Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Council Actions 11-21-05
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 21,2005 12:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL'S CONFERENCE ROOM ROOM 451 AGENDA Call to Order--Roll Call. (Council Member Wishneff was absent.) Welcome. Invocation and Lunch. Comments by Congressman Goodlatte. Comments by the Mayor and Members of Council. A communication from Mayor C. Nelson Harris 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· (Approved 6 - 0) File #132 A communication from the City Attorney requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting for consultation with legal counsel regarding pending litigation where such consultation in open session would adversely affect the City's negotiating or litigating posture, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. (Approved 6 - 0) File #132 Certification of Closed Session (6-0) The Following persons were appointed/reappointed to boards and commissions: Cheri W. Hartman was reappointed as a member of the Human Services Advisory Board for a term ending November 30, 2009. File #15-72-110 Robert Williams, Jr., was reappointed as a member of the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors for a term ending December 31, 2008. File #15-110-314 William D. Poe, Diana B. Shepphard and J.oseph F. Miller were reappointed as members of the Board of Zomng Appeals for terms ending December 31, 2008. File #1 5-51-11 0 Carla Terry was appointed as a member of the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee for a term ending June 30, 2008. File #15-110-448 THE COUNCIL MEETING WAS DECLARED IN RECESS TO BE RECONVENED AT 2:00 P.M., IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, ROOM 450, NOEL C. TAYLOR MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 215 CHURCH AVENUE, S. W. Dowe 37239-112105 ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION NOVEMBER 21,2005 2:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER AGENDA Call to Order--Roll Call. (All Council Members were present.) The Invocation was delivered by Vice-Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor C. Nelson Harris. Welcome. Mayor Harris. NOTICE: Today's Council meeting will be replayed on Channel 3 on Thursday, November 24, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday, November 26, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. Council meetings are offered with closed captioning for the hearing impaired. ANNOUNCEMENTS: THE PUBLIC IS ADVISED THAT MEMBERS OF COUNCIL RECEIVE THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AND RELATED COMMUNICATIONS, REPORTS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, ETC., ON THE WEDNESDAY 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 M,~JORITY 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.ROANOKEVA.GOV, 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 IS LOCATED AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. ON THE SAME AGENDA ITEM, ONE TO FOUR SPEAKERS WILL BE ALLOq-I'ED FIVE MINUTES EACH, HOWEVER, IF THERE ARE MORE THAN FOUR SPEAKERS, EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOTTED THREE MINUTES. 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. ROANOKEVA.GOV, TO OBTAIN AN APPLICATION. 2. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: A Resolution memorializing the late George F. Pollash, former 1989 Citizen of the Year. Adopted Resolution No. 37239-112105. (7-0) File #367-496 Presentation by Peter Lampman, President, Virginia Amateur Sports, Inc., with regard to the Virginia Commonwealth Games. (Sponsored by the City Manager.) File #334 4 3. CONSENT AGENDA C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Approved (7-0) ALL MA'I-FERS 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 meetings of Council held on Monday, October 3, 2005, and Monday, October 17, 2005. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Di.spense with the reading of the minutes and approve as recorded. A communication from S. James Sikkema, Executive Director, Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, recommending concurrence by Council in the reappointment of Linda H. Bannister as an at-large memberofthe Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors, for a term commencing January 1, 2006 and ending December 31,2008. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in the request. File .//1 5-110-314 A communication from Sherman V. Burroughs, IV, tendering his resignation as a member of the Fair Housing Board. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept the resignation and receive and File #110-1 78 file the communication. Qualification of the following persons: Reginald P. Church as a member of the New Construction Code, Board of Appeals, for a term ending September 30, 2010; and John W. Elliott as a member of the Roanoke Civic Center Commission, for a term ending September 30, 2008. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. File #15-32-110-192 REGULAR AGENDA 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. 5. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: Request to present information with regard to the FY05 Roanoke Teen Pregnancy Prevention Project. Brooks Michael, Coordinator, Teen Pregnancy Prevention Project, Spokesperson. (Sponsored by Mayor C. Nelson Harris and Vice-Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.) File #304-370 Presentation with regard to the importance of identity of communities. Dr. Mindy Thompson Fullilove, Spokesperson. (Sponsored by Mayor C. Nelson Harris and Council Member Brian J. Wishneff.) File #200 Recommendation by the Clerk of Circuit Court for acceptance of funds from the Library of Virginia, in connection with the Virginia Circuit Court Records Preservation Program; and a communication from the City Manager concurring in the recommendation. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 37242-112105 and Resolution No. 37243-112105. (7-0) File #60-103 6. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: a. CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: NONE. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: Acceptance of the COPS Interoperable Communications Technology Program Grant from the U. S. Department of Justice; and appropriation of funds. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 37244-112105 and Resolution No. 37245-112105. (7-0) File #5-60-236 Acceptance of the Occupant Protection/Safety Restraint Grant and the Enhanced Impaired Driving Enforcement Grant from the United States Department of Transportation; and appropriation of funds. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 37246-112105 and Resolution No. 37247-112105. (7-0) File #5-60-236 Acceptance of Workforce Investment Act funding for program year 2005 from the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board; and appropriation of funds. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 37248-112105 and Resolution No. 37249-112105. (7-0) File #60-72-236-246 Amendment of the City Code to provide for regulation of bawdy places. Adopted Resolution No. 37250-112105. (7-0) File #5-24 Appropriation of $55,000.00 in connection with the open storage component of the O. Winston Link Museum. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 37251-112105. (7-0) File #60-537 Appropriation of $40,000.00 in connection with the Hotel Dumas Artistic and Cultural Center Project. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 37252-112105. (7-0) File #60-77-226 Appropriation of funds in connection with the State Asset Sharing and Federal Forfeited Property Sharing programs. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 37253-112105. (7-0) File #5-60 Approval of a special policy to pay military reservists/national guard who are called to active duty between October 1, 2005 and September 30, 2006. Adopted Resolution No. 37254-112105. (7-0) File #184 Authorization to donate a Police Department Animal Control truck to the SPCA to transport animals. Adopted Resolution No. 37255-112105. (7-0) File #5-54 10. Execution of Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with the Roanoke City School Board, in connection with the Jackson Middle School Fitness Center. Adopted Resolution No. 37256-112105. (7-0) File #467 7. REPORTS OF COMMI'I-I'EES: Proposed 2006 City of Roanoke Legislative Program. Vice-Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Chair, Legislative Committee. Adopted Resolution No. 37241-112105. (7-0) A meeting of the Legislative Committee will be held on Monday, December 5, 2005 (hour to be announced) to discuss advisory referenda. File #110-137 Request of the Roanoke City School Board for appropriation of funds to various school accounts; and a report of the Director of Finance recommending that Council concur in the request. Kenneth F. Mundy, Executive Director of Fiscal Services, Spokesperson. Adopted Ordinance No. 37257-112105. (7-0) File #467 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. 9. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: NONE. 8 10. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: a. Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City Council. Council Member Dowe inquired about the holiday schedule for City employees; whereupon, the City Manager advised that both Christmas and New Years Day fall on a Sunday, therefore, City offices will be closed on the Monday following both holidays. File #132-184 Council Member Dowe inquired about the status of the City of Roanoke Strategic Housing Plan; whereupon, the City Manager advised that the document will be presented to the City Planning Commission in November. She requested guidance as to whether Council would like a staff briefing prior to the Council's public hearing. File #1 78-200 Council Member Wishneff clarified a report prepared by CSL International that 65 per cent of events held at Victory Stadium are generated by the two high schools and 85 per cent of projected revenue is derived from non-school events. File #122 Vacancies on certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council. 9 1 1. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MA'i-FERS: CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY FOR CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. MA'I-FERS REQUIRING REFERRAL TO THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE REFERRED IMMEDIATELY FOR RESPONSE, RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT TO COUNCIL. Mr. John Graybill, 2443 Tillett Road, S. W.; Mr. Dick Kepley, 550 Kepplewood Road, S. E.; and Mr. Jim Fields, 1 7 Ridgecrest Road, Hardy, Virginia, spoke with regard to the renovation of Victory Stadium. File #122 Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29th Street, N. W., spoke with regard to the rising cost of health care insurance for City employees, housing in the City of Roanoke, and other general concerns. File #66-184 12. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: The City Manager advised that in view of t.he Thanksgiving holiday, solid waste will be picked up one day In advance of the regular collection day which will enable City employees to have a four day break. File #144-184 The City Manager advised that the Grandin Road Holiday Parade was held on Saturday, November 19, 2005. File #87 THE COUNCIL MEETING WAS DECLARED IN RECESS TO BE RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M., IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, ROOM 450, NOEL C. TAYLOR MUNICIPAL BUILDING. ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION NOVEMBER 21,2005 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER AGENDA Call to Order -- Roll Call. The Invocation was delivered by Council Member Sherman P. Lea. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor C. Nelson Harris. Welcome. Mayor Harris. NOTICE: Tonight's Council meeting will be replayed on Channel 3 on Thursday, November 24, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday, November 26, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. Council meetings are offered with closed captioning for the hearing impaired. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOW~ FnGEMENTS: Recognition of Nicholas F. Taubman as the City of Roanoke's 2005 Citizen of the Year. Adopted Resolution No. 37240-112105. (7-0) File #496 PUBLIC HEARINGS: Request of Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., for exemption of property located at 3716 Melrose Avenue, N. W., from real estate taxation. Eileen G. Lepro, Executive Director, Spokesperson. Adopted Ordinance No. 37258-112105. (7-0) File #79 Amendment of Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Garden City Neighborhood Plan. R. Brian Townsend, Agent, City Planning Commission. Adopted Ordinance No. 37259-112105. (7-0) File #424 3.(a) Proposal of the City of Roanoke to amend the City Code to repeal Chapter 36.1, Zoning, and to adopt a new Zoning Ordinance, new Chapter 36.2, Zoning; and The ordinance was tabled until the next regular meeting of Council on Monday, December 5, 2005, at 2:00 p.m., at which time the City Manager was requested to provide a projected date for response by City staff to various questions and concerns that were presented at the public hearing. File #51 (b) Proposal of the City of Roanoke to rezone all property in the City in order to implement new Chapter 36.2, Zoning, and Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and to adopt new zoning maps. R. Brian Townsend, Agent, City Planning Commission. Tabled until Monday, December 5, 2005, at 2:00 p.m. 12 B. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MA'II'ERS: Mr. Tony Hairston, 1263 Tayloe Avenue, S. E., spoke with regard to alleged police brutality, racial profiling andjob discrimination. File #5-11 Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridgecrest Road, Hardy, Virginia, spoke with regard to the renovation of Victory Stadium. File #122 Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29th Street, N. W., spoke with regard to various concerns. File #66 CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY FOR CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. MA'I-I'ERS REQUIRING REFERRAL TO THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE REFERRED IMMEDIATELY FOR RESPONSE, RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT TO COUNCIL. C. NELSON HARRIS Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 CHURCH AVENUE. S.W.. ROOM 452 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1594 TELEPHONE: (540) 853 2~t44 FAX: (54(}) 853-1145 November 21,2005 The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: This is to request 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. Sincerely, CNH:snh C. Nelson Harris Mayor MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, V'trginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540) 853-2541 Fax: (540) 853-1145 E-mail: clerk @ ci.roaaoke.va.us STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant City Clerk November 28, 2005 File #15-110-318 Dr. Cheri W. Hartman 2423 Stanley Avenue, S. E Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Dear Dr. Hartman'. At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005, you were reappointed as a member of the Human Services Advisory Board, for a term ending November 30, 2009. Enclosed you will find a Certificate of your reappointment and an Oath or Affirmation of Office which may be administered by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, located on the third floor of the Roanoke City Courts Facility, 315 Church Avenue, S. W. Please return one copy of the Oath of Office to Room 456 in the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., prior to serving in the capacity to which you were reappointed. Pursuant to Section 2.2-3702, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, I am enclosing copy of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. The Act requires that you be provided with a copy within two weeks of your appointment and each appointee is required "to read and become familiar with provisions of the Act." Dr. Cheri W. Hartman November 28, 2005 Page 2 On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for your willingness to continue your service to the City of Roanoke as a member of the Human Services Advisory Board. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew Enclosures pc: Teresa I. McDaniel, Secretary, Human Services Advisory Board COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) ) To-wit: CITY OF ROANOKE ) I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof, do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council which was held on the twenty-first day of November, 2005, CHERI W. HARTMAN was reappointed as a member of the Human Services Advisory Board, for a term ending November 30, 2009. eighth day of November, 2005. Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenty- City Clerk MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, ~rwg~nia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540) 853~2541 Fax: (540) 853-1145 E-mail: clerk@ci.roanoke.va.us November 28, 2005 File #15-110-314 STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant City Clerk Mr. Robert Williams, Jr. 3343 Clara Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Mr. Williams: At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005, you were reappointed as a member of the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors, for a term ending December 31, 2008. Enclosed you will find a Certificate of your reappointment and an Oath or Affirmation of Office which may be administered by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, located on the third floor of the Roanoke City Courts Facility, 315 Church Avenue, S. W. Please return one copy of the Oath of Office to Room 456 in the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., prior to serving in the capacity to which you were reappointed. Pursuant to Section 2.2-3702, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, I am enclosing copy of the Virgfnia Freedom of Information Act. The Act requires that you be provided with a copy within two weeks of your reappointment and each member is required "to read and become familiar with provisions of the Act." Mr. Robert Williams, Jr. November 28, 2005 Page 2 On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for your willingness to continue your service to the City of Roanoke as a member of the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew Enclosures pc: S. James Sikkema, Executive Director, Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, 301 Elm Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016-400! Stephanie M. Moon, CMC, Deputy City Clerk COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA) ) CITY OF ROANOKE ) To-wit: I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof, do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council which was held on the twenty-first day of November, 2005, ROBERT WILLIAMS, JR., was reappointed as a member of the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors, for a term ending December 31, 2008. Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenty- eighth day of November, 2005. City Clerk MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 21 $ 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 November 28, 2005 File #15-51-110 STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant City Clerk Mr. William D. Poe 1015 Oakwood Drive, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Dear Mr. Poe: At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005, you were reappointed as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, for a term commencing January 1, 2006 and ending December 31, 2008. Enclosed you will find a Certificate of your reappointment and an Oath or Affirmation of Office which may be administered by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, located on the third floor of the Roanoke City Courts Facility, 315 Church Avenue, S. W. Please return one copy of the Oath of Office to Room 456 in the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., prior to serving in the capacity to which you were reappointed. Pursuant to Section 2.2-3702, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, I am enclosing copy of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. The Act requires that you be provided with a copy within two weeks of your reappointment and each member is required "to read and become familiar with provisions of the Act." Mr. William D. Poe November 28, 2005 Page 2 On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for your willingness to continue your service to the City of Roanoke as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew Enclosures pc: Rebecca J. Cockram, Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals Stephanie M. Moon, CMC, Deputy City Clerk COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA) ) CITY OF ROANOKE ) To-wit: I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof, do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council which was held on the twenty-first day of November, 2005, WILLIAM D. POE was reappointed as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, for a term commencing January 1,2006 and ending December 31, 2008. Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenth- eighth day of November, 2005. City Clerk MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Vkginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540) 853-2541 Fax: (540) 853-1145 E-mail: clerk @ ci.roanoke.va.us November 28, 2005 File #15-51-110 STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC Deputy City Clerk SHE1LA N. HARTMAN Assistant City Clerk Ms. Diana B. Shepphard 2529 Floraland Drive, N. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Dear Ms. Shepphard: At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005, you were reappointed as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, for a term commencing January 1, 2006 and ending December 31, 2008. Enclosed you will find a Certificate of your reappointment and an Oath or Affirmation of Office which may be administered by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, located on the third floor of the Roanoke City Courts Facility, 315 Church Avenue, S. W. Please return one copy of the Oath of Office to Room 456 in the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., prior to serving in the capacity to which you were reappointed. Pursuant to Section 2.2-3702, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, I am enclosing copy of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. The Act requires that you be provided with a copy within two weeks of your reappointment and each member is required "to read and become familiar with provisions of the Act." Ms. Diana B. Shepphard November 28, 2005 Page 2 On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for your willingness to continue your service to the City of Roanoke as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Sincerely Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew Enclosures pc: Rebecca J. Cockram, Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals Stephanie M. Moon, CMC, Deputy City Clerk COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA) ) CITY OF ROANOKE ) To-wit: I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof, do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council which was held on the twenty-first day of November, 2005, DIANA B. SHEPPHARD was reappointed as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, for a term commencing January l, 2006 and ending December 3:[, 2008. Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenth- eighth day of November, 2005. City Clerk MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE 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 November 28, 2005 File #15-51-110 STEPHAN1E M. MOON, CMC Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant City Clerk Mr. Joseph F. Miller 2812 Longview Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Dear Mr. Miller: At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005, you were reappointed as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, for a term commencing January 1, 2006 and ending December 31, 2008. Enclosed you will find a Certificate of your reappointment and an Oath or Affirmation of Office which may be administered by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, located on the third floor of the R(Janoke City Courts Facility, 315 Church Avenue, S. W. Please return one copy of the Oath of Office to Room 456 in the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., prior to serving in the capacity to which you were reappointed. Pursuant to Section 2.2-3702, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, I am enclosing copy of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. The Act requires that you be provided with a copy within two weeks of your reappointment and each member is required "to read and become familiar with provisions of the Act." Mr. Joseph F. Miller November 28, 2005 Page 2 On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for your willingness to continue your service to the City of Roanoke as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew Enclosures pc: RebeccaJ. Cockram, Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals Stephanie M. Moon, CMC, Deputy City Clerk COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA) ) CITY OF ROANOKE ) To-wit: I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof, do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council which was held on the twenty-first day of November, 2005, JOSEPH F. MILLER was reappointed as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, for a term commencing January l, 2006 and ending December 31, 2008. Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenth- eighth day of November, 2005. City Clerk MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Vnginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540) 853-2541 Fax: (540) 853-1145 E-maih clerk@ci.roanoke.va.us STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant City Clerk November 28, 2005 File #110-448 Ms. Carla L. Terry 1126 Summit Lane, N. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Dear Ms. Terry: At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005, you were appointed as a member of the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee, for a term ending June 30, 2008. Enclosed you will find a Certificate of your appointment and an Oath or Affirmation of Office which may be administered by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, located on the third floor of the Roanoke City Courts Facility, 315 Church Avenue, S. W. Please return one copy of the Oath of Office to Room 456 in the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., prior to serving in the capacity to which you were appointed. Pursuant to Section 2.2-3702, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, I am enclosing copy of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. The Act requires that you be provided with a copy within two weeks of your appointment and each appointee is required "to read and become familiar with provisions of the Act." Ms. Carla L. Terry November 28, 2005 Page 2 On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for your willingness to serve the City of Roanoke as a member of the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew Enclosures pc: Robert R. AItice, Chair, Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee, 616 South Maple Street, Vinton, Virginia 24179 Mary V. Brandt, Secretary, Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee, P. O. Box 29800, Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Elaine Simpson, Director, RVTV, 541 Luck Avenue, S. W., Suite 145, Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Stephanie M. Moon, CMC, Deputy City Clerk COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) ) To-wit: CITY OF ROANOKE ) I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof, do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council which was held on the twenty-first day of November, 2005, CARLA L TERRY was appointed as a member of the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee, for a term ending June 30, 2008. Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenty- eighth day of November, 2005. City Clerk IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 21st day of November, 2005. No. 37239-112105. A RESOLUTION memorializing the late George F. Pollash, a longtime resident of the Roanoke Valley and Citizen of the Year in 1989. WHEREAS, the members of Council learned with sorrow of the passing of Mr. Pollash on November 6, 2005; WHEREAS, Mr. Pollash was bom March 2, 1926 in Shamokin, Pennsylvania; WHEREAS, Mr. Pollash was a Navy Veteran of World War II; WHEREAS, Mr. Pollash was retired fi.om the Reading Railroad; WHEREAS, Mr. Pollash served as director of the Presbyterian Community Center from 1976 to 1991; WHEREAS, in 1989 Mr. Pollash was recognized as Roanoke's Citizen of the Year for his work at the Center; and WHEREAS, Mr. Pollash was a member of Raleigh Court Presbyterian Church for 38 years, where he served as a deacon and an elder. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. City Council adopts this resolution as a means of recording its deepest regret and sorrow at the passing of George F. Pollash, and extends to his family its sincerest condolences. 2. The City Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this resolution to Mr. Pollash's widow, Lois M. Pollash, of Salem, Virginia. ATTEST: City Clerk C. NELSON HARRIS Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 CHURCH AVENUE, S.W.. ROOM 452 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2401 !-1594 TELEPHONE: (540) 853-2444 FAX: 1540) 853-1145 November 15, 2005 Mrs. Lois M. Pollash 1955 Braebum Drive Salem, Virginia 24153 Dear Mrs. Pollash: On behalf of the members of Roanoke City Council, I want to extend to you and your family our deepest sympathies on the recent passing of George F. Pollash. Please know that you have been in the thoughts and prayers of many in our City during this time. As a way to formally recognize Mr. Pollash and his contributions to Roanoke, the City Council will be adopting a memorial resolution at our upcoming meeting on November 21, 2005, at 2:00 p.m. When Council plans to take such action, we do like to notify the family should they wish to be present, if this would be your desire, I would ask that you call the City Clerk's Office at 853- 2541 as this will prepare me to acknowledge your presence and to personally present to you the memorial resolution at the Council meeting. Knowing that these remain difficult days, we will certainly understand if you cannot be in attendance, and we will forward a copy of the resolution to you. Again, please know that our thoughts go with you. If my office can be of assistance to you in any way, do not hesitate to call upon us. With best personal regards, I am CNH:snh Respectfully, C. Nelson Harris, Mayor 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 City Web: www.roanokeva.gov November 21,2005 The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor and Members of Council: I would like to sponsor a request from Pete Lampman of the Virginia Amateur Sports, Inc. to make a presentation to City Council on the economic impact the Virginia Commonwealth Games and the National Baseball tournament had on the Roanoke Valley. Respectfully submitted, ~i~ ryl e~aenLa, gBe~' c~h a~m~Z'~ DLB:sm C: City Attorney Director of Finance City Clerk VIRGINIA AMATEUR SPORTS AND THE ROANOKE VALLEY VIRGINIA AMATEUR SPORTS, INC. Virginia Amateur Sports, Inc. 711 C 5th Street, NE Roanoke, Virginia 24016 (540) 343-0987 FAX (540) 343-7407 www.commonwealthgames.org November 21, 2005 The Honorable Mayor Nelson Hams Members of City Council City of Roanoke Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Mayor Hams and City Council Members, Thank you once again for giving me the opportunity to publicly say thank you for your ongoing support and commitment to Virginia Amateur Sports and the Virginia Commonwealth Games. Due to your efforts and the other Valley governments, our 16th Anniversary was a success. Enclosed is a small report on the economic impact the Commonwealth Games and the National AAU 15 Under Baseball Tournament we hosted had on the Roanoke Valley. The report also provides information on the demographics of where the athletes traveled from to participate. Over the past 16 years, approximately 134,000 athletes have competed in this event, known throughout Virginia as Virginia's Olympics. Again, please accept my thank you for enhancing our ability to carry on our Tradition of Excellence~ the Virginia Commonwealth Games. Sincerely, Virginia amateur Sports Peter Lampman President Sanctioned by the National Congress of State Games and recognized b~, the United States Olympic Conmfittee VIRGINIA AMATEUR SPORTS, INC, Virginia Amateur Sports, Inc. 711 C 5th Street, NE Roanoke, Virginia 24016 (540) 343-0987 FAX (540) 343-7407 www.com monwealthgames.org VIRGINIA AMATEUR SPORTS 2004-2005 ECONOMIC IMPACT Tourism in Virginia Tourism is a $13 billion per year industry in Virginia Tourism is a $1 million per day industry in the Roanoke Valley Each dollar spent on tourism marketing returns $4-$6 in tax revenues Commonwealth Games of Virginia I. Number of athletes that stayed overnight 2. Number of spectators that stayed overnight (1:2 ratio) 3. Average length of stay 4. Estimated average daily expenditures 5. Estimated overnight expenditures (l+2x3x4) 6. Number of day athletes 7. Number of day spectators (1:2 ratio) 8. Number of day volunteers 9. Estimated average daily expenditures 10. Estimated daily expenditures (6+7 +8 x 9) 11. Estimated total visitor expenditures (10+5) 3,521 7,042 2.20 days $150 $3,485,790 3,341 6,654 1,200 $30 $335,850 $3,821,640 AAU 15 UNDER NATIONAL BASEBALL TOURNAMENT 1. Number of Teams 24 2. Number of players, coaches, spectators 1020 3. Average length of stay 8 days 4. Estimated average daily expenditures $150 5. Estimated total visitor expenditures (1,020 visitors x $150 daily expenditures x 8 days) $1,224,000 \g-GINi.q TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH GAMES & NATIONAL TOURNAMENT $5,045,640 Sanctioned by the National Congress of State Games and recognized by the United States Olympic Committee VIRGINIAAMATEUR SPORTS On November 17, 1989, the Governor's commission on Sports and Physical Fitness passed on an endorsement to the Governor for Virginia Amateur Sports (VAS) to serve as the state organization to hold the State Games of Virginia. In 1992, the Games were officially recognized as the Virginia Commonwealth Games. The State Corporate Commission incorporated Virginia Amateur Sports, Inc. on February 9,1989. The corporation should be governed by a self perpetuating Board of Directors, composed of not less than 9 directors nor more than 36 directors. The Board of Directors is the governing body of Virginia Amateur Sports through the President of VAS who serves as the Chief Operating Officer of the corporation and subject to the control of the Board of Directors. he I res dent ~s respons b e for imp ement~ng the by-laws, carrying out the mission statement and developing and coordina ting the Virginia Commonwealth Games, as well as other events planned by VAS. In addition, the Presi- dent oversees the staff as well as the marketing, fund-raising, and the operation and administration of the Games. The President also serves as the organization's representative to the National Congress of State Games (NCSG), the governing body for state Games programs in the United States. The NCSG is a community-based multi-sport member of the United States Olympic Committee and subscribes to the philosophies of Olympic family members. As a member of the NCSG, eighty percent of the sports offered in the Commonwealth Games must be either Olympic or Pan American sports and must adhere to state or national governing bodies' criteria. Each of the 44 sports offered in the 2004 Virginia Commonwealth Games met these requirements. As stated in the Mission Statement, VAS subscribes to promoting an awareness of physical fitness and healthy lifestyles, promoting relevant sports-related educational programs, and lastly, conducting the Virginia Common- wealth Games. The Virginia Commonwealth Games is an annual Olympic-style competition designed and held for the residents of Virginia. The Corn monwealth Games are open to Virginians of all ages and skill levels. From archery to wrestling, this multi-sport event furnishes the competition venues for 44 different Olympic and Pan American sports. .With its motto of a "Tradition of Excellence," the Commonwealth Games represent the true spirit of amateur athlet- ics. For some, this celebration of sport is a stepping-stone for following the dream of representing the United States in the Olympic games. For others, the Ga mes are a place to compete in a favorite pastime. Regardless of the age or skill of the athlete, the Virginia Commonwealth Games provides the pure pleasure of competing for the love of sport. The Commonwealth Games are more than sports events; they go much deeper. The Games teach values such as teamwork and good sportsmanship, which are important components of everyday life. The Gaines encourage athletes to develop and improve their physical talent and competitive abilities. Lastly, the ideals of the Games promote physical fitness and encourage Virginians to adopt a healthy lifestyle, which includes exercise. More than 4,400 athletes competed in 29 sports in the first Games. More recently, in 2005, the Virginia Common- wealth Games hosted nearly 9,000 athletes competing in 50 sports, used over 86 sporting venues, and worked with more than 1,500 volunteers. In our 16-year history, nearly 125,000 athletes have competed in this Olympic-style atmosphere. The success of these Games has been immeasurable. The Commonwealth Games is the official state ga mes of Virginia, sanctioned by the National Congress of State Games, and recognized by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC), the National Collegiate Athletic Associa- tion (NCAA), and the Virginia High School League (VHSL). 219 ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL October 3, 2005 9:00 a.m. The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday, October 3, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2, 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. 37109-070505 adopted by the Council on Tuesday, July 5, 2005. PRESENT: Council Members Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff, M. Rupert Cutler, Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea and Mayor C. Nelson Harris ............................................................ 6. ABSENT: Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr.- ..................... 1. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. COMMI'I-rEES-SCHOOLS: A communication from Mayor C. Nelson Harris 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 a vacancy on the Roanoke City School Board, pursuant to §2.2-371! (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ....................................................... 6. NAYS: None .................................................. 0. c-1 (Council Member Dowe was absent.) 220 CITY COUNCIL-CITIZEN OF THE YEAR: A communication from Mayor C. Nelson Harris requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss nominations for Citizen of the Year, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(iO), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ....................................................... 6. NAYS: None .................................................. O. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) ITEMS LISTED ON THE 2:00 P. M., COUNCIL DOCKET REQUIRING DISCUSSION/CLARIFICATION, AND ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE 2:00 P. M., AGENDA: NONE. TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: NONE. BRIEFINGS: ART MASTER PLAN: The Mayor advised that following the briefing on the Art Master Plan, the Plan would be referred to the City Planning Commission as a part of the process to consolidate the Arts Master Plan in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Art Masters Plan would be brought back to the Council for formal adoption. Kathleen Lunsford, Chair, Roanoke Arts Commission, stated that the Public Art Plan is an economic development tool that will attract visitors to the area to review the City's public art collection and to generate revenue for the City. She expressed appreciation to Council Member Cutler for guiding the Arts Commission from the early stages of the Plan, and to Mayor Harris for his support of the arts in general, and for the attendance by Mayor Harris and Council Member Cutler at the various workshops. 221 Ms. tunsford presented the following draft of the Public Art Plan: Public Art Plan: History 2002: Percentage for Arts Funding Enacted 1% of public construction dollars earmarked for Art 2003: Council Approved Plan Development Roanoke Arts Commission asked to spearhead bid process 2004: Consultants Chosen: Barney & Worth of Portland, Oregon Firms were interviewed from Virginia and the United States Public Art Plan: The Process Public Art Steering Committee was chosen consisting of: Arts Commission members Community, business leaders Artists, urban planners Tourism industry representatives City staff and elected officials Consultants conducted in-depth Web surveys Hundreds of responses were received interviews with Stakeholders More than 60 key stakeholder one-on-one interviews with public officials, community leaders, interested citizens Public Workshops Held Community workshops were held in March, April, and May which were attended by a large cross-section of citizens Student workshop was held at William Fleming High School The Results: Community Vision Roanoke can become known as an arts community. Unique opportunity: Opening of the Art Museum · Public art can contribute to quality of life. 222 · Public art must be inclusive. · Public art should reflect what's unique about Roanoke. · Public art can bring the community together. · Selecting public art should be a team process. · Leverage percent-for-art into additional funding. · A well-run program will need professional support staff. Plan Priorities · Incorporate public art into community life · Recruit professional staff to direct the program · Establish a protocol for maintenance 60 pieces of artwork are currently in the system · Commission prominent artwork early on Market Square, other highly visible locations What is Public Art? Public Art is more than paintings and statues · Examples: "Dancing on Broadway" (A commissioned artist placed throughout the city pairs of different dance steps in the sidewalks.) "Rose City Labyrinth" (Portland, Oregon) (An artist placed terrazzo tiles in a design in reference to a painting.) "Manhole Cover" (Portland, Ore.) (An artist painted the manhole covers. (Benches and manhole covers could be painted as a reflection of the creative elements within the City.) 223 How Do We Pay for It? Public Art Funding Utilize Percent-for-Art funds Three years accumulation available: $573,000.00 Support administrative staffing cost during expertise of Arts Council Five-year, renewable commitment recommended start-up, utilize Encourage private development and funding from other sources Fund administration - place money with the Foundation of Roanoke Valley so that control is maintained over spending Grants from private foundations because of non-profit designation; State, Federal resources Where Do We Go From Here? Action Plan gives a three-tiered approach Immediate Adopt Public Art policy Assign professional staff (utilize Arts Council of the Blue Ridge) Establish a Public Art Trust Fund to steward public monies Implement an art selection/procurement process Selection process includes community input, citizen panels All final decisions still rest with Council Commission first key pieces in conjunction with opening of Art Museum Attend to maintenance/curatorial needs (old and new artwork) Build public support for the program 224 · Develop interpretive signage · Complete inventory of existing art Three Years · Install major commissions to coincide with Art Museum opening · Seek opportunities to place art in upcoming projects · Enact additional funding sources · Conduct public education campaign Four Years or more · Broaden placement, expand opportunities around City · Organize community events and festivals around public art · Forge links with nearby communities to pursue collaborations; create a "public art trail" Public Art Plan; Goals · Enhance Quality of Life for Citizens Create a visual, accessible art chosen with community input · Create Heightened Sense of Community Choose art that's distinctive and unique to Roanoke · Enliven Visual Quality of Public Space Over time, distribute art to all parts of the City · Stimulate Roanoke's Vitality and Economy Expand tourism draw of Link Museum and Art Museum 225 Council Member Cutler expressed appreciation to ali persons who were responsible for preparation of the Art Master Plan. He stated that the City has a duty to inventory and care for its extensive art collection; however, the City currently has no in-house staff or expertise, therefore, the most efficient solution, as suggested in the report, would be to contract with the Arts Council of the Blue Ridge to serve as the City's art staff until a Public Art Director is employed, with a clear delegation of authority and sufficient funds to administer the program. He stated that in referring the draft Public Art Plan to the City Planning Commission, the Planning Commission might encourage Council to direct City staff to develop a response to the recommendations, including a draft contract with the Arts Council of the Blue Ridge as the agency to administer the City's Public Art program as recommended in the study. Council Member McDaniel inquired if there are plans to inventory other forms of public art, such as the Dalhouse Panel, the H & C Coffee Sign, and the Airport sculpture; whereupon, Susan Jennings, Executive Director, Arts Council of the Blue Ridge, stated that the above referenced items are City-owned pieces of art, and the Art Council has prepared a larger inventory which includes regional pieces. Council Member McDaniel inquired if it was realistic to expect the City to make a decision regarding commissioned art to be completed prior to the opening of the Art Museum; whereupon, Ms. Lunsford stated that a major piece of art could be commissioned and completed by the opening date, but a massive collection could not be compiled by that time. She called attention to the results of electronic polling at one of the workshop sessions which revealed that a significant piece of art should be in place in the City Market area near the entrance to the Art Museum. She stated that it may be possible to accomplish certain small things and/or one major piece, but it would be necessary to act quickly if it is to be accomplished prior to the opening by the Art Museum. She added that public art is extremely controversial and it would be necessary to take into consideration that there will not be a 100 per cent approval rating on a particular piece of art. Ms. Jennings stated that every neighborhood has a distinct personality and could have a voice in the decision making process as to the type of art that is selected, with the understanding that they do not have to like all things about the selection. 226 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick expressed appreciation for efforts by the Arts Council and the Roanoke Arts Commission. He stated that he supported the desire to prepare a Public Arts Plan that will expand and broaden the minds of the City's citizens and visitors through the display of public art; however, he expressed concern that there are not enough water features in the proposed Arts Plan. He added that water could be combined in various creative ways, and referred to the symbolism of the northwest rivers in Portland, Oregon. He suggested that it should not be forgotten that the real heritage in Roanoke was transportation, a particular emphasis should be placed on transportation as the City looks to the future, Roanoke's citizens should be proud to live in a railroad town and part of that pride could be created in retrospect to public art. He noted that public and private art projects should include places that can be carved out for sculpture, or other kinds of art, particularly in those instances when a person is constructing a building to make a profit; and the City of Roanoke wishes to create a growth corridor between downtown Roanoke and the Carillon Bio-Medical Center and there are numerous places within the corridor for this type of art. Council Member Wishneff inquired if there is an involvement or connection with downtown planning. He stated that it would be an ideal opportunity to locate municipal art near the Art Museum; and since the City is interested in creating and designating a cultural district in the downtown area, the matter could be discussed at future meetings of the Roanoke Arts Commission and/or the Arts Council. Mayor Harris commended efforts to establish a Public Art Plan, and stated that funding for the Percentage for the Arts Program has been supported by current and previous City Councils, and it is hoped that more public art initiatives will be launched that will be an outgrowth of the Public Art Plan. He presented the following suggestions which would be helpful as the Public Art Plan proceeds through formal steps toward adoption: Some of the words "will" contained in the Public Art Plan should be converted to "should" in conformity with other types of master plans adopted by Council, inasmuch as they are adopted on a conceptual basis to help guide Council's thinking, planning and decision making process, and would help to avoid future confrontations. 227 There should be a follow up with the consultant regarding citizen input and diversity, resulting in an appendix to the report because there were interesting questions about representational art vs. abstract art, paintings vs. sculpture, downtown vs. neighborhoods. When one serves on a decision making body that ultimately makes the decision on pieces of public art, the information would be helpful as an indicator of the community's interest and perspective on existing public art and the future direction of the City. There should be a review of the art inventory process so that Council will be the beneficiary of additional information on the mix of art, what makes a well balanced and comprehensive public art program, and whether or not there are any deficiencies that need to be addressed initially in order to achieve a better balance. The City Market area needs a piece of public art. The Mayor advised that he planned to visit certain entranceways/gateways to the City and the various neighborhoods with members of the Roanoke Arts Commission to determine which would be a natural complement to a piece of art. LIBRARY STUDY UPDATE: Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development, recognized Bill Hidell of Hidell and Associates Architects, Laura Katz of Katz-McConnel Architects, and Florence Mason of F. Mason and Associates, for presentation of the Library study. Ms. Mason, a librarian and independent library consultant from Dallas, Texas, presented the following information: Key Recommendations which stem from conclusions of the findings: Collections · Needs improvement Funding has declined - there is an inability to buy collections that are typically found in peer libraries that provide quality services State aid to localities has been cut by over one-third in the past three years 228 Facilities Facilities are not meeting the needs of residents, design configuration was appropriate for the 1960's and 1970's, but are not the kind of facilities found in contemporary, branch and main libraries across the United States · Small in dimension - largest branch is 6,700 square feet compared to today's contemporary branch which is in the 12,000 square foot range · Lack of adequate seating - books compete for'seats and seats compete for computer technology · Lack of adequate lighting inside and outside which affects security and the overall experience of using the facility · Parking is not sufficient at a number of the branch libraries Programs Core model for contemporary libraries is to provide a variety of programs for different age groups, i.e., allowing young children to sit on the laps of their mothers; consumer issues for adults; book clubs, etc.; and programs that are provided during the day and into the evening · Not enough space for staff to develop programs Contemporary libraries provide program space that accommodates adult patrons who want to sit down and have a cup of coffee, children who want to listen to audible stories, and teenagers who want to interact with their peers, or work on a group project that may be related to their school work; allow for crafts associated with a story hour; afford an opportunity for the display of art; and provide meeting and conference space Service Delivery and Customer Service Population that would most benefit from improvement to library facilities, services, staff, collection and programs would be to those who are historically and economically disadvantaged 229 Comparative Data from four different sets of libraries: State of Virginia annual reports were used to provide consistency in data reviewed for performance indicators or pinch points; starting in 1999, data showed that over time, output measures (service transactions) have gone down, which indicates that facilities and the capability of delivery space of the libraries has become a significant pinch point to be able to accommodate the kinds of demands that are routinely made on a contemporary library Check out data, program attendance data, budgeting for purchasing materials, and the number of questions that are answered in the library are below the level of other peer libraries in terms of the number of service transactions and show a decline over the years · Neighborhoods are loyal to community libraries which are social icons and are incorporated into the community for long periods of time Community loyalty needs to be recognized and honored in any planning and decision making as the City moves forward with regard to expansion, renewal and revitalization of the library system Library staff is a valued asset - they work hard, are dedicated and have skills to bear; at times the staff is overworked and stressed when trying to maintain the level of service that customers would like to receive; there is currently less than one-half staff person per 1,000 population The Virginia Room staff, services and collection represent something unique and is recognized as an important asset by those inside and outside the community The customer base for the City's library system is shifting away because the library does not provide the kinds of things that customers are interested in - customers prefer to go to bookstores where they can shop, interact and enjoy coffee, etc., others visit the County library and/or other library services · It is important to win back the hearts and minds of the library customer by providing library services that people want 230 Recommendations: Coordinate or consolidate selected library operations · Design and construct new library facilities to include neighborhood libraries, full service libraries and resource or regional libraries · Integrate technology in the operation and delivery of all library services · Increase staffing to provide a more comprehensive public service · Improve upon the existing collection in all formats, book and media · Develop a comprehensive customer service model · Integrate non-traditional library services and programs with core library services Market the libraries through developing partnerships - possibilities exist with the Art Museum, Higher Education Center, City schools, and a number of other institutions in the City of Roanoke · Continue to monitor user trends and advertise library services · Build on a three-tier library system Develop full service branches · Name a central facility for housing central staff and administrative services Improve and expand current holdings in various forms, create multi- media and electronic collections which would involve an investment in terms of adding to the current collection of materials budget · Implement technology into library environments which would cause them to be more user friendly · Provide citizen users with expectations that will have access to laptops and wireless access 231 Provide self-checkout and a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) material handling system Bring staffing level up from .45 equivalent staff positions (FTE) per 1,000 population to .75 equivalent staff positions (FTE) per 1,000 population Critical staff needs include three to four Children's Librarians, two - three Young Adult Librarians, an Adult Program Manager, a full time Development Department, an Assistant Director, and a Facilities Manager Brief overview of implementation of strategic plan or schedule: · Build a full service branch somewhere inside the service area, investment in state-of-the-art technical service · Invest in the improvement and expansion of collections · Invest in service delivery systems by adding staff and technology with · Revitalize all of the libraries across the library system by accommodation of kiosks, retail lease space, and renovation and addition of existing branches, full service branches, and revitalization and replacement of the Main Library as a regional resource library Costs - Four Library Facilities of various models that would be implemented over time: · Three full service branches · One regional resource library (a/k/a Main Library) Phase h · Construction of a super branch (demonstration branch) which will prove that the contemporary library will be a magnet within the community · Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology · Self-check with supportive technology 232 Phase Ih Renovation/enlargement of a branch to become a full service branch with the attendant technology enhancements Phase IIh · Regional resource (Main Library) ($19,000,000.00) Phase IV: · Super branch with technology Phase V: · Renovation and expansion of neighborhood branch models Total Capital Cost Estimates (Pre-Katrina): Facilities and Technology - $ 41.5 million Phased In Facilities Operational Costs - $ I to $.9 million Council Member Cutler stated that the Library report was harsh, but accurate; Roanoke has neglected its library system, and public libraries deserve the same high level of attention and support as sports venues and art museums. He stated that the process of review and recommendation to Council and the steps for implementation of recommendations should be taken seriously; budgetary considerations should be included in the budget study process; and there are opportunities for partnerships with the Jefferson College of Health Sciences, Virginia Western Community College, and the Roanoke City Public School System. Council Member Lea referred to the statement that there is a 61 per cent citizen non-use of the library system, and inquired if the reason is because the City's libraries do not offer the services or technology that citizens want; whereupon, Ms. Mason advised that the figure was derived by making random telephone calls to people, which revealed that a large percentage of citizens do not use Roanoke City libraries, some use Roanoke County libraries because the materials they need can be found at the County libraries; some persons noted that some of the books in the County libraries were actually City books that were there as a result of the shared systems; and Roanoke County libraries offer a wide variety of programs and services that are found in a contemporary public library. 233 Council Member Lea stated that Roanoke County has indicated that it is not interested in a regional library concept; whereupon, Mayor Harris stated that several months ago, Roanoke County agreed to participate in a comprehensive review of both the City and the County library systems, and much of the data is captured in the consultant's report; certain initial findings were presented at a joint meeting with the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors; and the Chair of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator recently advised that it is the preliminary opinion of the Board of Supervisors that Roanoke County is not interested in proceeding with a merger of the two library operations, which information was later communicated to the Council. He added that Roanoke County's position was a disappointment to the City of Roanoke, especially when the main conclusion of the comprehensive valley wide Library Study was to merge operationally the two systems. He noted that telephone surveys conducted by the consultant revealed that the perception of library customers in the Roanoke Valley is that there is one library system, because the ability to check out and return books through either library system lends itself to that perception rather than two library operations. He noted that the consultants pointed out that merger benefits are obvious, i.e.: economy of scale, flexibility to meet changing customer demands, and alleviation of staffing needs by merger of certain operational functions allowing more customer service oriented activity; and many of the City and County branch libraries have overlapping service areas, and merging certain functions, staff and operations would economize library service delivery. He stated that he did not want to give up on the concept of merging the two library systems and would pursue the matter in a friendly and amicable way with Roanoke County. The City Manager advised that the Library Plan would ultimately be referred to the City Planning Commission, but the document would first go back to the Library Steering Committee and the Roanoke Public Library Board for review, prioritization and recommendation, with the understanding that certain issues may need to be reviewed prior to referral to the Planning Commission and there will be more opportunities for community review. She added that it is hoped that the Library Plan will become a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Wishneff inquired as to the size of the main library as envisioned by the consultant; whereupon, Ms. Mason stated that the number quoted in the consultant's report is in the 60,000 to 75,000 square foot range, the City's current main library contains 58,000 square feet, and a new main or regional resource library would be located in a new super branch. She stated that the public service area would be larger than space now occupied at the current main library. 234 Mr. McConnel stated that the Law Library and the Virginia Room would be given greater prominence in the central location. He further stated that the notion that there is one main library and the branches are subservient should be avoided because in the super branch mentality, the "library" is the primary location and only for specialized reasons would one need to go to another library. He noted that information taken from the interviews during the study revealed that most people are not satisfied with the library because there are two separate halves which are difficult to maintain and have Iow staffing levels; design for a regional branch does not fit the building and it remains to be seen if the building could be modified. He stated that the Library Study should be considered rather than the Outlook Downtown Roanoke Plan which was the Vision 2020 Plan, and the current main library facility is ill-suited for delivering expected services. Council Member Wishneff inquired if the School Administration envisions any cooperative sharing of facilities and staffing; whereupon, Ms. Mason stated that there was support for the evolution of the school library system with the larger library facilities because it is understood that public libraries support school age children, but no facilities in specific areas were discussed. The City Manager called attention to experience in certain other localities that use joint facilities, some of which were successful and some were not; and the City of Roanoke conducted a pilot test using the Williamson Road Branch Library, which is located in front of a middle school, with the idea of expanding library services, however, the program was not successful. Council Member Wishneff inquired if naming rights to the library facilities could be sold to help offset the cost of renovation and improvements; whereupon, Mr. McConnel responded in the affirmative. Council Member McDaniel stated that the Library Study reveals that the City's library system is inadequate and the community is ready for quality library facilities; therefore, she encouraged the Library Board and the Library Foundation to establish priorities and to focus on budgetary requirements. She inquired about the possibility of merging the City and County library systems; whereupon, the City Manager stated that the administration was waiting for completion of the Library Study as a point at which to begin recruitment of a Library Director on a permanent basis because the Library Director should be involved with implementation of the Library plan. She stated that she supports the Mayor's comments that the City of Roanoke has not given up on the concept of a more regional library system. 235 Council Member McDaniel requested that grammatical and spelling errors contained in the consultant's report be corrected before the presentation is made public. With regard to interaction with the leadership of Roanoke County, Mayor Harris added that the County indicated that if both communities look at additional branch libraries or relocation of certain libraries, Roanoke County would coordinate efforts to ensure that the location of the libraries and service areas do not overlap, and there would be some ongoing cooperation in the area of technical services. He stated that while the County's initial response was somewhat disappointing, he was confident that the City would continue to pursue the matter, because the main thrust of the concluding section of the consultant's report was to reach an optimum level of service delivery as a library system in the Roanoke Valley, which would involve a merged library system. He further stated that it would be helpful to have research data from other communities that would show, through demonstrated data driven evidence, that investing in new or expanded library facilities, upgrading collections and increasing staff, would create a return on the investment by virtue of increased use of the library system by the populations within those communities. He added that such specific data would be advantageous to the Council's budget setting policy and in articulating to the community that increased funding to the library system in a variety of ways would benefit the community. Mr. McConnel called attention to an addition to the Hollins Branch Library and advised that library usage increased by almost 50 per cent over night. He stated that supportive data of that nature would be provided to the Council. Mayor Harris advised that a similar presentation would be made at a City of Roanoke Public Library System Community Meeting to be held on Monday, October 3, 2005 at 6:00 p.m., in Fitzpatrick Hall at the Jefferson Center. COLONIAL AVENUE/WONJU STREET UPDATE: The City Manager recognized Kenneth King, Jr., Manager of Transportation, for an overview regarding traffic congestion on Colonial Avenue and Wonju Street, S. W.: Mr. King advised that: · There is a desire is to improve traffic operations/transportation system in the area of Colonial Avenue, Wonju Street, and Brandon Avenue, S. W. · An early Alternate to the problem was an extension of Wonju Street to tie in with Brandon Avenue 236 A strategy was developed from discussions during the 1-73 and U. S. Route 220 project study There is a desire to improve current conditions rather than a complete overhaul of a given area or construction of a new highway There is a possibility of utilizing existing 23r* Street by making improvements to intersections and traffic signal timings, which would relieve backup traffic congestion on U. S. Route 220, and should be an early implementation phase of any of the three Alternate scenarios that might be selected Over $800,000.00 was received in local partnership with State funds to add to the Transportation Program, which enabled the shifting of $800,000.00 in Federal funds to another project The timetable for implementation of early improvements and encumbrance of funds is September 2006 The ultimate Alternate will be selected through a public process, which will include traffic simulations so that the public will more easily see the benefits of each scenario Rob Peery, Assistant District Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation, presented the following overview of the Wonju Street Project: · The project was added to the Six Year Plan in 1999 with the original intent of extending Wonju Street Scenarios: Alternate I - Extend Wonju Street straight through from U. S. Route 220 to Brandon Avenue (Cost - Approximately $2! million); Alternate 2 - Extend Wonju Street straight through with a curve and flow directly into Brandon Avenue (Cost Approximately $18 million); Alternate 3 - "T" into Brandon Avenue (Cost - Approximately $! to $2 million) Initially, traffic modeling was not complete, but the process enabled development of an initial phase which would afford improvements along Colonial Avenue through intersection improvements, coordinating traffic signals, adding turn lanes, and restricting some movement to make traffic flow better, which became known as Alternate 3 237 Alternate 3 has merit in that it could become a long range solution by widening the ramp coming off U. S. Route 220 (I-581) to provide dual left turns going out Colonial Avenue toward Virginia Western Community College and beyond, and restricting access into the first entrance to Towers Shopping Mall by right-in, right-out access only During the process, if public feed back indicates a considerable amount of interest in proceeding with one of the other larger Alternates which would involve more time due to considerable right-of-way acquisition, there could be a quick solution for traffic improvement during the interim by linking signals and some relatively small improvements to the roadway · VDOT's concern is to relieve backed-up traffic on U. S. Route 220 Currently about 23,000 vehicles per day travel Colonial Avenue; Alternates 1 and 2 would increase traffic to about 28,000 per day; and Alternate 3 would increase traffic to about 25,000 vehicles per day Council Member Wishneff inquired as to what, if any, impact that restriction of a left-turn from Colonial Avenue onto 23rd Street would have on traffic in Alternate 3; whereupon, Mr. Peery stated that Colonial Avenue traffic would travel down to Brandon Avenue, with dual left-turn lanes, and without that restriction, there would not be an acceptable level of service in the area. In further discussion, Mr. Peery advised that Alternates 1 and 2 would require acquisition of residential and commercial property, while Alternate 3 would not require acquisition of any property. Mr. King stated that Alternate 3 is focused primarily on traffic operational improvements, which is an early stage improvement, and may provide an ultimate solution to vehicular traffic needs; and what Alternate 3 does not cover may become a potential subsequent project which would involve the improvement of Colonial Avenue from Overland Road to Brandon Avenue because the scenario did not fully address streetscaping, bike lane considerations, curb, gutter, sidewalk and street trees, etc. Council Member Wishneff stated that there should be an alternate plan for the restriction of a left-turn onto 23'd Street because there may be a considerable amount of opposition to the restriction. 238 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick stated that he has seen numerous opportunities to improve Colonial Avenue and Brandon Avenue over the years, but he does not share Mr. Wishneff's concerns regarding the restriction of a left-turn onto 23'* Street, there is a precedent that traffic movement must come before personal preferences, otherwise the system will break down, and motorists will appreciate the ability to travel through a difficult intersection. He stated that the majority of traffic at the interchange is connected to Virginia Western Community College, therefore, it would be helpful to review future traffic projections at that location. He called attention to an existing problem of going from two lane traffic to one lane traffic toward Virginia Western, the original proposal for a crossing at Overland Road with a full interchange would have been the solution to the problem, and encouraged future review of the proposal. Council Member Cutler stated that if Alternate 3 is selected, motorists would have to be educated to go from downtown Roanoke to Towers Shopping Mall and take the McClannahan Exit instead of the Wonju Exit. He added that traffic using 23'~ Street is subjected to speed bumps turning traffic into and out of Towers Mall, and inquired as to how many lanes are proposed for 23'* Street under Alternate 3; whereupon, Mr. Peery stated that Alternate 3 would not address anything along 23'~ Street, except turn lanes at the signal light intersection with Brandon Avenue and entrance adjustments that would be necessary along Colonial Avenue. Council Member McDaniel stated that Alternate 3 should be tried before spending millions of dollars on Alternates i and 2. Gary Rappaport, owner of Towers Shopping Mall, stated that the shopping center plans to remain in the area for another 20 years and expressed his commitment to Alternate 3. He advised that there may be certain concerns about traffic patterns along 23'~ Street, but removing backed-up traffic from U. S. Route 220 (I-581) is important, Alternate 3 would solve the problem, and he would work with VDOT with regard to the necessary right-of-way dedication. He added that opening of the Fresh Market was an example of the long term commitment by Towers Shopping Mall to the City of Roanoke, and it is hoped that the Fresh Market will draw more tenants to existing vacant space at Towers Mall. 239 Mayor Harris stated that a resolution to traffic congestion on the off ramp from U. S. Route 220 is desperately needed; and the signal light at 23rd Street and Brandon Avenue is significant. He added that a formal recommendation will be made to Council on Monday, October 17, 2005, and every effort has been made to disseminate information to various organizations and private and commercial sectors for review and input prior to the time that Council will make a decision. The City Manager stated that during her six-year tenure with the City of Roanoke, several major projects have taken place and the working relationship with VDOT has significantly improved. She expressed appreciation for the sensitivity that VDOT has shown to this major commercial area of the City which is an economic development generator. TAXES: The Director of Finance advised that in 1998, the General Assembly enacted the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA or the Act), which provided relief from personal property taxes otherwise payable on the first $20,000.00 of value for qualifying vehicles; the relief was provided for vehicles owned by individuals and utilized for personal use; additionally, vehicles with an assessed value of $1,000.00, or less, receive 100 per cent relief; relief is provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia through payments to localities of amounts which would otherwise be taxed to citizens; the original intent of the Act was to phase-in tax relief such that the Commonwealth would ultimately cover the full cost of personal property tax of the eligible vehicles; the Commonwealth's plan of implementing the tax was dependent upon growth in State revenues sufficient to cover the increasing annual cost; currently the Commonwealth of Virginia provides 70 per cent relief on qualifying vehicles and the amount of relief provided by the Commonwealth has been at this level for several years. Ann Shawver, Deputy Director of Finance, advised that in 2004 and 2005, additional legislation was passed to amend the original Act; the legislation capped PPTRA at $950 million for all Virginia localities for tax years 2006 and beyond; PPTRA funds will be allocated to individual localities based on each government's pro rata share of tax year 2004 payments from the Commonwealth; and funding for delinquencies of current and past years will continue until September 2006, or until the funding for such is exhausted. She explained that the legislation also altered the timing of payments from the Commonwealth to localities; the impact is dependent on the due date observed by the locality; and for spring billers like Roanoke, the impact is the delay of approximately two months in receipt of the majority of funding provided by the Commonwealth. 240 It was noted that localities have certain options on how to administer the amended PPTRA, which include the method of apportioning relief to individual taxpayers, flexibility in determining the distribution of relief, and an option to "balance bill" delinquent taxpayers at the end of the current program; to determine the best course of action for the City of Roanoke, a Study Team was formed consisting of representatives from the Offices of the Commissioner of the Revenue, Treasurer, City Attorney and the Department of Finance; and through the course of work on PPTRA revisions, the Study Team consulted with representatives from other localities throughout the State, most notably those from neighboring jurisdictions. It was explained that two relief methods are available regarding distribution of tax relief - the reduced rate method and the specific relief method; the reduced rate method would involve major changes to administration of the tax including the use of multiple tax rates, one of which would require an annual modification by Council, would bring about more significant changes to citizens and would be more costly to implement than the specific relief method. It was further explained that the specific relief method, which the Study Team recommends, calls for a percentage of relief to be applied to qualifying vehicles, similar to the method currently used; while the percentage of relief will decline annually assuming growth in the assessed value of personal property, the taxpayer will receive a personal property bill which is more consistent with the type of bill currently utilized; and the specific relief method is fairly efficient and effective to implement since it uses a tax method most consistent with the method currently used. The Director of Finance advised that localities also have an option as to how they choose to distribute the tax relief once the new program is in place; relief must be provided for owners of qualifying vehicles of $20,000.00 and less, but changes can be made in how relief is provided for values up to $20,000.00; in order to maintain consistency with the current PPTRA, the Study Team recommends that relief continue to be applied in a manner similar to the present method which provides that vehicles valued at $1,000.00 and less continue to remain fully exempt and that relief for vehicles with assessed values ranging from $1,001.00 to $20,000.00 continue to be taxed by applying a single common percentage to determine the amount to be paid by the taxpayer. He explained that the final option for localities concerns the ability to balance- bill delinquent taxpayers in full for personal property taxes not remitted by the 241 September 2006 deadline, or exhaustion of State funding for the current program; this option is available to ensure the opportunity for localities to receive funds from citizens that may have otherwise been paid by the Commonwealth to maximize collections of the tax; and the Study Team is recommending that the City balance-bill any citizens with unpaid taxes once funding from the Commonwealth is exhausted. In summary, the Director of Finance advised that the recommendations of the Study Team maintain the provisions of the PPTRA most closely with those originally implemented by the Commonwealth, are the most equitable for Roanoke's citizens, are the most efficient and cost-effective for the City to implement, and are consistent with those planned by the majority of other localities in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Director of Finance advised that the City of Salem and Roanoke County will recommend similar actions to their respective Council/Board of Supervisors for adoption. Council Member Lea inquired if the recommendation is the best method for the citizens of Roanoke; whereupon, the Director of Finance stated that the recommendation poses the least hardship on the taxpayer. The Commissioner of the Revenue added that the State allowed only two options - the reduced rate method and the specific relief method. Evelyn Powers, City Treasurer, advised that information will be provided all to taxpayers advising of changes to the PPTRA legislation. There being no further discussion and without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the recommendation of the Director of Finance would be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper measure for consideration by Council at a future Council meeting. At 12:00 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for a joint session of Council and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. At 12:00 p.m., on Monday, October 3, 2005, the Council meeting reconvened in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., the City of Roanoke, for a joint meeting of Council and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, with Mayor Harris and Chairman Fink presiding. 242 PRESENT: Council Members Brenda L. McDaniel, M. Rupert Cutler, Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brian J. Wishneff and Mayor C. Nelson Harris ............................................................ 6. ABSENT: Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr.- ..................... 1. ROANOKE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: James A. Allen, Gregory M. Cupka, Anita M. Powell, Christie L. Wills and Chairman Ben J. Fink ............................................ S. ABSENT: Commissioner Gregory W. Feldmann ..................... 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 Redevelopment and Housing John P. Baker, Executive Director; Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Deputy Director; and Sue Marie Worline, Secretary. Authority: Executive COUNCIL-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: The Mayor welcomed Commissioners and staff of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Following lunch, Chairman Fink advised that: City Council and the City Administration have placed an unprecedented emphasis on housing and neighborhoods in Roanoke; City Council established a public policy to focus Community Development Block Grants in targeted neighborhoods and the City Administration has established priority neighborhoods in which funds have been focused; and the City Administration has also made clear the desire to have more upscale housing in the City, and has developed a Strategic Housing Plan that will establish a housing and neighborhood roadmap to guide the City, other agencies, non-profits, and private developers. City Council established the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) to be its agent to implement housing and community development programs; in order to get the greatest benefit from implementing public/private partnerships to create new housing and to revitalize existing neighborhoods, it is essential that the City and RRHA have the strongest possible partnership, and it is also in the best interests of the citizens of Roanoke. 243 The RRHA is a public entity and shares the same vision as the City of Roanoke to improve or develop housing in the City, to strengthen City neighborhoods and to provide the greatest diversity in housing; the General Assembly has assigned certain powers to the RRHA to implement housing and community development programs; and City Council appoints members of the Board, and no other housing entity has a Board appointed by City Council or the legislative authority to collaborate with the private sector to enhance the marketability and value of residential, commercial and industrial properties. The RRHA has more experience in developing and operating housing in the City than any other entity routinely receiving money for housing from the City; in the past several years, the Executive Director and Housing Authority staff have developed a reputation as a successful, strong, efficient, creative organization that collaborates well with others, and have been successful with difficult projects that were important to the City. The RRHA has been a strong partner in assisting the City in recycling blighted and underutilized land in the City for economic development, especially the Riverside Centre, and the RRHA understands what it takes to help make the City stronger. The RRHA has a better understanding of housing issues than any other entity within the City of Roanoke; by being an owner and on-site manager of housing for Iow-income families as well as a developer, the Housing Authority understands both the social and the business side of housing. The RRHA has developed progressive policies for housing to increase the wealth of Iow-income families and to improve services to help families become self-sufficient; through collaboration of the Executive Director and staff, a Self- Sufficiency Consortium has brought together major service delivery agencies to better coordinate services. 244 The RRHA has a strong desire to be the leading partner with the City to implement the City's vision for housing and neighborhoods and the Comprehensive Plan. The RRHA has an outstanding staff that has a tremendous amount of experience in all aspects of housing, services, financing, construction, rehabilitation, management, property assembly, implementation planning, collaboration and an understanding of the City's vision. The RRHA has demonstrated a commitment to the City by developing a range of housing, including quality public housing, private Iow-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) projects, homes for sale, market-rate rental housing in downtown and rehabilitation financing for existing property owners; the RRHA has partnered with the City to take on the Day Avenue Project, a substantial rehabilitation task that has tremendous significance to the downtown area. The RRHA has been successful in putting together public/private financing for development and rehabilitation and is respected by banks and tax equity firms for its successful record. The Board of Commissioners has been working with City Council and City staff over an extended period of time to improve relations with the City. In order to improve and strengthen the partnership with the City, the Board of Commissioners has in plaCe a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the RRHA, to which it is committed. Additionally, the Board of Commissioners has made a commitment to relocate the RRHA's offices to downtown Roanoke to better coordinate with City staff, in particular Planning, Economic Development and Neighborhoods to provide better dialogue and to be more effective as a total organization; and the City Manager and RRHA's Executive Director have worked to develop a plan that will come to fruition in the near future. 245 To effect better communications and interactions, City staff and RRHA need to develop a joint operational plan for community development and housing ("Joint Plan"); in particular, with the recent hiring of the City's new Director of Neighborhoods and Housing, combining the Planning Department and Economic Development, and the retirement of the Housing Authority Executive Director in 2006, this takes on even greater importance to be done sooner rather than later. As part of the move downtown, it is imperative that the RRHA "Team" stay together; the Executive Director and staff have worked long and hard to break down the "silos" that existed within the RRHA prior to the hiring of Mr. Baker; and there is a need to ensure that none of the hard work is undone by the move to downtown. There is a need to ensure that the RRHA maintains a separate identity within the community; comments have been expressed from the community that the RRHA will become "just another department within the City". The Mayor emphasized the abovereferenced suggestions by Chairman Fink; i.e.: Joint Operational Plan and the need by the Housing Authority to maintain its identity upon relocation to the Municipal Complex. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick advised that Council has tried to create a better relationship between the RRHA and the City of Roanoke; and the Operational Agreement is long overdue. He stated that the City can receive assistance as a result of the Housing Authority's expertise in housing; and as an example, he called attention to the Villages at Lincoln project which contains 145 less Iow- income housing units due to revitalization and construction of new homes in the area. Secondly, he called attention to the identity issue and a question as to the best way to address the matter in a building that has security issues, i.e.: ADA concerns in terms of creating a separate entrance. He stated that he supported having the right kind of identity so that citizens in need of services will have easy access to the Housing Authority's office, and suggested that Council and City staff respond to the suggestions offered by Chairman Fink on behalf of the RRHA. 246 Council Member Cutler expressed appreciation to the RRHA for the quality of work in southeast Roanoke, the Hope VI Project, the South Jefferson Redevelopment project, and the Eight North Jefferson Place project. With respect to the issue of a separate identity, he stated that some type of creative signage could be installed in the Lobby of Municipal South. He inquired if the entire RRHA management team would be housed in Municipal North; whereupon, it was stated that the RRHA plans to include all staff in the relocation. Council Member Lea expressed appreciation to Mr. Baker for his service and called attention to the importance of a partnership between the City of Roanoke and the Housing Authority as both entities focus on housing. As a former Commissioner of the Redevelopment and Housing Authority in Danville, Virginia, Council Member Lea stressed the importance of maintaining the identity of the RRHA, and suggested that Council work toward ensuring that the Housing Authority's identity is maintained, especially for the benefit of Roanoke's citizens. There being no further discussion and without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the question of a joint operational plan for the City and the RRHA would be referred to the City Manager and to the Executive Director for report to the Council and to the RRHA in 60 - 90 days, and that the identity issue would be addressed as a part of the joint operational plan. HOUSING/AUTHORITY-PLANNING: The City Manager advised that the final report with regard to the City's Strategic Housing Plan was received on Friday, September 30, 2005; and both the Housing Authority and City Administration are well versed in their respective roles and responsibilities. She stated that the City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on October 20, 2005, to approve the Housing Strategic Plan and forward the document to Council for consideration on Monday, December 19, 2005. Chairman Fink stated that the Board of Commissioners would like for the Strategic Housing Plan to be included as a part of the joint operational plan of the City and the RRHA. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick suggested that a copy of the Housing Strategic Plan be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority. 247 Council Member Cutler inquired about the Virginia Railroad Station and the stables located between Jefferson Street and Williamson Road; whereupon, the Executive Director advised that the Housing Authority continues to work with various organizations to preserve the former railroad station, however, funds received to date are insufficient to address major renovations; and although the Housing Authority does not own the stables, it has taken appropriate actions to ensure that the building remains intact. Council Member Wishneff inquired about the availability of housing for displaced families affected by the recent hurricanes; whereupon, it was advised that HUD has contacted housing authority agencies throughout the country to inquire about vacancies in public housing complexes, and the RRHA has a policy that it will assist any person who resided in public housing in the New Orleans area who was displaced as a result of the two recent hurricanes. The City Manager added that local non-profit organizations are making arrangements for displaced families and individuals to relocate to the City of Roanoke, and upon arrival, the non-profit organizations have committed to a six-month period of assistance. Mr. Allen called attention to Section I of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Board of Commissioners of the RRHA and the Council of the City of Roanoke: A strong partnership between the City and the Housing Authority is essential to the success of the overall mission of both. The unique powers and roles, when combined in a working partnership, provide the greatest opportunity for addressing the challenging issues facing Roanoke today." He stated that it is hoped that the Council and the RRHA will work together to improve the relationship with the citizens of Roanoke. On behalf of the Council, the Mayor expressed appreciation to the Board of Commissioners of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority for their service to the citizens of the City of Roanoke. At 12:55 p.m., the Mayor declared the City Council meeting in recess until 2:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber and Chairman Fink declared the meeting of the RRHA in recess. Council reconvened at 1:35 p.m., in the Council's Conference Room, Room 451, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, with all Members of the Council in attendance, except Council Member Dowe, Mayor Harris presiding, for the following staff briefing. 248 HERSHBERGER ROAD/ORANGE AVENUE/I-58] CORRIDOR LANDSCAPE INITIATIVES: Robert K. Bengtson, Director of Public Works, called upon Dwayne D'Ardenne, Landscape Supervisor, Department of Parks and Recreation, for a briefing on landscape initiatives for the Orange Avenue/I-58! intersection and the Hershberger Road corridor. Mr. D'Ardenne advised that: Oranqe Avenue/I-8! Interchanqe Conceptual Landscape Master Plan The conceptual Landscape Master Plan for Orange Avenue/I-58! Interchange from Gainsboro Road east to Williamson Road includes three focuses: improved gateway aesthetics, a layered plant design that provides four seasons of color and interest while remaining maintenance friendly, and an opportunity for corporate and/or private partnership or investment. Improved Gateway Aesthetics: The City's Vision Comprehensive Plan specifically speaks to "beautifying our important gateway corridors" and the Orange Avenue/I-58! Interchange is a significant gateway to the City. Whether one is headed to an event at the Roanoke Civic Center, or headed east on Route 460 to Williamson Road, or the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology, or west to the City's School Administration Building, or Washington Park, the interchange could be characterized as the City's gateway to local culture, education and commerce. Layered Plant Design: The layered plant design concept ensures multi-season interest to any landscape whether it be a residential backyard or a municipal transportation corridor. Natural areas, be they woodlands or rainforests, inherently possess many layers and the City's design follows nature's lead. The Master Plan builds upon the established "Gray Infrastructure" base layer of asphalt and concrete. The City's Landscape Design's "Green Infrastructure" begins with turfgrass as the canvas upon which to then "paint" with layers of perennials and bulbs, small and large flowing shrubs, small flowering trees and large deciduous and evergreen trees. 249 In contrast to Hershberger Road, traffic patterns and already visually cluttered scale of the Orange Avenue/I-S81 Interchange lends itself to the more compact layers of flowering trees, shrubs, perennials/bulbs and turfgrass. Opportunity for corporate and/or private partnership or investment: With Governor Warner's expected signature, State Senate Bill 1260 will officially allow signage on State-owned right-of-way recognizing corporate/private donors. The bill effectively formalizes a process by which the State would give local governments permission to follow what the Cities of Danville and Lynchburg have already accomplished using the public/private partnership approach to beautifying their gateway corridors. Orange Avenue/I-581 Master Plan Project concepts: 1. Six-layered landscape slopes: Each sloped area within each of the four cloverleaves are planted to best take advantage of traffic sightlines and mowing challenges Plant layers begin with turfgrass canvas perennials/bulbs, small flowering shrubs, large shrubs, small flowering trees and finally large trees to provide winter structure and add flowering evergreen 2. Civic Center and School Administration properties: Both Civic Center and School Administration slopes receive landscaping to improve facades and first impressions as visitors exit 1-58! VDOT's limited access fencelines along both of these properties will also be replaced or revamped at these locations, as well as the First Baptist Church Cemetery location adjacent to the northeast cloverleaf Opportunities for private and/or commercial partnership and investment: Any or all of the layered planting areas in this design are potential opportunities of private and/or commercial partnerships 25O Round figure estimates of the Orange Avenue/I-581 Interchange Landscape Master Plan as currently conceptualized: 256 trees (one fourth of Hershberger Road) 3000 shrubs (same as Hershberger Road) 60,000 perennials/bulbs (1.5 X Hershberger Road) Six acres of turfgrass renovation/re-establishment Construction Costs - $500,000.00 (excluding finalized designs, bid/construction documents or contract administration) Annual contracted maintenance costs - $30,000.00 - $40,000.00 per year Project Details: Hershberger Road maintenance estimated total - $9,000.00 - $11,000.00 X 8.S months = $77,000.00 - $94,000.00 Plantings - three man crew X three days two X per month = $5,000.00 - $6,000.00 per month Mowing - currently pay $785.00 - (No VDOT ROW) = $4,000.00 - $5,000.00 per month Orange Avenue/I-581 Maintenance - Total $29,000.00 to $34,000.00 per year Plantings - three man crew X 1.5 days X $2,000.00 per month = $2,500.00 - $3,000.00 per month X 8.5 months = $21,250.00 - $25,500.00 Mowing - Estimated four man hours X four hours X $25.00 per man hour = $500.00 every two weeks = $8,500.00 Hershberqer Road N. W. Conceptual Landscape Master Plan The Conceptual Landscape Master Plan for Hershberger Road, N.W., from Cove Road east to Williamson Road includes three focuses: improved gateway aesthetics, layered plant design that provides four seasons of color and interest while remaining maintenance friendly, and opportunity for corporate and/or private partnership or investment. 251 Improved Gateway Aesthetics: The City's Vision Comprehensive Plan specifically speaks to "beautifying our important gateway corridors" and Hershberger Road is arguably one of, if not the most, important gate of the City. Whether it be prospective business travelers arriving at the airport for the first time or shoppers to any of the significant commercial/retail destinations of Valley View Mall, Crossroads Mall, Towne Square/Sam's Club, Lowe's/Home Depot complexes, or further on to Williamson or Peters Creek Roads, Hershberger Road is a very important first impression of the City, the Roanoke Valley and the greater New Virginia region. Layered Plant Design: The layered plant design concept ensures multi-season interest to any landscape, whether it be a residential backyard or a municipal transportation corridor. Natural areas, be they woodlands or rainforests, inherently possess many layers and the design follows nature's lead. The Master Plan builds upon the established "Gray Infrastructure" base layer of asphalt and concrete. The City's Landscape Design's "Green Infrastructure" begins with turfgrass as the canvas upon which to then "paint" with layers of perennials and bulbs, small and large flowering shrubs, small flowering trees and finally, large deciduous and evergreen trees. The wide-open scale of the Hershberger Road corridor begs for bold landscape design and large scale trees, but should not eliminate the "Valley View" of spectacular sunsets every evening as the sun sets behind the mountain range peaks visible to the west. Opportunity for corporate and/or private partnership or investment: With Governor Warner's expected signature, State Senate Bill 1260 will officially allow signage on State owned right-of-way recognizing corporate/private donors. This bill effectively formalizes a process by which the State would give local governments permission to follow what the Cities of Danville and Lynchburg have already accomplished using the public/private partnership approach to beautifying their gateway corridors. 252 Hershberger Road, N. W. Landscape Master Plan Project concepts: Four layered landscape islands in medians. 13 median islands from Ordway Drive east to Grandview Avenue Each island will be 125' long, having 175' of turfgrass canvas between the islands Island plant layers will begin with turfgrass and add perennials and bulbs, flowering shrubs and Crape Myrtles AIl~e of trees focus and define the corridor: Trees planted AIl~e style between street light poles which help focus one's eye into the center median islands while still allowing street light penetration to the pavement and allowing views to the west of spectacular "Valley View' sunsets. Additional trees are proposed along private property continuing the AIl~e theme where existing right-of-way is insufficient to allow planting on City property Hershberger Road/I-58! cloverleaves: Focus on reforestation will provide more than 500 large shade trees Renovate difficult to maintain slopes with Hard Fescue and/or remove invasives from existing Crown Vetch Opportunities for private/or commercial partnership and investment More than a dozen locations have been identified and designed as opportunity areas for private and/or commercial partnership and investment Locations incorporate four to six plant layers (depending on location and terrain) and vary in size and visibility. Six layer islands would include the following - turfgrass canvas, bulbs/perennials, small flowering shrubs, late flowering shrubs, small flowering trees, and large deciduous/evergreen trees 253 Round figure estimates for the Hershberger Road Landscape Master Plan as currently conceptualized: 1OO0 trees 3000 shrubs 40,000 perennials/bulbs 20+ acres of turfgrass renovation/reestablishment Construction costs - $1 million (excluding finalized designs, bid/construction documents or contract administration) Annual contracted maintenance costs - $75,000.00 - $95,O00.00 per year Council Member Cutler inquired if the concept will be consistent with new State laws and/or VDOT regulations; whereupon, Mr. D'Ardenne responded in the affirmative. He advised that regulations will take effect on December 1, 2005, and inasmuch as the City of Roanoke was chosen as one of two pilot locations in the Commonwealth of Virginia, plans may proceed prior to December 1. Council Member Cutler inquired about the definition of "pilot" and whether or not serving as a "pilot project" gives the locality the authority to proceed. He also inquired as to the availability of State funding. Mr. D'Ardenne advised that no State funds are available and estimated that the cost of the project, excluding administrative or design fees, will be approximately $500,000.00. Mr. Bengtson advised that minimal requirements of the proposed regulations would be an added barricade interchange, participants would be required to contribute at least $20,000.00, and there is an opportunity for two participants per quadrant. Council Member Cutler inquired about the cost of maintenance; whereupon, Mr. Bengtson advised that due to the current workload of City crews, maintenance responsibility for upkeep of both plans would have to be outsou rced. Inasmuch as the projects will become community assets, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick suggested that an annual maintenance cost for upkeep be included when soliciting funds from private sources. The City Manager explained that the two landscape designs represent initial steps to identify partners for the projects and it was the desire of staff to brief the Council on landscape initiatives at the early stages of development. 254 Council Member McDaniel inquired if signs identifying participants in landscape design projects will be uniform; whereupon, Mr. D'Ardenne advised that VDOT guidelines impose certain regulations with regard to signage. Mr. Bengtson advised that a briefing with regard to the City's long range plan initiative will be presented at the Council's November 7 work session. The City Manager added that as a part of the Council briefing, staff will recommend specific actions for use of VDOT funds to enhance interchanges and to prioritize funds received from VDOT, rather than wait for funds to be received from private sources. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick advised that unless the General Assembly makes a dramatic change in highway transportation dollars, the City of Roanoke will receive no funds for new projects after the year 20:~0. He added that this may be the appropriate time for the City to use funds received from VDOT toward a beautification project on Hershberger Road at 1-581. He requested that the City contact the appropriate State office to inquire if the fence located off 1-581 near the intersection of Wells Avenue and Williamson Road could be relocated parallel to the interstate and that the property be donated to the City for landscaping purposes. He noted that the City's logo, or the Star, could be engraved in the landscape to create a vision that could be seen by motorists traveling to The Hotel Roanoke or from the downtown area and the cost could be covered through donations. Council Member Cutler called attention to the intersection at Williamson Road and Wells Avenue at the new bridge which includes the Lick Run Greenway, and requested that the area be cleaned up for the benefit of those persons using the Lick Run Greenway. At 1:55 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess until 2:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber. At 2:00 p.m., on Monday, October 3, 2005, the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris presiding. PRESENT: Council Members Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. (arrived late), Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea and Mayor C. Nelson Harris ............................ 7. ABSENT: None ............................................... O. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. 255 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 Vice-Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Harris. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: CITY EMPLOYEES-SCHOOLS: The Mayor advised that in conjunction with the Roanoke City Public Schools Adult and Continuing Education Office, the City of Roanoke participated in the Governor's "Race to GED" program; an information session was held during the latter part of April, and as a result of the meeting, eight City employees expressed an interest in pursuing their GED; and all costs associated with the Program were provided through grant funds from the State of Virginia Department of Education. The Mayor recognized Elliot Doyle, Maintenance Mechanic, Transportation Department, Streets and Traffic Division, an 18 year employee of the City; and Lawrence Taylor, Maintenance Supervisor, Fleet Management Department, a 33 year City employee, for successfully completing the requirements of the GED Program. He presented each with City sponsored gift cards from Wal-Mart, in the amount of $S0.OO and engraved plaques. The Mayor advised that Roanoke City Public Schools will continue to offer the GED review and English as a Second Language classes through continuing education at Breckenridge,Jackson and Woodrow Wilson Middle Schools. PROCLAMATiONS-HEALTH DEPARTMENT: The Mayor presented a proclamation to Charles Wohlford, President, National Alliance for the Mentally III, Roanoke Valley, declaring Sunday, October 2, 2005, as Mental Illness Awareness Week. PROCLAMATIONS-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The Mayor presented a proclamation to Acting Fire/EMS Chief David Hoback declaring October 9 - 15, 2005, as Fire Prevention Week. 256 PROCLAMATIONS-POLICE DEPARTMENT: The Mayor presented a proclamation to Police Chief Atlas L. "Joe" Gaskins declaring October 2005, as Crime Prevention Month. PROCLAMATIONS-POLICE DEPARTMENT: The Mayor presented a proclamation to Police Chief Atlas L. "Joe" Gaskins declaring October 2005, as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Council Member Lea advised that at the Council meeting on Monday, September 19, 2005, the City Manager was encouraged to appoint a Task Force to review the issue of domestic violence prevention in the City of Roanoke. He reported that a planning meeting was held last week which was attended by the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager for Community Development, the Chief of Police and other persons from the community; and the group discussed the fact that currently there are numerous services and programs available for the victims of domestic violence, but there is a tremendous need to disseminate information to and within the community, to appoint a Task Force, and to close existing gaps with regard to domestic violence. He further stated that another meeting has been scheduled and will be attended by representatives of the Family Violence Coordinating Council, and it is anticipated that a progress report will be submitted to the Council in the near future. He expressed appreciation to the Members of Council for their support of the appointment of a Task Force on Domestic Violence. PROCLAMATIONS-DISABLED PERSONS: The Mayor presented a proclamation to Ken Rush, Employment Subcommittee Chair, Mayor's Committee for People with Disabilities, declaring October 2005, as National Disability Employment Awareness Month. Council Member Dowe entered the meeting. 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. 257 OATHS OF OFFiCE-COMMITTEES-ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COMMI-I-rEE-LIBRARIES: A report of qualification of the following persons, was before Council: Wyona M. Lynch-McWhite as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2008; Gall Burruss as a member of the Human Services Advisory Board, for a term ending November 30, 2008; Stanley G. Breakell and Pamela S. White as members of the Roanoke Public Library Board, for terms ending June 30, 2008; and Harold H. Worrell, Sr., as a member of the War Memorial Committee, for a term ending June 30, 2007. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the report of qualification be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea. and Mayor Harris ................................................... 7. NAYS: None .................................................. O. REGULAR AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS: CITY PROPERTY-PARKING FACILITIES: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, October 3, 2005, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the conveyance of certain City-owned property located on Salem Avenue and Norfolk Avenue, S. W., to the Times World Corporation, in exchange for certain property owned by the Times World Corporation located on Campbell Avenue, S. W., in connection with future development of a downtown parking garage, the matter was before body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Friday, September 23, 2005. 258 The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City owns property located on Salem Avenue, S. W., which is currently used for parking of official vehicles; the City wishes to convey the property to The Roanoke T/rne$ in exchange for a parcel of land located on Campbell Avenue, S. W., containing approximately 0.422 acre, identified as Official Tax No. 1010829, which is owned by the Times World Corporation; the parcel of land will be used for future development of a downtown parking garage; and property to be conveyed by the City of Roanoke is identified as a new Tax Map No. 1010106, containing approximately 0.467 acre, defined as Lot SA. It was further advised that on August 15, 2005, Council adopted Ordinance No. 37163-08:[505, which authorized conveyance of a 0.449 acre parcel known as Parcel l-A, bearing Official Tax No. :[010107; the plat was subsequently revised changing the name of the parcel of land to be conveyed to Parcel SA; and a new Tax Map No. :[010106 has been assigned to Lot SA. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute a deed of exchange to convey the property designated as Parcel SA, Tax Map No. :[010106, containing approximately 0.467 acre as shown on the Plat of Street Vacation, Subdivision and Combination made for City of Roanoke, Virginia, dated August 26, 2005, to The Roanoke T/rne$, in exchange for a parcel of land identified as Official Tax No. 1010829 and that Council repeal Ordinance No. 37163-081505, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37195-100305) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to execute the necessary documents providing for the conveyance of a 0.467 acre parcel of City-owned property known as Parcel SA, identified as new Official Tax No. 1010:[06, located on Salem Avenue, S. W., to the Times-World Corporation in exchange for a 0.422 acre parcel bearing Official Tax No. 1010829, located on Campbell Avenue, S. W., for development of a downtown parking garage, upon certain terms and conditions; and repealing Ordinance No. 37173-081505, in order to provide for a revised description of the property being conveyed to the Times-World Corporation; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 1.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37195- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. 259 The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in connection with the matter; whereupon, Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 Street, N. W., spoke with regard to the misuse of land in the City of Roanoke. He referred to the previous expansion of The Roanoke Times for the purpose of accommodating a new state-of-the-art printing press and promises by The Roanoke Times of the creation of more jobs when, in fact, the Circulation Department was downsized. He expressed concern that citizens were not aware of the exchange of land between the City and The Roanoke Times and stated that issues involving the use of taxpayers' money should be discussed in public. There being no further speakers, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed. There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37195-100305 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ................................................ ~--7. NAYS: None .................................................. O. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: ARMORY/STADIUM-HOTEL ROANOKE CONFERENCE CENTER-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Council Member Wishneff presented a statement with regard to economic development opportunities in the City of Roanoke, ranging from The Hotel Roanoke to Victory Stadium. He advised that: Council will receive the results of the Victory Stadium study in the next 45 days; at that time, Council will receive cost estimates for renovating Victory Stadium and cost estimates for building various size new stadiums; and equally important, Council will receive information about the type and level of usage that stadium options might generate. Public discussion during the past several months has been solely about high school football needs and while high school football is a key factor, it is not the only factor. 260 There is a belief that with the right type and size stadium, it can also be an important economic development opportunity for the City of Roanoke. Since the year 2005 is the tenth anniversary of the reopening of The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center, it would be helpful to look back at the project and see if there are lessons to be learned for Council's future stadium decision. In the early 1990's, he was selected by the City Manager to lead an effort to prepare a financing plan that would allow for complete renovation of The Hotel Roanoke which was a very emotional issue; the public wanted the Hotel saved and renovated; people had vivid, personal memories of The Hotel Roanoke and their emotional feelings was a significant factor for the City administration and City Council in its decisions about how much money the City was willing to contribute to the project. For the City administration and for City Council, it was also about numbers and where and how the Hotel's renovation might fit into the overall strategy for improving the financial health of the City. · Big picture factors that drove the decision-making in the mid-1990's: Virginia is the only state in the country with an independent city system of government; unlike Roanoke's neighbors in North Carolina, cities in Virginia only receive the local tax revenues they collect and there is no automatic sharing of expenses; annexation for cities like Roanoke was eliminated in 1978, so boundaries became frozen; this meant that cities in Virginia wanted to continue to be equal, regional partners in industrial development and recruitment, and given the fixed, limited boundaries, cities had to look elsewhere for additional strategic investments that would bring new tax revenue. 261 0 0 The number one economic goal in the mid-1990's was to work on projects that had the potential to significantly increase the City's tax collections. Within a one hour drive and a 60 mile radius, there are 650,000 people. In the mid-1990's, the City of Roanoke was the 15th largest City or County in Virginia; and the other 14 larger communities are located in what is referred to as the "Golden Crescent" along the eastern part of the State. Despite Roanoke's relatively small size and the fact that Roanoke is not located in the more affluent "Golden Crescent", the City of Roanoke was number one in the entire State of Virginia in per capita sales tax collections. Despite Roanoke's relatively small size and location outside the "Golden Crescent, the City of Roanoke was in the top five in the State for per capita restaurant sales and continued to be a regional draw for people to eat-out. In 1996, the City of Roanoke benefited from its role as a regional shopping hub; and because of this, the three fastest growing sources of taxes in the City were meals tax, hotel rooms tax and sales tax. Therefore, coming to the conclusion that the re- opening of a renovated Hotel Roanoke should be the City's number one economic development project was easy; and accomplishing the renovation and reopening of a first-class hotel in downtown Roanoke at that time was anything but easy. The City hired independent consultants to study the financial feasibility of renovating The Hotel Roanoke and the consultants concluded that it was not financially feasible. 262 The consultants advised the City that it needed to create a set of circumstances that would generate more over night business if The Hotel Roanoke were to reopen and the only realistic option available to the City at that time to increase room nights was to increase business from the meetings market, which would be a significant challenge. The meetings market was full of competitors, some of which were located in communities with large airports with a great amount of air service and some were located on a beach and/or golf course. The City's consultants advised that if Roanoke was to attract a significant amount of new meetings business, it could not downsize The Hotel Roanoke in any significant way; with a full-service hotel with at least 300-400 rooms, meeting planners representing larger groups, such as statewide associations, would come to Roanoke; when The Hotel Roanoke was closed, the next biggest hotel in the Roanoke Valley was the 200- plus room Marriott which is now the Wyndham; and if The Hotel Roanoke were going to be a competitive location for large group meetings business, it had to have at least 300-rooms. Therefore, the City had to create or invent a business model that was not obvious to the City at that time and the following was identified for Roanoke: As the largest City in the western part of the state, Roanoke traditionally functioned as the location for statewide associations as they rotated their meetings to different regions of the state; at that time, Roanoke not only lacked a headquarters hotel, but quality and large meeting rooms; therefore, if part of Roanoke's business model was to attract its share of statewide association business, it had to have a quality meeting facility with multiple, large meeting rooms. 263 About that time, information surfaced that the Town of Blacksburg and Virginia Tech were in early discussions about building a larger hotel and meeting space complex to replace the Donaldson Brown Center and the proposed location was near downtown Blacksburg; therefore, the City of Roanoke approached Virginia Tech about participating in an off-campus hotel and conference center project in downtown Roanoke, which would involve reusing The Hotel Roanoke. Virginia Tech was in between Presidents at that time and early in the spring, Virginia Tech announced that Dr. James McComas, then President of the University of Toledo, would be the next President of Virginia Tech; that summer, a small delegation led by Mayor Noel C. Taylor visited the University of Toledo to explain the City's concept, at which time Dr. McComas advised that the University of Toledo was recently involved in a public-private partnership between the City of Toledo, the University, and a hotel developer in a project that involved a combination hotel, meeting space and continuing education located 20 miles from campus in downtown Toledo. o Virginia Tech became a major partner with the City of Roanoke in the pursuit of The Hotel Roanoke project. The City's consultants studied the impact of bringing Virginia Tech business to the City's business model and concluded that it would add an additional 20 per cent in meetings, business and overnight hotel-room business to Roanoke's model; however, that meant that the City would have to build the type of spaces with a level of technology that would attract users from Virginia Tech. In the early 1990's, a typical full-service 332 room hotel like The Hotel Roanoke would have built meeting or conference space as a part of their project of about 10,000 square feet; in order to accommodate the different components of the 264 meetings market business, the City needed to generate enough new room nights to make renovation of The Hotel Roanoke feasible, therefore, the City proposed building a meeting or hotel and conference facility with over 60,000 square feet of meeting space, which was approximately six times larger than the typical 332 room headquarters hotel could justify. The Roanoke Ballroom is the largest of the ballrooms in The Hotel Roanoke and is the largest ballroom west of Richmond in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It was necessary for Roanoke to have unmatched, quality spaces with the latest technology if Roanoke was to attract the Virginia Tech component of business; another major partner and potential user at the time was Carillon Health System and rooms that included dual rear-screen projectors was a requirement for health care presenters. It was also necessary to have a kind of physical separation for serious users and for those less than serious, rowdier conventioneers, thus was borne the idea of placing the small meeting rooms on the lower level of the Conference Center completely out of sight of the ballrooms that were located upstairs. Providing the right facilities was only part of the battle; the landscape around the country was littered with failed hotels operated by the private sector which were attached to failed publicly-owned conference centers operated by a public entity; it was know from the negative experience of other places that Roanoke needed a seamless operation between the publicly owned conference center and the privately owned hotel; therefore, the same private sector management group was needed to manage both facilities. With all of the effort and significant financial involvement by the City came high expectations; Council asked that a business model be designed that on paper paid for itself; the City was financially responsible for half of the operating deficit in the Conference Center and all of the annual debt service for building the Conference Center; therefore, The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center would have to generate enough local taxes from within the four walls of the facility to pay the City's annual debt service on the Conference Center and any operating loses. 265 Looking back after ten years of history, The Hotel Roanoke has met expectations and projections; Virginia Tech has accounted for 20 per cent of The Hotel's business as projected; the Conference Center is one of the only publicly owned meeting facilities in the country that operates in the black and The Hotel Roanoke enjoys its rightful position as the favorite location for meeting planners booking statewide association business; in addition, direct revenues from the facilities exceed the operating and annual debt service costs and the City collects almost $2 million in direct City taxes from the complex. The question becomes, does Roanoke's experience with The Hotel Roanoke have anything to do with how the stadium question is assessed, and the answer is yes. The first lesson is that since Roanoke is not a fast growth area like the Golden Crescents, the City of Roanoke has to work harder and smarter if it wants bigger and higher quality projects like The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center by studying potential business markets before pursuing economic development projects involving the expenditure of significant City money. Another lesson is that when possible, partners should be recruited to help share the risks and rewards, and identify/structure only those projects that play to Roanoke's geographic, natural and man made strengths and assets. The more important lesson for the stadium decision that can be learned from The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center project relates to the Conference Center; in order to make The Hotel financially feasible, Roanoke had to attract a large amount of new over night business related to different segments of the meetings business; and in order to accomplish that, the City had to build a conference center six times bigger than The Hotel Roanoke, by itself, could justify; the City was able to do so and still have one of the only publicly owned conference centers that operates in the black. Size will matter when it comes to the success of a stadium project in the City of Roanoke. 266 He served as lead consultant for the Carillon Biomedical Institute (CBI) project; there was no serious consideration of a site near Roanoke Memorial Hospital and CBI was moving toward a new Hollins campus located on Interstate-81, midway between Virginia Tech and the University of Virginia. Research revealed that biomedical parks that were removed from the hub of healthcare activity and away from key decision makers performed poorly; those near or adjacent to existing university campuses and/or hospital campuses were more successful; and staff persons who were sent to these off-site removed campuses believed that they were missing out on the action and actually resisted moving. Population-wise, in 2004, Roanoke City went from the 12th largest to the 18th largest. 2004 sales per capita shows that Roanoke continues to be number one in the state among large localities for annual sales tax collected per capita. The City of Roanoke has leaped over two large northern Virginia counties to third place in 2004 restaurant sales per capita. The City of Roanoke slipped one spot in 2004 hotel sales per capita, falling from ninth to tenth. Like ten years ago, Roanoke's hotel, restaurant and retail store base has remained a major tax revenue asset and one that Roanoke must continue to find ways to enhance. Enhancing the City of Roanoke's tax base will require different approaches than ten years ago; all 12 of the hotels built in the Roanoke Valley over the past ten years are what are referred to in the hotel industry as limited-service hotels which do little to improve Roanoke's attractiveness to meetings planners to use The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center. 267 While these 1,113 limited service new hotel rooms are not overly attractive for the meetings business, they are the type of hotel facilities that parents of traveling soccer teams or AAU basketball teams or alumni of teams playing in the Stagg Bowl football game like to stay; therefore, Roanoke has a tremendous existing capacity within its hotel, restaurant and retail base to attract events that are sports-related. Given the above factors, it is reasonable to conclude that as a part of any strategic efforts to increase tax collections in sales, hotels and meals taxes, the City of Roanoke should pursue sports-related events and games. Many other regions around the country also have seen the same opportunity and are developing strategies to proceed; therefore, Roanoke needs to craft plans that provide facilities that differentiate Roanoke from the competition; as with meeting facilities at The Hotel Roanoke, Roanoke needs to work to attract partners and to find ways to provide a better level of customer service than the competition. Americans are holding sporting events at all skill levels and ages in unprecedented numbers; if Roanoke is smart in its decision making, it can add facilities that do not duplicate what is already in the Roanoke Valley; for example, there will be some events that are better suited to Salem's 8,000 seat stadium and if Roanoke chooses to renovate Victory Stadium, there will be some events that are better suited to a 20,000 plus seat stadium. Roanoke has 19 colleges and universities within a 60 mile radius and not many regions the size of Roanoke can make that boast. Slides were presented of neutral stadiums east of the Mississippi River that have stadiums as large or larger than Victory Stadium; Greensboro expanded its basketball arena in large part so that it could have a neutral basketball court large enough to periodically host the Men's ACC basketball tournament. 268 An ACC official in charge of selecting locations to host league tournaments for sports, other than football and basketball, advised that current ACC league policy for sports such as soccer and lacrosse is to select neutral stadiums for championship tournaments; and there is a shortage of good neutral stadiums to host championship events. When City leaders built Victory Stadium in 1941 and decided to make the facility a 24,000 seat venue, they built the stadium, for more than high school football; in 1941, it was most likely one of the largest stadiums in Virginia and according to newspaper accounts, it was built that large for economic development reasons; Roanoke hosted a football game between VMI and the Citadel and later between the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech; the City of Lynchburg was building a new stadium and Roanoke City leaders built Victory Stadium at 24,000 seats to keep Lynchburg from stealing those games; and an economic opportunity vision drove community leaders 64 years ago to build a 24,000 seat facility. Roanoke already has the beginning of an outdoor sports campus with the River's Edge Sports complex and Victory Stadium. Roanoke's sports complex would be in close proximity to the largest hospital in Virginia west of Charlottesville and across the street from the biomedical park and there could be an opportunity to partner with Carillon Biomedical Institute on a unique set of facilities and activities related to sports medicine. · The City of Roanoke has additional economic development opportunities and assets to build upon; i.e.: The need to identify development to take advantage of the uniqueness of having a mountain located within City boundaries The need to craft a master plan that both honors and takes advantage of the many famous people who have lived and/or worked in historic Gainsboro 269 The need to recognize that Roanoke already has a location for a first-class, outdoor amphitheater with ample existing parking in the evenings and on weekends and its location can be another activity that helps drive businesses into the downtown The need to develop a plan to build upon the success of The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center through construction of more exhibit and meeting space at The Hotel, in an effort to leverage meeting space and additional parking spaces to recruit a developer that would add at least 100 additional hotel rooms on site In closing, Council Member Wishneff advised that there are some voices in the community that say a 20,000 plus seat stadium is too large for Roanoke, but those voices represent a short-sighted, conservative and myopic view, they belittle the City's capability to successfully develop and market a larger stadium, and the same voices say things like the days of VMI and the Citadel playing football in Victory Stadium and marching up Jefferson Street are over. He further advised that had those same voices been around in the mid 1990's when the City of Roanoke was contemplating whether to renovate The Hotel Roanoke, they most likely would have said Roanoke cannot support such a large hotel and conference center because the days of hotel guests arriving by train are over and Norfolk Southern has moved its annual meetings out of Roanoke; however, fortunately such shortsighted thinking was nowhere to be found ten years ago. Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29'h Street, N. W., commended Council Member Wishneff on his point of view; however, he stated that the City must market better entertainment in order to generate more business to the area; and with regard to sporting events, the City of Roanoke should start small in order to grow big in its efforts to attract more people to the Roanoke Valley. He called attention to the need to improve air service and other modes of transportation in and out of the Roanoke Valley; and the City needs to do a better job of marketing itself to the citizens who cannot afford to attend City sponsored entertainment events. He added that wages for the average person living in the City should be increased so that the citizenry can afford to attend entertainment activities. He encouraged Council to include the wishes of the citizens of Roanoke in all of the Council's decisions. 270 COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY: Donald M. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney, advised that the cost collection unit of the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office is responsible for collection of unpaid costs and fees in the criminal court system, which provides a stream of revenue for the City of Roanoke. He stated that if a private source had collected the funds, the City would have received $73,000.00 as opposed to $113,000.00; whereupon, he commended Rita Mason, Cost Collector, for her efforts in connection with administering the program. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: NONE. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: POLICE DEPARTMENT-BUDGET-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act of 2000 is an unique U. S. Department of Justice initiative designed to provide a critical resource to state and local law enforcement; the grant program is managed by the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance; and the program provides reimbursement funding on the purchase of approved bulletproof vests. It was further advised that on August 24, 2005, the City of Roanoke was awarded $10,983.00 for reimbursement on the purchase of 60 bulletproof vests; and vests eventually acquired through the program will be divided between the Police Department and the Sheriff's Department. It was explained that the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEG) Program requires that all grant funds be placed in an interest bearing account; and based on interest earned during fiscal year 2003-05 and 2004-06 of LLEBG funding, additional interest earnings have been realized, or are anticipated for the grants, in the amounts of $400.00 and $1,500.00 respectively. The City Manager recommended that Council accept the Bulletproof Vest Partnership reimbursement of $10,983.00 from the Bureau of Justice Programs; that she be authorized to execute the grant agreement and any related documents, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney; and that 271 Council appropriate $10,983.00 and establish a corresponding revenue estimate in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund: Wearing Apparel $10,983.00 Total ~ Appropriate funding of $1,900.00 per the following and increase corresponding revenue estimates in accounts established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund: Revenue LLEBG - FY 2003-05 LLEBG - FY 2004-06 035-640-3550-3552 035-640-3552-3556 $400.00 $1,500.00 Expenditure LLEBG - FY 2003-05 LLEBG - FY 2004-06 035-640-3550-1003 $400.00 035-640-3552-1003 $ 1,393.00 035-640-3552-1120 $ 107.00 Council Member Cutler offered the following budget ordinance: (#37196-100305) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005- 2006 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 2.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37196- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ................................................... 7. NAYS: None .................................................. 0. FLOOD REDUCTION/CONTROL-PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-BUDGET- GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City of Roanoke was awarded a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP); the purpose of the grant was to remove a building located at 1428 10'h Street, N. W., which was subject to repetitive flooding; and the building was removed and the project is complete. 272 It was further advised that the total project cost estimate was $161,400.000, which included property purchase, relocation and demolition; the HMGP award covered $153,330.00 of the proposed cost and remaining funds totaling $8,070.00 were provided by the Capital Projects Fund, Lick Run Greenway account. It was explained that project expenses totaled $164,943.00 and additional revenue was received from VDEM, in the amount of $3,543.00, for reimbursement of certain expenses incurred during the project for fiscal year 2004. The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a budget ordinance appropriating $3,543.00 to Account No. 035-620-3510-9007 and increase the corresponding revenue estimate by the same amount in Account No. 035-620- 3510-3511. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: (#37197-100305) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate additional funding for the Hazard Mitigation Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 3.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37197- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ................................................... 7. NAYS: None .................................................. 0. FLOOD REDUCTION/CONTROL-PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-BUDGET- GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City of Roanoke was awarded a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP); and the purpose of the grant is to remove a residence located at 3303 Garst Mill Road, S. W., identified as Official Tax No. 5030214, which is subject to repetitive flooding and major property damage. 273 It was further advised that the HMGP program is entirely voluntary; Jeffrey Rogers, property owner, was notified of the program and with his concurrence, the City pursued the grant for the property; and after acquisition is complete, the structure will be demolished and the land will be dedicated to the City as permanent greenspace. It was explained that the total project cost estimate is $87,087.00 which includes property purchase and demolition; the HMPG award will cover $82,733.00 of the proposed cost; remaining funds totaling $4,354.00 are available in Account No. 008-530-9734, Miscellaneous Storm Drains Pt 2 account; and authorization is needed to move forward with procurement of title work, document preparation and acquisition of necessary property rights and eventual demolition of the structure. The City Manager recommended the following: Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to purchase real property owned by Jeffrey Rogers, 3303 Garst Mill Road, S. W., Official Tax No. S0302:~4; Authorize demolition of the structure and close the 3303 Garst Mill Road Hazard Mitigation Grant Program grant, in accordance with requirements of FEMA; Adopt a budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in the Capital Projects Fund, in the amount of $65,315.00, from FEMA and $17,418.00 from VDEM, transfer $4,354.00 from Account No. 008- 530-9734-9003 (Miscellaneous Storm Drains Pt 2), and appropriate funds in the same amount to an account to be established by the Director of Finance in the Capital Projects Fund, entitled Hazard Mitigation 3303 Garst Mill Road. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: (#37198-100305) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding received from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for the property on 3303 Garst Mill Road, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 4.) 274 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37198- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ................................................... 7. NAYS: None .................................................. 0. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37199-100305) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the acquisition and demolition of certain property located at 3303 Garst Mill Road, S. W., which is subjective to repetitive flooding, under the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Emergency Management's (VDEM) through its Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, upon certain terms and conditions; authorizing the closing of the Garst Mill Road Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 5.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37199- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ................................................... 7. NAYS: None .................................................. 0. STATE HIGHWAYS-BUDGET: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Commonwealth Transportation Board recently awarded a total of $744,920.00 to the City of Roanoke as part of the State's Revenue Sharing Program; and the award consists of the following projects: Walnut Ave. Bridge Improvements - Aviation Dr. & Towne Square Blvd. Improvement - Sidewalk Maintenance City-wide $242,099.00 $335,214.00 $167,607.00 275 It was further advised that the City of Roanoke sought a total of $1,O00,000.OO for the projects; however, project requests received by VDOT statewide exceeded available funding, therefore, VDOT awarded a reduced amount to each project (74.5 per cent of the original request); it is recommended that funding be appropriated to the project accounts and that preliminary engineering proceed, with the goal of developing a strategy to obtain the remaining funds that are necessary to implement the projects; and the amount of sidewalk maintenance work will be planned to coincide with available funding. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to enter into the necessary agreements with the Virginia Department of Transportation to locally administer and implement the above referenced projects; and that Council adopt a budget ordinance establishing revenue estimates in the Capital Projects Fund in the above referenced amounts and appropriate funds to the following project accounts: Walnut Ave. Bridge Improvements (008-530-9511) $242,099.00 Aviation Dr. & Towne Square (008-530-9830) $335,214.00 Sidewalk Maintenance City-wide (008-530-9793) $167,607.00 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: (#37200-100305) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding awarded by the Virginia Department of Transportation Commonwealth Transportation Board for the Walnut Avenue Bridge Improvements, Aviation Drive & Towne Square Boulevard Improvements and Sidewalk Maintenance City-Wide Projects, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 6.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37200- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ................................................... 7. NAYS: None .................................................. O. 276 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#3720:~-100305) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to enter into an Agreement with the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission (Commission) providing for the Commission's participation in the process of designing a realignment of the intersection area of Aviation Drive and Towne Square Boulevard in return for a contribution by the Commission to the City for a portion of the costs of that process; and authorizing the City Manager to take such further action and execute such additional documents as may be necessary to implement and administer such Agreement. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 7.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37201- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ................................................... 7. NAYS: None .................................................. O. AIRPORT-BUDGET: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Council previously appropriated $250,000.00 toward development of a project to improve the intersection of Aviation Drive and Towne Square Boulevard; since that time, the City has obtained additional funding, in the amount of $335,214.00, from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Revenue Sharing Program; in an effort to use preliminary engineering expenses as part of the City's required matching funds for the Revenue Sharing Program, the selection of a consultant and corresponding design work was scheduled to occur after VDOT's award was finalized; and now that the VDOT award is complete, staff plans to proceed with selection of a consultant and to advance project plans to 65 per cent in the hopes that the added level of detail will help to secure additional funding from both the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission and the private sector. It was further advised that the redesigned intersection is expected to result in realignment of the Airport's main entrance; therefore, Airport staff has been involved in preliminary developments and will need to be closely involved with overall project development; recognizing the need to participate in 277 development of the project, the Airport has stated a willingness to fund one-third of the design costs not to exceed $30,000.00; while Airport staff will participate on the project team, selection of the consultant and final design decisions will be made by the City of Roanoke; and a letter agreement from the Airport Commission setting forth more details was attached to the City Manager's communication. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to enter into an agreement with the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission in substantial conformance with the above referenced letter agreement; such agreement to be approved as to form by the City Attorney; and that Council adopt a budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in the Capital Projects Fund in the amount of $30,000.00, and appropriate the funds to Aviation & Towne Square Boulevard, Account No. 008-530-9830. Council Member Cutler offered the following budget ordinance: (#37202-100305) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate additional funding for the Aviation Drive and Towne Square Boulevard improvement Project, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 8.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37202- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ................................................... 7. NAYS: None .................................................. 0. Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution: (#37203-100305) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to enter into an Agreement with the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission (Commission) providing for the Commission's participation in the process of designing a realignment of the intersection area of Aviation Drive and Towne Square Boulevard in return for a contribution by the Commission to the City for a portion of the costs of that process; and authorizing the City Manager to take such further action and execute such additional documents as may be necessary to implement and administer such Agreement. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 9.) 278 Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37203- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ................................................... 7. NAYS: None .................................................. 0. Council Member Dowe requested a time table for commencement of the Towne Square Aviation Drive project; whereupon, the City Manager advised that she could not answer the question specifically and would forward a response to Council following the meeting after conferring with City staff. BUDGET-ARTS MUSEUM OF WESTERN VA: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that on June 20, 2005, Council authorized issuance of $3.7 million in General Obligation Bonds for the new Art Museum of Western Virginia; the City of Roanoke pledged $4 million for the project; the first payment of $300,000.00 was appropriated in October 2000; the second payment of $2.5 million is to be appropriated upon certification that funding to commence the construction has been secured; and the third payment of $1.2 million will occur upon certification that the project is 50 per cent complete. It was further advised that on June :16, 2003, Council authorized issuance of $14.3 million in General Obligation Bonds for the Civic Center Expansion/Renovation project; and during fiscal year 2004-2005, $7,895,000.00 of the $14.3 million in General Obligation Bonds was issued, with the balance of $6,405,000.00 to be issued during fiscal year 2005-2006. It was noted that funding needs to be appropriated in advance of bond issuance to facilitate the second payment to the Art Museum of Western Virginia and to encumber funds for the balance of the construction contract for the Civic Center Expansion/Renovation project. The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a budget ordinance appropriating $2,500,000.00 for the Art Museum of Western Virginia to an account to be established in the Capital Projects Fund by the Director of Finance and appropriating $6,405,000.00 for Civic Facilities Expansion & Renovation, Account No. 005-S50-8616. 279 Council Member Cutler offered the following budget ordinance: (#37204-100305) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding to be provided by the Series 2005 Bonds to various capital projects, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Civic Facilities and Capital Projects Fund Appropriations and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 10.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37204- 100305. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ................................................... 7. NAYS: None .................................................. 0. BUDGET-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the following miscellaneous funds have been received by the City of Roanoke and need to be applied to the appropriate project accounts: The City of Roanoke had Lumsden Associates, P.C. perform a boundary line adjustment survey between the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County; total project cost was $16,600,00 which was divided between Roanoke County ($7,700.00) for the Vinyard Park II portion, the City of Roanoke ($5,400.00) for the Wastewater Treatment Plant portion, and Rockydale Quarries Corporation ($3,500.00) for the Route 220 and Draper Road portion; revenue was received on October 26, 2004, from Roanoke County in the amount of $7,700.00 and revenue was received from Rockydale Quarries in the amount of $3,500.00. The City of Roanoke had a report prepared by Spectrum Design, P.C. entitled "Center in the Square Chiller Plant Study" in conjunction with the City Market Building HVAC Study to evaluate the possibility of developing a central chiller plant for Center in the Square and the City Market Building; Center in the Square agreed to share the cost of the study with the City of Roanoke; the cost of the study totaled $9,000.00 and revenue was received from Center in the Square on May 28, 2004, in the amount of $4,500. 280 The City of Roanoke initially paid for an abandoned fuel tank to be removed from the Fire Station & Fire Administration site located at Elm Avenue and Franklin Road; the Department of Environmental Quality reimbursed the City of Roanoke for a portion of the cost of removal of the tank; and revenue was received from the Department of Environmental Quality on February 2, 2005, in the amount of $2,097.00. Lamar Advertising Company damaged a portion of an embankment that had already been graded and permanently seeded on the proposed stadium-amphitheater site while performing work on certain billboards; a quotation in the amount of $988.90 was obtained from the contractor, Branch Highways, Inc., to make the necessary repairs and was given to Lamar Advertising Company; and revenue was received from Lamar Advertising Company on October 26, 2004, in the amount of $988.00. The Roano/~e T/rnes requested a copy of the Victory Stadium Condition Assessment and Evaluation report that was prepared by Sutton-Kennerly & Associates, Inc., at a cost of $100.00; and revenue was received from The I¢oano/~e T/rnes on April 14, 2005, in the amount of $:100.00. It was further advised that funding needs to be appropriated and revenue estimates need to be increased as follows: Appropriate This Amount I To This Account Number Increase Revenue Estimate for Same Amount in this Account Number $11,200.00 008-530-9818-9003 008-530-9818-9810 $ 4,500.00 008-530-9767-9003 008-530-9767-9805 $ 2~097.00 008-530-9678-9003 008-530-9678-9802 $ 988.00 008-530-9758-9003 008-008-1234-1293 $ 100.00 008-530-9758-9003 008-530-9758-9812 The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a budget ordinance appropriating the above referenced funds and increasing corresponding revenue estimates for the same amounts as set forth in the above referenced accounts. 281 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: (#37205-100305) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for various capital projects, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 11.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37205- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ................................................... 7. NAYS: None .................................................. O. COMMUNITY PLANNING-CITY EMPLOYEES-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: The City Manager introduced Ford P. Weber, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Services, effective October 3, 2005. DONATIONS/CONTRIBUTIONS-FLOOD REDUCTION/CONTROL-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager called attention to a resolution that Council is requested to adopt that will allow the City of Roanoke to donate surplus vehicles to the Chambers of Commerce of localities that were affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The City Manager announced that after several weeks of attempting to connect the City of Roanoke with a city in one of the states affected by the hurricanes, a cooperation arrangement was developed with the City of Gulfport, Mississippi, and with adoption of the above referenced resolution, up to 20 vehicles will be donated to the Gulfport Chamber of Commerce which will ensure that the City of Gulfport is the recipient of the vehicles. She stated that while Roanoke City officials have spoken at length with officials of Gulfport, all details regarding the needs of the community are not known, although it has been indicated that vehicles and building inspections are top priorities. She advised that City employees have been anxiously awaiting the opportunity to be of assistance, but it was necessary to ensure that all of the proper protocols 282 were observed through the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Mississippi and to also ensure that FEMA endorses and approves any actions that were taken. She stated that through the efforts of the City's Service Excellence Committee, a bake sale was held last week that netted $1,500.00 that will go to hurricane victims, and it is hoped that the funds will go directly to the residents of the City of Gulfport; earlier in the day, six members of the City's Department of Fire/EMS were deployed to Lake Charles, Louisiana, for 15 days and their primary mission will be planning and rescuing at high level, and following the first 15 days, they will be replaced by six additional members of the Fire/EMS Department for another period of 15 days. She added that the first group to be deployed this morning consisted of Battalion Chief Jeff Beckner, who will lead the group and is trained in incident management, heavy tactical rescue training; Captain Warner VanDame who is trained in hazardous materials; Captain Todd Stone who is trained in water rescue and medical heavy technical rescue; Captain Kent McEIwaine, who is a paramedic trained in pre hospital medical care; First Lieutenant Phillip Dillon, who is trained in search, rescue and training; and Lieutenant Chad Whittleberry, who is a paramedic trained in heavy tactical rescue. She advised that with Council's adoption of the above referenced resolution, the City will begin to make arrangements for surplus vehicles, which include vehicles that were to be auctioned later during the fiscal year, to be delivered to the City of Gulfport; and later in the week, she will advise of the deployment of additional non public safety resources to the Gulfport, Mississippi, area. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick inquired if some of the funds that are raised in the Roanoke Valley could be directed specifically to the City of Gulfport in an effort to establish a more long term relationship. The City Manager responded that by Wednesday, October 5, the City should have in hand a full list of needs that will be shared with the community to enable Roanoke's citizens to more specifically direct their resources, whether they are monetary or other identified needs, to assist in the delivery of assistance to the Gulfport community. She stated that it is hoped that the entire Roanoke community and perhaps the Roanoke Valley would rally around those communities that are being matched up with cities like Roanoke to ensure that the resources are effectively deployed to the various communities. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick suggested that the Mayor or the City Manager contact other localities in the Roanoke Metropolitan Statistical Area to encourage their support of efforts to assist localities affected by the recent hurricanes. 283 Council Member Cutler suggested that Roanoke area service groups and organizations such as the Kiwanis Club or the Rotary Club be encouraged to determine how they may contribute and to consider the adoption of "sister" groups in those areas affected by the recent hurricanes. Council Member Cutler offered the following resolution: (#37206-100305) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to donate up to twenty (20) surplus vehicles to the chambers of commerce for localities affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 12.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37206- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ................................................... 7. NAYS: None .................................................. O. CITY COUNCIL: A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in Closed Session to discuss a matter with regard to acquisition of real property, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager to convene in Closed Session as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ................................................... 7. NAYS: None .................................................. 0. At 4:30 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess for one Closed Session to interview two applicants for a vacancy on the Roanoke City School Board. At 5:50 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, with all Members of the Council in attendance, Mayor Harris presiding. 284 DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: AUDITS/FINANCIAL REPORTS: The Director of Finance submitted the Financial Report for the month of August 2005. (For full text, see financial report on file in the City Clerk's Office.) The Director of Finance advised that the City is two months into the fiscal year which is included in the August financial report; and just under six per cent growth is anticipated in revenues and expenditures for this budget year. He stated that staff will closely monitor local business taxes due to the spike in fuel prices that will eat into consumer discretionary spending, which generates sales tax, meals tax, admissions tax, room tax, etc. There being no further discussion and without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the Financial Report for the month of August would be received and filed. REPORTS OF COMMll-rEES: NONE. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. INTRODUCTION RESOLUTIONS: AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-INDUSTRIES: Council Member Cutler offered the following resolution reappointing S. Deborah Oyler as a Director of the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, for a term of four years, commencing October 21, 2005: (#37207-100305) A RESOLUTION reappointing a Director of the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke to fill a four (4) year term on the Board of Directors. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 13.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37207- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ................................................... 7. NAYS: None .................................................. O. 285 OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTESS-INDUSTRIES: Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution reappointing Stuart H. Revercomb, as a Director of the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, for a term of four years, commencing October 21,2005: (#37208-100305) A RESOLUTION reappointing a Director of the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke to fill a four (4) year term on the Board of Directors. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 14.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37208- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ................................................... 7. NAYS: None .................................................. 0. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: NONE. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MA'I-I-ERS: 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. ROANOKE CiViC CENTER-DISABLED PERSONS: Ms. Debra Caldwell- Shelton, 2817 Lyndhurst Street, N. W., expressed concern that there are no wheelchair ramps around the Roanoke Civic Center. The City Manager advised that a ramp located at the front of the Civic Center leads up to the plaza and provides access to the Coliseum and to the Performing Arts Theatre, an elevator is available in the Performing Arts Theater, and two lifts are available in the Coliseum to take occupants of wheelchairs to the Coliseum floor. The City Manager advised that a member of the City staff would contact Ms. Shelton to discuss her specific concerns and/or any unusual circumstances. 286 Ms. Shelton advised that it was stated at a City Council meeting that all streets and sidewalks in the City of Roanoke are wheelchair accessible; however, she noted that this is not a true statement. The Mayor advised that no claim has been made by the City Council or the City Manager that all City streets and all sidewalks are handicapped accessible. HOUSING/AUTHORITY: Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29th Street, N. W., spoke with regard to the cost of housing in the City of Roanoke. He referred specifically to houses on Day Avenue, S. W., that are proposed to be renovated by the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority and will be sold in the price range of $250,000.00 - $300,000.00. He also referred to vacant houses on Madison Avenue and at the corner of 5'h Street, N. W., that sell for $100,000.00 - $124,O00.O0, and a vacant house on Gilmer Avenue that sells for $85,O00.00 which is deteriorating due to vandalism and lack of occupancy. He stated that any person who can afford to purchase a house valued at $100,000.00 - $300,000.00 will not choose to buy a house in those areas of the City. He expressed concern that the average City employee cannot afford to purchase a house in the City of Roanoke because the average City worker earns less than a mother with four children on public assistance. PROCLAMATIONS-POLICE DEPARTMENT: Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., complimented the Chief of Police and especially Officer S. S. Camp on the manner in which a potentially dangerous situation involving an elderly relative was resolved. She stated that the quick response by Officer Camp prevented what could have been a dangerous incident for an elderly citizen. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: CITY MARKET-CELEBRATIONS-DISABLED PERSONS: The City Manager advised that beginning on October 3, 2005, parking tickets will be issued by downtown parking ticket enforcement officers using handheld computers that print easy to read tickets on water proof paper. The City Manager called attention to the following activities: Fall Waterways Cleanup and Celebration which was held on Saturday, October 1, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m., along the banks of the Roanoke River. 287 2005 Business Festival on Saturday, October 1, 2005, which was held at the Goodwill Industries parking lot on Melrose Avenue from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Kickoff for the City Market Study which was held on Saturday, October 1, 2005, at 11:00 a.m. Fall Festival which was held on the City Market on Saturday, October 1, 2005, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project ground breaking to be held on Tuesday, October 4, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., at the Roanoke River next to the 9'h Street Bridge. Presentation of a report by the consultant on the Roanoke Public Library on October 3, 2005, at 6:00 p.m., at the Jefferson Center. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Walk on Sunday, September 25, 2005, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. At 6:10 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess for one Closed Session in the Council's Conference Room. At 7:05 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, with all Members of the Council in attendance, Mayor Harris presiding. COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Session just concluded, Council Member Cutler 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 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ................................................... 7. NAYS: None .................................................. O. (Council Member Dowe left the meeting during the Closed Session.) 288 OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-SCHOOLS: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the Roanoke City School Board created by the resignation of Gloria P. Manns, for a term ending June 30, 2006; whereupon, he advised that the following persons applied for the vacancy: Jason E. Bingham Randy L. Leftwich Elias A. Zaney John W. Elliott, Jr. Carla L. Terry The Mayor requested that Council Members cast their vote for one person to fill the vacancy. FOR MR. BINGHAM: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Vice- Mayor Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harris .................................... 5. FOR MS. TERRY: Council Member Lea ............................. 1. FOR MR. LEFTWlCH: NONE ...................................... O. FOR MR. ELLIOTT: NONE ....................................... O. FOR MR. ZANEY: NONE ......................................... O. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) The Mayor announced that Jason E. Bingham was appointed to fill the unexpired term of Gloria P. Manns, resigned, ending June 30, 2006, as a Trustee of the Roanoke City School Board. OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMI~-fEES-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the Roanoke Civic Center Commission, created by expiration of the term of office of Mark E. Feldmann; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations to fill the vacancy. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick placed in nomination the name of Brownie Polly. There being no further nominations, Mr. Polly was appointed as a member of the Roanoke Civic Center Commission, for a term ending September 30, 2008, by the following vote: 289 FOR MR. POLLY: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ..................................... 6. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) There being no further business, the Mayor declared the Council meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. APPROVED ATTEST: Mary F. Parker City Clerk C. Nelson Harris Mayor 290 ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL October 17, 2005 2:00 p.m. The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday, October 17, 2005, at 2:00 p.m., the regular meeting hour, in the Roanoke City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., City of Roanoke, with MayorC. Nelson Harris presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2, 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. 37109-070505 adopted by the Council on Tuesday, July 5, 2005. PRESENT: Council Members Brian J. Wishneff, Alfred T. Dowe,Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea and MayorC. Nelson Harris .................. 5. ABSENT: Council Members M. Rupert Cutler and Brenda L. McDaniel ..... 2. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. 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 Vice-Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of Americawas led by Mayor Harris. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: PROCLAMATIONS: The Mayor presented a proclamation to Mary Pinkerton, Program Manager, Lead Safe Roanoke, declaring October 23 - 29, 2005, as Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week. 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 fdiscuss on was desired, the item would be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. He called specific attention to three requests for Closed Session. 291 MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Tuesday, September 6, 2005, were before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with and that the minutes be approved as recorded. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................... 5. NAYS: None .................................................... 0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor C. Nelson Harris 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. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council convene in Closed Session as abovedescribed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. 0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) COMMITTEES-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER: A communication from Monica S. Jones tendering her resignation as a member of the Roanoke Civic Center Commission, effective immediately, was before Council. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the resignation be accepted and that the communication be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. 0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) 292 COMMI~-I-EES-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: A communication from Rich McGimsey tendering his resignation as a member of the Fair Housing Board, effective immediately, was before Council. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the resignation be accepted and that the communication be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. 0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) TAXES-REAL ESTATE VALUATION: A communication from the Honorable Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge, Twenty-third Judicial Circuit Court of Virginia, transmitting the 2005 Annual Report of the Board of Equalization for the taxable year July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006, was before Council. Judge Weckstein advised that members of the Board of Equalization rendered signal service, hearing and deciding 107 appeals (75 residential and 32 commercial and industrial), for an increase of almost 73 per cent from the 62 appeals that were considered last year. He further advised that under City Code §32-39, Board of Equalization members "receive such per diem compensation for the time actually engaged in the duties of the board as may be fixed by city council"; the current per diem amount is $100.00, which is the amount that Council established more than two decades ago; therefore, on behalf of the Board of Equalization, Judge Weckstein suggested that Council consider a substantial increase in the per diem amount. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the communication and report be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. O. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) 293 CITY COUNCIL: A communication from the City Attorney requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to consult with legal counsel regarding actual litigation where such consultation in open session would adversely affect the City's negotiating or litigation posture, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council convene in Closed Session as abovedescribed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. 0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) OATHS OF OFFICE-PARKS AND RECREATION-COMMI'I-rEES-COURT COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BOARD-ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD: The following report of qualification was before Council: Alison S. Blanton as a member of the Architectural Review Board, fora term ending October 1, 2009; Talfourd H. Kemper, Jr., as a member of the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2007; and Julian H. Raney, Jr., as a member of the Court Community Corrections Program Regional Community Criminal Justice Board, for a term ending June 30, 2008. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the report of qualification be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ S. NAYS: None ................................................. O. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) 294 CITY COUNCIL-CITIZEN OF THE YEAR: A communication from Mayor C. Nelson Harris requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss nominations for 2005 Citizen of the Year, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(10), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council convene in Closed Session as abovedescribed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. 0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) REGULAR AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: POLICE DEPARTMENT-BUDGET-DRUGS/SUBSTANCE ABUSE: The City Manager submitted a communication concurring in the following request of the Commonwealth's Attorney. The Commonwealth's Attorney advised that in an effort to better fund law enforcement efforts to fight crime, particularly drug crime, in 1986, the Federal government adopted a system of asset forfeiture whereby forfeited assets, under certain conditions, could be returned to local law enforcement agencies, police and prosecutors for use in their fight against crime; in July, 1991, the Virginia asset forfeiture statute, which generally is patterned after the Federal statute, took effect, providing that forfeited criminal assets may be returned to local police and prosecutors for use in the fight against crime; immediately, assets seized as evidence are ordered forfeited by the local courts to the police or to the Office of Commonwealth's Attorney to be used for criminal law enforcement efforts; and in August, 1991, a grant fund account for cash assets forfeited to the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney was established with an appropriation of $25,000.00. It was further advised that since August, 1991, the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney has expended the $25,000.00 originally appropriated, and periodically receives additional funds from the State's asset sharing program; grant requirements provide that funds must be placed in an interest bearing account and interest earned must be used in accordance with program guidelines; revenues collected through June 30, 2005, total $211,254.00 and interest on the account collected through June 30, 2005, is $18,899.00; funds received in excess of revenue estimate totals $24,910.00; and funds must be appropriated before they can be expended for law enforcement purposes. 295 The Commonwealth's Attorney recommended that Council adopt an ordinance to increase the revenue estimates for Forfeited Criminal Assets, Account No. 035-150-5140-7107, and Forfeited Criminal Assets interest, Account No. 035-150-5140-7275, in the amounts of $22,999.00 and $1,911.00 respectively, and appropriate funds to Forfeited Criminal Assets, Account No. 035-150-5140 in the Grant Fund. Council Member Dowe offered the following budget ordinance: (#37210-101705) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the Forfeited Criminal Assets Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005- 2006 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 17.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37210- 101705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. 0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) BONDS/BOND ISSUES-HOSPITALS: A communication from Harwell M. Darby, Jr., Attorney, representing the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, advising that the Authority has undertaken a large bond issue for Carillon Health System, in the amount of $329,050,000.00, although the figure could vary between now and November 9, 2005, which is the scheduled closing date due to fluctuations in the financial markets, was before Council. It was further advised that the purpose of the financing is to fund ongoing expansions at Community and Roanoke Memorial Hospitals, as well as to reconfigure and/or extend maturities on other outstanding indebtedness, some of which was used for hospitals located in the City of Bedford and the Counties of Montgomery, Giles and Franklin. 296 Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution: (#37211-101705) A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia authorizing, among other things, the issuance of not to exceed $450,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia Hospital Revenue Bonds (Carilion Health System Obligated Group) to the extent required by Section 147 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 18.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37211- 101705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. 0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) REPORTS OF OFFICERS: CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: None ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: POLICE DEPARTMENT-BUDGET: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services awards grants for services in three-year cycles; the City of Roanoke has been selected as a grantee for the first year of a three-year funding cycle for the Runaway and Homeless Youth (RHY) program under provisions of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, in the amount of $134,381.00; for the project period beginning September 30, 2005 through September 29, 2008; funds will be used to cover salary and fringe benefits of a Youth Counselor Ill, a Youth Counselor II, a Relief Counselor and related program activities in the Sanctuary Outreach program; and the required local match is offered as in-kind services. 297 It was further advised that the focus of the program is to alleviate the problems of runaways and homeless youth and their families, to strengthen family relationships and to encourage stable living conditions; early intervention of Sanctuary Outreach staff in a combination of shelter-based and home-based services offers runaway and homeless youth and their families supportive services that will decrease the incidence of repeat runaway episodes; and program services include 24 hour intake and referral access, temporary shelter, individual, group and family counseling, community service linkages, aftercare services, case disposition and recreation opportunities. The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a resolution accepting $134,381.00 in funding from the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Grant No. 03CY0459/1, for Sanctuary's Runaway and Homeless Youth Outreach program; that the City Manager be authorized to execute any other forms required by the Department of Health and Human Services in order to accept funds; and that Council adopt an ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in the amount of $134,381.00 in the Grant Fund and appropriate funds in the same amount to expenditure accounts to be established by the Director of Finance. Council Member Dowe offered the following budget ordinance: (#37212-101705) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 21.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37212- 101705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. 0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) 298 Council Member Wishneff offered the following resolution: (#37213-101705) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a grant from the United States Department of Health and Human Services to be used for salary and fringe benefits of counselors and related activities in the Sanctuary Outreach Program; and authorizing the execution of the necessary documents. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 22.) Council Member Wishneff moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37213- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. 0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) GRANTS-HAZARDOUS MATERIALS-FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that local governments, as a condition of receiving Federal disaster mitigation funds, have in effect a mitigation plan that describes the process for identifying hazards, risks and vulnerabilities, identifies and prioritizes mitigation actions, encourages development of local mitigation and provides technical support for such efforts; the Roanoke Valley - Alleghany Regional Commission received a grant from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) to develop a regional predisaster mitigation plan that would meet requirements; in collaboration with staff from the localities, a final draft plan was completed which has been approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and VDEM; and each locality is requested to adopt the global portions of the plan, as well as the Iocality's specific section of the plan. It was further advised that adoption of the plan does not require appropriation of City funds at this time, nor does it commit the City to completion of any specific projects; and the plan indicates that all goals are dependant on the availability of non local funding; however, should a specific project be undertaken requiring a local match to State or Federal funds, funding would be addressed at that time. 299 The City Manager recommended that Council adopt the Regional Predisaster Mitigation Plan as above referenced and that she be authorized to take such actions as may be needed to implement and administer the Plan. Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution: (#37214-101705) A RESOLUTION adopting a Regional Predisaster Mitigation Plan for communities that are members of the Roanoke Valley-AIleghany Regional Commission; and authorizing the City Manager to take such action as may be needed to implement and administer such Plan. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 23.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37214- 101705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. 0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) BUDGET-CULTURAL SERVICES COMMI'I-rEE-HUMAN SERVICES COMMI'I-I'EE: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that after several months of discussion with both public and private organizations that are responsible for funding non-profit agencies on a regular basis, the following criteria have been developed for recommended adoption by Council as prerequisites for those organizations receiving funds from the City of Roanoke in future budget cycles: Organizations must develop a business plan that includes evidence of community involvement and outlines long-term plans for financial sustainability. Boards of organizations must demonstrate commitment to their organization by certifying that 100 per cent of their board members have made a financial commitment to the organization and that each board member has an annual average meeting attendance rate of at least 75 per cent. 3OO Organizations must agree to an annual joint site visit by the City and Carillon Foundation, Roanoke County (Roanoke County was inadvertently included in the communication) and the Funders Circle if the organization receives funds from them, and must agree to file a semi-annual report with the City of results achieved through funds received. Organizations in existence for two years or more with an annual budget of $50,000.00 or more must perform an annual audit and provide a copy of same to the City. Organizations adhering to these expectations and requirements will benefit through the use of a simplified application and reporting process, and a consolidated site visit. It was further advised that the City of Roanoke will be joined in this approach by Carillon Foundation and the Funders Circle; other private foundations are also considering the use of the abovedescribed criteria in their funding process; and all past recipients of City funds will be informed of the new requirements upon adoption by Council. The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a resolution approving the abovedescribed criteria and that the City Manager be authorized to disseminate information regarding the policy to non-profit providers of health and human services, as well as to arts and cultural organizations that have or are likely to apply to the City for funds. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37215-101705) A RESOLUTION adopting a policy pertaining to funding for non-profit organizations in future budget cycles, and authorizing the City Manager to disseminate information about such policy. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 24.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37215- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. Charles Harlow, Chair, Board of Directors, Blue Ridge Independent Living Center, advised that non-profit agencies should have received notice prior to adopting the proposed policy. He asked that action be deferred until the affected non-profit agencies have had an opportunity to review details of the proposed policy. 301 Joe Cobb, Executive Director, Inner Faith Hospitality Network, advised that the Inner Faith Hospitality Network receives emergency shelter grant funding which is administered through the City and funded by the City's Human Services Committee, the organization is monitored by both sources which has included an annual site visit; therefore, he inquired if the proposed new policy would apply to all non-profit organizations and whether the City would be willing to provide assistance to non-profit agencies with regard to preparation of a business plan. Lastly, he stated that the Inner Faith Hospitality Network has received funding in the past from the Carillon Foundation, the organization does not receive funds from Roanoke County or the Funders Circle; whereupon, he inquired to the level of involvement by Roanoke County and the Funders Circle. In clarification, the City Manager advised that the Carillon Foundation, the City of Roanoke, and the Funders Circle, have agreed to support implementation of the proposed criteria and Roanoke County was inadvertently listed in the communication. She stated that the intent of the criteria is two fold: to create greater accountability for those organizations seeking funds from the City and to assist organizations in devoting more time to thinking about current and future activities. She added that City staff would be available to train organizations with regard to creating business plans; and representatives of the City's Department of Management and Budget are currently assisting in a consortium effort to prepare a business plan for a particular program in the City that would transcend several organizations. She stated that the criteria requiring an audit is reasonable as it relates to an annual budget of $50,000.00 or more, and several audit firms have previously indicated that $ 50,000.00 or more is an appropriate threshold at which an audit should occur. She noted that criteria such as an annual audit, an annual site visit, ensuring that members of boards of organizations not only attend board meetings regularly, but also participate financially to the agency is an important demonstration of financial and physical commitment to the organization. She explained that it is anticipated that the criteria would be used for funds provided by the City whether they be general funds or funds such as the Community Development Block Grant program as previously referenced by the Inner Faith Hospitality Network, and a single site visit or review or a single central audit function or review would be conducted. The City Manager advised that an advantage of the criteria to non-profit organizations will be a simplified application and reporting process. She stated that the policy is not onerous and is proposed for adoption at this time so that agencies will have sufficient time to prepare for the City's next budget cycle. 302 The Mayor concurred in the remarks of the City Manager that the proposed policy is not onerous, organizations will be given time to become familiar with or to make the necessary adjustments, and ifa worthy organization needs to engage in dialogue with the City in order to meet certain of the criteria, the City will be flexible. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick advised that many organizations seeking funds from the City do not have an established business plan, or a service model that would enable the City to learn more about the organization prior to investing taxpayers' dollars. He stated that it is important to establish a policy that is fair to everyone and to assist those organizations that need help in connection with preparing their business plan. He called attention to agencies that duplicate services and the proposed policy will lead to a better understanding of current services, who is being served, how well they are being served, and how non-profit agencies can do a better job across the board. Council Member Lea inquired if non-profit agencies were advised of the proposed policy; whereupon, the City Manager advised that the criteria was not shared with the non-profit agencies, the proposed criteria is within the purvue of either the City administration or the City Council; some time ago, the Mayor shared the proposed criteria with the Council prior to approaching the Funders Circle and the Carillon Foundation; and the proposed policy is no different than establishing a new policy with regard to how much or what percent of Community Development Block Grant program funding would be devoted to housing versus another activity. She stated that the proposed policy is a kind of prerequisite for agencies to apply for funding and as long as there is evidence that agencies are making an effort to comply, City staff will work with them; however, if an organization chose not to abide by the criteria, the Council should be advised accordingly. In summary, she advised that no effort was made to seek review of the criteria by non-profit organizations prior to submitting the item to Council for approval. The City Manager explained that voting on the issue today gives non-profit agencies the maximum amount of time to begin preparing for the City's next budget cycle, and the proposed criteria does not affect funding previously authorized by the Council for the current fiscal year. Council Member Wishneff inquired as to whether a copy of the proposed policy could be forwarded to all non-profit organizations that were funded by the City during the past fiscal year prior to adoption of the resolution. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick advised that if the majority of Council is in favor of the proposed policy, the enabling resolution should be adopted with the understanding that City staff will meet with those non-profit agencies that need assistance in connection with preparation of their business plan and the policy will continue to be reviewed by City staff for any necessary revisions. 303 Council Member Dowe commended the proposed policy which is not intended to penalize any organization, but to help existing organizations. He stated that those organizations that are currently in compliance will not experience any problems with regard to the proposed new policy. Council Member Wishneff offered a substitute motion that action on the resolution be tabled until the next regular meeting of Council on Monday, November 7, 2005, at 2:00 p.m., and that a copy of the proposed policy be forwarded to ali non-profit agencies funded by the City of Roanoke during fiscal year 2005-2006. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea. The substitute motion to table the resolution was lost by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff and Lea ........................... 2. NAYS: Council Member Dowe, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harris .............................................................. 3. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) The Mayor advised that inasmuch as the motion to table the resolution failed, the resolution was before the Council. The City Manager advised that it would be necessary to amend the resolution to remove any references to Roanoke County. Following discussion, it was the consensus of Council to remove all references to Roanoke County from the resolution. Resolution No. 37215-101705, as amended, was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................... 5. NAYS: None ................................................... O. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) 304 CITY CODE-VETERANS AFFAIRS-CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the General Assembly amended Virginia Code Section ].5.2-1509 with regard to preferences that local governments must give to veterans when making hiring or promotion decisions; changes to the State Code section broaden the preference that a local government must give aveteran when making personnel decisions; in response to the change in State law, Section 2-70, Veteran's Preference, Code of the City of Roanoke 1979, as amended, requires updating; it is the current practice of the City of Roanoke to extend preference to qualified veterans during the selection process for new hires as well as promotions; the proposed changes to Section 2-70 better conform to amendments made to the State Code, while preserving the City's current practice; and currently, veteran's preference applies only for jobs in which a test is given, while the proposal provides preference regardless of whether a test is given. The City Manager recommended that Council approve amendment of the Code of the City of Roanoke 1979, as amended, to provide for the practice of veteran's preference in compliance with State law. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37216-10].705) AN ORDINANCE amending Section 2-70, Veteran's Preference, Article IV, Personnel Management and Practices, of Chapter 2, Administration, Code of the City of Roanoke (].979), as amended, to conform with Section 2.2-2903 of the Code of Virginia (].950) as amended; and dispensing with the second reading by tit e of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 25.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 372].6- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ NAYS: None ................................................. O. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) 3O5 TRAFFIC-STATE HIGHWAYS-TRANSPORTATION SAFETY-STREETS AND ALLEYS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that an extension of Wonju Street between Colonial Avenue and Brandon Avenue was added to VDOT's Six-Year Improvement Plan in 1999; two conceptual alternatives have been considered since project initiation, but as right-of-way impacts and cost estimates for the alternatives increased over time, a third alternative, a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative, was suggested; and on October 3, 2005, VDOT held a Citizen Information Meeting on the proposed project to share alternatives and cost estimates with the public. It was further advised that estimated costs for Alternatives 1 and 2 vary from $18 - 21 million; alternatives would require significant right-of-way acquisition costs, representing approximately 70 per cent of the total project cost, and would likely take four to five years to implement; estimated costs for Alternative 3, the TSM Alternative, are expected to be between $1 and $2 million, will minimize right-of-way acquisition, and could be implemented within the next two years; the City's required two per cent match would apply to any of the three alternatives; and funding will be identified at a future time upon acceptance by VDOT of the project request. It was explained that at the Citizen Information Meeting, 43 comment sheets were submitted; of the 43 comments, 21 preferred the TSM Alternative, eight preferred Alternative 1, six preferred Alternative 2, and remaining comments indicated either a preference for combinations of alternatives or did not indicate a preference. It was stated that City staff supports Alternative 3, the TSM Alternative, for the following reasons: · maximizes use of existing capacity on Brandon and Colonial Avenues, · is projected to satisfy the traffic demand through the design year of 2030, · requires minimal acquisition of right-of-way (right-of-way that, based upon preliminary conversations with the affected property owner, will be donated rather than purchased), · minimizes construction cost, · provides an immediate safety improvement through reducing the queue of vehicles on southbound Route 220, · is expected to be advertised for construction in approximately 12 months, · precludes consideration of a build alternative in the future should it become necessary, and · enables unused funds to be programmed for Colonial Avenue improvements and other City needs as directed by Council. 306 The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a resolution in support of Alternative 3, the Transportation System Management alternative, and request that VDOT advance the project to the construction phase. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37217-10].705) A RESOLUTION expressing the support of the Council of the City of Roanoke to the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") of Alternative 3, a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative, for the extension of Wonju Street between Colonial Avenue and Brandon Avenue. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 26.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37217- 10].705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. Mr. Sherman Banford, 2423 Winthrop Avenue, S. W., advised that he is generally in favor of Alternative No. 3 which solves a serious traffic problem on Wonju Street, Colonial Avenue and 23rd Street, and offers the least disturbance to businesses, residences, churches, and neighborhoods in the surrounding areas. He expressed concern with regard to the potential for motorists to use 26'" Street and Winthrop Avenue as a shortcut if the left turn to 23rd is blocked, which is currently happening to some degree with the existing traffic configuration. He expressed further concern that a much larger volume of traffic will flow down 26'" Street and Winthrop Avenue and traffic will flow at higher speeds, which will defeat the purpose of the proposed traffic system management alternative, because motorists will bypass the no left turn. He called attention to a concern regarding an existing steep grade on 26th Street up to Colonial Avenue and there is an existing traffic hazard when exiting on 26'" Street onto Colonial Avenue. He referred to a large apartment complex located behind Towers Shopping Mall and inquired if the proposed changes would lead to increased traffic on Winthrop Avenue. He stated that the City and VDOT should have a clear understanding of what will happen with regard to the overall project and streets adjacent to the roads where changes are proposed to occur. He advised that the first public meeting with regard to the Central Roanoke Mobility Study will be held on October 17, 2005, and inquired if the Wonju Street and Colonial Avenue alternative is an interim proposal that will be followed by further traffic changes. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick advised that when two lanes turn left from what is essentially Route 220 onto Colonial Avenue, two straight lanes go through the Wonju Street intersection and suddenly merge back to one lane, therefore, there is a need to address two lanes, southbound, to Overland Road, which could mean that there may not be any bike lanes. He stated that the meeting on October 17 will focus on the study regarding the 1-58]./Route 220 corridor/Elm Avenue and is not specific to Wonju Street/Colonial Avenue. 307 Council Member Wishneff requested a clarification that Alternative 3, would eliminate the left turn onto 23'* Street. The City Manager affirmed that Alternative 3 eliminates the left turn onto 23rd Street. She stated that the last official day for public comment on the alternatives was Friday, October 13, 2005; a total of 53 comments were received of which 26 preferred TSM or Alternate No. 3, eight preferred Alternate No. 1, six preferred Alternate No. 2, and 13 indicated either a preference for a combination of the alternatives or did not indicate a preference, therefore, approximately one- half of those persons who commented stated a preference forAIternate No. 3. She added that not only is Alternate No. 3 less expensive and can be implemented more quickly, but should Alternate No. 3 not be successful, improvements would not have been made that cannot be used in conjunction with a subsequent alternative choice. The City Manager commended Mr. Banford for a thoughtful and well prepared e-mail which was forwarded to the City's Traffic Engineering Department. She assured Mr. Banford and others that the City of Roanoke takes their comments with regard to other potential impacts for the laneing of Colonial Avenue and the possible traffic impact on Winthrop Avenue seriously and will review the suggestions regardless of which alternative the Council endorses. Council Member Wishneff advised that he could not support eliminating the left turn onto 23'd Street, primarily because he did not have sufficient information on which to base his decision. The City Manager responded that the reason for the dual left turn lanes at Colonial and Brandon Avenues is to expedite additional traffic movement onto Brandon Avenue. She stated that there would be no point in making the dual left turn change if the left turn onto 23r~Street were not eliminated. Upon question, the City Manager explained that Alternatives Nos. 1 and 2 would cost $18-$21 million and Alternate No. 3would cost between $1-$2 million and could be implemented within the next 12 months; Alternatives Nos. 1 and 2 would require a number of years to accumulate sufficient funds, involve considerable right-of-way acquisition, and a loss of some properties that are currently a part of the City's tax base; and Alternate No. 3 does not eliminate the opportunity, if necessary, to revert to Alternate Nos. 1 or 2, because improvements are such that they could remain in place. 308 The Mayor advised that the owner of Towers Shopping Mall and Mall tenants were engaged in the process, and the City Manager advised that the owner of Towers Shopping Mall has offered a right-of-way free of charge, if necessary, to accommodate Alternative No. 3. There being no further discussion, Resolution No. 37217-101705 was adopted by the following vote; AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ........ 4. NAYS: Council MemberWishneff ................................... (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-BUDGET: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that in May 2005, Council authorized purchase of the approximately 140 acre Countryside Golf Course for $4.1 million and an option to purchase the property was entered into, with a deposit in the amount of $125,000.00 which provided time for further staff analysis to determine whether the property should be acquired by the City for further development; in the event that the property was purchased, the option amount would apply to the purchase price; in June 2005, Council authorized issuance of general obligation public improvement bonds in the amount of $3,975,000.00 to fund a portion of the project, and the bonds will be issued in late calendar year 2005 if the City elects to proceed with purchase of the property. It was further advised that since receiving authorization, staff has conducted the required due diligence, including completion of a survey and environmental studies, and has negotiated a management agreement with Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc., for continued operation of the facility as a golf course for one year after purchase. It was explained that the management agreement provides for the Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc., to be responsible for operation and maintenance of the facility in a manner consistent with current operation; all expenses for operating the golf course will be the responsibility of the operator, and the operator will collect all income generated from use of the facility by the general public; and the operator will pay a management fee of $35,O00.00 to the City for the one year term of the operating agreement. 309 It was advised that the option agreement which was previously authorized by Council requires notification to the seller by October 28, 2005, with closing to occur no later than November 30, 2005; in order to proceed with the notification and closing process, action is required by Council to appropriate the balance of funds necessary for purchase of the property; funds totaling $4,006,000.00 are needed for property acquisition and other costs associated with closing, with $3,975,000.00 to be provided from the sale of the 2005 general obligation public improvement bonds; and funding of $31,000.00 is available in the existing project account for remaining expenses. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute the Operating Agreement with MeadowbrookGolfGroup, Inc., on behalf of the City of Roanoke in a form to be approved by the City Attorney; and that Council appropriate $3,975,000.00 in advance of issuance of the 2005 general obligation bonds to Account No. 008-310-9840, Countryside Golf Course acquisition. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: (#37218-101705) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding to be provided by the Series 2005 Bonds to purchase Countryside Golf Course, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 27.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37218- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 729 27'h Street, N.W., expressed concern with regard to the renovation of houses on Day Avenue, S.W., by the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority which are appraised at $38,000.00-$50,000.00 and the RRHA plans to sell the houses for $265,000.00. He also referred to vacant houses on Madison Avenue, N. W., that sell for $124,000.00, while the average home in the neighborhood sells for $40,000.00-$50,000.00. He stated that any person who can afford to purchase a house in the price range of $125,000.00- $265,000.00 will not choose to live in the Day Avenue and Madison Avenue areas of the City. There being no further discussion, Ordinance No. 37218-101705 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. 0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) 310 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37219-101705) AN ORDINANCE authorizing execution of an Operating Agreement for Countryside Golf Course ("Operating Agreement"), between the City of Roanoke and Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc., upon certain terms and conditions, as contemplated in the Operating Agreement; and dispensing with the second reading by title paragraph of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 28.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37219- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. 0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) CITY ATTORNEY: ZONING: The City Attorney submitted a written report advising that on June 1, 2005, Roanoke Investments Associated, Inc., represented by Eugene M. Elliott, Jr., Attorney, filed a petition to change conditional proffers attaching to Official Tax No. 2660519; at the time of filing, the property was zoned LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain proffered conditions; on July 21, 2005, the City Planning Commission recommended, by a 7-0 vote, that the revised proffers proposed by the applicant be approved; and a Second Amended Petition setting forth the revised proffers made by the applicant, was filed on July 27, 2005. It was further advised that at a public hearing on August 15, 2005, Council adopted Ordinance No. 37157-081505 by a vote of 6-0, which approved the petition as requested by the applicant and as recommended by the Planning Commission; there was no opposition to the matter either at the public hearing before the Planning Commission, or at the public hearing before Council; however, the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney's Office did not reference the correct date of filing of the Second Amended Petition; therefore, an ordinance has been prepared, which, if adopted by Council, repeals Ordinance No. 37157-081505, and references the correct date of filing of the Second Amended Petition and adopts the proffers filed which were on that date requested. 311 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37220-101705) AN ORDINANCE to amend §36.1-3 and 36.1-4, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 266, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, by amending the conditions presently binding upon certain property previously conditionally zoned LM, Light Manufacturing District; repealing Ordinance No. 37157-081505; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 29.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37220- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. O. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: TAXES: The Director of Finance submitted a written report advising that in 1998, the General Assembly enacted the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA or the Act), which provided relief from personal property taxes otherwise payable on the first $20,000.00 of value for qualifying vehicles; the relief was provided for vehicles owned by individuals and utilized for personal use; additionally, vehicles with an assessed value of $1,000.00, or less, receive 100 per cent relief; relief is provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia through payments to localities of amounts which would otherwise be taxed to citizens; the original intent of the Act was to phase-in tax relief such that the Commonwealth would ultimately cover the full cost of personal property tax of the eligible vehicles; the Commonwealth's plan of implementing the tax was dependent upon growth in State revenues sufficient to cover the increasing annual cost; currently, the Commonwealth provides 70 per cent relief on qualifying vehicles; and the amount of relief provided by the Commonwealth has been at this level for several years. 312 It was further advised that in 2004 and 2005, additional legislation was passed to amend the original Act; such legislation capped PPTRA at $950 million for all Virginia localities for tax years 2006 and beyond; PPTRA funds will be allocated to individual localities based on each government's pro rata share of tax year 2004 payments from the Commonwealth of Virginia; funding for delinquencies of current and past years will continue until September 2006, or until the funding for such is exhausted; legislation also altered the timing of payments from the Commonwealth of Virginia to localities, the impact of which is dependent on the due date observed by the locality; and for spring billers like Roanoke, the impact is the delay of approximately two months in receipt of the majority of funding provided by the Commonwealth. The Director of Finance explained that localities have certain options on how to administer amended PPTRA; options include the method for apportioning relief to individual taxpayers, flexibility in determining the distribution of relief, and an option to "balance bill" delinquent taxpayers at the end of the current program; to determine the best course of action for the City of Roanoke, a Study Team was formed consisting of representatives from the Offices of the Commissioner of the Revenue, Treasurer, City Attorney, and the Department of Finance; and through the course of its work on the PPTRA revisions, the Study Team consulted with representatives from other localities throughout the State, most notably those from neighboring jurisdictions. It was stated that two relief methods are available regarding distribution of tax relief; i.e.: the reduced rate method and the specific relief method; the reduced rate method would entail major changes to administration of the tax including the use of multiple tax rates, one of which would require an annual modification by Council; this method would bring about more significant changes to citizens and would be more costly to implement than the specific relief method; the specific relief method, which the Study Team recommends calls for a percentage of relief to be applied to qualifying vehicles, similar to the method currently used; while the percentage of relief will decline annually assuming growth in the assessed value of personal property, the tax payer will receive a personal property bill which is most consistent with the type of bill currently utilized; and the specific relief method is fairly efficient and effective to implement since it uses a tax method most consistent with the method currently in place. It was explained that localities also have an option as to how they choose to distribute tax relief once the new program is in place; relief must be provided for owners of qualifying vehicles of $20,000.00 and less, but changes can be made on how relief is provided for values up to $20,000.00; in order to maintain consistency with the current PPTRA, the Study Team recommends that relief continue to be applied in a similar manner to the present method; i.e.: vehicles valued at $1,000.00 and less will continue to remain fully exempt and relief for vehicles with assessed values ranging from $1,001.00 to $20,000.00 will continue to be taxed by applying a single common percentage to determine the amount to be paid by the taxpayer. 313 It was advised that the final option for localities concerns the ability to balance-bill delinquent taxpayers in full for personal property taxes not remitted by the September 2006 deadline or the exhaustion of State funding for the current program; this option is available to ensure the opportunity for localities to receive funds from citizens that may have otherwise been paid by the Commonwealth of Virginia; and to maximize collection of the tax, the Study Team recommends that the City of Roanoke balance-bill any citizens with unpaid taxes once funding from the Commonwealth is exhausted. The Director of Finance pointed out that recommendations provided by the Study Team and outlined above maintain provisions of the PPTRA most closelywith those originally implemented by the Commonwealth of Virginia, are the most equitable for Roanoke's citizens, are the most efficient and cost-effective for the City to implement, and are consistent with those planned by the majority of other localities in Virginia. The Director of Finance recommended that Council adopt an ordinance to provide for implementation of 2004-2005 changes to the Personal Property Tax Relief Act as recommended, including adoption of the specific dollar amount relief method, allocating 100 per cent relief to vehicles with an assessed value of $1,000.00 and less, and balance billing of delinquencies upon completion of the current PPTRA program. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37221-101705) AN ORDINANCE to provide for the implementation of the 2004-2005 changes to the Personal Property Tax Relief Act of 1998; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 31.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37221- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. The Director of Finance further elaborated that the recommendations included in the report do not change the City's tax rate for personal property or the City's vehicle decal rate. He stated that even though the State allows localities a fair amount of latitude on how to implement changes, the City's work group elected to recommend that Council leave the program intact, to the extent possible, as currently administered by the State which is believed to be the most equitable method for Roanoke's citizens and provides the greatest amount of relief to lower value vehicles. 314 Ordinance No. 37221-101705 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. 0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A report of the Roanoke City School Board requesting that Council appropriate the following funds, was before the body. $89,125.00 for the Supplementary Technology Grant to help school divisions implement the statewide Standards of Learning assessment system and to purchase assistive technologies for the classroom; funds can be used to purchase new scientific and graphing calculators, repair non-functioning calculators, or to purchase calculator batteries; and the new program is 100 per cent reimbursed by Federal funds. $412,636.00 for the Westside renovation project; the additional monies from 1999 Capital Bond Funds and Capital Reserve Funds will provide funds for change orders for the project. $1,300,000.00 from the 2005-2006 Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Fund to fund textbooks, instructional technology requests, replacement of school bus and maintenance vehicles, replacement of district-wide facility maintenance equipment, and roof repairs. A report of the Director of Finance recommending that Council concur in the request of the School Board was also before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37222-101705) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the 2005 Supplementary Technology Grant, 2005-06 Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program, and Westside Renovation Project, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 General, School, and School Capital Fund Appropriations and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 33.) 315 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37222- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. O. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: NONE. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: POLICE DEPARTMENT: Council Member Lea congratulated Council Member Wishneff on the marriage of his son on Saturday, October 15, 2005, in Washington, D. C. Council Member Lea advised that the first meeting of the domestic violence discussion group was held on September 30, 2005, and included attendance by representatives of City Council, the City Manager's Office, the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager for Community Development, the Police Department, and other professionals who work in the domestic violence field. He stated that the group has been meeting on aweekly basis and is currently planning acommunity forum on domestic violence to be held on November 29, 2005, from 6:00 p.m.- 8:00 p.m., at the Roanoke Civic Center; the community forum will begin with a panel discussion, including representatives of law enforcement, victims advocacy groups, the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office, and medical services for victims; and the panel discussion will be followed by a round table discussion encouraging persons to speak out about issues they face or see in the community regarding domestic violence. He explained that the community forum is designed to educate citizens on services that are currently available to address domestic violence and to further enhance an understanding of the issues facing victims of domestic violence; and following the community forum, a task force will be appointed to address issues brought forth by victims, friends and families affected by domestic violence. 316 POLICE DEPARTMENT-SEGREGATION/INTEGRATION-NEWSPAPERS: Council Member Wishneff called attention to national news coverage with regard to riots that erupted in Toledo, Ohio, over a planned march byawhite supremacist group whose spokesperson was identified as William White, a resident of Roanoke, Virginia. He stated that he is of Jewish descent and has lived in the Roanoke Valley for over 20 years and would like for the public to know that the behavior exhibited by the group is not representative of the citizens of the Roanoke area. He volunteered to participate in a discussion group to review actions, if any, that could be taken by the City to address the issue. The Mayor advised that over the past several weeks he has received telephone calls by news media from outside of the Roanoke area to respond to actions, attitudes, and website material prepared by Mr. William White, and he has assured the news media that the contents on the website and the kind of attitude that is promoted are repugnant and appalling and are not reflective of the City of Roanoke. He stated that he shared the sentiment expressed by Council Member Wishneff; however, the Council can only respond legally to incidents, etc., that occur within the City of Roanoke. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick expressed appreciation to Council Member Wishneff for his remarks and advised that few citizens have suffered in the same ways as the African-American and Jewish populations. He expressed concern that the name of the Roanoke community was used in a repugnant manner and suggested that a communication under the signature of the Mayor of the City of Roanoke be forwarded to the Mayor of the City of Toledo, Ohio, advising the citizens of Toledo that Mr. William White does not represent the City of Roanoke. Council Member Dowe concurred in the remarks of Mr. Wishneffand Mayor Harris. He stated that for the safetyofcitizens who attend City Council meetings, City staff and Members of Council, he would be in favor of providing security in the City Council Chamber, beginning as early as the 7:00 p.m., Council session this evening. ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY: Council Member Dowe advised that the Discovery Shop, which benefits the American Cancer Society by selling gently used clothing, celebrated its 10th Anniversary on Wednesday, October 12, 2005; and Total Action Against Poverty celebrated its 40th anniversary at a luncheon which was held earlier in the day. He congratulated both organizations on the occasion of their anniversary celebrations. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MA~-I'ERS: 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. 317 RNDC-HENRY STREET REVIVAL COMMI-I-rEE: Daniel Hale, President, Roanoke Chapter, N.A.A.C.P., advised that upon recommendation of the Executive Committee, the Roanoke Branch N.A.A.C.P. unanimously voted to support the Henry Street Development Project proposed by the Roanoke Neighborhood Development Corporation (RNDC). He stated that the RNDC presented a proposal to the Roanoke Branch, N.A.A.C.P., for development of First Street/Henry Street that would include a business office to house the Social Security Administration Office; and the proposal was also endorsed by the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. He further stated that anticipated results of the Plan would provide an infusion of funds to complete the entire Henry Street project; and the other viable option is a proposed office building to serve the community as a monument to the history of medicine in the Roanoke Valley. He advised that Henry Street is a project that is long past due insofar as its completion; after considering all information presented, the Roanoke Branch of the N.A.A.C.P. is of the opinion that the opportunity to have ownership in the project is too important to neglect and it is hoped that the entire City of Roanoke will support the proposed by the RNDC. POLICE DEPARTMENT-COMPLAINTS: Mr. Shaheed Omar, 1219 Loudon Avenue, N. W., expressed concern with regard to the amount of news coverage that the incident in Toledo, Ohio, received by local television stations and the local newspaper, and advised that the level of attention by the news media gave validation to the incident (See page 316). Mr. Omar spoke with regard to the citizen complaint process administered by the Police Department. He referred specifically to a form that must be completed by a citizen when filing a complaint that is available only at the Police Department, and suggested that the form should also be available in other City departments. He expressed concern with regard to composition of the Citizen Review Board; and the fact that the Chief of Police has the authority to make the final decision after a complaint has been investigated which places a lot of power in one individual. He asked that his concerns be included on a City Council agenda for public comment. Council Member Lea requested information with regard to composition of the Citizen Review Board. CITY COUNCIL: Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., spoke with regard to actions that are taken behind closed doors which are administered unfairly and without respect or compassion for City employees and/or the citizens of Roanoke. She asked that Council serve as an example of how collective individual traits of strong moral character, exhibited by responsibility, respect, caring, trustworthiness, fairness and citizenship can be applied to a municipality. She advised that especially during these times local, national and world crisis, Council is challenged to display strong morale character by not saying one thing to Roanoke's citizens and following through with the opposite. 318 ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridgecrest Road, Hardy, Virginia, concurred in the remarks of Ms. Bethel. He spoke in support of the renovation of Victory Stadium and advised that in accordance with the agreement between the City of Roanoke and Norfolk and Western Railway, the City is responsible for the maintenance of Victory Stadium. He stated that restroom facilities need to be repaired and another gate should be opened, and Victory Stadium should be protected and preserved as a monument to those persons from the Roanoke Valley who served their country during World War II. He added that if the stadium were properly promoted it could generate tax revenues for the City of Roanoke. COMPLAINTS-TAXES-CITY EMPLOYEES: Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29th Street, N. W., advised that wages paid to City employees have not kept up with wages paid to State employees; and with current wages, the average City employee cannot afford to purchase a home. He expressed concern that taxpayers' dollars are spent to support businesses and/or projects that are of little value to the average citizen. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager advised that the City of Roanoke rendered assistance to Johnson's Bayou, Louisiana, as a result of Hurricane Rita through deployment of six firefighters. In addition to providing strategic planning and over sight at a fire station, Roanoke's firefighters received a call that a truck was on fire and when arriving at the scene of the fire, it was discovered that the truck was owned by a Roanoke electrical company that had gone to Louisiana to help restore electricity. She stated that Roanoke firefighters responding to a fire call involving a Roanoke truck in Johnson's Bayou, Louisiana, indicates that it is indeed a small world. ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-CITY MANAGER: On behalf of the City of Roanoke, the City Manager advised that she accepted an award at a recent conference of the International City Management Association for populations of 50,000 and over under the category of Innovations in Local Government Management, in recognition of Roanoke's program on "Managing the Rising Cost of Health Care". She stated that the City of Roanoke competed with cities such as San Antonio, Texas, Clark County, Nevada, Aurora, Colorado, Sarasota County, Florida, Reno, Nevada, Montgomery County, Maryland, and Sunnyvale, California, all of which are considerably larger than Roanoke. 319 PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: The City Manager advised that October 17, 2005, was a"red letter" day for the City of Roanoke. She called attention to the ground breaking for the Colonial Green project which will include 230 housing units and represents the first time that City land has been made available in order to facilitate more housing in the community. Additionally, she pointed out that Council previously approved purchase of the Countryside Golf Course property which is another example of the City's efforts to look long term to the future and the need to continue to find ways to enhance, grow and sustain the community. At 4:15 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess for three Closed Sessions. At 5:35 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, with all Members of the Council in attendance, except Council Members Cutler and McDaniel, Mayor Harris presiding. COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick 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 Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. O. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) INDUSTRIES-VIRGINIA'S FIRST REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY AUTHORITY: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facility Authority, created by the resignation of Elizabeth Neu; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick placed in nomination the name of R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and Economic Development. There being no further nominations, Mr. Townsend was appointed as aCity representative to Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facility Authority, to fill the unexpired term of Elizabeth Neu, ending June 30, 2006, by the following vote: 320 FOR MR. TOWNSEND: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ......................................................... 5. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) RAILSIDE LINEAR WALK: Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37223-101705) A RESOLUTION renaming the O. Winston Link Railwalkas the David R. and Susan S. Goode Railwalk. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 35.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37223- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Wishneff and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. O. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) At 5:40 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess to be reconvened at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. At 7:00 p.m., on Monday, October 17, 2005, the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris presiding. PRESENT: Council Members Brian J. Wishneff, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick,Jr., Sherman P. Lea and MayorC. Nelson Harris .................. 5. ABSENT: Council Members M. Rupert Cutler and Brenda L. McDaniel ...... The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. 321 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 Harris. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT-ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution memorializing the late F. Wiley Hubbell, a long-time resident of the City of Roanoke and 1996 Citizen of the Year: (#37209-101705) A RESOLUTION memorializing the late F. Wiley Hubbell, a long-time resident of the City of Roanoke and Citizen of the Year in 1996. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 15.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37209- 101705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. 0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) The Mayor presented a ceremonial copy of Resolution No. 37209-101705 to Stuart Hubbell and Christopher Hubbell, sons, and called for a moment of silence in memory of Mr. Hubbell. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ROANOKE VISION, COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, October 17, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on a proposal of the City of Roanoke to amend Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Friday, October 7, 2005. 322 The City Planning Commission submitted awritten report advising that the Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan identifies three high priority initiatives: Housing Development & Conservation: Promote rehabilitation, maintenance, well-designed infill development, and increased resident ownership; zoning patterns should protect and maintain established residential areas. Capacity Building: Peters Creek South residents are willing participants in determining the future of their neighborhood; neighborhood-based organizations will be crucial to initiating and sustaining revitalization efforts; the many groups and individuals working toward Peters Creek South revitalization should collaborate to ensure open communication and awareness of development projects. Infrastructure: Peters Creek South should have safe, well-designed streets and other infrastructure; traffic management and street design must be evaluated and improved to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood setting. It was further advised that the Neighborhood Plan also includes afuture land use map to guide development and zoning patterns in the neighborhood. The City Planning Commission recommended that Council adopt the Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan as a component of the Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Dowe offered the following ordinance: (#37224-101705) AN ORDINANCE approving the Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan, and amending Vision 200].-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 36.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37224- ].01705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in connection with the Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. 323 There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37224-101705 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. O. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) ROANOKE GAS COMPANY-EASEMENTS: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, October 17, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the conveyance of an easement across City-owned property identified as Official Tax No. 1012103, located on Luck Avenue, S. W., the site of the Commonwealth Building, to Roanoke Gas Company for installation of a new regulator station, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke T/rne$ on Friday, October 7, 2005. The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Roanoke Gas Company has requested an approximate lO'x 80' easement across City-owned property identified as Official Tax No. 1012103, on the Luck Avenue side of the Commonwealth Building; the easement is needed to install a new regulator station to replace an existing vault that is often flooded with runoff; Roanoke Gas Company has agreed to enclose the regulators in a utility cabinet to improve the appearance; and atemporary 40' X 80' easement is also needed for construction, which will expire upon completion of the work. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute the appropriate documents granting a utility easement as above described to Roanoke Gas Company, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37225-101705) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the donation and conveyance of a ten foot by eighty foot easement and a forty foot by eighty foot temporary easement on City-owned property identified by Official Tax No. 1012103, on the Luck Avenue side of the Commonwealth Building, to Roanoke Gas Company, to install a new regulator station to replace an existing vault that is often flooded with runoff, 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. 70, Page 37.) 324 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37225- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. The Mayor inquired iftherewere persons presentwhowould like to speak in connection with the request for easement. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37225-101705 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. O. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) TEA-21 PROJECTS-GREENWAYS-STATE HIGHWAYS: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, October :~7, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on consideration of previously received applications for Federal funds made available through the Department of Transportation for transportation enhancement projects in fiscal year 2005-2006, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Monday, October 10, 2005. The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Transportation Enhancement Program is intended to promote mobility, protection of the human and natural environment, community preservation, sustainability, and livability; traditionally, the program has been funded through a requirement that state departments of transportation set aside ten per cent of their Surface Transportation Program (STP) allocation each year for transportation enhancement activities; activities include such projects as facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists (such as greenways) and rehabilitation of historic transportation buildings; and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) advertised and held an applicant workshop on the TEA-21 enhancement program in Bedford, Virginia, on August 23, 2005, at which time citizens and public officials were invited to ask questions and learn more about the program. 325 It was further advised that any group or individual may initiate enhancement projects; however, Council and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) must endorse the applications prior to submittal to VDOT by the applicant by November 1, 2005; two enhancement project applications were received and require Council and MPO actions; in addition, two applicants have requested additional funds for existing projects which include Total Action Against Poverty (TAP) for the Dumas Center for Artistic and Cultural Development and the Roanoke Chapter of the National Railway Historical Society for the Virginian Railway Passenger Railway Station; Council and the MPO previously adopted resolutions on the two applications and no further action is required; according toVDOT, Council resolutions endorsing project applications also require that the City of Roanoke agree to be held liable for a minimum of 20 per cent of total cost for planning and design, right-of-way and construction of the project, and if the City subsequently elects to cancel a project, the City agrees to reimburse VDOT for the total amount of costs expended byVDOTthrough the date of cancellation of the project; and an agreement to be executed between the City of Roanoke and a project applicant requires the applicant to be fully responsible for matching funds and, if the project is canceled, the agreement also requires the applicant to reimburse the City for all amounts due to VDOT. The City Manager recommended that Council endorse, by separate resolution, project applications and agree to pay respective percentages of the total cost for each project and, if the City elects to cancel the project, the City would reimburse VDOT for the total amount of costs associated with any work completed on the project through the date of cancellation notice; that the City Manager be authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, City/State Agreements for project administration, subject to approval of project applications by VDOT, and that the City Manager be further authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, a legally binding agreement with project applicants, subject to approval of the application by VDOT, requiring applicants to be fully responsible for matching funds, as well as all other obligations undertaken by the City by virtue of the City/State Agreement. Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution: (#37226-101705) A RESOLUTION requesting that the Commonwealth Transportation Board establish an enhancement project for a greenway connection from the Lick Run Greenway to the Roanoke Civic Center, via Walker Avenue. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 38.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37226- 101705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. 326 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 questions or comments by Council Members, Resolution No. 37226-101705 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. O. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution: (#37227-10]~705) A RESOLUTION requesting that the Commonwealth Transportation Board establish an enhancement project for completion of an open storage system for the O. Winston Link Museum, the newest operating division of the Historical Society of Western Virginia. Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37227- ~01705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris ............................................................ 5. NAYS: None ................................................. O. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MAq-I'ERS: 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. SCHOOLS-ARMORY/STADIUM: The following persons addressed Council with regard to stadia at William Fleming and Patrick Henry High Schools: Mr. Ivan Moore, 2219 Carter Road, S. W., addressed the issue from the standpoint of Roanoke's youth who would prefer to play outdoor sports on a field located at their high school; plans have been included in the design of Patrick Henry and William Fleming High Schools to accommodate sports facilities; and stadiums at the two high schools would instill school pride. He asked that Council reconsider the issue of stadia at both high schools. 327 Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., spoke with regard to the real estate tax freeze for Roanoke's elderly and disabled population. He stated that the City's income limits should be raised in order to be more in line with Roanoke County. He advised that funds expended by the City to display the new branding logo could have been better spent on providing more school classrooms, renovation of Victory Stadium, teacher pay raises, and Courthouse renovations. He stated that renovation of Victory Stadium would be preferred as opposed to constructing stadia at the two high schools. He spoke in support of the reelection of George McMillan as City Sheriff, and also spoke in support of adoption of new sign regulations as a part of the City's new Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Trisha Edwards, 3045 Poplar Lane, S. W., President, Patrick Henry Parent Teacher Student Association, advised that last year a majority of City Council Members declined to consider a request of the PTSA Board to construct stadia at both Patrick Henry and William Fleming High Schools. Therefore, on behalf of the PTSA Board of William Fleming High School, she requested the support of Council to construct stadiums on the campuses of Patrick Henry and William Fleming High Schools. She called attention to petitions that were supported by principles, athletic directors, coaches, students, and PTSAs at both high schools; the PTSA Boards understand the concerns that some nearby residents of the high schools have expressed, however, the location for Patrick Henry's stadium has changed; the number of parking spaces at Patrick Henry is ample; and there is overwhelming support by students and parents. She stated that the Parent Teacher Student Associations of William Fleming and Patrick Henry High Schools do not need to express to Council the numerous benefits of school stadiums and how much the children deserve what most schools already have and enjoy; therefore, Council's support of full stadiums at both Patrick Henry and William Fleming High Schools can be a symbolic gesture of how much City Council cares for Roanoke's students. Ms. Barbara Colonna, 2318 Laburnum Avenue, S. W., representing the Patrick Henry Parent Teacher Student Association, the Patrick Henry Athletic Boosters Club and the Woodrow Wilson Middle School PTA Board, advised that she has traveled with school sports teams and the Patrick Henry Patriot Band to numerous other high schools around the state that have on campus stadiums; and the benefits of these facilities include a safer environment, decreased transportation costs and travel time, flexibility in scheduling, opportunities to support school programs, ability to host events such as sports clinics, tournaments, and band competition, and increased participation and school spirit. She stated that the students of Roanoke City Public Schools deserve the sense of pride and ownership that school stadiums would provide; and the construction of on campus stadiums is in the best interests of the students of Roanoke City Public Schools who represent the future of the City of Roanoke. 328 Ms. Mary Ellen Langan, 2515 Belford Street, S. W., President, Woodrow Wilson Middle School PTA, advised that the WoodrowWilson Middle School PTA supports the construction of football stadiums at both high schools. Ms. Brenda Foster, 3726 Heatherton Road, S. W., First Vice-President,James Madison Middle School PTA, and a member of the PTA Board at Crystal Spring Elementary School, spoke in support of stadiums at each of the two high schools which are important elements to address the athletic needs at Patrick Henry and William Fleming High Schools. Mr. John Phelps, 19].5 Canterberry Road, S. W., President, Patrick Henry High School Athletic Boosters Club, advised that stadiums at each of the high schools are important to Roanoke's students to build community spirit and togetherness. He added that a state-of-the-art facility is under construction at Patrick Henry, therefore, this is a perfect time to construct a state of the art athletic facility; athletics are a part of the student's total experience to build pride and respect for their school and community and good character; and student safety would be improved with on campus stadiums. From an economic standpoint, he advised that if a student has the total high school experience, with pride and love of their school, they are much more inclined to return to Roanoke after graduating from college. Mr. Jay Foster, 3726 Heatherton Road, S. W., spoke as a business owner in the City of Roanoke, a real estate investor, and as the parent of two children enrolled in the Roanoke City Public Schools. He stated that in his travels across the United States, he has had the opportunity to visit many different communities with vibrant economies that are progressing in terms of economic growth and job opportunities, especially for young people, and offer the kind of cultural amenities that will attract and retain young people. He further stated that the Roanoke Valley is one of the best places to live in the United States, with a good quality of life and all of the right ingredients to become one of the most outstanding economic hubs in the country; however, he asked the question, what will it take to get there. He advised that there is a need in the Roanoke Valley for the kind of leadership that will have a crystal clear vision of where the City of Roanoke is headed, what is important, where does the City need to invest its time and energy, and to represent the often quiet majority at the expense of an often vocal minority. He challenged the Council to resolve that it will move forward by leaving Victory Stadium in the past and to invest time and energy in the future of Roanoke's children by constructing a world-class stadia at each of the two high schools. 329 CULTURAL SERVICES COMMI-I-I'EE-HUMAN SERVICES COMMI'I-I'EE: William D. Bestpitch, Executive Director, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, spoke with regard to the proposed criteria for funding non-profit organizations (See pages 299- 300). He stated that the majority of the agencies affected by the policy were not aware that the matter was to be discussed by the Council. He expressed concern with regard to the 75% attendance requirement for Board members and advised that non-profit agencies have been instructed to stop counting outputs and start measuring outcomes, therefore, the 75% attendance requirement amounts to counting an output; i.e.: how many meetings a member attends; there are certain Board members who attend meetings, but do not participate in discussions, or come to committee meetings or volunteer for fund raising events outside of Board meetings, while at the same time, there are Board members who may frequently be unable to attend Board meetings, but show their commitment and involvement to the organization in other ways, so simply counting Board attendance does not measure the outcome in terms of commitment by Board members to the various organizations. In a more general sense, he expressed concern about the continued increase in administrative requirements placed on agencies; and while agencies are told that the money they receive should be spent directly on programs and not for administrative purposes, where is the funding to meet all requirements supposed to come from. He stated that when serving on Council, he was involved in the process of changing the policy for CDBG funds to restrict the funds more toward capital projects and expansion or improvement of programs that would be short term, with no more than three years of funding; and at every opportunity during the discussions, he made the point that if CDBG funds were to be targeted in that manner, the City would need to find additional funding to provide ongoing operating support for those agencies. He advised that a number of other agencies are concerned about the proposed criteria and would like to work with the Council and the City administration to address their concerns. ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridgecrest Road, Hardy, Virginia, advised that the City of Roanoke is responsible for the upkeep of Victory Stadium, pursuant to the agreement between the City and Norfolk and Western Railway; and the agreement stipulates that if the City does not maintain the property for stadium/armory and/or recreational purposes, the land will revert to the railroad who could, in turn, donate the property to Carillon Health System. He stated that Victory Stadium was constructed as a memorial to World War II veterans from the Roanoke Valley; and it does not make sense to tear down a 25,000 seat facility to construct a smaller stadium. He advised that the two high schools deserve to have their own athletic fields and Victory Stadium should be renovated and preserved in memory of those persons from Roanoke who fought for their country in World War II. 330 There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. APPROVED ATTEST: Mary F. Parker City Clerk C. Nelson Harris Mayor MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Vhgim~ 24011 - 1536 Telephone: (540) 853-2541 Fax: (540) 853-1145 E-mail: clerk@ci.roanoke.va.us . November 28, 2005 STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistanl City Clerk File #110-314-230 S. James Sikkema, Executive Director Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare 301 Elm Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24016-400! Dear Mr. Sikkema: Your communication advising of the nomination of Linda H. Bannister as an at- large member of the Blue Ridge Behavioral Heathcare Board of Directors, for a term ending December 31, 2008, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005. Council unanimously ratified the appointment of Ms. Bannister for a term ending December 31, 2008, and expressed appreciation for her continued service as a member of the Board of Directors. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew pc: Dana B. Lee, 4139 Appleton Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017-2107 James E. Taliaferro, III, Assistant City Manager, City of Salem, P. O. Box 869, Salem, Virginia 24153 Diane S. Childers, Clerk, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, P. O. Box 29800, Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Darleen R. Bailey, Clerk, Town of Vinton, 311 S. Pollard Street, Vinton, Virginia 24179 Gerald A. Burgess, County Administrator, Botetourt County, 1 West Main Street, Box 1, Fincastle, Virginia 24090 Larry V. Moore, Sr., County Administrator, Craig County, Corner of Court Street and Main Street, New Castle, Virginia 24127 L:\CLERK~DATA\CKEW 1 ~oath and leaving service~Blue Ridge Behavioral HealthcareXSikkema -Linda H. Bannister 11 05.doc RE- EIVEDj BlueR?ge I"°v-42°°5 I Behavioral ,rlY MANAUEI '$ 0FFICr' Healthcare Carole Beat Geiger, Ph.D. Chairman Rita J. Gliniecki Vice Chairman Sheri Bemath Treasurer Joan A. Nelson Secretary Executive Director S. James Sikkema, LCSW November 3, 2005 Ms. Darlene L. Burcham City Manager City of Roanoke 215 Church Avenue, SW, Room 364 Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear Ms. Burcham: According to our records, the second term of Ms. Linda H. Bannister as an at-large representative on the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors will expire on December 31, 2005. The Board nominates at-large representatives, and the participating governing bodies ratify their appointments. It is the Board's pleasure that she serve a third term, for which she is eligible according to Title 37, Chapter 10, of the Code of Virginia. We respectfully request, therefore, that the Roanoke City Council ratify the reappointment of Ms. Bannister for her third term, to run from January ~, 2006 through December 31, 2008. This request is being sent concurrently to administrators in each of our other four local governing bodies for their ratification as well. Sincerely~ S. James Sikkema Executive Director C: The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor ~Mary F. Parker, CMC, City Clerk Ms. Linda H. Bannister Executive Offices 301 Elm Avenue SW Roanoke, Virginia 24016-4001 (540) 345-9841 Fax (540) 345-6891 The Community Services Board serving the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, and the Counties of Botetourt, Craig and Roanoke DIANE S. CHILDERS, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD Email: dchilders @ roanokecountyva.gov RO. BOX 298OO 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPU"rY CLERK Ernail: bholton @ roanokecountyva.gov November 17, 2005 Mr. S. James Sikkema Executive Director Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare 301 Elm Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24016-4001 Dear Mr. Sikkema: This will inform you that at their meeting on Tuesday, November 15, 2005, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to ratify the appointment of Linda H. Bannister for another three-year term as an at-large representative on the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors. Her three-year term will expire December 31, 2008. On behalf of the supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please convey to Ms. Bannister our sincere thanks and appreciation for her willingness to accept this appointment. CC: Sincerely, Diane S. Childers, CMC Clerk to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council James E. Taliaferro, III, Assistant City Manager, City of Salem Darleen Bailey, Clerk, Town of Vinton Gerald A. Burgess, County Administrator, Botetourt County Larry V. Moore, Sr., County Administrator, Craig County BlueR. idge I"°v-42°°5 I Behavioral. .llY MANAGEFi,$ 0FlOr Healthcare Carole Beat Geiger, Ph.D. Chairman Rita J. Gfiniecki Vice Chairman Shed Bernath Treasurer Joan A. Nelson Secretary Executive D/rector S. James Sikkema, LCSW November 3, 2005 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager City of Roanoke 215 Church Avenue, SW, Room 364 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Ms. Burcham: According to our records, Robert Williams, Jr. completes his term on the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors as a representative of the City of Roanoke on December 31, 2005. Mr. Williams is highly regarded by his fellow board members, and is an active participant who has served this Board and the citizens of Roanoke faithfully and well for two terms. He is willing to continue to serve, should City Council choose to reappoint him. I have forwarded a record of Mr. Williams' attendance to the City Clerk's office. Community Services Board members are eligible for three full three-year terms according to Title 37, Chapter 10, of the Code of Virginia. We respectfully request that the Roanoke City Council reappoint Bob Williams for a third term to begin January 1, 2006 and run through December 31, 2008. His reappointment would serve to maintain our compliance with required demographic and other attributes for board member composition as set out in the Code. Sincerel~~~._~ S. James Sikkema Executive Director C; The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor "Mary F. Parker, CMC, City Clerk Robert Williams, Jr. Executive Offices 301 Elm Avenue SW Roanoke, Virginia 24016~4001 (540) 345-9841 Fax (540) 345-6891 The Community Services Board serving the Cities of ~d the Counties of Botetourt, Craig and Roanoke C. NELSON HARRIS Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 CHURCH AVENUE, S.W.. ROOM 452 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1594 TELEPHONE: (540) 853-2444 FAX: (540) 853-1 November 28, 2005 File #-110-178 Mr. Sherman V. Burroughs, IV 147 Summit Way, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Dear Mr. Burroughs: Your communication submitting your resignation as a member of the Fair Housing Board was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005. On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the resignation was accepted. On behalf of the Members of Roanoke City Council, I would like to express appreciation for your service to the City of Roanoke as a member of the Fair Housing Board from June 3, 2002 to November 21, 2005. Please find enclosed a Certificate of Appreciation and an aerial view photograph of the Roanoke Valleyin recognition of your years of service. Sincerely, C. Nelson Harris Mayor CNH:MFP:ew Enclosure pc: Angie Williamson, Secretary, Fair Housing Board Stephanie M. Moon, CMC, Deputy City Clerk SHERMAN V. BURROUGHS IV November 1, 2005 Nancy Canova, Chair City of Roanoke Fair Housing Board Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, SW Room 162 Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear Nancy: It has been with great pleasure and sense of accomplishment that I have served on the City of Roanoke's Fair Housing Board for over three years. I have truly enjoyed working with each of the other board members and various city staff toward equal and fair housing in our fine city. In light of this, it is with great regret that I must restgn from my position as Vice Chair of the board. I have recently moved and am no longer living within the lmrits of the City of Roanoke. I appreciate the opportuinty I have had to serve the board and look forward to future opportmfifies at such a time at which I may return to being a resident of the city. Sherman ~ Burroughs IV Vice-Chak City of Roanoke Fa/r Housing Board 147 SUMMIT WAY, SW · ROANOKE, VA · 24014 PHONE: 540-774-6971 ' FAX: 540 344-2463 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon, CMC Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk November 28, 2005 File #15-32-:]. 10 Martha P. Franklin, Secretary New Construction Code, Board of Appeals Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Franklin: This is to advise you that Reginald P. Church has qualified as a member of the New Construction Code, Board of Appeals, for a term ending SePtember 30, 20:~0. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew pc: Stephanie M. Moon, CMC, Deputy City Clerk Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, Reginald P. Church, 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 member of the New Construction Code, Board of Appeals, for a term ending September 30, 2010, according to the best of my ability (So help me God). Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~' day of /~?.~ ~? 2005. BRENDA S. HAMILTON, CLERK , DEPUTY CLERK CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon, CMC Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk November 28, 2005 File #15-110-192 Linda Vaught, Secretary Roanoke Civic Center Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Vaught: This is to advise you that John W. EIliott, Jr., has qualified as a member of the Roanoke Civic Center Commission, for a term ending September 30, 2008. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew pc: Stephanie M. Moon, CMC, Deputy City Clerk Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, John W. Elliott, 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 member of the Roanoke Civic Center Commission, for a term ending September 30, 2008, according to the best of my ability (So help me God). Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15 day of Jdl')V~ 2005. BRENDA L. HAMILTO~/~/~E~K OF THE CIRCUIT COURT .,_ .~.- .... -'-~' ....... ,-,- ~ CLERK K:\oath and leaving service\roa civic center cornmission~John W Elliott Jr oath.doc C. NELSON HARRIS 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 November 21,2005 Council Members: M. Rnpert Cutler Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. Sherman P. Lea Brenda L. McDaniel Brian J. Wishneff The Honorable Members of Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: At the regular meeting of City Council to be held on Monday, November 21, 2005, at 2:00 p.m., we jointly sponsor a request of Brooks Michael, Coordinator, Teen Pregnancy Prevention Project, to present information regarding the success of the project. Sincerely, C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice-M~or CNH/BTFj:snh pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Roanoke Teen Pregnancy Prevention Project · VDH TPPP ~' Phase I of the V-DH TPPI began in 1993 with the appropriation of $600,000 in general funds for the purpose of establishing three pilot TPP programs. ~ In 1995, VDH obtained matching federal dollars, establishing a fund of $1.4 million dollars for an additional four TPPP sites in which Roanoke was one, making a total of seven TPPP sites in Virginia. ~ In 2002-03, the Virginia TPPI lost 38% funding and is now funded solely through TANF. · Roanoke's Success Seven TPPP sites exist in Virginia. Of all seven sites, Roanoke Health District has experienced the most significant decrease in their teen pregnancy rate, an average of 6.8% decrease per year over the last nine years. The teen pregnancy rate for Roanoke City was 71.8 per 1000 females in 1996; the 2004 rate is 39.4 per 1000 females. The decrease fi.om 2003 to 2004 was most significant in that the raIes went down almost 10% in one year. Roanoke TPPP is the only TPPI site that has consistently evaluated program effectiveness; this is due to the funding and support received by Roanoke City. · The Cost of Teen Pregnancy The effect of teen pregnancy on Roanoke City can be viewed as having health, social, and economic consequences that effect the entire community~ Teen parents are more likely to: Need public assistance Never complete high school Have fewer employment skills Abuse and/or neglect their children. Babies bom to teen parents are at greater risk for: Premature birth and low birth weight Birth defects Lower IQ Learning and Emotional Disabilities Nationally, approximately $7 Billion spent on the consequences of teen pregnancy, * Roanoke's Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs: For Males Only (FMO) FMO is a curriculum-based program that empowers young males with the knowledge and skills to make responsible decision. FMO enrolls teenagers ages 12 to 19, and has been successfully used to educate young men in Roanoke since 1996. Due to the local success of the FMO program, it is now being replicated in Norfolk, Virginia. The program is called Reducing Adolescent Pregnancy and is housed within the Norfolk Health Department. 98% of participants were not involved in a pregnancy in 2004-2005. Participants were unanimous in feeling that the program should he expanded so all male students could participate. Teen Outreach Program (TOP) TOP is a nationally recognized model for providing a youth development approach to teen pregnancy prevention, highlighted as one of the most effective programs in the US for tpp by Dr. Douglas Kirby (Emerging Answers, Dr. D Kirby 2001). TOP is implemented in both schools and in after-school programs. TOP focuses on broader reasons why teens get pregnant or cause a pregnancy such as disadvantaged families and communities, detachment fi.om school, and lack of close relationships with parents or other caring adults. Research suggests that teens who are doing well in school and have educational and career plans for the furore are less likely to get pregnant or cause pregnancy. 98% of the participants were not involved in a pregnancy in 2004-2005. Roanoke Adolescent Health Partnership (RAHP) RAHP provides access to health care and health education with the aim to reduce risk- takin~ behavior among Roanoke City teens. RAHP provides comprehensive health care for teens including child heath care, family planning, immut~iwtions, health education, sexually transmitted disease, and triage/walk- in services. These services are provided at two high school campuses and one school linked facility. In 2004-2005, RAHP teen encounters totaled 5,291. 95.7% of RAHP's family planning patients remained flee of pregnancy. DATA COMPARISON 2003 and 2004 Teen Pregnancy Rates per 1000 Females by Age Commonwealth of Vir~nia Rate: 2002- 27.6 2003 - 27.4 2004 - 26.5 Roanoke City: 2002 2003 2004 IOvorall: 54.5 48.9 39.4 Age,>15: 2.3 2.0 1.3 Age 15-17: 58.9 51.9 42.7 Age 18-19: 245.9 216.7 168.8 Roanoke County: 2002 2003 2004 Overall: 26.3 25.9 30.6 Age>15: 2.4 2.4 1.7 Age 15-17: 27.7 27.5 30.9 I A~¢ 18-19: 84.7 83.6 101.2 C. NELSON HARRIS Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 2401 I- 1536 Telephone: (540) 853-2541 Fax: (540) 853-1145 November 21, 2005 Council Members: M. Rupert Cutler Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. Sherman p. Lea Brenda L. McDaniel Brian J. Wishneff The Honorable Members of Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: We jointly sponsor a request of Dr. Mindy Thompson Fullilove, Professor of Public Health, Columbia University, and author, to address Council with regard to the importance of identity of communities at the regular meeting of City Council to be held on Monday, November 21, 2005. Sincerely, Brian ~eff, C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Council Member CNH/BJW:snh pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Root Shock Institute Testimony by Mindy Thompson Fullilove, MD to Roanoke City Council November 21, 2005 Regarding Proposal to Build a Social Security Building on Henry Street My name is Mindy Thompson Fullilove, MD. I am a professor of clinical psychiatry and public health at Columbia University. For the past 13 years I have been studying health problems related to the collapse of community. This research led to the publication of Root Shock.. How Tearing Up City Neighborhoods Hurts America and What We Can Do About It in June 2004. That book featured the story of urban renewal in Roanoke as I learned it from local residents during visits to the city between 1995 and 2003. I had the pleasure of discussing my findings with the Roanoke City Council and at other meetings with city residents in June 2004. Since then, I have had the opportunity to travel to many cities in the US and abroad, learning about the problems they face and the solutions they are attempting. Based on my knowledge of Roanoke and my visits to many other cities, I believe that the current proposal to build a social security building on Henry Street runs against the evolving "best practice" for three reasons. 1. Civic injuries require recognition and repair. Urban renewal devastated Roanoke's African American community. The program led to the destruction of homes, businesses and churches. It destroyed social networks and weakened family ties. It set back community development and undermined health. Generally, it was a process that impoverished a very large group of people just as they were set to pull themselves out of second-class citizenship. Urban renewal was particularly creel to Gainsboro, the most developed of the African American neighborhoods. (See the first two pictures "Historic Gainsboro".) While two ' earlier urban renewal projects had completely destroyed neighborhoods east of the tracks, the declaration of urban renewal in Galnsboro was imposed, but never implemented. For decades, the area was under the cloud of the blight declaration, which effectively stopped all investment in the area. Houses, churches and businesses floundered, and many burned or toppled from the inability of the owners to obtain money for repairs and renovations (See the second two pictures, "Urban renewal and rediining in Galnsboro" .) The slow destruction of the area was accelerated by road building activities, designed to speed travelers to the center of town, but which further weakened the urban structure of Gainsboro. I refer you to my book for further discussion of this process and its harms. 2. Repair requires the engagement of local residents with the planning process. Those who have stayed in such an area have demonstrated their attachment and interest. Furthermore, by dint of long experience, they have knowledge of the area that is essential for effective planning and redesign. Collaboration between citizens and planners is the currently accepted practice for urban renovations and the methods for accomplishing this are well known. This practice is especially effective if citizens' input is understood to be 1 212-740-7292 www.rootshock.org 11/21/05 fundamental to the planning process. I have observed this practice at its best in the Hill District of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. There, urban planners from Carnegie Mellon University have worked with residents of the Hill District to develop a plan for community redevelopment that will repair the injuries caused by urban renewal and redlining. At present, under the leadership of "Find the Rivers," (www.findtherivers.org) and Hill House, citizens of the Hill District are working to develop a Kirkpatrick Greenway, a cooperatively owned supermarket and many other initiatives which honor residents' needs, wishes and understanding of the area. 3. Repair of requires reconnection of city parts. A prominent part of urban renewal programs in the United States was to marginalize African American ghetto neighborhoods. The marginalization of the Gainsboro neighborhood included: cutting off its historic link to the Farmers' Market; cutting the neighborhood in half with an express that undermines the neighborhood feeling of the area; and creating a streetface of grassy knolls along Gainsboro Road. Henry Street, once the bustling heart of the neighborhood, has been reduced to the status of side street. (See "Losing Henry Street".) Historic Henry Street, with its cluster of shops and easy access to downtown( was a part of Roanoke's central city. It was a natural extension of downtown. That natural connection has been destroyed, but thoughtful development is restoring it: apartments, a higher education building, an arts center and a cooking school are creating a new life for Historic Henry Street. Put the social security building someplace else. These three points argue against putting the social security building on Henry Street. Other cities are building squares, cultural centers and other institutions that recognize the way-of-life that was destroyed by urban renewal. (See last two pictures.) The current development of Henry Street is very much in that vain. The social security building will take up a great deal of space and will detract from the sense of the area as a vibrant place that belongs to its neighborhood. The social security building does not have the support of area residents, nor do they feel included in the process. The imposition of such a building on a neighborhood is a continuation of urban renewal, rather than a break with its destructive policies. It will add to the impoverishment, ill health and alienation that were engendered by urban renewal. Finally, because of the security requirements, the new building will impede the reconnection of the area to downtown. This will ultimately undermine the vital flow needed to make downtown the bustling, attractive locale it ought to be. Roanoke has some excellent features: a beautiful river, some lovely downtown buildings and a town square, a historic stadium, and lovely parks. Comprehensive, community-led planning can protect this great heritage and allow Roanoke to fulfill its potential as one of the most beautiful cities in America. The placement of the social security building is a key decision. Its careful placement - in a location that meets security standards and supports the vitality of neighborhoods and downtown - will be a great boon to the city. Its incorrect placement - on Henry Street, for example - would undermine and impede the city's well-being. Gainsboro is not the right location. But I have every faith that, with the input of the people of this city, the right location can be identified. 2 212-740-7292 www.rootshock.org 11/21/05 Gainsboro and Root Shock Historic Gainsboro Urban Renewal and the Redlining of Gainsboro Losing Henry Street Repairing the Injury: Examples fi~om other US Cities Freedom Comer, Pittsburgh Honoring Jazz in Omaha, Nebraska CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk November 28, 2005 Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk File #60-103 Jesse A. Hall Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Hall: I am attaching copy of Budget Ordinance No. 37242-1:[2105 appropriating $26,980.00 from the Commonwealth of Virginia for the Virginia Circuit Court Records Preservation Program Grant, and amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Grant Fund Appropriations. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. MFP:ew Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Attachment pc: The Honorable Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of Circuit Court Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget Frank E. Baratta, Budget Team Leader IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 21st day of November, 2005. No. 37242-112105. AN ORDINANCE appropriating funding'from the Commonwealth of Virginia for the Virginia Circuit Court Records Preservation Program Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Grant 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 2005-2006 Grant Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Fees for Professional Services Revenues Records Preservation Program 035-120-5145-2010 035-120-5145-5145 $ 26,980 26,980 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. OF OA VO Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk November 28, 2005 Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk File #60-103 The Honorable Brenda S. Hamilton Clerk of Circuit Court Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Hamilton: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 37243-1:[2:[0S authorizing acceptance of funds in the amount of $26,980.00 from the Library of Virginia through the Virginia Circuit Court Records Preservation Program to the Clerk of the Circuit Court to provide for converting certain original paper Court records to both digital images and preservation microfilm, and authorizing the Clerk of the Circuit Court to execute any and all necessary documents to complywith terms and conditions of the grant. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 2:[, 2005, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. MFP:ew Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Attachment pc; Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget IN THE COUNCIl. OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 21st day of November, 2005. No. 37243-112105. A RESOLUTION authorizing acceptance of funds from the Library of Virginia through the Virginia Circuit Court Records Preservation Program to the Clerk of the Circuit Court to provide for converting certain original paper Court records to both digital images and preservation microfilm, and authorizing the Clerk of the Circuit Court to execute any and all necessary documents to comply with the terms and conditions of such grant. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. Funds from the Library of Virginia through the Virginia Circuit Court Records Preservation Program to the Clerk of the Circuit Court to provide for converting certain original paper Court records to both digital images and preservation microfilm, in the amount of $26,980.00, as set forth in the Clerk of the Circuit Court's letter to Council dated November 21, 2005, are hereby ACCEPTED. 2. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is authorized to execute any and all requisite documents pertaining to the acceptance of these funds and to furnish such additional information as may be required in connection with the acceptance of these funds. All documents shall be approved by the City Attorney. ATTEST: 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 City Web: www.roanokeva,gov November 21,2005 Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council: Subject: Acceptance of Virginia Circuit Court Records Preservation Program Funds CO05-0007 I concur with the recommendation from Brenda Hamilton, Clerk of Circuit Court, for the City of Roanoke, with respect to the subject reference above and recommend that City Council authorize the Clerk of Circuit Court to execute the required grant agreement and any related documents, such agreement to be approved as to form by the City Attorney, to accept funding from the Library of Virginia in the amount of $26,980. Sincerely, Darlene L. 8¢rcham City Manager DLB:sm C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF VIRGINIA Criminal: (540) 853-6723 Civil: (540) 853-6702 CLERK OF CIRCUIT BRENDA S. HAMILTON CLERK CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE 315 Church Avenue, S.W. RO. Box 2610 Roanoke, Virginia 24010 NOVEMBER 21,2005 Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor Honorable M. Ruper[ Cutler, Council Member Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member Dear Mayor Harris add Members of City Council: Subject: ACCEPTANCE OF VIRGINIA CIRCUIT COURT RECORDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FUNDS Background: The Clerk of the Circuit Court is responsible, by statute, for the recordation of legal instruments. These instruments include: Land Records, Marriage Licenses, Financing Statements, Assumed Names, Wills and other Probate Records, and Law, Chancery and Criminal Orders. These Records must be maintained and be available to the Public. The Library of Virginia has awarded a grant, through their Virginia Circuit Court Records Preservation Program, for funds to have certain original paper Court Records converted to both digital images and preservation microfilm. These records consist of indexes including, but not limited to, Deeds, Orders, Marriages and Wills. These volumes have no security backup at this time. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council NOVEMBER 21,2005 Page 2 Considerations: The acceptance of these funds is vital to the Circuit Court Clerk's Office meeting mandated statutes. Recommended Action: Authorize the Clerk of Circuit Court to execute the required grant agreement and any related documents, such agreement to be approved as to form by the City Attorney, to accept funding from the Library of Virginia in the amount of $26,980. Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to appropriate funding of $26,980 and to establish a corresponding revenue estimate in the same amount in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund. BSH:jmh C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager B~r~ dectfully submitted, a S. Hamilton Clerk of Circuit Court C005-00007 CITY OF R O 4NOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk November 28, 2005 File #5-60-236 Jesse A. Hall Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Hall: I am attaching copy of Budget Ordinance No. 37244-1:[2105 appropriating $866,570.00 for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Interoperable Communications Technology Grant, and amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Grant Fund Appropriations. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew Attachment Pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police Frank E. Baratta, Budget Team Leader IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 21st day of November, 2005. No. 37244-112105. AN ORDINANCE appropriating funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Federal governments for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Interoperable Communications Technology Program Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Grant 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 2005-2006 Grant Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Fees for Professional Services Expendable Equipment Training & Development Furniture & Equipment Other Equipment Revenues COPS Interoperable Communications - Federal COPS Interoperable Communications - State 035-430-3461-2010 035-430-3461-2035 035-430-3461-2044 035-430-3461-9005 035-430-3461-9015 035-430-3461-3461 035-430-3461-3462 $ 276,604 54,994 33,750 254,889 535,190 866,570 288,857 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 Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC Staphanie M. Moon, CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk November 28, 2005 File #5-60-236 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 3724S-112105 authorizing acceptanceofa COPS Interoperable Communications Technology Grant, in the amount of $866,570.00, from the United States Department of Justice and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City, as more fully set forth in a letter from the City Manager addressed to the Council under date of November 21, 2005. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew Attachment pc: Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police Frank E. Baratta, Budget Team Leader IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 21st day of November, 2005. No. 37245-112105. A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a COPS Interoperable Communications Technology Gram bom the U.S. Department of Justice, and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized on behalf of the City to accept fi.om the U. S. Depm-tmem of Justice a COPS Imeroperable Communications Technology Grant in the amount of $866,570.00, with the Virginia State Police providing an additional $288,857.00 in local matching funds. Such grant being more pmXicularly described in the letter of the City Manager to Council dated November 21, 2005. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute and file, on behalf oft he City, any documents setting forth the conditions of the COPS Interoper~le Communications Technology Grant, approved as to form by the City Attorney, required in connection with the acceptance of such grant and to furnish such additional information as may be required by the U.S. Department Justice. 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 City Web: www.roanokeva.gov November 21, 2005 Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Brenda McDaniel, Council Member Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member Subject: COPS Interoperable Communications Technology Grant Dear Mayor Harris and Members of Council: Background: The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), under the U. S. Department of Justice has awarded the City of Roanoke $866,570 from the COPS Interoperable Communications Technology Program. These funds are awarded to successful applicants for activities which improve interoperable communications technology in Virginia. A local match in the amount of $288,857 is required under this grant and will be provided by our project partner, the Virginia State Police. During the last decade the Roanoke Metropolitan Service Area's (RMSA) governmental partners and public safety agency stakeholders have been working to establish and improve interoperability throughout the region to better respond to emergency events, coordinate safety services at incident sites, build cooperative relationships among first responders, expand channels of communication, and prevent terrorist related attacks. However, there are still several areas within the RMSA where communications remain a problem. Craig, Botetourt, Franklin Counties and the City of Salem are unable to communicate with the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County even though only a few miles separate the agencies. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council COPS Interoperable Communications Technology Grant Page 2 The RMSA consists of the following counties and cities (total population of approximately 301,000): Botetourt County City of Roanoke City of Salem Craig County (31,777) Franklin County (49,541) (95,362) Roanoke County (87,679) (24,347) Town of Vinton (7,782) (5,139) The City of Roanoke has been awarded this grant funding, and will serve as the lead agency, for implementation of a proposed MOTOBRIDGE IP technology project which will allow continuous interoperable communications and data sharing in real time by all governmental and public safety agencies in the RMSA. The proposed MOTOBRIDGE IP technology will also support other regions of the state through mutual aid in the event of a major emergency (flooding, hurricanes and other natural disasters) and/or a terrorist incident in New York, Washington, DC or other population centers including the city of Roanoke or other Virginia cities such as Richmond and Lynchburg. The existing Statewide Agencies Radio System (STARS) network design for Virginia provides a single Radio Frequency (RF) dispatcher-to-dispatcher patch to each of the counties and independent cities of Virginia (coordinated by the Virginia State Police). The STARS network was originally intended to provide statewide interoperability for local government as the state/Virginia State Police completed the network throughout all of its seven divisions including Division 6 (includes the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County and other public safety agencies in the RMSA). However, with the advent of the new "MOTOBRIDGE IP" technology, a new strategy was adopted by Virginia to achieve regional and statewide communications interoperability. The MOTOBRIDGE IP technology will be interfaced with the original STARS radio network, and MOTOBRIDGE IP equipment and software will essentially replace the existing RF system, thereby providing true interoperability. Operation of the MOTOBRIDGE IP system, which will be completed by December 2006, will provide maximum multi-jurisdictional and multi-disciplinary connectivity, allowing for communications at the local, regional, state and federal levels and for future scalability. The technology will also allow participating jurisdictions to communicate on the state's emergency communications network regardless of the equipment and bandwidth used by the individual agency. Equipment purchased through the grant will allow cooperating agencies in the RMSA to purchase the necessary MOTOBRIDGE IP equipment modules to enable public safety agencies in the region full access to the proposed system's capabilities. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council COPS Interoperable Communications Technology Grant Page 3 The proposed project will be implemented in conjunction with the statewide implementation plan. The first phase state implementation will be completed in December 2006. The proposed implementation for the RMSA will begin in January 2006, and be completed in December 2006. Recommended Action: Accept the COPS Interoperability Communications Technology Grant and authorize the City Manager to execute the grant agreements and any related documents, subject to them being approved as to form by the City Attorney. Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in the amount of $866,570 from the U.S. Department of Justice and $288,857 from the Virginia State Police in the Grant Fund. Appropriate funding totaling $1,155,427 in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund as noted below: Description Object Code Amount Fees for Professional Services Expendable Equipment Training & Development Furniture & Equipment Other Equipment 2010 $ 276,604 2035 54,994 2044 33,750 9005 254,889 9015 535,190 Total $1,155,427 Respectfully submitted, Darlene L. Buj/cham City Manager~ DLB:mds C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police CM05-00158 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk November 28, 2005 Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk File #5-60-236 Jesse A. Hall Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Hall: I am attaching copy of Budget Ordinance No. 37246-:[12105 appropriating $25,000.00 for the Occupant Protection/Safety Restraint and Enhanced Impaired Driving Enforcement Grants, and amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Grant Fund Appropriations. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 2:[, 2005, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. MFP:ew Sincerely, City Clerk Attachment Pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police Frank E. Baratta, Budget Team Leader IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 21st day of November, 2005. No. 37246-112105. AN ORDINANCE appropriating funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia for the Occupant Protection/Safety Restraint and Enhanced Impaired Driving Enforcement Grants, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Grant 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 2005-2006 Grant Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Overtime Wages FICA Expendable Equipment Overtime Wages FICA Revenues Enhanced Impaired Driving Enforcement Occupant Protection 035-640-3433-1003 $ 11,148 035-640-3433-1120 852 035-640-3433-2035 3,000 035-640-3434-1003 9,290 035-640-3434-1120 710 035-640-3433-3433 035-640-3434-3434 15,000 10,000 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 Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk November 28, 2005 Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk File #5-60-236 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 37247-112:[05 accepting the Occupant Protection/Safety Restraint and Enhanced Impaired Driving Enforcement Grant, in the amount of $10,000.00, from the United States Department of Transportation, as more fully set forth in a letter from the City Manager addressed to the Council 'under date of November 21, 2005. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. MFP:ew Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Attachment pc: Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police Frank E. Baratta, Budget Team Leader l~ THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 21st day of November, 2005. No. 37247-112105. A RESOLUTION accepting the Occupant Protection/Safety Restraint and Enhanced Impaired Driving Enforcement Grant offer made to the City by the U.S. Department of Transportation and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City of Roanoke does hereby accept the offer made to the City by the U.S. Department of Transportation of the Occupant Protection/Safety Restraint and Enhanced Impaired Driving Enforcement Grant in the amount of $10,000, such grant being more' particularly described in the letter of the City Manager, dated November 21, .2005. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute and file, on behalf of the City, any documents setting forth the conditions of the Occupant Protection/Safety Restraint and Enhanced Impaired Driving Enforcement Grant, approved as to form by the City Attorney, required in connection with the acceptance of such grant and to furnish such additional information as may be required by the U.S. Department of Transportation. ATTEST: City Clerk. K:\Measures\Occupant Protection Safety Restraint and Enhanced Impaired Driving Enforcement Grant.doc CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-I591 Telephone: (540) 853-2333 Fax: (540) 853 1138 City Web: www.roanokeva.gov November 21,2005 Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member Dear Mayor Harris and members of Council: Subject: DMV Issued Grants Background: The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is the administering agency for pass through funds provided by the United States Department of Transportation for highway safety projects in Virginia. DMV offers these funds to successful applicants for activities which improve highway safety in Virginia. The Roanoke Police Department has been awarded grant funding in the amount of $10,000 for overtime and related FICA expenditures associated with conducting selective enforcement activities which target speeding and motor vehicle occupant safety. The grant period is from October 1 2005 through September 30, 2006. ' In a separate award, the Roanoke Police Department has been granted funding in the amount of $15,000. This award is to be used for overtime and related FICA expenditures associated with conducting enforcement activities, which target Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and equipment purchases to enhance investigative abilities towards these crimes. The grant period is from October 1 2005 through September 30, 2006. ' There is a statistical correlation between levels of motor vehicle law enforcement and traffic accidents in the City of Roanoke. Historically, speed and alcohol are factors in 17 percent of Roanoke's motor vehicle accidents. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council DMV Issued Grants Page 2 These programs will allow officers to concentrate on alcohol impaired drivers and speeders at times when such violations are most likely to occur. Recommended Action: Accept the Occupant Protection/Safety Restraint grant and the Enhanced Impaired Driving Enforcement grant. Authorize the City Manager to execute the grant agreements and any related documents, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to appropriate funding totaling $25,000 per the following and establish corresponding revenue estimates in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund: Occupant Protection/Safety Restrain Grant: Overtime $9,290 FICA 710 Enhanced Impaired Drivinq Enforcement Grant: Overtime · $11,148 FICA 852 Expendable Equipment 3,000 Respectfully submitted, DLB:gws C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police CM05-00166 CITY OF R O NOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk November 28, 2005 Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk File #60-72-236-246 Jesse A. Hall Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Hall: I am attaching copy of Budget Ordinance No. 37248-112:105 appropriating $194,577.00 for the FY06 Workforce Investment Act Grant, and amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Grant Fund Appropriations. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. MFP:ew Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Attachment pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget Jane R. Conlin, Director of Human/Social Services Frank E. Baratta, Budget Team Leader IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 215t day of November, 2005. No. 37248-112105. AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the FY06 Workforce Investment Act Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Grant 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 2005-2006 Grant Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Administrative - Wages Adult - Contractual services Dislocated Worker - Contractual services Revenues Workforce Investment Act Grant FY06 035-633-2320-8050 $ 19,458 035-633-2321-8057 96,200 035-633-2322-8057 78,919 035-633-2320-2320 194,577 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 Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon, CMC Deputy City Clerk November 28, 2005 Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk File #60-72-236-246 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 37249-112:[05 accepting Western Virginia Workforce Development Board Workforce Investment Act funding, in the amount of $:[94,577.00 for Program Year 2005 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the necessary requisite documents to accept the funding, as more fully set forth in a letter from the City Manager addressed to the Council under date of November 2:[, 2005. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. MFP:ew Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Attachment pc: Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget Jane R. Conlin, Director of Human/Social Services Frank E. Baratta, Budget Team Leader IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 21st day of November, 2005. No. 37249-112105. A RESOLUTION accepting the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board Workforce Investment Act funding of$194,577 for Program Year 2005 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the requisite documents necessary to accept the funding. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The Western Virginia Workforce Development Board Workforce Investment Act funding of $194,577 for Program Year 2005 is hereby ACCEPTED. 2. The City Manager is authorized to execute, and the City Clerk is authorized to attest, the requisite documents necessary to accept funding, and any and all understandings, assurances and documents relating thereto, in such form as is approved by the City Attorney, as more particularly set out in the City Manager's letter dated November 21, 2005, to City Council. 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 City Web: www.roanokeva.gov November 21,2005 Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council, Subject: Funding for Western Virginia Workforce Development Board Work- Force Investment Act (WlA) Programs Background: The City of Roanoke is the grant recipient for Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funding; thus, City Council must appropriate the funding for all grants and other monies received in order for the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board to administer WlA programs. The Western Virginia Workforce Development Board administers the federally funded Workforce Investment Act (WlA) for Area 3, which encompasses the counties ofAIleghany, Botetourt, Craig, Franklin and Roanoke, and the cities of Covington, Roanoke, and Salem. WIA funding is 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 who have other barriers to becoming successfully employed adults; and · Businesses in need of employment and job training services. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council November 21,2005 Page 2 The Western Virginia Workforce Development Board has received a Notice of Obligation (NOO), from the Virginia Employment Commission, allocating $106,889 for the Adult Program which serves economically disadvantaged adults and $87,688 for the Dislocated Worker Program which serves workers laid off from employment through no fault of their own, for Program Year 2005 (July 1, 2005 -June 30, 2007). Ten percent of the aforementioned totals are to be allocated to the administrative function of the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board. Considerations: Program Operations - Existing activities will continue and planned programs will be implemented. Funding - Funds are available from the Grantor agency and other sources as indicated, at no additional cost to the City. Recommendations: Accept the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board Workforce Investment Act funding of $194,577 for Program Year 2005. Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to appropriate Workforce Investment Act funding per the attachment in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance and to establish corresponding revenue estimates in the Grant Fund. y s ub~mitted, C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Sherman M. Stovall, Director of Management and Budget Jane R. Conlin, Director of Human Services #CM05-001 70 Western Virginia Workforce Development Board 2005-2007 Budget Allocation Org. Fund/Agency/ Object Account Name Orq. Code Name Admininstrative 35-633-2320 8050 Wages Total Council Letter Allocation $ 19,458 $ 19,458 $ 96,200 $ 96,200 $ 78,919 $ 78,919 Adult 35-633-2321 Total 8057 Contractual Services Dislocated Worker 35-633-2322 Total 8057 Contractual Services Grand Total Budget Allocation $ 194,577 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon, CMC Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk November 28, 2005 File #5-24 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 37250-112105 amending and reordaining the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by adding a new Article IX, Abatinq Bawdy Places to Chapter 21, Offenses - Miscellaneous. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. MFP:ew Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Attachment Darlene L. Burcham November 28, 2005 Page 2 pc: The Honorable Robert P. Doherty, 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, Chief 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 Vincent A. Lilley, Judge, General District Court The Honorable Francis W. Burkart, III, 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 Ronald S. Albright, Clerk, General District Court David C. Wells, Clerk, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Kozuo Webb, Office of the Magistrate Lora A. Wilson, Law Librarian Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning Building and Economic Development Robert A. Clement, Jr., Housing and Neighborhood Services, Neighborhood Services Coordinator IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 21st day of November, 2005. No. 37250-112105. AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by adding a new Article IX, Ab tin Baw Place to Chapter 21, Offenses - Miscellaneous, 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. The Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is hereby amended and reordained by adding a new Article IX, Ahatin B wd Places to Chapter 21, Offenses - Miscellaneous to read and provide as follows: ARTICLE IX .4ba#ng Bawdy Places. Sec. 21-215. Definitions. As used in this article: Affidavit means the aj~davit prepared by a locality in accordance with section 21-216 hereof Baw~cplace means the same as that term is defined in section 18.2-347 of the Code of Virginia. Corrective action means the taMng of steps which are reasonably expected to be effective to abate a bawdy place on real properO~, such as removal, repair or securing of any building, wail or other structure. Owner means the record owner of real property. Property means real property. K:~Mesaur~\Code Amendmma Chapzr 21 Bawdy Pla~ 2005.doc 1 Sec. 21-216. A~davit and notice requirementx, In addition to enforcement procedures established elsewhere, the ci(y manager is authorized to undertake corrective action with respect to a bawdy place on real properO~ in accordance with the procedures described herein. The city manager or the city manager's designee shall execute au affidavit, citing section 15.2-908.1 of the Code of Virginia and this article, and affirming that a bawdy place exists on certain property in the mariner described therein; that the city has used due diligence without effect to abate the bawdy place; and that the bawdy place constitutes a present threat to the public's health, safety or welfare. A present threat to the public's health, safety and welfare is defined as the regular presence on the property of persons who engage in aid or give any information or direction to any person with the intent to enable such person to commit acts of lewdness, assignation or prostitution. The city manger shall submit the affidavit to the city attorney requesting that the last known owner of the property be notified by regular mail sent to the last known address as it appears in the assessment records of the city. The notice and a copy of the affidavit shall advise the owner that the owner has up to thirty (30.) days from the date thereof to undertake corrective action to abate the bawdy place described in the affidavit ar~ that if requested to do so, the city will assist the owner in determining and coordinating the appropriate corrective action to abate the bawdy place described in the affidavit. Sec. 21-21Z Failure to take corrective action. If no corrective action is undertaken by the owner of the property within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice from the city as provided for in section 21-216, the city attorney shall send by regular mail an nd_,4,_'tional notice to the owner of the property, at the a_d4ress stated in the assessment records of the city. This.final notice shall state that within fifteen (15) days from the mailing of the notice, the city will commence to abate the bawdy place taMng such corrective action as is described in the notice which may include, but is not limited to, the removal of the building or other structure so as to abate the bawdy place on the property. Upon receipt of this final notice, the owner shall have the right, upon reasonable notice to the city, to seek equitable relief, and the city shall initiate no corrective action while a proper petition is per~ng before a court of competent jurisdiction. Sec. 21-218. Assessmettt of costs_ If the city undertakes the corrective action with respect to the property after complying with the notice provisions found herein, the costs and expenses thereof shall be chargeable to and paid by the owner of such property and may be K:~M~zures\Code Amendme~ Cllaper 21 Bawdy Place 2005.doc 2 collected by the city in the same manner as taxes and levies are collected. Every charge authorized by this section with which the owner of arty such property has been assessed and which remains unpaid shall constitute a lien against such property with the same priority as liens for unpaid local real estate taxes and enforceable in the same manner as provided in articles 3 (section 58.1-3940 et seq.) and 4 (section 58.1-3965 et seq.) of chapter 39, tide 58.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Sec. 21-219. Corrective action bE owner. If the owner of such property takes timely corrective action pursuant to this article, the city shall deem the bawdy place abated and shall close the proceeding without any charge or costs to the owner and shall promptly provide written notice to the owner that the proceeding has been terminated satisfactorily. The closing of a proceeding shall not bar the city from initiating a subsequent proceeding if the bawdy place recurs. Sec. 21-220. Abridgement o/rights. Nothing in this section shall be construed to abridge or waive any rights or remedies of an owner of property at law or in equity. this ordinance by title is dispensed with. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of ATTEST City Clerk. K:q~[~amlr~\C, ode Amendm~nlt (Yaal~ 21 Bawdy Pla~ 2005.doc 3 CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-I591 Telephone: (540) 853-2333 Fax: (540) 853-1138 City Web: www.roanokeva.gov November 2~, 2005 Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member Alfred T. Dowe,Jr., Council Member Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Brenda McDaniel, Council Member Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member Subject: Regulation of Bawdy Places Dear Mayor Harris and Members of Council: Background: As a part of the overall effort towards increasing the quality of life for Roanoke residents, the Police Department has initiated many investigations into prostitution and related crimes. Section 15.2-908.1 of the Code of Virginia enables the City to adopt an ordinance to address the abatement of bawdy places. Bawdy places are difficult to regulate largely due to the fact that these locations are most often inside and on private property. The Police Department's ability to combat these situations will be enhanced by adopting an ordinance that allows the City to require the owner to take corrective action. If the property owner fails to take corrective action, then the City can commence action to abate the bawdy place. Recommended Action: As permitted in section 15.2-908.~, Code of Virginia, adopt an ordinance amending and re-ordaining the Code of the City of Roanoke (~979), as amended, by adding a new Article IX, "Abating Bawdy Places," to Chapter 21, "Offences - Miscellaneous." Mayor Harris and Members of City Council November 21,2005 Page 2 The recommended revisions strengthen the ability of the City to compel private property owners to abate the situations of bawdiness or face possible corrective action by the City to abate the bawdy places. Re.spectfully submitted, DLB:/wla C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Rolanda B. Russell, ACM for Community Development A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police CM05-00] 67 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk November 28, 2005 Sheiia N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk File #60-537 Jesse A. Hall Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Hall: I am attaching copy of Budget Ordinance No. 37251-1:[2105 appropriating TEA-21 Enhancement Grant funds, in the amount of $55,000.00, provided by VDOT for the O. Winston Link Museum, and amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 2]., 2005, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. MFP:ew Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Attachment pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget Robert K. Bengtson, Director, Public Works Mark D. Jamison, City Traffic Engineer IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 21st day of November, 2005. No. 37251-112105. AN ORDINANCE to appropriate TEA~21 Enhancement Grant funding to be provided by VDOT for the O. Winston Link Museum, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 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 2005-2006 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Appropriated from State Grant Funds Revenues O. Winston Link Museum T-21 Grant 008-530-9848-9007 $ 55,000 008-530-9848-9836 55,000 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 City Web: www.roanokeva,gov November 21,2005 Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council: Subject: O. Winston Link Museum Background: The O. Winston Link Museum of the History Museum & Historical Society of Western Virginia received notification in 2004 that its application for Transportation Enhancement funds through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21s, Century (TEA-21) for the open storage component of the O. Winston Link Museum was approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in the amount of $55,000. These funds are to be used to support the design and construction of the museum's open storage component, the refurbishment of authentic station benches, and the restoration and installation of N&W Passenger Station signs. The City of Roanoke must enter into separate agreements with the Museum and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), which will define the responsibilities of each party. Authority for all such agreements for this project was previously authorized by City Council action on October 17, 2005 (Resolution No. 37227-101705.) The Museum would be responsible for the match requirement of $13,750. The $55,000 of TEA-21 Enhancement funds needs to be appropriated (to be reimbursed by VDOT) to a new project account for disbursement to the Museum. Recommended action: Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to appropriate $55,000 of TEA-21 Enhancement funds to an account to be established by the Director of Finance The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council November 21,2005 Page 2 entitled "O. Winston Link Museum Open Storage" and to establish a corresponding revenue estimate of the same for State reimbursement through the TEA-21 program in the Capital Projects Fund. Respectfully submitted, Darlene L. Bu~cham City Manager~ DLB/MDJ/gpe C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Robert K. Bengtson, P.E., Director of Public Works Sherman M. Stovall, Director of Management & Budget Mark D. Jamison, P.E., City Traffic Engineer CM05-0] 71 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon, CMC Deputy City Clerk Shaila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk November 28, 2005 File #60-77-226 Jesse A. Hall Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Hall: I am attaching copy of Budget Ordinance No. 37252-112105 appropriating additional TEA-2! Enhancement Grant funding, in the amount of $40,000.00, to be provided by VDOT for the Dumas Artistic and Cultural Center Project, and amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 2!, 2005, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew Attach ment pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget Robert K. Bengtson, Director, Public Works Mark D. Jamison, City Traffic Engineer IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 21st day of November, 2005. No. 37252-112105. AN ORDINANCE to appropriate additional TEA-21 Enhancement Grant funding to be provided by VDOT for the Dumas Artistic and Cultural Center Project, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 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 2005-2006 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Appropriated from State Grant Funds Revenues Dumas Center Enhancement T-21 Grant 008-530-9825-9007 008-530~9825-9806 40,000 40,000 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 City Web: www.roanokeva.gov November 21, 2005 Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council: Subject: Increase Funds for Hotel Dumas Artistic and Cultural Center Background: Total Action Against Poverty (TAP) received notification that it would receive additional Transportation Enhancement funds for the Hotel Dumas Artistic and Cultural Center project in the amount of $40,000. This is in addition to the $150,000 in Enhancement funds approved in 2003, bringing the total to $190,000. The City of Roanoke must enter into separate amended agreements with TAP and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), which defines the responsibilities of each party. Authority for all such agreements for this project was previously authorized by City Council action on June 21, 2004 (Resolution No. 36734-062104). Total Action Against Poverty would be responsible for the match requirement of $10,000. The $40,000 of Transportation Enhancement funds needs to be appropriated (to be reimbursed by VDOT) to the project account 008-530-9825-9007 for disbursement to TAP. Recommended action: Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to increase the Dumas Center TEA- 21 revenue estimate (008-530-9825-9806) in the amount of $40,000 and The Honorable Mayor and Members Council November 21,2005 Page 2 appropriate funding in the same amount to the Hotel Dumas Artistic and Cultural Center project (008-530-9825-9007) for disbursement to TAP ubmitted, ~t ryl e~aenLa'gBe~ ~ h~a~ DLB/MDJ/gpe c: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Robert K. Bengtson, P.E., Director of Public Works Sherman M. Stovall, Director of Management & Budget Mark D. Jamison, P.E., City Traffic Engineer CM05-0172 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk November 28, 2005 Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk File #5-60 Jesse A. Hall Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Hall: lam attaching copy of Budget Ordinance No. 37253-112105 appropriating funds in connection with the State Asset Sharing Program and Federal Forfeited Property Grant, and amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Grant Fund Appropriations. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. MFP:ew Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Attachment pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police Frank E. Baratta, Budget Team Leader IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 21st day of November, 2005. No. 37253-112105. AN ORDINANCE appropriating fundin~ for the State Asset Sharing Program and Federal Forfeited Property Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Grant 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 2005-2006 Grant Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Overtime Wages FICA Fees-for Professional Services Investigations and Rewards Other Equipment Revenues State Asset Forfeiture-Interest State Asset Forfeiture Federal Forfeiture Program Federal Forfeiture Program-Interest 035-640-3302-1003 035-640-3302-1120 035-640-3304-2010 035-640-3304-2150 035-640-3304-9015 035-640-3302-3299 035-640-3302-3300 035-640-3304-3305 035-640-3304-3306 $ 36,050 2,757 75,OO0 783,696 97,613 824 37,983 952,621 3,688 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 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 City Web: www.roanokeva.gov November 2~, 2005 Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member Honorable Honorable Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Brenda McDaniel, Council Member Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council: Subject: State Asset Sharing and Federal Forfeited Property Sharing Background: In 199~, the Virginia General Assembly passed State legislation allowing local law enforcement to seize and have forfeited property connected with illegal narcotics distribution. The law also makes it possible for police departments to receive proceeds from these forfeited properties. Application for an equitable share of the property seized by local law enforcement must be made to the Department of Criminal Justice Services, Forfeited Asset Sharing Program and certified by the Chief of Police. Property, including funds shared with State and local agencies, may be used only for law enforcement purposes. Program requirements mandate that these funds be placed in an interest bearing account and the interest earned be used in accordance with program guidelines. Revenue totaling $38,807 has been collected and is available for appropriation in the Grant Fund (Account Number 035-640-3302-3299 and 035-640-3302-3300). Drug and other undercover investigations extend past the normal work day/period, thus requiring overtime; however, funding for overtime through the General Fund has historically been underfunded for vice operations. These state funds will be used to cover overages in overtime expenses for drug and other undercover activities. In 1986, Congress authorized the transfer of certain federally forfeited property to state and local law enforcement agencies that participated in the Mayor Harris and Members of City Council November 21, 2005 Page 2 investigation and seizure of the property. Application for an equitable share of property seized by local law enforcement must be made to the U.S. Department of Justice and certified by the City Attorney. This property, including funds shared with state and local agencies, may be used only for the purpose stated in the application, i.e., narcotics investigations related to law enforcement. Participation in federally forfeited property enhances the effectiveness of narcotics investigations by providing necessary investigations equipment, investigative funds, and it offsets the costs that would otherwise have to be borne by the city's taxpayers. The Police Department receives funds periodically from the federal government's asset sharing program. Grant requirements mandate that these funds be placed in an interest bearing account and the interest earned be used in accordance with program guidelines. Revenue totaling $956,309 has been collected and is available for appropriation in the Grant Fund accounts 035-640- 3304-3305 and 035-640-3304-3306. Some of the intended uses for these federal funds include: · A & E funds for study of a new Police Academy; · ITT Night Enforcer pocketscope; · Ballistic vests w/trauma plate; · Stinger spike strips; · Riot helmets; · Radar units; · Furniture for police building; and · Other items as needed. Recommended Action: Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to increase Grant Fund revenue estimates and to appropriate funding for the State Asset Sharing and Federal Forfeited Property Sharing grants as follows: Revenues: State Asset Forfeiture - Interest State Asset Forfeiture Federal Forfeiture Federal Forfeiture - Interest ~riations: 035-640-3302-3299 035-640-3302-3300 035-640-3304-3305 035-640-3304-3306 $824 37,983 952,621 3,688 Overtime Wages 035-640-3302-1003 $36,050 Mayor Harris and Members of City Council November 2~, 2005 Page 3 FICA Investigations and Rewards Fees for Professional Services Other Equipment 035-640-3302-1120 035-640-3304-2150 035-640-3304-2010 035-640-3304-9015 2,757 783,696 75,000 97,613 Respectfully submitted, DLB:ALG:mds C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Rolanda 13. Russell, ACM for Community Development A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police CM05-00169 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk November 28, 2005 File #184 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 37254-112105 authorizing payment of supplementary compensation.and restoration of certain benefits to employees who are called to active military duty and serve between October 1, 2005 and September 30, 2006. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. MFP:ew Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Attachment pc: Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Carolyn Glover, Acting Director of Human Resources IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 21st day of November, 2005. No. 37254-112105. A RESOLUTION authorizing payment of supplementary compensation and restoration of certain benefits to employees who are called to active military duty and serve between October 1, 2005 and September 30, 2006. BE 1T RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City shall pay, upon request, to any City employee who, between October 1, 2005, and September 30, 2006, is called to active duty related to our counU3t's war on terrorism, subsequent to that employee's employment with the City, a supplement equal to the difference between regular City salary and military base pay plus any other compensation received for such service. This supplement shah not be paid for any days that regular City salary must be paid to such employees. Employees shah provide the Department of Human Resources with the necessary documentation to establish their eligibility for the supplement. 2. Any City vacation or paid leave used by such employees during active duty related to our country's war on terrorism shall be restored. 3. Each such employee shall be deemed to have earned City vacation, paid and mended illness leave for the period of such active duty in the same manner as if such employee had remained 4. For each such employee who returns to service with the City within seven (7) working days of the conclusion of such active military duty, the City shall pay the City portion of the health and dental benefit premiums necessary to provide coverage for the employee effective upon the date of return to service with the City. 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 City Web: www.roanokeva.gov November 21,2005 Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. Council Member Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council: Subject: Special Military Pay Background: Military leave at full pay is limited to fifteen work days per federal fiscal year for employees of the City of Roanoke who are military reservists or members of the national guard and who are called to active duty. City Council approved Special Military Pay on November 5, 2001 and extended it annually thereafter, to provide supplemental pay for military reservists/national guard called to active duty and serves related to the war on terrorism. This special Council action was effective through September 30, 2005, and benefited fifteen City employees called from reserves/national guard to active duty. These employees received a total of $21,620.21 (during October 1, 2004 thru September 30, 2005) in supplemental pay as a result of City Council's action. There are thirty-one reservists/national guard members in ten departments within the City of Roanoke full time employment. One reservist was called to duty related to the natural disasters in the Gulf States but was not covered by this special pay. Recommended Action: Approve a special policy to pay military reservists/national guard who are called to active duty between October 1, 2005 and September 30, 2006 the difference between their military base pay (including any other related compensation received from the military) and pay with the City of Roanoke in their current job. Mayor Harris and Members of City Council November 21,2005 Page 2 Covered employees would be those reservists/national guard members who are called to active duty related to our country's war on terrorism or natural disaster relief, subsequent to the employee's employment with the City of Roanoke. This supplemental pay will be provided upon request and with necessary documentation to the Department of Human Resources. Darlene L. B~rcham City Manag~t DLB:bka C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Carolyn Glover, Acting Director of Human Resources CM05-00149 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC REVISED City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon, CMC Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk November 28, 2005 File #5-54 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: ~ am attaching copy of Resolution No. 37255-112105 authorizing the City Manager to donate a 1998 Ford pickup truck equipped as an animal control vehicle to the Roanoke Valley Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. Sincerely, Marg F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew Attachment pc: Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget Donald T. Thorne, Executive Director, Roanoke Valley 1340 Baldwin Avenue, N. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 S.P.C.A., IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 215t day of November, 2005. No. 37255-112105~ A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to donate a 1998 Ford pickup track equipped as an animal control vehicle to the Roanoke Valley Socioty for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. (RVSPCA). WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke, through its normal vehicle replacement program has a surplus animal control vehicle available; and WHEREAS, the donation of such surplus vehicle to the RVSPCA will benefit the City of Roanoke and the surrounding areas. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to donate to the Roanoke Vall~j Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc., a 1998 Ford pickup truck equipped as an animal control vehicle, City shop number 1265. 2. The City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized on behalf of the City to execute and attest, respectively, all necessary and appropriate documents to donate the surplus vehicle to the RVSPCA, such agreement to be in a form approved by the City Attorney. ATTEST: 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 City Web: www.roanokeva.gov November 21, 2005 Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council: Subject: Vehicle Donation to SPCA Background: The SPCA has a current need for a vehicle equipped to transport animals. The Roanoke City Police Department, through the normal vehicle replacement program, is slated to turn in for disposal, upon the delivery of a new vehicle, a 1998 Ford pickup equipped as an animal control vehicle. Considerations: Through the normal vehicle replacement program, the Roanoke City Police Department has an animal control truck which is slated to be turned in for disposal upon the delivery of a new vehicle. This truck is a 1998 Ford pickup which is equipped and designed to transport animals. The truck is City shop #~ 265, has mileage over 86,300, and has an estimated residual value of $9,200. Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to donate this vehicle to the Roanoke Valley Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to facilitate the proper continued care of animals seized in the City of Roanoke and surrounding areas. City Manage~' DLB:wa C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance CM05-00162 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon, CMC Deputy City Clerk November 28, 2005 Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk File #467 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 37256-1:[2105 authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. ! to an agreement dated January 9, 2001, between the Roanoke City School Board and the City of Roanoke, allowing the City to operate a fitness center at Jackson Middle School for use by the general public, upon certain terms and conditions as more fully set forth in a letter from the City Manager addressed to the Council under date of November 21, 2005. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 15, 2005. MFP:ew Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Attachment pc: Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Steven C. Buschor, Director, Parks and Recreation IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 21st day of November, 2005. No. 37256-112105. A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to an agreement dated January 9, 2001, between the Roanoke City School Board and the City of Roanoke, allowing the City to operate a fimess center at Jackson Middle School for use by the general public, upon certain terms and conditions. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the City, to execute and attest, respectively, Amendment No. 1 to an agreement dated January 9, 2001, between the Roanoke City School Board and the City of Roanoke, approved as to form by the City Attorney, allowing the City of Roanoke to operate a fimess center in specified areas at the Jackson Middle School for use by the general public, as more fully set forth in the City Manager's letter dated November 21, 2005, to this Council. 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 City Web: www.roanokeva.gov November 21, 2005 Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council: Subject: Amendment No. 1 to Jackson Fitness Center Agreement On February 5, 2001, by Resolution Number 35201-020501, City Council authorized an agreement to operate a fitness center at Jackson Middle School for use by the general public, upon certain terms and conditions. Roanoke Public Schools use the fitness room and equipment for physical education classes and sports conditioning. Parks and Recreation operates the facility as a fitness center, open to the public during non-school hours. Considerations: Subsequent to the original agreement, it has been deemed in the best interest of both parties to make several minor changes which include, but are not limited to the term of the agreement, and terms of use. A copy of the proposed Amendment No. 1, as it was approved by the School Board on November 8, 2005, is attached to this report for Council's information and review. Honorable Mayor and Members of Council November 21, 2005 Page 2 Recommended Action(s): Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Jackson Middle School Fitness Center agreement on behalf of the City of Roanoke, such Amendment to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. Darlene L. Buj~cham City Manage~ DLB:VCG:na C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Steven 13. Buschor, Director of Parks and Recreation CM05-00173 AMENDMENT NO, I THIS AMENDMENT NO. I is made and entered into this day of ,20 .... by and between the CITY OF ROANOKE ("Cit>'). and the ROANOKE CITY SCHOOL BOARD, "School Board". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City and the School Board entered into an agreement dated January 9, 2001 ("Agreement"), to provide for use by the general public of certain areas of Jackson Middle School as a fitness center. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the School Board do hereby agree to this Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement as follows: 1. Paragraph I of the Agreement shall read as follows: Premises: The facility which is the subject of this Agreement ("Premises") shall be the fitness room, the gymnasium, lobby, the restrooms, and other mutually agreed upon designated space at Jackson Middle School located at 1004 Monlmse Ave., S.E., in the City of Roanoke. 2. Paragraph 2 of the Agreement shall read as follows Term of Aareement: The tcm~ of this Agreement shall be from November 1, 2000, until October 31, 2001. This Agreement shall be extended for nine (9) additional one-year terms, unless a party terminates the Agreement pursuant to Paragraph No. 13, in writing, no later than thirty (30) days prior to the last day of any term in which the Agreement is in force. 3. Paragraph 3 of the Agreement shall read as follows: Tetras of Use: The Premises shall be open to the general public, subject to the following t~sms and conditions: (a) The fitness room shall be available to all persons who are sixteen (16) years of age or older. Persons who are fourteen (14) to sixteen (16) years of age may use the fitness room upon completion of training provided by the Jackson Middle School Physical Education Department or the Fitness Trainer employed by the City. 11/02/05 (c)(ii) Gymnasium: 5:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, for use by the general public, for the first year of the Agreement, and in the future at such times as the parties mutually agree in writing. Gymnasium use is subject to school use through prior reservation by the school principal at least five days in advance. Paragraph 5 shall read as follows: Conflicts in Use: Use of the Premises by the general public pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to events scheduled by the School Board. Reasonable notice of such events shall be given to the Director, in writing, preferably fourteen (14) calendar days of the fn'st day of the event. If less than ten (10) days notice is given, then the School Board shall supply the City an alternate location on site, adequate enough to allow for their prescheduled event. Paragraph 10 shall read as follows: Vendin~ Machine(s): The School Board may restrict access to, or use of, the vending machine(s) 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. All proceeds from the vending machine shall belong to the City for use to offset costs incurred in administering this Agreement. Products sold in the machine must be approved by the School Board in writing for nutritional content. Paragraph 11 shall read as follows 1 I. Insurance: The School Board shall name the City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers as additional insureds as their interests may appear on the appropriate School Board liability policies with minimum limits of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. If any organization sponsored by the City uses the Premises, such organization shall provide the City and School Board with proof of liability insurance in accordance with the above limits and such organization shall name the City and School Board, their officers, agents, and employees as additional insureds. Ail insurance correspondence shall be sent to the City of Roanoke, c/o Risk Management Officer, Room 506, Municipal Building North, Roanoke, Virginia 24011, and the Associate Superintendent for Management, Roanoke City School Board, P. O. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031. Paragraph 12 shall read as follows 12. Notice: Notice to the parties, unless otherwise indicated, shall be in writing and either in person and delivered to thc following locations, or by first- class mall: 2 If to the School Board: Associate Superintendent for Management 40 Douglas Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012. The Agreement dated January 9, 2001, shall remain unchanged in all other terms and provisions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and School Board have duly executed this Amendment No. I on the date set out above. A'I-I'I~ST: CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Mary F. Parker, City Clerk By Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager ATTEST: ROANOKE CITY SCHOOL BOARD (Title). Associate Superintendent for Management Approved as to form: Approved as to execution: Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Attorney 11/02/05 MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE 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 November 28, 2005 File #110-137 STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant Cily Clerk The Honorable John S. Edwards Member, Senate of Virginia P. O. Box 1179 Roanoke, Virginia 24006-1179 The Honorable William H. Fralin, Jr. Delegate, House of Representatives P. O. Box 20363 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 The Honorable Onzlee Ware Delegate, House of Representatives P. O. Box 1745 Roanoke, Virginia 24008 Gentlemen: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 37241-112105 adopting and endorsing a Legislative Program for the City of Roanoke to be presented to the City's delegation to the 2006 Session of the Virginia General Assembly. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. You are cordially invited to meet with the Council and the Roanoke City School Board on Monday, December 5, 2005, at 12:00 p.m. in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, to discuss legislative issues. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew Enclosure The Honorable John S. Edwards The Honorable William H. Fralin, Jr. The Honorable Onzlee Ware November 28, 2005 Page 2 pc.: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Cindy H. Lee, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board, P. O. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031 Thomas A. Dick, Legislative Liaison, 1].08 E. Main Street, Suite 904, Richmond, Virginia 23219 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 21st day of November, 2005. No. 37241-112105. A RESOLUTION adopting and endorsing a Legislative Program for the City to be presented to the City's delegation to the 2006 Session of the General Assembly. WHEREAS, the members of City Council are in a unique position to be aware of the legislative needs of this City and its people; WHEREAS, previous Legislative Programs of the City have been responsible for improving the e~ciency of local government and the quality of life for citizens of this City; WHEREAS, Council is desirous of again adopting and endorsing a Legislative Program to be advocated by the Council and its representatives at the General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the Legislative Committee of City Council has by report, dated November 21, 2005, recommended to Council a Legislative Program to be presented at the 2006 Session of the General Assembly; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The Legislative Program transmitted by report of the Legislative Committee, dated November 21, 2005, is hereby adopted and endorsed by the Council as the City's official Legislative Program for the 2006 Session of the General Assembly. 2. The Clerk is directed to issue cordial invitations to the City's Senator and Delegates to the 2006 Session ofthe General Assembly to attend Council's meeting relating to legislative matters, to be hdd at 12:00 noon, on December 5, 2005. ' ATTEST: City Clerk. C. NELSON HARRIS 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 The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Re: November 21, 2005 2006 Legislative Program Council Members: M. Rupert Cutler Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. Sherman P. Lea Brenda L. McDaniel Brian J. Wishneff Dear Mayor Harris and Members of Council: On November 7, 2005, City Council's Legislative Committee met to review the proposed 2006 Legislative Program. A copy of the proposed Legislative Program is attached. After careful review, the Committee recommends it to City Council for favorable action. The School Board portion of the Program was approved by the School Board at its meeting on November 8, 2005. As Chair of the Legislative Committee, I wish to thank the other members of Council, who comprise the Committee, and Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Carson of the School Board. We also wish to thank Tom Dick, our Legislative Liaison, and Bill Hackworth, City Attorney, who coordinated and prepared this Program. As Chair of the Legislative Committee, I commend the Program to City Council for its approval. I am confident the members of the Council will agree that the recommended Program will advance the legislative interests of the City and its people at the 2006 Session. ctfully submitied, everly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Chail,/ Legislative Committee BTF:lsc Attachments c: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Marvin T. Thompson, Superintendent William H. Lindsey, Esquire Mr. David B. Carson Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Thomas A. Dick, Legislative Liaison 2006 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM CITY OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice-Mayor M. Rupert Cutler Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. Sherman P. Lea Brenda L. McDaniel Brian J. Wishneff SCHOOL BOARD Kathy G. Stockburger, Chair Dr. David B.Trinkle, Vice-Chair Jason E. Bingham David B. Carson William H. Lindsey Alvin L. Nash Court'ney W. Penn CITY MANAGER Darlene L. Burcham SUPERINTENDENT Marvin T. Thompson William M. Hackworth City Attorney 464 Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building Roanoke, VA 24011 540-853-2431 INTRODUCTION The City Council is pleased to commend this Legislative Program for consideration by the 2006 Session of the General Assembly. The City Council, representing all the people of our All-America City, is uniquely qualified to understand the legislative needs of City government and our people. We are of the opinion that this Program is responsive to those needs. As a policy matter, we continue to believe that local governments are the best vehicles for the delivery of many services to the public because local governments are closest to the people and the most responsive. We continue to be concerned about the cumulative effect of Federal and State legislative and regulatory mandates, many of which are unfunded, the continued erosion of local revenue sources, and the State's fiscal woes. This Program is a combined Program for City Council and the School Board. You will note that we have made a conscientious effort to pare our Program down to the issues that we believe are most important to the citizens of this City. The City Council portion was prepared by the City's Legislative Liaison, Thomas A. Dick, and City Attorney, William M. Hackwor&, with the assistance of comments and suggestions f~om Council members, City administrators, and citizens. The School Board pmtion was prepared with the assistance of advice and comments l~om the School Board and administrators. The entire Program has been carefully reviewed by City Council's Legislative Committee, which consists of all the members of Council, and William H. Lindsey and Courtney W. Penn. Upon the recommendation of the Legislative Committee, the Program was adopted and endorsed by City Council on November 21, 2005. See Resolution No. -112105 a copy of which is attached. If during the course of the Session our legislators have questions concerning the position of the City or School Board on legislative matters, they are encouraged to contact the Legislative Liaison for the City or School Board, who I know will be pleased to respond after consultation with appropriate officials. I also know that representatives of the City and School Board will be in contact with our legislators on many occasions during the 2006 Session, and theft consideration of these communications is deeply appreciated. With the support of our legislators, and this City is fortunate to have legislators who are most supportive and responsive to the needs of our City and its citizens, I know that our City government and School Division will be improved and that the quality of life for our citizens will be advanced. C. Nelson Harris, Mayor City of Roanoke 2006 Legislative Program Legislation Requested Public Safety. Section 15.2-906, Code of Virginia, authorizes localities to remove, repair or secure any building, wall or other structure which might endanger the public health or safety. However, this section prohibits localities from taking such action for at least 30 days following the "later of the return of the receipt [for mailed notice] or newspaper publication." The City requests an amendment to reduce the 30 days to 7 days in those instances where a locality simply seeks to "secure" (board up, for example) a building, as opposed to removing or repairing it. Historic Districts. The City requests legislation to amend §36-99, Code of Virginia, to authorize localities to require building permits for the installation of replacement siding, roofing and windows in buildings within historic districts. This will benefit the City's historic neighborhoods. Energy Efficiency. The City requests a study to develop enabling legislation to authorize a real estate tax break for buildings constructed using "green building" or"sustainable" designs consistent with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. Trash Containers. The City requests, that legislation be enacted enabling localities to assess civil penalties against those who fail to remove their trash containers from the street within the time period required (currently in the City, by 7:00 a.m. of the day following collection). Agents for Rental Units. Section 55-218.1 of the Code of Virginia requires property owners who own four or more units in the Commonwealth of Virginia, but 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. The legislation could be limited to apply only in those localities, such as Roanoke, which have a significant percentage of houses that are rented. In 2000, only 52% of the housing in the City was owner-occupied. Domestic Violence. The City requests that the Virginia Crime Commission consider recommending proposals to address domestic violence that would include: amending §9.1- 116.1, Code of Virginia, which creates the Virginia Domestic Violence Victim Fund, in order to authorize the use of such fund to provide immediate assistance to victims of domestic violence; legislation to permit the victimless prosecution of domestic violence cases when a 1 victim is uncooperative and sufficient evidence and/or supporting witnesses are otherwise available; enact sentencing guidelines that require a set fine and incarceration for domestic violence offenses, similar to DUI statutes; and legislation to prohibit the immediate release of domestic offenders, in order to prevent them from being able to immediately confront their victims, as often is the case. Constitutional Amendment for Partial Tax Exemption. The General Assembly should approve an amendment to Article X, Section 6(a)(7)(h) of the Constitution of Virginia to provide authority for the passage of legislation authorizing localities to provide for a partial exemption from local real property taxation of new construction in conservation, redevelopment or rehabilitation areas. The Constitution already permits this for substantial renovation, rehabilitation and replacement of existing structures. This will benefit the City's neighborhoods. This passed in the 2005 General Assembly and must be approved again in 2006. Other Legislative Priorities Support for Virginia First Cities Coalition Legislation. As a member of Virginia First Cities, a group of 15 of the State's older cities, Roanoke supports the broad legislative objectives of this coalition. The State should realign its policies and funding formulas to reduce disproportionate economic, fiscal and demographic stresses and disparities on Virginia's fiscally stressed cities. The State should actively promote conditions to encourage the economic health of cities through employment, neighborhood redevelopment and revitalization of commercial areas. Additionally, the City supports First Cities' efforts to: · Preserve local taxing authority. · Fully fund the Standards of Quality. · Add funds to programs that improve the educational attainment of at-risk students. · Substantially increase State funds for public transportation. · Increase enterprise zone funding. · Support Housing Commission legislation that benefits cities. Telecommunications Taxes. Some changes to the Commonwealth's telecommunications tax structure are necessary to address new and changing technologies. However, any proposed revisions must keep such taxes revenue neutral for the City. Cable Television Franchise. The City supports competition in the provision of cable television service. However, thc City prefers to negotiate the franchise agreements for all providers that best meet the needs of thc community instcad of a standardized statcwide franchise. Eminent Domain. The City opposes legislation that would further limit local eminent domain authority and notes that in the past ten years, the City has acquired property after filing eminent domain processings only five times. Two of these were for sewer easements, two for property for a pedestrian walkway, and one was for a power line extension. Dangerous Animals. The City supports legislation that would strengthen laws pertaining to dangerous and vicious dogs. Among other things, such legislation should provide for more severe criminal penalties for owners of dogs declared dangerous that attack and seriously injure or kill a person. Support for School Board Legislative Priorities. The City of Roanoke supports the School Board Legislative Program in its entirety and incorporates it into the City's Legislative Program. Policy Positions State Support for Cultural Agencies and Activities. Institutions such as the Center in the Square and its constituent agencies, the Virginia Museum of Transportation, and the Commonwealth Games all attract tourists to the region and help support the economy. City Council is appreciative of the legislature's partial funding of regional cultural institutions and regional events in previous years. The State is encouraged to develop a policy that ensures stable funding for these agencies. Additionally, a regional funding mechanism is needed to provide a source of funding for environmental, entertainment, and cultural assets. The City supports legislation that would allow for the development of funding from regional resources for cultural, historic, and recreation amenities such as a Blue Ridge Asset District. Transportation (Including Mass Transit) Funding. Adequate funding, especially that for mass transit, is critical to keep Virginia's transportation system viable. In addressing transportation needs, the General Assembly should consider: adjusting fund sources such as the motor fuels tax, to keep pace with inflation; imposing moderate increases in state transportation-related taxes and fees; authorizing more options for long-term financing for major projects; authorizing the creation of regional transportation districts; seeking equity among various road users by ensuring that tracks pay their proportionate share of road costs and promoting mass transit solutions on a regional and statewide basis. Mental Health Funding. The State should expand its scope of mental health services to include those with traumatic brain injuries. The State should provide additional funding to operate a comprehensive mental health facility in the western part of the State. Such facilities already operate in at least two other parts of the State, but not in the southwestern region of Virginia. The City supports line item funding in the State budget for "Brain Injury Services of Southwest Virginia". Additionally, special consideration should be given to meeting mental health needs that fall under the jurisdiction of the court system. Standards for Adult Homes. The State should raise its standards for adult homes to more fully reflect the care needed for this population segment. Additionally, the State should improve funding for adult homes, particularly for indigent care. Zoning Districts. Roanoke opposes any legislation that would restrict present land use powers of local govemments to establish, modify and enfome zoning classifications. Local governments should remain free to adopt and enfome zoning changes that address local land use needs. The City opposes any legislation that would limit local government regulation of historic zoning districts and its ability to accept proffered conditions in rezonings that relate to building features and materials. General Policy Considerations The Federal and State governments should recognize that local governments are the best vehicles for the delivery of many services to the public because local governments are closest to the people and the most responsive. Roanoke remains concerned with the cumulative effect of Federal and State legislative and regulatory mandates that have stressed the serious financial problems of local governments. It is essential that the State fully fund all State mandates, including public employee salaries. Roanoke is vitally concerned over the continued erosion of local revenue sources. The General Assembly is urged to leave the taxing authority and revenue sources of local governments alone. Additionally, the State should pay a greater share of the costs of education and other essential services. City Council calls upon the Governor and the General Assembly to develop an economic development strategy for the Commonwealth and its local governments. The strategy should include special programs for those areas west of the Blue Ridge Mountains and central cities across the Commonwealth. Tourism and convention activities that enhance the economic well being of the State and its political subdivisions should be recognized as legitimate components of economic development. ROANOKE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FY2004-06 BIENNIUM Introduction The budget adopted for the FY2006-08 Biennium by the State increased direct aid to public and higher education by almost $1 billion for the Biennium. The adopted budget recognizes the cost of implementing most of the Standards of Quality (SOQ) recommendations adopted by the State Board of Education in the summer of 2003. Highly Qualified Teachers The Roanoke City School Board supports highly qualified teachers: Endorsing experiential learning for second career teachers. Many adults have engaged in very successful careers in the military, government service or private industry. This life experience is a valuable resource to the field of education of which public schools could avail themselves. Unfortunately, barriers exist to some second career professionals that limit their attainment of the necessary credentials from the Virginia Department of Education. For example, engineers from every arena of engineering are not recognized for their expertise in mathematics, physics, and the variety of specialties associated with engineering. Career military officers and Foreign Service workers with experience in a variety of geopolitical events around the world are restricted from teaching because they do not have adequate numbers of college credits in economics, political science, history, geography, or government. A computer technologist cannot acquire teaching credentials in Virginia without acquiring course work and corresponding credit hours equivalent to a college major for a Bachelors Degree. Legislation with the intent to recognize experiential learning through a "measure" of life experience would greatly benefit the field of public education. If this "measure" is articulated by the Virginia Department of Education in such a way as to not restrict or impose barriers to life experience experts in their respective fields it would inspire and encourage second career specialists to become teachers. Accepting PRAXIS scores from colleges and universities. Currently, the Virginia Department of Education only accepts PRAXIS scores from school divisions. Many new teachers to the trouble and expense of sending the PRAXIS information obtained from their colleges or universities to the Department. New teachers take this course of action because this is how teacher certification departments handle PRAXIS scores in many other states. Having PRAXIS scores accepted both by the State's teacher certification department and local school divisions would enhance the recruitment and certification of Virginia's teachers. Adopting the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools standards (SACS 2005 Accrediting Standard 6,4) that permit schools to have under filled or overflowing classes taught by teachers outside their degree field or certification area. At the secondary level, schools are often required to adjust staff numbers due to varying enrollments and the inconsistency of student populations choosing various elective subject areas. Currently, Virginia does not have a contingency for such circumstances. The standard set forth by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools states that "Professional personnel who do not hold the required degree or have not earned the specified credits must be actively enrolled in a program that leads to meeting the requirement within three years. Active enrollment means earning at least six semester hours of credit per academic year." Adopting such a measure would allow Virginia to preserve the school division's Program of Studies and increase student scheduling flexibility. At the same time, the school district would be able to utilize the skills of experienced teachers by permitting them to work in an area that may have been a college minor area of study. This would significantly improve flexibility in a school's ability to meet the demands of a wide range of student populations and their individual interests. It also would ensure that the Virginia Standards of Accreditation for pupil-teacher ratios are effectively maintained. Salaries The Roanoke City School Board supports: · Providing competitive salaries and benefits that promote the recruitment and retention of quality education employees. · Eliminating the use of the linear estimator in computing the average teacher salary. The estimator under-represents average salaries by weighing. · Reducing the lag time between the years for which historical data is obtained and the year for which state funding is distributed in order to avoid a serious understatement of prevailing wages. Currently, the lag time may be as much as three to four years, depending on which year of a Biennium the funding is distributed. Medicaid Reimbursement The Roanoke City School Board supports reducing the percentage that the Virginia Department of Medical Assistance (DMAS) retains from the Medicaid reimbursements to school divisions. Currently, DMAS retains 50% of Medicaid reimbursements. Discipline of Public School Students · Suspension, Expulsion, and Exclusion Procedures - The Roanoke City School Board opposed any legislation that would amend the Code of Virginia to infringe on the discretion of the School Board in matters pertaining to student suspension, expulsion, and exclusion procedures. · Local school boards are the most knowledgeable about specific student disciplinary cases and what is required to maintain a safe educational environment in which students demonstrate appropriate behavior and personal accountability. Standards of Quali ,ty (SOQ) Revisions The Roanoke City School Board supports: · Funding the Standards of Quality (SOQ) that address the remaining JLARC Tier 2 recommendations requiring: · :' One full-time principal in each elementary school- Elementary schools would be provided with the same staffing levels for principals as is required for middle and high schools. · ~. One full-time assistant principal for each 400 students in each school - The discrepancy between SOQ requirements and actual staffing practices would be addressed. · :. Revising the funding formula for the SOQ prevention, intervention, and remediation program - K-12 students identified as needing services would receive one hour of additional instruction per day. · :' Requiring one full-time instructional position for each 1,000 students to serve as the reading specialist - Appropriate interventions would be provided for those students experiencing difficulty with reading so that deficiencies can be prevented or ameliorated. Re-benchmarking the following SOQ data: · :' Fringe benefit rates for instructional and professional staff · :- Inflation factors o.'- Estimates of sales tax · :. Composite index · :' Prevailing costs for textbooks, nurse, transportation, school boards, and superintendents. No Child Left Behind The Roanoke City School Board supports accountability for its public schools. However, the Board requests that: · Full funding be provided by Congress to help districts and states implement No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. · Local school board be afforded some flexibility and that the administrative and fiscal burdens associated with the implementation of the NCLB be minimized. · The State reconciles the dual federal and state accountability systems. Currently, the requirements for academic success in one system do not equate to the requirements of the other. 7 · Alternative routes to licensure or other innovative staffing programs should not be undermined in order to address the NCLB goal of providing a "highly qualified" teacher in every classroom. · Schools, divisions or states be counted as not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and subject to sanction only if the same student subgroup misses achievement benchmarks in the same subject for two or more consecutive years. Currently, not achieving benchmarks in the same subject by any subgroup is sufficient cause for a school to be counted as having not met AYP, even if the specific subgroup missing the benchmark has changed from year to year. · Greater flexibility be given to states and school divisions regarding how to assess LEP and students with disabilities in order to ensure that such assessment fairly, accurately, and meaningfully measures student achievement. A uniform standard does not take into consideration differences in how long it might take different students to learn the same type of information. · The policy of counting the test scores of a single student who qualifies in multiple subgroups as a member of each of those subgroups be adjusted in order to address the disproportionate impact these students may have on achieving AYP. · NCLB be modified so that there is a difference in the sanctions for those schools that do not achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as a result of failure in one category or subgroup and for those schools that do not achieve AYP as a result of failure in multiple categories or subgroups. · Public school choice and supplemental services be provided only to those students who fail to achieve NCLB requirements. This would enable choice and services to be focused solely on those students within the subgroups who are most in need of additional resources. Transportation and Technology Fundin? Roanoke City School Board urges the state to provide a regular funding source for the provision and maintenance of transportation, technology and infrastructure in public schools. School Safety Roanoke City School Board believes that safety is critical in public schools and at school activities and therefore supports legislation that encourages and facilitates a safe and productive environment in all schools. Roanoke City School Board urges the continuation of grants and enhanced funding for School Resource and Dare Officers and other school safety programs and initiatives. 8 CITY.OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon, CMC Deputy City Clerk November 28, 2005 Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk File #467 Jesse A. Hall Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Hall: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 37257-112105 appropriating funds for the 2005-2006 Title II, Part A Program, Teaching American History Grant, and 2005- 2006 Race to GED Program, and amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 School Fund Appropriations. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. MFP:ew Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Attachment Jesse A. Hall November 28, 2005 Page 2 pc: Kathy G. Stockburger, Chair, Roanoke City School Board, 2506 Cornwallis Avenue, $. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Cindy H. Lee, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board, P. O. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031 Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget the 2005-2006 School Fund Appropriations be, reordained to read and provide as follows: IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 21st day of November, 2005. No. 37257-112105. AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the 2005-2006 Title II, Part A Program, Teaching American History Grant, and 2005-2006 Race to GED Program, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 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 and the same are hereby, amended and Appropriations Teachers Field Coordinator Teacher Workshops Social Security Indirect Costs Contracted Services Travel Conference Expenses Memberships Research Funds Administrative Costs Contracted Services - State Agencies GED Examiners Social Security Testing Fee Tuition Supplies Revenues Federal Grant Receipts Federal Grant Receipts State Grant Receipts 030-061-6270-6000-0121 030-062-6341-6312-0121 030-062-6341-6312-0129 030-062-6341-6312-0201 030-062-6341-6312-0212 030-062-6341-6312-0313 030-062-6341-6312-0551 030-062-6341-6312-0554 030-062-6341-6312-0581 030-062-6341-6312-0587 030-062-6341-6312-0601 030-062-6341-6312-0385 030-062-6792-6550-0121 030-062-6792-6550-0201 030-062-6792-6550-0382 030-062-6792-6550-0614 030-061-6270-1102 030-062-6341-1102 030-062-6792-1100 28,096 54,000 184,000 4,131 1,053 76,500 30,000 47,585 6,504 20,000 30,000 539,287 4,400 334 6,525 891 28,096 993,060 12,150 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 School Board P.O. Box 13145, Roanoke VA 24031 · 540-853-2381 · FAX 540-853-2951 Kathy G. Stockburge~ Cha~ David B. Trinkle, N.D., Vide Chair Jason E. Bingham David B. Carson William H. Lindsey Alvin L. Nash Courtney A. Penn Marvin ~ Thompson, Supe~ntendent Cindy H. Lee, Clerk of the Board November 21, 2005 The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, 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 November 8, the Board respectfully requests City Council to appropriate the following funds: $28,096.00 for the 2005-06 Title IT, Part A (formerly Class Size Reduction Tnitiative and Eisenhower) to provide funds for the placement of classroom teachers in grades one through three throughout the district to reduce class size and to provide funds for teacher and principal training. This continuing program will be reimbursed one hundred percent by federal funds. $993,060.00 for the Teaching American History Grant. The program will raise student achievement by improving teachers' knowledge, understanding and appreciation of American History. The Schools will work cooperatively with the Center for Liberal Arts and the Virginia Center for Digital History at the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech to provide training to participants. This new program will be one hundred percent reimbursed by federal funds. Members of Council Page 2 November 9, 2005 $12,150.00 for the 2005-06 Race to GED Fast Track program. The funds will provide supplies, tuition, and instructors to increase the participation in the GED examinations. This continuing program will be one hundred percent reimbursed by State funds. The School Board thanks you for your approval of the appropriation requests. re Sincerely, 'nd~~H. 'ee, Clerk CC.' Mrs. Kathy G. Stockburger Mr. Marvin T. Thompson Mr. Bernard 3. Godek Mr. Kenneth F. Mundy Mrs. Darlene Burcham Mr. William M. Hackworth Mr. Jesse A. Hall Mr. Paul Workman (with accounting details) JESSE A. HALL Director of Finance email: j ess¢_hall~cl.roanoke.va us November 2], 2005 CITY OF ROANOKE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 461 P.O. Box 1220 Roanoke, Virginia 24006-1220 Telephone: (540) 853-28:21 Fax: (540) 853-6142 ANN H. SHAWVER Depuly Director email: ann_shawver~ci.roanoke va us Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council: SUBJECT: School Board Appropriation Request As a result of official School Board action at its meeting on November 8, the Board has requested City Council to appropriate the following funds: · $28,096 for the 2005-06 Title II Program, Part A (formerly Class Size Reduction Initiative and Eisenhower). This program provides funds for the placement of classroom teachers in grades one through three throughout the district to reduce class size and also provides funds for teacher and principal training. This continuing program will be reimbursed one hundred percent by federal funds. · $993,060 for the Teaching American History Grant. This program will raise student achievement by improving teachers' knowledge, understanding and appreciation of American History. The Schools will work cooperatively with the Center for Liberal Arts and the Virginia Center for Digital History at the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech to provide training to participants. This new program will be one hundred percent reimbursed by federal funds. · $12,150 for the 2005-06 Race to GED Fast Track program. These funds will provide supplies, tuition, and instructors to increase participation in GED examinations. This continuing program will be 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. Director of Finance C: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Sherman M. Stovall, Director of Management and Budget Marvin T. Thompson, Superintendent of City Schools IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 21st day of November, 2005. No. 37240-112105. A RESOLUTIONnamingNicholas F. Taubmanas Roanoke's Citizen ofthe Year forthe year2005. WHEREAS, Mr. Taubman is a graduate of Mercersburg Academy in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania; WHEREAS, Mr. Taubman received his Bachelor of Science in Economics from the Wharton School of Finance & Commerce and the University of Pennsylvania; WHEREAS, Mr. Taubman, is a lifelong Roanoker; WHEREAS, Mr. Taubman has contributed significant energies to many cultural, educational and governmental organizations in the City and has a long history of political and charitable involvement in the Roanoke Valley; WHEREAS, over the years, in addition to fulfilling the difficult demands of nmning a Fortune 500 company based in the Roanoke Valley, Mr. Taubman has been instrumental in supporting the City and served as a member of City Council from November 26, 1975 to June 30, 1978; WHEREAS, Mr. Taubman has served as a member of the Board of Directors of the Roanoke Central YMCA, Junior Achievement, Virginia College Fund, Blue Ridge Mountains Council - American Boy Scouts, Greenvale Nursery, Dominion Bankshares, Roanoke Valley Industries, Roanoke Merchants Association, Roanoke Symphony Orchestra and at present serves as a member of the Board of Directors of Advance Auto Parts and Shenandoah Life Insurance Company. He serves on the Board of Regents of the Mercersburg Academy, Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. He is a member of the Temple Emanuel and World President's Organization and is a Trustee of the Virginia Historical Society; and WHEREAS, Mr. Taubman has been nominated to be the next U. S. ambassador to Romania and if confn'med by the Senate, Mr. Tanbman will move to Bucharest and serve for approximately three years. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that Nicholas F. Taubman be named Citizen of the Year for the year 2005 in the City of Roanoke, Virginia. ATTEST: City Clerk K:XRESOLUTIONSXRESOLUTIONSLR_Taubman. City of 2005.doc MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, V~ginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540) 853-2541 Fax: (540) 853-1145 E-mail: derk@ci.roanoke.va.us- December 22, 2005 File #79 STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant City Clerk The Honorable Sherman A. Holland Commissioner of the Revenue Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Powers and Mr. Holland: The Honorable Evelyn W. Powers City Treasurer Roanoke, Virginia I am attaching an executed copy of Ordinance No. 37258-112105 exempting from real estate taxation certain property owned by the Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., located in the City of Roanoke, identified as Official Tax No. 2762101, located at 3716 Melrose Avenue, N. W. If you have questions, please feel free to call me With kindest regards, I am MFP:ew Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Enclosure pc: Eileen G. Lepro, Executive Director, Kuumba Community Development & Wellness Center, P. O. Box 6097, Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation Vickie Tregubov, Budget Management Analyst, Office of Management and Budget L:~CLERK~DATA\CKEWI \Tax Exempt~Kuumba letter.doc IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 215t day of November, 2005. No. 37258-112105. AN ORDINANCE exempting from real estate taxation certain property of the Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., located in the City of Roanoke, an organization devoted exclusively to charitable or benevolent purposes on a non-profit basis; providing for an effective date; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. WHEREAS, the Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., (hereinafter "the Applicant"), has petitioned this Council to exempt certain real property of the Applicant from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia; WHEREAS, a public hearing at which all citizens had an opportunity to be heard with respect to the Applicant's petition was held by Council on November 21, 2005; WHEREAS, the provisions of subsection B of Section 58.1-3651, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, have been examined and considered by the Council; WHEREAS, the Applicant agrees that the real property to be exempt from taxation is certain real estate, including the land and any building located thereon, identified by Roanoke City Tax Map No. 2762101, commonly known as 3716 Melrose Avenue, N.W., (the Property"), and owned by the Applicant, and providing that the Property shall be used by the Applicant exclusively for charitable or benevolent purposes on a non-profit basis; and WHEREAS, in consideration of Council's adoption of this Ordinance, the Applicant has voluntarily agreed to pay each year a service charge in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the City of Roanoke's real estate tax levy, which would be applicable to the Property were the Property not exempt from such taxation, for so long as the Property is exempted from such taxation; THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Council classifies and designates the Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., as a charitable or benevolent organization within the context of Section 6(a)(6) of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia, and hereby exempts from real estate taxation certain real estate, including the land and any building located thereon, identified by Roanoke City Tax Map No. 2762101, commonly known as 3716 Melrose Avenue, N.W., and owned by the Applicant, which property is used exclusively for charitable or benevolent purposes on a non-profit basis; continuance of this exemption shall be contingent on the continued use of the property in accordance with the purposes which the Applicant has designated in this Ordinance. 2. In consideration of Council's adoption of this Ordinance, the Applicant agrees to pay to the City of Roanoke on or before October 5 of each year a service charge in an amount equal to twenty (20%) percent of the City of Roanoke's real estate tax levy which would be applicable to the Property, were the Property not exempt from such taxation, for so long as the Property is exempted from such taxation. 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on January 1,2006, if by such time a copy, duly executed by an authorized officer of the Applicant, has been filed with the City Clerk. 4. The City Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this Ordinance, after it is properly executed by the Applicant, to the Commissioner of the Revenue and the City Treasurer for purposes of assessment and collection, respectively, of the service charge established by this Ordinance, and to Eileen G. Lepro, Executive Director of the Kuumba Community Development & Wellness Center. 5. Pursuant to Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: City Clerk. ACCEPTED, AGREE.,D.~,TO AND EXECUTED by the Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., this lc~ day of [~cCe~.kOti~~ ., 2005. THE KUUMBA COMMUNITY HEALTH & WELLNESS CENTER, INC. By <~~ , (SEAL) ._ MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, V'u~ginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540) 853-2541 Fax: (540) 853-1145 E-mail: clerk @ ci.roanoke.va.us STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant City Clerk N6vember 28, 2005 File #79 Eileen G. Lepro, Executive Director Kuumba Community Health and Wellness Center P. O. Box 6097 Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Dear Ms. Lepro: I am enclosing two certified copies of Ordinance No. 37258-112105 exempting from real estate taxation certain property located at 3716 Melrose Avenue, N. W., Official Tax No. 2762101, owned by Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., an organization devoted exclusively to charitable or benevolent purposes on a non-profit basis, effective January 1, 2006, if by such time, a copy, duly executed by an authorized Officer of the Applicant has been filed with the City Clerk. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005. Sincerely,~%.~ ~' {/~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew Enclosure pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation Vickie Tregubov, Budget Management Analyst, Office of Management and Budget IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 21st day of November, 2005. No. 37258-112105. AN ORDINANCE exempting from real estate taxation certain property of the Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., located in the City of Roanoke, an organization devoted exclusively to charitable or benevolent purposes on a non-profit basis; providing for an effective date; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. WHEREAS, the Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., (hereinafter '~he Applicant"), has petitioned this Council to exempt certain real property of the Applicant from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia; WHEREAS, a public heating at which all citizens had an opportunity to be heard with respect to the Applicant's petition was held by Council on November 21, 2005; WHEREAS, the provisions of subsection B of Section 58.1-3651, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, have been examined and considered by the Council; WHEREAS, the Applicant agrees that the real property to be exempt from taxation is certain real estate, including the land and any building located thereon, identified by Roanoke City Tax Map No. 2762101, commonly known as 3716 Melrose Avenue, N.W., (the Property"), and owned by the Applicant, and providing that the Property shall be used by the Applicant exclusively for charitable or benevolent purposes on a non-profit basis; and WHEREAS, in consideration of Council's adoption of this Ordinance, the Applicant has voluntarily agreed to pay each year a service charge in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the City of Roanoke's real estate tax levy, which would be applicable to the Property were the Property not exempt from such taxation, for so long as the Property is exempted from such taxation; THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Council classifies and designates the Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., as a charitable or benevolent organization within the context of Section 6(a)(6) of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia, and hereby exempts from real estate taxation certain real estate, including the land and any building located thereon, identified by Roanoke City Tax Map No. 2762101, commonly known as 3716 Melrose Avenue, N.W., and owned by the Applicant, which property is used exclusively for charitable or benevolent purposes on a non-profit basis; continuance of this exemption shall be contingent on the continued use of the property in accordance with the purposes which the Applicant has designated in this Ordinance. 2. In consideration of Council's adoption of this Ordinance, the Applicant agrees to pay to the City of Roanoke on or before October 5 of each year a service charge in an amount equal to twenty (20%) percent of the City of Roanoke's real estate tax levy which would be applicable to the Property, were the Property not exempt from such taxation, for so long as the Property is exempted from such taxation. 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on January 1, 2006, if by such time a copy, duly executed by an authorized officer of the Applicant, has been filed with the City Clerk. 4. The City Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this Ordinance, after it is properly executed by the Applicant, to the Commissioner of the Revenue and the City Treasurer for purposes of assessment and collection, respectively, of the service charge established by this Ordinance, and to Eileen G. Lepro, Executive Director of the Kuumba Community Development & Wellness Center. 5. Pursuant to Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: City Clerk. ACCEPTED, AGREED TO AND EXECUTED by the Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., this day of ,2005. THE KUUMBA COMMUNITY HEALTH & WELLNESS CENTER, INC. By (SEAL) Executive Director 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 City Web: www.roanokeva,gov November 21, 2005 Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Honorable, Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member Honorable, Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council: Subject: Tax Exemption Request from the Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc. Background: The Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc. recently purchased the property known as Tax Map #2762101, located at 3716 Melrose Avenue, NW, Roanoke from the YMCA of Roanoke Valley. Kuumba's current facility is a leased modular unit, which they received exemption from paying personal property taxes on the facility effective May 9, 2001. Plans are to construct a new, larger facility on the premises within the next year. The primary purpose of the Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc. is to deliver primary health care that is affordable, high-quality, comprehensive in scope, and culturally sensitive to the citizens of Roanoke. Kuumba offers family medical care to all ages, with no restrictions on place of residence, income or insurance status. Annual taxes due for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 on the parcel noted above are $1,595 on an assessed value of $131,800. Considerations: On May 19, 2003, City Council approved a revised policy and procedure in connection with requests from non-profit organizations for tax exemption of certain property in the City by Resolution 36331-051903, adopting the revised Honorable Mayor and Members of Council November 21,2005 Page 2 Process for Determination of Property Tax Exemption dated May 19, 2003, with an effective date of January 1,2003. The Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc. has provided the necessary information required as a result of the adjustments made to our revised local policy prior to October 15, 2005, the deadline for applications for exemptions that would take effect January 1,2006. According to the Office of the Commissioner of the Revenue, the loss of revenue to the City will be $1,276 annually after a twenty percent service charge is levied by the City in lieu of real estate taxes. This service charge will be $319. Commissioner of the Revenue, Sherman Holland, has determined the organization is currently not exempt from paying real estate taxes on the property known as Tax Map # 2762101 by classification or designation under the Code of Virginia. The IRS recognizes it as a 501(c) 3 tax-exempt organization. Notification of a public hearing to be held November 21, 2005, was duly advertised in the Roanoke Times. Recommended Action: Authorize the Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc. exemption from real estate property taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6 (a) 6 of the Constitution of Virginia, effective January 1, 2006, for the property known as Tax Map #2762101, located at 3716 Melrose Avenue, NW, Roanoke, if the organization agrees to pay the subject service charge by that date. City Manager DLB/vst Attachment C: Honorable Sherman A. Holland, Commissioner of the Revenue Honorable Evelyn W. Powers, City Treasurer Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Susan S. Lower, Director of Real Estate Valuation Honorable Mayor and Members of Council November 21, 2005 Page 3 R. Brian Townsend, Director of Planning, Building, and Economic Development Sherman M. Stovall, Director of Management and Budget Eileen G. Lepro, Executive Director, Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center Inc., 3716 Melrose Avenue, NW, Roanoke, irginia24017 CM05-001 60 MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Vhginia 24011 - 1536 Telephone: (540) 853-2541 Fax: (540) 853-1145 E-mail: clerk @ ci.roanoke.va.us November 2, 2005 STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant City Clerk File #79 Eileen G. Lepro, Executive Director Kuumba Community Health and Wellness Center P. O. Box 6097 Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Dear Ms. Lepro: Pursuant to instructions by Council, a public hearing has been advertised for Monday, November 21, 2005, 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 Kuumba Community Health and Wellness Center, for designation of real property identified as Official Tax No. 2762101, located at 3716 Melrose Avenue, N. W., to be exempted from taxation. It will be necessary for you, or your representative, to be present at the November 21 public hearing. Failure to appear could result in a deferral of the public hearing until a later date. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager The Honorable Sherman A. Holland, Commissioner of the Revenue Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation Vickie Tregubov, Budget Management Analyst, Office of Management and Budget CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk October 11, 2005 Stephanie Mo Moon, CMC Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Monday, May 19, 2003, Resolution No. 36331-051903 was adopted with regard to a new policy and procedure for processing requests from non-profit organizations to have property exempted from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6), of the Constitution of Virginia, and repealing Resolution No. 36148-120202, adopted on December 2, 2002. I am attaching copy of a petition, which was filed in the City Clerk's Office on October 10, 2005, by Kuumba Community Health and Wellness Center, a Virginia, non-stock, not-for- profit corporation, requesting exemption from taxation of real property located at 3716 Melrose Avenue, N. W., identified as Official Tax No. 2762101, pursuant to Section 30-19.04(B), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Petitions forwarded by the City Clerk to the City Manager by Apdl 15 for evaluation and recommendation to City Council will have an effective date of July 1st. Petitions forwarded by October 15th will have an effective date of January 1st. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew Attachment Dadene L. Burnham October 11, 2005 Page 2 pc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council The Honorable Sherman A. Holland, Commissioner of the Revenue William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Eileen G. Lepro, Executive Director, Kuumba Community Health and Wellness Center, 3716 Melrose Avenue, N. W., P. O. Box 6097, Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation Vickie Tregubov, Budget Management Analyst, Office of Management and Budget VIRGINIA: IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE RE: PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE X, SECTION 6(a)(6) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: la. Your Petitioner, ~(~Lk~,~x~o. (©v,~mk)[~.,~:vx ~cCL\k\,. a Virginia, non-stock, not for profit co~omtio~ owns ceaain real prope~, located at ~q ~ ~ ~kCkTo~ ~e~v~in the Ci~ of Roanoke, Virginia, which prope~ is Ci~ of Roanoke Tax Map ID ~7~iQ~with a total assessed value of $ ~ ~ and a total of $ ~ ~ ~ ~ in real pmpe~y taxes ~at were paid or would have been paid in the most recent ye~, desires to be an org~ization designated pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 58.1-3651, of ~e Code of Virginia, as amended, in order that the referenced real prope~y, to be used exclusively for chahmble and b~nevolent pu~oses in , . be ~x~mpt from taxation under ~ provisions of Article X, Section 6 (a)(6) of th~ Constitution of Virginia so long as your P~fition~r is operated not for profit and ~e prop~ so exempted is used in accordance wi~ the pu~os~ for which th~ E~tition~ is classified. lb. (if requesting exemption for personal property, complete section l.b) Your Petitioner, , a Virginia, non-stock, not for profit corporat n owns certain personal property, located at in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, with a total assessed value orS and a total of $ in personal property taxes that were paid or would have been paid in the most recent year, desires to be an organization designated pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 58.1-3651, of the Code of Virginia, as amended, in order that the referenced personal property, to be used exclusively for charitable and benevolent purposes in (Describe proposed use of personal property, if applicable.) be exempt from taxation under the provisions of Article X, Section 6 (a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia so long as your Petitioner is operated not for profit and the property so exempted is used in accordance with the purpose for which the Petitioner is classified. 2. Your Petitioner agrees to pay to the City of Roanoke, an annual service charge in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the City of Roanoke tax levy, which would be applicable to this real estate, were our organization not be tax exempt, for as long as this exemption continues. 3. Your Petitioner, if located within a service district, agrees to pay to the City of Roanoke an annual service charge equal to the additional service district tax that would be levied for as long as this exemption continues. 4. Your Petitioner agrees to provide information to the Director of Real Estate Valuation upon request to allow a triennial review of the tax exempt status of your Petitioner. The following questions are submitted for consideration: (Q): Whether the organization is exempt from taxation pursuant to Section 501 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. (A): Your Petitioner was granted exemption from taxation pursuant to Section 501 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 on (Q): Whether a current alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic beverages has been issued by the Alcohol Beverage Control Board to such organization for use on such property. (A): (Q): Whether any director, officer or employee of the organization has been paid compensation in excess of a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation tbr personal services which such director, officer or employee actually renders. (A): (Q): Whether any part of the net earnings of such organization inures to the benefit of any individual, and whether any significant portion of the service provided by such organization is generated by funds received from donations, contributions or, local, state or federal grants. As used in this subsection, donations shall include the providing of personal services or the contribution of in-kind or other material services. (A): ~D (Q): Whether the organization provides services for the common good of the public. (A): Your Petitioner provides services for the common good of the public in as much as it _ .(Describe the public service9 (Q): Whether a substantial part of the activities of the organization involves carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation and whether the organization participates in, or intervenes in, any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. (A): (Q): Whether any role, regulation, policy or practice of the organization discriminates on the basis of religious conviction, r~ce, color, sex or national origin. (A): (Q): Whether there is a significant revenue impact to the locality and, i,[s taxpayers of exempting the property. (A): Note: (Q): Any other criteria, facts and circumstances, which the governing body deems pertinent to the adoption of such ordinance. (A): ~¢-~1 P', (Provide as necessary). A copy of this Petition is being delivered this day to the City Manager of the City of Roanoke, Virginia. THEREFORE, your Petitioner, ~x~v,~d~ respectfully requests to the Council of the City of Roanokea that this real or personal property, or both, of your Petitioner be designated exempt from taxation so long as your Petitioner is operated not for profit and the pro~perty so exempt is used for the particular purposes of providing (Repeat proposed use of property). Respectfully submitting this \ (~PUday C'~ r, 2005. By.~ ~Z~ -(/x (~%~ _t2~'~-) Pre-'s'tdent ~.~J 4 ~ & ~et~ess Ce~ter 3716 Me!rose Ave. N'~- PO Box 6097 Roanoke.'~A 240;7 540-362-0360 * Fax: 362-5378 E mail: adn~in®kuumbachc.co~v October 3, 2005 Mr. Sherman Holland Commissioner of the Revenue City of Roanoke 215 Church Avenue, Room 251 Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear Mr. Holland, I am writing on behalf of Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center to request your consideration of our clinic's exemption from paying real estate taxes for the property we recently purchased at 3716 Melrose Avenue. The clinic is currently located on this property, heretofore having leased it from the YMCA of Roanoke Valley. Plans are to construct a new, larger facility on the premises within the next year. Kuumba's current facility is a leased modular unit, and we were fortunate to receive exemption from paying personal property taxes on the facility, effective May 9, 2001. Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center is a 501 (c) 3 charitable organization, described as a federally qualified health center (FQHC). Our mission is to increase access to affordable, high quality, comprehensive and preventive health care that is culturally sensitive for the citizens of the Roanoke area. More than 50% of our clients have no health insurance, and 90% have incomes at or below 200% of poverty. Kuumba offers family medical care to all ages, with no restrictions on place of residence, insurance status, or income. Patients who qualify for discounts pay on a sliding fee basis. Services includes but is not limited to, physical exams, diagnosis and treatment of disease or disability, immunizations, pharmacy assistance, laboratory testing, and mental health therapy. The budget for Kuumba is covered by a variety of grant funding, third party insurance reimbursements (primarily Medicaid and Medicare), patient co~payments, and donations. I understand that there is a deadline of October 15 to petition City Council for this exemption request, if we are not already classified. Please advise me as to whether Kuumba currently meets the criteria for exemption from real estate taxes. I would appreciate this decision as soon as possible, so that I can prepare the petition by the stated deadline, if necessary. If you need further information, please feel free to contact my office at (540) 345-1415. ni~een G. Lento, Executive Director 16:18 RKE CITY CCI~ gl:: 154FJ85-J1115 P.02 CORONER OF ~ REVENUE CITY OF BDANOa~ Exeemive Di~ Kuumbn C_.mnmun~y He~h & W~nn~s Center 3716 Melmse A~... NW ~ VA 7.~017 RE: Ta~t MspNo. 276~101 3716 ~ A~., ~ Sin~tely, 215CInnthmSW, It~nmn 2~! . ~~ The Roanoke Times Roanoke, Virginia Affidavit of Publication The Roanoke Times MARY F. PARKER CITY OF ROANOKE CLERK'S OFFICE 215 CHURCH AVE SW RM 456 NOEL C. TAYLOR MUNICIPAL BLDG. ROANOKE gA 24011 REFERENCE: 32143302 08561429 NOTICEOFPUBLICHEARIN 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 VirqiDia. Sworn and subscribed before me this ~J'%day of November 2005. Witness my hand and ~f ~c/~,~--/---- seal. PUBLISHED ON: 11/1! TOTAL COST: FILED ON: 168.36 ll/11/os NOTIC~ eF PUBLI~ IIEMIN~ Ma~/~;. ~d<er, City Clerk. (8~1429) Authorized Signature: Billing Services Representative NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a public heating at its regular meeting to be held on November 21, 2005, commencing at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 4th Floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia on the question of adoption of an ordinance pursuant to {}58.1-3651, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, approving the request of the Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., for designation of its real property, identified as Official Tax No. 2762101, and located at 3716 Melrose Avenue, N.W., to be exempted from taxation. The total assessed value of the applicant's real estate for tax year 2005/2006 is $131,800, with a total real estate tax assessment of $1,594.78 for the 2005/2006 tax year. The loss of revenue will be $1,275.82 annually after a 20% service charge is levied in lieu of real estate taxes. Citizens shall have the opportunity to be heard and express their opinions on this matter. 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, November 17, 2005. GIVEN under my hand this lstdayof IXlovamber ,2005. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. K:/NOTICES/N-TAXEXEMPT KUUMBA WELLNESS 112105 DOC Notice to Publisher: Publish in the Roanoke Times once on Friday, November 11, 2005. 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 Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a public hearing at its regular meeting to be held on November 21, 2005, commencing at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 4th Floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia on the question of adoption of an ordinance pursuant to {}58.1-3651, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, approving the request of the Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., for designation of its real property, identified as Official Tax No. 2762101, and located at 3716 Melrose Avenue, N.W., to be exempted from taxation. The total assessed value of the applicant's real estate for tax year 2005/2006 is $131,800, with a total real estate tax assessment of $1,594.78 for the 2005/2006 tax year. The loss of revenue will be $1,275.82 annually after a 20% service charge is levied in lieu of real estate taxes. Citizens shall have the opportunity to be heard and express their opinions on this matter. 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, November 17, 2005. G1VEN nnder my hand this 1st dayof November , 2005. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. Notice to Publisher: Publish in the Roanoke Times once on Friday, November 11, 2005. Send bill and affidavit to: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (540) 853-2541 MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540) 853-2541 Fax: (540) 853-1145 E-mail: ~lerk c~ ci.roanoke.va.us November 28, 2005 STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant City Clerk File #165 Richard A. Rife, Chair and Members of the City Planning Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear Chairman Rife, Ms. Prince and Gentlemen: I am enclosing copyofOrdinance No. 37259-112105, approving the Garden City Neighborhood Plan, and amending Vision 2001 - 2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan to include the Garden City Neighborhood Plan. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, November 21, 2005, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. Since_rely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew Enclosure pc: Robert A. Clement, Jr., Neighborhood Services Coordinator, Neighborhood Partnership Charles W. Hancock, President, Garden City Civic League, 1016 Estates Road, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Rolanda 8. 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 21st day of November, 2005. No. 37259-112105. AN ORDINANCE approving the Garden City Neighborhood Plan, and amending Vision 2001 - 2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Garden City Neighborhood Plan; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. WHEREAS, the Garden City Neighborhood Plan (the "Plan") was presented to the Planning Commission; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 20, 2005, 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 on the proposed Plan was held before this Council on Monday, November 21, 2005, 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 Garden City Neighborhood Plan and mends Vision 2001- 2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Garden City Neighborhood Plan as an element thereof. 2. That the City Clerk is directed to forthwith transmit attested copies of th/s 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 rifle is hereby dispensed with. City Clerk. 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: planning @ ci.roanoke.va.us November 21,2005 Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council: Subject: Amendment of Vision 2001-2020, the City's comprehensive plan, to include the Garden City Neighborhood Plan. Planning Commission Action: Planning Commission public hearing was held on Thursday, October 20, 2005 and by a vote of 7-0, the Commission recommended that City Council approve the amendment of Vision 2001-2020 to include the Garden City Neighborhood Plan. Background: The Garden City neighborhood was annexed into the City in 1949. It is bound by Mill Mountain and Riverland Road to the north, Yellow Mountain Road and the Blue Ridge Parkway to the west, and Roanoke County to the south and east. It is a neighborhood geographically isolated from the rest of Roanoke as it lies in a valley between several mountains, and is shielded from the City behind Mill Mountain. The layout of the streets and the development pattern of the housing are overwhelmingly suburban in nature. Garden City historically has lacked industry and today there are only a few small commercial establishments concentrated in a few areas on Garden City Boulevard. Rockydale Quarries is located at the southern edge of the neighborhood at the end of Welcome Valley Road. The former American Viscose Plant in the Roanoke Industrial Center lies across the Roanoke River. It spurred the neighborhood's growth and was the area's major employer until it closed in 1958. The neighborhood's setting provides residents with a peaceful quality of life by and large undisturbed by the growth outside its borders. Two workshops were held in the fall of 2004 to gather information and input from citizens. One final workshop was held in September 2005 to present a draft copy of the plan. Considerations: During the workshops several positive features of the area were cited that need to be maintained: · Homes and infrastructure in very good condition · Healthy mix of owner and renter occupied homes · The surrounding mountains are relatively undisturbed and provide a scenic atmosphere Staff noted the following issues in the plan that need to be addressed: Residential Development · Controlling residential densities with appropriate zoning patterns. Appropriate development of vacant land. Infrastructure Pedestrian access to Garden City Boulevard Traffic control at the intersection of Riverland Road/Bennington Street · Flood prone properties Lack of public sewer service in some areas. To address these issues, the plan features five priority recommendations: · Change zoning patterns to better reflect the residential density patterns of the neighborhood and provide for a series of village center nodes along Garden City Boulevard. Preserve Mill Mountain, Roanoke Mountain, and other natural resources in the Neighborhood. Storm Water Management o Complete the Capital Improvement Projects for the Garden City Flood Reduction Plan. This is the highest priority of this plan. o Complete the segment of the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project between 9th Street, SE and the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Completion of this podion of the project should significantly reduce flooding along Garnard Branch and Gum Spring. Garden City Boulevard o Improve pedestrian access and design based on the following considerations: · Complete curb, gutter and sidewalk with lighting where physically feasible Add bike lanes and/or a greenway route to connect the Mill Mountain Greenway to the Roanoke River Greenway · Bennington and Riverland Road o Improve the intersection of Bennington Street and Riverland Road Recommendation: The Planning Commission, by a vote of 7-0, recommends approval of the Garden City Neighborhood Plan for adoption as a component of Vision 2001-2020. CC: Respectfully submitted, Richard A. Rife, Chairman ~ ~'~ Roanoke City Planning Commission Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Rolanda Russell, Assistant City Manager Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA This 20th day of October, 2005 A RESOLUTION recommending the adoption of the Garden City Neighborhood Plan as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. WHEREAS, a series of community workshops were held in the Garden City 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 Garden City 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 October 20, 2005, 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 Garden City Neighborhood Plan, dated October 20, 2005, 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. Chairman Garden City NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ROANOKE VIRGINIA Draft plan as recommended by the Planning Commission on October 20, 2005 vision Contents: Introduction Neighborhood Planning History Priority Recommendations Plan Elements Community Design Residential Development Economic Development Infrastructure Public Services Quality of Life Recommendations Implementation Acknowledgements 1 4 5 7 7 8 17 21 23 33 35 38 42 44 Planning Building & Economic Development Introduction The Garden City neighborhood was annexed into the City in 1949. Its boundaries are Mill Mountain and Rivefland Road to the north, Yellow Mountain Road and the Blue Ridge Parkway to the west, and Roanoke County to the south and east. It is a neighborhood geographically isolated from the rest of Roanoke as it lies in a valley between several mountains, and is shielded from the City behind Mill Mountain. The layout of the streets and the development pattern of the housing is overwhehningly suburban. Garden City is primarily a residential com- munity with commercial and institutional uses that serve the surrounding neighborhoods. Rockydale Quarries is located at the southern edge of the neighborhood at the end of Welcome Valley Road. The former American Viscose Plant in the Roanoke Industrial Center lies across the Roanoke River. The plant spurred the neighborhood's growth and was the area's major employer until it closed in 1958. The neighborhood's setting pro- vides residents with a peaceful quality of life largely undisturbed by the growth outside its borders. Page 1 People The origin of the name Garden City is unclear. Ebenezar Howard, an English city planner, popularized the idea of the "garden ci .ty" in the early to mid-1900s. These planned cities emphasized open space, concentric street patterns, and common garden areas. The community's name could have come from this idea indirectly, because there was a "Garden City Farm," located at the intersection of Garden City Boulevard and Yellow Mountain Road. The study area experienced rapid growth between 1990 and 2000. Popu- lation increased 24% and the number of households increased 34%. This stands in sharp contrast to the decrease of population and households for the City as a whole over the same time period. The dominant age group in the area remains the 35-64 year old population and the young popula- tion has become the second largest. The area is becoming more racially diverse. The African American population grew from zero to 143, while the white population also grew by over 17%. The population of other races and multiracial residents fell slightly by 5%. Figure l: Demographic Trends' 1990-2000 Demographic 1990 2000 % Change Population 2403 2981 24% Households 987 1318 34% Race White 2362 2782 l 8% Black or African American alone 0 143 100% Other race/ multi-racial 41 39 -5% Age Distribution 0-17 years old 476 18-34 years old 718 35-64 years old 900 65 years old and over 309 742 56% 677 -6% 1211 35% 351 14% Source: U.S. Census Bureau; 1990 and 2000 Census Page 2 Generally, Garden City has higher household income levels. The area's median household income is $37,559 compared to the City's $30,719 median household income. Figure 2: Household Income Source: U.S. Census Bureau; 2000 Census Income Bracket Percent 0 to $14,999 16% $15,000 to $24,999 16% $25,000 to $34,999 160/0 $35,000 to $49,999 20% $50,000 to $99,999 30% $100,000 + 2% In contrast to incomes, higher education levels in the area are somewhat lower than the average of the City of Roanoke at 18% compared to the citywide average of 25%. The population graduated from high school is equivalent to the City's at 76%. Figure 3: Education Level Attained for Population 25 Years and Above Source: U.S. Census Bureau; 2000 Census Education Level, 25 years and older Bachelors Degree Associates Degree 6% Graduate/Professional 24% Less than high school Some College 20% 38% High School Page 3 Neighborhood Planning In 1985, Roanoke Vision, the City's comprehensive plan, called for the preservation and enhancement of existing neighborhoods and recom- mended that City policies and actions support neighborhood revitalization and preservation. The current comprehensive plan for the city, Vision 2001-2020, continues support for neighborhood-based planning for a livable and sustainable city. Roanoke must work to retain population and improve the livability of its neighborhoods. Staff from the City of Roanoke's Department of Planning Building and Economic Development involved the community in the development of this plan. Planners worked with Garden City residents in 2004 through a series of workshops to identify priorities and issues of concern. Commu- nity input was used to develop the policies and actions in the plan. This plan recommends actions that can be carried out by citizens, the City, neighborhood organizations, as well as policies that are used to guide future decisions. Neighborhood and area plans are official docu- ments that City Council adopts and they become part of the City's com- prehensive plan. These initiatives aro reflected in the policies and actions located in the Recommendations chapter &this document. Page 4 History 1928 Map of Garden City area prior to annexation Branch, the main branch that flowed large farm was subdivided in 1928. Garden City began to develop when the American Viscose Plant (1917-1958) was built to the north of the neighborhood on the bottom- lands of the Roanoke River in the City of Roanoke. The plant was the largest rayon mill in the world and was one of the largest industries in the City, second only to the Nor- folk & Western Railway. The plant employed 4,000 people at its peak, and led to Garden City's first wave of residential growth. Still, up until the post-WWll years, the community remained mostly rural due to its geographic location south of Mill Mountain. Early settlement occurred along Yellow Mountain Road and Hick- ory Road (later Garden City Bou- levard), to the south, along apple orchards, streams, and woods. This area of land was known as Garden City Farm, a large tract of land at the base of Roanoke Mountain, from which Garden City most like- ly derived its name. Yellow Moun- tain Road traversed the property north to south and three branches intersected the road: Dry Branch, Gum Spring Branch, and Gamand north to the Roanoke River. This The northern half of Hickory Road was named Garnand Road, for Wil- liam Dennis Garnand. This area also developed around 1928, particularly with Kefauver Estates and Roanoke Water Works Co., bordering the Roa- noke River and the Franklin Turnpike (Virginia Route 116 today). Large landowners at that time included Garnand and T.E.B. Hartsook. These two families were influential in the early development of Garden Page 5 Garnand House City. The house of William Dennis Gamand (1873-1925) still stands "in the forks of Garden City Boulevard S.E. and Bandy Road S.E." Denoted in a historic family photograph, the 1900, two-story frame house with full-width front porch remains the same. The tall, lanky William Gamand and his wife Mary Turner reared four sons. T.E.B. Hartsook was a prominent real estate dealer of German and Eng- lish descent who moved to Roanoke in 1891 and opened an office on Jef- ferson Street. By1896, he had built the two-story brick Hartsook Building that overlooks Market Square at the southeast comer of Market Street and Campbell Avenue. The building served as his office and residence with his wife and daughter. The History of Roanoke County noted that Mr. Hartsook "purchased a farm of 526 acres, known as the Mill Mountain farm, within 30 minutes' drive of the business center of the city, a portion of which he intends to plant to fruit." Known as the Hartsook Estate, it covered nearly half of the community including some of the eastern slope of Mill Mountain. It is currently a housing development known as Mill Mountain Estates. Most residential development also occurred after the City of Roanoke annexed Garden City in 1949. Coupled with the post WWII economic boom, there is a prominence of 1960s'and 1970s ranch style houses in certain sections of the neighborhood. Early development patterns can be traced as the older houses such as farmhouses, Bungalows, and American Foursquares are found mainly along Garden City Boulevard and Yellow Mountain Road. Modem Ranch styles are located throughout the neigh- borhood as development branched out from these thoroughfares. Most of the current institutional and commercial buildings have remained from the 1950s and the 1960s. The 1950 Garden City Elementary School (recently renovated) along Garden City Boulevard replaced the 1923 Garden City Elementary School that perched on Yellow Mountain Road overlooking Garden City. The former school building now serves as the Garden City Recreation Center. All of the commercial bnildings are relatively small-scale and tend to contain businesses that serve only the immediate neighborhood. Regarding historical resources, there do not appear to be any individual properties or any historic districts eligible for listing on the National Reg- ister of Historic Places in Garden City. However, Garden City and the im- mediate area of the Roanoke River contain numerous documented archae~ ological sites. The most important one is a permanent Native American village that may lie under the Viscose plant known as "Totem Town" that was visited by the Batts & Fallon Expedition in1671. Professional archae- ologists have thoroughly documented and recorded other sites along the bottomlands of the river. Three Native American camps (non-permanent sites) have also been recorded in Garden City. Page 6 High Priority Initiatives The plan proposes five Priority Initiatives: Change zoning patterns to better reflect the residential density pat- terns of the neighborhood and provide for a series of village center nodes along Garden City Boulevard. Preserve Mill Mountain, Roanoke Mountain, and other natural resources in the Neighborhood. Storm Water Management o Complete the Capital Improvement Projects for the Gar- den City Flood Reduction Plan. This is the highest priority of this plan. o Complete the segment of the Roanoke River Flood Reduc- tion Project between 9th Street, SE and the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Completion of this portion of the proj- ect should significantly reduce flooding along Garnard Branch and Gum Spring. Garden City Boulevard o lmprove pedestrian access and design based on the follow- ing considerations: Complete curb, gutter and sidewalk with lighting where physically feasible Addition of bilge lanes and/or a greenway route to connect the Mill Mountain Greenway to the Roanoke River Greenway Bennington and Riverland Road o Improve the intersection of Bennington Street and River- land Road Plan Elements Discussion of this plan is organized into six major Plan Elements: I. Community Design looks at physical design development and land use patterns. 2. Residential Development addresses existing and new housing opportunities. 3. Economic Development deals with commercial and industrial development in the neighborhood. 4. Infrastructure evaluates transportation systems and utility systems. 5. Public Services assesses the critical functions of the Fire/EMS, Police, and other city services. 6. Quality of Life addresses recreational opportunities, environmen- tal issues, education, and community development. Page 7 Community Design Physical Layout The neighborhood is situated in a valley on the southern side of Mill Mountain. A majority of lots have at least a moderate grade. Garnard Branch and Gum Spring Branch are the two most prominen! water fea- tures. Like most neighborhoods that have seen considerable development since World War II, the area has undergone a gradual transition from a rural to a suburban landscape. Suburban development is characterized by an ori- entation to the automobile, wide streets that enable higher traffic speeds, subdivisions of large single-family houses with large front, back, and side yards, and shopping centers and strip commercial establishments with large parking lots in front. While Garden City is not exemplary of all these characteristics, it functions today as a predominantly residential suburban neighborhood. As with most suburban areas, the stree,t system is somewhat discon- nected. Many streets terminate and are not connecting through streets. Most streets do not have curb, gutter, and sidewalk. There as'e several subdivisions in the neighborhood. The largest is Mill Mountain Estates. Developed in the mid-fifties, it consists of over 170 dwellings. The subdivision street pattern is a curvilinear pattern taking advantage of the topography of the hillside. The streets in the subdivision have a 50-foot right of way with approximately 35-feet of pavement width. There are limited connections linking the neighborhood to the rest of the City. Most of the vehicular traffic uses Welcome Valley Road, Yellow Mountain Road, and Riverland Road to access the neighborhood. Wel- come Valley Road is the most direct link for residents to U.S. Route 220 (I-581). Yellow Mountain Road is a narrow road with several tight curves providing a connection to the South Roanoke neighborhood. The road was cited by residents as difficult to drive. Garden City Boulevard is the main arterial street in the neighborhood and most residential areas have a direct connection to this street. In addition, it has the neighborhood's only commercial development. As it is a focal point of Garden City, it is a high priority of this plan. Future improvements to Garden City Boulevard should improve its pedestrian access and attractiveness, while', not hinder- ing its function as an arterial street. Page 8 N -- Garden City Streets ~Mill Mountain ~ Garden City Development has increased since the area was annexed by the City, but the neighborhood has maintained its original character since the bulk of the growth has been residential development of compatible styles. By the time the area was annexed into the City, considerable land had already been developed or subdivided with single-family houses on large lots. The undulating terrain of the neighborhood contributes to the rural char- acter that many residents have cited as one of the greatest attributes of the area. The majority of the residential streets do not have a defined shoul- der, curb, gutter or sidewalk. Drainage ditches are found on many streets as a means of channeling storm water. Several newer subdivisions, such Page 9 as Mill Mountain Estates, have curb and gutter per the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. Most of the older residential streets are narrow, between 20 --25 feet, while more recently developed residential streets are between 30 - 35 feet. Most houses have driveways and parking areas accessible from the street. Otherwise, the street pattern is defined by curvilinear patterns con- toured to the topography of the hillside, with quite a few cul-de-sacs and dead ends. Most of the alleys are 'paper' or unimproved. Figure 4: Existing Garden City Land Use Vacant 50% Single-family % (~ommercial/Ind ustdal 2% Multifamily Page 10 Zoning and Land Use Houses tend to be uniformly set back from the street, but distances vary widely from block to block. A vast majority of the houses in the area are modest and one-story. The most common architectural styles are Ranch, Bungalow and Minimal Traditional. Gamard Branch and Gum Spring Branch, both tributaries of the Roanoke River, have also had an impact on the layout of Garden City's built envi- ronment. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood- plain is located in and around the two streams. In the neighborhood's for- mative years, development in the floodplain was not regulated. However, due to years of recurrent flooding, federal regulations were mandated by Congress to regulate development of any structures within the designated floodplain. Most of the land in Garden City is used for single family dwellings, with scattered two family and multifamily dwellings. Two-family dwellings are found on many streets, but are concentrated along Garden City Bou- levard, Glen Oak Street, Yellow Mountain Road, and Gillette Avenue. There are numerous public and institutional uses in the neighborhood including two churches, an elementary school, a park, community center, and a medical clinic. Them are three nodes of neighborhood-oriented commercial along Gar- den City Boulevard. Most of the commercial development is concentrated in the village center along Garden City Boulevard. Churches, the school, and the community center are located in close proximity to the commer- cial pockets along Garden City Boulevard. The large park in the neigh- borhood is adjacent to the elementary school and commercial activity along Garden City Boulevard. There are a number of vacant parcels in Garden City. Due to the area's residential character, mini streets, rolling topography and recurrent flood- ing, large-scale commercial and industrial development should generally not be undertaken in the neighborhood. Existing commercial properties should generally have neighborhood-commercial designations. New small-scale neighborhood commercial areas may be appropriate in con- junction with residential development. Page 11 The majority of land is zoned RM-1, Residential Multifamily, Low Density. Commercially-zoned properties are located along Garden City Boulevard. Including Mill Mountain, park land accounts for nearly half of the neighborhood's land area, although they are zoned for residential use. The zoning and land use in Garden City can be summarized in three gen- eral categories: An example of mult~family housing in the .eighbor[~ood Various housing O,pes within the neighborhood 1. Residential: Garden City is a predominantly single-family neighbor- hood, though much of it is currently zoned RM-1, which permits single- family residential and allows duplexes by special exception. There are some duplexes scattered through the neighborhood, as well as a small number of apartment buildings. 2. Mixed single and two family residential: These areas are predominant- ly single-family, with two family units in scattered locations. These areas are zoned RM-1, Residential Multifamily, Low Density District. 3. Village Centers: Most commercial development is located along Garden City Boulevard. Mitchell's Auto Repair shop and Bible Baptist Church serve as a small village center at the entrance to Mill Mountain Estates.Abbott's, The Bookkeeper, and Citgo serve as the largest vil- lage center along Garden City Boulevard between Victory Road and Ray Road. Another village center is located at Garden City Boulevard and Yellow Mountain Road. A larger, local village center is located at River- land Road and Garden City Boulevard. Figure 5: Garden City Existing Zoning Commercial and Industrial 4% Neighborhood V~llage Center Multifamily Residential ly Residential Page 12 4. Institutional - Garden City Elementary School, Bible Baptist Church, and Garden City Baptist Church are the only institutional uses in the neighborhood. Garden City Elementary School contains a playground and open field area in which students play. The school's location adjacent to Garden City Park makes the park ideal for student activities. Insti- tutional uses are generally zoned the same as adjacent residential areas. They should be zoned Institutional or Recreation and Open Space, as appropriate. N Existing Zoning The existing zoning does not support the existing land use patterns in the neighborhood. The neighborhood is comprised of predominately single-family dwellings. The future land use plan attempts to preserve the solidly single-family residential areas. Zoning changes are needed to encourage appropriate residential densities and appropriately scaled residential development. Page 13 Existing Land Use N Page 14 Future Land Use Map l Commercial ~ Institutional Single-family Residential l Mixed Density Residential 1 Park and Open Space N One of the goals of the Future Land Use Map is to place higher density residential around the village centers. However, due to the need to evalu- ate relationships between land uses, changes to multifamily zoning should he evaluated on a case-by-case basis through the rezoning process. Page 15 N Garden City Topography Legend rm~ Garden City Neighborhood -- Neighborhood S'=eets Streams Elevation (Feet above MSL) I 2000- 2180 ~ 1900 - 2000 ~1750- 1899 ~ 1600- 1749 ~ 1460- 1599 ~ 1320- 1459 ~ 1170- 1319 1030- 1169 890 - 1029 Page 16 Residential Development The Garden City neighborhood has a median 1950s housing stock with a strong mix of Cottage, Bungalow, and Ranch styles popular during the 1940s and 1950s. Figure 6 on the following page indicates that a majority of housing stock was constructed beginning in the 1940s and after World War I1 until the boom ended after the 1970s. Growth has steadily risen since 1990 as shown in Figure 7 on the follow- ing page. Multifamily and renter occupied housing nearly doubled in the 1990s and housing units increased by 367 units. Page 17 Figure 6: Age of Housing Stock Built 1980 - 2000 Built Pre-1950 Built 1950 - 1979 Figure 7: Demographic Trends 1990 - 2000 Demographic 1990 2000 % Change Population 2403 2981 24% Households 987 1318 34% Race White 2362 2782 18% African American 0 143 100% Other race 41 39 -5% Age Distribution 0-17 years old 476 742 56% 18-34 years old 718 677 -8% 35-64 years old 900 1211 35% 65 years old and over 309 351 14% Source: U.S. Census Bureau; 1990 and 2000 Census Page 18 Residence in Mill Mountain Estates Garden City has a fairly stable housing stock with a mix of old and new structures. Overall, there are few housing maintenance issues in the neighborhood, and homeownership is high among single-family homes. The history of housing construction in Garden City roughly resembles that of the City as a whole, though the neighborhood has a slightly newer housing stock overall. Many were subdivided early but were built out over a longer time span of a few decades. Figure 6 shows that a majority of the housing was constructed beginning in the 1940s and after World War II until development slowed down in the 1980s. Since then, develop- ment has slowed due to less available land, yet maintained a steady pace. The Wellington subdivision off of Yellow Mountain Road features some of the City's newest and highest-valued real estate. Housing construction began there in the late 1990s and is still underway. The development is situated in a wooded area on the side of Mill Mountain. Houses in Wel- lington average over twice the size of those in the rest of Garden City. Aside from Wellington, one-story houses are the norm in Garden City. Despite differences in building styles through different eras, this trend has continued. Rosewalk Lane, off of Mount Pleasant Boulevard, features larger one and one and a half-story homes built over the last eight years, some of which have garages. Older subdivisions such as Garnand, Kefau- ver and Glenwood Estates, all are developed predominantly with one- story strucures. Typical one-story house Residential Development Opportunities There are several tracts of vacant land in the area that have development potential. In many cases lots remain vacant due to the topography and proximity to the 100 year floodplain. Many small lots have steep slopes. Some of these lots also pose geological challenges, such as rock near the surface. Proximity to the floodplain also limits development potential. Development in the floodplain is environmentally hazardous and can be more costly due to regulations that require structures to be elevated higher. Several subdivisions still contain developable vacant land. Deerfield Court off of Mount Pleasant Road is a prime example. It features 16 lots, only one of which has been developed. Most of the lots are well over 10,000 square feet. Stratton Avenue, off of Garden City Boulevard, has 19 vacant parcels. There are also a number of large parcels that could be further subdivided. Some of these appear not to have any major obstacles to limit their devel- opment. V~sion 2001-2020 encourages "housing clusters" on large sites. Page 19 ,4 residence along Craig Robertson Road Housing clusters are market-rate developments that consist of a mixture of single-family, duplex, and townhouses. With most of the City's parcels already developed, vacant or underutilized land is at a premium. New developments need to maximize the use of the land while preserving the natural environment to the extent possible. Cluster development is ideal for large sites as it allows for greater densities while still maintaining us- able open space that benefits all residents. Design features of housing clusters include: Traditional neighborhood design; houses should be oriented close to the street (less than 20 feet) and to each other and parking should be on-street, or to the rear or side of the house. · Traditional neighborhood streets; pavement widths need only be between 22-30 feet, and lined with trees, curb, gutter and side walk. Pavement width should be ! 8-20 feet wide where parking is allowed on one side of the street and 26 feet wide where park ing is allowed on both sides of the street. Green space; approximately 20% of the developmenl should be preserved either as natural forest, a landscaped buffer, a com- mon courtyard, or square. Stormwater management; retention or detention ponds should be incorporated into the development ~without detracting from the aesthetic quality of the natural environment. Several sites could be potential housing cluster developments. The City should consider residential development on these sites, only if a detailed plan were created that conforms to the design guidelines of [Tsion 2001- 2020, the City's comprehensive plan, and the goals of the forthcoming Strategic Housing Plan. Such a plan would be required to maximize the number of units, limit parking and impervious surfaces, and create usable open space. Residential Development issues · Controlling residential densities with appropriate zoning patterns. · Appropriate development of vacant land. Page 20 Economic Development Existing Fi#age Center at Rqv Ro, ad and V~cto~. Street. Commercial development is located along Garden City Boulevard. The area features neighborhood-oriented services such as a laundromat, gas statiom and restaurant. There are shopping centers in close proximity, including two grocery stores on Riverland Road and Bennington Street. Vision 2001-2020 promotes the village center concept - small commer- cial nodes with high-density residential elements as a strategic initia- tive for development in City neighborhoods. FTsion 2001-2020 identifies one village center on the edge of Garden City, yet there are other pockets of commercial development that are essentially village centers as well. Streetscape improvements in and around the neighborhood's village cen- ters are needed to accommodate more pedestrian traffic. Most village centers date back several decades, some before the advent of zoning in Roanoke in 1928. The oldest commemial building in Garden City was built in 1927. Page 21 Nodes of commercial development along Garden City Boulevard have played an important role in the neighborhood's history and add to the area's small town quality. There are three concentrations of commercial development: Garden City Boulevard at Hartsook Boulevard one gas station, a day care center, and a church. Garden City Boulevard between Ray and Victory Roads this is the neighborhood's main village center, featuring a small shop ping center with a gas station/convenience store, restaurants, a laundromat and a beauty salon. Infrastructure improvements should be targeted in this area, as it is centrally located and can provide residents with more services. The west side of Garden City Boulevard has curb, gutter and sidewalk in the village center and the blocks surrounding it, while the east doesn't. Installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk and a painted crosswalk would help identify the area and improve pedestrian safety. Yellow Mountain Road and Garden City Boulevard- this area is also a small village center, there aro several small retail establish- ments, a used car garage, and a gas station/convenience store at this end of Garden City Boulevard. In addition, Garden City El- ementary School and the Garden City Recreation Center are in this area. Bennington Street and Riverland Road Eision 2001-2020 identifies a village center at Bennington Street and Riverland Road. This area is also included in the Momingside/Kenwood/ Riverdale Neighborhood Plan. In that plan it is noted as "large village center" with vacant outparcels that could be developed. Because it serves several neighborhoods, it also has characteristics of a local commercial center. The Momingside/Kenwood/Riverdale Neighborhood Plan rec- ommends streetscape improvements to Riverland Road and Bennington Street which will enhance pedestrian access for nearby residents. Gas station located in the vi#age center at Ray Road and Viclo~y Street along Garden Cio, Boulevard. Page 22 Infrastructure Transportation N Legend ~ Mill Mountain ~ Garden City ~ Local Access Collectors Minor arterials ........ Proposed Greenways Garden City's street system can be categorized as "hierarchical," a com- bination of older, rural curvilinear streets, with suburban streets and dead ends. Hierarchical street patterns are characterized by main arterial streets that accommodate most, if not all, traffic from adjoining streets that aren't connected to others. Page 23 All streets in the neighborhood have at least two lanes. The neighborhood has only a few improved alleys. There are a number of 'paper,' or unim- proved alleys. Garden City Boulevard and Yellow Mountain Road are the major arterial streets, though Welcome Valley Road also provides a gateway from Route 220. Mount Pleasant Boulevard also provides access to the neighborhood off of Rutrough Road, and Bandy Road is a collector street that connects directly to Roanoke County. Overall, Garden City's street system is not problematic. However, atten- tion needs to be paid to traffic patterns on the neighborhood"s edges. Dead end streel with no cul-de-sac Typical neighborhood street Garden City Boulevard Page 24 North Garden Ci(v Boulewn'd Garden CiO, Boulevard in fi'ont ct[the emental3, school Garden City Boulevard serves as the main north-south arterial street. Most of the collector streets and access streets connect to Garden City Boulevard at some point. It is a two-lane paved street with speed limits averaging thirty miles per hour. About half of the boulevard has curb and gutter, but there is very little sidewalk. The Virginia Department of Transportation 2003 Annual Average Daily Traffic Count ranged from 4,200 vehicles per day near Yellow Moun- tain Road to 5,300 vehicles per day near Riverland Road. Pedestrian and bicycle accommodations would facilitate alternative means of travel throughout the corridor. Opportunities for parking are also a much needed function along the boulevard. Garden City Boulevard should re- main a two lane road but additional right-of-way may need to be acquired to accomodate pedestrian, bicycle, and parking uses. While pedestrian improvements are a focal point of this plan, aggressive traffic calming measures should not be necessary to improve overall function and safety. There are numerous opportunities to place curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Garden City Boulevard, however right-of-way is insufficient in several areas. Curb and gutter are needed on both sides of the boulevard from the intersection of Ivywood and Davenport Road south to the school property line. Curb and gutter is also needed in front of Bible Baptist Church several hundred yards south on both sides. There is no curb, gutter or sidewalk on the northern section of Garden City Boulevard. Sidewalks can be placed along some of this same stretch. Topography restricts this in some places along the west side of the boulevard. The east side of the road could contain curb, gutter, and sidewalk from Riverland Road all the way to the bridge over Gum Spring Branch. Page 25 Garden CiG Greenway The Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan includes a Gamand Branch route, which is roughly aligned with the stream and Garden City Boulevard. The route would connect the Roanoke River Greenway corri- dor to the Blue Ridge Parkway, just south of the neighborhood's borders. Development of the Garnand Branch Greenway should be considered in the form of an off-road trail from the Roanoke River Greenway and Riv- erland Road to an area near Crown Point Road, Hartsook, Davenport and lvywood Avenues. From that point, there are two alternatives to complete the route: 1 ) On-road facilities could be developed along Garden City Boulevard from the area noted above to its terminus at Yellow Mountain Road. A lighted trail could be developed from the Garden City Recreation Center to the Blue Ridge Parkway to complete the route. 2) Connecting to new trailhead plans at Mill Mountain Park via Crown Point Road S.E. This option remains almost entirely on public right-of- way from Riverland Road to the trailhead at Mill Mountain Park. 3) Connecting to new tmilhead plans at Mill'Mountain Park via Hartsook Boulevard. Considerations for developing the Garnand Branch route should also include: Use publicly-owned parcels to create as much of an off-road trail as possible. Shared bicycle/pedestrian facilities Bicycle lanes on Garden City Boulevard lnfill of curb, gutter and sidewalk on Garden City Boulevard with lighting and signage denoting the greenway route · A design of the route may fluctuate between both on-and off-road connections as needed. Appropriate lighting and signage would be required. Aside from the Garnand Branch Greenway Route, Garden City Boulevard should be evaluated for streetscape improvements consistent with l~sion 2001-2020. Specifically these include bike/pedestrian facilities, street trees, lighting, and landscaped medians if possible. As the main street of the neighborhood, Garden City Boulevard needs to both accommodate vehicles and pedestrians, and add to the neighborhood's small town char- acten Any future right-of-way acquisition along Garden City Boulevard should be for bike/pedestrian or beautification improvements. Garden City Boulevard should not be considered for any future widening that would add travel lanes. P~e26 Riverland Road/Bennington Street Overall, concerns over traffic in the neighborhood were not widespread in the public workshops. One exception is the intersection of Riverland Road and Bennington Street. VDOT's six-year improvement plan in- cludes improvements to this intersection. At present, City staff is con- ducting preliminary engineering studies to redesign the intersection. The project will be funded by VDOT but will be designed by City Transporta- tion Division staff. Figure 8 below outlines the schedule. Figure 8: Riverland Road/Bennington Street Project Phase Preliminary Engineering Right-of-way Acquisition Construction Total Estimated Cost $120,000 $100,000 $800,000 $1,020,000 Commencement Underway Fiscal Year 2008 Fiscal Year 2009 Figure 9: Traffic Counts Average Projected Daily Daily Trips Trips Road Section (1990-1992) (2015) Garden City Blvd. Ray Rd. to Bandy Rd. 7,959 6,700 Garden City Blvd. Bandy Rd. to Riverland Rd. 7,959 16,600 Yellow Mtn. Rd. Jefferson St. to Rte. 672 2,313 3,100 Yellow Mtn. Rd. Rte. 672 to Garden City Blvd. 2,313 3,100 Yellow Mtn. Rd. Garden City Blvd. to SCL Roanoke 2,313 3,100 Riverland Rd. Bennington St. to 9th St. 8,892 14,300 Mount Pleasant Blvd. SCL Roanoke to Riverland Rd. 4,571 7,200 Source: Roanoke Valley Area Long Range Transportation Plan, 1995-2015 Change -16% 109% 34% 34% 34% 61% 58% Page 27 Gateway Current neighborhood wek'ome sign Garden City has a tremendous opportunity to, create a gateway entrance to the neighborhood. The flat land within the floodplain along Garnand Branch provides the opportunity to incorporate gardens and a greenway to add to what is currently in place, the neighborhood welcome sign. This gateway space would continue to allow the neighborhood to give a warm and welcoming impression to people entering from Riverland Road and Bennington Street. Possible Gatew~, alternative with greenway Page 28 Northern section oJ'Garnand Branch. Storm Water Management Storm water drainage and flooding has been an ongoing problem in Garden City and was the most commonly cited issue raised by residents during the public workshops. At the time of the planning process, the most recent Capital Improvements Program (CIP) lists 13 projects in Garden City, all of which are storm water related. CIP projects are ranked by priority. The highest ranking Garden City project is ranked 33rd out of 154 total. Garden City is flood prone due to its proximity to the Roanoke River with Gum Spring and Gamand Branch flowing through it. The 100-year flood plain covers almost all of the Riverland Road/Bennington Street village center and follows Gamand Branch south past Tipton Avenue. The neighborhood experienced serious flooding in the City's major flood of 1985, but also experienced a storm in 1995 that was centered on Gar- den City and created intensive flooding. After the flood of 1995, Garden City was declared a federal disaster area. The City used federal grant money to develop the Garden City Flood Re,duction Plan and purchase properties with homes within the flood plain. The Garden City Flood Reduction Plan includes 10 phases. At present, Phase 3 - channelization of Gum Spring Branch - is being completed. Continuing these projects is the highest priority of this plan. However, a future reduction of flooding is the best that can be achieved. The best means of limiting future flood damage is to limit development in the flood plain. Recently, federal funds were appropriated for the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project and work has begun on the section between 9th and B ennington Streets. Completion of this project should have a beneficial impact on the level of flooding in Garden City. General Infrastructure General infrastructure improvements were identified in the public work- shops as a major shortcoming of the area. Curb, gutter and sidewalk are lacking on most streets in Garden City, and several households in the neighborhood are not served by City sewer lines. Requests for infrastructure improvements - curb, gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage mitigation are submitted to the Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works. All requests are reviewed by several City departments and rated based on their need, feasibility, and relation- ship to any concurrent City project areas. One criterion is the location's inclusion in a neighborhood plan. In addition to providing direction for Page 29 Garden City Floodplain Legend Elev~efl (Feet above MSL) Page 30 Stormwater drainage and curb and gutter issues along Ray Road. individual requests, this plan should serve as the primary source for de- termining where infrastructure funds should be allocated in Garden City. The Infrastructure Improvements map identifies needed improvements. (Infrastructure Map forthcoming) Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Aside from sections of Garden City Boulevard, most streets do not have curb, gutter and sidewalk. Some residential streets have curb. On some streets it isn't feasible to install curb, gutter and sidewalk due to the lack of right-of-way, rolling topography, and drainage issues. Due to the area's hilly topography, development with impervious surfaces can lead to or exacerbate the collection of storm water in low lying areas. Coordination of storm water and curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements is essential to ensure that installation of any facilities does not create storm water problems. Garden City Boulevard is the highest priority for a complete system of curb, gutter and sidewalk. Many residential streets could benefit from curb installation only, and are not developed densely enough to justify sidewalk installation. The Infrastructure Improvements map lists all streets that lack curb, gut- ter, and sidewalk. A number of factors should be considered when making decisions for the installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk: Vision 2001-2020: The comprehensive plan addresses streetscape improvements as a priority, including sidewalk installation. The Subdivision Ordinance: The ordinance requires that developers install curb, gutter, and sidewalk whenever subdividing land for development. Width of the street's right-of-way: Many streets in the area are not wide enough to install sidewalks, but can accom- modate curb and gutter. Pedestrian safety and volume of traffic: Sidewalk installa- tion improves pedestrian safety, especially on heavily trav- eled streets. Storm water drainage problems: curb and gutter can allevi- ate drainage and run-off problems on many streets, but often have little to no impact on properties below the grade of the street. Water and Sewer Public water lines serve virtually the entire neighborhood. Sewer lines are not as prevalent, though the vast majority of the neighborhood's houses Page 31 are connected to public lines. Residents cited the lack of sewer lines as a concern during the planning process. Septic tanks are the responsibility of private property owners; however they pose public health risks if owners fail to maintain them properly. In 2003 City Council adopted an amendment to the City Code that would require all new development to connect to City sewer lines. Only in circumstances where gravity connections or pump stations are impossible can a property owner install a septic tank. This likely applies to some lots in Garden City. The recently-created Western Virginia Water Author- ity now processes and administers all sewer and water connections. The Authority's policy for extending main sewer lines requires residents of a given area, usually a block or more ora street, to cover half the costs. This is a considerable expense for most property owners and it requires significant time for them to reach consensus and organize their efforts. The Authority recognizes that septic tanks can be problematic and as a matter of policy would like to connect as many properties to public sewer lines as possible. The Authority should continue to evaluate sewer line extensions. Infrastructure Issues , Pedestrian access on Garden City Boulevard Traffic control at the intersection of Riverland Road/Bennington Street Flood prone properties Lack of public sewer service in some areas. Bridge over Gum Spring Branch Page 32 Public Services Fire/EMS Fire/EMS response is provided from Station #11 and Station #8. Fire Station # 11 is located at 1502 Riverland Road. it houses two engines (water trucks), one of which is a reserve unit. Station #8 is located at 2328 Crystal Springs Avenue and houses an Engine (water) truck. These stations also are part of a joint service arrangement with Roanoke County in the Clearbrook area. The City's newest fire truck is located at Sta- tion I I. The neighborhood receives ambulance service from Station #6 and Roanoke County's Mount Pleasant station through an automatic aid agreement. Libraries The closest branch library is the Jackson Park Branch on Momingside Street next to Jackson Middle School. Schools' Garden City Elementary School, located on Garden City Boulevard, has 400 students from pre-school to 5th grade. Upon graduation from Gar- den City Elementary, students go to Stonewall Jackson Middle School and then to Patrick Henry High School. Garden Ci~ Elementary School Transit Service Valley Metro provides bus service, with one route that travels from Riv- erland Road up Garden City Boulevard into the southwest comer of the neighborhood. The majority of residents are not within one-half mile of the route and do not have easy pedestrian access to transit. However, this was not cited as an issue by residents. Page 33 Solid Waste Management Roanoke's Department of Solid Waste Management indicates there is a citywide problem with residents failing to remove trash containers from the street after collection. City code requires that containers be placed at the curb no earlier than 7:00 PM the day before collection and must be removed by 7:00 PM the day of collection. Complying with this law is important to maintaining neighborhood appearance. Automated refuse collection and recycling collection are provided on- street throughout the neighborhood. No issues with solid waste manage- ment were cited by residents. Vis, ion 2001-2020 states that the City of Roanoke wants to be known as a model of the Valley when it comes to recycling. Roanoke City Council made a commitment to expanding recycling in Roanoke. For that growth to take place, each neighborhood in the city needs to make a commitment to improve their recycling rates. Page 34 Quality of Life Property at the eastern end o/' Craig Robertson Road S.E. Garden City provides a high quality of life. Its location southeast of the City and on the south side of Mill Mountain gives it its own special feel. The neighborhood does not contain any industry or manufacturing and few commercial uses. Garden City contains a park and a recreation center with a playground. The recreation center is the old Garden City School that was built in 1927 and became a community center in 1949. It is located at the intersection of Garden City Boulevard and Yellow Mountain Road. Various activi- ties such as ceramics classes, neighborhood cookouts, and after-school activities for neighborhood students also take place at the center. Garden City Park is located along Hillview Avenue at its intersection with Troxell Avenue. The park contains a baseball field, restrooms, picnic shelter, and a playground. The park also provides a field for various events. The park is lighted so that games can be played at night. The Roanoke Department of Parks and Recreation operates and maintains the community center and Garden City Park. Page 35 The neighborhood has an active neighborhood organization. The Garden City Civic League (GCCL) meets in the community center regularly and often has informal gatherings at the center. The civic league has under- taken numerous community projects such as the neighborhood gateway, Garden City Park, and the building of a playground and basketball court at the recreation center. The civic league conducts bi-monthly neighbor- hood meetings to carry out the official business of the league. Former school now serves as the recreation cenle~ Page 36 Environmental Resources There is abundant tree cover in the neighborhood as well as large areas of open/green space. The City's Urban Forestry plan calls for 40% tree cov- erage within the City limits in ten years. About one-half of the Garden City neighborhood including Mill Mountain, is covered by tree canopy. Garden City has more tree canopy than any other neighborhood in the City of Roanoke even without Mill Mountain included. Gamand Branch runs along the eastern and northern sections of the neighborhood. The Garden City Greenway, when developed, will allow access to green spaces along the branch. Gum Spring enters into Gamand Branch. Policies should promote improvements to the water quality of these streams by controlling storm water quality and volume. Vegetated buffers should be established along these strean~s to filter rnnoff before it enters the stream channel. Page 37 Recommendations Community Design Residential Development Economic Development Community Design Policies: Development patterns will be organized around four commercial centers located along Garden City Boulevard. Higher density resi- dential will be encouraged around these centers, with residential densities generally decreasing with distance from the centers. Zoning will implement and reinforce this development pattern. The transportation system will support mobility within the neigh- borhood and to other parts of the city. New development should seek to enhance or maintain the connectivity of the street system. Streets, particularly Garden City Boulevard, should support pedes- trian and bicycle modes of transportation. Community Design Actions: Change zoning patterns to reinforce primarily single-family residential areas and to encourage future commercial development that is compatible with neighborhood character in terms of inten- sity and scale. Provide continuous pedestrian and bicycle access along Garden City Boulevard. Residential Development Policies: Zoning patterns will reinforce appropriate residential densities. New development on vacant land should use land efficiently. Principles for cluster development patterns, as discussed in I~'- sion 2001-2020, should be considered for remaining developable land in the Garden City area. PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts should be considered to facilitate such develop- ment. Residential Development Actions: Change zoning patterns to encourage appropriate residential den- sity patterns as established by existing development. Consider higher density development near commemial centers and cluster developments on a case-by-case basis through the rezoning process. Economic Development Policies Zoning: Commercial zoning districts should be clearly delineated Page 38 and compact. Village Centers: Village centers should provide a pedestrian ori- ented commercial area for nearby residents. Economic Development Actions Zoning: Limit commercial zoning to properties that are located at identified commercial centers. Encourage redevelopment of vacant commercial properties before adding land for new commercial development. Encourage outparcel and liner building development at the River- land Road and Bennington Street village centen Village Centers: Improve pedestrian access and enhance and denote the village centers at Riverland Road/Bennington Street, and along Garden City Boulevard between Ray and Victory Roads with landscaping and stamped asphalt crosswalks. Infrastructure Infrastructure Policies Streetscapes: Streetscapes should be well maintained, attractive and functional for pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle traffic. Street width: Streets should be kept at the minimum width neces- sary to accommodate vehicular traffic and on-street parking in cluding fire and EMS vehicles. Sewer/Water: All new developments will be served by public sewer and water lines, unless it can be demonstrated that connec- tion is not possible. Existing development should be evaluated for connections within the framework of existing policies. Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Improvements: New developments and arterial and collector streets should have urban amenities such as sidewalks and curb and gutter. Appropriate species of trees should be planted as a part of such improvements. New Development: Infrastructure should be installed in conjunc- tion with new development, in some cases including street im- provements to address added traffic. Traffic studies by prospective developers may be required. Storm water Drainage: Storm water runoff should be mitigated as much as possible through improvements that are consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Infrastructure Actions -- Sewer/Water: Install sewer and water connections where needed within the framework of existing connection policies. Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Improvements: Determine the need for improvements based on the following factors: Install curb, gutter and sidewalk on arterial streets and infill of blocks with incomplete networks. Page 39 Public Services New subdivisions all new developments will have curb, gutter, and sidewalk. In select residential areas, install curb and gutter depend ing on existing drainage conditions. Refer to the infra- structure improvements map to identify potential project areas. Focus improvements in areas that have been identified as having storm water problems. Sidewalks may be installed on only one side ora street where residual right-of-way is limited. Garden City Boulevard: Improve the appearance of Garden City Boulevard without compromising its function as the neighbor- ood s main street. Consider the following: · Improve pedestrian access with curb, gutter and sidewalk where feasible, and a stamped crosswalk in the vicinity of the village center between Ray and Victory Roads. Add bike lanes and/or a greenway route (Gamand Branch) that will connect to the Mill Mountain Greenway and/or the Blue Ridge Parkway Consider a center landscaped med, ian near the village cen- ter between Ray and Victory Roads. Storm water Management Policies: Complete the remaining phases of the Garden City and Roanoke River Flood Reduction Projects. Alleviate storm water runoff as much as possible through alterna- tives to curb and gutten Install curb and gutter in select areas that will alleviate drainage problems. Establish or maintain vegetated strips along streams to filter runoff and improve water quality. Storm Water Management Actions: Implement River and Creek Corridor overlay district along streams to protect vegetative buffers. Public Services Policies Police officers should keep neighborhood residents informed of significant occurrences of crime trends in the area. Fire/EMS stations should be outfitted to provide efficient and ef- fective response. Code enforcement inspectors should take a proactive approach to addressing all property maintenance violations Page 40 Quality of ife Public Services Actions Continue communication between neighborhood organizations, Neighborhood Services, and the Police Department regarding crime prevention. Improve Fire/EMS Station Number 11 per the recommendations of the Fire/EMS Strategic Business Plan and continue automatic aid agreement with Roanoke County. lncrease code enforcement efforts in the neighborhood, with par- ticular emphasis on citing illegal outdoor storage. ~f Life Policies: Recreation: Neighborhood and area parks will be preserved to provide excellent recreational facilities for residents. Greenways: The greenway routes of the Roanoke Valley Concep- tual Greenway Plan will be developed to enhance the quality of life in the area. ~Life Actions: Zoning: Identify park and public open sp, ace areas for preservation in the update of the zoning ordinance. Recreation: Maintain and enhance access to recreation resources. · Greenways: Develop the Gamand Branch Greenway with a com- bination of on-and off-road facilities. Page 41 Implementation Funding Funding for major infrastructure projects is generally provided through the City's Capital Improvement Program. Funding can come from a variety of sources, including CDBG, transportation funding, state and federal funds, and general revenue. The Capital Improvement Program is developed by identifying needed projects and matching them with potential funding sources. Each project is reviewed and ranked in terms of priority. The chart on the following page identifies major projects, their time frame, the lead agency or department, and potential sources of funding. The cost of most projects such as streetscape improvements cannot be determined until more detailed planning is completed. How large ~urOjects are nded: The Capital Improvement Program Funding Sources Bonds General revenues State and Federal CDBG Project grants Others Needed Projects Parks Buildings Economic Development Streets, sidewalks and bridges Storm drains Schools Priority projects & their funding identified 5-year Capital Program Page 42 Below is a general guide to the time needed to carry out the actions of this plan. It is intended to assist with scheduling priority projects, but does not provide a specific timeframe for each item. Action I 2 3 4 5 Ongoing Lead Potential Funding Agency Sources Zoning Changes · PBED PBED Operating Fund Improvements to Ray * PW PW capital account and Victory Road Vil- lage Center Improvements to Gar- * PW VDOT, TEA-3, den City Boulevard Bond, PW capital Corridor account Improvements to inter- * PW PW capital account section of Bennington and Riverland Road Install curb,gutter, and , * PW ~ VDOT, TEA-3, sidewalk on arterial Bond, PW capital ~treets account Install curb,gutter, and * ~W PW capital account sidewalk on residential ;treets Install sewer/water lines * WVWA Residents, WVWA capital account Complete storm water * PW PW capital account projects *Included in VDOT 6 year plan and fully funded, still subject to public review of design proposals **Included in VDOT 6 year plan, but not funded Abbreviations: PBED - Roanoke Planning Building and Development PD = Police Department P&R= Roanoke Parks and Recreation PW -- Roanoke Public Works TEA-21 = Transportation Enhancement Act (Federal transportation funding) VDOT = Virginia Department of Transportation WVWA - Western Virginia Water Authority Page 43 Acknowledgments City Council Mayor C. Nelson Harris Vice Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. M. Rupert Cutler Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. Sherman P. Lea Brenda L. McDaniel Brian J. Wishneff Plannine Commission Chairman Richard A.Rife Vice Chairman Henry Scholz Gilbert E. Butler, Jr. D. Kent Chrisman Robert B. Manetta Paula Prince Fredrick M. Williams Plannin~ Buildim, & Develonm~nl; Brian Townsend, Director Project Team B.T. Fitzpatrick III, City Planner I Frederick Gusler, AICP, City Planner II Early Development History: Anne Beckett, City Planner 1I Thanks to all the residents and property owners who participated in the community workshops. A special thanks to the Garden City Civic League for their assistance with this plan and their continued commitment to the area's quality of life. Page 44 The Roanoke Times Roanoke, Virginia Affidavit of Publication The Roanoke Times MARY F. PARKER CITY OF ROANOKE CLERK'S OFFICE 215 CHURCH AVE SW RM 456 NOEL C. TAYLOR MUNICIPAL BLDG. ROANOKE VA 24011 REFERENCE: 32143302 08337875 NOTICEOFPUBLICHEARIN 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 Virc~nia. Sworn and subscribed before me this ~__~day of November 2005. Witness my hand and ~f~l seal. ' [[,,W~ ,~ 7 'l( ~-/I,,t l,,, ,~ , ,'~ o.,, Notary Public ..... ?~-~:------+ , %~4.~-~- PUBLZS}IED ON: 11/11 TOTAL COST: FILED ON: 146.28 ii/ii/os Authorized ~ % F% ,% Signature:___~.~~' ' ' '' ~' ........... Billing Services Representative 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 Garden City Neighborhood Plan as an element of such Comprehensive Plan. A copy of the proposed Garden City 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 Monday, November 21, 2005, 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, November 17, 2005. GIVEN undermy hand this 26th day of October .,2005. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. K/NOTiCES/N-AMENBCOM PREHENSIVEpLAN(GARDEN CITY) 112105 DOC Notice to Publisher: Publish in the Roanoke Times once on Friday, November 11, 2005. Send bill and affidavit to: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (540) 853-2541 MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, V'uginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540) 853-2541 Fax: (540) 853-1145 E-mail: clerk @ci.roanoke.va.us STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant City Clerk November 2, 2005 File #424 Charles Hancock, President Garden City Civic League 1016 Estates Road, S. E. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Dear Mr. Hancock: Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council oftheCity of Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, I have advertised a public hearing for Monday, November 21, 2005, 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 a proposed amendment to Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Garden City Neighborhood Plan. 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. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew K:~Public Hcarings~Public Hearings 2005'~Nov 05\Atlorneys and Adjoining Propo'ty Owners.doc CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk November 2, 2005 File #51-79-424 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Harris and Members of Council: Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, or other instructions by the Council, the following matters have been advertised for public hearing on Monday, November 21, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber: (1) Request of Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., for designation of real property, identified as Official Tax No. 2762101, located at 3716 Melrose Avenue, N. W., to be exempted from taxation. (2) Proposal of the City of Roanoke to amend Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Garden City Neighborhood Plan. (3) Proposal to repeal Chapter 36.1, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and to adopt a new Zoning Ordinance for the City of Roanoke, new Chapter 36.2, Zoning; and to rezone all property in the City of Roanoke, in order to implement new Chapter 36.2, Zoning, and Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan. K:XPublic Hearings~ublic He.rings 2005'u'qov 05XNovember 21 Council Letler.doc The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council November 2, 2005 Page 2 I am enclosing copy of reports submitted by the City Planning Commission in connection with the above referenced public hearings.' With kindest personal regards, I am MFP:ew Sincerely, City Clerk pc: Richard A. Rife, Chair, City Planning Commission, 1326 Grandin Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation William M. Hackworth, City Attorney, transmitted electronically by e-mail Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission Sharon A. Mougin, Executive Secretary, City Manager's Office, transmitted electronically by e-mail K:~Public Hearings~Public Hearings 2005~Nov 0b"~Iovember 21 Council Letter.doc 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, November 17, 2005, 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 to amend Vision 2001-2020, the City's comprehensive plan, to include the Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study. A copy of the 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 Planning Commission Please print in newspaper on Tuesday, November 1 and 8, 200S Please bill: Sheila Umberger Roanoke Public Library 706 Jefferson Street, S.E. Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 853-2473 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) 853-1 730 1N THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by repealing Chapter 36.1, Zoning, consisting of § §36.1 - 1 through 36.1-730, and enacting Chapter 36.2, Zoning, consisting of § §36.2-1 through 36.2-840, and accompanying Appendices A, B and C, such Chapter 36.2 being a comprehensive revision of the zoning regulations of the City; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. WHEREAS, on August 20, 2001, City Council adopted Vision 2001-2020 ("Comprehensive Plan"), a new Comprehensive Plan for the City, which plan has necessitated a comprehensive revision of the City's zoning regulations; WHEREAS, the City conducted ten (10) stakeholder focus group sessions on June 25, June 26, and August 1, 2002, with sign industry representatives, neighborhood group leaders, land use attorneys, regional development leaders, business leaders, design and development professionals, and governmental boards and commissions, to identify opportunities and issues relating to growth and development in the City and to identify regulations which needed to be amended or adopted; WHEREAS, the City conducted a housing issues roundtable on July 31, 2002, to which representatives of various groups interested in, and knowledgeable about, housing issues in the City were invited, and a public forum on August 1, 2002, to which the general public was invited, to identify additional opportunities and issues relating to growth and development in the City and to identify zoning regulations which needed to be amended or adopted; WHEREAS, in July 2002, the City Manager appointed a Steering Committee consisting of representatives from the stakeholder groups, City Council, the Planning Commission for the City of K\ORDINANCES/O-C'A REPEALCHAPTER36 I,ZONIFNG (ONLY) 112105 DOC ~ Roanoke ("Planning Commission"), the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Roanoke, the Architectural Review Board for the City of Roanoke, and City staff, to provide direction for the development of the new zoning ordinance, to review and revise draft zoning regulations, and to provide on-going feedback during the process; WHEREAS, from September 2002 until December 2003, the Steering Committee conducted twenty-five (25) sessions to review and revise the draft zoning regulations; WHEREAS, in February 2004, the Steering Committee released for public discussion a draft of the new zoning ordinance; WHEREAS, on March 8, March 12, March 16, March 17, March 18, March 22, March 23, March 25, March 29, March 30, April 1, April 5, April 6, April 13, April 28 and April 29, 2004, City staff conducted six (6) public open houses and eleven (11) stakeholder focus group sessions with sign industry representatives, neighborhood group leaders, land use attorneys, business leaders, homebuilders, design and development professionals, and real estate industry representatives, to elicit public comment pertaining to the draft of the new zoning ordinance; WHEREAS, to provide for public awareness of the open houses and the stakeholder focus group sessions, the City (1) placed two (2) easels and flyers with calendars, indicating the dates, times and locations of the open houses and sessions, in the lobby area of the Municipal Building and in the Departments of Housing and Neighborhood Services and Planning, Building and Economic Development, (2) posted open house schedules on the RVTV Message Board, (3) published two (2) block advertisements in the Roanoke Times, advertising the open house schedules, (4) placed drafts of the zoning ordinance in all branches of the City of Roanoke public library, (5) mailed a copy of the draft ordinance, with an explanation of the public comment process and how to participate in such process and provide input, to all neighborhood group leaders, (6) set up and staffed an information and comment table on Citizen Appreciation Day on April 17, 2004, at Valley View Mall, (7) conducted meetings with, and gave presentations to, neighborhood and civic organizations, including the Roanoke Neighborhood Advocates, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., Williamson Road Area Business Association, the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Roanoke Regional Homebuilders Association, Neighbors in South Roanoke, Old Southwest, Inc., the Gilmer Neighborhood Steering Committee, and the Gainsboro Steering Committee, and (8) posted on the City's web site a copy of the draft zoning ordinance, which posting was viewed 1,117 times during the February 2004 to May 2004 period; WHEREAS, from February 2, 2004 until May 31, 2004, the City documented more than 1,100 comments, including those on the draft zoning ordinance; WHEREAS, beginning in June 2004, the Steering Committee met fourteen (14) times to consider all of those documented comments on the draft zoning ordinance and to recommend changes to the draft zoning ordinance; WHEREAS, in December 2004, the Steering Committee completed its assigned task and presented to the Planning Commission a draft zoning ordinance for the City; WHEREAS, between December 2004, and July 2005, City staff continued to meet with various civic and neighborhood organizations, including Old Southwest, Inc., Riverland Alert Neighbors, Gilmer Neighborhood, the Greater Raleigh Court Civic League and the Williamson Road Area Business Association, as well as individual property owners by request, regarding the draft zoning ordinance, to oversee questions and to elicit additional public comment; WHEREAS, public news releases, newspaper articles, status reports and communications were disseminated by the City throughout the process to advise interested persons of the status of the process; K/ORDINANCES/O-CA REPEAL CHAPTER 36 1, ZONING (ONLY) 112105 DOC 3 WHEREAS, after due and timely public notice, including a legal advertisement consisting of a special insert published on two dates, one week apart, in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Roanoke in which all interested persons were advised of the City's intent to repeal Chapter 36.1, Zoning, and to adopt a new Chapter 36.2, Zoning, a descriptive summary of the terms of which was contained in the insert, the Planning Conunission held a public hearing on July 28, 2005, on the draft zoning ordinance; WHEREAS, in addition to the published legal advertisement described in the preceding paragraph, the City sent by first-class mail to all owners of the approximately 44,000 parcels of real estate in the City of Roanoke notice of (1) the City's intent to repeal Chapter 36.1, Zoning; (2) the City's intent to adopt a new Chapter 36.2, Zoning; (3) a descriptive summary of the terms of the new Chapter 36.2, Zoning; and (4) the date, time and place, of the Planning Commission's public hearing at which the new Chapter 36.2, Zoning, would be considered; WHEREAS, following the Planning Commission's public heating on July 28, 2005, the Planning Commission held fifteen (15) work sessions during which it considered the new Chapter 36.2, Zoning, and all comments received pertaining to it; WHEREAS, the City Clerk for the City of Roanoke placed a notice on the public calendar in her office for all Steering Committee meetings, all Planning Commission work sessions and the public heating held on July 28, 2005; WHEREAS, on September 29, 2005, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended to City Council Chapter 36.2, Zoning; WHEREAS, a public heating was held on the new zoning ordinance by City Council at its meeting on November 21, 2005, after due and timely public notice thereof, including a legal advertisement consisting of a special insert published on two dates, one week apart, in a newspaper K/ORDINANCES\O CA'REPEAL C~TER 36 1' ZONING (ONLY) 112105 DOC 4 of general circulation in the City of Roanoke in which all interested persons were advised of the City's intent to repeal Chapter 36.1, Zoning, and to adopt Chapter 36.2, Zoning. a descriptive summary of the text as recommended by the Planning Commission was contained in the insert, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard; WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the proposed zoning ordinance, is of the opinion that the proposed zoning ordinance helps promote and provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access; safety from flood, fire, crime and other dangers; reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; protect against destruction of, or encroachment upon, historic areas; protect against overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the conununity facilities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, and loss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers; encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment, approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports; and promote the creation and preservation of affordable housing suitable for meeting the current and future needs of the City, as well as a reasonable proportion of the current and future needs of the planning district within which the City is situated; and WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the proposed zoning ordinance, is of the opinion that the proposed zoning ordinance is consistent with Vision 2001- 2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, is required by the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, is good zoning practice, and K:\ORDINANCES/O-CA-REPEAL CHAPTER 36 i, ZONING (ONLY) 112105 DOC 5 ought to be adopted in order to implement the Comprehensive Plan. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Chapter 36.1, Zoning, consisting of §§36.1-1 through 36.1-730 of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is hereby REPEALED. 2. The Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is amended and reordained by the addition of a new Chapter 36.2, Zoning, consisting of §§36.2-1 through 36.2-840, and accompanying Appendices A, B and C, to read and provide as set out in the copy of such Chapter 36.2 certified and attached to a letter dated November 21, 2005, to City Council by the Planning Commission, and filed with the City Clerk. 3. A landowner's rights shall be deemed vested in a land use and such vesting shall not be affected by the adoption of Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, if the landowner (i) obtains or is the beneficiary of a significant affirmative govermnental act which remains in effect, allowing development of a specific project, (ii) relies in good faith on the significant affirmative governmental act, and (iii) incurs extensive obligations or substantial expenses in diligent pursuit of the specific project in reliance on the significant affirmative governmental act prior to the effective date of this ordinance. 4. 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. K\ORDINANCES\O CA.REPEALCFLa, PTER36 i,ZONING(ONLy) 112105DOC ~ 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: planning @ ci.roanoke.va.us November 21, 2005 Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council: Subject: An ordinance repealing Chapter 36.1, Zoninq, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and adopting a new Chapter 36.2, Zoninq, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended. Planning Commission Action: Planning Commission public hearing was held on Thursday, July 28, 2005, at which time public comment was heard on the proposed zoning ordinance. Thirty-eight citizens addressed the Commission during their public hearing on July 28m. At the conclusion of citizen comment, the Commission closed the public input portion of the hearing and continued the matter to a later date. During the months of August and September, the Commission held 15 work sessions on the draft ordinance and mapping. On Thursday, September 29, 2005, the Commission reconvened and voted 6-0 (Mr. Manetta absent), to recommend that Chapter 36.1, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, be repealed, and that a new Chapter 36.2, Zoninq, be adopted. Backqround: In June 2002, the City of Roanoke initiated a process to comprehensively rezone the City by developing an entirely new zoning ordinance which would be consistent with, and help implement the policies and recommended actions of, the City's newly adopted comprehensive plan, Vision 2001-2020. The City's current zoning ordinance, Chapter 36.1 of the City Code, was adopted in 1987. Vision 2001-2020 set a comprehensive new direction for the City in terms of land use, development patterns, protection of residential neighborhoods, preservation of recreation lands and open space, tree canopy, impervious surfaces, signage, water quality of the Roanoke River and its tributaries, urban design, and off-street parking. That new direction for the City, adopted in August 2001, was driven by more than 2,000 residents and businesses who participated in the development of the comprehensive plan. The City's process to develop a comprehensively new zoning ordinance, consistent with the adopted policies and recommended actions of Vision 2001- 2020, valued and incorporated significant citizen participation. A Steering Committee was appointed in July 2002 to provide direction for the development of the new ordinance, to review and revise draft regulations, and to provide on- going feedback. The Committee was comprised of representatives from the initial stakeholder focus groups, City Council, Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board, and City Staff. In February 2004, the Steering Committee released a public discussion draft intended to generate discussion and further public input. The public discussion draft represented over 1,000 person hours by the Steering Committee members. The release ofthe public discussion draft, including its posting on the City's website, initiated a four-month public discussion phase that resulted in more than 1,100 comments through letters and emails, eleven (1 ~) structured focus group sessions, six (6) public open houses, and numerous staff meetings with or presentations to various neighborhood and civic organizations such as Downtown Roanoke, Inc., Williamson Road Area Business Association, Chamber of Commerce, Neighbors in South Roanoke, Old Southwest, Inc., Gilmer Neighborhood, and the Gainsboro Steering Committee. Following the public discussion phase, staff organized all comments received into a spreadsheet, researched alternative or revised regulations, and benchmarked draft sign and landscaping regulations with other jurisdictions. For six months, beginning in June 2004, the Steering Committee considered the comments received on the public discussion draft and recommended changes to the draft document. That post-public discussion phase of the process represented another 500 person hours by the Steering Committee members. Having completed its task, in December 2004, the Steering Committee presented to the Planning Commission a draft zoning ordinance for the City of Roanoke. The document represented a two-and-a-half year effort by the Steering Committee members that included in-depth discussions of regulatory concepts as they relate to Vision 2001-2020, direct involvement in reviewing and revising draft zoning regulations, and consideration of all comments received on the public discussion draft before finalizing and submitting that draft to the Planning Commission. Structured Committee time (meetings) represented more than 1,500 total person hours (pre- and post-public discussion phase) plus significant individual members' time given to studying drafts, comments, the policies of Vision 2001-2020, and benchmarking surveys provided by staff. Upon submission to the Planning Commission, the Steering Committee's draft ordinance was made available for public review from December 2004 to July 2005. The draft ordinance was posted on the City's website in December 2004 in a strike/highlight version that utilized the public discussion draft as its base, making changes from that draft readily identifiable. A spreadsheet of comments received and how the Committee draft responded to those comments was also made available to the public. From December 2004 to July 2005, staff continued to meet with various civic, business, and neighborhood organizations, such as Valley Beautiful, WRABA, Old Southwest, Inc., Riverland Alert Neighbors, the Greater Raleigh Court Civic League, and the Gilmer neighborhood organization. The Steering Committee's draft zoning ordinance became the public hearing document that was the subject of a Planning Commission public hearing on July 28, 2005. Prior to the public hearing, a notification was mailed to all property owners, and two legal advertisement supplements were published in the Roanoke Times. Over a two-month period following the public hearing, the Planning Commission met in a series of 15 work sessions, of two to tl~ree hours each, to consider all comments received on the public hearing draft zoning ordinance and accompanying map. On September 29, 2005, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended to City Council a new zoning ordinance for the City. Considerations - General: The proposed ordinance represents a comprehensive re-write of the City's zoning ordinance. The proposed zoning ordinance is consistent with Vision 2001-2020, the City's comprehensive plan, and it is the result of three-and-a- half years of discussion and public input, ranging from the two-and-a-half year "hands-on" commitment of the Steering Committee, a four-month public discussion phase, revisions based on input from the public discussion phase, a six-month public review period of the Steering Committee draft, a Planning Commission public hearing, and 15 work sessions by the Planning Commission in which all public comments were considered. Considerations - Zoninq District~: In order to address the adopted land use policies and recommended actions of Vision 2001-2020, the proposed zoning ordinance introduces four (4) base zoning districts and one (1) overlay zoning district that are entirely new from a regulatory perspective. They are as follows: 3 · The Commercial-Large Site District (CLS) is intended to accommodate multiple buildings and a wide variety of retail service, entertainment, and office uses that are large in scale and generally characterized by multiple tenants or uses on a single zoning lot (of at least 90,000 square feet) which share common parking, curb cuts, driveways, and access to and from public streets. The district's standards provide for landscaped buffers to minimize the impact of CLS uses on surrounding areas and pedestrian access between large off-street parking areas and the public entrances of buildings. · The Institutional District (IN) is intended to provide standards for the accommodation of institutional developments of one (1) principal use (such as a place of worship, day care center, library, museum, or school by right or a club, lodge, or fraternal organization by special exception) on zoning lots of five (5) acres or less. The standards of the district are intended to recognize the unique needs of institutional uses and their relationship with neighboring land uses, particularly adjacent residential uses. · The Recreation and Open Space District (ROS) is intended to recognize and enhance active park and recreation lands and passive open spaces, such as recreation facilities, parks, playgrounds, golf courses, and botanical gardens. The ROS District is meant to protect the City's parks, recreation lands, and open space from degradation and to prevent the encroachment of incompatible land uses while permitting limited construction which promotes their use. · The Airport Development District (AD) is intended to provide space for the efficient layout and operation of the Roanoke Regional Airport and to permit transportation-related and operations-related activities, large- scale research and development and office uses, and certain manufacturing uses in the immediate vicinity of the airport that are compatible with or supportive of the airport facilities. · The River and Creek Corridors Overlay District (RCC) is intended to recognize the Roanoke River and its tributaries as valuable water resources and to establish development standards in the critical areas along the banks of the river and its tributaries in a manner that protects and restores water quality. The standards of this overlay district protect water quality by providing for vegetated lands adjacent to the stream channel that will naturally filter pollutants from storm water runoff. While the Floodplain Overlay District is intended to control quantity, the River and Creek Corridors Overlay District is intended to protect quality of the runoff. 4 The establishment of these new districts is supported by the following policies and recommended actions of Vision 2001-2020: · IN P5. Land use adjacent to the airport should be reserved for commercial and industrial development related to air transportation or those businesses needing easy access to airport facifities. · IN P5. Airport-related uses will be encouraged in the areas near the airport. · PS A9. Revise zoning and other ordinances to address new development patterns and land uses. · ED A27. Revise zoning and develop guidelines that encourage maximum use of commercial and industrial sites by addressing setbacks, lot coverage, parking requirements and landscaping to encourage development of commercial businesses in centers versus strip developments. · EC A30. Encourage preservation of open space and farm land through appropriate land use programs. · EC P4. Environmental quality: Roanoke will protect the environment and ensure quality air and water for citizens of the region. Special emphasis will be placed on the Roanoke River and its tributaries. · EC A 14. Plant natural vegetation, preferably indigenous plant species, on land adjacent to the Roanoke River. · EC A 16. Protect and stabilize creek banks by controlling storm water flow and preventing discharge through vegetative buffers, bioengineering, and other related methods. · EC A 17. Protect the shorelines of the Roanoke River to enhance its scenic quality and protect water quality through a river conservation overlay and other appropriate tools. Considerations - Supplemental Requlations: The proposed zoning ordinance includes supplemental regulations for thirty-one (31) categories of land uses and structures which have unique development challenges. The proposed supplemental regulations include the following new or expanded areas of consideration: Accessory apartments are proposed to be permitted in accessory buildings on lots which contain single-family detached dwellings, generally by special exception, provided certain standards are met that are intended to ensure that the accessory apartment remains subordinate to the principal single-family detached dwelling with which it is associated. This is supported by the following policy approach of Vision 2001-2020: Each neighborhood should have a sustainable balance of housing types, sizes, prices, and densities to meet the needs of current and future residents at all stages of their lives. (p. 39) Home occupation standards are expanded to ensure that any home occupation remains subordinate to the dwelling unit and maintains the residential integrib/of the neighborhood. A list of uses that are specifically prohibited as home occupations is included because of their potential detrimental impact on a residential neighborhood. The supplemental regulations for home occupations are supported by the following policy of Vision 2001-2020: o ED A32. Revise zoning ordinance to permit home offices in certain residential areas. Wireless telecommunications facilities are addressed in detail, including definitions associated with the industry, application requirements, review policies, and standards related to maximum heights, setbacks, lighting, provision for co-location, preference for monopole design, and landscaping. The supplemental regulations for wireless telecommunications facilities are supported by the following policies and recommended actions of Vision 2001-2020 (Vision)and the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Policy (WI-F), adopted as an element of Vision 2001-2020: EC A 11. Adopt zoning regulations that address communication towers and minimize their visual impact. IN P6. The visual impact of telecommunications facilities will be minimized by co-location and placement of towers in strategic locations. WTF Pl. The placement, construction, or modification of wireless telecommunications facilities on existing buildings and other existing structure is strongly encouraged, and providers should always seek opportunities to locate on existing structures. o WTF P2. Collocation on existing towers is strongly encouraged, provided visibility is not unnecessarily exacerbated. o WTF P3. Approved towers should be Iow impact in terms of location, siting, height, and design. 6 WTF A I. Facilities located within existing structures and having no exterior visibility or collocating with exceeding previously approved heights should be handled administratively with subsequent approval if standards are met. WTF A3. Amend zoning regulations to include minimum submittal requirements for applications for wireless telecommunications facilities. WTF A4. Develop and incorporate uniform standards of visibility and impact within the zoning regulations by which applications for wireless telecommunications facifities will be reviewed, evaluated, and considered, with such standards to be used as findings for approval or denial of such applications. Temporary uses, including auctions, Christmas tree sales, construction- related activities, fireworks stands, outdoor retail sales, portable storage containers, produce stands, public events, and yard sales, are addressed in detail to better regulate different types of temporary uses and to more clearly set forth the administrative procedures for processing such requests. Standards for location, duration, maximum number per calendar year, and whether or not a zoning permit is required, are included. In order to control the use of portable storage containers, the supplemental regulations include standards for the placement, signage, setbacks, vertical stacking, and dimensions of these containers. Considerations - Development Standard~: The development standards of the proposed zoning ordinance are intended to provide uniformity in the criteria for development approval, to implement Vision 2001-2020 (such as NH A 1. Revise zoning ordinance to ...strengthen site development, landscaping, and signage requirements in village centers), to protect the public health and safety, and to protect property values and economic development. In order to control light trespass and to protect public safety, outdoor lighting is addressed in the development standards of the proposed zoning ordinance. Standards for the location, aiming angles, and heights of outdoor lighting are established, with certain lighting being exempt. The outdoor lighting standards are in response to the following policy of Vision 2001-2020: · EC A 10. Encourage reduced light pollution from development, particularly in residential neighborhoods, by improving development or ordinances. The landscaping and screening development standards of the proposed zoning ordinance include several new regulatory concepts, including an overall emphasis on tree canopy, as follows: · An approved plant list for trees required by the proposed ordinance; · A tiered level of credit for preservation of existing trees (tree preservation bonus) as an incentive to preserve and retain significant trees as a means of satisfying tree canopy requirements; A minimum tree canopy requirement for development sites, consistent with maximum percentages enabled by State Code; · A street yard tree requirement for all new development when building lines are a certain distance from the front property line, providing an incentive for locating buildings closer to the street; · A fa(;ade planting requirement for new residential dwellings; · A sliding scale buffer yard requirement, based on the two abutting districts, rather than a one size fits all application, with two options, providing flexibility in application of the requirement; and · A tiered system of landscaping requirements for parking lots, based on the number of parking spaces, which emphasizes tree canopy rather than surface landscaping in order to provide for shade and help with storm water management. The regulatory concepts for landscaping and screening are supported by the following policies of Vision 2001-2020: ED A27. Revise zoning and develop guidelines that encourage maximum use of commercial and industrial sites by addressing ... landscaping to encourage development of commercial businesses in centers versus strip developments. · NH A 1. Revise zoning ordinance...to strengthen...landscaping requirements in village centers. · NH A 16. Adopt design and performance standards for neighborhood streets, sidewalks, and tree canopies. · EC P4. Roanoke will protect the environment and ensure quality air and water for citizens of the region. EC P5. Roanoke will maintain and increase its tree canopy as a way to improve air quafity. Roanoke will work regionally to promote tree planting and tree preservation Valley-wide. · EC A20. Establish tree canopy goals that include standards for preservation and planting of trees based on zoning district and density. The off-street parking development standards of the proposed zoning ordinance introduce several new regulatory concepts as follows: · A general reduction of the minimum off-street parking requirements (numbers) for all uses, while maintaining no minimum requirement for the Commercial-Neighborhood (CN) and Downtown (D) Districts; · A reduction in the number of required off-street parking spaces for developments of mixed uses that share parking, for lots which have permitted on-street parking along their street frontages, for the first 4,000 square feet of net floor area of a non-residential use, and for non- residential uses located within 1,200 feet of a public transit route; · A maximum off-street parking provision, including in those districts where there is no minimum requirement, with certain exceptions for specific uses which have unique peak parking demands; and · A restriction on the provision of off-street parking spaces between the right-of-way of a public street and the principal buildings in certain zoning districts, with provision for its application to only one street frontage in the case of a corner or through lot. The off-street parking standards are supported by the following policies of Vision 2001-2020: ED A27. Revise zoning and develop guidelines that encourage maximum use o.f commercial and industrial sites by addressing ... parking requirements and landscaping to encourage development of commercial businesses in centers versus strip developments. · IN A5. Change zoning, subdivision and other development ordinances to include revised street design principles. · IN P4. Roanoke will encourage on street parking wherever possible and discourage excessive surface parking lots. · IN P4. Maximum parking standards for development outside of downtown will be established. · IN P4. Off-street parking will be encouraged to the side or rear of buildings. · EC A 13. Limit the amount of impervious surfaces to reduce runoff. The sign standards of the proposed zoning ordinance introduce several new regulatory concepts as follows: · A method of sign allocation that permits freestanding sign structures and sign area based on the lot frontage along which the sign structure is to 9 be located and that permits building-mounted signage based on the linear building frontage or storefront to which the sign is to be attached, in order to ensure proportionally appropriate signage and to streamline a permitting process by no longer requiring a sign inventory before issuing sign permits for multi-tenant sites; Expanded, additional, and clarified definitions to better regulate and administer regulations for signage; Provision for a comprehensive sign overlay district for large, multi-tenant sites which have unique signage needs; and Detailed provisions and definitions for temporary signs in order to better control temporary signs in the City. The sign standards are supported by the following policies of Vision 2001- 2020: NH A 1. Revise zoning ordinance to encourage the development of higher- density, mixed-use village centers and strengthen site development, landscaping, and signage requirements in village centers. City Design: Design Principles/Local commercial centers and Regional commercial centers: Visual clutter and excessive lighting should be discouraged. Signs should be consolidated and attractively designed. City Design: Design Principles/Commercial corridors: Visual clutter and excessive lighting should be discouraged. Signs should be attractively designed and co-located on single displays or monuments. · City Design/Trees, Signs, and Lighting: Signs (public and private) should be limited in number and scaled in size to minimize visual clutter. Post-Public Hearinq Planninq Commission Considerations: The proposed zoning ordinance, as unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission, includes certain revisions to the draft prepared and presented by the Steering Committee (which draft became the Planning Commission public hearing draft). The "TEXT BUNDLE - Proposed Zoning Ordinance as Recommended by the Planning Commission," attached to this report, is a 16-page spreadsheet delineating all comments considered by the Planning Commission and the Commission's response to those comments. Some of the revisions incorporated into the proposed zoning ordinance, as recommended by the Commission, include the following: An expansion of the purpose and intent of the Airport Development District (AD) to include uses dependent on or related to air transportation and an expansion of the uses permitted in the AD District by right and by special exception, including laboratories, large-scale offices, eating l0 establishments, eating and drinking establishments, and certain manufacturing uses. The inclusion of additional supplemental regulations, particularly as they pertain to required buffer yards for certain uses which abut residential districts, such as car washes, motor vehicle sales and service establishments, motor vehicle repair or service establishments, and gasoline stations. The revision of certain dimensional standards, such as the maximum density for townhouses in the RM-1 District, the inclusion of minimum lot sizes for the CN and CG Districts (for purposes of subdivision), an increase in the maximum lot area for the CG District, elimination of a maximum floor area ratio in the CN District, elimination of a maximum height requirement in the AD District, and deletion of a minimum acreage requirement for the applicability of a MXPUD District. The refinement and addition of certain definitions for purposes of clarity and application, such as community garden, community market, stealth wireless telecommunications facility, caliper, temporary sign, portable sign, and large-scale general or professional office. Effect of proposed zoninq ordinance: In addition to the purposes set forth in Section 15.2-2283, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the proposed zoning ordinance will serve as a regulatory tool that will help implement the adopted policies and actions identified in Vision 2001-2020. The proposed zoning ordinance will not have any retroactive application or any impact on existing, legally established structures and uses, which will be "grandfathered" as provided by law. The regulations of the proposed zoning ordinance will only impact the new development, redevelopment, alteration, or change of use of properties. Recommendation: By a vote of 6-0, the Commission finds that the proposed zoning ordinance is consistent with, and will further the intent of, Vision 2001-2020 and hereby certifies and recommends that City Council adopt said ordinance. Respectfully submitted, · hard A. Rife, Chairm~(n' Roanoke 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 12 Attachment to A.3. for 11/21/05 PH (Please place behind the second Planning Con~ission report previously sent to you.) IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA This 4th day of November, 2005. A RESOLUTION certifying and recommending for adoption Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and an accompanying zoning map entitled, "Official Zoning Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia," dated September 29, 2005, to the City Council for the City of Roanoke. WHEREAS, fi.om September 2002 until December 2003, a Steering Committee consisting of sign industry representatives, neighborhood group leaders, land use attorneys, regional development leaders, business leaders, design and development professionals, members of City Council for the City of Roanoke, the Planning Commission for the City of Roanoke, the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Roanoke, the Architectural Review Board for the City of Roanoke, and City staff met on numerous occasions to provide direction for the development ora new zoning ordinance and to draft the new zoning ordinance; WHEREAS, in February 2004, the Steering Committee released for public discussion a draft of the new zoning ordinance; WHEREAS, in February 2004, City staff released for public discussion a new zoning map to accompany the Steering Committee's draft zoning ordinance; WHEREAS, after receipt of public comment pertaining to the draft zoning ordinance and zoning map, the Steering Committee met numerous times beginning in June 2004 to consider the public comment and to revise the draft zoning ordinance; WHEREAS, in December 2004, the Steering Committee presented to the Planning Commission a draft zoning ordinance for the City, which draft was posted on the City's web site; WHEREAS, in May 2005, City staff released and posted on the City's web site a revised zoning map; WHEREAS, after due and timely public notice, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 28, 2005, on the draft zoning ordinance and accompanying zoning map; WHEREAS, following the Planning Commission public heating on July 28, 2005, the Planning Commission held numerous work sessions to consider the draft zoning ordinance, and accompanying zoning map, and all comments received pertaining to them; and WHEREAS, on September 29, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended for adoption Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and the accompanying zoning map entitled, "Official Zoning Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia," dated September 29, 2005, to the City Council for the City of Roanoke. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke that by the signature of its Chair, below, the Planning Cormmission of the City of Roanoke certifies and recommends for adoption Chapter 36.2, Zoning, and the accompanying zoning map entitled, "Official Zoning Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia," dated September 29, 2005, to the City Council for the City of Roanoke. Secretary NOTICE Attachments to the City Planning Commission reports for the new Zoning Ordinance are too large to scan and may be reviewed at the Office of the City Clerk, and the Department of Planning Building and Development, 215 Church Avenue, $.W., or online at www.roanokeva.gov; "What's New", "Zoning Ordinance Public Hearings ! Draft Ordinance". I~OANOKE BLISlNES~i r~EOUP November 10, 2005 Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Vice-Mayor Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. Council Member Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member 215 Church Avenue, Room 456 Roanoke, VA 24011-1594 Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council: There are many good elements in the proposed Zoning Ordinance, but the Roanoke Business Group (RBG) felt its task is to focus on those elements that are questionable, inappropriate or are unacceptable to the business community. Although we support much of the ordinance, we can not support it in total due to our concerns. Problem area: CN Zoning District Application 1. On the Zoning Ordinance map, the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) designation is applied to several sections of the city. We urge the City Council not to approve this part of the Zoning Ordinance. We believe CN, as it is currently defined, is a negative to commercial development. When a recent city neighborhood plan was adopted, the issue of opposition to CN zoning was postponed until the Zoning Ordinance was up for discussion. Now the issue is back before us in the proposed zoning ordinance and we still oppose the CN designation. 2. The types of businesses not permitted in CN will unfairly restrict business growth and business health in the city. CN would prohibit almost anything to do with automotive business, including auto sales, auto service, auto rental, RV sales or rental or even a car wash. It would also prohibit things like broadcasting studios, funeral homes, nurseries, greenhouses, building supply stores, etc. It would allow only by special exception things like lodges, civic or social organizations, restaurants serving alcohol, industrial trade schools, gas stations, meeting balls, museums, etc. This would substantially narrow the possibilities for new business activity. On any current bare property, appraisers have said this would cause a devaluation of property. (Any property that is not utilized for the current grandfathered use for two years will be restricted f~om such prohibited use in the future.) For the city as a whole, this would slow down development. 3. Most of the problems of commercial blight can be solved with building codes and standards along with economic incentives, creative ideas, hard work and strong enforcement. The creation of small village centers may also serve the neighborhood. However, any attempt to designate these centers without community consensus is not realistic or beneficial to the neighborhood. Such an approach would impede development, not improve it. The area plans call for a charette process to develop consensus on these nodes. That has not been done and should occur outside of the zoning ordinance process. 4. An additional problem we perceive is the CN requirement that parking be in the rear or at the side of the building. We can understand the intention, but we believe it will not work. Fink's relocated to the county, at least in part, to address the needs of their customers for parking in front of their store. Banks are no longer building with parking in the rear. Safety is primary. Restaurants will go elsewhere if some amount of parking is not available in the front of the building. Occupancy of downtown upper floors peaked in 1960, according to the major commercial real estate brokers in the city. The primary reason is the lack of quick, easy, safe access to parking that does not cost the customer or resident a fortune. In zoning ordinance meetings we suggested public parking lots in CN and CG. If public parking lots were created where CN or CG is proposed, it would be more feasible to eliminate parking in the front of the building. A public parking lot demonstration project should be done to see what works. Examples of good parking often cited are the Grandin area and South Roanoke, and both have extensive and convenient free parking for the public. This is a better way to start. 5.. The RBG thinks the proposal by the Williamson Road Area Business Association for a new zoning category to be ca!led CW for Commercial - It Works is an excellent approach to the problems of CN and CG. A creative melding of the two categories for another alternative makes the most sense. We strongly support further work by staff to build a consensus on a zoning category that will be supported by the business community and the rest of the neighborhood. 6. We note that when the business community was consulted about CN it expressed its opposition to CN. In fact, we know of no business that supports CN for itself or for others. The bottom line is that there are still many problems with the zoning ordinance and map. The application of these new zoning districts to at least some neighborhoods has been arbitrary and capricious, as evidenced by many factors, including the back and forth designation of properties in the past year or so. The City staff and the Planning Commission have acted in a manner that is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Code of Virginia as it pertains to implementing the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Roanoke and promoting the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. Therefore, the RBG is asking council to delay adoption of a new zoning ordinance and accompanying map until the proposed documents can be modified based on a consensus of the interests of the business community, the neighborhoods and the City of Roanoke. S~_ ~,~ Bill Tanger, Director Cc: WP-ABA Brian Townsend, Planning Director RBG-Zon Ord-to CC-on CN-11-8-05 Williamson Road Area Business Association P.O. Box 5892 + 4804 Williamson Road, NW +Roanoke, VA 24012-0892 November 14, 2005 Mayor Harris Members of Roanoke City Council Darlene Burcham, Roanoke City Manager RE: Proposed Zoning Ordinance (City Council Public Hearing, November 21, 2005) Dear Mayor Harris, Members of the Roanoke City Council, and Mrs. Burcham: The Williamson Road Area Business Association (WRABA) has been meeting with City staff and several members of the Planning Commission for the past few months to discuss the Proposed Zoning Ordinance, dated July 28, 2005. We have met on a number of occasions, last meeting on November 2, 2005 in the WRABA office. WRABA's Board of Directors, composed of interested citizens, has spent a great deal of time trying to understand the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. We have discussed very specific changes that we feel need to be made to the Proposed Zoning Ordinance, and we have discussed broad policy issues that guide the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. As a result of these conversations, your staff has made some changes to the proposed ordinance and map which accompanies the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. We are generally supportive of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. While we do not agree with ail of its parts, with the inclusion of relatively few modifications, we do not oppose adoption by City Council. Please incorporate the attached list of minor changes in the ordinance when you adopt it. However, the proposed Zoning Map should not be adopted at this time. The proposed Zoning Map for Williamson Road shows a mixture of Commerciai-General (CG), Commercial Large-Scaie (CLS) and Commerciai-Neighborhood (CN) zoning. The CLS zoning appears fairly rationai, but the application of CG and CN zoning appears very arbitrary. The Zoning Map reflects, what appears to be, a mixture of zoning classifications aiong Williamson Road with no rationaie for which parcels are proposed for Commemial-Neighborhood (CN) zoning and which are proposed for Commerciai- General (CG) zoning. Why are two very similar parcels which are contiguous zoned differently? This happens repeatedly. FAX (540) 362-5789 + EMAIL wraba@roava.net + WEB www.wraba.org +BUS (540) 362-3293 In addition, the Zoning Map has changed substantially since property owners last saw it in July. Several owners have been surprised by seeing their property rezoned from CG to CN without their being notified. These changes have undermined the property owners' support for the entire ordinance. You will recall that in October of 2004, City Coancil adopted the ~Villiarnson RoadArea Plan. The draft of the proposed plan included a large number of areas where WRABA and the community did not agree with the City staff regarding what was best for the future of our neighborhood. At the direction of Council, staff sat down with members of WRABA and the business community and ironed out the majority of our differences. Those issues that remained were deferred until the Proposed Zoning Ordinance was prepared. The City Council agreed that further discussion would continue as the Proposed Zoning Ordinance was being approved. We now respectfully ask that you follow a similar planning process again. Send the proposed ZoningMap back to the staff for further review and refinement. Have the City staff lead a charette planning process in which the City staff, WRABA and the affected business and community members can meet to discuss exactly which parcels should be rezoned as either CN or CG. This will assure that everyone who is affected by this rezoning will be aware of its implications and effects. Finally, in supporting the Williamson Road Neighborhood Plan, which you adopted last year, and the Proposed Zoning Ordinance, we have identified several special nodes along Williamson Road for redevelopment. These include Liberty/Williamson Road, l0th Street/Williamson Road and Broad Street/Williamson Road. These nodes should be drawn out for special treatment by the City and WRABA. In addition to possibly rezoning them, the nodes should have: a. Additional financial incentives for renovation of existing buildings and development of vacant land. These incentives would be above the existing Enterprise Zone incentives already available. They also might include rent subsidies for commercial properties to make renovating them less risky. b. Public parking provided by the City in small, off-street lots to serve all businesses in the area. c. Special marketing by the City and WRABA to focus attention on development opportunities (initially) and business which locate there (later on). This might also include street festivals, banners and other attention-grabbing devices. Given our support for the Proposed Zoning Ordinance, we respectfully ask that you send the Zoning Map back and direct the City staff to work with us to refine the Map and create this package of special incentives for these nodes. Thank you for this opportunity to present our position on the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. Sincerely, WRABA President GAJlbp Attachment Cc: WRABA Board of Officers and Directors PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE 1. Table 668-1. Types and Number of On-Premise Signs Permitted by Zoning Districts Change item (14)(F) from N (no) to Y' (yes) to permit Electronic Readerboards in Commercial General (CG) districts. 2. Article 36.2-663. Prohibited Signs Change item (g) Portable signs to read, as follows, to provide for assistance to nonprofit organizations: (g) Portable signs, except for sandwich board signs as expressly permitted in this Chapter and those portable signs advertising events for nonprofit, educational or religious organizations which will last no more than three (3) days, provided that the portable sign shall not be in place for more than ten (1) calendar days prior to the event. All such portable signs shall conform to the requirements of Article 36. 2-673, Temporary On-Premise Signs. 3. Article 36.2-663. Prohibited Signs Change item (h) Projecting signs to read, as follows, to allow for projecting signs to be read by pedestrians: (h) Projecting signs erected with their lowest portions above a height of twelve (12) feet above adjacent ground level. November 14, 2005 C/ar/on Hotel Roanoke Airport Roanoke City Council Room 456 Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue Roanoke, VA 24011 The Honorable Mayor Nelson Harris and Members of Council: I am writing to ask the City Council to not change the wording to Additional Sign Regulations Section 36.1-445 letter c which currently reads- Roof signs are prohibited in all districts, except for existing roof signs located or relocated within the H-1 Historic Distrlc6 and roof signs identifying a business on the premises where such sign may be erected when the topography of the land would preclude vision of permitted ground or wall signs from automobiles on nearby primary streets or highways serving the business, provided that under no circumstances shall any roof sign cause a structure to exceed the maximum height permitted in the particular district. ~t~e proposed ordinance change states that Roof sign& except for existing roof slgns located in, or such signs located and relocated within, the Historic Downtown Overlay District (H-I) are not permitted. Under the proposed ordinance, the Clarion Hotel Roanoke Airport located at 3315 Ordway Drive, ~ould not be able to have any rooftop signage if and when we were to upgrade our existing s~gnage. Due to the topography of the land, trees and vegetation on the state's right of way and surrotmding land, sign viewing on the building from 1-581 is restricted. Therefore the signage located on the roof is vital to our business. Thank you for your consideration. If there is anything else that you may need, please do not hesitate to contact me personally at 362-9540. Neil B. Ordway/~ General Manager 3315 Ordway Drive · Roanoke, Virginia 24017 ° 540-362-4500 · Fax: 540-362-4506 November 11, 2005 To: The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor, and Members of Roanoke City Council From: The Undersigned Homeowners and Voters Re: Proposed Re-Zoning of the Sewell Lane Triangle (Tax Map No. 1360137) (see attached aerial photo) This triangular lot is surrounded by Sewell Lane and Hidden View Road and is owned by Roanoke City. It would be rezoned to "R-12 Residential Single-Family District" under the City's proposed new zoning ordinance. Just a short walk away is "Lakewood Circle" which is slated to be rezoned "ROS~Recreation and Open Space." See the attached enpy of the "Proposed Zoning Map" for this neighborhood. Both these areas should be "ROS." We urge City Council to amend the new zoning ordinance so that Sewell Lane Triangle is designated "ROS-Recreation and Open Space." This action will preserve an open park-like area that we, our neighbors and visitors have enjoyed for many years. More importantly, an POS classification would reduce the chance that this area will be sold by the City and used as a building site. Signature Name Address ','1 ~ ~ / . - Name Address ,~,_~ -~, ,,,,,,,~, ,, ,,, ~. ~iex13t,~ s~,.,,/~,,.~ 2 City of Roanoke - GIS Page 1 of 3 Propertylnformatlon Card for: CITY OF ROANOKE 215 CH URCH AV SW Rbl 250 ROANOKE VA 24011 Neighborhood Information BUILDING PERMITS N/^ Property ~ Ne~h~ Numar Pmpe~ U~ 1360137 SEWELL LN SW PARCEL FOREST HILL CITY OF ROANOKE N/A 215 CHURCH AY SW RM 250 ROANOKE VA 24011 342 01/01/2005 $t3,300.00 $0.00 $13.300.00 Annual RA 05 01/01/2004 http://gis, roanokegov, com/rptD etailAll.cfm?mapno= 1360137 &mapFn--Tnke_... 10/27/2005 SEWELL TRIANGLE LAKEWOOD CIRCLE iL! ROANOKE Proposed Zoning Map September 29, 2005 Zoning Districts R-12 R-7 R-5 R-3 RM-1 RM-2 RMF MX CN cG CLS I-1 I-2 IN ROS MXPUD IPUD INPUD "(c)" denotes Conditional Zoning 36.2-324 Recreation and Open Space District (ROS) (a) Purpose The Recreation mad Open Space Dismict (ROS) is intended to recognize and enhance active park mad recreation lands, passive open spaces, and ,significant natural mad scenic features by encouraging these aress to protect unique land resources from degradation, consistent with the recommendafious of the City's Comprehensive Plato It is fu~he~ intended to prevent the encrcatchrnent of incompatible land uses, while Penvat~ing limited eomlrucfion within open space areas which is supportive of their fimcfion and which promotes their use and enjoyment. (b) Uses The uses permiRed as of right or by specifJ exception in the ROS DisRict shall be as set forth in Section 36.2-340. (c) Principal structures per lot In the ROS Distticg more titan one pdndpal smactute may be permitted on a single lot, subject to the yaxd and impervious surfa~ ratio requirements of Table 324-1, When a lot contains more than one (1) principal structure, the lot frontage and lot ~ requkemems of Table 324-1 shall apply only to the lot, and not to the principal swactures on the lot (d) Dimensional standards The dimensional standards for lots within the ROS District shall be as set forth in Table 324-1. Table 3241. Dimensional Mauix for Recreation and Open Simce Disuict (ROS) Standard ROS Density Lot area, minimum Lot area, maximum Lot frontage, minimum Lot frontage, maximum Front yard, minimum 30 feet Front yard, maximtum _ Side y~ds, minimum combined width Side yard, minimum 30 feet Rear yard, minimum 30 feet Height, m~imum 35 feet Floor area ratio, maximum - Impervious surface ratio, maximum 15% Proposed Zoning Ordinance - CRy of Roanoke 26 A~ttcle 3 DR. AND MRS. EDGAR NEWMAN WEAVER9 .IR. Roanoke City Council- November 21, 2005 Public Hearing: Zoning Ordinance and map Comments: Alice P. Hincker 4024 South Lake Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Request that you delay adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance and map. Problem: #1 The Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Plan (GDNP) was adopted by Council, and became a part of Roanoke's Comprehensive Plan in 1990, but it has not been used to drive the decisions-making relative to residential development in the neighborhood. #2 The GDNP identifies specific neighborhood values and goals for the area. Housing (a) Maintain the existing residential character of neighborhood. In the Deyerle neighborhood: many people have multiple acre lots / typical lot is ½ -1 acre (b) Encourage residential development which meets the neighborhood's goals, especially as they relate to open space and storm water management. Parks and Recreation (a) Encourage the provision and protection of open space in new development. (b) Study providing walking and jogging paths in selected areas of the neighborhood. Environmental Qualities (a) Maintain open space within the neighborhood. (b) Protect lakes, creeks, and flood plains. 03 "GDN prides itself in its pastoral, rural character with numerous lakes and abundant greenspace.' However, 4 of the pastures and fields from 10 years ago, that are within ~ mile of each other, are now developed and hold 42 homes. There are 12 houses on one of these streets - 10 of them are on lots smaller then ½ acre. When it rains, the water floods the property across the creek, making the barn practically unusable. Currently Spring Valley Lake has 15 lots = 36 acres Current zoning could permit as many as 100 more homes around the lake Even with ½ acre lots there could be as many as 70 Proposed zoning ordinance reduces the minimum lot area in the largest residential district. The development trend is going to continue until the City can use the NP to guide decision-making or until the neighborhood runs out of land. Acknowledge that: The City's Comprehensive Plan states that the environmental elements of Roanoke's quality of life are critical amenities. The GDNP calls for: maintaining open space. protecting and enhancing the lakes, creeks and flood plains. Possible Solutions: #I Split the zoning on the 15 lots - make the lake ROS and home portion R-12. #2 Create an additional residential zoning district with a minimum area of 22,0000 sq. ft. (one-half acre). Perfect time to make the changes that will support the values and goals of the GDNP. Provides the restrictions necessary to stop developers from taking large open spaces and putting 1 O-12 houses on them. For now: Postpone adoption of the ordinance to give the stakeholders and staff an opportunity to try to reach a consensus about how the City Code can be adjusted so that future decisions can be based on what is in the best interest of this neighborhood, as it is defined by the GDNP. Neighborhood Planning Declared a "City of Neighborhoods," Roanoke strives to retain citizens and improve the livability of its neighborhoods. In 1985, Roanoke Vision, the City's comprehensive plan, declared Roanoke a "City of Neighborhoods." The plan advocated the preservation and enhancement of the city's existing neighborhoods and recommended that city ordinances and efforts support neighborhood revitalization and preservation. A major recommendation of Roanoke Vision was to develop neighborhood plans for each neighborhood. Neighborhood and area plans are official documents that are adopted by City Council and become part of the City's comprehensive plan. Vision 2001-2020, Roanoke's latest comprehensive plan, continues support for neighborhood-based planning for a livable and sustainable city. Roanoke must work to retain citizens and improve the livability of its neighborhoods. The Department of Planning Building and Development recognizes every parcel in the City as belonging to one of 48 neighborhoods. A plan will be done for each of these neighborhoods, though in some cases, two or more neighborhoods may be combined in one document. City of Roanoke web site - 11/05 Planning Building and Development Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Plan The Greater Deyerle neighborhood was annexed from Roanoke County in 1976. It is bounded by Electric Road to the west, Mud Lick Creek to the east, the Roanoke River and Salem to the north, and Grandin Road and Roanoke County to the south. The Greater Deyerle neighborhood features several subdivisions, and includes the areas referred to as Medmont and Windsor Hills. The neighborhood is one of the least developed in the City with houses on multiple acre lots over pastoral landscapes with several lakes. Over the last 50 years, Greater Deyerle has gradually transitioned from a sparsely populated rural area to a Iow-density suburban community surrounded by commercial development on its edges. Residents of the area take pride in the high quality of life of their neighborhood, and do not want higher density residential or commercial development to negatively impact the natural setting they enjoy. The Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Plan was developed after a series of four public workshops between September 1988 and April 1990. The plan was adopted by City Council later in 1990. City of Roanoke web site- 11/05 Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Plan to ~'s continued revitalization and growth Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Plan Adopted by Council 1990 Summary. of Information Relevant to the Request to Delay Adoption of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance and Accompanying Map Greater Deyerle Today (1990) (Annexed in 1976 - Roanoke population topped 100,000) Executive Summary (pg. 2) Neighborhood prides itself in its pastoral environmental character with numerous lakes and abundant greenspace. Neighborhood Issues: Maintenance of the residential character of the neighborhood Management of storm water runoff Maintenance and protection of neighborhood environmental quality Action Strategies: Keys to successful implementation are the continuation of an effective neighborhood organization, good communication, and continued partnership approaches Greater Deyerle Neighborhood (GDN) prides itself in its pastoral, rural character with numerous lakes and abundant greenspace. Residents of the GDN enjoy a beautiful neighborhood with well maintained homes on large lots, a diversity of housing styles, and areas which still maintain an agricultural atmosphere with grazing horses. GDN measures 2.5 sq. miles with lower population density per sq. mile than that of the City as a whole (pg. 4). Homes in the neighborhood are typically on large-sized lots of one-half acre or more (pg. 6). Neighborhood Issues #1 Housing Several large tracts of land are zoned RA and are mostly vacant except for the single residences and horses or cattle that graze on the property (pg. 6). Roanoke Vision: Several areas in the GDN are identified as places where new residential development can occur, thereby sustaining a strong housing market in southwest Roanoke. Neighborhood Comments: Residents want to maintain existing character with large lots .... and abundant green space. Any future development of new homes on vacant land should respect the large lots and quality greenspace characteristic of the area (pg. 7). #6 Parks and Recreation No City parks in GDN (pg. 15). Has an abundance of greenspace and privately owned recreational areas. Many residential areas have been built around numerous lakes in the neighborhood, creating a quiet, pleasant environment for not only immediately adjacent homeowners, but also nearby residents. Neighborhood Issues (cont.) #6 Parks and Recreation (cont.) Walkers and joggers are frequently seen in the neighborhood enjoying the pleasant outdoors with its lakes and open fields (pg. 15). Neighborhood Comments: The lakes and greenspace in the neighborhood should be protected and enhanced. Although not public, residents feel that they provide environmental benefits that are sufficient in meeting the open space needs of the neighborhood ... (pg. 15). #8 Utilities While the numerous lakes and creeks in GDN are considered visual assets of the neighborhood, the management of floodwaters during rainstorms is a problem for properties located in the flood plain (pg. 16). Located in the lower basins of three large water sheds: Craven Creek Barnhart Creek, Mud Lick Creek, and an unnamed tributary to Mud Lick Creek (pg. 17). Ali three of these watersheds are impacted by upstream development occurring both inside and outside of neighborhood boundaries. Increased development, combined with narrow creek channels, the existing system of open ditches and undersized culverts, and poorly sited housing contribute to flooding in iow- lying areas (pg. 17). Without the FEMA flood plain designation, local government presently has limited control in the development of low-lying properties. In 1989 the City Engineering Department completed a preliminary drainage study of GDN. The study recommends certain improvements to the channel and culverts. Also recommends a more detailed study of the watersheds be conducted to provide technical information on flood plain elevations. In the meantime, study recommends City Develop more stringent drainage standards for development in watersheds and that the construction of a single-family home be more stringently regulated. Neighborhood Comments: Many residents of GDN are affected by creek and charmel flooding in the neighborhood, whether it is by the flow of water across their property or by the flooding of their basements. All residents stressed the importance of City action and physical improvements where possible (pg. 17). #9 Environmental Quality The rural character of the GDN with its large lots, abundant greenspace, trees, small lakes, wildlife, and diversified styles of housing create an environmental quality that is not found elsewhere in the City of Roanoke (pg. 18). Residents are conveniently located to urban services and employers, yet are secluded in the privacy of their natural residential community. Neighborhood Issues (cont.) #9 Environmental Quality (cont.) The neighborhood is one of the few in the City with land that is zoned AG and contains grazing horses and cows. The area is also a designated bird sanctuary. Neighborhood Comments: Residents of GD are proud of their neighborhood character. They feel that the environmental qualities should be maintained and protected by current residents and by future development. The protection and provision of open space was identified as important in maintaining the environmental character of the neighborhood. Support tax credits for active AG to promote preservation of open space. Greater Deyerle of Tomorrow Community Values and Goals (pg. 19) #2 The rural atmosphere, lakes and abundant greenspace in the neighborhood are assets ~vhich should be protected. New development should compliment these assets and maintain the environmental quality of the neighborhood. Reforestation should be encouraged. #7 Storm water management and drainage affect properties in Greater Deyerle because of the streams and topography of the area. Improvements to draining system are needed as well as proper planning for future development. PARTNERSHIP APPROACHES to addressing storm water issues which include businesses, developers, residents, and goveraments should be encouraged. Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Action Strategies (pg 21-24) Issue/Activity #1 HOUSING (a) Maintain the existing residential character of neighborhood. (b) Encourage well designed, planned, residential development, which meets the neighborhood's goals, especially as they relate to open space and storm water management. (c) Encourage compatible new development in areas zoned for apartments and townhouses. #6 PARKS AND RECREATION (a) Encourage the provision and protection of open space in new development. (b) Study providing recreational walking and jogging paths in selected areas of the neighborhood. #8 UTILITIES (a) Develop and implement more stringent storm water management standards for future development in watersheds, especially as they relate to downstream properties. Include regional guidelines for valley-wide management of runoff: (b) Develop and implement storm water management plans for Chesterton Street/Deyerle Road tributary and for Barnhardt/Cravens Creek. #9 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (a) Maintain open space within the neighborhood. (b) Protect lakes, creeks, and flood plains. (c) Encourage the continued provision of tax deferments for farmed agricultural land to protect open space within the neighborhood. (d) Encourage the protection of existing trees and reforestation in the neighborhood. TO: Watershed Neighbors FROM: Dick Koch, 400-7319; Alice Hincker, 989-9111; Jo Wilson, 774-6011 ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ' -C3NDAY, NOV. 21, 2005 7 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ZONING PROPOSALS REQUESTS TO CITY: 1. APPLY ROS (Recreation and Open Space District) ZONING TO SPRING VALLEY LAKE (Windsor & Medmont Lakes are ROS) The Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Plan, adopted by City Council in 1990, emphasizes the residents' desire to protect and enhance the lakes and greenspace in the area. The area provides residents with opportunities for xvalking, biking and jogging while enjoying scenic views and wildlife. In the past fifteen years, large open lots have been developed into subdivisions containing more than 10 residential properties. The protection of natural spaces like Spring Valley Lake has been identified as one of the most important issues currently facing the neighborhood (Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Survey, 2003). 2. DEFINE, DELINEATE A FLOODWAY, FLOOD FRINGE, AND/OR APPROXIMATED FLOODPLAIN FOR OUR LAKE TRIBUTARY Windsor Lake and Spring Valley Lake, serving as retention basins, reduce water velocities and provide flood storage to reduce peak flows and flooding downstream (Cravens Creek, Roanoke River and Downtown). This runoffretention reduces flood damage just as a natural area (the Floodplain) does by allowing water to spread over a large area. Roanoke City has adopted ordinances to reduce future development in natural floodplains. Therefore, we ask for similar ordinances to restrict and reduce future development above the dams (watershed area) and below the dams (i,~undation area). Utilization of the land in a watershed directly affects the amount of water flowing into nearby bodies ~ater, i.e. lakes, creeks, and rivers. 3. JOIN DAM OWNERS, LOCAL CITIZENS, STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES IN IMPLEMENTING DAM SAFETY PROGRAMS AND EMERGENCY/DISASTER ACTION PLANS FOR TWO EARTHEN DAMS The potential for dam failure and the catastrophic consequences can be prevented or lessened by planning and awareness and State, Local, and Community involvement. The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) is responsible for enforcing regulations developed by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board in accordance with the Dam Safety Act, of the Code of Virginia. State Regulations became more wide-reaching and restrictive in 2002. As a result of a 1995 development allowed in the inundation zone below the dams, both earthen dams in the Deyerle Neighborhood recently received notice that their hazard classification had been elevated to Class I. Dams in this Class I Category are located where failure of these dams would cause probable loss of life or excessive economic loss. The City must understand the responsible obligation, if not legal requirement, to control development in inundation zones below the dams, as well as the watershed area above the dams. The Ci.ty must map the inundation zone and incorporate the findings into its Emergency/Disaster Education and Early Warning Plan. Contact Information for Roanoke Mayor and Members of Ci.ty Council Mayor C. Nelson Harris - Ma¥or~roanokeva.gov Fax: (540) 853-1145 Vice-Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. -Beverly. Fitzpatrick(ah'oanokeva.gov M. Rupert Cutler RupemCut[er~)roanokeva.gov Fax: (540) 510-4251 Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. - Alfi'ed. Doweqhroanokcva.gov (540) 510-4193 ~..¢rman P. Lea - Sherman.l.ea~roanokeva.gov Fax: (540) 510-3069 Brenda L. McDaniel- Brenda. McDaniel(chroanokeva.gov Fax: (540) 345-4731 Brian J. Wishneff wishneff(a)~wishneff, com Fax: (540) 853-1145 Flood Prone Areas City of Roanoke N · IFLOW Gauge Stream Gauge · Dm -- Bridge ~ FJood Prone AFeas* *FEMA Q3 100 Year Floodplain Winter Storm Impact Area and Hazard Mitigation Inventory City of Roanoke 0 0.5 I 2 3 , , Miles Prepared by the Roanoke Valley -Ai~eghany Regional Commission, August 2005 N [---I National Forint Spring Valley Lake: Planning for the Future 11/18/05 Relevant Legal Documents Code of Virginia, Roanoke's Comprehensive Plan - Vision 2001-2020, Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Plan 1990, Proposed Zoning Ordinance and Map (Public Hearing before City Council in Council Chambers on 11/21/05 _~ 7:00 P.M.) Spring Valley Lake Association Properties ?roposedZoning: R- 12 with River and Creek Overlay Flood Overlay is applied downstream in our inundation zone Dam Safety The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Phase I Inspection Report which was completed as a part of the National Dam Safety Program, states that the Spring Valley Lake Dam is classified as a small dam with a significant hazard classification. Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) staff are responsible for enforcing the regulations developed by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board in accordance with the Dam Safety Act, of the ('ode of Virginia. Owners of dams are required to (1) conduct an annual safety inspection of the dam, (2) obtain an Operation and Maintenance Certificate, (3) provide DCR with annual, written notification of newly constructed and/or proposed structures within the downstream inundation area, (4) maintain an Emergency Action Plan that includes a formal emergency procedure, (5) maintain a record of the maintenance program, and (6) submit a Reinspection Report certified by a licensed professional engineer every two years. Utilization of the land in a watershed directly affects the amount of water flowing into nearby bodies of xvater, i.e., lakes, creeks and rivers. Spring Valley Lake is no exception. The amount of water flowing into the lake due to developments in its watershed dramatically affects the inundation zone below the dam. City officials are the first line of defense to prevent dangerous living conditions for those living in an inundation zone and are responsible for taking appropriate actions to ensure the safety of these residences, both current and future. Three Requests of the City: Spring Valley Lake is privately owned and maintained due to the fact that the properties in this neighborhood were originally in the County but have become part of the city through annexation. Our residents pay city taxes and should be afforded the same opportunities extended our contemporaries on other lakes within the city limits that are not "privately owned and maintained". In light of this we request that the City: 1. APPLY ROS (Recreation and Open Space District) ZONING TO SPRING VALLEY LAKE. 2. DEFINE, DELINEATE A FLOODWAY, FLOOD FRINGE, AND/OR APPROXIMATED FLOODPLAIN FOR OUR LAKE TRIBUTARY 3. JOIN DAM OWNERS, LOCAL CITIZENS, STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES IN IMPLEMENTING DAM SAFETY PROGRAMS AND EMERGENCY/DISASTER ACTION PLANS FOR TWO EARTHEN DAMS. 1. Recreation and Open Space District (ROS): The ROS District is a special purpose district that is intended to recognize and enhance active park and recreation lands, passive open spaces, and significant natural and scenic features by encouraging these areas to protect unique land resources from degradation, consistent ~vith the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan. It is further intended to prevent the encroachment of incompatible land uses, while permitting limited construction within open areas which is supportive of their function and which promotes their use and enjoyment (Chapter 36.2, Section 324 of the proposed Code of the City of Roanoke). Both Medmont and Windsor lakes have ROS as their zoning classification. However, there is a difference between Spring Valley Lake and the other non-public lakes in the city. Spring Valley Lake is a located on at least a portion of 16 different residential lots. Windsor and Medmont lakes are each under joint ownership by a corporation AND they are on separate property that has only a recreation/open space function. Zoning the entirety of the 16 lots as ROS would create non-conforming use on all of these properties. The City Planning Commission and City staff ~vould not approve of such a change. Another option would be to cut off the portion of each lot that is under Spring Valley Lake and combine them with the dam properties to create a new property. Forming this new lot would require frontage to a City maintained street. Private roads around Spring Valley Lake prevent forming a new lot that uses the dam properties as the street frontage. Finally, there is the possibility that the City would consider splitting the zoning on the 16 residential lots. Split zoning would result in R-12 for the portion of the property that a home is on and ROS for each portion of each lot that is under Spring Valley Lake. The city planner has informed me that it would take a "compelling reason" for the City to consider this option. That Compelling Reason! Applying the ROS zoning classification (refer to the description of the ROS District that appears above) to Spring Valley Lake will support the City's plan to: (a) recognize and enhance active park and recreation lands, passive open spaces, and significant natural and scenic features. (b) protect unique land resources from degradation. (c) prevent the encroachment of incompatible land uses. (d) limit the amount of impervious surfaces to reduce runoff. The Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Plan, adopted by City Council in 1990, emphasizes the residents' desire to protect and enhance the lakes and greenspace in the area. In the past fifteen years, large open spaces have been developed into subdivisions containing more then 10 residential properties each. The protection of natural spaces like Spring Valley Lake has been identified as one of the most important issues currently facing the neighborhood (Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Survey, 2003). The Spring Valley Lake area provides residents in the Deyerle neighborhood with opportunities for walking, biking and jogging while enjoying scenic views and wildlife in an area that is free from many of the traditional urban problems. In addition to a recreational purpose, the lake serves in a functional capacity. Spring Valley Lake serves as a storm water retention basin, thereby assisting with flood control in the area. Applying ROS zoning to Spring Valley Lake xvould be supportive of the Deyerle Neighborhood Associations' desire to maintain and protect "an environmental quality that is not found elsewhere in the City of Roanoke." It xvould promote the protection of the rural atmosphere, lake, and abundant greenspace while encouraging land use and development that complements these assets, which reflects the values and goals stated in the Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Plan. 2. Map Inundation Zones and Incorporate Information into Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances Members of the Spring Valley Lake Association, along with Department of Conservation and Recreation senior staff have been corresponding with City staff and City Council for ten years. We have not been successful in making the City understand the responsible obligation, if not legal requirement, it has to control development in inundation zones below dams. Actions the City controls, which occur below the dams, have a direct impact on what may be required of the dam owners. State regulations governing earthen dams became more wide reaching and restrictive in 2002 and now two dams in the Greater Deyerle Neighborhood are subject to state regulation as Class I Impounding Structures. Dams in this Class I hazard potential category are located where failure would cause probable loss of life or excessive economic loss. The hazard classification of both of theses dams was elevated, in part, as a result of development in the inundation zone below these dams. The Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Plan, adopted by City Council in 1990, emphasizes the desire to protect the country like atmosphere of the area. Despite this goal, many large open spaces have been developed into subdivisions. City staff have reported that there were no regulations that could be used to disapprove such development, irregardless of the fact that it was planned in the inundation zone below the Spring Valley Lake Dam. Misunderstanding and lack of awareness of the potential impact of future land use changes on the classification of a dam lie at the heart of the problem that dam owners face today. Therefore, City Council is requested to join the dam o~vners, downstream landowners and the State dam safety officials in recognizing and considering inundation areas as they adjust and adopt land use and development regulations. It is requested that Council delay adoption of a new zoning ordinance until City staff are able to work with this group to reach a consensus regarding a City Code that will provide grounds and a procedure for the disapproval ora subdivision plan that does not take into account an inundation zone below a dam. The zoning ordinance must also identify regulations for restricting other development in the Spring Valley Lake Watershed that is planned upstream from the dam but would have a detrimental effect on stormwater runoff that flows into the lakes and creeks at a rate faster and/or greater then the current rate. Finally, the City staff are requested to clarify how the City will support the values and goals identified in the Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Plan that was adopted by City Council in 1990. 3. Make Inundation Zone Maps Available to the Dam Owners and the Public Inundation zone maps will assist the dam owners in preparing and maintaining an Emergency Action Plan. The maps will assist them in identifying persons downstream and other effected persons or property owners that need to be notified in the event of a flood hazard or the impending failure of the dam. These maps will also help to educate the public about the local flood hazard. They xvill identify the areas along the creeks and rivers where most of Roanoke's sever flooding occurs. It is believed that increased attention to the problem will increase the likely hood that the "probable loss of life and excessive economic loss" associated ~vith the failure of a Class I dam will be avoided. Making these maps available through the City of Roanoke web site is one step the City staff can take toward helping to fulfill the City's commitment to protecting the people of Roanoke and their property. .-.It 'V ~Su~stat;on ,J A.3. . AMMAR & BLACK ATTOKN£Y$ AND COUNSELORS November 21, 2005 PAUL M BLACK EMAIL: PBLACK@MDABLAW COM HAND DELIVERED The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor M. Rupert Cutler Alfred T. Dowe, .Ir. Sherman P. Lea Brenda L. McDaniel Brian J. Wishneff 215 Church Avenue Roanoke, VA 24011 Re: Proposed AD, Airport Development District Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council: This firm represents BB&T Corporation ("BB&T"), the owner of three parcels of land on Coulter Road in Roanoke City. One tract of land contains the former First Virginia Bank Operations Center, now owned by BB&T through its acquisition of First Virginia Bank - Southwest, and two undeveloped tracts adjacent to the Operations Center. BB&T is opposed to the proposed Airport Development ("AD") District, and urges City Council either to abandon that zoning classification, or to withdraw BB&T's property from the proposed AD District and have it included as I- 1, Light Industrial. On behalf of BB&T, I attended the informational meeting with Mr. Townsend and Ms. Snodgrass on November 11, 2005. At that meeting, the question was asked whether the proposed AD District was modeled after another jurisdiction's successful development of an AD District, or whether it was something called for because of documented needs at the airport. The answer was that the AD District was not modeled after any other jurisdiction's successful use of such a district, but was an original creation by the Roanoke City Planning, Building and Development Department. We were not advised that any empirical study was done concluding the existing zoning classifications near the airport are unsatisfactory for existing or projected uses or needs, or that there is a need for a separately designated AD District because existing zoning classifications are deficient. There was no articulated reason for this new classification based on facts that 1100 BB&T BANK BUILDING PO BOX 90 KOANOKE VIRGINIA 24002 PHONE 540-982-3800 FAX 540-342-4480 WWW. MDABLAW. COM The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor, et al. November 21, 2005 Page 2 would justify it. If such facts exist, the City Planning Department should make those facts public and available all property owners affected by the new classification. To date, no property owner of which BB&T is aware has seen any such data. While BB&T has not definitively established its long term plans for its Coulter Drive property, BB&T has identified the Coulter Drive property as a potential future site to serve the needs of the northern part of its geographic footprint, which at present extends from the North Carolina line to Maryland. If such action is pursued, it may not be an expansion of the existing facility, but new construction on the vacant parcels BB&T owns that are adjacent to the existing operations center. If the AD District were to be approved, BB&T would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and seek a special exception. Under the new ordinance, BB&T would only be able to pursue a special exception in the event its new facility contained a minimum size of 20,000 square feet of gross floor area. In evaluating that request, the Board of Zoning Appeals would have to confront Section 36.2-325, which provides that the AD District is "intended to permit and encourage the development of uses depending on or related to air transportation in the areas in and around the Roanoke Regional Airport. Such uses support airport functions, are dependent on air transportation, are unlikely to pose a threat to flights or airport operations, and are less sensitive to airport operations than most commercial or industrial uses." The conjunctive and not the alternative is used. There can be no assurance that any such special exception would be granted, severely restricting the potential use and/or remarketability of BB&T's property. Such action may constitute an improper taking, and BB&T reserves all rights in that regard. An additional problem with the proposed ordinance as applied to BB&T's property is the definition of "Financial Institution," which is not a permitted use or available as a special exception under the AD District as proposed. "Financial Institution" is defined as "the provision of financial and banking services to consumers and clients, and including banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, lending establishments, and mortgage offices." Under the wording of this definition, it is not clear that banking related support activities are outside the definition, although that is the interpretation that was conveyed at the information meeting. Future staff, planners, or BZA members may interpret this definition differently. The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor, et al. November 2 I, 2005 Page 3 BB&T objects to the inclusion of an Airport Development District in the new zoning ordinance, and requests that the City Council decline the adoption of such a district. In the alternative, BB&T requests that its property be withdrawn from the AD District, and be zoned I-1, Light Industrial. S,i~.c~r e~y,.~ / Paul M. Black Cc: BB&T Corporation R. Brian Townsend, Director of Planning, Building, & Development Nancy Snodgrass, Zoning Administrator William M. Hackworth, City Attorney W:\black~39901371etcouncil.do¢/op ~t 17, 1995 This flood-~fety conoern h~ been st~tad in writing to the Planning C~ieeion ~nd City Officiale, orally to Tom Taeelli, John Mmrlles, Evelyn Oor~ey, John Kehn in the Planning Comnision, Phil 8hermer, W~ter Engineer, and Will Dibling, City Attorney. We have received no raspones to many measagee and inquires, no request for input, facts, or informmtion. Our werninge and ooncerne have gone unheeded. A~psrently JJ]~r_ql~ risk to life and property is unimportant- -if no question of zoning is involved, -!f ~ guidelines ere met for drainage, eroeionl & traffic, -if r®venues ere increased, -if the State Oobe is followed, -if flood plain ~ ere inu~,~lete, and -if aPpliceble studies or guibelines ~ve not yet been meda. Therefore, The responsibility for irresponsible dowostre&m develol~mnt will be that of the City of Roanoke and the developer, Clerk Cr~ley. As repreeentatives of the psople, es officers of the City of Roanoke, and as a developer, you have an ethical duty to exmnine the facts, the concerns, and the conesquences of your decisions, your planning, and your actions. We join our neighbors in opposing the cluster development on Cravens Creek Stable property (lot 12, map 117) and support their drainage-erosion-flooding-traffic concerns as valid. We are enclosing additional facts for your fair and impartial review. Hydraul ic/hydrologic data for calculating risk factors may be obtained from the l~ Corps of Engineers and the Virginia Department of O0nesrvation, Dam Safety Division. Addresese and references are encloeed. 5.a.5. Roanoke, Virginia January 16, 1996 96-106 Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor and Members of City Council Rmnol , Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Council Members: Subject: Craven's Creek Subdivision - Resident Concerns On two occasions, September 11 and 25, 1995, residents of southwest City appeared before Council in regard to a protmsed subdivision in the Craven's Creek area. Council referred this matter to the City administration for investigation and report. The subject property is a 4.62 acre tract owned by Mr. Clark A. Crawley. Mr. Crawley applied for and has recently received approval to subdivide the parcel into eleven (11) lots for the construction of single-family homes. The project also involves the construction of approximately 450 linear feet of new road, including a cul-de-sac with access to the existing Cravens Creek Road. As has been previously repor~d to Council, the property is ~.ready zoned RS-I, Residentiel Single Fmuily District, and therefore no action by the Planning Commi~i~ 0r~_City C_ouncil x~as. r~quired. - The plans for this development w~e subject to all of the City's existing development _~r~l~ .for new ~ including ~g regulations, subdivision regui,~ions, erosion .semmen~ conn'ol regulations, ~ l!_!_l_l_l_l_l_l_l_la~- ~-gulatlon$ and s~ water management reqmrements. Like nil development ,,roiects in the '":'-' '" ........ ....'..._~. _,, -~ - . t- ~ ,..sty, mc plans re~lvon ClO~ ~rutiny to mat au reqturemantS were n~t before the plans were approved. Several residents had requested that the City deny or delay approving the subdivision request. Und~City__Co~,Jh~ .~ _no giLounds for disapp_m_v.~.l~_o~_s_~vision plat that has re_et_ell ~e, estllb~ by the Code. Residents from the area did raise several issues with ~ ~'il~uding stor~' ~ter management, flooding, traffic safety and dam safety. The re~t of ~ ~ will focus on providing City Council with the most current information on these issues. As Council is aware, storm drainage is a serious concern not only in the Deyerle neighborhood but throughout the City. Unfortunately, most of the existing development in the City and surrounding area occurred before there were any effective storm water management requirements. Li~ development in the past often occurred in fl_.___~__p~ne .~a~-eas~,__along Members of Council January 16, 1996 l~e 2 Roanoke River and its tributaries because those areas were easier to develop, land often was cheaper and thm. e we~ no measures in place to prevent such development. Under the City's ~cu~e~_n_t__~ev~op__m_~t~,~ons, development in flood prone areas is prohibi~l '0i se~l -~ resmc_t~, The ci ' ; Y _ ~ ty s exis~ storm water management requi.*~ments are prevent aH drainage from a new development, but to allow a level of storm water that is equivalent to what would be produced if a property remained undeveloped. Unforttmn~ly, these measures will not solve the existing problem or properties currently experiencing flooding along Craven's Creek and other tributaries in the City of Roanoke. Much or the runoff which causes flooding in these areas is the result of development which occurred before the existing storm water requirements were in place or is storm wn _t~- generated from new development occurring outside the City boundaries. To address this last problem, since 1990 the City of Roanoke along with other local governments have been actively working with the Fifth Planning District Commission to develop a Comprehensive Ragional Storm Water Th.e Storm is eveloped to ezamng flooding problems as well as to minimize additional floodln~ thst m~,h, ,.,,-,-, .. · to fu . ~- _--'"' ---- ""~ · u-z..t~.---unco~~ts. Schaduled for completion m September 1996, the project will include the l)l~.,~)amtion 0~"~ plans for 1_6 priofil~[__._~e~.s; a storm water quality man~ement plan; development of specific projects on a multi-jurisdictional bases that will reduce exi.,aing floedin~ problems and the development of specific projects and policies that are multi-juriadictional to minimize lucre damages due to planned development. This type of regional approach offer~ the best long term solution to addressing [he flooding problems of residents along Cravens Creek and other tributaries of the Rc&noke River in the City. Another concern raised by residents was that traffic on Craven? Creek Road is already a problem. The City's Traf~ Engineer, Bob Bengtson, has investigated this matter. Mr. Bengtson was not ~were of any accid~..** or *xaffic saf~ l~blem on *.he rezd. The Police . ..Del~'tm~t'.s .ecci~_i records support his findings. Available traffic count data indicate that ~--'-"~-,,-.~_ ~ l~j~.u~ umno vomme ~t~ venicle trips per day per home) that will be ..~,._.,.~__v~, ?~-Ow~.. dams (Sp~.. Valley ..Lake Dam, Windsor ! st.,, Dam) m the Deyerle ,._,,~~._t_ne .oe~n, ~, .?ation and maintmanco Of' selected impoundments -,- ,~'"~__"~- m accoruan~ w~m tile provssums of the Dam Safety Act (Article 2, Chapter 6, Title 10.1 of the Code of Virginia) which is administrated by the Virginia Depamnent of Conservation and Recreation. Staff from the City's development review office have contacted wmose~ Lake Dam ts regulated by the State, agency staff indicated that Members of Coundl lanua~ 16, 1996 they were not aware of any existing problems related ~o the structural integrity of either dam. .The S{?. s~..~ ~ tha~ the City consider amendin our · ~. m consMor ~ mu ~*-,~ ---'#~-: .... ~ g . _.development review orocedur~ · n .~,w or a~a t~tt would be in,,.Ao~.~ :3 2A - ~.---. ........ ---- Y _ g or proposed Impoundment structure in the City were to ~, ! am forwarding this proposal to the City Planning Commission for the/r review and consideration. If any member of City Coundl has questions or comments on this matter, please contact Bill Clark, Director of Public Works, or me. WRH:j-RM:Imc Respectfully submitted. W. Robert Herber~ City Manager Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Wilbum C. Dibling, Sr., City Attorney William F. Clark, Director of Public Works $ohn R. Marlles, Chief, Planning & Community Development Wanda B. Reed, Manager, Emergency Services Jo Wilson, Spokespe~on, Cravens Creek Residents iZIUNCAN C. McGREGOR, P.E. 2.4-Hour Dispatch Center Nearest Dam-Poli~/Fire/Sberiffs Departments: Address: Telephone: (Business)( ) (ResidentialX ), Name of City/County Emergency Services Coordinator(s): Address: Telephone: (Business)( ) (Residential)(. ) Name, address and telephone number of all occupied dwellings that would be affected in the event of a dam failure, and/or inundation mapping of af~'ted areas. Name Address Telephone Number XA:\\:a,,, ~ ' -' \~ ;\\;~-,,-, ;~. _kc,.%,. 3/.,za " ,. , (DCR 199-103) (12/01) 2. Once the local ~vemment has been notified of a condition requiring evacuation, the dam o~. ex/opermor and local government m'e mutually responsible for effee6n~ (1) The dam owner/operator will: (2) Local government will: NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE b. Methods for no6fication ~md wamlng to ewacuale include: Ch,~ ~,ropr/at~ method(s) (1) Telepho~ (2) Police/fire/sheriff radio dispatch vehicles with loudspeakers, -- ~' (3) Pemonal runners for door-to-door alerting ~" (4) Radio/television broadea~ for area involved (DCR 199-103) (12/01) 6 November 1 I, 2005 To: The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor, and Members of Roanoke City Council From: The Undersigned Homeowners and Voters Re: Proposed Re-Zoning of the Sewell Lane Triangle (Tax Map No. 1360137) (see attached aerial photo) This triangular lot is surrounded by Sewell Lane and Hidden View Road and is owned by Roanoke City. It would be rezoned to "R-12 Residential Single-Family District" under the City's proposed new zoning ordinance. Just a shor~ walk away is "Lakewood Circle" which is slated to be rezoned "ROS-Recreation and Open Space." See the attached copy of the "Proposed Zoning Map" for this neighborhood. Both these areas should be "ROS.' We urge City Council to amend the new zoning ordinance so that Seweli Lane Triangle is designated "ROS-Recreation and Open Space." This action will pres~ve an open park-like area that we, our neighbors and visitors have enjoyed for many years. More importantly, an ROS classification would reduce the chance that this area will be sold by the City and u~d as a building site. Signature Name Address 2 City of Roanoke - GIS Page 1 of 3 Property Information Card for. CITY OF ROANOKE 215 CHURCH AV 8W RM 250 ROANOKE VA 24011 Print Report J Close Window Neighborhood Information View NAi_n;'~rhnnd pnrtRI BUILDING PERMITS Images N/^ P~ty Add~ Owner Name O~er 2 Name Assessment 1360137 SE~ELL LN SW PARCEL FOREST HILL Cl'~ OF ROANOKE N/A 215 CHURCH AV SW I~M 250 ROANOKE VA 24011 342 151-Vacant -SFR~ily 01/01/2005 $13.3OO.00 $13,300~)O Annual RA 05 fittp://gis.roanokegov, com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno= 1360137 &mapFn-.~kc_... 10/27/2005 ROANOKE Proposed Zoning Map September 29, 2005 Zoning Districts RA R-12 R-7 R-5 R-3 ~ RM-1 ~ RM-2 ~ RMF ~ MX ~ CN ~ C~ ~ CLS ~ IN ROS i~,~ MXPUD ~IPUD [i INPUD "(c)' denotes Conditiona Zon ng 36.2-324 Recreation and Open Space District (ROS) (a) Purpose The .Recreauon ~ Open Space District (ROS) ~s mumded no recOg~ze and enhance active park and recreation lands, resouxces from degra~tion, consistent with the recommendations of the City's C-ornprehemive Plan. It is fuzthex intended m prevent the encroachment of incompatible land use~, while permitting lirni~x/oms=uction within open space areas which is supporave of their function and which promotes their use and enjoyment (b) U~es The uses pem~itted as of tight or by special exception in the ROS District shall be as set for& in Section 362-340. (c) Principal structures per lot In the ROS Dhtficg more than one principal smacture may be permitted on a single lot, subject to the yard and impervious surface ratio ~equiremenm of Table 32~-1. When a lot contains mom than one 0) ptLaci~ structure, the lot frontage and lot m~ea requirements of Table 324-1 shall aplfly only to the 1o~, and not to the ptincip~ structures on the lot (d) Dimensional standards The dimensional standards for lots within the ROS District sh.ll be as set forth La Table 3244~ TalMe 324..1. Dimensio~l Matrlx for Reczeafion and Olin SI~aoe Di~ict (ROS) RO$ Deasity Lot area, minimum Lot area, maximum Lot fxontage, minimum Lot frontage, maximum Front yard, minimum 30 feet Front yax-d, maxxmum Side yaxds, minimum comhLaed width Side yard, minimum 30 feet Rear yard, mimmum 30 feet Height, maximum 35 feet Floor ~ea ratio, maximum Impervious surface ratio, rnmumum 15% WILLIAN D. BESTPITCH November 21, 2005 The Honorable Mayor & Members of City Council City of Roanoke 215 Church Ave., SW Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Mayor Harris and City Council Members: I request the City Council's further consideration of the regulations regarding placement and maximum heights of fences on comer lots with two or more street frontages in residential zoning districts, as contained in the standards proposed in §36.2-410(b) Fences and Walls, of the proposed Zoning Ordinance. The proposed regulations do not recognize the differences between the appropriate heights for fences when dealing with principal front yards (which abut the primary entrance to a residence) and the yard which abuts a side elevation of a residence adjacent to the other street frontage. Fence heights should be allowed to be up to six (6) feet in those areas between the building line and the street frontage when that frontage is not abutting the primary entrance of the residence. Thank you very much for your consideration of this request. I would be pleased to provide any additional information you may need. Sincerely, William D. Bestpitch 381 Washington Ave., SW * Roanoke, Virginia 24016 · 540.345.7535 bestpitch~naxs.net Good Evening! My name is Kay Kelly. I am the president of Mill Mountain Garden. Mill Mountain Garden Club was established in 1927. Mill Mountain has a membership of 80 active members. Our club is a member club of The Garden Club of Virginia of which there are 47 clubs throughout the state as well as a member club of The Garden Club of America of which there are 196 member clubs across the nation. The goals of Mill Mountain Club Garden Club and the broader organizations of which we are a part include education of its members and the community in all aspects of horticulture, civic beautification and conservation as well as the protection and preservation of natural resources of air, water and open spaces. I would like to thank the planning commission for proposing the strengthened ordinances pertaining to landscaping and screening. Members of Mill Mountain Garden Club have attended sessions presented by the planning commission as well as the previous hearing on the revised ordinances and new development standards. In addition, members of Mill Mountain Garden Club and other garden clubs in the Valley have expressed our support of the proposed ordinances through letters to members of the planning commission. I applaud the Planning Commission and thank them for the proposals they have made as well as for their dedication and insight into the positive impact such proposals would have on our community. The passage and implementation of the strengthened ordinances will favorably serve present and future generations of our Valley. Thank you! Objection to change of zoning of the property at the comer of Elm Ave/5t~ St S.E; Tax~4020412-3 In the public hearing, held by planning commission, 1 argued that I purchased the property only and only because it was zoned C2. If it was not C2, or if the city would inform me of the new zoning proposal before even after the ~ansaction, I definitely would not purchase it. Now if it changes to residential not only [ have no use for it, but also decreases the land value about %70. Today I'm arguing that regardless of the owners reasoning and opinion, the property itself clams that it is not situated on proper location to be residential. The fact is this property is more suited to be commercial than residential; Because: It is adjoined the gas station/convenience store, with all the related commotion's. It is next to the major artery of heavy traffics on the Bullitt Ave and Jamison Ave. It is exposed to a huge outdoor advertising tower where the company has the right to inter the property with a big boom track to replace the advertisement boards at any time. And it is for some other reasons why the city zoned it commercial in first place and kept it that way. In caparison I am the only one in that neighborhood who suffer the most because of this proposal; For an example consider the old and the new status of my property and the one whit tax #4020410 A~er all if the city council has to go with the proposal and change the zoning on my property any way then, my question is if the authorities willing to consider to compensate for my loss. Thanks for the hearing. Mike Najari. November 21, 2005. ROANOKE OFFICE OFTHE CITY MANAGER Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 2t5 Church Avenue, SW, Room 364 Roanoke, Virl~inia 24o~J. $4o.853.2333 www.roanokegov.com November 18, 2005 Mr. Paul W. Nordt III John C. Nordt Co. Inc. 1420 Coulter Drive, N.W. Roanoke, VA 24012 Dear Mr. Nordt: :: Thank you for your letter of November 14, 2005 regarding the pending zoning designation on your property in Roanoke. The process of drafting and adoption of a new zoning ordinance is an iterative process that involves many milestones and participants. I have shared your letter with staff in the Department of Planning Building and Economic Development. The staff recommendation to the City Planning Commission was to retain an industrial classification on your property under the proposed zoning ordinance as you recount in your letter. However, upon the City Planning Commission's public hearing and the Commission's consideration of all comments received regarding the proposed Airport Development District, the City Planning Commission recommended modifications to the proposed zoning map and zoning text to the City Council that differ in significant ways from what the staff originally proposed. I believe that the Commission's intent was to attempt to address the wide range of comments it received on this particular part of the ordinance in a manner which it felt would not adversely affect any of the parties involved, while also providing an appropriate range of land uses around our regional airport. I understand that your business participated in a meeting with City staff on November 9th at which property owners and other interested parties also participated. It is also my understanding that further specific modifications to the contents of the Airport Development District as they relate to permitted uses will be requested of the City Council at their public headng on Monday, November 21, 2005. Upon consideration of comments heard on the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council will make the final decision on the content of the ordinance and the official zoning map. I trust that they will seriously consider yours and any other concerns expressed at that time. D_.a. rle..ne L. Bur~:ham '~ City Manager ~ The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council The Members of the City Planning Commission Brian Townsend, Director, Planning Building and Economic Development · o[n~I oql ,lq po~.nbo~ .to poll!uu~d st. luompuaum qons l~ql lo~J3o oql ol 'snx~I sop.unoos p~Jopoj m. os.modxo ql!nx '~l.uoqmv ogl oI olqgldoooe 'losunoo mopuod~pm, jo uo.m~.do tm ,(q p~l~oddns s! pug ,(l!.~otlmV Otll ,(q 8m.l!.tnx m. pono~dd~ u~oq s~t[ luouxpuoum qons ,It. 'lu~tuo~J8V omso[os.t(I s!ql pu~um ,(~m ~onssI [eoo~I oql 'lu~umoJSV o,nsolos!(I s!ql 3o llOl. St. nold .lOIxrlO .~I~ 8m. putrlsql.tntloN su~tu~'u~uaV 'g NOI£DHS · lt~$V uop~ .uguoss!(I oW oq [[gqs ~onssI W-oo'-i otp 'lt~SV uo.tl~m, tuoss!(I I~lgu§t. sop .toqlo ,(tm lou s! oJoql ~u~.l ,(tm 1~ JI 'og.reqos[p Jo luomlm, odd~ qons ,(tm jo Kl!JoqlnV oql os!,xpe l[gqs xonssI lgOO~I otl. L 'moSV uopgm, tuoss.t(I .~oss~oons g $m. lm. oddg motp!ta .~o ql!nx 'luo~v qons ,~tre o~xeqos.tp ,(~tu ptm lt~tuoo~V o.msolos!(i s.tql Jopun suo!l~!lqo sl! mo 8m.~t~o m. 1! ls.tsse o~ luo~V uo!l~m, tuoss!(I ~ o~e~uo ~o lm. odde 'oug.1 ol ou~.l moxj 'K~tu .tonssI 1~oo7 oq, L 'su~gv u~,!s~u!mo~!ct '~ NOI£DHS · spuo~I looqos l~OOrI OtB Il~ JO luomo~.lox lem$ Jo ootms~o3op p~oI oql .Io Jn~oo ol ~o.qimo oql uodn olgm. uuo! [igqs luotuooJ~V o.msolos.t(I s.ttp lopun sllo!ll~g!lqo sdonssI ~ ~q,L 'uu.tsg$!lqD ~u!~ud~t:l 3u uu.tlgu.ttuao,L '9 NOI£D~I$ November 19, 2005 To: Mayor Harris and Members of City Council From: Board ofDirectors, WilliamsonRoad Action Forum Re: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Dear Mayor Harris and Members of Council: We are writing first of all to express our appreciation for the many months of hard work that have gone into the development of a new zoning ordinance for the City of Roanoke. We believe it moves the city in the right direction and urge its prompt adoption. In particular, we strongly support the CN mapping on Williamson Road. The defined CN areas make sense because they correspond to the Breckinridge, Oakland School, and Williamson at Liberty Road initiative areas listed in our neighborhood plan. New, small businesses are locating on Williamson Road. The diversity and energy that these businesses - many of which are owned by recent immigrants to the United States bring to our neighborhood are tremendous assets. CN designation, with its focus on neighborhood scale and pedestrian orientation, promises to benefit these small businesses and the people who live in close proximity to them. We urge the city through regulation and public investment to support the private investment in small business that is taking place on Williamson Road. CN designation with its dimensional and development standards will provide the necessary regulatory framework and will justify infrastructure spending on village center development in the identified CN nodes. Thus, we believe that CN designation will help to restore the healthy mix of small and medium scale commercial activity that was characteristic of Williamson Road in the past. We would like to thank the Planning Commission for its careful attention to, and satisfactory resolution of, most of the issues that we raised during commission review of the draft ordinance. But there are two issues that we would like to appeal. First, we request that the CG area on the west side of Williamson Road between Liberty Road and Chatham Street be mapped as CN and not CG. The proximity of Bowman Park, multifamily housing, the New Yorker Delicatessen, and the new Star City Playhouse make this area a very logical one for CN mapping. The New Yorker is and the playhouse promises to be - a regional attraction. The playhouse adjoins what was the Pete Moore building, which has been renovated and now has first floor commercial space and six second-floor apartments. This is just the kind of mixed use that the comprehensive plan envisions for village center locations. We view this area as a logical extension of the Williamson at Liberty Road initiative area. Section 11. No Ovefissuanc~e. The total proceeds derived by the Issuer from the sale of the Bonds and anticipated investment earnings thereon do not exceed the total of the mounts necessary to finance the Project. Section 12. Reimbursable Expenses. A portion of the proceeds of the Bonds to be applied to the cost of the Project will be used to reimburse the Issuer for expenditures incurred thereby with respect to the Project in anticipation of the issuance of the Bonds. The Issuer and the School Board represent the following with respect to the costs of the Project to be reimbursed from the proceeds of the Bonds. (a) Official Intent. The total amount of reimbursed costs incurred by the Issuer with respect to the Project is not expected to exceed $1,183,416. Such expenditures were paid prior to the date hereof but no earlier than sixty (60) days prior to November 17, 2003, which is the date the Issuer or the School Board adopted its "official intent" declaration (the "Official Intent Declaration") in accordance with Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury Regulations. The Official Intent Declaration: (i) was, on the date of its adoption, intended to constitute a written documentation on behalf of the Issuer that states that the Issuer reasonably expected to reimburse itself for such expenditures with the proceeds of a taxable or tax-exempt borrowing, (ii) set forth a general description of the Project, and (iii) stated the maximum principal amount of debt expected to be issued for the Project. Neither the Issuer nor the School Board has taken any action subsequent to the expression of such intent that would contradict or otherwise be inconsistent with such intent. (b) Reasonable Official Intent. As of the date of the Official Intent Declaration, the Issuer reasonably expected to reimburse such expenditures with the proceeds of a borrowing. The Issuer does not have a pattern of failing to reimburse expenditures for which an intention to reimburse such expenditures was declared and which were actually paid by the Issuer other than in circumstances that were unexpected and beyond the control of the Issuer. (c) Reimbursement Period Requirement The proceeds derived from the sale of the Bonds to be applied to reimburse the above-described expenditures will be so applied no later than the later of the date that is (i) eighteen (18) months after the date on which the expenditure being reimbursed was paid, or (ii) eighteen (18) months after the date on which the portion of the Project to which such expenditure relates was placed in service (within the meaning of Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury Regulations) or abandoned. The Issuer shall not, however, use Bond proceeds to reimburse the above-described expenditures later than three (3) years after the date the original expenditure was paid. N~I 4827608v! {#0937252-1, 077826-00{)47-01}(~-5 (d) Reimbursable Expenditures. The expenditures to be reimbursed are either (i) capital expenditures (within the meaning of Section 1.150-1 (b) of the Treasury Regulations), (ii) costs of issuance, (iii) certain working capital expenditures for extraordinary, nonrecurring items that are not customarily payable fi.om current revenues (within the meaning of Section 1.148-6 (d) (3) (ii) (El) of the Treasury Regulations), (iv) grants (within the meaning of Section 1.148-6 (d) (4) of the Treasury Regulations), or (v) qualified student loans, qualified mortgage loans or qualified veterans' mortgage loans (within the meaning of Section 1.150-1(b) of the Treasury Regulations). None of the expenditures to be reimbursed were incurred for day-to-day operating costs or similar working capital items. No portion of the proceeds of the Bonds being used to reimburse the Issuer for prior expenditures will be used, directly or indirectly, within one year of the date of a reimbursement allocation, in a manner that results in the creation of replacement proceeds (within the meaning of Section 1.148-1 of the Treasury Regulations), other than amounts deposited in a bona fide debt service fund. (e) Anti-Abuse Rules. None of the proceeds of the Bonds is being used in a manner that employs an abusive arbitrage device under Section 1.148-10 of the Treasury Regulations to avoid the arbitrage restrictions or to avoid the restrictions under Sections 142 through 147 of the Code. Section 13. Pi-ivate Activity Covenants. The Issuer and the School Board each represents, warrants and covenants that it will take no action that would cause either the Bonds or the VPSA's Bonds to be private activity bonds within the meaning of Section 141(a) of the Code and that it will not fail to take any action that would prevent the VPSA's Bonds and the Bonds fi.om being private activity bonds, within the meaning of Section 141(a) of the Code. Furthermore, the Issuer and the School Board have established reasonable procedures to ensure compliance with this covenant. Section 14. Covenant as to Arbitrage. The Issuer and the School Board each represents, warrants and covenants that whether or not any of the Bonds remain outstanding, the money on deposit in any fund or account maintained in connection with the Bonds, whether or not such money was derived fi.om the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds or fi'om any other sources, will not be used in a manner that would cause the Bonds or the VPSA's Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code and the applicable regulations thereunder. Section 15. Tax Covenant. The Issuer and the School Board each represents, warrants and covenants that it will not take any action which will, or fail to take any action which failure will, cause the interest on the Bonds or the VPSA's Bonds to become includable in the gross income of the owners of the Bonds or the VPSA's Bonds for federal income tax purposes pursuant to the provisions of the Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder in effect on the date of original issuance of the Bonds and the VPSA's Bonds. (#0937252-1. o7782c~-ooo47-ol}C-6 Mary Alice Nash, Treasurer John Comthwait David Wood Carl Cooper Barbara Hairfield Sharon Comthwait MELCHIONN& DAY, AMMAR & BLACK ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS November 21, 2005 RECEIVED NOV 2 1 2005 MAYOR'S OFFICE PAUL M BLACK EMA[L PBLACKt~MDABLAW COM HAND DELIVERED The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor M. Rupert Cutler Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. Sherman P. Lea Brenda L. McDaniel Brian J. Wishneff 215 Church Avenue Roanoke, VA 24011 Re: Proposed AD, Airport Development District Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council: This firm represents BB&T Corporation ("BB&T"), the owner of three parcels of land on Coulter Road in Roanoke City. One tract of land contains the former First Virginia Bank Operations Center, now owned by BB&T through its acquisition of First Virginia Bank - Southwest, and two undeveloped tracts adjacent to the Operations Center. BB&T is opposed to the proposed Airport Development ("AD") District, and urges City Council either to abandon that zoning classification, or to withdraw BB&T's property from the proposed AD District and have it included as I- 1, Light Industrial. On behalf of BB&T, I attended the informational meeting with Mr. Townsend and Ms. Snodgrass on November 11, 2005. At that meeting, the question was asked whether the proposed AD District was modeled after another jurisdiction's successful development of an AD District, or whether it was something called for because of documented needs at the airport. The answer was that the AD District was not modeled after any other jurisdiction's successful use of such a district, but was an original creation by the Roanoke City Planning, Building and Development Department. We were not advised that any empirical study was done concluding the existing zoning classifications near the airport are unsatisfactory for existing or projected uses or needs, or that there is a need for a separately designated AD District because existing zoning classifications are deficient. There was no articulated reason for this new classification based on facts that 1100 BB&T BANK BUILDING PO BOX 90 ROANOKE VIRGINIA 24002 PHONE 540-982-3800 FAX 540~342-4480 WWW. MDABLAW. COM The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor, et al. November 21, 2005 Page 2 would justify it. If such facts exist, the City Planning Department should make those facts public and available all property owners affected by the new classification. To date, no property owner of which BB&T is aware has seen any such data. While BB&T has not definitively established its long term plans for its Coulter Drive property, BB&T has identified the Coulter Drive property as a potential future site to serve the needs of the northern part of its geographic footprint, which at present extends from the North Carolina line to Maryland. If such action is pursued, it may not be an expansion of the existing facility, but new construction on the vacant parcels BB&T owns that are adjacent to the existing operations center. If the AD District were to be approved, BB&T would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and seek a special exception. Under the new ordinance, BB&T would only be able to pursue a special exception in the event its new facility contained a minimum size of 20,000 square feet of gross floor area. In evaluating that request, the Board of Zoning Appeals would have to confront Section 36.2-325, which provides that the AD District is "intended to permit and encourage the development of uses depending on or related to air transportation in the areas in and around the Roanoke Regional Airport. Such uses support airport functions, are dependent on air transportation, are unlikely to pose a threat to flights or airport operations, and are less sensitive to airport operations than most commercial or industrial uses." The conjunctive and not the alternative is used. There can be no assurance that any such special exception would be granted, severely restricting the potential use and/or remarketability of BB&T's property. Such action may constitute an improper taking, and BB&T reserves all rights in that regard. An additional problem with the proposed ordinance as applied to BB&T's property is the definition of "Financial Institution," which is not a permitted use or available as a special exception under the AD District as proposed. "Financial Institution" is defined as "the provision of financial and banking services to consumers and clients, and including banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, lending establishments, and mortgage offices." Under the wording of this definition, it is not clear that banking related support activities are outside the definition, although that is the interpretation that was conveyed at the information meeting. Future staff, planners, or BZA members may interpret this definition differently. The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor, et al. November 21, 2005 Page 3 BB&T objects to the inclusion of an Airport Development District in the new zoning ordinance, and requests that the City Council decline the adoption of such a district. In the alternative, BB&T requests that its property be withdrawn from the AD District, and be zoned I- 1, Light Industrial. Paul M. Black Cc: BB&T Corporation R. Brian Townsend, Director of Planning, Building, & Development Nancy Snodgrass, Zoning Administrator William M. Hackworth, City Attorney W:\black~39901371etcouncil.doc/op ?05'o2_ 7, '..5 ,,g~/~.Z~ 7'4 JAMES F. DOUTHAT 540 983-7662 doutham(~woodsrogecs.com WOODS ROGERS ATTORNEYS AT LAW November 21, 2005 Honorable Nelson Harris, Mayor The City of Roanoke 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Noel C. Taylor Municipal Bldg. Roanoke, VA 24011 Re: Proposed Chapter 36.2 Zoning Airport Development District November 21, 2005, Public Meeting Dear Mayor Harris: This firm represents NPI Properties-Roanoke, LLC (NPI Properties), owner of three parcels of property designated as New Lots 2-Al-A, B and C Greendale Farms, which are shown as Tax Map Nos. 6530107, 6530108 and 6530109 and are located at 3712, 3716 and 3736 Tom Andrews Road, NW. These contiguous parcels of property are currently zoned LM and are the site of a multi-purpose building under lease to a tenant that has the option to either terminate the lease or extent the lease and expand the facility in the near future (the "Property"). The Property was purchased by NPI Properties because of its zoning, the multi-purpose facility located on the Property and the ability to expand the facility and adapt its uses for the existing tenant, for proposed tenants or, more importantly, for the use of entities related to NPI Properties. The Property is currently zoned LM and is proposed to be zoned Airport Development District in the proposed Chapter 36.2 Zoning Ordinance. Under paragraph 36.2- 302 (B) of the proposed ordinance, Airport Development District is to apply only to "certain properties immediately adjacent to the airport that should be utilized for airport-supportive or airport-related uses." A review of Table 340-1, Use Matrix, of the proposed Chapter 36.2 Zoning Ordinance indicates that uses permitted as of right as a principle use, by special exception as a principle use or as an accessory use are severely limited under the Airport Development District classification. A zoning ordinance should be based on the proposition that real property located within a municipality should be fairly and equitably regulated to accommodate a multitude of uses and a variety of structures for the benefit of all landowners and residents of the municipality. Comparable uses should be classified in zoning districts that equitably govern use regulations and structure limitations that are appropriate to the intended use. For example, a residential district classification should assure a homeowner that adjacent parcels will be used in a similar {~0946068-1, 106135-00002-01} P.O. Box 14125 / Roanoke, Virginia 240384125 10 South Jefferson Street, Suite 1400 540 983-7600 / Fax 540 983-7711 / mail~woodsrogers.com Offices also in Blacksburg, Danville, Lynchburg and Richmond, Virginia Page 2 manner and that the structures on residentially zoned parcels are compatible. A zoning ordinance should also provide for a transition between zoning districts that reduces negative impact on a parcel with a less restrictive use from an adjacent parcel zoned for a different use. In summary, a zoning ordinance must protect all property owners and balance the equities between permitted uses and improvements on all parcels governed by the ordinance so that the ordinance regulates adjoining properties in a manner which is beneficial to each individual parcel of property. Airport Development District does not comply with this basic premise. The intent of all of the other zoning districts in the proposed City of Roanoke zoning ordinance is for all properties to receive a benefit from being located in their respective zoning districts because all the properties will be subject to regulations intended to be for the benefit of all properties within that district. This is not the case in Airport Development District. The purpose of the Airport Development District is to cause property adjacent to the airport to be used in a manner that solely benefits the airport. The Airport Development District is not proposed for the benefit of the privately owned parcels that will be subject to this zoning classification but clearly and unequivocally is imposed for the sole benefit of the airport. This is not an appropriate purpose for a zoning ordinance. The private citizens that purchased the property that is proposed to be part of the Airport Development District did so in reliance upon the zoning classification in effect at the time of pumhase and with the understanding that future zoning regulation would be fair, equitable and for the benefit of all like classified properties, not just the airport. To classify 50~: parcels, Airport Development District and to require their use to be solely for the benefit of the airport is to reduce the value of those parcels and to transfer that value, assuming there is a transfer of value, to the airport. The City is permitted, whether through a comprehensive plan or a zoning ordinance, to limit land use, but it must be for the mutual benefit of all property, not just the City's property. The City may not act so that the value ora parcel of property is diminished for the stated purpose of benefiting the adjacent property that the City controls without paying compensation to those property owners who have suffered loss in order to benefit of the City. No manner how laudable it may be to support the airport, if the City is going to take the rights of the adjacent property owners to support the airport, then the City must pay for those rights as it is condemning the adjacent parcels of property for its own gain. NPI Properties strenuously objects to the inclusion of its Property in the Airport Development District and/or the zoning of its Property Airport Development. The use limitations for Airport Development in Table 340-1 would effectively render the Property unusable by NPI Properties and its related entities and would restrict the tenants that could be placed in the Property so severally as to render the Property almost impossible to sell or lease if the current tenant were to vacate the premises. In addition, the definition of"airport-supported uses around the Roanoke Regional Airport" lacks definition and is so vague and subject to interpretation that it would be impossible for potential users to determine if they could operate in the Property without a ruling from the City. {#0946068-1, 106135-00002-01} Page 3 The change of zoning of the Property from LM under the existing zoning ordinance to Airport Development District under the proposed Chapter 36.2 Zoning Ordinance would reduce the value of the Property and the ability of NPI Properties to use, lease, sell or develop the Property to such an extent that it would constitute a taking of the Property without just compensation. The imposition of the Airport Development District zoning is demonstratively capricious, unfair and without logical basis and would have the effect that the Property would have been seized by the City of Roanoke for its purposes while adjacent property would be allowed to retain the benefits of the existing industrial zoning, in part, by the proposed I-1 Light Industrial zoning. Please be advised that NPI Properties-Roanoke, LLC considers any action to place its Property in the Airport Development District or to zone its Property for Airport Development to be an improper taking, that the imposition of an Airport Development District zoning on its Property would be vague, capricious and without basis and respectfully requests that the City Council take such action as may be necessary to protect the vested rights of NPI Properties- Roanoke, LLC in order that it is not forced to seek its legal remedies in this regard. Your consideration of the position in which property owners whose property is being slated for Airport Development District (AD) are placed will be greatly appreciated. IfI may provide further information or be of any further assistance, please contact me immediately. JFD:sg CC; Very truly yours, / James F. Douthat Members of City Council Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, Esq., City Attorney R. Brian Townsend, Director of Planning, Building and Development NPI Properties-Roanoke, LLC {~0946058-1, 106135-00002-01} Peters Creek Joint Venture ARS Properties, L.C., White Birch Holdings, LLC, Branch Management Corp. 10 South Jefferson Slreet 1200 Wachovia Tower Roanoke, Virginia 24011 November 21, 2005 Mr. R. Brian Townsend Director of Planning, Building & Development and Acting Director of Economic Development 215 Church Avenue, SW, Room 166 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Ms. Nancy Snodgrass Zoning Administrator Planning, Building & Development Department 215 Church Avenue, SW, Room 166 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Re: Proposed Zoning Map dated September 29, 2005 Dear Brian and Nancy: As owners of the property located 2903 Peters Creek Road in the City of Roanoke identified as Roanoke City Tax Parcel #6410105 and #6410106, we would like to make the following request. As you may recall, this property was rezoned to C-2 Conditional in June 2004. The Proposed Zoning Map under the new comprehensive rezoning dated September 29, 2005, 2005 shows this property with a base zoning district of Commercial-General (CG). We understand the current C-2 Conditional zoning along with the Proffers accepted with our rezoning takes precedent over the new CG zoning designation in all cases including Design Standards. Mr. R. Brian Townsend Ms. Nancy Snodgrass November 21, 2005 Page 2 The 10.98 Acres is comprised of two tax parcels measuring 4.80 acres and 6.18 acres respectfully and has been under common ownership for over 60 years. (See the attached Property Information Cards and aerial). Our partnership acquired the property in 2004. As you can see, the size and configuration of this property is best suited to have a base zoning district of Commercial-Large Site District (CLS) as it would be more closely aligned to the current C-2 Conditional zoning with the approved proffers. The CG Zoning Classification has a lot area, maximum of 130,680 SF (3 acres). Both tax parcels as individual parcels meet the minimum 90,000 SF lot area as described in the proposed CLS zoning ordinance. We would appreciate your consideration of our request to substitute the Commercial- General District (CG) designation with the Commercial-Large Site District (CLS) lbr both of these tax parcels. Thank you in advance for giving our request your serious consideration. Very Truly Yours, ARS Properties, L.C. White Birch Holdings, LLC Steve Strauss, Manager Dennis Cronk, Manager Branch Management Corp. Tor~ Branchl President CC: The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice-Mayor M. Rupert Cutler Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. Sherman P. Lea Brenda L. McDaniel Brian J. Wishneff Maryellen Goodlatte, Atty. City of Roanoke - GIS Page 1 of 3 Property Information Card for: ARS PROPERTIES LC ETALS P O BOX 20287 ROANOKE VA 24018 Print Report [ Close Window Neighborhood information View Nei§borhood Portal BUILDING PERMITS View Permits & Code Enforcement Notices Images N/A Sketches Sketch ! OWNER/LEGAL INFORMATION Tax Number Prope~y Address Legal Description Owner Name Owner 2 Name Owner Address Neighborhood Number Census Tract 6410105 2903 PETERS CREEK RD NW 4.80 ACRES MC ADAM RD ARS PROPERTIES LC ETALS N/A P 0 BOX 20287 ROANOKE VA 24018 620 0.00000 httm//ais.roanoke~ov.com/mtDetailAll.cfm?maono=641 O105 X.m~,~r~,~=,..v,~ ~ ~/~ ~/.aa~ ~, City of Roanoke - GIS Page 2 of 3 Properly Use 400-Commercial/Industrial ASSESSMENT INFORMATION Assessment History 01/01/2005 Land Assessment $284,600.00 improvements $500.00 Total $285,100.00 Change Reason Annual RA 05 Assessment History 2 01101/2005 Land Assessment 2 $247,500.00 Improvements 2 $500.00 Total 2 $248,000.00 Change Reason 2 Rezoning SALF-JTRANSFER INFORMATION Deed Reference 040004001 Grantor POFF GUIDA Sale Date 02/11/2004 Sale Price $450,000.00 Deed Reference 2 0000000000 Grantor 2 POFF CEDRIC H Prev, Sale Date 08/14/1994 Prev. Sale Price $0.00 ZONING LOT INFORMATION Property Area Sqff. 240,010 Property Frontage 120 Feet Property Avg. Depth 967 Feet Property Acres 5.5097 Zoning C-2 Overlay Zoning N/A TOPOGRAPHy Topography N/A FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION SFHA N/A Firm Panel 51161 C0023D Community 0130 FIPS 51770 STRUCTURE INFORMATION Year Built 1930 Number of stories 2.0 Construction Exterior Brick veneer Size Sqft. 1,920 Foundation Full Bsmt Structure Wood frame Lower Split Foyer 0 Lower Finished Total Bedrooms 0 Total Rooms 8 ATTIC Attic None BASEMENT Basement Area Sqff. 960 Finished Sqft. 0 ROOFS Roof Style Hip http://eis.roanokeeov.corn/rptDetailAll.cfm?ma~no=641 O105 &manFn=rnke INTI~PNIF: 1 1/o 1/')ar~c . Ci.ty of Roanoke - GIS Page 3 of 3 Roof Cover Comp sh to 235~ HEATING/AIR Heating Type Hot water or steam Central Air N Fireplaces Yes PLUMBING 2 Fixture 0 3 Fixture 2 4 Fixture 0 5 Fixture 0 GARAGES Attached Garage N/A Detached Garage 240 Attached Carpor~ N/A Basement Lower Level Garage N/A PORCHES Enclosed Porch 208 Open Porch 0 Wood Deck 0 httD://ais.roanokeeov.com/mtDetailAll.cfm?ma~no-6410105 ff, amnnFn=rnlca INITPDNIP 11/'91/on,q< City of Roanoke - GIS Page 1 of 3 Prin~ Report I Close Window Property Information Card for: ARS PROPERTIES LC ETALS P O BOX 20287 ROANOKE VA 24018 Neighborhood information View Neiqborhood Portal BUILDING PERMITS View Permits & Code Enforcement Notices Images N/A Sketches N/A OWNER/LEGAL INFORMATION Tax Number Property Address Legal Description Owner Name Owner 2 Name Owner Address Neighborhood Number Census Tract 6410106 PETERS CREEK RD NW 6.18 ACRES MC ADAM RD ARS PROPERTIES LC ETALS N/A P O BOX 20287 ROANOKE VA 24018 620 0.00000 htto://~is.roanokeeov.com/mtDetailAll.cfm?mavno=6410106 ,~mar~Fn=mlco 11/9 1/On(Iq City of Roanoke -GIS Page 2 of 3 Property Use 140-Commemial Vacant ASSESSMENT INFORMATION Assessment History 01/01/2005 Land Assessment $307,40000 Improvements $0.00 Total $307,400.00 Change Reason Annual RA 05 /'~ssessment History 2 01/01/2005 Land Assessment 2 $267,300.00 Improvements 2 $0.00 Total 2 $267,300.00 Change Reason 2 Rezoning SALE/TRANSFER INFORMATION Deed Reference 040004001 Grantor POFF GUlDA Sale Date 02/11/2004 Sale Price $450,000.00 Deed Reference 2 0000000000 Grantor 2 POFF CEDRIC H Prey. Sale Date 06/14/1994 Prev. Sale Price $0.00 ZONING LOT INFORMATION Property Area Sqft. 258,991 Properb/Frontage 250 Feet Property Avg. Depth 1115 Feel Property Acres 5.9454 Zon~ C-2 Overlay Zoninq N/A TOPOGRAPHY Topography N/A FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION SFHA N/A Firm Panel 51161C0023D Community 0130 FIPS 51770 STRUCTURE INFORMATION Year Built N/A Number of stories N/A Construction Exterior N/A Size Sqff. N/A Foundation N/A Structure N/A Lower Split Foyer N/A Lower Finished N/A Total Bedrooms N/A Total Rooms N/A ATTIC Attic N/A BASEMENT Basement Area Bq/t. N/A Finished Sqft. N/A ROOFS htto:/&is.roanokeeov.com/rvtDetailAll.cfm?manno=6410106 &manFn=rnk~ INIT~I~N[~ 1 1/')1 City of Roanoke - GIS Page 3 of 3 Roof Style N/A Roof Cover N/A HEATING/AIR Heating Type N/A Central Air N/A Fireplaces No PLUMBING 2 Fixture N/A 3 Fixture N/A 4 Fixture N/A 5 Fixture N/A GARAGES Attached Garage N/A Detached Garage N/A Attached Carport N/A Basement Lower Level Garage N/A PORCHES Enclosed Porch N/A Open Porch N/A Wood Deck N/A http://eis.roanokeeov.com/rotDetailAll.cfm?mavno=6410106 &manFn=mke INTlC'I~NI~ 1 1/9 ~/9rmq BMG BERGLUND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. 1824 WILLIAMSON ROAD P.O. BOX 12608 ROANOKE, VA 24027 PHONE (540) 344-1461 November 14, 2005 Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor City Of Roanoke 215 Church Avenue, Room 456 Roanoke, VA 24011-1594 Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council: Area of concern: zoning designation on corner of Liberty and Plantation Roads (changed to CN, should be CG) The Proposed Zoning map dated September 29, 2005 assigns an inappropriate zoning classification to many properties in the Williamson Road area. One such problem area is the comer of Liberty Road and Plantation Road, on the south side of Liberty. The Planning Commission has recommended Commercial-Neighborhood (CN) for the two properties located on the southern side of this comer. These lots should be classified as Commercial-General (CG) not CN. The input from local business owners should be an important consideration when the Planning Commission considers which zoning classification is best for individual commercial properties. In the case of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance and map, City Council should be aware that the business community is not satisfied with the recommendations made by the Planning Commission. The properties identified above are one example of a process that has not worked as intended. Now the City Council should send the ordinance and map back to the Planning Commission and staff so that properties can have the zoning classification changed prior to Council adopting the new Zoning Ordinance and map. I believe many of these zoning errors that are reflected on the September 29 map could have been avoided if City staff had been more receptive to the interests of the business community. When staff provides the information, and staff leads the discussion in Planning Commission work sessions, they need to make an effort to represent the best interests of the people who live and work in the neighborhood where the property is located. I am willing to sit down with the Planning Commission and City staffto help resolve the problems that are inherent in the Proposed Zoning Ordinance and map. It is time to work together to revise these documents in a way that encourages the growth and development of commerce in Roanoke. President Attorneys at Law 540.983.9300 Facsimile 540,983.9400 Direct Dial: (540) 983-9312 mikejace~gentrylock¢.com GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & M(}DRE A Limited Liability Partnership November 18, 2005 I O Franklin Road, S E Post OfficeBox 40013 Roanoke, Virginia 24022-0013 ~w~¥gentrylockecom Mr. R. Brian Townsend Director of Planning, Building & Development and Acting Director of Economic Development 215 Church Avenue, SW, Room 166 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Ms. Nancy Snodgrass Zoning Administrator Planning, Building & Development Department 215 Church Avenue, SW, Room 166 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Re: Proposed AD, Airport Development District Dear Brian and Nancy: Thank you for meeting with the owners of property proposed to be included in the new AD, Airport Development District on November 11. It is fair to say that the owners who will be affected by the zoning reclassification of their properties do not believe there has been a change in circumstances around the airport which justifies the creation of a special zoning district for nearby properties. However, in the event City Council ultimately decides to adopt an AD, Airport Development District in the final version of the new zoning ordinance, there are a number of issues that were not addressed by the Planning Commission in its recommendations to City Council which need further consideration. We appreciate the opportunity to provide the following suggestions for additional revisions to the proposed AD, Airport Development District ordinance, which are intended to address the specific concerns expressed by the property owners who attended the meeting on the 1 lth: 1. Proposed Section 36.2-325(a) "Purpose" should be revised to make clear that certain uses to be permitted in the AD, Airport Development District do not have to be "airport-related". This change is important because it eliminates the ambiguity that exists between the proposed ordinance and Section IN P5 of Vision 2001/2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, which requires that "land use adjacent to the airport should be reserved for commercial and industrial development related to air 14584/1/1339079.1 GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & MOORE Mr. R. Brian Townsend Ms. Nancy Snodgrass November 18, 2005 Page 2 transportation or those businesses needing easy access to airport facilities. Airport- related uses will be encouraged in the areas near the airport." A copy of proposed Section 36.2-325(a) containing the suggested changes is attached. The definition of "Office, general or professional, Large scale" contained in Appendix A of the proposed zoning ordinance should be revised to reduce the minimum size from 20,000 square feet of gross floor area to 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. Imposing a minimum size of 20,000 square feet will practically eliminate any use of the properties contained in the AD Airport Development District for professional or general offices. The commercial real estate agents who have considered the effect of this ordinance agree that the 20,000 square foot requirement will drastically reduce the marketability of the parcels proposed to be included in the AD Airport Development District for development or re-development. A minimum size of 10,000 square feet of gross floor area for professional or general offices will (a) eliminate the Planning Commission's concern about a proliferation of small offices near the airport, (b) give these land owners a better opportunity to realize on their investments in those properties by putting them to their highest and best uses, and (c) promote positive economic development activity around the airport. A copy of the change of this definition is attached. Certain additional uses of the type currently allowed in LM, Light Manufacturing District, and in the proposed I-1, Light Industrial District, should be permitted by right in the proposed AD Airport Development District. Our recommendations for these additional uses are enclosed and designated with a "P" in the attached Use Matrix. They include: (a) Financial Institution; (b) Laboratory, dental, medical or optical (such as Johnson & Johnson and The Egg Factory); (c) Laboratory, testing and research (such as the types of uses at Virginia Tech's Corporate Research Center near the airport in Blacksburg); (d) Offices, general or professional, Large scale (currently allowed by special exception only); (e) Building supplies and materials, retail; (f) Building supplies and ma teriais, wholesale; (g) Commercial printing establishment; (h) Electrical component assembly, wholesale distribution; (i) Manufacturing: General (currently allowed by special exception only); (j) Manufacturing: Steel or metal production, fabrication, or processing (currently allowed by special exception only); 14584/1/1339079.1 GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & MCDRE Mr. R. Brian Townsend Ms. Nancy Snodgrass November 18, 2005 Page 3 (k) Mini-warehouse, subject to Sec. 36.2-415; (1) Educational facilities, Business school or non-industrial trade school; (m) Educational facilities, Industrial trade school; (n) Government offices or other government facilities (post offices, facilities for police, fire and rescue services, military reserve or National Guard centers are permitted by right, and the airport itself is a govermnent-related enterprise); and (o) Parking lot facility. These additional uses are reasonable and consistent with the types of uses at other similar airports that generate positive economic activity. You will note that uses (d), (i), and (j) above, which are currently proposed to be allowed only by "S" (special exception) have been redesignated as "P" (permitted use). Given the recommended changes discussed above, use (d) (Offices, general or professional, Large scale) should be permitted by right within the AD, Airport Development District without having to obtain separate approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Please consider these suggestions and recommend their inclusion in the final version of the AD, Airport Development District to the members of City Council. I will be pleased to meet with you at your convenience to discuss any questions you may have. Sincerely, GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & MOORE, LLP G. Michael Pace, Jr. cc: The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice-Mayor M. Rupert Cutler Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. Sherman P. Lea Brenda L. McDaniel Brian J. Wishneff 14584/1/1339079.1 36.2-325 Airport Development District (AD) (a) Purpose The Aixport Development District (AD) is intended to petrrat and encourage the development of uses dependent on or related to air tsanspottafion in the axeas in and around the Roanoke Regional Akpo~ Such uses support amport functions, ~xe dependent on ah' transportation, are unlikely to pose a thxeat to flights or a~rport opeeations, and are less sensitive to sixport operations than most commercial or industm] uses. The AD District is intended to p~ovide space for the effident layout and opeva6on of Roanoke Regional Airpoa, including facilities for commercial airline operations, air ca~go, general aviation, and an appropriate range of retail and sexvice uses that se~e sixport customers, and to pemut transportation-related and operations-£elated activities, large-scale ~eseaxch and development and office uses, and cextam manufacturing uses in the immediate vicinity of the aL, port that are compatible with of supportive of (b) Applicability (1) The Aiq?ort Development Distrct (AD) shall apply to those propemes owned by the R(nnoke Regional Aitpoa Commission and cextam p~opemes immediately adjacent to and in the vicinity of the aL, pOrt that should be utilized fo~ aitport-suppotrve or aiq~ort-related uses. The dev~t of propeedes in the AL, port Development District (AD) that axe owned by the Roanoke Regk~al Atiport c°mmtSsion and are contiguous to one anothex shall be exempt fxom the following (A) The dimensional standaxds set forth in Section 36.2-325(e); (B) The sign regulations set forth in Acdde 6, Div~ion 6, of this Chapter; and (C) The hndscaping and scxeening regulations set forth in Aaide 6, Division 4, of this Chapter. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to exempt prope~aes owned by the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission that a~e located within the ALvport Development Distxict (AD) from the z°rang amendment procedures and z°nmg pemait requarements as set forth in Sections 36.2-540 and 36.2-52Z (c) Uses The uses pemutted as of fight or by special exception in the AD District shall be as set forth in Section 36.2-M0. (d) Principal structures pet lot In the AD District, more than one (1) Pnndpal structure may be penmtted on a single lot, subject to the yard, floo~ area ratio, and impervious surface milo requlzements of Table 325-1. When a lot contains more than one (1) principal structure, the bt frontage and lot area requirements of Table 325-1 shall apply only to the lot, and not to the principal stsuctutes on the lot. (e) Dimensional standards The dimensional standards for lots within the AD District shall be as set focth in Table 325-1. Proposed Zoning Ordinance - City of Roanoke 27 Article 3 Table 340-1. Use Matrix 's shop, Ge'c~ral or Special Table 340-1, Use Matrix Bio$olids field Building supplics and materials, ~Arholesalc Commercial printing c~tablishment Compoating facility Dairy products, processing, ~ottling, distribution Electrical componem assembly, wholesale distribution Fuel oll distribution Fuclinl~ station, commercial or wholesale Junk yard, subject to Sec. 36.2414 Manufacturing: Beverage or food processing, excluding poultry and animal slaughtering and dre~ing Table 340-1. Use Matrix Table 340-1. Use Mai~x Table 340-1. Use Matrix Facsimile 540,983.9400 Direct Dial: (540) 983-9312 mikcD>ace~gentrylocke.corn GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & M@RE A Limited Liability Partnership November 18, 2005 A.3o I0 Franklin Road S E Post O~ice Box 40013 Roanoke Virginia 24022 0015 www gentrylocke corn Mr. R. Brian Townsend Director of Planning, Building & Development and Acting Director of Economic Development 215 Church Avenue, SW, Room 166 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Ms. Nancy Snodgrass Zoning Administrator Planning, Building & Development Department 215 Church Avenue, SW, Room 166 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Re: Proposed AD, Airport Development District Properties of N&W Investments, LLC (Tax No. 6630106) Dear Brian and Nancy: We represent N&W Investments, LLC which is owned by Mike Warner and Jess Newbem. The property referenced above has been proposed for inclusion in the AD, Airport Development District in the City's new zoning ordinance. A copy of the Property Information Card for the property is attached. This parcel was not initially to be rezoned from its current LM, Light Manufacturing designation to AD, Airport Development District. We believe it was only recently included in the revised zoning map prepared in conjunction with the Planning Commission's recommendations to City Council regarding the adoption of the ordinance. The property is located on Municipal Road and is not adjacent to the airport. It is currently being put to a commercial use as allowed in the LM, Light Manufacturing District. Unless the proposed AD, Airport Development District ordinance is revised to permit similar uses by right, the redesignation of this parcel to AD, Airport Development District will have a severe adverse affect on its marketability and use. Accordingly, we request that it not be included in the AD, Airport Development District. Rather, we ask that it be rezoned to I-l, Light Industrial District 18007/2/1339508.1 GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & MOORE Mr. R. Brian Townsend Ms. Nancy Snodgrass November 18, 2005 Page 2 in order to permit the property to continue to be used for its current use and for similar uses in the future. This would avoid the economic damage caused by such a severe down-zoning to N&W Investments, LLC which bought the property in good faith for commercial use and development. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, GE TRY LOC KES & MOORE, LLP cc: Members of Roanoke City Council 18007/2/1339508.1 City of Roanoke - GIS Page 1 of 3 Print Report I Close Window Property Information Card for: N & W INVESTMENTS LLC P.O.BOX 4900-PROP TAX #201 SCOTTSDALE AZ 8526'1-4900 Neighborhood information View Nei§borhood Portal BUILDING PERMITS View Permits & Code Enforcement Notices Images Sketches Sketch 1 OWNER/LEGAL INFORMATION Tax Number Property Address Legal Description Owner Name Owner 2 Name Owner Address Neighborhood Number Census Tract Property Use ASSESSMENT INFORMATION Assessment History 6630106 1305 MUNICIPAL RD NW 1.997 ACRES BARRENS N & W INVESTMENTS M.C N/A P.O.BOX 4900-PROP TAX #201 SCOTTSDALE AZ 852614900 660 0.00000 400-Commercial/Industfial http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6630106 &mapFn=rnke_... 11/17/2005 City of Roanoke - GIS Page 2 of 3 01/01/2005 Land Assessment $228,400.00 Improvements $370,200.00 Total $598,600.00 Change Reason Annual RA 05 Assessment History 2 01/01/2004 Land Assessment 2 $207,600.00 Improvements 2 $352,600.00 Total 2 $560,200.00 Change Reason 2 Annual RA 04 SALE/TRANSFER INFORMATION Deed Refereece 0020014857 Grantor N & W PROPERTIES Sale Date 08/20/2002 Sale Price Deed Reference 2 0020007282 Grantor 2 M J P ASSOCIATES Prey. Sale Date 04/23/2002 Prey. Sale Pries $0.00 ZONING LOT INFORMATION Property Area Sqff. 86,879 property Frontage 286 Feet Property Avg. Depth 348 Feet Property Acres 1.9944 Zonifig LM Overlay Zoning N/A TOPOGRAPHY Topography N/A FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION SFHA N/A Finn Panel 51161C0024D Community 0130 FIPS 51770 STRUCTURE INFORMATION Year Built 1977 Number of stories 1 A'R'IC BASEMENT http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6630106 &mapFn=mke_INTERNE... 11/17/2005 City~ of Roanoke - GIS Page 3 of 3 HEATING/AIR Heating Type Central Air Fireplaces PLUMBING 2 Fixture 3 Fixture 4 F~ure $ Fixture GARAGES Attached Garage Detached Garage Attached Carport Basement Lower Level Garage PORCHES Enclosed Porch Open Porch Wood Deck 26236~ N No N~ N~ N~ N~ N~ N~ N~ N/A ~A http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6630106 &mapFn=rnke_INTERNE... 11/17/2005 Direct Dial: (540) 983-9312 mikeJ)ace~gentrylocke.com GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & M@RE A Limited Liability Partnership November 18, 2005 10 Franklin Road, S E Post Office Box 40015 Roanoke, Virginia 24022 O013 ~ gentrylocke corn Mr. R. Brian Townsend Director of Planning, Building & Development and Acting Director of Economic Development 215 Church Avenue, SW, Room 166 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Ms. Nancy Snodgrass Zoning Administrator Planning, Building & Development Department 215 Church Avenue, SW, Room 166 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Re: Proposed AD, Airport Development District Properties of Calvin and Mary Powers, Tax No. 6520101 -Thirlane Road, NW, Roanoke City, Virginia Dear Brian and Nancy: We represent Calvin and Mary Powers who own the property described above. The property has been proposed for inclusion in the RA - Residential Agricultural District in the City's new zoning ordinance. A copy of the Property Information Card for the property is attached. The property is unimproved and adjoins 1-581. Its highest and best use is not residential or agricultural, but is commercial. The property owned by Crawford Development Co., LLC (Tax Map No. 6520105) is currently zoned LM and we believe is designated to I- 1, Light Industrial District under the new ordinance. We ask that the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Powers be given similar treatment, which will permit it to be put to a more productive use than either its current or proposed zoning designations will allow. It may also than serve as a catalyst for the appropriate development of adjacent residential properties. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, MOORE, LLP cc: Members of Roanoke City Council 12233/1/1339426.1 City of Roanoke - GIS Page I of 3 Property Information Card for: POWERS CALVIN W & MARY C PO BOX 12068 ROANOKE VA 24022 Print Repo~ I Close Window Neighbo~'nood Information View Neigborhood Portal BUILDING PERMITS View Permits & Code Enforcement Notices Images N/A Sketches N/A OWNERfl. EGAL INFORMATION Tax Number Property Address Legal Desc~p~ion Owner Name Owner 2 Name Owner Address Neighborhood Number Cereus Tract Proberty Use ASSESSMENT INFORMATION Assessment History Land Assessment Improvements Total Change Reason Assessment HLstofy 2 Land Assessment 2 6520101 THIRLANE RD NW STRIP FOR ROAD BROOKSIDE POWERS CALVIN W& MARY C N/A PO BOX 12068 ROANOKE VA 24022 660 140-Comrnerciel Vacant 01/0112005 $78,000.00 $0.00 $78,000.00 Annual RA 05 $70,~O0.00 http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6520101 &mapFn-~-nke_... 11/17/2005 City of Roanoke - GIS Page 2 of 3 Improvements 2 $0.00 Total 2 $70,g00.00 Change Reason 2 Annual RA 04 SALE/TRANSFER INFORMATION Deed Reference 0000010347 Grantor HART ROSS C SFI'RS Bale Date 01/07/2000 Sale Pitce $150,000.00 Deed Reference 2 0156601260 Grantor 2 QUICK WA JR Prey. Sale Date 04/20/1987 Prev. Sale Pdce $100,000.00 ZONING LOT INFORMATION Property A~ea Sqff. 238,268 Property Frontage 0 Feet Property Avg. Depth 0 Feet Property Acres 5.4697 Overlay Zoning N~A TOPOGRAPHY Topography N/A FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION SFHA N/A Fim~ Panel 51161C0024D Community 0130 FIPS 51770 STRUCTURE INFORMATION Year Built N/A Number of stories N/A Co~truct/on Exterior S~ze Sq~. NIA Foundation N/A Structure N/A Lower Split Foyer N/A Lower Finished N/A Total Bedrooms N/A Total Rooms N/A ATRC Attic N/A BASEMENT Basemeef A~ea Sqlt. N/A Finished Sqtt. N~A ROOFS Roof Style N/A Roof Cover N/A HEATING/AIR Heating Type N/A Central Air N/A Fireplaces No PLUMBING 2 Fixture N~A 3 Fixture N/A http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6520101 &mapFn=mke INTERNE... 11/17/2005 City of Roanoke - GIS Page 3 of 3 4 Fixture N/A 5 Fixture N/A GARAGES Attached Garage N/A Detached Garage N/A Attached Carport N/A Basement Lower Level Garage N/A PORCHES Enclosed Porch N/A Open Porch N/A Wood Deck N/A http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.c£m?mapno=6520101 &mapFn=mke_INTERNE... 11/17/2005 540.985,9300 Facsimile 540,983.9400 Direct Dial: (540) 983-9312 mike~}ace~gentrylocke.com GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & M(E)RE A Limited Liability Partnership November 18, 2005 I0 Franklin Road, SE Post Off~ce Box 40013 Roanoke, Virginia 24022 O013 Mr. R. Brian Townsend Director of Planning, Building & Development and Acting Director of Economic Development 215 Church Avenue, SW, Room 166 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Ms. Nancy Snodgrass Zoning Administrator Planning, Building & Development Department 215 Church Avenue, SW, Room 166 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Re: Proposed AD, Airport Development District Properties of A&M Enterprises, LP Tax No. 6640103, 6640105, 6640106, 6640120, 6640121, and 6640107 Dear Brian and Nancy: We represent A&M Enterprises, LP, which is owned by Geoffrey M. Ottaway. The properties referenced above have been proposed for inclusion in the AD, Airport Development District in the City's new zoning ordinance. Copies of the Property Information Cards for each of them are attached. These parcels were not initially to be rezoned from their current LM, Light Manufacturing designation to AD, Airport Development District. They were only recently included in the revised zoning map prepared in conjunction with the Planning Commission's recommendations to City Council regarding the adoption of the ordinance. The building located on Tax No. 6640103 is a commercial office building housing several business operations, including the corporate offices of Avis Rent A Car. The other parcels are used for various commercial purposes as allowed in the current LM, Light Industrial zoning district. Unless the proposed AD, Airport Development District ordinance is revised to permit similar uses by right, the redesignation of these parcels to AD, Airport Development District will have a severe adverse affect on their marketability and use. Accordingly, we request that these properties not be included in the AD, Airport Development District. Rather, we ask that they be rezoned to I-1, Light Industrial District in order to permit them to continue to be used for their 14584/1/1339194.1 GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & MOORE Mr. R. Brian Townsend Ms. Nancy Snodgrass November 18, 2005 Page 2 current uses and for similar uses in the future. This would avoid the economic damage caused by such a severe down-zoning to A&M Enterprises which bought these parcels in good faith for commercial use and development. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & MOORE, LLP G. Michael Pace, Jr. cc: Members of Roanoke City Council 14584/1/1339194.1 C~ty ot I(oanoke - (JIS t'age ! ot 4 Print Report I Close Window Property Information Card for:. A & M ENTERPRISES LP 30 FRANKLIN RD SW STE800 ROANOKE VA24011 Neighborhood Information View Neigborhood Portal BUILDING PERMITS View Permits & Code Enforcement Notices Images Sketches Sketch 1 Sketch 2 OWNER/LEGAL INFORMATION Tax Number Property Address Legal Description Owner Name Owner 2 Name Owner Address Neighborhood Number Census Tract Property Use 6640103 1304 MUNICIPAL RD NW LOT 1 (6.384AC) TINKER CREEK A & M ENTERPRISES LP N/A 30 FRANKLIN RD SW STE800 ROANOKE VA 24011 660 0.00000 400-Commercial/Industrial http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6640103 &mapFn=mke_... 11/17/2005 City of Roanoke - GIS Page 2 of 4 ASSESSMENT INFORMATION Assessment History 01/01/2005 Land Assessment $689,400.00 Improvements $310,700.00 Total $1,000,100.00 Change Reason Annual RA 05 Assessment History 2 12/01/2004 Land Assessment 2 $626,700.00 Improvements 2 $310,700.00 Total 2 $937,400.00 Change Reason 2 Bldg Permit SALE/TRANSFER INFORMATION Deed Reference 0980002524 Grantor OTTAWAY GEOFFREY M Sale Dale 06/1611997 Sale Price $0.00 Deed Reference 2 0177200341 Grantor 2 BEATRICE DAIRY PRODUCTS INC Pmv. Sale Date 08/30/1996 Pmv. Sale Pdce $450,000.00 ZONING LOT INFORMATION Property Area Sq~. 278,140 Prof)erty Frontage 315 Feet Pref)erty Avg. Deplh 696 Feet Prederty Ac. ms 6.3850 _Z0ninq LM Ovedav Zonino N/A TOPOGRAPHY Topography Level FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION SFHA N/A Firm Panel 51161 C0024D Community 0130 FIPS 51770 STRUCTURE INFORMATION Year Built 1970 Number of stories 1 Construction Exterior N/A S~ze Sqfl. 2,485 Fotmdafion N/A Structure Wood Frame Lower Split Foyer N/A Lower Finished N/A Total Bedrooms N/A Total Rooms 0 ATTIC Attic None BASEMENT Basement Area Sqft. 1,863 Finished Sqff. 0 ROOFS Roof Style 1 Roof Cover N/A http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6640103 &mapFn=mke_INTERNE... 11/17/2005 City of Roanoke - GIS ['age 3 of 4 HEATING/AiR Heating Type 4348 sf Central Air y Fireplaces No PLUMBING 2 Fixture N/A 3 Fixture N/A 4 Fixture N/A 5 Fixture N/A GARAGES Attached Garage N/A Detached Garage N/A Attached Carport N/A Basement Lower Le~,~l Garage N/A PORCHES Enclosed Porch N/A Open Porch 42 Wood Deck N/A STRUCTURE INFORMATION Year Built 1970 Number of sto~es 1 Construction Exteitm' N/A Size Sqff. 3,640 Foundation N/A Structure V~od Frame Lower Split Foyer N/A Lower Finished N/A Total Bedroores N/A Total Rooms 0 ATTIC Affic None BASEMENT Basement P~ea Sqlt. N/A Finished Sqft. ROOFS Roof St-/le 1 Roof Cover N/A HEATING/AIR Heating Type 3~40 sf Central Air N Fireplaces No PLUMBING 2 Fixture N/A 3 Fixture N/A 4 Fixture N/A 5 Fixture N/A GARAGES Attached Garage N/A Detached Garage N/A Attached Carport N/A Basement Lower Level Garage N/A PORCHES http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6640103 &mapFn=rnke_INTERNE... 11/17/2005 City of Roanoke - GIS Page 4 of 4 Enclosed Porch N/A Open Porch N/A Wood Deck N/A http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6640103 &mapFn=rnke_INTERNE... 11117/2005 City of Roanoke - GIS Page 1 of 3 Prim Report J Close Window Property Information Card for: A & M ENTERPRISES LP P O BOX 7427 ROANOKE VA 24019 Neighborhood information View Neigborhood Podal BUILDING PERMITS View Permits & Code Enforcement Notices Images OWNER/LEGAL INFORMATION Tax Number 6640105 Property Address PRECISION CR NW Legal Descdpties ACREAGE (8,756 AC) TINKER CREEK Owner Name A & M ENTERPRISES LP Owner 2 Name N/A Owner Address P O BOX 7427 ROANOKE VA 24019 Neighborhood Number 660 Census Tract 0.00000 Property Use 140*Commercial Vacant ASSESSMENT INFORMATION Assessment Histo~7 01/01/2005 Land Assessment $945,700.00 Improvements $0.00 Total $945,700.00 Change Reason Annual RA 05 Assessment Histo~ 2 01/01/2004 Land Assessment 2 $859,700.00 http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6640105 &mapFn=mke_... 11/17/2005 tZ~ty oI Koanolce - ~/15 Page 2 o1'3 Improvements 2 $0.00 Total 2 $859,700.00 Change Reason 2 Annual RA 04 SALE/TRANSFER INFORMATION Deed Reference 0990005793 Grantor CITY OF ROANOKE Sale Date 04116/1999 Sale Pdce $350,240.00 Deed Reference 2 N/A Grantor 2 N/A Prey. Sale Date N/A Prey. Sale Pdce N/A ZONING LOT INFORMATION Property ,Ama SqfL 377,973 Property Frontage 0 Feet Property Avg. Del~,h 0 Feet Property Acres 8.6767 Zoning LM Ovedav Zoning N/A TOPOGRAPHY Topography N/A FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION SFHA N/A Firm Panel 51161C0024D Community 0130 FIPS 51770 STRUCTURE INFORMATION Year Buiti N/A Number of stedes N/A Construction Exte~ler N/A Size Sqlt. N/A Foundation N/A Stmatum N/A Lower Split Foyer N/A Lower Finished N/A Total Bedrooms N/A Total Rooms N/A ATrlC Attic N/A BASEMENT Basement Area Sqff. N/A Finished Sqff. N/A ROOFS Roof Style N/A Roof Cover N/A HEATING/AIR Heating Type N/A Central Air N/A Fireplaces No PLUMBING 2 Fixture 3 Fixture http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6640105 &mapFn=rnke_INTERNE... 11/17/2005 City of Roanoke - GIS Page 3 of 3 4 Fixture N/A 5 Fixture N/A GARAGES Attached Garage N/A Detached Garage N/A Attached Carport N/A Basement Lower Level Garage N/A PORCHES Enclosed Porch N/A Open Porch N/A ~ Deck N/A http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6640105 &mapFn=mke_lNTERNE... 11/17/2005 u~tyor KoanoKe -~15 Page 1 of 3 Print Report I Close Window Property Information Card for: A & M ENTERPRISES LP 5536 AIRPORT RD NW ROANOKE VA 24012 Neighborhood Information View Neigborhood Porta! BUILDING PERMITS View Permits & Code Enforcement Notices Images Sketches ~Sketch 1 OWNER/LEGAL INFORMATION Tax Number Property Address Legal Description Owner Name Oyster 2 Name Owner Address Neighborhood Number Census Tract Property Use ASSESSMENT INFORMATION Assessment Histo~7 66401 O6 5568 A~RPORT RD NW PARCEL A (3.383AC) TINKER CREEK A & M ENTERPRISES LP N/A 5536 AIRPORT RD NW ROANOKE VA 24012 660 0.00000 4o6-Commercia{/Industdal http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6640106 &mapFn=mke_... 11/17/2005 City of Roanoke - GIS Page 2 of 3 01/01/2005 Land Assessment $343,900.00 Improvements $1,875,700.00 Total $2,219,600.00 Change Reason Annual RA 05 Assessment History 2 01/01/2004 Land Assessment 2 $312,600.00 improvements 2 $1,786,400.00 Total 2 $2,099,000.00 Change Reason 2 Annual RA 04 SALErrRANSFER INFORMATION Deed Refem, nce 0980002526 Grantor OTTAWAY GEOI=FREY M Sale Date 06/16/1997 Sale Pi'ice $0.00 Deed Reference 2 0179001088 Grantor 2 O'FI'AWAY GEOFFREY M & MARTHA M Prey. Sale Date 04/2111997 Prey. Sale Price $0.00 ZONING LOT INFORMATION Procerty Area Sqlt. 148,685 Property Frontage 238 Feet Property Avg. Depth 203 Feet Property Acres 3.4132 Zoning LM Overlay Zoning N/A TOPOGRAPHY Topography Rolling FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION SFHA N/A Firm Panel 51161 C0024D Community 0130 FIPS 51770 STRUCTURE INFORMATION Year Built 1973 Number of stories 1 ATTIC BASEMENT Basement Area Sqff. N/A http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6640106 &mapFn=rnke_INTERNE... 11/17/2005 City of Roanoke - GIS Page 3 of 3 HEATING/AIR Heating Type 59290 sf Central Air N Fireplaces No PLUMBING 2 Fixture N/A 3 Fixture N/A 4 Fixture N/A 5 Fixture N/A GARAGES Attached Garage N/A Detached Garage N/A Attached Carport N/A Basement Lower Level Garage N/A PORCHES Enclosed Porch N/A Open Porch 80 Wood Deck N/A http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDctailAll.cfm?mapno=6640106 &mapFn=mke INTERNE,.. 11/17/2005 City of Roanoke - GIS Page I of 3 Print Report I Close Window Property Information Card for: A & M ENTERPRISES LP P O BOX 7427 ROANOKE VA 24019 NelghboCnood information View Neiqborhood Portal BUILDING PERMITS View Permits & Code Enforcement Notices Images Sketches N/A OWNER/LEOAL INFORMATION Tax Number 6640120 Property Address AIRPORT RD NW Legal Description PARCEL I~ (3.0 ACRES) TINKER CREEK Owner Name A & M ENTERPRISES LP Owner 2 Name N/A Owner Address P O BOX 7427 ROANOKE VA 24019 Neighbo[hood Number 660 Census Tract 0.00000 Property Use 140-Commercial Vacant ASSESSMENT INFORMATION Assessment History 01/01/2005 Land Assessment $247,700.00 Improvements $0.00 Total $247,700.00 Change Reason Annual RA 05 Assessment History 2 01/01/2004 Land ,~sessment 2 $225,200.00 http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6640120 &mapFn=rnke_... 11/17/2005 City of Roanoke - GIS Page 2 of 3 improvements 2 $0.00 Total 2 $225,200.00 Change Reason 2 Annual RA 04 SALE/TRANSFER INFORMATION Deed Reference 0980002526 Grantor O'Fi*AWAY GEOFFREY M ETUX Sale Date 06/16/1997 Sale Price $0.00 Deed Reference 2 0179001088 Grantor 2 OTrAWAY GEOFFREY M & MARTHA M Prey. Sale Date 04/21/1997 Prey. Sale Pdce $0.00 ZONING LOT INFORMATION Property Area Sqft. 131,383 Property Frontage 211 Feet Propedy Avg. Depth 621 Feet Property Acres 3.0160 Zonina LM Ovedav Zonine N/A TOPOGRAPHY Topography N/A FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION SFHA N/A Firm Panel 51161C0024D Community 0130 FIPS 51770 STRUCTURE INFORMATION Year Built N/A Number of sto~es N/A Conshuction Exteflor NIA Size Sqff. N/A FotJndation N/A Structure N/A Lower Split Foyer N/A Lower Finished N/A Total Bedrooms N/A Total Rooms N/A A'FrlC Attic N/A BASEMENT Basement Area Sqfl. N/A Finished Sqft. N/A ROOFS Roof Style N/A Roof Cover N/A HEATING/AIR Heating Type N/A Central Air N/A Fireplaces No PLUMBING 2 Fixture N/A 3 Fixture N/A http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6640120 &mapFn=mke_INTERNE... 11/17/2005 City of Roanoke - GIS Page 3 of 3 4 Fixture N/A 5 Fixture N/A GARAGES Attached Garage N/A Detached Garage N/A Attached Carport N/A Basement Lower Level Garage N/A PORCHES Enclosed Porch N/A Open Porch N/A ~ Deck N/A http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6640120 &mapFn=rnke_INTERNE... 11/17/2005 City of Roanoke - GI S Page 1 of 3 Property Information Card for.' A & M ENTERPRISES LP 30 W FRANKLIN RD #800 ROANOKE VA 24011 Print Report ] Close Window Neighborhood information View Neigborhood Portal BUILDING PERMITS View Permits & Cede Enforcement Notices Images Sketches Sketch 1 OWNEPJLEGAL INFORMATION Tax Number Property Address Legal Description Owner Nan~ Owner 2 Name Owner Address Neighbod~ood Number Census Tract Property Use ASSESSMENT INFORMATION view lame phqto 6640121 5550 AIRPORT RD NW NEW LOT 2 TINKER CREEK A & M ENTERPRISES LP N/A 30 W FRANKLIN RD #800 ROANOKE VA 24011 660 0.0(3000 400~ommercial/Industrial http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6640121 &mapFn=mke ... 11/17/2005 City of Roanoke - GIS Page 2 of 3 Assessment History 01101/2005 Land Assessment $152,100.00 Improvements $51,700.00 Total $203,800.00 Change Reason Annual RA 05 Assessment History 2 01/01/2004 Land Assessment 2 $138,300.00 Improvements 2 $49,200.00 Total 2 $187,500.00 Change Reason 2 Annual RA 04 SALE/TRANSFER INFORMATION Deed Reference 0020007784 Grantor KIPPEN PROPERTIES LP Sale Date 04/15/2002 Sale Price $798,000.00 Deed Reference 2 0168601297 Grantor 2 COLONY JOYCE GALBRAITH ETALS Prev. Sale Date 12/23/1992 Prev. Sale PAce $0.00 ZONING LOT INFORMATION Prope[ty Area Sqff. 63,279 Property Frontage 413 Feet Property Avg. Dep{h 181 Feet Prope~y Acres 1.4526 Zoning LM Ovedav Zonine N/A TOPOGRAPHY Topography Level FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION SFHA N/A Firm Panel 51161C0024D Community 0130 FIPS 51770 STRUCTURE INFORMATION Year Built 1979 Number of stories 1 Construction Exterior N/A Size Sqfl. 1,806 Foundation N/A Structure Fire Resistant Lower Split Foyer N/A Lower Finished N/A To~l Bedrooms N/A Total Rooms 0 ATTIC Attic None BASEMENT Basement Area Sqft. N/A Finished Sqlt. N/A ROOFS Roof Style 2 Roof Cover N/A HEATING/AIR http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6640121 &mapFn=rnke_INTERNE... 11/17/2005 City of Roanoke - {)IS Page J or J Heating Type 1806 sf Central Air N Fireplaces No PLUMBING 2 Fixture N/A 3 Fixture N/A 4 Fixture N/A 5 Fixture N/A GARAGES Attached Garage N/A Detached Garage N/A Attached Carport N/A Basement Lower Level Garage N/A PORCHES Enclosed Porch N/A Open Porch N/A Wood Deck N/A http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6640121 &mapFn=mke_INTERNE... 11/17/2005 C~ty or KoanoKe - [Jl~ vage t oi ~ Print Report ] Close Window Property Information Card for: A & M ENTERPRISES LP 30 W FRANKLIN RD #800 ROANOKE VA 240t I Neighborhood Infommtlon View Neigborhood Portal BUILDING PERMITS View Permits & Code Enforcement Notices Images Sketches Sketch 1 OWNER/LEGAL INFORMATION Tax Number Property Address L~gal Description Owner Name Owner 2 Name Owner Address Neighborhood Number Census Tract Property Use ASSESSMENT INFORMATION 6640107 5536 AIRPORT RD NW NEW LOT 1 TINKER CREEK A & M ENTERPRISES LP N/A 30 W FRANKLIN RD#800 ROANOKE VA 24011 660 0.00000 400-Commercial/Industrial http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6640107 &mapFn=mke_... ! 1/17/2005 City of Roanoke - GIS Page 2 of 3 Assessment History 01101/2005 Land Assessment $334,000.00 Improvements $190,600.00 Total $524,600.00 Change Reason Annual IRA 05 Assessment History 2 1Z/0112004 Land Assessment 2 $303,600.00 Improvements 2 $I90,600.00 Total 2 $494,200.00 Change Reason 2 Bldg Permit SALE/TRANSFER INFORMATION ZONING LOT INFORMATION Oveday Zoning N/A TOPOGRAPHY STRUCTURE INFORMATION ATTIC BASEMENT http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6640107 &mapFn=rnke_INTERNE... 11/17/2005 C~ty ot Roanoke - 151S Page 3 of 3 Heating Type 3050 sf Central Air N Fireplaces No PLUMBING 2 Fixture N/A 3 Fixtum N/A 4 Fixture N/A 5 Fixture N/A GARAGES Attached Garage N/A Detached Garage N/A Attached Carport N/A Basement Lower Le',~l Garage N/A PORCHES Enclosed Porch Open Porch N/A V~ed Deck N/A http://gis.roanokegov.com/rptDetailAll.cfm?mapno=6640107 &mapFn=rnke_INTERNE... 11/17/2005 MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE 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, CMC Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant City Clerk August11,2005 Linda Plunkett, Executive Director Williamson Road Area Business Association P. O. Box 5892 Roanoke, Virginia 240:12-0892 Dear Ms. Plunkett: I wish to acknowledge receipt of your communication under date of July 21, 2005, with regard to the proposed Zoning Ordinance for the City of Roanoke. Please be assured that a copy of your communication has been forwarded to the Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council and to the City Manager for their information With kindest regards, I am Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew pc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Richard A. Rife, Chair, City Planning Commission, 1326 Grandin Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015 R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and Development Misc. 7/27/05 City Council/City Manager Williamson Road Area Business Association P.O. Box 5892 + 4804 Williamson Road, NW +Roanoke, VA 24012-0892 July 21, 2005 Department of Planning, Building and Development City of Roanoke Room 166 215 Church Avenue Roanoke, VA 24011 Proposed Zoning Ordinance Chapter 36.2, Zoning Dear Sir/Madam: This letter is written in response to the Notice of Public Hearing regarding Chapter 36.2, Zoning related to a Proposed Zoning Ordinance for the City of Roanoke. For the past several months, the Zoning Committee of the Williamson Road Area Business Association (WRABA) has been meeting with the Director of the Department of Planning, Building and Development and his staffto discuss the proposed Steering Committee, Draft Zoning Ordinance, dated December 2004. We have met on a number of occasions, last meeting on May 3, 2005 in the WRABA office. Our committee, composed of interested citizens, has spent a great deal of time trying to understand the proposed Zoning Ordinance. We have discussed very specific changes that we feel need to be made to the proposed Zoning Ordinance, and we have discussed broad policy issues that guide the proposed Zoning Ordinance. At this point, the draft zoning ordinance is not applicable to Williamson Road (and, perhaps, other traffic-oriented commercial districts) and the zoning map is a hodge-podge of zoning classifications with no rationale for which parcels are proposed for Commercial-Neighborhood zoning and which are proposed for Commercial-General zoning. FAX (540) 362-5789 + EMAIL wraba@roava.net + WEB www.wraba.org +BUS (540) 362-3293 MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 21 $ Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, ~r~rginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540) 853-2541 Fax: (540) $53-1145 E-mail: clerk @ ci.roanokc.va.us STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant City Clerk August11,2005 James F. Douthat, Attorney Woods Rogers PLC P. O. Box 14125 Roanoke, Virginia 24038-4125 Dear Mr. Douthat: I wish to acknowledge receipt of your communication under date of July 28, 2005, with regard to the proposed Zoning Ordinance for the City of Roanoke. Please be assured that a copy of your communication has been forwarded to the Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council and to the City Manager for their information With kindest regards, I am Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk CMC MFP:ew pc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Richard A. Rife, Chair, City Planning Commission, 1326 Grandin Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015 R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and Development JAMES F. DOUTHAT 540 983-7662 douthat~woodsrogers.eom Misc: 08/01/05 Council; City Mgr. WOODS ROGERS [ ATTORNEYS AT LAW July 28, 2005 BY HAND Richard Rife, Chairman City of Roanoke Planning Commission 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Noel C. Taylor Municipal Bldg. Roanoke, VA 24011 Re: Proposed New Chapter 36.2 Zoning July 28, 2005 Public Meeting Dear Mr. Rife: This firm represents NPI Properties-Roanoke, LLC (NPI Properties), owner of three parcels of property designated as New Lots 2-Al-A, B and C Greendale Farms, which are shown as Tax Map Nos. 6530107, 6530108 and 6530109 and are located at 3712, 3716 and 3736 Tom Andrews Road, NW. These contiguous parcels of property are currently zoned LM and are the site of a multi-purpose building under lease to a tenant that has the option to terminate the lease or expand the facility in the near future (the "Property"). The Property was purchased by NPI Properties because of the zoning of the property, the multi-purpose facility located on the property and the ability to expand the facility and adapt its uses for the existing tenant, for proposed tenants or, more importantly, for the use of entities related to NPI Properties. The Property is currently zoned LM and is proposed to be zoned Airport Development District in the proposed Chapter 36.2 Zoning Ordinance. Under paragraph 36.2-302 (B) of the proposed ordinance, Airport Development is to apply only to "certain properties immediately adjacent to the airport that should be utilized for airport-supportive or airport-related uses." A review of Table 340-1, Use Matrix, of the proposed Chapter 36.2 Zoning Ordinance indicates that uses permitted as of right as a principle use, by special exception as a principle use or as an accessory use are severely limited under Airport Development. A review of the history of the proposed Airport Development District indicates that initially 80 + parcels of property were proposed for this district but that less than ten parcels remain. For example, the property immediately adjacent to the Property of NPI-Properties, on the same cul-de-sac in the same light industrial development was once slated to be Airport Development but is now proposed to be I-1 Light Industrial under the proposed Chapter 36.2 Zoning Ordinance. NPI Properties strenuously objects to the inclusion of its Property in the Airport Development District and/or the zoning of its Property Airport Development. The use P.O. Box 14125 / Roanoke, Virginia 240384125 10 South Jefferson Street, Suite 1400 540 983-7600 / Fax 540 983-7711 / mail~woodsrogers.com Offices also in Blacksburg, Danville, Lynchburg and Richmond, Virginia July 28, 2005 Page 2 limitations for Airport Development in Table 340-1 would effectively render the Property unusable by NPI Properties and its related entities and would restrict the tenants that could be placed in the Property so severally as to render the Property almost impossible to sell or lease if the current tenant were to vacate the premises. In addition, the definition of"airport-supported uses mound the Roanoke Regional Airport" lacks definition and is so vague and subject to interpretation that it would be impossible for potential users to determine if they could operate in the Property without a ruling from the City. The change of zoning of the Property from LM under the existing zoning ordinance to Airport Development District under the proposed Chapter 36.2 Zoning Ordinance would reduce the value of the Property and the ability of NPI Properties to use, lease, sell or develop the Property to such an extent that it would constitute a taking of the Property without just compensation. The imposition of the Airport Development District zoning is demonstratively capricious, unfair and without logical basis and would have the effect that the Property would have been seized by the City of Roanoke for its purposes while adjacent property would be allowed to retain the benefits of the existing industrial zoning, in part, by the proposed I-I Light Industrial zoning. Please be advised that NPI Properties-Roanoke, LLC considers any action to place its Property in the Airport Development District or to zone its Property for Airport Development to be an improper taking, that the imposition of an Airport Development zoning on its Property would be vague, capricious and without basis and respectfully requests that the City Planning Commission take such action as may be necessary to protect the vested rights of NPI Properties- Roanoke, LLC in order that it is not forced to seek its legal remedies in this regard. Your consideration of the position in which property owners whose property is being slated for Airport Development District (AD) are placed will be greatly appreciated. IfI may provide further information or be of any further assistance, please contact me immediately. JFD:sg Very truly yours, James F. Douthat NPI Properties-Roanoke, LLC (by US mail) Mary F. Parker, City Clerk (by hand) Martha P. Franklin, Secretary City Planning Commission (by hand) William M. Hackworth, Esq., City Attorney (by hand) {#0932166-t, 106135-00002-01} MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, V'uginia 240! 1-1536 Telephone: (540) 853-2541 Fax: (540) 853-i145 E-mail: clerk@ ci.roanokc.va.us STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant City Clerk August ll, 2005 Ms. Donna Nackley Keener 401 Washington Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Dear Ms. Keener: I wish to acknowledge receipt of your communication under date of July 21, 2005, with regard to the proposed Zoning Ordinance for the City of Roanoke. Please be assured that a copy of your communication has been forwarded to the Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council and to the City Manager for their information With kindest regards, I am Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew pc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Richard A. Rife, Chair, City Planning Commission, 1326 Grandin Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015 R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and Development Misc: 07/27/05 Council; City Mgr.; City Atty.; Brian Townsend July 21, 2005 Roanoke City Council Mayor: Nelson Hams and Members of City Council 215 Church Avenue Room 452 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Mr. Mayor Nelson Hams and Members of City Council, I am writing in reference to the zoning that the city is proposing to change. My current residence is 401 Washington Avenue S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24016. I have lived in Old S.W. my entire life. I have seen a lot of changes, some better and some not so good. I do not agree with the rezoning changing a house that is multi-family to a RM-1. I live in the residence that I also have tennants. I have always kept my property up and have never had any complaints with myself or any tennants. I feel that this should be done on a case by case instead oftbe way the city is proposing the changes. Them are some families that do not want to own a house, because of upkeep, renovations, or simply can not afford it, but that would like to live in Old Southwest. This is preventing that from happening. There are many vacant houses because people cannot afford to renovate up to code so therefore it becomes an eyesore in the city, And of course another vacant house. This is why many are moving out of the city and into the country, and the amount of homeowners in the city is down. I do realize that my property is grandfathered, but I still feel that since I am paying my taxes as the rest of the citizens in Roanoke, that if there is not a problem with the upkeep of my home then, the city should work on the properties that there continuous problems, and complaints, instead of the homeowners trying to keep their properties up to code, whether in doing that means renting an apartment or two, or completely residing in the entire house. I have been able to restore and put my home back to as original as possible because, the rant helps pay the high cost of gas bills, and all utilities that it cost for such a large house. I hope that you will reconsider changing the zoning in Old S.W. If tennants are not wanted in Old Southwest, then why can they be a member of Old S.W. with as many rights as the property owner. This seems to me as a double standard. O~ciously, Donna Nackley Keener 401 Washington Ave. S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24016 (540) 343-1190 Miscellaneous 11-07-05 City Council, City Manager FIRST CHURCH of the NAZARENE RECEIVED CCT 2 8 2OO5 728 Highland Avenue SE Roanoke. Virginia 24013 Phone: 540-342-4003 Fax: 540-342-7929 www. roanokefirst.org CIW OF ROANOKE PLANNING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT October 28, 2005 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA IN RE: Zoning of tracts of land lying on the 600, 700 and 800 blocks of Highland Ave SE, under the proposed zoning ordinance - change in zoning from RMF to IN. TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: The Petitioner, First Church of the Nazarene, is acquiring and owns land in the City of Roanoke, each containing less than one acre, more or less, located on the 600 - 800 blocks of Highland Ave SE with Tax Nos. 4122509, 4122510, 4122511, 4122512, 4122514, 4122515 and 4021836. Said tracts are currently zoned RM-1 and under the proposed zoning ordinance, in its current form, would be zoned Residential Multifamily District (RMF). A map of the property is attached as Exhibit Al. The Petitioner requests that the said property be zoned Institutional District (IN), as set forth under the new proposed zoning ordinance rather than Residential Multi family District (RMF). The Petitioner believes the zoning of the said tracts as IN would be consistent with the intended use of the properties and will further the intent and purposes of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its comprehensive plan. Attached as Exhibit B are the names, addresses, and tax numbers of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately adjacent to the property to be rezoned. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-described tracts be zoned under the proposed Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke. Respectfully submitted this 28 day of October 2005, Rev. Earl Robertson, Pastor Wayne Dunman, Secretary of the Church Board cc: Nancy Snodgrass ~Mal5 Output Page 1 of I Roanoke First Church of the Nazarene - Exhibit A1 http://gis.roanokegov.com/servlet/com esri.esfimap. Esfimap? ServiceNamc=mk~ ClientV... 9/28/2005 Identify Results Parcel Detail Back to Search Resulfs · Assessment Information · Attic · Basement · Building Permits · Flood Zone · Garages · Heating/Air · Images · Owner/Legal Information NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION View Neigborhood Portal & BUILDING PERMITS View Permits & Code Enforcement Notices ~ IMAGES ~ Adjoining Parc.ets · Plumbing · Porches · Roofs · Sale/Transfer Information · Sketches · Structure Information · Topography · Zoning lot Information Page 1 of 3 ? · . SKETCHES Sketch 1 · ~ OWNER/LEGAL INFORMATION Tax Number Property Address Legal Description Owner Name Owner 2 Name Owner Address Neighborhood Number Census Tracl Property Use & ASSESSMENT INFORMATION Assessment History Land Assessment lmprovemenls Total Change Reason Assessment History 2 Land Assessment 2 Improvements 2 Total 2 Change Reason 2 ,~ SALE/TRANSFER INFORMATION Deed Reference Grantor Sale Date Sale Pdce Deed Reference 2 view large photo 4122517 815 HIGHLAND AV SE LOT 18 BLK 34 BELMONT DICKENS KATIE M 815 HIGHLAND AVE SE ROANOKE VA 24013 112 0.00000 300-Multifamily 01/01/2005 $7,900.00 $54,200.00 $62,100.00 Annual RA 05 01/01/2004 $6,900.00 $50,700.00 $57,600.00 Annual RA 04 0125600660 DICKENS STEPHEN J ETUX 06/05/1969 $0.00 Identify Results Page 2 of 3 Grantor 2 Prey. Sale Date Prey. Sale Pdce ~ ZONING LOT INFORMATION Property Area Sqft. Properly Frontage Property Avg. Depth property Acres Zoning Overlay Zoning ~ TOPOGI~PHY Topography ~, FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION SFHA Firm Panel Community FIPS ~ STRUCTURE INFORMATION Year Built Number of stodes Construction Exterior Size Sqft Foundation Structure Lower Split Foyer Lower Finished Total Bedrooms Total Rooms ,~ ATTIC Attic ~ BASEMENT Basement Area Sqft. Finished Sqft. A, ROOFS Roof Style Roof Cover t. HEATING/AIR Heating Type Central Air Fireplaces ~ PLUMGING 2 Fixture 3 Fixture 4 Fixture 5 Fixture ~ GARAGES Attached Garage Detached Garage Attached Carport Basement Lower Level Garage PORCHES Enclosed Porch 0123500315 THOMAS REBECCA S (DIVORCED) 03/2911968 $6,000~00 5,187 40 Feet 130 Feet 51161CO046D 0130 51770 1925 2,0 ~Abod siding 2,058 Full Crawl V~k3od frame 0 0 3 8 Part 100 0 Hip Comp sh to 235# Hot water or steam N No 0 0 0 360 0 Identify Results Page 3 of 3 Open Porch 182 V~)od Deck 12 Identify Results Page I of 3 Parcel Detail Back to Search Results · Assessment information · Attic · BasemenI · Building Permits · Flood Zone · Garages · Heating/Air · Images · Owner/Legal Information NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION View Neigborhood Podal .~ BUILDING PERMITS View Permits & Code Enforcement Notices ¢, IMAGES :~ Adlmnmg Parcels · Plumbing · Porches · Roofs · Sale/Transfer Information · Sketches · Structure Information · Topography · Zoning lot Information *~ SKETCHES Sketch 1 ~- OWNER/LEGAL INFORMATION Tax Number Property Address Legal Description Owner Name Owner 2 Name Owner Address Neighborhood Number Census Tract Property Use ,& ASSESSMENT INFORMATION Assessment Histo~ Land Assessment Improvements Total Change Reason Assessment Histo~/2 Land Assessment 2 Improvemenls 2 Total 2 Change Reason 2 ¢~ SALE/TRANSFER INFORMATION Deed Reference Grantor Sale Date Sale Pdce Deed Reference 2 view large photo 4122508 725 HIGHLAND AV SE LOT 8 BLK 34 BELMONT SNYDER BARBARA A 725 HIGHLAND AV SE ROANOKE VA 24013 112 0.00000 300-MulGfamily 01/01/2005 $7,900.00 $62,900~00 $70,800.00 Annual RA 05 01/01/2004 $6,90000 $58,800.00 $65,700.00 Annual RA 04 0990005938 SHILLING EMMETT S 04/14/1999 $0.00 Identify l~esults Page 2 of 3 Grantor 2 Prey. Sale Date Prev. Sale Price ~ ZONING LOT INFORMATION property Area Sqfl Proper~y Frontage Property Avg. Depth Property Acres Zoning Overlay Zoning .~ TOPOGRAPHY Topography ~ FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION SFHA Firm Panel Community FIPS ~ STRUCTURE INFORMATION Year Built Number of stedes Construction gxterior Size Foundation Structure Lower Split Foyer Lower Finished Total Bedrooms Total Rooms A ATTIC Attic & BASEMENT Basement Area Sqft. Finished Sqft. ,~ ROOFS Roof Style Roof Cover ,~ HEATING/AIR Heating Type Central Air Fireplaces ,~ PLUMBING 2 Fixture 3 Fixture 4 Fixture 5 Fixture z~- GARAGES Attached Garage Detached Garage Attached Carporl Basement Lower Level Garage ~ PORCHES Enclosed Perch 0120900663 BOUSMAN LOTA BARKER ETAL (HEIRS) $5,100.00 5,187 40 Feet 130 Feet RM4 51161C0046D 0130 51770 1925 2.0 Alum siding 1,848 Full Bsmt V~k~od frame 0 0 4 8 None 924 0 Hip Comp sh to 235# Forced hot air-gas N No 0 2 0 140 Identify Results Page 3 of 3 Open Porch 336 V~,~od Deck 72 City of Roanoke- GIS Page l of 1 Print Report I Full Detail Report I Close Window Property Information Card for: TRUSTEES OF THE FIRST CHURCH 728 HIGHLAND AV SE ROANOKE VA 24013 PARCEL INFORMATION Tax Number 4021836 Propert~ Acres 0.2268 Prope~y Address HIGHLAND AV SE Zoning RM-1 Legal Description N PT LOTS 19-20 BLK 35 BELMONT 0vedayZoning N/A Deed Reference 0177401094 Property Frontage 80 Feet Deed Reference 2 0176200569 Properly Avg. Depth 123 Feel Prey. Sale Date 04/2411996 Properly Area 9,881 Prev. Sale Pdce 6000 Bac=efnent Area NtA Sale Date 07/1511996 Land Assessment $10,000.00 Sale Price $0.00 Owner TRUSTEES OF THE FIRST CHURCH Improvements $0.00 Address 728 HIGHLAND AV SE Total $10,000.00 ROANOKE VA 24013 DISCLAIMER: The information contained on this page is NOT to be construed or used as a "legal description." Map information is believed to be accurate but accuracy is not guaranteed. Any errors or omissions should be reported to the City of Roanoke Engineering Department. in no event will the City of Roanoke be liable for any damages, including loss of data, lost profits, business interruption, loss of business information or other pecuniary loss that might arise from the use of this map or the information it contains. O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O .../rptDetail. cfm?~pno=4021836 %20 %20 %20 %20 %20 %20 %20 %20 %20 %20 %20 %20 %2010/19/2005 MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, V'trginia 24011 ~ 1536 Telephone: (540) 853-2541 Fax: (540) 853-1145 E-mail: clerk@ci.roanoke.va.us STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant City Clerk November 11, 2005 Robert N. Richert, Vice-President Old Southwest, Inc. 641 Walnut Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Dear Mr. Richert: I wish to acknowledge receipt of your communication under date of November 9, 2005, with regard to the proposed Zoning Ordinance for the City of Roanoke. Please be assured that a copy of your communication has been forwarded to the Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council and to the City Manager for their information With kindest regards, I am Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ew pc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Richard A. Rife, Chair, City Planning Commission, 1326Grandin Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 240:~5 R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and Development 11/10/05 City Council' Misc. Corres: City Mgr. City Atty. Mr. Townsend Old Southwest, Inc. 641 Walnut Ave., S.W. Roanoke, VA 24016 November 9, 2005 Nelson Harris, Mayor Members of City Council City of Roanoke 215 Church Ave. Roanoke, VA 24011 Subject: New Zoning Ordinance for the City of Roanoke Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, On behalf of the Board of Directors and Membership of OM Southwest, Inc., I ask you to support the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance forwarded to you by the Planning Commission. As you know this ordinance is the culmination of several years of effort by the staffofthe City, and, more importantly, the citizens of our City. Old Southwest is proud to have participated vigorously in this process and, while we did not accomplish everything that we wanted, we consider it completed in the best spirit of cooperative effort. We have one reservation in Article 3, section 36.2-312, Residential Mixed Density Districts (RM1, RM2), paragraph d, Table 312-1, under RM-1, the density for townhouse and rowhouse, among others, is 2,500 sq. feet. We consider this inconsistent with the requirement of 3,500 sq. feet for duplex in the RM-I district. This provision for townhonse and rowhouse was inserted by the Planning Commission after their public hearing, and without any discussion with the citizens most affected. In the interest of population density reduction in the cities older neighborhoods, which all have agreed need relief from over dense development, we ask that the density for townhouse and mwhouse development be increased to 3,500 sq. feet. Your careful consideration of this request is very much appreciate. For the Board and Membershio. o rt N. Ricl~ert, Vice4'resiaent Old Southwest, Inc. The problem with the proposed Zoning Ordinance is fundamental: City staff have set up the proposed Zoning ordinance so that, if you support Commercial-General (CG) zoning, yo.u must accommodate many more restrictions on how your property is developed, such as increased landscaping requirements, special exception zoning for many previously- allowed uses, increased set-backs from adjoining uses, and more restrictions on parking. If you support Commereial-Neighborhood (CN) zoning, you actually have many fewer restrictions on how you can develop your property, but the uses allowed are greatly diminished (e.g., limited automotive uses). So your tradeoffis to take fewer development restrictions with fewer allowable uses (CN), or to take more restrictions on development with more allowable uses (CG). In response to this unacceptable situation, the WRABA Board of Directors unanimously recommends the following: 1. The proposed Zoning Ordinance should be modified to allow for a new zoning category: Commercial- Williamson Road (Cig). This zoning category maintains the same limitations on commercial development as other proposed zoning classification, such as Commercial-C~eneral, Commereial-Large Scale, and Commercial-Neighborhood, but provides an acceptable balance between development regulations and allowable uses along Williamson Road. To this end, we are submitting a document (attached), which amends the proposed zoning ordinance to provide for this new zoning classification. This is not an unusual request. The proposed Zoning Ordinance already contains a special zoning district for downtown Roanoke, historic districts, and other special areas. In addition to rezoning all parcels on Williamson Road, which are currently proposed for C-G or C-N zoning as C-W, we would also identify one or two special nodes for redevelopment. The obvious one is around Williamson Road and lOth Street. The City and WRABA would draw out that node for special treatment. In addition to C-W zoning, it would have: Additional financial incentives for renovation of existing buildings and development of vacant land. These incentives would be above the existing Enterprise Zone incentives already available. They also might include rent subsidies for commercial properties to make renovating them less risky. b. Public parking provided by the City in small, off-street lots to serve all businesses in the area. Special marketing by the City and WRABA to focus attention on development opportunities (initially) and business, which locate there (later on). This might also include street festivals, banners and other attention-grabbing devices. WRABA supports Commercial-Large Site District (CLS) zoning for selected parcels of Williamson Road, such as Berglund and Civic Mall. The specific parcels to be zoned CLS have been identified on the proposed Zoning Map. In the absence of a special zoning district for Williamson Road, we cannot support the proposed Zoning Ordinance~ We have given a great deal of time to the process of reviewing and understanding the proposed Zoning Ordinance. Now, in order to be as constructive as possible, we are submitting a written document, which can be incorporated into the proposed zoning ordinance with little effect on the balance of the document. We urge the Planning Commission and our elected officials to consider and adopt these recommendations. ~ Sincerely, Presitlenf Chair, Zoning Committee Linda Plunkett Executive Director Cc~ Members of the Roanoke Planning Commission Members of the Roanoke City Council Ms. Burcham Attachment Mary Parker, Clerk Members of City Council 215 Church Ave., S. W., Room 456 Roanoke, VA 24011 18 November 2005 Re: Tax Map Numbers 3210621, 3210622, 3210623, 3210624, 3210625, Edmund Ave., NE Dear Ms. Parker and Members of City Council: My property is currently zoned Light Manufacturing. When we moved here, after my Retirement from the U.S. Army we had looked at several houses in and around the Roanoke area. We chose this particular one because oftbe location and it was the one that we really liked. Having a newborn son and plans of having another child this house had aH the things that we were looking for. This was the house we wanted for Our Retirement Home. After several visits to this house we mentioned, to the realtor, that we had plans of adding on to the house and that we might consider putting in a full basement. Her response to us was that those were things that would be great for a new family; she never told us that we wouldn't be able to do this unless we open some type of business or something that we operate from the home. So Ms. Parker and Members of The City Council my wife Stephanie and I are asking that these Lots be zoned RM1 instead ofll so that we can retain the existing residential use and have the ability to expand the house as our family grows in Our Retirement. Thank You for your time and consideration in this matter. - Donald L. Hlemst~fa SFC, US Army (l~et) "/have raised you up for this very purpose, that / might shew you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Exodus 9,'16 P ple OF 11/17/05 Grandin Court Baptist Church Roanoke City Council Mary Parker - City Clerk Municipal Building Roanoke, VA (Hand-Delivered) Dear City Council: The City rezoning of Grandin Court Baptist Church property has excluded five Tax Map ID numbers that should be included as church property and therefore considered as "iN" or Institutional District zoning. Two parcels are behind the church with homes and the others are currently parking lots used by the church. Grandin Court Baptist is currently working with Balzer and Associates to expand our facility using one of these properties for new construction and therefore, it is urgent that the proper zoning be applied to all of the church property prior to the council meeting to rezone as currently presented. The City Tax ID numbers left offGCBC property are: 1561028 1561301 1561315 1561317 1561002 White House on property - New Construction Pending Mission House Parking behind church Parking behind church Parking across street from church Please adjust your zoning changes to include all Grandin Court Baptist Church property. Sincerel;ra David Topping Building Committee Chair 2660 Brambleton Avenue'SW, Roanoke, Virginia 24015-4306 · Ph (540) 774-1684 · Fax (540) 774-9204 · www.grandincourtbaptist.org ROANOK£ BUSINESS ~ROUP Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Vice-Mayor Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. Council Member Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member 215 Church Avenue, Room 456 Roanoke, VA 24011-1594 November 14, 2005 Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council: Area of concern: Planning Process The Roanoke Business Group is troubled by the idea that the City Council may adopt the proposed version of the zoning ordinance without further revisions. From our vantage point, it appears that the interactive process described in the pages of Vision 2020 is not representative of the actual process that took place in Roanoke. In reality, parts of the some neighborhood plans, and now the proposed zoning ordinance and map reflect the goals and values of City staff and perhaps a very small number of residents. These documents do not represent the community at large. Residents and business owners attended numerous public meetings and neighborhood workshops over the past ten years. Despite this involvement, the strategy and specific approaches that resulted do not represent what these individuals conveyed. City planning staff adopted a strategic vision that represented their vision for Roanoke's future, not the community's vision. Consensus was not reached with regard to the Williamson Road Area Plan that was adopted in October of 2004. Now, residents and business owners in the neighborhood find that the neighborhood plan is being used to support the zoning ordinance. The RBG requests City Council to send the Proposed Zoning Ordinance and accompanying map back to staff and/or the planning commission. Direct them to listen to and incorporate the concerns and requests of the business community. This is the only way that the new zoning ordinance and map can be documents that are truly supported by neighborhood plans, which represent what the people of Roanoke desire for the future of their city. Sincerely, Bill Tanger Director Zon ord-plan process-comms-11-14-05 1~3ANI3KE BUC~INE~ GROUP November 17, 2005 Honorable Nelson Harris Mayor Roanoke City 215 Church Avenue SW Roanoke VA 24011 Dear Nelson: Area of concern: Nonconforming Properties The new Roanoke Zoning Ordinance proposes to gradually remove nonconforming uses, structures and lots from the City. Under the proposed zoning ordinance, the City will regulate the character of commemial districts. It will dictate new regulations to property owners if an existing building bums down, for example. Article 7 of the proposed zoning ordinance allows the City to trample on a property owner's right to continue the existing use of his property. In doing so, it can also inhibit the sale of this property to new investors. The cloud that this zoning ordinance places over nonconforming properties can diminish their value. It is, in effect, a partial taking of the property owner's rights without compensation. City Council cannot let this happen. Council should refuse to accept any recommendation that takes away a property owner's right to continue the present use of his land and structure(s). Instead, Council should protect the value of properties that currently include nonconforming uses, structures and/or lots. City Council should change the "grandfather clause" in the proposed ordinance. The clause should to be all-inclusive. It should give the property owner the full right to continue the present use of his land and structure(s) until such time as he applies to change the zoning classification. A property's existing zoning should continue to regulate nonconforming uses, structures and lots. Control should not pass to a set of new regulations and future amendments. Look out for your constituents, City Council members. Don't accept a proposal that may eventually force all property owners to conform to this draft of the new zoning ordinance, thereby devaluing all nonconforming properties. s ly. Bill ~ Director Rbg-Nonconforming properties-cc ~ou 2! 05 05:~Ip A-~ po2 November 21, 2005 Kenneth J. Rodgers ,955 Academy Street Salem VA 24153 (540) 387-3332 (540) 797-2686 Mayor C. Nelson Harris and Council Members 215 Church Ave. S.W. Rm 452 Roanoke VA 24011 RE: II 15 Giltbrd Ave. tax map 6110414 Gilfbrd Ave. tax map 6110436 Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am writing this letter to request assistance in securing a zoning change on two parcels of property already slated fbr change by tile new proposed zoning ordinance scheduled to be voted on soon. The properties currently arc zoned C-2 and will change to R-2 when the new ordinance becomes effective. Tile properties are situated between Enterprise Car Rental on Melrose Ave. and a single f}nmily residence. I f~el the properties could bc more adequately utilized and developed if they were zoned RM-2. Therefore I am reqnesting that the proposed change already intended be RM-2 and not R-2 According to the listing real estate agcnt Jim }lodges (Hall and Assoc.), the two properties are curt'early owned by Mr. James W. Elliott. I have spoken with Mr. Hedges and due to Mr. Elliott's age he does not wish to handle the zoning change and has given me permJssiou to make those changes, h is my intention to purchase and develop these vacant properties into higher revenue producing parcels for the City of Roanoke, T have spoken with Chris Chittum and Frederick Gusler fi-om the zoning and planning department. On my last conversation with Mr. Gusler. he suggested that I contact thc Mayor and the Council directly since the properties arc already scheduled to be rezoned I look fbrward to your favorable response to my request and thank you for time and consideration in handling this matter. Sincerely, Kenneth J. Rodgers THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, AN ORDINANCE adopting a new zoning map entitled, "Official Zoning Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia," dated September 29, 2005, as the official zoning map for the City of Roanoke; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. WHEREAS, on August 20, 2001, City Council adopted Vision 2001-2020 ("Comprehensive Plan"), a new Comprehensive Plan for the City, which plan has necessitated a replacement of the Official 1976 Zoning Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia, dated October 11, 1976, as the map and boundaries have been amended fxom time to time, and a comprehensive revision of the City's zoning regulations; WHEREAS, the City conducted ten (10) stakeholder focus group sessions on June 25, June 26, and August 1, 2002, with sign industry representatives, neighborhood group leaders, land use attorneys, regional development leaders, business leaders, design and development professionals, and governmental boards and commissions, to identify opportunities and issues relating to growth and development in the City and to identify zoning regulations which needed to be amended or adopted; WHEREAS, the City conducted a housing issues roundtable on July 31, 2002, to which representatives of various groups interested in, and knowledgeable about, housing issues in the City were invited, and a public forum on August 1, 2002, to which the general public was invited, to identify additional opportunities and issues relating to growth and development in the City and to identify zoning regulations which needed to be amended or adopted; WHEREAS, in July 2002, the City Manager appointed a Steering Committee consisting of representatives fi.om the stakeholder groups, City Council, the Planning Commission for the City of Roanoke ("Planning Commission"), the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Roanoke, the Architectural Review Board for the City of Roanoke, and City staff, to provide direction for the development of the new zoning ordinance, to review and revise draft zoning regulations, and to provide on-going feedback during the process; WHEREAS, in February 2004, City staff released for public discussion a zoning map to accompany the Steering Committee's draft zoning ordinance; WHEREAS, on March 8, March 12, March 16, March 17, March 18, March 22, March 23, March 25, March 29, March 30, April 1, April 5, April 6, April 13, April 28 and April 29, 2004, City staff conducted six (6) public open houses and eleven (11) stakeholder focus group sessions with sign industry representatives, neighborhood group leaders, land use attorneys, business leaders, homebuilders, design and development professionals, and real estate industry representatives, to elicit public comment pertaining to the proposed zoning map; WHEREAS, to provide for public awareness of the open houses and the stakeholder focus group sessions, the City (1) placed two (2) easels and flyers with calendars, indicating the dates, times and locations of the open houses and sessions, in the lobby area of the Municipal Building and in the Departments of Housing and Neighborhood Services and Planning, Building and Economic Development, (2) posted open house schedules on the RVTV Message Board, (3) published two (2) block advertisements in the Roanoke Times, advertising the open house schedules, (4) mailed an explanation of the public comment process and how to participate in such process and provide input to all neighborhood group leaders, (5) set up and staffed an information and comment table on Citizen Appreciation Day on April 17, 2004, at Valley View Mall, (6) conducted meetings with, and gave presentations to, neighborhood and civic organizations, including the Roanoke Neighborhood Advocates, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., Williamson Road Area Business Association, the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Roanoke Regional Homebuilders Association, Neighbors in South Roanoke, Old Southwest, Inc., the Gilmer Neighborhood Steering Committee, and the Gainsboro Steering Committee, and (7) posted on the City's web site a copy of the proposed zoning map, which posting was viewed 1,117 times during the February 2004 to May 2004 period; WHEREAS, from February 2, 2004 until May 31, 2004, the City documented more than 1,100 comments, including those on the proposed zoning map; WHEREAS, in May 2005, City staff released and posted on the City's web site a revised proposed zoning map; WHEREAS, between December 2004, and July 2005, City staff continued to meet with various civic and neighborhood organizations, including Old Southwest, Inc., Riverland Alert Neighbors, Gilmer Neighborhood, the Greater Raleigh Court Civic League and the Williamson Road Area Business Association, as well as individual property owners by request, regarding the proposed zoning map, to oversee questions and to elicit additional public comment; WHEREAS, public news releases, newspaper articles, status reports and communications were disseminated by the City throughout the process to advise interested persons of the status of the process; WHEREAS, after due and timely public notice, including a legal advertisement consisting of a special insert published on two dates, one week apart, in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Roanoke in which all interested persons were advised of the City's intent to adopt a new zoning map, a copy of which was contained in the insert, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 28, 2005, on the proposed zoning map; WHEREAS, in addition to the published legal advertisement described in the preceding paragraph, the City sent by first-class mail to all owners of the approximately 44,000 parcels of real estate in the City of Roanoke notice of (1) the City's intent to adopt a new zoning map; (2) the proposed zoning of the owner's property under the proposed zoning map; and (3) the date, time and place, of the Planning Commission's public hearing at which the proposed zoning map would be considered; WHEREAS, following the Planning Commission public hearing, the Planning Commission held fifteen (15) work sessions during which it considered all comments received pertaining to the proposed zoning map; WHEREAS, the City Clerk for the City of Roanoke placed a notice on the public calendar in her office for all Steering Committee meetings, all Planning Commission work sessions, and the public hearing held on July 28, 2005; WHEREAS, on September 29, 2005, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended to City Council the proposed zoning map; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the proposed zoning map by City Council at its meeting on November 21, 2005, after due and timely public notice thereof, which public notice included a legal advertisement published on two dates, one week apart, by a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Roanoke in which all interested persons were advised of the City's intent to adopt a new zoning map as recommended by the Planning Commission, a copy of which was contained in the insert, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard; WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the proposed zoning map, is of the opinion that the proposed zoning map helps promote and provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access; safety from flood, fire, crime and other dangers; reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; protect against destruction of, or encroachment upon, historic areas; protect against overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, and loss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers; encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; provide for the preservation of agricnltural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment, approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports; and promote the creation and preservation of affordable housing suitable for meeting the current and future needs of the City, as well as a reasonable proportion of the current and future needs of the planning district within which the City is situated; and WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the proposed zoning map, is of the opinion that the proposed zoning map is consistent with Vision 2001- 2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, is required by the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, is good zoning practice, and ought to be adopted in order to implement the Comprehensive Plan. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The zoning map entitled, "Official Zoning Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia," dated September 29, 2005, and attached to a letter dated November 21, 2005, to City Council by the Planning Commission, and filed with the City Clerk, is hereby adopted as the official zoning map for the City of Roanoke. 2. Pursuant to section 15.2-2234 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the City Clerk is requested to file a copy of the Official Zoning Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia, dated September 29, 2005, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court within thirty (30) days of the adoption of the zoning map. 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 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: planning @ ci.roanoke.va.us November 21, 2005 Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council: Subject: Rezoning all property in the City in order to implement new Chapter 36.2, Zoning, and Vision 2001-2020, the City's comprehensive plan, as set out on map dated September 29, 2005. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Thursday, July 28, 2005, at which time public comment was heard on the proposed zoning map. Thirty-eight citizens addressed the Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of citizen comment, the Commission closed the public input portion of the hearing and continued the matter to a later date. During the months of August and September, the Commission held 15 work sessions on the draft ordinance and mapping. On Thursday, September 29, 2005, the Commission reconvened and voted 6-0 (Mr. Manetta absent), to recommend the rezoning of all property in the City of Roanoke as set out on the zoning map dated September 29, 2005. Background: The public hearing draft of the Official Zoning Map was developed concurrently with the proposed Zoning Ordinance and, once adopted, will become an element of the Zoning Ordinance. The map was developed with a Geographic Information System and will be Roanoke's first electronic zoning map. The electronic version will become the "Official Zoning Map" as cited in section 36.2-100 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance. Though all the districts represent a single Official Zoning Map, two maps are typically displayed for clarity. Base zoning districts are mapped on one display. Overlay districts such as design overlays, floodplains, and River and Creek Corridors, are mapped on a second display. Overlay districts cover only portions of the City and include regulations that supplement the underlying base zoning district regulations. As the new zoning classifications were identified during the development of the text of the proposed Zoning Ordinance, staff began examining zoning patterns throughout Roanoke. Each area of Roanoke was reviewed carefully with respect to existing land uses, future land use plans, and comprehensive plan policies and actions. Land use records, aerial maps, and real estate property data were compiled and used as factors in determining the most appropriate zoning district for each area. The proposed Zoning Ordinance creates new zoning classifications that do not exist in the current ordinance. Consequently, it was not possible to simply convert existing districts to comparable districts in the proposed ordinance. Changes in the structure of the proposed zoning ordinance required that the zoning for every parcel be reviewed and a new district designation applied. A draft map, along with the public discussion draft of the text, was released for public comment in February 2004. The map and ordinance text were posted online, and were displayed at six open house forums held in different areas of the city. A large-scale version of the map was also posted on the first floor of the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building next to the entrance to the Development Assistance Center. Between February 2004 and June 2005, staff recorded comments and continued the review of the map as appropriate throughout the public comment process. Staff also held multiple meetings with neighborhood organizations such as Old Southwest, Inc., the Williamson Road Area Business Association, and with individual property owners by request. Prior to the Planning Commission public hearing of July 28, 2005, the owners of every tax parcel in the City were mailed notice of the proposed rezoning of their property, and two supplemental ads were published in the Roanoke Times, which included a descriptive summary of the ordinance and maps showing the proposed zoning. Considerations: The Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, provides guidance on drawing and applying districts: § 15.2-2284. Matters to be considered in drawing and applying zoning ordinances and districts. Zoning ordinances and districts shall be drawn and applied with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of property, the comprehensive plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or change, the current and future requirements of the community as to land for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community, the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services, the conservation of natural resources, the preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestall land, the conservation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the locality. The Planning Commission and staff carefully reviewed zoning patterns throughout the city and applied appropriate zoning districts to each property based on the above factors, with particular emphasis on existing land use, which is a principal factor in a fully developed city such as Roanoke. In many cases, however, the recommendations of Vision 2001- 2020 and its component neighborhood plans, as well as good zoning practice, have led to the need to base zoning recommendations on adopted future land use plans. The proposed Official Zoning Map contains many changes to zoning patterns. While it is impractical to review all the changes within the scope of this report, some of the general changes in zoning patterns are outlined below: · Mapped residential districts to more closely reflect actual parcel sizes and predominant densities of residential areas. · Expanded the use of CN, Commercial-Neighborhood District, to create or reinforce a network of village centers throughout Roanoke. · Reduced strip commercial zoning along arterial streets, particularly where it applies to residentially developed or vacant parcels. · Reduced or eliminated industrial zoning where it applies to viable residential neighborhoods. · Expanded the Downtown district to the west and south. · Mapped Airport Development District on and around the Roanoke Regional Airport to reinforce or encourage airport-supportive land uses. 3 · Mapped parks, open space, cemeteries, and recreational uses as Recreation & Open Space districts. · Mapped educational facilities, places of worship, and other public/institutional uses with Institutional or Institutional PUD, especially where such uses are located in residential settings. · Expanded the Neighborhood Design District designation to 14 additional neighborhoods. · Mapped the River & Creek Corridor overlay district along the Roanoke River and its unenclosed tributaries. One special item of note relates to conditional rezonings. Section 15.2- 2297 of the Code of Virginia specifies that proffered conditions must remain in effect even if there is a comprehensive rezoning. Under the current zoning ordinance, responsibility for the maintenance and update of the map lies with the City Engineer. The proposed Zoning Ordinance will transfer this responsibility to the Department of Planning Building and Development. The Planning Commission received numerous public comments regarding three areas of Roanoke: Old Southwest, the Williamson Road area, and the area around the Roanoke Regional Airport. The Commission committed considerable discussion to addressing the concerns of citizens in these areas. The Commission responded to these issues by amending district regulations, remapping districts, or a combination of both. Following the Planning Commission's public hearing on July 28, 2005, the Commission considered the mapping issues listed in "Bundle 4 Mapping" dated September 23, 2005 (Attachment A). The Commission considered each mapping issue and recommended to either make no change or to change the map as appropriate. Recommendation: By a vote of 6-0, the Commission certified and recommended approval of the proposed Official Zoning Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia, dated September 29, 2005, to City Council. Respectfully submitted, City Planning Commission 4 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 4th day of November, 2005. "Official Zoning Map, Ci! Council for the City of Roar WHEREAS, from consisting of sign industr3 regional development leade of City Council for the Cit) A RESOLUTION certifying and recommending for adoption Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and an accompanying zoning map entitled, ' 29, 2005, to the City Board of Zoning Appeals fi of Roanoke, and City staff of a new zoning ordinance and to draft the new zoning ordinance; WHEREAS, in February 2004, the Steering Committee released for public discussion a draft of the new zoning ordinance; WHEREAS, in February 2004, City staff released for public discussion a new zoning map to accompany the Steering Committee's draft zoning ordinance; WHEREAS, after receipt of public conzment pertaining to the draft zoning ordinance and zoning map, the Steering Committee met numerous times beginning in June 2004 to consider the public comment and to revise the draft zoning ordinance; WHEREAS, in December 2004, the Steering Committee presented to the Planning Commission a draft zoning ordinance for the City, which draft was posted on the City's web site; a Steering Committee ers, land use attorneys, professionals, members Ire City of Roanoke, the :view Board for the City :ion for the development WHEREAS, in May 2005, City staff released and posted on the City's web site a revised zoning map; WHEREAS, after due and timely public notice, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 28, 2005, on the draft zoning ordinance and accompanying zoning map; WHEREAS, following the Planning Commission public hearing on July 28, 2005, the Planning Commission held numerous work sessions to consider the draft zoning ordinance, and accompanying zoning map, and all comments received pertaining to them; and WHEREAS, on September 29, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended for adoption Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and the accompanying zoning map entitled, "Official Zoning Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia," dated September 29, 2005, to the City Council for the City of Roanoke. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke that by the signature of its Chair, below, the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke certifies and recommends for adoption Chapter 36.2, Zoning, and the accompanying zoning map entitled, "Official Zoning Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia," dated September 29, 2005, to the City Council for the City of Roanoke. Secretary NOTICE Attachments to the City Planning Commission reports for the new Zoning Ordinance are too large to scan and may be reviewed at the Office of the City Clerk, and the Department of Planning Building and Development, 215 Church Avenue, $.W., or online at www.roanokeva.gov; "What's New", "Zoning Ordinance Public Hearings / Draft Ordinance". The second issue concerns parcels 3110210 and the rear portion of split-zoned parcel 3110206. They are currently zoned RM-2. The proposed zoning map lists them as CLS. We request that, consistent with our neighborhood plan, they remain RM-2. Both parcels are owned by Berglund Chevrolet. The first is used for automobile storage, which is a legally non-conforming use. The second is undeveloped. We are generally opposed to extending commercial zoning beyond the half block line between Williamson Road and Wayne Street. But we acknowledge that these parcels are likely to become commercial at some point. They should not, however, be rezoned as part of this process. Instead, Berglund Chevrolet should be required to seek individual rezonings and present detailed development plans that are open for public comment. Otherwise, the people whose lives will be most affected by future commercial developments on these parcels will have no say in the matter and no chance to influence the outcome. The shielding requirements for lighting in the proposed zoning ordinance - although apparently the best that we can do under state law - will not deal effectively with light spillover/~om Berglund Chevrolet. And there are no provisions to deal with highly intrusive noise. Because of the grade difference between Williamson Road and Wayne Street, the buffeting requirements for CLS districts abutting residential districts will do little to ameliorate lighting impacts. This mapping recommendation, especially for the rear portion of 3110206, is particularly troubling because it stands in stark contrast to the recommendation for a very similar situation on Franklin Road. Parcel 1300532 is an automobile dealership. The parcel is currently split-zoned with the street frontage zoned CG and the rear of the parcel, which has no access to public tight-of-way, zoned RS-3. Staff correctly recommended, based on the steep and wooded character of the rear part of the parcel, that on the proposed zoning map the rear portion of the parcel remain residential. It was understood that the entire parcel would at some point be zoned for commercial development. But staff justified its recommendation with the comment, "Expansion of commercial district merits additional scrutiny with definitive development plan." We agree and believe that protection of the quality of life of the residents of Wayne Street and adjoining streets justifies the same recommendation for the rear portion of parcel 3110206. Thank you for your attention to our concems. Board of Directors Williamson Road Action Forum Doug Trout, President David Anderson, Vice-President Dorothy Mallos-Spanos, Secretary The Roanoke Times Roanoke, Virginia Affidavit of Publication The Roanoke Times MARY PARKER CITY OF ROANOKE - CITY CLERK MUNICIPAL BLDG RM 456 ROANOKE VA 24011 REFERENCE: 10154151 56554 8 Standard 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 Vi~. Sworn and subscribed before me this ~_~_~i_nay of November 2005. Witness my hand and seal. -----~_~ __~__~/~L~-~otary Pu__blic My~ommiss~an ex~r~~~ PUBLISHED ON: 11/15 TOTAL COST: 8,434.92 FILED ON: 11/15/05 ............................................... + ....................... Signature:_ _ ......... , Billing Services Representative NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Pursuant to the provisions of §§15.2-2204 and 15.2-2285, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended ("Code of Virginia"), the City Council of the City of Roanoke will held public hearings on Monday, November 21, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon as the matters may be heard, in the Council Chamber, Fourth Floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia, in order to consider the following ordinances: 1 ) Repealing Chapter 36.1, Zonin,q, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and adopting a new zoning ordinance for the City of Roanoke, new Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code. 2) Rezoning all property in the City in order to implement new Chapter 36.2, Zoning, and Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan. The zoning classification of every parcel in the City will change upon the adoption of a new zoning ordinance which contains a new classification system (a descriptive summary of which follows). This ad contains a large-scale map of the City which shows the proposed new zoning classifications. While ail property in the City will be assigned a new zoning classification, existing land uses will be "grandfathered" as provided by law, and the current uses of most parcels will not be affected by the provisions of the proposed Chapter 36.2, Zonin,q, unless and until the current use of the property is changed or redeveloped. Pursuant to the provisions of §15.2-2297, Code of Virginia, conditions that have previ(~t,sly been proffered and accepted as part of a conditional rezoning w!ll continue in effect. The public purposes for which the proposed new zoning ordinance and zoning map have been drawn include all of those matters set forth in §15.2-2284, Code of Virginia. Complete copies of the text of the proposed Chapter 36.2 and of the proposed zoning maps, which the Planning Commission for the City of Roanoke has considered and recommended for adoption to the City Council for the City of Roanoke, may be viewed at: Department of Planning Building and Economic Development Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia; Roanokeva.gov - the official website of the City of Roanoke. A descriptive summary of proposed Chapter 36.2, Zoning, follows: Article 1. General Provisions Sections 36.2 - 100 through 108 Contains: statements which incorporate the City's zoning map by reference; statements of general purpose and intent of the zoning regulations and districts; description of the applicability of Chapter 36.2, Zonin,q, and exemptions from its provisions; description of how the zoning ordinance coordinates with other regulations; rules of interpretation and construction, including general construction of language, determining the meaning of terms not defined, how distances between uses and structures should be measured, and determining and establishing zoning district boundaries; and conditions under which an owner acquires vested rights for a use or structure. Article 2. Zoning Districts Sections 36.2 - 200 through 205 Contains: statements of purpose and establishes base and overlay districts; description of the applicability of use regulations and dimensional regulations, including density, lot area, lot frontage, yards (front, side, rear) and yards as pertaining to corner and through lots; and application of maximum building and structure height requirements. If a use is specifically identified in the Use Matrix, while a more general use category is also included, the regulations and applicability of the specifically identified use govern. Land normally submerged under water will not be included in computing the allowable number of dwelling units for any lot. No lot that existed prior to the adoption of Chapter 36.2 that has no frontage on a public street may be further subdivided, unless adequate frontage on a public street is provided. - With certain exceptions, yards must be unoccupied and unobstructed from 30 inches above grade level to the sky. Yard requirements of certain zoning districts may preclude development or expansion of existing uses. Article 3. Regulations for Specific Zoning Districts Sections 36.2 - 300 through 340 · Division 1. Base Districts: Contains statements of purpose, permitted uses, and related development standards, and sets forth dimensional standards. District Description and Purpose Density (dwellinfl units/sq, ft. of lot area) PA, Residential Agricultural District 1 dwelling unit/43,560 sq. ft. of lot area Permits uses which provide for the continued use of agriculturally productive lands, and which protect agricultural lands by maintaining a Iow population density and a rural character of development. A lot must have at least 43,560 square feet and 150 feet of frontage. Front yard depth must be at least 30 feet, side yard width at least 10 feet, and rear yard depth at least 50 feet. Structures are generally restricted to 45 feet in height. Impervious surfaces cannot exceed 25% of the lot area. No livestock may be within 100 feet of any lot not located in an IRA District. Residential Single Family Districts R-t2 Residential Single Family District 1 dwelling unitJ12,000 sq. ft. of lot area R-7 Residential Single Family District 1 dwelling unit/7,000 sq. ft. of lot area R-5 Residential Single Family District 1 dwelling unit/5,000 sq. ft. of lot area R-3 Residential Single Family District I dwelling unitJ3,000 sq. ft. of lot area Protect residential neighborhoods, provide a range of housing choices, and incorporate dimensional standards and densities customary in urban and suburban neighborhoods. Depending on the specific residential single- family district, a lot must have at least 3,000 - 12,000 square feet, 30 - 80 feet of frontage, 15 - 20 feet depth of front yard (with certain exceptions for infill development), 4 - 8 feet width of side yard, 8 - 18 feet total for side yards, and 15 - 30 feet depth of rear yard, and impervious surfaces cannot exceed 50 - 70% of the lot area. Maximum front yard depths of 25 - 40 feet apply in R-5 and R-3. Structures cannot exceed 35 feet in height. Residential Mixed Density Districts RM-1 Residential Mixed Density District: Single-Family, Townhouse, Multifamily 1 dwelling unit/2,500 sq. ft. of lot area Two-Family 1 dwelling unit/3,500 sq. ft. of lot area RM-2 Residential Mixed Density District 1 dwelling unit/2,500 sq. ft. of lot area Allow for a mix of single family detached, townhouse, two-family, and multifamily dwellings. A lot must have at least 5,000 square feet and 50 feet of frontage (RM-2 lot cannot exceed 25,000 square feet or 150 feet of frontage). Front yard depths must be at least 10 feet and no more than 30 feet (with certain exceptions for infill development), the minimum side yard width is 4 feet, side yards must total at least 8 feet, the minimum rear yard is 15 feet, and impervious surfaces cannot exceed 60% (RM-1) and 70% (RM-2) of the lot area. Structures cannot exceed 35 feet (RM-1) and 45 feet (RM-2) in height. RMF Residential Multifamily District 1 dwelling unit/I,000 sq. ft. of lot area Permits multifamily and townhouse dwellings. A lot must have at least 15,000 square feet and 100 feet of frontage. Front yard depth must be at least 10 feet, side yard width at least 15 feet, and rear yard depth at least 15 feet. Structures cannot exceed 45 feet in height, with some exceptions up to 60 feet in height. Impervious surfaces cannot exceed 70% of the lot area. For multifamily dwellings, 100 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit on the lot must be provided. CN Commercial Neighborhood District 1 dwelling unit/I,800 sq. ft. of lot area Encourages pedestrian-scaled retail, office, and service uses, with buildings located close to the street. A lot must have at least 5,000 square feet and cannot exceed 20,000 square feet or have more than 200 feet of frontage. Front yard depths cannot exceed 10 feet. Structures cannot exceed 45 feet in height. Impervious surfaces of up to 100% of the lot area are permitted. In general, the maximum gross ground floor area of any new structure is 15,000 square feet. Building transparency and pedestrian access requirements apply. CG Commercial General District no density restrictions Permits motor vehicle dependent uses that are generally developed as single use developments on individual lots primarily along heavily traveled arterial streets. A lot must have at least 10,000 square feet and 100 feet of frontage and cannot exceed 130,680 square feet of lot area. Front yard depths must be at least 10 feet and no more than 30 feet, impervious surfaces cannot exceed 85% of the lot area, and the floor area ratio of all buildings on a lot cannot exceed 5.0. Structures on lots which abut a residential district cannot exceed 45 feet in height. Pedestrian access requirements apply. CLS Commercial Large Site District no density restrictions 2 Accommodates multiple buildings and uses that are large in scale and generally characterized by multiple tenants or uses on a single zoning lot. A lot must have at least 90,000 square feet and 150 feet of frontage. Front yard depth must be at least 20 feet, side yard width at least 25 feet, and rear yard depth at least 25 feet. The floor area ratio of all buildings on a lot cannot exceed 5.0, and impervious surfaces cannot exceed 80% of the lot area. Structures on lots which abut a residential district are restricted in height to 1 foot of height for 1 foot of setback from the abutting residentially zoned lot. Pedestrian access requirements apply. I-1 Light Industrial District no density restrictions Provides for a range of wholesale, warehousing, distribution, repair and service, assembly or processing, fabrication or manufacturing, accessory commercial and office uses, and intensive commercial uses. A lot must have at least 10,000 square feet and 100 feet of frontage. The front yard depth cannot exceed 30 feet. The floor area ratio of all buildings on a lot cannot exceed 2.0. Impervious surfaces cannot exceed 90% of the lot area. Structures on lots which abut a residential district are restricted in height to 1 foot of height for 1 foot of setback from the abutting residentially zoned lot. I-2 Heavy Industrial District no density restrictions Provides for a range of intensive industrial uses including manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, bulk storage, and processing, and related support commercial uses. A lot must have at least 20,000 square feet and 100 feet of frontage. Front yard depth must be at least 30 feet, and rear yard depth must be at least 30 feet. The floor area ratio of afl buildings on a lot cannot exceed 2.0, and impervious surfaces cannot exceed 90% of the lot area. Structures on Pots which abut a residential district are restricted in height to 1 foot of height for 1 foot of setback from the abutting residentially zoned lot. Division 2. Special Purpose Districts: Contains statements of purpose, permitted uses, and related development standards, and sets forth dimensional standards. D Downtown District no density restrictions Allows a wide variety of uses and intense development in the downtown including high density residential, commercial, retail, government services, entertainment facilities, and live-work spaces. The front yard depth cannot exceed 10 feet, with the exception if certain civic space available to the public is provided. The floor area ratio of all buildings on a lot cannot exceed 15.0. Building transparency requirements apply. MX Mixed Use District 1 dwelling unit/2,500 sq. ft. of lot area Accommodates residential uses, office uses, and support services. A lot must have at least 5,000 square feet and 50 feet of frontage. Front yard depths must be at least 10 feet, but no more than 30 feet, the width of a side yard must be at least 5 feet, and rear yard depths must be at least 15 feet. Structures cannot exceed 45 feet in height and the floor area ratio of all buildings on a lot cannot exceed 1.0. Impervious surfaces cannot exceed 70% of the lot area. IN Institutional District no density restrictions Provides standards for institutional developments of one principal use. A lot must have at least 100 feet of frontage but cannot exceed 5 acres. Front yard depths are 20 - 40 feet when the district extends for the entire block face; under other circumstances minimum and maximum front yard depths are determined based on abutting zoning districts. Side yards must be at least 10 feet wide, and rear yards must be at least 10 feet deep. Structures cannot exceed 40 feet in height, and impervious surfaces cannot exceed 80% of the lot area. Pedestrian access requirements apply. ROS Recreation and Open Space District no density restrictions Recognizes active park and recreation lands and passive open spaces. Front yard depths must be at least 30 feet, side yards must be at least 30 feet wide, and rear yard depths must be at least 30 feet. Structures cannot exceed 35 feet in height, and impervious surfaces cannot exceed 15% of the lot area. AD Airport Development District no density restrictions Permits uses dependent on or related to air transportation in areas in and around the Roanoke Regional Airport. A lot must have at least 20,000 square feet and 100 feet of frontage. The floor area ratio of all buildings on a lot cannot exceed 2.0. Impervious surfaces cannot exceed 70% of the lot area. MXPUD Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District 1 dwelling unit/I,800 sq. ft. of lot area Encourages mixed residential - commercial uses. Certain side and rear yards must be at least 30 feet deep, the maximum cumulative impervious surface ratio is 80%, and a minimum of 300 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit must be provided. Certain height restrictions apply to structures when adjoining a residential district. All utilities must be located underground. INPUD Institutional Planned Unit Development District no density restrictions Encourages development of institutional uses and mixed-use campus developments on sites of at least 2 acres. The maximum cumulative floor area ratio of all buildings within the district is 10.0, certain height restrictions apply 3 to structures when adjoining a residential district, the maximum cumulative impervious surface ratio is 80%, and at least 300 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit must be provided. All utilities must be located underground. IPUD Industrial Planned Unit Development District no density restrictions Encourages large-scale office, research, commercial, and manufacturing facilities in separate structures on sites of at least 5 acres. The maximum cumulative floor area ratio of all buildings within the district is 2.0, certain height restrictions apply to structures when abutting a residential district, the maximum cumulative impervious surface ratio is 80%, and usable open space must be provided at a minimum of 10% of the district area. All utilities must be located underground. Division 3. Overlay Districts: Contains statements of purpose, applicability, procedures, development standards, and design standards. The provisions of any overlay district serve as a supplement to the underlying (base or special purpose) district on the Zoning Map. Where a conflict exists between the regulations of the overlay district and those of the underlying base or special purpose district, the more restrictive provisions apply. The H-l, Historic Downtown Overlay District, encourages the architectural compatibility of new construction within the district, which is generally in downtown Roanoke, by requiring, subject to certain exceptions, a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition, moving, erection, reconstruction, alteration or restoration, but not the ordinary maintenance, of any structure. The demolition of a structure may not be adverse to the district or the public interest, and demolition may not have an adverse effect on the character of the district. The H-2, Historic Neighborhood Overlay District, encourages the architectural compatibility of new construction within the district, which is generally in established residential neighborhoods in the City, by requiring, subject to certain exceptions, a certificate of appropriateness for the erection of any new structure, or the demolition, moving, reconstruction, alteration or restoration of any existing structure. The demolition of a structure may not be adverse to the district or the public interest, and demolition may not have an adverse effect on the district. The ND, Neighborhood Design Overlay District, promotes quality design of residential development within designated rehabilitation and conservation areas. The mass and location on the lot of all new dwellings, and expansion of existing dwellings, is dependent upon conditions existing on adjoining lots. Additional specific restrictions pertain to detached accessory buildings, attached garages or carports, roofs, entrances, windows, siding, trim, and porches. The F, Floodplain Overlay District, provides floodplain restrictions which comply with Federal Emergency Management Agency regulations. The floodway, flood-fringe and approximated floodplain are defined and delineated. No land or use may be developed within the established floodplain areas, and no structure can be located, relocated, constructed, reconstructed, enlarged, or structurally altered, except in full compliance with the floodplain regulations. No use or development may adversely affect the capacity of channels or the floodway of any watercourse. All manufactured homes and mobile homes to be placed in the flood-fringe must be placed on a permanent foundation and anchored in accordance with the Building Code. No encroachments in the flood- fringe, approximated floodplain, or floodway are permitted, unless certain regulations are met. Only certain limited uses are permitted in the floodway. The AN, Airport Navigation Overlay District, requires clear space between aircraft and other objects, and prevents interference with the landing, taking off, or maneuvering of aircraft, or with communication between aircraft and flight related personnel, by regulating the height of structures, objects, and natural growth, lights, electrical devices and uses near the Roanoke Regional Airport and within certain established approach zones. No nonconforming use may be allowed to expand and become a greater hazard to air navigation. Whenever the Zoning Administrator determines that a nonconforming structure has been abandoned or more than 50 percent destroyed, physically deteriorated, or decayed, no permit may be granted that would enable such structure to be rebuilt, reconstructed, or otherwise refurbished so as to exceed the applicable height limit or otherwise deviate from the AN District regulations. The RCC, River and Creek Corridors Overlay District, limits land uses that pose a danger to and degrade the Roanoke River and its tributaries, minimizes clearing and land disturbance of natural features on lands adjacent to those water resources, and implements erosion and sediment control measures to protect those water resources. On properties that abut the banks of the Roanoke River and its tributaries, a 50 foot buffer area of vegetation must be retained and maintained, if present, and where it does not exist, must be established and maintained, subject to certain exceptions. Within buffer areas, indigenous vegetation must be preserved to the maximum extent possible, no vegetation may be cleared or otherwise significantly disturbed, no grading or excavation work may be performed, and no fill or other materials may be placed, subject to certain exceptions. Within the required riparian buffer area, unvegetated areas must be vegetated with appropriate riparian, erosion controlling plant material. Runoff from new development or redevelopment must be directed toward areas covered with vegetation for surface infiltration catch basins, avoiding channeling and preventing concentrated flows of surface water. Piped storm sewers are permitted. The Comprehensive Sign Overlay District provides opportunity for comprehensive signage plans for certain developments in the CLS, MXPUD, INPUD, or AD Districts on sites of at least 5 acres. In a Comprehensive Sign Overlay District, the overall sign area and height of signs cannot exceed the sign allocation or maximum sign height of the applicable base zoning district. · Division 4. Use Matrix: All lots in the City are subject to a new list of uses permitted by right, by special exception or as an accessory use. Uses not identified in a district as allowed either by right, by special exception, or as an accessory use, are not allowed. Article 4. Supplemental Regulations Sections 36.2 - 400 through 432 Contains statements of purpose, applicability, definitions, dimensional standards, development standards, and design standards intended to supplement the applicable zoning district regulations and the other development standards of the zoning ordinance in a manner that specifically addresses development of certain defined land uses, facilities, and structures. Supplemental regulations are applicable to new development, redevelopment, or a change of use. Supplemental regulations are set forth for accessory apartments, accessory uses, accessory structures, amateur radio towers and antennas, dumpsters, detached garages and carports, outdoor recreation facility lighting, recycling collection points, private stables, swimming pools and tennis courts, adult uses, bed and breakfast establishments, car washes, commercial motor vehicle sales and service establishments, day care centers, drive through facilities, fences and walls, gasoline stations, group care facilities, home occupations, junk yards, wrecker yards and recycling centers, mini- warehouses, mixed-use buildings and live-work units, mobile homes, motor vehicle or trailer painting and body repair establishments, motor vehicle repair or service establishments, motor vehicle sales and service establishments, outdoor display areas, outdoor storage, parking of commercial motor vehicles, panel trucks, and certain recreational vehicles in residential districts, parking structures, satellite dish antennas, commercial stables, temporary uses, towing services, townhouses and rowhouses, and wireless telecommunications facilities and broadcasting towers, which help ensure that such uses are compatible with adjoining uses and surrounding neighborhoods. Article 5. Procedures Sections 36.2 - 500 through 571 Sets out the procedures for zoning permits, certificates of occupancy, certificates of appropriateness, zoning amendments, development plans, special exceptions, variances, and appeals; and sets fodh the procedures for the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. No certificate of appropriateness in an H-1 or H-2 overlay district may be issued unless the proposed construction is amhitecturally compatible with the structures or historic landmarks in the applicable historic district. Also establishes procedures for the Board of Zoning Appeals to hear and decide applications for special exceptions, variances from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance, and appeals from any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the Zoning Administrator in the administration or enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance, and establishes enforcement procedures. Article 6. Development Standards Sections 36.2 - 600 through 675 · Division 1. Utilities: Requires that all utility service laterals and service lines associated with basic or comprehensive development plans be located underground, with the exception that they may be located above ground to the point of connection when routed directly to the rear of a structure by way of an alley or utility easement where overhead distribution lines exist. · Division 2, Outdoor Lighting: Controls light trespass, and prevents light glare by regulating the aiming angles, mounting heights, and location of certain outdoor lighting so as not to present glare or light trespass on abutting lots or public streets. The allowable height of such lighting generally is based on the zoning of the lot on which the lighting is located and the distance from property lines, with established maximum heights. Aiming angles are generally restricted to no greater than 45 degrees above straight down (halfway between straight down and straight to the side), and in certain applications fully shielded fixtures are required. · Division 3. General Development Standards: Provides that the provision and location of all pedestrian and vehicular traffic related facilities, including sidewalks, curbs and gutters, frontage roads, and acceleration and deceleration lanes, must be as required by the Agent to the Planning Commission, provided that the property's development directly generates the need for such infrastructure and that the required infrastructure is in proportion to the level of pedestrian and vehicular activity generated by the development. Division 4. Landscaping and Screening: Incorporates landscaping, screening, and tree canopy preservation requirements into the development process by establishing minimum requirements for the installation, preservation and maintenance of certain planting and screening materials. Includes the following regulations: · General landscaping and screening standards, including requirements for the vegetative cover of created slopes of 2 to 1 or greater; standards for planting materials including an approved tree list with height and caliper requirements for specific applications; screening standards; landscape plan requirements; installation, approval and guarantee requirements; maintenance requirements; and modification of landscaping requirements. · Preservation of existing landscaping features, including general standards and specific requirements for tree protection during construction. · Overall tree canopy requirements on a development site (by zoning district). · Conditions for provision of street yard trees for new development in all zoning districts. · Provision of fa(;ade planting for new residential development. · General requirements (by zoning district category) for buffer yards, extent of buffer yards (by zoning district category), and location of buffer yards on a zoning lot. · Parking area landscaping standards, including the provision of wheel stops and curbs; minimum dimensions for planting areas and spatial requirements for deciduous trees; landscaping requirements along parking area perimeters that front on a public street; interior parking area tree canopy requirements (based on square footage of parking area and number of parking spaces provided); and a limitation on the use of any one species of trees. · General standards for screening of dumpsters/refuse containers, mechanical equipment at grade and mechanical equipment on roof. Division 5, Off-Street Parking and Loading: Sets forth off-street parking and loading requirements for permitted and special exception uses in accordance with the intensity of such uses; provides location, construction, and dimensional standards for motor vehicle parking areas, loading spaces, and driveways; and provides alternatives and options for the provision of adequate levels of off-street parking. Includes regulations and standards addressing: · Minimum off-street parking requirements: Applicability; methods of calculation; reductions in parking requirements for proximity to public transit, availability of on-street parking, shared parking, and first 4,000 square feet of net floor area of a non-residential use; and option for off-site parking. · Maximum off-street parking requirements in all zoning districts, with exceptions for certain uses. · Off-street parking area standards: General, construction, location, dimensional and driveway standards, including surfacing requirements, curbing requirements, minimum setbacks from property lines, minimum and maximum widths of driveways, total of permitted driveway entrances, the restrict[on of off-street parking spaces between the right-of-way of a public street and the principal buildings in RM-I, RM-2, RMF, CN, CG, MX, IN, and D Districts, with certain exceptions, and pedestrian access requirements for certain uses in the CG and CLS Districts between off-street parking areas and public entrances of buildings. · Off-street loading standards: Minimum numbers and dimensional and location standards. Division 6. Signs: Permits the use of publicly visible signs subject to regulations addressing: · General applicability, exemptions from regulations, and regulations pertaining to placement. · Prohibition of certain types of signs and sign characteristics. · Zoning permits for signs. · Removal of abandoned nonconforming signs and their support structures. · Standards to control the visibility of the point source of lights used to externally illuminate signs. · Methods for calculation of sign area and number of on-premise signs. · Dimensional standards for on-premise freestanding, building mounted, and upper story wall signs (by zoning district), including total sign area, sign area per sign face, height, and setbacks. · Types and numbers of on-premise signs permitted on a lot (by zoning district). · Changeable copy signs and electronic reader boards, including the location, the requirement to be part of a static sign display, and the limitation on size relative to the size of the static sign. · Temporary on-premise signs, including standards for height, number, size, duration, location, and the type of temporary on-premise signs permitted. · Public service message boards, including the number, size, height, location, and operation of such signs. · Outdoor advertising signs including standards for sign area by zoning district, setbacks, interior angle of sign faces, height, number of sign faces, spacing between outdoor advertising signs, location along certain vehicular transportation corridors and streets in the City, and location with respect to residential districts, public schools, public libraries, places of worship, museums, or public parks, to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and adjoining uses. The distances separating outdoor advertising signs from each other, or separating any outdoor advertising sign from any boundary, is measured from the nearest point on the proposed outdoor advertising sign to the nearest applicable point of another outdoor advertising sign or boundary. Article 7. Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Lots Sections 36.2 - 700 through 709 Regulates nonconforming uses, structures, and lots to permit such nonconforming uses, structures, and lots to remain, until removed, discontinued, abandoned, or changed to conform with the regulations of Chapter 36.2, to ensure that such continuances are not indefinite and are gradually removed in favor of uses, structures, and lots that conform to Chapter 36.2 and the Official Zoning Map, and to provide that under certain circumstances, nonconforming uses, structures and lots may change according to law and provisions of Chapter 36.2~ Includes regulations and standards addressing: · General applicability and definition of actual construction begun prior to adoption of Chapter 36.2. · Standards for nonconforming lots. · Standards for nonconforming structures, including circumstances under which a nonconforming structure may be continued, moved, replaced, enlarged or altered. Any nonconforming structure which is damaged or destroyed by any natural disaster, except flood, to an extent that exceeds 50% of its replacement value at the time of the event may be rebuilt only in conformity with the regulations for the district in which it is located. · Standards for nonconforming uses, including circumstances under which a nonconforming use may be moved, intensified, changed, expanded, replaced or restarted after being damaged, destroyed or ceased. Should a structure in which such nonconforming use is located be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered, except as otherwise permitted by Chapter 36.2, the use of such a structure thereafter must conform to the regulations of the district in which it is located. If the structure in which a nonconforming use is located is damaged or destroyed from fire or other natural disaster, except for flood, to an extent that exceeds 50% of the replacement value of improvements at the time of the event, the use must conform to the district regulations of Chapter 36.2. Ordinary maintenance of a structure housing a nonconforming use may occur, if the cubic content of the building is not increased. · Standards and process for change of a nonconforming use to another use. · Standards and definition of nonconforming characteristics of use. · Certain existing uses which would require a special exception if they were new uses are deemed conforming. Article 8. Administrative Commissions, Boards, and Officials Sections 36.2 - 800 through 840 Provides for definitions, establishment, membership, meetings, quorum, voting procedures, officers, agent and staff, rules and records, and powers and duties of the City Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and Board of Zoning Appeals; and establishes and authorizes the powers and duties of the Zoning Administrator. Appendix A. Definitions Provides for definitions of certain uses and terms used in Chapter 36.2. Appendix B. Submittal Requirements Outlines the materials and information that must be submitted in order to provide a complete application for approval of basic development plans, comprehensive development plans and landscape plans. Appendix C. Agreements Provides forms for agreements as may be required by Chapter 36.2, such as an off-site parking agreement. Questions should be directed to the Department of Planning Building and Economic Development at 853-1730. All parties in interest may appear on the above date and be heard on the questions. If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for these hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office (853-2541), before 12:00 noon on Thursday, November 17, 2005. GIVEN under my hand this 8th day of November, 2005. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. Please publish in Roanoke Times on Tuesday, November 8 and Tuesday, November 15, 2005 Please bill: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Fourth Floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 853-2541 CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21,200 7 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, FOURTH FLOOR NOEL C. TAYLOR MUNICIPAL BUILDING 215 CHURCH AVENUE, S.W. Public hearings will be held on proposals: 1. To repeal Chapter 36.1, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and adopt a new zoning ordinance for the City of Roanoke, new Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code; and 2. To rezone all property in the City in order to implement new Chapter 36.2, Zoning, and Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan. TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA PERTAINING TO THE REZONING OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 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 14TM day of July, 2005, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 28th day of July, 2005, on the rezoning of all parcels within the City of Roanoke to the owner or agent of the parcels set out on the attached listing. Martha Pace Franklin SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this 14th day of July, 2005. Notary Public ~' My Commission Expires: ~--c~ ~ -~__.) ~/ NOTICE: THE LISTING OF THE OWNER OR AGENT OF THE PARCELS FOR WHICH NOTICES WERE SENT BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL WAS TOO VOLUMINOUS TO CONTAIN IN THIS FILE. THE AFFIDAVIT AND LISTING MAY BE VIEWED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, ROOM 456, 215 CHURCH AVENUE, S.W.