pay the difference of approximately $200,000.00 for
artificial turf, the contract can be amended. Discussion also took place in regard to
maintenance/operation costs for the stadium.
It was the consensus of Council and the School Board to meet on Monday,
January 5, 2004, at 12:00 noon, to discuss stadium related issues; i.e.: turf, leases,
fees/priority of use and maintenance.
It would appropriate for Council and the School Board to hold a joint-
meeting to receive the report of the School Safety Task Force.
It would be beneficial for the School Board to send a representative to
the City's monthly BizBreak breakfast meetings, which are held with
representatives of local businesses in the Roanoke Valley.
There being no further business to come before the Council, at 3:00 p.m., the
Vice-Mayor declared the Roanoke City Council meeting in recess until Monday,
November 24, 2003, at 3:30 p.m. to discuss a vacancy in a Constitutional Office.
(The meeting was later rescheduled to be held as a special meeting of the Council on
Tuesday, November 25, 2003, at 3:30 p.m., in the Council's Conference Room.)
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mary F Parker
City Clerk
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
N:\ckwb I \drafts\l 11703.wpd 54
SPECIAL SESSION .... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
November 25, 2003
3:30 p.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in special session on Tuesday,
November 25, 2003, at 3:30 p.m., in the City Council's Conference Room, fourth floor,
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke,
Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith presiding, pursuant to Section 10, Meetings of
Council Generally, Charter of the City of Roanoke, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith
presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T.
Dowe, Jr. (arrived late), Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. (arrived late), C. Nelson Harris,
Linda F. Wyatt, and Mayor. Ralph K. Smith ................................................... 7.
ABSENT: None ....................................................................... - ........ -----0.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
The special meeting was called pursuant to the following communication from
Vice-Mayor Harris:
"November 24, 2003
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council:
Pursuant to Section 10, Meetings of Council Generally, Chapter 10 of the City
Charter, I am calling a special meeting of Council for Tuesday, November 25, 2003, at
3:30 p.m., in the Council's Conference Room, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke. The purpose of the meeting
will be to discuss appointment of a Constitutional Officer.
Sincerely,
CKBS]\inserts\112503ins.wpd. 1
SiC. Nelson Harris
C. Nelson Harris
Vice-Mayor
pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk"
Mr. Cutler moved that Council convene in a Closed Session to discuss a
personnel matter, being the appointment of a Constitutional Officer, pursuant to
SeCtion 2.2-3711(a)(1), Code of Virginia (1950) as amended. The motion was'
seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Harris, Wyatt and Mayor Smith---5.
NAYS: None .......................................
(Council Members Dowe and Fitzpatrick were not present when the vote was
recorded.)
At 3:35 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for one closed Session.
(Council Members Dowe and Fitzpatrick entered the meeting during the Closed
Session.)
At 7:35 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Council's Conference Room, with
all Members of the Council in attendance, except Mayor Smith, Vice-Mayor Harris
presiding.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Mr. Bestpitch
moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her knowledge
that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempt from open meeting
requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2) only such
public business matters as were identified in any motion by which any Closed
Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Wyatt, and Vice-
Mayor Harris ....................................................
CKBS ] \inserts\l 12503ins.wpd. 2
NAYS: None. ......................................................... . ._ _
(Mayor Smith was absent.)
COUNCIL-CITY TREASURER: Ms. Wyatt moved that the City Attorney be
instructed to prepare the proper measure appointing Evelyn W. Powers as City
Treasurer, effective January 1, 2004. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch
and adoPted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Wyatt and Vice-
Mayor Harris .....................................
NAYS:None .............................................................................
(Mayor Smith was absent.)
There being no further business, the Vice-Mayor declared the spec al meeting
adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
CKBS l \insens\112$03ins.wpd. 3
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ..... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
December t, 2003
9:00 a.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday,
December 1, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., the regular meeting hour, in the Emergency
Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building,
215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith
presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, City Council, Section
2-15, Rules of Procedure, Rule 1, ~, Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended; and pursuant to Resolution No. 36193-010603 adopted on
January 6, 2003, which changed the time of commencement of the regular meeting
of Council to be held on the first Monday in each month from 12:15 p.m. to 9:00 a.m.
PRESENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., William D. Bestpitch,
M. Rupert Cutler, and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ................................................... ----4.
ABSENT: Vice-Mayor C. Nelson Harris and Council Members Beverly T.
Fitzpatrick, Jr., and Linda F. Wyatt ..................... , .................................. ~ ............. 3.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, ·
City Clerk.
CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr.,
Chair, City Council Personnel Committee, requesting that Council convene in a
Closed Meeting to discuss the mid-year performance of two Council-Appointed
Officers, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(I), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,
was before the body.
Mr. Dowe moved that Council concur in the request to convene in a Closed
Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Bestpitch, Cutler and Mayor Smith .............. -4.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0.
(Vice-Mayor Harris and council Members Fitzpatrick and Wyatt were absent.)
PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY PROPERTY-CITY COUNCIL: A
communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in a Closed
Meeting to discuss disposition of publicly-owned property, where discussion in
open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position, or negotiating strategy
of the public body, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, was before the body. .
Mr. Dowe moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager to
convene in a Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Bestpitch, Cutler and Mayor Smith ............. -4.
NAYS: None ....................................................................................... 0.
(Vice-Mayor Harris and Council Members Fitzpatrick and Wyatt were absent.)
PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY PROPERTY-CITY COUNCIL: A
communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in a Closed
Meeting to discuss disposition of publicly-owned property, where discussion in
open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position, or negotiating strategy
of the public body, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, was before the body.
Mr. Dowe moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager to
convene in a Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Bestpitch, Cutler and Mayor Smith ............. -4.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Vice-Mayor Harris and Council Members Fitzpatrick and Wyatt were absent.)
PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY PROPERTY-CITY COUNCIL: A
communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in a Closed
Meeting to discuss acquisition of real property for public purpose, where discussion
in open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position, or negotiating
strategy of the public body, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(3), Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, was before the body.
Mr. Dowe moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager to
convene in a Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
CkBS 1 \minutes03\120103.wpd
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Bestpitch, Curler and Mayor Smith-----;------4.
NAYS: None .............................................................................. ;- ..... ----0.
(Vice-Mayor Harris and Council Members Fitzpatrick and Wyatt were absent.)
ITEMS LISTED ON THE 2:00 P.M. COUNCIL DOCKET REQUIRING
DiSCUSSION/CLARIFICATION; AND ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE 2:00~P.M.
DOCKET: NONE.
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL:
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE LEGISLATIVE DAY REGIONAL DINNER: The
City Manager advised that Virginia Municipal League Legislative Day will be held on
February 12, 2004, in Richmond, Virginia, and inquired as to whether Council would
like to participate in a Regional Legislative Day Dinner on the evening of
February 12. She explained that the first regional dinner was organized by the City
of Roanoke in 2002 and by Roanoke County in 2003.
Discussion:
The majority Of Council expressed an interest in participating in a regional
dinner which would include localities extending into the New River Valley, and
would be beneficial toward increasing Roanoke's ties and cooperation with
local governments in the New River Valley area.
The upper Roanoke River watershed geography could be used as a basis for
the invitation list.
Representatives of jurisdictions represented by the Roanoke Valley-Allegheny
Regional Commission and the New River Valley Regional Commission should
be invited.
Council Member Bestpitch, acting as the chief elected officer of the Roanoke
Valley Alleghany Regional Commission, and the chief elected official of the
New River Valley Regional Commission could co-chair the meeting, which
would be limited to those jurisdictions represented in the two regions.
There was discuss Onr in regard to topics of discussion that will be of
common interest to all participants; whereupon, the City Manager advised that light
passenger rail is a subject of interest to both the Roanoke and the New River Valley
Regional Planning Districts; other suggestions include rail passenger, rail freight, a
IOw fare airline, bus service, all of which represent transportation issues that the
localities share a common interest.
Council Member Bestpitch advised that the Roanoke Valley's delegation to the
General Assembly and Senators should be called upon to provide input in regard to
topics of discussion of interest to all of the participating localities, and he would talk
with Senator Edwards and Senator-Elect Bell to obtain their suggestions. He stated
that in conjunction with the Executive Director of the Roanoke Valley Allegheny
Regional Commission, he would also contact his Counter part at the New River
Valley Regional Commission to determine the level of interest in participating in the
regional dinner on February 12.
(Council Member Wyatt entered the meeting.)
Council/School Board Joint Session:
The City Manager advised that at the Council and School Board retreat on"
Friday, November 21, 2003, Council requested a more detailed discussion with
regard to the stadium turf issue and it was agreed that Council and the School Board
would meet jointly on Monday, January 5, 2004, to discuss the matter.
The City Manager referred to a letter addressed to the Superintendent of
Schools in which it was noted that when the budget was established for Victory
Stadium, natural turf was being considered; since the budget was adopted,
significant improvements have taken place in artificial turf; and representatives of
the schools athletic organizations and City staff visited nine different locations that
are currently using an artificial playing field and heard positive reviews by officials
from some facilities that have been in use for as long as seven years. She stated
that based upon the support of athletic directors toward artificial turf and given the
fact that there is approximately a $200,000.00 difference, she suggested to the
Superintendent of Schools that the school system consider funding the additional
$200,000.00 for artificial turf. She further pointed out that if the Schools are
interested in funding the additional $200,000.00, she would suggest to Council that
the funds be repaid to the City over a period of time. She noted that the
Superintendent of Schools responded that the School Board would reconsider the
matter in January 2004, the School Board has questions, not just about artificial turf,
but in regard to the scheduling events for the schools, whether or not the schools
would be "bumped" if there was a major entertainment event at the stadium, stadium
rental issues, and whether or nOt the playing field would be available for training
activities as well as game activities.
There was discussion in regard to the merits of artificial versus natural turf;
the practice of charging the school system for use of the stadium, in which one
Member of Council stated that he was not aware of a high school sports program
anywhere in the United States that does not cost the school syStem any money; the
true cost of Roanoke's education system; using a different (local) facilitator for
future Council/School Board retreats; and that there be more open and spontaneous
dialogue among Council and the School Board, as opposed to an overly structured
agenda format.
4
CkBSl\minutes03\120103.wpd
The City Manager advised that while the schools may not have a formal
contract for use of the stadium, the City has a moral contract with the school
system, and would not "bump" a school event from the stadium.
The City Manager further advised that the City could move forWard with
natural turf, with the understanding that a change order could be considered for "x"
period of time with the contractor; and the City has budgeted strictly for natural turf
at this point, assuming that negotiations are successful within the budget that has
been prepared for this element of the project. She added that the two items that
were selected for alternates beyond the base bid for the stadium project include the
irrigation system and turf, and all other elements that were bid as alternates have
been excluded at this point.
In addition to the stadium turf issue, the City Manager inquired if there are
other items that Council would like to discuss at the joint meeting with the School
Board on January 4; whereupon, Dr. Cutler suggested consolidating joint operations
such as purchasing, human resources, and medical insurance; whereupon, the City
Manager advised that if Council and the School Board direct the City and School
administrations to work on the issues, some progress could and would be made.
Dr. Cutler inquired if the Members of Council share his interest, in which
several Council Members concurred.
Council Member Wyatt suggested that the two administrations start with a
topic such as joint purchasing and then move on to other areas of joint cooperation;
whereupon, the Director of Finance advised that the City's Finance Department
currently provides accounting and payroll operations for the schools at no annual
charge.
The City Manager advised that she contacted the School Superintendent to
determine if the School Board preferred a different facilitator for the Council/School
Board retreat on Friday, November 21, and after polling School Board members,
Dr. Harris advised that the School Board was comfortable with using the facilitator
who was engaged; it is not an easy task to find local facilitators and staff is not
adverse to taking a different approach and suggest that the School Board select the
facilitator for the next Council/School Board retreat.
CkBS l\minutesO3\120103,wpd
Schedulin.q of future meetin.qs with the S'chool Board:
It was the consensus of Council to meet with the School Board on the first
Monday of each quarter for a joint work session, in addition to the meetings which
are held in May with regard to the upcoming fiscal year budget and in December to
discuss the proposed City/Schools Legislative Program. It was suggested that the
Council/School Board engage in a discussion at the January 5 joint meeting with
regard topics of discussion at future work sessions and to prioritize agenda items;
and that an equal number of meetings will be held at sites to be selected by the
School Board.
The Mayor advised that in the year 2007, the Tidewater area will celebrate the
400th anniversary of Jamestown; inasmuch as the City of Roanoke will celebrate its
12~th anniversary in 2007, there have been discussions in regard to local'
celebrations, such as a 1607 greenway, or a 1607 art project; and State and/or
Federal funds may be available for various projects. The Mayor asked that the City
be mindful of potential opportunities.
It was pointed out that there might be a way to involve EventZone and Local
Colors, etc., in the celebration to plan an activity that recognizes the multi,cultural
nature of the indigenous peoples and the early explorers; the possibility of working
with the local Hispanic community to plan a activity focusing on the Spanish
exploration, or the Monacan Indians at Big Island in Amherst County, or the Indian
Interpretation Program at Explore Park, etc.
It was suggested that a local resident, Gary Foutz, a native American Indian,
could provide a wealth of information.
BRIEFINGS:
The City Manager advised that prior to adjournment of the Council meeting,
she would like to include a third briefing in regard to the First Street Bridge.
Nancy C. Snodgrass, City Planner, presented a briefing on the Zoning
Ordinance; i.e.: New Zoning Districts.
She advised that the policy basis for new districts, as contained in Vision
2001-2020, is to ensure compatibility of uses within residential areas, to encourage
airport-related uses on properties adjacent to the airport, to maximize use of
commercial sites, and to protect the river corridor and open space; and there are
four base zoning districts: Institutional, Airport Development, Commercial Large
Site, Recreation and Open Space, and One Overlay District (River and Creek
Corridors).
¢~ERRl\minutes03\120103.wpd
She explained that the institutional (IN) District is necessary to recognize the
unique needs of institutional uses, to ensure cohesive development of a site, and to
minimize adverse impacts of institutional uses on neighboring residential uses; and
the Institutional District is applied to sites of less than five acres, with one permitted
use, with permitted uses including day care centers, schools, places of worship and
libraries.
The Airport Development District is necessary to address the unique purpose
of a specific area to complement the Airport Navigation Overlay District, and the
Roanoke Regional Airport Master Plan approved by the Federal Aviation
Administration; and the Airport Development District is applied to all properties
owned by the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission as delineated by the Master
Plan, and to properties adjacent to the airport designated for airport supportive and
airport-related uses.
The Commercial Large Site District (CLS) is necessary to provide for
regulation different from commercial corridor single-lot develop, m. en.t, e.ncourages
cohesive development of a site and improved controls to m,n,mlze impact on
surrounding uses and to lessen environmental impacts; and it is applied to large-
scale, auto-dependent uses, accommodates multiple buildings, typically one lot or
combination of lots with multiple tenants sharing common parking curb cuts, and
access to and from Public streets, and uses include shopping centers and large
motor vehicle sales and service establishments.
The Recreation and Open Space District (ROS) is necessary to provide added
protection for existing open space and parks, to prevent encroachment of
incompatible land uses and to provide for limited development within open space;
there is no minimum lot size, and permitted uses include active and passive parks,
recreational facilities, golf courses and cemeteries.
River and Creek Corridors (RCC) Overlay District is necessary to provide
additional protection to the waters of the Roanoke River, to preserve natural
vegetation, features and quality of properties along the waterways, and to implement
additional environmental best management practices; and the district will
supplement base district zoning regulations, designate properties that abut the
shorelines to be determined by the adopted zoning map and serves as a riparian
buffer requirement.
Ms. Wyatt suggested that development of property around the Roanoke
Regional Airport be a topic of discussion ata future joint meeting of Council and the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. She cautioned that regulations not be so
restrictive as to prevent the conduct of business in the area.
CkBSl\minutes03\120103.wpd
Ms. Snodgrass advised that the draft ordinance will be reviewed by the Zoning
Ordinance Steering Committee on December 16, 2003; public comment will be
in~,ited for approximately three months, the Steering Committee will then work with
City Planning staff based on public comments, and it could be late Spring before the
document is submitted to Council for consideration.
The Mayor inquired if portions of the proposed new zoning ordinance ~ould be
submitted to Council for action sooner than the Spring of 2004; whereupon, staff
advised that the proposed regulations work together as a complete package and, if
certain portions are acted on separately by the Council, the new ordinance may not
be as effective; and much depends on the public comment phase of the process,
which could lead to further study by the Steering Committee and staff; and the next
meeting of the Steering Committee is critical in terms of determining whether the
document is ready for public comment, or if more work remains to be done.
The City Manager introduced a briefing on traffic calming in the Jamison
Avenue/Bullitt Avenue area.
Mark Jamison, Traffic Engineer, advised that the Jamison Avenue/Bullitt
Avenue corridor is one of the numerous projects included in the Southeast by
Design project, which is an effort to revitalize the neighborhood. He stated that
Jamison/Bullitt Avenues have developed over the course of years as arterial
roadways and carry approximately 29,000 vehicles per day; historically, they are
residential neighborhoods, and the proximity of the houses to the street is very
much a residential character, but the roadways function as arterial. He added that
the stated goal of the project is to slowdown the speed of vehicles traveling through
the area; the single largest problem identified in the corridor is that it is straight, flat
and very easy to drive well over the speed limit; and when the project is complete
and speeds have been dropped back, the area will be a much more livable
neighborhood. He stated that landscaping is proposed to improve the character of
the neighborhood; various measures proposed to slow down the speed are: a
splitter which is a landscaped island located essentially in the middle of the roadway
that requires the two lanes of traffic to move out and literally drive around the
divider; a splitter has been proposed coming in on Bullitt Avenue at Sixth Street and
another splitter is proposed coming in from Vinton at Thirteenth Street; and splitters
are proposed on either side of Ninth Street to pick up traffic coming up on Ninth
Street and into the corridor. He stated that those measures are the signature
feature and will introduce the driver to the feeling that they are approaching
something new and different; and by virtue of diverting the travel out of a straight
traffic path, with the addition of heavily landscaped medians, both a physical and a
mental obstruction is provided and tends to force drivers to slow down.
CkBS1\minutes03\120103.wpd
He advised that the second method is a chicane which is an arterial shift; i.e.:
the driver would be driving for example on the right side of the roadway where there
is parking on the left, as they go though the chicane, they would then transfer over
and drive to the left side of the roadway with parking on the right; there a're a number
of parking bays which allow parking on one side whereby motorists will drive in
more narrow travel lanes than currently'exist; and the pavement is approximately 30
feet wide and will shift down to about an 11 foot driveway, into a 7 - 8 foot parking
lane, which should encourage some of the residents to once again park on the
street. He stated that another method to slow down traffic is a choker, which is a
feature that would be installed primarily at intersections that narrows the travel lane;
there would be some landscaping and trees in the area; the choker narrows the
width of the roadway for pedestrians, which decreases the amount of time that a
pedestrian is actually in the street while crossing, it allows the driver on the side
street to pull farther onto the pavement, which improves visibility down the section
of roadway and should improve safety as drivers turn onto the corridor. He stated
that the key to making these types of features work is the frequency of the feature;
and there are certain features on almost every block to allow for a 300 - 500 foot
spacing that will force drivers to make the decision to slow down.
Mr. Jamison presented a conceptual plan which was reviewed' at a public
involvement meeting by the Southeast by Design Steering Committee and the City
Planning Commission. He stated that staff would like to get a general consensus
from the Council that it is headed in the right direction, at which time the matter will
be turned over to a consultant for completion of final design documen[s in
approximately December 2004, advertise for bids in February/March 2004, and award
a construction contract in March/April 2004, with completion anticipated in the
summer of 2004.
Question was raised as to whether traffic exiting 1-581 across Elm Avenue
traveling in the direction of the Town of Vinton has been studied; whereupon,
Mr. Jamison advised that the proposal is not intended to impede the flow of traffic,
but to slow down traffic; the Elm Avenue Interchange is included in the City's local
long range transportation plan and the State's long range transportation plan; and a
meeting will be scheduled with the Virginia Department of Transportation to
establish the scope of the study.
The City Manager advised that the bigger issue is the Elm Avenue area and the
interchange; Council previously authorized funding to study the area, and City staff
has been working with VDOT officials on the study. She advised that the proposed
traffic calming measures are'intended to encourage persons to live in this section of
the City, and the proposed measures will make the area more livable, although there
continues to be a need to address the Elm Avenue area.
Mr. King called attention to discussions With VDOT officials as a part of the
pre allocation hearing in regard to the area where speed builds up from Thirteenth
Street to the Vinton boundary line at the point where pedestrians cross the road at
Fallon Park up to the Arby's Restaurant; and advised that a traffic signal has been
recommended for Dale Avenue and Vernon Street, which will help to break up the
flow of traffic; and a median will be installed as a part of the Urban Forestry effort,
with landscaping. He added that although the Bullitt/Jamison project does not
extend to the Thirteenth StreetNinton line, improvements could be made through
urban forestry efforts and other more direct efforts.
In response to various questions, Mr. Jamison advised that the streets will
continue to have the character of two lanes in each direction, adjacent streets are
veT narrow with parking on both sides, and diverting traffic to other streets does
not appear to be a problem.
Concern was also expressed that trees included in the landscaping design
could obscure the visibility of motorists in making turns at corners; whereupon, Mr.
Jamison advised that a meeting is scheduled with the consultant and the City's
Urban Forester to discuss types of landscaping and types of trees to be planted to
ensure that trees grow up rather than out and do not block visibility.
The Mayor expressed concern in regard to diverting traffic into other
neighborhoods; and the need for an arterial highway to the east and at some point in
time it will be necessary to address an arterial highway alternative to Orange
Avenue. He stated that the proposal before Council would make the Bullitt/Jamison
Corridor area a little safer, but what'will be the cost in terms of safety to other
alternative roads.
Mr. Jamison advised that nothing is being proposed to be done that will
reduce the capacity of the roadway; and once traffic calming measures are installed
and constructed, motorists will recognize that there is very little, if any, reduction in
travel time. He called attention to the long range plan that includes a list of projects
known as "Thirteenth Street projects" which provide for improvements on Tazewell
Avenue and Thirteenth Street across the railroad tracks, Campbell and Wise
Avenues and measures that are proposed to alleviate some of the problems in those
areas; and the long range plan also recognizes the need for another roadway to
access the City.
At 11:30 a.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess and the Council
moved to the Council's Conference Room, Room 451, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, for a Closed Session on the mid year performance of a Council Appointed
Officer.
l0
CkBS1\minutesO3\120103,wpd
At 12:15 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the Emergency OperationS
Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, for a joint
meeting of council and the Roanoke City School Board, with Mayor Smith and
School Board Chair Gloria Manns presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., C. Nelson Harris, Linda F.
Wyatt, William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler and Mayor Ralph K. Smith .............. -6,
ABSENT: Council Member Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.- ................................ 1.
SCHOOL TRUSTEES PRESENT: William H. Lindsey, Robert Sparrow, Kathy G.
Stockburger, David B. Trinkle, Ruth C. Willson and Chair Gloria P. Manns .............. 6.
ABSENT: School Trustee Melinda J. Payne .............................................. 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Representing the City of Roanoke: Darlene L.
Burcham, City Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director
of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Representing the Roanoke City Public Schools: Richard A. Kelley, Assistant
Superintendent; and Cindy L. Lee, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board.
OTHERS PRESENT: Senator John S. Edwards, Delegate-Elect William Fralin,
Delegate-Elect Onzlee Ware; and Thomas Dick, Legislative Liaison for the City of
Roanoke.
The Mayor advised that the purpose of the meeting was to meet with the City's
delegation to the Virginia General Assembly to discuss the City,s 2004 Legislative
Program. He then turned the meeting over to Council Member William D. Bestpitch,
Chair, Legislative Committee.
Council Member Bestpitch welcomed Senator Edwards and Delegates-Elect
Fralin and Ware to the meeting. He expressed appreciation to the City Attorney and
to the City's Legislative Liaison for their work on the City's 2004 Legislative Program.
Thomas Dick, Legislative Liaison, presented an overview of the City's 2004
Legislative Program.
(For full text, see 2004 Legislative Program on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
CkBS 1\minutes03\120103.wpd
William Lindsey, School Trustee and a School Board representative to the
Legislative Committee, presented the Roanoke City Public School's Legislative
Program. He advised that the biggest problem facing public education is the lack of
financial support; State funding issues consist primarily of three major areas: the
JLARC study of 2001 which indicates that $535 million is required to meet prevailing
practices, $324 million is needed to meet State Board of Education change.s in the
Standards of Quality, and rebenchmarking $525 million for increased costs related to
the Standards of Quality.
Mr. Kelley reviewed the following from the Schools 2004-2006 Legislative
Program:
· Priority 1 - Rebenchmark SOQ: Increase in SOQ costs resulting from: teacher
and employee salary raises, inflation in operating costs (supplies, utilities;'
insurance) and growth in student enrollment. An increase of $1.5 million in
State funds.
Priority 2 - SOQ Recommendations: State Board's SOQ recommendations
include full time elementary principals, assistant principals (400 students),
three periods weekly of art, music, physical education instruction and two
technology positions per 1,000 students, planning period for secondary
teachers, additional hour of prevention and remediation for identified
students. Increase of $2.3 million in State funds.
Priority 3 - School Construction. State to fund 55 per cent of school
construction costs and the State now funds 20 per cent of school
construction costs ($1.1 million). An Increase of $3.3 million in State funds.
LegislatiVe Outcomes - Accomplish top three school goals as judged by
parents and non-parents: i.e.: provide children with tools to succeed in life,
master basic skills, and create well rounded children.
Senator Edwards advised that the Governor has announced a plan to enhance
revenue in the range of $1.2 - $1.4 billion, which is a slight improvement over current
funding and provides additional automatic funding for Medicaid~ etc.. He stated that
the plan does not address critical needs of transportation, higher education, and
numerous other issues and it may be difficult to get the plan through the House of
Delegates. He added that the Commonwealth of Virginia is facing a serious fiscal
crisis for the third year in a row, and is the worst fiscal crisis that the State has faced
since World War II, having cut $3.8 billion in 2002, another $2 billion in 2003, or
approximately $6 billion in the last two years, and the State is looking at cutting
another approximately $1.5 billion unless something is done to enhance revenues.
He stated that the Governor's plan may not be the perfect plan, but it is a good plan
and encouraged local officials to support the plan, or another plan that will enhance
revenues, otherwise education funding will be cut. He emphasized that education is,
without a doubt, the most important priority in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
CkBS1\minutesO3\120103.Wpd
Senator Chichester, Republican Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, may
propose a plan that is even more aggressive than the Governor's plan. He spoke in
support of and advised that he will continue to work on a plan to dedicate lottery
money to a trust fund for school construction needs. He advised that he has
enjoyed representing the City of Roanoke in the Senate and looks forward to a
continuing good relationship with local officials.
Delegate-Elect Ware advised that he looks forward to the upcoming session of
the General Assembly. He stated that in order for the area to be successful,
legislative representatives will have to join together to champion those issues that
are specific to the Roanoke Valley.
Delegate-Elect Fralin advised that he is excited about the upcoming session of
the General Assembly and looks forward to working with Senator Edwards, Delegate
Griffith, Senator-Elect Bell and Delegate Elect-Ware. He advised that he and
Senator-Elect Bell are currently preparing a bill for the 2004 General Assembly
Session that will prohibit the establishment of drug treatment facilities that distribute
narcotic medications within one-half mile of a school, which should address the
situation in Roanoke County and in Roanoke City; and he also supports the 30 day
notification by the State to an affected locality. With regard to the advisory
referendum included in the City's Legislative Program, he advised that another
study, or another commission, may not be the answer and an advisory referendum is
probably an option that should be offered to citizens. He pledged his support to
work for the good of the Roanoke Valley and its citizens.
In regard to the proposed methadone clinic on Hershberger Road, the City
Manager called attention to numerous inquiries by citizens as to the appropriate
person or entity to correspond with; whereupon, it was suggested by Senator
Edwards and Delegate-Elect Fralin that citizens should write to the Department of
Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, and to
representatives of the House of Delegates Education and Health Committee.
There being no further business, at 1:25 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting
in recess, and Council Members reconvened in Closed Session in the Council's
Conference Room, Room 451, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, to continue the mid
year performance evaluation of a Council Appointed Officer.
At 2:00 p.m., on Monday, December 1, 2003, the Council meeting reconvened
in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215
Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Smith presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., C. Nelson Harris, Linda F.
Wyatt, William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ............... 6.
ABSENT: Council Member Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.- ................................. 1.
CkBS 1\rninutes03\120103.wpd
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Ha.ckworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City
Clerk.
The meeting was opened with a prayer by The Reverend Paul E. Johnson,
Pastor, Williams Memorial Baptist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Mayor Smith.
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: NONE.
CONSENT AGENDA
The Mayor advised that all matters listed under the Consent Agenda were
considered to be routine by the Members of Council and would be enacted by one
motion in the form, or forms, listed on the Consent Agenda, and if discussion was
desired, the item would be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered .
separately.
CITY PROPERTY-LEASES: A communication from the City Manager
recommending that Council schedule a public hearing for Monday, December 15,
2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, with regard to
leasing City,owned property located at 1302 Municipal Road, N. W., was before the
body.
It was advised that The Hertz Corporation currently leases approximately
87,120 square feet of City-owned land commonly known as 1302 Municipal Road,
N. W., for the purpose of operating an automobile rental establishment; the current
lease agreement expired on November 30, 2003; The Hertz Corporation wishes to
extend the lease for an additional five year period, beginning December 1, 2003
through November 30, 2008; and the proposed agreement would establish an
annual rate of $26,600.04, with an increase of two per cent each year thereafter.
Mr. Dowe moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith ............................................................................................................. -6.
NAYES: None ........................................................................................ 0.
]4
CkBS 1\minutesO3\120103.wpd
CiTY COUNCIL-EASEMENTS-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: A
communication from the City Manager recommending that Council schedule a public
hearing for Monday, December 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard, with regard to vacation and dedication of sewer and drainage
easements across property located on Wildwood Road, S. W., Official Tax
No. 1070605, was before the body.
It was advised that pursuant to provisions of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, the City is required to hold a public hearing on the proposed vacation and
dedication of sewer and drainage easements.
Mr. Dowe moved that COuncil concur in the request of the City Manager. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith .................. ' ....................................................................................... -6.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
BUDGET: A cOmmunication from the City Manager recommending that the
following Calendar of Events for Budget Preparation Activities for Fiscal Year 2004-
2005 be adopted:
· April 12-16, 2004
City Manager briefs City Council on recommended
budget.
· April 15, 2004
Recommended budget document delivered to City
Council Members.
· April 19, 2004
Recommended budget presented to City Council at
regularly scheduled meeting.
· April 20, 2004
Advertisements of public hearing on recommended
budget and tax rates appear in newspapers.
· April 29, 2004
Public hearings on recommended budget and tax
rates.
**Requires special meeting of City Council
· May 7, 10, 11, 2004
Budget Study
CkBSIYninutes03\120103.wpd
· May 11, 2004 Optional
· May 13, 2004
City Council adopts General Fund, School Fund,
Proprietary Fund budgets and an Update to the HUD
Consolidated Plan and approves an annual
appropriation ordinance.
· **Requires special meeting of City Council
Mr. Dowe moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayo~'
Smith ............................................................................................................. -6.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
COMMITTEES-ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD: A communication from
Kyle G. Ray tendering his resignation as a member of the Architectural Review
Board, effective November 14, 2003, was before Council.
Mr. Dowe moved that the resignation be accepted and that the communication
be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith ........................................................................................................... --6.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
COMMITTEES-SCHOOLS: A communication from Melinda J. Payne tendering
her resignation as a Trustee of the Roanoke City School Board, effective
December 31, 2003, was before the Council,
Mr. Dowe moved that the resignation be accepted and that the communication
be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the
following vote:
CkBSl~minutes03\120103.wpd
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and MayOr
Smith ................................................................................................... ~"-- 6.
NAYS: None .......................................................................... ~ ............. 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
COMMITTEES-LIBRARIES: A report of qualification of Sam G. Oakey, III, as a
member of the Roanoke Public Library Board, to fill the unexpired term of Brooke
Parrott, deceased, ending June 30, 2006, was before the Council.
Mr. Dowe moved that the report of qualification be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith ........................................................................................................... ---6.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
REGULAR AGENDA:
PUBLIC HEARINGS:NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
COMPLAINTS-SCHOOLS: The Reverend William L. Lee addressed Council
with regard to issues facing the Roanoke City Public Schools. He advised that the
past several months have caused many citizens a great deal of pain because they
cannot understand how Roanoke's school system, which has been under the
leadership of Dr. E. Wayne Harris for the past ten years, has become to some the
worst in the region; and after searching the archives of The Roanoke Times for the
past ten plus years with regard to articles dealing with Roanoke's schools and its
Superintendent, there have been few articles that hinted at anything negative
concerning Roanoke's schools or its Superintendent; however, in the past six
months, hardly a day passes without the school system and the Superintendent
being maligned.
CkBS1 \rninutes03\120103 ,wPd
He stated that he would not downplay the ~concern of parents and citizens over
violence in the schools, but some have challenged Council to the point that it has
acted as if Roanoke has a crisis, and the usual behavior in crisis is to place the
blame on one person or entity; and while it is understood that citizens have
concerns, the Roanoke City School system is not in crisis, and concerns can be
addressed through a collaborative effort by Council, the School Board and the
Superintendent of Schools.
Reverend Lee reviewed the following accomplishments of the Roanoke City
School system under the leadership of Superintendent Harris:
· 626 graduates earned over $2 million in scholarship funds;
: · 72 per cent of Roanoke's students are now reading on grade level by'
third grade;
· 15 of 19 elementary schools improved reading scores during 2002-03;
International Baccalaureate Program (96 lB Certificates and five lB
Diplomas);
Highly qualified staff (19 National Board Certified Teachers and over 50
per cent of administrators and educators hold advanced degrees);
Roanoke City School teachers and staff narrowed the achievement gap
by six per cent from 1998 to 2003 based on comparisons of the number
of Standards of Learning tests passed by black students in relation to
white students;
Standards of Learning Accreditation of the following schools: William
Fleming High School, Highland Park Elementary School, Raleigh Court
Elementary School, Patrick Henry High School, Crystal Spring
Elementary School, Grandin Court Elementary School, Fair View
Elementary School, Roanoke Academy of Mathematics and Science,
Wasena Elementary School, Woodrow Wilson Middle School, Fishburn
Park Elementary School, Breckinridge Middle School, Monterey
Elementary School, and Virginia Heights Elementary School.
He stated that early in his tenure, Dr. Harris promised "not to leave any child
behind" and advised that working with the School Board, he has kept his promise,
and under his leadership academic achievement has been raised and the dropout
rate has been lowered.
]8
CkBS1\minutesO3\120103.wpd
In closing, Reverend Lee requested that Council publicly state that it acted too
hastily when a recent vote of no confidence in Dr. Harris was expressed.
(For full text, see statement on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
iTEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
BUDGET_GRANTS.HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that the City of Roanoke is the grant recipient for Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) funding, thus, Council must appropriate funding for all grants
and other monies received in order for the Western Virginia Workforce Development
Board to administer WIA programs; the Western Virginia Workforce Development
Board administers the Federally funded Workforce Investment Act (WIA) for Area 3,
which encompasses the Counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig, Franklin and
Roanoke, and the Cities of Covington, Roanoke, and Salem; and the following WIA
funding is intended for four primary client populations:
· Dislocated workers who have been laid off from employment through
no fault of their own;
· Economically disadvantaged individuals as determined by household
income guidelines defined by the U. S. Department of Labor;
· Youth who are economically disadvantaged, or have other barriers to
becoming successfully employed adults; and
· Businesses in need of employment and job training services.
It was further advised that the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board
has received a Notice of Obligation (NOO) from the Virginia Employment
Commission allocating $406,258.00 for the Adult Program, which serves
economically disadvantaged persons; and $365,200.00 for the Dislocated Worker
Program, which serves persons laid off from employment through no fault of their
own in Program Year 2003 (July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004);
The City Manager recommended that Council accept Western Virginia
Workforce Development Board Workforce Investment Act funding of $771,458.00 and
appropriate funds to accounts to be established in the Grant Fund by the Director of
Finance.
Mr. Dowe offered the following budget o~dinance.
(#36552-120103) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the Workforce
Investment Act Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003~2004
Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36552-120103. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
smith ............................................................................................................. 6.'.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36553-120103) A RESOLUTION accepting the Western Virginia Workforce
Development Board Workforce Investment Act funding of $771,458.00 and
authorizing the City Manager to execute the requisite documents necessary to
accept the funding.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36553-120103. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith ............................................................................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
FEE COMPENDIUM-OUTDOOR DINING: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that on April 1, 2002, Council adopted Ordinance
No. 35792-040102 providing for an outdoor dining permit program and amending the
Fee Compendium; annual fees per square foot of area approved for outdoor dining
were $6.50 per square foot for the year 2000, $7.00 per square foot for 2003, and
$8.00 per square foot for 2004; concerns regarding the fee structure limited the
interest of applicants in applying for an outdoor dining permit and were addressed
when Council reduced the fees to $3.25 per square foot in Ordinance No.
CkBS 1\minutes03\120103,wpd
35943-061702 on June 17, 2002, for calendar year 2002 and the fee was again
reduced to $3.25 by Council for calendar year 2003, pursuant to Ordinance No.
38237-021803; total program revenues for 2003 are $3,171.00, and, in an'effort to
again provide an incentive for restaurants to apply for outdoor dining permits, the
City administration recommends that the reduced fee of $3.25 per square foot be
continued for calendar year 2004.
The City Manager recommended that Council amend the Fee Compendium so
that the fee of $8.00 per square foot originally proposed for calendar year 2004 is
reduced to $3.25 per square foot for calendar year 2004, with a minimum three-
month commitment from the applicant.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36554-120103) AN ORDINANCE directing amendment of the Fee
Compendium to establish the fee for outdoor dining permits for calendar year 2004;
and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36554-120'103. 'The motion
was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................................................................. 5.
NAYS: None ....................................................................................... -0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
YOUTH-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that
the Aggression Replacement Training and Education Program (ARTEP) is an anger
control program operated by Sanctuary Crisis Intervention staff; the grant program
is designed to increase public safety and to provide accountability among assaultive
youth; and the pilot for the program had a 94% success rate and continues to be a
valuable addition to the continuum of services available in the treatment of juvenile
offenders.
It was further advised that ARTEP provides a less costly alternative than
incarceration of juvenile offenders; and the program increases the options available
to Juvenile Court Judges by providing intensive supervision, education and
rehabilitative treatment services for juvenile offenders who appear before the court
on violent offenses.
CkBS 1 \minutes03\120103.wpd
It was stated that this is the last year in a five-year funding cycle, which has
required increasing local responsibility for funding to the current 75%; revenues
from JJDP have decreased to 25% of the project total in the fifth year to allow for
local assumption of costs; grant funds for the final year will fund a portion of the
Relief Counselor(s) salary and fringe benefits and administrative supplies; funding
awarded by the State for the current year is $17,571.50; and this years local match is
$52,714.00 and is provided from funding currently budgeted in the Crisis Intervention
Center budget.
The City Manager recommended that Council approve the following actions:
adopt a resolution accepting $17,571.50 in Federal funds from the Department of
Criminal Justice Services, Grant #03-D3256JJ02, for SanCtuary's Aggression
Replacement Training and Education Program; authorize to the City Manager to
execute the required grant acceptance, Request for Funds and any other forms'~
required by the Department of Criminal Justice Services; appropriate funding in the
amount of $17,572.00 to expenditure accounts to be established by the Director of
Finance in the Grant Fund; and establish a revenue estimate of $17,572.00 in funds
to be received from the State.
Mr. Cutler offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36555-120103) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the FY04
Sanctuary's Aggression Replacement Training and Education Program Grant,
amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004 Grant Fund
Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36555-120103. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith ............................................................................................................ 6.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
CkBS1\rninutes03\120103.wpd
(#36556-120103) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Title II Grant from the Department of Criminal
Justice Services for the City's Crisis Intervention Center (Sanctuary) Aggression
Replacement Training and Education Program; and authorizing the execution of the
necessary documents.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36556-120103. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith ............................................................................................................ -6.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
CITY CODE-ANIMALS/INSECTS: The City Manager submitted a communication
advising that in fiscal year 2002-2003, Police Department Animal Control Officers
responded to 14 calls for service in which dogs were declared to be "dangerous
dogs"; the Code of Virginia has been amended to allow a locality to require greater
liability insurance coverage for dangerous dogs; the Code of Virginia, Section 3.1-
796.93:1 .(D).(2)., previously required only $50,000.00 insurance coverage; however, it
now states: "All certificates or renewals thereof required to be obtained under this
section shall only be issued to persons who present satisfactory evidence that the
owner, (of an animal found to be a dangerous dog), has liability insurance coverage,
to the value of at least $100,000.00, that covers animal bites"; and the Code of
Virginia, Section §3.1-796.93:1.(B). revises definitions of"dangerous" and "vicious"
dogs.
It was further advised that amending the Code of the City of Roanoke to
increase the required liability insurance coverage from $50,000.00 to $100,000.00
and amending the definitions of "dangerous" and "vicious" dogs will increase the
level of protection for citizens and is expected to reduce the number of dangerous
dogs.
The City Manager recommended that Council adopt an ordinance amending
Sections 6-22 and 6-52 (d) of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1979, as amended,
pertaining to dangerous and Vicious dogs, revise the definitions of "dangerous dog
and "vicious dog" and increase the liability insurance coverage requirement from
$50,000.00 to $100,000.00 for owners of an animal found to be a dangerous dog.
CkBS 1\minutes03\120103.wpd
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36557-120103) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Article II,
Division I, Section 6-22, Definitions, and Division 3, Section 6-52, Keeping of
dangerous dogs; conditions of, Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl, of the Code of the City
of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to revise the definitions of "dangerous dog" and
"vicious dog" and to increase the minimum amount of liability insurance procured
and maintained by the owner of any dangerous dog to not less than $100,000.00; and
dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36557-120103. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith ........................................................................................................... -6.
NAYS: None ......... " ................................................................................ 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE-AUDITS/FINANCIAL REPORTS: The Director of
Finance submitted the Financial Report for the month of October, 2003.
Council Member Cutler advised that Civic Center revenues appear to be down;
whereupon, the City Manager advised that the agreement with Arena Ventures,
which is the umbrella organization through which a contract was rendered for the
National Basketball Development League, as well as entertainment provided by
Clear Channel Communications, called for the two entities to provide 28 and 26
events, respectively; a penalty clause is included in the contract to provide that if
Clear Channel does not provide the required number of events; and the City will
receive payment for loss of revenue from those events, the check has yet to be
received for the current year, therefore, it is not reflected in the numbers. She stated
that detailed information will be needed to provide specifics on the shortfall in the
number of Civic Center events; occasionally timing differences occur between the
report that is provided to the Roanoke Civic Center Commission and the financial
report prepared by the Director of Finance and staff is working to bring the reports
more in line with each other in a more timely way.
There was discussion in regard to the reason for the failure of Clear Channel
Communications to provide less than half of the number of events that were
proposed to be held; whereupon, the City Manager advised that generally, events are
down nationally; Clear Channel is a major promoter on a national and international
CkBS 1\rninutes03\120103.wpd
basis, and the City has been told that Clear Channel has delivered more
entertainment events at Roanoke's facility than any of the other five communities in
which Arena Ventures has a contract.
The Assistant City Manager for Operations advised that in 2002, the Arena
Ventures contract produced 13 events out of a required 28, therefore, a substantial
penalty was paid to the City based on total attendance; during the first year of the
contract, Arena Ventures paid the City a $105,000.00 penalty and the City is due a
$117,000.00 penalty for the current year.
There being no further discussion, without objection by Council, the Mayor
advised that the Financial Report would be received and filed.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS:
COMMITTEES-INDUSTRIES: Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution
appointing Linda D. Frith as a Director of the Industrial Development Authority of the
City of Roanoke, to fill a four year term on the Board of Directors:
(#36558-120103) A RESOLUTION appointing a new Director of the Industrial
Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, to fill a four year term on the Board of
Directors.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36558-120103. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith ............................................................................................................ 6.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
CITY TREASURER: MS. Wyatt offered the following resolution appointing
Evelyn W. Powers as City Treasurer for a term commencing upon her qualification
and expiring on December 31, 2005:
CkBS1\minutes03\120103.wpd
(#36559-120103) A RESOLUTION appointing Evelyn W. Powers~ as. City
Treasurer for a term commencing upon her qualification and expiring on
December 31, 2005.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Ms. Wyatt moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36559-120103. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch.
The Mayor advised that Ms. Powers has served the City of Roanoke well for
approximately 22 years, having worked in the Municipal Auditor's Office where she
performed her duties in an outstanding manner. He stated that the duties of the
Treasurer are somewhat different and deal with management issues, therefore, it
would be wise to fill the position with a person who has extensive management
experience. He further stated that an individual, whom he referred to as Candidate
No. 3, possessed management experience but was not selected by the Council. He
advised that he wishes Ms. Powers much success in her new position, but he was
elected to vote in the best interests of all citizens, regardless of how popular or
unpopular his vote may be, and for that reason he will vote for Candidate No. 3.
Resolution No. 36559-120103 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler and Mayor
Smith ............................................................................................................ 5.
NAYS: None .................................................................................................... 0.
(Mayor Smith voted for Candidate No. 3.)
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL:
SCHOOLS-CITY COUNCIL: Council Member Dowe expressed appreciation to
The Reverend William L. Lee, other area ministers, members of Loudon Avenue
Christian Church, and other persons from the community who took the time from
their busy schedules to support not only Reverend Lee, but Dr. E. Wayne Harris,
Superintendent of Roanoke City Public Schools. He strongly encouraged Council to
prayerfully consider Reverend Lee's request.
(See pages 17 -19.)
CkBS 1\minutes03\120103.wpd
COMMITTEES-SCHOOLS: In view of an upcoming vacancy on the Roanoke
City School Board on December 31,2003, due to the resignation of Melinda J. Payne,
Mr. Bestpitch moved that applications be received until Friday, December 12, 2003,
at 5:00 p.m., in the City Clerk's Office; and that the City Clerk be instructed to
advertise the vacancy and to schedule a public hearing for Monday, December 15,
2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the Council
Chamber to receive the views of citizens. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris
and unanimously adopted.
WATER RESOURCES: Council Member Cutler commended City Staff on a
complimentary article which was published in a recent issue of Virginia Town and
City Magazine with regard to the City's Crystal Spring Water Plant.
LIBRARIES: Council Member Cutler called attention to a Letter to the Editor'
which appeared in the November 28, 2003 edition of The Roanoke Times entitled,
"Spruce Up Library Plaza", and encouraged the City to pay more attention to the
condition of the Main Library which is an important resource for the City of Roanoke.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Mayor advised that
Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard and matters requiring
referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for response,
recommendation or report to Council.
COMPLAINTS-CITY COUNCIL: Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E.,
expressed concern that from time to time Council appears to deviate from the
printed agenda by acting on reports of the City Manager that are not included on the
formal agenda. She stated that this practice prevents the public from being informed
and having the opportunity to address the issues; therefore, she asked that the City
Manager be instructed to refrain from making changes to the formal agenda.
COMPLAINTS: Ms. Ethel D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., advised that for
several Council meetings, she has addressed the issue of character building. She
further advised that history was make when Ms. Brenda Hamilton, a young black
woman of tremendous courage and knowledge, was elected as Clerk of the Circuit
Court, and Roanokers should pause and give recognition to this historic event. She
added that many citizens throughout the Roanoke Valley have stated that when
Council issued a vote of no confidence in Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent of
Roanoke City Public Schools, itwas an attempt by Council to deflect the City's state
of affairs from the City Manager. She advised that at the last Council meeting, the
City Manager responded to several issues concerning the proposed stadium, but
she failed to respond to the issue of toxic waste and hazardous materials upon
which a playing or sifting field will be constructed. She inquired if the City
administration is being "penny wise and pound foolish" with the example of the
possibility of saving $300,000.00 on a $3 million project, when $300,000.00 has
already been spent on a new logo for the City; therefore, where is the overall
savings. She stated that citizens want to know the total cost of the proposed
stadium/amphitheater complex. She asked that Council Members give thought to
what type of character Council is building and what type of character .is being
portrayed to Roanoke's children. She further asked that Council give consideration
to the effectiveness of Roanoke's School Board under the administration of Dr.
Harris.
COMPLAINTS: Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 729 Loudon Avenue, N. W., spoke with
regard to unhonored commitments by the City in northwest Roanoke; i.e.: to housing
and installation of sewer lines. He stated that Council Members were elected to
represent all of the people and net a chosen few, all citizens should be treated
equally, measures should be taken to decrease the crime rate in the City of Roanoke,
and wages should be sufficient so that the average City worker can afford to
purchase a house.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
CITY COUNCIL-DRUGS/SUBSTANCE ABUSE-HEALTH DEPARTMENT-ZONING:
The City Manager advised that Council met earlier in the day with the City's
representatives to the General Assembly to discuss the City's proposed 2004
Legislative Program, and an item of priority in the legislative program is a request to
modify the State Code to provide for future notification of localities when any type of
substance abuse or methadone clinic is to be considered in a locality. She stated
that the City will provide information on the membership of a health committee
representing the House of Delegates and the Senate for the benefit of those persons
who would like to express a concern or write letters of support for the amendment;
and letters should also be forwarded to the State Department of Mental Health
Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse, which is the permitting organization for
such facilities.
At 3:15 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess and advised that the
Council meeting would immediately reconvene in the Council's Conference Room
for a briefing in the First Street Bridge.
BRIDGES: The City Manager introduced a briefing on the First Street Bridge.
She advised that after reviewing certain e-mail correspondence last week, there
appeared to bea need to bring the First Street Bridge design back to the Council to
determine if there has been a change in direction on the bridge itself. She stated
that at the time of the naming of the bridge, which was an action by Council, it was
suggested that a committee be appointed to look at how to incorporate within the
bridge some type of tribute, or tributes, to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., therefore, the
Martin Luther King, Jr. Bridge Committee was named. She presented a list
containing the names of committee members which includes original committee
members and certain stakeholders in the immediate area of the bridge,
neighborhood representatives and representatives of the Roanoke Arts Commission.
She referred to a discussion by Council on February 3, 2003, at which time itwas the
consensus of Council that the First Street Bridge would be both a pedestrian and a
one-way bridge traveling south into the downtown, which was a different approach
CkBS1 \minutes03\120103.wpd
than had previously been discussed, and called for the structure to be a strictly
pedestrian bridge. She added that recent e-mails prompted her to bring the matter
to: the Council's attention once again because there may be either a
miscommunication, or a need to clarify communication on what is intended to be the
format for bridge repair/replacement. She called upon the City Engineer to review
elements of the previous presentation and advised that staff would be pleased to
receive additional direction from the Council. .~
The City Engineer advised that virtually all elements of the First Street Bridge
will be replaced; and both of the approach spans will be replaced on either end of
the bridge as well as the center span, for the reason that the bridge is over 100 years
old and has deteriorated significantly. He stated that the bridge is currently being
inspected every six months and has been closed to traffic since 2000; bridge
inspections continue to classify the structure in poor condition, with deterioration
due to rust and corrosion; the bridge is classified as a fractured critical structure,r'
and the entire bridge could collapse if a single member or rivotwere to fail, which
creates structural concerns and caused that the bridge to be closed to traffic. He
advised that it is the opinion of City staff and the design consultants that it will be
more cost effective to replace the center span, construct a new span using
conventional girder spacing in the middle and place decorative truss elements on
either side which would resemble the old bridge by using the same type of new and
modern material. He stated that the question is: What will happen to the old bridge?
He advised that the City has been operating under the assumption that the bridge
would become the property of the contractor who would be responsible for
demolition and another option would be to make the bridge available to an interested
party for refurbishment and use; it is unlikely that the bridge could be dismantled
because it would have to be cut into three pieces; and staff is open to other options,
however, funds have not been budgeted to demolish the structure.
The Mayor advised that if the First Street Bridge could be relied on as a light
duty bridge, he would favor leaving it intact and that the structure not be demolished
without first attempting to save the bridge because it is the last remaining iron
bridge from an era approximately 100 years ago.
The City Manager advised that the bridge is budgeted at $2.2 million which
includes $275,000.00 for removal of the railroad signals; Norfolk Southern has
advised that it has no problem with the City replacing or repairing the bridge, but the
cost of removing the signals will be a City expense; and an unknown at this point is
the fact that Congressman Goodlatte has submitted legislation requesting
$500,000.00 for the First Street Bridge, but there is no indication as to whether the
legislation will be successful. She stated that the minutes of the February 3, 2003
briefing to Council indicate that staff spoke to a new bridge that would closely
resemble the existing bridge, but would be of new materials. She referred to a
communication which is proposed to be forwarded to Alison Blanton, representing
the Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation; which triggered the present
discussion that the bridge structure could be made available to the Preservation
Foundation; or to any other interested group. She advised that the City of Roanoke
CkBS lYninutes03\120103.wpd
could not be responsible for the expense of removal and relocating the bridge;
whereupon, she requested guidance from Council on how to respond to Ms.
Blanton's letter. She stated that City staff has no real preference and wishes to do
the bidding of Council; the First Street Bridge is a piece of unfinished business in
Roanoke's downtown and there is a need to go about the business of fixing the
bridge in whatever manner the Council deems appropriate; and following discussion
by Council and the Martin Luther King, Jr. Bridge Committee, City staff is prepared to
move forward with bidding on either repair, or replacement, of the First Street
Bridge.
Council Member Cutler inquired about costs in connection with using the
decorative elements of the bridge, rather than fabricating new elements; whereupon,
the City Engineer advised that he would provide Council with a cost estimate.
Council Member Wyatt again stated her preference that the First Street Bridge
be used solely as a pedestrian bridge; however, such does not appear to be the
desire of the majority of the Council. Therefore, she asked that Council not take the
position that the bridge should look exactly like the old bridge and suggested that
the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Bridge Committee be given the latitude to recommend
a design that may be more viable or pleasing to the community, but is within the
realm of $2.2 million.
The Mayor advised that the First Street Bridge has been out of proportion
since it was elevated approximately ten years ago; if the original bridge cannot be
saved at its present location, he asked to review the budget before the structure is
advertised for bids; and if $500,000.00 is to be included for ornamentation, the City
might be better served by spending the one-half million dollars elsewhere. He added
that if the bridge cannot remain in its present state and if metal members cannot be
used, every effort should be made for the Preservation Society, or any other
interested party, to use the structure.
The City Manager called attention to a similar project that was completed by
the State last year and, using that project as a guide, it may be possible to determine
the difference in cost to take the structure down, clean, repair and reconstruct the
bridge.
She advised that there is no plan to bid the project until after there has been
an opportunity for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Naming Committee to address the
matter, with the understanding that there may be something in the design itself,
whether it be a gateway, or some other feature, that might bear the name of
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,r'WhiCh could be included in bid documents. She
explained that staff is clearly at a point that once the committee has completed its
deliberations, the design can be finalized and the project can move forward. She
stated that the additional cost estimate will be provided to Council no later than the
first meeting in January 2004. She referred to a drawing that was used during the
presentation, and asked if the drawing with deletion of the word "rehabilitation",
would be appropriate to present to the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Naming Committee
Following the briefings, the Council rec°nvened in Closed Session in the
Council's Conference Room.
At 4:50 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber, with all
Members of the Council in attendance, except Council Member Fitzpatrick, Mayor
Smith presiding.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Mr. Bestpitch
moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her knowledge
that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2) only such
public business matters as were identified in any motion by which any Closed
Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith .......................................................................................................... 5.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................. ----0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
(Council Member Wyatt was not in the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
There being no further business~ the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at
4:55 p,m.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
CkBSl\rninutes03\120103.wpd
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION----ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
December 15, 2003
2:00 p.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday,
December 15, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., the regular meeting hour, in the City Council
Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W.,
City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith presiding, pursuant
to Chapter2, Administration, Article II, City Council, Section 2-15, Rules of
Procedure, Rule 1, Regular Meetings, Code of the City of Roanoke (~1979), as
amended, and pursuant to Resolution No. 36414-070703 adopted by the Council on
Monday, July 7, 2003.
PRESENT: Council Members Linda F. Wyatt, William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert
Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. (arrived late), C. Nelson Harris,
and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ............................................................................. 7.
ABSENT:None ...................................................................... : ............ --0.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City
Clerk.
The Invocation was delivered by Elder Sylvan A. Moyer, Pastor, Unlimited
Power Apostolic Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Mayor Ralph K. Smith.
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
CITY TREASURER: Mr. Bestpitch offered the following resolution recognizing
the service of the Honorable David C. Anderson, City Treasurer, who will retire from
his position on December 31, 2003:
(#36560-121503) A RESOLUTION paying tribute to the Honorable David C.
Anderson, City Treasurer, and expressing to him the appreciation of this City and its
people for his exemplary public service.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
C KBS 1 \minutes03\l 2 [ 503mins.complete.wpd ]
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36560-121503. The motion
Was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Harris, and
Mayor Smith .......................................................................... . ............... -6.
NAYS: None ............................................... ~ ........................................ -0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not in the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
The Mayor presented a ceremonial copy of the above referenced resolution to
Mr. Anderson.
CLERK OF COURTS: Mr. Harris offered the following resolution recognizing
the service of the Honorable Arthur B. "Bert" Crush, III, Clerk, Roanoke City Circuit
Court, who will retire from his position on December 31, 2003:
(#36561-121503) A RESOLUTION paying tribute to the Honorable Arthur B.
"Bert" Crush, III, Clerk of Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke, and expressing to
him the appreciation of this City and its people for his exemplary public service.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36561-121503. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Harris, and
Mayor Smith ................................................................................................. -6.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ -0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not in the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
The Mayor presented a ceremonial copy of the above referenced resolution to
Mr. Crush.
CKBS I \minutes03\ 121503mins.complete.wpd 2
CONSENT AGENDA
The Mayor advised that all matters listed under the Consent Agenda were
considered to be routine by the Members of Council and would be enacted by one
motion in the form, or forms, listed on the Consent Agenda, and if discussion was
desired, that item would be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered
separately. He called specific attention to requests for two closed sessions.
The Mayor requested that Item C-1 (Minutes of the regular meeting of Council
on Monday, November 3, 2003, and recessed until Friday, November 14, 2003) be
removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion.
CITY COUNCIL- COMMITTEES: A communication from Mayor Ralph K. Smith
requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on
certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before
the body.
Mr. Cutler moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to convene
in a Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Harris, and
Mayor Smith ................................................................................................. -6.
NAYS: None ....................................................................................... -6.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not in the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
COUNCIL: A report from the City Attorney requesting that Council convene
in a Closed Meeting to consult with legal counsel on a matter of probable litigation,
pursuant to §2.1-344(A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the
body.
Mr. Cutler moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attorney to
convene in a Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
CKBSl\minutes03\121503mins.complete.wpd 3
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Harris and Mayor
Smith .......................................................................................................... -6.
NAYS: None ...................................................................................... -0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not in the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
COMMITTEES-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE-ROANOKE ARTS
COMMISSION-SCHOOLS-ZONING: A report of qualification of the following persons,
was before Council.
Louis O. Brown as a member of the Advisory Board of HUman Services,
for a term ending November 30, 2007;
Sandra K. Brunk as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission, for a
term ending June 30, 2006;
Terri R. Jones as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission, to fill the
unexpired term of Michael Brennan (resigned), ending June 30, 2004;
William M. Hackworth as a member of the Virginia Western Community
College Board of Directors, to fill the unexpired term of Michael F.
Urbanski, resigned, ending June 30, 2007; and
Philip H. Lemon and Joel W. Richert as members of the Board of Zoning
Appeals, for terms ending December 31, 2006.
Mr. Cutler moved that the report of qualification be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Harris, and
Mayor Smith ................................................................................................ -6.
NAYS: None ..................................................................................... --0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not in the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
CKBS l ~minutes03\l 21503mins.complcte.wpd 4
REGULAR AGENDA
MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Monday,
November 3, 2003; and recessed until Friday, November 14, 2003, were before the
body.
(For full text, see Minutes on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
The Mayor referred to the November 3, 2003 minutes and his oral report as
a member of The Hotel Roanoke Conference Center Commission. He requested
that page 14, line one, be amended to delete the following:
"Mayor Smith advised that revenue from The Hotel Roanoke Conference
Center is down when comparing Roanoke to other venues across the state or
the country because corporate expenditures have been reduced;..."
The Mayor requested that the following language be substituted:
"Mayor Smith advised that although business is down, The Hotel Roanoke
Conference Center is doing well when compared to other venues across the
state or the country because corporate expenditures have been reduced;..."
Mr. Cutler moved that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with and that
the minutes be approved as recorded, with the above referenced amendment. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Harris, and
Mayor Smith ................................................................................................. -6.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ -0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not in the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
CITY SHERIFF-CITY JAIL-BUDGET: A communication from the Honorable
George M. McMillan, Sheriff, advising that during the 2003 Session the virginia
General Assembly, legislation was passed which added Section 53.1-'131.3,
Payment of costs associated with prisoner keep; the legislation states that "any
Sheriff or jail superintendent may establish a program to charge inmates a
reasonable fee, not to exceed $1.00 per day, to defray the costs associated with the
CKBS 1 \minutes03\l 2 [ 503mins.complete.wpd 5
prisoner's keep; the Board shall develop a model plan and adopt regulations for
Such program, and provide assistance, if .requested, to the Sheriff or jail
superintendent in the implementation of such program; and such funds shall be
retained in the locality where the funds were collected and shall be used for general
jail purposes.", was before Council.
It was further advised that he was selected by the Board of Corrections as a
member of the committee which was responsible for develoPment of the model plan;
in doing so, it was his desire to ensure that funds received were maintained by the
locality strictly for jail purposes; whereupon, the Sheriff advised that he would like to
implement the program and based upon fiscal year 2002-03, there is a potential to
collect $225,240.00 from the program on an annual basis for the City jail.
The Sheriff stated that it was his intent to use the revenue generated from the.
program to fund four full-time deputy sheriff positions which are needed within the
jail and jail annex, at an annual cost of $140,104.00, and one-half year cost in fiscal
year 2004 is $70,052.00.
The Sheriff recommended that Council authorize the Director of Finance to
establish a revenue estimate in the amount of $70,052.00 for fiscal year 2004 for the
Inmate Fee Program; and that Council authorize the addition of four deputy sheriff
positions, beginning January 1, 2004, and continuing from year to year, so long as
the Inmate Fee Program is operated by the Sheriff and appropriate funding to the
following expenditure accounts:
Regular Salaries
VRS Retirement
FICA
(001-1~40-3310-1002)
(001-140-3310-1110)
(011-140-3310-1120)
$59,042.00
$ 6,494.00
$ 4,516.00
(The item was sponsored by Vice-Mayor C. Nelson Harris and Council Member Alfred T.
Dowe, Jr.)
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following ordinance:
(#36562-121503) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for additional deputy
sheriff positions and establishing a new fee for the care of prisoners at the Jail,
amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004 General Fund
Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36562-121503. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
CKBS 1 \minutes03\ 121503mins.complete.wpd 6
AYES: Council. Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Harris, and
Mayor Smith ........................................................................................... $.
NAYS: None ...................................................................................... -0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not in the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
Mr. Harris offered the following resolution:
(#36563-121503) A RESOLUTION concurring in the establishment by the
Sheriff of an Inmate Fee Program pursuant to §53.1-131.3, Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, and approving four (4) full-time deputy sheriff positions needed within the
jail and jail annex, beginning January 1, 2004, and continuing from year to year so
long as the Inmate Fee Program is operated by the Sheriff.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No, 68.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36563-121503. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Harris, and
Mayor Smith ................................................................................................ --6.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ -0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not in the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
ARTS COUNCIL OF ROANOKE VALLEY: Gregg Lewis, Co-Chair, Downtown-This
is Living Tour, reported on the success of the event which was held in October 2003. He
stated that the Arts Council sold more than 1,500 tickets for the tour, which provided an
opportunity for the City to showcase certain living spaces in downtown Roanoke and
what it might be like to be resident of the downtown area. He advised that downtown
businesses reported an increase in receipts based on additional foot traffic, but more
importantly was the benefit to and exposure of the concept of downtown living, and that
a 24 hour downtown Roanoke will point the City of Roanoke in a new and increasingly
prosperous direction as a city. He expressed appreciation for the City's support of the
event and the desire of the Arts Council to participate in similar types of events in the
future.
CKB S I \minutes03~ 121503mins.complete.wpd 7
Robert Fetzer, Co-Chair, Downtown Living Tour, referred to the enthusiasm
~urrounding the event, and called attention to discussions in regard to expanding
the affair in future years. He stated that the City's support was instrumental in the
success of the event, the goal of which was to encourage more people to live, work
and play in downtown Roanoke.
(The item was supported by the City Manager.)
COMMITTEES-MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: Sheri Bernath, representing the
Board of Directors, Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, presented the annual report of
the organization for the year 2003.
She advised that in fiscal year 2003, Blue Ridge BehaviOral Healthcare staff
delivered 327,183 units of various services to 12,716 residents, at a cost of.
$11,486,332.00 to Blue Ridge to provide the services; and the City's local tax
contribution to the agency's operations was $409,428.00, which means that Roanoke
residents received $28.05 worth of services for each tax dollar allocated to their
community services board.
Ms. Bernath highlighted the following services:
Prevention Services operated after-school clubs at six neighborhood
sites, provided conflict mediation training for students and faculty of
all six middle schools, and provided student support groups at six
schools.
Project LINK served 76 women with a substance use disorder who
were pregnant or parenting young children, and provided case
management to 48 of their children, and an additional 22 women
received education, referral and follow-up services after the birth of
their child.
133 City residents were detoxified and stabilized at the Shenandoah
Recovery Center under a Temporary Detaining Order, eliminating
psychiatric hospitalization for these dually diagnosed clients.
Three Roanoke City residents have participated in Hegira House's
Transitional Therapeutic community contract with the Department of
Corrections. These residents completed a penitentiary sentence that
included substance abuse treatment and were transferred to Hegira to
complete their sentence and transition back into the community as
productive citizens.
CKBS 1 \minutes03\ 121503mins.complete.wpd 8
The Children's Day Treatment Program continued to provide services
on-site at four locations: Highland Park, Lincoln Terrace and RAMS
Elementary Schools and Addison Middle School. In total, 77 children
received services to help maintain them in the public school system.
Intensive In-home Services were provided to 46 children. This service
is for facilities that have children at-risk for out-of-home placement
such as foster care, acute hospitalization, residential treatment, and
detention.
Case Managers worked with 409 Roanoke City consumers who have
mental retardation and 1,009 individuals with a serious mental illness,
providing a total of 38,941 hours of service through Adult Resource
Management components.
Ms. Bernath called attention to the Governor's plans to reconfigure the public
system of care for the mentally disabled; during the past year, Blue Ridge
representatives have worked with senior staff in the Department of Mental Health,
Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services in Richmond in a restructuring
process; at the local level, meetings have been held with senior managers from
Catawba Hospital, Carillon Health System, and the Lewis-Gale Medical Center, and it
is hoped that these health care partners, working with the Mental Health Association,
the Alliance for the Mentally III and the Roanoke Valley Alliance for Children, will, in
the near future, bring about long needed and positive changes in the system of care,
locally and across the Commonwealth of Virginia.
She advised that Blue Ridge is experiencing an increased demand for
services while, at the same time, trying to manage reductions in funding and when
the organization's local funding request for fiscal year 2005 is submitted, it will be
with the recognition that Virginia's budget crisis has had long-lasting effects,
therefore, it is hoped that the City of Roanoke will continue to support the
organization, financially, to the best of its ability.
Ms. Bernath called attention to progress in regard to renovation of the Burrell
Center, the importance of respecting the history of the structure, and preserving its
architectural integrity, while providing renewed vigor for many years to come;
therefore, after working with preservation consultants, the Burrell Center has been
placed on both the Virginia and the National Registers of Historic Places; and the
transition from multiple sites to a single location where a variety of service needs
can be met for many consumers will occur in approximately February, 2004.
(The item was sponsored by the City Manager.)
CKBS I \minutes03\l 2 ] 503mins.complete.wpd 9
Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., inquired about the type of
Services that will be offered to residents of the City of Roanoke at the Burrell Center,
and will services be minimized based upon the extension of service to all parts of
the Roanoke Valley, since the historic Burrell Hospital will be used as a nursing
home. She stated that it is hoped that there will be no reduction in the type and
quality of service to be afforded to the citizens of Roanoke.
Council Member Fitzpatrick entered the meeting.
CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU-CELEBRATIONS: David L. Kjolhede,
Executive Director, Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau, presented the
annual report of the RVCVB for 2003.
He advised that the RVCVB budget for fiscal year 2002-03 was $1.2 million; the.
Bureau's stakeholders and partners include the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, the
Counties of Roanoke, Franklin and Craig, the Virginia Tourism Corporation, and over
175 private sector members from the hospitality industry in the Roanoke Valley and
beyond. He further advised that utilizing conversion study results and conservative
spending figures, the Bureau's budget generated the following revenues for the
Roanoke Valley and partner organizations:
Leisure Travelers:
Conventions Hosted:
Sports Marketing
Motorcoach:
Golf:
Total Direct Spending:
$ 34,253,000.00
33,726,000.00
8,622,000.00
1,179,000.00
152,000.00
77,932,000.00
Mr. Kjolhede pointed out that the $77 million are a direct result of Bureau
driven marketing programs and represent approximately 20 per cent of the $369
million spent annually in the Roanoke Valley by visitors, conventioneers, sports
enthusiasts and group travelers.
In conclusion, Mr. Kjolhede advised that conventioneers, tour groups, sports
participants and leisure travelers all contribute to the economic well-being of the
Roanoke Valley; the Virginia Tourism Corporation's most recent figures indicate that
tourists spend over $369 million per year in the Roanoke Valley, making tourism a $1
million per day industry; outside forces such as economic uncertainty, homeland
security and the "shake-out" in the travel industry will continue to impact tourism
nationwide, however, the Roanoke Valley is well positioned as an affordable,
drivable, enticing destination for many groups and travelers; and the Bureau has
done a good job in identifying these market segments and utilizing the dollars
invested by public and private partners to promote the area. He further advised that
although the marketplace grows increasingly competitive and funding is a growing
CKB S I \minutes03\ 121503mins.complete.wpd ] 0
challenge, the Bureau will continue to develop innovative, cost effective programs to
remain viable in the marketplace; and the Roanoke Valley possesses a great product
mix and when this is combined with effective marketing, the tourism industry will
continue to expand.
(The item was sponsored by the City Manager.)
Question was raised as to how the Roanoke Valley could benefit from Virginia
Tech's inclusion in the ACC and what, if any, steps have been taken to position the City
of Roanoke to take advantage of the opportunity; whereupon, Mr. Kjolhede advised that
representatives of the Convention and Visitors Bureau recently accompanied officials
from the City of Salem to bid on the ACC tournament for 2004-05; the RVCVB has
initiated marketing efforts in the Carolinas on a limited basis, although efforts will be
increased in the future and staff continues to look at opportunities to partner with
others.
In view of the increased investment in the RVCVB by the City of Roanoke in
the last two years, Council Member Bestpitch requested information on the results
of increased investments.
Council Member Cutler inquired about efforts by the RVCVB with regard to
local activities in 2007 to coincide with the Jamestown Festival; whereupon, Mr.
Kjolhede advised that since the Jamestown Festival will be a statewide celebration,
a number of committees have been established across the State to recommend
appropriate activities/projects to commemorate the event and the RVCVB is a
member of the committee. He stated that locally, some consumer and motor coach
marketing will be slanted toward taking advantage of various activities associated
with the event.
Mr. Cutler talked about the potential of working with the native American
community in planning activities in the City of Roanoke, in Explore Park, and
elsewhere with the Monican Indians and other native American groups, to help '
tourists understand what was happening in this part of Virginia when Jamestown
was being settled; and asked that his suggested be included in upcoming
discussions.
Council Member Fitzpatrick commended and expressed appreciation to the
staff of the RVCVB. He spoke in support of the incorporation of the Convention and
Visitors Bureau in the Roanoke Railway Passenger Station.
As a follow up to Mr. Curler's remarks, Council Member Bestpitch advised that
the City of Roanoke will celebrate its 125'h anniversary in 2007, and requested that
the City Manager recommend appropriate activities and projects to commemorate
the occasion.
CKB S I \minutes03Xl 21503mins.complete.wpd ] ]
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT-CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Manager introduced
Jane Conlin, Director, Human/Social Services, who' assumed her position with the
City on January 5, 2004.
BRIEFINGS: NONE.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
BUDGET-EMERGENCY SERVICES-FLOOD REDUCTION CONTROL: The City.
Manager submitted a communication advising that in February 2003, the City
Manager declared an emergency to exist in the City of Roanoke as a result of
flooding; and Council followed in confirming the declaration and called upon the
State and Federal government for assistance on March 3, 2003.
It was further advised that the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) has approved the City of Roanoke for disaster assistance for costs incurred
following the flooding; the total amount of disaster assistance to be provided is
$137,005.00, and FEMA has released $137,005.00; disaster assistance funding from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Virginia Department of
Emergency Management must be accepted and funding appropriated; and with the
exception of residual expenses associated with contracted services and
replacement of equipment at Victory Stadium, reimbursement will cover expenses
incurred during fiscal year 2002-03.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute, on behalf
of the City of Roanoke, any documentation required in connection with obtaining
and accepting the above allocation, in the amount indicated and to furnish such
additional information and to take such additional action as may be needed to
implement and administer such funds and agreements, said documents to be
approved as to form by the City Attorney.
The City Manager further recommended establishment of a revenue estimate
of $113,552.00 in the General Fund and $23,453.00 in the Civic Facilities Fund, and
appropriation of $137,005.00 to the following expenditure accounts:
CKBS 1 \minmes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd ! 2
Department
Contingency-General Fund
Parks
Civic Facilities Fund-
Victory Stadium
Account
001-300-9410-2199
001-620-4340~011
005-550-7410-2010
Dollar Amount
$105,776.00
7,776.00
23,453.00
Mr. Cutler offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36564-121503) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds to cover costs incurred
as a result of flood damages and establishing a revenue estimate for federal
reimbursements, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004
General and Civic Facilities Funds Appropriations, and dispensing with the second
reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36564-121503. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ........................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ..................................................................................... -0.
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36565-121503) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a grant of
funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Virginia
Department of Emergency Management, in connection with the flood emergency of
February, 2003; and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf
of the City.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr, Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36565-121503. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris,
and Mayor Smith .......................................................................................... -7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ 0.
C KBS l \minutes03\l 21503mins.¢omplete.wpd 13
INDUSTRIES-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that Boxley Materials Company (Boxley) has purchased
land in the City of Roanoke on which to build a cement plant; and in order to have
access to the property, it is necessary for Boxley to build a road to City and Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards, at a total cost of $308,000.00, which
road also opens other property in the City for develOpment.
It was further advised that Boxley has agreed to invest $2.5 million in the land,
facility, equipment, and road, plus create nine jobs; the City will appropriate up to,
but not to exceed $154,000.00 to the Industrial Development Authority of the City of
Roanoke (IDA), which, in turn, will provide an economic development grant to Boxley
Materials Company, upon certain terms and conditions as set forth in a Performance
Agreement; the grant will be made after the Boxley Materials Company cement plant.
has been completed, is operational, and the company has paid all City taxes due in
the first year; after that time, the IDA will provide grant funds over a period of five
years to January 31, 2009; each grant request can be up to, but not exceed an
amount equal to 50 per cent of the amount of the increased real estate taxes paid by
Boxley, or others, to the City for such taxes on real property represented by Official
Tax Nos. 5220603, 5220607, and 5220608 for the year in question; and the amount of
increased real estate taxes means the difference between the amount of $2,585.77,
which is the current amount of real estate taxes for the above referenced official tax
numbers and the amount of real estate taxes actually paid by Boxley, or others, in a
particular year; and funding for the grant requests will be adopted annuallY during
the budget process, as appropriate~ based on activities undertaken as above
described.
The City Manager recommended that Council approve terms of the
Performance Agreement between the City of Roanoke, the IDA, and Boxley Materials
Company, to provide for a grant up to $154,000.00, as set forth in the Performance
Agreement; and that the City Manager be further authorized to execute a
Performance Agreement among the City, Boxley Materials Company, and the IDA to
and execute such other documents and to take such further action as may be
necessary to implement the Performance Agreement, the form of such agreement to
be approved by the City Attorney.
Mr. Harris offered the following ordinance:
CKB S I \minutes03\ 121503mins.complete.wpd ] 4
(#36566-121503) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the proper City officials to
execute a Performance Agreement among the City of Roanoke (City), the Industrial
Development AUthority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, (IDA), and Boxley Materials
Company (Boxley) that provides for certain undertakings by the* parties, in
connection with a road extension of Blue Ridge Drive located in the Blue Ridge
Industrial Park in the City of Roanoke; and dispensing with the second reading by
title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36566-121503. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dowe.
Council Member Cutler requested information in regard to environmental
impacts related to truck traffic, noise, air pollution, etc., in the performance of Boxley
Materials Company.
Ordinance No. 36566-121503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ........................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ -0
CITY PROPERTY-PARKING FACILITIES: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that on July 1, 2002, Council accepted the proposal of
Lancor Parking, L.L.C. to provide management and operation services for certain
City owned and/or controlled parking facilities; as a part of contract requirements,
Lancor was required to provide the City with a performance bond equal to the total
management fee for the three year term of the contract, in order to guarantee the
company's performance of the terms and conditions of the contract; due to changes
in the bond market, Lancor requested that it be permitted to meet the performance
bond requirement by providing the City with a bond in the amount of the current
year's management fee; the bond would then subsequently be renewed each year
over the life of the contract, in an amount equal to the then current year's
management fee; Amendment No. 2 (Attachment A to the report) provides for a
change to Section 2(c) of the.contract to reflect the change to the bond requirement;
the alternate bond procedure will provide the City with more than adequate
protection, should the City have a need to call on the bond.
CKBSl\minutes03\121503mins.complete.wpd15
The City Manager recommended that .she be authorized to execute an
Amendment, in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, to the contract between
the City of Roanoke and Lancor Parking, L.L.C., dated July 1, 2002, to provide
management and operation services for certain City owned and/or controlled
parking facilities, substantially similar to Amendment No. 2 (Attachment A)
modifying the performance bond requirement of the contract.
Mr. Harris offered the following ordinance:
(#36567-121503) AN ORDINANCE authorizing an Amendment to the Contract
for Management and Operation Services between the City of Roanoke and Lancor
Parking, L.L.C., dated July 1, 2002, regarding a modification of such Contract; and
dispensing with the second reading bY title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36567-121503. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris,
and Mayor Smith ........................................................................................... -7.
NAYS: None ............................................................................... -- ........ 0
CITY CODE-ENTERPRISE ZONE: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that the City of Roanoke has two Enterprise Zone
designations; under Division 5A, Article II, Chapter 32, "Taxation," of the City Code,
the application deadline for applying for the Enterprise Partial Tax Exemption
incentive is December 31, 2003, for both Enterprise Zone One and Enterprise Zone
Two; the designation for Enterprise Zone One also expires on December 31, 2003,
but the designation for Enterprise Zone Two does not expire until December 31,
2015, therefore, the appropriate sections of Division 5A need to be amended to
reflect the changes; and the City of Roanoke must continue to offer incentives for
Enterprise Zone Two as previously approved by the Department of Housing and
Community Development, or the City risks losing its Enterprise Zone designation.
The City Manager recommended that Council adopt amendments to Division
5A, Article II, Chapter 32, "Taxation" of the City Code (§32-101.5) to extend the date
that applications must be filed for Enterprise Zone Two until December 31,2015; and
adopt amendments to Division 5A, Article II, Chapter 32, "Taxation" of the City Code
(§32-101.1, §32-101.5) to delete all references to expiring Enterprise Zone One as of
January 1, 2004.
CKBSl\minutes03\121503mins.complele.wpd 16
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance:
(#36568-121503) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Article II, Real
Estate Taxes Generally, Chapter 32, Taxation, of the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, by amending §32-101.1, Generally, §32-101.3, Eli_clibility of
commercial or industrial real property, and §32-101.5, Application, of Division SA,
Exemption of Certain Rehabilitated or Renovated Commercial or Industrial Real
Property Located in Either Enterprise Zone One or Enterprise Zone Two, for the
purpose of eliminating Enterprise Zone One and extending the application time
period for Enterprise Zone Two; providing for an effective date; and dispensing with
the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36568-121503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe.
The City Manager' advised that the City has applied for redesignation of
Enterprise Zone One, however, no response has been received to date, and it is
anticipated that the predesignation will require submittal of a legislative change to
Council in early January, 2004.
Ordinance No. 36568-121503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith .......................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ -0.
EQUIPMENT-TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY-YOUTH: The City Manager
submitted a communication advising that authority for the process of donating City
vehicles and equipment is by letter from the City Manager to the Purchasing
Division; the Total Action Against Poverty (TAP) Program has requested that one of
the City's disposal vehicles be donated to TAP; recently, the TAP Youth Build
Program lost the use of a shared Habitat for Humanities vehicle which was used to
transport workers and equipment to various job sites; due to budget limitations, TAP
is prohibited from purchasing a vehicle; and City staff has identified one of the Fleet
Management vehicles slated to be turned in for disposal as a potential donor vehicle,
at an estimated residual value of $1,505.00.
The City Manager recommended that Council authorize donation of the vehicle
to the TAP Youth Build Program, in an effort to bring further City development while
providing youth with the skills and discipline required to effectively function within
the working environment.
CKBS l \minutes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd ] 7
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following resolution:
(#36569-121503) A RESOLUTION authorizing the donation of a City-owned
vehicle to Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, Inc., for use in its TAP
Youth Build Program.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36569-121503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
Council Member Fitzpatrick inqUired if a form of release will be executed by.
the affected parties releasing the City of Roanoke from potential liability; whereupon,
the City Manager advised that title to the vehicle will be transferred to the
appropriate party.
The City Attorney advised that either insurance or sovereign immunity would
apply to the City in regard to any potential liability.
Resolution No. 36569-121503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ............................. ~ .......................................................... -7.
NAYS: None ....................................................................................... -0.
CITY PROPERTY-INDUSTRIES-PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-AIRPORT:
The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the sale of 15 acres of
land known as Tract F in the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology (RCIT) has
been completed; proceeds from the sale, in the amount of $825,000.00, need to be
appropriated to the RCIT Infrastructure Extension account in the Capital Projects
Fund; the sale of 400 square feet of City-owned property on Airport Road to the
Federal Aviation Administration has also been completed; and proceeds from the
sale, in the amount of $42,000.00, need to be appropriated to a new account to be
established in the Capital Projects Fund, entitled "Real Estate Acquisition Expense".
The City Manager recommended that Council appropriate funds totalling
$825,000.00 to Account No. 008-052-9632-9003 - RCIT Infrastructure Extension in the
Capital Projects Fund; establish a corresponding revenue estimate for funds which
have been received from the sale of property at the RClT; appropriate funding of
$42,000.00 to a new account entitled, "Real Estate Acquisition Expense", in the
Capital Projects Fund; and establish a corresponding revenue estimate for funds
which have been received from the sale of property on Airport Road.
CKBSl\minutes03\l 21503mms.complete.wpd 1 8
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36570-121503) AN ORDINANCE to establish revenue estimates and
appropriate funding from the sale of property at RCIT and from the sale of property
on Airport Road, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004 Capital
Projects Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of
this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36570-121503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith .......................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ....................................................................................... -0.
BUDGET-WATER RESOURCES-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City
Manager submitted .a communication advising that the State Water Control Board,
through the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), is proposing that the City of
Roanoke enter into a Special Order of Consent (Collection System Order) to make
improvements to the waste water collection system, which is a continuation of the
existing Special Order addressing wet weather effects at the Water Pollution Control
Plant by adding requirements to investigate and quantify sources of inflow and
infiltration into the collection system.
It was further advised that sewage collection system consent orders are being
issued to cities throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia and in other states; costs
associated with some of the orders run in the hundreds of millions of dollars; City
staff have worked with other utility members of the Virginia Association of Municipal
Wastewater Agencies to review existing orders and to structure as reasonable and
effective a solution as possible; for example, the City of Roanoke has agreed as part
of the renewal of the Wastewater Service Contract with other local jurisdictions to
install flow meters in the collection system for billing purposes; these same flow
meters can be used to meet requirements of the Collection System Order; and terms
of the Collection System Order are still being negotiated, and upon receipt of a final
version, Council will be requested to review and to authorize execution of the Order.
CKB S t \minutes03\] 2 ] 503mins.complete.wpd 19
It was explained that substantial study is needed to evaluate the condition of
the collection system and to develop recommendations for specific repairs, or future
construction projects; proposed work will include installation of flow monitors into
various strategic points within the collection system, implementation of several pilot
projects in order to help focus investigation of inflow and infiltration, and creation of
a collection system model.
The City Manager advised that the work has been properly advertised, with
proposals having been received from seven engineering firms; four short-listed
firms were interviewed including Black & Veatch International Company, Hazen and
Sawyer, PC, RJN Group, Inc., and Wiley & Wilson, Inc; the interview selection
committee included representatives from the City's Utility Department, as well as
Roanoke County and the City of Salem; the request for proposals was structured in.
a manner so as to allow participation by other local jurisdictions, at their option, in
specific projects or tasks; and the specific project described in the report does not
involve a shared expense agreement with other participating jurisdictions inasmuch
as the work is limited to the collection system components wholly owned by the City
of Roanoke; however, it is anticipated that each of the participating jurisdictions will
have to enter into a Special Order of Consent and will conduct similar study
activities.
It was further advised that the firm of Wiley & Wilson was selected by the
interview panel as the most qualified; an acceptable contract has been negotiated
for the work in the form of a time and materials agreement, with a note to exceed fee
of $1,120,134.00; other anticipated expenses associated with system modifications
needed for the collection system flow meters brings total required funding to
$1,225,000.00; and funds have been budgeted in a capital reserve account which
was developed in anticipation of future debt service requirements.
The City Manager recommended that Council transfer $1,225,000.00 from
Reserve for Future Debt Service (Account No. 003-510-3172-3027) to an account to
be established by the Director of Finance in the Water Pollution Control Fund
entitled, "Collection System Metering and Analysis".
Mr. Harris offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36571-121503) An ORDINANCE appropriating funds for Collection System
Metering and Analysis Services, amending and reordaining certain sections of the
2003-2004 Water Pollution Control Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the
second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
CKBS 1 ~minutes03\ 121503mins.complete.wpd 2 0
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36571-121503. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ...................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ -0.
WATER RESOURCES-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS-BUDGET: The City
Manager submitted a communication advising that the City of Roanoke entered into
a contract dated August 2, 1999, providing for removal, transportation, and disposal
of biosolids with Robinson Pipe Cleaning Company; the contract was amended
three times in accordance with contract provisions, which allow annual extension of
the terms and conditions for up to four additional one-year terms, for a total of five
years; and this year represents the final year of services which can be authorized by
the existing contract through an amendment.
It was further advised that the quality of work by Robinson Pipe Cleaning
Company has been satisfactory for the preceding contract year; wet weather of the
past year, however~ directly impacted the quantity of biosolids that could be land
applied (Virginia Department of Health regulations do not permit land application
during rain events or on water-saturated lands); total dry tons of biosolids land
applied was approximately 3,750 dry tons, which is short by 4,250 dry tons of the
8,000 dry ton minimum required in the contract documents; based upon close
monitoring of the activities of Robinson Pipe Cleaning by Utility staff, it is the
opinion of staff that the circumstances which caused Robinson Pipe Cleaning to not
meet the minimal work requirements of the contract were beyond the company's
control; the reduction in removal of biosolids has not impacted the City; the
contract contains provisions which allow the City to assess liquidated damages
against the contractor, at a cost of $89.66 per dry ton under the minimum
established contract level; and the City's primary concern is the potential cost
increase for inflation adjustments, which is permitted under Contract terms, and
would bring this year's price to $90.83 per dry ton.
It was explained that proposed Amendment No. 4 requires Robinson Pipe
Cleaning Company to honor the price of $89.66 per dry ton for the first 4,250 dry
tons; the next 3,750 dry tons, and any additional amounts will be at a cost of $90.83
per dry ton, in accordance with provisions of Amendment No. 4; City staff
recommends a Change Order to Amendment No. 3 to reduce the required minimum
number of dry tons from 8,000 to 3,750; and funding for the work was established
during budget adoption and is available in Account No. 003-510-3150-2010.
CKBS I \minutes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd 2 ]
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute a Change
Order to Amendment No. 3, reducing the required minimum number of dry tons from
8,000 to 3,750; that she be authorized to amend Amendment No. 4 to the contract for
an additional one year period, retroactive from October 1, 2003 through September
30, 2004, at a cost of $89.66 for the first 4,250 dry tons and $90.83 per dry ton for the
remaining 3,750 dry tons and any additional dry tons removed, with a minimum total
of 8,000 dry tons and a maximum of 10,000 dry tons of bio-solids removed from the
City's Water Pollution Control Plant; and that the City Manager be further authorized
to execute such additional documents and to take such additional action as may be
needed to implement and to administer the Amendment and Contract, including any
further changes deemed appropriate by the City Manager.
Mr. Cutler offered the following Ordinance:
(#36572-121503) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager's issuance of a
Change Order to Amendment No. 3 to the City's contract with Robinson Pipe
Cleaning Company regarding the removing, transporting, and disposing of digested .
lagoon biosolids from the City's Water Pollution Control Plan; and dispensing with
the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36572-121503. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ........................................................................................... -7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ -0.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance:
(#36573-121503) AN ORDINANCE authorizing execution of an amendment
extending for an additional term of one year a contract with Robinson Pipe Cleaning
Company for removing, transporting and disposing of digested lagooned biosolids
from the City's Water Pollution Control Plant; and dispensing with the second
reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36573-121503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
CKBS 1 \minutes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd 22
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ................................................................................. , ..... 7.
NAYS: None .......................................................................... , ............ --0.
CITY CODE-POLICE DEPARTMENT.GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that during fiscal year 2001-2002, Roanoke City Police
Officers arrested 357 individuals for driving under the influence (DUI); during the
same time period, there were 183 alcohol-related traffic accidents; and DUI arrests
totaled 395 in fiscal year 2002-2003, with 187 alcohol-related traffic crashes,
representing an 11 per cent increase in DUI arrests and a two per cent increase in
alcohol-related traffic accidents over the previous fiscal year.
It was further advised that the Roanoke City Police Department continues to
spend a great deal of time, effort and money in combating drunk driving in an effort
to make City streets safer through a variety of special details and checkpoints
conducted to decrease the number of drunk drivers on the streets; many of these
activities were held with the use of grant money to provide supplemental
enforcement to regular on-duty officers; officers distributed literature to educate
motorists on the dangers of drunk driving and what to do if a drunk driver is spotted
by a citizen; and while these efforts serve to help make Roanoke's streets safer, the
problem continues.
Itwas explained that Section 15.2-1716, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,
allows localities to enact an ordinance to recover reasonable expenses incurred by
the locality from persons violating DUI, reckless driving, driving without a license,
and other provisions when providing an appropriate emergency response to any
accident or incident related to such a violation; in determining "reasonable
expenses", a locality may bill a flat fee of $100.00, or a minute-by.minute accounting
of actual costs incurred, not to exceed the aggregate of $1,000.00; for example,
Roanoke County and the City of Virginia Beach have enacted such an ordinance and
its Police Departments currently bill convicted DUI offenders $100.00 to recover
costs incurred by the City for the officer's time; the proposed ordinance will serve
to enhance the City's efforts to make its streets safer and allow the City to recoup a
portion of the cost of public resources expended in response to DUI incidents;
Roanoke's General District Court currently provides the Police Department with a
post-court docket, which indicates those individuals who are convicted of a DUI
offense within the City; using the information provided through the docket, each
offender would be billed $100.00 by Police Department staff for each DUI conviction
using the City-wide Billing System; and the billing initiative would be handled by the
General District Court at some future date.
CKBS I \minutcs03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd 23
It was stated that projected annual revenue is estimated at approximately
$20,000.00; funds recovered through the program would be used by the Police
Department to Purchase traffic/DUI enforcement equipment and related educational
materials to enhance the City's efforts to combat drunk driving.
The City Manager recommended that Council adopt an ordinance amending
and reordaining the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by adding a
new section under Article 1, "Section 20-17. Reimbursement of expenses incurred in
responding to DUI incidents and other traffic incidents", to Chapter 20, Motor
Vehicles & Traffic, effective January 1,2004; that Council adopt a revenue estimate
of $10,000.00 in Account No. 001-110-1234-1412, DUI Offender Fee, for fees
anticipated during the second half of fiscal year 2004; and appropriate funding in the
same amount to Account No. 001-640-3113.2035, Expendable Equipment.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36574-121503) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for expendable
equipment in the Police Department and establishing a DUI Offender Fee, amending
and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004 General Fund Appropriations, and
dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36574-121503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe,
Council Member Bestpitch inquired about the billing initiative; whereupon, the
City Manager advised that billing would be administered by the City's Billings and
Collections Department.
Mr. Bestpitch advised that the City Manager's communication states that the
collection process may be handled by the General District Court at some future date,
which appears to be a more preferable way to collect the fee; whereupon, the City
Manager advised that the goal is to establish the fee, determine the volume, and
work with the Court to determine the most appropriate way to transfer the collection
responsibility. She stated that like many other communities in Virginia that are
experiencing an increase in the number of traffic accidents that are related to driving
under the influence and leading to more arrests, it is recommended that the fee be
initiated as quickly as possible as a deterrent to driving under the influence; and the
court system imposing the fine would be in the best interest of all persons, but it is
important to ensure that the fine does not inadvertently become associated with
other funds which are required to be divided between the State and the locality.
CKBSl\minu~es03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd ~4
In regard to the General District Court collecting the fee, Mr. Bestpitch
suggested that the matter be included on the Council's Pending Items List for further
discussion.
Ordinance No. 36574-121503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris,
and Mayor Smith .......................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ....................................................................................... -0.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36575-121503) AN ORDINANCE amending the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, by adding a new Section 20-17, Reimbursement of expenses
incurred in responding to DUI incidents and other traffic incidents, Article I,
In General, to Chapter 20, Motor Vehicles and Traffic; providing for an effective date; .
and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36575-121503. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ........................................................................................ -7.
NAYS: None ...................................................................................... -0.
BUDGET-GREENWAY SYSTEM: The City Manager submitted a communication
advising that greenways were first proposed for the City of Roanoke by landscape
architect John Nolan in the 1907 and the 1928 comprehensive plans that he
developed for the City; Mr. Nolan realized that the beneficial aspects of greenways
extended far beyond their recreational value; and since that time, the Roanoke Valley
community has undertaken an extensive and ambitious greeways development plan.
It was further advised that the Mill Mountain/Prospect Greenway was included
in the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan and selected as the region's pilot
greenway project in 1995 by the Roanoke Valley Greenways Commission, which is
comprised of representatives of all four Roanoke Valley governments; as originally
envisioned, the greenway was to connect three of the valley's most visited
destinations, linking the Market area with attractions on Mill Mountain, and
continuing on to the Blue Ridge Parkway; due to budget constraints and other
factors, the scope of the project has been divided into phases; and the present
CKBS l\minutes03\121503mins.complete.wpd 25
phase, the Mill Mountain Greenway was completed in September 2003, and allows
walkers, runners, and bicyclists to travel from the City Market area,, through
Elmwood Park, across Elm Avenue and down Williamson Road, across the Walnut
Street Bridge, to Piedmont Park overlooking the Roanoke River.
It was explained that due to changes in design and corrections to existing
drainage problems, additional work was requested by City staff, which consisted of
substituting planted medians for the concrete barrier shown on the plan, adding
drainage infrastructure to Williamson Road and Piedmont Street, repaving of the
greenway, addition of sidewalk and curb on Laurel Street, and design changes at
Hamilton Terrace and Piedmont Park; such work has been completed and a change
order is needed in the amount of $102,559.00; and two change orders were
previously executed administratively.
The City Manager advised that approval by Council is required inasmuch as
the amount of the change order, combined with the two previous change orders,
exceeds 25 per cent of the original contract amount for the project; and funding for
Change Order No. 3 is available in unspent balances from completed projects, as
follows:
$ 33,083.00
30,000.00
14,795.00
8,887.00
4,586.00
4,318.00
3,925.00
2,965.00
'Barnhart Street Drainage Improvements, Account No. 008-530-
9811
RCIT Detention Maintenance Design Fees, Account No.
008-530-9789
Roanoke River Greenway Phase 2, Account No. 008-530-9756
Summit Hills Storm Drain Phase II, Account No. 008-530-9795
Forest Park Drainage Project, Account No. 008-052-9689
Mill Mountain Greenway, Account No. 008-052-9721
Summit Hills Drainage Project Phase I, Account No. 008-052-
9695
Ore Branch Channel Design Fees, Account No. 008-530-9788
$102.559.00
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute Change
Order No. 3, in the amount of $102,559.00, with H. & S. Construction Company for
and that Council approve the following transfers:
$33,083.00 from Barnhart Street Drainage Improvements, Account
No. 008-530.811;
$30,000.00 from RClT Detention Maintenance Design Fees, Account No.
O08-30-9789;
$14,795.00 from Roanoke River Greenway Phase 2, Account No, 008-530-
9756;
CKBSI \minutes03\121503mins.complete.wpd 26
$8,887.00 from Summit Hills Storm Drain Phase II, Account No. 008-530-
9795;
$4,586.00 from Forest Park Drainage Project, Account No. 008-052-9689;
$3,925.00 from Summit Hills Drainage Project Phase I, Account No. 008-
052-9695; and
$2,965.00 from Ore Branch Channel Design Fees, Account No. 008-530-
9788; to Mill Mountain Greenway, Account No. 008-052-9721.
Mr. Cutler offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36576-121503) AN ORDINANCE to transfer funding from various projects
related to Change Order No. 3 for the Mill Mountain Greenway Project, amending and
re.ordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations,.
and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36576-121503. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dowe.
Council Member Cutler suggested that a public event be held at the
appropriate time in recognition of completion of the Mill Mountain Greenway and that
Council Members either walk or bicycle down the Greenway.
Council Member Bestpitch advised that the City Manager's communication
states that due to changes in design and corrections to existing drainage problems,
additional work was requested by City staff; however, the communication further
states that the work has been completed and a change order is needed in the
amount of $102,559.00 to fund the work. He also referred to paragraph one on page
2 of the report which states that, "Council approval is required as the amount of this
change order combined with the two prior change orders, exceeds twenty-five per
cent (25%) of the original contract amount for the project."
The City Manager clarified that at the point when some of the work was
requested, there was not a clear understanding of total costs; this item would not
routinely come to the Council unless the 25 per cent rule had been exceeded; two
previous change orders were addressed administratively, and the 25 per cent
threshold was reached as the additional items and corrections were made, therefore,
it became necessary to request action by Council.
Mr. Bestpitch advised that the 25 per cent rule affords the Council the
opportunity to review certain costs in advance, not retrospectively. He stated that in
this instance, he would vote for the ordinance, but he would hope that the City
Manager will refrain from bringing future items to the Council after the fact.
CKBS[\minutes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd 27
The Mayor inquired as to what measures have been implemented to keep from
exceeding the 25 per cent threshold in the future; whereupon, the City .Manager
advised that certain items came in incrementally, as opposed to a total budget for all
items, and it was not until all items were totaled that it was discovered that the 25
per cent threshold had been exceeded. She stated that the procedure has been
tightened so that if multiple activities occur, they should be budgeted accordingly
before moving forward to ensure that the 25 per cent threshold is not exceeded in
the future.
Ordinance No. 36576-121503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris,
and Mayor Smith .......................................................................................... 7,
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ -0.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36577-121503) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager's issuance of
Change Order No. 3 to the City's contract with H. & S. Construction Company for
changes in design a'nd corrections to existing drainage problems in connection with
the Mill Mountain Greenway; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36577-121503. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ........................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ -0.
CABLE TELEVISION: The City Manager submitted a communication in
connection with an amendment to update the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable
Television Committee (RVRCTC) Agreement to reaffirm continued participation of
Roanoke City, Roanoke County, and the Town of Vinton in the agreement; Roanoke
County and Vinton adopted revised ordinances and franchise agreements to support
their continued participation in RVRCTC shortly after Council adopted similar
agreements on October 6, 2003; and the amendment updates the agreement to
incorporate the following actions taken by Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton:
CKBSl\minutes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd 28
On October 6, 2003, Council adopted Ordinance No. 36503-100603, which
provided for a revised Cable Television Franchise Ordinance for the City of
Roanoke and provided for an effective date of October 31,2003; on October 7,
2003, the Vinton Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 792, which is
substantially similar to the City's ordinance; on October 28, 2003, Roanoke
County adopted Ordinance No. 102803-12, which is also substantially, similar
to the City's ordinances; the three ordinance provided that each jurisdiction
affirmed its continued participation in and support of the Roanoke Valley
Regional Cable Television Committee (CATV Committee) which was created
by agreement dated June 9, 1992, among the three jurisdictions (RVRCTC
Agreement); such agreement provides for the Committee to provide for
development, administration, and operation of cable teleVision governmental,
educational and institutional facilities and programming, and referred to prior,
ordinances adopted by the jurisdictions in 1991.
It was explained that pursuant to ordinances adopted by each of the
jurisdictions in October 2003, each locality has entered into a Cable Television
Franchise Agreement between the respective jurisdiction and CoxCom, Inc., d/b/a
Cox Communications Roanoke as of November 1, 2003; the RVRCTC Agreement
needs to be modified to provide references to the current Cable Television Franchise
Ordinances and the Cable Television Franchise Agreements entered into by each of
the jurisdictions; and accordingly, Amendment No. 1 to such Agreement has been
drafted and reviewed by legal counsel for the three jurisdictions and requires
approval by Council.
The City Manager recommended that Council approve the terms of
Amendment No. 1 to the RVRCTC Agreement and authorize the City Manager to
execute the Amendment, in a form to be approved by the City Attorney; and that the
City Manager be authorized to take such further action and to execute such
additional documents as may be necessary to implement and to administer
Amendment No. I to the RVRCTC Agreement and the Agreement itself.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36578-121503) AN ORDINANCE approving and authorizing execution of
Amendment No. I to the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee
Agreement among the City of Roanoke, the County of Roanoke and the Town of
Vinton; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
CKBS 1 \minutes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd 2 9
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36578-121503. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ........................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ...................................................................................... --0.
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE-BUDGET-CAPITAL MAINTENANCE AND EQUIPMENT
REPLACEMENT PROGRAM: The Director of Finance submitted a written report
advising that in mid-September, Council was presented with the unaudited total of
funds available for Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement (CMERP); due
to the short period of time in which the annual closing process is completed, the
amounts were partially based on estimates; calculations used to achieve the
estimates were based on a 60-day period of availability for revenues received after
year-end and similarly, expenditures are subject to accrual to the extent that they
relate to goods or services received prior to June 30~.
It was furthe~ advised that during the course of annual financial statement
preparation, actual revenues and expenditures were identified, and some
adjustments were made to incorporate actual data into the fiscal year 2003 financial
statements, which resulted in an adjustment to CMERP for both the General Fund
and the School Fund; adjustments in General Fund CMERP stemmed from changes
in general local tax revenues and an expenditure accrual which generated a net
increase of $175,401.00; of this amount, $101,069.00 was shared with the School
Board based on the revenue sharing formula; adjustments in the School Fund
stemmed from changes in school sales tax revenues which generated an increase of
$103,485.00; total School CMERP increased $204,554.00, while City-retained CMERP
increased $74,332.00; and a comparison of unaudited and audited CMERP is as
follows:
Unaudited Audited Increase
General Fund - City Portion
General Fund - School Portion
Total General Fund
School Fund
$2,480,774.00
529,557.00
$3,010,331.00
$2,000,149.00
$2,555,106.00
630,626.00
$3,185,732.00'
$2,103,634.00
$ 74,332.00
101,069.00
$175,401.00
$103,485.00
There being no questions or discussion, without objection by Council, the
Mayor advised that the report would be received and filed.
CKBSl\minutes03\121503mins.complete.wpd 3 0
AUDITS-PENSIONS-DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: The Director of Finance
submitted Financial Reports of the City of Roanoke and the City of Roanoke Pension
Plan for the year ended on June 30, 2003.
There being no questions or discussion, without objection by Council, the
Mayor advised that the Financial Reports would be 'received and filed.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND
RESOLUTIONS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION
OF ORDINANCES AND
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR, VICE-MAYOR AND
MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL:
CELEBRATIONS-DOWNTOWN ROANOKE, INC.: Council Member Dowe
commended all persons responsible for the successful Dickens of a Christmas
which was held on December 5 - 19, 2003, on the City Market in downtown Roanoke.
CITY COUNCIL-NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES: Having attended the National
League of Cities Congressional City Congress in Nashville, Tennessee, on
December 10 - 13, 2003, and talking with officials from other localities around the
country, with regard to various programs, Council Member Wyatt commended the City
of Roanoke on adopting and administrating programs that other localities are just
beginning to think about.
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES-CITY
INFORMATION SYSTEM-WATER RESOURCES: Council Member Cutler advised that
the City of Roanoke was the recipient of two awards at the National League of Cities
Annual Conference; i.e.:
Center for Digital Government and Micro Soft Award for the best web site and
e-government program of any city the size of Roanoke in the United States;
and
· The James C. Howland Award for Urban Enrichment for the City's water
conservation/education program, "Every Drop Counts."
CKBS l \minutes03\] 21503mins.complete.wpd 3 1
Mr. Cutler commended City staff for their work which enabled the City of Roanoke
to receive these awards.
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES: The Mayor advised that during conference
sessions and group discussions, issues of concern to the majority of officials
attending the National League of Cities Annual Conference appeared to be around
funding and the role of local government.
AIRPORT-CELEBRATIONS: The Mayor called attention to the 100~ anniversary
of the Wright Brothers' First Flight (December 17, 1903 - December 17, 2003) at Kitty
Hawk, North Carolina; whereupon, in honor of the event, he presented each Member
of Council with a Certificate establishing the "Roanoke Air Force".
BUDGET: Vice.Mayor Harris advised that the City of Lynchburg has adopted a
two-year budget cycle; whereupon, he requested that the City Manager contact
officials of the City of Lynchburg to obtain information on the implementation
process and report to Council accordingly.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
The Mayor advised that Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be
heard, and matters requiring referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately
for any necessary and appropriate response, recommendation or report to Council.
SCHOOLS.ARMORY/STADIUM-COMPLAINTS: Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate
Avenue, N. E., called attention to the need for a closer working relationship between
Council and the School Board; and the need to make changes for the good of the
school system through Council's appointment of an individual to fill the unexpired
term of Melinda J. Payne, resigned.
He asked that Council seriously consider its action in regard to the proposed
new stadium/amphitheater at Orange Avenue and Williamson Road in view of toxic
waste materials that have been uncovered during excavation and bids that exceeded
the City's estimate for the project. He stated that Victory Stadium can and will be
used if the facility is marketed properly by the City.
ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridge Crest Road, Hardy, Virginia,
spoke in support of marketing and promoting Victory Stadium for college football
games such as Virginia Tech and the Citadel, in addition to local high school football
games. He also spoke in support of naming Victory Stadium in honor of former
Mayor Noel C. Taylor and/or the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
CKB S I \minutes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd 3 2
ARMORY/STADIUM: Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., spoke
with regard to the topic of building character as set forth in a proclamation issued by
the Mayor, which emphasized the characteristics of responsibility, respect, caring,
fairness and citizenship. She advised that for months, citizens have been seeking
information on the total cost of the proposed stadium/amphitheater complex; certain
features have been removed from the proposal and some citizens view such action
as a means to separate the cost so that the base cost of $18 million will not be
exceeded. She referred to a Letter to the Editor which appeared in a recent edition
of The Roanoke Times suggesting that the money would be better spent on a new or
upgraded library in downtown Roanoke, or to pay for school supplies that teachers
furnish out of their own personal money because there are insufficient funds in the
school budget. She advised that the City of Roanoke and surrounding localities are
loosing jobs at an alarming rate, and money that could be better spent to encourage'
economic development will instead go to the construction of a stadium/amphitheater
complex that will cost more tax dollars.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
CITY MANAGER-BUSES: The City Manager advised that at its meeting on
Tuesday, December 9, 2003, the Council of the Town of Blacksburg unanimously
voted to support the bus shuttle system between the City of Roanoke and the Town
of Blacksburg, which service should be operational by late Spring of 2004,
CITY MANAGER-CITY EMPLOYEES-SNOW REMOVAL: The City Manager
commended City staff for their dedication to clearing streets and parking lots of
public facilities during two recent snow events, both of which occurred during times
of special events in the City of Roanoke.
CITY MANAGER-SNOW REMOVAL: The City Manager encouraged citizens to
clear snow from the sidewalk in front of their residence following snow events.
CITY MANAGER-CITY EMPLOYEES: On behalf of City staff, the City Manager
expressed appreciation to Council for approval of two additional holidays (December
26, 2003 and January 2, 2004) for City employees. She advised that staffappreciates
the support of Council during the past year; January 1, 2004, will bring additional
opportunities and challenges to the City, and staff is ready and willing to take
Council's leadership and move the City forward to even greater heights.
At 4:00 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for two Closed
Sessions.
CKBSl\minutcs03\121503mins.complete.wpd 3 3
ARMORY/STADIUM: Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., spoke
with regard to the topic of building character as set forth in a proclamation issued by
the Mayor, which emphasized the characteristics of responsibility, respect, caring,
fairness and citizenship. She advised that for months, citizens have been seeking
information on the total cost of the proposed stadium/amphitheater complex; certain
features have been removed from the proposal and some citizens view such action
as a means to separate the cost so that the base cost of $18 million will not be
exceeded. She referred to a Letter to the Editor which appeared in a recent edition
of The Roanoke Times suggesting that the money would be better spent on a new or
upgraded library in downtown Roanoke, or to pay for school supplies that teachers
furnish out of their own personal money because there are insufficient funds in the
school budget. She advised that the City of Roanoke and surrounding localities are
loosing jobs at an alarming rate, and money that could be better spent to encourage
economic development will instead go to the construction of a stadium/amphitheater
complex that will cost more tax dollars.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
CITY MANAGER-BUSES: The City Manager advised that at i~s meeting on
Tuesday, December 9, 2003, the Council of the Town of Blacksburg unanimously
voted to support the bus shuttle system between the City of Roanoke and the Town
of Blacksburg, which service should be operational by late Spring of 2004.
CITY MANAGER-CITY EMPLOYEES-SNOW REMOVAL: The City Manager
commended City staff for their dedication to clearing streets and parking lots of
public facilities during two recent snow events, both of which occurred during times
of special events in the City of Roanoke.
CITY MANAGER-SNOW REMOVAL: The City Manager encouraged citizens to
clear snow from the sidewalk in front of their residence following snow events.
CITY MANAGER-CITY EMPLOYEES: On behalf of City staff, the City Manager
expressed appreciation to Council for approval of two additional holidays (December
26, 2003 and January 2, 2004) for City employees. She advised that staff appreciates
the support of Council during the past year; January '1, 2004, will bring additional
opportunities and challenges to the City, and staff is ready and willing to take
Council's leadership and move the City forward to even greater heights.
At 4:00 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for two Closed
Sessions.
CKBS 1 \minutes03\ 121503mins.complete.wpd 34
At 7:00 p.m., on Monday, December 15, 2003, the Council meeting reconvened
in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215
Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith
presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members Linda F. Wyatt, William D. Bestpitch, M..Rupert
Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ..... -6.
ABSENT: Vice-Mayor C. Nelson Harris .................................................... 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City
Clerk.
The meeting was opened with prayer by Mayor Smith.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led '
by Mayor Smith.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
ZONING: The Mayor advised that the first public hearing is a joint public
hearing; by Council and the City Planning Commission.
The following City Planning Commission members were present: Gilbert E.
Butler, Jr., D. Kent Chrisman, Pauia L. Price, Richard A. Rife, Henry Scholz, and
Fredrick M. Williams, and Chairman Robert B. Manetta ........................................ 7.
Pursuant to Ordinance No. 25523 adopted by the Council on Monday, April 6,
1981, the City Clerk and the Secretary to the City Planning Commission having
advertised a joint public hearing for Monday December 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as
soon thereafter as the matter may be heard by the City Planning Commission and
the Council, on a proposed amendment to the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended, §36.1-25, Definitions, and §36.1-207, Special exception uses, to permit the
establishment of outpatient mental health and substance abuse clinics as a special
exception use only in the C-2, General Commercial District, of the City of Roanoke,
the matter was before the two bodies.
Legal advertisement of the joint public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, November 28, 2003 and Friday, December 5, 2003; and in The
Roanoke Tribune on Thursday, December 4, 2003.
CKBS 1 \minules03\l 2 t 503 mins.complete.wpd 3 5
Chairman Manetta called on R. Brian Townsend, Agent to the City Planning
Commission, to present the report of staff.
Mr. Townsend advised that:
The City's Zoning Ordinance currently provides a single broad definition of a
medical clinic, defining such as an establishment which offers medical or
health related counseling or treatment including dental, optical and
psychiatric treatment, where treatment is offered by more than two licensed
professional medical practitioners.
A medical clinic is currently permitted as a use by right in the C-2, General
Commercial District, and in the C-3, Central Business District, and is
permitted by special exception in the CN, Neighborhood Commercial District,
the C-1, Office District, and the LM, Light Manufacturing District.
The current definition of medical clinic covers a wide range.of medical
specialties and practices and services; while most medical facilities and
clinics have similar physical functional and land use characteristics, there are
other types of facilities that by nature of their operational and functional
needs or characteristics could have potential adverse impacts on adjacent
land uses. Certain medical clinics which provide services for drug, alcohol
abuse, or treatment of mental illness, have the potential to exhibit operational
hours, parking needs, and security measures that are unique unto
themselves, and are not shared by other medical clinic facilities as
contemplated by the current zoning ordinance definition.
In order to more clearly define and regulate certain types of medical clinics
which tend to exhibit these unique functional and operational characteristics,
the proposed text amendments establish a newly defined land use as follows:
the definition of outpatient mental heath and substance abuse clinic is "an
establishment which provides outpatient services related to the treatment of
mental health disorders, alcohol or other drug or substance abuse disorders,
including the dispensing and administering of controlled substances and
pharmaceutical products by licensed professional medical practitioners".
The proposed text amendments would permit outpatient mental health and
substance abuse clinics in the C-2, General Commercial District, upon the
issuance of a special exception by the Board of Zoning Appeals; such
regulation would provide a specific process for the review and approval of
CKBS 1 \minutes03\] 21503mins.complete.wpd 36
these unique types of medical facilities~ including general public notice of
such proposed use, the notification of abutting property owners, and a public
hearing by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
The proposed text amendments allow for retention of the current definition
and regulation of other types of medical clinics as originally contemplated by
the Zoning Ordinance; strengthen the City's ability to preserve the integrity of
future land uses and provide a public forum for consideration of those
medical facilities exhibiting unique operational and functional characteristics;
provide the City with a process to better address the potential concerns of
higher intensity medical facilities; further the recommended actions of Vision
2001-2020 to update the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate changes in land
uses, and to protect and improve the quality of life in the City's*
neighborhoods. The proposed amendments also are consistent with Vision
2001-2020 policies that stress compatibility of uses and protection of the
City's neighborhoods.
Mr. Townsend advised that given the evolution of health care delivery systems
and the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan to update the Zoning .Ordinance
to accommodate changes in land uses, Planning staff recommends to the City
Planning Commission that the proposed text amendments be approved.
Chairman Manetta opened the floor for remarks.
Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., spoke in opposition to the
location of the proposed methadone clinic on Hershberger Road, N. W.; whereupon,
Mr. Townsend clarified that the City Planning Commission and the Council cannot
adopt an amendment that retroactively addresses a site that has already been
approved for such a clinic under the current zoning ordinance; therefore, the matter
currently before the Planning Commission and Council does not apply to the
Hershberger Road location, but would apply to any other clinic that would wish to
locate in any other location within the City.
He further clarified that there is no request to rezone the property at 3208
Hershberger Road for the location of a methadone clinic; there is no ability under the
existing City Code to provide any mechanism for the City to receive, approve or
disapprove a request to establish a clinic on property that is currently zoned as
required; Council has no authority to approve or disapprove the request, and
Council and the City Planning Commission are attempting to change the City Code
so that in the future, if similar situations arise, the City of Roanoke will have the
authority to address such requests.
CKBS l \minutes03\ 121503mins.complcte.wpd 3 7
The Mayor advised and Chairman Manetta affirmed that the public hearing is
not specifically for the purpose of addressing the location of a methadone clinic on
Hershberger Road and there will be an opportunity for persons to speak to the issue
at the end of the Council meeting under Hearing of Citizens. Ms. Janet Crawford,
1731 Kings Mill Drive, Salem, Virginia, President, Mental Health Association of the
Roanoke Valley, spoke as an individual with 20 years of experience in the
administration of psychiatric and substance abuse outpatient and inpatient facilities.
She stated that the Board of Directors of the Mental Health Association of Roanoke
Valley believes that the language included in the proposed amendment is rather
broad in scope; over 50 per cent of those persons who receive psychiatric
medications go to their family practitioners, internists, and cardiologists, etc., rather
than to a mental health clinic; and the language of the proposed amendment would
affect those practitioners inasmuch as the language refers to anyone dispensing
pharmaceutical medication. Therefore, she stated that the proposed amendment will
ultimately restrict the availability of services to those who are in need, and create
more obstacles than are necessary as professionals begin to establish practices.
She advised that although she understands the intent of the proposed amendment,
it is requested that Council use caution so as not to restrict access to services and
the ability of providers to establish clinics and practices in those areas that need
services.
Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., advised that the proposed
amendment provides that those in the C-2, General Commercial District, are, by
right, entitled to establish a medical clinic as is currently defined or permitted,
however, the current definition proposes that there be approval through a special
exception issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals, which would include a public
hearing by the Board of Zoning Appeals. She stated that the proposed amendment
does not provide guidelines as to requirements that must be met in order to receive
a special exception permit, nor does it provide for a definitive use of potential
adverse impacts on adjacent land uses, but more importantly, the City's Vision 2001-
2020 Comprehensive Plan emphasizes protecting and improving the quality of life in
the City's neighborhoods. Therefore, she inquired if any Member of Council would
want this type of clinic in their neighborhood. She stated that if there are to be
special exceptions, guidelines should be in place specifically setting forth those
requirements that must be met in order to issue a special exception. She stated that
it is unfortunate that a retroactive provision is not included in the proposed zoning
ordinance amendment, no effective date of the proposed amendment is included in
CKB S [ \minmes03\l 21503mins.complcte.wpd 3 8
the ordinance, and inasmuch as the proposed methadone clinic on Hershberger
Road can locate under the existing ordinance, there is no need to rush the adoption
of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment. Therefore, she suggested that more
work should be done on the proposed amendment.
Ms. Bethel also advised that the community is concerned about letting their
voices be heard before the appropriate officials in Richmond in an effort to prevent
the methadone clinic from locating on Hershberger Road, and inquired as to what
agency/entity is charged with the responsibility of acting on the application.
Ms. Perneller Wilson, 3045 Willow Road, N. W., spoke in opposition to the
proposed methadone clinic on Hershberger Road due to the number of schools and
children of all ages who walk to and from school. She expressed pride in Roanoke'
because both the black community and the white community have come together to
speak out on this issue.
Mr. Robert Gravely, 729 Loudon Avenue, N. W., advised that the citizens of
Roanoke should have been informed of the proposed methadone clinic on
Hershberger Road before a license was issued by the State. He stated that Members
of Council and City officials are elected and employed to represent all of the citizens
of Roanoke, but citizens are not informed of important decisions until after the fact.
He advised that a State representative should have attended the Council meeting to
provide answers to questions raised by citizens on the proposed methadone clinic
on Hershberger Road.
Ms. Gall Burruss, 2519 Creston Avenue, S. W., Director, Prevention
Assessment Counseling Services, Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, expressed
concern that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment is so broad in scope that it
could include primary care physicians who prescribe medications such as anti
depressants, or licensed counselors and social workers who see a wide variety of
patients dealing with issues such as grief, adjustment problems, family issues, or
not for profit organizations such as Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, or providers
of family services that offer counseling, or faith based organizations seeking to
provide faith based services to those with mental illness and/or substance use
disorders. She stated that if the intent of the proposed amendment is to provide for
zoning review of clinics that dispense methadone for opium addicts, she would
encourage consideration of limiting the amendment for that purpose. She
encouraged City officials to recognize the inherent problems associated with such a
broadly worded amendment and not adopt the proposed language. She advised that
concerns about the location of methadone clinics in the community are understood
and it is hoped that in time the discussion will progress beyond just location, which
CKBSl\minmes03Xl 21503mins.complete.wpd 3 9
is important but not the only issue, to determine how methadone may or may not
contribute to a continuum of treatment and rehabilitation for citizens'who are
addicted to opiates and other drugs.
Mr. Townsend was called upon to respond to questions/concerns raised by
various speakers; whereupon, he advised that the proposed ordinance would
become effective upon the affirmative vote of five members of the Council; the
definition is a two-prong approach: an establishment which provides outpatient
service related to the treatment of mental health disorders, alcohol or other drug or
substance abuse disorders, which is not a primary care physician's office, or an
establishment that provides counseling, or a non profit or religious type of
counseling service, such as an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting; the definition is
broad enough to address the function of an establishment that has both the
treatment/counseling and the dispensing and administering of controlled
substances, while not including the primary care physician who may dispense
controlled substances related to pain relief/control and not related to substance
abuse; and no medications were listed because, either by trade name or by chemical
make up, they may not include certain types of medications that would otherwise
either supercede or take the place of methadone sometime in the future, but would
ultimately have the same effect. He explained that the proposed amendment
includes no guidelines, because the zoning ordinance provides the Board of Zoning
Appeals with a list of six general guidelines that apply to consideration of special
exception uses, therefore, the zoning ordinance provides the Board of Zoning
Appeals with guidance as to those things that should be considered when reviewing
an application for special exception; also, the Board of Zoning Appeals, under its
powers of special exception, can impose conditions, and a time limit for the granting
of any special exception from one to five years depending on the context and
circumstance of the application and its location. He added that some of the issues
that have been addressed by previous speakers are those kinds of things that would
be discussed by the Board of Zoning Appeals at a public hearing regarding a special
exception; and certain comments made by speakers this evening related to the
Hershberger Road location, which, under the current zoning ordinance is a by right
situation, are those things that would be discussed if the proposed regulations were
in place and a special exception was required for this type of use. He explained that
the proposed amendment would not preclude a general practitioner from writing a
prescription for which they are legally permitted to write and the patient taking the
prescription to their local pharmacy to be filled, inasmuch as the prescription would
be for a controlled substance other than mental and substance abuse problems.
C KBS 1 \minutes03\l 21 $03mins,complete.wpd 40
Mr. Townsend advised that controlled substances are highly regulated by the
Commonwealth of Virginia and the Department of Mental Health and Substance
Abuse; and all clinics that dispense and administer controlled substances must be
licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia, as well as a licensing requirement bythe
Federal Government, Drug Enforcement Agency.
Further discussion ensued following which the City Attorney suggested
certain amendments to the proposed ordinance to address various questions and
concerns raised by speakers and to tighten up the language. He proposed to insert
the word "primarily" after the word "services" in line 2 of the definition and to delete
the word "including" and insert the words, "which services include" in lines 3 and 4
of the definition.
Following further discussion, the proposed amendments to the ordinance, as
above stated by the City Attorney, were approved by unanimous vote of the City
Planning Commission and recommended to Council for approval.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance, as amended.
(#36579-121503) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain §36.1-25,
Definitions, of Article II, Construction of Language and Definitions, and §36.1-207,
Special exception uses, of Division 3, Commercial District Regulations, of Article III,
District Regulations, of Chapter 36.1,. Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, to permit the establishment of outpatient mental health and
substance abuse clinics as a special exception use in only the C-2, General
Commercial District, of the City of Roanoke; and dispensing with the second reading
by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36579-121503, as
amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe.
Mr. Fitzpatrick advised that if there is a need, over time, to make revisions to
the ordinance, he would encourage staff to bring the matter to the Council's
attention as soon as possible; the proposed methadone clinic on Hershberger Road
is a crisis in northwest Roanoke that Council cannot legally address by the Council's
action this evening, however, an additional level of control has been created which
provides a means for local input before the State can issue a license for similar
types of clinics in the future.
CKB S I \minmes03\ 121503mins.complete.wpd 41
Mr. Dowe encouraged citizens to continue to maintain communication with
Council leading to proactive measures to either sustain or prevent situations like
this from happening in the future. He expressed appreciation to Elder Shadrack
Brown and the congregation of Garden of Prayer Church for their interest in the
proposed methadone clinic on Hershberger Road. He stated that it is also important
to remember that there are persons who will be helped by these types of facilities, it
is enlightening to see the entire community stand consistently behind the issue, and
encouraged citizens of Roanoke to continue to be vigilant with regard to issues that
affect their community.
Ms. Wyatt advised that Council has done and will continue to do everything it
can to prevent the proposed methadone clinic from opening on Hershberger Road;
however, Council's hands are tied because it must abide by State laws and
regulations that govern the facility, and the only action that can prevent the
methadone clinic from opening is failure by the State to issue a license. As a retired
school teacher, she advised that she has no problem in speaking with State officials,
or writing letters and making telephone calls expressing her concern because the
proposed facility will be in close proximity to elementary, middle, and high schools
as well as local churches. By the same token, she advised that some people need
help, but there are more appropriate locations to establish a methadone clinic than
the proposed Hershberger Road location.
Mr. Cutler referred to a communication from the City Attorney on the subject
of methadone clinics and inquired if language in the proposed zoning ordinance
amendment will make the ordinance as defensible as possible if challenged through
the court system.
The City Attorney advised that staff has tried to incorporate language that will
not create problems for other professionals in the City of Roanoke; he would not
suggest that the ordinance be any more restrictive than that which is proposed, and
the ordinance will be saved from legal challenge by virtue of the fact that the use is
permitted by special exception in the C-2, General Commercial District, which
includes a fair amount of property in the City.
There being no further speakers or questions and comments by Council
Members, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed.
Ordinance No. 36579-121503 was adopted by the following vote:
C KB S I \minutes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd 42
AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
MaYor Smith ................................................................................................ -6.
NAYS:NONE .................................................................. ~ ..................... ~.
(Vice-Mayor Harris was absent.)
The meeting of the City Planning Commission was adjourned.
SCHOOLS: Inasmuch as there will be a vacancy on the Roanoke City School
Board, effective December 31, 2003, created by the resignation of Melinda J. Payne,
pursuant to the instructions of Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public
hearing for Monday, December 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard in the Council Chamber, to receive the views of citizens
regarding appointment of a School Trustee to fill the unexpired term, the matter was
before the body.
Applications for the vacancy were received in the City Clerk's Office until 5:00
p.m., on Friday, December 12, 2003. The following persons submitted applications:
Chris Craft
Harry Davis
Alice Hincker
Alvin L. Nash
Carla Terry
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on December 5, 2003; and The Roanoke Tribune on Thursday, December 4,
2003.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in
connection with the public hearing; whereupon, the following persons addressed
Council:
Mr. Buck Elwell, 2123 Laburnum Avenue, S. W., spoke in support of the
application of Alice Hincker. He advised that the City is presently at a significant
crossroads with respect to the oversight that the School Board exercises over the
City school administration; therefore, a strong individual to fill Ms. Payne's
unexpired term is needed, and that person is Alice Hincker. He stated that Ms.
Hincker has been an involved parent in the City school system for a long time, she is
CKBS 1 ~minutes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd 43
familiar with school issues, she has the energy and the commitment to do the job,
she is dedicated to the cause, i.e.: Roanoke City Schools, teachers, students and
parents, and she will be a contributing member at the outset. He asked that Ms.
Hincker not be viewed as an individual with a single cause - school safety - but that
she would bring a wealth of knowledge as an involved parent, an active member of
the Parent-Teacher Association, and an involved and concerned citizen who is
willing to address issues of importance to the School Board.
Mr. Bud Conklin, 4569 Keagy Road, S. W., Director of Dental Services for
Carillon Health Systems, spoke in support of the application of Harry Davis. He
advised that he served with Mr. Davis in connection with the Community Based
Health Care Coalition, which was made up of community service organizations such
as CHIP, TAP, Headstart, Roanoke City School nurses, and a number of lay advisory
persons who were charged with the responsibility of solving the dental crisis access
problem for underserved children in the community and the region. He stated that
through the efforts of Mr. Davis, financial resources were identified which led to the
establishment of the pediatric dental clinic at Community Hospital now
administering to under served children in Roanoke City and surrounding areas. He
further stated that Mr. Davis is committed to children, he has an accounting
background with .a keen understanding of financial matters, he expects
accountability from both individuals and organizations, and he pays close attention
to detail in terms of process and outcomes, he is a man of his word, and he is
impassioned toward community service to improve and to make a positive
difference in the lives of those that he serves. He added that it was reported in a
recent newspaper article that Mr. Davis served on the School Board from 1996 to
1998, and during that time he questioned issues of compensation, budget and
purchasing practices; however, having served on a number of committees, he can
attest to the fact that there is always someone who calls the question, who
challenges the status quo, and often these people are labeled as "loose cannons";
however, he has found them not to be a deterrent, but an asset to the organization,
oftentimes they are right and if not, they cause the powers that be to examine the
process.
Ms. Cynthia Shelor, 370 Walnut Road, City of Salem, and a business owner in
the City of Roanoke, spoke on behalf of the application of Harry Davis. She advised
that Mr. Davis spends a great deal of time researching issues so that he can be well
informed before acting, he is detail oriented, and fully understands budgets and
finances; he showed in his past service on the School Board the determination to
make the school system as efficient as possible; and he has a passion for the
CKBSl\minutes03\121503mins.complete.wpd 44
school system's ability to provide students Of the City of Roanoke with a safe
environment in the best possible facilities in order to receive the quality of education
they deserve.
Ms. Vicky Lionberger, 2508 Laburnum Avenue., S. W., President, Raleigh Court
Elementary School PTA, spoke on behalf of the application of Alice Hincker. She
publicly expressed appreciation to Ms. Hincker for her work toward the betterment of
Roanoke's school system, because many troubling issues facing the Roanoke City
School Board would continue to be unknown to the citizens of Roanoke were it not
for Ms. Hincker's unselfish giving of her time and research to uncover errors and
questionable practices of the school administration. She stated that Ms. Hincker has
a Bachelor of Science degree in special education, she has served on countless
sohool PTA boards, she currently serves as Co-Chair of the Patrick Henry PTSA*
School Safety Committee, and Chair of the Roanoke School Violence Protection
Coalition. She expressed admiration for Ms. Hincker, the mother of two children
attending Roanoke City Public Schools, who have not been directly affected by
school violence, yet she has been willing to involve herself in the issue because she
cares for all students and school system staff. She referred to a recent article in The
Roanoke Times in which the Assistant Superintendent of Schools is quoted as
saying that Roanoke City Schools have seen a drop in enrollment by 21'1 students
this year, when in recent years, there was an average of 25 students. She stated that
the loss of 211 students translates to approximately $1 million in lost funds for the
school system; the Assistant Superintendent stated that the controversy
surrounding the school system may have contributed to the dramatic drop in
enrollment; whereupon, she advised that the reality of the situation will come next
year when even more dramatic numbers will be seen and there will be an even
greater decrease in 2004 enrollment. She added that the Superintendent of Schools
has stated that the decline in enrollment has come at the elementary school level,
therefore, the violence issues and overall lack of confidence in the school system
cannot be the cause for the decline; however, she disagreed with the
Superintendent's statement because families who have children in elementary
schools are fearful of sending their children to middle and high schools in the City,
and they are leaving the City of Roanoke for other Roanoke Valley jurisdictions
where there might be a safer school environment. In addition, she stated that there
is the controversy of cost to the City of Roanoke in regard to lost future economic
development. As Chair of the Roanoke School Violence Protection Coalition, she
advised that Ms. Hincker is a team player as well as a leader, she can bring a group
of people together to meet common goals, and she is an honorable woman who has
the desire, commitment, education and time to serve on the Roanoke City School
Board. She stated that her question to the Council is: Will Council stick its head in
the sand and appoint another person to the School Board who will be another yes
CKBSl\minutes03\121503mins.complete.wpd 45
person to Dr. Harris and the current School Board, or will Council appoint a person
who is not afraid of hard work, who will ask the tough questions, who will make the
right decisions for the betterment of Roanoke's children and its schools.
Mr. Butch Lewis, 6830 Bowers Road, N. W., spoke in support of the application
of Alice Hincker. He advised that the Roanoke City School Board has an obligation
to provide a safe, positive learning environment for its young people; each Board
member is entrusted with the responsibility to focus on issues that will secure this
atmosphere; in choosing a person to fill the vacant School Board position, it is
hoped that Council will appoint a person who will stand up and ask the tough
questions, a person who will stand up for all those affected by the learning
environment -- students, faculty and administration. He commented that Ms. Hincker
came into the spotlight as a result of her concerns regarding school safety, she
looks at the big picture and her tireless commitment to the safety of Roanoke's
schools has been noticed. He stated that if Ms. Hincker is appointed to the School
Board, everyone will benefit and the educational future of Roanoke's young people
to receive a quality and safe education will be improved.
Mr. Matthew Reams, 1930 Sheffield Road, S. W., spoke on behalf of the
application of Alice Hincker. He advised that Ms. Hincker is an advocate for
children, teachers and the schools; she has worked tirelessly to uncover the truth,
and it was Ms. Hincker who first brought to the public's attention the issue of under
reported school violence in Roanoke's schools. He stated that Ms. Hincker has
supported those who were wrongly disciplined as a result of coming forth with the
truth; she stood behind Officer Butch Lewis when he was reassigned from Patrick
Henry High School to a midnight patrol position, a reassignment that many feel was
motivated by his willingness to speak out regarding the under reporting of school
violence. He added that Ms. Hincker realizes the importance of working with the
entire community, and not just a small segment; she co-founded the Roanoke
School Violence Protection Coalition in an effort to include all members of the
community in finding ways to reduce violence in the schools and she represents a
large number of citizens and taxpayers who believe that their voice is not currently
being heard by members of the Roanoke City School Board. He advised that Ms.
Hincker believes the school system can be better, Roanoke's school system does a
great number of things well, but if many students do not feel safe, if many parents
fear for the safety of their children, if many teachers fear retribution by standing up
for what is right, then all adVances that have been made will fall by the wayside.
C KBS l \minutes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd 46
Ms. Carol Brash, 2259 Westover Avenue, S. W., spoke in support of the
application of Carla Terry. She advised that Ms. Terry possesses the qualities that
are necessary for a good School Board member; she is committed as a mother and a
wife and to her church, she is President of the Addison Middle School PTA, even
though she has no children enrolled in the school; she is a professional and deals
with people in a professional manner; she cares deeply about Roanoke City and is
dedicated to service through her church and other community service organizations;
and she treats others with respect while honestly expressing her thoughts, standing
up for her beliefs and working toward building consensus which is needed in
Roanoke's schools.
Ms. Lynne Victerine, 2221 Ross Lane, S. W., spoke in support of the
application of Harry Davis. She advised that Mr. Davis previously served on the.
School Board, he was a man with an extreme passion and commitment to Roanoke
City Public Schools; he has a history of distinguished public service as a veteran of
the United States Army and served his country with distinction as a member of the
Special Forces in Vietnam. She stated that he served as a member of the School
Board from 1996-1998 and currently serves as President of the Roanoke Rescue
Mission. She advised that Melinda Payne's departure from the School Board comes
at a very critical time; the School Board is in the midst of budget considerations; the
'° School Board deals with a multi-million dollar budget and it seems reasonable that it
would be helpful to the current School Board to appoint a person with past
experience to the unexpired term, therefore, Mr. Davis would fill that responsibility
with a minimum of transitional preparation, and his exceptional knowledge of
financial matters would be beneficial in restoring confidence in the School Board's
fiduciary stewardship. As a former member of the School Board, she advised that
Mr. Davis took his responsibilities seriously and traveled extensively to conferences
in order to learn as much as possible about the schools and to bring back ideas to
Roanoke's school system; he actively sought input from stakeholders, including
parents, teachers and administrators; he was willing to change his position on
various issues when presented with information that suggested a better way; and he
was ahead of the curve on school safety issues.
Mr. Alex Hincker, 4024 South Lake Drive, S. W., spoke in support of the
application of his mother, Alice Hincker. He advised that his mother is a determined
person which is a quality that is needed on the School Board; and she has been
involved in numerous school projects while continuing to care for her family. He
stated that she is willing to make sacrifices in the best interest of the schools and
CKBSl\minutes03\121503mins.complete.wpd 47
Roanoke's children; and people sometimes tend to be uncomfortable with her
because she frequently asks questions and speaks freely when there are problems.
He stated that Alice Hincker would be the best choice when filling the unexpired
term of Melinda J. Payne on the School Board.
Ms. Cheryl Evans, 1204 Summit Avenue, S. W., spoke in support of the
application of Carla Terry. She called attention to Ms. Terry's leadership capabilities,
and be commitment and dedication to her job, to her neighbors and to her
neighborhood. She referred to Ms. Terry's passion to become a member of the
Roanoke City School Board and advised that she would bring a fresh, unblemished
approach to the Board.
Ms. Leslie Harris, 1204 Summit Avenue, S. W., spoke in support of the
application of Carla Terry. She advised that Ms. Terry may not be a teacher by
profession, but she makes many contributions to the learning environment of
students at Addison Middle School. She stated that Ms. Terry appreciates students,
faculty and others and she will bring a fresh approach to the School Board to ensure
a comfortable learning and teaching environment.
Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridge Crest Road, Hardy, Virginia, spoke in support of the
application of Chris Craft. He advised that several quality applicants have applied
for the position and Council will have a difficult job in making its decision because
Roanoke's schools are vital and it is important to appoint the right people to School
Board positions.
Ms. Joy Sylvester-Johnson, 402 Bullitt Avenue, S. E., spoke in support of the
application of Harry Davis, who currently serves as President of the Roanoke
Rescue Mission Board of Directors. She advised that Mr. Davis is a hands on type of
leader who sets an example through his volunteer service. She stated that he has a
kind heart, he is well intentioned, and he wishes to serve on the School Board
because he cares about Roanoke and realizes that what happens in the school
system and what happens to the children in the school system has a direct impact
on the future of Roanoke.
Ms. Donna McGuirt, 4007 Belford Street, S. W., spoke on behalf of the
application of Alice Hincker. She advised that she is the parent of two children
currently enrolled in the Roanoke City School System; and along with other parents,
she is currently considering whether or not to keep her children in Roanoke City
School Systems. She expressed a desire that Roanoke's school system will remain
strong and continue to provide a safe environment for children to learn, which is of
first and foremost importance. She asked that a person of Ms. Hincker's caliber be
CKBS 1 \minutes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd 48
the Raleigh Court Elementary School, she tirelessly works for Roanoke's children,
and she is dedicated, highly organized, energetic and dynamic.
Ms. Perneller Chubb-Wilson, 3045 Willow Road, S. W., spoke in support of the
application of Harry Davis. She advised that Mr. Davis is a man of integrity,
knowledge, skills and the ability to help all races of children. She expressed
appreciation to all persons who have offered themselves for appointment and
advised that there are some strong candidates who have applied for the position.
There being no further speakers, the Mayor declared the public meeting
closed.
ZONING: Pursuant to Ordinance No. 25523 adopted by the Council on Monday,
April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday,
December 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,
on the request of Edward A. Natt, Attorney, representing Farren and Lynette Webb,
that property located at the intersection of Yellow Mountain Road and Melcher
Street, S. E., described as Official Tax No. 4300722, be rezoned from CN,
Neighborhood Commercial District, to RM-1, Residential Multifamily, Low Density
District, subject to certain conditions, the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, November 28, 2003 and Friday, December 5, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that the
petitioner proposes to subdivide the subject property and construct three single-
family homes on three lots; given the fact that the subject property has no frontage
on Garden City Boulevard and that the balance of the block face of Melcher Street on
which the subject property has frontage is zoned RM-I, application of the RM-I
zoning classification to the subject property would be consistent with the residential
development along Melcher Street and would preclude commercial development
along a residentially developed block; and the residential development pattern of
Melcher Street includes single-family residential structures ranging in size from 700
square feet to 1600 square feet.
CKBS 1 ~minutes03\ 121503mins.complete.wpd 49
Also, given the subject parcel's lack of frontage on Garden City Boulevard and
the residential development pattern of Melcher Street, the subject property creates
an appropriate location for single-family residential development; and such zoning
designation would further define the CN, Neighborhood Commercial District, along
Garden City Boulevard and maintain its focus near the intersection of Yellow
Mountain Road.
The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the
request for rezoning, given the existing residential development pattern of Melcher
Street.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36580-121503) AN ORDINANCE to amend §36.1-3, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 430, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of
Roanoke, to rezone certain property within the City, subject to certain conditions
proffered by the applicant; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36580-121503. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Cutler.
Edward A. Natt, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared before Council
in support of the request of his clients.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in
connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed.
There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Ordinance
No. 36580-121503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................................................................. 6.
NAYS:NONE ................................................................................. ~.
(Vice-Mayor Harris was absent.)
CKBS l \minutes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd 5 0
ZONING: Pursuant to Ordinance No. 25523 adopted by the Council on Monday,
April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for 'Monday,
December 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on a
request of Super D Holdings, L.L.C., that property located at 414, 416, 418 and 420
Ninth Street, S. E., identified as Official Tax Nos. 4112708 -4112711, inclusive, be
rezoned from C-2, General District, to CN, Neighborhood Commercial District,
subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner, the matter was before the
body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, November 28, 2003 and Friday, December 5, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report recommending that
Council approve the request for rezoning, as amended, to include limiting of any
drive-through facility to pharmacy use only, limiting use of the property to
"neighborhood retail establishments" and clarification of transparency on the front
fa~:ade of the building; the application of CN, Neighborhood Commercial District, to
the four subject properties is consistent with the future land use recommendations
of the Belmont-Fallon Neighborhood Plan, and the proffered conditions comply with
the village center design principles as set forth in Vision 2001-2020.
The Planning Commission submitted an additional report advising that
subsequent to the Planning Commission action on November 30, 2003, a Second
Amended Petition was filed on November 26, 2003, which includes one additional
proffered use not considered by the Planning Commission during its public hearing.
Background: A Petition to Rezone the four subject properties was filed on
September 30, 2003; a First Amended Petition, with conditions, was filed on
November 20, 2003; a Second Amended Petition, with conditions, was filed on
November 26, 2003; and conditions proffered by the petitioner in the Second
Amended Petition are as follows:
The building will face Ninth Street.
There will be no parking between the building and Ninth Street.
At least 20 per cent of the front fa~:ade of the building facing Ninth Street shall
consist of plate glass.
CKBS 1 \minutes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd 5 ]
Use of the property will be limited to neighborhood retail establishments as
set forth under paragraph 22 of the Neighborhood Commercial District and
restaurants not to exceed 25 seats as set forth under Paragraph 20 of the
Neighborhood Commercial District, provided that a drive-thru may be
permitted for pharmacy use only.
The Planning Commission advised that the Second Amended Petition includes
amended and additional proffered conditions as set forth by the petitioner and
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on November 20, 2003, which
include clarification of "transparency" on the front facade of the building, limitation of
any drive-through facility to pharmacy use, and limitation of use of the subject
properties to "neighborhood retail establishments", as set forth in Section 36.1-164(22)
of. the Zoning Ordinance, which sets out the permitted uses in the Neighborhood
Commercial District.
In order to further define and more clearly reflect the intended use of the
subject properties proposed to include a pharmacy, retail sales and a sit-down deli '
component, the Planning Commission further advised that the Second Amended
Petition proffers restaurants, not to exceed 25 seats, in addition to "neighborhood
retail" as an additional proffered use of the property; and this specific proffer was
not considered by the Planning Commission during its public hearing.
Given that the request to rezone the property from C-2, General Commercial, to
CN, Neighborhood Commercial, is a down-zoning and is consistent with the future land
use recommendations of the Belmont-Fallon Neighborhood Plan, and given that the
permitted uses of the CN District are consistent with the village center concept of
neighborhood-oriented, pedestrian-friendly commercial uses, the request to include
restaurants as a proffered use, particularly with a seat limitation, is supportable.
The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the
request for rezoning as stated in the Second Amended Petition, including a proffer
permitting a restaurant not to exceed 25 seats.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36581-121503) AN ORDINANCE to amend §36.1-3, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 411, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of
Roanoke, to rezone certain property within the City, subject to certain conditions
proffered by the applicant; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
CKBS I \minutes03~l 21503mins.complete.wpd 5 2
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36581-121503. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
Edward A. Natt, Attorney, appeared before Council in support of the request of
his client.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in
connection with the public hearing. There being none, he declared the public hearing
closed.
There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No.
36581-121503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith ................ : ......................................................................................... -6.
NAYS: None ................................................................................... -0.
(Vice-Mayor Harris was absent.)
ZONING: Pursuant to Ordinance No. 25523 adopted by the Council on
Monday, April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday,
December 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,
on the request of Norman R. and Marie A. Pratt that certain parcels of land located at
the intersection of Stewart Avenue and 9t~ Street, S. E., identified as Official Tax Nos.
4112016-4112018, inclusive, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multi-family, Medium
Density District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions
proffered by the petitioner, the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, November 28, 2003, and Friday, December 5, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that the
petitioner requests the rezoning of three vacant parcels of land in the 800 block of
Stewart Avenue, S. E., for the purpose of permitting an automobile repair
establishment on the property.
It was explained that the subject parcels are located in a residential block of
Stewart Avenue, including both block faces, and are adjacent to the village center
which extends along 9'h Street from Tazewell Avenue to Highland Avenue; land uses
around the subject parcels include single-family residential, multi-family residential,
institutional and commercial uses; and the surrounding land uses and zoning
districts include:
CKBSl\minutes03\121503mins.complete.wpd 5 3
A multi-family dwelling directly adjacent to and to the west of the
subject properties along Stewart Avenue zoned RM-2, with the balance
of the Stewart Avenue block face also zoned RM-2 and including a
vacant lot, one single-family dwelling and two multifamily dwellings;
A church and associated surface parking lots directly across Stewart
Avenue from the subject parcels, zoned RM-2, Residential Multi-family
Medium Density District;
A single-family dwelling and a restaurant across the alley and to the
north of the subject parcels, fronting on Tazewell Avenue zoned C-2,
General Commercial District;
A small vacant lot and a single-family home across 9th Street from the
subject properties to the east zoned C-2; the single-family home,
located on the northeast corner of 9t~ Street and Stewart Avenue, is
oriented towards Stewart Avenue.
It was advised that the request to rezone the subject parcels to C-2, General
Commercial District, with conditions, is inconsistent with the following statements
and recommended actions of Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan:
Infill development: Encourage quality infill development that reflects
the character of the neighborhood. Infill development consisting of an
automobile repair establishment is neither consistent with the existing
residential structures along the north side of the 800 block of Stewart
Avenue, nor compatible with neighborhood-oriented retail, office, or
residential uses encouraged in the village center along 9th Street.
Higher-density residential development: Higher-density residential
development should be concentrated within and immediately adjacent
to village centers. The future land use map of the Belmont-Fallon
Neighborhood Plan, adopted by City Council in January 2003,
recommends the futu re land use for the 800 block of Stewart Avenue as
high-density residential development. As one of the two land use
components of a village center, the high-density residential use(s)
would complement the neighborhood commercial development
currently located and encouraged to develop along 9= Street.
CKBSl\minutes03\121503mins.complete.wpd 54
The City Planning Commission recommended that Council deny the request
for rezoning, advising that given the standards for infill and village center
development as set forth in Vision 2001-2020 and the future land use
recommendations of the Belmont-Fallon Neighborhood Plan, the Commission
cannot support the request for rezoning the subject parcels of land to C-2, General
Commercial District, with conditions.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36582-121503) AN ORDINANCE to amend §36.1-3, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 411, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of
Roanoke, to rezone certain property within the City, subject to certain conditions
proffered by the applicant; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36582-121503..The motion
was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, representing the petitioners, advised that
Norm's Transmissions has operated on Tazewell Avenue for 14 years; it is a small
classic "mom and pop" type operation; the business needs to relocate and the
petitioners purchased three vacant lots within view of the current location at the
corner of 9~ Street and Stewart Avenue; it is important to the petitioners to remain in
the current neighborhood, therefore, it was a disappointment when the City Planning
Commission recommended denial of the application for rezoning. In reaching their
decision, she explained that the Planning Commission focused almost exclusively
on the question of use, believing that the high density residential; or a village center
use is appropriate at this location, although some Planning Commission members
believe that this small scale transmission shop is a village center use, and is
supported by the Comprehensive Plan; however, the majority of members of the City
Planning Commission did not agree. She stated that the southeast neighborhood
would like for the business to be located at the proposed location and letters of
support and petitions have been forwarded to Council Members from southeast
Roanoke residents. She advised that the petitioners have offered to impose
conditions on the property in exchange for the rezoning and have agreed to develop
the property in accordance with a proposed concept plan there will be no free
standing signs, all lights will contain shields to prevent illumination of off site
CKBS I \minutes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd 5 5
property, the building will be of metal material and enhanced in a fashion consistent
with the design elements encouraged by the City in southeast Roanoke, a
transparency will be provided along the front and side facade, with brick along the
windows, and the building will be constructed in substantial conformity with the
proposed elevations if approved by Council.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons in attendance who would like to
speak in connection with the public hearing.
Norman Pratt, 1344 Trah Drive, Goodview, Virginia, petitioner, advised that he
worked with City staff in an effort to resolve staff concerns which he hoped would
lead to a recommendation for approval by the City Planning Commission by
proffering a buffer between his property and the property of adjacent residents, and'
installation of gravel and grass for wastewater management, but the City Planning
Commission still recommended denial of the request for rezoning.
Mr. Earl Elkins, 921 Tazewell Avenue, S. E., spoke in support of the request of '
the petitioners. He advised that Mr. Pratt has made many contributions to southeast
Roanoke residents who could not afford to have their vehicles repaired; he is
honest, diligent, hard working and will honor his commitment to the City of Roanoke
through the quality of the building that he proposes to construct. He stated that the
majority of southeast Roanoke residents are in favor of Mr. Pratt's business
remaining in the area.
Mr. Randall Woods, 602 9th Street, S. E., General Manager and Vice-President
of Sataline Corporation, which property is currently leased by Replay Video, spoke
in support of the new business growth proposed by Mr. Pratt toward helping to
rehabilitate and to revitalize the southeast area. He stated that the building
proposed by Mr. Pratt will be a good fit with this section of 9= Street which is
primarily commercial; and both business representatives and residents of southeast
Roanoke support the request for rezoning, because Mr. Pratt has been a good tenant
and a good neighbor.
Mr. Richard Nichols, 1620 Kirk Avenue, S. E., representing the Southeast
Action Forum, spoke on behalf of the request of Mr. Pratt who has been a member of
the southeast community for 13 years. He advised that the petitioner would like to
construct a transmission shop on three lots that have been vacant for some time,
and the proposed building will blend in and serve as a good addition to the
neighborhood. He advised that Mr. Pratt is a businessman who has contributed a
great deal to the southeast community, and expansion of his business would bring
more revenue to the City, therefore, the Southeast Action Forum encourages Council
to approve the request for rezoning.
CKBS1 \minutes03~l 21503mins,complcte.wpd 56
The Reverend Stephen Harris, 825 Stewart Avenue, S. E., Pastor, Belmont
Baptist Church, advised that the Church supports the request of Mr. and Mrs. Pratt
which will represent continued economic development in southeast Roanoke.
Mr. Richard Dearing, 5122 Old Virginia Springs Road, S. W., called attention to
the Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan, in which residents dared to dream 20
years into the future of the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke Valley. He referred to
progress on Williamson Road, enhancements to Grandin Village, new downtown
traffic patterns, a thriving City Market and downtown area, revitalization of the
Jamison Avenue, Bullitt Avenue, Ninth Street corridor, with restored buildings
throughout the neighborhood, and the continuing dream of nine village centers.
Tying in with Vision 2001-2020, he stated that the petitioner proposes to construct an
expanded auto service center, which is vital to a well rounded village center. He
stated that Mr. Pratt operates a clean and orderly business, he is a well respected
businessman, he proposes to make a sizeable investment in the community and his
business is an asset to southeast Roanoke. Therefore, he encouraged Council to
approve the request for rezoning as submitted by the petitioners.
Mr. Tim McGuire, 804 Tazewell Avenue, S. E., spoke in support of the request
for rezoning. He advised that he has operated businesses in southeast Roanoke for
approximately 14 years, he owns 12 parcels of land in the vicinity of the proposed
rezoning, and he has witnessed many changes in the area. He commended Mr. and
Mrs. Pratt on the type of investment they plan to make in the southeast area, the
professionalism with which they operate their business, and requested that Council
approve the request for rezoning.
There being no further speakers, the Mayor declared the public hearing
closed.
Discussion ensued as to how much property is currently available in the
vicinity of Mr. Pratt's business that is appropriately zoned for the use under
discussion; whereupon, Mr. Townsend noted that within one quarter mile of the
location in question, 25 vacant lots are currently zoned C-2, General Commercial
District, and 43 vacant lots are zoned LM, Light Manufacturing District. It was
explained that using the City's GIS data, vacant lots are described as lots that
contain no structure, parking lots, storage yards, or vacant of any use, which is the
all encompassing category that addresses properties that have no improvements
that are zoned either C-2 or LM. He further advised that from a zoning point of view,
there are significant properties of C-2 and LM zoned properties in relative proximity
to the southeast neighborhood.
CKBSl\minutes03\121503mins.complete.wpd 57
Following further discussion, Ms. Goodlatte clarified that the petitioner worked
w!th at least three real estate brokers and spoke at length with the City Planning
Commission regarding a concern that he had been unable to identify other
properties in the southeast area that met his business criteria. She stated that it is
recognized that the City is sensitive to ensuring that inventories of existing
appropriately zoned properties are looked at before other properties are considered.
There was discussion in regard to the proffered conditions for rezoning;
whereupon, Ms. Goodlatte advised that her client is willing to submit additional
proffers that the building will be constructed substantially in accordance with certain
stated elevations that will be submitted in the form of a written proffer to the City
Attorney.
The City Attorney advised that the fifth proffer submitted by the petitioners
reads as follows: "The building shall be constructed in substantial conformity with
the elevations dated September 15, 2003, as amended on December 15, 2003, made
by Norman Pratt, a copy of which is filed with the City Clerk", and it will be
necessary to amend the ordinance accordingly.
Mr. Dowe moved that the ordinance be amended as follows: "The rezoning is
subject to the proffers contained in the Petition filed in the Office of the City Clerk on
September 30, 2003, as amended on December 15, 2003." The motion was seconded
by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted.
Ordinance No. 36582-121503, as amended, was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith ................................................................................................... -6.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... -0
(Vice-Mayor Harris was absent.)
CITY PROPERTY-YMCA-LEASES: Pursuant to action by the Council, the City
Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, December 15, 2003, at 7:00
p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the proposed lease of
City-owned property located in the 400 and 500 blocks of Church Avenue, S. W.,
when such property is acquired by the City, pursuant to an Agreement dated
December 24, 2002, between the City and the YMCA of Roanoke Valley, Inc., to the
YMCA of Roanoke Valley, Inc., for a term commencing August 1, 2004, and ending
December 1, 2005, subject to automatic renewal on a month-to-month basis, the
matter was before the body.
CKBSl\minutes03\121503mins.complete.wpd 5 8
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, December 5, 2003.
The City Manager submitted a communication advising that on December 24,
2002, Council entered into an Agreement with the YMCA of Roanoke Valley to
provide support for development and construction of a new YMCA facility in the
West Church Avenue area of downtown Roanoke, in order to accommodate an
expanding number of YMCA programs and to replace the current YMCA building
located at the corner of Church Avenue and Fifth Street, S. W; in an effort to support
the economic development of the West Church Avenue corridor, including the new
YMCA facility, Council approved construction of a structured parking garage as part
of the 2004-2008 Capital Improvement Plan; and bonds are projected to be sold in
fiscal year 2006 for the project.
It was further advised that in order to assure sufficient interim parking for the
new YMCA facility prior to the opening of a new public parking structure, the YMCA
wishes to lease two City owned surface parking lots in the West Church Avenue
corridor, for the purpose of providing parking for its members and program
attendees; the lease would commence on August 1, 2004, and terminate on
December 31, 2005,. subject to automatic renewal on a month-to-month basis until
the parking structure is operational; annual revenue from the lease will be
$35,597.00; and the YMCA will assume complete responsibility, liability and
expenses related to operation of the parking lots for the term of the lease.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute the
appropriate documents, to be approved as to form by the City Attorney, to lease the
above described City-owned property to the YMCA of Roanoke Valley, Inc., for the
term commencing August 1, 2004 until December 31, 2005, subject to automatic
renewal on a month to month basis, until the new public parking structure located in
the West Church Avenue corridor is operational.
Mr. Cutler offered the following ordinance:
(#36583-121503) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to enter into a
lease with YMCA of Roanoke Valley, Inc., for the lease of City-owned property
identified as Official Tax Nos. 1113408,1113409, 1113410, 1113411, 1113412, and
1113413, and Official Tax NOS. 1011206, 1011209 and 1011210, when they become
property belonging to the City, upon certain terms and conditions; and dispensing
with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
CKBSl\minutes03~121503mins.complete.wpd 5 9
Mr. Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36583-121503. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dowe.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like t° be heard
in connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public hearing
closed.
There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Ordinance No.
36853-121503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................................................................. -6.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0.
(Vice-Mayor Harris was absent.)
(Council Member Bestpitch advised that his spouse is employed by the YMCA of
Roanoke Valley, Inc., and inquired if he has a conflict of interest in voting on the
proposed lease; whereupon, the City Attorney advised that Mr. Bestpitch would not
have a conflict of interest.)
LEASES-CITY PROPERTY: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City
Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, December 15, 2003, at
7:00 p.m,, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on a proposed
extension of a lease agreement with The Hertz Corporation for an 87,120 square foot
parcel of land located at 1302 Municipal Road, N. W., for a period of five years, the
matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, December 5, 2003.
The City Manager submitted a communication advising that The Hertz
Corporation currently leases approximately 87~120 square feet of City-owned property
identified as Official Tax No. 6640123, commonly known as 1302 Municipal Road, N. W.,
for the purpose of operating an automobile rental establishment, The Hertz Corporation
began leasing the parcel of land from the City of Roanoke in 1968, and the current lease
agreement expired on November 30, 2003,
CKBS I \minutes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd 60
It was further advised that The Hertz Corporation has requested an extension
of the current lease agreement for an additional five year period, beginning
December 1,2003 through November 30, 2008; the proposed agreement establishes
a rate of $26,600.00 for the first year, with an increase of two per cent each year
thereafter; and annual rental, which will be paid in monthly installments, will be as
follows:
December 1, 2003 -
November 30, 2004 $26,600.00 ($2,166.67 per month)
December 1, 2004 -
November 30, 2005 $27,132.00 ($2,261.00 per month)
December 1, 2005 -
November 30, 2006 $27,675.00 ($2,306.25 per month)
December 1, 2006 -
November 30, 2007 $28,229.00 ($2,352.42 per month)
December 1, 2007 -
November 30, 2008 $28,794.00 ($2,399.50 per .month)
The City Manager recommended, following the public hearing, that she be
authorized to execute a lease extension agreement with The Hertz Corporation for
approximately 87,120 square feet of City-owned property located at 1302 Municipal
Road, N. W., for a period of five years, beginning December 1, 2003 and expiring
November 30, 2008.
The City Manager orally corrected a typographical error in the monthly amount
to be charged from December 1, 2003 until November 30, 2004, which should read
$2,216.67 per month in lieu of $2,166.67.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance:
(#36584-121503) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the proper City officials to enter into
a lease extension agreement between the City and The Hertz Corporation for use of an
87,120 square foot parcel of City-owned land at 1302 Municipal Road, N. W., for the
operation of an automobile rental establishment, upon certain terms and conditions,
and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36584-121503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe.
C KBS 1 \minutes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd 61
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be heard
in.connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public hearing
closed.
There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Ordinance No.
36584-121503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................................................................. -6.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... -0.
(Vice-Mayor Harris was absent~)
EASEMENTS-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS-CITY PROPERTY: Pursuant to
Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council on Monday, April 6, 1981, the City
Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, December 15, 2003, at 7:00
p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, with regard to vacation of
portions of sanitary sewer and drainage easements, in connection with development
of a parcel of privately owned land located on Wildwood Road, S. W., Official Tax No.
1070605, the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, December 5, 2003..
The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Robert H. Kulp,
Jr., and G. Baker Ellett, owners of property located on Wildwood Road, S. W., Official
Tax No. 1070605, have requested that the City vacate portions of those sanitary
sewer and drainage easements that interfere with development of the parcel of land;
and the owners propose to relocate the existing utilities and easements and are
willing to dedicate to the City alternate easements for the new alignment.
It was further advised that Council previously authorized vacation and
relocation of existing easements and acceptance and dedication of new easements
on the property for developmental purposes in January 2003; an easement was
recorded which vacated the old easement and dedicated the new easements to the
City; and subsequent to Council's actions and recordation of the relevant
documents, it was discovered by the owners of the property that the proposed
structure to be developed on the property would encroach on a portion of the
relocated easements.
CKBSl\minutes03\121503mins.complete.wpd 62
It was explained that the plats have been reviewed by and are acceptable to
the City Engineer; and the owner of an adjacent parcel of land (Lot 3A),~ June W.
Camper, upon which a portion of the relocated easements will encroach, has agreed
to dedicate the proposed easement on her parcel of land.
The City Manager recommended, following the public hearing, that she be
authorized to execute the appropriate documents vacating portions of the existing
easements and accepting the new easements, with the property owner to be
responsible for preparation of all necessary documents, to be approved as to form
by the City Attorney, and for all expenses associated with relocating the existing
utility.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance:
(#36585-121503) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the vacation and relocation of a
portion of a sanitary sewer and drainage easement across Tax Map No. 1070605,
located on Wildwood Road, S. W., and across a portion of the adjoining parcel
identified as 1070603, authorizing the acceptance and dedication of a new sanitary
sewer and drainage easement across a portion of the same properties, upon certain
terms and conditions, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36585-121503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be heard
in connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public hearing
closed.
There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Ordinance No.
36585-121503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith ................................................................................................. -6.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... ~.
(Vice-Mayor Harris was absent.)
CKBS 1 \minutes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd 6 3
OTHER BUSINESS:
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD: A petition for appeal of a decision of the
Architectural Review Board in connection with denial of a Certificate of
Appropriateness, filed by Lewis R. Burger, Owner, Burger & Son, Inc., with regard to
replacement of windows, siding and installation to property located at 802 Marshall
Avenue, S. W., was before Council.
Mr. Burger presented photographs depicting the condition of houses
surrounding his property at 802 Marshall Avenue, S. W., and called attention to
numerous improvements that have been completed, including front porch
improvements and siding. He stated that no solutions to his dilemma were offered
by the Architectural Review Board, and he believes that he has been discriminated'
against by City Building Inspectors. He advised that he is a disabled veteran who
lives on a limited income, therefore, he is seeking grant funds to make the necessary
repairs to his property.
As background, R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and
Development, advised that:
The structure at 802 Marshall Avenue, S. W., was built in 1923 and
contains two dwelling units; and the property has a long history
of code enforcement issues.
Upon investigation by staff, it was determined that the structure
was condemned after Mr. Burger purchased the property in 1986.
In 1994, Code enforcement action was taken on the structure
against Mr. Burger and the co-owner at that time, Margaret Wade,
to repair the foundation, porch piers, siding, gutters, down
spouts, porch decking, rails, columns, and electrical.
In 1994, a fire damaged the structure, but Ms. Wade was granted a
Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the standing-seam metal
on the roofs with asphalt shingles; however, in July 1995, a
criminal complaint was issued to Ms. Wade for failing to repair the
fire damage to the front porch; the work was subsequently
completed, and the complaint was dismissed in September, 1995.
CKBSl\minutes03\121503mins.complete.wpd 64
In 1999, Mr. Burger obtained sole ownership of the property; in
1999, the property was condemned and ordered to be vacated and
secured; Code officials cited problems with exterior walls, roof,
peeling paint, doors, soffits, gutters and down spouts, traSh, lack
of heat, insect infestation, and standing sewage in the basement.
Code officials met with Mr. Burger in March and April 2001, as he
initiated repairs to the structure; on July 16, 2001, a Certificate of
Compliance was granted from the Rental Inspection Program for
the lower unit only; outstanding code compliance issues
continued with the rest of the building and on July 16, 2002, the
remainder of the work was completed.
In May, 2003, it was observed that vinyl siding was being applied
to the front porch of the structure, which is within the H-2,
Neighborhood Preservation District; City staff visited the property
on May 14, 2003, and spoke with Mr. Burger while he was
applying vinyl siding to the entablature of the front wood windows
with vinyl replacement windows and requested that he stop work
on the property and apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness for
the work already completed; Mr. Burger refused to stop work and
stated that he was "grandfathered in" because he owned the
house prior to the historic district being established; he was
advised that the work needed to comply with Historic District
guidelines and if he refused to obtain a Certificate of
Appropriateness, he would be in violation of the zoning ordinance
and be summoned to General District Court; however, Mr. Burger
continued to apply vinyl siding and a summons was issued for
his appearance in General District Court.
Mr. Burger appeared in General District Court on September 4,
2003; the Court continued the matter so that he could submit an
application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for review by the
Architectural Review Board at its October meeting; on October 9,
2003, the Architectural Review Board considered the application;
Mr. Burger stated that the vinyl had been installed three years
ago; photographs show some of the wood siding still visible on
the house; one of the photographs is from the City of Roanoke's
GIS inventory and the other was taken by a resident in August,
2002; the photographs denote the historic wood siding and some
trim details; the wood siding did not appear in poor condition; the
CK BS 1 \minutes03\l 21503mins.complete,wpd 65
photograph also depicts decorative features that have since been
covered by synthetic material with no attempt to emulate them.
During the October, 2003, ARB meeting, Board members and staff
were concerned that the vinyl siding had not been installed
properly and that the windows were .replaced with new vinyl
windows that did not match the original windows, nor was the
trim retained; virtually every element of the house had been
covered with vinyl; and a Board member suggested three specific
actions that the applicant could undertake that might make the
vinyl siding more compatible.
The Chairman of the Architectural Review Board advised Mr.
Burger that if the Board denied his application, he could work
with staff and other Board members to submit another
substantially different proposal; Mr. Burger requested that the
Board proceed with its vote; the motion to approve the
application failed by a 0 - 7 vote; and Mr. Burger was formally
notified of the denial and of his right to appeal to the Council;
whereupon, he filed his appeal on November 3, 3003.
On November 6, 2003, Mr. BUrger appeared in General District
Court as scheduled and advised that he was appealing the
Board's decision, and the Court requested that he return on
December 18, 2003, for further consideration of the case;
immediately following the November 6 court appearance, Mr.
Burger approached the Agent to the Architectural Review Board
with regard to the possibility of working on a design solution for
the ARB in lieu of his Council appeal, staff agreed to work with
Mr, Burger, however, after several follow up telephone calls, Mr.
Burger decided to proceed with his appeal to City Council.
A report of the Architectural Review Board advising that Section 36.1-345(a) of
the Zoning Ordinance provides:
"In order to encourage the preservation and enhancement of the
district and encourage the rehabilitation and new construction in
conformance with the existing scale and character of the district,
the architectural review board shall review and approve the
erection of new buildings or structures, including signs, the
demolition, moving, reconstruction, alteration or restoration, of
existing structures and buildings, including the installation or
CKB S 1 \minutes03\] 2 ] 503mins.complete.wpd 66
replacement of siding, or reduction in their floor area, including
the enclosure or removal of a porch. No such erection,
demolition, moving, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, or
enlargement or reduction of a structure, or building, shall be
undertaken without the issuance of a certificate of
appropriateness by the board, unless otherwise specified herein".
It was further advised that the Architectural Design Guidelines adopted by the
ARB and endorsed by Council state that historic wood siding is a distinctive feature
of many Roanoke residences and that changing or covering siding can often alter or
destroy the authentic character of a building; and the guidelines further recommend
that the following be considered when installing vinyl siding:
Do not replace sound historic siding with new materials to
achieve an "improved" appearance.
Historic woOd siding is a distinctive feature that helps to define
the visual characteristics of a building.
Both new and historic siding requires periodic maintenance to
give a building proper weather protection.
Retain existing siding: Identify and keep the original exterior siding
materials as well as any unique siding.
The Architectural Review Board advised that two matters involving the
application of vinyl siding have recently been appealed to Council; in November
1998, the Board denied a request to apply vinyl soffit material on a house at 601
Allison Avenue, the decision was appealed to Council, and Council overturned the
Board's decision on January 19, 1999; and the latest appeal to Council was a series
of events that occurred during the summer of 2003, when Dana Walker, H & W
Properties, LLC, twice appealed the Board's decision to deny an application of vinyl
siding to rental property at 702 Marshall Avenue, S. W.; the initial request was denied
by the Board on May 8, 2003, because the vinyl siding did not maintain the
architecturally defining features of the house; due to a lack of gutters and down
spouts, the house also suffered from moisture damage, which the Board .believed
that the application of vinyl siding would have exacerbated; Mr. Walker appealed the
Board's decision to Council on June 21, 2003, at which time Council requested that
CKBS I \minutes03\l 21503mins.compiete.wpd 6 7
Mr. Walker present a new application to the Board; the ARB unanimously denied the
revised application at its July 10, 2003 meeting; Mr. Walker again appealed to
Council and Council unanimously upheld the Board's decision on August 18, 2003;
and the vinyl siding that was applied to the house was subsequently removed.
It was explained that since January 2001, the ARB has approved four
applications for vinyl siding; numerous other projects have been approved
administratively; and with these projects, the applicant provided sufficient detail and
proposed to apply the materials in a manner that preserved the character and
architecturally defining features of the house.
The Architectural Review Board recommended that Council affirm the Board's
decision to deny the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for property'
located at 802 Marshall Avenue, S. W., for the installation of vinyl siding, on the
grounds that installation of the vinyl siding does not maintain the architectural
defining features of the building and is not appropriate.
If a Certificate of Appropriateness is not issued, question was raised as to
what will happen to the work that has been completed to date; whereupon, Mr.
Townsend advised that if Council were not to uphold the action of the Architectural
Review Board, the work that has been dOne to date would be approved and a
Certificate of Appropriateness would be issued; if the Council were to affirm the
action of the ARB, Mr. Burger would be required to remove all material from the
building that was erected without ARB approval. He advised that the matter could
be referred back to the Architectural Review Board with instructions to clarify to Mr,
Burger the necessary action that will be required to bring the house more in keeping
with the architectural intent of the historic district.
Although it was agreed that Mr. Burger did not follow Architectural Review
Board guidelines, concern was expressed by some Members of Council with regard
to removing the improvements already made to the building; whereupon, Mr.
Townsend advised that at the October, 2003 ARB meeting, Board members and staff
were concerned that vinyl siding had not been installed properly, windows were
replaced with new vinyl windows that did not match the original windows, trim had
not been retained, and virtually every element of the house had been covered with
vinyl. He added that a member of the ARB suggested three specific actions that the
applicant could take that might make the vinyl siding more compatible; the Chairman
also advised Mr. Burger that he, along with staff and other ARB Board members,
could provide suggestions on what could be done to the building, retroactively, to
restore some of the original intent; however, Mr. Burger did not place anything
substantial on the table for consideration by the Board. He advised that following
C KBS ] \minutes03\l 21503rains.complete.wpd 68
the General District Court hearing in November, staff indicated to Mr. Burger the
opportunity to continue to work on some resolution, retroactively, to the Property,
the agent to the ARB followed up with telephone calls, and Mr. Burger decided to
continue on the appellate process, as opposed to going back to the ARB with
changes to the facade that could potentially bring the property back to some
semblance of character to the historic district. To address the concerns of some
Members of Council, Mr. Townsend stated that with the cooperation of Mr. Burger,
the Architectural Review Board could engage in further discussion with the
petitioner on actions that could be taken to salvage some of the improvements
already made to this point.
The Mayor inquired if the matter can be resolved without requiring Mr. Burger
to start over; whereupon, Mr. Townsend advised that it is possible to resolve the
issue as long as Mr. Burger is amenable to meaningful discussion insofar as
specific proposals that will be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review
Board.
Robert N. Richert, Chair, Architectural Review Board, advised that in all of his
years of involvement with the H-2, Historic District, including two years on the
Architectural Review Board, he has never encountered a more intransigent property
owner, and the amount of resources expended by City staff and the courts to get the
property owner to submit an application is an outrage. He advised that in his
opinion the ARB will be reluctant to make any decision that in any way validates the
course of action that the property owner has taken over not only the last two years,
but the last 20 years. He expressed concern with the messages that are being sent
to the community; in the last six months two property owners have been expected to
remove vinyl siding from their buildings and they have done so because the City
took a position and abided by that decision; and if the Council chooses to affirm the
Board's action, such does not preclude Mr. Burger from bringing back to the ARB,
after appropriate consultation with staff, an acceptable proposal which will involve
more investment. He advised that Mr. Burger is scheduled to appear in General
District Court later this month, and, if Council elects to affirm the ARB's decision, it
is requested that City staff be represented by additional legal counsel since this is a
situation that requires dramatic change.
Mr. Bestpitch inquired if the Architectural Review Board continues to be
willing to work with Mr. Burger; whereupon, the Agent to the ARB responded in the
affirmative.
CKB S 1 \minums03\ 121503mins.complete.wpd 6 9
Based upon the evidence, testimony and documents that were presented to
the Council, Mr. Bestpitch moved that the decision of the City of Roanoke
Architectural Review Board on October 9, 2003, be affirmed, and that no Certificate
of Appropriateness be issued for the installation of siding and windows at 802
Marshall Avenue, S. W., as set forth in the petition for appeal, on the grounds that
the proposed installation would not maintain the architectural defining features of
the building. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
The Mayor referred to an article in the Old Southwest Newsletter which was
prepared by the Agent to the Architectural Review Board in regard to the elimination
of vinyl siding in the historic district. The Mayor expressed concern with regard to
the position of Architectural Review Board and City Planning Commission staff
regarding the use of vinyl siding, and inquired if the article was written by a City'
employee on City time. He stated that there are legitimate cases where property
owners are trying to do the right thing and installation of vinyl siding, is the only way
they can afford to improve their property. He added that he is interested in
protecting those citizens and intends to fight the battle for those persons who have
been abused by the vinyl siding rule.
Mr. Fitzpatrick called for the question.
The motion offered by Mr. Bestpitch, second by Mr. Cutler, was adopted,
Mayor Smith voted no.
Mr. Marwood Larson, 517 Washington Avenue, S. W., Editor, Old Southwest
Newsletter, clarified that the column above referenced by the Mayor, in the Old
Southwest Newsletter, as prepared by the Agent to the City Planning Commission,
was funded through neighborhood dues and the column was written on the personal
time of Ms. Beckett and not as an employee of the City of Roanoke.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Mayor advised that
Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard, and matters requiring
referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for any necessary and
appropriate response, recommendation or report to Council.
ZONING-DRUGS/SUBSTANCE ABUSE: Mr. Ray Douglas spoke against the
proposed methadone clinic on Hershberger Road, N.W. He advised that he was not
opposed to the methadone clinic, but to the proposed location in view of the number
of near by schools and churches.
CKBS 1 \minutes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd 70
Ms. Perneller Wilson, 3045 Willow Road, N. W., presented petitions signed by
approximately 1200 persons in opposition to the proposed methadone 'clinic on
Hershberger Road, N. W.
ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Michael Herman, 2819 Carolina Avenue, S. W., spoke
in support of the renovation of Victory Stadium. He also spoke to the advantages of
the Stadium's close proximity to the Rivers Edge Sports complex, and advised that
Victory Stadium offers jogging facilities and a large seating capacity.
Mr. Matthew Herman, 2819 Carolina Avenue, S. W., spoke in support of
rehabilitation of Victory Stadium in memory of and in tribute to the World War II
generation. He stated that Victory Stadium is used for biking and jogging, and the
facility is close to the Rivers Edge Sports Complex.
SCHOOLS: Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., advised that the City
of Roanoke continues to remain in a state of uneasiness, unhappiness, and
uncertainty; and many .parents, students, teachers and citizens, as well as
Roanoke's communities, are concerned and troubled. She stated that.citizens are
also troubled and concerned about discipline in Roanoke's schools, and the problem
needs to be corrected in order to protect Roanoke's children.
CITY EMPLOYEES-TAXES: Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 729 Loudon Avenue, N. W.,
called attention to problems within the City work force; i.e.: interpretation by certain
City officials in regard to the City's time frame for filing of grievances by City
employees. He expressed concern with regard to the manner in which taxpayers'
dollars are spent and an increase in property values leading to higher real estate
taxes.
SCHOOLS: Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., advised that he has
applied for the vacancy on. the Roanoke City School Board created by the
resignation of Melinda J. Payne. He stated that he is a product of the Roanoke City
Public School System, and, if appointed to the School Board, he will work to improve
the relationship between Council and the School Board.
CKB S 1 \minutes03\ 121503mins.complete.wpd 7 1
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting previously concluded, Mr.
Bestpitch moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her
knowledge that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open
meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of InformationAct; and (2)only
such public business matters as were identified in any motion by which any Closed
Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith ................................................................................................... -6.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -6.
(Vice-Mayor Harris was absent.)
WATER DEPARTMENT: Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council ratify the
appointment of George W. Logan as the seventh member of the Board of Directors,
Western Virginia Water Authority. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .......................................................................................... -6.
NAYS: None ....................................................................................... -6.
(Vice-Mayor Harris was absent.)
The Mayor declared the meeting in recess until Tuesday, December 30, 2003,
at 9:30 a.m., at the Roanoke County Administration Center, Fourth Floor Conference
Room, 5204 Bernard Drive, S. W., for a joint meeting of Roanoke City Council and the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, to continue discussions with regard to the
Western Virginia Water Authority.
(The joint meeting of Council and the Board of Supervisors was later postponed
until Tuesday, February 10, 2004, at 12:00 noon at the Roanoke County
Administration Center, Fourth Floor Conference Room, 5204 Bernard Drive, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia.)
CKBSl\minutes03\l 21503mins.complete.wpd 72
ATTEST:
APPROVED
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
CKBSl\minutes03\I21503mins.complete.wpd 73
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ..... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
January 5, 2004
9:00 a.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday,
January 5, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., the regular meeting hour, in the Emergency Operations
Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church
Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith presiding,
pursuant to Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, City Council, Section 2-15, Rules of
Procedure, Rule 1, ReRular MeetinRs, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended; and pursuant to Resolution No. 36193-010603 adopted by the Council on
January 6, 2003, which changed the time of commencement of the regular meeting
of Council to be held on the first Monday in each month from 12:15 p.m. to 9:00 a.m.
PRESENT: Council Members C. Nelson Harris, William D. Bestpitch,
M. Rupert Cutler, Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., and Mayor Ralph K. Smith .................. 5.
ABSENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., and Linda F. Wyatt ............. 2.
(Council Members Dowe and Wyatt arrived at 9:15 a.m.)
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; Gary E. Tegenkamp,
Assistant City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk.
COMMITTEES-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor Ralph K. Smith
requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on
certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council; and
to interview applicants for one vacancy on the Roanoke City School Board, pursuant
to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body.
Mr. Harris moved that Council concur in the request to convene in a Closed
Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Bestpitch, Cutler, Fitzpatrick, and Mayor
Smith ............................................................................................................. 5.
NAYS: None .................................................................................... --0.
(Council Members Dowe and Wyatt had not entered the meeting when the vote was
recorded.)
ckwb l ~Final\O 10504 1
PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY PROPERTY-CITY COUNCIL: A
communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in a Closed
Meeting to discuss disposition of publicly-owned property, where discussion in
open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy
of the public body, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, was before the body.
Mr. Harris moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager to
convene in a Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Bestpitch, Cutler, Fitzpatrick, and Mayor
Smith ............................................................................................................. 5..
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ -0.
(Council Members Dowe and Wyatt had not entered the meeting when the vote was
recorded.)
PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY PROPERTY-CITY COUNCIL: A
communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in a Closed
Meeting to discuss disposition of publicly-owned property, where discussion in
open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy
of the public body, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, was before the body.
Mr. Harris moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager to
convene in a Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Bestpitch, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor
Smith ............................................................................................................. 5.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Members Dowe and Wyatt had not entered the meeting when the vote was
recorded.)
At 9:10 a.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for a Closed Session to
interview School Board applicants in the Council's Conference Room, Room 451,
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building.
(At 9:15 a.m., Council Members Wyatt and Dowe entered the meeting.)
ckwbl~Final\Ol0504 2
At 11:40 a.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber, with
all Members of the Council in attendance, Mayor Smith presiding.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Session just concluded, Mr. Bestpitch
moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her knowledge
that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2) only such
public business matters as were identified in any motion by which any Closed
Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0.
OATHS OF OFFICE-SCHOOLS: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on
the Roanoke City School Board to fill the unexpired term of Melinda J. Payne,
resigned, ending June 30, 2004, and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Fitzpatrick placed in nomination the name of Alvin L. Nash.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Nash was appointed as a Trustee of
the Roanoke City School Board, for a term ending June 30, 2004, by the following
vote:
FOR MR. NASH: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe,
Fitzpatrick, and Mayor Smith ................................................................... ----7.
At 11:45 a.m., the Council reconvened in Closed Session in the Council's
Conference Room.
At 11:55 a.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber, with
all Members of the Council in attendance, Mayor Smith presiding.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Session just concluded, Mr. Bestpitch
moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her knowledge
that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2) only such
public business matters as. were identified in any motion by which any Closed
Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
ckwbl ~Final\010504 3
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ................................................................... ;- .................... -0.
COMMiTTEES-BUILDINGSIBUILDING DEPARTMENT: The Mayor advised that
the term of office of Peter W. Clapsaddle as a member of the New Construction Code
expired on September 30, 2003, and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Bestpitch placed in nomination the name of Peter W. Clapsaddle.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Clapsaddle was reappointed as a
member of the New Construction Code, for a term ending September 30, 2008, by the
following vote:
FOR MR. CLAPSADDLE: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler,
Dowe, Fitzpatrick, and Mayor Smith .................................................................. -7.
COMMITTEES-BLUE RIDGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE: The Mayor advised '
that the term of office of Sheri Bernath as a City representative to the Blue Ridge
Behavioral Healthcare, Board of Directors, expired on December 31,2003, and called
for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Bestpitch placed in nomination the name of Sheri Bernath.
There being no further nominations, Ms. Bernath was reappointed as a City
representative to the Blue Ridge Behavioral Health Care, Board of Directors, for a
term ending December 31, 2006, by the following vote:
FOR MS. BERNATH: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe,
Fitzpatrick, and Mayor Smith ....................................................................... 7.
COMMITTEES-PARKS AND RECREATION: The Mayor advised that there is a
vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to fill the unexpired term of
Anita L. Lee, resigned, ending March 31,2004, and called for nominations to fill the
vacancy.
Mr. Bestpitch placed in nomination the name of Gwendolyn W. Mason.
There being no further nominations, Ms. Mason was appointed as a member of
the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, for a term ending March 31,2004, by the
following vote:
FOR MS. MASON: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe,
Fitzpatrick, and Mayor Smith ............................................................................ -7.
ckwbl ~FinaI\O 10504 4
COMMITTEES-GREENWAY SYSTEM: The Mayor advised that there is a
vacancy on the ROanoke Valley Greenway Commission to fill the unexpired term of
Brian M. Shepard, resigned, ending June 30, 2004, and called for nominations to fill
the vacancy.
Mr. Bestpitch placed in nomination the name of Talfourd (Fourd) H. Kemper,
Jr.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Kemper was appointed as a member
of the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2004, by
the following vote:
FOR MR. KEMPER: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe,
Fitzpatrick, and Mayor Smith ............................................................................ -7.
COMMITTEES-TOWING ADVISORY BOARD: The Mayor advised that there is a
vacancy on the Towing Advisory Board, and called for nominations to fill the
vacancy.
Mr. Bestpitch placed in nomination the name of Walter T. Hinkley.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Hinkley was appointed as a member
of the Towing Advisory Board, for a term ending June 30, 2006, by the following
vote:
FOR MR. HINKLEY: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe,
Fitzpatrick, and Mayor Smith ............................................................................ -7.
Inasmuch as Mr. Hinkley is not a City resident, Mr. Bestpitch moved that the
City residency requirement be waived. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris
and unanimously adopted.
COMMITTEES-ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD: The Mayor advised that
there is a vacancy on the Architectural Review Board, to fill the unexpired term of
Kyle G. Ray, resigned, ending October 1,2006, and called for nominations to fill the
vacancy.
Mr. Bestpitch placed in nomination the name of Barbara A. Botkin.
There being no further nominations, Ms. Botkin was appointed as a member of
the Architectural Review Board, for a term ending October 1,2006, by the following
vote:
ckwblXFinaBOl0504 5
FOR MS. BOTKIN: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe,
Fitzpatrick, and Mayor Smith ............................................................................ -7.
COMMITTEES-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT-JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL
FACILITIES: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the Human Services
Committee to fill the unexpired term of Vickie L. Price, resigned, ending
June 30, 2004; a vacancy on the Roanoke Interagency Council to fill the unexpired
term of Vickie L. Price (ex-officio member); a vacancy on the Advisory Board of
Human Services (ex-officio member) due to the resignation of Vickie L. Price; and a
vacancy on the Roanoke Valley Juvenile Detention Center Commission, to fill the
unexpired term of Vickie L. Price, resigned, ending June 30, 2006; whereupon, he
opened the floor for nominations to fill the vacancies.
Mr. Bestpitch placed in nomination the name of Jane R. Conlin to fill the above.
referenced vacancies.
There being no further nominations, Ms. Conlin was appointed as a member of
the Human Services Committee, for a term ending June 30, 2004; a member of the
Roanoke Interagency Council (ex officio); and member of the Advisory Board of
Human Services (ex officio); and a member of the Roanoke Valley Juvenile Detention
Center Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2006, by the following vote:
FOR MS. CONLIN: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe,
Fitzpatrick, and Mayor Smith .............................................................................. 7.
At 12:00 noon, the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess, and advised
that Council would reconvene at 12:05 p.m., in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, for a joint meeting of Council and the Roanoke City School Board.
At 12:05 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the Emergency Operations
Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, for a joint
meeting of Council and the Roanoke City School Board, with Mayor Smith and
School Board Chair Gloria P. Manns presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt,
William D. Bestpitch, M, Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.,
and Mayor Ralph K. Smith .................................................................................. 7.
ABSENT: None .................................................................................... ~.
SCHOOL TRUSTEES PRESENT: William H. Lindsey, Robert Sparrow, Kathy G.
Stockburger, David B. Trinkle, Ruth C. Willson and Chairperson Gloria P. Manns----6.
ABSENT: None ................................................................................... --0.
ckwb 1 ~Final\O 10504 6
OFFICERS PRESENT: Representing the City of Roanoke: Darlene L.
Burcham, City Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse.A. Hall,
Director of Finance; Mary F. Parker, City Clerk; and George C. Snead, Jr., Assistant
City Manager for Operations.
Representing the Roanoke City Public Schools: E. Wayne Harris,
Superintendent; Richard A. Kelley, Assistant Superintendent; and Cindy L. Lee,
Clerk.
The Mayor advised that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the new
City Stadium and enhanced Council/School Board relationships.
Mayor Smith announced that earlier in the day, Council interviewed applicants
for the vacancy on the School Board created by the resignation of Melinda J. Payne,
and it was the unanimous decision of Council to appoint Alvin L. Nash to fill the
unexpired term ending June 30, 2004.
At this point, Mr. Nash entered the meeting.
SCHOOLS-STADIUM: Mr. Snead gave a presentation regarding .the surface
and maintenance of the artificial turf field proposed for the new City Stadium. He
stated that the design of the proposed stadium is specifically for high school football
and soccer, and can accommodate Division III College activities; architects used a
process involving users or stakeholders in the conceptual design to make sure that
from a players', coaches', game officials', media and spectators' perspective, the
facility would be of quality and afford an enjoyable experience; and early in the
design stage, coaches, athletic directors, and school administrators were directly
involved and visited facilities at various locations to see first hand what artificial turf
products were like and what the real experience was at both the high school and
college levels. He advised that the projected cost for the artificial turf is about
$200,000.00 more than natural grass; the City Manager corresponded with the
Superintendent of Schools in October 2003 asking that the school administration
consider making a contribution of $200,000.00 toward the purchase of artificial turf;
and the matter was discussed with the School Board in November 2003. Examples
of artificial turf products, both recommended and not recommended, were available
for examination.
Charles Anderson, Project Engineer, presented an overview regarding the
artificial turf issue.
ckwb 1 ~Final~O 10504 7
BACKGROUND OF PROJECT:
City/School Design Team participants included Richard Kelley, Annie
Harmon, Kevin Clifford, John Harris, Woody Deans, George Miller
May 2003 - Presentation with Natural Turf Specialist (Dr. Erik Ervin,
Virginia Tech) and manufacturer's representative (Kenny Schroy,
FieldTurf)
August 2003 - Visit to high schools and colleges/universities with
artificial turf installations
August 2003 - Review of findings from field visit with City/School Team
VISIT TO FACILITIES WITH ARTIFICIAL TURF INSTALLATIONS IN AUGUST
2003:
· City/School Team:
George Miller, Assistant Principal, William Fleming High School
Woody Deans, Athletic Director, Patrick Henry High School
John Harris, Athletic Director, William Fleming High School
Chip Snead, Assistant City Manager
Gary Hegner, Parks & Recreation
Charles Anderson, Division of Engineering
· Facilities the team visited:
Eight High Schools/Colleges/Universities were visited - nine fields were
examined
James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA (AstroTurf)
Ringgold High School, Monongahela, PA (FieldTurf)
Jefferson & Washington College, Washington, PA (FieldTurf)
Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA (AstroPlay and AstroTurf)
Pine Richland High School, Gibsonia, PA (AstroPlay)
Penn-Trafford High School, Harrison City, PA (FieldTurf)
Norwin High School, North Huntington, PA (AstroPlay)
West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV (AstroPlay)
CONTACTS AND DISCUSSIONS WITH COACHES, ATHLETIC TRAINERS AND
CURRENT AND FORMER PLAYERS:
Aesthetics
Sharp, crisp appearance
Lines/markings for football and soccer are permanently imprinted in field
Uniformity of color in field, lines and markings
Maintains appearance regardless of weather conditions
ckwbl ~Final\Ol0504 ~
Description of Turf Systems
NOT "AstroTurf"
Performance of athletes
Samples of artificial turf surfaces
Drainage Characteristics
Artificial turf systems designed to permit very positive drainage (up to 40-
inches per hour)
Use and Scheduling
Drainage capability allows for continuous play - significant rain events will
not cancel/postpone games
Field at Penn.Trafford High School in Pennsylvania was used for 195 events
during a single Fall season (middle and high school PE program, girls and
boys soccer, middle and high school football program, and public use -24~7
operation)
Physical Injuries
No noticeable differences reported between natural and artificial systems - in
fact, some coaches/athletic trainers indicated lowered injury rates on artificial
systems
No special shoes required (as with AstroTurf-type systems)
Maintenance
Natural turf systems require significantly more equipment than artificial
systems (i.e. mowers, spreaders, aerators, etc. versus a "groomer")
Natural turf systems require significantly more manpower than artificial
systems (one-to-two full time plus one-to-two part time staff versus one
operator for groomer)
Natural turf systems require materials for on-going maintenance (i.e. seed,
fertilizer, weed killers, lime, etc.) - artificial system does not
Natural turf systems require irrigation - artificial systems do not
ckwb I ~Final\O 10504 9
Why Seek Additional FundinR from School Board
Cost of proposed Stadium-Amphitheater - $1 O-million for stadium, $4-million
for amphitheater
Capital project - ALL costs must be included within project budget - cannot
"defer" upfront (installation) costs with assumed future savings from
maintenance
SUMMARY
PERFORMANCE OF ATHLETES ENHANCED
PHYSICALINJURIES REDUCED
USE & SCHEDULING ENHANCED
AESTHETICSENHANCED
MAINTENANCE COSTS REDUCED
Mr. Dowe inquired about protection of the turf when using the facilities for
entertainment purposes and associated costs; whereupon, Mr. Anderson advised
that there would be special protection afforded to surfaces where sound equipment,
special lighting equipment, or chairs would be placed, regardless of whether it is
artificial or natural turf.
Mr. Cutler inquired about the cost savings in maintenance and life expectancy
of the artificial turf as opposed to natural turf; whereupon, Mr. Anderson replied that
overall, the City would come out ahead with maintenance features, $15,000.00 to
$20,000.00 has been built into the budget for maintenance costs of natural turf, and
maintenance of the artificial turf would probably be about one-third of that cost; and
artificial systems have lasted about seven years, with only the artificial turf itself
needing to be replaced. He referred to Ringgold High School's facilities and the life
expectancy of that particular turf is ten years.
Mr. Cutler inquired whether water collected from the drainage of the field
could be recycled and used for landscaping similar to the way the City currently
uses some storm water; whereupon, Mr. Anderson replied that the drain lines under
the field would divert the water to a single collection pipe that would extend off to
the side and connect to the storm drain system, and drainage water could be
recycled.
Mayor Smith asked, in comparing the two systems, at what point does the
difference between the two begin, at the soil base or the last inch or two of the field.
Mr. Anderson explained that there is a need for a nine inch base of stone and soil
for natural grass, and about a '16 inch base, depending on the mat system, for
artificial turf; and the system does not employ any dirt, but basically comes off the
sub-grade, with a layer of stone, then basically develops a third system for the
carpet of artificial turf to lay on.
ck'wb I ~FinaI\O 10504 ] 0
Mayor Smith asked for the dimensions of the carpet and how it works beyond
the foul lines; whereupon, Mr. Anderson explained that given the nature of the field
and its design, the foul lines would be on the east and west sides, all. of that area
would be artificial turf, and anything around that area would be natural grass. Mayor
Smith asked if they were measuring in square yards and how many would be
needed; whereupon, Mr. Anderson replied that it was measured in square yards,
similar to regular carpet, and a figure of about 90,000 square feet is estimated to be
needed.
Mayor Smith stated that the difference in cost for the artificial turf would be
$200,000.00, and asked what estimate of maintenance cost savings could be
demonstrated by using artificial turf, as opposed to natural turf. Mr. Anderson
replied that a schedule for maintenance and costs could be drafted in the future.
Mayor Smith mentioned that for certain events, additional costs would be
incurred, and asked about repairing the turf when stakes have to be driven into the
artificial turf for tents, and whether this type of event would be permitted. Mr.
Anderson replied that hewas not sure how such a situation would be handled, or
whether or not a special grid would be necessary. He also stated that a tarp would
be used to protect the surface for special events.
Ms. Stockburger advised that all examples given were single site school yards
and college practice fields, the reality is that participants will be practicing on
natural fields and playing on artificial turf, and asked if there is any difference in
practicing on natural turf and playing the actual game on artificial turf. Mr. Anderson
replied that there is some difference in the playing surface, students at the
University of West Virginia have played on both and state that the two surfaces play
very much alike, although artificial turf is preferred. Ms. Stockburger further stated
that it would be helpful for the School Board to have information regarding cost
savings over a five-ten year period using artificial turf over natural turf.
Mr. Bestpitch inquired if the drainage system would be constructed below the
level of stone. Mr. Anderson replied that there would be a special drainage system,
with devices that channel the water down through the gravel into specific sites,
similar to Virginia Tech's field drainage system.
Following further discussion, it was noted that an area of concern would be
driving vehicles over the field surface. A question was raised about the bids
received and whether or not the committee liked the products that were bid, and the
types of warranties that were offered, etc. Mr. Anderson replied that the committee
is satisfied with the product and the amounts offered for the artificial surface.
ckwb I XFinal\O 10504 1 1
Vice-Mayor Harris inquired as to the opinion of football coaches and athletic
directors as to their support or non-support on the issue of using natural turf as
opposed to artificial turf. Mr. Anderson responded that all six members of the team
were in agreement to use artificial turf.
Mr. Snead commented that part of the challenge with maintaining any athletic
field is based on three factors: (1) how well the field is built; (2) how heavily the field
is used; and (3) what the weather is like. He stated that good weather allows for
more use, but early season games damage the natural turf and maintenance is an
uphill battle; the growing season has ended in the Fall which prohibits grass repairs;
and the team tried to create a realistic budget based on use and weather.
Mr. Dowe stated that statistics have shown that injuries are far less on natural
turf, but a field that feels like natural grass will play like natural grass, thus the cost
factor of maintenance tends to fade.
Mr. Snead advised that coaches at Ringgold High School stated, without
question, that the field had held up over seven years of play and is just as good now
as it was when it was installed; installation of any system is critical because
everything is built in layers, the most critical factor being the smoothness of the
playing field inasmuch as it gives the player the sensation of being on natural grass,
and any undulation would deter from the quality of the field.
Mayor Smith expressed concern that using artificial turf would greatly limit the
multi-use of the facility, and suggested that there be a way to compromise in Order to
sponsor other events, such as those that may need to place stakes into the ground
or use a track for running, and asked if there would be restricted areas that could be
created differently in order to utilize the entire facility.
The City Manager addressed the "Relay for Life" event which is sponsored
annually by the American Cancer Society at Victory Stadium. She advised that the
organization understands the new facility will not have a track, and their plans do
not include holding the "Relay for Life" event at the new stadium because of the
absence of a track; and the issue for the Cancer Society is not the place where the
tents are to be located, but the use of a track or the walk itself which is the major
event. She commented that other stakeholders participated early on in the design
process, such as Festival in the Park and others who use the current Victory
Stadium site, and their issues have been addressed through the design phase;
informally, she has mentioned to the "Relay for Life" coordinators the proposed
renovations/replacement of the two high schools that are planned over the next six
years, and the school system plans to include tracks at both facilities. She also
referred to preliminary discussions between the City and other entities about the
possibility of a regional track facility, but the location has not been addressed; and
"Relay for Life" representatives understand that the City's construction schedule for
the new stadium is such that they would remain at the Victory Stadium site for at
least the next two years or longer.
ckwb 1 ~Fina[\O 10504 12
The Director of Civic Facilities reviewed the following information:
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE NEW STADIUM?
The stadium is being built to provide a unique venue primarily for high school
football and soccer.
Approximately 10-15 football games are expected to be played in the new
stadium.
This year, 11 football games were played at Victory Stadium.
Football season which takes place in the Fall includes regular, regional
and playoff games.
Approximately eight - ten soccer games are expected to be played in the new
stadium.
This year, four games were played at Victory Stadium.
Soccer games are played during the Spring season.
HOW ELSE WILL THE STADIUM BE USED?
Western Virginia Education Classic (WVEC Classic) is played in the Fall.
High school band and cheerleading competitions are possible uses for the
stadium.
WILL HIGH SCHOOLS BE ABLE TO PRACTICE AT THE STADIUM?
High schools may practice on the day before a game.
A nominal fee will be charged for practices; however, a fee schedule will be
determined at a later date.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE AMPHITHEATER?
Performances that would not otherwise come to Roanoke during Spring and
Summer months would have an excellent venue to provide quality
entertainment for the. City, while the City generates additional revenue to
offset debts.
An estimated six - eight events could include the following:
Country Western concerts, rock concerts, rhythm and blues concerts,
symphony pops concerts, religious programs and special events.
ckwbl~Final\O10504 ] 3
HOW WOULD EVENTS BE SCHEDULED?
Performances are scheduled 13 - 15 weeks in advance in order to promote the
event.
Special events, such as Music for Americans, is usually scheduled 10 - 12
months in advance for planning purposes.
Football is scheduled late in Winter following the previous season.
Soccer is scheduled in late Winter/early Spring.
DO YOU ANTICIPATE SCHEDULING CONFLICTS?
Conflicting schedules are not anticipated due to the time of use for school
events versus performances.
Performances would take place between late May and early September.
Football starts in late August.
Soccer starts in early Spring (March, April).
High school events would have first priority.
WHAT IS THE PROPOSED cosT FOR USE OF THE STADIUM?
We are beginning to draft policies and rates, but we are not prepared to
present them at this time.
We will work with the Athletic Directors, coaches and principals to develop
these policies.
Rates will increase.
Maintenance of artificial turf will cost less; however, overall maintenance of
the facility would increase.
WILL BOOSTER CLUBS HAVE CONTROL OF CONCESSIONS?
Booster Clubs will not control concessions.
Volunteer groups may participate in concession sales and earn commissions
from sales.
ckwbl ~Final\O10504 14
A question was raised regarding the construction schedule and at what point.
will a decision have to be made on artificial versus natural turf; whereupon, Mr.
Anderson advised that knowing the School Board's position is particularly important
because of the issue of the growing season for natural turf which will make a lot of
difference for football scheduling.
Dr. Trinkle referred to other events that are scheduled, and inquired if they
would decrease operating costs for school events. The City Manager advised that
events anticipated for use of the amphitheater portion of the new facility would
obviously have a revenue producing capability that the City does not currently have
from high school football, the percentage would depend on the number of games
that are played for either high school football or soccer, and the percentage of usage
might roughly remain the same. She referred to a chart showing that 54% of all use
is directed toward the schools, but a revenue producer, or the balance of that, could
make the overall budget deficit different than it is today. She stated that today the
City is recovering a very small portion of the costs of maintaining Victory Stadium,
because just about every event at Victory Stadium is a non-profit event, such as
"Relay for Life", the IWestern Virginia Classic", 'Music for Americans", or high school
football and soccer use, none of which produce revenues for the City; the
amphitheater has the ability to produce revenues to offset the lions share of the
operating expenses, with the exception of those special expenses that might relate
to high school football; and it is anticipated that the budget for the
stadium/amphitheater operations would be larger than the budget for Victory
Stadium.
Dr. Trinkle inquired if there is a sense as to how much it will cost the school
system to use the new facility; and whether the price goes up or down, it would be
helpful to have a ballpark figure of costs, both with the field turf and without the field
turf.
The City Manager advised that an operating budget for the facility will be
prepared in the near future, but a decision with regard to artificial versus natural turf
will play a significant part in determining the operating budget, with the costs
associated with natural turf being higher. She stated that for less than $15,000.00,
the school system has gotten a great bargain, and with the first-class facility that will
be constructed there should be an expectation of a small increase in cost. She
advised that it is hoped that there will be such a quality product that the additional
cost will not deter anyone from using the facility. She added that it is envisioned
that the facility will be of such quality that neighboring jurisdictions will ask to use
the facility for different types of activities. She stated that high school graduations
are typically held outdoors, as opposed to indoor kinds of facilities, and the new
stadium/amphitheater may be a venue to move high school graduations from an
indoor activity to an outdoor activity; many other uses are possible, but staff has not
been in a position to address the operating budget at this point because a decision
has not been made regarding natural versus artificial turf.
ckwbl ~Final~010504 ] 5
An observation was made that in maintaining the stadium, the savings would
be realized by using artificial turf. The City Manager stated that overall operating
maintenance would be less with artificial turf; the budget for Victory Stadium for the
las{ several years has increased substantially as a result of trying to do a better job
with the existing field, which does not have a system for runoff, and the City has
tried to put more investment into the field to provide better playing conditions for the
high schools until other arrangements are made. However, she stated that in all
likelihood, the operating budget for the new facility will be more than the current
budget, but some of the costs will be offset by a reduction in maintenance costs.
The City Manager added that at least for the immediate future, the idea of
about 50% usage by Roanoke's high schools is a reasonable figure.
Mr. Bestpitch stated that the figure that was identified as total charges for
school sporting events for 17 dates was a little over $14,500.00, and inquired if staff.
has a ball-park estimate as to what the school system would have expended to
maintain its own athletic facilities. The City Manager responded that no figures are
presently available and staff will try to provide the information.
Mayor Smith advised that the school system is thinking about using the
facility primarily for football and soccer and inquired as to how much of a handicap
will be created if the facility is used for other types of events, how many events are
now held at the Victory Stadium facility that cannot be held at the
stadium/amphitheater, and the cost of repairing the turf surface when events are
scheduled that require some form of penetration to the surface. He stated that if a
number of major events cannot be held at the new facility, it does not matter how
much of a bargain the artificial turf becomes if it limits the use of a very expensive
facility.
Mr. Fitzpatrick advised that once the facility is completed, there will be new
opportunities and requested that City staff provide their vision as to what the facility
can ultimately be, both in terms of the positives and the negatives. He stated that
the schools need to make a decision soon on the surface turf issue, but the bottom
line is the necessity to do the right thing for Roanoke's students.
Chairman Manns advised that there are questions in regard to not only the
maintenance fees, but any additional fees that could be incurred.
(No action was taken.)
Inasmuch as the regular meeting of Council will convene at 2:00 p.m., the
Mayor declared the joint meeting of Council and the School Board in recess at
1:55 p.m.
At 2:00 p.m., on Monday, January 5, 2004, the Council meeting reconvened in
the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215
Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Smith presiding.
Ckwb l\minutes 04\010504
16
PRESENT: Council Members C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt, William D..
Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., and Mayor
Ralph K. Smith----~ ........................................................................................... 7.
ABSENT: None ...................................................................................... -0.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk.
The meeting was opened with a prayer by The Reverend Monsignor
Thomas G. Miller, Pastor, St. Andrews Catholic Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Mayor Smith.
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Mr. Harris offered the following resolution
recognizing the service of the Honorable A. Victor Thomas, Member, Virginia House
of Delegates:
(#36586-010504) A RESOLUTION paying tribute to A. Victor Thomas, a member
of the Virginia House of Delegates, and expressing to him the appreciation of this
City and its people for his exemplary public service.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36586-010504. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ....................................................................................... -0.
The Mayor presented a ceremonial copy of the above referenced measure to
Mr. Thomas and advised that further acknowledgements of his service will be
presented at a luncheon to be held in his honor on January 26, 2004.
Ckwbl~minutes 04\010504
17
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Mr. Cutler offered the following resolution
recognizing the service of the Honorable Clifton A. Woodrum, III, Member, Virginia
House of Delegates:
(#36587-010504) A RESOLUTION paying tribute to Clifton A. "Chip" Woodrum,
III, a member of the Virginia House of Delegates,' and expressing to him the
appreciation of this City and its people for his exemplary public service.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36587-010504. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ -0.
The Mayor presented a ceremonial copy of the above referenced measure to
Mr. Woodrum and advised that further acknowledgements of his service will be
presented at a luncheon to be held in his honor on January 26, 2004.
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-SCHOOLS: Mr. Dowe offered the following
resolution recognizing the accomplishments of the William Fleming High School
Football Team who played against the undefeated Powhatan Indians for the VHSL
Group AA Division 4 Title at Liberty University on Saturday, December 13, 2003. He
advised that the team represented Roanoke with the highest level of performance,
sportsmanship and pride in adverse weather conditions and played to the best of
their abilities in being defeated 6-0:
(#36588-010504) A RESOLUTION paying tribute to the William Fleming High
School Football Team for its participation in the 2003 VHSL Group AA Division 4
Football championship.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36588-010504. The motion
was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ -0.
The Mayor presented a ceremonial copy of the above referenced measure to
Coach Keith Smith.
Ckwb 1 ~minutes 04\010504
18
CONSENT AGENDA
The Mayor advised that all matters listed under the Consent Agenda were
considered to be routine by the Members of Council and would be enacted by one
motion in the form, or forms, listed on the Consent Agenda, and if discussion is
desired, the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered
separately.
BUSES-AUDIT COMMITTEE: Minutes of the meetings of the Greater Roanoke
Transit Company Audit Committee and the Roanoke City Audit Committee held on
Monday, December 15, 2003, were before Council.
Mr. Dowe moved that the minutes be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None .......... ~ ............................................................................... -0.
CITY TREASURER-CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT: The following reports of
qualification were before Council:
Evelyn W. Powers as Treasurer of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, for a
term commencing January 1,2004, and ending December 31,2005; and
Brenda S. Hamilton as Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, for a term of eight years, commencing January 1, 2004.
Mr. Dowe moved that the reports of qualification be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. -7.
NAYS: None ...................................................................................... --0.
REGULAR AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS:NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
Ckwb I ~minutcs 04\010504
19
SCHOOLS: Marsha Christi and Doris Ennis, representing teachers and
administrators of the Roanoke City Public School System, presented
communications signed by administrators and teachers advising that they have
directly felt the impact of the negative press and the continued rehashing of
concerns within Roanoke's school system; the barrage of negativity has caused
teachers and administrators to question their ability to make a difference and
students to question their potential; and if the current tenor continues, Roanoke City
will neither attract nor retain quality applicants for teaching positions, local
businesses will no longer attract qualified employees, and eventually the tax base
will not be able to support the school system, therefore, they wish to avoid this
destructive urban trend.
It was further advised that recently an administrator attended a conference in
another part of the state and was offered sympathy because of where she worked;.
students have asked if they attend bad schools; children should be proud of where
they go to school and staff should boast about where they work; and teachers and
administrators are proud of their association with Roanoke City Schools and need
for Council, as leaders in the community, to help restore that sense of pride for
parents, staff and students.
Ms. Christi and Ms. Ennis stated that they were present to solicit Council's
support and to share ideas for reversing the direction; by expecting and exploiting
negativity, it becomes reality, therefore, it is time to promote the achievements of
Roanoke's students and the progress that Roanoke's schools are making toward
educating all children, regardless of their background, race or economic status.
They encouraged Council to attend school functions and to celebrate
accomplishments of students, to visit classrooms, to attend athletic events, to
participate in administrative or faculty meetings and to join Parent-Teacher
Associations; and with first hand experience, Council can help to send the message
that Roanoke has dedicated employees, exceptional students and diverse schools
that prepare students to be productive citizens of the Roanoke Valley.
Council was requested to empower the School Board with its support; to
entrust the School Board to do its job in overseeing the money that is appropriated
by Council for the schools; and Council Members can help the situation by selecting
a School Board member who can build bridges, repair relationships and build
consensus, a person who is respectful of diversity and is a team player, a person
who will promote Roanoke's schools and help to work toward solutions to issues
and offer positive direction for the Superintendent and administrative staff.
As community leaders, they advised that Council can also help by stepping to
the forefront to sell the positives about Roanoke's schools; encourage business and
the news media to follow Council's lead; and Roanoke's children look to Council for
affirmation and teachers and administrators look to Council for leadership. They
requested that Council be thoughtful before issuing public criticism of Roanoke's
schools, and empower City educators with Council's encouragement; the School
Ckwbl ~minutcs 04\010504
20
Board and the Superintendent have fashioned exceptional programs as evidenced
by advances in technology and progress toward full accreditation and student.
achievement; the Superintendent has set high standards for student achievement
and staff performance; and Council's continued support as the school system works
toward these standards is needed.
In closing, Ms. Christi and Ms. Ennis advised that public schools open the
world of possibility for many children and that cannot be taken away from Roanoke's
children under the guise of 'identifying problems"; mistakes have been identified
and it is now time to look to the future, to build a spirit of cooperation and to nurture
growth. They asked that citizens of the community be empowered to move forward
with their public expressions of confidence in Roanoke's schools; and advised that
teachers and administrators are proud to work in Roanoke City Schools, they believe
in the value of public education and they believe in the school system and in the
potential of Roanoke's children.
Council Member Wyatt advised that Alvin L. Nash was appointed earlier in the
day to fill the unexpired term of Melinda J. Payne as a Trustee of the Roanoke City
School Board. She stated that at no time, either publicly or privately, has she heard
any Member of Council make disparaging remarks about Roanoke's schools,
teachers or students; and Council's goal is the same as teachers and
administrators- to make Roanoke's school system the very best it can be. She
challenged administrators to be supportive of teachers as they do their jobs because
that is the level where the difference will be made.
Council Member Fitzpatrick emphasized the importance of supporting the
School Board, teachers, administrators and students. He commended educators on
the challenge that they face in today's world and expressed appreciation for all they
do on behalf of Roanoke's children.
Council Member Dowe advised that Council believes in Roanoke's school
system administrators, teachers and students, and expressed appreciation for their
many contributions.
The Mayor advised that Roanoke's school system is entrusted with millions of
dollars annually, but even more important, the school system is entrusted with the
lives and the future of over 13,000 young people, and he trusts that everyone will
continue to fight in the best interests of Roanoke's young people.
TEEN PREGNANCIES: Dr. Sherry Hartman, representing the Roanoke Teen
Pregnancy Prevention Initiative, presented a briefing on the project.
She advised that recent youth risk behavior survey results of Roanoke City
Public Schools regarding students in grades six, eight, ten and twelve, show that
Roanoke City students report a higher percentage than the national average in
having had sexual intercourse, engaging in sexual intercourse before the age of 13,
having four or more partners, and engaging in sexual activity in the last three
months.
She further advised that the impact for Roanoke can be seen in the 2001 teen
pregnancy rate of 47.6 per 1000 females 10 - 19 years of age; although recent data
from the Center for Disease Control show that the national teen pregnancy rate is at
an all time Iow, Roanoke remains considerably higher than the statewide rate of 29.7
per 1000 females and the healthy people 2101 target of 43 per 1000 females; and out
of the 135 counties/cities in Virginia, Roanoke has the 17th highest teen pregnancy
rate.
Dr. Hartman stated that the effect of teen pregnancy on the City of Roanoke
can be viewed as having communitywide consequences; i.e.: teen parents are more
likely to need public assistance, abuse or neglect their children, never complete high
school and have fewer employment skills, and babies born to a teen parent are at
greater risk of premature birth defects, lower IQ's, Iow birth weight, and learning and
emotional disabilities.
Itwas noted that Roanoke is taking a pro-active approach in addressing these
challenges through the Roanoke Teen Pregnancy Prevention Project; the project
funds three programs: the Teen Outreach Program, For Males Only, and the
Roanoke Adolescent Health Partnership; overall evidence suggests that the
Roanoke Teen Pregnancy Prevention project continues to have a positive impact on
teen pregnancy rates in the City; according to data from the Virginia Department of
Health, the pregnancy rate in Roanoke has steadily declined from a high of 97.1 per
1000 females in 1991 to 47.6 per 1000 females in 2001; according to the legislative
report form VDH (2002), the Roanoke Health District has experienced an average
decrease in teen pregnancy rates of 6.8 per cent, the most significant average
decrease per year of all seven VDH Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative programs;
and this decline indicates that programs such as the Roanoke Teen Pregnancy
Prevention Project have been a success and highlights the continued need for
strong prevention programming.
In concluding, Dr. Hartman advised that Roanoke is the only site that has
consistently evaluated program effectiveness, which is due to the funding and
support that the project has received from the City of Roanoke.
(The item was sponsored by the City Manager.)
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
Ckwbl\minutcs 04\010504
22
BRIEFINGS:
CITY GOVERNMENT: The City Manager presented a briefing on the City of
Roanoke's accomplishments for the year 2003.
(For full text, see list on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
Within the next year, Council Member Dowe spoke in support of empowering
the Youth Services Citizen Board to create its own comprehensive plan. He stated
that those young persons who play a role in the decision-making of the City tend to
return to the Roanoke area following completion of their college education.
Without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the list of
accomplishments would be received and filed.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-INSURANCE-BUDGET: The City Manager
submitted a communication advising that historically, proceeds from the sale of
surplus Vehicles/Equipment have been budgeted and recorded in the General Fund;
and fiscal year 2004 adopted revenue estimate for the sale of fleet is $100,000.00
within the General Fund.
It was further advised that Fleet Management received approval from the City
Manager to use Vehicle/Equipment Surplus proceeds to supplement the funding of
replacement of aged vehicles and equipment; from July 2003 to date, $153,132.00
has been collected in surplus revenue from the sale of vehicular equipment; for
fiscal year 2004, the projected revenue estimate for the sale of vehicle and
equipment surplus is $350,000.00 and this revised revenue estimate needs to be
established in the Fleet Management Fund.
It was noted that insurance proceeds are also received by the Fleet
Management Fund when third parties are required to pay the City for vehicular
accidents; current year revenue estimate for such recoveries is $7,000.00, but based
on historical performance and current year expectations, an estimate of $70,000.00
is more likely; and funding from insurance recoveries is used to make vehicular
repairs or replacements as necessary.
The City Manager recommended that Council increase revenue estimates in
the Fleet Management Fund for Sale of Surplus Property by $250,000.00 and
insurance recoveries by $63,000.00; and appropriate funding of $313,000.00 in the
Fleet Management Fund to the Vehicular Equipment account.
Ckwbl~minutes 04\010504
23
Mr. Dowe offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36589-010504) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for vehicular equipment
and revising the revenue estimates for sales of surplus vehicles and insurance
recoveries, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004 Fleet
Management Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title
of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36589-010504. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
Council Member Bestpitch questioned the overall policy and whether a.
precedent is being established. He called attention to a current procedure which
provides that if an activity within the City generates additional revenue through one
means or another, such revenue will be automatically used for additional
expenditures within the same activity.
The City Manager clarified that such is done on a case by case basis and not
by unilateral policy in each City department. In this instance, she advised that it is
not suggested that any revenue that was already anticipated for the City's General
Fund would come out of the General Fund, but rather any additional revenue above
the estimate would be placed in the Fleet Management Capital Maintenance and
Replacement Program account to purchase replacement vehicles, as oppOsed to
going back into a General Fund categorY.
Mr. Bestpitch questioned whether the funds would have been spent for the
purposes proposed by the City Manager had the Council known about the additional
revenue during budget study, or were there other needs in the budget that could
have been addressed by using the additional funds. He stated that the number one
responsibility of the City Council is to manage the budget process and to match
budget numbers with City priorities in terms of policy. He expressed concern
because it appears that Council is moving from a Council policy/approval to an
administrative policy/approval in regard to how the budget will be managed.
The City Manager advised that the communication was presented to the
Council for the express purpose of the Council either approving or not approving the
recommended policy in terms of how monies should be spent in the future.
Council Member Cutler shared the concerns expressed by Mr. Bestpitch
because there appears to be a windfall in terms of additional income that was not
previously anticipated. He advised that further discussion is in order at a future
budget study/work session of the Council.
Ckwb 1 ~ninu~es 04\010504 24
The Mayor advised that the entire process should be reviewed and discussed
by Council in a budget study/work session, and Council should maintain control
over the budget process.
Mr. Bestpitch offered a substitute motion that the ordinance be referred to the
Budget and Planning Committee for review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
Mr. Fitzpatrick advised that the matter should be the topic of discussion in a
broader sense at a future Council budget study session. He also spoke to the
importance of providing incentives for department managers with regard to revenue
producing issues.
The City Manager clarified that the recommended action is to increase
revenues by $250,000.00 and $63,000.00, or a total of $3'13,000.00; secondly, the
recommendation is that any increase, which is an estimate based upon revenue to
be collected through the balance of the fiscal year, will be placed in the Vehicular
Equipment account and the money can only be used for vehicular replacement; and
to date, the Vehicular Equipment Replacement account has not been adequately
funded and the recommendation provides a means to build funding for that express
purpose.
Following further discussion, Vice-Mayor Harris suggested that Council act on
the recommendation of the City Manager, and the concerns of Council Members
Bestpitch and Cutler in regard to handling future situations could be discussed at a
meeting of the Budget and Planning Committee.
Mr. Bestpitch withdrew his substitute motion to refer the ordinance to the
Budget and Planning Committee, and Mr. Cutler withdrew his second to the motion.
Ordinance No. 36589-010504 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. -7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ -0.
GRANTS-COMMUNITY PLANNiNG-BUDGET-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: The City
Manager submitted a communication advising that in order to receive Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) and
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funding, the City of Roanoke must submit a five-year
Consolidated Plan and Annual Updates to the U. S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD); and substantial amendments to the plan must undergo a
30-day public review and comment period and be approved by Council.
CKwbl WinalX01051M 25
It was further advised that at this time, the City has $505,081.00 available in
unanticipated CDBG program income and $90,728.00 in unexpended prior-year
CDBG funds that may be used to undertake new activities, or to expand current
activities; much of the unanticipated program income results from a payment from
The Hotel Roanoke, LLC (HRLLC) in excess of the amount budgeted (The HRLLC
pays the City annually as a result of the HUD Section 108 loan that contributed to
renovating the hotel); the City has identified seven activities of importance to the
community to use the funds, which are summarized on an attachment to the report;
in order to implement the proposed uses, each activity and its associated funding
must be added to the current plan; and individually and collectively, the activities
constitute a substantial amendment to the plan that must be approved by Council
prior to implementation.
It was noted that the 30-day public review and comment period was conducted
from November 25 to December 26, 2003, and no comments objecting to the
intended amendments were received; and implementing use of the funds during the
current year will have the added benefit of assisting the City in maintaining
compliance with HUD's requirements concerning timely expenditures.
The City Manager recommended that Council approve amendments to the
Consolidated Plan; and appropriate $505,081.00 in excess program income to
accounts designated by the Director of Finance and adjust revenue accounts
accordingly.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36590-010504) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the Community
Development Block Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-
2004 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of
this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36590-010504. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe.
Council Member Bestpitch raised a question with regard to the public
comment period and suggested, in the future, that an announcement be included on
a City Council agenda that the public comment period has, or is about to commence,
in order to make citizens aware of the opportunity to participate.
CKwbl ~Final\010504 26
The City Manager responded to questions in regard to $200,000.00 dedicated
to the NNEO Fifth Street Gateway Project; $100,000.00 for predevelopment cost of a
multi unit rental housing for Iow and moderate income persons (planning and
design); Villa Heights Recreation Center activities involving the replacement of major
systems and components of the facility; and $82,309.00 for curb, gutter and
sidewalks or other improvements in the Hurt Park area, or other Iow and moderate
income neighborhoods of the City.
it was mentioned by a Member of Council that on several occasions, a
representative of the Hurt Park neighborhood has addressed Council with regard to
alleged funds that were appropriated by the City for use in the Hurt Park
neighborhood, and some form of communication should take place with
representatives of the Hurt Park neighborhood to clarify the intended purposes of
the $82,000.00.
Ordinance No. 36590-010504 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7.
NAYS: None .................................................................................... -0.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution:
(#36591-010504) A RESOLUTION approving certain amendments to the Five
Year Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Year 2003-2004.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36591-010504. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0.
CKwbl~Final\010504 27
POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIREARMS.CITY CODE: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that the City's Deer Management Program was
implemented on November 10, 2003, and will finish on March 1,2004; the proposed
outcome of the program is the elimination of between 75 and 200 antler-less deer on
City property; impact of the deer population has been reduced by 49 during the first
19 days of the program, thus, the average antler-less deer kill of 2.6 deer per
program night; three retired Roanoke Police Officers hired as "shooters" for the
program report that it is not uncommon to see a herd of five-ten deer each night and
the ratio to antlered (young male) deer to antler-less (female) deer appears to be
10:1; and killing antler-less deer is the first priority of the program, however, in order
to achieve the desired impact in reducing and controlling the City's deer population,
the killing of antlered deer needs to become part of the program to allow thinning the
herds at a much higher rate.
It was further advised that Section 21-80 of the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, states that "it shall be unlawful for any person to shoot any gun,
pistol or any other firearm within the limits of the city, except in the case of urgent
necessity. This section shall not apply to members of the city police, persons
authorized by the city to cull antlerless deer under the conditions of the Urban Deer
Management Program permit (DPOP) granted to the City by the Virginia Department
of Game and Inland Fisheries, members of the established armed forces and
members of bona fide gun clubs, shooting on ranges approved by the city council
and established in the city for their use, and persons shooting in licensed shooting
galleries"; and there is no provision in Section 21-80 that allows for discharge of a
firearm for the purpose of culling the antlered deer population.
It was explained that a proposed amendment to Section 21-80 states that:
"persons authorized by the city to cull =.~'.Ic:Ic=~ deer under the conditions of the
Urban Deer Management Program Permit (DPOPP) granted to the City by the Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries" will be allowed to discharge a firearm
within the limits of the City; and the proposed amendment to Section 21-80 will
enable the City to more fully implement its deer management plan.
The City Manager recommended that Council adopt an ordinance amending
Section 21-80 of the City Code pertaining to the discharging of firearms.
Mr. Cutler offered the following ordinance:
(#36592-010504) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining §21-80,
Dischar.qin.q firearms, Article III, Weapons, of Chapter 21, Offenses - Miscellaneous,
of the Code of the City of. Roanoke (1979), as amended, exempting persons
authorized by the City to cull male deer from the application of §21-80; and
dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
CKwbl ~Final~010504 28
Mr. Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36592-010504. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ -7.
NAYS: None .................................................................................. , ....... -0.
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE-CMERP: The Director of Finance submitted the
Financial Report for the City of Roanoke for the month of November 2003.
Council Member Cutler inquired about the status of water line improvements.
at the Mill Mountain Zoo; whereupon, the City Manager called attention to an internal
system to serve the Zoo itself and a planned improvement to which the internal
system will be connected, both of which are currently underway, one through the
Utility Lines budget and one through a specific appropriation to the Mill Mountain
Zoo.
Dr. Cutler inquired about the status of water storage tanks in the vicinity of the
Mill Mountain Zoo; whereupon, the City Manager advised that she would provide the
information to Dr. Cutler after conferring with the Director of Utilities.
There being no further discussion, without objection by Council, the Mayor
advised that the Financial Report for the month of November 2003 would be received
and filed.
BUDGET-INSURANCE: The Director of Finance submitted a written report
advising that Section 2-188.1 Reserve for self-insured liabilities, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, stipulates that at the conclusion of each fiscal year,
$250,000.00 to the extent available from any undesignated General Fund balance at
the end of such fiscal year, shall be reserved for self-insured liabilities of the City;
maximum balance of the reserve is three per cent of total General Fund
appropriations for the concluded fiscal year; and as such, at June 30, 2003,
$250,000.00 was reserved in the General Fund for self-insured liabilities.
The Director of Finance recommended adoption of an ordinance that will
appropriate the $250,000.00 reserved in the General Fund for self-insured liabilities
to be transferred to the Risk Management Fund where the remaining self-insured
reserve exists; and the measure also establishes a revenue estimate in the Risk
Management Fund for said transfer, thereby increasing the Reserve for Self-Insured
Liabilities.
CKwbl ~Final\010504 29
Mr. Dowe offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36593-010504) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for vehicular equipment
and revising the revenue estimates for sales of vehicles and insurance .recoveries,
amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004 Fleet Management Fund
Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36593-010504. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ -0.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS:
COUNCIL-VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE: Mr. Cutler offered the following
resolution expressing the desire of the City of Roanoke to host the Annual Meeting
of the Virginia Municipal League in the year 2009.
(#36594-010504) A RESOLUTION extending an invitation to the Virginia
Municipal League, expressing the desire of this Council that the City of Roanoke be
the site for the Annual Meeting of the Virginia Municipal League in 2009.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68.)
Mr. Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36594-010504. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. -7.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
CKwb I ~Final~010504 30
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL:
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-INDUSTRIES: Council Member Cutler
congratulated the owners of Black Dog Salvage .upon relocating their business to
902 13th Street, S. W., for the purpose of establishing Memorial Bridge Market Place,
which will transform a warehouse into an interior designer mall.
COMMITTEES-BUDGET: Vice-Mayor Harris, Chair, Budget and Planning
Committee, advised that the 10:30 a.m., meeting of the committee will be deferred
until Tuesday, January 20, 2004.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD-BRIDGES: Council Member Bestpitch
acknowledged receipt of a communication from the Architectural Review Board in.
regard to the First Street Bridge replacement and potential uses for the historic
structure. He requested that the communication be referred to the City Manager for
report to Council on various options for preserving and utilizing the bridge in the
future.
TRAFFIC-COMPLAINTS: Council Member Wyatt referred to a request of Mr.
and Mrs. Lee L. Altice, 2515 Daleton Boulevard, N. E., with regard to the installation
of no parking signs on the street while new construction is in progress. She advised
that the developer is willing to work with the City and others to address the concerns
of residents and requested that the matter be referred to the City Manager for report
to Council.
HOUSING/AUTHORITY: Council Member Wyatt called attention to numerous
older homes in the City of Roanoke that have been converted to apartments and
suggested that the City, working in conjunction with the Roanoke Redevelopment
and Housing Authority, identify available incentives to property owners who restore
such dwellings to their original state.
ROANOKE CiViC CENTER: Council Member Wyatt suggested that the floor at
the Roanoke Civic Center be painted.
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-ROANOKE CiViC CENTER: Council Member
Wyatt advised that the Roanoke Express Hockey Team is currently ranked third
place in the Southern Division.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Mayor advised that
Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard and matters requiring
referral to the .City Manager will be referred immediately for response,
recommendation or report to Council.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: NONE.
At 4:00 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess for
continuation of a closed session.
CKwb l~Final\010504 31
At 4:55 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber, with all
Members of the Council in attendance, except Ms. Wyatt, Mayor Smith presiding.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Mr. Dowe
moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her knowledge
that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2) only such
public business matters as were identified in any motion by which any Closed
Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick and
Mayor Smith ................................................................................................ -6.
NAYS: None ...................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member Wyatt was not in the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at
5:00 p.m.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
CKwb I ~FinalX010504 3 2
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Chumh Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk~ci.roanoke.va, us
February 19, 2004
File ~-110-429
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clcrk
Mr. D. Duane Dixon
4720 Wembley Place, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Mr. Dixon:
Your resignation as a member of the Board of Trustees, City of Roanoke Pension Plan,
effective February 2, 2004, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2004.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the resignation was accepted.
The Members of City Council requested that I express sincere appreciation for your
willingness to serve the City of Roanoke as a member of the Board of Trustees, City of
Roanoke Pension Plan, from August 21,2000 to February 2, 2004. Please find enclosed a
Certificate of Appreciation and an aerial view photograph of the Roanoke Valley which was
issued by the Mayor on behalf of the Members of the Roanoke City Council.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Enclosure
pc:
Jesse A. Hall, Secretary, Board of Trustees, City of Roanoke Pension Plan
Stephanie M. Moon, Deputy City Clerk
D. DUANE DIXON
4720 WEMBLEY PLACE
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
540-774-3331
ENT OF RNAN~I~
February 2, 2004
Andrea F. Trent
Retirement Administrator
215 Church Ave., SW Room 461
Roanoke, Virginia 24006
Dear Andrea:
I am writing to inform you that I am resigning from the Board of Trustees of the City of Roanoke
Pension Plan effective today. I will be moving to Florida at the end of March. I am giving you time so
council can appoint someone to replace me for the April Trustees meeting and in the future.
It has been a pleasure to serve on the board back in the 80's and during these last several years.
Please let the board know that it was an honor and pleasure to serve on the board with them. Tell
David Key that he is doing an excellent job chairing the board. I can tell you that this board is doing a
better job than the first time I served and you can tell they have the employee's best interest at heart
and realize that it is their pension plan.
You and Jesse are doing a great job and keep up the good work.
Sincerely,
D. Duane Dixon
cc: C. Nelson Harris
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk~ci.roanoke.va.us
February 19, 2004
File #-110-207
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Dennis R. Cronk, Vice-Chair
Industrial Development Authority
3310 Kingsbury Circle, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Cronk:
This is to advise you that Linda D. Frith has qualified for a term ending October 20, 2007,
and Allen D. Williams has qualified for a term ending October 20, 2006, as Directors of the
Industrial Development Authority.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Enclosure
pc: Stephanie M. Moon, Deputy City Clerk
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, Linda D. Frith, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of
the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and
that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me
as a Director of the Industrial Development Authority for a term ending October 20, 2007,
according to the best of my ability (So help me God).
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ,~ day of_/(~ 2004.
BRENDT..~I~ERK
, DEPUTY CLERK
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, Allen D. Williams, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the
United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will
faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a Director
of the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, to fill the unexpired
term of Stark H. Jones, resigned, ending October 20, 2006, according to the best of my ability,
(so help me God).
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~gday of F~ 2004.
RENDA S. HAMIL~.,TON, CLERK
B _· _,-~Bl~l[l~ CLERK
N:\CKMHI~AGENDA.03\MARCH 3, 2003 CORRESPONDENCE.WPD
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
CityWeb: www.roanokegov.com
January 5, 2004
The Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor, and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Meeting
Subject: Request for Closed
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council:
This is to request that City Council convene in a closed meeting to
discuss the disposition of publicly-owned property, where discussion in
open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or
negotiating strategy of the public body, pursuant to~2.2-3711.A.3, of the
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
City Manager
DLB:f
C:
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
RALPH IC SMITH
Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
CITY COUNCIL
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
February 17, 2004
Council Members:
William D. Bestpitch
M. Rupert Cutler
Alfred T Dowe, Jn
Beverly I2 Fitzpatrick, Jr.
C. Nelson Harris
Linda F. Wyatt
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council:
We jointly sponsor a request of Cristy M. Lovelace to address Council with regard to the
Roanoke Express Hockey Team at the regular meeting of City Council on Tuesday,
February 17, 2004, at 2:00 p.m.
Sincerely,
William D. Bestpitch
Council Member
Lin~a F~. Wyat~~t
Council Member
WDB:LFW:sm
pc: Darlene L Burcham, City Manager
N:/CKSM1 ~,GENDA 04~COUNCIL FORM LETTER FOR AGENDA ITEMS DOC
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor and Members of the Council,
I would like to address the council with regards to keeping the
Roanoke Express Hockey team in the Roanoke Valley.
Sincerely,
Cristy M Lovelace
Cristy M. Lovelace
1015 11th Street NE
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
540-857-0064
Council Members:
Linda Wyatt
Bill Bestpitch
Save The Roanoke Express
Ms. Linda Wyatt I am writing you with a petition of
the lease for the Roanoke Express with the Roanoke Civic
Center. Below are names of citizens from the Roanoke
City, surrounding cities, and out of state that support the
Express remaining in the Roanoke Valley. We would
appreciate your support.
· Roanoke City:
Name Address Phone 04ST
z'', '~ ,~ , ; ' -;- i
38.
39. ~
43.
44. -~'C&~,u /.9
46. ~L~ ~.
49. ~ ~.v~l~/
50. _ _
.!
/
,...--Name Address Phone 04ST
62. Iro~,'r~ ~/? ~;.~/~l /7~ 5~S~.3{90
75. ~,.A *, c~
77~~/~
20Z
203.
204.
205.
206.
208.
209.'
2:0.
219. "
· , ,, / x~,? ; - --
223. -,
248.
249.
, ~ -~~
253
....
257.
'
261.
273.
~;',: __z-~'~ .... .. ~ ~ ~ / 7
275. /
277. ~;~t -"
278. ~~
280.
282.
284.
,, _ ,¢q - t
288.
' 289.
290.
291.
293. /~ ~ ~" ~:~,. c '~ b'6 --/~'~ d
~o,. ~..~~~-.-~ ,, ,. ,' ,, ,,
316.
323.
, , .~ , .... ~ ~ / ~.~-.~.,~,:,~,~..~,.~
330. ~:.~ ,. 9. ~ ~ ~ - . ~,,c ~ ,
332.
333.
337.
340.
342.
343.
344
:...,
34~.
347.
,-
348
351.
354.,..?~/
355.
3~6.
36O,
362. %j75~
363· ~ ~~~ /'~//~/ ~- ~/~r~ ~ .~ ~"~ Z*o '~_
Save The Roanoke Express
Ms. Linda Wyatt I am writing you with a petition of
the lease for the Roanoke Express with the Roanoke Civic
Center. Below are names of citizens from the Roanoke
City, surrounding cities, and out of state that support the
Express remaining in the Roanoke Valley. We would
appreciate your support.
Surrounding Cities:
Name :.
,Addr.,ess ~ / .- Phone 04ST
39.
109.
140.
162.
163.
164
165.
168.
169.
171. '~J~ --~0L~)~,/~-
~76. w~
178.
179
181.
197.
198. :3'Throe
,99...~~/~
~x / ~. //" ,~, ~' -: - ~' .~ ~ /,'., ~ /:~ ,~ ~.. . ..
223.
224.
225.
226.
227.
228.
229.
230.
231.
232
233.
235
236.
237.
23&
242.
244.
246.
247..
248.
279.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
CityWeb: www.roanokegov.com
February 17, 2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor, and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council:
Subject:
Riverside Center
This is to request space on Council's regular agenda for a 15-minute briefing on
the above referenced subject.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
DLB:sm
c: City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
February 19, 2004
File #24-356-468
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 36618-021704 amending and reordaining §11.2-8,
Quality control - Generally, §11.2-9, Same Volume, and §11.2-10, General criteria, of
Article II, Technical Criteria, of Chapter 11.2, Stormwater Manaqement, of the Code of the
City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to conform the City Code with state requirements.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2004, and is in full force and
effect upon its passage.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Dadene L. Burcham
February 19, 2004
Page 2
pc:
The Honorable Robert P. Doherty, Chief Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Virginia
The Honorable William D. Broadhurst, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Virginia
The Honorable Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia
The Honorable Charles N. Dorsey, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia
The Honorable Jonathan M. Apgar, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia
The Honorable James R. Swanson, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia
The Honorable Julian H. Raney, Jr., Chief Judge, General District Court
The Honorable George W. Harris, Jr., Judge, General District Court
The Honorable Vincent A. Lilley, Judge, General District Court
The Honorable Francis W. Burkart, Ill, Judge, General District Court
The Honorable Jacqueline F. Ward Talevi, Judge, General District Court
The Honorable John B. Ferguson, Chief Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
District Court
The Honorable Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
District Court
The Honorable Philip Trompeter, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District
Court
The Honorable Joseph P. Bounds, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District
Court
Sheila N. Hartman, Assistant City Clerk, (For transmittal by electronic mail to
Municipal Code Corporation)
Municipal Code Corporation, P. O. Box 2235, Tallahassee, Florida 32316
Raymond F. Leven, Public Defender, 210 First Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24011
Ronald S. Albright, Clerk, General District Court
David C. Wells, Clerk, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
Peggy B. Stewart, Office of the Magistrate
Lora A. Wilson, Law Librarian
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and Development
Ronald L. Smith, Building Commissioner
Robert K. Bengtson, Director of Public Works
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of February, 2004.
No. 36618-021704.
AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining §11.2-8, Quantity control -
Generally, §11.2-9, Same - Volume, and §11.2-10, General criteria, of Article II,
Technical Criteria, of Chapter 11.2, Stormwater Management, of the Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, to conform the City Code with state requirements; and
dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. Section 11.2-8, Quantity control -- Generally, § 11.2-9, Same --Volume, and
§11.2-10, General criteria, of Article II, Technical Criteria, of Chapter 11.2, Stormwater
Management, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, are hereby
amended and reordained to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 11.2-8. Quantity control -- Generally.
(b) For purposes of computing runoff, all pervious lands in the site shall
be assumed prior to development to be in good condition (if the lands are
pastures, lawns or parks), with good cover (if the lands are woods), or with
conservation treatment (if the lands are cultivated), regardless of conditions
existing at the time of computation.
Sec. 11.2-9. Same --Volume..
In order to enhance water quality of stormwater runoff, all stormwater
management plans must provide for the control of the water quality
volume. The water quality volume shall be treated and provided for in a
manner consistent with appropriate and applicable standards as set out in
H:\ORDINANCES~O-CA~Emsion and Sedirc~t Conlxol(S~tion 11.2).doe
the design and construction standards and procedures, as referenced herein
and made a part of these provisions, the l~irginia Stormwater Management
Handbook, first edition 1999, and the Virginia Stormwater Law and
Regulations.
Sec. 11.2-10. General criteria.
(d) Outflows from a stormwater management facility shall be
discharged to an adequate channel o~ and velocity dissipatem shall be
placed at the outfall of all detention and retention basins and along the
length of any outfall channel as necessary to provide a nonerosive velocity
of flow from the basin to a channel.
2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second
reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
H:~ORD INANCES~O-CA-Erosion and Sediment Conh'ol(S~tion 11.2).do~
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
February 19, 2004
File #24-356-468
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 36617-021704 amending and reordaining §11.1-5,
Land disturbing permit requirements, and §11.1-6, Erosion and sediment control plan, of
Chapter 11.1, Erosion and Sediment Control, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979),
as amended, to conform the City Code with state requirements.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2004, and is in full force and
effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Darlene L. Burcham
February 19, 2004
Page 2
pc:
The Honorable Robert P. Doherty, Chief Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Virginia
The Honorable William D. Broadhurst, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Virginia
The Honorable Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia
The Honorable Charles N. Dorsey, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia
The Honorable Jonathan M. Apgar, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia
The Honorable James R. Swanson, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia
The Honorable Julian H. Raney, Jr., Chief Judge, General District Court
The Honorable George W. Harris, Jr., Judge, General District Court
The Honorable Vincent A. Lilley, Judge, General District Court
The Honorable Francis W. Burkart, Ill, Judge, General District Court
The Honorable Jacqueline F. Ward Talevi, Judge, General District Court
The Honorable John B. Ferguson, Chief Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
District Court
The Honorable Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
District Court
The Honorable Philip Trompeter, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District
Court
The Honorable Joseph P. Bounds, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District
Court
Sheila N. Hartman, Assistant City Clerk, (For transmittal by electronic mail to
Municipal Code Corporation)
Municipal Code Corporation, P. O. Box 2235, Tallahassee, Florida 32316
Raymond F. Leven, Public Defender, 210 First Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24011
Ronald S. Albright, Clerk, General District Court
David C. Wells, Clerk, Juvenile and Domestic RelationS District Court
Peggy B. Stewart, Office of the Magistrate
Lora A. Wilson, Law Librarian
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and Development
Ronald L. Smith, Building Commissioner
Robert K. Bengtson, Director of Public Works
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of February, 2004.
No. 36617-021704.
AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining {}11.1-5, Land disturbing permit
requirements, and § 11.1-6, Erosion and sediment control plan, of Chapter 11.1, Erosion and
Sediment Control, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to conform the
City Code with state requirements; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. Section 11.1-5, Land disturbing permit requirements, and § 11.1-6, Erosion and
sediment control plan, of Chapter 11.1, Erosion and Sediment Control, of the Code of the
City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, are hereby amended and reordained to read and provide
as follows:
Sec. 11.1-5. Land disturbing permit requirements.
(d) As a prerequisite to engaging in the land disturbing activities shown on
the approved plan, the person responsible for carrying out the plan shall
provide the name of an individual holding a certificate of competence to the
agent as provided by 3~10.1-56, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, who will
be in charge of and responsible for carrying out the land-disturbing activity.
Failure to provide the name of an individual holding a certificate of
competence prior to engaging in land-disturbing activities may result in
revocation of approval of the plan, and the person responsible for carrying out
the plan shall be subject to the penalties provided in this ordinance.
o-ca-ErosionandSedimentControl 1
01/14/04
(e) The certificate of competence requirement may be waived for an
agreement in lieu of a plan for construction of a single family residence.
However, ifa violation occurs during the land-disturbing activity, then the
person responsible for carrying out the agreement in lieu of a plan shall
correct the violation and provide the name of an individual holding a
certificate of competence, as provided by 3~10.1-5 61, Code of Virginia (1950,
as amended. Failure to provide the name of an individual holding a certificate
of competence shall be a violation of this ordinance.
Sec. 11.1-6. Erosion and sediment control plan.
(i) Electric, natural gas and telephone utility companies, interstate and
intrastate natural gas pipeline companies and railroad companies shall file
general erosion and sediment control specifications annually with the Board
for review and written comments. The specifications shall apply to:
1. Construction, installation or maintenance of electric, natural gas
and telephone utility lines, and pipelines; and
2. Construction of the tracks, rights-of-way, bridges,
communication facilities and other related structures and facilities of
the railroad company..
Individual approval of separate projects with subdivision 1 and 2 of this
subsection is not necessary when the Board approved specifications are
followed. However, projects included in subdivisions 1 and 2 must comply
with the Board approved specifications. Projects not included in subdivisions
1 and 2 of this subsection shall comply with the requirements of the City of
Roanoke Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
o-ca-ErosionandSedimentCoatxol 2
01/14/04
2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading
of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
o-ca-ErosionandSedimentConixol 3
01/14/04
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (~40) 853-1138
CityWeb: ww~v~ .r~anokegov.c.om~
~enruary i/, 2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject: Recommendation to amend
Chapter11.1 and Chapter 11.2,
Erosion and Sediment Control and
Stormwater Management, of the
Code of the City of Roanoke.
Backoround:
In late 2003, the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) of the
Commonwealth of Virginia undertook an audit of the City's Erosion and
Sediment Control and Stormwater Regulations and Programs. This audit
is undertaken of all localities in the Commonwealth on an ongoing basis.
As a part of that review, various components of the City's existing Erosion
and Sediment Control regulations and Stormwater regulations were
requested by DCR to be updated to more closely reflect recent changes
in State Code. These recommended changes to the City Code, while not
resulting in any new regulatory measures, will enable the City Code
provisions to be in concert with specific language contained in State
regulations.
Update to Reaulations:
The revisions to the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance as proposed
for adoption will affect sections 11.1-5 and 11.1-6. As is our current
policy, the name of the responsible land disturber to be identified prior to
any land disturbing activities will be required. In regards to construction
of single family residences, a responsible land disturber must be named
if a violation occurs. Lastly, utilities such as gas, electric, and telephone
are required to file general erosion and sediment control plans directly
with the state.
The revisions to the Stormwater Management Ordinance as proposed for
adoption provide verbiage recommended by DCR to clarify the existing
ordinance. The affected sections are 11.2-8, ] 1.2-9 and 11.2-10. A
clarification for runoff calculations of pre-development conditions will be
incorporated. In addition, the Virginia Stormwater Management
Handbook and Virginia Stormwater Law and Regulations are referenced
directly in connection with our water quality recommendations.
Furthermore, outfalls not only need to have adequate channels but in
addition the use of any velocity dissipaters will be required as necessary.
Recommended Action:
City Council adopt ordinances amending the Erosion and Sediment
Control and Stormwater Management Ordinances, Chapter 11.1 and ] ~.2
of the Code of the City of Roanoke (~ 979).
Re, s pectfully submitted,
ar ene L. BurCham
City Manager
DLB:mf
C:
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Robert K. Bengtson, Director of Public Works
Phil Schirmer, City Engineer
R. Brian Townsend, Director of Planning Building and Development
CM04-00032
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 l-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk(~ci.roanoke.va.us
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
February 19, 2004
File #227-514
Mr. Daniel F. Layman, Jr.
Woods Rogers PLC
P. O. Box 14125
Roanoke, Virginia 24038-4125
Dear Mr. Layman:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 36619-021704 amending and reordaining Ordinance
No. 35640-110501, in connection with vacating, discontinuing and closing a small portion
of Salem Avenue, S. W., near its intersection with Second Street.
You are required to file a certified copy of Ordinance No. 36619-021704 and Ordinance
No. 35640-110501 with the Clerk of Circuit Court within a period of 36 months from the
date of adoption of Ordinance No. 36619-021704, or such ordinance will be null and void.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2004.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Attachment
Daniel F. Layman, Jr, Attorney
February 19, 2003
Page 2
pc:
Dadene L. Burcham, City Manager
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
R. Brian Townsend, Agent, City Planning Commission
Madha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Edward R. Tucker, City Planner, II
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of February, 2004.
No. 36619-021704.
AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Ordinance No. 35640-110501; and
dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
WHEREAS, by adopting Ordinance No. 35640-110501, on November 5, 2001, City
Council intended to permanently vacate, discontinue and close a small portion of Salem
Avenue, S.W., near its intersection with Second Street, S.W.;
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 35640-110501 provided that it would be null and void,
with no further action by City Council being necessary, ifa plat of subdivision implementing
the ordinance were not recorded within twelve months of the date of adoption of the
ordinance;
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 35640-110501, became null and void, byits terms, when
a plat of subdivision was not recorded within twelve months after the adoption of the
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, extension of the time in which the plat of subdivision can be recorded
after adoption of the ordinance to thirty-six months, will effectuate the purpose of Ordinance
No. 35640-110501.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
next to last paragraph of Ordinance No. 35649-110501 be amended to read and provide as
follows, and that such ordinance be reordained as amended:
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if the above conditions have not
been met within thirty-six (36) months from the date of adoption of this
ordinance, then such ordinance shall be null and void with no further action by
City Council being necessary.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the applicant shall record a certified copy of this
ordinance along with the copy of Ordinance No. 35640-110501 that is to be recorded with
the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
BE IT FINALLY ORDAINED that pursuant to the provisions of §12 of the City
Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
City Clerk.
IN THE COLrNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 5th day of November, 2001.
No. 35640-110501.
AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing certain public
right-of-way in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as more particularly described hereinafter; and
dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance.
WHEREAS, the Times World Corporation, filed an application to the Council of the
City of Roanoke, Virginia, in accordance with law, requesting the Council to permanently
vacate, discontinue and close the public right-of-way described hereinafter; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, after giving proper notice to all
concerned as required by §30-14, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and after
having conducted a public heating on the matter, has made its recommendation to Council;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said application by the City Council on
October 18, 2001, after due and timely notice thereof as required by §30-14, Code of the City
of Roanoke (1979), as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were
afforded an opportunity to be heard on said application; and
WHEREAS, it appearing from the foregoing that the land proprietors affected by the
requested closing of the subject public right-of-way have been properly notified; and
WHEREAS, from all of the foregoing, the Council considers that no inconvenience
will result to any individual or to the public from permanently vacating, discontinuing and
closing said public fight-of-way.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
that the public right-of-way situate in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and more particularly
described as follows:
A portion of Salem Avenue, S. W., near its intersection with Second Street, S.
W., being approximately five (5) feet wide and thirty-five (35) feet long, lying
on the south side of Salem Avenue, S. W., and being shown on the "Right of
Way Easement and Vacation Plat for The Roanoke Times," prepared by
Caldwell White Associates, and dated August 22, 2001.
be, and is hereby permanently vacated, discontinued and closed, and that all fight and interest
of the public in and to the same be, and hereby is, released insofar as the Council of the City
of Roanoke is empowered so to do with respect to the closed portion of the fight-of-way,
reserving however, to the City of Roanoke and any utility company, including, specifically,
without limitation, providers to or for the public of cable television, electricity, natural gas
or telephone service, an easement for sewer and water mains, television cable, electric wires,
gas lines, telephone lines, and related facilities that may now be located in or across said
public fight-of-way, together with the right of ingress and egress for the maintenance or
replacement of such lines, mains or utilities, such fight to include the fight to remove,
without the payment of compensation or damages of any kind to the owner, any landscaping,
fences, shrubbery, structure or any other encroachments on or over the easement which
2
impede access for maintenance or replacement purposes at the time such work is undertaken;
such easement or easements to terminate upon the later abandonment of use or permanent
removal from the above-described public right-of-way of any such municipal installation or
other utility or facility by the owner thereof.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the applicant shall submit to the Subdivision
Agent, receive all required approvals of, and record with the Clerk of the Circuit Court for
the City of Roanoke, a subdivision plat, with said plat combining all properties which would
otherwise be landlocked by the requested closure, or otherwise disposing of the land within
the right-of-way to be vacated in a manner consistent with law, and retaining appropriate
easements, together with the right of ingress and egress over the same, for the installation and
maintenance of any and all existing utilities that may be located within the right-of-way.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the subject portion of right-of-way be purchased
and paid for by the applicant for $3,000.00 (Three Thousand Dollars and No Cents).
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the applicant shall, upon meeting all other
conditions to the granting of the application, deliver to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the
City of Roanoke, Virginia, a certified copy of this ordinance for recordation where deeds are
recorded in said Clerk's Office, indexing the same in the name of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, as Grantor, and in the name of the Petitioner, and the names of any other parties in
interest who may so request, as Grantees, and pay such fees and charges as are required by
the Clerk to effect such recordation.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the applicant shall, upon a certified copy of this
ordinance being recorded by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
where deeds are recorded in said Clerk's Office, file with the City Engineer for the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, the Clerk's receipt, demonstrating that such recordation has occurred.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the moving of the fire hydrant referred to in the
Commission's report dated October 18, 2001, to this Council, if required by this closure, be
done at the expense of the applicant within twelve (12) months of the date of the adoption
of this ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if the above conditions have not been met within
a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the adoption of this ordinance, then said
ordinance shall be null and void with no further action by City Council being necessary.
BE IT FINALLY ORDAINED that pursuant to the provisions of §12 of the City
Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
CityWeb: www.roanokegov.com
February 17, 2004
Honorable Ralph Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject: Re-enactment and
Amendment of Ordinance No.35640-
110501 vacating, discontinuing and
closing a portion of Salem Avenue,
SW
Background:
On November 5, 2001, Ordinance No. 35640-110501 was adopted by City
Council, permanently vacating a small portion of Salem Avenue, $.W. The
ordinance took effect ten days thereafter. As a condition of the
ordinance, the petitioner (Times-World Corporation) was required to
prepare and record a subdivision plat showing the vacated portion of the
street and the combination of the small portion of Salem Avenue with the
adjoining parcels. The ordinance required that the plat be prepared and
recorded within a period of twelve months. If this was not done within the
twelve months provided, the ordinance provided that it would become null
and void.
The applicant, the Times-World Corporation, by their attorney Daniel F.
Layman, Jr., has advised that they have made payment for the portion of
the street that was closed, however, they have not had prepared and
The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
February 1 7, 2004
Page 2
recorded a plat of subdivision, incorporating the closed street portion into
the adjoining lot. Mr. Layman has prepared and filed an application
requesting that Ordinance No. 35640-110501 be re-enacted and amended
to allow thirty-six (36) months for completion and recordation of the
subdivision plat.
Recommendation:
Reenact and amend Ordinance Number 35640-110501 with the condition
that the period of time required for satisfaction of the conditions be
revised from twelve months to thirty-six (36) months.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
DLB:rbt
Attach me nt
C:
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
R. Brian Townsend, Agent, City Planning Commission
Daniel F. Layman, Jr., Woods Rogers PLC, P O Box 14125, Roanoke,
VA 24038
CM04-00038
VIRGINIA
IN THE COUNCI~ OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
AMENDMENT AND REORDINATION OF ) Application of
ORDINANCE NO. 35640-110501 ) Times-World Corporation
The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
1 Times-World Corporation ("Petitioner") applies to have Ordinance No. 35640-
110501, originally adopted November 5, 2001, amended and reordained as set forth below
(2) By application flied September 12, 2001, Times-World Corporation requested that
a small portion of Salem Avenue, S. W. near its intersection with Second Street, S.W., in the
City of Roanoke, Virginia, be permanently vacated, discontinued, and closed pursuant to Section
15.2-2006, Code of Vir~nla, and Section 30-14, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), both as
amended. A copy of that application as originally filed is attached to this Application.
(3) The purpose of that application was to allow Petitioner to construct a new printing
press facility on several lots adjacent to the street and to include this small portion of the street in
the construction project
(4) Petitioner's request was granted and the street portion was vacated, discontinued
and closed by Ordinance No. 35640-110501
(5) As is customary with such ordinances, Ordinance No. 35640-110501 required that
the Petitioner take, within twelve months from the date of adoption of the ordinance, certain
post-adoption actions to complete the closing process, including the payment of $3,000, the
recording of the ordinance, and the preparation and recordation of a plat of subdivision,
incorporating the closed street portion into the adjoining lot. Although the $3,000 payment was
made by the Petitioner as required, by inadvertence the ordinance and plat were not recorded
Accordingly, by its terms Ordinance No. 35640-110501 is now null and void.
(6) Petitioner's new printing press facility has in tact been constructed and occupies
the street portion that was the subject of the now void ordinance. Petitioner would therefore like
to correct this situation by having the ordinance re-enacted and amended to allow thirty-six (36)
months for completion of the omitted post-adoption actions.
WHEREFORE, Times-World Corpomtinn respectfully requests that Ordinance No
35640-I 10501 be amended and reordained to again vacate, discontinue and close the portion of
Salem Avenue, SW, that was the subject of that ordinance as originally adopted and to allow
thirty-six (36) months for recordation of the new ordinance and the plat of subdivision.
Date '/~*lo~'
Daniel F. Layman, Jr. ~a
Woods Rogers PLC
P. O. Box 14125
Roanoke, VA 24038
(703) 983-7653
Counsel for Petitioner
Respectfully,
TI. {ES-V~ ORLD CORPORATION
By _~
VIRGINIA
RECE~VEO
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE~i ~ 12 P~2:05
In re
VACATION OF A PORTION OF SALEM
AVENUE, S.W., NE~R ITS INTERSECTION
WITH SECOND STREET, S.W., IN TIlE
CITY OF ROANOtCE, VIRGINIA
Application of Times-World
Corporation
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
(1) Times-World Corporation ("Petitioner") applies to have a small portion of Salem
Avenue, S. W. near its intersection with Second Street, S.W., in the City of Roanoke, Vir~rfia.
permanently vacated, discontinued, and closed pursuant to Section 15.2-2006, Code of Virginia,
and Section 30-14, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), both as amended. The street portion to
be closed is approximately five (5) feet wide and thirty-five (35) feet long and lies along the
south side of Salem Avenue, S.W. This portion of the street is shown on the "Right of Way
Easement and Vacation Plat for The Roanoke Times" made by Caldwell White Associates dated
August 22, 2001, a copy of which is attached to this Application as Exhibit A.
(2) Petitioner is the owner of the parcel of land adjacent to this portion of Salem
Avenue, identified by City of Roanoke Official Tax No. 1011001, which it recently acquired
from Crystal Tower Building Corporation. Petitioner desires to construct on this and other
adjoinhag pamels a new printing press facility, which project requires for its completion inclusion
of the portion of the street which is the subject of this petition.
(3) Petitioner is the sole owner of the property bordered by this street portion. Petitioner
believes that no inconvenience to the public or to any landowner will result from the closing
hereby requested.
WHEREFORE, Times-World Corporation respectfully requests that the above-described
portion o£Salem Avenue, S.W., be vacated, discontinued and closed by the Council of the Cits..
of Roanoke in accordance with Section 1 $.2-2006, Code of Virginia, and Section 30-14, Code of
the City of Roanoke, both as amended to date.
Date:
Daniel F. Layman.,
Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, P.L.C.
P. O. Box 14125
Roanoke, VA 24038
(703) 983-7653
Counsel for Petitioner
Respectfully,
TIMES-WORLD CORPORATION
Its P"~'3 '"~- +-
MARy F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 ~1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fox: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk(~ci.roanok¢.va.us
February 4, 2004
File #514
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Robert B. Manetta, Chair
City Planning Commission
2831 Stephenson Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Manetta:
Pursuant to Section 30-14, Procedure for altering or vacating City streets or alleys; fees
therefor, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of
an amended application received in the City Clerk's Office on February 2, 2004, from
Daniel F. Layman, Jr., Attorney, representing the Times-World Corporation, requesting that
Ordinance No. 35640-110501 adopted by Council on November 5, 2001, be amended and
reordained to again vacate, discontinue and close a portion of Salem Avenue, S. W., and
to allow 36 months for recordation of a new ordinance and plat of subdivision.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enclosures
Robed B. ManeEa
February 4,2004
Page 2
po~
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Daniel F. Layman, Jr., Attorney, Woods, Rogers and Hazlegrove, P. O. Box 14125,
Roanoke, Virginia 24038
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Edward R. Tucker, City Planner, II
DANIEL F. LAYMAN, JR.
540 983-7653
layman~woodsrogers.corn
WOODS ROGERS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
January 30, 2004
Mrs. Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
City of Roanoke
Room 456, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24011-1536
Re: Times-World Corporation Street Closing
Dear Mrs. Parker:
Enclosed for filing is an Application of Times-World Corporation for additional time to
complete various post-adoption steps in connection with a street closing approved by City
Council in 2001. Bill Hackworth has approved the form of the Application, as a request for
amendment and readoption of the original ordinance approving the closing.
I am uncertain whether there is a fee for filing this application and would therefore ask
that you let me know if we need to send money. Ifa fee is required, we will deliver it
immediately upon your so advising us.
Please let me know if you have any questions about our request.
Yours truly,
WOODS ROGERS~PLC
Daniel F. Layman, J~.
P.O. Box 14125 / Roanoke, Virginia 24038-4125
10 South Jefferson Street, Suite 1400 / Roanoke, Virginia 24011
540 983-7600 / Fax 540 983-7711 / mail~woodsrogcrs.com
Offices also in Blacl~burg, Danville, Lynchburg and Richmond, Virginia,
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
February 19, 2004
File #373-553
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 36620-021704 authorizing an amendment of the
parking lease agreement between the City of Roanoke and Crown Roanoke L. L. C. to
allow a reduction in the number of parking spaces from 250 to 196, in the Williamson Road
Parking Garage, 201 Tazewell Avenue, S. E.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2004, and is in full force and
effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Attachment
Darlene L. Burcham
February 19, 2004
Page 2
pc: Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Elizabeth Neu, Director of Economic Development
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 17th day of February, 2004.
No. 36620-021704.
AN ORDINANCE authorizing an amendment of a parking lease agreement between the City
of Roanoke and Crown Roanoke LLC; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
WHE~AS, by Parking Lease Agreement dated May 1, 1984, authorized by Ordinance No.
26871 adopted January 30, 1984, as amended by Ordinance No. 26946 adopted April 9, 1984, the
City of Roanoke leased to 111 Franklin Road Joint Venture, the predecessor in interest to Crown
Roanoke LLC, 250 parking spaces at the City's Parking Facility located at 201 Tazewell Avenue,
Roanoke, Virginia (a/k/a Williamson Road Parking Garage);
WHEREAS, such Lease Agreement was assigned to Crown Roanoke LLC by assignment
dated October 30, 1997, in connection with Crown's purchase of the property located at 111 Franklin
Road, Roanoke, Virginia;
WHEREAS, Crown has requested the City to reduce the number of parking spaces that are to
be made available under the Lease Agreement from 250 to 196, effective as of May 1, 2003, at which
time such 54 parking spaces were allocated to other customers of the City, and that Crown would
continue to pay for the remaining 196 parking spaces in accordance with the terms of the Lease
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, City staffhas reviewed the matter and believes that the reduction of 54 parking
spaces would be beneficial to both parties and they will be able to continue to make such 54 parking
H:~Meaaur~rown lie panking agmnt 2004.doe ]
spaces available to other users of the Parking Facility on a regular basis, as has been done since May
l, 2003.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The City Manager is authorized to execute an Amendment to the Parking Lease
Agreement dated May 1, 1984, referred to above which will reduce the number of parking spaces the
City is to make available under such Parking Lease Agreement from 250 to 196 spaces, in accordance
with the City Manager's letter to Council dated February 17, 2004.
2. The City Manager is authorized to take such further action and execute such further
documents as may be reasonably necessary to provide for the implementation and administration of
such Amendment and the Parking Lease Agreement.
3. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of'this
Ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
H:~Meosur~'own Ilo p~'king agmnt 2004.doc 2
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
CityWeb: www.roanokegov.com
February 17, 2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject: First Amendment to
the Parking Lease Agreement between
City of Roanoke and Crown Roanoke
LLC.
Background:
On May 1, 1984, the City entered into a Parking Lease Agreement (Agreement)
with 111 Franklin Road Joint Venture to lease 250 parking spaces in its
Williamson Road Parking Garage located at 201 Tazewell Avenue. in October
1997, this Agreement was assigned to Crown Roanoke LLC by Assignment and
Assumption of Leases and Guarantees in connection with the Crown's purchase
of the property located at 111 Franklin Road. Effective May 1, 2003, Crown
Roanoke LLC has requested an amendment to the Agreement to allow a
reduction in the number of parking spaces from 250 to 196.The term of the
Agreement expires on June 30, 2006,but, it is subject to two (2) successive
ten(10) year automatic extensions unless Crown notified the City that Crown
does not intend to extend the Agreement.
Considerations:
This reduction of 54 parking spaces will be a permanent reduction to allow the
City to provide such spaces to other customers. As of May 1,2003, such 54
spaces have been allocated to other customers. The 196 spaces, which will
remain under lease to Crown Roanoke LLC, shall be paid for by Crown at $65/
month and such rates shall be subject to further market adjustment as set forth in
the original Agreement.
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
February 17, 2004
Page-2
Recommended Action:
City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a First Amendment to the
Parking Lease Agreement between the City and Crown Roanoke LLC, effective
retroactively to May 1, 2003, to permanently reduce the number of parking
spaces being provided in this Agreement from 250 to 196 and to authorize the
City Manager to take such further action and execute such further documents as
may be reasonably necessary to provide for the implementation and
administration of such Amendment and Agreement.
Re~spectfully s~ubmitted,
Darlene L. Bdmffam
City Manager
DLB: dim
C'
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Elizabeth Neu, Director, Economic Development
CM04-00037
FIRST AMENDMENT OF PARKING LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT OF PARKING LEASE AGREEMENT ("First
Amendment") is dated ., 2004, between CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia
(the "City") and CROWN ROANOKE LLC, a limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Tenant or Redeveloper").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, by Parking Lease Agreement ("Agreement") dated as of May 1, 1984, the
City leased to 111 Franklin Road Joint Venture, as predecessor-in-interest to Tenant, 250 parking
spaces (the "Parking Spaces") at the parking facility (the "Facility") located at 201 Tazewell
Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia as more particularly described in the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement was assigned to Tenant by Assignment and Assumption of
Leases and Guarantees dated October 30, 1997, in connection with Tenant's purchase of the
property located at 111 Franklin Road, Roanoke, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire by this First Amendment to, among other things, reduce
the number of Parking Spaces leased by Tenant from the City at the Facility as hereinafter set
forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and
valuable consideration, the mutual receipt and legal sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. Defined Termsl Recitals. All terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. The recitals set forth hereinabove are
expressly incorporated into the body of this First Amendment by reference.
2. Effective Date. The effective date of this First Amendment shall be retroactive to
May 1, 2003 (the "Effective Date").
3. Reduction of Parking Spaces. As of the Effective Date, the Parking Spaces
leased by Tenant from the City at the Facility are reduced from 250 spaces to 196 spaces.
Reference in the Agreement to the number 250 spaces or 250 parking spaces are deemed to now
refer to the number 196 spaces or 196 parking spaces as of the Effective Date. The Parking
Spaces to be permanently relinquished by Tenant to the City are designated on Exhibit "A"
annexed hereto and made a part hereof.
4. Rent for Parking Spaces. As of July 1, 2003, Tenant shall be obligated to pay
an increased Rent to the City for the Parking Spaces at a rate of $65.00 per space per month,
subject to further adjustment of such rate as set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Agreement.
5. Reference toIBMBuilding. References in the Agreement to the "IBM
Building" shall be deemed to refer to whatever current name is being used for the Building
referred to in the Agreement.
6. Effect of First Amendment. As modified and amended by this First
Amendment, all of the terms, covenants and conditions of the Agreement are hereby ratified and
confirmed and shall continue to be and remain in full force and effect throughout the remainder
of the term thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to be
signed by their authorized representatives.
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
By:
Darlene L. Bureham, City Manager
CROWN ROANOKE LLC
By:
Crown Roanoke Manager, Inc.,
Its sole Managing member
By:
Name: Davar Rad
Title: President
Lender hereby acknowledges notice of the above First Amendment and its consent to same.
LENDER:
LaSalle Bank National Association, as trustee for the registered holders of LB-UBS Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2000-C4, Commemial Mortgage-Pass Through Certificates, Series 2000-C4;
by Wachovia Bank, National Association ("Wachovia"), formerly known as First Union National
Bank, Sub-Servicer, pursuant to the Sub-Servicing Agreement dated as of September 11, 2002.
By:
Name:
Title:
Appropriation and Funds Required for this
Contract Certified
Director of Finance
Date Acct It
Approved as to Form:
Approved as to Execution:
City Attorney
City Attorney
2
Exhibit "A"
To First Amendment of Parking Lease Agreement
Dated ~ 2004~
Between Ci~ of Roanoke and Crown Roanoke LLC
Relinquished Parking Spaces
3
~A
CITY OF R O_../INOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
February 19, 2004
File #60-144
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hall:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 36621-021704, amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 2003-2004 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, in connection with
appropriation of $28,288.00 in revenues received from other Roanoke Valley jurisdictions
for the September 2003 Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2004, and is in full force and
effect upon its passage.
MFP:ew
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Attachment
Jesse A. Hall
February 19, 2004
Page 2
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Paul J. Truntich, Jr., Environmental Administrator
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 17th day of February, 2004.
No. 36621-021704.
AN ORDINANCE to establish revenue estimates and to appropriate funding for
the September 2003 Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day, amending and
reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations and
dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following
sections of the 2003-2004 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations be, and the same are
hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows:
Appropriations
Appropriated from Other Governments
Revenues
HHWD - Roanoke County
HHWD - City of Salem
HHWD - Town of Vinton
HHWD - Botetourt County
008-660-9783-8999
008-660-9783-9793
008-660-9783-9794
008-660-9783-9796
008-660-9783-9797
28,288
19,650
3,373
1,088
4,177
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading
of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
City Clerk.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 3~4
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
CityWeb: www.roanokegov.com
February 1 7, 2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject: Donations Appropriations -
Hazardous Waste Day
Background:
Over 5,500 citizens of the Roanoke Valley have brought their hazardous
household waste to the six events that the City of Roanoke has
coordinated since April 2000. The first five of these events were funded
predominately from the capital accounts which resulted from the Consent
Order with Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the Plea
Agreement with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. However, the
most recent event conducted in September 2003 was performed on a
regional basis to fulfill a requirement of each jurisdiction's Virginia
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Stormwater Quality
Improvement Program. The neighboring jurisdictions provided both staff
and financial resources for the September 2003 event which totaled over
$78,000.00.
Mayor Smith and Members of City Council
February 17, 2004
Page 2
Considerations:
The following is a breakdown of each jurisdiction's monetary
commitment to the September 2003 Household Hazardous Waste
Collection Day:
Salem $ 3,373
Roanoke County $19,650
Vinton $ 1,088
Botetourt County $ 4,177
$28,288
008-660-9783-9794
008-660-9783-9793
008-660-9783-9796
008-660-9783-9797
Recommended Action:
Establish revenue estimates totaling $28,288 for revenues received from
other jurisdictions as shown above and appropriate the same to the
Household Hazardous Waste Day expenditure account #008-660-9783-
8999 in the Capital Projects Fund.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene L. Bu~r~ham
City Manager
DLB:pjt
C:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Paul J. Truntich, Jr., Environmental Administrator
CM04-00035
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOIO
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk~ci.roanoke.va.us
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
February 19, 2004
File #529
Mr. Robert Burnley, Director
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
629 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Mr. Bumley:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 36622-021704 endorsing and adopting.the Ozone
Early Action Plan for the Roanoke Valley Area.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2004.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Enclosure
Robert Bumley, Director
February 19, 2004
Page 2
pc:
Wayne G. Strickland, Executive Director, Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional
Commission, P. O. Box 2569, Roanoke, Virginia 24010
Diane S. Childers, Clerk, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, P. O. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798
Gerald A. Burgess, County Administrator, Botetourt County, 1 West Main Street,
Box 1, Fincastle, Virginia 24090
Carolyn S. Ross, Clerk, Town of Vinton, 311 S. Pollard Street, Vinton, Virginia
24179
James E. Taliaferro, III, Assistant City Manager, City of Salem, P. O. Box 869
Salem, Virginia 24153
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
George C. Snead, Jr., Assistant City Manager for Operations
Robert K. Bengtson, Director of Public Works
Paul J. Truntich, Environmental Manager
Kenneth H. King, Transportation Manager
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
'the 17th day of February, 200/4.
bio. 36622-021704.
A RESOLUTION endorsing and adopting the Ozone Early Action Plan for the Roanoke
Valley Area.
WHEREAS, clean air is essential for quality of life, economic development, and the
general public well-being of the Roanoke Valley area;
WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a
revised 8-hour ozone standard in 1997 that was set at 0.085 parts per million (ppm), averaged
over a three-year period;
WHEREAS, the ozone monitoring station in the Roanoke area (in the Town of Vinton)
currently has a design value of 0.085 ppm that would qualify the area for the designation of non-
attainment area for ozone under the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1990;
WHEREAS, the EPA has developed and endorsed the air quality planning concept of
Early Action Compacts, where an area that marginally exceeds the ozone standard can enter into
a voluntary agreement with state and federal governments to develop and implement an Early
Action Plan to reduce proactively ozone levels and come imo compliance with the standard;
WHEREAS, elected officials representing the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, the Counties
of Botetourt and Roanoke, and the Town of Vinton, acting through the Roanoke Valley Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization (IVIPO), entered into an Ozone Early Action Compact with
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) and the Federal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in December 2002;
WHEREAS, the Ozone Early Action Compact authorized the establishment of an Early
Action Plan Task Force and the development of a regional Early Action Plan consisting of local,
H:~d~a~ur~\Ozonc EAP.~o¢ 1
state and national strategies to bring the Roanoke Valley area into attainment with the 8-hour
Ozone standard by 2007;
WHEREAS, in response, the Early Action Plan Task Force has developed and submitted
an Early Action Plan for consideration and adoption by the localities that have entered into the
Early Action Compact;
WHEREAS, the Early Action Plan contains specific commitments and responsibilities to
be undertaken by the localities that have entered into the Early Action Compact;
WHEREAS, technical analyses conducted by VDEQ and EPA indicate that air quality is
expected to improve in the Roanoke Valley area by 2007;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Roanoke is fully committed to fulfill these
specific commitments and responsibilities under the Ozone Early Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, furthermore, the City Council is fully committed to the regional cooperation
and coordination necessary to bring the area into attainment, as measured by the regional Ozone
monitor, for the 8-hour Ozone standard in 2007.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. City Council hereby adopts, approves, and endorses the regional Ozone Early
Action Plan (EAP) dated January 22, 2004, which was attached to the City Manager's letter to
Council dated February 17, 2004, including any minor changes that may be made to such EAP,
and is committed to its implementation and success.
2. The City Manager is authorized to take such actions and execute such documents
as may be necessary for the implementation and administration of such EAP, including any
modification to such EAP.
Hg~feesu~s\Czone EAP. doc 2
3. The City Clerk is directed to send a signed copy of this resolution of commitment
f~om the City of Roanoke to the Director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
for processing and inclusion into the official State Implementation Plan, which once approved by
EPA will make these commitments and responsibilities federally enforceable.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
H:kMeasutes\Ozone EAP. doe 3
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
CityWeb: www.roanokegov.com
February 17, 2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject: Endorsement and Adoption
of Ozone Early Action Plan for the
Roanoke Valley Area
Background:
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that levels of
ozone in the Roanoke Valley area sometimes exceed acceptable limits by
a small margin. Over the last five (5) years, the number of days the
acceptable ozone limit has been exceeded has averaged four (4) days
each summer. In 2002, local governments in the Roanoke Valley area,
through the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO), entered into an Early Action Compact (EAC) with the EPA. This
Compact allowed the Roanoke Valley area, in conjunction with the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) and EPA, to develop
an Ozone Early Action Plan (EAP) to reduce excessive ozone levels by
2007. Council approved participation in the EAC by Resolution No.
36186-121602.
Since this Compact, the MPO has coordinated development of the EAP
with representatives of the participants in the Plan, including the City of
Roanoke. Strategies in the EAP for local implementation concentrate on
three (3) general targets: heavy duty diesel equipment, lawn and garden
The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
February 17, 2004
Page 2
equipment, and other assorted actions including public education and
specific actions on high ozone days.
The EAP includes actions and obligations the City of Roanoke will be
responsible for implementing and will become federally enforceable by
the EPA and VDEQ. The City of Roanoke is already committed or
intending to implement the strategies and actions it is mandated by the
EAP to perform, such as replacing trucks with efficient ethanol-compatible
vehicles, instituting a system of
greenways and bicycle lanes, increasing the tree canopy, and instituting
Valley Metro service to Blacksburg. Other measures will be
administrative, e.g. refueling vehicles in early mornings or late
afternoons, or restricting mowing on high ozone days. The EAP's
strategies and obligations, which will need to be continued until at least
20~ 2 under the EAC, are not expected to require identifiable incremental
costs to the City.
Considerations:
Having an approved EAP allows the area to develop and pursue its own
strategies to address effectively high ozone levels by 2007. The
alternative to an EAP is for EPA to designate formally the area as a "non-
attainment area" and mandate significant actions and prohibitions on
activities in the Valley in order to attain required standards by 2009. EPA
monitoring would then continue for another 20 years. This course would
give much less local control and be much more burdensome to the public
and private sectors for a much longer period of time.
The MPO adopted the EAP on January 22, 2004. A copy of such EAP is
attached hereto as attachment 1. All parties to the Compact, including
the City of Roanoke, are asked to adopt the Plan in time to submit it to
VDEQ and EPA in March. Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton have
already done so. The intention is to begin implementation of strategies
in 2004 in order to enhance effectiveness in ozone reduction in 2005.
The EAP strategies generally are consistent with policies and plans of the
City of Roanoke and are not expected to incur additional identifiable
COSTS.
The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
February 17, 2004
Page 3
Recommended Action:
Adopt and endorse the Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan (EAP)
that will be in a form substantially similar to the EAP adopted by the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (attached), and authorize the City
Manager to take such actions and execute such documents as may be
necessary for the implementation and administration of such EAP,
including any modifications to such EAP.
Direct the City Clerk to send a signed copy of Council's resolution to the
Director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality for
processing and inclusion into the official State Implementation Plan,
which once approved by EPA will make these commitments and
responsibilities federally enforceable.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
DLB:hdp
Attachment
C:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
George C. Snead, Assistant City Manager for Operations
Robert K. Bengtson, Director of Public Works
PauIJ. Truntich, Environmental Manager
Kenneth H. King, Transportation Manager
# CM04-00039
Roanoke Valley Area
Ozone Early Action
Plan (EAP)
01-22-2004
Cities of Roanoke and Salem, Counties of
Roanoke and Botetourt, Town of Vinton
With the assistance of the Roanoke Valley
Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
and the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional
Commission (RVARC).
01-22-2004
Introduction:
Elected officials representing local governments in the Roanoke Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA) entered into an Early Action Compact (EAC) with both the Commonwealth
of Virginia and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the area including
Botetourt and Roanoke Counties, the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, and the Town of
Vinton. All the parties involved signed and submitted the Compact to the EPA by
December 31, 2002. The area then established and commissioned the Roanoke Early
Action Plan Task Fome to serve as the major stakeholder group to coordinate the
development of the early action plan (EAP) for the area. The goal of an EAP is to
develop a comprehensive strategy that will bring the area into attainment of the 8-hour
ozone standard by 2007. We will achieve this goal by selecting and implementing local
ozone precursor pollutant control measures that when combined with other measures on
the state and national level, are sufficient to bring the area into compliance with the
standard.
Organization of Early Action Plan (EAP):
The text of the EAP is organized along three major themes (see figure). First federal and
state strategies are presented. These strategies are enforced from the federal and state
levels respectively. The enforcement of these strategies will reside with the federal and
state regulatory processes. The federal and state strategies are expected to substantially
contribute to improved air quality in the Roanoke Valley Region.
Introduction,
Organization, Federal
Strategies and State
Strategies.
Appendix
Resolutions, Letters of
Support, Public
Participation Log and
Additional Information
~cal Strategies - (3 Section~) ~
· Section I - Heavy Duty Diesel
and Diesel Equipment
· Section H - Air Quality
Action Day, Public Education,
Stationary Sources and Other
Strategies
· Section III - Lawn and
Garden Equipment Strategies
Contingency Measures
The meat of the EAP resides in the Local Strategies. These strategies were developed by
the Ozone Early Action Plan Task Fome and submitted to general public review on
several occasions. These strategies are tailored to the localities in the region and
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan ii
01-22-2004
represent a great oppommity for local control and involvement. These strategies are
presented in three sections corresponding to Heavy Duty Diesel and Diesel Equipment,
Air Quality Action Day and Various Strategies and Lawn and Garden Equipment
Strategies. The Appendix contains Resolutions from the local governments as well as
regional agencies, letters of support and commitment from private, public and non-profit
organizations, additional information and details pertaining to some of the local strategies
and a public participation log.
State & Federal Control Measures:
In addition to the local control measures, there several state and federal actions that have
or will produce substantial ozone precursor emission reductions both inside and outside
of the Roanoke Valley area. These reductions are aimed at reducing local emissions and
the movement (transport) of pollution into the area. These measures, when combined
with the local control program, are expected to lower area ozone concentrations to the
level at or below the ozone standard.
Federal Measures:
On the federal level, numerous EPA programs have been or will be implemented to
reduce ozone pollution. These programs cover all the major categories of ozone
generating pollutants and are designed to assist many areas to come into compliance with
the federal ozone standard. A brief description of these measures is provided below:
Stationary & ,4rea Source Controls: In addition NOX SIP Call program, the EPA has
developed a number of control programs to address smaller "area" sources of emissions
that are significant contributors to ozone formation. These programs reduce emissions
from such sources as industrial/architectural paints, vehicle paints, metal cleaning
products, and selected consumer products.
Motor Vehicle Controls: The EPA continues to make significant progress in reducing
motor vehicle emissions. Several federal programs have established more stringent
engine and associated vehicle standards on cars, sport utility vehicles, and large tracks.
These programs combined are expected to produce progressively larger emission
reductions over the next twenty years as new vehicles replace older ones.
Non-Road Vehicle & Equipment Standards: The category of"non-road" sources that
covers everything from lawn & garden equipment to aircraft, has become a significant
source of air pollutant emissions. In response, EPA has adopted a series of control
measures to address these sources. These programs include engine emission standards for
lawn & garden equipment, construction equipment, boat engines, and locomotives. All
these measure have been developed to address both the creation of ozone producing
emissions in the local area, as well as reducing the movement of ozone into the area as a
comprehensive approach to reducing ozone levels. A full summary of these state and
federal measures is presented in Appendix B.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan iii
01-22-2004
State Measures:
At the state level, several significant actions have been taken. First, in response to EPA's
call for the reduction of NOX emissions from large combustion sources (i.e., the NOX
SIP Call), the state has adopted and will implement a program to significantly reduce
emissions on NOX as part of a regional program to reduce ozone transport. This program
alone is predicted to reduce ozone forming NOX emissions by up to 30,000 tons per
ozone season in Virginia. Secondly, the state opted into the National Low Emission
Vehicle program that began to require less polluting vehicles in the state, beginning in
1999. Also in 1999, Stage I vapor recovery systems were required at gasoline stations in
the Roanoke area. To further address local emissions, the state has recently adopted
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) controls for industries in the area, to
further reduce the local contribution to ozone formation. The emission reduction expected
from RACT in the area is currently being evaluated on a source-by-source basis.
Compliance with the PACT rule will be required by the end of 2005.
Definitions:
Air Oualitv Action Day~ Days Forecast to be Nonattalnment and "Code Red Days" -
for the purpose of this document all occurrences of"Air Quality Action Day," "Days
Forecast to be Nonattainment," "Code Red Days, and/or similar statement in the profiles
ofvarions strategies refer to days which are forecast to be at 85 ppb or greater for an 8-
hour average concentration of Ozone. As far as this plan is concerned, this definition
supercedes other air-quality definitions and/or indexes, which may be in common use by
other agencies and employ a similar terminology. This definition could expand to
include a standard for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) in the future if necessa~.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan iv
01-22-2004
Roanoke Valley Area
Ozone Early Action Plan (EAP)
Local Strategies
Section I of III
Heavy Duty Diesel and Diesel Equipment
Strategies
Table of Contents:
1.) Reducing Locomotive Idling .............................................................................. 2
2.) Limiting Idling Times for School Buses ............................................................ 3
3.) Retrofit Roanoke County School Buses ............................................................. 4
4.) City of Roanoke -Purchase 5 Bio-diesel Compatible Solid Waste Trucks ....... 5
5.) City of Roanoke - Purchase of Ethanol Compatible Vehicles ........................... 6
6.) City of Roanoke - Purchase 9 Bio-diesel Trucks ............................................... 7
7.) City of Roanoke -Purchase of 2 Hybrid Electric Vehicles ............................... 8
8.) County of Roanoke - Purchase of Low-emission Vehicles ............................... 9
9.) County of Roanoke - Fleet Management Education/Training ............................10
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 1 of 33
01-22-2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Heavy Diesel Equipment and Vehicles
Title of Reducing Locomotive Idling
Measure
Pollutants reduced PM, NOX
Costs N/A
Sources affected Locomotives
Geographical area City of Roanoke
Implementation date
Requires approval by
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
Completed by Norfolk Southern Railroad Company
No
Enforceable? No
Quantifiable? Yes
Description of
measure
To increase operating efficiency and reduce emissions from
Transportation activities Norfolk Southern Railway Company
has implemented a operating policy to reduce emissions from
idling locomotives as allowable by ambient conditions being
~eater then 32 degrees.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 2 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Heavy Diesel Equipment and Vehicles
Title of Limit Idling Times for School Buses
Measure
Pollutants reduced PM, Nox (---0.74 tpy)
Costs Zero costs other than normal operational costs.
Sources affected
Mobile Sources - Buses
Geographical area
Implementation date
County of Roanoke, County of Botetourt, and Town of Vinton
(note: City of Roanoke, and the City of Salem already have
school bus idling restrictions per 9VAC5-20-201)
ASAP
Requires approval by
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
Enforceable?
Quantifiable?
Description of
measure
Yes - 9VAC5-20-201 needs to be administratively updated
with the 2000 census data. Bob Mann with the VDEQ is
checking to see if this update can be handled admlni~tratively.
Yes. Idling restriction already exist for the City of Roanoke
and part of Roanoke County and the City of Salem.
Yes, will need to determine the number of buses, model, year,
and an estimated idling time for buses in this area.
Assumptions: 300 HDD 1995 buses, idle 30 minute/day,
25g/hour NOX, 180 day/yr = 300'25/2 * 180 * 1000g/kg=675
kg/year or 0.74 ton/year.
This emission reduction strategy involves increasing public
awareness and enfoming the existing idling restrictions and
expanding the idling restrictions as necessary based on the
2000 census data. A school bus bums ½ gallon of fuel for
each hour it idles. Ifa school system with 50 buses reduce
idling times by 30 minutes a day, the savings at $1 a gallon
will be $2,250 a year in fuel costs.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 3 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Heavy Diesel Equipment and Vehicles
Title of Retrofit Roanoke County School Buses
Measure
Specific Project Retrofit 100 Roanoke County school buses
Pollutants reduced PM (0.07tpy), CO (1.24tpy), HC (0.26tpy)
The costs of Roanoke County school bus retrofit project will
be paid for by a court settlement.
Costs
Oxidation catalysts cost about $1,500 to $2,500 each, and
diesel particulate filters cost about $5,000 to $8,000 each.
Costs should decrease with large-volume orders as more fleets
participate. Ultra-low sulfur fuel will initially be priced at 8
cents per gallon more than conventional fuel at the refinery.
Sources affected
Geogxaphical area
Heavy-Duty Diesel School Buses
County of Roanoke
Implementation date
Requires approval by
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
July 2004
No
Enforceable?
Quantifiable?
Description of
measure
N/A -Retrofit are currently underway
Yes - The VDEQ projected the emissions benefit of Roanoke
County diesel bus retrofit project to be 0.26 tpy HC, 1.42 tpy
CO, and 0.07 tpy PM
Roanoke County will be retrofitting 100 school buses with:
· Diesel oxidation catalysts--pollutants and particulate
matter are chemically oxidized to water vapor and
carbon dioxide.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 4 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Heavy Diesel Equipment and Vehicles
Title of City of Roanoke - Purchase more efficient, Bio-diesel
Measure compatible alternative fuel solid waste trucks
Pollutants reduced PM (~7.8 kg/yr), NOX (-250 kg/year)
Costs In the long nm, the city expects to save money.
Mobile Sources - Solid Waste Trucks
Sources affected
Geographical area
Implementation date
City of Roanoke
2003 - 2007
Requires approval by NO
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
Enforceable?
Quantifiable?
Description of
measure
Yes (Local Government Commitment)
Yes
5 tracks* 1.5hr less operating time/track*4 day/week *52
weeks/year * 20mph = 31,200 miles/year reduction.
NOX= 31,200 miles/yr * 8 g/mi *1000g/kg = 250 kg/year or
0.27 tons/yr
PM = 31,200 miles/year * 0.25 g/mi = 7.8 kg/year
In 2003, Roanoke city purchased five new garbage tracks,
which can be converted to bio-diesel (Heil automated trucks
with Python method). These tracks are more efficient and
will have a 20 percent savings in the amount of time it takes
to complete the route. Instead of the average of 8 seconds for
can pick up, these new trucks will average 6 seconds.
Roanoke city picks up trash four days a week. As these new
trucks are integrated into the routes, the routes will be
adjusted to reduce the driving time. These new trucks will
save from 1 to 1 ½ hour each day. Roanoke has a total of 13
garbage trucks. Usually, only 10 trucks are on the road
because of maintenance. As the fleet is replaced, the city will
purchase the same type vehicle. This will reduce maintenance
time because they will be newer vehicles and they will be the
same style allowing for quicker maintenance.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 5 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Heavy Diesel Equipment and Vehicles
Title of Purchase/Use of ethanol compatible alternative fuel
Measure vehicles
Pollutants reduced NOX, VOC
Costs In thc beginning, slightly higher than normal vehicle
replacement. Once alternative fuel supply is improved, price
may decrease.
Soumes affected
Mobile Sources - City of Roanoke vehicles
Geographical area City of Roanoke
Implementation date 2003 - 2007
Requires approval by NO
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
Enforceable? Yes (Local Government Commitment)
Quantifiable? Yes
Description of
measure
In 2003, City of Roanoke purchased eleven sedans and station
wagons that are ethanol fuel compatible. By 2007, the city
will purchase an additional fifteen ethanol fuel compatible
vehicles. While the use of ethanol fuel is being pursued, the
city is evaluating the option of outsourcing all fleet fueling
operations. If outsourcing is initiated, the city would be
dependent upon the selected vendor(s) to provide ethanol fuel.
Therefore, at this time the city cannot establish an accurate
timetable for integrating the use of alternative fuels.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 6 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Heavy Diesel Equipment and Vehicles
Title of City of Roanoke - Purchase new cleaner fleet trucks that
Measure wnl operate using bio-diesel as an alternative fuel to diesel
Pollutants reduced PM, VOCs
Costs In the beginning, slightly higher than normal vehicle
replacement. Once alternative fuel supply is improved, price
may decrease. Biodiesel (B20) cost -$0.15 more per gallon
than diesel.
Sources affected Mobile Sources - City of Roanoke vehicles
Geographical area City of Roanoke
Implementation date
2003 - 2007
Requires approval by NO
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
Enforceable? Yes (Local Government Commitmem)
Quantifiable? Yes
Description of
measure
In 2003, City of Roanoke purchased nine new trucks that will
operate using bio-diesel fuel. By 2007, City of Roanoke will
purchase an additional twelve bio-diesel fuel compatible
vehicles. While the use of bio-diesel is being pursued, the city
is evaluating the option of outsourcing all fleet fueling
operations. Ifoutsourcing is initiated, the city would be
dependent upon the selected vendor(s) to provide bio-diesel.
Therefore, at this time the city cannot establish an accurate
timetable for integrating the use of alternative fuels.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 7 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Heavy Diesel Equipment and Vehicles
Title of Purchase/Use of hybrid vehicles
Measure
Pollutants reduced PM, VOCs, NOx
Costs
Sources affected
Geographical area
Implementation date
In the beginning, higher than normal vehicle replacement.
Price will decrease as hybrid vehicle price declines.
Mobile Sources - City of Roanoke vehicles
City of Roanoke
2003 - 2007
Requires approval by
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
NO
Enforceable?
Yes (Local Government Commitment)
Quantifiable? Yes
Description of
measure
In 2003-2004 fiscal year, City of Roanoke will purchase one
2004 Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle. Dependant upon favorable
evaluation and field-testing, the city will purchase additional
Toyota Prius or similar vehicles.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 8 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Heavy Diesel Equipment and Vehicles
Title of Purchase of more efficient, low-emission and alternative
Measure fuel vehicles
Pollutants reduced PM, VOCs, NOx
Costs
Sources affected Mobile Sources - County Fleet
Geographical area
Roanoke County
Implementation date 2004
Requires approval by
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
NO
Enforceable?
Quantifiable?
Description of
measure
Yes (Local Government Commitment)
Yes (Only after vehicles are purchased)
** By late 2003 or early 2004, Roanoke County anticipates
the approval of a plan that will consider purchasing alternative
fuel and low-emission vehicles when making vehicle
purchases.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 9 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Education and Awareness
Title of Education and Information Training
Measure
Pollutants reduced PM, VOCs, NOx
Costs
Sources affected Mobile Sources - Roanoke County_
Geographical area
Implementation date
Roanoke County
2003- 2004
Requires approval by
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
NO
Enforceable?
Yes (Letter/Brochure Attachment to EAP)
Quantifiable?
Description of
measure
Yes (Measure any fuel reduction that occurred after training)
On August 8, 2003, Roanoke County distributed a brochure to
all its employees urging them to reduce the environmental
impact of driving both County and personal vehicles. Items
focused on car-pooling, planning trips, and reduction of idling
and warm up periods. In addition, all drivers of County
vehicles will receive "effective environmental driving"
classroom training by June 30, 2004.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 10 of 33
01/22/2004
Roanoke Valley Area
Ozone Early Action Plan (EAP)
Local Strategies
Section II of III
Air-Quality Action Day, Public Education
and Stationary Sources Strategies
Table of Contents:
10.) Air Quality Action Day (Hybrid Approach) ..................................................... 12
11.) Early Morning or Late Evening Refueling (Voluntary) .................................... 15
12.) Promotion of Alternative Fuel Vehicles (Voluntary) ........................................ 17
13.) Media and Public Relations Concerning Air Quality Action Days ................... 18
14.) Public Transit Incentives ................................................................................... 20
15.) Bicycle Infrastructure and Amenities ................................................................ 21
16.) School (K-12 and Adult Education) Based Public Education ........................... 22
17.) Tree Canopy/Urban Forestry ............................................................................ 23
18.) Roanoke to Blacksburg Public Transit .............................................................. 26
19.) Open Burning ................................................................................................... 27
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 11 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Title of
Measure
Pollutants reduced
Voluntary EAC Pledges and Air Quality Action Day
Commitments from Local Businesses
(Days forecast to have an 8-hour average concentration of
Ozone of 85 ppb or higher - definition could expand to
include PM 2.5 in the future)
PM, VOCs, NOx
Costs
Implementing this strategy will consume a considerable
amount of time. Associated costs will include the amount of
funding needed to partially support a position with the
Regional Commission. The RVARC will be filling the Ride
Solutions Coordinator vacancy in the near future. The
requirements of this position have been expanded to include
Ozone Action Day Coordinator duties as they relate to
transportation issues. Other minor personal costs would be
those associated with providing internships for students from
local schools and universities at the RVARC. It is anticipated
that interns will assist the Ride Solutions Coordinator.
Sources affected
Additionally, the cost of distributing educational materials
such as posters and brochures (videos) should be included in
the analysis. To help alleviate this expense, EAC members
could request that businesses agree to partially (or fully) pay
for the educational materials they distribute as part of their
EAC pledge. (Although this may decrease our chances of
meeting our established goal.) EPA has already produced
some very nice brochures and educational materials we could
utilize (rather than reinventing the wheel).
Roanoke's largest employers
(With in the EAC area there are approximately 243 businesses
that have 100 or more employees, the largest ones will be
targeted first.)
Geographical area Roanoke CMSA
Implementation date 2003 - 2007
Implementation date 2003 - 2007
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 12 of 33
01/22/2004
Requires approval by
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
Enforceable?
NO
This is a voluntary pledge on the part of local business;
therefore it would not require SAPCB approval.
NO
Quantifiable?
NO
Actual emissions reductions fi.om this measure cannot be
quantified and incorporated in the modeling. Although the
emissions reductions will not be quantifiable, the strategy will
have a quantifiable goal of exposing at least 10,000 people to
the educational material through their place of employment.
The committee feels this goal can be easily achieved if the
Roanoke area's largest employers agree to sign the pledge.
Description of
measure
This measure falls in the realm of public education, and is
aimed at altering or modifying the behavior of local citizens to
remedy the air quality problem.
In this measure, the targeted business would make a voluntary
pledge to participate in Roanoke's ozone action program. As
a basic requirement of this pledge, the employer provides
educational materials on ozone to it's employees. The
educational package will include ozone action day posters to
be displayed in the workplace, as well as brochures explaining
the effects of ozone and what individuals can do to lower
ozone concentrations. The pledge would also require each
business to dedicate an employee(s) who is responsible for
checking and posting the daily ozone forecast
(http://www.deq.state.va.us/ozone/) during the ozone season.
Individual businesses will be encouraged to take initiative and
further develop their own air quality programs beyond the
basic pledge. Further development could include measures
such as holding AQ workshops for their employees, providing
environmental awards or merits to employees who take
initiative in the program, and depending on the type of
business, consumer based incentives which would alter the
behavior of the consumer. Businesses could also opt to
participate in VA DEQ's Environmental Excellence Program.
Presenting this program to the local businesses will be the
most time consuming and challenging aspect of this strategy's
implementation. The most time effective manor, in which this
strategy could be presented, would be to invite representatives
from targeted businesses to a meeting providing information
on the strategy. The meeting would also provide background
information on the EAC, its purpose and why it would be
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 13 of 33
01/22/2004
advantageous for local businesses to get involved. The
RVARC and various EAC members who represent the local
business community would be instrumental in providing
contacts and setting up the meeting.
Part of this measure may involve partnerships with EPA and
VA DEQ.
Additional
Information
An EPA EMPACT program document titled "Ozone
Monitoring, Mapping, and Public Outreach - Delivering Real-
Time Ozone Information to Your Community" (EPA, 1999)
provides detailed information about implementing these types
of public education programs in your community. It also has
several great examples of similar types of programs that were
successfully implemented in other cities and states. Though
these programs did not provide "quantifiable" emissions
reductions, they did have measurable success in creating
greater public awareness.
It is important to note that that if the State of Virginia, or a
specific locality chose to launch an air quality awareness
campaign, in order for it to truly be successful they would
need a staff (or staff person) whose major duties are dedicated
to the program on a year round basis. In fact, the North
Carolina Department of Air Quality, which has a successful
Air Awareness program, recommends "even if budgets are
tight, air quality agencies should dedicate a full-time staffer to
manage their ozone outreach programs all year long." (Ozone
Monitoring, Mapping and Public Outreach, EPA 1999) If the
Roanoke EAC members choose to implement the various
public awareness and outreach strategies, it would be in the
city's best interest (since we will be committed to following
through on these activities) to provide a staff person who can
lead and coordinate these activities with the help of volunteers
from the EAC.
Finally, since many of the public education measures are
inter-related, and it would be beneficial for the committee
members of the various public education strategies to work
together.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 14 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Title of
Measure
Pollutants reduced
Voluntary Program with Gas Stations to promote fueling
early in the morning or later at night.
Mandatory agreement from local governments to refuel
vehicle fleets either early in the morning or later at night.
VOC
Costs
Sources affected
The cost of any incentive
Gasoline Stations, General public, Local Governements
Region wide
Geographical area
Implementation date Ozone Season 2004
Requires approval by No
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
Enforceable? No
Quantifiable?
Yes Easily determined by looking at previous and present
hourly filling rates.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 15 of 33
01/22/2004
Description of
measure
The following area businesses have been contacted and have
given initial willingness to cooperate by offering some
incentive for filling cars prior to 8:00 am and after 5:00 pm.
Letters from these companies will be forwarded to the MPO
shortly informing them of each individual effort.
Kroger
Sheetz
Workman Oil
PM Transport
Other businesses that are currently considering participation
in this effort are:
Jasraj Inc. Patel Brothers
Go Mart
7-11
ETNA
These sources likely control 60% of impacted area stations.
Incentives could be
Free coffee to fill in AM prior to 8 AM
Free small drink to fill after 5PM
Free gas with 10 fill-ups at a station before 8AM or after 5PM
Free sub during next visit with purchase of drink and chips
with 5 fill-ups prior to 8AM or after 5PM.
Free groceries with 10 fill-ups prior to 8AM or after 5PM.
Price reduction on gas when filling during those hours.
Press release to general public advising public of the need for
compliance with this voluntary program. Then follow up
with additional informational press release advising public of
how the program is doing. This should get other businesses to
join in and work toward reducing emissions.
Local Govermnents will be asked to refuel local fleets before
8:00 am or after 5:00 pm on days predicted to be
nonattainment for Ozone.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 16 of 33
01/22/2004
Title of Encouragement of Consumer Purchase of Fuel Efficient
Measure Vehicles
Pollutants reduced VOC, NOX
Costs This strategy will be incorporated into marketing costs for
public relations/education strategies and/or in kind
contributions from private entities.
Vehicle Dealerships
Region wide
Sources affected
Geographical area
Implementation date Ozone Season 2004
Requires approval by No
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
Enforceable? No (Voluntary)
Quantifiable? No
Description of
measure
As a part of the general public education/relations efforts (see
page 18) individual consumers, private fleets and local
governments will be encouraged to purchase fuel efficient
and/or hybrid vehicles whenever possible.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 17 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Education and Awareness
Title of Media and Public Relations Regarding Air Quality Action
Measure Days
Pollutants reduced PM, VOCs, NOx
Costs ½ Full-time staff hours (RIDE Solutions) - minimum supplies
General
Sources affected
Geographical area Region Wide
Implementation date 2005
Requires approval by No
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
Enforceable? No
Quantifiable? No
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 18 of 33
01/22/2004
Description of
measure
Summary of suggestions - Revised 11/10/03
Notes: 1. This list is intended to avoid duplicating Strategy #1.
2. This list does not include paid advertising.
I. PREPARATION
A. Develop a distinctive, memorable name for ozone action days.
B. Conduct a contest to develop a name, logo and letterhead.
C. Develop a simple, consistent message.
D. Develop a standard power-point presentation.
E. Develop or obtain brochures and other handout material.
F. Draft prototype articles for inclusion in newsletters, house
organs, etc.
G. Prepare public service announcements for radio and TV.
H. Develop a list and schedule oforganizatious to contact.
I. Develop a web site, possibly piggybacked on RideSolutions.
J. Sign up service organizations to sponsor an educational
project.
II. GENERAL INFORMATIONAL CAMPAIGN A. Newspaper articles (at least once each year).
B. Letters to the editor and op-ed articles.
C. PSA spots on commercial radio and TV stations.
D. Programs and PSA spots on government access cable TV.
E. Donated billboards.
F. Presentations to service organizations and other groups.
G. Submit sample articles for use in newsletters and house organs.
H. Annual awards program for participating organizations.
I. Periodic news releases listing participating organizations.
III. AIR QUALITY ACTION DAYS
A. Notice and suggestions in daily newspaper that morning.
B. Suggestions for actions in TV and radio weather forecasts.
C. Update the web site with alert information and suggested
actions.
IV. MEASURABLE GOALS
A. Annual number of published newspaper articles.
B. Annual number of published letters and op-ed articles.
C. Annual number of TV and radio programs.
D. Annual number of newsletters and house organs.
E. Annual number of billboards.
F. Annual number of presentations and/or audience members.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 19 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Title of Transit pass for college students and employees
Measure
Pollutants reduced PM, VOCs, NOx
Costs
Sources affected Mobile Sources - Valley ~Ietro_Transit
Geographical area Roanoke Valley
Implementation date 2005 - 2007
Requires approval by No
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
Enforceable? No
Quantifiable? No
Description of
measure
Work with area colleges and employers to annually purchase
at least 300 Valley Metro transit passes. These passes would
be used with their voluntary Ozone Action Day plans and/or
throughout the year. This is a voluntary measure but has a
committed goal of 300 passes per year.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 20 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Title of Bicycle Infrastructure and Amenities
Measure
Pollutants reduced PM, VOCs, NOx
Costs Infrastructure - Local Government
Sources affected Mobile
Geographical area
Implementation date
Region Wide
2005 - continuir~g
Requires approval by No
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
Enforceable? No
Quantifiable?
Description of o
measure
Yes (Need inventory of Infrastructure and Amenities)
Encourage local governments to increase
pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure spending.
o make presentations to City Councils and County
Board of Supervisors
o Establish a safe network of bike routes with effective
signs and lane markings.
o continue work with RVARC on Regional Bicycle
Suitability Study and with VDOT
o Educate public about bringing bikes onto public transit
(i.e., Valley Metro).
o work with Valley Metro to advertise this feature
o Encourage installation of bike racks at public and private-
owned buildings.
o racks at City/County buildings, libraries, civic centers,
schools - funding for these goes back to first item on
this list, encouraging local governments to increase
spending for bicycle infrastructure and amenities
o encourage developers to provide bike infrastructure
and amenities, see City and County Comprehensive
Plans on this topic
Note: Roanoke County Zoning Administrator stated that
we could not require a private entity to provide bicycle
infrastructure and amenities, only recommend and
encourage them. He said it could be worked into one of
the proffers ofa rezoning application, but would be case-
specific.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 21 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Title of School Based Public Education
Measure K-12 and Adult Education
Pollutants reduced PM, VOCs, NOx
Costs Volunteers
Sources affected General
Geographical area
Implementation date
Requires approval by
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
Region Wide
2005 - contint~!.pg
No
Enforceable? No
Quantifiable? No
Description of
measure
The Roanoke Valley Clean Valley Council (CVC), which is
funded jointly by the state and the Roanoke Valley Resource
Authority, plus private donations, serves the four Valley
governments plus Botetourt County. One of its major
functions is an education program under which a staff
member visits the area schools on an invitation basis and
makes presentations to students regarding litter control and
recycling. The primary focus is the elementary school level,
but some presentations are made to middle and high school
students, particularly when environmental issues are part of
the cmriculum. The intent is to educate students regarding
these issues, and through them to influence their parents.
The strategy is to have the CVC educator include a
component regarding clean air and actions that can be taken to
reduce air pollution including ozone. There may be a need for
additional funds for materials and additional staff time. These
funds could come from the local governments or voluntarily
from the business community. The program would be
designed to augment an exisiting program conducted in
schools by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ), and not to compete with it.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 22 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Title of Tree Canopy/Urban Forestry
Measure
Pollutants reduced PM, VOCs, NOx
Costs · Cost of actual trees, plus labor for planting and
maintenance
· We must consider what size/age/species of tree would
be most effective to purchase.
· Costs would presumably be covered by localities.
(Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Vinton, Salem, and
Botetourt)
· An possibility that would raise awareness, community
involvement, and provide funding, would be to invite
private sector to participate. Members of the Roanoke
College community have expressed interest in
adopting Salem planting, integrating the planting and
upkeep into the student community service program.
The college might also be able to fund the Salem
effort.
,, Other members of private sector might be able to
sponsor either a planting, or a particular area. Perhaps
a donation of SX.00 would entitle the donating
business or group to a plaque at the site. We could
also offer option that people could simple donate
money, but no time, using city staffto actually do the
planting, but having the trees and supplies covered by
donation.
· We should also look into grants specific to tree
programs, such as Trees Virginia.
· For "memorial trees," each locality would specify the
donation mount required, which might involve
considerations of location, size and species of tree, etc.
Sources affected General
Geographical area
Implementation date
Region Wide
2005 - continuing
Requires approval by No
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
Enforceable? No
Quantifiable? Yes -
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 23 of 33
01/22/2004
Description of
measure
In calculating actual pollution reduced, it is probably
not realistic to expect that we will have concrete
numbers, although we do know some estimates on the
capabilities of tree filtration. The following numbers
came from the Roanoke City Vision Urban Forestry
Plan, 2001-2002.
Annual Air Pollution Uptake
$16 per tree
Energy Savings Related to heating/cooling buildings
$10 per tree
Stormwater Runoff Reduction
7 per tree
Trees serve to remove the following pollutants:
· ozone: more than 1 lb annually
· carbon dioxide: 26 lbs annually
· nitrogen dioxide: more than 2 lbs annually (including
sulfur dioxide)
· sulfur dioxide: see above
· carbon monoxide: information on amount filtered
unavailable
· particulate matter less than 10 microns in size:
information on amount filtered unavailable
Based on these numbers, we could plant X number of trees,
multiply that by the pollution savings, and project an idea of
how much difference the trees might make. We would also
have to consider the size and age of the trees. Because we do
not yet have any f'mal numbers, we can only estimate based on
available information, and the probability that since trees
planted before 2007 will be relatively young, and therefore
less efficient than mature ones at filtering air pollution. One
large tree can filter up to 60 pounds of pollutants per year.
(Source: www.wastediversion.org) For purposes of
calculation, we will assume that trees planted by 2007 will
filter one-third as many pollutants as a mature tree (20 lbs
total per tree rather than 60 lbs)
Reasonable suggestion for total number of trees to be
planted (to be approved by Early Action Compact
Committee):
Approximately 10,000 trees
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 24 of 33
01/22/2004
Description of
measure -
Continued
If 10,000 trees were planted before 2007, the region would
begin to benefit from efforts that eventually could reduce 300
tons annually of pollutants from air in the region. Based on
our estimate that the trees existing in 2007 would filter only
one third of the pollutants that a mature tree would, this
number would likely be closer to 100 tons.
This number was arrived at by assuming that Roanoke City
will follow through with committed plans to plant 188,000
trees over the next decade, and taking into consideration that
we do not want to set unreachable goals in the Early Action
Compact. All localities would need to participate to
effectively reach this goal, and this estimate is made with the
assumption that they would. This total would still fall short
of the ideal 40% coverage, but would be a great improvement
on the region's present status, and has the potential to
significantly improve air quality.
The City of Roanoke adopted an Urban Forestry Plan as an
Element of its comprehensive plan, Vision 2001-2020, on
April 21, 2003. Dan Henry, the city's urban forester, is
actively working to implement the Urban Forestry Plan's
recommendations for increasing tree canopy through tree
planting, community involvement, public/private
partnerships, ordinance revisions, and increased protection of
the existing tree canopy. City Council approved additional
tree planting funds for fiscal year 2003-2004. Funding for
future years has not been determined as of December 2003."
Anita McMillan with the Town of Vinton will address the
local tree committee in an effort to get a commitment to plant
a set number of trees by 2007. James Vodnik with Roanoke
County reports that Roanoke County is committed to planting
100 trees a year. Beth Carson, the horitculturist for the City
of Salem has committed the city to planting its already-
mandated 100 new trees each year, and said that in addition,
the city has allocated $100,000 to "green-up" West Main
Street in Salem.
The City of Roanoke has initiated a Commemorative Trees
Program whereby individuals or groups can donate $250
and have a tree planted on public land in honor of friends,
family, or special occasions. The first Commemorative Tree
was planted on October 23, 2003 in Highland Park.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 25 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Title of New Bus Service between Roanoke, Salem, Blacksburg
Measure and Christiansburg (See Appendix for service schedule
and other details.)
Specific Project New Bus Service
Pollutants reduced NOx ( 0.92 tpy), VOC (2.3 tpy)
Costs Valley Metro has received approval for a State of Virginia
Demonstration Grant to initiate this service. The funding for
operating expenses (-$600k) for this project has been secured
through Fiscal Year 2006. The funds (-$350k) to purchase
new buses for this route have also been secured.
Sources affected Mobile
Geographical area
Implementation date
Requires approval by
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
Roanoke Region
April 2004 - June 2006
No
Enforceable? N/A
Quantifiable?
Description of
measure
Yes - The estimated lifespan emissions benefit of this new
bus route is 2.767 tons of NOX and 6.96 tons of VOC. The
life span for this project is April 2004 through June 2006.
Valley Metro will begin operating a new bus service between
Roanoke, Salem, Christiansburg and Blacksburg. Funding for
this project has been approved through fiscal year 2006.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 26 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Title of Open Burning
Measure
Specific Project
Pollutants reduced
Several localities currently have a ban on all open burning.
Other localities such as County of Roanoke have a permitting
process to allow some open burning. In localities where an
Open Burning permitting process exists, issuance of permits
should be tied to predicted air quality.
NOx VOC
Costs
Denying open burning permits based on predicted air quality
would be a function of the fire marshall's office of each
locality. There would be few if any financial costs to
implement such a policy.
Sources affected
Geographical area
Implementation date
Requires approval by
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
Stationa~
Roanoke Region
April 2004 - Ongoing
No
Enforceable?
Quantifiable?
Each Fire Marshall would apply in granting permits.
Not Known
Description of
measure
The Cities of Roanoke and Salem do not allow open burning.
However, the counties of Roanoke and Botetourt have an
open burning permit process at the discretion of the
appropriate local fire marshal. This measure seeks agreement
from local fire marshals to make permits conditional on
forecasted air quality for the day in question.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 27 of 33
01/22/2004
Roanoke Valley Area
Ozone Early Action Plan (EAP)
Local Strategies
Section III of III
Lawn and Garden Equipment Strategies
Table of Contents:
20.) Replacement of Gasoline Golf Equipmant with Electric ................................. 29
21.) Lawnmower Buyback Program ........................................................................ 30
22.) Lawn and Garden Equipment Use Restrictions (Episodic) .............................. 31
23.) Lawn and Garden Use Restrictions - Mandatory (Local Government) ........... 32
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 28 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Overview
Gasoline-powered golf carts and turf care equipment used at public and private golf
courses are collectively a source of both ozone precursor pollutants (VOC & NOx). A
local control strategy would consist of voluntary local commitments from a number of
area golf courses to replace gasoline-powered golf carts with electric golf carts to reduce
ozone precursor emissions. A mandatory measure on this source category is not
warranted due to the relatively low reduction potential of such a control measure, and
because it would probably require a source of funds for subsidies or other forms of
financial assistance.
Title of
Measure
Pollutants reduced
Replacement of gasoline golf carts & turf care equipment
with low or zero emitting (electric) equipment
VOC & NOx
Costs
Sources affected
Electric golf carts appear to be slightly less expensive than
gasoline equivalents. However, some capital investment is
required in converting facilities to support the use of electric
equipment.
Public & private golf courses.
Geographical area Entire EAC area.
Implementation date End of 2005.
Requires approval by A voluntary program and agreements would not require
State Air Pollution SAPCB approval.
Control Board?
Enfomeable? Implemented through voluntary agreements.
Yes - under development.
Voluntary pilot program at area golf courses to replace
gasoline-powered golf carts and turf equipment with low
emitting or electric equipment. Each jurisdiction will commit
to obtaining a voluntary commimaent from one or more golf
courses to make the transition from gasoline-powered to
electric equipment. Program could have two phases with a
firm initial commitment to be included in the early action
plan, and a longer second phase as a maintenance measure.
Quantifiable?
Description of measure
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 29 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Overview
Gasoline-powered lawn mowers and other lawn care equipment used local governments,
private companies, and the general public, are collectively a significant source of VOC,
NOx and CO. A local control strategy would consist ora cash incentive program to
buyback older working lawn & garden equipment with electric or manual equipment.
We will work with willing local governments to commit to the purchase ora certain
percent of electric/manual equipment as part of their normal purchasing process.
Title of
Measure
Pollutants reduced
Buy back program for old lawn & garden equipment and
the purchase of electric or manual equipment
VOC, NOx, & CO
Costs
Cash rebate of $40 to $100 on the purchase of new electric or
push mowers or similar L&G equipment (weedwhackers,
etc.). $50k program ($50 rebate) could remove 1,000 gas-
powered mowers per year.
Sources affected
Local governments, lawn care companies, public
Geographical area Entire EAC area.
Implementation date 2004/2005.
Requires approval by A voluntary program and agreement would not require
State Air Pollution SAPCB approval.
Control Board?
Enforceable? Could be enfomcd voluntarily and by mandate depending on
source sector.
Quantifiable? Yes - 10 tons VOC reduction and 80 tons CO reduction
Description of measure Combination of a voluntary or mandatory program to replace
gas-powered Lawn & garden equipment with electric or
manual equipment. General public would be targeted through
a rebate program and local governments would mandate the
purchase of electric equipment. A definite funding source
would have to be identified to implement this control
strategy.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 30 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Overview
Gasoline-powered lawn & garden equipment used by local governments, private
companies, and the general public are collectively a significant source ofVOC, NOx and
CO. A local control strategy would consist of a voluntary restriction or moratorium on
the operation of lawn & garden equipment on predicted high ozone nonattainmant days.
This measure would be coordinated with the ozone action days program, and promoted
through the overall public education/awareness program established through the early
action plan.
Title of
Measure
Pollutants reduced
Episodic restriction on the general use of lawn & garden
equipment during predicted ozone nonattainment days.
VOC & NOx
Costs
Sources affected
Geographical area
No direct costs, but could result in lost revenue due to
decreased activities for private landscaping finns and/or local
governments
General public, private landscaping finns, local governments.
Entire EAC area.
Implementation date 2004.
Requires approval by
State Air Pollution
Control Board?
Enforceable?
Quantifiable?
Description of measure
A voluntary program and agreement would not require
SAPCB approval. Any mandatory local requirement
(ordinance or other) would require approval.
Could be enforced voluntarily or by mandate.
Yes - under development.
Voluntary and/or mandatory program to restrict the use of
gas-powered lawn & garden equipment on ozone action day
(days when high ozone is predicted). Program would be
voluntary for the general public and private companies. Each
jurisdiction will attempt to obtain voluntary compliance of
one or more private companies as part of this program.
If after 2005 selected indicators (to be determined) show that
overall area emission reduction and/or ozone exceedance
targets are not being met, the area would consider modifying
this control measure to become partially or fully mandatory.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 31 of 33
01/22/2004
Ozone Early Action Plan Control Measure Profile
Overview
Gasoline-powered lawn & garden equipment used by local governments, private
companies, and the general public are collectively a significant source of VOC, NOx and
CO. This local control strategy would consist ora mandatory ban on the operation of
lawn & garden equipment by state/local governments on predicted ozone nonattainment
days. This measure would be coordinated with the ozone action days program.
Title of
Measure
Pollutants reduced
Episodic ban on the use of lawn & garden equipment by
state & local governments during predicted ozone
nonattainment days.
VOC & NOx
Costs
Sources affected
No direct costs, but could result in lost time for state & local
government employees
State & local government entities.
Geographical area Entire EAC area.
Implementation date 2004.
Requires approval by A mandatory requirement on state/local govemmants would
State Air Pollution be accomplished through internal policies and/or agreements.
Control Board?
Enforceable? Enforced by mandate.
Quantifiable?
Description of measure
Yes - under development.
Mandatory program to restrict the use of gas-powered lawn &
garden equipment on ozone action day (days when high ozone
is predicted). Program would be mandatory for state and local
governments.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 32 of 33
01/22/2004
Contingency Measures
The Local Governments and Task Force have great confidence that the Ozone Early
Action Plan will be successful. However, as contingency measures, one or more of these
measures could be implemented after 2005, in response to continuing exceedances of the
ozone standard and/or a shortfall in anticipated emission reductions from the EAP. These
measures would require more lead-time for implementation as well as additional work
with expanded groups of stakeholders.
OTC Portable Container Rule
This measure is part of a suite of measures designed to reduce VOC emissions. The
portable container rule would reduce emissions that result from either spillage or
permeation. Additional benefits include potential reduction of water contamination and
reduction of potential fire hazards.
OTC Architectural/Industrial Maintenance Coatings Rule
This rule basically requires reformulated coatings to meet lower VOC content limits than
under the current federal rule. Manufacturers would be required to assume the primary
responsibility to produce coatings that meet or exceed VOC content limits for sale and
use at the retail and wholesale levels.
OTC Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing Rule
This strategy requires lower VOC content for paints and use of improved transfer
efficiency application and cleaning equipment. The rule would apply to primarily small
businesses that apply ref'mishing materials to a variety of mobile equipment repair and
refinishing facilities.
Solvent Cleaning Operations Rule
This role establishes hardware and operating requirements for vapor cleaning machines
used to clean metal parts; and also includes volatility restrictions for cold cleaning
solvents. Degreasing and solvent cleaning operations are performed by many
commercial and industrial facilities.
Truck Stop Electrification
Promoting the electrification of mack stops, rest areas and distribution centers would help
reduce mmecessaxy engine idling. The availability of electrical hook ups would allow
powering of cab/sleeper appliances or auxiliary devices without running the engine. The
Task Force believes that this measure shows great promise, but may be costly to
implement and therefore is scheduled for post 2005.
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone Early Action Plan
Page 33 of 33
Roanoke Valley Area
Metropolitan Planning 0rgamzation
313 Luck Avenue, SW / PO Box 2569 / Roanoke, Virginia 24010
TEL: §40.343.4417 / FAX: 540.343.4416 / www.~varc.org / l'var, c~Tvarc.erg
The 22na day of January, 2004
RESOLUTION
Endorsement and Adoption of the Ozone Early Action Plan
for the Roanoke Valley Area
WHEREAS, clean air is essential for quality of life, economic development and general
public well-being of the Roanoke Valley Area; and,
WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estabhshed a
revised 8-hour ozone standard in 1997 that was set at 0.085 parts per million (ppm), averaged
over a three-year period; and,
WHEREAS, the ozone monitoring station in the Roanoke area (in the Town of Vinton)
currently has a design value of 0.085 ppm that would qualify the area for the designation of
nonattainment area for ozone under the Clean Air Act of 1990; and,
WHEREAS, the EPA has developed and endorsed the ak quality planning concept of
Early Action Compacts, where an area that mar~al!y exceeds the ozone standard can enter into
a voluntary agreement with state and federal governments to develop and implement an Early
Action Plan to proactively reduce ozone levels and come into compliance with the standard; and,
WHEREAS, elected officials, representing the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, the
Counties of Botetourt and Roanoke and the Town of Vinton, acting through the Roanoke Valley
Area Metropolitan ?l~nning Organization entered into an Ozone Early Action Compact with thc
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) and the Federal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in December 2002; and,
WHEREAS, the Ozone Early Action Compact authorized the establishment of an Early
Action Plan Task Force and the development of a regional Early Action Plan consisting of local,
state and national strategies to bring the Roanoke Valley Area into attainment with the 8-hour
Ozone standard by the year 2007; and,
WHEREAS, in response, the Early Action Plan Task Force has developed and submitted
an Early Action Plan for consideration and adoption by the localities that have entered into the
Early Action Compact; and,
Members: Bedford, Botetourt and Roanoke counties, the cities of Roanoke and Salem, the Town of Vinton,
the Greater Roanoke Transit Company, Roanoke Regional Airport and the Virginia Department of Transportation
Resolution (Cont'd)
Page -2
WHEREAS, the Early Action Plan contains specific commi/~nents and responsibilities to
be undertaken by thc localities that have entered into the Early Action Compact; and,
~-/EREAX, technical analyses conducted by VDEQ and EPA indicate that air quality is
oxpe~ed to improve in the Roanoke Valley Area by the year 2007; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization is fully
committed to the regional cooperation and coordination necessary to bring the area into
attainment, aa measured by the regional Ozone monitor, for the 8-hour Ozone standard in 2007.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOI, FED, that on this 22nd day of January of 2004, the
Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization officially approves and endorses
the regional Ozone Early Action Plan (EAP), and is committed to its implementation and
SucceSs.
BE Fl'FURTHER RESOLVED, that a signed copy of this resolution of commitment
will be sent to thc Director of thc Virginia Dapaxtmeat of Environmental Quality for processing
and inclusion into the official State Implementation Plan, which once approved by EPA will
make these commitments and responsibilities federally anforceable.
Don Davis, Chairw~n
Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning
Organi 7afion
TOWN OF_ VINTON
3t t ~o. Pollal¢l street
VINTON, VIRGINIA 24J~.2,53t
~o~ (54o)~
January 22, 2004
Carolyn S, Ross
Ad~n..4.~o wn
Wayne G. Stfieldand
Secretary to the Commission
Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission
P. O. Box 2569
Roanoke, Virginia 24010
Re: Roanoke Valley Ozone Early Action Plan
Dear Mr. Stricldand:
Please find enclosed a copy of Resolution No. 1506, adopted by Vinton Town Council on
Tuesday, January 20, 2004, endorsing and adopting the Ozone Early Action Plan for the
Roanoke Valley area. I understand that you will be forwarding the Town's commitment,
along with commitments from the other Valley jurisdictions, to the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality for processing and inclusion into the official State Implementation
Plan.
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Carolyn S. Ross
Admln. AsstJTown Clerk
Enclosure
RESOLUTION NO. 1506
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF ']['HE VINTON TOWN COUNCIL HELD ON
TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2004, AT 7:00 PM, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF
T~q~. VINTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 311 SOUTH POLLARD STR~T,
VINTON, VIRGINIA
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING AND ADOPTING THE OZONE
EARLY ACTION PLAN FOR THE ROANOKE VALLEY AREA
Whereas, clean air is essential for quality of life, economic development and
general public well-being of the Roanoke Valley Area; and,
Whereas, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established
a revised 8-hour ozone standard in 1997 that was set a 0.085 parts per million (ppm),
averaged over a three-year period; and,
Whereas, the ozone monitoring station in the Roanoke area (in the Town of
Vinton) currently ha~ a design value of 0.085 ppm that would qualify -the area for the
designation of nonattainment .area- for-ozone under the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1990; ............
and,
Whereas, the EPA has developed and endorsed the air quality planning concept of
Early Action Compacts, where an area that marginally exceeds the ozone standard can
enter into a voluntary agreement with state and federal governments to develop and
implement an Early Action Plan to proactively reduce ozone levels and come into
compliance with the standard; and,
Whereas, elected officials, rcpr~enting the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, the
Counties of Botetourt and Roanoke and the Town of Vinton, acting through the Roanoke
Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 0VlPO) entered into an Ozone Early
Action Compact with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) and
the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in December 2002; and,
Whereas, the Ozone Early Action Compact authorized the establishment of an
Em/ly Action Plan Task Fome and the development of a regional Early Action Plan
consisting of local, state and national strategies to bring the Roanoke Valley Area into
attainment with the 8-hour Ozone standard by 2007; and,
Whereas, in response, the Early Action Plan Task Force has developed and
submitted a Early Action Plan for couaidcration and adoption by tho localities that have
entered into the Early Action Compact; and,
~ Whereas, the Early Action Plan contains specific commitments and
responsibilities to be undertaken by the localities that have entered into the Early Action
Compact; and,
Whereas, technical analyses conducted by VDEQ and I~A indicate that air
quality is expected to improve in the Roanoke Valley area by 2007; and,
Whereas, the Town of Vinton is fully committed to fulfill these specific
commitments and responsibilities under the Ozone Early Action Plan; and,
Whereas, fiaXhermore, the Town of Vinton is fully committed to the regional
cooperation and coordination necessary to bring the area into attainraent~ as measured by
the regional Ozone monitor, for the 8-hour Ozone standard in 2007.
Therefore be it resolved, that on th/s 20th day of January of 2004 the Town
Council of the Town of Vinton officially approves and endorses the regional Ozone Early
Action Plan (EAP), and is committed to its implementation and success.
Be It further resolved, that a signed copy of this resolution of commitment from
the Town of Vinton will be sent to the Director of the Vkglnla Department of
Environmental Quality for processing and inclusion into the official State Implementation
Plan, which once approved by EPA will make these commitments and responsibilities
........ federally en£oreeable. - ................................
Adopted on motion made by Councilman Gmse, seconded by Councilman Rotenben-y, with
the following votes recorded:
AYES: Altice, Grose, Obenchain, Rotenberry, Mayor Davis
NAYS: None
APPROVED:
Donald L. Davis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Carolyn ~. Rosa, Town Clerk
TOWN OF VINTON
804 'FICHU n STREET
VIiNTON, VI~GINIA 24179
FAX"Cf4~J
C. Curtis Shumate
~b/te W~ D/r~r
January 15, 2004
Rob.re. Buruley, Direotor
V'trginia .Deja.an_ment of Environmental Quality
620 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Dear Director Bumley,
The . .Ro.~o. ke, Vail, ey ,re,on faces comj}lex challenge regardi .ng our air quality. Not o_uly is the region
sol~..eflulofl, to .oe e, las~in.an ~ a, non-~attammem ~ Cruder the ~htThO.u~. ozon. e standard, .b.ut our poor air
.quah'ty .a~so .t~te~s m.e ri.emro o.t,,~?y, o,..ne liv.n~g and. workin~ ,m this_~g~on. In. addition to. cam~,,s
~ resp..mUo~..aaa ~ pu.on.c ne~m prgo~m~s' xor our cfaze~, tmluro to ml0xeaa our air qqal~ty
p.ro. mems coma result m tl~ nnpos~t~on ox san~ons that would jeppardize the expansion of our re, gionrs
highway aha mass transit systems and adversely affe~ the econolmc well being our region.
F~0r th?so reas?na, the ~ed l~ea~,ors,?p or_the Roanoke Valley .,A~ea, Metropo_litan Plannin~Organizafion'
LMP9.. ) entered into an uzone v~ny n~u. on compact (EAC) voth the Virgini~ Oepartmeat ot-~nro.nmma~
~uahty. ~C~, E.Q).and the Federal E.n .va'.onmental Profection .Agency (E?A). The MPO is develolmag and
~ozune v_,ny _Acuun Plan (EAP) which includes proposals to waprove ag quality. These proLx~s..~ re~l.U~..e
action by tl~ i own of. Vin~on~ not only in the rol-e of a Town government, respohsible. .f°r. Imp~ public.
propounds, to_reduce ~a~f~oollutlon, b.ut also s a large corporate e~ty whoso .a~..on$ will ~mpa~t re~oiml air
q.uamy~.l ne xown or vmton takes m.ed. resppnm~bilifiea v_~ seriously. We believe that m6eting the federal
air_ qda~.'ty atan .d~-d .for ozone is a high.priority. _Though we ~ acting in conjunction with i~e regional
ettorta mang un~ortal~en by the Metropolitan PIannin~ O?ganization, we must alao lead the way for others to
follow.
to *e To.w, o.f Vinton her y to
n. on?em~g, eacy vehicles on days whioh ~ predicted .to be no a~ent for the Ozone a-Hour Standard
.~Ianuav] 20~..The Town of Vtnton cora~, ta to prowda an annual a~co _un, ag of the days on
pr,o.m, m..ted~ ,and ~e. n.u~. be~ 1 ..o~m. on.and average thrg. ul~hp_ut of .afl, ft,-,- ed fuel.pu ~mpa.
Ires_ wl~.... ~le vaoo~r~on 1i ~'oolt is taken zor this volLqltarv mea~aro m tl~o 15tare lmplomelltation lqim
(SIP). Detalis of the Town of Vinton's commitment are provided in ARachmem 1.
~y~ou have any questions or require additional information regarding this commitmmt, please cont~ Curtis
,-~¢e at (54O) 9sa-0c~..
Curtis Shumate
Public Works Director
Board of Supervisors
Richard C, Flora, Chairman
Hotlins Magisterial District
Michael W. Altlzer, Vice-Chairman
Vlnton Magisterial District
RO. BOX 29500
5204 BERNARD DRIVE
ROANOKE, VA 24018-0798
Janua~ 23,2004
Mr. Robert Burnley, Director
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
629 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Joseph B. "Butch" Church
Catawba Magisterial District
Joseph Mc, Namara
Windsor Hills Magisterial District
Michael A. Wray
Cave Spring Magisterial District
Dear Director Burnley:
As a member of the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and a
participant in the Ozone Early Action Compact with the Virginia DEQ and the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency, the County of Roanoke and its staff are involved in a
number of voluntary measures to reduce Ozone in the Valley. One measure we have
implemented for our staff that is included in the EAP is in the arena of education and
environmental awareness training. By our estimate, County driving, including
employee commuting results in over 9,000,000 miles driven and 8500 tons of air
pollution per year.
In order to reduce the impact of our driving, our Environmental Assessment Team has
developed and informational brochure that is distributed to all full and part-time
employees. This contains tips on how to drive in such a way as to reduce air pollution
and encourages car-pooling. In addition to this, all staff who drive a County vehicle or
personal vehicle on County business will receive environmental driver training between
now and June 30, 2004, The result of this effort is the creation of a heightened sense of
awareness of the impact of vehicles on our air quality in over 1200 individual
employees. By implementing this and other measures it is our belief that we will be able
to significantly improve the air quality in the Roanoke Valley.
Sincerely,
Richard C. Flora, Chairman
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: Board Members
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator
Wayne Strickland, Executive Director - RVARC
OFFICE: FAX: VOICE MAIL: E-MAIL:
(540) 772-20~5 (540) 772-2193 (540) 772-2170 bo$ Oco;roanoke.va.us
PHILk~ A. ~HIJCET
January 9, 2094
COMMONWEALTH oJ VIRGINIA
DE PAR'II,lENT OF TRANSPORTATION
J£FF~EY C. SOIJTHARD
Mr. Rob~n-t Bundcy, Director
Virginia Departmtmt o£ Environme~tal Quality
629 East .a~ajn Sh'~ot
Ricbanond, Virginia 23219
Re: Roanoke, Virginia "Early Action ?hm
I~a~' Mr, Bumley:
'l'he Virgi~aia Dcparm~ent o["Traasportatio~ tmclcrstand.,t that the Ro,'mok¢ Keg~on ia not meeting
thc eight-h~mr ozone standltrd and we a~plmai the proactive eft'orCa of the Virginia Departln. ent of
Enviromnenh~l Qmlity m~t tho Roanoke Em'ly Action 'faskforce to improve the region's air
qnallty fastgr throagh the Early Action Compact
To support this effort, VDOT ia pleased to inform you that we wiil'here~y m~mmit to following:
* }tully implementing our At~t~mated. ~'uels Management Program (AI;'MP) in thc Roanoke
Region by July 200.4, The scl~'lttled maintenance program associat~t with thc AlalvlP
minimizes air emi~,&ms from v~hJt;lt~a Ihat feflle[ at our refueling facilitlea located.in thc
Rogm~kc region. VDOT plans to automate all of the re-ihcling facilities in Virginia
ira31uding thc 10 facilities located in the Roanok~ Early Action Compact Area. A Ii,at of
these t~,teiliti~ in llxe Roanoke Region is attached,
hnplemcoting an Episodic O~;onc. Program in lhe Roanoke Early Action Compact ~ea.
VDOT fi~'st in~lcmant~ this progr~ in Roanoke during tim ~)3 ~n~ s~mm ~ we
are ~nitted 1o ~ntim~h~g fl~is pmgrmn which include~ ~ 6fllowing:
o Encouraging tclcco~ talng and rid~aring
o D~p~),ing ozone ~eas on yin'table m~gea si~ ~'ou~ ~c Ro~oke
region ~ al~-~ the region ofl~t~t~ 8-1tour ozone s~ oxc~cn~s
a R~ricting mowing in the Em'ly Actloa Compri Ar~a
o Res~i~ting lheli~ at ~OT gaml~e thcilities for non-anergcney v~cles ~a
~oula~g re-Ihelii~ Drier ~ predicted o~ne axcc~ee days
o Postp~ use o~oil b~ed p~Ls ~d ~lven~
Vi~jlnieOOT. org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
· ~h'. Robert Burrdey,
Smiu~ry 9, 2004
Page Two
Attached is g copy o four 2003 dircctivo memorandum regarding our Epi.~:lic Ozone
th~sram,
ff you havc any qumt'lon~ or i'e.,quirc additional infomlation rcgmcd~ng our commitmcnt lo
impr~vc ~lio air quality in thc R. omiokc Rcgion, please contact Amy Costcllo a~ gf~4-371-6773,
Sincerol);
J¢ffi'ey C, Southa~'d
A~taclun~nt
cc: M~. Amy Costcllo
Virginin D OT.O rrJ
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Table 1. Loc~tion o~' Automated ~tels Management Program Sites in the Roanoke Region
Fueling Station Name Fueling Station Location
Salem Residency 311 Shop* R,oaackc County
_Ai.'rport Area Headquaxtevo'* Roanoke C~mnty
Salon Residency Lot* Roanoke County'
S'alom District Shop* Real, eke County
'l'rout~[lle Shop* Boteteurt C'~mty
~le Rock* Botctout~County
Bacluman* llot~urt County
-- New C,,tsite Botetoun County
Burnt Chinu~ey* Vin~on
Troutville* [ Vinton
Automated Fuel Management System install=tion complete
Table 2: Variable Me. sage Stgns in the Roanoke ~arly Action Plan Area
Site County Route VMS
No. L~fion Street Name
1127 BotoWu, 220 ~B) Ln. ~it 150) Clovc~a~
128 Bo~ott~ 220 ), 15 Mi. N. of ~te, 794 (ia median)
1129 B~toufl 640 ~) ).05 ML E. of ~. 79a (a north~
m ~p) (Exit 156) B~s Mill I~.
1136 Bmetoga ~ (WB) ~.35 Mi, W. of~. 660 BI~ Ridg~ Blvd,
g01; Roanoke ~7 (SB) LOS Mi. 8. of RW. 77g (~t 132) Doiv Hollow Rd.
g01 ~Roaa~o 11 ~) 0.53 b~. N, of Rt=. 639 (~it }32) W~t Mah= St.
S01; Roanoke Ill'B) 0-79M~.8. of Rt=.927(E~t132) West~ngt.
1021 Roanoko 311 (8B) 0.10Mi,~.of~. 1128(~t140) ~p~nM~orial~.
g~ Ro~o~e 419 (SB) 0.11 ~. 8. of Kt~863 (Exit 141) N. Ele~igRd.
102] '~noko 4 t9 ~B) 0.26 Mi. N. of'Lo~o ~. (l~il 141) N. BI,trio Rd.
i024 R~uoko 5gl ~) fl. S0 Mi. N. of ~it 3 (H¢~g~
~26 R~n'oko 115 ~B) [LIq'Mi.N. of Rte. 1895 ~xit 146)
1037 Romxokc ~ (EB) 0.04 ~ ~, of Rte. 757
S0aa ~ok* 220 ~) a.29 ML N. of Rt~. 930
~,25 Mi. N. of Rio. 220
~39 Roanoko 220 Exp~w ~. Exit) Roy l,, W~b~ Bwy.
g0aa R~n~Ci~ i-5g1'(88) MA'.2.I9
g~0 S$1om 112 ~ B) 0.01 Mi, N, of Ki~ Rd, (Exit 137) Wildw~ Rd.
8035 Sal~ 311~) Z03 Mi. S. or'NB on ~amp (F~it 140) l'hmpson M~or~ Dr.
April 14, 2~03
MEMORANDUM
"fO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
· Ail District Administrators
The 2003 ozone seusou begins May 1. As pm~ of either an air quality nouatteinmcnt or mslntenancc
area, will you please asSure that your District implements the below measures to reduce air pollution
emissions. The.se mea.$ures are to bc implemc~ted on 'code red action days". Thc Vh'ginia
Department of Bnvlrm~raental Quality (VDBQ) desig~mtes a "code red actibn day" when ozone is
predicted to Be at Mgh and unh~lthy levels.
VDOT Actions on Code Red Days:
1. Reduce Travel - Minimize travel to the extent poas~lo, usc transit, participate i~ rldosharing and
encourage tclcconfc~cncin~.
2. Postpone Mowing ~ Postpone the u,~e ofgasollnc and diesel powered mowers, weed caters mid
oth=r similar gasotinc cngin~s.
3. Re, strfct Fuellng-Gasolinc f~ilifie~ will be locked ffom g:3O a.m. to 5:OO p.m.
Yarlabl~ Message $~gna - If variable mcssag~ signs ,,re not needed for emergcncy purposes, th~m
they should alert the public of the "code red ozone clay". Thc following verbiage is suggests~21:
"Ozo-c Advisory: Reduoe travel, carpool, r~fu~l after 5 pm".
5. Reduce ~lectrictty .Usage - Dim or turn off tume, c~$sary lights, turn off supplemental appliances
~,xd maintain air conditioning at romonablc temperatures m VDOT facilities (74' or above).
6. Postpone l~atntlng - Postpono tmc of oil based palnts and solvcnts.
?. &~fety M~aaures - Limit prolonged outdoor cxcdion.
Our Emergency Operations Center will notify you by o-meil of pending "cod~ red" ozone days. 'fhis
notice will b~ provided tho day bef6r~ the VDEQ predicts a "code md" ozone day. Please
Fonvard this memorandum to your staff and eneo~qrag'~.th"m to tek* the. so prccaufionary actions.
Bec. mm of now r68ulations, counties in our Salem and Statmton District have been added to our list
of nonattainm~nt and maintenance areas, If yott or yom: staff has any question rcgarrling the above
mcasure~, please oomact either Amy Costello al 804-371-6773.
Virg~nlaDOl:o fg
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
&AVALLEY ~ETRO
Linking the Communities of
Roanoke, Salem, Blacksburg, and
Christiansburg
Service Proposal - Executive Summary
October 30, 2003
Background
In July 2002, the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance, which is an organization formed in 1997 to
promote economic competitiveness in this region, released the Regional Economic Strategy report.
One of the needs identified in the report was the need to connect the communities of Roanoke, Salem,
Blacksburg, and Christiansburg. The report states "Geographic isolation increases costs of doing
business in a Global Economy. Lack of connections between activity centers within the region makes
it difficult to create a sense of region and critical mass." Therefore, one of the goals identified in the
report is to improve the availability and reduce the cost ofintra-regional and inter-regional
connectivity. One of the tactics identified to accomplish this goal is to create a regional public
transportation system that links urban centers, airport, commuters, and knowledge assets conveniently
and affordably.
Additionally, recent commuter data compiled by the Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission
identifies 1,691 workers who commute daily between Montgomery County
(Blacksburg/Christiansburg) and the City of Roanoke. The use of regional public transportation by
these commuters would benefit the region in numerous ways. Three of which are:
· Maituaia and assiat in improvement of regional air quality
· Reduce traffic congestion on 1-81
· Increased employment opportunities for the transit dependent
Service Implementation
Valley Metro proposes to initiate service between the City of Roanoke and the Town of Blacksburg in
the spring of 2004. The service is anticipated to operate on an hour and a half scbedule everyday with
the buses serving Roanoke's Higher Education Center, the Hotel Roanoke, Roanoke Regional Airport,
VDOT Park and Ride lots at exit 140 and exit 118 on 1-81, Christiansburg, and the Squires Student
Center on the Virginia Tech campus. The proposed schedule is attached.
Ridership
The fare is proposed to be $3.00 per one-way trip. The estimated ridership for FY04(Apr-Jun) is 128
one-way trips per day, 142 one-way trips per day in FY05. Valley Metro further estimates that the
FY06 ridership will reach 218 one-way trips per day. The table below details the estimated annual
ridership and farebox revenues for each of the first two plus years of operation.
Fiscal Year Estimated Ridership Estimated Farebox
(one-way trips) Revenue
FY 2004 (Apr-Jun) 9,918 $29,754
FY 2004-2005 43,416 $130,248
FY 2005-2006 66,891 $200,672
Linking Communities Service Proposal - Executive Summary Page I
Operating Budget
Valley Metro has received approval for a State of Virginia Demonstration Grant to initiate this service.
The following table contains the operating budget for the service and the funding sources.
FY 2004 ] FY 2004-2005 ] FY 2005-2006
(Apr-Jun)
I Total Estimated Expenses $73~190 $251~515 $267,332
Passenger Fares $29,754 $130,248 $200,672
Federal Funds $0 $30,259 $33,330
VA. Demo Grant $41,264 $57,713 $0
VA. State Inter-City Funds $0 $12,104 $13,332
Local Funds $2,172 $21,191 $19,998
Total Estimated Revenues $73,190 $251,515 $267~332
As the table above demonstrates, year one is funded through farebox revenue, the Virginia
demonstration grant and local funding provided by the City of Roanoke. Future years will be funded
with Federal and State Inter-City funds, which take the place of the Virginia demonstration grant. The
Cio~ of Roanohe will provide all local matching funds required for this service through FY06. The
decision to continue service in FY07 and beyond, and the level of funding needed from each locality,
will be determined prior to that time.
Valley Metro plans to monitor the progress of the service provided. To do this, a key factor will be the
recovery ratios of cost per passenger and farebox recovery. Utilizing the budget data provided above,
the target ratios will be:
FY 2004 FY 2004-2005 FY 2005-2006
(Apr-Jun) Change Change
Cost per $7.38 $5.79 $ 1.59 ~b $4.00 $ 1.79 ~b
Passenger
Farebox 41% 52% ,~ 22% 75% ~ 31%
Recovery
As the service develops, Valley Metro will offer monthly passes, which will entitle the passholder to
an unlimited number of fides during that month. When this happens, the recovery ratio of average fare
paid will be monitored.
Capital Budget
Valley Metro has secured funding in the amount of $350,000 to purchase buses for the proposed
service. These wheelchair accessible vehicles will be designed for highway use and contain high back
reclining seats and luggage storage. Valley Metro plans to purchase three to four of these vehicles,
depending on the cost. In addition, Valley Metro will include the life cycle replacement for these
vehicles in their existing Capital Replacement Program.
The funding for these units is 80% federal ($280,000) and 20% City of Roanoke ($70,000).
Monitoring Ridership
Linking Communities Service Proposal - Executive Summary Page 2
Valley Metro plans to monitor the ridership to determine the needs and demographics in an effort to
enhance the service offered. This will be accomplished through the use of periodic ridership surveys.
Special attention will be paid to the residency of the ridership and any relation to Virginia Tech
(student, staff, and employee).
Roanoke Regional Airport
As an enhancement to the originally proposed service, Valley Metro has modified the service schedule
to provide service to the Roanoke Regional Airport. This will greatly expand the use of the service
from both the north and south links. Vehicles will be equipped with the capability to accommodate
luggage.
Valley Metm has made arrangements to provide service for airport arrivals after the scheduled bus
service has ended. This arrangement will be closely monitored in an effort to control the costs of the
service.
Conclusion:
Both the Roanoke and New River Valleys, including Virginia Tech can benefit economically and
ecologically from the implementation of this inter-regional transportation alternative. Valley Metro
has aggressively secured the necessary funding for a multi-year period to allow the service to develop.
The service will offer access to a host of locations: Roanoke Regional Airport, park and ride lots, and
the central business districts of both urban areas. In addition, passengers will be able to access the two
public h'ansportation providers: Valley Metro in Roanoke and Blacksburg Transit in Blacksburg.
Linking Communities Service Proposal - Executive Summary Page 3
Linking the Communities of Roanoke,
Salem, Blacksburg, and Christiansburg
Service Schedule
Service Provided Monday through Saturday
END Friday and Saturday SERVICE
Linking Communities Service Proposal - Executive Summary Page 4
40 East C. ouR $1reet
Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151
540-483-3030 (Voice)
5~0-483-3035 (Fax)
Richard E. Huff, II
Janua~ 22, 2004
Robert Buraley, Director
Vir~nla Department of Env/ronmental Quality
629 East Main Street
Richmond, V'u~in/a 23219
Dear Dir~tor Buruley:
I am writing to express that Franklin County wholeheartedly supports the air quality early
actiOn p]annin!~ efforts of our ncighborin~ local/t/es in the Roanoke Valley. Althoo~h we axe not
slated to be a/r quality nonatrsinmb~llt for Ozone and we are not officially a part of tho Early
Action Plan (EAP) scope, we would like to enthusiastically support proactively hnproving
regional a/r quality in support of our neighbor's efforts.
We arc excited tlm~ our neighboring localities have an opportunity to show that local and
rcgiunul choice can be an eff~-~tivo way to fulfill our air quality goals. W~ intend to do all we
can to help make our neighbor's Ozone Early Action Plan a sue.~ess so we can ali ~njoy
improved air qluflity.
Sinc~ely,
Richard E. HuB II
County Administrator
Appendix B
Federal Measures
AI'rACHIqENT B
STATE & REG1'ONAL/NA'I~ONAL OZONE PRECURSOR CONTROL
MEASURES THAT SUPPORT THE ROANOKE VALLEY OZONE EARLY
AC I AON PLAN
Emission Control Measure Program Status Pollutant Emissions
& Description :m~n~ ~ Y~r Controlled Reductions
~I'AI~ONARY POINT& AREA SOURCE CONTROI~
Regional NOx con~.,-o;s to reduce Federal 2004 NOx Up to 30,000
the transport of ozone (~NOx rule & tons per ozone
STP Call") State season in VA
Description: Emission rate & regulation (may vary due
reduction requirements for large to trading)
utility and industrial boilers. To be
regionally implemented in most
eastern states.
Stage ! gasoline vapor recovery State 2000 VOC 90% from
DescripUon: Installation of vapor regulation uncontrolled
recovery controls at gasoline levels
terminals, bulk plants, service
stations, & tank trucks. Controls
applied in Roanoke NSA (except
Botetourt Co.).
Emission con~,-o; area State 2005 VOC & NOx 70 to 80%
regulaUons for existing regulation reduction based
sources: Presumptive PACT on industry type
requirements for existing stationary
sources. Controls vary based on
industrial activity and emission
~otential
Lower solvent paints for Federal 2000 VOC 20% from
industrial purposes rule uncontrolled
Description: National rule that levels
requires lower solvent (VOC)
content in architectural & industrial
maintenance coatings.
Lower solvent consumer Federal 2000 VOC :10% from
~roducts rule uncontrolled
Description: National rule that levels
requires lower solvent (VOC)
content in a number of consumer
products.
L~v~r solvent industrial Federal 2002 VOC 10% from
cleaning products rule uncontrolled
Description: National rule that levels
requires lower solvent (VOC)
content in products used for vadous
metal deanin~l operations.
STATE & REGIONAL/NATIONAL CONTROL MEASURES (CONTINUED)
Low~ solvent refinishing Federal 2002 VOC 36% from
products for motor vehicles rule uncontrolled
Description: National rule that levels
requires lower solvent (VOC)
content in vehicle refinishing paints.
ON-ROAD ilfOTOR VEI4rc~_E CONTROI~
National Low Emission Vehicle Regional 1999 VOC & NOx 70% cleaner
(NLEV) standards agreement than Tier 1
DescripUon: National rule that & state rule vehicles
requires more stringent light-duty
vehide tailpipe standards earlier
than 2004
Tier 2 motor vehicle emission Federal 200~ VOC & NOx 65% cleaner
standards rule than NLEV
DescripUon: More stringent vehides
vehide tailpipe standards for light
duty cars, trucks, & SUVs along with
lower fuel sulfur content
. requirements
Heavy-duty diesel Truck engine Federal 2004 VOC & NOx 40% deaner
standards rule and engines in 2004
DescripUon: More stringent 2007
tailpipe standards for heaw-duty 90% deaner
diesel tn.q:k engines along with engines in 2007
lower fuel sulfur content
requirements.
OFF-ROAD VEH]~CLE & EQUIPMENT CONTROLS
Phase :1 & :2 engine standards Federal 1997 & VOC 30% in 2005
for small gasoline-powered rule 2002
engines
Dssc~ipUon: Emission standards
for various small gasoline-powered
off-road equipment engines used in
lawn & garden, and light
construction equipment.
Engine standards for diesel- Federal 2002 NOx 25% reduction
powered engines rule in new engines
DescripUon: Emission standards
for various heavy-duty diesel- by 2005
x)wered off-road equipment
engines used for a variety of
purposes such as construction &
agdculture.
Engine ~,,dards for ~a.uline- Federal 1998 VOC 25% reduction
towered marine engines rule in new engines
DeacripUon: Emission standards
for recreational marine vessel by 2005
gasoline-powered engines.
Engine standards for Ia, u= Federal 2000 VOC & NOx 20% reduction
gasoline-powered engines rule of both
DescripUon: Emission standards pollutants by
for various large gasoline-powered 2005
off-road equipment engines.
STATE & REGION~4L/N,4TION~4L CONTROL ME.4$URES (CONTINUED)
Engine ~-'=i~,;ah;~- for Federal 200]. to VOC & NOx 30% reduction
locomotive engines rule 2005 by 2005
DescripUon: Tiered emission
standards for new or
remanufactumcl locomotive engines
implemented between 200! & 2005.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFF CE OF THE CH'Y MANAG
N~'ml C Tayl~ MuniC~pa! Building
Ro~o~ V~ 2~111-1~1
Februap/ 13, 2004
1he Honorable Ralph K, Smith~ Mayor
The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
The Honorable William D Bestpitch, Council Member'
The Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Council Member
The Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
The Honorable Ail'red l', Dowe, Jr., Council Member
The Honorable Linda F. Wyatt. Council Member
Subject:
Sbmmary of Roanoke Valley Area
Ozone Early Action Plan EAP')
Dear Mayor SmiUl and Members of Gib/Council:
In December 2002 officials from the City of Roanoke, City of Salem, Roanoke County.
Bote~ourt County, and the Town of Vinton signed an Ozone Early Action Compact (FAC}
which committedi the localities [o develop strategies for reducing airborne ozone
concentrations in the Roanoke Valley. Failure for the Roanoke valley's municipalities to
sign the EAC could have led to our region being designated as a 'nonattainment' area by
the Environmental ProtectionAgency. Such adesignation couldresulLin thewithholding of
federal highway funding and stringent regulations for new arid existing businesses
Since December 2002, staff from the aforementioned localities, along with representatives
from the following organizations: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia
Department of Transportation, Norfolk Southern Corp., Roanoke Valley Greenways
Commission, U.S. Forest Service and RIDE Solutions, to name just a few, have comprised
the Ozone Early Action Plan (EAP} Task Force. Tile primary function of the task force
to discuss and identif~ ozonereducing strategies that woul~ be incorporated into the
Roanoke Valley Area Ozone EAP The Roanoke Valley. Alleghany Regiona~ Commission
served as tt~e lead agency guiding and c[~ordinating the efforts of the Ozone EAP Task
Force,
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
February 13.2004
Page 2
While many provisions of the Ozone EAP require participation oil a Roanoke Valley-wide
basis, some control measures are the specific responsibility of the City of Roanoke. The
attached table describes the specific obligations committed to by the CH
I hope that you will find this informatiorl useful as you decide on the City's participation in
this pollution reduction effort. ~fhis matter will be before you at the February 1'?, 2004
Council meeting for adoption of the Ozone b. AP.
Sincerely,
?,"-,¢
r-'darlene L. Bur~
City Manager
DLB:pjt
A,ttachrnent
C:
George C. Snead, Jr.., Assistant City Manager
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant CfCW Manager
Mary Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth City A~torney
Gary E. Tegenkamp, Assistant City Attorney
Robert 14. Bengtson, Director of Public Works
Steven Buschor, Director of Parks & Recreation
Jeffrey Poweil, Director of General Services
Paul J. Truntich Jr., Environmental Administrator
Architectural Review Board
Board of Zoning Appeals
Planning Commission
CITY OF ROANOKE
PLANNING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 166
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (540) 853-1730 Fax: (540) 853-1230
E-mail: pla n ning(~ci.roanoke.va.us
February 17, 2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject: 2003 Annual Report
Planning Commission
I am pleased to provide Council with the following information on the Commission's
activities and attendance last year, as well as a brief overview of the major work
projects we hope to undertake during 2004.
Last year the Commission officially met 15 times to consider the following items:
,/ 21 requests to rezone property or amend proffered conditions
12 street and/or alley closure requests
9 amendments to the City's zoning ordinance
7 amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (Hurt Park/Mountain View/VVest End,
Norwich, Wasena, Morningside/Kenwood Riverdale, Gainsboro, Harrison/
Washington Park, and Urban Forestry)
The major work effort of the Commission and staff last year centered on the review and
adoption of neighborhood plans and the development of a new zoning ordinance for the
City of Roanoke. It is anticipated that the following neighborhood plans will be initiated
and approved during 2004: Williamson Road Area Plan, Rivedand/VValnut Hills, Villa
Heights, Grandin Court, Franklin/Colonial Corridor Plan.
The Commission's major goal for 2004 stays the same as that of 2003 - the adoption of
a new Zoning Ordinance, which was last revised in 1987. The Commission has been
briefed on a draft of the ordinance and will continue to be involved in its adoption.
In addition to completing the Zoning Ordinance, the Commission will continue to
monitor progress in implementing the initiatives and strategies set forth in Vision 2001-
2020. Commission members are particularly interested in working to pursue initiatives
related to new housing development, village centers, redevelopment of underutilized
commercial and industrial areas, and integration of city design principles for new
development.
A roster of meeting attendance and the status of certifications of Commission members
is attached to this report for your information.
Respectfully submitted,
~M~//~la netta, C~h a~rr m a n~
City of Roanoke Planning Commission
/mpf
attachment
cc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Rolanda Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
MEETING ATTENDANCE/CERTIFICATION
A total of 12 regular and 3 joint Commission/Council meetings
were held during 2003.
Commission Member
Gilbert Butler (Certified)
Kent Chrisman (Certified)
Robert Manetta
Paula Prince (Certified)
(appointed 7/03)
Richard Rife
Henry Scholz (Certified)
(appointed 3/03)
Fredrick Williams (Certified)
No. of Meetinqs Attended
12
12
13
7 of 8 meetings
15
11 of 12 meetings
14
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
February 19, 2004
File #60-467
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hall:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 36623-021704 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 2003-2004 School Fund Appropriations, in connection with providing funds
for an Expanded GED Testing Services program, in the amount of $4,178.00.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2004, and is in full force and
effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Attachment
Jesse A. Hall
February 19, 2004
Page 2
po:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Gloria P. Manns, Chair, Roanoke City School Board, 1727 Staunton Avenue, N. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Cindy H. Lee, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 17~:h day of February, 2004.
No. 36623-021704.
AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for GED Testing Services supported by
a state grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004 School Fund
Appropriations and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following sections
of the 2003-2004 School Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended
and reordained to read and provide as follows:
Appropriations
GED Examiners 030-062-6770-6334-0129 $ 3,858
FICA 030-062-6770-6334-0201 320
Revenues
State Grant Funds
030-062-6770-1100 $ 4,178
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second
reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
City Clerk.
-,~j~j Gloria P. Manns, Chairman Alvin L. Nash
Ruth C. Willson, Vice Chairman Robert J. Sparrow
William H. Lindsey Kathy G. Stockburger
~ke ~
Cily School Board P.O. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031 * 540-853-2381 · Fax: 540-853-2951
David B. Trinkle, M.D.
E. Wayne Harris, Ed.D., Superintendent
Cindy H. Lee, Clerk of the Board
February 17, 2004
The Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Members of Council:
As the result of official School Board action at its meeting on
February 10, the Board respectfully requests City Council to approve
the appropriation of $4,:[78.00 for the Expanded GED Testing Services
program. The funds will be used to operate a satellite GED test center
at the Virginia Employment Commission and expand the testing
services. This continuing program is one hundred percent reimbursed
by State funds.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Sincerely,
Clerk
re
CC:
Mrs. Gloria P. Manns
Dr. E. Wayne Harris
Mr. Richard L. Kelley
Mr. Kenneth F. Mundy
Mrs. Darlene Burcham
Mr. William M. Hackworth
Mr. ]esse A. Hall
Mr. ]im Wells (with
accounting details)
Discovering the Wealth in All Children
JESSE A. HALL
Director of Finance
February 17, 2004
CITY OF ROANOKE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 461
P.O. Box 1220
Roanoke, Virginia 24006-1220
Telephone: (540) 853-2821
Fax: (540) 853-6142
ANN H. SHAWVER
Deputy Director
email: ann_shawver~ci.roanok~.va.us
The Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
The Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
The Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
The Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
The Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
The Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
We have reviewed the attached request to appropriate funding for the School Board. This
report will appropriate the following:
$4,178 for the Expanded GED Testing Services program. The funds will be used to
operate a satellite GED test center at the Virginia Employment Commission and expand
the testing services. This continuing program is one hundred percent reimbursed by
State funds.
We recommend that you concur with this report of the School Board and adopt the attached
budget ordinance to appropriate funding as outlined above.
Sincerely,
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
Attachment
JAH/ctg
C:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent of City Schools
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk(~ci.roanoke.va.us
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
February 19, 2004
File #51
Mr. Todd D. Conner
30 W. Franklin Road, Suite 800
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Mr. Conner:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 36624-021704 rezoning that tract of land located at
739 Townside Road, S. W., Official Tax. No. 5490307, from C-2, General Commercial
District, and C-2, General Commercial District, with conditions, to LM, Light Manufacturing
District, subject to proffers contained in the Second Amended Petition filed in the Office of
the City Clerk on January 16, 2004; and Ordinance No. 32214-102494, adopted on
October 24, 1994, rezoning a portion of the subject property to C-2, General Commercial
District, with proffered conditions, is repealed.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2004, and is in full force and
effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Attachment
Todd D. Conner
February 19, 2004
Page 2
pc:
Robert B. Manetta, Chair, City Planning Commission,
2831 Stephenson Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Ilene N. Peters, 3834 Park Lane, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015
L. EIwood and Doris E. Norris, 3818 Park Lane, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Robert H. and Janet C. Sandel, 3808 Park Lane, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Robert C. and Barbara T. Keeley, 3750 Dogwood Lane, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24014
Gerald R. and Sharon A. Hawley, 3726 Dogwood Lane, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24015
Summertree Apartments, L. L. C., P. O. Box 2152, Roanoke, Virginia 24009
Edgehill Estates Apartments, L. L. C., P. O. Box 2152, Roanoke, Virginia 24009
Mer Mar Enterprises of Roanoke, 4502 Starkey Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24014
Susan S. Lower, Acting Director, Real Estate Valuation
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Edward R. Tucker, Acting Development Review Coordinator
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of February, 2004.
No. 36624-021704.
AN ORDINANCE to amend {}36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended, and Sheet No. 549, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, to rezone certain
property within the City, subject tO certain conditions proffered by the applicant; and
dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
WHEREAS, Todd D. Conner has made application to the Council of the City of
Roanoke to have the hereinafter described property rezoned from C-2, General Commercial
District, and C-2, General Commercial District, with conditions, to LM, Light Manufacturing
District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the applicant;
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, which after giving proper notice to all
concerned as required by {}36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and
after conducting a public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to Council;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by City Council on such application at its
meeting on February 17, 2004, after due and timely notice thereof as required by {}36.1-693,
Code 0fthe 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 application, 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:
1. Section 36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet
No. 328 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, be amended in the following
particular manner and no other:
That tract of land located at 739 Townside Road, S.W., and designated on Sheet No.
549 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as Official Tax No. 5490307, be, and
is hereby rezoned from C-2, General Commercial District, and C-2, General Commercial
District, with conditions, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to the proffers
contained in the Second Amended Petition' filed in the Office of the City Clerk on
January 16, 2004, and that Sheet No. 549 of the 1976 Zone Map be changed in this respect.
2. Ordinance No. 32214-102494, adopted October 24, 1994, rezoning a portion of
the subject property to C-2, General Commercial District, with proffered conditions, be
repealed.
3.
of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading
City Clerk.
CITY OF ROANOKE
PLANNING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 166
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 I
Telephone: ($40) 853-1730 Fax: ($40) 853-122;0
E-mail: plan ning~ci.roanoke, va.us
February 17, 2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Rezoning of tract of land identified as Official Tax No.
5490307, 739 Townside Road, containing 3.77 acres, more
or less, from C-2 General Commercial District and C-2
General Commercial with conditions, to LM Light
Manufacturing District, such rezoning to be subject to certain
conditions proffered by the petitioner.
Planning Commission Action:
Public hearing was held on Thursday, January 15, 2004. By a vote of 5-0-1 (Mr.
Rife absent and Mr. Butler abstaining), the Commission recommended that City
Council approve the request as amended at the public hearing.
Background:
A Petition to Rezone, with conditions, was filed on December 3, 2003. A First
Amended Petition, with conditions, was filed on January 14, 2004. A Second
Amended Petition, with conditions, was filed on January 16, 2004.
The petitioner requests the rezoning of the subject parcel to LM, Light
Manufacturing, for the purpose of developing mini-warehouses as a use by-right.
The subject parcel is split-zoned.
A portion of the tax parcel is zoned C-2 and contains a 7,298 square foot
structure, formerly used as a nightclub. The structure was condemned in
1993 following an electrical fire.
The larger portion of the parcel is vacant and was rezoned in October,
1994, from RM-2, Residential Multifamily Medium Density District, to C-2,
General Commercial, with proffered conditions, for the development of
mini-warehouses. One of the conditions of that rezoning was that the
petitioner would make application to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a
special exception for a mini-warehouse facility of up to 48,000 square feet.
Since the maximum permitted square footage for mini-warehouses by
special exception in a C-2 District is only 12,000 square feet, such
approval by the Board would have required not only a special exception
but also a variance. No application was ever filed with the Board.
The current petitioner, a contract-purchaser of the property, requests that the
existing C-2 conditions applied to the portion of the tax parcel conditionally
rezoned in 1994, and as listed below, be repealed:
1)
That the subject property will be used for the construction and
operation of a mini-warehouse facility on the northern half of the
property which is currently zoned C-2, General Commercial District.
2)
That within six (6) months after the effective date of the rezoning
approval by City Council, the applicant will make application to and
receive approval from the City Board of Zoning Appeals for a special
exception to provide for mini-warehouse facility of up to 48,000 feet.
3) That no outdoor advertising structure shall be erected on the subject
property proposed for rezoning.
4) That no outdoor storage will be permitted nor take place on the subject
property for rezoning.
5) That no sign, including one painted on the side of a building, shall be
visible from the adjacent expressway.
6)
That the zoning shall revert to RM-2 if the City Board of Zoning
Appeals fails to authorize the use of the property to erect 48,000
square feet of mini warehouses.
In addition, the petitioner proffers and agrees to abide by the following conditions
on the entire tax parcel if the rezoning to LM is granted:
1) The property shall be used only for mini warehouses, not to exceed a
total of 48,000 s.f.
2) That no sign, including one painted on the side of a building, shall be
visible from the adjacent expressway. (220/581)
3) No outdoor storage shall be permitted on the property.
4) The buildings shall be earth tone in color. Earth tone shall be defined
as any of various rich, warm colors with tones of brown; i.e., tan, taupe,
wheat, beige, Navajo white, winter white, cream ecru, almond, and
khaki.
5) The ten-foot wide landscaped buffer, consisting of year-round dense
evergreen trees, as required by Code along the southern and eastern
property lines of the subject property, shall be extended along the
entire perimeter of the property, with such buffer on the 220/581 side
planted as close as possible to the base of the buildings.
Considerations:
The subject parcel borders the U.S. Route 220 right-of-way along its western
property line. The properties on the opposite side of the 220 right-of-way are
developed as single-family homes and are zoned RS-l, Residential Single
Family. To the south and east are apartment complexes zoned RM-2, Residential
Multifamily, Medium Density District. To the north is a site zoned C-2 that is
developed as a small-scale shopping center currently occupied by state
government offices and a beauty school.
Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, includes the following
statements and recommended actions:
Design principles and guidelines recommend new development by
landowners and investors be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. (p. 11 ) The proffers of the Second Amended Petition refine
permitted development of the property in a manner that could be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Evaluate and encourage redevelopment of underutilized and vacant
industrial sites. (ED P5, p. 59) The initial filing of this petition was an
attempt to clarify the permitted use and intensity of use on the property
resulting from the 1994 rezoning. Given the existing unconditional C-2
zoning designation on a portion of this parcel and the uses permitted with
that designation, the current split zoning of the subject property could
prove more detrimental to the residential neighbors than the current LM
request as conditioned in the Second Amended Petition.
Given the residential neighbors and the parcel's one point of access by way of an
easement through an adjacent apartment complex which connects to Townside
Road, staff expressed concern with the initially filed form of this petition in terms
of LM uses that would be permitted on the subject property. That concern is
addressed in the Second Amended Petition, which limits use of the property to
mini-warehouses, up to 48,000 square feet. The amended request is consistent
with the use that was approved with the 1994 rezoning. The traffic impact of such
use on the adjacent apartment property and Townside Road would be minimal.
The Second Amended Petition also addresses staff concerns with the potential
for further congestion of visibility along the 220/581 corridor in terms of signage
on the subject property. The Second Amended Petition restores the proffer that
applies to a portion of the parcel today, namely that no signage, including any
sign painted on the side of a building shall be visible from the adjacent 220/581
expressway. This proffer would apply to the entire tax parcel as opposed to the
existing proffer which only applies to that portion of the tract rezoned in 1994.
At the Planning Commission hearing, staff recommended approval of the
request. Planning Commission discussion centered on the potential impact of
such development on the "view corridor" of 220/581, given that that it is a major
gateway for the City. Items of concern included the potential color of buildings
and the need to visually buffer the development from 220/581. The petitioner
agreed to file a Second Amended Petition limiting the color of the buildings to
earth tones and creating a landscaped buffer along the perimeter of the site.
Recommendation:
By a vote of 5-0-1, the Commission recommends that City Council approve the
requested rezoning as amended.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert B. Manetta, Chairman
City Planning Commission ~
CC:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Rolanda Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Todd Conner, Petitioner
0
0
0
0
0 0
O~
12:~4
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
5488531145
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
P.01/08
IN RE:
Rezonin§ of a tract of land identified as Official Tax Map/*549o307, ~
Road eontaining _~.~ ae~es, more or less, flpm C-z General Commercial
District and C-a General Commercial with conditions, roLM Lioht
Manufaemrinz District~ such rezonir~ to be subject to Certain conditions proffered
by the petitioner.
SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR I~,?ONING
TO TH E HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE:
The Petitioner, ha~ property under contract in the City of Roanoke containing
~.~v acres, more or less, located at 739 Townside Koad, Roanoke, Vir~nla. Said tract is
currently zoned C-z. General Commercial Dish-let and C-z, General
Commercial Dish-lC with conditions,, A map of the property to be rezoned is
at~ched as E~ A concept plan is attached as Exhibit B
Pursuant to Section 36.1~9o, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as an~ended,
Petitioner request that the conditions existing on a portion of this tract as adopted by
ordinance No. 322~4-ao~494 and as set forth below be repealed: (See Exhibit C)
That the subject property will be used ~or the construction and operation of
a mini warehouse facility on the northern haft of the property which is
currently zoned C-a, General Commercial District.
2. That withiu six (6) months after the effective date of the rezonln/approval
by City Council, the applicant w/Il make application to and receive approval
from the C/fy Board of Zonin§ Appeals for a special exception to prov/de £or
the mini warehouse facility of up to 48,ooo feet.
U:~.TC*n n~-ezon ha g P~t/tion$\739 Towaslde Road 2ndt Amendmem Sanum'7 16.do~
~N-~1-~004 1~34
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
54085GlI45
3. That no outdoor advertising structure shall be erected on the subject
property proposed for rezoning.
4. That no outdoor storage will be permitted nor take place on the subject
property for rezonlng.
5. That no sign, including one painted on the side of a building, shall be visible
from the adjacent expressway.
6, That the zoning shall revert to RMv2 if the City Board of Zoning Appeals
fails to authorize the use of the property to erect 48,ooo square feet of mini
warehouses.
Pursuant to Section 36.1-69o, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
the Petitioner further requests that the said property (Tax Map Number 5490307) be
rezoned from C-2 General Commercial District, with conditions, and C-2, General
Commercial District to, LM, Light Manufacturing Disixict, subject to certain conditions
set forth below, for the purpose of consixucting a Mini Storage FaciliVy.
The Petitioner believes 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
permit the development of an tmdemtilized commercial property in the City.
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:
~. The property shall be used only for mini warehouses, not to exceed a total of
48,000 s.f.
That no sign, including one painted on the side of a building, shall be visible from
the adjacent expressway. (~ao/581)
3. No outdoor storage shall be permitted on the property.
4. The buildings shall be earth tone in color. Earth tone shall be defined as any of
various rich, warm colors with tones of brown; e.e., tan, taupe, wheat, beige,
Navajo white, winter white, cream, ecru, almond, and khaki.
P.02/08
U:\TCo~aer~aonlng Pctido~ls\739 Tov~ide Ro~ 2t~t Amendment .l'anoa~y 1 fi.doc
JRN-21-2004 12:34
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
54005~1145
P.03708
5- The ten-foot Male landscaped b~er, ¢ons~dn~ of year-round dense evergreen
t~, as veq~irea by Code ¢on~ the southern and eastern prope~ Les of the
subjee~ property, sh~! be extended ~lon~ the entire perimeter of the property,
with snch buffer on the ~2o/58~ side Canted as c~ose ~s possiS~e to the b~e of
the buildings.
Ac[ached as ~ are the nantes, addresses and tax
numbers of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately adjacent to
and immediately across a street or road from the property to be rezone&
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-described lxact bc
rezoned as requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Roanoke.
Respectfully submitted this t6m day of Januaev. 2oo~.
Respectively Submitted,
Petitioner/Contract Purchaser
Todd D. Conner
30 W Franklin Road Suite 800
Roanoke, Virginia 24ox~
540.855.3658
U:\TConnet'~,¢zoning P~ti6on.67]9 Tow~ide Road 2ndt Amcnclra~t Janu~o, I fi.doc
JRN-21-200~ 12:~5 C~TV ~LE~K~ O~CE 54085~11~5 M,04×08
Der. eml~r 4, 200:~
~n ,,f T~ld Conner for ',he ~ub]ecc prop~.
BY,;
JAN-21-2004
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
5408531145
Exhibit A
P.05/08
Subject Property
JAN-21-2004 12:~7
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
5408531145 P.O6/0B
TaxMap #5~9o3o'~ ~
F, xhlbit B
JAN-21-2004 12:37 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Subject Property
2.~-° Acres
5408531145 P. 0?/08
The Roanoke Times
Roanoke, Virginia
Affidavit of Publication
The Roanoke Times
ROANOKE CITY CLERK'S
215 CHURCH AVE. RM 456
ATT: MARY PARKER, CL
ROANOKE VA 24011
Townside Rd.
REFERENCE: 80023382
02295786
State of Virginia
City of Roanoke
I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative
of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation
is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily
newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of
Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was
published in said newspapers on the following
dates:
City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of
Virqinia. Sworn and subscribed before me this
~ day of February 2004. Witness my hand and
official seal.
~~__~_~_~ .... - Notary P~blic y ' ssion e ~ i ~e ;- ~____~_~__~__~j~__.
PUBLISHED ON: 'Cl/30 02/06
245.82
02/11/04
TOTAL COST:
FILED ON:
Authorized ~
Signature:_~,/,~..//~_~_._~~_, Billing Services
Representative
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Pursuant to the provisions of Article VII of Chapter 36.1, Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, the Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a Public Hearing on
February 17, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber in the Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., on the question of rezoning from C-2, General
Commercial District, and C-2, General Commercial District, with conditions, to LM, Light
Manufacturing District, subject to certain proffered conditions, the following property:
That tract of land located at 739 Townside Road, S.W., and further identified
as Official Tax No. 5490307.
A copy of this proposal is available for public inspection in the Office of the City
Clerk, Room 456, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. All parties in interest may appear on
the above date and be heard on the question.
If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this public
hearing, contact the City Clerk's Office, 853-2541, by Thursday, February 12, 2004.
GIVEN under my hand this 27th day of January ,2004.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
N-Rezo-Townside021704
Notice to Publisher:
Publish in the Roanoke Times once on Friday, January 30, 2003, and once on Friday, February 6, 2004.
Send bill and affidavit to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
215 Chumh Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541
klARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@ci.roanoke.va.us
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
January 27, 2004
File #51
Todd D. Conner
30 W. Franklin Road, Suite 800
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Mr. Conner:
Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, I have advertised a public hearing for Tuesday,
February 17, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the
City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue,
S. W., City of Roanoke, on your request that a tract of land located at 739 Townside Road,
S. W., containing 3.77 acres, more or less, identified as Official Tax No. 5490307, be
rezoned from C-2, General Commercial District, and C-2, General Commercial District, with
conditions, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain conditions proffered by
the petitioner.
For your information, I am enclosing copy of a report of the City Planning Commission and
a notice of the public hearing. Please review the documents and if you have questions,
you may contact Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney, at 540-853-2431. Questions
with regard to the City Planning Commission report should be directed to the Department
of Planning, Building and Development at 540-853-1730.
N:\CKEWI\PUBLIC HEARINGS 2004~FEBRUARY 04\FEBRUARY 17 ATTORNEY AND ADJOINING PROPETY OWNERS
LE~'ERS.DOC
Todd D. Conner
Janua~ 27,2004
Page 2
It will be necessary for you, or your representative, to be present at the February 17
public hearing. Failure to appear could result in a deferral of the matter until a later
date.
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enclosure
N:\CKEWI',PUBLIC HEARINGS 2004\FEBRUARY 04\FEBRUARY 17 ATTORNEY AND ADJOINING PROPETY OWNERS
LE3-1'ERS.DOC
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-I 145
E-mail: clcrk~ci.roanok¢.va.us
Januaw 27,2003
File #51
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Ms. Mary F. Prickitt
Summertree Apartments
Mer Mar Enterprises of Roanoke
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Sandel
Ms. Ilene N. Peters
Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Hawley
Edgehill Estates Apartments
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Kelley
Mr. and Mrs. L. Elwood Norris
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, I have advertised a public hearing for Tuesday,
February 17, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the
City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue,
S. W., City of Roanoke, on the request of Todd D. Conner that a tract of land located at
739 Townside Road, S. W., containing 3.77 acres, more or less, identified as Official Tax
No. 5490307, be rezoned from C-2, General Commercial District, and C-2, General
Commercial District, with conditions, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain
conditions proffered by the petitioner.
The City Planning Commission is recommending that Council approve the request for
rezoning. If you would like to receive a copy of the report of the City Planning Commission,
please call the City Clerk's Office at 540-853-2541.
N:\CKEWl\PUBLIC HEARINGS 2004\FEBRUARY 04\FEBRUARY 17 A~I'ORNEY AND ADJOINING PROPETY OWNERS
LETI'ERS.DOC
Interested Property Owners and/or Adjoining Property Owners
January 27, 2004
Page 2
This letter is provided for your information as an interested property owner and/or adjoining
property owner. If you have questions with regard to the matter, please call the
Department of Planning, Building and Devetopment at 540-853-1730.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:sm
N:\CKEWI\PUBLIC HEARINGS 2004\FEBRUARY 04\FEBRUARY 17 A'rq'ORNEY AND ADJOINING PROPETY OWNERS
LETTERS.DOC
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@ci.roanoke.v~ us
JanuaW 20,2004
File #51
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Robert B. Manetta, Chair
City Planning Commission
2831 Stephenson Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Manetta:
Sincerely,
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of The Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I
am enclosing copy of a second amended petition received in the City Clerk's Office on
January 16, 2004, from Todd D. Conner requesting that a tract of land located at 739
Townside Road, S. W., containing 3.77 acres, more or less, identified as Official Tax NO.
5490307, be rezoned from C-2, General Commercial District, to LM, Light Manufacturing
District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner; and that existing conditions
on a portion of the tract of land, pursuant to Ordinance No. 32214-102494, be repealed.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enclosure
Robert B. Manetta
January 20, 2004
Page 2
pc:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Todd D. Conner, 30 W. Franklin Road, Suite 800, Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
IN RE:
Rezoning of a tract of land identified as Official Tax Map #5490307, ~
Road containing a.v7 acres, more or less, from C-a General Conunerela!
District and C-a General Commercial with conditions, to LM Light
Manufacturing District, such rezoning to be subject to Certain conditions proffered
by the petitioner.
SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR REZONING
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE:
The Petitioner, has property under contract in the City of Roanoke containing
.~.77 acres, more or less, located at 739 Townside Road, Roanoke, Virginia. Said tract is
currently zoned C-~, General Commercial District and C~~, General
Commercial District with conditions. A map of the property to be rezoned is
attached as Exhibit A. A concept plan is attached as Exhibit B.
Pursuant to Section 36a-69o, Code of the City of Roanoke (~979), as amended,
Petitioner request that the conditions existing on a portion of this tract as adopted by
ordinance No. 32214-102494 and as set forth below be repealed: (See Exhibit C)
That the subject property will be used for the construction and operation of
a mini warehouse facility on the northern half of the property which is
currently zoned C-2, General Commercial District.
That within six (6) months after the effective date of the rezoning approval
by City Council, the applicant will make application to and receive approval
from the City Board of Zoning Appeals for a special exception to provide for
the mini warehouse facility of up to 48,000 feet.
U:\TConner~Rezoning Petitions\739 Townside Road 2ndt Amendment January 1 &doc
4.
5.
6.
That no outdoor advertising structure shall be erected on the subject
property proposed for rezoning.
That no outdoor storage will be permitted nor take place on the subject
property for rezoning.
That no sign, including one painted on the side of a building, shall be visible
from the adjacent expressway.
That the zoning shall revert to RM-2 if the City Board of Zoning Appeals
fails to authorize the use of the property to erect 48,o0o square feet of mini
warehouses.
Pursuant to Section 36.~-69o, Code of the City of Roanoke (~979), as amended,
the Petitioner further requests that the said property (Tax Map Number 549o3o7) be
rezoned from C-2 General Commercial District, with conditions, and C-e, General
Commercial District to, LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain conditions
set forth below, for the purpose of constructing a Mini Storage Facility.
The Petitioner believes 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
permit the development of an underutilized commercial property in the City.
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:
~. The property shall be used only for mini warehouses, not to exceed a total of
48,ooo s.f.
2. That no sign, including one painted on the side of a building, shall be visible from
the adjacent expressway. (22o/58~)
3. No outdoor storage shall be permitted on the property.
The buildings shall be earth tone in color. Earth tone shall be defined as any of
various rich, warm colors with tones of brown; e.e., tan, taupe, wheat, beige,
Navajo white, winter white, cream, ecru, almond, and khaki.
U:\TConner~Rezoning Petitions\739 Townside Road 2ndt Amendment Janua~ 16.doc
The ten-foot wide landscaped buffer, consisting of year-round dense evergreen
trees, as required by Code along the southern and eastern property lines of the
subject property, shall be extended along the entire perimeter of the property,
with such buffer on the 2eo/581 side planted as close as possible to the base of
the buildings.
Attached as Exhibit D are the names, addresses and tax
numbers of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately adjacent to
and 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.
Respectfully submitted this .!6th dav of January, 2004,
Respectively Submitted,
By:
~zi~nature: Petitioner/Contract Purchaser
Todd D. Conner
30 W Franklin Road Suite 800
Roanoke, Virginia e4o~
540.855.3658
U:\TConner~Rezoning Petitions\739 Townside Road 2ndt Amendment January 16.doc
Deceml~r 4,
The undersigned Owner of Tax Parcel #S4aO307 hereby consents to the Zoning
Pedtion oCTodd Conner I'or the sublect property,
Ed~hlll ~tat~s Apt~.~ LLC
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Tax Map #54903o'7
~ r/ ~"-~L r~ / ~
Subject Property
2.12 Acres
2~ 7 U~
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWN]
Official Tax # Street Address Name of Property Property Owner
Owner Mailing Address
1400212 Park Lane Ilene N. Peters 3834 Park Lane, SW
Lot R Roanoke, VA 24015
1400211 3834 Park Lane Ilene N. Peters 3834 Park Lane, SW
Lot Q Roanoke, VA 24015
1400210 Park Lane Ilene N. Peters 3834 Park Lane, SW
Lot P Roanoke, VA 24015
1400209 3818 Park Lane L. Elwood & Doris E. 3818 Park Lane, SW
Lot N Norris Roanoke, VA 24015
1400208 3808 Park Lane Robert H. & Janet C. 3808 Park Lane, SW
Lot M Sandel Roanoke, VA 24015
1390201 3750 Dogwood Lane Robert C. & Barbara T. 3750 Dogwood Lane, SW
Lot 1 Keeley Roanoke, VA 24014
1390202 3736 Dogwood Lane Mary F. Prickitt 3736 Dogwood Lane, SW
Lot 2 Roanoke, VA 24015
1390203 3726 Dogwood Lane Gerald R. & Sharon A. 3726 Dogwood Lane, SW
Lot 3 Hawley Roanoke, VA 24015
5490208 3787 Parliament Road Summertree Apts. LLC P.O. Box 2152
Roanoke, VA 24009
5490306 Townside Road Edgehill Estates Apts. P.O. Box 2152
LLC Roanoke, VA 24009
5490302 711 Townside Road Edgehill Estates Apts. P.O. Box 2152
LLC Roanoke, VA 24009
5500116 3535 Franklin Road Mer Mar Enterprises of 4502 Starkey Road SW
Roanoke Roanoke, VA 24014
MARY E. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@¢i.roanoke.va.us
January 16,2004
File #51
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Robert B. Manetta, Chair
City Planning Commission
2831 Stephenson Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Marietta:
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of The Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I
am enclosing copy of an amended petition received in the City Clerk's Office on
January 14, 2004, from Todd D. Conner requesting that a tract of land located at 739
Townside Road, S. W., containing 3.77 acres, more or less, identified as Official Tax No.
5490307, be rezoned from C-2, General Commercial District, to LM, Light Manufacturing
District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner; and that existing conditions
on a portion of the tract of land, pursuant to Ordinance No. 32214-10,,2.4,94, be repealed.
Sincerely, / //
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enclosure
Robert B. Manetta
January 16, 2004
Page 2
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Todd D. Conner, 30 W. Franklin Road, Suite 800, Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF ROANOKE PLANNING
COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on
Thursday, January 15, 2004, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the matter may be
heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., to consider the following:
Request from Todd D. Conner, contract purchaser, that property located
at 739 Townside Road, S.W., Official Tax No. 5490307, be rezoned from
C-2, General Commercial District, and C-2, General Commercial District,
with conditions, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, such rezoning to be
subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner and that
Ordinance No. 32214-102494, rezoning a portion of Official Tax No.
5490307, be repealed.
A copy of the application is available for review in the Department of
Planning Building and Development, Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building.
All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be
heard on the matter. If you are a person who needs accommodations for this
hearing, please contact the Department of Planning Building and Development at
853-1730 before 12:00 noon on the Monday before the date of the hearing listed
above.
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary
City of Roanoke Planning Commission
Please print in newspaper on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 and January 6, 2004
Please charge credit card and send affidavit of publication to:
Martha P. Franklin, Department of Planning Building & Development
Room 166, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 853-1730
TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
PERTAINING TO THE REZONING REQUEST OF:
Todd Conner at 739 Townside Road, S.W., Official Tax No. )
5490307, from C-2 to LM, Conditional ) AFFIDAVIT
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) TO-WIT:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that she is 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 Section 15.2-2204, 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
15th day of December, 2003, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 15th day of
January, 2004, on the rezoning captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels
listed below at their last known address:
~Parcel _Owner's Name
1390202 Mary F. Prickitt
1390203
5490208
Gerald and Sharon Hawley
Summertree Apartments
5490302
5490305
5490306
5490307
Edgehill Estates Apartments
MailinAd~
3736 Dogwood Lane, SW
Roanoke, VA 24015
3726 Dogwood Lane, SW
Roanoke, VA 24015
P O Box 2152
Roanoke, VA 24009
P O Box 2152
Roanoke, VA 24009
5500116
1390201
1400208
1400209
1390210
1390211
1390212
Mer Mar Enterprises of Roanoke
Robert and Barbara Kelley
Robert and Jane Sandel
L. EIwood and Doris Norris
Ilene N. Peters
4502 Starkey Road
Roanoke, VA 24014
3750 Dogwood Lane, SW
Roanoke, VA 24014
3808 Park Lane, SW
Roanoke, VA 24015
3818 Park Lane, SW
Roanoke, VA 24015
3834 Park Lane, SW
Roanoke, VA 24015
My Commission Expires:
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, this 15th day of December, 2003.
Notary Public
MARy F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
F~x: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clcrk~ci.roanoke.va.us
December 9, 2003
File #51
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Robert B. Manetta, Chair
City Planning Commission
2831 Stephenson Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Manetta:
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of The Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I
am enclosing copy of a petition received in the City Clerk's Office on December 8, 2003,
from Todd D. Conner requesting that a tract of land located at 739 Townside Road, S. W.,
containing 3.77 acres, more or less, identified as Official Tax No. 5490307, be rezoned
from C-2, General Commercial District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to
certain conditions proffered by the petitioner; and that existing conditions on a portion of
the tract of land, pursuant to Ordinance No. 32214-102494, be repealed.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Enclosure
Robert B. Manetta
December 9, 2003
Page 2
pc:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Todd D. Conner, 30 W. Franklin Road, Suite 800, Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@ci.roanoke.va.us
February 19, 2004
File #51
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
DanielF. Layman, Attorney
Woods, Rogers, PLC
P. O. Box14125
Roanoke, Vi~inia 24038-4125
Dear Mr. Layman:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 36625-021704 rezoning that tract of land located at
622 Huntington Boulevard, N. E., containing 1.630 acres, more or less, Official Tax No.
3280102, from CN, Neighborhood Commercial District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District,
subject to proffers contained in the Amended Petition filed in the Office of the City Clerk on
January 22, 2004.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2004, and is in full force and
effect upon its passage.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Enclosure
Daniel F. Layman, Attorney
February 19, 2003
Page 2
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Appalachian Power Company, P. O. Box 2021, Roanoke, Virginia 24022
Whiting Oil Company, P. O. Box 13026, Roanoke, Virginia 24030
Thelma M. and Fred Attalla, 3652 Sunrise Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Paul W. and Minnie G. Dickinson, 621 Drew Avenue, N. E., Roanoke, Virginia
24012
Randolph P. Abbott, 6735 Jasmine Circle, N. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Thomas B. Crockett, 701 Drew Avenue, N. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Walter P. Kingery, Rt. 6, Box 1750, Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151
Jack D. and Joyce M. Smith, 623 Huntington Blvd., N. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Susan S. Lower, Acting Director, Real Estate Valuation
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Edward R. Tucker, Acting Development Review Coordinator
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of February, 2004.
No. 36625-021704.
AN ORDINANCE to amend {}36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended, and Sheet No. 328, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, to rezone certain
property within the City, subject to certain conditions proffered by the applicant; and
dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
WHEREAS, LSW-HMW Family Limited Partnership has made application to the
Council of the City of Roanoke to have the hereinafter described property rezoned fxom CN,
Neighborhood Commercial District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain
conditions proffered by the applicant;
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, which after giving proper notice to all
concerned as required by {}36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and
after conducting a public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to Council;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by City Council on such application at its
meeting on February 17, 2004, after due and timely notice thereof as required by {}36.1-693,
Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, at which hearing all part/es 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 application, 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:
1. Section 36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet
No. 328 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, be amended in the following
particular manner and no other:
That tract of land located at 622 Huntington Boulevard, N.E., containing 1,630 acres,
more or less, and designated on Sheet No. 328 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of
Roanoke, as Official Tax No. 3280102, be, and is hereby rezoned from CN, Neighborhood ·
Commercial District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to the proffers contained
in the Second Amended Petition filed in the Office of the City Clerk on January 22, 2004,
and that Sheet No. 328 of the 1976 Zone Map be changed in this respect.
2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading
of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
City Clerk.
Architectural [[{e~.rie,~v Board
Board of Zoning Appeals
Planning Commission
CITY OF ROANOKE
PLANNING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 166
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 I
Telephone: (540) 853-1730 Fax: (540) 853-1230
E-mail: planning(&ci.roanoke, va.us
February 17, 2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Request from LSW-HMW Family Limited Partnership that
one tract of land located at 622 Huntington Boulevard, N. E.,
containing 1.630 acres, more or less, and further identified
as Tax Map No. 3280102, be rezoned from CN,
Neighborhood Commercial District, to LM, Light
Manufacturing District, such rezoning to be subject to certain
conditions.
Planning Commission Action:
Planning Commission public hearing was held on Thursday, January 15, 2004.
By a vote of 6-0 (Mr. Rife absent), the Commission voted to recommend City
Council approve a second amended petition to rezone, with conditions.
Background:
A Petition to Rezone the subject property was filed on December 4, 2003. An
Amended Petition, with conditions, was filed on January 6, 2004. A Second
Amended Petition, with conditions, was filed on January 21,2004.
Conditions proffered by the petitioner are as follows:
(a) The property will be used only for one or more of the following permitted
LM uses (all other LM uses permitted by the ordinance being prohibited as
a result of this condition):
(i) Trade and vocational schools of an industrial nature.
(ii) Day care centers with unlimited capacity subject to the
requirements of Section 36.1-510 et seq.
(iii) Laboratories and testing facilities not accessory to a specific use,
including photographic laboratories, industrial testing facilities and
similar uses.
(iv) General storage and warehousing establishments engaged in the
storage of miscellaneous merchandise not for sale on the same
premises.
(v) Manufacturing establishments primarily engaged in the
manufacture, assembly, mixing, processing or other processes
related to the creation of new products and including as an
accessory use the retail sale of goods manufactured on the
premises, where all such manufacturing, assembly, mixing,
processing or other processes related to the creation of new
products, and retail sales of goods manufactured on the premises,
are wholly enclosed in the building.
(vi) General service establishments, excluding the repair or
maintenance of motor vehicles and trailers.
(vii) Commercial printing establishments which print newspapers,
publications, and other materials.
(b) There shall be no outdoor storage on the property.
There is an existing 14,300 square foot, pre-engineered steel structure on the
subject property, which was constructed in 1970. The property has been used
for approximately thirty (30) years for several different uses, including a
commercial printing establishment and a film processing facility. With the
adoption of the 1987 Zoning Ordinance and the rezoning of the property to CN,
Neighborhood Commercial, the film processing facility became a legal,
nonconforming use. In a continuation of the legal, nonconforming status of the
property, an industrial equipment repair and parts warehouse occupied the
property as recently as 2000. The legal, nonconforming status of the property
expired in September 2003 because the building had been vacant for two (2)
years. The structure is currently vacant and is for lease.
Considerations:
The subject property is located on Huntington Boulevard, N.E., one lot removed
from Huntington Boulevard's intersection with Plantation Road, and is currently
zoned CN, Neighborhood Commercial District. Access to the property from
Huntington Boulevard is available via both Plantation Road and Hollins Road.
Surrounding zoning is commercial, manufacturing, and residential.
· The three (3) tracts to the south of the subject property, on the opposite
side of Huntington Boulevard, are zoned CN, Neighborhood Commercial.
Two of those parcels are developed for single-family residential dwellings,
and the one at the intersection of Huntington and Plantation is developed
as a gasoline station/convenience store.
· The two (2) tracts directly abutting the subject property to the west have
frontage on Plantation Road and are zoned CN, Neighborhood
Commercial. One contains a gasoline station/convenience store and the
other parcel is vacant.
· The four (4) tracts to the north of the subject property front on Drew
Avenue and are zoned RM-1, Residential Multi-Family, Low Density.
They include three (3) single-family residential dwellings and a two-story
apartment building.
· The tract directly abutting the entire eastern property line of the subject
property is zoned LM, Light Manufacturing, and is developed as an
American Electric Power substation.
The subject parcel is 1.630 acres and has 206 feet of frontage on Huntington
Boulevard. The petitioner's purpose for the request to rezone the subject
property from CN, Neighborhood Commercial District, to LM, Light Manufacturing
District is to continue use of the property in a manner for which the existing
structure is designed and for which it has been historically used.
Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, includes the following policies
regarding the development of neighborhood commemial areas and industrial
sites:
· Redeveloping underutilized commemial and industrial sites: To take
advantage of its underutilized industrial and commemial land, the City
should inventory industrial and commercial land and define opportunities
for reuse based on market demand and innovative design potential, as
well as on site size, location, accessibility, and infrastructure. (p. 4,
Strategic Initiatives)
· Underutilized and vacant industrial sites will be evaluated and
redevelopment encouraged. (p. 59, ED P5)
· Identify underutilized commercial sites and promote revitalization. (p. 61,
ED A26)
· Explore redevelopment of areas identified for industrial, commercial, or
mixed-use development or reuse such as Plantation and Hollins Road
area. (p. 62, ED A33)
· A small village/neighborhood center serves the immediate neighborhood
and is located on a major thoroughfare. (p. 97)
Given the CN regulations that would limit the footprint of any new building to
5,000 square feet and the CN minimum lot size requirement of 5,000 square feet,
the subject property's 1.630-acre size and the existing 14,300-square foot
building are beyond the scale of what is generally deemed appropriate CN
property. Aisc, the subject property does not front on a major street nor is it
located at an intersection, lessening its effectiveness for neighborhood retail or
service uses. The property is also impacted by the abutting AEP substation.
The petition, in its second amended form, addresses both issues raised by staff
regarding the initially filed petition.
· Although certain permitted uses within the LM, Light Manufacturing District
could be deemed appropriate, and the LM designation would provide a
reasonable approach to the use of the subject property, certain LM uses
would not be appropriate, given the residential uses to the rear of the
property on Drew Avenue and across Huntington Boulevard. The Second
Amended Petition proffers a limited and well-defined list of LM uses to be
permitted on the site as a condition of the rezoning.
· Outdoor storage on this property, which is permitted in the LM District,
would be detrimental to neighboring properties. The petition in its current
form prohibits outdoor storage on the property. Such condition, in
conjunction with the list of proffered uses, serves to limit the impact and
intensity of light manufacturing type uses on the property.
At the Planning Commission hearing, staff recommended approval of the
request. Planning Commission discussion centered on the following:
· Use of the property for mini-warehouses, which would be permitted by the
First Amended Petition, including potential impact of such use on the
residential neighbors across the street
· The potential for expansion of the building for light manufacturing-type
uses (The prohibition of outdoor storage would limit all such activity to
being conducted within the building.)
The petitioner agreed to file a Second Amended Petition in which mini-
warehouses would be deleted as a permitted use on the subject property.
With the appropriate use limitations and the prohibition of outdoor storage, as
contained in the Second Amended Petition, the LM rezoning of the subject
property is deemed appropriate.
Recommendation:
By a vote of 6-0, the Commission recommends City Council approve the request.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert B. Manetta, Chairman
City Planning Commission
CC:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Rolanda Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Daniel F. Layman, Jr., Attorney for the Petitioner
O0
0
0
O0
3280504 ....... '"'""'"""""'"'"'"'"'"' ......................
3181133
3280503 m ,-
0 ~-- (30
VIRGINIA:
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
Rezoning of a Tract of Land )
Known as 622 Huntington Blvd, )
NE, bearing City of Roanoke )
Official Tax No. 3280102, from )
CN, Neighborhood Commercial )
District, to LM, Light Manu- )
facturing District
SECOND
AMENDED PETITION
OF LSW-HMW FAMILY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE:
(I) Petitioner LSW-HMW Family Limited Partnership is the owner of a tract of land in the City of
Roanoke located on the north side of Huntington Blvd, NE, near its intersection with Plantation Road,
NE, containing approximately 1.63 acres, bearing City of Roanoke Official Tax No. 3280102 and known
as 622 Huntington Blvd, NE. A portion of City Appraisal Map Number 328 showing this parcel is
attached to this petition as Exhibit A.
(2) This lot is presently zoned CN, Neighborhood Commercial District. However, it had been used
for light manufacturing purposes as a legal nonconforming use until September 2003, when that status
expired because the building had been vacant for two years.
(3) Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, petitioner
requests that the above-described parcel be rezoned from CN, Neighborhood Commercial District, to
LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph (6) below.
(4) Since November 1970, when the existing 14,300 square foot industrial building was constructed
by Progress Printing Company, this lot has been used successively as a printing plant, a film processing
facility, and an industrial equipment repair and parts warehouse. It is located immediately adjacent to
railroad tracks and a large electrical energy substation, and just behind retail commercial properties along
Plantation Road, NE.
RKE# 0845368.WPD-1, 094353-00010-01
(5) Petitioner believes the property is not conducive to neighborhood commercial use because it is
larger than the typical CN uses in the area, does not front on a major commercial street (and indeed is
somewhat isolated by topography from customer traffic and the adjoining highway commercial uses), and
lies outside of any major commercial district. It is improved with an industrial building, has been used in
that manner for over 30 years, and is so dominated by the adjoining substation that its appeal for any
other purpose is extremely limited. Petitioner therefore believes that the requested zoning change will
afford an opportunity for use of this lot in a manner more consistent with its highest and best use. A site
plan showing the configuration of the property and improvements is attached to this petition as Exhibit B.
(6) Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if this property is rezoned as requested, the rezoning
will be subject to, and petitioner will abide by, the following conditions:
(a) The property will be used only for one or more of the following permitted LM uses (all
other LM uses permitted by the ordinance being prohibited as a result of this condition):
(i) Trade and vocational schools of an industrial nature.
(ii) Day care centers with unlimited capacity subject to the requirements of
Section 36.1-510 et seq.
(iii) Laboratories and testing facilities not accessory to a specific use, including
photographic laboratories, industrial testing facilities and similar uses.
(iv) General storage and warehousing establishments engaged in the storage of
miscellaneous merchandise not for sale on the same premises.
(v) Manufacturing establishments primarily engaged in the manufacture,
assembly, mixing, processing or other processes related to the creation of
new products and including as an accessory use the retail sale of goods
manufactured on the premises, where all such manufacturing, assembly,
mixing, processing or other processes related to the creation of new
RKE# 0845368.WPD.1, 094353-00010~1 2
products, and retail sales of goods manufactured on the premises, are
wholly enclosed in the building.
(vi) General service establishments, excluding the repair or maintenance of motor
vehicles and trailers.
(vii) Commercial printing establishments which print newspapers, publications,
and other materials.
(b) There shall be no outdoor storage on the property.
(7) Attached to this petition as Exhibit C is a list of the names and addresses of the owners of all lots
immediately adjacent to or across a street from the property to be rezoned, together with the Official Tax
Number of each lot.
WHEREFORE, petitioner requests that the parcel bearing City of Roanoke Official Tax No.
3280102 be rezoned from CN to LM, with conditions, in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Roanoke.
Respectfully submitted by petitioner this/,~ day of January, 2004.
LSW-HMW FAMILy LIM1TED PA$I~I~RSHIP
Daniel F. Layman, Jr. ~-) v
Woods Rogers PLC
P. O. Box 14125
Roanoke, VA 240384125
(703) 983-7653
Of Counsel for the Petitioner
RKE# 0845368.WPD.1,094353-00010-01
/V/F'
CON(
50 O 50 100 150
UTIL
· STORY
METAL
BLDG.
1.630
ACRES
POLE
POLE /
225' = TO ~.1. UTIL.
ROCK ....
--PLANTATJON ROAD POLE WALL --sBg ~a. ~0 W 20S.93' UTIL,
POLE
HUNTINGTON BOULEVARD
(*o' R/W)
N/?
NOTES:
1. OWNERS OF RECORD: HARRIET M. WALDROP
2. LEGAL REFERENCE DEED BOOK 1496. PAGE 1702
No. 002002
PHYSICAL MPROVEMEhT SURVEY FOR
LUKE WALDROP
SURV~(ED 06-28--99
EXHIBIT C
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
REZONING PETITION
622 HUNTINGTON BLVD.
TAX MAP #: 3280102
Official Tax NoJ I Name of Property Mailing Address Zoning
Street Address Owner
3280103 AppalaG, ian Power P.O. Box 2021 LM
Substation Company Roanoke, VA 24022
3280105 Whiting Oil Company P.O. Box 13026 CN
3609 Plantation Rd. Roanoke, VA 24030
NE
3280106 Attalla, Thelma M & Fred 3652 Sunrise Ave., CN
Vacant Lot H NW
Roanoke, VA 24012
3280503 D~c. kJ~on, Paul W & 621 Drew Ave.. NE RM-1
621 Drew Ave. NE Minnie G Roanoke, VA 24012
3280504 Abbott, Randolph P 6735 Jasmine Circle RM-1
631 Drew Ave. NE Roanoke, VA 24019
'~2Rn~")5 Crockett, Thomas B 701 Drew Ave., NE RM-1
701 Drew Ave. NE Roanoke, VA 24012
3280506 ~ Kingery, Walter P Rt 6, Box 1750 RM-1
709 Drew Ave. NE Rocky Mount, VA
24151
3181132 Smith, Jack D & Joyce M 623 Huntington Blvd., ~CN
623 Huntington Blvd. NE
NE Roanoke, VA 24012
3181133 Jeffrey, Gwen M 629 Huntington Blvd., CN
629 Huntington Blvd. NE
NE Roanoke, VA 24012
The Roanoke Times
Roanoke, Virginia
Affidavit of Publication
Roanoke.com
.................................................. + ...........................
DANIEL F. LAYMAN, JR
P. O. BOX 14125
ROANOKE VA 24038
REFERENCE: 80038338
02295760
State of Virginia
City of Roanoke
Huntington Blvd.
I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative
of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation
is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily
newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of
Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was
published in said newspapers on the following
dates:
City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of
Vi~i~!a. Sworn and subscribed before me this
__~_~__;_day of February 2004. Witness my hand and
official seal. ~ ,
~--~---'__~__ ~Notary Public y ommisslon expires ~_~_~/_~___.
PUBLISHED ON: 01/30 02/06
TOTAL COST: 0.00
FILED ON: 02/11/04
Authorized ~
S ignature:_~__~.__~~~_____, Billing Services Representative
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Pursuant to the provisions of Article VII of Chapter 36.1, Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, the Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a Public Hearing on
February 17, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber in the Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., on the question of rezoning from CN, Neighborhood
Commercial District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain proffered
conditions, the following property:
That tract of land located at 622 Huntington Boulevard, N.E., containing 1.630
acres, more or less, and further identified as Official Tax No. 3280102.
A copy of this proposal is available for public inspection in the Office of the City
Clerk, Room 456, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. All parties in interest may appear on
the above date and be heard on the question.
If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this public
hearing, contact the City Clerk's Office, 853-2541, by Thursday, February 12, 2004.
GIVEN under my hand this 2 7th day of January , 2004.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
N-R ezo-LSW-H MW[H unlington]021704.doc
Notice to Publisher:
Publish in the Roanoke Times once on Friday, January 30, 2003, and once on Friday, February 6, 2004.
Send affidavit to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541
Send bill to:
Daniel F. Layman, Esquire
Woods, Rogers, PLC
P. O. Box 14125
Roanoke, Virginia 24038-4125
(540) 983-7653
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clcrk@ci.roanoke.va.us
Januaw 27,2004
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
File #51
Daniel F. Layman, Jr., Attorney
Woods, Rogers, PLC
P. O. Box 14125
Roanoke, Virginia 24038-4125
Dear Mr. Layman:
Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, I have advertised a public hearing for Tuesday,
February 17, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the
City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue,
S. W., City of Roanoke, on the request of LSW HMW Family Limited Partnership that a
tract of land located at 622 Huntington Boulevard, N. E., containing 1.630 acre, more or
less, identified as Official Tax No. 3280102, be rezoned from CN, Neighborhood
Commercial District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain conditions
proffered by the petitioner.
For your information, I am enclosing copy of a report of the City Planning Commission and
a notice of the public hearing. Please review the documents and if you have questions,
you may contact Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney, at 540-853~2431. Questions
with regard to the City Planning Commission report should be directed to the Department
of Planning, Building and Development at 540-853-1730.
N:\CKEWI\PUBLIC HEARINGS 2004\FEBRUARY 04\FEBRUARY 17 A]-i'ORNEY AND ADJOINING PROPETY OWNERS
LETTERS.DOC
Daniel F. Layman, Jr.
January 27, 2004
Page 2
It will be necessary for you, or your representative, to be present at the February 17
public hearing. Failure to appear could result in a deferral of the matter until a later
date.
MFP:sm
Enclosure
Mary F. er, CMC
City Clerk
N:\CKEW1LPUBLIC HEARINGS 2004\FEBRUARY 04\FEBRUARY 17 A'CrORNEY AND ADJOINING PROPETY OWNERS
LETTERS.DOC
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOICE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@ci.roanoke.va.us
Januaw 27,2003
File #51
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Mr. and Mrs. Jack Smith
American Electric Power
Mr. and Mrs, Fred Attalla
Mr. Randolph Abbott
Mr. Walter P. Kingery, Jr.
Ms. Gwen M. Jeffrey
Whiting Oil Company
Mr. and Mrs. Paul Dickinson
Mr. Thomas B. Crockett
Mr. Fredrick Williams
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, I have advertised a public hearing for Tuesday,
February 17, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the
City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue,
S. W., City of Roanoke, on the request of LSW HMW Family Limited Partnership that a
tract of land located at 622 Huntington Boulevard, N. E., containing 1.630 acre, more or
less, identified as Official Tax No. 3280102, be rezoned from CN, Neighborhood
Commercial District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain conditions
proffered by the petitioner.
The City Planning Commission is recommending that Council approve the request for
rezoning. If you would like to receive a copy of the report of the City Planning Commission,
please call the City Clerk's Office at 540-853-2541.
N:\CKEW'i~PUBLIC HEARINGS 2004\FEBRUARY 04~FEBRUARY 17 ATTORNEY AND ADJOINING PROPETY OWNERS
LETTERS.DOC
Interested Property Owners and/orAdjoining ProPerty Owners
Januaw 27,2004
Page 2
This letter is provided for your information as an interested property owner and/or adjoining
property owner. If you have questions with regard to the matter, please Call the
Department of Planning, Building and Development at 540-853-1730.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:sm
N:\CKEWI\PUBLIC HEARINGS 2004\FEBRUARY 04~FEBRUARY 17 A~-FORNEY AND ADJOINING PROPETY OWNERS
LE%rERS.DOC
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1.536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk~cL roanok¢.va.us
Januaw 27,2004
File #51
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Robert B. Marietta, Chair
City Planning Commission
2831 Stephenson Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Manetta:
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I
am enclosing copy of a second amended petition which was received in the City Clerk's
Office on January 22, 2004, from Daniel F. Layman, Jr., Attorney, representing LSW HMW
Family Limited Partnership, requesting that a tract of land located at 622 Huntington
Boulevard, N. E., identified as Official Tax No. 3280102, be rezoned from CN,
Neighborhood Commercial District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain
conditions proffered by the petitioner.
Sincerely, ~
', CMC
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enclosure
Robed B. Manetta
January 27,2004
Page 2
pc;
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Daniel F. Layman, Jr., Attorney, Woods, Rogers, PLC, P. O. Box 14125, Roanoke,
Virginia 24038-4125
Dadene L. Burcham, City Manager
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
N:\CKEWl\Rezonings - Street Alley Closings 0$\rezonings 03\december 03\rezoning Huntington ¢ourt.amendmenl
VIRGINIA:
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
Rezoning of a Tract of Land )
Known as 622 Huntington Blvd, )
NE, bearing City of Roanoke )
Official Tax No. 3280102, from )
CN, Neighborhood Commercial )
District, to LM, Light Manu- )
facturing District
SECOND
AMENDED PETITION
OF LSW-HMW FAMILY
LIM1TED PARTNERSHIP
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE:
(1) Petitioner LSW-HMW Family Limited Partnership is the owner of a tract of land in the City of
Roanoke located on the north side of Huntington Blvd, NE, near its intersection with Plantation Road,
NE, containing approximately 1.63 acres, bearing City of Roanoke Official Tax No. 3280102 and known
as 622 Huntington Blvd, NE. A portion of City Appraisal Map Number 328 showing this parcel is
attached to this petition as Exhibit A.
(2) This lot is presently zoned CN, Neighborhood Commercial District. However, it had been used
for light manufacturing purposes as a legal nonconforming use until September 2003, when that status
expired because the building had been vacant for two years.
(3) Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, petitioner
requests that the above-deseribed parcel be rezoned from CN, Neighborhood Commercial District, to
LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph (6) below.
(4) Since November 1970, when the existing 14,300 square foot industrial building was constructed
by Progress Printing Company, this lot has been used successively as a printing plant, a film processing
facility, and an industrial equipment repair and parts warehouse. It is located immediately adjacent to
railroad tracks and a large electrical energy substation, and just behind retail commercial properties along
Plantation Road, NE.
RKE# 0845368.WPD-1, 094353-00010~)1
(5) Petitioner believes the property is not conducive to neighborhood commercial use because it is
larger than the typical CN uses in the area, does not front on a major commercial street (and indeed is
somewhat isolated by topography from customer traffic and the adjoining highway commercial uses), and
lies outside of any major commemial district. It is improved with an industrial building, has been used in
that manner for over 30 years, and is so dominated by the adjoining substation that its appeal for any
other purpose is extremely limited. Petitioner therefore believes that the requested zoning change will
afford an opportunity for use of this lot in a manner more consistent with its highest and best use. A site
plan showing the configuration of the property and improvements is attached to this petition as Exhibit B.
(6) Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if this property is rezoned as requested, the rezoning
will be subject to, and petitioner will abide by, the following conditions:
(a) The property will be used only for one or more of the following permitted LM uses (all
other LM uses permitted by the ordinance being prohibited as a result of this condition):
(i) Trade and vocational schools of an industrial nature.
(ii) Day care centers with unlimited capacity subject to the requirements of
Section 36.1-510 et seq.
(iii) Laboratories and testing facilities not accessory to a specific use, including
photographic laboratories, industrial testing facilities and similar uses.
(iv) General storage and warehousing establishments engaged in the storage of
miscellaneous merchandise not for sale on the same premises.
(v) Manufacturing establishments primarily engaged in the manufacture,
assembly, mixing, processing or other processes related to the creation of
new products and including as an accessory use the retail sale of goods
manufactured on the premises, where all such manufacturing, assembly,
mixing, processing or other processes related to the creation of new
RKE# 0845368,WPD-1,094353-00010.01 2
products, and retail sales of goods manufactured on the premises, are
wholly enclosed in the building.
(vi) General service establishments, excluding the repair or maintenance of motor
vehicles and trailers.
(v/i) Commercial printing establishments which print newspapers, publications,
and other materials.
(b) There shall be no outdoor storage on the property.
(7) Attached to this petition as Exhibit C is a list of the names and addresses of the owners of all lots
immediately adjacent to or across a street from the property to be rezoned, together with the Official Tax
Number of each lot.
WHEREFORE, petitioner requests that the parcel bearing City of Roanoke Official Tax No.
3280102 be rezoned from CN to LM, with conditions, in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Roanoke.
Respectfully submitted by petitioner this /e~ day of January, 2004.
Daniel F. Layman, Jr. ~ -
Woods Rogers PLC
P. O. Box 14125
Roanoke, VA 24038-4125
(703) 983-7653
LSW-HMW FAMILY LIM1TED PAI~X~RSHIP
General Parther' - ~!
Of Counsel for the Petitioner
RKE# 0845368 WPD.ff, 094353-00010-01 ~
I
$0
0 4,6'
POLE
N/F r
1.6.30 ACRES
N/F
INCORPORA~'~O ~
~.,
CON(
POLE
t STORY
METAL
BLDG.
225' :~ TO P.I. UTIL a-
----PLANTATION ROAD POLE wRAOLC~--SBg'4'¢'~O"W 205.g3' UTIL.
' ~' POLE
HUNTINGTON BOULEVARD
(~' R/w)
NOTES:
1. OWNERS Of RECORD: HARRIET M. WALDROP
2. LEGAL REFERENCE OEE0 BOOK 1496, PAGE 1702
3. TAX MAP NUMBER: 3280102
No. 002002
PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT SURVEY FOR
LUKE WALDROP
6.22 HUNTINGTON BOULEVARD
1.630 ACRES
DEED BOOK 1496. PAGE 1702
CITY OF ROANOKF~ VIRGINIA
SURVEYED 06-28-99
EXHIBIT C
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
RFZONING PETITION
622 HUNTINGTON BLVD.
TAX MAP #: 3280102
Official Tax NoJ Name of Property Mailing Address Zoning
Street Address Owner
3280103 Appalachian Power P.O. Box 2021 LM
Substation Company Roanoke, VA 24022
3280105 Whi6ng Oil Company P.O. Box 13026 CN
3609 Plantation Rd. Roanoke, VA 24030
NE .,
3280106 Attalla, Thelma M & Fred 3652 Sunrise Ave., CN
Vacant Lot H NW
Roanoke, VA 24012
3'2_80503 Di~,,~o., Paul W & 621 Drew Ave., NE RM-1
621 Drew Ave. NE Minnie G Roanoke~ VA 24012
3280504 Abbott, Randolph P 6735 Jasmine Circle RM-1
631 DrewAve. NE Roanoke, VA 24019
3280505 Crc-cJ,e[i, Thomas B 701 Drew Ave., NE RM-1
701 Drew Ave. NE Roanoke, VA 24012
3280506 - K]ngery, Walter P Rt 6, Box 1750 RM-1
709 Drew Ave. NE Rocky Mount, VA
24151
3181132 Smith, Jack D & Joyce M 623 Huntington Blvd., -CN
623 Huntington Blvd. NE
NE Roanoke, VA 24012
3181133 Jeffi'ey, Gwen M 629 Huntington Blvd., CN
629 Huntington Blvd. NE
NE Roanoke, VA 24012
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fox: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerkl~ci.roanokc.vo, us
January 9,2004
File #51
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SIIEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Robert B. ManeEa, Chair
City Planning Commission
2831S~phenson Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Manetta:
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I
am enclosing copy of an amended petition which was received in the City Clerk's Office on
January 7, 2004, from Daniel F. Layman, Jr., Attorney, representing LSW HMW Family
Limited Partnership, requesting that a tract of land located at 622 Huntington Boulevard, N.
E., identified as Official Tax No. 3280102, be rezoned from CN, Neighborhood Commercial
District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the
petitioner.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enclosure
Robe~ B. Manetta
January 9,2004
Page 2
pc~
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Daniel F. Layman, Jr., Attorney, Woods, Rogers, PLC, P. O. Box 14125, Roanoke,
Virginia 24038-4125
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
N:\CKEWILRezonings - Street AlleyCIosings 03\rea~nings 03\december 03\remning Huntington court.amendment
VIRGINIA:
1N THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
In Fel
Rezoning of a Tract of Land )
Known as 622 Huntington Blvd, )
NE, bearing City of Roanoke )
Official Tax No. 3280102, from )
CN, Neighborhood Commercial )
District, to LM, Light Manu- )
facturing District
AMENDED PETITION
OF LSW-HMW FAMILY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNC1L OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE:
(1) Petitioner LSW-HMW Family Limited Parmership is the owner of a tract of land in the City of
Roanoke located on the north side of Huntington Blvd, NE, near its intersection with Plantation Road,
NE, containing approximately 1.63 acres, bearing City of Roanoke Official Tax No. 3280102 and known
as 622 Huntington Blvd, NE. A portion of City Appraisal Map Number 328 showing this parcel is
attached to this petition as Exhibit A.
(2) This lot is presently zoned CN, Neighborhood Commercial District. However, it had been used
for light manufacturing purposes as a legal nonconforming use until September 2003, when that status
expired because the building had been vacant for two years.
(3) Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, petitioner
requests that the above-described parcel be rezoned from CN, Neighborhood Commercial District, to
LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph (6) below.
(4) Since November 1970, when the existing 14,300 square foot industrial building was constructed
by Progress Printing Company, this lot has been used successively as a printing plant, a film processing
facility, and an industrial equipment repair and parts warehouse. It is located immediately adjacent to
railroad tracks and a large electrical energy substation, and just behind retail commercial properties along
Plantation Road, NE.
RKE# 0845368 WPD-1,094353~0010-01
(5) Petitioner believes the property is not conducive to neighborhood commercial use because it is
larger than the typical CN uses in the area, does not front on a major commercial street (and indeed is
somewhat isolated by topography from customer traffic and the adjoining highway commercial uses), and
lies outside of any major commercial district. It is improved with an industrial building, has been used in
that manner for over 30 years, and is so dominated by the adjoining substation that its appeal for any
other purpose is extremely limited. Petitioner therefore believes that the requested zoning change will
afford an opportunity for use of this lot in a manner more consistent with its highest and best use. A site
plan showing the configuration of the property and improvements is attached to this petition as Exhibit B.
(6) Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if this property is rezoned as requested, the rezoning
will be subject to, and petitioner will abide by, the following conditions:
(a) The property will be used only for one or more of the following permitted LM uses (all
other LM uses permitted by the ordinance being prohibited as a result of this condition):
(i) Trade and vocational schools of an industrial nature.
(ii) Day care centers with unlimited capacity subject to the requirements of
Section 36.1-510 et seq.
(iii) Laboratories and testing facilities not accessory to a specific use, including
photographic laboratories, industrial testing facilities and similar uses.
(iv) General storage and warehousing establishments engaged in the storage of
miscellaneous merchandise not for sale on the same premises.
(v) Mini-warehouses.
(vi) Manufacturing establishments primarily engaged in the manufacture,
assembly, mixing, processing or other processes related to the creation of
new products and including as an accessory use the retail sale of goods
manufactured on the premises, where all such manufacturing, assembly,
RKE# 0845368.WPD-1,094353-00010-01 2
mixing, processing or other processes related to the creation of new
products, and retail saIes of goods manufactured on the premises, are
wholly enclosed in the building.
(vii) General service establishments, excluding the repair or maintenance of motor
vehicles and trailers.
(viii) Commercial printing establishments which print newspapers, publications,
and other materials.
(b) There shall be no outdoor storage on the property.
(7) Attached to this petition as Exhibit C is a list of the names and addresses of the owners of all lots
immediately adjacent to or across a street from the property to be rezoned, together with the Official Tax
Number of each lot.
WHEREFORE, petitioner requests that the parcel bearing City of Roanoke Official Tax No.
3280102 be rezoned from CN to LM, with conditions, in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Roanoke.
Respectfully submitted by petitioner this 5'-/t, day of January, 2004.
LSW-HMW FAMILY LIMITED PARTNF~RSHIP
D~jr.~ / ~
Woods Rogers PLC
P. O. Box 14125
Roanoke, VA 24038-4125
(703) 983-7653
Of Counsel for the Petitioner
RKE# 084§365 WF~D.1, 094353-00010-01 ~3
I
LOT 3 LOT 4
N/F
v, cro,~ A~ALLA1 .630
0 50 100
cc lc~ 1 - 5)0'
tSO
ACRES
UTIL
POLE
z
0
N./F
POLE
1 STORY
METAL
BLDG.
GRAVEL
PC
~ N/F
225' ~ TO R.I. UTIL. ROCK , ,,
----PLANTATION ROAD POLE WALL --S89"4¢ 30 W 205.93' UTIL.
' " POLE
HUNTINGTON BOULEVARD
(*o' R/w)
NOTES:
1. OWNERS OF RECORD: HARRIET M. WALDROP
2. LEGAL REFERENCE DEED BOOK 1496, PAGE 1702
3. TAX MAP NUMBER: 5280102
PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT SURVEY FOR
LUKE WALDROP
622 HUNTINGTON BOULEVARD
1.6.30 ACRES
DEED BOOK 1496. PAGE 1702
CiTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
SURVE'r'ED 06-26-99
EXHIBIT C
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
REZONING PETITION
622 HUNTINGTON BLVD.
TAX MAP #: 3280102
Official Tax No./ Name of Property Mailing Address Zoning
Street Address Owner
3280103 Appalachian Power P,O. Box 2021 LM
Substation Company Roanoke, VA 24022
3280105 Whiting Oil Company P.O. Box 13026 CN
3609 Plantation Rd. Roanoke, VA 24030
3280106 Attalla, Thelma M 8, Fred 3652 Sunrise Ave., CN
Vacant Lot H NW
Roanoke, VA 24012
~z~uou3 Dickinson, Paul W & 621 Drew Ave., NE RM-1
621 Drew Ave. NE Minnie G Roanoke, VA 24012
328~)504 Abbolt, Randolph P 6735 Jasmine Circle RM-1
631 Drew Ave. NE Roanoke, VA 24019
3280505 Crockett, Thomas B 701 Drew Ave., NE RM-1
701 Drew Ave. NE Roanoke, VA 24012
3280506 K~ngery, Walter P Rt 6, Box 1750 RM-1
709 Drew Ave. NE Rocky Mount, VA
24151
3181132 Smib~, Jack D & Joyce M 623 Huntington Blvd., CN
623 Huntington Blvd. NE
NE Roanoke, VA 24012
3181133 Jeffrey, Gwen M 629 Huntington Blvd., CN
629 Hun~ngton Blvd. NE
NE Roanoke, VA 24012
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF ROANOKE PLANNING
COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on
Thursday, January 15, 2004, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the matter may be
heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., to consider the following:
Request from LSW HMW Family Limited Partnership, represented by
Louis S. Waldrop, General Partner, that property located at 622
Huntington Boulevard, N.E., Official Tax No. 3280102, be rezoned, from
CN, Neighborhood Commercial District, to LM, Light Manufacturing
District.
A copy of the application is available for review in the Department of
Planning Building and Development, Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building.
All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be
heard on the matter. If you are a person who needs accommodations for this
hearing, please contact the Department of Planning Building and Development at
853-1730 before 12:00 noon on the Monday before the date of the hearing listed
above.
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary
City of Roanoke Planning Commission
Please print in newspaper on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 and January 6, 2004
Please charge credit card and send affidavit of publication to:
Martha P. Franklin, Department of Planning Building & Development
Room 166, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 853-1730
TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
PERTAINING TO THE REZONING REQUEST OF:
LSW HMW Family Limited Partnership at 622 Huntington )
Blvd., Official Tax No. 3280102 from CN to LM ) AFFIDAVIT
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) TO-WIT:
CITY OF RQANOKE )
The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that she is 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 Section 15.2-2204, 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
15th day of December, 2003, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 15~h day of
January, 2004, on the rezoning captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels
listed below at their last known address:
Parcel Owner's Name
3181132 Jack and Joyce Smith
3181133 Gwen M. Jeffrey
3280103 AEP
3280105 Whiting Oil Company
3280106 Thelma and Fred Attalla
3280503 Paul and Minnie Dickinson
3280504 Randolph Abbott
3280505 Thomas B. Crockett
3280506 Walter P. Kingery, Jr.
Notice Also Mailed to: Rick Williams, Doug Trout and David
Road Action Forum
Martha Paco Franklin
Mailing Address
623 Huntington Blvd, NE
Roanoke, VA 24012
629 Huntington Blvd, NE
Roanoke, VA 24012
P O Box 2021
Roanoke, VA 24022
P O Box 13026
Roanoke, VA24030
3652 Sunrise Avenue, NW
Roanoke, VA 24012
621 Drew Avenue, NE
Roanoke, VA 24012
6735 Jasmine Circle
Roanoke, VA 24019
701 Drew Avenue, NE
Roanoke, VA 24012
Route 6, Box 1750
Rocky Mount, VA 24151
Wood of the Williamson
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, this 15th day of December, 2003.
Notary Public - /-
My Commission Expires:
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: ($40) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@¢i.roanoke.va.us
December 5, 2003
File #51
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Robert B. Manetta, Chair
City Planning Commission
2831 Stephenson Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Manetta:
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I
am enclosing copy of a petition received in the City Clerk's Office on December 5, 2003,
from Louis S. Waldrop, General Partner, LSW HMW Family Limited Partnership,
requesting that property located at 622 Huntington Boulevard, N. E., identified as Official
Tax No. 3280102, be rezoned from CN, Neighborhood Commercial District, to LM, Light
Manufacturing District.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon --
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Enclosure
Robert B. ManeEa
December5,2003
Page 2
pc:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Louis S. Waldrop, General Partner, LSW HMW Family Limited Partnership,
249 Taylor Avenue, Salem, Virginia 24153
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Susan S. Lower, Acting Director, Real Estate Valuation
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
PETITION TO REZONE
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE:
The PeE[ioner, LSW HMW Family Limited Partnership, owns the land legally
identified as Part Lot 22, Block 9, Huntington Court in the City of
Roanoke containing 1.630 acres more or less, improved with an existing 14,300 +/-
square foot p~ cngioaered steel structure, being commonly known as 622 Huntington
Boulevard, NE and being further identified by City of Roanoke Tax Map Number
3280102. A location map identified as Exhibit A and a site plan identffied as Exhibit B are
attached.
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690 Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
the Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned from CN; Neighborhood
Commercial District to LM; Light Manufacturing District to allow continued use of the
propan'y under a light manufacturing use consistent with a Certificate of Occupancy and
Special Use Permit issued in November, 1970, which expired September, 2003.
The said property was improved with the existing structure by Progress Press
Printing Company for which a Certificate of Occupancy was issued on November, 1970
for a "commercial printing asta=~mant'. The property was pu=ase by principals of
LSW HMW Family Limited Partnership and subsequently leased to Col~-~-alt
Corporation as a film processing facility in April, 1984 for which a Certificate of
Occupancy was issued. In May, 1987 the current zoning ordinance was adopted and
City or Roanoke · ·
Business L~cense Department records reflect that Colorcraft was
identified by the City of Roanoke as a 'legal, nonconforming use.' The propan~ was
leased to McGraw Group, an industrial equipment repair and parts supply in January,
i~e.p wu. K~eflm~ecI as a legal, nonconforming use. Ti~ prc)party la currently for
im___T._h~_ ~etitid. nar%.re~.uast the_.?zoning based on the contention that the property
as pr~;~veo ts noc conouove to a c.;m user as it larger than typical CN usam in the area,
the Pr°party doas not from on a major commercial street and it is outside of a major
commercial d~. The Petitioner further contends that e LM zoning would be
consistent with the historic use of the property exceeding 30 yoam, that LM zoning is
~c~_ .,_l~_..'_b? ~ the.a~l..joining LM zoning of the Appalachian Power Company and that
~a~S~ln or me =sting improvements would meet the highest and best use with an LM
Attached as F_x~ibit C are the names, addresses and tax map numbers of the
owners of all property immediately adjacent to and immediately across the street from
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned as
requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Roanoke from CN; Neighborhood Commercial District to LM; Light Manufacturing
District.
Respectfully submitted this ~ day December, 2003:
LSW HMW Family Limited Partnership
249 Taylor Avenue
Salem, VA 24153
Cell phone: 537-2124
Office: 389-8101
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOIx'F
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: ¢lerk~ci.roanoke.va.us
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
February 19, 2004
File #165-424
Robe~ B. Mane~a, Chair
City Planning Commission
2831Stephenson Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Vi~inia 24014
Dear Mr. Manetta:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 36626-021704 approving the Gilmer Neighborhood
Plan, and amending Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the
Gilmer Neighborhood Plan.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2004, and is in full force and
effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Enclosure
Robert B. Manet[a, Chair
February 19, 2003
Page 2
pc:
James Lesniak, Executive Director, Northwest Neighborhood Environmental
Organization, 802 Loudon Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day o£ February, 2004.
No. 36626-021704.
AN ORDINANCE approving the Gilmer Neighborhood Plan, and amending Vision
2001 - 2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Gilmer Neighborhood Plan; and
dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title.
WHEREAS, the Gilmer Neighborhood Plan (the "Plan") was presented to the
Planning Commission;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 15, 2004, and
recommended adoption of the Plan and amending Vision 2001 - 2020, the City's
Comprehensive Plan (the "Comprehensive Plan"), to include such Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of {}15.2-2204, Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, a public hearing was held before this Council on Tuesday, February 17,
2004, on the proposed Plan, at which hearing all citizens so desiring were given an
opportunity to be heard and to present their views on such amendment.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. That this Council hereby approves the Gilmer Neighborhood Plan and amends
Vision 2001- 2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Gilmer Neighborhood Plan
as an element thereof.
2. That the City Clerk is directed to forthwith ~'ansmit attested copies of this
ordinance to the City Planning Commission.
3. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading
of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Architectural Review Board
Board of Zonin~ Appeals
Plannin~ Commission
CITY OF ROANOKE
PLANNING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 166
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 I
Telephone: (540) 853-1730 Fax: (540) 853-1230
E-mail: plan ning~ci.roanoke, va.us
February 17, 2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Adoption of the Gilmer Neighborhood Plan as a component
of Vision 2001-2020.
Planning Commission Action:
Public hearing was held on Thursday, January 15, 2004. By a vote of 6-0 (Mr.
Rife absent), the Commission recommended City Council adopt the Gilmer
Neighborhood Plan as a component of Vision 2001-2020, the City's
comprehensive plan.
Background:
The Gilmer neighborhood is located northwest of downtown. It is bounded by 5th
Street, Moorman Road, 10th Street, and the Norfolk Southern rail line. Since the
early 1980s, the neighborhood has enjoyed strong advocacy and revitalization
activity led by the Northwest Neighborhood Environmental Organization (NNEO).
Work on the Gilmer Neighborhood Plan began in early 2000. The plan was
commissioned by NNEO with grant funding from the City of Roanoke. Hill
Studio, P.C. was hired to develop the plan. Citizens were involved through a
series of workshops and through a neighborhood survey. The preliminary draft
of the plan was presented to the public in summer 2000.
Considerations:
City planning staff worked with Hill Studio throughout the planning process to
ensure consistency with Vision 2001-2020 and a consistent policy/action format.
The Planning Commission's Long-Range Planning Committee reviewed the plan
on December 2, 2003, and provided comments and suggestions for
improvement. Hill Studio subsequently revised the plan in response to
Commissioners' comments.
Through the planning process, seven major issues were identified: · Preserving neighborhood character
· Neighborhood appearance
· Providing jobs, goods, and services in the neighborhood
· Providing community facilities
· Industrial encroachment
· Numerous vacant lots
· Safety
In response to these issues, priority recommendations include:
· Implementing the Neighborhood Design District throughout the
neighborhood. The plan also provides architectural guidelines that can
supplement NDD regulations.
· Developing and beatifying neighborhood gateways
· Providing for neighborhood commercial development
· Developing community centers and parks
· Implementing a future land use plan (and corresponding zoning patterns)
to reduce industrial-residential conflicts.
· Continue development of appropriately designed infill housing
· Implementing crime prevention activities
Recommendation:
By a vote of 6-0, the Commission recommends that City Council adopt the
Gilmer Neighborhood Plan as a component of Vision 2001-2020, the City's
comprehensive plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert B. Manetta, Chairman
City Planning Commission
Attachment
cc: Darlene L. Burcham City Manager
Rolanda Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
This 15h day of January, 2004
A RESOLUTION recommending the adoption of the Gilmer Neighborhood Plan
as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS, a series of community workshops were held in the Gilmer
neighborhood to gain input into the plan;
WHEREAS, the draft plan has been reviewed by the neighborhood, city staff, and
the Long Range Planning Committee of the City of Roanoke Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Gilmer Neighborhood Plan has been advertised in accordance
with Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and pursuant to
that notice, a public hearing was held on January 15, 2004, at which all persons having
an interest in the matter were given a chance to be heard.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke that it
recommends to City Council that the Gilmer Neighborhood Plan, dated January 15,
2004, be adopted as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and that by
signature of its Chairman below, the Planning Commission hereby certifies the attached
copy of the neighborhood plan to City Council.
ATTEST:
Chairman
GILMF'R NEIGHBORHOOD
PL.MN
JANUARY 15, 2004
HILL STUDIO, P.C.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1:
Chapter 2:
Chapter 3:
Chapter 4:
Chapter 5:
Chapter 6:
Chapter 7:
Chapter 8:
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Introduction
NNEO History
Process
Existing Conditions Inventory
Summary of Survey Findings and Goals
Final Concept Plan
Land Development Policies and Actions
Landscape and Architectural Guidelines
Survey Findings
Architectural Prototype Catalog
Neighborhood Work Plan
Documents Used During NNEO Review
Plant Palette
3
4
7
10
24
28
39
42
66
7O
73
81
E1
Table of Figures
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Neighborhood Context
Land Use and Vacant Land
Building Conditions
Cultural Resources
NNEO Ownership
Final Concept Plan
Future Land Use Map
Existing Land Use Map
19
20
21
22
23
29
3O
31
Acknowledgements
This project is the result of a concerted team effort. The team consisted of residents of the Gilmer
Neighborhood, the Organization staff, staff of the City of Roanoke, local business owners, and
Susheela Shende of Development Initiatives, Inc. The project team from Hill Studio consisted off
Mary Zirkle
Donald C. Harwood
Todd Setliff
Suzanne Chance
B.T. Fitzpatrick III
Sherry Barrett (Intern)
David Hill, ASLA
Arthur A. Bartenstein
Michael LaRoche
J.D. Ho
Janel Wilcox
Peter Giraudeau
The NNEO neighborhood plan would not have been possible without the dedication shown by all
members involved. The vision of residents, Susheela Shende (former executive director of NNEO)
and James Lesniak (current executive director NNEO) were guiding forces in the creation of this
plan. It is the hope of the proiect managers that this plan be something that Roanoke City Council
will adopt as a shared vision of residents, NNEO, and the City.
Hill Studio would like to credit Horticopia for the photographs of plant specimens in Appendix E.
Ail other photographs were taken by Hill Studio or by NNEO.
Cba~ote~ 1: Iat~oductioo
The Gilmer neighborhood is a thriving community with historic African-American roots. In order
to preserve the community integrity, residents banded together to reclaim their neighborhood when -
it began to decline in past years. A product of this renewed community spkit was the creation of the
Northwest Neighborhood Environmental Organization, which was charged with undertaking
neighborhood revitalization.
Ms. Florine Thornt~i
The Northwest Neighborhood Environmental Organization (NNEO) has a vision for the Gilmer
neighborhood. This vision was originally held by Ms. Florine Thornhill and a group of her
dedicated neighbors whose grassroots effort to save their neighborhood has since grown into a non-
profit organization staffed by three employees and overseen by a board of directors composed of 21
residents of the Gilmer and surrounding neighborhoods. The mission of NNEO is a simple one:
Our vision for the future is a community that is safe, attractive, and well-kept; that has a mixture of
old historic houses that have been preserved and new houses that are compatible with the old; and
has well-maintained public spaces such as parks, streets and sidewalks.
NNEO has been used throughout Roanoke City as a model of how to rehabilitate a neigbborhood.
This Neighborhood Master Plan is one step in the ongoing effort to prepare for the future by
planning in the present.
Work on the Northwest Neighborhood Environmental Organization Master Plan began in May of
2000 under the direction of Susheela Shende, former Executive Director of NNEO, and James
Lesnlak, current Executive Director. NNEO contracted Hill Studio to collaborate on the new
neighborhood master Plan. Hi/1 Studio, P.C. has been involved with NNEO since 1992 through the
architectural design of Donald C. Harwood, AIA, who began work with the organization in 1982
when he was with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Mr. Harwood's designs
have proven to be sensitive to the historic fabric of the neighborhood, yet they also meet the
practical needs of today's residents.
This master plan follows the 1997 Action Plan, which delineated numerous goals, assigned a ranking
of priority (high-low) for meeting goals and estimated a timeline for completing their goals. This
plan is intended to continue 1981 and 1997 planning efforts done by the neighborhood and the
Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership.
3
C]~a~oter 2: l~rl~r~o Histo~
The Northwest Neighborhood Environmental Organization (NNEO) was founded in 1980 by
residents of Roanoke's Gilmer neighborhood to address serious community problems, including .
deteriorated housing, neglected and vacant properties, crime, and inadequate public services and
facilities. Today, because of the vision and hard work of neighborhood volunteers and strong
partnerships with city government, local banks, and other funding sources, NNEO has helped
transform the neighborhood into a much safer, healthier community with many ne~v and
rehabilitated homes, new residents, and new hope for the future. In the process, the organization
and its founder, Florine Thomhill, have been recogrdzed at the local, state, and national levels as
models for neighborhood development and leadership. Awards presented to NNEO include:
2001 Honorable Mention for Virginia Neighborhood of the Year Award from the Virginia Chapter
of Neighborhoods USA
2000 Barbara Dowdy Award for Neighborhood improvement from Roanoke Neighborhood
Partnership
1999 Susheela Shende (former Executive Director of NNEO) was awarded the Small Business
Person of the year award from Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce
1994 Presidential Volunteer Action Award (Mrs. Thomhill)
1992 Governor's Housing Award
1990 Citizen of the Year Award (City of Roanoke) (Mrs. Thornhill)
1984 Neighborhood of the Year Award from Neighborhoods USA
Many of NNEO's projects include restoration and rehabilitation of run-down or abandoned homes
in the neighborhood.
1011 Fairfax Avenue Before After
901 Loudon Avenue Before After
NNEO has also been involved in new construction of single-family and mult/fam21y homes, and the
recently completed McCray Court senior living center.
NNEO's primary source of funding has been local, state, and national grants. Since the formation
of the organization, NNEO has received the following grants, many of them multiple times:
Hollins University volunteers at
Thornhill Place
Hollins University volunteers working
in the neighborhood
· Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Neighborhood
Development Grant
· Roanoke City Community Development Block Grant Funds
and ~hni-grants
· Roanoke City HOME Funds
· Presbyterian Church USA Grant
· Allstate Foundation Grant
· HUD -John Heinz Neighborhood Development Grant
· Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development CHDO Predevelopment Loan Funds
· Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
· Vh:ginia Housing Partnership Funds
· Virginia Foundation for Housing Preservation Funds
· Commonwealth of Virginia Community Development
Corporation Predevelopment Loan
· Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development Predevelopment Loan
· Federal Home Loan Bank EDGE Funds
· Commonwealth of Virginia Housing Fund Loan
· Commonwealth of Virginia Home Funds
· United Way Venture Grant
Development Training Institute Grant
· Bank of America Funds
· CHDO Development Support
· Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program
Funds
· Caril/on Commun/ty Health Fund Grant
· Foundation of the Roanoke Valley Grants
With these funds, NNEO has undertaken many positive activities in the neighborhood including:
Purchasing vacant lots
Restoring vacant and dilapidated houses
Constructing new housing
Organizing neighborhood dean-ups and beautification
projects
Improving vacant lots by clearing them up and
maintaining them
Installing street lighting
Improving Loudon Park
Improving sidewalks
Repairing homes of elderly homeowners
Lead abatement in several homes
Construction of a retirement community
Grand Opening of Thornhill Place
Thomhill Place, Before
Since 1983 · 20 affordable rental units
· 22 affordable single-family units
· 2 market-rate rental units
Current projects include: · 68 affordable rental units
· McCray Court Senior Living
Community Service Building
· 7 affordable single-farnily units
Upcoming projects:
· A Fifth Street Gateway Complex,
which will include universally
accessible housing, community
ser~tces, and retail space
· Creating a Community Arts
Exhibit and studio space
· Community garden
Thornhill Place, After
All of NNEO's work has been done with careful attention to detail and quality so that the original
character of the community has been restored and strengthened. For example, new houses are two
stories and have front porches just like the older homes. Renovations also maintain the character of
the house while keeping the rental or purchase prices very affordable to low-to-moderate income
residents. NNEO sees this as "putting love into each house...so that the neighborhood can be
proud and the family who moves in has a real chance for a new, good life.., no matter how much or
how litfle money they have." The Community Garden will also enhance the lifestyles of
neighborhood residents providing them with a place to grow and share fresh produce within the
Chapte~ 3: Process
The process of developing the Gilmer Neighborhood Plan began with a meeting with Ms. Shende
and Mr. Lesniak. Goals were outlined at that time for devdoping a neighborhood plan that would .
increase resident involvement, include fundable initiatives, and be flexible to updates. It was decided
that the plan should contain elements that the city can enforce through zoning, and that NNEO can
implement through design guidelines. It was determLned that NNEO would submit the plan to the
City of Roanoke which would adopt the plan and include it in the Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive
Plan for the City.
It was necessary to keep the City informed and involved from the outset of the project. Hill Studio
met with the Roanoke City Planning Department on May 30, 2000 in order to present these goals
and inform them of our intent for the neighborhood plan. The folloxving City employees attended:
Ms. Susheeh Shende
· Dan Webb, Combination Inspector
· Dan Pollock, Supervisor of Building
Maintenance and Housing
Development Coordinator
· Evie Lander, Director of Planning
· Chris Chittum, Scott Whiteman, City
Planners
· James Settles, Neighborhood Planner,
Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership
James Lesniak and Susheela Shende were also present at this meeting. Hill Studio met with Dan
Webb, Scott Whiteman and Chris Chittum on July 5, 2000 to further discuss methodology for
conducting the building conditions assessment that is discussed in the Existing Conditions
Inventory chapter. At the start of the project, Neil Holthouser was the project contact at the City.
Upon his departure in fall of 2001, Chris Chitmm became the City contact. Drafts of work in
progress were consistently presented to the City during the process.
As part of the background research for the project, numerous public and private documents were
reviexved in order to gain a better understanding of the neighborhood within the larger context of
the City and to see what work had been documented to date. A list of these documents is included
in the appendix.
One of the most important steps in the process was making initial workshop presentations to
various neighborhood groups in order to solicit public input. Hill Studio made presentations to and
sought input from the following groups and individuals:
NNEO Board of Directors (June 19, 2000 - 18 attendees)
Loudon Avenue Christian Church Bible Study (June 22, 2000 - 13 attendees)
NNEO Tenants' and Homeowners' Meeting (June 24, 2000 - 9 attendees)
Business Leaders Meeting (July 11, 2000 - 6 attendees)
NNEO Board Members
The format of the workshops included a brief presentation by Hill Studio staff that relayed the
scope of the project and showed the existing land use map (as derived from the Existing Conditions
Inventory). Discussion was then generated using the questions, "What things do you like most
about the neighborhood," and "What things would you like to change about the neighborhood?".
Responses to these questions are included in Appendix A.
In addition to public workshops, a survey was developed which was distributed during the same
period of time as the workshops. The survey was also taken door-to-door to businesses by a group
of Washington and Lee students on August 31, 2000. The comments generated from the public
presentations and from the surveys are included in Appendix A and were used in developing
alternative preliminary designs.
Hill Studio held an in-house design charrette on July 17, 2000 that included the prindpal and senior
landscape architects, the project planners, the project architects and an intern landscape architect.
This brainstorming session worked from existing conditions analyses and public comment in
illustrating specific aspects of the preliminary design alternatives. The design team broke up into
groups in order to focus on defined topics such as design guidelines, green space opportunities,
zoning issues, redevelopment areas, commercial core redevelopment, and community service
locations.
All of the public comments, meeting discussion and in-house design charrette results were combined
to create preliminary designs. On July 20, 2000, the designs were presented to Chris Chittum, Neii
Holthouser, Scott Whiteman and Jacques Scott of the City Planning Deparlrnent. The preliminary
designs of the master plan were showcased and made available for comment at the ribbon-cutting
ceremony for Thomhill Place that took place on July 31, 2000. These designs were also presented to
Ms. Shende and Mr. Lesniak. Following citizen, client and City reviews, these designs have been
refined into the final concept plan described in Chapter 6, Plans.
As Hill Studio refined alternative concepts, we learned that a local architect was providing services
for expansion plans for Maple Street Baptist Church and St. Paul Uuited Methodist Church. A
meeting was conducted with Ed Barnett on January 5, 2001 in order to compare proposed plans
with what he had developed for the churches. These architectural plans were then integrated into
the master plan concepts in order to improve their accuracy and better coordinate activities.
Traffic related aspects of the concepts were presented to Bob Bengtson, Roanoke City Director of
Public Works, on January 10, 2001. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the master plan
from a traffic feasibility perspective. Mr. Bengtson's initial response was that the suggested
modifications were feasible from a traffic standpoint at this preliminary stage of planning.
Wayne Wilcox, Roanoke City Parks Planner during the plan process, was also contacted in January
2001 in order to discuss the City's plans for Loudon Park. Mr. XXFflcox imparted that the City's
future budget will pay to replace the playground structure, the restroom structure and the park sign.
There would not be any site changes to Loudon Park nor would there be the addition of any other
pocket parks by the City in the Gikner neighborhood.
A major component in the planning process was the generation of numerous maps. These maps
were used to analyze different aspects of the neighborhood components. The maps were a key
resource for concept plan development.
These maps include:
Neighborhood Context
Zoning and Enterprise Zone
Road Hierarchy
Land Use and Vacant Land
Building Conditions
Cultural Resources
NNEO Ownership
Each map describes a specific piece of the puzzle that comprises the area of the Northwest
Neighborhood Em4ronmental Organization. These components are described as existing
conditions in the following chapter.
Finally, Sherry Barrett, an intern from Virginia Tech, completed a studio project that solicited
concerns and issues from surrounding neighborhoods and stakeholders and created a methodology
for making contact with these stakeholders. Issues and concerns could then be discussed and
addressed in a formal manner. The neighborhoods that were involved were the Loudon-Melrose
Neighborhood Organization, the Northwest Neighborhood Improvement Council, and Gainsboro.
Chspter 4: Exlstlt~ Conditions Inrento._ty
The Neighborhood
The Gilmer neighborhood is immediately surrounded by the neighborhoods of Harrison to the '
north, Loudon-Melrose to the west, Gamsboro to the east, Hurt Park/Mountain View to the
southwest, West End, and Downtown. The neighborhood boundaries are 5th Street, Moorman
Avenue, 14th Street and Shenandoah Avenue (see Context Map, Figure 1). Even though the
boundaries technically mn down the middle of the street, both sides of the street were considered in
this plan.
Aerial view of 900 block of Centre Avenue
Zoning
The neighborhood is primarily zoned RM-2, Residential Multifamily Medium Density District,
which
is intended to encourage the preservation and enhancement of city neighborhoods that have
historically developed with medium population densities; to provide for a compatible mix of housing
types that encourage innovative infill development in existing neighborhoods, and to accommodate
the efficient use of facilities (Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 36.1-125).
This zoning designation includes single-family dwellings as well as duplexes and homes that have
been converted into mulfifamlly dwellings. RM-2 composes the center of the neighborhood and is
generally surrounded by other zoning designations except where bisected by Neighborhood
Commercial District (CN) zoning.
The next most prevalent type of zoning in the neighborhood is LM, Light Manufacturing. This
district designation
is intended primarily for light manufacturing, processing, storage, wholesaling and distribution, and
also general serv/ce establishments. Regulations are intended to prevent friction between uses
10
within the district, and also to protect neighboring non-industrial districts. It is also intended to
maintain and enhance the viability of existing light industrial areas (Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 36.1-
248).
This zoning district is located between Shenandoah Avenue and the alley between Centre and
Loudon Avenues and acts as a transition zone between the Norfolk Southern ra/i yard and the
residentially-zoned area starting on Loudon Avenue. The transition between Light Manufacturing
(LM) and Residential Muldfamily (RM-2) needs to be improved by creating a green buffer between
the two, shielding views of industrial operations from adjacent housing. Centre Avenue is a good
example of an inappropriate mix of LM and RM-2.
The remaining zoning designations are Neighborhood Commercial District (CN), Office District (C-
1), General Commercial District (C-2), Residential Multifamily, Low Density District (RM-1), and
Residential Multifamily, High Density District (RM-3). The llth Street corridor is primarily zoned
for Neighborhood Commercial (NC) wNle Commercial Districts (C-1 and C-2) are located at the
northern and eastern edges of the neighborhood along Moorman Road and 5th Street.
Additionally, much of the neighborhood, Commercial and Light Manufacturing (LM) districts are
contained in an Enterprise Zone. An enterprise zone is an economically depressed urban area where
the government encourages new business ventures by offering financial incentives. Much of the
Gilmer Neighborhood has been designated as an Enterprise Zone by the City of Roanoke. This
designation extends from 5th Street to 14th Street along Shenandoah and Centre Avenues. It also
extends north along llth Street from Centre Avenue to Moorman and also along 5th Street to the
11
Land Use Inventory
Hill Studio conducted an existing conditions inventory in the neighborhood during the summer of
2000 including a folloxv up inventory in the Spring of 2002. The lot-by-lot inventory recorded the .
following aspects of each property:
· Current use of the lot or the building on the lot
· Condition of existing buildings
· Additional notes ~vere made as to whether a structure had its original construction material
intact or if the structure was inftll among established neighborhood fabric.
Star Brick
These data were developed into the "Land Use and Vacant Land Map" (see Figure 1). The "Vacant
Lot" sites may potentially be available for reuse or development by NNEO or other compatible
developers. This map illustrates structural relationships in the neighborhood and is an important
tool to show at a glance areas that may not be compatible with a desired type of development, such
as a residential project next to sprawling warehouses.
Apartments Single-Family Home Mulfifamily Home
Housing
Housing in the Gilmer neighborhood indudes apartments, single-family homes, and multifamily
homes. The condition of the homes and apartments ranges from poor to good. It is very important
that the architectural character throughout the neighborhood be maintained. This architecture
should be applied when constructing new dwellings so as to maintain and strengthen the fabric of
the community.
12
In some cases, newer housing does not correspond in style with surrounding two and three-story
houses. This incompatible inftll detracts from the historic quality and appearance of the
neighborhood.
Incompatible infill on Loudon Ave.
Incompatible infdl on Gilmer Avenue
Neighborhood Gateways
Currently, the Gilmer neighborhood possesses two gateways: one on Loudon and 5th, and another
on 10th and Loudon. These signs demarcate the entrances to the neighborhood.
Loudon Avenue and 10th Street
Loudon Avenue and 5th Street
13
Transportation Infrastructure
The Street Hierarchy map graphically represents the street used by through traffic and by
neighborhood residents. Arterial streets are streets that pass through the neighborhood connecting
adjacent neighborhoods or village centers. The main thoroughfares, or primary arteries, include 5th
Street, 10th Street, and Shenandoah Avenue. Neighborhood collector streets are inter-
neighborhood streets that connect points within the neighborhood. Neighborhood collector streets
include Moorrnan Road, Loudon Avenue, and llth Street. Neighborhood local streets consist of
the following: Falrfax Avenue, Gilmer Avenue, Center Avenue, 6th Street, 7th Street, 8th Streets,
9th Street, 12th Street, 13th Street, and 14th Street. Dead ends exist where Centre Avenue and
Gilmer Avenue meet 10th Street. Traffic signals are present at the following intersections:
Shenandoah Avenue and 5th Street, Loudon Avenue and 10th Street, and Moorman Road and 10th
Street.
Ail street lighting must be pedestrian in scale. Big box retail lighting is highly discouraged as are
sodium based lights.
14
Appearance
Hill Studio conducted a windshield assessment that looked strictly at the exteriors of buildings.
These condition designations were compiled into one map, "Building Conditions" (Figure 3) in -
order to identify buildings that would be candidates for rehabilitation. The assessment took into
account visible deficiencies in the foundation (cracking or sagging), roof and wall coveting. Normal
maintenance such as the need for paint or roof material did not determine the condition if the
structure appeared to be sound. Based on previous assessment terminology, buildings were rated as
Good, Fair or Poor.
Poor Fair Good
Safety
Vacant lots, lack of sufficient
lighting, and untidy streets
detract from the feeling of a
safe neighborhood. There
are many locations that, if
cleaned and maintained,
would contribute to the
overall positive appearance
and well-being of the
neighborhood.
Alley with trash
Vacant lot
15
Cultural Resources
It is important to identify cultural resources
in order to clarify existing connections and
plan for future links. Cultural resources
abound within the neighborhood and indude
nine churches, the historic City Fire Station
Number 5, Loudon Park, four community
service organizations (including the NNEO
office), the former Hunton IAfe Saving Crew
building, and Saint John's Grand Masonic
Lodge.
St. Paul's United Methodist Church
Other significant cultural resources in
surrounding neighborhoods include the
Harrison Museum of African-American
Culture, (original) Burrell Memorial
Hospital, Melrose Park, and Downtown
Roanoke (see Cultural Resources map,
Figure 4).
Fire Station #5
Commercial Centers
The neighborhood lacks a cohesive commercial center where the majority of business transactions
are held. Instead, both service and retail establishments are spread throughout the neighborhood in
a historical but deteriorating fabric. Both types of businesses would benefit from proximity to one
another. There is a business district within the neighborhood but it is not consistent or complete in
location and size. Residents would benefit as well, since they would be able to run all of their
errands in a centralized location within the neighborhood and contribute to the feel of a village
center.
llth Street commercial buildings
16
Some commercial establishments
disrupt the appearance of the
neighborhood because of junkyard
like conditions including outdoor
storage of vehicles and lack of
upkeep such as some of the local
garages.
Community Centers
Garde
Hamlar-Curtis Funeral Home was established on
February 3, 1952, as a partnership between
Lawrence H. Hamlar and Harry C. Curtis, Jr.
Hamlar-Curtis has built a reputation on quality,
professional service, and compassionate support.
They have been a proud member of the Gilmer
community since 1952.
Hamlar & Curtis Funeral Home
The NNEO building is the only established
community center in the neighborhood. Other
community gathering places include churches and
Loudon Park.
The NNEO Building
Neighborhood Environmental Organization Ownership
A key component in the generation of concept plans is understanding which vacant lots and
buildings NNEO currently owns (see NNEO Ownership Map, Figure 5). Based on NNEO's
records, there are approximately 102 lots within the neighborhood owned by NNEO. The lots are
of varying sizes and appear throughout the neighborhood. The largest contiguous group of lots
under NNEO ownership is on Centre Avenue between 9th and 10th Streets, and consists of 19 lots.
This land is being used for McCray Court Senior Living Facility and Community Services Building.
The next largest NNEO-owned cluster consists of 9 consecutive lots on Loudon Avenue between
10th and 11 th Streets.
NNEO serves as a general partner to the Gilmer Housing Association Limited Partnership
(GHALP) who owns Thornhill Place. GHALP is involved with the handling of tax credits obtained
through the project. GHALP owns the properties but NNEO serves as the management of the
properties.
17
The McCray Court Limited Partnership owns McCray Court with NNEO serving as a general
partner and managing the McCray Court Senior Living Development.
Open spaces
Loudon Park is the only
public green space within
the neighborhood.
Loudon Park
18
Figure l: Neighborhood Context
Figare 2: Land Use and Vacant Land
7
2O
Figure 3: Building Conditions
Figure 4: Cultural Resources
22
Figure 5: NNEO Oxvnership
23
Chapter 5: Summa_tv o£Sutre_v Fi~di~_x~s and GoMs
The planning team developed a survey based on questions presented in "Choices: Alternatives for
Housing in Old Northwest Roanoke." The team added some of their own questions to bring in _
specific areas of concern. Several questions addressed the mission statement of NNEO printed in
the Introduction of this document. The NNEO survey was broken down into several categories:
· Neighborhood Character
· Housing
· Neighborhood Businesses
· Neighborhood Facilities
· Transportation and Infrastructure
· Safety
Each person who attended the public workshops was given a survey to fill out. Copies of the survey
were available at the NNEO office and at the public presentations. Respondents had several weeks
during the summer of 2000 to submit their surveys. Sixteen citizen responses and nine business
responses were returned. The survey and the community responses are included in their entirety in
Appendix A.
After the workshops, the design team met with City Planners to discuss three concept plans for the
Gilmer neighborhood. The team discussed Gilmer being designated as a "Neighborhood Design
District." This designation would allow NNEO to use 1993-1994 legislation to regulate new infLll
design. The City Planners were also interested in a City-Neighborhood partnership to address
infrastructure needs during neighborhood construction.
Neighborhood Character
Gitmer Avenue Houses
Historically intact houses, street-
facing porches, and unique building
details are worth preserving.
· Goal: Establish design
guidelines that will aid in
preserving the neighbor
hood's architectural char-
acter.
The Gilmer neighborhood
possesses a unique history
and character.
· Goal: Preserve and
strengthen the historic
character of the neigh-
borhood.
24
lOth Street Bridge
Housing
Thornhi]l Place
Neighborhood Businesses
Old g~ocetT store
Residents feel that additional landscaping
would improve the character of the
neighborhood.
· Goal: Find oppormdities for neigh-
borhood beautification. Landscape
vacant lots, streets, and other public
areas.
Residents feel there is not enough
affordable housing.
· Goal: Make sure there is adequate
affordable housing for all types of
residents--families, the elderly,
and individuals. Continue
affordable housing rehabilitation.
The Gilmer neighborhood lacks many
businesses and set'Aces that would make life
more convenient for residents.
· Goal: Create a commerdal core/center
within the neighborhood.
The neighborhood lacks grocery stores, and
needs more small businesses.
· Goal: Make it easier for desired
businesses to locate and establish
themselves in the neighborhood.
Residents would like to see more jobs available
in the neighborhood.
· Goal: Attract ndghborhoo&compadble
businesses to create jobs.
25
Neighborhood Facilities
Loudon Avenue Christian Church
The only enclosed community gathering places are
local churches and the NNEO Community
Center. There is a lack of facilities for kids and
teens.
· Goal: Establish youth and community
centers.
Churches are a prominent cultural
resource.
· Goal: Continue to build relat~on-
ships with cultural institutions,
including churches.
Maple Street Baptist Church
The only greenspace in the neighborhood is Loudon Park.
The community expressed the desire for more parks and
gardens.
· Goal: Create more green space that can be used for
community activities.
Neighborhood-adjacent Mekose Park
Site of furore community garden
26
Transportation/Streets
Industrial uses can detract from the
appearance of the neighborhood.
· Goal: Improve transitions
between industrial and res-
idenfial areas.
Shaffers Crossing Raft Yard
Vacant Lot
Safety
Numerous vacant lots are present
along the streets of the Gilmer
neighborhood.
· Goal: Find positive uses for
vacant lots or build new
housing that will be
compatible with surrounding
homes.
Centre Avenue at 10th Street
Residents don't always feel safe in the neighborhood.
· Goal: Increase feeling of safety xvith improved
lighting and a cleaner neighborhood. Re-
establish crime watch activities
These goals, along with the maps of existing conditions inventory, were used to generate preliminary
designs that formed the basis of material presented at the public information workshops in the
neighborhood during the summer of 2000.
27
Chapter 6: Final concept Plan
Three concepts were developed during the planning process as a response to resident comments and
study of the neighborhood. These concepts were used to generate discussion of desired plan _
components. Each concept contributed desirable components to the final concept plan (Figure 6),
which is intended to connect GiJ-mer to surrounding neighborhoods while, at the same time,
maintaining a unique sense of place. The following paragraphs describe in greater detail the
recommendations illustrated in the Final Concept Plan.
Recommendations for future land use changes also are discussed and are illustrated in Figure 7.
Neighborhood Character
In order to preserve the character of the neighborhood, it is important that historic structures be
preserved and maintained. It is also desirable that inffll housing correspond in style and appearance
with surrounding houses. By following the design guidelines in Chapter 8, a coordinated
complementary neighborhood appearance may be developed.
Housing
Mnitifami/y housing developments are proposed in three locations within the neighborhood. The
block between 6th and 7th Streets and Gilmer and Loudon Avenues provides a fitting location for
housing development because of the large number of vacant lots. Another location for mulfifamlly
development is between 10th and llth Streets, along the green space at Gilmer Avenue.
Neighborhood-based agency buildings are an integral element in this development since it is in a
central location relative to the neighborhood. The third development is proposed at the end of
Fairfax Avenue where it intersects 13th Street.
A green space is the common element to each of these areas. The open spaces associated with these
developments would be used and maintained by residents in the developments in a cooperative
agreement that should foster a sense of belonging to a community and ownership among residents.
The McCray Court Senior Living facility is a significant addition to the neighborhood. In addition
to accessible housing for elderly residents, the facility houses the TAP Headstart Kitchen as well as a
new TAP Headstart Center. There are also provisions for related community services and their
activities.
McCray Court from 10th Street
McCray Court from Centre Ave.
28
Figure 6: Final Concept Plan
29
Figure 7: Future L-md Use Map
3O
Figure 8: Existing Land
,,~-~Z '~
31
View from McCray Court looking east on Centre Avenue
Neighborhood Businesses
Currently, businesses are scattered, and mixed with residential structures in the neighborhood in a
way that detracts from both. To encourage a better defined commercial area, Eleventh Street is
designated as a commercial core of the neighborhood. This will attract income to the neighborhood
and help reduce through traffic currently using 10th Street by making llth Street a more appropriate
corridor.
Changes in land use are also recommended to reduce conflicts between industrial and residential
uses along Centre Avenue between 5th and 9th Street. Currently, there are scattered industrial,
commercial, and residential uses that result in no real land use uniformity or direction for the future.
To address this issue, the Final Concept Plan recommends a mixed commercial and residential
"transition" area that encourages more light commercial uses rather than industrial uses.
View of llth Street from Moorman Road
32
A change in land use from Residential and Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial is proposed
along Gilmer and Centre Avenues between 10th and llth Streets. This change will allow for
additional uses that are compatible with the neighborhood scale and meet the desires of residents as
expressed in the survey needs responses. These uses include office and medical facilities as well as
other general services oriented businesses.
When making llth Street a commercial neighborhood district, encourage a street tree of medium
size at maturity, averaging 35 to 50 feet in 25 to 50 years. This size would complement street
lighting and be tall enough to allow visual access to any store fronts and signage along the sidewalk.
Buildings could consist of awnings covering entranceways and windows along the sidexvalk. The
overall continuity of visual features throughout this commercial district should remain similar in
design.
Neighborhood Facilities
In order for the City to consolidate fire and rescue services, Fire Station Number 5 at 12th Street is
slated to be closed as an active fire station. This presents an opportunity for the NNEO to make
use of ~vhat will become a vacant building that is already non-residential. The fire station would
make an interesting office for NNEO and would allow them to convert their existing offices back to
housing for neighborhood residents. The location of the office near the community gardens and
nursery would provide some measure of oversight for activities in the gardens. This office location
would have the same access within the neighborhood as the current office as it is only four blocks
further down Loudon Avenue.
The former Hunton Life Saving Crew building on Moorman Road is another unique dement in the
neighborhood because of the historic significance of the rescue squad that formed in the
neighborhood. This history would be interpreted and celebrated through the renovation of the
building. Since the Isfe Saving Crew building is at the edge of Gilmer, the space around the former
squad building would be reprogrammed to be a green space that would add to the proposed gateway
and accent connections with adjacent neighborhoods. There is also the potential to utilize the
Hunton building as part of a historical Northwest Roanoke walking tour. The building will be
adaptively reused for a community oriented purpose and may be eligible for tax credits.
33
Former Hunton Life Saving Crew Building Along Moorman Road
In response to public comments that there are not enough facilities and opportunities for youth in
the neighborhood, a youth center is illustrated between 10th and l lth Streets on Centre Avenue.
The youth center could be designed in a way to reflect the McCray Court Senior Living Center in
order to visually join the two facilities. Programs that could be contained in the youth facility
include after-school tutoring, career planning information, drug abuse and crime prevention
information, and recreational activities induding basketball courts and a swimming pool.
Additionally, intergenerafional opportunities exist with the proximity to the senior living center at
McCray Court.
34
Another unique element in this plan is the inclusion of a community garden and plant nursery. This
neighborhood feature is proposed to be located along 12th Street between Loudon and Gilmer
Avenues. Gilmer residents will have the opportunity to lease garden plots on a yearly basis for a
nominal fee. Details for organizing this endeavor need to be determined among those interested..
Gardening education would fit well in this facility, informing youth of gardening techniques and
providing plant education. A partnership with the Virginia Cooperative Extension Sen4ce or a 4-H
Club chapter may prove effective for the neighborhood in this facility. This will also provide for
landscaping activities, plant propogation, a tree nursery, and specialty food production.
Community Garden Along 12th Street with Fire Station No. 5
Transportation and Infrastructure
The Final Concept Plan illustrates the planned expansions of the Maple Street Baptist and St. Patti
United Methodist Churches. The St. Patti expansion proposes to close Moorman Road between 5th
Street and Gilmer Avenue. This change would allow the church to use the land across the newly
closed roadway in order to add onto the rear and side of the church, add a parking lot to the rear,
and provide recreational green space for the church. This closing of Moorman clarifies traffic
around the church, as it would be diverted from 5th to Gilmer. The primary expansion at Maple
Street Baptist would be the addition of a new building on the south side of the 800 block of Fairfax,
toward 8th Street. Both expansions would be beneficial to the neighborhood, as it will allow the
churches to maintain a neighborhood presence wtfile providing additional green space and utilizing
vacant lots. These open spaces cannot be used for church parking. Churches within the
neighborhood must encourage on-street parking. In addition, churches, being the conscience of the
neighborhood, need to design and expand in compliance with set guidelines. It is recommended
that any parking areas be sensitive to neighborhood street layout and design and incorporate
landscaping improvement so as not to detract from the physical landscape of the area.
35
The greatest change to traffic flow is proposed at 10th Street between Shenandoah and Fairfax
Avenues. Currently, this thoroughfare is four lanes wide with turning lanes at a light at Loudon
Avenue. Traffic comes through the neighborhood in a steady flow, cutting the neighborhood in half .
because of this use. Tenth Street is proposed to be returned to two lanes with a wide median and
turning lanes remaining at Loudon Avenue. The median would contain decorative trees such as
crape myrtle. This change would bring 10th Street back to a neighborhood scale. Proposed changes
to 11 th Street would accommodate the shift of traffic from 10th to a more commercial distribution
of traffic in an effort to reconnect the street grid within the neighborhood.
Proposed changes to 5th Street include creating a median starting at Loudon Avenue and extending
toward Shenandoah Avenue. 5th Street will be reduced from 4 lanes to 2 lanes with one lane of
parking on the southbound side of the street. This wi/1 provide parking for the proposed 5th Street
commercial Gateway Complex.
Tenth Street Looking Toward Loudon Avenue
Key gateways would be developed at Moorman and 14th Street by Melrose Park and at llth and
Shenandoah Avenue. A gateway building, part of the proposed 5th Street Gateway project, will be
located at 5th Street between Centre Avenue and Loudon Avenue. Special signage and plantings
would signal arrival at the NNEO neighborhood. Key intersections, or nodes, in the neighborhood
would be at 10th and Loudon where a traffic signal exists, at 8th and Moorman where the
commercial zone transitions to the green gateway and at llth and Gilmer where the community
agencies facility is proposed. The addition of monuments that memorialize African-American
achievements would be appropriate at these locations.
36
Gateway Building located at 5th Street and Loudon Avenue
Street trees are proposed to create parkways along 5th, 9th, llth and 12th Streets as well as along
Moorman Road to accent these thoroughfares. Acting as green connectors, these urban greenways
would join MeLrose Park with community greens that are interspersed throughout the
neighborhood. These greens include the community garden space on 12th Street, and the greens at
the youth center and neighborhood-based service facility on llth. They also provide a connection
to Loudon Park as well as to the green gateway along Moorrnan Road that incorporates a
community green in a proposed mule[family housing development. (See Chapter 8, Landscape and
Architectural Guidelines)
Fifth Street is a major artery along the East perimeter of the Gilmer neighborhood. There is a sharp
contrast in this area between the residential neighborhood on the West side of 5th and the industrial
Coca-Cola distribution operation on the East side of 5th Street. In order to minimize this disparity,
a landscape buffer is necessary in the narrow strip of land on the Coca-Cola side of the street. An
increase in the land available for planting would enhance the buffer's effect.
The design of this buffer is proposed to be of alternating columnar trees and decorative specimen
trees, including dogwood and crape myrtle, set on a backdrop of climbing plants that may include
native honeysuckle or trumpet vine to screen the chain-link fence. Planting alone will work for the
growing season. But in winter the fence will look quite different. An architectural fence and
column would improve the visual impact of this area in winter and summer periods. Using
columnar trees that reach heights of 30 to 40 feet should work well along this commerdal
neighborhood district/road corridor.
37
.... -.::_: ........ _ ....
Fifth Street at the Coca-Cola Plant
Shenandoah Avenue is the largest thoroughfare of the neighborhood. Since it is at the edge of the
area, traffic bypasses the neighborhood. The area along Shenandoah is zoned for light
manufacturing and the buildings generally reflect this in their large, utilitarian character. In an effort
to tie this area in to the neighborhood better, streetscape improvements are proposed and a re-
allocation of pavement width and traffic calming measures. These include improving the look of the
existing and ne~v buildings using attractive building materials as well as other suggestions discussed
in the architectural guidelines of Chapter 8. The addition of street trees would soften this Linear
corridor and make it more pedestrian friendly. Where fences are necessary, these should be buffered
with trees and shrubs to reduce the harsh lines of the fences in the overall streetscape.
Shenandoah Avenue at Fifth Street
Safety
To create a safer neighborhood, crime watch activity should be increased. Landscaping and
increased lighting in vacant lots is also proposed. Cleaner streets and a coordinated neighborhood
design will also enhance residents' feelings of safety and security.
38
Chapter 7: Land Develo_t~ment Policies and Actions
The future development goals of the neighborhood may be achieved through the following land
development policies and actions. These policies and actions are consistent with the policies ·
established in Vision 2001-2020 for housing and neighborhoods, economic development,
environmental and cultural resources, and transportation.
Housing:
· Ne~v single and multifamlly housing developments will be encouraged in the neighborhood
that will be architecturally compatible with the character of the neighborhood,
· Existing properties will be rehabilitated and adaptively reused in an
architecturally compatible character.
· Implement the Neighborhood Design District overlay zoning as shown on future
Land use map.
Participants: NNEO, City
· Encourage developments consistent with adopted develop infill design standards for the
neighborhood design district and consistent with the architectural guidelines included in
Chapter 7 of the neighborhood plan and encourage developers to follow the guidelines.
Participants: NNEO, City, Property Owners, Businesses
· Identify new sites for housing development.
Participants: NNEO, City, Property Owners
· Amend zoning map to reflect appropriate or desired future land use.
Participants: NNEO, City
Enviromnental, Cultural, and Historic Resources:
Policies:
· Parks and open spaces will be located and designed to enhance the neighborhood's quality
of life and create opportunities for public activities.
· Recreational and social opportunities for youth wili be readily accessible in the
neighborhood.
· Historic structures and properties will be recognized and adaptive reuse
encouraged.
Create community garden, open spaces, and develop, maintain, and manage public spaces
that enhance the neighborhood.
Participants: NNEO, City, Property Owners
· Promote local, state, and federal incentives to encourage rehabilitation of historic structures.
Participants: NNEO, City, Property Owners, Roanoke Regional Preservation Office
· Encourage rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Hunton Life Saving Crew Building.
Participants: NNEO, City, General Public
· Encourage adaptive reuse of the Fire Station.
Participants: NNEO, City
Economic Development:
Policies:
· Village centers will be established within the llth Street and 5th Street corridors as an
economic development strategy to strengthen the neighborhood and the City's economy.
· Underutilized industrial and business property will be redeveloped to compliment the future
goals of the neighborhood.
· Where there is a mix of residential and business uses new development will be designed to
enhance existing land uses.
· Encourage commercial development and revitalization at designated locations on future land
Participants: NNEO, City, Property Owners
· Amend zoning map in accordance with future land use map to encourage village center
development.
Participants: NNEO, City
Infrastructure: Transportation~ Technology~ Utilities:
Policies:
· The neighborhood transportation system will be an integrated, multi-modal
network of automobile, bicyde, pedestrian, and transit facilities.
· Streets and gateway entrances into the neighborhood will be improved to enhance
the appearance of the neighborhood.
· Reduce visual impact of above ground utilities by locating utilities underground, where
feasible.
· New streets will include sidewalks, lighting, and trees.
· Maintain connectivity of Gilmer neighborhood across 10th Street.
Actions:
· Develop landscaped boulevards on the major transportation corridors adjacent to and
through the neighborhood.
Participants: NNEO, City
· Support existing transit services within the neighborhood and provide bus shelters
4O
Participants: NNEO, City, Greater Roanoke Transit Company
Incorporate regional greenways network into the neighborhood.
Participants: NNEO, City, Roanoke Valley Greenways Conmaission
· Identify neighborhood gateways to be enhanced with landscaping and signage.
Participants: NNEO, Property Owners, Businesses, Valley Beautiful
· Redesign streets within the neighborhood to enforce target operating speeds.
Participants: NNEO, City of Roanoke
· Incorporate speed management functions within the physical character of streets especially
on main arteries.
Participants: NNEO, City of Roanoke
41
Ch~_t~ter 8: Landsc~_oe ~nd arctu'tectural Guidelines
Landscape guidelines are intended to create unity between lots and along streets, providing a
coherent appeal to the neighborhood.
These guidelines are to help in the planning, design, and selection of street trees for NNEO and the
vision to promote a greener and healthier environment among urban areas. The guidelines outline
six areas of implementation: street trees for both primary and secondary streets, park and open
space trees, commercial parking area trees, commercial screening trees, and residential plantings.
Each area has its own characteristics that work independently, and yet still work within the
connective fabric of the city as a whole.
A tree species palette follows in Appendix E noting form, maintenance, and spacing for spedfic
species. Note that before identifying the final selection of trees for a given location, species
availability must be addressed. Additionally, microclimatic conditions, including sun, shade and
wind must be evaluated, as well as potential security concerns in the placement and selection of
landscape elements.
Landscape Guidelines
Public Landscapes: Primary and Secondary Streets
Public landscapes are those found in public rights-of-way, such as along streets. In commercial
districts, trees should be located next to streets and maintain adequate sight and equipment clearance
along the street right-of-way. In general, large, uptight shade trees along residential neighborhood
streets create a visual corridor and provide a sense of symmetry and unity. Along both primary and
secondary streets, the trees will provide shade as they mature which will help to increase shading of
paved areas and provide a more pleasant environment for pedestrians, vehicles, and buildings. Trees
located in medians should provide a canopy. All tree planting plans must be in accordance with the
City of Roanoke Urban Forestry Plan.
Primary streets are streets that have a lot of large track traffic, including commercial areas. Plantings
along these streets will help to establish rhythm and provide a softening effect in heavily built-up
areas. Secondary streets in this application are streets that are less heavily traveled and have a
minimum of commercial track traffic; these will primarily be residential streets. Again, trees along
these streets will provide rhythm as well as provide shade for both the street and sidewalk areas.
The trees in off-street parking areas are necessary to provide ample shading, reducing temperatures
on hot days not only within vehicles, but temperatures city wide that contribute to an urban heat
bubble. Commercial screening buffers the impact of commercial buildings in areas adjacent to
residential areas. Trees and other plantings in open spaces and residential areas will mainly provide
shade and seasonal interest.
42
Boulevard Trees looking south on 10th Street
The following recommendations will help achieve goals for improving and coordinating the
appearance of the neighborhood streets.
· In commercial areas reduce the visual impact of overhead utilities by burying lots utilities or
locating them to the rear of the lots to make the skyline more attractive.
· Fifth and llth Streets should be planted with small to meditma maturing size street trees.
These streets require more truck clearance with regard to the canopy. Overhead power lines
require planting trees that do not groxv to excessive heights to avoid future pruning
maintenance.
· In residential neighborhoods along 9th and 12th Streets, the street trees may be of medium
size and planted in a r~vo-foot wide (minimum) grass strip between sidewalk and roadway. If
possible, the residential lots along these corridors should plant the street trees three to five
feet from the public sidewalk in the yard. This would allow more room for the tree roots,
and a larger, more mature tree could be planted.
Public Landscapes: Parks and Open Spaces
Natural features, such as streams and rock outcrops, pose challenges to land development but
provide opportunities for parks and nature. Urban wilcll/fe, songbirds, and insects provide
neighborhoods with a connection to the natural world. With some work and care, these natural
areas can become learning grounds for citizens, young and old. Restoration of these areas may be
required to get fid of invasive weed trees and replace them with native plants.
43
The northwest corner of 5th Street and Loudon Avenue is a good example. A creek bisects the land
parcels and the site is unsuitable for development and construction. The land contains several rock
outcrops and trees creating an ideal green space within the neighborhood. Tbis green space could ·
be used a number of ways: as a park, as a landscaped gateway to the GiLmer Neighborhood, or as a
neighborhood garden.
Private Landscapes: Commercial Parking Areas and Commercial Screening
Off-street parking areas should include trees planted to provide a mature tree canopy that shades
50% of the parking area. Shade in lots can be provided with trees around the edge, in islands within
the lot, and within diamond planters in the lot. A good tree is one with strong branch configuration,
good canopy width, and minimal tree debris (i.e. seed pods, fruit, etc.). Recommendations include:
Amur Maple, Japanese Zelkova, Chinese Elm, Turkish Filbert and Red Horse Chestnut.
Commercial uses are special landscape challenges because there is often limited space in which to
present a landscape design. However, there are issues when commercial property abuts residential
uses. These issues can be minimized using the techniques described below.
Refer to City ordinances for screening and fences. Consider use of the historic district architectural
guidelines for the H-1 and H-2 historic districts of the City. These resources dearly lay out
appropriate and considerate fence and screening approaches.
Move waste management and storage containers to alleys at rear of lots.
Retain open and functional alleys for garbage collection. In some case alleys will need to be
extended to allow for off street garbage collection.
Screen storage spaces and junk vehicle lots with attractive landscape elements that blend with the
neighborhood. Consider loxv hedges that provide visibility but break up the first view of the site.
Consider parking lot and screening guidelines as described by the City ordinance.
Perimeter plantings shall be in a bed measuring a minimum of 10' wide along adjacent roadway
frontages. One five-gallon shrub with a mature height of four feet shall be planted for every 100
square feet of the planting bed area. One tree shall be planted every 500 square feet of the planting
bed area.
Parking lots shall be planted with trees. A minimum of one tree for every ten parking spaces shall
be planted. Preferably, trees shall be planted between 30' and 40' on-center.
Private Landscapes: Residential
Since NNEO is a historic neighborhood, it is desirable to emphasize plants that would have been
planted at the time of its construction. This would include plants from "your grandma's yard" such
as hydrangea and lilac, or fragrant and showy plants.
Some considerations for appropriate residential yards may include garden areas that are distinct from
grass areas. These garden areas may include foundation plantings around house edges, entrance
walks with shrub borders, hedges in lieu of fences, or perennial gardens in front of shrubs.
Gruundcovers are appropriate to define a garden border. Other higher maintenance gardens, such
as vegetable gardens or a butterfly garden, might be better suited in a backyard or common garden
lot.
Yards that have limited space because of lot size or overhead utility lines should only plant small
trees or trees that will not crowd the house or a neighbor's home.
Plant Palette
The plant palette (Appendix E) is meant as a general guideline for the entire neighborhood. It
consists predominantly of plants native to the region. The plants listed provide a base that can be
supplemented; indixqdual site variations will affect selection. A landscape architect, horticulturist or
city forester should be consulted regarding detailed site considerations. Please note that while many
of the plants and trees in all of the categories are suitable for the parks and open spaces, the
specimens noted in particular for the open space areas will most likely not work in other situations
because of cultural or size considerations. Bradford pears should not be considered because of their
susceptibility to storm and wind damage and their over planting in the Roanoke area.
45
Architectural Guidelines
The Gilmer neighborhood exhibits distinct historic architectural elements that help define its period
of development. It is important that further development or renovation maintain the quality and
style of the existing resources. The intent of the guidelines presented in this plan is to provide
assistance and education about ways in which investment can visually enhance the neighborhood,
These guidelines can assist owners and developers by providing design suggestions that are sensitive
to the fabric of the neighborhood. All work should meet City of Roanoke zoning and bu.ilding
codes.
"The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines
for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" is a very helpful document for use in rehabilitation projects.
This document provides sound and approved rehabilitation advice. The document is available from
the U.S. Department of the Interior under the National Park Service.
46
Commercial / Industrial Guidelines
Setbacks, Siting and Heights
In districts zoned for commercial and industrial use, front building setbacks are genera~y established
adjacent to the sidewalks to provide the building with a street presence that encourages interaction
with pedestrians. With a deep setback, the building becomes secondary to a parking lot or other
feature that fills the space betxveen the sidewalk and the building. These areas are often void of
detail and attraction. Pedestrians are forced to contend with cars as the vehicles pull in and out of
the front parking lot and the cars themselves create a hazard entering dty streets from the lot. All
commerdal and industrial development must meet the zoning requirements mandated by the City.
RECOMblE: ,!DED
a,
r
I I
DISCOURAGED
Architectural Setbacks
In order to maintain the historic appearance of the streetscape, the minimal front yard setback
should be maintained. Sidewalks will abut the front facade in no case should parking be permitted
at the front. It is critical to relate the building to the street. This is accomplished by maintaining the
same setback as adjacent structures. If there are not enough structures surrounding the site, front
the building as close as possible on existing streets. The exception would be when the structure is
located on a major traffic artery (such as Shenandoah Avenue) where additional minimum front
setback would be more conducive to the business operation. Where there is a front yard on existing
buildings (beyond the sidewalk), the yard must be appropriately landscaped.
47
Landscaped Front Yard
As the building relates to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, a recogrfized building entry should be
present to the front; storefronts should be recognized as fronts.
RECOMMENDED
DISCOURAGED
Correct Storefront Application
48
Service entrances should be located at the rear of buildings, or on the side if they are related to side-
street trade. On corner lots, service entrances should be located at the rear. Utilities and trash
facilities should be located at the alley.
Comer Lot with Rear or Side Yard Access
In general, the building height should not exceed three stories. Building height is measured from
existing grade to the top of the parapet or roofline. A building's height is most important on facades
that face streets, or on sides that are visible from the street. Rear or concealed side building
elevations are less critical.
49
New buildings should be similar in height m adjacent buildings, where practical. Where new
construction will not allow compatibility with existing heights, effort should be made to relate
building height to existing buildings. For example, taller front/side parapets can be used to match
or reflect the adjacent heights, screening lower rooflines behind.
Building Height Similadty
Building Height Sm~arity
5O
Materials
The traditional building materials used in commercial and industrial buildings in Roanoke are brick
or stucco application. Materials used in new construction should be similar to that of surrounding '
buildings and would therefore most likely be brick or stucco. Detailing should be similar to or relate
to that of adjacent structures. Recognize that some materials, even if present in surrounding
buildings, are not desirable. These include metal building facades, TI-Il (plywood), exposed
concrete block, faux stone, xdnyl, plywood, extensive glass, and some stucco veneer applications.
Though relatively expensive, brick veneer offers a maintenance-free surface while providing
compatibility with most commercial facades.
The use of stucco veneer may be deemed appropriate when it incorporates building details
corrzmouly associated with commercial buildings in the area, such as cornice trim, decorative
parapets, etc. Recognize that when the stucco veneer is applied to a cellular foam substrate, it is
subject to puncture damage by vehicles, pedestrians and vandals. This factor should be considered
when the material is proposed for street level use. Second or third level applications may be best.
Stucco with Brick Clapboard
Wood Det~til
Acceptable Facade Materials
Clapboard siding is acceptable when it is appropriately detailed as part of the storefront. The
storefront should remain compatible with adjacent storefronts along the commercial streetscape.
"Z brick" (thin brick veneer) is acceptable when properly detailed.
Storefront Compatibility
Building Facades
51
Historically, most commercial building facades don't exceed 50' in width; in fact, many are only 25 -
30 feet in width. This offers a "rhythm" to the commercial streetscape. When buildings facing
streets exceed 50' in width, they should have sufficient detailing to "break up" these long expanses.
Appropriate detailing includes windows, entrances, signboards and awnings that provide visual
interest without unnecessary distraction.
When designing the floor plan for a new commercial or industrial building, it is best to locate
offices, retail, or visitor areas toward the building's street facade to create the need for windows and
public entrances/areas.
Location of Office/Retail Spaces to Building Front
52
Multiple-story Buildings
Upper levels of multistory buildings should have detailing that differentiates them from the first
level. Where storefronts are characterized with large glass entrances, awnings, signs, etc., upper
levels should be simpler in detail with smaller windows and decorative cornices.
Decorative
Cornice
Smaller Upper
Windows
Awning
Large Glass
Entrance
Appropriate Storefront
53
Service Entries and Side Yards
Service entrances should be located off rear alleys or rear yards where possible. Where a property is
located on or near side streets, or otherwise visible from adjacent streets (i.e. across from a lot), care
should be taken to screen building equipment, utility entrances, refuse collectors, etc. Equipment
stored outdoors, including vehicles and related items, should be fully screened from view of any
streets.
Sohd Architecturfl
Plants
Build~g
Shade Tree
M~ or Street
Rea~ and Side Yard Screening
54
Security lighting should be placed to minimize the effect on adjacent properties and the street.
Security lighting in transition areas or rear yards abutting residential properties (even across alleys)
should be screened by sensitive placement of compatible lighting ~vith screening trees or fences.
Commercial
Building
Light
~-~ ~ Fence
Landscaped Planting Buffer
Divert light spillage back
Screening of Lighting
Where service or utility entrances are located on side yards, they should be located at least 1/3 of the
side facade length from the street. Care should be taken to screen these activities and locations with
fencing or proper architectural details. Screen the view from the street using previously discussed
screening techniques.
When commercial or industrial properties abut one another, side yards can be minimized or
eliminated.
55
Parking
Encourage on-street parking by patrons of commercial facilities. Create additional parking for
employees and delivery/service vehicles at the rear or side yard. When parking is located in the side
Typical Business/
Commercial Building
yard, provide screening from the street.
Typical Street Tree
Typical Street Light
Typical Commercial Building
Side Yard Parking Screening
56
With regard to places of Worship, Parishioners must encourage on-street parking during times of
worship in an effort to maintain open space within the neighborhood.
Signs
Signs on building facades facing streets are encouraged when placed in appropriate locations. Other
signs such as window signs, projecting attached signs, and wording on awnings are also acceptable.
The size of the sign should be scaled to the facade. Signs are appropriate on side facades when they
face a street. Signs must be attached to the front or side of the building but below the roofline. If
fighting is necessary, light the exterior of the sign and light only the sign.
Acceptable S~gns
57
Al/signs must meet sign ordinance requirements. There should be no freestanding signs or back-lit
signs.
Examples of Unacceptable Signs
Oversized sign that blocks decorati~ C~ns~projecting box sign
Cluttered storefront windows blocking v/ew into business
Mobile freestanding temporary signs
58
Awnings
Awnings are encore'aged on storefronts. Variations in shape, size and color from one building to
the next should be encouraged. Height and projection should comply xvith the Ci~, ordinances.
Acceptable Uses of Awnings
(;lazing
Street level windows in the form of storefronts and glass expanses contribute to the visual character
of the commercial streetscape. All-glass facades are not encouraged. The use of residential-type
picture windows is discouraged.
DISCOUR.\GI~D
RI';COMM F.N Db;D
l:Sxamples of Street \Vh~dows
Storefront entries
Storefront entries should be clearly designated and visible. Businesses fronting the street shonld
have front entrances.
59
Roofing
Commercial roof forms are to include: shallow-pitch shed, gable or fiat. All street-front facades
should have parapets screening the roof from view. Roof types to be discouraged are gambrel, front
gable, and mansard.
,~ Gable
Flat
Shallow-pitched
Acceptable Roof Types
Gambrel
Front Gable
Mansard
Unacceptable Roof Types
60
Building equipment located on rooftops should be located back from the roof edge to rrdnimize
visibility.
'x
Mecham~'ca~
Equipment
No Wind~
Units
Line of Sight
Using the Roof Parapet as a Screen
61
Transition Area between Commercial and Residential Uses
The importance of transition areas between different land uses must be recognized. Abrupt changes
from commercial or industrial to residential spaces create a harsh visual barrier. The transition can
be smoothed with designs that are sensitive to nearby residences.
RECOMMENDED
DISCOURAGED
Transition between Uses Design Sensitivity
62
Where the rear or side of the commercial area meets a residential lot/structure, the height of the
new commercial building should be lhrdted to two stories or 22', whichever is shorter. There should
be windows at each level of the building facade that faces the residence, not a blank wall. The
facade of the wall abutting the residence needs to be detailed or use previously listed compatible
materials or offer a landscape buffer such as trees, plant material, or compatible residential visual
fencing. There should be a minimum 15' setback from the residential property line (see Roanoke
Zoning Ordinance for this section).
Transition between Uses - Design Sensitivity
63
Transition Area between Light Manufacturing and Residential Uses
The side yard of a building in a light manufacturing area placed adjacent to a residential structure
should have a maximum height of two stories or 22', whichever is shorter. This height may step up
toward the center of the building. If the building does step up, it should maintain a iow height level
for 25'-30' before raising the height. Detailing is necessary to provide a cohesive appearance among
surrounding structures. As with other districts, the building must relate to the street with no setback
unless the building is sited on an arterial or collector street and then the m/dimum setback is to be
applied.
Transition between Uses - Design Sensitivity
I75' 0" - 30'-
When a commercial or industrial building is near or adjacent to residential uses, maintain the
commercial look of the building but be sensitive and compatible with the residential structures (i.e.
don't make the commercial building look residential).
Keep Different Uses Different in Appearance
In general, Roanoke's commercial buildings are brick, or pre-cast, and exhibit commercial detailing
that differentiates them from other building types. Care should be taken to individualize each
commercial building to prevent replication of adjacent storefronts.
64
Guidelines for Mixed Use Area on Centre Avenue Between 7th and 8th Streets
This area in particular is in need of guidelines because the light manufacturing uses of buildings are
immediately adjacent to residential uses. This poses a conflict because of noise and visual pollution
generated by the light manufacturing automotive businesses. The following guidelines respond to
these conflicts.
The most important aspect of a building, especially an industrial or commercial one, is the
relationship of its fa5ade to the street. If the bullding's front facade is visible from the street, there
should not be any stored material visible. This includes cars and other "junk." If the shop fronts
are exposed, keep the doors dosed to view except for entry and exit. Encourage use of the alley for
entry to the automotive shops. However, use of the alley for storage is illegal. For front or street
facades, encourage the storeowner to upgrade the storefront as designated in the guidelines
mentioned in this plan. The City and neighborhood should consider implemen~ng a facade grant
program or other incentive program for upgrades. When possible, move power lines to the rear of
buildings or to the alley. Implement signage and storefront guidelines as discussed elsewhere in tiffs
plan. When an industrial use is located across from a residence, treat the area from the curb to the
facade in a sensitive manner. Encourage industrial building owners/renters to upgrade and maintain
the area, as this is the best buffer between residential uses and industrial ones. In an effort to limit
the noise generated by the industrial uses, limit noise-making activities to normal business hours.
Encourage the acquisition of automotive shops for conversion to neighborhood commercial uses or
residential uses in the future.
65
A_ppet~dix A: Sucrey Findings
Neighborhood Character
What makes up the unique character of the neighborhood that distinguishes it from other Roanoke
neighborhoods? (Include buildings, businesses, parks, churches, organizations, individuals, events,
etc.) (blank lines left for response)
The responses varied but there were four that said churches, three that said parks, and two that said
there was historic-sentimental value because they were raised there. The words "historic buildings"
and "unique character" were repeated.
How would you improve the character of the neighborhood? What would you add or take away?
(blank lines left for response)
The answers with two responses were: Crime watch organization; more landscaping; continue to
upgrade houses; nothing.
Where do people gather in the neighborhood? (blank lines left for response)
Seven responses said churches, parks. Three responses mentioned Loudon Avenue Christian
Church and two mentioned the NNEO office. Two responses mentioned there ~vas no special
place to gather.
What things make hfe convenient in the neighborhood? (blank lines left for response)
Six responses said easy access to the bus line while two mentioned easy access in general. Small
businesses dose to homes and convenience to churches each got two responses.
What is missing in the neighborhood that would make it more enjoyable? (blank lines left for
response)
"Grocery store" received four mentions while "nothing" received two. Many responses were
business related such as "more small businesses" and more jobs and activities for younger people.
What things should be preserved? (multiple choice with multiple sdection allowed)
"Porches facing the street" received 16 votes while "Alley access" received 14 votes. Twelve
respondents voted for "Historically intact houses" and 11 chose "Unique building details".
66
Housing
Is there too much, enough or too httle of the following housing types in the neighborhood?
(Highest numbers are shown).
Single-family housing - Too little - 11
Multifamily housing Enough - 7
Duplexes - Enough - 8
Public Housing - Too httle - 5
Elderly housing complex - Too little - 8
Small family-style houses for the elderly - Too little - 11
Row houses (no separation between houses) - Too much, Enough - 5
Small apartment buildings - Too little - 7
Large apartment buildings - Too little - 5
How do you think homes to be renovated by NNEO should be chosen? (blank lines left for
response)
According to need, low-income families and those houses that are most mn down each received two
votes.
Do you see any problems with the new housing construction and renovations that are currently
being carried out in the neighborhood? (blank lines left for response)
The overwhelming response was "no" with 11 responses.
What benefits do you see with the new housing construction and renovations that are currently
being carded out in the neighborhood? (blank lines left for response)
No response xvas written more than once. The general sentiment appeared to be that it improves
the neighborhood in appearance and safety.
Who should live in the new and renovated homes? (multiple choices with multiple selection allowed)
"Young families" received seven responses and "Elderly" received six. Several responses h~dicated
that "all of the above" should be considered (young famil/es, present neighborhood residents,
children and friends of present residents, people new to the neighborhood and elderly).
Should these homes be rented or owned by the occupant? (two choices with space to add an
individual answer)
Rented received one response, owned received 10 and either received seven.
67
What should the new and renovated homes look like? (three choices ~vith space to add an individual
answer)
"Exactly like other neighborhood houses" received three votes and "combination of traditional and .
modern in one style" received 15 votes. "Only modern home" did not receive any selection.
What are addresses of abandoned/condemned houses and vacant lots and houses needing
improvement?
This question received numerous different answers but the 500 block of Loudon Avenue and the
700 block of Centre Avenue were each mentioned twice.
Neighborhood Businesses and Facilities
Do you think there are enough job opportunities in the neighborhood?
Two people responded yes and 16 people responded no.
Is there too much, enough or too little of the following?
Retail - Too little - 10
Finance - Too little - 12
Industry - Too little - 10
Car Sales - Too little - 9
Auto Repair - Enough 10
Restaurants/Sandxvich Shops - Too little 13
Video Rental - Too little - 8
Medical/Health Care - Too little - 12
Pharmacy - Enough -9, Too little - 8
Hardware Store - Too little - 10
Bar/Tavern/Club - Too little - 7, Enough 6
Laundry and/or dry cleaning service - Too little - 8, Enough 6
Appliance repair - Too little - 10
Day care - Too little - 12
Schools - Too little - 11
Parks - Too little - 9
Youth Center - Too little
Community-shared gardens - Too litde 7
Other - transportation to resources - Too little -1
What businesses within the neighborhood would you Like to see relocated elsewhere? (blank lines
left for response)
"Auto repair shops" received 5 votes but three other comments mentioned adverse opinions to car
related activities. Two votes were cast for "none". Responses to car-related businesses indicate that
the businesses "can look junky", "are unsightly", "they keep the neighborhood so dirty".
Transportation, Infrastructure, Safety
68
What in the neighborhood makes you feel safe? (multiple choice with multiple selection allowed)
"Street lighting" received 10 responses, "well-kept yards" and "well-kept houses" each received nine
responses, "people on porches" was given eight responses, seven people chose "businesses kept
open during the daytime" and "small distance between houses" got five responses.
What in the neighborhood makes you feel unsafe? (multiple choice with multiple selection allowed)
Fast or loud driving and vacant houses each received 11 responses. "Vacant lots" received 10
votes while "lack of street lighting" received dine. "Trash and litter", "disorderly neighbors" and
"abandoned vehicles" were each selected eight times. "Unkempt houses" and "people in alleys"
received seven and six votes, respectively. "Sidewalks in poor condition" got five responses.
The following question was multi-part and provided space for respondents to give specific locations
related to the item in question:
20. Please tell us which locations need the following:
a) Street repair
b) New or repaired sidewalk and/or curb
c) Storm drainage needs addressed
d) Alley repair
e) New traffic signage
f) New bus stops
g) Street or alley intersections with poor visibility
The following questions were used in the public workshops in order to generate discussion about
issues in the neighborhood.
What things do you like most about the neighborhood?
"Close to bus stop" was the answer of three people and two people answered the question with
"Loudon Avenue Christian Church". Other comments mentioned by two respondents were
"neighbors", "our neighborhood", and "houses being close together".
What things would you like to change about the neighborhood?
The following comments were each mentioned by two people: "tear down old houses", "keep lot
clear and mowed", "I would like to see the vacant lots deaned", "the park needs to be improved".
Three people made mention of removing the auto repair businesses.
The responses received from the survey were invaluable in developing design alternatives. Citizen
and business input provided a dear picture of what issues were most important to people in the
neighborhood.
69
Appendix B: Architectural P~oto_t~t?e Catalo~
One-Sto~y
Prototypes
1 1/2-Story
Prototype
70
Two-Story
Prototypes
71
72
A_qt~enclix C: Neig'hbo~hood Wofk Plsn
The NNEO Neighborhood Master Plan, in coordination with chapters of the Vision 2001 Roanoke
City Comprehensive Plan, provides a framework that will help guide neighborhood and city officials
when making policy decisions concerning facilities development.
Collected from the Final Concept Plan (Chapter 6), each of the goals is described with
accompanying action strategies. In each case, the key responsible personnel are listed in
parentheses.
Goals and Action Strategies
GOAL:
Create better opportunities for multifamily housing.
McCray Court
5th Street Gateway
Multifamily housing at 13th Street and Moorman
Multifamily housing at 6th Street and Gilmer Avenue
ACTION
STRATEGIES:
Develop Site Plan and finandng for specified locations.
1. (NNEO Director) - Kick-off meeting with City Planner, Economic Development Office
and Engineering Office to discuss project area, City participation and available funding.
2. (NNEO Director) - Select Design Professional for site design.
3. (Design Professional) - Prepare design plans.
Rezone candidate sites to Residential multifamily (RM-3).
1. (NNEO Director) - Work with City Planner in charge of neighborhood plan to coordinate a
comprehensive land use plan amendment, in accordance with Vision 2001, and zoning change.
Propose zoning change in accordance with City process.
2. (NNEO Board) - Notify and solicit help from existing property owners and neighbors to
attend Planning Commission and City Council.
3. (Community Planning Office) - City Planner will have Planning Commission sponsor zoning
change request.
Develop creative Multifam/ly complex plans, coordinated with new Vision 2001 plans and initiatives
for Downtown Edge communities.
1. (NNEO Director) - Kick-off meeting with City Planner, Economic Development Office to
discuss project area, City participation and available funding.
73
2. (NNEO Director and City Planning Office) - Select Design Professional for Design Action
Plan. This is a schematic design concept and pricing package to interest potential developers.
3. (NNEO Director) - Secure financing.
4. (NNEO Director and Design Professional) - With de~delopment team, prepare grant
application for these initiatives. Develop plans to 70%.
5. (Design Professional) - Prepare design plans according to grant/loan guidelines.
6. (Design Professional) Implement construction in accordance with design plans and grant
program.
Recruit residents for the new facilities.
I. (NNEO Board) - Disseminate information to potential residents wishing to relocate.
2. (NNEO Director) - Provide open-houses and recruitment
literature.
Create community garden.
GOAL:
ACTION
STRATEGIES:
2.
the site.
4.
5.
GOAL:
Acquire land for community garden.
(NNEO Director) - Select site and discuss acquisition opportunities with current owner.
Create neighborhood comrmttee to maintain garden boundaries and oversee activities within
(NNEO Director) - Secure financing.
(NNEO Director) - Hire coordinator of the community garden
Implement program.
Make pleasant and beautiful streets by planting trees for shade, fall colors,
coordinated neighborhood appearance.
and a
ACTION
STRATEGIES:
Build a comprehensive street tree program, along 5th, 9th, llth and 12th
streets, Moorman Road, and Loudon Avenue.
1. (NNEO Director) - Kick-off meeting with City Forester and Engineering Office to discuss
project area, City participation and available funding.
2. (NNEO Director) - Select Design Professional for Neighborhood street tree project.
74
3. (NNEO Director) - Work with City Engineering Office to prioritize sidewalk and curb
replacement work of City Bond to coordinate with street tree planting project.
4. (NNEO Director and Design Professional) - Prepare grant application for th/s initiative
(Virginia Urban Forestry Program). Budget for Plan: $12,000. Budget for Implementation $400,000.
5. (NNEO Board) - Work with adjacent property owners for "adopt - a tree" program, for
construction and maintenance.
6. (Design Professional) - Prepare design plans according to grant program.
7. (Design Professional) - Implement constmction in accordance with design plans and grant
program.
8. (NNEO Director) - Work on mid-term (5 years) maintenance for street trees, after they are
in place. Assistance from City Urban Forester, adopting neighbors.
GOAL:
Make Community Gateways that provide a welcoming entrance, identifying signage,
and a coordinated neighborhood appearance.
ACTION
STRATEGIES:
Provide Gatexvays at Moorman and 14th, llth and Shenandoah, 5th and
Loudon
1. (NNEO Director) - Kick-off meeting with City Forester and Engineering Office to discuss
project areas, City participation and available funding.
2. (NNEO Director) - Select Design Professional for Neighborhood gateway project.
3. (NNEO Director) - Work with City Engineering Office to prioritize sidewalk and curb
replacement work of City Bond to coordinate with gateway projects.
4. (NNEO Director and Design Professional) - Prepare private foundation grant applications
for this initiative (Coca Cola, AEP, Norfolk southern, etc.). Budget for 3 Gateways: $120,000.
5. (NNEO Board) - Work with adjacent property owners for easements for construction and
maintenance.
6. (Design Professional) - Prepare design plans according to grant program.
7. (Design Professional) - Implement constmction in accordance with design plans and grant
program.
GOAL:
Develop a coordinated neighborhood design.
ACTION
STRATEGIES:
Develop Neighborhood Architectural Review Board.
75
1. (NNEO Director) - Kick-off meeting with City Planner to discuss implementation of a
Neighborhood Design district.
2. (NNEO Director and Board) - Select Design Review Comrmttee, write review structure,
policies, process, in concert with the City's efforts.
Implement Guidelines.
1. (NNEO Director and City Planning Office) - Pursue formal adoption of Design Guidelines,
set forth in Neighborhood Master Plan.
(Design Professional) Assist NNEO and Design Review Committee in review of submitted
plans.
3. (Design Review Committee) - Meet and review designs, make recommendations, and
approve designs for construction in neighborhood.
Rezone the NNEO neighborhood to be one of the Design Neighborhoods, in compliance with the
Vision 2001 Plan.
1. (NNEO Director) - Work with City Planner in charge of neighborhood plan to coordinate a
comprehensive plan. Consultant is currently being retained to write Neighborhood Design
Ordinance. Propose zoning Overlay district in accordance with City process.
2. (NNEO Board) - Notify and solicit help of existing property owners and neighbors to
attend Planning Commission and City Council.
3. (Community Planning Office) - City Planner will have Planning CommSssion sponsor
overlay zoning change request.
GOAL:
ACTION
STRATEGIES:
Construct appropriate in£fll homes within the neighborhood.
Maintain Neighborhood Advisory Architectural Review Board.
1. (NNEO Director and Board) Meet with City Planner on a regular basis to insure
compliance with the Neighborhood Design district and infill guidelines set forth in this plan.
3.
4.
5.
(NNEO Director and Board) - Acquire appropriate properties.
(NNEO Director) - Select design professional.
(NNEO Dixector) - Secure financing.
Implement construction.
76
GOAL:
Celebrate former Hunton Rescue Squad and contributions of members by
demonstrating historic significance and by reusing the Hunton Rescue Squad
Building.
ACTION
STRATEGIES:
Acquire Building and adjacent vacant lot
1. (NNEO Director) - Discuss acquisition opportunities with current owner.
2. (NNEO Director) - Select Design Professional for historic tax-credit gateway project.
Create Museum and Cultural Center
1. (NNEO Director and Board) - Partner with the Harrison Museum of African-American
Culture to provide potential exhibit and museum space in the Hunton Life Saving Crew Building,
and to provide a detailed, graphic history of the Building and its crew.
2. (NNEO Director and Design Professional) - Prepare nomination for National Register of
Historic Places. Prepare NEA grant application for mural design and execution. Budget: $40,000.
3. (NNEO Board) - Work with adjacent property owners for easements for construction and
maintenance. Consider an adoption program for lot, including maintenance (mowing).
4. (NNEO Director) - Secure financing.
5. (Design Professional) - Prepare design plans according to Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and grants program.
6. (Design Professional) - Implement construction in accordance with design plans and grant
program.
7. 0'qNEO Director, spedal Board Members) - Work on curating exhibits with non-profit
agencies, such as the Harrison Museum. NEA program may also be appropriate grant source.
GOAL:
Build relationships with cultural institutions.
ACTION
STRATEGIES:
Accommodate Plans for Cultural Institutions' Growth. Immediately this is
represented by proposed expansion plans for Maple Street Baptist Church,
St. Paul Methodist Church, and the Masons Lodge.
1. (NNEO Board) - Discuss potentials for shared parking, shared recreation and potential
group meeting facilities with congregation.
2. (NNEO Director) - Engage Design Professional for schematic site planning advice for the
churches, to better comply with neighborhood plans. Provide these sen'ices to the Churches.
3. (NNEO Director and Board) Make churches aware of neighborhood plan design guidelines.
77
4. (NNEO Director and Board) - Work with Churches to support their efforts in community
planning process.
GOAL:
Develop neighborhood commercial cores by fostering commercial enterprise on
Centre and 11 th.
ACTION
STRATEGIES:
Rezone portions of Centre Ave. from Light Manufacturing to Commercial
Neighborhood (CN) with some Commercial- Office (C1) for transition into
commercial uses. Rezone portions of 11 th Street from RM-2 to CN.
1. (NNEO Director) - Work with City Planner in charge of neighborhood plan to coordinate a
comprehensive land use plan amendment, in accordance with Vision 2001, and zoning change.
Propose zoning change in accordance with City process.
2. (NNEO Board) -Notify and solicit help of existing property owners and neighbors to attend
· Planning Commission and City council.
3. (Community Planning Office) - City Planner will have Planning Commission sponsor zoning
change request.
Develop Commercial District Plan, coordinated with new Vision 2001 plans and initiatives, with
buried utilities, streets and sidewalks, decorative lighting, street trees and furniture.
1. (NNEO Director) -Kick-off meeting with City Planner, Economic Development Office and
Engineering Office to discuss project area, City participation and available funding.
2. (NNEO Director and City Engineer) - Select Design Professional for N(tghborhood
Commercial District streetscape project.
3. (NNEO Director and Design Professional) - Prepare grant application for this initiative
(TEA21 or work through CDBG hearing process for funding allocation). Budget $800,000.
4. (Design Professional) - Prepare design plans according to grant program.
5. (Design Professional) - Implement constmction in accordance with destgn plans and grant
program.
Recruit businesses for the new commercial district. Provide incentives for business location and
retention.
1. (NNEO Director, City Planner, and Economic Development staff) -Work with City as a
follow-up of Vision 2001 to extend Downtown incentives package to Neighborhood commercial
areas. Potentially, these include facade program, enterprise zones, and streetscape design measures.
2. (NNEO Board) - Disseminate incentives information to existing property owners and
potential businesses wishing to relocate, and to be retained.
78
3. (Design Professional) - Provide facade design and space planning assistance, modeled on
successful downtown program.
4. (NNEO Director) - Apply Main Street approach for commercial district, with promotions,
design, and liaison services between Neighborhood Commercial areas and City.
5. Rezone area on Moorman to support neighborhood commercial designation at 8th Street
and Moorman.
GOAL:
Provide opportunities for youth.
ACTION
STRATEGIES:
Provide a Youth Center in a coordinated effort with Churches' expansion
plans and the new City Parks Master Plan.
1. (NNEO Director) - Kick-off meeting with City Parks Planner and Engineering Office to
discuss potential Youth and Recreation Center site, City participation and available funding.
2. (City Parks Planner and City Engineer's Office) - Select Design Professional for Youth
Center
3. (NNEO Director) Depending on final location of major recreation centers (citywide), work
to complement program or transportation needs to provide best opportunities for neighborhood
youth.
4. (NNEO Director and Design Professional) - Prepare private foundation grant applications.
5. (NNEO Board) Work ~vith adjacent property owners for easements for adoption and
maintenance.
6. (Design Professional) Prepare design plans according to grant program.
7. (Design Professional) - Implement construction in accordance with design plans and grant
program.
GOAL:
Make beautiful corridors adjacent to the community.
ACTION
STRATEGIES:
Provide Parkxvays along Shenandoah Avenue and 10th Street.
Provide a Parkway with medians along 5th Street.
1. (NNEO Director) - K2ck-off meeting with City Forester and Engineering Office to discuss
project areas, City participation and available funding.
2. (NNEO Director) ~ Select Design Professional for edge parkways project.
79
3. (NNEO Director) - Work with City Engineering Office to prioritize sidewalk and curb
replacement work along the parkways.
4. (NNEO Director and Design Professional) - Prepare private foundation grant application ·
for this initiative (Coca Cola, AEP, Norfolk southern, etc.). Use foundation match for TEA21
Match: Private: $120,000. TEA21: $600,000.
5. (NNEO Board) - Work with adjacent property owners for easements for construction and
maintenance.
6. (Design Professional) - Prepare design plans according to grant program.
7. (Design Professional) - Implement construction in accordance with design plans and grant
program.
GOAL:
Implement future neighborhood projects
ACTION
STRATEGIES:
Develop Site Plan and financing for specified locations.
1. (NNEO Director) - Kick-off meeting with City Planner, Economic Development Office
and Engineering Office to discuss project area, City participation and available funding.
2. (NNEO Director and City Engineer) - Select Design Professional for site plans.
3. Secure financing.
4. (Design Professional) - Prepare design plans according to grant program.
5. (Design Professional) - Implement construction in accordance with design plans and grant
program.
80
Appendix D: Documents Used Durin_~ NNEO Rev]e~v
"Choices: Alternatives for Housing in Old Northwest Roanoke", 1981, Sharon Booker;
"Residential Design Guidelines for New Construction", 1992, Hill Studio, P.C.;
"Roanoke, Virginia: Enterprise Community Strategic Plan", 1994;
"Northwest Neighborhood Environmental Organization 1997 Action Plan", 1997, Roanoke
Neighborhood Partnership and NNEO.
oanoKe memUssance: A Progress Report; Phase I: Short-term Recommendations", I998, Terri
Lynn Cornwell;
"Research Study of Residents Regarding Living in Northwest Roanoke", 1999, Martin Research;
arket Feaslbihty Analysts for Seniors Independent Living in the Gilmer-Loudon Neighborhood",
2000, Bay Area Economics.
81
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given pursuant to §15.2-2204, of the Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, that Vision 2001 - 2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, is proposed to be
amended to include the Gilmer Neighborhood Plan as an element of such Comprehensive
Plan.
A copy of the proposed Gilmer Neighborhood Plan to be considered by City Council
is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building.
A public hearing will be held before the Council of the City of Roanoke on Tuesday,
February 17, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the
Council Chambers, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke,
Virginia, at which time citizens of the City shall be given an opportunity to appear and be
heard by Council on the subject of this proposed amendment.
If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office (853-2541), before 12:00 noon on Thursday,
February 12, 2004.
GIVEN under my hand this 27th day of January
,2004.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
H:/NOTtCES/N-AMENDCOMPKEHENSIVEPLAN(GILMER)021704 DOC
The Roanoke Times
Roanoke, Virginia
Affidavit of Publication
The Roanoke Times
ROANOKE CITY CLERK'S
215 CHURCH AVE. RM 456
ATT: MARY PARKER, CL
ROANOKE VA 24011
REFERENCE: 80023382
02295776
Gilmer Avenue
State of Virginia
City of Roanoke
I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative
of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation
is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily
newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of
Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was
published in said newspapers on the following
dates:
City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of
Vir~a. Sworn and subscribed before me this
__j__~__Lday of February 2004. Witness my hand and
official seal. ~
FUBLISHED 05~ 01/30 02/06
TOTAL COST:
FILED ON:
255.46
02/11/04
NO'lICE OF PUBUC IF. JI~
Signature :_ _ ,
Billing Services Representative
Notice to Publisher:
Publish in the Roanoke Times once on Friday, January 30, 2003, and once on Friday, February 6, 2004.
Send bill and affidavit to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541
Notice to Publisher:
Publish in the Roanoke Tribune once on Thursday, February 5, 2004.
Send bill and affidavit to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF ROANOKE PLANNING
COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on
Thursday, January 15, 2004, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the matter may be
heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., to consider an amendment of Vision 2001 -
2020, the City's comprehensive plan, to include the Gilmer Neighborhood Plan.
A copy of the plan document is available for review in the Department of
Planning Building and Development, Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building.
All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be
heard on the matter. If you are a person who needs accommodations for this
hearing, please contact the Department of Planning Building and Development at
853-1730 before 12:00 noon on the Monday before the date of the hearing listed
above.
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary
City of Roanoke Planning Commission
Please print in newspaper on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 and Tuesday,
January 6,2004
Please charge to credit card (on file) and send affidavit of publication to:
Martha P. Franklin, Department of Planning Building & Development
Room 166, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 853-1730
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOIx
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 ~ 15:36
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk~ci.roanoke.va.us
February 19, 2004
File #514
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Robert B. Manetta, Chair
City Planning Commission
2831 Stephenson Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Manetta:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 36627-021704 permanently vacating, discontinuing
and closing a 24-foot wide alley running in an easterly direction from Franklin Road, S. W.,
for a distance of approximately 129 feet; and a 10~foot wide alley running in a northerly
direction from said 24-foot wide alley.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2004, and is in full force and
effect upon its passage.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Enclosure
Robert B. Manetta, Chair
February 19, 2004
Page 2
pc:
Roanoke Mental Hygiene Service, 301 Elm Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24016
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Susan S. Lower, Acting Director, Real Estate Valuation
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
Sarah E. Fitton, Engineering Coordinator
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
Tl~e 17th day of February, 2006.
No. 36627-021704.
AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing a certain public
right-of-way in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as more pa~icularly described hereinafter; and
dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke filed an application to the Council of the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, in accordance with law, requesting the Council to permanently vacate,
discontinue and close the public right-of-way described hereinafter;
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, after giving proper notice to all
concerned as required by {}30-14, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and after
having conducted a public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to Council;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on such application by the City Council on
February 17, 2004, after due and timely notice thereof as required by {}30-14, Code of the
City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were
afforded an opportunity to be heard on such application;
WHEREAS, it appearing from the foregoing that the land proprietors affected by the
requested closing of the subject public right-of-way have been properly notified; and
WHEREAS, from all of the foregoing, the Council considers that no inconvenience
will result to any individual or to the public from permanently vacating, discontinuing and
closing such public right-of-way.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
that the public right-of-way situate in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and more particularly
described as follows:
That certain twenty-four foot (24') alley between Official Tax Nos. 1020304,
1020305, 1020306, 1020310 and 1020314, extending on an east west axis
beginning at Franklin Road and extending approximately 129 feet toward
Third Street, S.W., with a ten foot alley between Official Tax Nos. 1020303,
1020304 and 1020305, extending on a north south axis beginning at the ten
foot alley and extending approximately 52 feet to the property line of Official
Tax No. 1020305
be, and is hereby permanently vacated, discontinued and closed, and that all right and interest
of the public in and to the same be, and hereby is, released insofar as the Council of the City
of Roanoke is empowered so to do with respect to the closed portion of the right-of-way,
reserving however, to the City of Roanoke and any utility company, including, specifically,
without limitation, providers to or for the public of cable television, electricity, natural gas or
telephone service, an easement for sewer and water mains, television cable, electric wires,
gas lines, telephone lines, and related facilities that may now be located in or across such
public right-of-way, together with the right of ingress and egress for the maintenance or
replacement of such lines, mains or utilities, such right to include the right to remove,
without the payment of compensation or damages of any kind to the owner, any landscaping,
fences, shrubbery, structure or any other encroachments on or over the easement which
impede access for maintenance or replacement purposes at the time such work is undertaken;
such easement or easements to terminate upon the later abandonment of use or permanent
2
removal from the above-described public right-of-way of any such municipal installation or
other utility or facility by the owner thereof.
BE IT FURTHER ORDA1NED that the applicant shall submit to the Subdivision
Agent, receive all required approvals of, and record with the Clerk of the Circuit Court for
the City of Roanoke, a subdivision plat, with such plat combining all properties which would
otherwise be landlocked by the requested closure, or othenvise disposing of the land within
the right-of-way to be vacated in a manner consistent with law, and retaining appropriate
easements, together with the right of ingress and egress over the same, for the installation and
maintenance of any and all existing utilities that may be located within the right-of-way.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the applicant shall, upon meeting all other
conditions to the granting of the application, deliver to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the
City of Roanoke, Virginia, a certified copy of this ordinance for recordation where deeds are
recorded in such Clerk's Office, indexing the same in the name of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, as Grantor, and in the name of the Petitioner, and the names of any other parties in
interest who may so request, as Grantees, and pay such fees and charges as are required by
the Clerk to effect such recordation.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the applicant shall, upon a certified copy of this
ordinance being recorded by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
where deeds are recorded in such Clerk's Office, file with the City Engineer for the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, the Clerk's receipt, demonstrating that such recordation has occurred.
3
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if the above conditions have not been met within
a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the adoption of this ordinance, then such
ordinance shall be null and void with no further action by City Council being necessary.
BE IT FINALLY ORDAINED that pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the
City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Architectural Review Boarll
Bnard of Zoning Appeals
Planning ( ommission
CITY OF ROANOKE
PLANNING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 166
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (540) 853-1730 Fax: (540) 853-1230
E-mail: plan ning~ci.roanoke, va.us
February 17, 2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Request from the City of Roanoke for permanent vacation,
discontinuance and closure of a 24' wide alley running in an
easterly direction from Franklin Road, S.W., for a distance of
approximately 129', and lying between parcels bearing Official Tax
Nos. 1020304, 1020305, and 1020310; and closure of a 10' wide
alley running in a northerly direction from said 24' alley lying
between parcels bearing Official Tax Nos. 1020303, 1020304 and
1020305.
Planning Commission Action:
Public hearing was held on Thursday, January 15, 2004. By a vote of 6-0 (Mr. Rife
absent), the Commission recommended City Council approve the request.
Background:
The petitioner requests closure and vacation of two paper alleys to construct a facility
for the Department of Fire/EMS. The petitioner owns all of the adjoining property.
Considerations:
All of the petitioner's properties are zoned C-3, Central Business District, as are
properties to the east and north. The properties to the south and west of the proposed
site are zoned C-1, Office District. A combination of office and residential uses
surround the proposed site.
The area is served by public utilities. Staff received comments from the Water Division
of the Department of Public Works who advised that provisions for necessary
easements are currently being addressed, and that the sewer line in the alley would be
abandoned. Staff received comments from American Electric Power (AEP), Verizon
and Roanoke Gas, all of whom stated no objection to the request.
The petitioner plans to construct a new Fire/EMS station and administrative facility on
the site of these parcels with the alley. The proposed station will replace the current
Fire Station Numbers 1 and 3, as prescribed in the Fire/EMS Strategic Business Plan,
2000 - 2007. The station follows the recommendations of the plan to consolidate the
current stations into one structure that will accommodate modern state-of-the-art
equipment.
Staff received comments from Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, an adjoining property
owner, stating no objection to the proposed closure. Staff received no comments in
opposition to this request.
Recommendation:
By a vote of 6-0, Planning Commission should recommends City Council approve the
request to vacate, discontinue and close the subject alleys, subject to the conditions
listed below and that the petitioner not be charged for this portion of right-of-way.
The applicant shall submit a subdivision plat to the Agent for the
Planning Commission, receive all required approvals of, and record the
plat with the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke. Said
plat shall combine all properties which would otherwise dispose of the
land within the right of way to be vacated in a manner consistent with
law, and retain appropriate easements for the installation and
maintenance of any and all existing utilities that may be located within
the right-of-way, including the right of ingress and egress.
Upon meeting all other conditions to the granting of the application, the
applicant shall deliver a certified copy of this ordinance for recordation
to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke, Virginia, indexing the
same in the name of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as Grantor, and in
the name of the petitioner, and the names of any other parties in
interest who may so request, as Grantees. The applicant shall pay
such fees and charges as are required by the Clerk to effect such
recordation.
Upon recording a certified copy of this ordinance with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, the applicant shall file
with the Engineer for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, the Clerk's receipt,
demonstrating that such recordation has occurred.
CC:
If the above conditions have not been met within a period of one year
from the date of adoption of this ordinance, then said ordinance shall be
null and void with no further action by City Council being necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert B. Marietta, Chairman
Roanoke City Planning Commission
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Rolanda Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
3RD ST
0
0
% % 0 ~4 / ~ k"...' x'x"...'x"x.q ~,1
~~ % ',- ,-- b...'X%%x,'x.l ','-
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
IN RE:
APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE FOR VACATION OF
PORTIONS OF UNOPENED ALLEYS
APPLICATION FOR VACATING,
DISCONTINUING AND CLOSING
PORTIONS OF UNOPENED
ALLEYS
MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL:
(1) The City of Roanoke ("Petitioner") applies to have the right-of-way of an
unopened public alley permanently vacated, discontinued and closed pursuant to Virginia
Code Section 15.2-2006, and Section 30-14, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended. This public right-of-way is more particularly described on the attached map
(Exhibit A) and as follows: A twenty-four foot (24') alley between Tax Parcels 1020304,
1020305, 1020306, 1020310 and 1020314 extending on an east west axis and beginning at
Franklin Road and extending approximately 129' from Franklin Road toward Third Street,
SW; together with a ten-foot (10') alley between Tax Parcels 1020303, 1020304 and
1020305 extending on a north south axis beginning at the above described alley and
extending approximately 52' to the property line of Tax Parcel 1020305. The total area is
shown on Exhibit A and will be accurately defined on a plat of survey to be required as a
condition of closure.
(2) The adjacent property is owned by the City of Roanoke. Closure of this
portion of right-of-way will have no adverse effect on any property or owner.
(3) A list of the property owners whose lots border or abut the subject alley is
attached as Exhibit B.
WHEREFORE, the City of Roanoke respectfully requests that the above-described
right-of-way be permanently vacated, discontinued and closed by the Council of the City o.f
Roanoke in accordance with Sections 15.2-2006, and 15.2-2008, Code of Virginia, (1950),
as amended, and Section 30-14, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended.
Date: /.2 - ~ - 0 .~
City Manager
Er~hibit "A"
PROPOSED ALLEY
ROANOKE ~,IENTAL
SERVICE
TAX #10205O6
157J- PG 556
I! ZONED: C-3
!0.28 ACRE (DEED)
ELM A VENUE
S88'2f37"W
LINE
' . HYGIENE SERVICE
TAN #102O314
," ZONED:
· 0.404 ACRES
(R/W VARIES)
14.4-6'
SCALE 1"=30'
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
Tax Number Owner
1020303
1020304
1O203O5
102O3O6
1020310
1020314
City of Roanoke
City of Roanoke
City of Roanoke
Roanoke Mental Hygiene Service
City of Roanoke
Roanoke Mental Hygiene Service
Exhibit "B"
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF ROANOKE PLANNING
COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on
Thursday, January 15, 2004, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the matter may be
heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., to consider the following:
Request from the City of Roanoke for permanent vacation,
discontinuance and closure of a 24' wide alley running in an easterly
direction from Franklin Road, S.W., for a distance of approximately 129',
and lying between parcels bearing Official Tax Nos. 1020304, 1020305,
1020306, 1020310 and 1020314; and closure of a 10' wide alley running
in a northerly direction from said 24' alley lying between parcels bearing
Official Tax Nos. 1020303, 1020304 and 1020305.
A copy of the application is available for review in the Department of
Planning Building and Development, Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building.
All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be
heard on the matter. If you are a person who needs accommodations for this
hearing, please contact the Department of Planning Building and Development at
853-1730 before 12:00 noon on the Monday before the date of the hearing listed
above.
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary
City of Roanoke Planning Commission
Please print in newspaper on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 and January 6, 2004
Please send billing to:
Sarah Fitton
Department of Engineering
Room 350, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24011
(540) 853-2731
Please send affidavit of publication to:
Martha P. Franklin, Department of Planning Building & Development
Room 166, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 853-1730
The Roanoke Times
Roanoke, Virginia
Affidavit of Publication
The Roanoke Times
.................................................. + ...........................
ROANOKE CITY CLERK'S
215 CHURCH AVE. RM 456
ATT: MARY PARKER, CL
ROANOKE VA 24011
REFERENCE: 80023382
02295799
Franklin Rd. alley
State of Virginia
City of Roanoke
I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative
of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation
is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily
newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of
Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was
published in said newspapers on the following
dates:
City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of
VirgSDia. Sworn and subscribed before me this
_~__~_ __day of February 2004. Witness my band and
official seal.
~~ _~_' %'~'~ Notary Public
PUBLISHED ON: 01/30 02/06
TOTAL COST:
FILED ON:
298.84
02/11/04
Billing Services Representative
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, February 17,
2004, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chamber in the
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., on an application to permanently
abandon, vacate, discontinue and close, to the extent the City has any legal interest in said public
right-of-way, the following public right-of-way:
That certain twenty-four foot (24') alley between Official Tax Nos. 1020304,
1020305, 1020306, 1020310 and 1020314, extending on an east west axis beginning
at Franklin Road and extending approximately 129 feet toward Third Street, S.W.,
with a ten foot alley between Official Tax Nos. 1020303, 1020304 and 1020305,
extending on a north south axis beginning at the ten foot alley and extending
approximately 52 feet to the property line of Official Tax No. 1020305.
A copy of this proposal is available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk,
Room 456, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. All parties in interest may appear on the above date
and be heard on the question.
If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this public hearing,
contact the City Clerk's Office, 853-2541, by 12:00 noon on Thursday, February 12, 2004.
GIVEN under my hand this 27th day of January ,2004.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
H \NOTICES\N StCIos - City (Franklin Road) (PH 2-18 04) wpd
Notice to Publisher:
Publish in the Roanoke Times once on Friday, January 30, 2003, and once on Friday, February 6, 2004.
Send bill and affidavit to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541
TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
PERTAINING TO THE CLOSURE REQUEST OF:
City of Roanoke for 2 alleyways in the Franklin and 3rd Street)
SW, between Official Tax Nos. 1020304-306, inclusive, 1020310 )AFFIDAVIT
1020314; and 1020303-1010305, inclusive )
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF ROANOKE
TO-WIT:
The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that she is 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 Section 15.2-2204, 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
15th day of December, 2003, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 15th day of
January, 2004, on the rezoning captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels
listed below at their last known address:
Parcel
Owner's Name
1020302 Petitioner
1020303
1020304
1020305
1020310
1020314
1020306
Roanoke Mental Hygiene Service
Also sent
to Valerie Eagle and D~avid Lazarchick, OSW, Inc.
Madha Pace Franklin
Mailin.q Address
301 Elm Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24016
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, this 15th day of December, 2003.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: o~- ~ t --
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKF
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) g53-2541
Fax: (540) g53-1145
E-mail: ¢lcrk~¢i.roanok¢.va.us
December 5, 2003
File #514
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Robert B. Manetta, Chair
City Planning Commission
2831 Stephenson Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Marietta:
Pursuant to Section 30-14, Procedure for altering or vacating City streets or alleys; fees
therefor, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of
an application received in the City Clerk's Office on December 5, 2003, from Darlene L.
Burcham, City Manager, requesting that a 24-foot alley between Official Tax Nos. 1020304,
1020305, 1020306, 1020310 and 10203014, extending on an east west axis beginning at
Franklin Road and extending approximately 129 feet toward Third Street, S. W.; with a ten-
foot alley between Official Tax Nos. 1020303, 1020304 and 1020305, extending on a north
south axis beginning at the 10-foot alley and extending approximately 52 feet to the
property line of Official Tax No. 1020305, be permanently vacated, discontinued and
closed.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. ~oon
Deputy City Clerk
N:\CKEWl\Rezonings - Street Alley Closings 03\Franklin Road - Third Street.doc
Robed B. Mane~a
December5,2003
Page 2
pc:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Susan S. Lower, Acting Director, Real Estate Valuation
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
Sarah E. Fitton, Engineering Coordinator
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
J. Frederick Gusler, City Planner II
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
IN RE:
APPLIGATION OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE FOR VACATION OF
PORTIONS OF UNOPENED ALLEYS
APPLICATION FOR VACATING,
DISCONTINUING AND CLOSING
PORTIONS OF UNOPENED
ALLEYS
MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL:
(1) The City of Roanoke ("Petitioner") applies to have the right-of-way of an
unopened public alley permanently vacated, discontinued and closed pursuant to Virginia
Code Section 15.2-2006, and Section 30-14, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended. This public right-of-way is more particularly described on the attached map
(Exhibit A) and as follows: A twenty-four foot (24') alley between Tax Parcels 1020304,
1020305, 1020306, 1020310 and 1020314 extending on an east west axis and beginning at
Franklin Road and extending approximately 129' from Franklin Road toward Third Street,
SW; together with a ten-foot (10') alley between Tax Parcels 1020303, 1020304 and
1020305 extending on a north south axis beginning at the above described alley and
extending approximately 52' to the property line of Tax Parcel 1020305. The total area is
shown on Exhibit A and will be accurately defined on a plat of survey to be required as a
condition of closure.
(2) The adjacent property is owned by the City of Roanoke. Closure of this
portion of right-of-way will have no adverse effect on any property or owner.
(3) A list of the property owners whose lots border or abut the subject alley is
attached as Exhibit B.
WHEREFORE, the City of Roanoke respectfully requests that the above-described
right-of-way be permanently vacated, discontinued and closed by the Council of the City of
Roanoke in accordance with Sections 15.2-2006, and 15.2-2008, Code of Virginia, (1950),
as amended, and Section 30-14, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended.
Date:
City Manager
Exhibit "A"
//
//
#
#
//
//
#
//
//
?
?
// CITY OF' RDANOKE
//
//
CITY OF ROANOI<E
TAX #1020305
10.07' W
0
Z
0
ROANOKE MENTAL HYGIENE SER~CE
T~X #1020510
INST #990002¢88
ZONED: 0-3
0 $09 ACRES
ELM A VENUE
ROANC.J(E MENTAL
H YCIENE SERVICE
TAX #1020306
OB 1574- PO .358
ZONED: C-3
0.26 ACRE (DEED)
66,96'
LINE
ROANOKE MENTAL
, HYGIENE SERVICE
· .- TAX #1020314-
DB 1574 PG .361
." ZONED:
' 0.404 ACRES
14.4-6'
SCALE 1'%~0'
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
Tax Number Owner
1020303
1020304
1020305
1020306
1020310
1020314
City of Roanoke
City of Roanoke
City of Roanoke
Roanoke Mental Hygiene Service
City of Roanoke
Roanoke Mental Hygiene Service
Exhibit "B"
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk~ci.roanoke.va.us
February 20, 2004
File #537
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
Hugh A. and Bridget B. Meagher
105 S. Jefferson Street
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Meagher:
I am enclosing two copies of Ordinance No. 36628-021704 granting a revocable license to
permit the encroachment of an awning in the public right-of-way of 105 South Jefferson
Street, upon certain terms and conditions. The ordinance will be in full force and effect at
such time as a copy, duly signed, sealed, and acknowledged by the Licensee, has been
admitted to record, at the cost of the Licensee, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for
the City of Roanoke and shall remain in effect only so long as a valid, current certificate
evidencing the insurance required in Paragraph 4 of the ordinance is on file in the Office of
the City Clerk.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2004.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Enclosure
Hugh A. and Bridget B. Meagher
February 20, 2004
Page 2
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Glenn A. Asher, Risk Management Officer
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
Sarah E. Fitton, Engineering Coordinator
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of February, 2004.
No. 36628-021704.
AN ORDINANCE granting a revocable license to permit the encroachment of an awning at
a minimum height above the sidewalk of eight feet (8') and nine inches (9"), extending
approximately forty-eight inches (48") in the public right-of-way of South Jefferson Street, from
property bearing Official Tax No. 1011124, upon certain terms and conditions; and dispensing with
the second reading by title of this ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. Permission is hereby granted the property owners, Bridget B. Meagher and Hugh A.
Meagher ("Licensee") of the property bearing Official Tax No. 1011124, otherwise known as 105
South Jefferson Street, within the City of Roanoke, to permit the encroachment of an awning at a
minimum height above the sidewalk of eight feet (8') and nine inches (9"), extending approximately
forty-eight inches (48") in the public right-of-way of South Jefferson Street, as more fully described
in a letter of the City Manager to City Council dated February 17, 2004.
2. Such license, granted pursuant to § 15.2-2010, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,
shall be revocable at the pleasure of the Council of the City of Roanoke and subject to all the
limitations contained in § 15.2-2010.
3. It shall be agreed by the Licensee that, in maintaining such encroachment, the
Licensee and its grantees, assignees, or successors in interest shall agree to indemnify and save
harmless the City of Roanoke, its officials, officers and employees from all claims for injuries or
damages to persons or property that may arise by reason of the above-described encroachment in the
public fight-of-way.
4. Licensee, its grantors, assigns or successor in interest shall for the duration of this
license maintain on file with the City Clerk's Office evidence of insurance coverage in an amount
not less than $1,000,000.00. This insurance requirement may be met by either homeowner's
insurance or commercial general liability insurance. The certificate of insurance must list the City of
Roanoke, its officers, agents and employees as additional insureds, and an endorsement by the
insurance company naming these parties as additional insureds must be received within thirty (30)
days of passage of this ordinance. The certificate shall state that such insurance may not be canceled
or materially altered without thirty (30) days written advance notice of such cancellation or alteration
being provided to the Risk Management Officer for the City of Roanoke.
5. The City Clerk shall transmit an attested copy of this ordinance to Bridge B. Meagher
and Hugh A. Meagher, 105 South Jefferson Street, Roanoke, Virginia 24011.
6. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect at such time as a copy, duly signed,
sealed, and acknowledged by the Licensee, has been admitted to record, at the cost of the Licensee,
in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke and shall remain in effect only so
long as a valid, current certificate evidencing the insurance required in Paragraph 4 above is on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.
7. Pursuant to the provisions of § 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this
ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
City Clerk.
2004.
ACCEPTED and EXECUTED by the undersigned this day of
BRIDGET B. MEAGHER
HUGH A. MEAGHER
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
§ To-Wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid this
of ,2004, by Bridget B. Meagher.
My Commission expires:
day
Notary Public
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRG1NIA
§ To-Wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me in my jurisdiction ~foresaid this
of ., 2004, by Hugh A. Meagher.
My Commission expires:
day
Notary Public
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
CityWeb: www.roanokegov,com
February 17, 2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject: Encroachment into Public Right-
of-Way - Awning at 105 S.
Jefferson Street -Tax No.
1011124
Bridget B. and Hugh A. Meagher, owners of 105 S. Jefferson Street, have requested
permission for a tenant (applicant) to install an awning that will create an encroachment
into the public right-of-way of Jefferson Street, SW. See Attachment #1.
The revocable encroachment will extend approximately forty-eight (48) inches into the
right-of-way of Jefferson Street, at a height above the sidewalk of 8'9". See Attachments
#2 and #3. The right-of-way of Jefferson Street at this location is approximately fifty-nine
(59') feet in width. Liability insurance and indemnification of City by the applicant shall be
provided as specified in the attached exhibit, subject to approval of the City's Risk
Manager. See Attachment #4.
Recommended Action(s):
Council adopt an ordinance, to be executed by the property owners, and recorded in the
Clerk's office of the Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke, granting a revocable license to
the property owners of 105 S. Jefferson Street, to allow the installation of an awning that
encroaches into the right-of-way of Jefferson Street.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
DLB/SEF
Attachments
C:
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Sarah E. Fitton, Engineering Coordinator
CM04-00034
Attachment #1
'Ue~a*~der's xkoukt like to place :In awning on the fiont of our bulkli~a at I )S S
~ef}krson Sweet Roanoke Awni~g (o will plan and install the a~nin~ to code lncludcd
~ copy of'the phi ot 105 S Jeffbrson St
Sincereh,
/ ~dd:et B, Meaghe~ :
Attachment #2
Attachment #3
Attachment #4
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
FOR ENCROACHMENTS IN RIGHT-OF-WAY
COMMERCIAL
Owner shall obtain liability insurance coverage with respect to claims arising out of
the subject matter of this agreement. The amount of such insurance shall not be
less than:
A. General Aggregate $1,000,000
Products - Completed/Operations Aggregate $1,000,000
Personal and Advertising Injury $1,000,000
Each Occurrence $1,000,000
E. Above amounts may be met by umbrella form coverage in a minimum amount
of $1,000,000 aggregate; $1,000,000 each occurrence.
Owner shall name the City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers as
additional insured as its interests may appear on the above policy. Such coverage
shall not be canceled or materially altered except after thirty (30) days prior written
notice of such cancellation or material alteration to City Engineer of the City of
Roanoke.
Owner shall indemnify and save harmless the City of Roanoke, its officials, officers
and employees, from all claims for injuries or damages to persons or property that
may arise by reason of the encroachment over public right-of-way.
The Roanoke Times
Roanoke, Virginia
Affidavit of Publication
The Roanoke Times
+
ROANOKE CITY CLERK'S
215 CHURCH AVE. RM 456
ATT: MARY PARKER, CL
ROANOKE VA 24011
REFERENCE: 80023382
02295819
encroachment
State of Virginia
City of Roanoke
I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative
of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation
is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily
newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of
Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was
published in said newspapers on the followin9
dates:
City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of
Virginia. Sworn and subscribed before me this
/~____day of February 2004. Witness my hand and
official seal.
--~---~ ~ ~ Notary Public
PuB;LISHED 0~: 02/06
TOTAL COST: 132.55
FILED ON: 02/11/04
.................................................. + ...........................
Authorized ~ ~_ ,
Si~nature:_~__~_ _ Billin~ Services Representative
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City of Roanoke proposes to allow the encroachment o fan awning at a height of at least
eight (8) feet and nine (9) inches above the sidewalk and approximately forty-eight (48) inches into
the public right-of-way of 105 S. Jefferson Street, from propertyidentified as 105 S. Jefferson Street,
and bearing Official Tax No. 1011124.
Pursuant to the requirements of §§ 15.2-1800(B), 15.2-1813 and 15.2-2010, Code o fVirginia,
(1950), as amended, notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a
public hearing on the above matter at its regular meeting to be held on February 17, 2004,
commencing at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 4th Floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building,
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia. Further information is available from the Office of
the City Clerk for the City of Roanoke at (540) 853-2541.
Citizens shall have the opportunity to be heard and express their opinions on said matter.
If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this hearing, please
contact the City Clerk's Office (853-2541), before 12:00 noon on Thursday, February 12, 2004.
GIVEN under my hand this 27thday of January ,2004.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
II:/NOTICES/NE MEAGHER021704 DOC
Notice to Publisher:
Publish in the Roanoke Times once on Friday, February 6, 2004.
Send bill and affidavit to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
February 19, 2004
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
File #28-29-166
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 36629-021704 authorizing conveyance of a 20-foot
wide easement for the extension of existing electric power service on City-owned property,
identified as Official Tax Nos. 2340104 and 2340108, to Appalachian Power Company,
d/b/a American Electric Power, to provide underground electric service to the Roanoke
Academy for Mathematics and Science, upon certain terms and conditions.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2004, and is in full force and
effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Attachment
Darlene L. Burcham
February 20, 2004
Page 2
pc:
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
Sarah E. Fitton, Engineering Coordinator
IN THE COLrNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of February, 2004.
No. 36629-021704.
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the granting of a twenty-foot (20') wide easement for
the extension of existing electric power service on City-owned property, identified by
Official Tax Nos. 2340104 and 2340108, to Appalachian Power Company d/b/a American
Electric Power ("AEP"), for the purpose of providing underground electric service to the
Roanoke Academy for Mathematics and Science, upon certain terms and conditions; and
dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
WHEREAS, a public heating was held on February 17, 2004, pursuant to §§15.2-
1800(B) and 1813, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, at which heating all parties in
interest and citizens were afforded an opportunity to be heard on such conveyance.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City Manager and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute and attest,
respectively, in a form approved by the City Attorney, the necessary document granting a
twenty-foot (20') wide easement for the extension of existing electric power service on City-
owned property, identified by Official Tax Nos. 2340104 and 2340108, to Appalachian
Power Company d/b/a American Electric Power for the purpose of providing underground
electric service to the Roanoke Academy for Mathematics and Science, upon certain terms
and conditions, as more fully described in a letter of the City Manager to City Council dated
February 17, 2004.
2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading
of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
City Clerk.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
CityWeb: www.roanokegov.com
February ~ 7, 2004
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject: Request of Appalachian Power
Company for Easement on City-
owned Property at Roanoke Academy
for Mathematics and Science
Appalachian Power Company has requested a twenty-foot wide underground utility
easement across city owned property identified by Tax Map Nos. 2340104 and #2340108
to extend an existing power line on the above referenced site to provide underground
electric service to that facility. See Attachments #1 & #2.
Recommended Action(s):
Following a public hearing, authorize the City Manager to execute the appropriate
documents granting an easement as described above to Appalachian Power Company,
approved as to form by the City Attorney.
DLB/SEF
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
Attachment
C'.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Sarah E. Fitton, Engineering Coordinator
#CM04-00036
Attachment #1
PROPOSED R'GHT OF WAY
ON PROPERTY OF
MAP NO. 3780-229-D4 W.O. NO.
PROPERTY NO. 1 JOB NO.
EAS NO.
Attachment #2
W000651801
03-10202
THIS AGREEMENT, made this __ day of ,2004, by and between the CITY
OF ROANOKE, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, herein called "GRANTOR," and APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY, a Virginia
corporation, herein called "APPALACHIAN."
WITNESSETH:
THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00), the
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the GRANTOR hereby gives license and permit to
APPALACHIAN, its successors and assigns, and the right, privilege and authority to said
APPALACHIAN, its successors and assigns, to construct, erect, operate, and maintain a line or
lines for the purpose of transmitting electric power underground on the properties of the
City of Roanoke, further identified as Roanoke City Tax Parcels numbered 2340104 and
2340108 in the City of Roanoke, Virginia.
BEING a right of way and easement, in, on, along, through, across or under said lands
for the purpose of providing service to the Roanoke Academy for Mathematics and
Science, as shown on that certain Appalachian Power Company Drawing V-1420 dated
1-5-04, entitled "Proposed Right of Way on Property of City of Roanoke", attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY, P.O. BOX 2021, ROANOKE, VA 24022-2121
TOGETHER with the right to said APPALACHIAN, its successors and assigns, to
construct, erect, install, place, operate, maintain, inspect, repair, renew, remove, add to the
number of, and relocate at will, underground conduits, ducts, vaults, cables, wires, transformers,
pedestals, risers, pads, fixtures and appurtenances (hereinafter called "Appalachian's Facilities"),
in, on, along, over, through, across and under the above referred to premises; the right to disturb
the surface of said premises and to excavate thereon, and to cut down, trim, clear and/or
otherwise control, and at Appalachian's option, remove from said premises any trees, shrubs,
roots, brush, undergrowth, overhanging branches, buildings or other obstructions which may
endanger the safety of, or interfere with the use of Appalachian's Facilities, and the right of
ingress and egress to and over said above referred to premises and any of the adjoining lands of
the Grantors at any and all times, for the purpose of exercising and enjoying the rights herein
granted, and for doing anything necessary or useful or convenient in connection therewith. The
Grantor hereby grants, conveys and warrants to Appalachian Power Company a non-exclusive
right of way easement for electric facilities.
In the event APPALACHIAN should remove all of said Appalachian's facilities from the
lands of the GRANTOR, then all of the rights, title and interest of the party of
APPALACHIAN in the right of way and license hereinabove granted, shall revert to the
GRANTOR, its successors and assigns.
APPALACHIAN agrees to indemnify and save harmless the GRANTOR against any
and all loss or damage, accidents, or injuries, to persons or property, whether of the GRANTOR
or any other person or corporation, arising in any manner from the negligent construction,
operations, or maintenance, or failure to properly construct, operate, or maintain said
Appalachian's facilities.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto Appalachian Power Company, its successors
and assigns.
Upon recordation of this agreement Appalachian accepts the terms and conditions
contained therein.
NOTICE TO LANDOWNER: You are conveying rights to a public service corporation.
A public service corporation may have the right to obtain some or all of these rights through
exercise of eminent domain. To the extent that any of the rights being conveyed are not subject
to eminent domain, you have the right to choose not to convey those rights and you could not be
compelled to do so. You have the right to negotiate compensation for any rights that you are
voluntarily conveying.
WITNESS the signature of the City of Roanoke by Darlene L. Burcham, its City
Manager, and its municipal seal hereto affixed and attested by Mary F. Parker, its City Clerk
pursuant to Ordinance No. adopted on
CITY OF ROANOKE
ATTEST:
CITY MANAGER
CITY CLERK
STATE OF VIRGINIA )
) TO-WIT:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
I, , a Notary Public in and for the City and
Commonwealth At Large, do certify that
and City Manager and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of
Roanoke, whose names as such are signed to the writing above, bearing date the day
of ,2003, have each acknowledged the same before me in my
jurisdiction aforesaid.
Given under my hand this day of ,2004.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
The Roanoke Times
Roanoke, Virginia
Affidavit of Publication
The Roanoke Times
.................................................. + ...........................
ROANOKE CITY CLERK'S
215 CHURCH AVE. RM 456
ATT: MARY PARKER, CL
ROANOKE VA 24011
REFERENCE: 80023382
02299057
State of Virginia
City of Roanoke
Rke Academy
I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative
of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation
is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily
newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of
Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was
published in said newspapers on the following
dates:
City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of
Virginia. Sworn and subscribed before me this
__~__~_-- day of February 2004. Witness my hand and
of ficia~ seal.
~~_ ._~ _~ Nots ry Public
Y ~ssion e ap ~ e s~___~_~L~-~_.
-.BLI$.{ED ON: 02/06
TOTAL COST:
FILED ON:
154.24
02/11/04
NOTICE OF PgBUC ~
Authorized /
S ignature:__~_~_~_, Billing Servisss Representative
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The City of Roanoke proposes to grant a twenty foot wide easement to extend an
existing power line on City-owned property, located at the Roanoke Academy for
Mathematics and Science, identified by Tax Map Nos. 2340104 and 2340108, to
Appalachian Power Company d/b/a American Electric Power (AEP) for the purpose of
providing underground electric service to the Roanoke Academy for Mathematics and
Science.
Pursuant to the requirements of §§ 15.2-1800(B) and 1813, Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a
public hearing on the above matter at its regular meeting on Tuesday, February 17, 2004, at
7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the Council Chambers, Noel C.
Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, at which time
citizens of the City shall be given an opportunity to appear and be heard by Council on the
subject. Further information in the form ora letter to City Council dated February 17, 2004,
is available from the Office of the City Clerk for the City of Roanoke at (540) 853-2541.
If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office (853-2541), before 12:00 noon on Thursday,
February 12, 2004.
GIVEN under my hand this 2nd day of Februar~ , 2004.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
H:\NOTICES/N-AEPEASEMENT(I[L~MS)021604 DOC
Notice to Publisher:
Publish in the Roanoke Times once on Friday, February 6, 2004.
Send bill and affidavit to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541