HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 10-23-08
MASON
. 38251-1 02308
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR SESSION
OCTOBER 23, 2008
2:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
AGENDA
1. Call to Order--RolI Call. Vice-Mayor Lea was absent.
The Invocation was delivered by Mayor David A. Bowers.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Mayor Bowers.
Welcome. Mayor Bowers.
NOTICE:
Meetings of Roanoke City Council are televised live on RVTV Channel 3. Today's.
Council meeting will be replayed on Channel 3 on Saturday, October 25 at
4:00 p.m., and Sunday, October 26 at 7:00 p.m. Council meetings are offered with
closed captioning for the hearing impaired.
1
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
THE PUBLIC IS ADVISED THAT MEMBERS OF COUNCIL RECEIVE THE CITY
COUNCIL AGENDA AND RELATED COMMUNICATIONS, REPORTS, ORDINANCES
AND RESOLUTIONS, ETC., ON THE THURSDAY PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL MEETING
TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TIME FOR REVIEW OF INFORMATION. CITIZENS WHO
ARE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF ANY ITEM LISTED ON THE AGENDA
MAY CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, ROOM 456, NOEL C. TAYLOR
MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 215 CHURCH AVENUE, S. W., OR CALL 853-2541.
THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PROVIDES THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ON THE INTERNET FOR VIEWING AND RESEARCH PURPOSES. TO
ACCESS AGENDA MATERIAL, GO TO THE CITY'S HOMEPAGE AT
WWW.ROANOKEVA.GOV.CLlCKONTHESERVICEICON.CLlCK ON COUNCIL
AGENDAS TO ACCESS THE APPROPRIATE AGENDA AND COUNCIL MEETING. IF
ADOBE ACROBAT IS NOT AVAILABLE, A PROMPT WILL APPEAR TO DOWNLOAD
PRIOR TO VIEWING AGENDA INFORMATION.
NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT.
SPECIAL ASSISTANCE IS AVAILABLE FOR DISABLED PERSONS ADDRESSING CITY
COUNCIL. EFFORTS WILL BE MADE TO PROVIDE ADAPTATIONS OR
ACCOMMODATIONS BASED ON INDIVIDUAL NEEDS OF QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS
WITH DISABILITIES, PROVIDED THAT REASONABLE ADVANCE NOTIFICATION HAS
BEEN RECEIVED BY THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL WILL BE REQUIRED TO CALL THE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PRIOR TO THE MONDAY COUNCIL MEETING, OR REGISTER
WITH THE STAFF ASSISTANT AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBER
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE COUNCIL MEETING. ONCE THE COUNCIL
MEETING HAS CONVENED, THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER REGISTRATION OF
SPEAKERS, EXCEPT FOR PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS. ON THE SAME AGENDA
ITEM, ONE TO FOUR SPEAKERS WILL BE ALLOTTED FIVE MINUTES EACH;
HOWEVER, IF THERE ARE MORE THAN FOUR SPEAKERS, EACH SPEAKER WILL
BE ALLOTTED THREE MINUTES.
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.
MAYOR CALLED ATTENTION TO THE UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN.
2
2. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
A proclamation declaring October 19 - 25,2008 as Friends of the Library Week.
The Mayor presented the proclamation to Lillie Bryant, representative of the
Friends of the Library.
A proclamation declaring October 20 - 26,2008 as Red Ribbon Week.
Council Member Anita J. Price presented the proclamation to Ray Bemis,
Chair and Operations Manager, Roanoke Area Youth Substance Abuse
Coalition; and Kathy Graham Sullivan, Coordinator, Roanoke Area Youth
Substance Abuse Coalition.
The Mayor announced that the City of Roanoke won and shared first place in
the Virginia Municipal League's Green Government Challenge Award, with
Loudoun County for their efforts with regard to the Clean. and Green
initiatives. Ken Cronin, Director of General Services, highlighted information
with regard to ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability), and the City's
commitment to sustainable development initiatives. He also acknowledged
that the City Roanoke hosted a delegation from China this week, and that
members of the delegation presented the City with a gift.
3.
CONSENT AGENDA
(APPROVED 6-0)
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED
TO BE ROUTINE BY THE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE
ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION
OF THE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED
FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
THE MAYOR CALLED ATTENTION TO REQUESTS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
FOR TWO ADDITIONAL CLOSED MEETINGS.
C-1 Minutes of the recessed Council meeting held on Thursday, May 8, 2008,
and continued until Monday, May 12, 2008; and the regular meetings of Council
held on Monday, May 19, 2008; and Monday June 2, 2008.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Dispensed with the reading of the minutes
and approved as recorded.
3
C-2 A communication from Mayor David A. Bowers 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.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concurred in the request.
C-3 A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in
a Closed Meeting to discuss disposition of publicly-owned property, where
discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or
negotiating strategy of the public body, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of
Virginia (1950), as amended.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concurred in the request.
C-4 Reports of qualification of Chris D. Berry to fill the unexpired term of Stuart
Revercomb, ending October 20, 2009; and Charles E. Hunter, III, for a four-year
term of office ending October 20, 2012, as Directors of the Economic Development
Authority of the City of Roanoke.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Received and filed.
A communication from the City Manager requesting that the City
Council convene in a Closed Meeting, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(29),
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, for a discussion concerning the award
of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds.
A communication from the City Manager requesting that City Council
convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss the acquisition of real property for a
public purpose, where discussion in open meeting would adversely affect the
bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the City, pursuant to Section
2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
REGULAR AGENDA
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
5. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Presentation by United Way of the Roanoke Valley with regard to charitable
contributions/donations. Frank Rogan, President; and Bart and Lynn Wilner,
Chairpersons, 2008 United Way Campaign, Spokespersons. (Sponsored by
Mayor Bowers and Vice-Mayor Lea)
Received and filed.
4
b. Request of the FRIENDS of the Blue Ridge Parkway, Inc., for funding to
continue various community projects. J. Richard Wells, President,
Spokesperson. (Sponsored by Mayor Bowers and Council Member Mason)
Request for funding to continue various community projects was
referred to 2009/2010 Budget Study.
c. Presentation by the Greater Roanoke Valley Foundation and Roanoke Valley
Development Corporation on Projects for Public Spaces Study.
Beth Doughty, PresidenVSecretary of the Foundation and Secretary of the
Corporation, Spokesperson. (Sponsored by Council Members Rosen and
Trinkle)
Received and filed.
d. A communication from the Clerk of Circuit Court recommending
appropriation of funds to cover incurred annual maintenance fees and
professional services costs; and a communication from the City Manager
concurring in the recommendation.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 38251-102308. (5-0, Council Member
Price was out of the Council Chamber.)
6. REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
a. CITY MANAGER:
BRIEFINGS: NONE.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
1 . Adoption of a resolution closing City offices on Friday, December 26,
2008 and Friday, January 2, 2009, and providing additional holiday
leave for all City employees.
Adopted Resolution No. 38252-102308. (6-0)
2. Amendment of the City Code to provide that local licenses be issued
free of charge to vehicles with a gross weight exceeding 10,000
pounds owned by museums officially designated by the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
Adopted Ordinance No. 38253-102308. (6-0)
3. Adoption of revised 2008 guidelines for the Public-Private Education
Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002.
Adopted Ordinance No. 38254-102308. (6-0)
5
4. Execution of a Third Amendment to the Operating Agreement with
Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc., to provide for a one year extension,
commencing November 1 , 2008.
Adopted Ordinance No. 38255-102308. (6-0)
5. Execution of Amendment No. 4 to a Performance Agreement
between the City of Roanoke, the Economic Development Authority of
the City of Roanoke, and IMD Investment Group, LLC, in order to
provide an additional time period for development of certain property
within the Ivy Market Shopping Center.
Action on ordinance was tabled until the November 3 Council
meeting in order to allow the City Manager, City Attorney and
Director of Finance an opportunity to report back to the Council
with a revised amendment to the Performance Agreement that
includes a final deadline for the developer and identifies
consequences if deadline is not met. (5-1, Mayor Bowers voting
no.)
b. CITY ATTORNEY:
1 . Approval of the 2008 Revised City of Roanoke Environmental Policy
relating to the acquisition of real property.
. Adopted Resolution No. 38256-102308. (6-0)
c. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
1. Adoption of resolutions to issue bonds to the Virginia Resources
Authority, and to adjust maximum allowable true interest cost on
VPSA Subsidy and Non-Subsidy bonds.
Adopted Resolution Nos. 38257-102308, 38258-102308 and
38259-102308. (6-0)
7. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
a. A report of the Roanoke City School Board requesting appropriation of funds
for the Virginia Middle School Teacher Corps Program; and a report of the
Director of Finance recommending that Council concur in the request. Vivian
Penn- Timity, Director of Accounting, Spokesperson.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 38260-102308. (6-0)
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
6
9. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES
AND RESOLUTIONS:
a. An Ordinance amending certain City Council rules of procedure, as directed
by the Council at its reconvened meeting (Council Retreat) held on Tuesday,
September 30,2008.
Adopted Ordinance No. 38261-102308. (6-0)
b. A Resolution designating six parcels of land near the intersection of Old
Stephens Road and Shenandoah Avenue, N. W., as a "revitalization area" in
the City.
Adopted Resolution No. 38262-102308. (5-0, Council Member Rosen
abstained from voting.)
10. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: NONE.
a. Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City Council.
b. Vacancies on certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees
appointed by Council.
11. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
Robert Gravely, 3360 Hershberger, Road, N. W., spoke with regard to raw
sewage, possibly from a local hotel on Franklin Road, that had flowed into the
Roanoke River. The matter was referred to the City Manager for investigation
and report to the Council and Mr. Gravely.
12. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
On behalf of City employees, the City Manager expressed appreciation to the
Council on its decision to approve granting staff additional holiday leave on
Friday, December 26 and Friday, January 2, 2009. She also was appreciative
of the recognition of City employees by United Way.
In connection with the recognition for the Virginia Municipal League's Green
Government Challenge Award by Mayor Bowers, the City Manager also
pointed out that City staff presented a program at the VML Annual Conference
in Norfolk on brownfields, in which staff spoke about Roanoke's success in
securing federal funding for brownfields. Ms. Burcham mentioned that she
was a participant in a bagging contest at Ukrop's grocery store over the
weekend, adding that it was a national competition in which she, the Assistant
City Manager for Community Development and a local television station
7
representative judged the way people bagged food, including personal
demeanor, timing, appearance of the bag, number of bags used, and other
criteria.
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.
8
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR SESSION
OCTOBER 23, 2008
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
AGENDA
Call to Order--RolI Call. Vice-Mayor Lea was absent.
The Invocation was delivered by Mayor David A. Bowers.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Mayor Bowers.
Welcome. Mayor Bowers.
NOTICE:
Meetings of Roanoke City Council are televised live on RVTV Channel 3. Tonight's
Council meeting will be replayed on Channel 3 on Saturday, October 25 at
4:00 p.m., and Sunday, October 26 at 7:00 p.m. Council meetings are offered with
closed captioning for the hearing impaired.
CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION. (6-0)
The following individuals were appointed/reappointment:
Appointed Adam W. Boitnott, Duane R. Smith and Edward Garner to replace
. Joseph Lee, Anita Powell and James Allen, as Commissioners of the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority, for terms ending August 31, 2012.
9
Appointed Mary Hagmaier Dykstra to replace Robert Richert as a member of
the Architectural Review Board for a term of four years ending October 1,
2012.
Appointed Paula L. Prince to replace Robert Williams, Jr., as a City
representative to the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors, for
a term of three years, commencing January 1, 2009, and ending December 31,
2011.
Appointed James J. Ronald to replace Sara Holland as the City's
Representative to the Project Discovery, Inc., Board of Directors.
Reappointed Joseph F. Miller, William D. Poe and Diana B. Sheppard as
members of the Board of Zoning Appeals for terms of three years, each,
ending December 31,2011.
Reappointed Richard A. Rife and Fredrick M. Williams; and appointed Lora J.
Katz to replace Paula L. Prince and Chad A. Van Hyning to replace Robert
Manetta for terms commencing January 1, 2009, as members of the City
Planning Commission ending December 31,2012.
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Request from Wayne O. H. and Sharon M. Haig to repeal conditions on
property located at 759 Welton Avenue, S. W., and to rezone such property
from RMF, Residential Multi-family District, to RM-1, Residential Mixed
Density District, for uses permitted in the RM-1 zoning district. Wayne O. H.
Haig, Spokesperson.
Adopted Ordinance No. 38263-102308. (6-0)
2. Consideration of a proposal of the City of Roanoke to lease approximately
748 square feet of City-owned property in the Roanoke City Market Building
to Min Shao Va Hong Kong for operation of a Chinese restaurant business,
on a month-to-month term basis, not to exceed one year. Darlene L.
Burcham, City Manager.
Adopted Ordinance No. 38264-102308. (6-0)
10
B. . OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Petition for Appeal filed by Douglas F. Turner appealing the decision of the
Architectural Review Board for approving Highland Park as the location of a
proposed dog park.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the Council affirmed the
decision of the City of Roanoke Architectural Review Board on
August 14, 2008, and recommended granting a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the siting of a four foot high, black, vinyl coated,
chain link fence to be installed in Highland Park, as set forth in the
Application for Certificate of Appropriateness on the grounds that the
proposed installation and location are architecturally compatible with
the structures or historic landmarks in the H-2 District.
C. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
NONE.
11
(J
"
~
L
f
Office of the Mayor
CITY OF
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Public Libraries are dynamic places of opportunity
that offer area citizens unrestricted access to information and
serve as vital community centers for lifelong learning; and
WHEREAS, in a world undergoing constant change, public libraries .are points
of entrY to important informational, educational, cultural, and
literacy-based programs and services that enhance the
community's quality of life and help people lead longer, more
productive lives; and
WHEREAS, ongoing community support for the welfare and growth of the
existing public library system is important as demands for public
library services increase; and
WHEREAS, Friends of the Library of Roanoke City, a library .advocacy
organization, fosters awareness by the public of the voluntary and
monetary resources that are crucial to the continued operation of
the Roanoke City Public Library system; and
WHEREAS, Friends of the Library of Roanoke City strives to maintain active
chapters in every library location that are actively involved in
advocacy and voluntary efforts to increase accessibility,
. enhancement and improvefTlents of current library services.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, David A. Bowers, Mayor of the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
encourage all citizens to join Friends of the Library of Roanoke City as they work
with the Roanoke City Public Library staff to increase utilization of one of our
City's most vital resources, and do hereby proclaim October 19 - 25, 2008,
throughout this great All-America City, as
FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY WEEK.
Given under our hands and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenty-third day
of October in the year two thousand and eight.
ATTEST:
~~.~
City Clerk
~
Office of the Mayor
CITY OF
WHEREAS, the RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN was initiated in 1985 by the
Virginia Federation of Communities for Drug-Free Youth;
and
WHEREAS, the red ribbon was designated as the symbol of intolerance
of illegal drug use and a commitment to a drug-free life style;
and
WHEREAS, RA YSAC (Roanoke Area Youth Substance Abuse Coalition)
and Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare will demonstrate their
commitment to a drug-free community by urging the citizens
of Roanoke to display RED, in the form of banners, ribbons
worn as lapel pins, ribbons placed on car antennas, and red
bows placed on mailboxes or on front doors; and
WHEREAS, a Candlelight Vigil of Remembrance and Hope will be held at
The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center on Sunday,
October 26, 2008, to remember those persons whose lives
have been affected by substance abuse.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, David A. Bowers, Mayor of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, do hereby proclaim October 20 - October 26, 2008, throughout
this great All-America City, as
RED RIBBON WEEK.
Given under our hands and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenty-
third day of October in the year two thousand and eight.
ATTEST:
~~ 'ffi. 'Mt.N\J.
Stephanie M. Moon
City Clerk
David A. Bowers
Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
215 CHURCH AVENUE, S.w., SUITE 452
ROANOKE, VIRGINI1}'2;lOlI-I594
TELEPHONE: (540) 853-2444
FAX: (540) 853.1145
DAVID A. BOWERS
Mayor
October 23,2008
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,
~~~
David A. Bowers
Mayor
DAB:crt
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
October 23, 2008
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: Request for closed meeting
Dear Mayor Bowers and Council Members:
This is to request that City Council convene a closed meeting to discuss the
disposition of publicly-owned property, where discussion in an open meeting
would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the
public body, pursuant to 92.2-3711.A.3, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Darlene L. Bur ham
City Manager
DLB/lsc
c: Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: c1erk@roanokeva.gov
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
City Clerk
October 24, 2008
Harwe II M. Darby, J r., Secretary
Economic Development Authority
Glenn, Feldmann, Darby and Goodlatte
P.O. Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2887
Dear Mr. Darby:
This is to advise you that Chris D. Berry to fill the unexpired term of Stuart
Revercomb, ending October 20,2009; and Charles E. Hunter, III, for a term ending
October 20, 2012, have qualified as Directors of the Economic Development
Authority.
Sincerely,
~6AUv In. 1Y76<h1.J
Stephanie M. Moon, CMt
City Clerk
S M M :ew
pc: Joyce S. Johnson, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, Chris D. Berry, do solemnly affirm that I will support the Constitution of
the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the
duties incumbent upon me as a Director of the Economic Development Authority,
to fill the unexpired term of Stuart Revercomb, ending October 20, 2009, according to
the best of my ability (So help me God).
~
dl
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ day of O~ 2008.
BRENDA S. HAMILTON, CLERK
BY
~Gc,~A-..
o
, CLERK
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, Charles E. Hunter, III, do solemnly affirm that I will support the
Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and
perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a Director of the. Economic
Development Authority, for a four-year term of office ending October 20, 2012,
according to the best of my ability (So help me God).
alf'(U'l
--
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ day of L?~2008.
BRENDA S. HAMILTON, CLERK
BY
K' Jit.f ~ · CLERK
t
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
October 23, 2008
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: Request for closed meeting
Dear Mayor Bowers and Council Members:
This is to request that City Council convene a closed meeting pursuant to
92.2-3 711.A.29, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, for a discussion concerning
the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene L. Burch
City Manager
cc: Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
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
October 23, 2008
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: Request for closed meeting
Dear Mayor Bowers and Council Members:
This is to request that City Council convene a closed meeting to discuss the
acquisition of real property for a public purpose, where discussion in open meeting would
adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the City, pursuant to
S2.2-3711.A.3, of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Darlene L. Burch
City Manager
DLB/lsc
c: William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann Shawver, Director of Finance
Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk
C:\DOCUME-I \cmld I \LOCALS-I \Temp\notesFFF692\-7075513.doc
CITY OF ROANOKE
CITY COUNCIL
215 Church Avenue, S.w.
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-]536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
Council Members
Sherman P. Lea
Gwen W. Mason
Alvin L. Nash
Anita 1. Price
Court G. Rosen
David B. Trinkle
DAVID A. BOWERS
Mayor
October 23, 2008
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
We jointly sponsor a request of Frank Rogan, President of United Way of the
Roanoke Valley, with regards to charitable donations at the regular meeting of
City Council to be held on Thursday, October 23,2008, at 2:00 p.m.
Sincerely,
(g)~CLW~
David A. Bowers, Mayor
~ ;fi~
Sherman P. Lea, Vice-Mayor
DAB/SPL:crt
pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk
325 Campbell Avenue, S.w.
Roanoke,Virginia 24016
(540) 777-4200 Fax (540) 344-4304
unitedway@uwrv.org
www.uwrv.org
United'.
Way. ~"
Board Chair
Kathy Graves Stockburger*
United Way
of Roanoke Valley
Vice Chair
Barry L. Henderson*
October 16, 2008
Treasurer & Finance
Committee Chair
W Lee Wilhelm,lIl*
Audit Committee Chair
Edward Garner*
Board Development Chair
Thomas L. McKeon, EdD*
Ex Officio
Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council
215 Church Avenue Suite 456
Roanoke, VA 24011
Campaign Chair
Michael N. Coppola*
Community Impact &
Investment Chair
Kerri L. Thornton*
To the Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council:
Personnel Chair
Thomas J. Bagby*
Frank Rogan, President and CEO of United Way of Roanoke Valley and Lynn Wilner,
Co-chair of the 2008 United Way Campaign, would like to request an audience of the
City Council. We would like to present an update on this year's campaign and to thank
members for giving.
Planned Giving Chair
James A. Ford*
Policy Committee Chair
Jean A. Glontz*
President and CEO
Frank R. Rogan
Please show this on the agenda as "United Way of Roanoke Valley 2008 Campaign
Update".
George WAnderson
J.Alexander Boone*
R. Daniel Carson
Father Rene Castillo
Keisha J. Chavis
H.Yictor Gilchrist*
Nancy Gray
Karen L. Grogan
James N. Hinson
Prab Jain
Carla L.James-Collins
Paul W Klasing
Lorraine S. Lange, EdD
Joseph W Lee, III
Kevin Lockhart
Gloria P. Manns
Harold M. McLeod,lIl*
Debbie Meade*
Dr. Sabine U. O'Hara
Melinda J. Payne*
Shyrell A. Reed
Earl B. Reynolds,Jr.
Samuel D. Robinson
Surmy G. Rojas
Jacques Scott
Linda L. Steele
Lew D.Thompson
Marvin T. Thompson
James WThweatt,Jr.
Brian Townsend
Steve Waterman
Barton J. Wilner*
Jason M.Woodcock
Danielle H.Yarber*
Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you have any questions, please feel
free to contact me.
Best Regards,
~ ~ ,e ~-
Frank Rogan
President and CEO
*Executive Committee
what matters.™
-
Q) 0
a. en
o Q)
Q)+:
o..C
en 5 .
Q) <.l Q)
~Q)-3
Q).cC
en- ell
>,"0 0
~~o::
>ell _"0
C C
Q) .9 ell
~ C Ol
o .- .-
C > ~
ell -()
2 E -
u..Q)"t:
_Cii:J
0(/)0
>, -
ell - Q)
>Q)o
>-3((l
"OC
Q) ell
:!: 0
cO::
=:l .~
//~"
..~,
I-
~ I
,//~
. z
l7 .'. <(
..;;:c : 0
U
7
~"::::- - _.-
",-
en en '-.>,
Q) en ->, ':.0.
.0 Q) ell "0'.
Q)~~ l!?'"
:5 ell "0 ~.9
_ u 2 C 'c
~ ro 'c Q) 0
-.c=:l g>E
~~o"",>,
c-Q)=
Jgoen.e2
Q) en c Q)
_ :J 0 ell..... .
Q) u+: o..elljB
UO:JNu-
c_:9coen~
.~ .9 ~ Ol ~ Q)
Q;encc+:.....
0..'- 0 0 .ell ~
x Q)() E:E.o
Q) a. 00 ell .~ ~
_ _r--n:>..~
\
\
\
..
850
I..LJ .
~LLJ
31-
o
,~z:
'~~.'.
c:...:> .---1
o
E5LLJ
:>
,>
\~ I
i
j,
"
s
"
:>
~
u
~
o
Ii
~
E
"
ii
III
.~ en
"0 0
~ ,gOl
Ol ~,~
:; ~ en'~ m
OEQ)';-.&:
-5e~-g:t
ell_Q):J
l!? ~.~ ';;; l:
.9 g ] .~ ~
Q;o..E:J$O
.c 0' .....-
(j)Q;e~Q)
C)~,+-~.s
OQ)~-Q)
_Olo..-Ol
~.9 Q)O 00.9
._ c
_ -. t"'\ n') ~
co
c::;)
~
~
~
~
~
0=
~
~~
E........
/"-..,
,.., ..
, ~).
00
(6)
.....
:J
o C
>,0
c+:
._ ell
>,E
Q).....-
=.QO
>ell c.....
.- 0
~~t5
o 0 Q)
c ~ ,:
ell .0
o 0 Q)
o::"O.c
-:J-E
o 0
>,>,0
(OcJ:: ....
~Q)Q)
.c -
"O~.oo
Q) ell .....
_en=N
'c :J ell ""
-..->'
-''Q)ellt--
....._ent--
Q) "0 .- t--
.ocen-
E ell;: ell
Q) en Ol-
Ec"Oa5
Q) ell Q) E
..... - c
Q)o..co..
en Q) ell 0
ell--'Q)
Q) .s 0.. >
o:encQ)
Q)OO
>-
C'-. (f)
o.ctl
- Q)
Q) (f)
..c .- ~
.......cQ)
"",_..0
Q) - E
Q) ctl
z .- :J
o C
>,
Q)
~~co
>(/).....
Q) _0
~Q)""
O~N
CQ) ell
ell > .-
o <( .~
0:: _ Ol
- .....
- Q)'-
0.0>
>, 0.. -
ell E Q)
~ell-3
"O()C
2lt)~
'c ~ 0::
=:l
0""
00
N('I')
""""
r--: .
t--""
... ""
'-: ('I')
o '
",,0
It)~
~
o
c:
~
:J
i
i t:!e'
:f;~~ ~
C> 'V~ c: 'c:
5~~ ~ .~
\r-.:,4" ~ 'S:
t:J~\Jii "!
~JH
~ is
--
Ol .....
ell .~ :J
Q) en 0
~ ell C
ell - ..... Q)
E g>15:5
.9 '5> >, g>
c .~ :5 Q)
ell..a~t;
~ ~ ."0
>,0 >'c
=:>~ell
ell>-
Q) 0 >ell en
..... - Q)
:J en Q) .~
~~-3a;
_Olc>
,ell c ell e
:5000..
.:;::;0:: E
?:~ t).
-<; ,>
. /.rC~~ -
~;~.../,;,,<;.'1fr
,,If "4 ,", .
" "'---. ~ ,;~
()
o
3
3
c
:J
,.....
'<
()
Q)
3
"'C
Q)
-.
co
:J
3 ~
~ :::;;
~ a
CD 5'
3 0
CD en
;::!.~
~~
/="0
!i'~
~ CD ::E
~~~
~. ~ m
Q.;:::;:c-
'" (ii" ro
5 en 0
::E Q 8
~Q~
~ g S.
.......e!.c
~" ::r CD
~ ~
o CD
C15 ~ s:
::fCUco
~. ~. ~-
-
S'
00
:::l
C") ......
~~
:::l
II
o
~~
C'"> C'">
)> )>
~.:a.
::0 ::0
o 0
Q) Q)
::J ::J
o 0
"" ""
ro ro
<<
~~
rom
'< '<
o~
OON
~ -.,j
(ii' -.,j
or ::;"
:::l 0..
C") <'
CD 0:
::E c
5O~
::r
:S::O
o 3
CD CD
en
0..
c
CD
""U
-
CD
Q)
C/)
CD
CO
-.
<
CD CD
I\.) CO
OCD
O:J
00 CD
..,
o
c
"C/)
-
'<~~
.,
,.....
o
,.....
::::T
<'
S'
l.Cl
S'
o 0
-"0 .J>..
Q'CDf\..)
om~
c.. !:::::!: W
, :::l 0
ool.Cl"O
8 m ~
=0.."0
~ S' ro
....- co CD
<""0 C")
CD ..., CD
~ c.8 <'
~. 03 ~
:::l 3 00
Cfil en ~
sa., ~ (ii"
..., m
rCD:::l
wOOC")
oo!2:CD
oCD::E
~o~
:::je,Q'
. ~ &
0'
c
co:!:J
f\..)o
3"3
g. ~,
:::l N
"O~
o 0
C :::l
:::l en
0..
en
::J 5" ....Jro. .
CC")~U1
3 CD W 0>
O"ooow
~ ~ ::E ~
sa., 0.. ~ <"
CD 00 CD 0:
3 C") "0 C
CD @ 0 00
ca~5:cn
~o~~
.Q ~ 3 CD
g 3" ~ ~
3 ~ er (ii'
:s. ~ ::T CD
(f)....,CDCl.
~~!!?.::E
, CD 5'50
;::tcn::::r
<' CD CD
CD :< 00
@ 2" ~
CD ;: ~
00 w :<
~?f!. 2"
en
00
:::l
0..
00
:::l
00
0..
0..
;::+:
0"
:::l
!!?.
II II
1111 II
iLl
OOODOO [j
;da:;!g'i3'~~~b~
~;:~~~~~~~~
g~~::,,~~~~
::Jo:~Q)~("')~gcn
~~~~~::stgg-
~. -, _. C/) ::T Cl. ):> :x> 0
~ ~ @.?6 g ~ ~ O"Q --
....+ :ScoCl.<""""'I,:s5"
-0 0;" n ::I: CD. n" OQ ~
~ en ~ ~,~ ~ r=:
~ g:c~~;;~
~ 5. ~ ~ ~ ~i
P :I: 5' ~ ~ 5
q ~~3~ffi'
~a
c"O
C") 00
CD :::::I-
0.. n'
........ -CO
::roo
CD :::l
Cii
:s:
""'C
:::c
o
-<
::z
G:l
::I:
rr1
):>
~
::I:
\20
(/)
rr1
r-
""T'1
I
(/)
c:::
""T'1
:::!:!
(")
rr1
::z
(")
-<
~o
co C
-.,jOO
?f!.~
a~
@ :<
CD ,=;-
l.Cl CD
<" en
CD Q'
Ul .
::E &
s:~
CD 00
0::0..
~ C
'-<"~
~!
0.. CD
o 0..
~ 0
!1 ~
c
C")
CD
5'
CD
!e-
CD
en
en
ro
<
CD
en
//
.go.
~~ ~
.:< CO" ~
sa., ~" 0
::fa:
~m~
en 00
"0 0..
CD C
U~
00 00
:::l :::l
0..0..
~5'
:::l ~,
~or
~ g,
0.. (ii'
ggen
?f!.~
3' ~,
"0 CD
o 0..
cB ::r
0.. CD
5'en
CD CD
",' :<
::r n'
CD CD
00 en
~ffi
00 CD
:::l 0..
o..~
0..
(ii"
C")
'2:
S"
CD
!e-
m
co
l.Cl
(ii'
en
0" 00
CD :::l 0
:::;0..<
~ en ~
~ ~,~
o~8
0.._"0
CD a ~
!!?.3~
::Ec......
50 ;!. ~
::rro~
0.. CD
~,~ 6""
C")OO"O
::r '< CD
B: -g ::
~ s- ~
Q)~~
g,Q~
3' cg ~
~ :!. ::1
S?~l.Cl
~g~
:::l =
::f(f)OO
~" ~ 00
0;::>
?f!.~
""'C
:::c
o
:s:
o
--I
::z
G:l
o
c:::
):>
r-
=i
-<
o
""T'1
C
""T'1
rr1
""T'1
o
:::c
o
r-
o
rr1
:::c
):>
o
c:::
~
(/)
c
en C")
CD ::E Q)
o CD en
~m~
en
111111I 1111 III
111111111111
DD 0
,
o DO 0 0 DO
/--
l.Cl
o
o
00
en
00
co
"0
Q)
C")
CD
0..
c
...,
S'
l.Cl
00
0" W
C ~
en w
~
S::iE
Ol 0
:J :J
Ol ...+
:J'<
'<0
00 c
5''0'
CQ.. 5'
(1) C
co 00
a ,"
-601
(')co
Ol ~
:J ~
o ~
:J -
;:;:::E
00 (1)
o (')
::E Ol
:J :J
Ol
(')
(')
o
3
'E
00'
~
3
o
...,
(1)
-, :iE
.g(1)
a :J
< (1)
(1) (1)
_a.
<',<
(1) 0
00 C
Ol ...,
:J~
a.~
~"!='
Ci3;::;
:J -
coOl
- ;>\
~(1)
(1) 00
:J (1)
g cB
...,-<!
(') 0
o :J
3 (1)
3 -
C 0
:J ::E
;:;:0
':<~
-
o
co
(1)
-
~
(1)
..,
-
o
(/)
--I
:::c
rr1
::z
G:l
--I
::I:
rr1
::z
::z
G:l
~
:s:
r-
rr1
(/)
c;')c;')""C'">C'">C'">C'">C':> coco co co co)>)>
o _0 Q) 0 0 ::r ::r :::r 0 0 a aci" ;a 3 0-
~_. (I) ~ 5' 3 c: c: c: ~ ~ en OJ ~ ~ ~
<: ("") ':< ("") 3 ..., ..., :::c 0) n :::::0 ..., n"
=s.~s:g~~~~g~a~~~
~ en <: ~ ~~st ~tir~ ~~:::::oen
~ S, C:;" ~ ~ 0 c: =r :::l. ~ r--: en = en n
~ m3~3a~en:t:-~~'~a
.~o3 m("")gn30)CTQ:::::O CD
COO oQ ;; s; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (I) ~ a ...,
en ~ 0 _.---r '< --' g C:;" ~ C:;;" ~ ~ s,
s, 0;" 0) ~ i5 ~o n :; 0 _0) <: CD CD I :::::0
~ (I) g- en ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~" ~ ~ :::::0 0
m~~~ nS.CD~ g~_en_~~_.~ ~
~ ~ ;;f n" ~ ::; ;;: ~ roT :::::0 =:J (I) ::: ~ ~
CD ~ ~ ~ 3: oQ ;;"C" ~ c.: f' g S!. m <:
'C5i 0 ':< co' 50 0 R m O'Q roT --. <: Q)
~ ~ en 0;0 ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~
"'tl
II)
;:+
:::I
CD
..,
l:
CD
:::I
n
(ii'
en
S'
~~
roo.:
00 c
~~
~::E
C") CD
~CD
0::"0
CD a
s:- :::J <
CD ::E 0:
~ ~ ~
1U'CDoo
~. ~" en
=rea,
CD CD
~"Q..
!2:~
CD CD
o~
!e-oo
00 '<
'< -
~ a
co3
-<8-
a~
S52-
3 n'
CD
Q
-<
Q
en
(ii'
en
e:
a
o'
:::l
~
(i)'.
III
St~~cg 8~:iE
a<(1)03"O~
c(1):Ja.30cx>
co co - -, 0 :J .j:o.
683iD':J(1),<
s.a.=:iEcg ~ 1B
:T~rnCDOO'"
(1)Ol Ola.StOO
::o;:+~=o-(1)9,
0?'(1)::E'<."'(1)
Ol -l 00 5' 0' c ~
:J - ('):J.....
o~g::Ec;:;:~
;>\ 00 ,,... ~ 00 (1) -,
(1) (1) .... (1) 5' a. (1)
<::: Ol:JCO<;::!
Olco:J <"
=ooa.OlOOl(1)
~ So ~ g. ;:: ~. 5'
, enOl =~oo ~
(')Q:a.(1)::E~
..,(1)000-0"0
(1) Ol C C .., -,
Ol (') -. ;>\ :J
- :J (') a: -, co
(1) a. (1) _, :J
::E<(1):JcoO'
< a.co_(')
~~ooo-o~
(1) :J -. 0' Ol ..,
00 :J(')a.(1)
0"000;>\<00
_(1)(')ooOlc:
~o~_:J(1)
o'Eoog:J
"0 (1) Q. .., en
(1) - Ol St
(1)
00 0
CD ~
l.Cl C")
CD ::r
;:;0
:::l Q.
l.Cl"O
go
:::;CQ
CD 00
~ ~
m 00
o..:::l
CD 0..
~ 00
o
cF.
-.,j
en
co
o
en
C")
::r
o
o
d;'
l.Cl
CD
C")
;!:
0::
CD
:::l
00
sa.,g
5':::l
o 0..
en C
CD :::l
CD ~
C") 0..
~, ~
-, 00
~'<
::r -
o c
3 g,
CD CD
::E 0..
Q 00
",;::>
00 ~
~ ~
(ii' g,
mo
~ s.
CD
:T
..,
CD
en
c:
;::;'
en
=
-
=-
CD
en
CD
3
'1:::1
l>>
(')
-
l>>
..,
~
o..~.
~ ~ ~
~...!..,01
o c:: -.,j
"O:::l,<
~ g- g
:::l 0.. :::l
er~l.Cl
3~~
~C")O::
52..~co
o 0:: :::l
:::l ::r-
~ 8 ~
:::l 0.. CD
~ ~ '?
g-~ ~
o...@CD
o 3 ~,
en en <
c 00 CD
C") :::l .0
@ 0.. C
CD co 00
0.. :::::':o~ ~
S'
^~~
S' CD CD
g-co-t,
cO Q) a
00 g. 3
:::::I- S' C
~ l.Cl :::l
~
0..
(')
l>>
..,
CD
-
=-
-<
3
c
=
;::::;.:
c
..,
CD
CI.
cr
'<
<
c
c:
=
-
CD
CD
..,
en
-
c
..,
n
c
=
-
:::!.
cr
c:
-
o'
=
en
-
c
-
=-
CD
c:
=
;::::;.:
CD
CI.
:e
l>>
'<
:i'
<
CD
en
-
CD
CI.
l>>
3
c
=
C1Q
0)
N
'1:::1
l>>
..,
-
=
CD
..,
l>>
C1Q
CD
=
(')
'<
3
'1:::1
1M
::I:
rr1
r-
""'C
::z
G:l
(")
::I:
r-
o
:::c
rr1
::z
\20
-<
o
c:::
--I
::I:
(/)
c:::
(")
(")
rr1
rr1
o
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: c1erk@roanokeva.gov
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
City Clerk
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
Octob~r 24, 2008
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham
At the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held on Thursday,
October 23, 2008, J Richard Wells, President, FRIENDS of the Blue Ridge
Parkway, Inc., appeared before the Council to request funding in order to
continue various community projects.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the request for funding was referred to
the 2009-2010 Budget Study.
Sincerely,
~)Y).~w
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
pc: J. Richard Wells, President, FRIENDS of the Blue Ridge Parkway, Inc.,
P. O. Box 20986, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Management and Budget
Friends of the Blue Ridge Parkway
. Roanoke based non-profit
. Founded by Park Service & Roanoke cac
in 1988 as part of 50th anniversary
. 80% of budget comes from 8,365
members from across the U.S.
. Low overhead (1 full-time employee)
results in 91% funds to parkway projects
Friends Work
. Viewshed Protection
. Trail maintenance
. Volunteers in the Park
. 65,000 hours
. Hemlock (wooley adelgid)
. Roanoke Valley Chapter
\:y:.JJ1~!?.:.~,
~
~'~~'~,.
Mission
The mission of FRIENDS of the
Blue Ridge Parkway is to help
preserve, protect and enhance
the outstanding natlJral
beauty, ecological vitality, and
cultural distinctiveness of the
Blue Ridge Parkway and its
surrounding scenic landscape,
thereby preserving this
national treasure for future
generations.
FRIENDS Membership Growth
9,000
8.000
7.000
6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
Together we achiew lt1e
extraordinary!
...,
1
t
It is more
than just a road.""
))~-~Q{,~~
~"
'.. ,>
'., ;,!,,~,,;",.""-~;'-
The Problem...
. The Roanoke Valley is the lowest elevation point
on the 469-mile parkway...
. PARKWAY VIEWS BEING LOST: Encroaching
residential and commercial development
. OVERGROWN PARKWAY OVERLOOKS
. PARK FACILITIES IN DISREPAIR: Budget cuts
result in 57 permanent jobs lost (about 25% of
parkway staff - mostly maintenance jobs lost)
,)~J.!il;-L~?.:y
'..
Roanoke Mountain Overlook
:)':J!iN!?~\"
~~
~~~/
Economic Impact of Parkway
"20 million annual visitors
.$1.8 billion to 29 counties
"Most visited Park in U.S.
"Roanoke largest city on parkway
. Asheville leading gateway city
"VA. receives 1/5 the economic benefit
c.
'~'
""!.,.:,j..""\~
As the Views Diminish so do the Visitors
"20% decline in Roanoke area visitation
. Travel Guides "skirting" Roanoke section
iwlI..$l'!~'i'"!>:2 .
.,~:".
>"'~:.;,,:.,;< y.,.--'
.w'
2
\)~}L.0:{J~y
~,
... .'._. _.. ..~v---
u."~, .
..))<ll:~~
o ,_
<:....._'.,,,T.....'.
The Inevitable Result
Scenic America 2004
L Historic Towns of Concord, Lexington, Lincoln and Bedford,
Massachusetts
2. Creole Nature Trail National Scenic Byway, Louisiana
3. Glen Mary Plantation Historic Site, Georgia
4. Schuylkill Marsh, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
5. Lower Marks Creek Rural Landscape, North Carolina
6. Jordan River Conservation Corridor, Utah
7. Middle Potomac Scenic Corridor, Maryland and Washington,
D.C.
8. State Highway 99 Corridor, San Joaquin Valley, California
9. Blue Ridge ParkwayViewshed, Roanoke County,
Virginia
10. Gaviota Coast, California
~~~J.!1~{?~\
~.._~.~ ...\.
,,'. """-'.$",-"
, J
" '~< ;.!,.,'~:..~, t>,.... ~,.
.))~JLb."~'/J.z
~p~.gti(2:~'
,~.
--"<~,.,_:,j~< T"-.""
The Park Service Turns to FRIENDS
. "Last Chance Landscape" locations (35)
identified
. Strategies: Buffer tree planting, easements
and land purchases
Landscape plans developed
. 7 viewshed plantings organized and
implemented to date
v"\~J!i;~p'\,
~.:~,,~.'*...
,_ ,'7
'<~:"''''''''1'>''.>'
3
Friends Launches Roanoke
Viewshed Protection Program
.- - -
'-'-'-
'- .- -
Together we achieve the
extraordinary!
=
..,~:-
Civic Involvement
Hundreds Volunteer to Plant
Together we achieve the exlraOfdillaryl
;;~
.,.:~:,.~>,.
'4"i'!"'.:.b\"<'~'-'
Saving Parkway Views
=.
'~~:.
".....:.j~, ",to
..)'.).O!I~;!~.:"...~.......
- -'-"-,
.. ../
'~"b,.;.,,~, r.i.'<"
4
Litter Control
))\U:h'\O.:~
"~i.
-'.. ,;~
-, ~!",~";,-,.,,.'-."
Painting Milepost Markers
))~JJ2~~?,~'
..
"- ~;"
!'.""...,.."t"."'"
Clearing/Maintaining Trails
'.'
Repairing Fences
w.,
. Building Bridges
'p~Ul~O~~
-~
'-";~~f'
''''''':...~,._, \..,....
5
Tourism is Important to Our City
. $331.5 million visitor spending - 2007
. $664 million in metro
. $2.8 million to city in lodging taxes
. 18% of meal taxes from visitors
(over $2 million)
. Taxes directly from visitors totals nearly
$5 million in FY 07/08
. "It's in our nature"
. 5 to 1 ROI at state level
5)':-;~,~
_I
OUf Need
. $18,000
. To continue viewshed plantings in the
Roanoke area
. To clear overgrown overlooks
. To ensure Roanoke area parkway trail systems
& facilities are maintained
. To reinforce our 2o-year mission of protection
and preservation of this national treasure
.,.
'J'
6
CITY OF ROANOKE
CITY COUNCIL
215 Church Avenue, S.w.
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
DAVID A. BOWERS
Mayor
October 23, 2008
Council Members
Shennan P. Lea
Gwen W. Mason
Alvin L. Nash
Anita J. Price
Court G. Rosen
David B. Trinkle
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
We jointly sponsor a request of Greater Roanoke Valley Foundation and
Roanoke Valley Development Corporation to present a study on Projects for
Public Spaces at the regular meeting of City Council to be held on Thursday,
October 23, 2008, at 2:00 p.m.
JJi~
David B. Trinkle, Council Member
~
Court G. Rosen, Council Member
DBT/CGR:crt
pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk
October 9, 2008
'N --,;,:!JElvED
('CT 1 0 2008
rrr -" '~qIS OFFICE
- -~
Ms. Darlene Burcham
City Manager
City of Roanoke
215 W. Church Avenue
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Darlene:
Subject: Briefing on Projects for Public Spaces study for upcoming council meeting
5. c.,
4...... .
....J.
ROANOKE
REGIONAL
CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
Roanoke City Council Members David Trinkle and Court Rosen have agreed to sponsor a
presentation of the Projects for Public Spaces study at anupcoming council meeting. This
presentation could be especially useful as the City of Roanoke deliberates over the future
of the Market Building.
As you are aware, the study was funded on behalf of the Greater Roanoke Valley
Deve_Iopment Foundation and the Roanoke Valley Development Corporation to provide
expert information and guidance about redeveloping the Market Building. The
Foundation and Corporation are administered by the Chamber.
Beth Doughty, president/secretary of the Foundation and secretary of the Corporation,
will make the 20-minute presentation.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
c: Beth Doughty, Roanoke RegionalPartnership
-~
--=:!
newva
, ,~'1" .,;.~ t;:~
2105. JEFFERSON STREET
ROANOKE. VA 2401 1-1702
(540) 983-0700
FAX (540) 983-0723
business@roanokechamber.org
WWW.ROANOKECHAMBERORG
-0:'1 ",
CONCEPT & ASSESSMENT
For The
ROANOKE CITY MARKET BUILDING
.. PP S I 700 Broadway
.. I New York, NY 10003
I T (212) 620-5660
PROJECT for I. F(212) 620-3821
PUBLIC SPACES I www.pps.org
RE
PG
REAL ESTATE PLANNING GROUP
S.c.
FUNDED BY THE GREATER ROANOKE VALLEY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION AND
THE ROANOKE VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
MAY 2008
....,_w_ ..;'i'l...,....."'.-;.~.',._<.'.." ',~"' :'-; ~~ :'
.. . ._...",~...,.",..":.;:.,, ,';""',,,'" ,.,' "'." <~. ,..:. "~'. :.,~ "
:~PPS
PROJECT for
PUBLIC SPACES
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
T (212) 620-5660
F (212) 620-3821
www.pps,org
MEMO
To: Greater Roanoke Valley Development Foundation & Roanoke Valley
Development Corporation
From: PPS
Re: Roanoke City Market Concept Plan
Date: May 7, 2008
Project for Public Spaces (PPS) is pleased to submit this memo and related documents to
Roanoke Valley Development Corporation and Greater Roanoke Valley Development
Foundation which describes a conceptual plan to revitalize Roanoke's City Market
Building. The goal ofPPS's work has been to provide expert information and guidance
that will be useful for a response to the City of Roanoke' s RFP for redeveloping the
Market Building.
These recommendations respond to the Development Principles contained in the RFP,
and build on the recommendations contained in the City Market District Plan, although
our recommendations are more specific and do not recommend extensive changes to the
current outdoor/curb market configuration.
It is anticipated that this information will be incorporated into the RFP to the City.
INTRODUCTION
Roanoke is fortunate to have one of the few remaining historic market houses in the
original location - the heart of downtown. In spite of its dwindling tenancies and
darkened spaces it still draws thousands and is a cherished place to gather.
Imagine then - if it were revived as a true market with enticing fresh food choices,
brightened with a welcoming interior and made more accommodating as the place .to eat,
nieet;see and be seen. ,. .". - , , . - - '.. ......-
This is an exciting time for Roanoke - downtown is coming back with gusto - and the
market is in the middle of it all. It is the iconic building and place in the city.
Imagine then - how alive the downtown could be if the market added new stalls, retail
and restaurants, holiday markets, seasonal night markets, public seating and re-opened
1
, .
the top floor as an event space. The market has enormous potential waiting to be
rekindled.
As the heart of downtown, the market is still a beautiful piece of architecture, and a
welcoming sight for those walking from their offices,. or across the bridge from the
Roanoke Hotel, yet it is a disappointment on the inside.
This is a golden age for markets in America - and the successful ones are not merely well
positioned or the result of happenstance; they are the fruits of hard work and investment
behind the scenes. The City Market can add so much more to the civic life and economy
of Roanoke - but it will take a concerted and deliberate effort on the part of many to
make it all happen.
Much is in place; downtown Roanoke's resurgence is evident and vibrant. The City
Market, sensitively and sensibly brought back to life would be the ultimate keystone to
ensure the momentum of downtown as a place to work, live and enjoy the bounty.
Proposed! Goals of the RevitaJljzation Program
o
Re-establish the historic food focus of the City Market, expanding the potential for
the local food economy and for locally-owned and operated busin~sses
Build on the growth of the existing outdoor market and link the ogtdoor market
activities directly to the market building
Leverage the market as a catalyst for downtown revitalization and as a venue for
promoting community health and economic development
Expand the food buying opportunities for the Roanoke region, especially downtown
residents
Support affordable, entry level businesses, especially for low income and immigrant
entrepreneurs, and help existing businesses grow and mature
Restore the historic character of the City Market building, and make full use of all its
facilities, including the third floor public hall
Make Market Square a usable, active public space that enhances the visibility of
Center in the Square and becomes a venue for a wide range of public events
Achieve financial self-sufficiency after three years
o
o
o
.
o
Economic Assessment of t~~ Roanoke City Market
. < -~~",,,,..,'.,, . ,. .-'-.'
See separate memo from the Real Estate Planning Group, which validates that the
proposed expansion of food and retail space is feasible in today's market in Roanoke.
2
"
Proposed! Concept Plan
See separate design plans
1. Overview of Proposed Layoutfor Market Hall
Grm.mdl Floor
The central area of the market is where we are recommending the concentration of fresh
and prepared foods, with the corners for restaurants/retail and the arcades along Wall
Street and Market Street for farmers, day stalls and crafts. The arcades could also be used
by tenants needing larger spaces.
Permanent stall spaces are less deep than currently, allowing for racetrack circulation for
the market hall. A seating, day stall, and demonstration area is located in the center of the
hall. The existing mezzanine is proposed to be removed, opening up the space to its
original full height and making it once again a bright, light-filled space. Seating areas
are clustered around the perimeter of the market stalls and extending to the wings, as well
as to the now smaller mezzanine, reached by elevator or by two new stairs (which have
small rest rooms under them, mainly for the use of adjacent restaurant customers.)
The perimeter of the market including all retail and restaurant spaces would have doors
that largely open the interior of the market to the sidewalk. This space would then have
the feeling of an open~air arcade, which would not be heated or cooled in the same way
as the market hall. However, doors could be opened and closed acc()rping the season.
Little Market Street and Wall Street are proposed as one continuous level from building
to building, with bollards and trees providing protection from traffic. This treatment will
allow maximum flexibility in using these streets for parking as well as for farmer/vendor
trucks which can line up, as they used to, on both sides of the market. Additional stall
space will be available in the arcades, by opening the doors that face to the outside. In
good weather, this will allow the market to double load vendors around the perimeter; in
winter, vendors could downsize and double load within the wings, with the exterior glass
doors closed.
A new service area has been developed on Salem Avenue to provide nominal space for
trash and recycling within the structure.
A new elevator will service the upper levels from the Salem Avenue side. This plan
would require considerable new infrastructure for HV AC and utilities for vendor stalls.
Mezzanine Level
Most of the mezzanine level within the central area of the market is removed, leaving a
balcony on either end with temporary seating and rest rooms.
3
The corner spaces are all activated (with the exception of the northern corner on Salem
which is for storage) for retail and restaurants with additional seating on the canopy
providing views of the square and museum/hotel. There is flexibility to allow this retail
to be operated by the same retail/restaurants on street level, utilizing the new stairs to the
mezzanine at each end of the market.
A storage room is also located on the mezzanine.
2nd Floor
The second floor is an attractive space and we are recommending that it be retrofitted as
an event space for dinners, meetings, concerts, specialty markets and other mid-sized
public gatherings. This will require installation of a catering kitchen, a new service
elevator and an improved lobby/pre-event area. The rest rooms on this level would also
serve the daytime market and will be accessible by elevator and stairs. One or both of
the rooms off the lobby would continue to be used for mechanical equipment.
II. Public Spaces and Outdoor Market
The City Market building is an integral part of an entire market square The design goal
in the plans is to create a uniform and flexible paving surface that accommodates market
activities as well as other public events, as well as parking in some locations.
Market Square
Some of the existing vending,pn Market Square will be relocated to around the Market
Building, while continuing tne existing "line" of vendors on Market Street (but without a
permanent cover here.) A portion of the existing market canopy should be removed. A
new canopy or pergola would announce the entrance to Center in the Square, and an
information kiosk managed by the Center would also be located in the square. A few
trees are proposed, with the main goal to leav~ this space flexible for programming. As
such, it will require pro-active management to makes sure the space is kept active and
attractive.
On the opposite side of the square, an expanded cafe area is recommended, while leaving
space, again, flexible for market vendors (without trucks) or other activities.
Existing Outdoor Market
No changes are proposed to the outdoor market location, except as noted in Market
Square.
., ...,..........,"'~~,' ....~...-:
Salem Avenue "Lawn"
The goal is to treating this space with a similar design treatment, and making it part of the
programming of the market square. With the new hotel and museum, this space will be
much more visible in the future. Adjacent retail space could be converted to a restaurant
or brew pub, with outdoor seating. .-..
4
Proposed Merchandisin.g Plan
This plan represents a transitional strategy to evolve the Market Building from a food
court into a market that has more fresh foods and locally produced products including
crafts with an overall improvement of the market experience.
The City Market must become the epicenter of food - fresh, local and ethnic - for the
region. This will brand the market as a viable attraction and anchor its identity. Other
merchandise such as crafts can also playa supporting part, but should be reflective of the
new trend towards 'local' featuring things that are handmade, homemade.and
homegrown.
The new layout provides much more 'frontage' for display and allows customers to
interface directly with products and 'shop' the market. There is also quite a bit of
flexibility in the layout allowing for seasonal changes and temporary vendors. It is our
experience that temporary or 'daystall' tenants are an important incubator and provide an
affordable business opportunity.
Ideally, the market should look and feel like a market and secondarily be a place where
p.eople can enjoy a selection of lunch options:
o Hybridize the Food Court Tenants: Work with all ofthe current vendors to add a
line of retail products and help them redesign their stalls so they look like market
stalls, not a food court. While ther~ is some retail display (Nuts n Sweet Things),
most need to revisit their concepts and make them more market-like with retail
products that complement their prepared foods. This will not only make the market
look more like a market, it will help vendors increase sales beyond the limited hour or
. two oflunch. For instance, the Pizza stall can add a line ofItalian products - such as;
olives and olive oils, balsamic vinegars, sauces, salamis, condiments, etc. Each food
court tenant should similarly construct a product line that stems from their prepared
foods. The layout and displays of these tenants must look first like a market stall with
large and colorful displays of products. The visual 'look' of each stall is extremely
important and management must work closely with each tenant to make this
transition.
o
Establish Tenant Design Criteria: Create design criteria that specify what tenants
mayor may not do within their leased spaces. This should address the full range of
issues such as: permitted materials, counter heights, setbacks, lighting, signage and all
equipment and fixtures. The design criteriashquld also outline how to submit plans
for appro:vaL".Jhis, is. generally a back and [orthprocess with thetena!!t's,l:lbmitting
plans for review and the landlord (or designee) making comments for resubmission
and finally for approval. This process will result in a better merchandised and visually
appealing market.
o Recruit New Tenants: Recruit tenants who will be primarily fresh food, market-
type tenants. We recommend that they be located in the central market area towards
':W
5
Campbell Avenue, so as you enter, the first impression is of an actively merchandised
market - not a food court. The selection of these tenants has to be carefully
considered to appeal to the downtown office workers, lunchtime browsers and
tourists. Many of the market shoppers come from quite a distance and will not have
immediate access to refrigeration, so we do not see a large demand for meat, poultry
and fish.
New tenants should also be encouraged to do something - cook, bake, assemble, roast
- on premises. This activation is a strong-marketing tool and gives the market a
higher energy level and makes it more interesting and memorable. It also connotes
freshness and stimulates conversation and interaction - the first steps needed to move
towards a sale. With added cold storage farmers can also diversify into new areas.
Four or five larger, fresh food stalls would work better than many small ones.
These suggestions are to broadly guide leasing efforts and are not prescriptive:
Produce and Flowers
Produce is generally the number one item in successful markets - and we see this
as an opportunity in the City Market. This is an essential anchor tenant to re-
establish City Market as a classic destination. Abundant, colorful and informal
displays are what people expect and produce is easy to work with, although it
does take solid merchandising skills.
Cheese Shop
Cheese has long shelf life and is something people will buy' on the spot'. It looks
great and there are many stories to tell about the different cheeses. Any good
cheese shop has a larger product line including crackers, spreads; condiments and
specialty items. This tenant could also sell lunch items such as sandwiches.
Bakery
An on-site bakery would be a strong anchor for the market. We recommend a
scratch baker that can produce on site, adding eye and nose appeal in the central
market. Lunch items could also be sold using their own breads and products.
Coffee, Tea, Spices
Ideally, someone roasting on site would be the best tenant. There is a huge
product line in this category and it shows very well in a market. These products
have a long shelf life and will have appeal across the different customer
categories in downtown Roanoke.
,..._. ."~~ _ ,_,,'.l"":'~"~. c, ~ ,-.,>,~, ~ _,_ '.~ .; . _~_' ,~_, :' i _,
Deli
This is an ideal category to 'hybridize' lunch and fresh products. Perhaps one of
the existing tenants would be interested in doing this.
6
Ethnic Foods
People hope to find unusual foods and ingredients (as well as the familiar) at a
market. The City Market should make a point to reach out to recent immigrants
and ethnic groups who can share their cuisine and culture with a wider audience.
These operations can combine fresh foods with prepared foods - i.e. a Mexican
stall could sell chiles, quesos, salsas as well as tamales, enchiladas, etc.
Diversify Farmers Market Vendor's Products: The creation of the new
arcades provide an opportunity to diversity the mix of the farmers market.
By adding limited cold storage, producers can expand into meats, local fish,
cheese, and other fresh food items that would expand the diversity of
products offered at the market. Vendors can also expand value-added and
prepared foods. These vendors would be "sell what you make or grow" while
market hall vendors in permanent stalls would have more flexibility in selling
products, including specialty foods, that are year-round and even international in
character.
Farmers should also be encouraged to diversify their crops and add more specialty
items and varieties within a product category. While peaches and tomatoes are
always going to be popular - there are more and more items that shoppers are
familiar with through travel and cooking shows. These specialty items can
generally bring a good price as well. It will make the market more interesting and
enticing for those shoppers.
Selecting Market Tenants
Leasing is the most critical part of any market development. The size of the Market
Building limits internal competition and the ability to 'carry' weaker tenants. It is
imperative that each stallholder be a draw in his or her own right and add to the strength
of the market experience.
If every seller develops a reputation for quality, service and selection then the market will
succeed. Individuals, not the abstract product category, are the most important ingredients
in determining the success of the market.
During the leasing phase it is essential that tenants be put through a rigorous process of
planning and questioning to hone their concepts and specialize product lines. It is very
important that the majority.oftenants sell basic; fresh food pm ducts -,notiust.hJPch.
r..~:'" ..~ .. ....' '~"~ \. ":,:~~'~;:'r~,~;..~:.'t(...'~""'~:;";-'~"'-''':;'''~,''-,,,,'h'.;~"',:l'.:.;,' . '. ., -"": _ .. . ~.' t 'o-~' ~ r<r
(~"r'
There are good market vendors and poor ones, even though they sell a similar line. A
market's success is not based on product alone. Other factors include:
o outgoing personality and good communication
o high standards of , shop keeping'
o strong visual merchandising skills
7
knowledge of product and consistency of quality
ability to compete
Proposed MaJrnagemellJlt Stnllctuue
In general, cities are getting out of the management business and turning their markets
over to carefully selected entities as detailed below. Attachment 1 provides an overview
of new management systems used in public markets owned by municipal governments
today in the U.S.
Management Goals and Responsibilities
There are three broad categories of goals for the management of City Market:
1. Operational goals
2. Public goals
3. Neighborhood & Community development objectives
Tasks associated with each of these goals are summarized separately below.
Operational Goals
To operate a high standard of maintenance and security; the management entity must:
o Establish a set of standards for cleanliness, maintenance and security
e Be able to hire staff, purchase supplies, train staff, and implement the program of
work to be performed quickly and efficiently ,
e Establish mechanisms for businesses and merchants to report maintenance and
security incidents or concerns
. Be vigilant with cleaning, maintenance, and security every day to enhance customer
expenence
e Commit management entity to maintenance and security excellence
iii Coordinate maintenance and security of the market with the surrounding district
To run the Market efficiently and cost-effectively, the management entity must:
e Immediately implement generally accepted accounting principles
e Establish'the annual openiiing'plilifforthe guiding foclisofdaily operations including
enforcing rules, regulations and policy, as well as market activities and events
Ii Hire and train employees
o Establish challenging work goals for all staff
$ Hold individuals responsible for their performance
8
To grow the Market the management entity must:
@ Establish a targeted leasing plan consistent with the merchandising plan
o Develop partnerships with local, small business lenders and entrepreneurial educators
Gl Prepare for close working relationship with new business owners
o Tap into existing local programs on business" training and for entrepreneurial start-up
o Develop measurement / goals of growth and document the progress
o Undertake a coordinated plan for marketing the City Market
Public Goans
To coordinate public and private interests, the management entity must:
o Act as the community-based leader in all matters related to the City Market
o Serve as a clearinghouse of information about the City Market
" Welcome input from interested constituencies
o Take initiative to communicate the Market's activities, policies and information
To preserve the viability and integrity of the Market
r
o Management must promote the Market
. Support the success of existing businesses with cooperation and cross promotion
o Encourage business growth through improving customer perception of the Market
e Reach out to locally owned businesses
To sustain the Market as a public gathering place, the management entity must:
.. Foster a welcoming atmosphere to all that come to the Market
. Add outdoor seating seasonally to encourage longer customer stays
" Develop a web site presence to advertise the Market as a public resource
To support women and minority business enterprises, the management entity must:
o Expand the leasing activities to local ethnic and cultural groups
o Hold leasing events targeted toward these diverse, targeted, prospective businesses
o Establish relationships with existing minority businesses who maybe able to suggest
.. ,gqQ<l lea.4s fQr prospective business oW!lers . .
>,., 0, . ".Encourage"community "leaders, religio.\ls lea.dersand 6t~~ers to;tp:in.k"a.b.6.ut{n~~ygluals.
, whom may be looking for retail locations to consider suggesting the City Market
9
'_I"
Community Development Goals
To leverage the Market as a catalyst for 'downtown development, the management entity
must:
o Be strategic in the alliances and partnerships formed to strengthen the Market
(;) Keep government and business leaders current with developments in the Market
(;) Cooperate with all City departments and agencies in the implementation of the plan,
including commitment of staff and resources, to tap into resources, programs and
activities which support the Market
To work collaboratively with diverse community and business interests, the management
entity must:
., Trust diverse people from diverse interests
\9 Solicit the input of customers, business owners and neighborhood constituencies
$ Communicate widely and with the intention to reach existing and new audiences
\9 Be truly committed to improve the success of the Market and the district, this
commitment will require much collaborative work with previously uninvolved parties
., Be accountable to the public and instill trust in the community of their work
Proposed Management Structure
The market 'business' is much more competitive today and cities are no longer the best
option for running them. This is borne out in tnany places where cities have stepped aside
and turned over control of their markets, while standing by to provide backup support and
maintain their obligation to publicly owned real estate.
City/owners are not taking leave of market operations entirely, however. They can (and
often do) provide ongoing services such as trash removal to reduce operating expenses.
Very few municipally-owned markets make a profit and the city still has an obligation to
see that short and long term capital needs are addressed. Capital expenses are usually
borne by the city as most markets are not able to produce revenue to finance
improvements.
Based upon current trends that are working in other cities and from specific information
in Roanoke, we recommend that it would be entirely appropriate for a 501 (c) (3)
corporation to enter into a carefully considered lease with the City of Roanoke to manage
and'{cike the lead in revitalizing the historic City Market. The lease'document;'pr6pedy
executed, protects and encourages public goals while allowing the market to unleash its
inherent entrepreneurial opportunities.
10
A not-for-profit management entity at the City Market will be better able to:
Staffing
o
Coordinate public and private interests
Allow for flexible, entrepreneurial management
Raise funds from private donors and foundations
Increase potential for state and federal grants
Work with small vendors
Make decisions quickly
Attract volunteers
Establish strategic partnerships
Promote the market
Recruit new farmers and vendors
Create a welcoming atmosphere
Listen to customers
Create an authentic Roanoke experience
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
A full time manager will be able to oversee the entire market operation with a support
staff of a part-time bookkeeper and two full-timejanitors and two part-time custodians.
Partnerships and Alliances
~,;j'"
The Roanoke City Market has many natural market partners. Some are obvious, some
less so, yet all can add something to the market experience.
There seems to be wide support for the market and people are ready and willing to do
what they can. Outreach to partners can provide financial resources, volunteer help,
education and perhaps most of all - more customers. Two support groups for the City
Market should be created:
An advisory committee of partners who can support the market's activities - from
reaching out to new farmers to promoting healthy eating to activating the market as a
downtown attraction.
o
o
Friends of the Market: Many markets help to launch 'friends' groups to help with
volunteer projects and fundraising. Roanoke can help establish a friends group that
will stretch the markets resources, build loyalty and a sense of community ownership.
This can be a great tool for managernenUo.,steerpegple with ades.lre'to get involved. .
Some friends groups are membership organizations that charge an anrlual fee, while
others operate less formally - both are effective.
11
Potential Partners
Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau
The City Market already attracts tourists. The market has the potential to be a regional
food center that attracts regional tourists as well.
Downtown Roanoke, Inc.
This premier advocacy organization (and currently City Farmers' Market operator) works
diligently to build downtown as an attraction for residents, workers and visitors and is a
natural partner for events, programs and economic development.
Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership
A supporter of downtown, the Partnership can feature the market as a selling point for the
regIOn.
The Art Museum of Western Virginia
Scheduled for completion later this year, the Museum will bring new visitors and money
into downtown. The long term success of the Museum will be enhanced by the
continuing improvements to downtown as a place to visit, dine, shop and live. It is in
their interest to see the market revived as another destination in Roanoke. The Museum
Cafe could certainly feature market products on its menu.
Center in the Square .. .
The market and Center are practically joined at the hip - they have many areas to explore
as partners. The design of their new entrance should blend into the market activity, to the
benefit of both parties. Outdoor programming can entertain market shoppers as well as
museum-goers. The Center could even research and feature an exhibit about the long
history of the City Market as part of its revival efforts. Creation of a stronger critical
mass downtown is in the interest of everyone.
Virginia Tech
The University and the market could partner together on the development of a local food
system, community health, education, and joint fundraising for collaborations.
Culinary Institute at Roanoke Higher Edm;ation Center
This a natural match for building the Market as a center of the local food movement. The
Culinary Institute presents a host of partnership opportunities from cooking
demonstrations, education, internships, vendor training and recruitment.
'.I
. ~ ~."""''''?,.".r,.:,,",.:.;..::~c:....~.:~.., ." ...
Virginia Department of Agriculture
There are many resources available within state agricultural departments and they are
often very willing to help with money, talent and contacts. They would be an asset to
help identify and approach new farmers about selling at the City Market.
12
Health Advocates and Providers
Public markets can enhancing access to fresh local food for lower income residents, as
well as providing an ideal venue for education about healthy eating that is needed by all
segments of society to deal with the growing obesity epidemic. Public markets can
partners with local hospitals, health centers, health advocacy groups, and government
agencies which provide food stamps/EBT and WIC coupons.
Seniors and Senior Centers
A trip to the market is eagerly anticipated and is a vital lifeline for many older people
who live alone. Seniors are great volunteers.
Chefs and Restaurateurs
Downtown Roanoke is host to an impressive and growing number of restaurants. The
market is a natural focus for high quality, fresh local foods and chefs are increasingly
looking for more of these ingredients. Cooking demonstrations featuring downtown
restaurants are a natural collaboration.
Media
The Roanoke City Market has a very modest advertising budget (nearly every market has
limited resources, this is not particular to Roanoke) so it must stretch these resources
through publicity and events. There are a lot of good stories at the market (profiles, food,
farming, cooking, history, special events) that can be pitched to the media, which has
already demonstrated a sincere interest in the market.
Roanoke Area Schools
There is a growing collaboration with schools and markets on two fronts. First and most
obvious is education - about food, health, agriculture, economics, entrepreneurial ism, etc.
Second, schools are developing partnerships with markets and local farmers to provide
healthier, fresher fare for school lunches. Many schools are now getting rid of junk food
and soda and bringing in more local, freshly prepared foods. This aids nutrition and helps
with behavior and attention spans.
Green Movement
The City Market should position itself as a 'green' market - with recycling, education
and outreach to other organizations that are doing the same. The re-merchandising of the
market should focus strategically on products that promote healthy eating, responsible
production and agricultural preservation. Locally raised products require less energy to
bring to market (food miles) and can be promoted as a feature of the revived market.
The reconstruction should strive for LEED certification and be a model for others in the
..'.LdGowntowncore and ,region."" .. .. ';.,.,'.,:; ;;::";~. ,::
13
Fundransnng Issues and Opportunities
It is our recommendation that City Market raise all of its capital costs (and two years of
operating shortfalls) and not use cash flow as a financing method. Achieving operational
sustainability should be the goal, as it is in most markets. Very few markets make
enough operating profit to self-finance capital improvements. We have seen markets
quickly get into trouble by overestimating their performance and forever struggle to gain
a solid footing.
Historically, public markets have always been built and/or renovated using public funds
and Roanoke should not feel this is an indication of weakness or insolvency. Even the so
called 'best' markets in the country like Pike Place Market in Seattle, or Reading
Terminal in Philadelphia are recipients of public funds for all or most of their ongoing
capital funding. In fact, Pike Place Market is about to issue a' voter referendum requesting
up to $50,000,000 for a complete overhaul of its infrastructure.
We are projecting the City Market as financially stable (producing a positive cash flow)
by Year 3. Setting aside a small reserve account for emergencies and special projects is
the best use of these funds. The true success ofa market is not measured by its cash
flow - it is the role it can play in creating value in a downtown as a place to live, work
and spend time that is the greatest asset. There is a long list of 'benefits' - jobs, social
gathering place, cultural asset, etc - that are worth more than money.
. .,'1
Fortunately, markets are once again enjoying a rise in appreciation and funding sources
are growing. The last period of major market infrastructure contributions from the public
sector came in the 1930's (part of the WPA) when many historic markets were restored
using federal dollars. After that, markets entered a long slow period of decline and many
closed during decades of suburbanization, urban flight, supermarket development, loss of
local farmland and lack of connection to a sense of place.
Today, markets are drawing on a wide array of funding sources from federal, state and
local sources to foundations, corporate sponsors and partnerships. Attachment 2 provides
a listing of sources have all provided money for public markets in recent years. Other
sources that have been used successfully include: bond issuances, Historic Tax Credits,
grants, fundraisers and capital dollars from the host city.
While there are precious few allocated dollars for markets - there are sources for
infrastructure money. Markets - and Roanoke is .in very good shape here - must make
the"case that they have <>broader purpose which serv~\the public good.
Roanoke's City Market not only serves as a longstanding commercial enterprise, it can
make a strong case for investment based on its role in:
Historic preservation
o Downtown revitalization (retail, housing and office)
14
Farmland preservation
Economic Development
Public Health/Environmental Health
o Community Development
t,....." ..,.....
. '. .. ",.\.' ~___ ,"-i': 'I). <J .:,,- -.::: ,:::: ',r-,' i::?..' ~,'. -,
15
RoaJl1loke City Market OperatiJl1lg Budget
OPERATING INCOME
Rental Area
Rental Rate per SF
Total Rentable Square Feet (SF) of Ground Floor and Mezzanine = 9028 SF
Not included: outdoor and balcony seating areas on the canopy/mezzanine
public seating on the ground floor
Upper Floor Meeting Room
Rent at $1500. Less expenses of $500 = $1000 net per rental/event
20 daytime rentals/events/year = $30,000
30 evening rentals/events/year = $40,000
Subtotal
Utilities - Estimate of submetering tenants
Electricity
Water
Marketing Fee
$2
TOTAL INCOME
Income
$70,o.O~ .
45,000
. 12,000
18,000
$389,985
16
OPERA TING EXPENSES
Salaries
Manager
Bookkeeping/Office
Janitorial
2 fit
Custodial
2 pit
Subtotal
Benefits (20%)
60,000
10,000
50,000
40,000
160,000
Total Salaries $192,000
32,000
Advertising/Mktg
Office
Insurance
Utilities
Electricity
Water
Garbage
Supplies
Maintenance/Repair
Real Estate Taxes
subtotal
Contingency (10%)
25,000
5,000
n/a
80,000
20,000
1,000
5,000
10,000
nla
146,000
14,000
Total Non-salary
$160,000
TOT AL EXPENSES
$352,000
Net Income
$35,985
Other Potential Revenue S~Hllrces
o Percentage Rents: More markets are instituting a clause in leases - whereby tenants
pay a percentage of sales as rent. Typical market percentages range from 4% - 10%,
with farmers and fresh food tenants paying less, and prepared food/lunch vendors
paying higher rates. !tis impossible for us to make predictions with no sales data.
o Catering Kitchen Rental: The second floor kitchen will be a 'licensed' kitchen and
itcanl:le rented to.smalLscale,food.PI9ducers (jellies, salsas;baked"go<Dds, etc.).
Market tenants would be able to augment their own protluction capacities as well.
,
o A 'fM: There may be one or two small spaces to rent for an A TM machine.
o Triple Net Rent System: Establish a Base Year and pass through all increases in
operating expenses to tenants.
17
Roanoke City Market - 3 Year Cash Flow Projection
Break Even SCiCIllario by Year 2011
The following figures are based on the 100% occupancy Operating Budget. The figures
below have been adjusted to reflect vacancy as indicated.
Assumptions
o Vacancy Rate: 2009 - 30%, 2010 -15%, 2011 - 5%; Vacancy rate stabilizes
at 5% thereafter
o Expenses Increase 2.5% per year
o Revenues will increase in 2012 with rent increases
Year
2009 2010 2011
151,854 184,394 206,088
19,635 23,842 26,647
49,000 59,500 66,500
39,900 48,450 54,150
12,600 15,300 1 7, 1 00
30% 15% 5%
272,989 331,486 370,485
Revenues
Ground Floor
Mezzanine
Upper Floor
Utilities
Marketing Fee
Vacancy Factor
TOTAL REVENUES
Expenses
Payroll and benefits
Advertising/Mktg.
Insurance
Utilities
Garbage
Supplies
Maintenance/Repair
RE Taxes
TOTAL EXPENSES
352,000
360,800
369,820
Net Operating Income
(79,011)
(29,314)
665
2012 and Bevond
The market is projected to show a positive cash flow in its third year. Starting in 2012 the market will be in
a position to increase rents based on observation of existing conditions. Assuming expenses stay relatively
stable, the City Market will begin to see ongoing positive cash flow.
18
Attachment 1: PUBLIC MARKET MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
MARKET AUTHORITY OR COMMISSION
Market authorities and market commissions are terms that are used interchangeably by
different cities. In this market management system, a city commission or authority is
generally appointed by the Mayor, City Council, or some combination thereofto oversee
the market. Market staff reports to the commission or authority. An authority is similar,
except that the market may have bonding capacity.
Exam p~e
MeadviHe Market House - MeadviHe, Pennsylvania
The Meadville Market House is a 120 year old facility in a small town of 16,000 in
northwestern Pennsylvania. It includes a 6000 square foot interior market hall for
permanent vendors and a wraparound portico which is used by farmers. The second floor
houses the local arts council, an exhibition gallery, dance studios, and a small
performance space.
The Market House is owned by the city, which appoints the Market Authority board.
Meadville is located in the NE comer of Pennsylvania.
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
This form of city operation - often used for entities like airports -- simply puts all
revenues and expenses in a separate city account so that costs can be better monitored,
rather than intermingled within agencies. In other words, the market generates its own
revenues and spends what it makes, and any surplus is kept by the market. Market
employees are city employees, and there is usually an oversight commission appointed by
the city associated with it.
Exam lP~e
\ . ""';:' ,~.... _.,. "~ .:-,,".: ", . .r
..."'."'Yd,,'Rlver Market,,.,:LJttle.,Rock
;:. (..,. ;, 1\
. ..
,!'~}:Jc~ J """~_t""':'_'"~'.':''' '~'::
~:~t:;...~...t:"-..; :..-;.6:1.:....j~Ti
> . '---"">"-"':'_'~"," ",.0;:" ,<..,'.',,".....,;.
The River Market is owned by the city of Little Rock and was developed and initially
operated by the Downtown Partnership, a 501 c3, and is now operated by the city's Dept.
of Parks and Recreation. The River Market anchors a 'district' approximately 8 square
blocks on the edge of downtown. The market has been the catalyst for redevelopment in
the immediate area including apartments, retail, offices, the new Clinton presidential
19
library and a park. Future development includes a five story parking deck, movie
theaters, IMAX, aquarium and more retail and apartments.
The changeover in management occurred because the city was already operating areas
adjacent to the market (Riverfront Park, outdoor concert area, public spaces) and it was
felt that this would be more efficient. Shannon Jeffrey, the market manager, likes this
current arrangement, and she can call any department in the city for assistance with
plumbing, electric needs etc. and gets prompt attention. The market is the 'shining star'
for the city and hence gets its requests moved to the top of the list.
The market has a staff of 8 and an annual operating budget of $500,000. The city is
contributing about $200,000 a year to make up operating deficits. It is envisioned that the
market will eventually be self sustaining.
PRIVA TE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
The city establishes an oversight committee, but the actual operation of the market is
undertaken by a private or non-profit corporation, usually selected through competitive
bid. Generally the city must periodically re-bid the management contract competitively.
:.;
Examples
City Market - Kansas City, Missouri
City Market is located on the site of the original trading post that became Kansas City.
City Market itself has been established for over one hundred and thirty five years, and
was recently renovated by the city. Its central shed structures for farmers are surrounding
by a variety of retail food businesses and restaurants; an art market now occurs on
Sundays throughout the summer.
Following its renovation, Commercial Realty Resources, a private, for-profit real estate
company"was retained by the City of Kansas City to operate the market under a private
.management contract and is the master lease operator of record. There is also a thirteen
member Oversight Committee tbat acts' as a watchdo~ for the market's interest. The
market was previously operated by the city. .
Although the market has greatly increased revenues under private management, the city
continues to subsidize market operations and pay for capital improvements.
20
In 2004, the City reissued an RFP for a manager and the contract was awarded to a new,
private real estate management firm. Commercial Realty no longer acts as the agent for
the city.
Other city-owned markets operated by private companies:
Eastern Market, Washington DC
City Market, Charleston, SC
PRIVATE. NON-PROFIT (SOlC3)
Many markets have converted to private, non-profit management over the past twenty
years. Under this system, the city retains ownership and control over the facility, and
establishes a long-term lease with an independent, 501 c (3) corporation to operate the
market. The lease spells out the terms of the agreement, and varies according to each
city. The structure of most of the non-profits includes a broad-based board of directors,
including citizens, vendors, nearby businesses, and usually one or more representatives of
the city government.
.H lE,xam pIes
Broad Street Market - Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
The Broad Street Market, located in downtown Harrisburg was established in 1861 and
still occupies the same handsome stone market hall. The market was historically owned
and operated by the city until recently.
After making nearly $3 million dollars in capital improvements, the city decided to get
out of the market management business and awarded a management contract to Historic
Harrisburg Association (HHA), a501 c(3) corporation. A lengthy negotiation hammered
out a management agreement specifying the responsibilities of each party.
BHA has turned the market around and it now operates at a surplus.
t'i3 xrii gt6'fi "J\//af"k'e t --.;.' t3altlmOfe;' IVlD"'" 'i;~"" ,. .,..~::~:'..... -.. --- - ....1''' ,,;,?~ j,',,; ,
The historic Lexington Market, located on the edge of downtown Baltimore, traces its
beginnings back to the late 1700's. The current market complex was built in the 1950's
and encompasses 260,000 square feet.
21
The city established the non-profit Lexington Market Corporation in 1979 and wrote a
Lease and Charter Agreement establishing the parameters of control and obligation for
the city and the corporation. The agreement contains a renewable 20-year lease for $10 a
year. All operating profits go to the city. However, prior to the 1979 agreement, there
were many years of losses which are now depreciated against market revenues and the
corporation has not paid the city any rent over the $10. This allows the market to put
operating profits into a capital fund. The market still, on occasion, receives capital
assistance for the city, the last time being in 1986 for $1.1 million.
The Market Corporation board has eleven members who were originally appointed by the
mayor. There are three city seats on the board and the remaining eight seats are filled by
the board itself. There are no market tenants on the board.
The market does receive some "off the books" help from the city such as free trash
pickup and all of the revenues from the market parking garage. Combined, these are
equivalent to nearly half a million dollars a year in revenue to the market.
. North Market - Columbus, Ohio
North Market, a public market founded in 1876, is located near downtown Columbus and
the new convention center. Located for nearly 50 years in a Quonset hut after a
disastrous fire destroyed the original market building, North Market underwent a multi~
million relocation and expansion program in 1995. ..'
The City of Columbus owns North Market and leases the market to the North Market
Development Authority, Inc. (NMDA). NMDA is a non-profit 501 c(3) corporation
organized in 1987 to preserve and promote the market. The city, which was considering
closing the market and tearing it down, gave NMDA a five year lease on the market in
1988, although the city continued to subsidize its operations. Beginning in 1989, a master
planning process was initiated. Following the city's purchase of a vacant two story brick
warehouse to house the relocated market in 1992, NMDA entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding with the city, describing the roles of the city and the authority in the
development of the expanded North Market. In 1994, the city entered into a development
agreement with NMDA authorizing the Authority to go out for public bid as the
developer of the project. The new home for the market along with an enlarged farmers
market and parking facilities cost $5.2 million. NMDA signed a new 20-year lease of the
market with the city in 1995.
NMDA has as seventeen member volunteer bom:a. In addition t6feVehUesftomthe
market vendors, North Market splits revenue from an adjacent parking lot with Capitol
South Urban Redevelopment Corporation; in this lot, shoppers pay $1-2 for the most
convenient parking spaces. The city provides a limited operating subsidy for the market
of about $25,000 a year.
22
PUBLIC. NON-PROF.rr
Example
Pike Place Market - Seattle, Washington
When Pike Place Market opened in 1907, farmers originally met in this downtown
location to sell their wares from the backs of their wagons; as trade grew, individual stalls
were constructed. Near death in the 1970's, the market almost closed, but residents
rallied together and in 1976 the market was saved, preserved as an Historic District and
has continued to grow in popularity, size and selection. The current indoor/outdoor
market encompasses more than seven acres, three floors and over 300 stalls, 100 farmers,
more than 200 artists and craftspeople, many businesses and restaurants and
approximately 450 residents.
The Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority (PDA) is a non-profit
public corporation chartered by the City of Seattle in 1973 to serve as caretaker and
steward of the city's historic public market center. The market also has a 501 c(3) - The
Market Foundation - which works to support human service agencies, advocate for low
income and needy residents, and raise funds to support the public purposes of the PDA.
PDA staff activity is governed by the PDA Council, a 12-member volunteer board
consisting of four mayoral appointees, four members elected by the Market constituency
and four members appointed by the PDA Council itself. Council members serve four-
year terms.
PDA serves as the landlord and manager for 80 percent of the properties located within
the nine-acre Market Historical District. Various private interests own the remaining
properties. All buildings and activities within the Pike Place Market, regardless of
ownership, are governed by the covenants and ordinances designed to protect and
preserve the traditional commercial and cultural uses of the market. Revenues for the
market are derived through property management activities. The market is not tax
supported.
The Pike Place Market Historical Commission is an arm of the City of Seattle
Department of Neighborhoods. The Historical Commission has authority over allowable
design and use of space within the market, in accordance with city guidelines and policies
designed to maintain and preserve the market's historic character. Commission members
are appointed from property owners, merchants and residents within the Historic District.
. " '".~.... ,_,.,,'...1 ...... . ..~ ~ .....:. I ,. ..
23
Attachment 2: PUBLIC MARKET FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Economic Development Administration (Department of Commerce)
Apply directly to appropriate EDA regional office to discuss proposals and obtain
additional information. The EDA has recently awarded grants to markets up to
$1,000,000. Information is also on the web at: www.doc.gov/eda
Economic Adjustment Program
Assists state and local interests design and implement strategies to adjust or bring
about change to an economy. There are three types of grants:
1) Strategy grants help organize and carry out a planning process resulting in a
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS).
. 2) Implementation grants to support activities outlined in the CEDS.
.3) Revolving loan fund grants, lo'ans to local businesses
Partnership Planning Grants
,
These are more for distressed areas and probably not right for Roanoke.
Short Term Plann~ng Grants
Provide support for new economic development planning, policymaking and
implementation.
Eligible activities include: economic development planning, coordination of
multi-jurisdictional planning, development of institutional capacity,
diversification of local economic base, implementation of programs, projects and
procedures and create and retain permanent jobs and increase incomes.
Public Works and Economic Development Facilities
Grants to help distressed communities promote long term economic development.
\v.,..:....,.<,
24
USDA
The USDA has been providing more and more grants for markets, from planning new
markets, fixing up old ones and helping establish community based food programs. Their
mission is, of course, to help farmers and you are well positioned here. The web site for
market funding opportunities is
http://www.ams.usda.gov /farmersmarkets/Consortium/FMCResourceGuide. pdf
The Roanoke City Market can certainly apply for a Farmers Market Promotional
Program Grant through the USDA. The guidelines for this are as follows:
The Farmers Market Promotion Program (FMPP) was created through a recent
amendment of the Farmer':'to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1976. The grants,
authorized by the FMPP, are targeted to help improve and expand domestic farmers
markets, roadside stands, community-supported agriculture programs and other direct
producer-to-consumer market opportunities. Entities eligible to apply include
agricultural cooperatives, local governments, nonprofit corporations, public health
corporations, economic development corporations, regional farmers market authorities
and Tribal government.
Also worth investigating with the USDA are Community Food Project. Grants
The Community Food Proiects Competitive Grant Program (CFPCGP) has existed since
1996 as a program to fight food insecurity through developing community food projects
that help promote the self-sufficiency oflow-income communities. .
...... '~ .,... ~. .
t " .""" .
Community Food Projects are designed to increase food security in communities by
bringing the whole food system together to assess strengths, establish linkages, and create
systems that improve the self-reliance of community members over their food needs.
The 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (FAIR) established new
authority for federal grants to support the development of Community Food Projects, and
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 re-authorized the program. The
program is designed to:
. Meet the needs of low-income people by increasing their access to fresher, more
.nutritious food supplies.
. Increase the self-reliance of communities in providing for their own food needs.
. Promote comprehensive responses to local food, farm, and nutrition issues.
Additionally, proj~cts should:
'1'1-
. Meet specific state, local, or neighborhood food~arrd agficulttlral:ne.~dsJQr.,
infrastructure improvement and development.
. Plan for long-term solutions.
. Create innovative marketing activities that mutually benefit agricultural producers
and low-income consumers.
25
~
These grants are intended to help eligible private nonprofit entities that need a one-time
infLision of federal assistance to establish and carry out multipurpose community food
projects. Projects are funded. from $10,000-$300,000 . and from 1 to 3 years. They are one-
time grants that require a dollar- for-dollar match in resources. Approximately 18 percent
of the submitted proposals have received awards during the history of this program.
Funds have been authorized through the year, 2007 at $5 million per year.
The USDA also has rural assistance grants which Roanoke could qualify for as the
market is helping to stabilize and encourage small farmers in the outlying, rural areas.
Rural Business Enterprise Grants
Rural Business Opportunity Grants
Grants given through the Rural Business Cooperative Service at USDA.
Community Facilities Loans and Grants
Grants given through the Community Programs, Rural Housing Service, USDA to
assist the development of the rural community facilities.
Department of Health and Human Services
HHS has provided grants to market projects for predevelopment planning and also for
construction through the following programs;
,
Community Food and Nutrition Program (Office of Community Services, OCS)
Community Economic Development (CED)
Funding application kits can be requested by calling 202 401 9354.
Other sources that have historically supported markets:
Community Development Block Grants Used for capital grants for markets.
Virginia Department of Agriculture
State, County or City Direct Appropriation
State Cultural Resource Funds
---.. <~"~"-'~".i"'_".(''-" ,r,._'.,", :,':.'.,_,:'r~'':'
State Trust Funds or other special purpose state funds
Catholic Campaign for Human Development
Local foundations and corporations
26
And finally, the Market itself and its volunteers can organize a fmulraiser
Many markets have organized fundraisers (dinners, tastings, raffles, etc.) with some
raising close to $100,000 per year. There is a lot of organizational time required, which
is a consideration.
..",.. '
1;'. .
.-
t,,,..,,. '.
f, ,~. - . ~
,t I' ..~.. _"_,. ~. -;-- ~: /"
\......:
">"-":.
- f'; '.' . ~ </It:-- ,..,. ~.:::;-.. ,.-:~ r'
27
'j.::"
3nN3Nv' ll38dV'1\fJ
/
1
,06
1 ~.
~/-.._.AdON'v':):lp 3NIl
~~J> I
,I} i;'t-/?: 1.} i
-'_: .,~ ----"l-.-m:.- i___.___.
~ ~[.
t)
~ I.,
I
.
.
(t~})
(9)
.
.
lfD~~~~~.i] i I
,~.,_.==._-~. ' i 00000
I ~NLLY:lSb
8CJ. L ~ ~
~ z
fD.': ~ ~
~a=:J: J ~ I j , r I .d! .:1
r "" ~ I I ~ = (L
~RJ~~~l. _:.I'J i<{>)!~ij ij ~~ ~~~.,i :1
I !' e<>iij(Q> ij v v Md'l:!:l
, _I I.'^ I A A P"I ::;;:
~ _ .,. ~ ~ V V ~(Q>~ ..,
.i 1 i ~ .!
i~'c~:\~~~~~ ~ i~1 ~g~~~~ ::
1~-1. : ~ I la, ~ ri ·
~ I ..' ~~J, :
i ; .. ~ wi ·
! ~.:1: I ~ ~ i
i ~ ~ :1:ji!1
sa::] · i]!i eNLLY:lS ~; ~ ~ 9N11\f3S ;LLY:lS I
..__I_~_._ _~ I 00000 ~~ ~ 't/,o 0000001
rlUl~=~~1 I' i 00000 -{ \ '!E I (I) ~ 0,00 Qo 10000001
iJ~~L~l_~ ~ f;j[w . D'~ ' ·
~L:~~~:_=_~~~~:~~~S~~~~~lt
i
.1
I
3nN3^\f V'13l\fS
r-
~
~
0::
<(
~
>-
r-
-
u
~
~
o
z
<
o
0::
.
I
.1
z
<(
--1
a..
J-
~
o
~
--1
0::
o
o
--1
LL
o
Z
~
o
0::
(9
(9
z
o
--1
..~
OJ
J-
W
~co
0::0
<(~
~~
.
(/) ~ f2
~ . '-,u
~f-;;';
~ . UcrJ
~"'U
~:J
ij)!. 0 co
..;;:~
QQQQ
QQQQQ
Q
Q
o
~
~~ CJ 0
~~~ 0
~~~~
en
0:: ~
0(90
-,ZO
<~g:
I-_en
wxw
o::wo::
o DO '00
() () 00 DO
000
OO~Q
Q
00
00
f-
t...U
~
~
-<
~
>--
f-
-
U
3nN3^'v' ll38dVfv'J
g
QcO:
QQQQQQQQ
QQQQ Q
t...U
~
o
z
-<
o
~
3nN3^'v' V'1Jl'v'S
z
<(
--.J
0...
I-
::>.
o
~
--.J
~
o
o
--.J
LL
W
Z
Z
<(
N
N
W
~
'-'
Z
o
--.J
,::::>
en
I-
W
~CO
~O
<('<i
~~
CI);gj
~ .'--,U
~E-;t
~ .Ur/J
~"'U
!5l.0~
..~~
I-
W
W
0:::: >- ~ >-
I- a... a...
0 -' 0
Ul Z" w 5
<C aJ
I- u' z
u... w u..
W 0 a... 0
:'-<::: 0 0 0
0:::: 0:: 0::
<(
:2
" ~<~.... ...."~.,.~.~-;"".....:1".:.~. ~', ":\-""
~ ~~ ~~
~~~~~
:;"1 ~ :~.! J;;"
. A ifi ~ ~. .0:: en ' Q Q 0
Ibf"-.J~.----- Q rf;
~o 000 0000 o~ 3:)~~31 ~o 000 rf; QQ Qrf;
c[])([} cO> cO> cO> cO> cO> cO> 0 () cO> cO> cO> cO> Q Q rf; Q cQ;
I-
W
W
0::::
l-
V)
I-
W
::,<:::
0::::
<(
:2
3nN3Nv' ll38dV'1VJ
r-~~=..O'.'~-'-'~~r'..~~
I ~I '~~IL P!i nJ
! I. Z \
:~lS Qi
T Uw ~ -
"'--v'Y' i i 11'6 ~:; ~ --.j~(-
.01. ., .:.' ...., :;::: I 1. ! .
I ." I <c ts -" '.
'~ womuS:Rl 8 r<<X>H1S:Rl
I
~
I
~.
I
~
w
z
z
~
'~~
i
I
~
I'
~
.--,
~j
i
i
I
I
? .
- I
3E>W01S -.J,
A}MlQdW31 =::j'
1---1 .
~
. 0 to) ;
~.dl' ~ifj 0
~ ~g n
~ffi '\ ~~ I
~~~~
3E>V1S
.. .+.......,...~,...
~ ~
o ti
I
~
Go
::>
.'t<,- c:-:-..:
3nN3^V V'13lVS
I-
W
W
0::::
l-
V)
.-J
.-J
<(
>
f-
u.J
~
cr::
<(
~
>-
f-
-
U
u.J
~
o
z
<(
o
cC.
z
<(
--.J
0..
I-
::>
o
~
--.J
0::
o
o
--.J
u..
o
z
o
o
w
Cf)
<.9
z
o
--.J
::>
CO
I-
W
~co
0::0
<(<<i
~~
rl"'lo...C/J
IJ..J. C "-l
1'"1 . '-, U
~E-<C:::
I'"I.UC/J
~u.lU
~:J
[p. 0 OJ
..;;:~
Center in
the Square
---~~ ----~- -..-----.-------
FESTIVAL MARKET DAY - DIAGRAM
4.29.08
::PPS
PROJECT (or
PUBLIC SPACES
RETAIL/RESTAURANT /
BREW. PUB OPENING ON
,THE PLAZA KIOSK.CAFE'
WITH SEATING
IN THE SHADE
W
.. Cf)
., ~
'.W
W
0::::
~
Cf)
~
W
~
0::::
<(
:2
;?-,
'....:~.......
'--,:>
......J.
RAISED STREETS ALONG
MARKET BUILDING WITH
VENDORS AND VENDING
FROM INSIDE THE
MARKET BUILDING
""
J-
CANOPY OR PERGOLA
MARKING THE ENTRANCE
TOTHE CENTER TO EXTEND
INTO THE SQUARE AND BE
VISIBI,J;.f.ROM DISTANCE.
.... REMOLV,ETREES
--1
Museum
Hotel
\
;:..._\ 0
II
I
II
I:
I'
" '. /'-~. ,.;?--..
I \' :1 Ii
',-~-' 0....----..." ,_/
~.......
Ii
'>~
DEPRESSED CURB AT ROAD
INTERSECTIONS.SI DEWALK
CROSSINGS TO BE AT MAR-
KET AND WALL STREETS
',WHIGHER LEVEL
'Cf)
~
,W
iW
0::::
~
I(J)
~
W
,:::C::
'0::::
<(
:2
( ROANOKE MARKET J
Museum
RETAIL/RESTAURANT/
BREW. PUB OPENING ON
THE PLAZA KIOSK.CAFE'
WITH SEATING
IN THE SHADE
Hotel
,./ 0..--...-
I ;';'=-"",\
'I II
CL"---c;-;:::.'
',~.
,:;~~,~
SALEM AVENUE sE=-
-
....
-
'~/ <.-.....,-'
c:.... .'-
I
',:.:.-"",/ .>.....'
RAISED STREETS ALONG
MARKET BUILDING WITH
VENDORS WITH TRUCKS AND
VENDING FROM INSIDETHE
MARKET BUILDING
, .
=-"
0.... ... .'.",,>
-
-l> ~
f?".
I I'
~
~=,/
,...... .,.- ....-... ~... '...... _:.............
INFORMATION KIOSK
MANAGED BYTHE'CENTER
IN THE SQUARE'
I
MARKET VENDORS WITH-
OUTTRUCKS AND NIGHT
MARKET
I
ARKETVENDORS WITH
TRUCKS
INTO THE SQUARE AND BE
VISIBLE FROM DISTANCE. Center in
REMOLVE TREES
l___....._.~~_=_..~~.~:~~._.__.__.__
MARKET DAY - DIAGRAM
4.29.08
::PPS
PROJECT for
PUBLIC SPACES
( ROANOKE MARKET J
J}~ REAL eSTATE PLANNING GROUP
Real Estate Planning Group. Inc.
1030 N. State St. Suite 18-L
Chicago. IL 60610-2829
www.REPG-Lund.com
E-mail: Larry@REPG-Lund.com
Phone 312 751-1250
Fax 312951-8150
Assessment of The Roanoke City Market
April 2008
The Roanoke City Market has served as the heart of Roanoke for more than a
century. While it no longer serves as the primary food-provisioning center, it now
functions symbolically as its historical heart and continues to serve as its central
place as well as its cultural and entertainment center. Roanoke's downtown area
is going through a renaissance with restored buildings, growth in downtown
living, a new hotel and new museum that will strengthen its draw.
This analysis is intended to inform the revitalization of the Roanoke City Market
and to maximize its potential. To assess its economic potential, REPG undertook
the following analysis:
. Analyzed demographic trends.
. Analyzed local food distribution system
. Analyzed and compared demographics around existing food stores
. Analyzed and compared demographics around other public markets
. Analyzed the visibility of the Roanoke City Market
. Analyzed the trade area from a 911 person survey
. Analyzed farm capacity
. Analyzed market sales potential
. Conclusion: Implications for Revitalization Plan
Summary:
. The City Market in downtown Roanoke has ample food dollars available to
support the program outlined in this report for both fresh foods and
prepared restaurant operations.
.....WbUedi:e CiW.0.f~g9~n9k,~;P9Ru!ationlhas declined slightly (4:3% since';,...r~-.
1990, tne"number of households ha's decreased by'only 686 or .05'% over ~
the past seventeen years. Employment has seen strong swings over this
time, but between 1990 and 2006, the City of Roanoke gained 2,424
employees. Most of this gain comes from increased employment in the
.... ~.
'.
~." " ., '., ..
educational and medical fields. After the 2000C~nsus, the Bureau of
Census added two counties (Franklin and Craig) to the Roanoke
Metropolitan area, which previously included the City of Roanoke, ,
Roanoke County, City of Salem, and Botetourt County. The addition of
these two counties means that they have a high degree of social and
economic integration (as measured by commuting to work) with the urban
core.
. Roanoke has a competitive food marketplace. Within the area
surrounding the City of Roanoke are twenty-two Kroger and Food Lion
stores (11 stores each), three Super Wal-Marts, a Sam's Club, and single
operations of Ukrop's and Fresh Market.
. The City Market demographics compare favorably with other Kroger and
Food Lion stores in the Roanoke market. Both Kroger and Food Lion
stores (with some exceptions) have geographically spaced their stores the
equivalent of six-minutes apart in the Roanoke market, which means that
Kroger and Food Lion each have a primary trade area equivalent to a
three-minute drive time contour before they infringe upon one another or
their own stores and begin cannibalizing sales. The City Market food sales
potential is comparatively much better; the core area has other
demographic indicators like low income and "aspirational" indicators that
are comparatively lower. The City Market will ne~d to reach beyond the
immediate area to capture the customers that are frequ~ntly associated
with buying at Public Markets.
. In comparison with other selected Public Markets, the Roanoke City
Market is within successful demographic parameters. However, it is
important to remember that while Markets need the right demographics
for sustainability other attributes like tenants, merchandising, price
position, and customer experience, to name a few are far more significant
to the success of the Market.
. The current survey taken in March and April of 911 open-air Market
customers shows that the Market has broad geographic support. About
70 percent of the customers come from the urbanized area around the
City of Roanoke. The outdoor Market has good customer penetration in
upscale zip codes around Roanoke. In addition to the primary trade area,
about 30 percent of the customers are tourists.
. Thees~imate ofthe Markets fresh food potential depends upon many
factors; however, two fa..~tors -- proximityto customers and .seJection of
fresh food 'items are measurab(e through atigravjty mode!." This'is.(1),
probability estimate of what share customers living within proximity of
the Market will spend at the Market compared with other fresh food
venues. While public markets rely less on proximity to the shopper's
,~
home than supermarkets, distance remains a factor in customer choice.
This site prediction model estimates that based on the size of the Roanoke
Market it has a potential to capture approximately $2,935,000 in fresh
food sales. Based on the Market's characteristics and site factors, this
model usually accounts for no more than 30-50 percent in the variation in
estimated sales. The remainder is attributable to operations, marketing,
merchandising, and a host of local factors that usually are not measurable.
These factors are difficult to measure because they are dynamic and
change across time and across stores.
. In addition to fresh foods, restaurants will sell prepared foods within the
Market. The gross prepared food sales potential is enormous from the
downtown Roanoke office market. The 6,383 site-based employees
within a quarter-mile of the Market generate $8,209,000 in lunchtime
potential and $1,002,000 in dinner/drinks potential for an estimated total
of $9,211,000. Within a half-mile ofthe Market lunchtime sales potential
is $17,281,000 and dinner/drinks generates $2,110,000 for a total of
$19,391,000 just from office workers.
. Based on the proposed program with 3,652.square feet of permanent
stalls at rents of $30 per square foot, rents should typically be 7 percent of
sales. At $30 per square foot, this equates to required sales of about $429
per square foot for a total of $1,565,000 annually. Some of these
..permanent stalls will serve food, others will be hybrids, that is-ser.vj~e.. -,
1 prepared foods and fresh foods, and some will be crafters. The sales
model estimates that the fresh food component should be adequately
covered if the development procedure is properly executed.
. The three ground floor retail restaurant vendors with approximately 468
square feet each will total 1,404 square feet and the three-retail
restaurants on the second level at 468 square feet each, will total 1,404
square feet with the total building program will have 2,808 square feet of
retail restaurants. All rent will be at $30 per square foot. If we assume
the restaurant will also operate at 7 percent of sales, which is
conservative, total sales $1.2 million are required to maintain industry-
operating ratios. The restaurant potential from just the office worker
population for lunch and dinner/drinks is estimated at $9.2 million within
a quarter-mile and $17.3 million within a half-mile. Well-operated retail
restaurant operations should meet this sales volume considering the total
lunchtime and dinner/drink business derived just from the nearby office
. po~:)dlatroIT:';-"I"""!i\::q"n~.:~ {"It.: :11 ".' :,,). ,'If" rr:;:" r, ,~_' \ -,..,; ~"\1'\.:..-....,......."...~~:4"" ..~~~~...,. '~:
.'..... __....._t .'"
. Roanoke's Market visibility as measured by vehicular traffic count is less
than other commercial sites; however, the Market is in downtown and is
part of its historic Center. While it may lack the high volume of vehicular
J}~
,to:
traffic that helps in promot'ing.the Market,its location is ingrained in the
DNA of many of Roanoke's residents and helps cd'mpensate for its lower
. visibility. Roanoke Downtown is also adding a free trolley service that will
bring employees from the Carillion Roanoke Memorial Hospital, which is
about two miles away, to the Market. Trolleys will run on seven-minute
headway and provide convenient service for staff and visitors to go
downtown for lunch or after work.
. The addition of more restaurants in the Market will enhance the drawing
power of downtown Roanoke as a food destination by strengthening
critical mass. Furthermore, the redeveloped City Market, the new hotel
and the art museum will strengthen Roanoke's draw as a tourist
destination.
Overview of Roanoke Demographics
Historically, Roanoke, situated in the Shenandoah Valley, has been a major
transportation hub. It also serves as a convenient tourist center being in the
middle of the Shenandoah Valley and serves as the regionai business center for
western Virginia. The Blue Ridge Parkway passes through Roanoke; and
Interstate 81, which connects into major Canadian highways in upstate New York,
runs south through Roaqoke to Tennessee, linking both tourists and commerce to
the city.
The Commonwealth of Virginia dictates cities to be independent of their counties
and cities, as a result, report population numbers separately. Today, we have a
Roanoke City and a Roanoke County. Salem also became an independent city in
1968. The geography of the metropolitan area of the Roanoke has also changed
since the 2000 Census. Prior to 2002, Roanoke County, the City of Roanoke, the
City of Salem, andthe County of Botetourt {population 32,363 {2007}} formed the
Roanoke metropolitan area. Now the metropolitan area consists of two more
counties: Franklin and Craig. The determination of a metropolitan area is based
meeting a certain threshold of workers fin,ding employment in the named center
city of the metropolitan area. Therefore, the City of Roanoke has been attracting
more workers from Franklin and Craig Counties implying an increasing
importance to Roanoke as an employment center.
h.Aowever;.'iti spife of Roanoke's increasing lrnportance 3S an employment center,
the population of the City of Roanoke has declined since the 1980 Census when it
reached its peak of 100,200. The Census Bureau estimates that the City of
Roanoke population is now 91,552 {2007} and the surrounding County's
~~
.. ., ...,. ~ .
population is 85,778. The Census Bureau estimates combined population of the
Roanoke Metropolitan Area, which includes the City of Roanoke, the County of
Roanoke, the City of Salem, Botetourt County, Franklin County, and Craig County
is now 296,532. The combined population is up slightly from the 2000 Census
count of 288,309, and significantly up from the 1990 Census when the 2005
Census-designated MSA boundaries would have counted 268,513. The fastest
rate of growth over the past seventeen years has occurred in the counties of
Franklin and Botetourt.
Legend
~r'
. I,\.
PIl2Cel <. 10K
Places 10K--49.9K
PlaoesSOK . <lS9.9K
;..., Places SOOK.
s
,,), . . . . ,
Roanoke MSA includes Roanoke, Craig, Botetourt and Franklin Counties as well as the Cities of
Roanoke and Salem.
-'...., ~..q.:...~
~ - . ;r.j
}}~
Roanoke Supermarkets
With the population of the City of Roanoke falling since 1980 and the growth of
the suburban ring in Roanoke and Botetourt Counties, the development of
supermarkets in Roanoke took plate primarily along a ring that borders the city.
This allowed the supermarkets to serve both urban and suburban residents from
a location. The two major supermarket chains that now serve the Roanoke area
are found along a ring about three to four miles from the City Market/City Center
and spaced about two to four miles apart. Most of the stores are on major
highways radiating out from the city and along Electric Avenue, which forms a
ring road along the southern and western City boundary.
'i~':
legend
e "" _ket
IlIFO<KlL_
. Kroger
PJaces< 101{
P~1UK-49.9R
PJ:a;ces SOK-499.'SK
Kroger and Food Lion Supermarkets that Service Roanoke
Plal:e$ 5OOK'"
O(l.S'~.52
M Sh~.1=1.Wmle!.
"-',
J~
The affluent area of Cave Spring, which is in Roanoke County, has the highest
concentration of supermarkets. The population of Cave Spring has grown
modestly since the 1990 census. In 1990, Cave Spring had a population of 23,878
and the Scan/US 2007 population estimate is 25,596 people living within 10,994
households with an average household income of $74,169.
Ukrop's and Fresh Market, two new upscale supermarkets recently opened single
operations in the City of Roanoke inbound of Cave Spring off US Route 220, which
is the extension of Interstate 581. These two stores are adjacent to an older
Kroger supermarket at 614 Brandon Avenue and are about 1.5 miles from the
Roanoke City Market or a six-minute drive time.
Besides Ukrop's and Fresh Market, two other chains have a presence in Roanoke
- Sam's Club with a location near the airport and three Super Wal-Mart stores.
The closest Super Wal-Mart is at 4807 Valley View Boulevard about 3.5 miles
away from the City Market and a 7-minute drive time. Sam's Club is five miles
away and about a 9-minute drive time. Both Wal-Mart and Sam's Club are high
sales volume stores that pull from longer drive time areas than a Kroger and Food
Lion.
The proximity of one's home to a supermarket is one of the top three orfour
reasons people shop at a store v'{ith price, selection, and quality in many cases
being more important to food shoppers.
An analysis of drive-time equivalents separating Kroger and Food Lion stores in
the Roanoke Market suggest that six-minute drive times separate stores in each
of these two chains. This means that most of their customers reside within a
three-minute drive time equivalent contour.
Just for consistent comparison purposes, the Roanoke City Market demographics
within a three-minute drive time equivalent contour were compared with these
stores. Scan/US estimates (2007) the population within this contour at 21,818
living within 9,442 households. The households have an average household
income of $34,982 annually. Only 17.1% of the adult population have college
degrees or higher. About 3.2% of the population is Hispanic and 26.4% is African-
American. With an average annual household income of $34,982, about 60.7%
earn less than this average amount. HOLlsehblds with incomes below $37,500 fall
into tlie loW tOmodera'te'-income classification and they represent about 60% or
about 5,723 ofthe households within three-minutes of the City Market. Affluent
households, that is, those that earn $100,000 or more represent 5.2% of the
}}l:
households or about 500 households. Overall, Scan/US estimates the gross food
at home potential within three-minute drive time at $25.8 million annually.
This comparison suggests that if these selected Kroger supermarkets can support
their stores on lower gross food sales potential within their three-minute drive
time contours, the City Market with higher gross food potential has a good
opportunity to capture enough sales to support its proposed program.
.<~:;:..,
~JJ-
J~
Demographic Analogs with Selected Food Stores 3-minute Drive Time Areas
Selected Households Persons Avg. Education No. HH At Home
Food Stores Per HH Income Ratio 100K+ Potential
ColI+/HS (mil.)
.42 500 $25.8
1.34 1,011 $24.8
1.63 1,328 $24.2
City Market
Fresh Mkt.
Brambleton
Kroger
Sam's Club
Vinton
Kroger
Salem
Kroger
Electric
Kroger
Coop
City
Roanoke
Metro
Roanoke
9,442
7,338
6,954
2.2
1.9
2.2
$34,982
$60,703
$64,993
4,386 2.1 $40,954 .39 187 $12.7
5,039 2.4 $42,728 .32 364 $14.8
4,502 2.3 $46,262 .37 294 $13.8
3,283 2.0 $57,825 .55 503 $10.8
6,516 2.1 $48,982 .99 557 $20.2
41,792 2.2 $47,939 .61 3,661 $127.8
123,859 2.3 $58,322 .68 17,637 $412.0
" . .. ~
~~l
\./
).
\l::
"
,\../
--:!.
\'
";-/
e W:M~..~rt.o>
.. rr-esh Ltarket
iii Kroger
\l 0.5 1 1.5 2 '-!
M SesIe:'""'."3min
,~
}}~
Market Analogs Demographic Comparison of 6-minute Contour Areas
Households Persons Avg. Education No. At Home Employ-
Per HH Income Ratio HH Potential ment
Coll+/HS lOOK+ (mil.)
Roanoke
City Mkt. 32,145 2.2 $43,306 .57 2,560 $97.1 63 A49
Capital
Charleston 18,354 2.1 $59,976 1.10 2,920 $61.9 63,038
Lancaster
PA 48,781 2.3 $58,372 .72 6A77 $163.0 95,008
York, PA 41,381 2.3 $51,053 .52 4,561 $128.5 84,646
1 ih St,
Richmond 50,583 2.3 $47,147 .44 4,986 $271.5 134,732
Milwaukee 111,394 2.5 $46,665 .86 9,318 $342.6 216,200
Columbus 65,194 2.2 $37,130 1.37 5,319 $177.2 246,931
Riverfront
Wilmington 44,706 ' 2.5 $61,744 .72 7,241 $152.4 100A38
Source: Scanus/US 2007 and REPG
Salem Ave between 2nd Street and Jefferson (west of Market)
Campbell from 3rd St to Williamson
Williamson from Campbell to Shenandoah
1_581 from Williamson to elm
1-581 from 1-81 to Peter Creek
1-81 South of 1-581
1-81 North of 1-581
Blue Ridge Parkway
Franklin Rd SW south of Electric
Source: Virginia Department of Transportation
Selected Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts
Selected:Road Segments . Average Annual
Daily Traffic
15,600
16 AOO
20,000
66,000
48,000
69,000
59,000
1,000
24,000
." 'l.",;'._',~;'< .: ",.~'"l~~.t..~:.:'-:'
,l:
Trade Area
The Roanoke Farmers Market undertook a survey of customers beginning March
1 until April 27, 2008, asking patrons what zip code they lived. In total, they
surveyed 911 customers.
Zip codes, however, are designed for the distribution of U.S. mail and not for
demographic analysis, since they do not necessary conform to political
boundaries of cities or counties. They are not of any particular uniform area or
population. Some zip code areas are quite large and based on our experience, we
find that customers within zip codes are not necessarily distributed evenly
thought the zip code area, so overall distances oftrade areas may be exaggerated
by looking at the farthest reaches of a zip code.
This survey showed that eleven zip codes (24011, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
24153, and 21479) represent more than half (N=489 or 54%) the customers at the
Market.
Primary Trade Area (54% Customers) Ranked by
Household Penetration
Zip Code Zip Code Avg. Household Penetration based Raw
Households Income on 2007 Survey
2007 estimate 2007 estimate Household Count Count
24011 (Roanoke 17 $23,041 ~i,"" .7059 12
DT)
24016 (Roanoke 3,997 $30,242 .0130 52
West)
24018 (Cave 15,484 $79,617 .0075 116
Spring)
24014 (Roanoke 7,279 $79,455 .0074 54
South)
24179 7,580 $52,125 .0067 51
(Vinton)
24015 (Roanoke 7,359 $55,539 .0060 44
SW)
20417 (Roanoke 9,567 $37,931 .0046 21
W)
24012 (Roanoke 11,819 $42,833 .0037 44
North)
24019 (Hollins)'.. 9,873' ""$65,062 ..0027 37
24013 (Roanoke 3,070 $30,139 .0036 11
East)
24153 (Salem) 14,275 $60,074 .0033 47
~~
Source: Downtown Roanoke Inc Survey, Scan/US, and REPG
The two three-digit zip code areas 240 and 241, which are the closest to Roanoke
represented 481 (S3%) and 173 {19%} respectively with 654 (72%) shoppers.
The Virginia Zip codes outside the 240 and 241 three-digit codes represented 103
shoppers (11%) and those outside Virginia represented 157 {17%} shoppers.
/
24122
24010
o 1 2 "3 "
ill SoaIe: 1. '" 3.14 mil~
Top 11 Zip Codes representing 54% of Outdoor Market Shoppers
~
~~
,
Legend
e Market
~
.......
I-I
(--I
~
(~""'....
~
8(-1
e tE:)
(....,.......11~11<b
[-...ol (c.v._l
(F_l .. (-...1
(....,...I(~1
@B
-. . ~...-<--
~
(~'~".
(-':1.
.I"".
~
~
(__}4l
S
8
':S
,..1
....../
.'
1-.1
~? ~
~ ~ ~~J,..B
,;--..:; IS IF.... Goo 1 (SWR} ~--t..--l
(If_Llil~).~ tas.~
.,.......( ;,. (R.........l(...........l . ,_)Il""~1
Yellow represents 240 zip codes (representing 53% customers) and brown represents 241 zip
codes (representing 19%, together these two areas represent 72% of outdoor market
customers.)
s
S)
Legend
-: Mk:roGrids, e2001 S=ntUS
o~
1Jer>sily por Sq."" (Iilt>us.)
0.000.0001 (332)
L 0.061 - 0.210 (~)
00210-0.941 (339)
. 0.941.2.90 (337)
.2.9'''(341)
.i.h.
Map shows the population density of the underlying zip codes
}}~
rt..,~,~ l' t
"'..,1;'
Farm Capacity
The four counties that make up the Roanoke metropolitan area has 105 farms
that according to the latest 2002 Census of Agriculture sell directly to consumers.
This count is up by one farm from the 1997 Census. Only thirteen farms in 2002
were certified as organic in this four county area. Overall, the census reports that
71 farms sold vegetables, 51 farms sold fruit, 72 farms were nurseries, and 51
sold Christmas trees.
Within a 90-minute drive time ofthe Roanoke City Market are an additional four
counties outside the metropolitan area. These counties had 131 farms selling
direct to consumers and 32 farms were certified as organic.
Orga,nic farming in Virginia is concentrated in three counties, Washington, Lee,
and Floyd. Lee is about 210 miles west of Roanoke and almost a four-hour drive;
Washington is about 135 miles west of Roanoke and a two-hour 30-minute drive;
and Floyd is just 40 miles away and a sixty-minute drive from Roanoke. Floyd
County, which is within service distance of Roanoke, has twelve organic farms.
The Virginia Department of Agriculture lists three major organic farms in Floyd
County with 76.5 certified organic acres.
Agriculture Capacity for RoanoKe Metro Area and 90-Minute Drive Time
by County
Nurseries Christmas
Trees
County
Vegetable
Farms
Fruit
Farms
15
10
14
35
5
18
72
Roanoke
Botetourt
Craig
Franklin
Subtotal
21
3
7
20
51
26
51
Floyd 21 12 49
Montgomery 20 7 21
Rockbridge 10 20 14
Bedford 14 32 17
Subtotal 65 71 101
--.Total .. .-.".., ... .,11,6"" . 1.22 _.__lZ}~~._
Source: USDA Census 2002 and REPG
32
6
6
12
56
107
6
38
2
5
51
Sell
Direct
21
21
16
47
105
5
13
Organic
2
6
43
40
42
6
131
236
12
11
2
7
32
45
J}~
.....-...~
.;,
Counties within 90-minute Drive Time
Market Potential
Estimating the food potential for public markets is a little different from
supermarkets. In previous studies and in this study of customer origin, markets
appeal to a broad area that is not as geographically based as supermarkets.
Market customers are attracted not only for the food, but for social reasons too.
However, for a Market to succeed it not only has to have the social component,
but also sell sufficient products to be sustainable.
:",
In addition to the analog methods that we showed earlier comparing the
demographics on a similar geographic area to selected supermarkets in Roanoke
and to public markets throughout the country, we also applied a gravity model
analysis. The gravity model methodology considers the product selection and the
distance that one travels to buy those products. These two variables are
significant, but by no means, the only selection criteria people use in purchasing
food products. Food buyingisvery complexand segmented'. Thatiswhywe have
so many different formats for distributing food.
_,.,._,.;..,,"C
,1:
The model is a probability model that estimates what share the Market might
obtain of the gross potential food sales from a given trade area. This analysis
shows that within the equivalent three-minute drive time that Roanoke
supermarkets use for their primary trade area that $10,670,000 in potential fresh
food product is available. Based on selected store competition the model
estimates that the Roanoke City Market has the "potential" based on its size to
attract $1,173,600 in fresh food sales. We estimate that the three-minute drive
time contour would generate 40% the Market sales and that 60% of the total
market potential would come from beyond this area, including tourists-
generating $2,935,000 in fresh food potential for a Market of Roanoke's size.
Fresh Food Potential
Selected Gross Estimated Market
Categories Potential Share
Bakery $2,191,000 $241,000
Poultry $1,029,000 $113,200
Meats $3,815,000 $419,600
Fish $840,000 $92,400
Fresh Produce $2,795,000 $307,400
Total Fresh' $10,670,000 $1,173,600
Source: Dept of Labor Consumer Expenditure Survey and REPG
Market
Potential.
$603,000
$283/000
$1/049/000
$231/000
$769/000
$2/935/000
. .
In addition to fresh food potential, the Roanoke City market has a strong
potential to capture food from the nearby office workforce. Mostoffice workers
will walk at least a quarter mile from their office for lunch. The quarter-mile
walking distance has a gross lunch potential of $7/021,000 from the 6/383
employees estimated within this ring. The half-mile walking distance ring is a
little more pragmatic/ that is/ the percentage of those willing to walk beyond a
quarter-mile diminishes rapidly. The three-minute drive time contour relies upon
people driving for lunch. This assumes that parking is convenient. Within the
three-minute drive time contour are 37/058 employees with lunchtime spending
potential of more than $40 million. .
-""."'-' ,.co -=-"'_~~~:'__',-",: .;,[,;., :=;. ...,.~,' ,.--n~":r,.::,~," .
RE
PG
Unlike fresh food, there is no model to estimate sales capture for restaurants.
The gross potential sets limits on the number of restaurants and the ability of a
restaurant operation to meet sales thresholds to cover operating costs.
Lunchtime and Dinner/Drink Gross Sales Potential from Quarter, Half, and Three-
minute Drive Time Office Population
Quarter Mile (6,383 site-based
employment)
Half Mile (13,438 employment
Lunch
Expenditure
Gross Potential
$8,209,000
Dinner/Drink Gross
Potential
Estimate of Site-Based employment
from Market
$1,002,000
$17,281,000
$2,110,000
$5,818,000
Three-Minute Drive Time $40,764,000
(37,058employment)
Source: lese Office Workers Spending Patterns, Scan/US and REPG
Because d.owntown Roanoke already has an agglomeration of restaurants, it has a
higher potential to capture lunchtime sales and as an entertainment center, it will
capture the after work dinner and drink expenditures.
Conclusions: Implications for the Revitalization Plan
The analog and gravity models show that both fresh food and restaurant
lunchtime and the after work dinner and drink expenditures are sufficient to
support the Market program. The challenges facing the development of this
Market are not support based, but in creating a program that will attract
restaurant customers and in fresh food providing a compelling reason for
shoppers to shift established fresh food buying patterns.
",Altering habits is takes time, ~equires flexibility, and~I,lo\Nsfor experimentation.
. New experiences must be rewarding. ',......,.,. ..
;':'
'11
The Market must provide a value proposition, that is, the customer must get
value from the experience that differentiates it from other food buying options.
Roanoke has a wide selection offood stores, from Super Wal-Mart, to Sam's Club,
to Kroger and Food Lion, up to Ukrop's and Fresh Market.
For some, it may be more convenient to shop downtown, although parking may
be an increasing issue as the hotel and art museum open. Others may value
increased personal service that can be provided by a knowledgeable baker, meat
or fish vendor. Still others may find value in low cost/ high-quality produce. A
large produce vendor offering selection, quality and low prices can be a strong
draw for the Market and serve as an anchor vendor.
The Market can deliver part of the value proposition through the social
experience of shopping. Markets historically have provided customers with a
quality social experience, in not only the exchange of goods, but in combining the
food buying and food eating experience.
The Roanoke City Market needs to project a large image. The enlargement of the
farmers and craft market along the street facades is an essential part of this
Market program. Extending the outdoor market will help draw customers across
Campbell Avenue and help tie the Market into the new hotel and art museum
complex across Salem Avenue. Increasing the number of temporary vendors will
require outreach efforts through the farming and the arts-craft communitJ~s. Our
analysis ofthe farming community suggests that the Market may need to develop
more farmers to serve it.
Finally, convenient parking is essential to attract customers who do not work
downtown, live within walking distance, or who are visitors. The Market needs
good way-finding and parking sign age to help customers park proximate to the
Market building. The trolley that will soon connect the Carillon Roanoke
Memorial Hospital with the downtown area and the Market will help bring
workers and visitors into the downtown area and is an example of creative ways
to make the downtown area convenient to an even larger population.
.-.... - .-.- -'~""-,;'" ").
. "~'<oI~'.",:T. ,.,fe-,::
}}l:
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
. E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
City Clerk
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
October 24, 2008
Ann H. Shawver
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Shawver:
I am attaching copy of Budget Ordinance No. 38251-102308 appropriating
funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia Compensation Board Technology
Trust Fund for Supreme Court of Virginia fees for optical imaging and
maintenance charges in the Office of Circuit Court Clerk, and amending and
reordaining certain sections of the 2008-2009 General Fund Appropriations.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Thursday, October 23, 2008, and is in
full force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
~IY).~
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
SMM:ew /
Attachment
pc: The Honorable Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of Circuit Court
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Management and Budget
t1<
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 23rd day of October, 2008.
No. 38251-102308.
AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia
Compensation Board Technology Trust Fund for Supreme Court of Virginia fees for optical
imaging and maintenance charges in the Office of Circuit Court Clerk, amending and
reordaining certain sections of the 2008-2009 General Fund Appropriations, and
dispensing with the second reading by title ofthis ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following
sections of the 2008-2009 General Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby,
amended and reordained to read and provide as follows:
Appropriations
Fees for Professional Services
Maintenance Contracts
Revenues
Clerk of Circuit Court
01-120-2111-2010
01-120-2111-2005
$ 19,991
46,423
01-110-1234-0616
66,414
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading
of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
~m..fYJo~
City ti~H<' (
'<\
"
~ OF CLERK OF CIRCUIT
Oi-~\C CQUI()>
Criminal: (540) 853-6723
Civil: (540) 853-6702
CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF VIRGINIA
315 Church Avenue, SW.
P.O. Box 2610
Roanoke, Virginia 24010
BRENDA S. HAMILTON
CLERK
October 23,2008
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Vice Mayor
Honorable Gwendolyn W. Mason, Council Member
Honorable Alvin L. Nash, Council Member
Honorable AnitaJ. Price, Council Member
Honorable Court G. Rosen, Council Member
Honorable David B. Trinkle, Council Member
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Technology Trust
Fund Revenue
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.
As a result, the Clerk of Circuit Court incurs annual maintenance fees and
professional services costs. For FY 2009, these costs will total $66,414
as outlined below.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
October 23,2008
Page 2
. Sutton Information Systems - plat conversion
. Imagex - scanner maintenance fees
. Supreme Court of Virginia -
-Records management and case management systems
-Maintenance fees for remote access for land records
-Fees for social security number redaction
$ 8,500
$12,700
$24,123
$ 9,600
$11,491
Considerations:
The total cost for these items, $66,414, will be reimbursed by the
Technology Trust Fund of the Commonwealth of Virginia Compensation
Board in FY 2009.
Recommended Action:
Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to establish a revenue
estimate in the amount of $66,414 in an account to be established in the
General Fund by the Director of Finance and appropriate the same
amount to the following expenditure accounts in the Clerk of Circuit
Court budget:
· Fees for Professional Services (01 -1 20-2111 -2010)
· Maintenance Contracts (01 -1 20-2111 -2005)
$19,991
$46,423
Respectfully submitted
~il~'
Clerk of Circuit
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
October 23,2008
Page 3
BSH:jmh
c: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Sherman Stovall, Director of Management and Budget
Ann Shawver, Director of Finance
William Hackworth, City Attorney
Stephanie Moon, 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
October 23, 2008
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Vice Mayor
Honorable Gwendolyn W. Mason, Council Member
Honorable Alvin L. Nash, Council Member
Honorable Anita J. Price, Council Member
Honorable Court G. Rosen, Council Member
Honorable David B. Trinkle, Council Member
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject: Technology Trust Fund Revenue -
Clerk of Circuit Court
I concur with the recommendation from Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of Circuit Court
for the City of Roanoke, with respect to the subject reference above. I recommend
that City Council adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to establish a revenue
estimate in the amount of $66,414.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene L. Bur
City Manager
DLB:jb
c: Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
C008-00007
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: c1erk@roanokeva.gov
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
City Clerk
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
October 24, 2008
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 38252-102308 closing certain City offices
on Friday, December 26, 2008, and Friday, January 2, 2009, and providing for
additional holiday leave for all City employees.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Thursday, October 23,2008.
Sincerely,
~ Ph. h)~
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
SM M :ew
Attachment
pc: Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Troy A. Harmon, Municipal Auditor
James Grigsby, Assistant City Manager for Operations
R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Keli M. Greer, Director, Human Resources
~\~ ...
< /:'.:.
,,'-.....::: ~ .
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 23rd day of October, 2008.
No. 38252-102308.
A RESOLUTION closing certain City offices on Friday, December 26, 2008, and Friday,
January 2,2009 and providing for additional holiday leave for all City employees.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. City offices that are not engaged in performing emergency services or other necessary
and essential services of the City shall be closed on Friday, December 26,2008, and Friday, January 2,
2009.
2. City personnel who are not engaged in performing emergency servIces or other
necessary and essential services for the City shall be excused from work for eight hours on Friday,
December 26,2008, and eight hours on Friday, January 2,2009.
3. With respect to emergency service employees and other employees performing
necessary and essential services who cannot for reasons of public health, safety or welfare be excused
from work on Friday, December 26, 2008, and Friday, January 2,2009, such employees, regardless of
whether they are scheduled to work on Friday, December 26,2008, or Friday, January 2,2009, shall be
accorded time off at a later date. Employees of the Fire-EMS Department working the three platoon
system shall receive a total of twenty-four hours of holiday time due to. their work schedule for the two
holidays.
4. Adherenc,e to this resolution shall cause no disruption or cessation of the performance
of any emergency, essential or necessary public service rendered or perfo:pned by the City.
. I
'., "
ATTESt!: .
.~ /
~~ h?mfjjyv
City Clerk . . {,I
. \ .
K:\MeasuTes\holiday time off decembeT Z008.doc
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
October 23, 2008
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Vice Mayor
Honorable Gwendolyn W. Mason, Council Member
Honorable Alvin L. Nash, Council Member
Honorable Anitaj. Price, Council Member
Honorable Court G. Rosen, Council Member
Honorable David B. Trinkle, Council Member
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject: Additional Holiday Leave
for City Employees
Background:
This year Christmas and New Year's Day Holidays fall on Thursdays. Given that
little business would be conducted on the following Fridays, and that State offices
will also be closed on the two Fridays following Christmas and New Year's Day, I
am proposing that City offices not engaged in essential or emergency services be
closed on Friday, December 26, 2008 and Friday, january 2, 2009, and that City
employees be given these two additional paid holidays.
Given our limited ability in this year's budget to increase employee compensation, I
believe that providing this additional benefit would be most appreciated by the
staff.
Recommended Action:
Adopt a Resolution closing City offices on Friday, December 26, 2008 and Friday,
january 2, 2009, and providing additional holiday leave for all City employees.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene L. Bur
City Manager
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
October 23, 2008
Page 2
c: Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
James Grigsby, Assistant City Manager for Operations
Keli M. Greer, Director of Human Resources
/l
,.' :\.,.;\', t,'
j
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
, E-mail: c1erk@roanokeva.gov
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
City Clerk
October 24, 2008
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 38253-102308 amending Section 20-28,
Tax Imposed, of Article II, Vehicle Licenses, Chapter 20, Motor Vehicles and
Traffic, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by the addition of a
new subsection (n).
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Thursday, October 23, 2008, and is in
full force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
~;rn. h}blJYU
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
SM M :ew
Attachment
Darlene L. Burcham
October 24, 2008
Page 2
pc: 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
Raymond F. Leven, Office of the Magistrate
Lora A. Wilson, Law Librarian
The Honorable Sherman. A. Holland, Commissioner of the Revenue
The Honorable Evelyn W. Powers, City Treasurer
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
Sheila N. Hartman, CMC, Deputy City Clerk
Cecelia R. Tyree, Assistant Deputy City Clerk
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, viRGINIA
The 23rd day of October, 2008.
No. 38253-102308.
AN ORDINANCE amending Sec. 20-28, Tax hnposed, of Article II, Vehicle Licenses,
of Chapter 20, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by
the addition of a new subsection (n); and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. Section 20-28, Tax hnposed, of Article II, Vehicle Licenses, of Chapter 20,
Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is hereby
amended to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 20-28. Tax hnposed.
* * *
(n) Notwithstanding the provisions above, there shall be no license tax for
vehicles "vith a gross weight exceeding 1 0,000 pounds owned by museums
officially designated by the Commonlllealth.
2. Pursuant to Section 12, Roanoke City Charter, the second reading by title of this
ordinance is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
...
~'Ir7. JvJd~
\ ) , "(I
i I -.\ I,
. i City Clerk.
'~ ;
K:\Measures\Code Amendment Chapter 20 adding section n 2008.doc
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
October 23, 2008
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Vice Mayor
Honorable Gwendolyn W. Mason, Council Member
Honorable Alvin L. Nash, Council Member
Honorable AnitaJ. Price, Council Member
Honorable Court G. Rosen, Council Member
Honorable David B. Trinkle, Council Member
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Amendment to City Code
Section 20-28. Tax Imposed.
of Article II, Vehicle Licenses,
of Chapter 20
Background:
As part of the 2008 Legislative Program, City Council recommended that the
Virginia General Assembly amend and reenact 946.2-752 of the Code of Virginia
to authorize localities to issue local licenses free of charge to vehicles with a
gross weight exceeding 10,000 pounds which are owned by museums officially
designated by the Commonwealth. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Transportation and was passed by the House and the Senate in February 2008
before being officially adopted on March 3, 2008. It became effective July 1,
2008.
Considerations:
Currently, the annual license taxes imposed on vehicles over 10,000 pounds
are $30.00 and issuing these licenses free of charge to museums of the
Commonwealth would benefit the Virginia Museum of Transportation and the
Commonwealth Coach and Trolley Museum, Inc.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
October 23, 2008 .
Page 2
Recommended Action:
City Council adopt an ordinance amending City Code Section 20-28, Tax
Imposed, of Article II, Vehicle -Licenses, of Chapter 20, Motor Vehicles and
Traffic, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to provide that local
licenses be issued free of charge to vehicles with a gross weight exceeding
10,000 pounds owned by museums officially designated by the Commonwealth
pursuant to 946.2-752 of the Code o! Virginia.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene L. B cham
City Manager
DLB: ftg
c: Sherman A. Holland, Commissioner of the Revenue
Evelyn W. Powers, City Treasurer
Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
CM08-00 161
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: c1erk@roanokeva.gov
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
City Clerk
October 24, 2008
Darlene L. Bu rcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 38254-102308 adopting the City of
Roanoke Revised Guidelines Regarding Proposals Made Pursuant to the
Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (Revised
Gu idelines); authorizing the City's Director of General Services to make such
procedures publicly available; and authorizing the City Manager to take such
further action as may be necessary to implement, administer, and enforce such
Gu idelines.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Thursday, October 23, 2008, and is in
fu II force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
~frJ. h]O~
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
SM M :ew
Attachment
Darlene L. Burcham
October 24, 2008
Page 2
pc: William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Commuriity Development
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Management and Budget
Robert K. Bengtson, Director, Public Works
Kenneth S. Cronin, Director, General Services
Sharon T. Gentry, Purchasing Manager
Philip C. Schirmer, P.E., L.S., City Engineer
<?~I
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 23rd daY. of October, 2008.
No. 38254-102308.
AN ORDINANCE adopting City of Roanoke Revised Guidelines Regarding Proposals
Made Pursuant to the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (Revised
Guidelines); authorizing the City's Director of General Services to make such procedures
publicly available; authorizing the City Manager to take such further action as may be necessary
to implement, administer, and enforce such Guidelines; and dispensing with the second reading
by title of this ordinance.
WHEREAS, based upon the recommendations of the City Manager in her letter dated
O~ctober 23, 2008, to this Council, City Council has determined t~at in view of the various
changes to the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA) as
mentioned in such letter, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt the Revised Guidelines for
the implementation and administration of the PPEA pursuant to the provisions of Code of
Virginia (1950), as amended S 56-575.1 et seq.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
I. As required by PPEA, City Council hereby approves and adopts the "City of
Roanoke Revised .Guidelines Regarding Proposals Made Pursuant to the Public-Private
Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002," which is attached to the City Manager's
letter to Council dated October 23,2008.
2. The City's Director of General Services is hereby authorized and directed to make
such procedures publicly available as required by the PPEA, which may include posting such
procedures on the City's website.
O-PPEA Revised Guidelines.doc
I
3. The City Manager is further authorized to take such actions and execute such
documents as may be necessary to provide for the implementation, administration, and
enforcement of such Guidelines.
4. Pursuant to the provision of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of
this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
City Clerlc.
m~
; i:
O-PPEA Revised Guidelines,doc
2
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
City Web: www.roanokeva.gov
October 23, 2008
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Vice-Mayor
Honorable Gwendolyn W. Mason, Council Member
Honorable Alvin L. Nash, Council Member
Honorable AnitaJ. Price, Council Member
Honorable Court G. Rosen, Council Member
Honorable David B. Trinkle, Council Member
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Adoption of Revised 2008
Guidelines for the Public-Private
Education Facilities and
Infrastructure Act of 2002
Background:
The Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA)
provides flexibility for local governments like Roanoke to create public-private
partnerships to meet a wide range of infrastructure needs, such as schools and
related facilities used for school events, other public buildings or facilities, utility
and communications infrastructure, recreation facilities, and technology
infrastructure. Its intent is to encourage public-private partnerships in providing
qualifying projects in a faster, less costly manner by allowing more flexibility and
creativity in the construction and financing of such projects. Since local
governments were required to adopt procedures consistent with the PPEA before
any such proposals could be considered, City Council adopted such procedures on
January 20, 2004.
Considerations:
The City's Procedures were based on the requirements of the PPEA and a sampling
of procedures from other localities. However, over the past several years, the State
Legislature has enacted various changes to the PPEA and also developed a set of
"model" guidelines. Last year, the State further updated its "model" guidelines. It
is now appropriate for the City to update its Guidelines (formerly called
Procedures). Accordingly, City staff has developed updated and Revised Guidelines
for City Council's consideration and approval. Such Revised Guidelines are based
in large part on the updated State model guidelines. Attached to this letter is a
copy of the City's proposed Revised Guidelines.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
October 23, 2008
Page 2
A summary of the key changes that have been placed in the Revised Guidelines
include the following:
1. Proposals from private entities must meet the definition of a "qualifying project"
as defined in the PPEA. The classification of such projects was expanded from
"any building or facility for principal use by any public entity" to "any building or
facility that meets a public purpose and is developed or operated by or for any
public entity".
In addition, three new classifications of projects have been added since 2004:
a. Any services designed to increase productivity or efficiency through the
direct or indirect use of technolog'y
b. Any technology, equipment, or infrastructure designed to deploy wireless
broadband services to schools, businesses, or residential areas, or
c. Any improvements necessary or desirable to any unimproved locally- or
state-owned real estate.
2. Guidelines of local "responsible public entities" (RPEs), such as the City of
Roanoke, must include a requirement that such RPEs engage the services of
qualified professionals, which may include an architect, professional engineer,
or certified public accountant, not otherwise employed by the public entity, to
provide independent analysis regarding the specifics, advantages,
disadvantages, and the long- and short-term costs of any request by a private
entity for approval of a qualifying project unless the governing body of the RPE
determines that such analysis of a request by a private entity for approval of a
qualifying project shall be performed by employees of the RPE. In accordance
with this requirement, City Council, by adopting these Guidelines, determines
that since there are City employees who are professionals within the
engineering and other fields, analysis of qualifying projects under these
Guidelines shall be performed by City employees unless the City Manager
determines there is a need for other professionals to provide analysis for a
particular qualifying project.
3. More detailed provisions have been incorporated to 'define the City's
responsibilities as they pertain to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
("FOIA"), including details on:
a. General applicability of disclosure provisions.
b. Protection from mandatory disclosure for certain documents submitted
by a private entity.
c. Protection from mandatory disclosure for certain documents produced by
the City.
d. Information the City may not withhold from public access.
4. The establishment of additional review procedures.
a. The City may, in its discretion for any specific qualifying project, establish
criteria to trigger establishment of an oversight advisory committee
consisting of representatives of the City and the appropriating body to
review the terms of the proposed interim or comprehensive agreement.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
October 23, 2008
Page 3
b. If the responsible public entity (RPE) for appropriating or authorizing
funding to pay for a qualifying project is different from the RPE reviewing
or approving the project, then the RPE reviewing or approving the project
should establish a mechanism for such appropriating body to also review
and approve any proposed interim or comprehensive agreement prior to
execution.
5. The use of interim and comprehensive agreements.
The City's 2004 Procedures stated that prior to developing or operating the
qualifying project, the selected private entity shall enter into a
comprehensive agreement with the City. The Revised Guidelines state that
prior to entering a comprehensive agreement, an interim agreement may be
entered into that permits the private entity to perform compensable
activities related to the project. The scope of an interim agreement is
defined in the Revised Guidelines. Furthermore, they provide that City
Council shall review and approve any proposed interim or comprehensive
agreement prior to its execution.
6. The addition of notice and posting requirements for proposals and interim or
comprehensive agreements. The PPEA process generally starts with conceptual
proposals from a private entity or entities. The following is a summary of the
notice and posting provisions:
a. If the City chooses to proceed with an Unsolicited Proposal for publication
and conceptual-phase consideration, it will post a notice in a public area
regularly used by the City for posting of public notices and on the City's
website for a period of not less than 45 days. The City will also publish
the same notice once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, in
any publication required by the PPEA,' and may post it on the
Commonwealth's electronic procurement website, for not less than 45
days before competing proposals are due to be submitted for
consideration by the City, to notify any parties that may be interested in
submitting such competing Unsolicited Proposals.
b. If the City solicits proposals, the advertisement will generally be run for
45 days.
c. If the City decides to accept conceptu'al proposals for further
consideration to proceed to the detailed phase, then such proposals,-
whether solicited or unsolicited, shall be posted by the City within 10
working days after acceptance of such proposals. Posting shall be on the
City's website or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in
the City for not less than 30 days. Posting may also be on the Department
of General Service's web-based electronic procurement program
commonly known as "eVA," in the discretion of the City.
d. Then after review and evaluation of detailed proposals, if the City decides
to enter into an interim or comprehensive agreement with a selected
private entity, at least 30 days prior to entering into an interim or
comprehensive agreement, the City shall hold a public hearing on the
proposals. After the public hearing is held, no additional posting shall be
required. .
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
October 23, 2008
Page 4
e. Once the negotiation phase for the development of an . interim or a
comprehensive agreement is complete and a decision to award has been
made by the City, the City shall post the proposed agreement on the
City's website or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in
the City. Posting may also be on the Department of General Service's
web-based electronic procurement program commonly known as "eVA,"
in the discretion of the City.
f. In addition to the posting requirements, at least one copy of the
proposals shall be made available for public inspection. Trade secrets,
financial records, or other records of the private entity excluded from
disclosure under the provisions of subdivision 11 of Va. Code ~ 2.2-
3705.6 shall not be required to be posted, except as otherwise agreed to
by the City and the private entity.
g. Once an interim agreement or a comprehensive agreement has been
entered into, the City shall make procurement records available for public
inspection, upon request. Such procurement records shall include
documents protected from disclosure during the negotiation phase on
the basis that the release of such documents would have adverse affect
on the financial interest or bargaining position of the City or private
entity. Such procurement records shall not include (i) trade secrets of the
private entity as defined in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Va. Code ~
59.1-336et seq.) or (ii) financial records, including balance sheets or
financial statements of the private entity that are not generally available
to the public through regulatory disclosure or otherwise.
h. To the extent access to procurement records are compelled or protected
by a court order, then the City must comply with such order. .
Recom mended Action:
City Council approve and adopt the attached Revise'd Guidelines Regarding
Proposals Made Pursuant to the Public"Private Education Facilities and
Infrastructure Act of 2002.
Authorize the City's Director of General Services to make such Guidelines publicly
available, which may include posting them on the City's website.
Authorize the City Manager to take any actions and execute any documents
necessary to implement, administer, and enforce such Revised Guidelines.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene L.Bu cham
City Manager
DLB:rbl
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
. October 23, 2008
Page 5
Attachment
c: Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Robert K. Bengtson, Director of Public Works'
Kenneth S. Cronin, Director of General Services
Sherman M. Stovall, Director of Management and Budget
Sharon T. Gentry, Purchasing Manager
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
CM08-QO 164
City of Roanoke
Revised Guidelines Regarding Proposals Made Pursuant to the
Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure
Act of 2002
Adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
October 23, 2008
Table of Contents
I. Introduction 3
II. General Provisions. 5
A. Proposal Submission 5
B. Affected Local Jurisdictions 6
C. Proposal Review Fee 7
D. Virginia Freedom of Information Act 8
E. Use of Public Funds 10
F. Applicability of Other Laws 11
III. Solicited Bids/Proposals 11
IV. Unsolicited Proposals 11
A. Decision to Accept and Consider Unsolicited Proposal; Notice 12
B. Posting Requirements 13
C. Initial Review by the City at the Conceptual Stage 14
V. Proposal Preparation and Submission 15
A. Format for Submissions at Conceptual Stage 15
B. Format for Submissions at Detailed Stage 19
VI. Proposal Evaluation and Selection Criteria 21
A. Qualifications and Experience 21
B. Project Characteristics 21
C. Project Financing 22
D. Project Benefit and Compatibility 23
E. Other Factors 23
VII. Additional Review Procedures 24
A. Public Private Partnership Oversight Advisory Committee 24
B. Appropriating Body 24
VIII. Interim and Comprehensive Aareements 25
A. Interim Agreement Terms 25
B. Comprehensive Agreement Terms 25
C. Notice and Posting Requirements 27
IX. Governina Provisions 28
X. Additional Terms and Definitions 28
2
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
I. Introduction
The Council of the City of Roanoke adopted the "City of Roanoke Procedures
Regarding Proposals Made Pursuant to the Public-Private Education and Facilities
Infrastructure Act of 2002" ("Procedures") on January 20, 2004. Since such adoption,
there have been various revisions and amendments made by the Virginia Legislature to
the Public-Private Education and Facilities Infrastructure Act of 2002 ("PPEA"). The
provisions of the PPEA are set forth in Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, ("Va.
Code") S 56-575.1 et seq. Such Procedures are now referred to as Guidelines and are
being updated by the adoption of these "Revised Guidelines Regarding Proposals Made
Pursuant to the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002"
("Revised Guidelines" or "Guidelines"). These Revised Guidelines are effective as of
the date of their adoption by City Council.
The PPEA grants the City of Roanoke ("City"), a "responsible public entity" ("RPE"), as
defined in the PPEA, the authority to create public-private partnerships for the
development of a wide range of projects for public use if the City determines there is a
need for the project and that private involvement may provide the project to the public in
a timely or cost-effective fashion. Individually negotiated interim or comprehensive
agreements between a private entity, as defined in the PPEA, and the City will define
the respective rights and obligations of the City and the private entity.
In order for a project to come under the PPEA, it must meet the definition of a
"qualifying project". The PPEA contains a broad definition of a qualifying project that
includes public buildings and facilities of all types, as well as some services; for
example: .
A. Any education facility, including, but not limited to, a school building, any
functionally related and subordinate facility and land to a school building
(including any stadium or other facility primarily used for school events),
and any depreciable property provided for use in a school facility that is
operated as part of the public school system or as an institution of higher
education;
B. Any building or facility that meets a public purpose and is developed or
operated by or for any public entity;
C. Any improvements, together with equipment, necessary to enhance public
safety and security of buildings to be principally used by a public entity;
D. Utility and telecommunications and other communications infrastructure;
E. A recreational facility;
3
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
F. Technology infrastructure and services, and applications, including, but
not limited to, telecommunications, automated data processing, word
processing and management information systems, and related
information, equipment, goods and services;
G. Any services designed to increase productivity or efficiency through the
direct or indirect use of technology;
H. Any technology, equipment, or infrastructure designed to deploy wireless
broadband services to schools, businesses, or residential areas; or
I. Any improvements necessary or desirable to any unimproved locally- or
state-owned real estate.
The PPEA establishes requirements that the City must adhere to when reviewing and
approving proposals received pursuant to the PPEA. In addition, the PPEA specifies
the criteria that must be used to select a proposal and the contents of the interim or
comprehensive agreement detailing the relationship between the City and the private
entity.
Section 56-575.16 of the PPEA provides that the respective governing body of a public
entity must first adopt guidelines that it will follow to receive and evaluate any proposal
submitted to the public entity under the provisions of the PPEA. Accordingly, the
Council of the City of Roanoke adopted the following revised Guidelines on October 23,
2008, to guide the City administration in implementation of the PPEA. The individual
designated by the City Manager to respond to inquiries regarding the PPEA or these
Guidelines and to serve as the point of contact to receive proposals submitted under the
PPEA shall be the Purchasing Manager.
Guidelines of local "responsible public entities" (RPEs) must include a requirement that
such RPEs engage the services of qualified professionals, which may include an
architect, professional engineer, or certified public accountant, not otherwise employed
by the public entity, to provide independent analysis regarding the specifics,
advantages, disadvantages, and the long- and short-term costs of any request by a
private entity for approval of a qualifying project unless the governing body of the RPE
determines that such analysis of a request by a private entity for approval of a qualifying
project shall be performed by employees of the RPE. In accordance with this
requirement, City Council, by adopting these Guidelines, determines that since there
are City employees who are professionals within the engineering and other fields,
analysis of qualifying projects under these Guidelines shall be performed by City
employees unless the City Manager determines there is a need for other professionals
to provide analysis for a particular qualifying project. In such case, the City Manager
may obtain such outside services as the City Manager deems necessary.
Furthermore, City Council shall review and approve any proposed interim or
comprehensive agreement prior to its execution.
4
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
Although guidance with regard to the application of the PPEA is provided herein, it will
be incumbent upon all entiti~s, both public and private, to comply with the then current
applicable provisions of the PPEA. Should there be any amendments to the PPEA,
these Guidelines shall be interpreted, to the extent possible, to be consistent with such
amendments. However, if there should be any conflict, the amendments shall control.
II. General Provisions
A. Proposal Submission
A proposal to provide a qualifying project may be either solicited by the
City (a "Solicited Bid/Proposal" via issuance of an "Invitation to Bid" or
"Request for Proposal") or delivered by a private entity on an unsolicited
basis (an "Unsolicited Proposal"), which can then involve competing
Unsolicited Proposals as referred to in Section IV. In either case, any
such proposal shall be clearly identified as a "PPEA Proposal."
Those entities responding to a Solicited Bid/Proposal or submitting an
Unsolicited Proposal (Proposer(s) or private entity or party) will be
required to follow a two-part proposal submission process consisting of an
initial conceptual phase and a detailed phase. The initial phase of the
proposal must contain specified information on proposer qualifications and
experience, project characteristics, project financing, anticipated. public
support or opposition, or both, and project benefit and compatibility. The
detailed proposal must contain specified deliverables.
The PPEA allows private entities to include innovative financing methods,
including the imposition of user fees or service payments, in a proposal.
Such financing arrangements may. include the issuance of debt
instruments, equity or other securities or obligations, including, if
applicable, the portion of the tax-exempt private .activity bond limitation
amount to be allocated annually to the Commonwealth of Virginia
pursuant to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2001 for the development of education facilities using public-private
partnerships, and to provide for carryovers of any unused limitation
amount. The PPEA is a flexible development tool that allows the use of
innovative financing techniques. Depending on the RPE's authority and
the circumstances of each transaction, financing options might include the
use of special purpose entities, sale and lease back transactions,
enhanced use leasing, property exchanges,. development agreements,
conduit financing and other methods allowed by law.
Proposals should be prepared simply and economi~ally, providing a
concise description of the Proposer's capabilities to complete the
proposed qualifying project and the benefits to be derived from the project
by the City. Project benefits to be considered are those occurring during
5
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
the construction, renovation, expansion or improvement phase and during
the life cycle of the project. Proposals also should include a
comprehensive scope of work and a financial plan for. the project,
containing enough detail to allow an analysis by the City of the financial
feasibility of the proposed project. The cost analysis of a proposal should
not be linked solely to the financing plan as the City may determine to
finance the project through other available means. For specific
applications, the City may request, in writing, clarification to the
submission.
The PPEA is intended to encourage proposals from the private sector that
offer the provision of private financing in support of the proposed public
project and the assumption of commensurate risk by the private entity, but
also benefits to the entity through innovative approaches to project
financing, development and use. However, while substantial private
\ sector involvement is encouraged, qualifying facilities will still be devoted
primarily to public use and typically involve facilities critical to the public
health, safety and welfare. Accordingly, the City shall continue to exercise
full and proper due diligence in the evaluation and selection of private
entities for these projects. In this regard, the qualifications, capabilities,
resources and other attributes of a Proposer and its whole team will be
carefully examined for every project. In addition, Proposers proposing
projects shall be held strictly accountable for representations or other
information provided regarding their qualifications, experience or other
contents of their proposals, including all specific aspects of proposed
plans to be performed by the private entity.
B. Affected Local Jurisdictions
Any private entity requesting approval from or submitting a conceptual or
detailed proposal to the City must provide other affected local jurisdictions
as defined in the. PPEA with a copy of the private entity's request or
proposal by certified mail, express delivery or hand delivery within .5
business days after submitting such a proposal to the City. Any affected
local jurisdiction shall have 60 days from the receipt from the private entity
of its copy of the request or proposal to submit written comments to the
City and to indicate whether the proposed qualifying project is compatible
with the (i) local comprehensive plan, (ii) local infrastructure development
plans, or (iii) capital improvements budget or other government spending
plan. Comments received within the 60-day period shall be considered by
the City in evaluating the -request or proposal, and no negative inference
shall be drawn from the absence of comments by an affected local
jurisdiction.
6
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
C. Proposal Review Fee
The City shall seek an analysis of the proposal from appropriate internal
staff or outside advisors or consultants with relevant experience in
determining whether to enter into an agreement with the private entity.
The City will charge a fee to the private entity to cover the costs of
processing, reviewing, and evaluating any Unsolicited Proposal, or
competing Unsolicited Proposal, submitted under the PPEA. Also, if the
solicitation so indicates, the City may require payment of a review fee by
any private entities submitting Solicited Proposals. The fee shall not be
greater than the direct costs associated with evaluating the proposed
qualifying project. "Direct costs" include (i) the cost of staff time required
to process, evaluate, review and respond to the proposal and (ii) the out-
of-pocket costs of any outside advisors or 'consultants, including, but not
limited to, attorneys and financial advisors.
Proposals solicited. by the City that are not in response to an Unsolicited
Proposal will not be subject to proposal review fees unless so indicated in
the solicitation. The City may determine at its discretion whether to
require Proposers to pay review fees for Solicited Proposals and if so, the
amount of such fees if different than set forth below.
The fee will be administered as follows:
1. Initial Fee. The initial fee shall be one half of one percent
(0.5%) of the reasonably anticipated total cost of the project,
but shall be no less than $5,000 regardless of the anticipated
cost. Additional fees may be charged as set forth below.
Payment of the initial fee in certified funds must accompany
the proposal in order for the City to proceed with its review.
However, the City Council reserves the right to specify a
different initial fee amount in a solicitation issued under
Section III of these Guidelines or for an Unsolicited Proposal
and competing Unsolicited Proposals under Section IV of
these Guidelines.
2. Additional fees. Additional fees over and above the initial
fee. shall be imposed on and paid by the private entity
throughout the processing, review, and evaluation of the
Proposal if the City incurs costs in excess of the initial fee
paid by the private entity. The City will notify the private
entity of the amount of such additional fees as it incurs such
costs. Prompt payment of such additional fees is required
before the City will continue to process, review, and evaluate
the Proposal.
7
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
3. Return of initial fee if Proposal not accepted for
consideration. If the City decides not to accept the Proposal
for consideration, pursuant to subsection C of Va. Code 9
56-575.3, the City will return the Proposal, together with all
fees and accompanying documentation, to the private entity.
However, once the City accepts the Proposal for
consideration, even if it is thereafter rejected at any
subsequent time, the initial fee and all additional fees
become nonrefundable and will not be returned to the private
entity.
D. Virainia Freedom of Information Act
1. General applicability of disclosure provisions.
Proposal documents submitted by private entiti,es are generally
subject to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") except
that subdivision 11 of Va. Code 9 2.2-3705.6 exempts certain
documents from public disclosure. FOIA exemptions, however, are
discretionary, and the City may elect to release some or all of
documents except to the extent the documents are:
a. Trade secrets of the private entity as defined in the
Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Va. Code 9 59.1-336 et
sea.);
b. Financial records of the private entity that are not
generally available to the public through regulatory
disclosure or otherwise, including but not limited to,
balance sheets and financial statements; or
c. Other information submitted by a private entity, where
if the record or document were made public prior to
the execution of an interim or comprehensive
agreement the financial interest or bargaining position
of the City or private entity would be adversely
affected.
Additionally, to the extent access to proposal documents submitted
by private entities are compelled or protected from disclosure by a
court order, the City must comply with the provisions of such order.
The City may contact the Freedom of Information Act Council
(FOIAC) regarding the applicability of .the access provisions of
FOIA:
8
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
General Assembly Building, 2na Floor
910 Capitol Street Richmond, VA 23219
E-mail: foiacouncil@leQ.state.va.us
Telephone: 804/225-3056
Toll-Free: 1-866-448-4100
Fax: 804/371-8705
Any inspection of procurement transaction records under FOIA
shall be subject to reasonable restrictions to ensure the security
and integrity of the records.
2. Protection from mandatory disclosure for certain documents
submitted by'a private entity.
Before a document of a private entity may be withheld from
disclosure, the private entity must make a written request to
the City at the time the documents are submitted designating
with specificity the documents for which the protection is
being sought and a clear statement of the reasons for invoking
the protection with reference to one or more of three classes
of records listed in Section 11(0)(1).
Upon the receipt of a written request for protection of documents,
the City shall determine whether the documents contain (i) trade
secrets, (ii) financial records, or (iii) other information that would
adversely affect the financial interest or bargaining position of the
City or private entity in accordance with Section II(D)( 1). The City
shall make a written determination of the nature and scope of the
protection to be afforded by the City under this subdivision. If the
written determination provides less protection than requested by
the private entity, the private entity should be accorded an
opportunity to withdraw its proposal. Nothing shall prohibit further
negotiations of the documents to be accorded protection from
release although what may be protected must be limited to the
categories of records identified in Section 11(0)(1).
Once a written determination has been made by the City, the
documents afforded protection under this subdivision shall continue
to be protected from disclosure when in the possession of the City
or any affected jurisdiction to which such documents are provided.
If a private entity fails to designate trade secrets, financial records,
or other confidential or proprietary information for protection from
disclosure, such information, records or documents shall be subject
to disclosure under FOIA.
9
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
3. Protection from mandatory disclosure for certain documents
produced by the City.
The City may withhold from disclosure memoranda, staff
evaluations, or other records prepared by the City, its staff, outside
advisors, or consultants exclusively. for the evaluation and
negotiation of proposals where (i) if such records were made public
prior to or after the execution of an interim or a comprehensive
agreement, the financial interest or bargaining position of the City
would be adversely affected, and (ii) the basis for the determination
required in clause (i) is documented in writing by the City.
Cost estimates relating to a proposed procurement transaction
prepared by or for the City shall not be open to public inspection.
4. Except as otherwise permitted or required by law, the City may
not withhold from public access:
(a) procurement records other than those subject to the written
determination of the City;
(b) information concerning the terms and conditions of any
interim or comprehensive agreement, service contract,
lease, partnership, or any agreement of any kind entered
into by the City and the private entity;
(c) information concerning the terms and conditions of any
financing arrangement that involves the use of any public
funds; or
(d) information concerning the performance of any private entity
developing or operating a qualifying transportation facility or
a qualifying project.
However, to the extent that access to any procurement record or
other document or information is compelled or protected by a court
order, then the City must comply with such order.
E. Use of Public Funds
Virginia constitutional and statutory requirements as they apply to
appropriation and expenditure of public 'funds apply to any interim or
comprehensive agreement entered into under the PPEA. Accordingly,
the processes and procedural requirements associated with the
expenditure or obligation of public funds shall be incorporated into
planning for any PPEA project or projects.
. 10
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
F. Applicabilitv of Other Laws
Nothing in the PPEA shall affect the duty of the City or any of its officers,
employees, or agents, to comply with all other applicable laws not in
conflict with the PPEA. The applicability of the Virginia Public
Procurement Act (the "VPPA") is as set forth in the PPEA.
III. Solicited Bids/Proposals
The City may issue Requests for Proposals (RFPs) or Invitations for Bids (IFBs),
inviting proposals from private entities to develop or operate qualifying projects.
The City may use a two-part process consisting of an initial conceptual phase
and a detailed phase. The solicitation will set forth the format and supporting
information that is required to be submitted, consistent with the provisions of the
PPEA. The City reserves the right to cancel at anytime any solicited RFP or IFB,
in the sole discretion of the City.
The solicitation will specify, but not necessarily be limited to, information and
documents that must accompany each proposal and the factors that wjll be used
in evaluating the submitted proposals. The solicitation will be posted in public
areas where construction projects are normally posted, and may include the
City's website. Notices will also be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City, and in any publication required by the PPEA. Notices may
also be posted on the Commonwealth's electronic procurement website. In
addition, solicited proposals will be posted pursuant to Section IV(B). The
solicitation will also contain or incorporate by reference other applicable terms
and conditions, including any unique capabilities or qualifications that will be
required of the private entities submitting proposals. Pre-proposal conferences
may be held as deemed appropriate by the City.
IV. Unsolicited Proposals
The PPEA permits the City to receive, evaluate and select for negotiations
unsolicited proposals from private entities to develop or operate a qualifying
project.
The City may publicize its needs and may encourage interested parties to submit
unsolicited proposals subject to the terms and conditions of the PPEA. When
such proposals are received pursuant to this procedure, without solicitation by an
Invitation to Bid or a Request for Proposals, the proposal shall be treated as a
competing Unsolicited Proposal. Unsolicited and/or competing Unsolicited
Proposals must be submitted to the Purchasing Manager by delivering six
complete copies, together with the required proposal fee.
11
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
A. Decision to Accept and Consider Unsolicited Proposal; Notice
1. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals at any
time.
2. Upon receipt of any Unsolicited Proposal or group of proposals and
payment of the required fee by the Proposer(s), the City will
determine whether to accept the Unsolicited Proposal for the
purpose of publication and conceptual-phase consideration. If the
City determines not to accept the proposal and proceed to
publication and conceptual-phase consideration, it will only return
the proposal, together with all fees and accompanying
documentation, to the Proposer(s) subject to the provisions set
forth in Section II(C).
3. If the City chooses to proceed with an Unsolicited Proposal for
publication and conceptual-phase consideration, it will post a notice
in a public area regularly used by the City for posting of public
notices and on the City's website for a period of not less than 45
days. The City will also publish the same notice once in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City, in any publication
required by the PPEA, and may post it on the Commonwealth's
electronic procurement website, for not less than 45 days before
competing proposals are due to be submitted for consideration by
the City, to notify any parties that may be interested in submitting
such competing Unsolicited Proposals. The notice will state that
the City (i) has received and accepted an Unsolicited Proposal
under the PPEA, (ii) intends to evaluate the proposal, (iii) may
negotiate an interim or comprehensive agreement with the
proposer based on the proposal, and (iv) will receive for
simultaneous consideration any competing Unsolicited Proposals
that comply with the procedures adopted by the City and the PPEA.
The notice also will summarize the proposed qualifying project or
projects, and identify their proposed locations. Copies of
Unsolicited and competing Unsolicited Proposals will be available
upon request, subject to the provisions of FOIA and Va. Code 9 56-
. 575.4(G) of the PPEA.
4. To ensure that sufficient information is available upon which to
base the development. of a seriqus competing proposal,
representatives of the City familiar with the unsolicited proposal and
the Guidelines established by the City may be made available to
respond to inquiries and meet with private entities that are
considering the submission of a competing proposal. The City may
conduct an analysis of the information pertaining to the proposal
included in the notice to ensure that such information sufficiently
12
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
encourages competing proposals. Further, the City may establish
criteria, including .key decision points and approvals to ensure
proper consideration of the extent of competition from available
private entities prior to selection.
5. In the event the City receives an Unsolicited Proposal and
subsequently receives one or more Unsolicited Proposals for the
same or similar project prior to completing its review of the first
Proposal and prior to accepting the first Proposal for consideration
pursuant to this Section IV, the City may choose to (i) not accept
any of the subject Proposals, (ii) accept only one of the Proposals
for consideration but not necessarily the first Proposal, or (iii)
accept more than one Proposal for conceptual phase consideration.
In the event the City accepts only one Proposal for consideration,
the City shall return the Proposals and any accompanying fees to
the respective Proposers whose Proposals were not accepted so
the Proposers may resubmit their Proposals as competing
Unsolicited Proposals pursuant to Section IV.
B. Posting Reauirements
1. Conceptual proposals, whether solicited or unsolicited, shall be
posted by the City within 10 working days after acceptance of such
proposals for further consideration to proceed to the next step, the
detailed stage, in the following manner:
Posting shall be on the City's website or by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in
the City, for not less than 30 days, of a summary of
the proposals and the location where copies of the
proposals are available for public inspection. Posting
may also be on the Department of General Service's
web-based electronic procurement program
commonly known as "eVA," in the discretion of the
City.
2. Nothing shall be construed to prohibit the posting of the conceptual
propo.sals by additional means deemed appropriate by the City so
as to provide maximum notice to the public of the opportunity to
inspect the proposals.
3. In addition to the posting requirements, at least one copy of the
proposals shall be made available for public inspection. Trade
secrets, financial records, or other records of the private entity
excluded from disclosure under the provisions of subdivision 11 of
Va. Code ~ 2.2-3705.6 shall not be required to be posted, except
13
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
as otherwise agreed to by the City and the private entity. Any
inspection of procurement transaction records shall be subject to
reasonable restrictions to ensure the security and integrity of the
records.
C. Initial Review bv the City at the Conceptual Stage
1. Only proposals complying with the requirements of the PPEA that
contain sufficient information for a meaningful evaluation and that
are provided in an appropriate format will be considered by the City
for further review at the conceptual stage. Formatting requirements
for proposals at the conceptual stage are found at Section V(A) of
these Guidelines.
The City reserves the right to select its own finance team, source and
financing vehicle in the event any project is financed through the issuance
of obligations that are deemed to be tax-supported debt of the City, or if
financing such project may impact the City's debt-rating or financial
position. The decision as to whether to use the financing plan contained
in any proposal (whether solicited or unsolicited) is at the City's sole
discretion.
2. The City will determine at this initial stage of review whether it will
proceed using:
a. Procedures used by the City that are consistent with
procurement through competitive sealed bidding, as defined
in the VPPA; or
b. Procedures used by the City that are consistent with
procurement of other than professional services through
"competitive negotiation" as defined in the VPPA. The City
may proceed using such guidelines only if it makes a
determination in advance by the City Council or City,
Manager that doing so is likely to be advantageous to the
City and the public based upon either (i) the probable scope,
complexity, or priority of need, (ii) the risk sharing including
guaranteed cost or completion guarantees, added value or
debt, or equity investments proposed by the private entity, or
(iii) the increase in funding, dedicated revenue or other
economic benefit that otherwise would not be available.
3. After reviewing the original proposal and any competing proposals
subm.itted during the notice period, the City will determine: .
a. Not to proceed further with any proposal;
14
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
b. To proceed to the detailed phase of review with the original
proposal;
c. To proceed to the detailed phase with a competing proposal;
d. To proceed to the detailed phase with multiple proposals;
\
and/or
e. To request modifications or amendments to any proposals..
4. Discussions between the City and private entities about the need
for infrastructure improvements shall not limit the ability of the City
to later determine to use standard procurement procedures to meet
its infrastructure needs.' :The City retains the right to reject any
proposal at any time prior to the execution of an interim or
comprehensive agreement.
V. Proposal Preparation and Submission
A. Format for Submissions at Conceptual Stage
Unless otherwise noted, the City requires that proposals at the conceptual
stage contain information in the following areas: (1) qualifications and
experience, (2) project characteristics, (3) project financing, (4) anticipated
public support or opposition, or both, (5) project benefit and compatibility,
(6) rationale or reason for the project, and (7) any additional information
the City may reasonably request to comply with the requirements of the
PPEA. Suggestions for formatting information to be included in proposals
at this stage include.:
1. Qualification and Experience
a. Identify the legal structure of the firm or consortium of firms
making the proposal. Identify the organizational structure for
the project, the management approach and how each
partner and major subcontractor in the structure fits into the
overall team.
b. Describe the experience of the firm or consortium of firms
making the proposal and the key principals involved in the
proposed' project including experience with projects of
comparable size and complexity. Describe the length of time
in business, business experience, public sector experience
and other engagements of the firm or consortium of firms.
Include the identity of any firms that will provide design,
15
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
construction and completion guarantees and warranties and
a description of such guarantees and warranties. . Provide
resumes of _ the key individuals who will be involved in the
project.
c. Provide the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of
persons within the firm or consortium of firms who may be
contacted for further information.
d. Provide a current or most recently audited financial
statement of the firm or firms and each partner with an equity
interest of twenty percent or greater.
e. Identify the officers and directors of the firm or firms
submitting the proposal.
f. " Identify any persons known to the Proposer who would be
obligated to disqualify themselves from participation in any
transaction arising from or in connection to the project
pursuant to the Virginia State and Local Government Conflict
of Interest Act, Chapter 31 (Va. Code S 2.2-3100, et seq.) .
2. Project Characteristics
a. Provide a description of the project, including the conceptual
design. Describe the proposed project in sufficient detail so
that type and intent of the project, the location, and the
communities that may be affected are clearly identified.
b. Identify and fully describe any work to be performed by the
City.
c. Include a list of all federal, state and local permits and
approvals required for the project and a schedule for
obtaining such permits and approvals.
d. Identify any anticipated adverse social, economic and
environmental impacts of the project. Specify the strategies
or actions to mitigate known impacts of the project.
e. Identify the projected positive social, economic and
environmental impacts of the project.
f. Identify the proposed schedule for the work on the project,
including the estimated time for completion.
16
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
g. Propose allocation of risk and liability for work completed
beyond the agreement's completion date, and assurances
for timely completion of the project.
h. State assumptions related to ownership, legal liability, law
enforcement and operation of the project and the existence
of any restrictions on the City's use of the project.
i. Provide information relative to phased or partial openings of
the proposed project prior to completion of the entire work.
j. Describe any architectural, building, engineering, or other
applicable standards that the proposed project will meet.
Define applicable quality standards to be adhered to for
achieving the desired project outcome(s).
k. List any other assumptions relied on for the project to be
successful;
I. List any contingencies that must occur for the project to be
successful.
3. Project Financing
a. Provide a preliminary estimate and estimating methodology
of the cost of the work by phase, segment (e.g., design,
construction, and operation), or both.
b. Submit a plan for the development, financing and operation
of the project showing the anticipated schedule on which
funds will be required. Describe the anticipated costs of and
proposed sources and uses for such funds, including any
anticipated debt service costs. The operational plan should
include appropriate staffing levels and associated costs.
Include supporting due diligence studies, analyses, or
reports.
c. Include a list and discussion of assumptions underlying all
major elements of the plan. Assumptions should include all
fees associated with financing given the recommended
financing approach including, but not limited to, underwriters
discount, placement agent, legal, rating agency, consultants,
feasibility study, and other related fees.. A complete
discussion of interest rate assumptions should be included
given current market conditions. Any ongoing operational
fee,s should also be disclosed as well as any assumptions
17'
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
with regard to increases in. such fees and escalator
provisions to be required in the comprehensive agreement.
d. Identify the proposed risk factors and methods for dealing
with these factors.
e. Identify any local, state or federal resources that the
Proposer contemplates requesting for the project. Describe
the total commitment, if any, expected from governmental
sources, including the City, and the timing of any anticipated (
commitment. Such disclosure should include any direct or
indirect guarantees or pledges of the City's credit or
revenue.
f. Identify any third parties that the private entity contemplates
will provide financing for the project and describe the nature
and timing of each such commitment, both one-time and
ongoing.
g. Clearly describe the underlying support and commitment
required from the City under the recommended plan of
finance. Expectations with regard to the City providing its
general obligation should be included. The underlying
assumptions should address this need in detail.
h. Identify the amounts and the terms and conditions for any
revenue sources.
i. Identify any aspect of the proposed project that could
disqualify the project from obtaining tax:-exempt financing.
4. Project Benefit and Compatibility
a. Identify who will benefit from the project, how they will
benefit and how the project will benefit the City, the overall
community, region, or state.
b. Identify any anticipated public support or opposition, as well
as any anticipated government support or opposition, for the
project.
c. Explain the strategy and plans that will be carried out to
involve and inform the general public, business community,
and governmental agencies in areas affected by the project.
18
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
d. Describe the anticipated significant benefits to the City, the
community, region or state including anticipated benefits to
the economic condition of the City and whether the project is
critical to attracting or maintaining competitive industries and
businesses to the City or the surrounding region.
e. Explain how the project is compatible with the local
comprehensive plan, local infrastructure development plans,
the capital improvements budget or other government
spending plan.
f. Provide a statement setting forth participation efforts that are
intended to be undertaken in connection with thiS. project
with regard to the following types of businesses:
(i) minority-owned businesses;
(ii) woman-owned businesses; and
(iii) small businesses.
B. Format for Submissions at Detailed Staae
If the City.decides to proceed to the. detailed phase of review with one or
more proposals, the following information must be provided by the private
entity unless waived in writing by the City:
1. A topographical map (1 :2,000 or other appropriate scale) indicating
the location of the proposed project, electronic format may be
permissible if compatible with City systems and may be required;
2. A list of public utility facilities, if any, that will be crossed by the
qualifying project and a statement of the plans of the Proposer to
accommodate such crossings;
3. A statement and strategy setting out the plans for securing all
necessary property and the estimated cost of such property. The
statement must include the names and addresses, if known, of the
current owners of the subject property as well as a list of any
property the Proposer intends to request the public entity to
condemn for public use and a description of such public use;
4. A detailed listing of all firms that will provide specific design,
construction and completion guarantees and warranties, and a brief
description of such guarantees and warranties;
5. A total life-cycle cost specifying methodology and assumptions of
the project or projects and the proposed project start date. Include
19
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
anticipated commitment of all parties; equity, debt, and other
financing mechanisms; and a schedule of project revenues and
project costs. The life-cycle cost analysis should include, but not be
limited to, a detailed analysis of the projected return, rate of return,
or both, expected useful life of facility, and estimated annual
operating expenses;
6. A detailed discussion of assumptions about user fees or rates, and
usage of the project or projects;
7. Identification of any known government support or opposition, or
general public support or opposition for the project. Government or
public support should be demonstrated through resolution of official
bodies, minutes of meetings, letters, or other official
communications;
8. Demonstration of consistency with appropriate local comprehensive
or infrastructure development plans or indication of the steps
required for acceptance into such plans;
9. Suffident design and engineering detail to establish floor plans,
elevations, and site characteristics;
10. Explanation of how the proposed project would impact local
development plans of each affected local jurisdiction;
11 . Identification of the executive management and the officers and
directors of the firm or firms submitting the proposal;
12. Identification of any known conflicts of interest or other disabilities
that may impact the City's consideration of the proposal, including
the identification of any persons known to the Proposer who would
be obligated to disqualify themselves from participation in any
transaction arising from or in connection to the project pursuant to
The Virginia State and Local Government Conflict of Interest Act,
Chapter 31 (Va. Code 9 2.2-3100, et seo.);
13. Identification of all known contractors or service providers, including
but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate
services, financial services, and legal services for the current
proposal;
14. Detailed analysis of the financial feasibility of the proposed project,
including impact on similar facilities operated or planned by the
City. Include a detailed description of any financing plan proposed
for the project, a comparison of that plan with financing alternatives
that may be available to the City, and all underlying data supporting
20
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
any conclusions reached in the analysis or the selection by the
private entity of the financing plan proposed for the project;
15. Detailed listing of all performance securities the Proposer will
provide to guarantee success of the project, and what payments or
retQrns will be made to the City if the project is not fully and
successfully completed; and
16. Additional material and information as the City may request.
VI. Proposal Evaluation and Selection Criteria
The following items may be considered in the evaluation and selection of PPEA
proposals.
A. Qualifications and Experience
Factors that may be considered in either phase of the City's review to
determine whether the Proposer possesses the requisite qualifications
and experience include:
1. Experience with similar projects;
2. Demonstration of ability to perform work;
3. Leadership structure;
4. Project manager's experience;
5. Management approach;
6. Financial condition;
7. Project ownership; and
8. Such other items as the City deems appropriate.
B. Proiect Characteristics
Factors that may be considered in determining the project' characteristics
include:
1. Project definition;
2. Proposed project schedule;
21
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
3. Operation of the project;
4. Technology, technical feasibility;
5. Conformity to laws, regulations, and standards;
6. Environmental impacts;
'7. Condemnation impacts;
8. State and local permits;
9. Maintenance of the project; and
10. Such other items as the City deems appropriate.
C. Proiect Financina
The City reserves the right to select its own finance team, source, and
financing vehicle in the event any project is financed through the issuance
of obligations that are deemed to be tax-supported debt of the City, or if
financing such project may impact the City's debt rating or financial
position. The decision as to whether to use the financing plan contained
in any proposal (whether solicited or unsolicited) is at the City's sole
discretion.
Along with the information required for the initial and detailed proposals,
factors to be considered in determining whether the proposed project
financing allows access to the necessary capital at the lowest practical
cost given the project include:
1 . Cost and cost benefit to the City;
2. Financing and the impact on the debt or debt burden of the City;
3. Financial plan including overall feasibility and reliability of the plan;
default implications; Proposer's past performance with similar plans
and similar projects; degree to which the Proposer has conducted
due diligence investigation and analysis of the proposed financial
plan and the results of any such inquiries or studies;
4. Opportunity costs assessment;
5. Estimated cost, including financing source, operating costs, etc;
6. Life-cycle cost analysis;
22
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
7. The identity, credit history, past performance of any third party that
will provide financing for the project and the nature and timing of
their commitment, as applicable;
8. Comparable costs of other project delivery methods; and
9. Such other items as the City deems appropriate.
D. Proiect Benefit and Compatibilitv
Factors that may be considered in determining the proposed project's
compatibility with the appropriate local or regional comprehensive or
development plans include:
1. Community benefits;
2. Community support or opposition, or both;
3. Public involvement strategy;
4. Compatibility with existing and planned facilities;
5. Compatibility with local, regional, and state economic development
effo rts;
6. Fiscal impact to the City in terms of revenues and expenditures;
7. Economic output of the project in terms of jqbs and total economic
impact on the local economy; and
8. Such other items as the City deems appropriate.
E. Other Factors
Other factors that may be considered by the City in the evaluation and
selection of the PPEA proposals include:
1. The proposed cost of the qualifying project;
2. The general reputation, industry experience, and financial capacity
of the private entity;
3. The proposed design of the qualifying project;
23
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
4. The eligibility of the project for accelerated documentation, review,
and selection;
5. Local citizen and government comments;
6. Benefits to the public including, but not limited to, both financial and
nonfinancial;
7. The private entity's compliance with a minority business enterprise
participation plan that includes minority-owned businesses, woman-
owned businesses, and small businesses, or good faith effort to
comply with the goals of such plan, including submission of any
required statement regarding its participation efforts;
8. The private entity's plans to employ local contractors and residents;
9. The recommendation of a committee of representatives of
members of the City and the appropriating body which may be
established to provide advisory oversight of the project; and
10. Other criteria that the City deems appropriate.
VII. Additional Review Procedures
A. Public Private Partnership Oversiaht Advisory Committee
The City may, in its discretion for any specific qualifying project, establish
criteria to trigger establishment of an advisory committee consisting of
representatives of the City and the appropriating body to review the terms of
the proposed interim or comprehensive agreement. The criteria should
include, but not be limited to, the scope, total cost and duration of the
proposed project, and whether the project involves or impacts multiple
public entities. Timelines for the work of the committee should be developed
and made available to proposers.
B. Appropriatina Bodv
If the RPE for appropriating or authorizing funding to pay for a qualifying
project is different from the RPE reviewing or approving the project, then
the RPE reviewing or approving the project should establish a mechanism
for that appropriating body to also review and approve any proposed
interim or comprehensive agreement prior to execution. When a school
boar9 is the RPE, review and approval by the school board and local
governing body of the appropriating entity shall satisfy this requirement.
24
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
VIII. Interim and Comprehensive AQreements
Prior to developing or operating the qualifying project, the selected private entity
shall enter into a comprehensive agreement with the City. Prior to entering a
comprehensive agreement, an interim agreement may be entered into that
permits the private entity to perform compensable activities related to the project.
The City may designate a working group to be responsible for negotiating any
interim or comprehensive agreement. Any interim or comprehensive agreement
shall define the rights and obligations of the City and the selected Proposer with
regard to the project. Furthermore, City Council shall review and approve
any proposed interim or comprehensive agreement prior to its execution.
A. Interim Aareement Terms
The scope of an interim agreement may include but is not limited to:
1. Project planning and development;
2. Design and engineering;
3. Environmental analysis and mitigation;
4. Survey;
5. Ascertaining the availability of financing for the proposed facility
through financial and revenue analysis;
6.' Establishing a process and timing of the negotiation of the
comprehensive agreement; and
7. Any other provisions related to any aspect of the development or
operation of a qualifying project that the parties may deem
appropriate prior to the execution of a comprehensive agreement.
B. Comprehensive Aareement Terms
The scope of the comprehensive agreement shall include, if applicable,
but not be limited to:
1. The delivery of maintenance, performance and payment bonds or
letters of credit or other security in the forms and amounts
satisfactory to the City in connection with any acquisition, design,
construction, improvement, renovation, expansion, equipping,
maintenance, or operation of the qualifying project;
25
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
2. The review and approval of plans and specifications for the
qualifying project by the City;
3. . The rights of the City to inspect the qualifying project to ensure
compliance with the comprehensive agreement;
4. The maintenance of a policy or policies of liability insurance or self-
insurance in form and amount satisfactory to the City and
reasonably sufficient to insure coverage of the project and the
protection from the potential tort liability to the public and others
and to enable the continued operation of the qualifying project;
5. The monitoring of the practices of the private entity by the City to
ensure proper maintenance;
6. The terms under which the private entity will reimburse the City for
services provided;
7. The policies and procedures that will govern the rights and
responsibilities of the City and the private entity in the event that the
comprehensive agreement is terminated or there is a material
default by the private entity, including the conditions governing
assumption of the duties and responsibilities of the private entity by
the City and the transfer or purchase of property or other interests
of the private entity to or by the City;
8. The terms under which the private entity will file appropriate
financial statements on a periodic basis;
9. The mechanism by which user fees, lease payments, or service
payments, if any, may be established from time to time upon
agreement of the parties, Any payments or fees shall be set at a
level that are the same for persons using the facility under like
conditions and that will not materially discourage use for the
qualifying project; .
a. A copy of any service contract shall be filed with the City.
b. A schedule of the current user fees or lease payments shall
be made available by the private entity to any member of the
public upon request.
c. Classifications according to reasonable categories for
assessment of user fees may be made.
26
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
10. The terms and conditions under which the City may contribute
financial resources, if any, for the qualifying project;
11. The terms and conditions under which existing site conditions will
be assessed and addressed, including identification of the
responsible party for conducting the assessment and taking
necessary remedial action;
12. The terms and conditions under which the City will be required to
pay money to the private entity and the amount of any such
payments for the project;
13. Other requirements of the PPEA or other applicable law, including
compliance with the federal immigration law and Va. Code 9 2.2-
4311 .1 ;
14. A provision, in a form acceptable to the City, that will require the
private entity to indemnify and hold harmless the City and its
officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from any and all
claims, damages, causes of action, suits of any nature, cost, and
expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting from or
arising out of the private entity's, or its agents or subcontractors,
acts or omissions or conneCted in any way to the qualifying project;
and
15. . Such other terms and conditions as the City may deem appropriate.
Any changes in the terms of the interim or comprehensive agreement as may
be agreed upon by the parties from time to time shall be added to the interim
or comprehensive agreement by written amendment.
C. Notice and PostinaReQuirements
1. In addition to the posting requirements of Section IV(B), at least 30
days prior to entering into an interim or comprehensive agreement,
the City shall hold a public hearing on the proposals. After the
public hearing is held, no additional posting shall be required.
2. Once the negotiation phase for the development of an interim or a
comprehensive agreement is complete and a decision to award has
been made by the City, the City shall post the proposed agreement
in the following manner:
a. Posting shall be on the City's website or by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City. Posting may
also be on the Department of General Service's web-based
27
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
electronic procurement program commonly known as "eVA,"
in the discretion of the City.
b. In addition to the posting requirements, at least one copy of
"the proposals shall be made available for public inspection.
Trade secrets, financial records, or other records of the
private entity excluded from disclosure under the provisions
of subdivision 11 of Va. Code S 2.2-3705.6 shall not be
r~quired to be posted, except as otherwise agreed to by the
City and the private entity.
3. Once an interim agreement or a comprehensive agreement has
been entered into, the City shall make procurement records
available for public inspection, upon request.
a. Such procurement records shall include documents
protected from disclosure during the negotiation phase on
the basis that the release of such documents would have
adverse affect on the financial interest or bargaining position
of the City or private entity in accordance with Section
II(D)(3).'
b. Such procurement records shall not include (i) trade secrets
of the private entity as defined in the Uniform Trade Secrets
Act (Va. Code S 59.1-336 et seq.) or (ii) financial records,
including balance sheets or financial statements of the
private entity that are not generally available to the public
through regulatory disclosure or otherwise.
To the extent access to procurement records are compelled or protected by a
court order, then the City must comply with such order.
"IX. Governina Provisions
In the event of any conflict between these Guidelines and the PPEA and/or FOIA,
as they may be amended from time to time, the terms and provisions of the
PPEA and/or FOIA, as amended, shall control.
X. Additional Terms and Definitions
The definitions enacted by the General Assembly under Va. Code S 56-575.1
shall apply to these Guidelines. The following additional terms are included for
clarification purposes:
"Conceptual stage" means the initial phase of project evaluation when the
public entity makes a determination whether the proposed project serves a public
28
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
purpose, meets the criteria for a qualifying project, assesses the qualifications
and experience of a private entity proposer, reviews the project for financial
feasibility, and warrants further pursuit.
"Cost-benefit analysis" means an analysis that weighs expected costs against
expected benefits in order to choose the best option. For example, the City may
compare the costs and benefits of constructing a new office building to those of
renovating and maintaining an existing structure in order to select the most
financially advantageous option.
"Detailed stage" means the second phase of project evaluation where the
public entity has completed the conceptual stage and accepted the proposal and
may request additional information regarding a proposed project prior to entering
into competitive negotiations with one or more private entities to develop an
interim or comprehensive agreement.
"Lifecycle cost analysis" means an analysis that calculates cost of an asset
over its entire life span and includes the cost of planning, constructing, operating,
maintaining, replacing, and when applicable, salvaging the asset. Although one
proposal may have a lower initial construction cost, it may not have the lowest
lifecycle cost once maintenance, replacement, and salvage value is considered.
"Opportunity cost" means the cost of passing up another choice when making
a decision or the increase in costs due to delays in making a decision.
END OF GUIDELINES
Revised as of October 23, 2008.
29
Revised 2008 PPEA Guidelines
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
City Clerk
October 24, 2008
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 38255-102308 authorizing the City
Manager to execute a Third Amendment to the November 10, 2005, Operating
Agreement between the City of Roanoke and Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc.,
and authorizing the City Manager to take such further action and execute
additional documents to implement and administer such Amendment to the
Operating Agreement.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Thursday, October 23, 2008, and is in
fu II force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
In. fr)D&Y0
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
pc: William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Management and Budget
Brian Brown, Economic Development Administrator
Cassandra L. Turner, Economic Development Specialist
p:r.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 23rd day of October, 2008.
No. 38255-102308.
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to execute a Third Amendment to the
November 10, 2005, Operating Agreement between the City of Roanoke (City) and
Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc. (Meadowbrook); authorizing the City Manager to take such
further action and execute additional documents to implement and administer such Amendment
to the Operating Agreement; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
WHEREAS, the City and Meadowbrook entered into an Operating Agreement dated
November 10, 2005, for Meadowbrook to operate, manage and conduct the business and services
of the Countryside Golf Club for one year, which was extended by a First Amendment dated
September 21, 2006, for an additional one year period, and further extended by a Second
Amendment dated October 17,2007, f0f another one year period;
WHEREAS, Section 4 of the Operating Agreement established the term of such
Operating Agreement to be from November 1,2005, through October 31,2006, but was subject
to being renewed for additional terms of one year; and
WHEREAS, the City and Meadowbrook wish to extend the term of the Operating
Agreement for one additional year, until October 31, 2009, upon certain terms and conditions as
set forth in the Third Amendment, Second Amendment, First Amendment, and in the Operating
Agreement; and
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized on behalf of the City
to execute and attest, respectively, a Third Amendment to the Operating Agreement with
O-Amendment 3 to Operating Agreement- Meadowbrook.doc
1
Meadowbrook dated November 10, 2005, for a term of one additional year, from November 1,
2008, through October 31,2009, and such other terms and conditions as the City Manager deems
appropriate, for Meadowbrook to operate, manage and conduct the business and services of the
Countryside Golf Club, all as more particularly set forth in the City Manager's letter to Council
dated October 23,2008; such amendment to be approved as to form by the City Attorney.
2. The City Manager is further authorized to take such action and execute such
additional documents as may be necessary to provide for the implementation, administration, and
enforcement of such Amendment, as well as the Operating Agreement and any other
Amendments.
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:
~ (n.lYJlJJ'rt)
, '
City Clerk.;
I :'
. ':t-!
. ,:i:' i','
O-Amendment 3 to Operating Agreement- Meadowbrook.doc
2
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
City Web: www.roanokeva.gov
October 23, 2008
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Vice-Mayor
Honorable Gwendolyn W. Mason, Council Member
Honorable Alvin L. Nash, Council Member
Honorable AnitaJ. Price, Council Member
Honorable Court G. Rosen, Council Member
Honorable David B. Trinkle, Council Member
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject: Extension of Operating
Agreement for Countryside
Golf Course
Background:
On November 10, 2005, the City executed an agreement with
Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc., to operate the Countryside Golf Course
for a period of one year. The agreement was extended in October 2006
and October 2007 and is due to expire October 31, 2008. The
agreement provides that it may be extended for an additional year on
terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. City staff and
Meadowbrook have agreed to an additional one year extension period. A
copy of the draft Third Amendment is attached.
Considerations:
Meadowbrook will continue to pay the City $17,500 for the additional one
year term, from November 1, 2008, through October 31, 2009.
Meadowbrook will continue its commitment to adhering to its Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP) used at its other facilities, and the
maintenance requirements referred to in the Second Amendment.'
Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council
October 23, 2008
Page 2
Recommended Action:
Authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Operating
Agreement with the Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc., on behalf of the City
of Roanoke, providing for an extension for the term November 1, 2008,
through October 31, 2009, in such form as approved by the City
Attorney.
'Authorize the City Manager to take such further action and execute such
additional' documents as may be necessary to provide for the
implementation, administration, and enforcement of such Amendment,
as well as the Operating Agreement and any other Amendments.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene L. Bur
City Manager
DLB: bkb
c: Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
R. Brian Townsend, Assist. City Managerfor Community Development
Brian Brown, Economic Development Administrator
Cassandra L. Turner, Economic Development Specialist
CM08-00163
,;>
THIRD AMENDMENT TO OPERATING AGREEMENT
THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO OPERATING AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is entered into
effective this _ day of , 2008, by and between Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("Manaeer"), and the City of Roanoke ("Owner").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Owner and Manager entered into that certain Operating Agreement, dated November 1 0,
2005 (the "Aereement"); and
WHEREAS, Owner and Manager amended the Agreement by a First Amendment dated September 21,
2006, and a Second Amendment dated October 17, 2007, and desire to further amend the Agreement as
hereinafter set forth.
NOW; THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements hereinafter set forth and for Ten Dollars
($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, Owner and Man~ger agree as follows:
1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
2. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms used herein and not expressly defined shall have the
meaning given to them in the Agreement.
3. Term. The parties agree and acknowledge that the Term of the Agreement shall be, and hereby
is, "extended for an additional one year period, from November 1, 2008, through October 31,
2009, and that the Agreement shall terminate at midnight on October 31, 2009, unless sooner
terminated as provided in the Agreement or by law, or unless the Agreement is further extended
as provided for by the Agreement.
4. Manaeement Fee. The parties agree and acknowledge that Section 6.1 of the Agreement shall
be supplemented as follows:
In consideration of Owner engaging Manager to provide the services set forth in this
Agreement, Manager shall pay a Management Fee to Owner equal to Two Thousand five
Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) per month for seven months beginning on April 1,2009 and
ending on October 1,_2009, for a total of $17,500.00 (the "Management Fee"). The
Management Fee due from Manager to Owner is for the period of November 1,2008 until
the expiration of this Agreement on October 31,2009. The Management Fee shall be due
and payable on the first day of each calendar month as noted herein. The first Management
Fee shall be delivered to Owner on April 1, 2009 and the last Management Fee shall be
delivered to Owner on October 1,2009.
5. Section 5.3 of the Agreement is hereby continued to be supplemented by continuing the
provisions of paragraph 5 of the Second Amendment. .J
6. Controlline Aereement. To the extent any provisions containe9 herein conflict with the
Agreement or any prior amendments or any other agreements between Owner and Manager, oral
or otherwise, the provisions contained herein shall supersede such conflicting provisions
contained in the Agreement or other amendments or agreements. Except as modified herein or by
prior amendments, Owner and Manager hereby represent and warrant that the Agreement
remains in\ full force and effect and is hereby reaffirmed and ratified by both Owner and Manager.
Page 1 of2
7. Counterparts. Facsimiles. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts. Each executed
counterpart of this Amendment will constitute an original document, and all executed
counterparts, together, will constitute the same agreement. Any counterpart evidencing signature
by one party that is delivered by telecopy by such party to the other party hereto shall be binding
on the sending party when such telecopy is sent, and such sending party shall within ten days
thereafter deliver to the other parties a hard copy of such executed counterpart containing the
original signature of such party or its authorized representative.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have exequted this Amendment effective the day and year first
set forth above.
OWNER:
MANAGER
The City of Roanoke
Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation
By:
By:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Print Name:
ATTEST:
Title:
City Clerk - City of Roanoke
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Approved as to execution:
City Attorney
Authorized by Ordinance No.
Page 2 of2
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
City Clerk
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
October 24, 2008
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
Your communication recommending execution of Amendment No. 4 to a
Performance Agreement between the City of Roanoke, the. Economic
Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, and IMD Investment Group, LLC,
in order to provide an additional time period for development of certain
property within the Ivy Market Shopping Center, was before the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Thursday, October 23,2008.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, action on the measure was tabled until
the next regular meeting of the Council scheduled to be held on Monday,
November 3, 2008, in order to allow the City Manager, City Attorney and
Director of Finance an opportunity to report back to the Council with a revised
amendment to the Performance Agreement that includes a final deadline for the
developer and identifies consequences if deadline is not met.
Sincerely,
- htJ rnD~
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC [
City Clerk
SM M :ew
pc: William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
pi-
,
.,
IN THE COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ROANOKI
i
~.t ~
rJ~
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the proper City officials t~
l_.
No. 4,to a Performance Agreement dated November 18, 2004, as amended, among the
City of Roanoke, (City), the Economic Development Authority of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, (EDA), and IMD Investment Group, LLC, (IMD), which amendment will
provide for a time extension concerning an obligation of IMD under such Performance
Agreement; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this Ordinance.
WHEREAS, the City, the EDA, and IMD entered into a Performance Agreement
dated November 18, 2004, (Performance Agreement), a subsequent Amendment No. I
dated November 14, 2006, a subsequent Amendment No.2 dated September 18, 2007,
and a subsequent Amendment No.3 dated June 18, 2008, concerning IMD's proposed
development of certain property mentioned therein, and which was subject to certain
terms and conditions contained in such Performance Agreement; and
WHEREAS, IMD has requested a further time extension for completion of one of
IMD's obligatIons under the Performance Agreement, Amendment No.1, Amendment
No.2, and Amendment No.3, and City staff recommends granting such request. After
approval by the City, the Amendment No.4 will be sent to the EDA for its action and
execution.
THEREFORE, BE' IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as
follows:
r : {:. ~_> '.~:1: '."
i '^:-' hi,i.
O-Amendment 4 to IMD PA.doc
1
1. City Council hereby approves IMD's requested time extension for
completion of one of IMD's obligations under the Performance Agreement, Amendment
No.1, Amendment No. 2~ and Amendment No.3, namely that item relating to Subsection
2 (D), as set forth in the City Manager's letter to Council dated October 23,2008, and the.
draft Amendment No. 4 attached thereto.
2. The City Manager is authorized on behalf of the City to execute an
Amendment No.4 to the Performance Agreement,' Amendment No.1, Amendment No.
2, and Amendment No.3, providing for a certain time extension for IMD to complete one
of IMD's obligations thereunder regarding the time period to open a drug store, upon
certain terms and conditions as set forth in the above mentioned City Manager's letter.
Such amendment will be substantially similar to the one attached to such letter and in a
form approved by the City Attorney.
3. The City Manager is further authorized to take such actions and execute
such documents as may be necessary to provide for the implementation, administration,
and enforcement of such amendments to the Performance Agreement and of the
Performance Agreement itself.
4. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second
reading by title of this Ordinance is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
City Clerk. .
]!:.fTdi J'il '.' .f',iUi~u<'
O-Amendment 4 to 1M D P A.doc
2
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
City Web: www.roanokeva.gov
October 23, 2008
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Vice Mayor
Honorable Gwendolyn W. Mason, Council Member
Honorable Alvin L. Nash, Council Member
Honorable Anita J. Price, Council Member
Honorable Court G. Rosen, Council Member
Honorable David B. Trinkle, Council Member
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Amendment NO.4 to
Performance Agreement
with IMD Investment
Group, LLC
Background:
The City, IMD Investment Group, LLC (IMD), and the Economic
Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia (EDA), entered
into a Performance Agreement dated November 18, 2004, with
Amendment No. 1 dated November 14, 2006, Amendment No. 2 dated
September 18, 2007, and a subsequent Amendment No.3 dated June 18,
2008, regarding the development of certain property on the corner of
Wonju Street and Franklin Road, SW, to include a Ukrop's grocery store
and a drug store, anticipated to be a Walgreen's, in what is called the Ivy
Market shopping center. IMD has requested an extension of the due date
for the completion and opening of the drug store to April 30, 2009.
For reasons beyond IMD's control, the opening of Walgreen's has not
proceeded as originally anticipated. Construction of the drug store is
continuing, but the opening has been delayed because Walgreen's
corporate policy does not allow acceptance of new stores between the
months of November and January. Further, once Walgreen's accepts the
building, an additional period of time will be needed to hire workers and
stock the store.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
October 23, 2008
Page 2
IMD has met other requirements of its first phase - a Ukrop's grocery
store with 58,000 square feet opened to the public and IMD spent in
excess of $3 million on infrastructure costs on the property and one-floor
of structured parking below ground level before July 31, 2007. All other
terms of the November 18, 2004, agreement and Amendments will
remain in effect.
Recommended Action:
Approve IMD's requested time extension and the terms of Amendment
No.4 to the Performance Agreement as set forth in the attachment to this
letter.
Authorize the City Manager to execute an Amendment No. 4 to the
Performance Agreement among the City, IMD, and the EDA, in a form
substantially similar to the one attached, with the form of such
Amendment No.4 to be approved by the City Attorney.
Authorize the City Manager to take such actions and execute such
documents as necess'ary to implement, administer, and enforce such
Amendment NO.4 to the Performance Agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene L. Burch
City Manager
DLB: LB
c: 'Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
R. Brian Townsend, Assist. City Manager for Community Development
Sherman M. Stovall, Director of Management and Budget
Brian K. Brown, Economic Development Administrator
Linda Bass, Economic Development Specialist
Charles E. Hunter, III, Chair, EDA
Harwell (Sam) M. Darby, Jr., Attorney, EDA
Bland Painter, IMD
CM08-00165
; ~ 1. " "~ ~ rJ.i '~~. ;~.
;. .~\-, ,/ t~.~\~: ",r.. ..':' 'Tj-Jl~::.' '~.::,~; .
DRAFT - 10/15/08
AMENDMENT NO.4 TO PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT
This is Amendment No.4 to a certain Performance Agreement dated November 18,2004, by and
among the City of Roanoke, Virginia, a municipal corporation (City), IMD Investment Group,
LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company (IMD), and the Economic Development Authority
of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, an economic development authority organized and existing
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia (EDA). This Amendment No.4 is dated
, 2008.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City, IMD, and the EDA (formerly the IDA) entered into a certain Performance
, Agreement dated November 18, 2004, (Performance Agreement) concerning IMD's proposed
development of certain property mentioned therein and which was subject to certain terms and
conditions contained in such Performance Agreement;
WHEREAS, due to unanticipated time delays which IMD indicated were beyond. its control,
IMD requested certain time extensions for completion of some of IMD's obligations under such
Performance Agreement and the City and the EDA agreed to IMD's request and entered into
Amendment No.1 dated November 14,2006;
WHEREAS, due to further unanticipated time delays which IMD indicated were beyond its
control, IMD requested an additional time extension for completion of IMD's obligations in
Section 2 (D) of the Performance Agreement and the City and the EDA agreed to IMD's request
and entered into Amendment No.2 dated September 18, 2007; .
WHEREAS, due to further unanticipated time delays which IMD indicated were beyond its
control, IMD requested an additional time extension for completion of IMD's obligations in
Section 2 (D) of the Performance Agreement and the City and the EDA agreed to IMD's request
and entered into Amendment No.3 dated June 18,2008; and
WHEREAS, due to additional unanticipated time delays which IMD has indicated were beyond
its control, IMD has requested a further extension of time for complying with IMD's obligations
in Section 2 (D) of the Performance Agreement, as amended by Amendments No.1, No.2, and
No.3. The City and the EDA have agreed to IMD's request and the parties now wish to reduce
to writing their understanding of the time extension that is being granted to IMD by this
Amendment No.4.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, in consideration of the promises and obligations contained in
the original Performance Agreement, Amendment No.1, Amendment No.2, Amendment No.3,
and in this Amendment No.4, mutually agree as follows:
Amendment 4 to P A-lMD.doc
I
Section 1. Certain Limited Time Extension.
The following subsection of Section 2. Oblh!:ations of IMD, of the Performance Agreement is
being modified only.to the extent necessary to provide IMD with an additional time period to
perform certain obligations under that subsection as set forth below. Therefore, Subsection 2
(D), as contained in the Performance Agreement and as modified by Amendments No.1, No.2,
and No.3, is hereby deemed to be replaced effective as of the date of this Amendment No.4
with the replacement Subsection as set out below:
2 (D) On or before April 30, 2009, a drug store,' anticipated to be a Walgreens, will be
opened to the public for business on the Property.
Section 2. Continuation of Terms and Conditions of Performance Aexeement.
All the terms, obligations, and conditions of the original Performance Agreement dated
November 18, 2004, Amendment No.1 dated November 14, 2006, Amendment No.2 dated
September 18,2007, and Amendment No.3 dated June 18,2008, among the parties shall and do
hereby continue in full force and effyct, except and only to the extent as modified above.
SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW
Amendment 4 to PA-IMD.doc
2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No.4 by their authorized
.representatives.
ATTEST/WITNESS:
Printed Name and Title
WITNESS:
Printed Name and Title
(SEAL)
WITNESS:
, Secretary
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
Date:
Appropriation of Funds Required for
this Agreement are subject to future
appropriation:
Director of Finance
Date Acct #
Authorized by Ordinance No:
CITY OF ROANOKE
By:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
IMD Investment Group, LLC
By:
Bland A. Painter, III, Sole Member and Manager
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
By
Charles E. Hunter, III, Chair
Approved as to Execution:
City Attorney
Date:
Amendment 4 to PA-IMD.doc
3
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
City Clerk
October 24, 2008
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hackworth:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 38256-102308 approving the 2008
Revised City of Roanoke Environmental Policy Relating to the Acquisition of Real
Property, recommended-by the City Attorney's letter dated October 23, 2008, to
this Council.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Thursday, October 23,2008.
Sincerely,
/a~~II7.lY;off'rtJ
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
S M M: ew
Attachment
pc: Paul R. Thompson, Jr., Attorney, Woods Rogers PLC, 10 South Jefferson
Street, Suite 1400, Roanoke, Virginia 24011
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
James M. Grigsby, Assistant City Manager for Operations
Robert K. Bengtson, Director of Public Works
R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Sherman M. Stovall,- Director, Management and Budget
Philip C. Schirmer, P.E., L.S., City Engineer
Thomas N. Carr, Director of Planning, Building and Development
Christopher J. Blakeman, MS, Environmental Administrator
jJ~
(
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 23rd day of October, 2Q08.
No. 38256-102308.
A RESOLUTION approving the 2008 Revised City of Roanoke Environmental
Policy Relating to the Acquisition of Real Property, recommended by the City
Attorney's letter dated October 23,2008, to this Council.
WHEREAS, in the acquisition of any interest in real property, any grantee,
including the City of Roanoke, is exposed to potential liability under federal and state
environmental laws;
WHEREAS, City Council first adopted an Environmental Policy relating to the
Acquisition of Real Property in 1993, and Federal laws relating to the Policy have
changed. over the years, necessitating a review of the City's policy;
WHEREAS, under these circumstances, it is prudent for the City to acquire real
property pursuant to a policy designed to attempt to protect the City from such
environmental liability exposure;
WHEREAS, the 2008 Revised City of Roanoke Environmental Policy Relating
to the Acquisition of Real Property ("2008 Revised Environmental Policy"),
recommended by the City Attorney's letter dated October 23, 2008, which Policy was
attached to such letter, is a bal~ced Policy, which updates the City's Policy with the
goal of protecting the City from potential environmental risks and liabilities associated
with real property acquisition without unduly restricting the ability of the City to carry
out projects for the orderly development of the City; and
R-2008 Revised Environmental Policy.doc
1
WHEREAS, this Council is desirous of approving, endorsing, and adopting the
2008 Revised Environmental Policy, which will replace the current Policy;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
the 2008 Revised Environmental Policy recommended by the City Attorney is hereby
approved, endorsed, and adopted by this Council and shall ~e adhered to by all officers
and employees of the City in the acquisition of an interest in real property for or on
behalf of the City.
ATTEST:
~M.IY]/fNU
i, City Clerk.
R-2008 Revised Environmental Policy.doc
2
I.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING
215 CHURCH AVENUE, SW
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595
WILLIAM M. HACKWORTH
CITY AlTORNEY
TELEPHONE: 540-853-243]
FAX: 540-853-1221
EMAIL: cityatty@roanokeva.gov
TIMOTHY R. SPENCER
STEVEN J. TALEVI
GARY E. TEGENKAMP
DAVID 1. COLLINS
HEATHER P. FERGUSON
ASSISTANT CITY AlTORNEYS
October 23, 2008
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject:
2008 Revisions to City's
Environmental Policy Relating to the
Acquisition of Real Property
On July 26, 1993, City Council adopted Resolution No. 31605-072693, which approved an
Environmental Policy Relating to the Acquisition of Real Property (Policy). Such Policy set
forth procedures to be followed by the City in the acquisition of real property for or on behalf of
the City. The Policy sought to try to protect the City from environmental risks and liabilities
associated with real property acquisition without unduly restricting the City's ability to carry out
projects for the orderly development of the City. The Policy was amended by Resolution No.
33258-020397, adopted by City Council on February 3, 1997. The amendment related to
reporting requirements. It provided that reports would be made to City Council on a semi-annual
basis instead of as each transaction occurred.
Over the years environmental rules and regulations have changed. It is now appropriate for the
City's Policy to be updated. In order to update the City's Policy, the City Attorney retained Paul
R. Thomson, Jr., an environmental attorney with Woods Rogers PLC, to update the City's
Policy. Mr. Thomson has worked for the City on several matters involving environmental
issues. Attached is a Memo dated September 17, 2008, from Mr. Thomson to the City Attorney
setting forth the objectives for updating the City's Policy.
After receipt of a proposed Revised Policy from Mr. Thomson, an initial draft was sent to
various City staff for their input. After consideration of the comments from City staff, the
Revised Policy was placed in a final form with redlined changes shown. Accordingly, attached
to this letter is a copy of a Revised Policy with redlined changes being shown. Also attached is a
clean copy of the Revised Policy for City Council's consideration.
While the Revised Policy provides the preferred method to be used for the City to acquire real
property in order to provide reasonable protection to the City, it also recognizes that all risks
cannot be eliminated and that there may be times when a complete evaluation for an acquisition
of real property is not needed or is not practical. Therefore, the policy also provides that after
consideration of information on the property interest to be acquired is presented, the City
Manager may determine that it is in the best interest of the City to proceed to obtain the property
interest without an assessment fully meeting the standards set forth in the Revised Policy, subject
to any procedures that may be required by the City Manager for such property interest
acquisition.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Page Two
October 23, 2008
Recommended Action:
By adoption of the attached Resolution, approve the 2008 Revised City of Roanoke
Environmental Policy Relating to the Acquisition of Real Property that is attached to this letter
(Revised Policy) and provide that such Revised Policy replace the prior Policy effective as of the
date of Council's adoption of this Resolution, and that it should be followed by all officers and
employees of the City in the acquisition of real property for or on behalf of the City.
Authorize the City Manager to take such actions and execute such documents as may be
necessary to implement, administer, and enforce such Revised Policy.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~
William M. Hackworth
City Attorney
WMH:snj
Enclosure
c: Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
James M. Grigsby, Assistant City Manager for Operations
Robert K. Bengtson, Director of Public Works
Sherman M. Stovall, Director of Management and Budget
Philip C. Schirmer, P.E., L.S., City Engineer
Thomas N. Carr, Director of Planning, Building and Development
Christopher 1. Blakeman, MS, Environmental Administrator
Paul R. Thomson, Jr., Esquire, Woods Rogers PLC
l ~ i i 1 ;:;.>~ { ".~ . :: :.}~ ,J ,[ f
'h.U': '. \{,;':1 ~.: ~w:_' '(~ j bJ:.~:
WOODS ROGERS ~
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MEMORANDUM
To:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
William M. Hackworth Esquire
Paul R. Thomson, Jr.
September 17, 2008
Roanoke City Environmental Policy Regarding Real Estate Purchases
1. The objective ofthe changes proposed in the City's Environmental Policy Regarding
Real Estate Purchases is to preserve all the defenses and protections available to the City that are
enumerated in CERCLA, including:
a) The "innocent purchaser" defense (42 USC 9601 (35)(A)(i))
b) The involuntary transfer or acquisition by a governmental entity (42 USC
9601 (A)(ii))
c) The acquisition by inheritance or bequest (42 USC 9601(A)(iii))
d) The Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser liability protection (42 USC 9601(40) and
42 USC 9607 (r) )
e) The Contiguous Property Owner liability protection (42 USC 9607 (q)).
Section 9601 (35)(A) assumes that the contamination predates the acquisition and places the
burden of proof on the defendant landowner and must be read in connection with 42 USC 9607
(b) (1), (2) and (3) which set out the statutory defenses to suits brought under Section 9607.
Those defenses are acts of God, acts of war and acts or omissions of third parties other than an
employee or agent of the defendant or one whose act occurs in connection with a contractual
relationship with the defendant provided that the defendant can establish by a preponderance of
the evidence that he:
a) exercised due care regarding the hazardous substance concerned;
b) he took precautions against foreseeable acts or omissions of such third party and the
consequences that could foreseeably result from such acts or omissions.
2. The perquisite for all ofthe above requires what is now called All Appropriate Inquiry
(AAI) be performed by, and a qualifying report be drafted by, a qualified environmental
professional (EP) as defined at 40 CFR 312.10. Mr. Blakeman would, I believe, qualify as an
EP. While I note that the AAI process (formerly referred to as a Phase I examination) is time
consuming, the regulations allow a person not qualifying as an EP to perform some of the more
time consuming tasks under the supervision of an EP. Thus, it is recommended some
consideration be given to supplying Blakeman with one or more persons who could assist him on
a part-time basis if in-house resources are the preferred method of complying with these
{#1121487-1,077826-00057-01}
William M. Hackworth Esquire
September 17, 2008
Page 2
regulations. Because ofthe greater level of detail now required, procuring the AAI via vendors
will now likely cost between $2,000 to $2,500 for small tracts and proportionately more as the
size and/or complexity increases.
We would recommend that performance of AAI be considered for most, ifnot all, transactions
including behests and donations. Because your previous policy indicated that for speed and cost
considerations the City would screen out some sites to skip the then known as Phase I process,
the result would be a documented acceptance of the risk and virtually no statutory defense
available under CERCLA.
3. Not considered in the City's earlier Policy were the concepts ofthe Bona Fide
Prospective Purchaser (BFPP) and Contiguous Property Protections. These were part of the
changes added to CERCLA in 2002. They are especially important in the acquisition of
Brownfield sites and provide significant protection subject to the City's willingness to accept
several additional statutory requirements, specifically:
a) Demonstrate that the disposal ofhazardous substances at the facility occurred
before the person acquired the facility;
b) AAI be performed as set out above;
c) All legally required notices are to be given regarding discovery ofrelease of
hazardous substances;
d) Due care is exercised regarding hazardous substances at the facility by:
..
o Stopping any continuing release,
o Preventing future releases, and,
o Preventing or limiting exposure to any previously released hazardous
substances.
e) Providing cooperation, assistance and access to authorized persons (EP A or
DEQ);
f) Complying with any institutional controls, requests or subpoenas; and,
g) There is no affiliation with any potentially liable party.
4. The Contiguous Property Protection provisions of 42 USC 9607 (q) substantially track
the BFPP requirements and provide protection to an innocent contiguous property owner who
may have a plume of contamination moving toward or actually under his property caused by
another. This protection is subject to the same requirements as a BFPP determination.
{#1121487-1, 077826-00057-01}
William M. Hackworth Esquire
September 17, 2008
Page 3
5. Other options available to alleviate mounting costs might be to have an approved
environmental consultants list that those who would donate a property to the City would be
required to use at their own expense to demonstrate that the AAI requirements had been
complied with by grantor. This might only be practical in the large tract or roads in a
subdivision situation. Also, worthy of consideration might be the requirement of indemnification
ofthe City by the grantor, recognizing that indemnification is only as good as the person or
entity behind the indemnification.
6. Practical considerations. Because of escalating costs and the time involved in preparing
an AAI report, there needs to be a well thought out set of criteria for exceptions to the
performance of AAI. Those within City administration charged with managing risk should
consider factors such as:
a) The size ofthe tract.
b) The location and history ofthe area in which the property is located.
c) Whether there will be an easement or fee interest acquired.
d) Are there concerns about contamination on an adjoining parcel?
e) Are there obvious signs of distressed vegetation or other signs of contamination?
f) Have releases of petroleum or hazardous substances been reported nearby? What
is their current status?
It should also be remembered that, once the decision is made to not do an AAI, there will be a
record that the City has assumed the risk of contamination for CERCLA purposes.
cc: Gary E. Tegenkamp
{#1121487-1, 077826-00057-01}
2008 REVISED CITY OF ROANOKE
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY RELATING
TO THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY .
Effective Date: October 23, 2008
INTENT
It is the intent of this policy to protect the City from environmental liability in the
acquisition of any interest in real property. This policy attempts to protect the City from
environmental risks and liabilities associated with property acquisition without prejudicing the
ability ofthe City to carry out projects needed to advance the health, welfare and safety of tffif its
citizens and the orderly development ofthe City.
POLICY
Except as hereinafter provided, prior to the acquisition of any interest in real property by
the City, an environmental assessment complying with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 312
shall be conducted by a qualified staff member with environmental expertise or an environmental
consultant retained by the City, who must meet the qualifications of an Environmental
Professional (EP) as set out in 40 CFR312.10. Upon written approval of the City Manager, after
consultation. with the City's Environmental Administrator Compliunce Officer, Risk
Management Officer and City Attorney, the City may purchase or otherwise acquire property
without conducting the complete environmental assessment defined below. The City Manager
shall immcdiatcly transmit semi-annually a wpy summary report of ftfl)'- -1!1Lsuch approval~,
2008 Revised Environ RP Policy-I 0-14-08.doc
I
which shall for each approval contain a statement of the grounds for not conducting a complete
environmental assessment, if one is not done, to City Council and the City Attorney.
If the results of the All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) Report (formerly known as a Phase I
environmental assessment) as required under 42 U.S.C. 9601(35)(A) Phase I environmental
assessment indicate the need for further analysis of the potential environmental liability
associated with the property, the City's Environmental Administrator Compliance Officer, in
consultation with the Risk Management Officer and the City Attorney, shall assess the potential
environmental liability associated with the proposed acquisition and make a recommendation to
the City Manager whether to proceed to a Phase II environmental assessment prior to making the
decision as to whether and on what terms and conditions to proceed with the acquisition.
The City shall not accept any interest in real property by gift~ bequest, or exchange
without a satisfactory environmental assessment of the property performed by a qualified staff
member EP with the required environmental expertise or by afl: qualified environmental
consultant of the eCity's choice, wryich inat the sole discretion of the City may be at the expense
ofthe grantor or donor.
Notwithstanding anything else in this Policy, aAfter consideration of the information on
the property interest to be acquired is presented, the City Manager may determine that it is in the
best interest of the Citv to proceed to obtain the property interest without an assessment fully
meeting the standards of AAL subiect to' any procedures that may be required by the City
Manager for such property interest acquisition.
2008 Revised Environ RP Policy-I 0-14-08.doc
2
Definitions
1. Environmental Administrator Compliance Officer shall mean that individual
qualified as an EP designated by the City Manager to initiate, monitor and
evaluate environmental compliance and risks for the City.
2. Interest in real property shall include~ but not be limited to~ fee simple title,
easement interests, leasehold interests, and rights of way, but shall not include
liens the City may hold in the course of collecting taxes, or making loans for such
things as housing rehabilitation.
3. Environmental Assessment shall mean a series of studies regarding a-property for
which an interest is being acquired in order to determine if there are any potential
or actual environmental hazards or hazardous substances present on or adjacent to
such property the premises, or in any structure located on such property -the
premises in conformance with the All Appropriate Inquiry standard as defined by
42 U.S.C. 9601(35)(A).~ The purpose of an environmental assessment is to permit
the City to qualify and quantifyquantify the environmental risks associated with
the property acquisition and to qualify for all defenses to actions brought under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) (42 USC 9601, et seq.) which might arise against the City for the
post acquisition release or threatened release of hazardous substances as defined
in CERCLA.
2008 Revised Environ RP Policy-l 0-14-08.doc
3
4. All Appropriate Inquiry (formerly known as a Phase I Environmental
Assessment) shall include all the requirements in 40 CFR Part 312 including but
not limited to:
A. A chain of title search for a period of at leaH~t sixty (60) years to
determine the nature of prior owners and uses of the property;
B. Completion of the required written report by the EP within one year prior
to the date of acquisition.
Bo-C. Searches for recorded environmental cleanups and liens.Reviev/ of data
and documcnts from thc transfcror, prior sitc owners and occupants, and
ncighbors which should includc prior uscs, cnvironmcntal compliancc
data, and data on prior enforccmcnt actions and/or la"'lsuits;
G-:D. Interviews with past and present owners, operators, and occupants.
Rcvicv/ of data and documcnts from goycrnmcntal agcncics, including thc
EPA and othcr federal agencies as "'lcll as state and local cntitics such as
the Local Commissioner (e.g. building and dcmolition pcrmits);
I+.-E. Reviews of federal, state and local government records. Property
inspection of thc site and the intcrior of euch building on thc propcrty,
including prior rcview of descriptions and maps of thc property;
E:-F. Visual inspections of the property and of adioining properties. A scarch
for the location of and dctcrmination of thc contents of any undcrground
storage tanks.
2008 Revised Environ RP Policy-I 0-14-08.doc
4
G. Identification of data gaps; and,
H. . The required declaration bv the EP (See 40 CFR 312.21 (d) ).
5. A Phase II Environmental Assessment-, if undertaken, shall include sampling and
analysis of site materials to determine the nature and horizontal and vertical extent
of the identified or suspected contamination in question and/or to define or
confirm recognized environmental conditions or to fill data gaps as identified by
the initial AAI Report.
END
2008 Revised Environ RP Policy-I 0- J 4-08.doc
5
2008 REVISED CITY OF ROANOKE
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY RELATING
TO THE ACQUISITION o,F REAL PROPERTY
EffeCtive Date: October 23, 2008
INTENT
It is the intent of this policy to protect the City from environmental liability in the
acquisition of any interest in real property. This policy attempts to protect the City from
environmental risks and liabilities associated with property acquisition without prejudicing the
ability of the City to carry out projects needed to advance the health, welfare and safety of its
citizens and the orderly development of the City.
POLICY
Except as hereinafter provided, prior to the acquisition of any interest in real property by
the City, an environmental assessment complying with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 312
shall be conducted by a qualified staff member with environmental expertise or an environmental
consultant retained by the City, who must meet the qualifications of an Environmental
Professional (EP) as set out in 40 CFR 312.10. Upon written approval of the City Manager, after
consultation with the City's Environmental Administrator, Risk Management Officer and City
Attorney, the City may purchase or otherwise acquire property without conducting the complete
environmental assessment defined below. The City Manager shall transmit semi-annually a
.2008 Revised Environ RP Policy-clean.doc
1
summary report of all such approvals, which shall for each approval contain a statement of the
grounds for not conducting a complete environmental assessment, if one is not done, to City
Council and the City Attorney.
If the results of the All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) Report (formerly known as a Phase I
environmental assessment) as required under 42 U.S.c. 960l(35)(A) indicate the need for further
analysis of the potential environmental liability associated with the property, the City's
Environmental Administrator, in consultation with the Risk Management Officer and the City
Attorney, shall assess the potential environmental liability associated with the proposed
acquisition and make a recommendation to the City Manager whether to proceed to a Phase II
environmental assessment prior to making the decision as to whether and on what terms and
conditions to proceed with the acquisition.
The City shall not accept any interest in real property by gift, bequest, or exchange
without a satisfactory environmental assessment of the property performed by a qualified EP
with the required environmental expertise or by a qualified environmental consultant of the
City's choice, which in the sole discretion of the City may be at the expense of the grantor or
donor.
Notwithstanding anything else in this Policy, after consideration of the information on the
property interest to be acquired is presented, the City Manager may determine that it is in the
best interest of the City to proceed to obtain the property interest without an assessment fully
meeting the standards of AAI, subject to any procedures that may be required by the City
Manager for such property interest acquisition.
2008 Revised Environ RP Policy-clean.doc
2
Definitions
1. . Environmental Administrator shall mean that individual qualified as an EP
designated by the City Manager to initiate, monitor and evaluate environmental
compliance and risks for the City.
2. Interest in real property shall include, but not be limited to, fee simple title,
easement interests, leasehold interests, and rights of way, but shall not include
liens the City may hold in the course of collecting taxes, or making loans for such
things as housing rehabilitation.
3. Environmental Assessment shall mean a series of studies regarding property for
which an interest is being acquired in order to determine if there are any potential
or actual environmental hazards or hazardous substances present on or adjacent to
such property, or in any structure located on such property in conformance with
the All Appropriate Inquiry standard as defined by 42 US.c. 9601(35)(A). The
purpose of an environmental assessment is to permit the City to quantify the
environmental risks associated with the property acquisition and to qualify for all
defenses to actions brought under the 'Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 USC 9601, et seq.) which might
arise against the City for the post acquisition release or threatened release of
hazardous substances as defined in CERCLA.
4. All Appropriate Inquiry (formerlv known as a Phase I Environmental
Assessment) shall include all the requirements in 40 CFR Part 312 including but
not limited to:
2008 Revised Environ RP Policy-clean.doc
3
A. A chain of title search for a period of at least sixty (60) years to determine
the nature of prior owners and uses of the property;
B. Completion of the required written report by the EP within one year prior
to the date of acquisition;
C. Searches for recorded environmental cleanups and liens;
D. Interviews with past and present owners, operators, and occupants;
E. Reviews of federal, state and local government records;
F. Visual inspections ofthe property and of adjoining properties;
G. Identification of data gaps; and
H. The required declarationby the EP (See 40 CFR 312.21(d)).
5. A Phase II Environmental Assessment, if undertaken, shall include sampling and
analysis of site materials to determine the nature and horizontal and vertical extent
of the identified or suspected contamination in question and/or to define or
confirm recognized environmental conditions or to fill data gaps as identified by
the initial AAI Report.
END
2008 Revised Environ RP Policy-clean,doc
4
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
City Clerk
October 24, 2008
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
CECEUA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
George J. A. Clemo, Attorney
Woods Rogers PLC
P. O. Box 14125
Roanoke, Virginia 24038-4125
Dear Mr. Clemo:
I am attaching copies of Resolution No. 38257-102308, authorizing the sale of
not to exceed Seventeen Million Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars
($17,850,000.00) of City of Roanoke, Virginia, General Obligation Public
Improvement Bonds, Series 2008A, to the Virginia Resources Authority;
Resolution No. 38258-102308 amending Resolution No. 38239-091508
authorizing the issuance of not to exceed Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($7,500,000.00), General Obligation School Bonds of the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, Series 2008A, to be sold to the Virginia Public School
Authority; and Resolution No. 38259-102308 amending Resolution 38240-
091508 authorizing the issuance and sale to the Virginia Public School
Authority of the City's not to exceed Ten Million Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($10,850,000.00) General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2008B, to be
sold to the Virginia Public School Authority. .
The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Thursday, October 23,2008.
Sincerely,
~ in fnt10vV
Stephanie M. Moon, C~C
City Clerk
SM M :ew
Attachment
George J. A. Clemo
October 24, 2008
Page 2
pc: Donald G. Gurney, Esquire, Hawkins, Delafield & Wood, LLP
67 Wall Street, 11 th Floor, New York, New York 10005
Jay Conrad, Senior Vice President, BB&T Capital Markets,
P. O. Box 1575, Richmond, Virginia 23218-1575
Dr. Rita D. Bishop, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools,
P. O. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031
The Honorable Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of Circuit Court
The Honorable Evelyn W. Powers, City Treasurer
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 23rd day of October, 2008.
No. 38257-102308.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF NOT TO
EXCEED SEVENTEEN MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($17,850,000) OF CITY OF ROANOKE,
VIRGINIA, GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
BONDS, SERIES 2008A, TO THE VIRGINIA RESOURCES
AUTHORITY
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
VIRGINIA:
SECTION 1. Findings and Determinations.
(a) On May 19, 2008, the Council (the "Council") of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia (the "City"), following a public hearing duly noticed and held in accordance with the
provisions of Section 15.2-2606.A of the Code of Virginia, 1950 (the "Virginia Code"), adopted
Resolution No. 38098-051908 authorizing the issuance of $5,500,000 principal amount of
general obligations of the City in the form of general obligation public improvement bonds of the
City for the purpose of providing funds to pay the costs of the acquisition, construction,
reconstruction, improvement, extension, enlarging and equipping of public buildings of and for
the City, such resolution being entitled "A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE
OF FIVE MILLION' FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,500,000) PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, IN
THE FORM OF GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF SUCH
CITY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE
ACQUISI~ION,\ CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT, EXTENSION,
ENLARGEMENT AND EQUIPPING OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS OF AND FOR SUCH CITY;
FIXING THE FORM, DENOMINATION AND CERTAIN OTHER DETAILS OF SUCH
BONDS; PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS; AUTHORIZING THE
PREPARATION OF A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND AN OFFICIAL
STATEMENT RELATING TO SUCH BONDS AND THE DISTRIBUTION THEREOF AND
THE EXECUTION OF A CERTIFICATE RELATING TO SUCH OFFICIAL STATEMENT;
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE
CERTIFICATE RELATING TO SUCH BONDS; AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR
THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A LIKE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES IN
ANTICIPATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF SUCH BONDS; DELEGATING TO
THE CITY MANAGER AND THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CERTAIN POWERS WITH
550836.2031801 RES
RESPECT TO THE SALE AND DETERMINATION OF THE DETAILS OF SUCH BONDS
AND NOTES; AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE,
SALE AND DELNERY OF SUCH BONDS AND NOTES".
(b) On July 21, 2008, the Council, following a public hearing duly noticed
and held in accordance with the provisions of Section 15.2-2606.A of the Virginia Code, adopted
Resolution No. 38166-072108 authorizing the issuance of $6,640,000 principal amount of
general obligations of the City in the form of general obligation public improvement bonds of the
City for the purpose of providing funds to pay the costs of the acquisition, construction,
reconstruction, improvement, extension, enlarging and equipping of various public parking
facilities of and for the City, such resolution being entitled "A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE OF SIX MILLION SIX HUNDRED FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($6,640,000) PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, IN THE FORM OF GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF SUCH CITY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS
TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION,
IMPROVEMENT, EXTENSION, ENLARGEMENT AND EQUIPPING OF VARIOUS
PUBLIC PARKING FACILITIES OF AND FOR SUCH CITY; FIXING THE FORM,
DENOMINATION AND CERTAIN OTHER DETAILS OF SUCH BONDS; PROVIDING
FOR THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS; AUTHORIZING THE PREP ARATION OF A
PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT RELATING
TO SUCH BONDS AND THE DISTRIBUTION THEREOF AND THE EXECUTION OF A
CERTIFICATE RELATING TO SUCH OFFICIAL STATEMENT; AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION AND DELNERY OF A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE
RELATING TO SUCH BONDS; AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE
AND SALE OF A LIKE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES IN ANTICIPATION OF THE ISSUANCE
AND SAL;E OF SUCH BONDS; DELEGATING TO THE CITY MANAGER AND THE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CERTAIN POWERS WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE AND
DETERMINATION OF THE DETAILS OF SUCH BONDS AND NOTES; AND
OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELNERY
OF SUCH BONDS AND NOTES".
-(c) On August 18, 2008, the Council, following a public hearing duly noticed
and held in accordance with the provisions of Section i5.2606.A of the Virginia Code, adopted
Resolution No. 38205-081808 (collectively, with Resolution No. 38098-051908 anq. Resolution
No. 38166-072108, the "Bond Authorizing Resolutions"), authorizing the issuance of $8,210,000
principal amount of general obligations of the City in the form of general obligation public .
improvement bonds of the City for the purpose of providing funds to pay the costs of the
acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, extension, enlarging and equipping of
various public improvement projects of the City, such resolution being entitled "A
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF EIGHT MILLION TWO HUNDRED
TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($8,210,000) PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL
OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VlRGINIA, IN THE FORM OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF SUCH CITY, FOR THE PURPOSE
OF PROVIDING FUNDS TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION,
RECONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT, EXTENSION, ENLARGEMENT AND EQUIPPING
- 2-
550836.2 031801 RES
OF VARIOUS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS OF AND FOR SUCH CITY; FIXING
THE FORM, DENOMINATION AND CERTAIN OTHER DETAILS OF SUCH BONDS;
PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS; AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION
OF A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT
RELATING TO SUCH BONDS AND THE DISTRIBUTION THEREOF AND THE
EXECUTION OF A CERTIFICATE RELATING TO SUCH OFFICIAL STATEMENT;
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE
CERTIFICATE RELATING TO SUCH 'BONDS; AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR
THE ISSUANCE -( AND SALE OF A LIKE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES IN
ANTICIPATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF SUCH BONDS; DELEGATING TO
THE CITY MANAGER AND THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CERTAIN POWERS WITH
RESPECT TO THE SALE AND DETERMINATION OF THE DETAILS OF SUCH BONDS
AND NOTES; AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE,
SALE AND DELIVERY OF SUCH BONDS AND NOTES".
(d) The Council has determined to authorize the sale of not to exceed
$17,850,000 principal amount of the general obligation public improvement bonds of the City
authorized for issuance under the provisions of the Bond Authorizing Resolutions to the Virginia
Resources Authority (the "Authority") in accordance with the provisions of the Bond
Authorizing Resolutions and this Resolution.
SECTION 2. Authorization of Sale of Series 2008A Bonds to Virginia
Resources Authority. Pursuant to Chapter 26 of Title 15.2 of the Virginia Code, the same being
the Public Finance Act of 1991, and the' Bond Authorizing Resolutions, the Council hereby
authorizes the sale of not to exceed $17,850,000 principal amount of the general obligation
public improvement bonds authorized for issuance under the Bond Authorizing Resolutions to
the Authority on such date or dates and at such price or prices (in any event not less than ninety-
two per centum (92.00%) of the principal amount thereof) as shall be determined by the City
Manager and the Director of Finance. Such general obligation public improvement bonds shall
be designated and known as the "City of Roanoke, Virginia, General Obligation Public
Improvement Bonds, Series 2008A" (hereinafter referred to as the "Series 2008A Bonds"). The
City Manager and the Director of Finance (i) are hereby authorized to determine the dated date
of the Series 2008A Bonds, the dates the Series 2008A Bonds shall mature (in any event not later
than twenty-five (25) years from their dated date), the dates on which interest on the Series
2008A Bonds shall be payable, the aggregate principal amount of the Series' 2008A Bonds (in
any event not to exceed $17,850,000) and the principal amount of the Series 2008A Bonds
maturing in each year and (ii) are hereby further authorized to sell the Series 2008A Bonds to the
Authority on such terms and conditions as shall be determined by the City Manager and the
Director of Finance; provided that in no event shall the true interest cost with respect to the
Series 2008A Bonds yxceed seven per centum (7.00%). The City Manager and the Director of
Finance are further authorized to fix the rates of interest to be borne by the Series 2008A Bonds
of each maturity as shall be determined by the Authority and approved by the City Manager and
the Director of Finance in accordance with the immediately preceding sentence. The City
Manager and the Director of Finance are hereby authorized to provide for the redemption of the
Series 2008A Bonds on such terms and conditions as shall be determined by the Authority and
- 3 -
550836.2031801 RES
approved by the City Manager and the Director of Finance; provided, however, in no event shall
any redemption premium payable by the City exceed two per centum (2.00%).
SECTION 3. Authorization of Execution and Deliverv of Financing Agreement.
Local Bond Sale Agreement. Nonarbitrage Certificate and Tax Compliance Agreement and
Other Closing Documents. In connection with the sale of the Series 2008A Bonds to the
Authority, the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to deliver to the Authority a
Financing Agreement by and between the City and the Authority (the "Financing Agreement"), a
Local Bond Sale Agreement by and between the City and the Authority (the "Bond Sale
Agreement") and a Nonarbitrage Certificate and Tax Compliance Agreement by and between the
City and the Authority (the "Nonarbitrage Certificate and Tax Compliance Agreement") in such
forms as shall be approved by the City Manager upon the advice of counsel (including the City
Attorney and Bond Counsel to the City), such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the
execution and delivery of the Financing Agreement, the Bond Sale Agreement and the
Nonarbitrage and Tax Compliance Agreement by the City Manager. The City Manager, the City
Attorney, the City Treasurer, the Director of Finance and other officials of the City are hereby
authorized and directed to execute and deliver such other closing documents relating to the sale
of the Series 2008A Bonds to the Authority under the Financing Agreement, the Bond Sale
Agreement and the Nonarbitrage Certificate and Tax Compliance Agreement as the City
Manager, the City Attorney, the City Treasurer, the Director of Finance and other officials of the
City shall, upon the advice of the City Attorney or Bond Counsel to the City, deem to be
necessary or desirable.
SECTION 4. Form of Series 2008A Bonds; Appointment of Registrar and
Paying Agent. (a) The Series 2008A Bonds, the certificate of authentication of the Registrar
and Paying Agent and the assignment endorsed on the Series 2008A Bonds, shall be in
substantially the forms set forth as exhibits to the Bond Authorizing Resolutions and as an
exhibit to the definitive form of the Financing Agreement.
(b) Regions Bank, in the City of Richmond, Virginia, is hereby appointed to
serve as Registrar and Paying Agent fur the Series 2098A Bonds.
SECTION 5. Official Statement. The Council authorizes and consents to the
inclusion of information with respect to the City in the Preliminary Official Statement and final
Official Statement of the Authority, both prepared in connection with the sale by the Authority of
an issue of its bonds, a portion of the proceeds of which are to be used by the Authority to
purchase the City's Series 2008A Bonds.
SECTION 6. SNAP Investment Authorization. The Council, having been
advised by the City Manager and the Director of Finance that the City has heretofore received
and reviewed the Information Statement (the "Information Statement") describing the State Non-
Arbitrage Program of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("SNAP") and the Contract Creating the
State Non-Arbitrage Program Pool I (the "Contract"), hereby authorizes the City Treasurer. to use
SNAP in connection with the investment of the proceeds of the Series 2008A Bonds. The
Council hereby acknowledges the Treasury Board of the Comnionwealth of Virginia is not, and
shall not be, in any way liable to the City in connection with SNAP, except as otherwise
provided in the Contract;
- 4-
550836.2 031801 RES
SECTION 7. Filing of Resolution with Circuit Court. The City Clerk is hereby
directed to file a copy of this Resolution, certified by the City Clerk to be a true copy hereof,
with the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in accordance with the provisions of
Section 15.2-2607 of the Virginia Code.
SECTION 8. Provisions of Bond Authorizing Resolutions to Continue in Effect
Except as Modified by This Resolution; Conflicting Ordinances. Resolutions and Proceedings.
The provisions of the Bond Authorizing Resolutions shall continue in full force and effect except
to the extent modified by this Resolution. All ordinances, resolutions and proceedings in conflict
with the Bond Authorizing Resolutions and this Resolution are, to the extent of such conflict,
hereby repealed. .
SECTION 9. Effectiveness of Resolution. This Resolution shall be in effect
from and after the adoption of this Resolution by the CounciL
ATTEST:
~ Ih. tr;iJW
City Clerk.
- 5 -
550836.2031801 RES
[Subsidy]
'IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 23rd day of October, 2008.
No. 38258-102308.
RESOLUTION AMENDING
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED
$7,500,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS
OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, SERIES 2008A,
TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY.
WHEREAS, on September 15,2008, the Council (the "Council") ofthe City of Roanoke,
Virginia (the "City") adopted Resolution No. 38239-091508 (the "Subsidy Bond Resolution")
authorizing the issuance and sale to the Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA") of the City's
not to exceed $7,500,000 General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2008A (the "Subsidy Bonds") to
finance a portion ofthe cost of replacing William Fleming High School; and
WHEREAS, the Subsidy Bond Resolution authorized and directed the City Manager to
accept the interest rates on the Subsidy Bonds established by VPSA, equal to ten one-hundredths of .
one percent (0.10%)' over the interest rate to be paid by VPSA for the corresponding principal
payment date of the bonds to be issued by VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"), a portion of the proceeds of
which will be used to.purchase the Bonds, provide that the true interest cost of the Subsidy Bonds
does not exceed five and fifty one-hundredths percent (5.50 %) per annum (such maximum true
interest cost ofthe Subsidy Bonds, the "Maximum TIC"); and
WHEREAS, VPSA has advised that, due to unexpected market conditions, the true interest
cost of the VPSA Bonds likely will be higher than arIticipated and accordingly that the true interest
cost of the Subsidy Bonds might exceed the Maximum TIC authorized by the Subsidy Bond
Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that it is necessary and expedient to increase the
Maximum TIC;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
1. Amendment. Paragraph 4 of the Subsidy Bond Resolution is hereby amended to read in
its entirety as follows:
4. Interest Rates and Principal Installments. The City Manager is hereby
authorized arId direct~d to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by VPSA,
provided that each interest rate shall be ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) over the
interest rate to be paid by VPSA for the corresponding principal payment date of the bonds
to be issued by VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"), a portion ofthe proceeds of which will be used
to purchase the Bonds, and provided further, that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not
exceed seven percent (7.0 %) per annum. The Interest Payment Dates and the Principal
Installments are subject to change at the request of VPSA. The City Manager is hereby
authorized and directed to accept changes in the Interest Payment Dates and the Principal
Installments at the request of VPSA, provided that the aggregate principal amount of the
Bonds. shall not exceed the amount authorized by this Resolution. The execution and
delivery of the Bonds as described in Section 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such
interest rates established by VPSA and Interest Payment Dates and the Principal
Installments requested by VPSA as having been so accepted as authorized by this
Resolution.
2. Subsidy Bond Resolution Ratified and Confirmed. Except as amended hereby, the
Subsidy Bond Resolution is hereby ratified and confirmed, and remains in full force and effect
3. Filill!! of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the City are hereby
authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court
of the City.
4. Further Actions. The members of the Council and all officers, employees and agents of
the City are hereby authorized to take such action as they or anyone of them may consider
necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Subsidy Bonds and any such
action previous.ly taken is hereby ratified and confirmed.
5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
* * *
2
{#1125570-l,077826-O0056-O1}
The undersigned Clerk of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing
constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the City Council held on
October 23, 2008, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such
extract. I hereby further certify that such meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that,
during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was present and that the attendance
and voting of the members in attendance on the foregoing resolution were as follows:.
Present Absent Aye Nay Abstain
David A. Bowers, Mayor X X
Sherman P. Lea, Vice Mayor X
Gwendolyn W. Mason X X
Alvin L. Nash X X
Anita 1. Price X X
Court G. Rosen X X
David B. Trinkle X X
WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of the City of Roanoke, Virginia,~4th day of
October, 2008.
~ m. '101>)J
Clerk,
City of Roanoke, Virginia
[SEAL]
3
{#1125570-l,077826~0056-01}
~~~
[Non-Subsidy]
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 23rd day of October, 2008
38259-102308.
Resolution No::':":;' -102308
RESOLUTION AMENDING
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED
$10,850,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS
OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, SERIES 2oo8B,
TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY.
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2008, the Council (the "Council") of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia (the "City") adopted Resolution No. 38240-091508 (the "Non-Subsidy Bond Resolution")
authorizing the issuance and sale to the Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA") of the City's
not to exceed $10,850,000 General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2008B (the "Non-Subsidy
Bonds") to finance a portion of the cost of replacing William Fleming High School of replacing the
roofs of certain other schools in the City; and
WHEREAS, the Non-Subsidy Bond Resolution authorized and directed the City Manager
to accept the interest rates on the Non-Subsidy Bonds established by VPSA, equal to ten one-
hundredths of one percent (0.10%) over the interest rate to be paid by VPSA for the corresponding
principal payment date of the bonds to be issued by VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"), a portion of the
proceeds of whiCh will be used to purchase the Bonds, provide that the true interest cost of the Non-
Subsidy Bonds does not exceed five and fifty one-hundredths percent (5.50 %) per annum (such
maximum true interest cost of the Non-Subsidy Bonds, the "Maximum TIC"); and
WHEREAS, VPSA has advised that, due to unexpected market conditions, the true interest
cost of the VPSA Bonds likely will be higher than anticipated and accordingly that the true interest
cost of the Non-Subsidy Bonds might exceed the Maximum TIC authorized by the Non-Subsidy
Bond Resolution; and .
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that it is necessary and expedient to increase the
Maximum TIC;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
1. Amendment. Paragraph 4 of the Non-Subsidy Bond Resolution is hereby amended to
read in its entirety as follows:
4. Interest Rates and Principal Installments. The City Manager is hereby
(#1125615-1, 077826-00063-01)
authorized and directed to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by VPSA,
provided that each interest rate shall be ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) over the
interest rate to be paid by VPSA for the corresponding principal payment date of the bonds
to be issued by VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"), a portion of the proceeds of which will be used
to purchase the Bonds,. and provided further, that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not
exceed seven percent (7.0 %) per annum. The Interest Payment Dates and the Principal
Installments are subject to change at the request of VPSA. The City Manager is hereby
authorized and directed to accept changes in the Interest Payment Dates and the Principal
Installments at the request of VPSA, provided that the aggregate principal amount of the
Bonds shall not exceed the amount authorized by this Resolution. The execution and
delivery of the Bonds as described in Section 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such
interest rates established by VPSA and futerest Payment Dates and the Principal
Installments requested by VPSA as having been so accepted as authorized by this
Resolution. .
2. Non-Subsidv Bond Resolution Ratified and Confirmed. Except as amended hereby,
the Non-Subsidy Bond Resolution is hereby ratified and confirmed, and remains in full force and
effect
3. FilinS! of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the City are hereby
authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court
of the City.
4. Further Actions. The members of the Council and all officers, employees and agents of
the City are hereby authorized to take such action as they or anyone of them may consider
necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Non-Subsidy Bonds and any
such action previously taken is hereby ratified and commned. .
5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
* * *
(#1125615-1. 077826-00063-01)
2
The undersigned Clerk of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing
constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the City Council held on
October 23, 2008, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such
extract. I hereby further certify that such meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that,
during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was present and that the attendance
and voting ofthe members in attendance on the foregoing resolution were as follows:.
Present Absent Aye Nay Abstain
David A. Bowers, Mayor X X
Sherman P. Lea, Vice Mayor X
Gwendolyn W. Mason X x
AlvinL. Nash X X
Anita J. Price X X
Court G. Rosen X X
David B. Trinkle X X
WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this 2A:tDay of
October, 2008.
~Jn. .lY7u~
Clerk, (
City of Roanoke,. Virginia
[SEAL]
{#1125615-1, 077826-00063-01}
3
CITY OF ROANOKE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
215 Church Avenue, SW, Suite 461
PO Box 1220
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1220
Telephone: (540) 853-2821
Fax: (540) 853-6142
ANN H. SHAWVER, CPA
Director of Finance
October 23, 2008
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Vice-Mayor
Honorable Gwendolyn W. Mason, Council Member
Honorable Alvin L. Nash, Council Member
Honorable Anita J. Price, Council Member
Honorable Court G. Rosen, Council Member
Honorable David B. Trinkle, Council Member
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Approval of Resolutions to Issue Bonds to Virginia Resources Authority
and to Adjust Maximum Allowable True Interest Cost on Bonds
Included in the City's FY09-13 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is planned issuance
of bonds in the amount of $36.2 million during FY09. City Council has authorized the
sale of these bonds, and only a few steps remain to finalize activities relative to this
financing. The following actions are requested by City Council:
. Adopt the accompanying resolution to approve sale of $17.85 million bonds to
the Virginia Resources Authority (VRA). The VRA is an entity created by the
General Assembly to provide cost-effective financing for cities such as Roanoke.
VRA funding can be utilized to support projects such as public safety,
transportation, flood prevention, brownfield remediation, parks and recreation,
local government buildings and other government projects. Use of VRA bonds
entails less staff effort, relieves the City of the requirement of obtaining an
updated bond rating, and results in lower bond issuance costs as a result of the
pooling effect with other localities. The interest rate on VRA bonds is slightly
higher than the rate the City could obtain on its own general obligation bonds,
but other factors work together to outweigh this benefit.
· Also, and specifically as a result of the tumultuous credit markets we have
recently been experiencing, City Council is requested to adopt resolutions to
increase the allowable limit on the interest rate to be achieved by the City on its
upcoming bond sales:
. -,.'
l.::",;' .
'. '\.
, - ....'.:
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
October 23, 2008
Page 2
o A resolution permitting a True Interest Cost (TIC) of not more than 7.0%
on not-to-exceed $10.85 million subsidy bonds to be sold to VPSA as
previously approved by City Council.
o A resolution permitting a True Interest Cost (TIC) of not more than 7.0%
on not-to-exceed $7.5 million non-subsidy bonds to be sold to VPSA as
previously approved by City Council.
o The aforementioned resolution of approval to issue bonds of not-to-
exceed $17.85 million bonds to be sold to VRA will also indude a
provision that interest shall' not exceed 7.0%.
It should be noted that the references rates of 7.0% are being recommended in lieu of
the 5.5% to 6.0% levels previously adopted by City Council due to the constraints that
are currently affecting credit markets. We are quite hopeful that the City will not need
to borrow at rates close to this level, however we recommend City Council approve a
higher interest rate to protect the City's interest in participating in these pooled bond
sales at all. Borrowers whose interest levels are deemed insufficient by VRA, VPSA
and/or their financial advisors and bond counsels will not be permitted to participate
in the bond sales.
Bonds are expected to be sold to the VPSA on or around October 29 and to the VRA the
week of November 17. A report will be made to City Council following these sales to
announce the terms obtained by the City.
Sincerely,
~'r-
Ann H. Shawver
Director of Finance
-------
c: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk
Sherman M. Stovall, Director of Management & Budget
Rita Bishop, Superintendent, Roanoke City Schools
Curtis Baker, Deputy Superintendent for Operations
Donald Gurney, Hawkins Delafield & Wood LLP
George Clemo, Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove
John J. Conrad, BB&T Capital Markets
i ;J: ,::~:i ...; H:' '{"'fl
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
City Clerk
October 23,2008
Ann H. Shawver
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Shawver:
I am attaching copy of Budget Ordinance No. 38260-102308 appropriating
funds from the Commonwealth government, and amending and reordaining
certain sections of the 2008-2009 School Fund Appropriations.
The abovereferenced measure w.as adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Thursday, October 23, 2008, and is in
fu II force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
~ P).IrJOlM.)
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
SM M :ew
Attachment
pc: Dr. Rita D. Bishop, Su perintendent, Roanoke City Pu blic Schools,
P. O. Box 1 3145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031
Cindy H. Poulton, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board, P. O. Box 13145,
Roanoke, Virginia 24031
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Management and Budget
~
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 23rd day of October, 2008.
No. 38260-102~08.
AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding from the Commonwealth government
amending and reordaining certain sections of. the 2008-2009 School Fund
Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following
sections of the 2008-2009 School Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby,
amended and reordained to read and provide as follows:
Appropriations
Teacher Salary
Social Security
Revenues
State Grant Receipts
302-110-1305-0230-347C-61100-41121-3-01 $ 4,645
302-110-1305-0230-347C-61100-42201-3-01 355
302-000-0000-0000-347C-00000-32400-0-00 5,000
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading
of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
4-1..-,1 ( '. / .... rn. IY1 OOYV
/~~~! ./
City Cierk. -
CITY OF ROANOKE
SCHOOL BOARD
P.O. Box 13145, ROANOKE, VA 24031 .540-853-2381 .540-853-2951
October 23, 2008
The Honorable David Bowers, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Members of Council:
As the result of official School Board action at its October 14 meeting, the Board
respectfully requests the appropriation of $5,000.00 for the Virginia Middle School Teacher
Corps program. The funds will assist schools designated as "at risk in mathematics" to fill
teaching vacancies with qualified, experienced math teachers and improve student
achievement in mathematics. This grant supports a salary differential for a qualifying math
teacher at Jackson Middle School. This continuing program is one hundred percent
reimbursed with State funds.
The School Board thanks you for your approval of the appropriation request.
Sincerely,
~~~~
Cindy H. )oulton, Clerk
re
cc:
Mr. David B. Carson
Dr. Rita D. Bishop
Mr. Curtis D. Baker
Mrs. Vivian Penn-Timity
Ms. Darlene L. Burcham
Mr. William M. Hackworth
Mrs. Ann H. Shawver
Ms. Dorothy Hoskins (with
accounting details)
l~.'/. {} .....r:::l.;. 'I~.l
'! . ~ . -
';'" i. ~j 1:: .
CITY OF ROANOKE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
215 Church Avenue, SW, Suite 461
PO Box 1220
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1220
Telephone: (540) 853c282l
Fax: (540) 853-6142
ANN H. SHAWVER, CPA
Director of Finance
October 23, 2008
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Vice-Mayor
Honorable Gwendolyn W. Mason, Council Member
Honorable Alvin L. Nash, Council Member
Honorable Anita J. Price, Council Member
Honorable Court G. Rosen, Council Member
Honorable David B. Trinkle, Council Member
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject: School Board Appropriation Request
As the result of official School Board action at its October 14th meeting, the Board
respectfully requests that City Council appropriate $5,000 for the Virginia Middle
School Teacher Corps program. The funds will assist schools designated as "at risk in
mathematics" to fill teaching vacancies with qualified, experienced math teachers and
improve student achievement in mathematics. This grant supports a salary differential
for a qualifying math teacher at Jackson Middle School. This continuing program is
one hundred percent reimbursed with 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.
Sincerely,
;tiJ~V\~
Ann H. Shawver
Director of Finance
c: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk
Sherman M. Stovall, Director of Management and Budget
Rita D. Bishop, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools
0, ". ~.' .~: :- Gf _
5
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
City Clerk
October 23,2008
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
D~ar Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 38261-102308 amending and reordaining
Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure, Chapter 2, Administration, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended; amending certain of City Council's rules of
procedure.
,
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Thursday, October 23, 2008, and is in
full force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
A~~ In. h]oryV
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
S M M: ew
Attachment
pc: Municipal Code Corporation, P. O. Box 2235, Tallahassee, Florida 32316
The Honorable Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of the Circuit Court
Ronald S. Albright, Clerk, General District Court
David C. Wells, Clerk, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
Raymond F. Leven, Office of the Magistrate
Lora A. Wils'on, Law Librarian
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
Sheila N. Hartman, CMC, Deputy City Clerk
Cecelia R. Tyree, Assistant Deputy City Clerk
\)~~
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 23rd day of October, 2008.
No. 38261-102308.
AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure. of Chapter 2,
Administration, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979); as amended, amending certain of City Council's
rules of procedure; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council ofthe City of Roanoke as follows:
1. Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure, of Chapter 2, Administration, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, is hereby amended and reordained to read and provide as follows:
92-15. Rules of Procedure.
Pursuant to section 8 of the Charter, providing for the determination of its
rules by the council, the following rules set out in this section are adopted.
Rule 1. Regular meetings; organizational meeting; amendments to meeting
schedule; continuance of meeting due to emergency; and adjournment of
meetings.
(a) Council shall hold regular meetings on such days as may be
prescribed by resolution of the council adopted at its organizational meeting
pursuant to subsection (b). hereof. Should the day established by city council
as the regular meeting day fall on any legal holiday of the city, the meeting
shall be held on the next following regular business day, without action of
any kind by the city council. Meetings of city council shall be automatically
adjourned at 11 :00 p.m., unless a motion setting a new time for adjournment
be made, seconded and unanimously adopted. The regular meetings of
council shall be held in the Council Chan;1bers, Room 450 of the municipal
building in the city, unless otherwise provided by resolution of council.
(b) The first meeting of city council in the month of July shall be referred
to as the organizational meeting. The days, times and places of regular
meetings to be held during the ensuing months shall be established by
resolution at the organizational meeting.
( c)' If the city council subsequently prescribes any public plac~ other than
the initial public meeting place, or any day or time other than that initially
established, as a meeting day, place or time, .the city council shall pass a
resolution as to such future meeting day, place or time. The city coUncil shall
K:\Measures\Code Amendment Section 2-15 Rules of Procedure Council 2008.doc
cause a copy of such resolution to be posted on the door of the Council
Chamber and inserted in a newspaper having a general circulation in the city
at least seven (7) days prior to the first such meeting at such other day, place
or time.
(d) A regular meeting of city council may be continued if the mayor, or
vice-mayor if the mayor is unable to act, finds and declares that weather or
other conditions are such that it is hazardous for members to attend the
regular meeting. Such findings shall be communicated to the members and
the media as promptly as possible. All hearings and other matters previously
advertised shall be conducted at the continued meeting, and no further
advertisement shall be required. Any such continuance declared in the
discretion of the mayor or vice-mayor shall be not beyond the time fixed for
the next regular meeting.
(e) Regular meetings of city council, without further public notice, may
be adjourned from day to day or from time to time or from place to place, not
. beyond the time fixed for the next regular meeting, until the business before
the governing body is completed.
(f) As long as council conducts at least two (2) regular meetings each
month, as required by section 10 of the Charter, if the mayor determines that
there is no business to be conducted at a scheduled meeting, the mayor may
cancel such meeting, in which event the city clerk shall give such notice as is
practical of such cancellation to city council, the public, and the news media.
Rule 2. Call and notice of special meetings. Special meetings of the council
may be held pursuant to call and notice thereof meeting the requirements of
section 10 ofthe Charter.
Rule 3. Limitation on business at special meetings. At any special meeting of
the council, only such business may be transacted or such legislation enacted
as may be mentioned in the call for such meeting or as incident thereto.
Rule 4. General duties of mayor as chairman. The mayor shall be the
chairman of meetings of the council, and shall preserve order and decorum
during sessions, decide all points of order, subject to appeal to the council,
and appoint such committees as maybe ordered by the council and not
otherwise appointed.
Rule 5. Vice-mayor to preside in mayor's absence; duty of members to vote.
In the absence of the mayor, the vice-mayor shall call the council to order
and preside over its meetings. Every member present, when a question is put,
shall vote, unless the council, for good and sufficient reasons, excuses him
from so doing or such member is prohibited from voting by the provisions of
the Virginia Conflicts of Interest Act.
Rule 6. Aye and nay vote. An "aye" and "nay" vote shall be taken for the
passage or adoption of all ordinances and resolutions and may be taken upon
K:\Measures\Code Amendment Section 2-15 Rules of Procedure Council2008.doc
any other matter when required by one (1) member of the council, arId when
so taken, shall be entered upon the journal.
Rule 7. Order of business; hearing of citizens. In the ordinary transaction of
business the following order shall be observed:
(1)
(2)
(3) Hearing of citizens on public matters (2:00 p.m. lueetings). The
presiding officer may place reasonable time limits on speakers during such
time.
(34) Consent agenda.
(45) Advertised public hearings, if any (such hearings shall be scheduled
for the second meeting each month, unless otherwise authorized by council).
(:5-6) Petitions and communications (presentations on behalf of groups or
orgarIizations permitted during this time, if approved by two (2) members of
councilor scheduled by the city manager). Such presentations shall be
limited to fifteen (15) minutes each, unless othenvise permitted by council. .
((; 7) Reports of city officers and comments of City Manager.
(::J8) Reports of committees.
(&9) Unfinished business.
(910) Introduction arId consideration of ordinances and resolutions.
(WIJ) Motions and miscellarIeous business.
(+1-12) Hearing of citizens on public matters (7:00 p.m. meetings). The
presiding officer may place reasonable time limits on speakers during such
time.
(12) Comments of oity manager.
Roll call and call to order.
Presentations and acknowledgments by council.
Rule 7 A. Consent agenda. Those items required to be considered by the
council and considered to be ro~tine, noncontroversial and requiring no
discussion shall be placed on the consent agenda by the city clerk. The clerk
shall note the recommended action for each item. The consent agenda shall
include, among other items, the following:
(1)
(2)
(3) Letters of resignation and communications advising of the
qualification of council appointees.
(4) Resolutions appointing viewers to view streets and alleys petitioned
for vacation, resolutions fixing dates for special and regular meetings of
council and resolutions naming streets arId parks.
(5) Other items considere4 by the clerk to meet the standard hereinabove
set forth.
Approval of minutes.
Setting of matters for public hearing.
Any items placed on the consent agenda by the clerk shall be removed upon
oral request of any member of council, the city manager or other council-
appointed officer made prior to consideration of the consent agenda. The
K:\Measures\Code Amendment Section 2-15 Rules of Procedure Coun~iI2008.doc
remaining items on the consent agenda and the clerk's recommended action
shall then be approved by one (1) motion followed by a roll call vote.
Rule 8. Petitions, communications and applications. All petitions,
communication or applications to the city council at its official meetings
shall be in writing.
Rule 8A. Hearing of citizens. City council sets aside <:1- portion of its meeting
time to hear citizens on public matters and invites and encourages citizens to
address council. Citizens who wish to address council are requested to
complete a "request to speak" form, provided by the city clerk, and shall
conform to such guidelines for speakers as may be promulgated from time to
time by council.
Rule 9. Introduction of ordinance. Every ordinance shall be introduced by a
member of the council.
Rule 10. Reconsideration of questions. When a question has been taken, it
shall be in order for any member voting with the majority to move a
reconsideration thereof at the same or a succeeding meeting, but no question
shall be reconsidered a second time, without the consent of five (5) members
of the council.
Rule 11. Robert's Rules of Order. The rules of parliamentary practice, as
comprised in "Robert's Rules of Order," shall govern the city council in all
cases to which they are applicable, providing they are not in conflict with
these rules or the laws of this state.
Rule 12. Alteration, amendment and suspension of rules. These rules may be
altered or amended at any regular meeting by a vote of at least five (5)
members of the council. Any of these rules may be suspended for the time
being by a vote of at least five (5) members. .
2. Pursuant to Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title
is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST: ,.
City Clerk.
fYl_lY[tJOYu
K:\Measures\Code Amendment Section 2-15 Rules of Procedure Council2008.doc
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
City Clerk
October 24, 2008
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
Darlene. L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 38262-102308 designating six parcels in
the City of Roanoke bearing Official Tax Map Nos. 2720601, 2720602,
2730216, 2730219, 2730220, and 2730221, near the intersection of Old
Stephens Road and Shenandoah Avenue, as a "revitalization area" as provided in
Section 36-55.30:2, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Thursday, October 23, 2008.
Sincerely,
~~rn. ::Jb~
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
S M M: ew
Enclosu re
pc: Theodore J. Edlich, III, Executive Director, Total Action Against Poverty,
P. O. Box 2868, Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2868 v
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 23rd day of October, 2008.
No. 38262-102308.
A RESOLUTION designating an area within the City as a revitalization area.
WHEREAS, Total Action Against Poverty in the Roanoke Valley, Inc., (TAP)
has requested that Council designate six parcels in the City, being Official Tax Map Nos.
2720601, 2720602, 2730216, 2730219, 2730220, and 2730221, near the intersection of
Old Stephens Road and Shenandoah Avenue, as a "revitalization area" as provided in
Section 36-55.30:2, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended;
WHEREAS, Section 36-55.3.0:2, Code of Virginia, provides that the governing
body ofa locality may, by resolution, designate an area within such city as a.
revitalization area if the governing body makes the following determinations with regard
to such area:"(i) either (a) the area is blighted, deteriorated, deteriorating or, if not
rehabilitated, likely to deteriorate by reason that the buildings, improvements or other
facilities in such area are subject to one or more of the following conditions: dilapidation;
obsolescence; overcrowding; inadequate ventilation, light or sanitation; excessive land
coverage; deleterious land use; or faulty or inadequate design, quality or condition; or (b)
the industrial, commercial or other economic development of such area will benefit the
city or county but such area lacks the housing needed to induce manufacturing, industrial,
commercial, governmental, educational, entertainment, community development,
healthcare or nonprofit enterprises or undertakings to locate or remain in such area; and
(ii) private enterprise and investment are not reasonably expected, without assistance, to
produce the construction or rehabilitation of decent, safe and sanitary housing and
supporting facilities that will meet the needs of low and moderate income persons and
families in such area and will induce other persons and families to live within such area
and thereby create a desirable economic mix of residents in such area;"
WHEREAS, City Council has examined the information about the proposed
revitalization area provided by TAP, and hereby determines that the area consisting of
Official Tax Map Nos. 2720601, 2720602, 2730216, 2730219, 2730220, and 2730221
constitutes a revitalization area because (i) it is blighted, deteriorated and deteriorating,
and (ii) private enterprise and investment are not reasonably expected, without assistance,
to produce the construction or rehabilitation of decent, safe and sanitary housing and
supporting facilities that will meet the needs of low and moderate income persons and
families in such area and will induce other persons and families to live within such area
and thereby create a desirable economic mix of residents in such area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke
that:
1. The area consisting of Official Tax Map Nos. 2720601, 2720602,
2730216, 2730219, 2730220, and 2730221 is hereby designated a revitalization area,
within the meaning of Section 36-55.30:2, Code of Virginia, for the reasons stated above.
2. The Ci~y Clerk is directed to send an attested copy of this resolution to
Ted Edlich, President of Total Action Against Poverty.
ATTEST:
~ In. htdcfYV
. City Clerk. L
~
into
Families in Transition + Head Start + Housing & Community Development
TAP Financial Services + This Valley Works
Peters Creek South Family Homes Subdivision
The proposed Peters Creek South Family Homes subdivision will be "workforce housing"
giving persons making up to $41,880 a year an opportunity for quality home ownership. The cost
of the homes will be at least $180,000 which is in access of area homes assessment which
average between $94,000 and $106,000.
These are homes which will be leased then sold to families whose credit is sound and who can
afford the payments. Many civil servants of the City will be able to qualify for these homes.
This subdivision whose assessment from the beginning will be greater than area housing will
increase the value of the two residential communities that border it.
It is unlikely that housing of this quality will be built on the two parcels of property designated
for this subdivision through any other means.
The very presence of additional single family home housing in this area will increase the public
safety of citizens in the area because there will be more people conscious of what is going on.
Where there are more people with a stake in future ownership there will be more demand on the
police department to patrol this area.
TAP's programs are available to a wide number of individuals and families. For instance, TAP's
mortgage assistance program has helped 47 homeowners this year avoid mortgage default. TAP's
programs and opportunities leading to high school completion, college education, home
ownership, and small business development have benefited thousands of persons who are now
hard working, tax paying citizens. No other agency has had such a wide impact on people
throughout the Roanoke community. This "work force" housing opportunity does the same.
The revitalization designation is restricted to the parcels in question and does not reflect on the
adjoining neighborhoods. The designation as a revitalization area is used for the sole purpose of
the Virginia Housing Development Authority to award points to applicants meeting these
criteria.
In order to make the surrounding community aware of this development project, TAP has
contacted more than 700 residents and holding two community meetings. TAP did this to include
the residential communities in the area. From those meetings we have garnered a great deal of
input and have generated a wide number of residents excited about the subdivision development.
P.O. Box 2868
Roanoke, VA 24001
(540) 345.6781
www.taproanoke.org
,
TAP is currently organizing a neighborhood advisory organization to the Peters Creek South
Family Homes subdivision to assist the TAP organization in making sure that this is a wonderful
contribution to the neighborhood and the community. We already have a list of a dozen
volunteers to assist on this advisory task force. This group will have a representative on the TAP
Board of Directors.
We appreciate the vote of confidence by Roanoke City Council and look forward to working
with the administration on the necessary documents to support our tax credit application. We
appreciate the help of the City Attorney as well.
P.O. Box 2868
Roanoke, VA 24001
(540) 345-6781
www.taproanoke.org
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
City Clerk
October 24, 2008
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
Mr. Adam W. Boitnott
3929 Three Chop Lane, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Boitnott:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke,' which was held on
Thursday, October 23, 2008, you were appointed as a Commissioner of the
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Board of Commissioners, fot a
term ending August 31, 2012.
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 Sections 2.2-3114 and 2.2-3115, Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, I am required to furnish members ofthe Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority, Board of Commissioners with a Financial Disclosure Form.
State Code provisions require that all disclosures must be filed and maintained
as a matter of public record for a period of five years in the Office of the Clerk of
the governing body. Please complete and return the enclosed form to the
undersigned prior to assu ming the duties of you r office.
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
member is required "to read and become familiar with provisions of the Act."
Mr. Adam W. Boitnott
October 24, 2008
Page 2
"
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council,'1 would like to express
appreciation for your willingness to serve the City of Roanoke as a Commissioner
of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Board of Commissioners.
Sincerely,
~ Y'n. WJb~
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
SMM:ew
Enclosures
pc: Glenda Edwards, Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority, P. O. Box 6459, Roanoke, Virginia 24017-0359
Katie L. Drewery, Secretary, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority, Board of Commissioners, P. O. Box 6459, Roanoke, Virginia
24017-0359
Joyce S. Johnson, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) To-wit:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
I, Stephanie M. Moon, 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
the Council of the City of Roanoke, which was held on the twenty-third day of
October 2008, ADAM W. BOITNOTT was appointed as a Commissioner of the
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Board of Commissioners, for a
term ending August 31, 2012.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenty-
, fourth day of October 2008.
City Clerk
111. ~"^-
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
City Clerk
October 24, 2008
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
Mr. Duane R. Smith
3038 Melrose Avenue, N. W., Apt. 714
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Dear Mr. Smith:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke, which was held on
Thursday, October 23, 2008, you were appointed as a Commissioner of the
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Board of Commissioners, for a
term endi'ng August 31, 2012.
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, 21 5 Church Avenue, S. W., prior to serving in the capacity to
which you were appointed.
Pursuant to Sections 2.2-3114' and 2.2-3115, Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, I am required to furnish members of the Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority, Board of Commissioners with a Financial Disclosure Form.
State Code provisions require that all disclosures must be filed and maintained
as a matter of public record for a period of five years in the Office of the Clerk of
the governing body. Please complete and return the enclosed form to the
undersigned prior to assuming the duties of your office.
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
member is required "to read and become familiar with provisions of the Act."
Mr. Duane R. Smith
October 24, 2008
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 Commissioner
of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Board of Commissioners.
Sincerely,
~ r'rl. m()ll>-t)
Stephanie M. Moon, CMc:.:
City Clerk
SM M :ew
Enclosures
pc: Glenda Edwards, Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority, P. O. Box 6459, Roanoke, Virginia 24017-0359
Katie L. Drewery, Secretary, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority, Board of Commissioners, P. O. Box 6459, Roanoke, Virginia
24017-0359 "-
Joyce S. Johnson, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) To-wit:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
I, Stephanie M., Moon, Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the City of Roanoke
and keeper of the records thereof, do hereby certify that at a regu lar meeting of
the Council of the City of Roanoke, which was h.eld on the twenty-third day of
October 2008, DUANE R.' SMITH was appointed as a Commissioner of the
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Board of Commissioners, for a
term ending August 31, 2012.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenty-
fourth day of October 2008.
W~tn, YYJ4W
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
City Clerk
October 24, 2008
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
Mr. Edward Garner
3717 Chesterton Street, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Mr. Garner:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke, which was held on
Thursday, October 23, 2008, you were appointed as a Commissioner of the
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Board of Commissioners, for a
term ending August 31,2012.
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 Sections 2.2-3114 and 2.2-3115, Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, I am required to furnish members of the Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority, Board of Commissioners with a Financial Disclosure Form.
State Code provisions requ ire that all disclosu res must be filed and maintained
as a matter of public record for a period of five years in the Office of the Clerk of
the governing body. Please complete and return the enclosed form to the
undersigned prior to assuming the duties of your office.
Pursuant to Section 2.2-3702, Code of Virgiriia (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
member is required "to read and become familiar with provisions of the Act." ,
Mr. Edward Garner
October 24, 2008
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 Commissioner
of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Board of Commissioners.
Sincerely,
~ (Y)'h')6W
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
SMM:ew
Enclosures
pc: Glenda Edwards, Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority, P. O. Box 6459, Roanoke, Virginia 24017-0359
Katie L. Drewery, Secretary, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority, Board of Commissioners, P. O. Box 6459, Roanoke, Virginia
24017-0359
Joyce S. Johnson, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) To-wit:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
I, Stephanie M. Moon, Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the City of Roanoke
and keeper of the records thereof, do hereby certify that at a regu lar meeting of
the Council of the City of Roanoke, which was held on the twenty-third day of
October 2008, EDWARD GARNER was appointed as a Commissioner of the
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Board of Commissioners, for a
term ending August 31" 2012.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenty-
fourth day of October 2008.
J;:t;:[i~ tho fY)btNy
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
October 24,2008
Ms. Mary V. Hagmaier Dykstra
1928 Warrington Road
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Dear Ms. Dykstra:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held on Thursday,
October 23,2008, you were appointed as a member of the Architectural Review
Board, for a term of three years ending October 1, 2012.
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. Mary Hagmaier Dykstra
October 24, 2008
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 Architectural Review Board.
, ,
SMM:ew
Enclosures
Sincerely,
~O~'M~
City Clerk
pc: Candice Martin, Secretary, Architectural Review Board, wjapplication
Joyce S. Johnson, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
)
) To-wit:
)
CITY OF ROANOKE
I, Stephanie M. Moon, 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-third day of October 2008,
'MARY V. HAGMAIER DYKSTRA was appointed as a member of the Architectural
Review Board, for a term of three years ending October 1,2012.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenty-
fourth day of October 2008.
~~m.~~
City (jerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
City Clerk
October 24, 2008
Ms. Paula L. Prince
550 Mountain Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dear Ms. Prince:
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
At a Iregular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on
Thursday, October23, 2008, you were appointed as a City representative to the
Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, Board of Directors, to replace Robert Williams,
Jr., for a term commencing January 1,2009 and ending December 31,2011.
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 member is required "to read and become familiar with provisions of the
Act."
Ms. Pau la L. Prince
October 24, 2008
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 Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors.
Sincerely,
Ini~
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
SM M :ew
Enclosures
pc: Tim Steller, Executive Director, Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, 301 Elm
Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016-4001
Joyce S. Johnson, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA)
)
CITY OF ROANOKE )
To-wit:
I, Stephanie M. Moon, 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-third day of October 2008,
PAULA L. PRINCE was appointed as a City representative to the Blue Ridge
Behavioral Healthcare, Board of Directors, to replace Robert Williams, Jr. for a
term commencing January 1, 2009 and ending December 31, 2011 .
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenty-
fourth day of October 2008.
~ /, . 1 \ 1rJ. YnoOrv
^~Clerk L
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
City Clerk
November 3, 2008
CECELIA T. WEBB
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
Mr. Ronald j. Jones
2724 Meadowview Drive, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Dear Mr. Jones:
Ata regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on
Thursday, October 23,2008, you were appointed to replace Sara Holland as the
City's Representative to the Project Discovery, Inc., Board of Directors.
Pursuant to Section 2.2-3702, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, I am
enclosing copy ofthe Virginia Freedom of Information Act. The Act requires that
you be provided with a copy within two weeks of your appointment and each
member is required "to read and become familiar with provisions of the Act."
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 its
representative to the Project Discovery, Inc., Board of Directors.
Sincerely,
~'rn.~
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
S M M :ew
Enclosu res
pc: Theodore j. Edlich, III, Executive Director, Total Action Against Poverty,
P. O. Box 2868, Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2868
Joyce S. Johnson, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
)
) To-wit:
)
CITY OF ROANOKE
I, Stephanie M. Moon, 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-third day of October 2008,
RONALD J. JONES was appointed to replace Sara Holland as the City's
Representative to the Project Discovery, Inc., Board of Directors.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this third day of
November 2008.
. {hI ~
City Clerk l
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2401I-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC E-mail: cIerk@roanokeva.gov
City Clerk
SHEILAN. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
October 24, 2008
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
Thursday, October 23, 2008, you were reappointed as a member of the Board
of Zoning Appeals, for a term of three years ending December 31, 2011.
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, 21 5 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
October 24, 2008
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
Roa.noke as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Sincerely,
~ 1>7. h!bOy,)
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
S M M: ew
Enclosu res
pc: RebeccaJ. Cockram, Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals
Joyce S. Johnson, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA)
)
CITY OF ROANOKE )
To-wit:
I, Stephanie M. Moon, 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-third day of October 2008,
JOSEPH F. MILLER was reappointed as a member of the Board of Zoning
Appeals, for a term of three years ending December 31,2011.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenty-
fourth day of October, 2008.
~ rn YhO\W
City Clerk' ~
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
October 24, 2008
Mr. William D. Poe
1015 Oakwood Drive, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 5
Dear .M r. Poe:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on
Thursday, October 23, 2008, you were reappointed as a member of the Board
of Zoning Appeals, for a term of three years ending December 31 , 2011.
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
October 24, 2008
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,
~ m. YY\.6/lYL-
Stephanie M. Moon, C~
City Clerk
SMM:ew
Enclosu res
pc: Rebecca). Cockram, Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals
Joyce S. Johnson, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA)
)
CITY OF ROANOKE )
To-wit:
I, Stephanie M. Moon, 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-third day of October 2008,
WILLIAM D. POE was reappointed as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals,
for a term of three years ending December 31 , 2011 .
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenty-
fourth day of October, 2008.
~ hi. m6b-tu
City Clerk 'L
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
October 24, 2008
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
Ms. Diana B. Sheppard
2529 Floraland Drive, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Dear Ms. Sheppard:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on
Thursday, October 23, 2008, yo'u were reappointed as a member of the Board
of Zoning Appeals, for a term of three years ending December 31 , 2011.
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, J 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. Sheppard
October 24, 2008
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,
~dh. ~&>V
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
SM M: ew
Enclosu res
pc: RebeccaJ. Cockram, Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals
Joyce S. Johnson, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA)
)
CITY OF ROANOKE )
To-wit:
I, Stephanie M. Moon, 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-third day of October 2008,
DIANA B. SHEPPARD was reappointed as a member of the Board of Zoning
Appeals, for a term of three years ending December 31 , 2011 .
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenty-
fourth day of October, 2008.
- rn~ h1 ()W
City Clerk L
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC E-mail: cIerk@roanokeva.gov
City Clerk
SHEILAN. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
October 24, 2008
Mr. Richard A. Rife
1416 Sherwood Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Dear Mr. Rife:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on
Thursday, October 23, 2008, you were reappointed as a member of the City
Planning Commission, for a term of four years ending December 31,2012.
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. Richard A. Rife
October 24, 2008
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 t,o the City of
Roanoke as a member of the City Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
~rn.~
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
SMM:ew
Enclosu res
pc: Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Joyce S. Johnson, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA)
)
CITY OF ROANOKE )
To-wit:
I, Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk, anc;f 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-third day of October 2008,
RICHARD A. RIFE was reappointed as a member of the City Planning
Commission, for a term of fou r years ending December 31 , 2012.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenty-
fourth day of October 2008.
~ 1h.1YfOrJ
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC yroanokeva.gov
City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
CECELlA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
October 24, 2008
Mr. Fredrick M. Williams
3725 Sunrise Avenue, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Dear Mr. Williams:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on
Thursday, October 23, 2008, you were reappointed as a member of the City
Planning Commission, for a term of four years ending December 31, 2012.
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. Fredrick M. Williams
October 24, 2008
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 a~ a member of the City Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
~ (Y). hLD~
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
SM M: ew
Enclosu res
pc: Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Joyce S. Johnson, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA)
)
CITY OF ROANOKE )
To-wit:
I, Stephanie M. Moon, 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-third day of October 2008,
FREDRICK M. WILLIAMS was reappointed as a member of the City Planning
Commission, for a term of four years ending December 31, 2012.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenty-
fourth day of October 2008.
~Jrn. rr;D~
. City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
City Clerk
October 24, 2008
SHEILAN. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
Ms. LoraJ. Katz
2644 Robin Hood Road, S. E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Ms. Katz:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on
Thursday, October 23, 2008, you were appointed as a member of the City
Planning Commission, for a four-year term commencing January 1, 2009 and
ending December 31,2012.
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 member is required "to read and 'become familiar with provisions of the
Act."
Pursuant to Section 2.2-3115, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, I am
required to furnish members of the City PlanningCdmmission with a form for
Disclosure of Real Estate Holdings by December 10 of each year. State Code
provisions further provide that all disclosures must be filed and maintained as a
matter of public record for a period of five years in the Office of the Clerk of the
governing' body. Please complete and return the enclosed form to the
undersigned by Thursday, January 15,2008.
Ms. Loraj. Katz
October 24, 2008
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 City Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
~ m. h\~bYV
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC G
'City Clerk
S M M :ew
Enclosures
pc: Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission, w/application
Joyce S. Johnson, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA)
)
CITY OF ROANOKE )
To-wit:
I, Stephanie M. Moon, 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-third day of October 2008,
LORA J. KATZ was appointed as a member of the City Planning Commission,
for a fou r-year term commencing January 1, 2009 and ending December 31,
2012.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roar,oke this twenty-
fourth day of October 2008.
~ In. rno~
I Ci~y Clerk L
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Snite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-II45
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC E-mail: cIerk@roanokeva.gov
City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
October 24, 2008
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
Mr. Chad A. Van Hyning
5101 Carter Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Dear Mr. Van Hyning:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on
Thursday, October 23, 2008, you were appointed as a member of the City
Planning Commission, for a four-year term commencing January 1, 2009 and
ending December 31,2012.
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 member is required "to read and become familiar with provisions of the
Act."
Pursuant to Section 2.2-311 5, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, I am
required to furnish members of the City Planning Commission with a form for
Disclosure of Real Estate Holdings by December 10 of each year. State Code
provisions further provide that all disclosures must be filed and maintained as a
matter of public record for a period of five years in the Office of the Clerk of the
governing body. Please complete and return the enclosed form to the
undersigned by Thursday, January 15,2008.
Mr. Chad A. Van Hyning
October 24, 2008
Page 2
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express
appreciation for your willingness to serve th~ City of Roanoke as a member of
the City Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
W~m.~~
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
SMM:ew
Enclosures
pc: Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission, w/application
Joyce S. Johnson, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA)
)
CITY OF ROANOKE )
To-wit:
. I, Stephanie M. Moon, 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-third day of October 2008,
CHAD A. VAN HYNING was appointed as a member of the City Planning
Commission, for a four-year term commencing January 1, 2009 and ending
December 31,2012.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenty-
fourth day of October 2008.
~~m'hJn~
. City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
City Clerk
Octob-er2'S:2008 -
Mr. Robert N. Richert
41 5 Allison Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dear Mr. Richert:
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
CECELlA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
Your term of office as a member of the Architectural Review Board expired on
October 1, 2008.
The Members of City Council requested that I express sincer~ appreciation for
your service to the, City of Roanoke as a member of the Architectural Review
Board from February 5, 2001 until October 23, 2008. Please find enclosed a
Certificate of Appreciation and an aerial view photograph of the Roanoke Valley
in recognition of your years of service.
Sincerely,
~o'n'~
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
S M M: ew
Enclosu re
pc: Candice Martin, Secretary, Architectural Review Board
Joyce S. Johnson, Assistant to the Mayor
~
...:l "
S s
~
~ 00
~ 0
0 ~ ~
N ~~ (IJ
~ ~ ~
U ~ E-<
~ ~ >0 ~
~O...... ~'~
0 ~ ::q' ~ goo ~
~ = CI.lO
~ ~ E-<~NO E-< U~
U S ~O
Q ~ lI)N U ~
~ ~ O>~~ 0 ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~~
0 ffi . ~ d~
Z ~g~~
~ r:/J ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ffiE-< ~~
~ ;:EE-<~U <:
< ~ '~ <U;:EO Q
U = CI.l~OO CI.lE-<
~ ~ <~~E-< ::q 8~
~ ::q~ E-<
~ ~ 00
~ N
~~
CI.l ~~
~ ~ (IJ
U ~
5 ~ ~~
lXlO
0 ~ ~~
U
~ 8
~' ~ ~
p..,
~
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC E-mail: c1erk@roanokeva.gov
City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
. Deputy City Clerk
CECELlA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
October 28, 2008
Mr. Joseph W. Lee, III
31 5 2Yh Street, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Lee:
Your term of office as a Commissioner of the Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority expired on August 31 , 2008.
The Members of City Council requested that I express sincere appreciation for
your service to the City of Roanoke as a Commissioner of the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority from JanLiary 3, 2006 until October 28,
2008. Please find enclosed a Certificate of Appreciation and an aerial view
photograph of the Roanoke Valley in recognition of your years of service.
Sincerely,
~Ih.~
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
S M M :ew
Enclosu re
pc: Glenda Edwards, Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment & Housing
Authority, P. O. Box 6359, Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Joyce S. Johnson, Assistant to the Mayor
~
z ~
0 ~
~
~ 00 <
< 0
0 ~ ~
N
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ CI.l
U ~
.~ ~ ~
~o ~
~ <e:
0 ~ E-d--< \0 ~~
~ .... ~Z~ooo
~ E-; ~ o~~~g CZlO
< Cl ~ UP::
~ P::p..o ~N ~
~ ~ 0 M ~ ~~
~ E-; ~ o~~~~
0 ffi _~~ P:: p..~
:2&i<~01 ~
p:4 == 01 tJ-
r:/J -QtJ ~ ~U
~ ~ ~ ~~~~t3 ~ ~01
< ~ ~ 8~~:EO Q ~
U 00 E-;O
~ 0 <:O@~~ CZlE-;
~ ~. r:i:l~ ~ E-;Q
~ 5~
~ <:0
, P:: ~ ~.
p:4 CZl ~~
U S
E-; 9 CI.l.
5 E-; !i1
~ g~
i:QO
0 ~~
U 0
~ ~
> ....
~ ~ >
<e:
p., Q
~
.. .~;, ,'.;
.;~,._J';'" ~.,
.;2
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC E-mail: c1erk@roanokeva.gov
City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
CECELlA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
October 28, 2008
Ms. Anita M. Powell
2018 Bunche Drive, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Dear Ms. 'Powell:
Your term of office as a Commissioner of the Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority expired on August 31 , 2008.
The Members of City Council requested that I express sincere appreciation for
your service to the City of Roanoke as a Commissioner of the R9anoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority from September 7, 2004 until
October 28,. 2008. Please find enclosed a Certificate of Appreciation and an
aerial view photograph of the Roanoke Valley in recognition of your years of
service.
Sincerely,
~ 1r,.~
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC .
City Clerk
SMM :ew
Enclosu re
pc: Glenda Edwards, Executive Director, Roanoke Redevefopment & Housing
Authority, P. O. Box 6359, Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Joyce S. Johnson, Assistant to the Mayor
~
~
~
<
~
u
~
~
~
<
~
o
p:4
~
u
~.
~
.~
~
p:4
u
o
E-;
~
E-;
ffi
r:/J
~
~
~
~.
~
~
o
~
~.
-<
~
~
~
~~-
E-;E-; o:::t
~ffi~g~
~ ~~ l'-~ ~
~ 0 .~ ~
Oz ~. ::r: ~ ~
~E-;a:l
(;J>~;;g~
~ ~.. ~ ~'u~
o CZlCZl
U .~ ~ :E 0
<:O@~~
CZl~ ~
<:0
P::
~
S
~
~ <
o ~.
N
~ ~ rJ'
~O
~~
CZlO
8P::
~~
~~
CJb
~u
~~.
E-;o
CZlE-;
8~
~~
~~
E-;
~
o
u
~
~
~
o
~
Q
CZl
-
~
5
~
CI.l
~
~
~
I
p.,
<e:
CI.l
~
~ .
o~
o::l:><
~~
:;
~
.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: c1erk@roanokeva.gov
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
CECELlA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk'
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
City Clerk
October 24, 2008
Mr. and Mrs. Wayne O. H. Haig
1147 Welch Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Haig:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 38263'-102308 repealing certain
conditions on Official Tax No. 1250133, located at 759 Welton Avenue, S. W.,
and rezoning property located at 759 Weltqn Avenue, S. W., from RMF,
Residential Multifamily District, to RM-1, Residential Mixed Density District, for
uses permitted in the RM-1 zoning district.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Thursday, October 23, 2008, and is in
full force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
~~.c'1~
City Clerk
SM M :ew
Enclosu re
('
Mr. and Mrs. Wayne O. H. Haig
October 24, 2008
Page 2
pc: Mr. Llewellyn H. Hedgbeth, 1004 19th Street, Arlington, Virginia 22202
JKM One, LLP, 410 1 5t Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Mr. and Mrs. Gary N. Oyler, 3258 Bromley Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24018
Mr. and Mrs. Gregory W. Wallding, 5898 Lakemont Drive, S. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24018
Mr. Craig S. Riddle, P. O. Box 48, Roanoke, Virginia 24002-0048
Ms. Mildred B. Thompson, 736 Welton Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24015
Ms. Melinda D. Blankenship, 748 Welton Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24015
Mr. and Mrs. Larry H. Moore, 813 Franklin Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24016
Mr. and Mrs. Earl S. Vest, 754 Welton Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24015 .
Ms. Bonnie B. Maxwell, 760 Welton Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24015
Mr. J. Wysor Smith, Jr., 1010 2nd Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Mr. and Mrs. Mark R. Henry, 1802 Lawnhill Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24015
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas W. Markwood, Jr., 11725 Cliff Lawn Road, Chester,
Virginia 23831-2010
Mr. and Mrs. Robert S. Hartman, 8272 Olsen Road, N. E., Roanoke,
Virginia 24019
Mr. Jonathan B. Snowden, 2053 Memorial Avenue, S. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24015
Mr. and Stephen P. Agee and Ms. Janice Chandler, 763 Oakwood
Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Mr. and Mrs. Ray C. Hopson, 852 Kerns Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24015
Terri Beck, President, Wasena Neighborhood Forum, 852 Kerns
Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
Henry Scholz, Chair, City Planning Commission,
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Nancy C. Snodgrass, Zoning Administrator
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
74: >~q
. ~'Vo/\
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 23rd day of October, 2008.
No. 38263-102308.
AN ORDINANCE to amend 936.2-100, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended, and the Official Zoning Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia, dated December 5,
2005, as amended, by repealing Ordinance No. 31140-082492, to the extent that it placed
certain conditions on Official Tax No. 1250133, located at 759 Welton Avenue, S.W.; and
rezoning certain property within the City, from RMF, Residential Multifamily District, to
RM-1, Residential Mixed Density District, for uses permitted in the RM-1 zoning district;
and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title.
WHEREAS, Wayne O. H. Haig and Sharon M. Haig, have filed an application to
the Council of the City of Roanoke to repeal Ordinance No. 31140-082492, adopted on
August 24, 1992, to the extent that it placed certai13' conditions on Official Tax No.
1250133, located at 759 Welton Avenue, S.W.;
WHEREAS, the applicant seeks to have the property bearing Official Tax No.
1250133, rezoned from RMF,. Residential Multifamily District, to RM-1, Residential
Mixed Density District, for uses permitted in the RM-1 zoning district, as set forth in the
Zoning Amendment Application dated July 31,2008;
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, which after giving proper notice to all
concerned as required by 936.2-540, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and
after conducting a public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to City
Council;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by City Council on such application at its
meeting on October 23, 2008, after due and timely notice thereof as required by 936.2-540,
O-Wayne Haig-Repeal, rezone & amend proffers.doc
1
Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest
and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard, both for and against the proposed
amendment; and
WHEREAS, City Council, after considering the aforesaid application, the
recommendation made to City Council by the Planning Commission, the City's
Comprehensive Plan, and the matters presented at the public hearing, finds that the public
necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice, require the repeal of
Ordinance No. 31140-082492, to the extent that it placed certain conditions on Official
Tax No. 1250133, located at 759 Welton Avenue, S.W., zoned RMF, Residential
Multifamily District, and the rezoning of said property bearing Official Tax No. 1250133
from RMF, Residential Multifamily District, to RM-1, Residential Mixed Density District,
for uses permitted in the RM -1 zoning district.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council ofthe City of Roanoke that:
1, Ordinance No. 31140-082492, adopted on August 24, 1992, to the extent
that it placed certain conditions on Official Tax No. 1250133, located at 759 Welton
Avenue, S.W., is hereby REPEALED, and that the Official Zoning Map, City of Roanoke,
Virginia, dated December 5,2005, as amended, be amendedto reflect such action.
, 2. Section 36.2-100, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and the
Official Zoning Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia, dated December 5,2005, as amended, be
amended to reflect that property bearing Official Tax No. 1250133, located at 759 Welton
Avenue, S.W., be, and is hereby rezoned from RMF, Residential Multifamily District, to
RM -1, Residential Mixed Density District, for uses permitted in the RM -1 zoning district.
O-Wayne Haig-Repeal, rezone & amend proffers. doc
2
3 ,Pursuant to the provisions of S 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of
this ordinance, by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
fl+-, j) _',i' tv,
A ~/I,' /. h7 D(J'}v
Cittql~~ll " I
O-Wayne Haig-RepeaJ, rezone & amend proffers,doc
3
CITY OF ROANOKE
PLANNING BUILDING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 166
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (540) 853-1730 Fax: (540) 853-1230
E-mail: planning@roanokeva.gov October 23, 2008
Architectural Review Board
Board of Zoning Appeals
Planning Commission
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Vice Mayor
Honorable Gwendolyn W. Mason, Council Member
Honorable Alvin L. Nash, Council Member
Honorable Anita J. Price, Council Member
Honorable Court G. Rosen, Council Member
Honorable David B. Trinkle, Council Member
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Requestfrom Wayne O. H. Haig and Sharon M. Haig to
rezone property at 759 Welton Avenue, S.W., Official Tax
No. 1250133, from RMF, Residential Multifamily District, to
RM-1, Residential Mixed Density District, for uses permitted
in the RM-1 zoning district, and to repeal conditions on the
property set forth in Ordinance No. 31140-082492.
Planning Commission hearing and recommendation
Planning Commission public hearing was held on Thursday, September 18,
2008. Mr. Wayne Haig appeared before the Commission and presented his
request. There was no one else present to speak for or against the request. By
a roll call vote of 6-0 (Mr. Manetta absent), the Commission recommended
approval of the requested rezoning. The Commission finds the application to
rezone the subject property to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, Vision
2001-2020, and the Wasena Neighborhood Plan. Rezoning the subject property
to RM-1 District and removing the proffered conditions will help ensure the
upkeep of the property's existing structures and the compatibility of any future
development with the surrounding neighborhood.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Henry Scholz, Chairman
City Planning Commission
cc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Wayne O. H. Haig, Applicant
Members of City Council
Page 2
October 23, 2008
Application Information
Re uest:
Owner:
Cit Staff Person:
Site Address/Location:
Official Tax Nos.:
Site Area:
Existin Zonin :
Pro osed Zonin
Existin Land Use:
Proposed Land Use:
Nei hborhood Plan:
Specified Future Land Use:
Filing Date:
Rezonin & Amendment of Proffered Conditions
Wa ne O.H. Hai & Sharon M. Hai
Maribeth B. Mills
759 Welton Avenue SW
1250133
4.03 Acres
RMF, Residential Multifamil District with conditions
RM-1, Residential Mixed Densit District
Multifamil Dwellin
Single-Family Dwelling
Wasena Nei hborhood Plan
Mixed Densit Residential
Original Application: July 31,2008
Background
In August 1992, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 31140-082492, rezoning
the property from RM-1, Residential Multifamily Low Density District, to RM-2,
Residential Multifamily Medium Density District, with conditions, to bring an
illegally-established multifamily dwelling into compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance. In December 2005, the property was rezoned to RMF, Residential
Multifamily District with conditions as part of a comprehensive rezoning. The
rezoning permitted six units in the principle structure, one unit in the detached
carriage house, and the subdivision of 20 lots off the parent tract for the
construction of single- and two-family dwelling units only. The current owner is
requesting to rezone the property to RM-1, Residential Mixed Density District
without conditions, to return the structure to a single-family residence. The
applicant indicates there are no plans to subdivide the subject property at this
time. However, the property could be subdivided per the standards of the RM:..1
District if rezoned.
Conditions to be Repealed
The applicant requests that the following Proffered Conditions enacted by
Ordinance No. 31140-082492 be repealed as they pertain to Official Tax No.
1250133:
a. No further development of multifamily dwelling units will be made on the
property, although Petitioner reserves the right to develop single-family
and/or two-family residences on lots subdivided from the property, as
consistent with proffer (b) below.
b. The area along Welton Avenue marked "Frontage An on Exhibit B to this
petition will be developed, if at all, only with single-family residences on a
maximum of ten (10) lots subdivided (in accordance with applicable
Members of City Council
Page 3
October 23,2008
ordinances) from the property. The area along Welton Avenue and Floyd
Avenue marked "Frontage B" on Exhibit B to this petition will be
developed, if at all, with single- and/or two-family residences on a
maximum of ten (10) lots subdivided (in accordance with applicable
ordinances) from the property.
c. The exterior of the main house will not be materially altered except: (i) as
may be required for normal maintenance and repair; (ii) for the addition of
one or more porches or decks in a manner architecturally consistent with
existing conditions; (iii) in order to weatherproof doors and windows.
d. No trees with a caliper of twelve inches (12") or greater (measured three
(3) feet from the ground) will be removed from the property unless
diseased or damaged or unless necessary to permit construction on lots
subdivided from the property in accordance with applicable ordinances.
e. If a building permit for electrical system upgrade to be made to the
mansion on the property is not obtained and the permitted work completed
and inspected and approved by City building officials within one (1) year
from the effective date of the ordinance rezoning the property, the zoning
shall revert to RM-1, Residential Multifamily, Low Density District without
further action of City Council.
Considerations
Surroundinq Zoninq and Land Use:
Zoning District Land Use
North RM-1, Residential Mixed Density. Single-Family Dwellings.
South RM-1, Residential Mixed Density. Single-Family Dwellings.
East RM-1, Residential Mixed Density. Single-Family Dwellings.
West RM-1, Residential Mixed Density. Single-Family Dwellings.
Compliance with the Zoninq Ordinance:
Most of the proffered conditions enacted by Ordinance No. 31140-082492 will
become irrelevant if the property is rezoned to the RM-1 District for the following
reasons:
1. Proffer 'a': Residential uses will be limited to single-family dwellings by-
right, two-family dwellings by special exception, and
townhomes/rowhouses by special exception. All other uses permitted by
right or by special exception are allowed in all residential zoning districts.
2. Proffer 'b': Under the RM-1 District, a maximum of 25 lots could be
subdivided off of the parent tract, not taking into consideration lot
configuration or topographic issues which would reduce that number.
Any use other than single-family dwellings on these lots would have to go
to the Board of Zoning Appeals for approval.
Members of City Council
Page 4
October 23, 2008
3. Proffer 'c': Design is not regulated on any surrounding property with
RM-1 zoning and material alteration will be less likely as all by-right uses
are single-family in nature.
4. Proffer'd': The Zoning Ordinance requires 15% tree canopy on all lots.
Substantial credit is given for existing tree canopy which provides
financial incentive to retain all qualifying trees.
5. Proffer 'e': This proffer is unenforceable.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and Neiqhborhood Plan:
Wasena residents credit the RM-1 District with the neighborhood's success as it
creates a predominately single-family neighborhood while still allowing a healthy
balance of other housing options under the special exception process. The
neighborhood's large, older homes experienced a period of conversions to two-
family and multifamily dwellings which threatened their character and long term
maintenance. Returning the subject property to an RM-1 Zoning District and
removing the proffered conditions will help ensure the structure's upkeep and
compatibility of any new development with the surrounding neighborhood.
The following policies of Vision 2001-2020 are relevant to the application:
. EC P5. Cultural and historic resources. Roanoke will support, develop, and
promote its cultural resources. Roanoke will identify, preserve, and protect its
historic districts, landmark features, historic structures, and archaeological
sites.
The following policies of the Wasena Neighborhood Plan are relevant to the
application:
. Residential Development Policies
a. Discourage Conversions: Limit the number of single-family homes
that are converted to duplex or multifamily (Action: Maintain the
RM-1 zoning district).
City Department Comments:
None.
Public Comments:
None.
Department of Planning, Building and Development
Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, SW.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Phone: (540) 853-1730 Fax: (540) 853-1230
ROANOKE
Date: IJUI31, 2008 I
:=iWW_
!lIel '. R. '; ..... '. . .. I. .... . , ,... . , ,...,
!Iillful~,:<xr-,"!~.'~itr";tr...~ ., ',/ --', ,.. ..~ _ ---. -" , , ~
[g] Rezoning, Not Otherwise Listed
o Rezoning, Conditional
o Rezoning to Planned Unit Development
o Establishment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay District
v_i...'.:.
!~~.: ",:j,DlI:::: .:I~.u! '.~
Submittal Number: IOriginal Application
[g] Amendment of Proffered Conditions
o Amendment of Planned Unit Development Plan
o Amendment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay District
I [8J With Conditions_,
o Without Conditions';
I
-, I
Name: Iwayne O.H. Haig and Sharon M. Haig
I Phone Number:
E-Mail: I
982-8543
I
I
Name: I Phone Number: I
Address: I E-Mail: I I
Applicant's Signature:
Name: I Phone Number: I
Address: I E-Mail: I I
Authorized Agent's Signature:
CJ
-0=./
c::
APPLICANTS' WRITTEN NARRATIVE
APPLICATION TO REZONE 759 WELTON AVENUE. SW.
FROM RMF TO RM-1
Wayne O. S. Haig and Sharon M. Haig ("Applicants"), in November of2007,
purchased land containing approximately four acres in the City of Roanoke located at 759
Welton Avenue, SW, and bearing official tax number 1250133. Said tract is currently zoned
RMF, Residential Multifamily. Improvements on the property consist of a very large, old
home ("Welton Mansion") which was partitioned in 1988 into six apartments and, sometime
after August of 1992, was further partitioned into seven apartments. A carriage house and a
garage are also located on the property. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a Concept Plan
showing the property and improvements. Attached as Exhibit B is a Location Map
identifying the property and the surrounding neighborhood. In 1992, approximately four
years after Welton Mansion was partitioned into apartments, the prior owner of the property
petitioned the City to have the property rezoned from RM-1, Residential Multifamily, Low
Density District, to RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, since the use
of the property at that time for multifamily purposes was not permitted in a district zoned
RM -1. (The prior owners of the property never obtained the required building permits or
inspections from the City to partition the house lawfully.) By City Ordinance No. 31140-
082492, enacted on August 24, 1992, City Council granted the petition of the prior owner,
and the property was rezoned RM-2, subject to certain proffered conditions filed in the
Office of the City Clerk on January 9, 1992. The property was subsequently zoned RMF,
Residential Multifamily, when the current zoning ordinance was adopted on December 5,
2005, subject to the proffered conditions approved by City Ordinance No. 31140-082492.
Applicants now request that the property be rezoned from RMF, Residential Multifamily, to
("
.. ---- ,:
c~;
RM-I, Residential Mixed Density District, with no proffered conditions, for the purpose of
allowing them to use the property as a single-family residence.
The rezoning of this property is consistent with the intent and purposes of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. All of the neighboring properties surrounding this tract are zoned
RM -I and consist of single- family homes and duplex units. Therefore, rezoning the
property to RM -I would bring it into conformity with the RM -I zoning of the entire
surrounding neighborhood. Attached as Exhibit C is a listing of adjoining property owners.
Rezoning the property to RM-I to permit a single-family residence would also
improve the character of the neighborhood, as the upkeep and repair of Welton Mansion and
its grounds would be best assured by resident owners of the property. While being used as a
multi-family tenement house, Welton Mansion fell into a state of significant disrepair. It is
noted that the electrical upgrades that were included in the special conditions approved by
Ordinance No. 31140-082492 were never performed. Applicants will completely upgrade
the electrical and plumbing systems and will further install a new HV AC system for Welton
Mansion.
Rezoning the property to RM-I to permit a single-family residence will further the
City's interest in protecting homes with genuine historical character and significance.
Welton Mansion was originally conceived and constructed as a single-family residence, and
it was unlawfully partitioned in 1988 into apartments. Rezoning the property to RM-l
would permit the restoration of a classic, Tudor Revival home (that was constructed over a
number of years and finally completed in 1911) in conformity with the intentions of its
original architect and owner.
2
(;
C\
Rezoning the property to RM -1 to permit a single-family residence would reduce
traffic in the surrounding neighborhood and would lessen the burden on municipal services.
Applicants would therefore request that the property be rezoned from RMF to RM-l,
with no conditions, and that Ordinance No. 31140-082492 and the proffered conditions it
enacted be repealed. Attached as Exhibit D is a statement ofthe Written Proffers to be
repealed. Attached as Exhibit E is a copy of the previously adopted Ordinance (Ordinance
No. 31140-082492).
Respectfully submitted,
w~~
1147 Welch Road, SW
Roanoke, VA 24015
s~~~ m t4~
1147 Welch Road, SW
Roanoke, VA 24015
3
III 0 (}
.. ~ ~g~ ."EE9~~6
:s .... ~;!; ;:r~~~
oj ~ I b-;:' ",,<0
~ .~ :t~~~~ I
oj = I ~'" ..~? I
",'" - L. ..........ltw
5 I '" ~~ W"", ~>: ~~!a I
w 5~O
~ (j CL '" ~,g~ ~ (j
. <w W '" '" b 0 ~ui UlO ..
ll. '" z w'" Zd Vl ~ z
, :::'..J I · ~ '" < (L "'0 ~ ll.
I z< ;;; '" <0 u- "';Ii I
~ ~gtndt~g gb'ioN~N :::2: <( .~ ~ CL ~
= I 00 = ~g~~~~ .. 1.i~1Q12g~ I!!'" lO~vi ~ I
~ F'" h ~~~~;~ '"~ <( mO ~5 ~
0 I 13 bg~~(f)~ ($ ~8~N:Z~ '" _-w < I
:I <0 ~ :...tri.q:a:ifJlre e ::.::: ~~~~
.. oz > .. "'........1") II .. ....vt"-lDlI J: r-.I,........N11 .. C'/....Nv II {;i~ ..J 0 0::3
... ~ CD 0 II II " II~ II D II II:!: .n III Ux n 1111 Uz zc:J >- ..J ' l:)L m
..J . ::I:<13 ~z~
:s .Q :2 (,) <la:::I-...JU <Je:::t-...JU <:]!r.I-...JU .<]e:::I-...JU 8ww ~ w ~~6~ :2
....F~ '" :c l:)O
~ 00 ::> ~~~LJ
o < '" ~iid
~ ~~~ ~~~a
>- LJ ea 0:
'" Vi""::Z~
wz'" <
. 0,,0 0 5t5~~ il
'J ~z5 z z
.. ::> F <<l;"(;< z
:5~E! 0 ~ r;
.. OJ 0::: t-W;= ",,,, m
.. a.:::::::: ~l.nVi ",,,,
:s !:2f5:E <( ...;ri 55
-", ",,,, Vl
J ;!''''' ::2 NNOtC
"'''' -u ",--WN
.. >-0 "'I
.. u~
::l.o <'" d g;
FO L
::l.o 6,.!, Z
x ~cq
~ fO oz
"
MERIDIAN OF
D,S, 1036, PG, 321
.
~ "C
CIj
oi ~
..=
bI)
. ....
-
..=
bI)
. ....
..=
CI.l
. ....
5 ~
= I
~ ':\ ~
... W IJ..,
~ ~. ~ ~:g
vi ~~ 0
......- ri ~
4/ en", >=:2
Q.c w",
.'::) ~"'- ~- "0
l-U~ ~~
QJ ~'" 0<'" CIj
< - ~ ",0
t:J :s~ ~~"" OW '" =
GJi)J 0
ox ~ 0 0
= ~. ..,f~ U ;;: "
0 ~g
(:::)'" [J] t;:i; .: N
= ~~ '"
.>::: 0 u r: . W CIj
~ <0
U 0 Z 05'5 ,,'" '" J,.;
;!'5 ~ -,5 U"- ~
C::' ~"- ~ <0 0 CIj
~~ 0:: '" z
0 zw ~ ~
OZ
Q,U Si5
"'w >- 0
OJ;!' <0
0 ~
~~ W
'" ~
>-Q, g
:I'" u ~
!!! Q,<
>-'" ",:; J,.;
~~~ Sf; Sl.sIOS~l # ~g CIj
W Co.
~.cn:J N3G\j~9000ro ,-":It.t ~!:
<"'''- dO"ls "8 Nit ~SNI 0
0.."':0 ~~
r ~~~dOt!!iltNO(> J,.;
9.t0? "'F ~
~'"
",0 0
Q,z
~r--: Z
",,, Z
0 ci OVl ~e >- 0
"
z ~6~: ~~ Ci:w '" 0 ~~~
<", . !!, u Z
>-W -Q, 'I < 0", I
"'u ~88~~>-~ <0 z'o
oz >- -Vl ~~~
Q,< x~~~[o~;!C <0 ,m
W'" ~ 0- ~~9
"'''' ~lO:{jo::j< z..
w~ '"
F~ BG1-gtio. . z 5li; 5~b
:E
Fw N~5!:!~iES 1=" WO
..: u'"
<I- u...o.l=l.J,..~;i:VJ 171~ FI!!
~~~~~~~=o -'~ :I ~g
W "'~e
I-lLJwt:::E&~~~~ '"
f5~eJ ~~~~ .....~_lLJ < "'>- >-1=
Q, u< "''''
z::E::I: <w <oil:: go "W
.. OU
:g~~~a:~iil~58 <0 . UWl-cD
HJOOd Z t:~<8
I-LlJO ltJ-oa.o.' ~~t,-g
5~B5~~~~6f5@5~ W " 0"
.rsl -' '" W~l ~ ~i.8 a
< FW'I-Fa:na:E;o&:o:: r~ ;: ~ W -' >- '
~E~~~~~Z:ffi~ -' ~~~~~ ~~~ ~
ow 0
L~ <>- Q, ~
Clw>--- _zQ~~o WW :I:()g:gd '"'-QI- :2
~f5~~8~~t]~~(J ;- :::cO::J:Cl:: :E~15<a.
......- ~ ~~~~ O(f)C1 ~
~jE:tf5go::~ClCla.~ ~::E ~r.O ~~~ ui~ /:
.- ~ ~a...I.J,..M:loffiClo.:V5 .:; oUo..o.. ~Cl~~a ~;~l1.~ ~
,.c a.cio.~<~:z~n~~~ Z "g o~lnu..-
~~~~~g~C:~~i5 W ~~~~a! ~~~~m 0
'" 68a.g Ii:
.- u; I-~I-~~~O~~~~ ~ < ~ui~U'lo ~~~i
~ I" '" ~
>--ilJ..:i~ '"
0 :51-~ ~ o~~f2 @;.~ W ~oo:ro
z U wF<
~ ~ ~~!:(:6~~V1~1-; Z ~~~~~ ~~~ ..
W
< ~~:::ciE~t;~~~a~ '"
~ 5 W VllJJ~WO
"- '" "'u -~f5~t;
Z lI)~ o~o zo...o::: W ...:c5N~~
W ";~~NB5tb~,.;g(J:i '" 5'FFI!!
"
Exhibit B
()
Appy#?!nts: Wayne O. So ~aig
~j Sharon M. Halg
$(i~~E'e-r PRoP~R1J
C~'}
A I.Cft W
pp lC~ll s: ayne O. S. Haig
Sharon M. Haig
Exhibit C
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS LISTING
Owner's Name and Address Property Address Tax Map #
Llewellyn H. Hedgbeth
1004 19th Street 702 Welton Avenue, SW
Arlington, V A 22202 Roanoke, V A 24015 1251033
Llewellyn H. Hedgbeth
708 Welton Avenue, SW 708 Welton Avenue, SW 1251032
Roanoke, V A 24015 Roanoke, V A 24015
JKM One, LLP
410 1 st Street, SW 716 Welton Avenue, SW 1251031
Roanoke, V A 24011 Roanoke, V A 24015
Gary N. Oyler
Jennifer T. Oyler 722 Welton (724) Avenue, SW
3258 Bromley Road Roanoke, V A 24015 1251030
Roanoke, V A 24018
Gregory W. Wallding
Jennifer L. Wal1ding 728 Welton A venue, SW
5898 Lakemont Drive Roanoke, V A 24015 1251029
Roanoke, V A 24018
Craig S. Riddle
P;O. Box 48 732 Welton Avenue, SW
Roanoke, V A 24002-0048 Roanoke, V A 24015 1251028
Mildred B. Thompson
736 Welton Avenue, SW 736 Welton Avenue, SW 1251027
Roanoke, V A 24015 Roanoke, V A 24015
DGL Management, LLC
2602 Stephenson Avenue, SW 740 Welton Avenue, SW 1251026
Roanoke, V A 24014 Roanoke, V A 24015
Melinda D. Blankenship 748 Welton Avenue, SW
748 Welton Avenue, SW 1251025
Roanoke, V A 24015 Roanoke, V A 24015
Larry H. Moore
Elizabeth F. Moore 750 Welton Avenue, SW
813 Franklin Road 1251024
Roanoke, V A 24016 Roanoke, V A 24015
Earl S. Vest
Mamie P. Vest 754 Welton Avenue, SW
754 Welton Avenue, SW 1251023
Roanoke, V A 24015 Roanoke, V A 24015
Bonnie B. Maxwell
760 Welton Avenue, SW 760 Welton Avenue, SW 1251022
Roanoke, V A 24015 Roanoke, V A 24015
(j
C~.
..-. .,
.-/J
Owner's Name and Address Property Address Tax Map #
J. Wysor Smith, Jr. 766 Welton (768) Avenue, SW
1010 2nd Street, SW 1251021
Roanoke, V A 24016 Roanoke, V A 24015
J. Wysor Smith, Jr. 770 Welton Avenue, SW
1010 2nd Street, SW 1251020
Roanoke, V A 24016 Roanoke, V A 24015
Mark R. Henry
Catherine J. Henry 1802 Lawnhill Street, SW 1251001
1802 Lawnhill Street, SW Roanoke, V A 24015
Roanoke, V A 24015
Thomas W. Markwood, Jr.
Deborah L. Markwood 804 Welton Avenue, SW 1250143
11725 Cliff Lawn Road Roanoke, V A 24015
Chester, VA 23831-2010
Robert S. Hartman
Catherine J. Hartman 810 Welton Avenue, SW 1250142
8272 Olsen Road Roanoke, V A 24015
Roanoke, V A 24019
Wayne a.H. Haig
Sharon M. Haig Welton Avenue, SW 1250152
1147 Welch Road, SW Roanoke, V A 24015
Roanoke, V A 24015
Jonathan B. Snowden 930 Floyd Avenue, SW
2053 Memorial Avenue, SW 1250156
Roanoke, V A 24015 Roanoke, V A 24015
Stephen P. Agee
Janice Chandler 929 Floyd Avenue, SW 1130612
763 Oakwood Drive, SW Roanoke, V A 24015
Roanoke, V A 24015
Ray Carl Hopson
Caroline S. Hopson 852 Kerns Avenue, SW 1130613
852 Kerns Avenue, SW Roanoke, V A 24015
Roanoke, V A 24015
2
(~)
AC, t W OSH'
ppdcan s: ayne . . alg
Sharon M. Haig
Exhibit D
WRITTEN PROFFERS TO BE REPEALED
The Applicants hereby request that the following Proffered Conditions enacted by
Ordinance No. 31140-082492, set forth below, be repealed as they pertain to Official Tax
No. 1250133:
(a) No further development of multifamily dwelling units will be made
on the property, although Petitioner reserves the right to develop single-family
and/or two-family residences on lots subdivided from the property, as consistent with
proffer (b) below.
(b) The area along Welton A venue marked "Frontage A" on Exhibit B to
this petition will be developed, if at all, only with single-family residences on a
maximum often (10) lots subdivided (in accordance with applicable ordinances)
from the property. The area along W elton Avenue and Floyd Avenue marked
"Frontage B" on Exhibit B to this petition will be developed, if at all, with single-
and/or two-family residences on a maximum often (10) lots subdivided (in
accordance with applicable ordinances) from the property.
(c) The exterior of the main house will not be materially altered except:
(i) as may be required for normal maintenance and repair; (ii) for the addition of one
or more porches or decks in a manner architecturally consistent with existing
conditions; (iii) in order to weatherproof doors and windows.
(d) No trees with a caliper of twelve inches (12") or greater (measured
three (3) feet from the ground) will be removed from the property unless diseased or
c.. -,~
. .. ,;
("\
--: ~.f-
damaged or unless necessary to permit construction on lots subdivided from the
property in accordance with applicable ordinances.
(e) If a building permit for electrical system upgrade to be made to the
mansion on the property is not obtained and the permitted work completed and
inspected and approved by City building officials within one (1) year from the
effective date of the ordinance rezoning the property, the zoning shall revert to
RM-1, Residential Multifamily, Low Density District without further action of City
Council.
2
~
i? ~
..
..
~ ~
lit to ~
:; ; ~
IS ,~ ....
'"
, :: 8
. '- a
g ~ ; ~ ~
; ~ '" ':' ..
'1515...",
~@@)@
it10 3At1n)
~~!!i h~
l
D"~
Cc;
//
/
,
.~
's
i
.rl
.I
~
i
...
~
-- ."
.~
~
III
I
1\
...
III
J:
'8.
::r
"f
: ::~
~, ... .'\
~ t~~
..
..
~
..
t
:::
~
...
~
I.. : 'I
. .,!l!:
lit:" :/..
~ I
I : '..'
Ii
E il'l
M~.
r\
A-,
~'
...
-~.\-..
\
,"'"' '
/
--..
"',
Exhibit E
c}
Applip..".fts: Wayne O. s. Haig
~ Sharon M. Haig
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 24th day of August, 1992.
No. 31140-082492.
AN ORDINANCE to amend S36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 125, Sectional 1976 Zone Map,
Ci ty of Roanoke, to rezone certain property wi thin the City,
subject to certain conditions proffered by the applicant.
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City
of Roanoke to have the hereinafter described property rezoned from
RM-l, Residential Multifamily, Low Density District, to RM-2,
Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, subject to
certain conditions proffered by the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, which after giving
proper notice to all concerned as required by S36.1-693, Code of
the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and after conducting a
public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to
Council; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by City Council on said ' ~
(
application at its meeting on August 10, 1992, after due and timely
notice thereof as required by S36.1-693, Code of the City of
Roanoke {1979}, as amended, at which hearing all parties in
interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard, both
for and against the proposed rezoning; and
WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the aforesaid
application, the recommendation made to the Council by the Planning
Commission, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the matters
l,l:
C',
,-
()
hereinafter described property should be rezoned as herein
presented at the public hearing, is of the opinion that the
provided.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that S36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other:
amended, and Sheet No. 125 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of
A tract of land located at 759 Welton Avenue, S.W., and
designated on Sheet No. 125 of the Sectional 197~ Zone Map, City of
Roanoke, as Official Tax No. 1250133, be, and is hereby rezoned
condi tions proffered by and set forth in the Second Amended
Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, subject to those
from RM-l, Residential Multifamily, Low Density District, to RM-2,
Petition, filed in the Office of the City Clerk on July 9, 1992,
and that Sheet No. 125 of the Zone Map be changed in this respect.
ATTEST: /J
'"' ~ 1. rtL./...
-
City Clerk.
()
C)
.~'\l
SECOND AMENDED
PETITION TO REZONE
'92 ., '1 c,
.J:..:'_ -:;
.'''1 :J>:
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
IN RE:
Rezoning of a tract of land lying at the intersection of
Welton Avenue, Lawnhill Street, and Floyd Avenue, S.W.,
bearing Official Tax No. 1250133, and known as 759 Welton
Avenue, S.W., from RM-l, Residential Multifamily, Low
Density District, to RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium
Density District, subject to certain conditions.
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE:
1. The Petitioner, Martin E. Hellkamp, owns land in the City of
Roanoke containing 4.03 acres, more or less, located at 759
Welton Avenue, S.W., bearing Official Tax No. 1250133. Said
tract is currently zoned RM-1" Residential Multifamily, Low
Density District. A portion of the City of Roanoke Official Tax
Map showing the property to be rezoned is attached as Exhibit A.
2. Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, the Petitioner requests that the said
property be rezoned from RM-l, Residential MUltifamily, Low
Density District to RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density
District, subject to certain conditions, for the purpose of
bringing the zoning of the tract into conformity with the use
that has been conducted there for several years and permitting
the Petitioner to make certain repairs and improvements to the
property.
M'106097
.. --------.--.--.--.---.--------..--.---------.---------.---.-------
C)
c:
3. Attached to this petition as Exhibit B is a site plan
showing the property and improvements. Improvements consist of a
very large old home (the "Welton Mansion") which was converted by
a previous owner into six (6) apartments some four years ago, a
carriage house which is rented as a seventh dwelling unit, and a
garage. (Attached to this petition as Exhibit C is a three-page
floor plan showing the interior layout of the main house and
carriage house. This plan is for informational purposes only,
without representation that the interior layout will remain
unchanged.) Portions of the electrical system in the mansion
will be upgraded, with separate heating and air-conditioning
systems installed for several of the units. Aesthetic
improvements will also be made to the exterior of the mansion.
4. Petitioner believes that rezoning of this property is
consistent with the intent and purposes of the City's Zoning
Ordinance and comprehensive plan in that it will permit continued
modernization and general upgrading of a classic old home and
grounds while conforming the zoning classification to an existing
(though unpermitted) use. The area is characterized by a mixture
of modest single-family and duplex units which will not be
disrupted by this rezoning, given the facts that the existing use
will not change and that the subject tract is quite large and
heavily wooded on all sides.
5. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the said
tract is rezoned as requested, the rezoning will be subject to,
and the Petitioner will abide by, the following conditions:
M#106097
2
() c'
- ------...- -----,.....~.
._._---..__.~-_.__._._-----_._.._-----_..._--
(a) No further development of multifamily dwelling
units will be made on the property, although Petitioner
reserves the right to develop single-family and/or two-
family residences on lots subdivided from the property, as
consistent with proffer (b) below.
(b) The area along Welton Avenue marked "Frontage A"
on Exhibit B to this petition will be developed, if at all,
only with single-family residences on a maximum of ten (10)
lots subdivided (in accordance with applicable ordinances)
from the property. The area along Welton Avenue and Floyd
Avenue marked "Frontage B" on Exhibit B to this petition
will be developed, if at all, with single- and/or two-family
residences on a maximum of ten (10) lots subdivided (in
accordance with applicable ordinances) from the property.
,(c) The exterior of the main house will not be
materially altered except (i) as may be required for normal
maintenance and repair; (ii) for the addition of one or more
porches or decks in a manner architecturally consistent with
existing conditions; (iii) in order to weatherproof doors
and windows.
(d) No trees with a caliper of twelve inches (12") or
greater (measured three (3) feet from the ground) will be
removed from the property unless diseased or damaged or
unless necessary to permit construction on lots subdivided
from the property in accordance with applicable ordinances.
MU06097
3
--..- ________A____.___________._______.__. -_______._A_.__..___
(~)
C)
(e) If a building permit for electrical system upgrade
to be made to the mansion on the property is not obtained
and the permitted work completed and inspected and approved
by City building officials within one (1) year from the
effective date of the ordinance rezoning the property, the
zoning shall revert to RM-1, ReSidential Multifamily, Low
Density District without further action of City Council.
6. Attached as Exhibit D are the names, addresses and tax
numbers of the owner or owners of all lots or property
immediately adjacent to, or immediately across a street or road
from, the property to be rezoned.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-described
tract be rezoned as requested in accordance with the provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke.
Respectfully submitted
this 30th day of June, 1992.
()'f-~~
I Martin E. He1lkam-;-O
, 233 Hershberger Road
Suite 200
Roanoke, VA 24012
~~.
Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove
Dominion Tower, Suite 1400
10 South Jefferson Street
P. O. Box 14125
Roanoke, VA 24038-4125
(703) 983-7653
M#106097
4
~,
'~~
c::
,/'
/
,
.'
~ /
'0
'S
~
III
..
~
..
~
..
..
III
~ "':i ~ ~ ~
~;~t~
~~
:::J
~
'"
::..
"l
:: ~
t.z
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
I
l:l
~~~=;).
~;::5~~
""
~;:~8
~ .~":-~-g
. , a
g ~ ! ~ .
i ~ ~ on ~
~I9IllN:
!)@@@
"17" 3M1nJ
...
~
~
...
~
~
~
"
:~~~
h:
III ..
r.~" ;~~ I
:,
Ii.' I
l! J ".
III
E .
.. il I
".. .
l
....!i
("
/,\
~'
.............. ;'
_~.r..
\
,~"
--....
"'.,
.-::;..
..
;> 0... c. \ott
CO)
aO~
~~o<1-
"""" ...
E,,"QA~t.
~,~~
, ......fIIP'...
O\...'~
CA."V~ or
F\~ST
FlbD~
'-" N \\ 1.
'\00 sQ Fo1"'"'
I O\~' t.,)(,
~\-.J\ I'Jb
C'mIT C
....~.:..
toeD
oJ. ,.,.'
~tJ\" 3
Boo CQ For-
L.'VlN(i Il-'\
e...._
B~
~~
, u~t;;
\..\v\NGr
\..\W rt ~
, \ 00 S~ 1= T""
'f~~ '~'i,-z1~mr~-'~":'~-:;~~~-~" ~:~,'~~; '""
~ ~ '.
+- ~ ,.. ....~q
0""<< I 01~~\""
k'T'"~'''
of)r^
~ ",99.
~NO
\.AN \T '"
~~Q\ ~'''\''\N\ao '\
<. Clo (.0-.0
, ~OO'Q~
-L''(I.~
,L ,~
/'II (Ifl~,.J
,u FQi~~
",,.vo.,ollo..,
'6 co..~ ""
.........
.-.
; ~:_._'.: :--....,'.,' ':"".~'''''_., ' . ..,"II.~. _
-" - - . ~.<:..:~.~;~~~~~.;
.' .''; . .~;.~:~~-.: .:, '".~ ':":;~'. ~; . ,".= . ''':.~~',-' ..
.'!..e _
('\
"';:-:_-")
f Loo iZ..
UN\T 5
~oo oSaf,
\...\.J\~\6
-/. ,"('\.~
O\-\~..
'Sl501WG'.....
~-L
"l..\,(. \').00
"".- sea ~~
~ \ \J' ......
'~.;~'~' ~ ./:..
~
...._...._.~.._----_..__.~._._..-.__._.__._----_.~._.-------.
(.' ~
,--,'
0(1.'4.
<3 ~oot'^
...~~
~
(-) c:'
CP\t.-'~p\(,~ ~ ov..~e'
~coQ.oo'"
(. \"T~o)
~
6_..00-
t-\v \ tJl.
f 0,,", ..-
._~
. _. .~-~.,......
s-o~ s~ FI
-=.
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, September 18, 2008, 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., Roanoke, Virginia, to consider the following:
Request from Wayne O. H. Haig and Sharon M. Haig to rezone property
at 759 Welton Avenue, S.W., Official Tax No. 1250133, from RMF,
Residential Multifamly District, to RM-1, Residential Mixed Density District,
for uses as permitted in the zoning district, and to repeal conditions on the
property set forth in Ordinance No. 31140-082492.
A copy of the application is available for review in the Department of
Planning Building and Development, Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building.
All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be
heard on the matter. If you are a person with a disability who needs
accommodations for this hearing, please contact the Department of Planning
Building and Development at 853-1730 before 12:00 noon on the Tuesday before
the date of the hearing listed above.
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary
City Planning Commission
Please print in newspaper on Tuesday, September 2 and 9, 2008
.- .. ~..
Please bill:
Wayne O. H. Haig and Sharon M. Haig
1147 Welch Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24015
(540) 982-8543
Please send affidavit of publication to:
Martha Franklin
Planning Building and Development
Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24011
(540) 853-1730
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
City Clerk
October 1 , 2008
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
Mr. and Mrs. W'ayne O. H. Haig
1147 Welch Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Haig:
Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City
of Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, I have advertised a public hearing for
Thursday, October 23, 2008, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may
be heard, in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., on your request to rezone property located at
759 Welton Avenue, S. W., from RMF, Residential Multifamily District, to RM-l,
Residential Mixed Use District, with no proffered conditions, and to repeal certain
proffered conditions as set forth in Ordinance No. 31140-082492 adopted by the
Council on August 24, 1992.
For your information, I am enclosing copy of a notice of public hearing. Please
review the document and if you have questions, you may contact Steven J. Talevi,
Assistant City Attorney, at 540-853-2431.
It will be necessary for you, or your designee, to be present at the October 23
public hearing. Failure to appear could result in a deferral of the matter until a
later date.
Sincerely,
~o-~ 6Y\. ~~
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
SMM:ew
Enclosu re
Mr. and Mrs. Wayne O. H. Haig
October 1, 2008
Page 2
pc: SusanS. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
Henry Scholz, Chair, City Planning Commission,
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Nancy C. Snodgrass, Zoning Administrator
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
City Clerk
September 26, 2008
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
Mr. Llewellyn H. Hedgbeth
JKM One, LLP
Mr. and Mrs. Gary N. Oyler
Mr. and Mrs. Gregory W. Wallding
Mr. Craig S. Riddle
Ms. Mildred B. Thompson
Ms. Melinda D. Blankenship
Mr. and Mrs. Larry H. Moore
Mr. and Mrs. Earl S. Vest
Ms. Bonnie B. Maxwell
Mr. J. Wysor Smith, Jr.
Mr. and Mrs. Mark R. Henry
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas W. Markwood, Jr.
Mr. and Mrs. Robert S. Hartman
Mr. Jonathan B. Snowden
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen P. Agee
Mr. and Mrs. Ray C. Hopson
Terri Beck, President
Wasena Neighborhood Forum
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City
of Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, I have advertised a pu blic hearing for
Monday, October 20,2008, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may
be heard, in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 21 5 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, on the request of Wayne O. H.
and Sharon M. Haig to rezone property located at 759 Welton Avenue, S. W., from
RMF, Residential Multifamily District, to RM-l , Residential Mixed Use District, with
no proffered conditions, and to repeal certain proffered conditions as set forth in
Ordinance No. 31140-082492 adopted by the Council on August 24, 1992.
This letter is provided for you r information as an interested property owner and/or
adjoining property owner. If you have questions with regard to the matter, please
contact the Department of Planning, Building and Development at 540-853-1730.
If you would like to receive a copy of the report of the City Planning Commission,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 540-853-2541.
Sincerely,
~ 'rn.~
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
S M M: ew
.:.- :....
C;{~
-::f f /
AFFIDAVIT PERTAINING TO THE REZONING REQUEST OF:
Wayne and Sharon Haig, 759 Welton Avenue, SW., Tax No. 1250133
from RMF to RM-l, repeal conditions
)
)AFFIDAVIT
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
)
) TO- WIT:
)
CITY OF ROANOKE
The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states thatshe 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
Co~ission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first-class mail on the 2nd day of
S~ptember, 2008, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 18th day of September,
2008, on the request captioned above to the owner or agent ofthe,~parcels as set out
below:
Tax No.
1251003
1250132
1251031
1251030
1251029
1251028
1251027
1251026
1f"\C'1/V''\A
Name
Mailing Address
Llewellyn H. Hedgbeth
1004 19th Street
Arlington, VA 22202
708 Welton Avenue,SW
Roanoke, VA 24015
JKM One, LLP
410 1 st Street, SW
Roanoke, VA 24011
Gary N. Oyler
Jennifer T. Oyler
3258 Bromley Road
Roanoke, VA 24018
Gregory W. Wallding
Jennifer L. Wallding
5898 Lakemont Drive
Roanoke, VA 24018 '
Craig S. Riddle'
POBox 48
Roanoke, VA 24002-0048
,Mildred B. Thompson
736 Welton Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24015
Melinda D. Blankenship
748 Welton Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24015
T _ ___~~ ~ T T ".. _ _ _~ _
n1.., T"'___ 1_1~__ -n _ -=- _1 n........T
~
1251001 Mark R. Henry 1802 Lawnhill Street, SW
Catherine J. Henry Roanoke, VA 24015
1250143 Thomas W. Markwood, Jr. 11725 Cliff Lawn Road
Deborah L. Markwood Chester, VA 23831-2010
1250142 Robert S. Hartman 8272 Olsen Road
Catherine J. Harman Roanoke, VA 24019
, ,
1250152 Applicant
1250156 Jonathan B. Snowden 2053 Memorial Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24015
1130612 Stephen P. Agee 763 Oakwood Drive, SW
Janice Chandler, Roanoke, VA 24015
Ip0613 Ray Carl Hopson 852 Kerns Avenue, SW
Caroline S. Hopson Roanoke, VA 24015
Also Notified: Terri Beck, President, Wasena NH Forum
~Ld?~
, Martha Pace Franklin
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, this 2nd day of September, 2008.
My Commission Expires:
~9~
Notary Public
d(~\~1{
Department of Planning, Building and Development R 0 AN 0 K E
Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Phone: (540) 853-1730 Fax: (540) 853-1230
Date: IJUI31, 2008 Submittal Number: IOriginal Application
~ Amendment of Proffered Conditions
o Amendment of Planned Unit Development Plan
o Amendment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay District
[8J Rezoning, Not Otherwise Listed
o Rezoning, Conditional
o Rezoning to Planned Unit Development
o Establishment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay District
!r!!_~".JI
Address: 759 Welton Avenue, SW, Roanoke, VA 24015 '
Official Tax No(s),: 11250133
Existing Base Zoning:
RMF, Residential Multifamily
(If multiple zones, please manually enter all districts.)
Ordinance No(s), for Existing Conditions (If applicable): lordinance No. 31140-082492
ISing Ie-Family Residence
~ With Conditions
o Without Conditions ."
I Phone Number:
Name: Jwayne O.H. Haig and Sharon M. Haig
E-Mail: I
Address: 1147 Welch Avenue, SW, Roanoke, VA 24015
~
Property Owner's Signature:
I Phone Number:
I E-Mail: I
Name:
Address:
Applicant's Signature:
I Phone Number:
I E-Mail: I
Name:
Address:
Authorized Agent's Signature:
I
I
982-8543
I
I
I
I
CITY OF ROANOKE
PLANNING BUILDING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 166
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (540) 853-1730 Fax: (540) 853-1230
E-mail: planning@roanokeva.gov
Architectural Review Board
Board of Zoning Appeals
Planning Commission
REQUEST FOR COMMENT
_x REZONING _STREET/ALLEY CLOSURE
DATE:
July 31, 2008
APPLICANT:
Wayne and Sharon Haig
LOCATION:
OTHER
759 Welton Avenue, S.W., Tax No. 1250133
REQUEST:
Rezoning from RMF to RM1, repeal of conditions
Your review and comment on the above-referenced item is requested. Please provide
written comments by August 18, 2008. Public hearing before the Planning Commission will
be scheduled for September 18, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. Please return all comments to me at
martha.franklin@roanokeva.gov. Thank you.
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary
City of Roanoke Planning Commission
copies to:
David Barnhart, WVWA
Bob Bengtson, Director of Public Works
Brian Brown, Economic Development
Administrator
Darlene Burcham, City Manager
Bob Clement; NH Coordinator
Bill Hackworth, City Attorney
Hong Liu, Transportation Engineer
Stephanie Moon, City Clerk
Phil Schirmer, City Engineer
Steve Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager
Dan Webb, Codes Compliance Coor.
City Planning Commission Members
Neighborhood Organization: Terri Beck,
President, Wasena Neighborhood Forum,
James Settle, Dev. Rev. Team, Kathy Hill,
RNA Rep
_n/a_ Adjoining Locality:
Internal Staff:
Director, Planning Building and Dev.
Building Commissioner
Development Engineers
Development Review Coordinator
Planning Administrator
Planners
Zoning Administrator
Street/Alley Only:
Fire Marshal
Communications
Director, Parks and Rec
American Electric Power
Verizon
Roanoke Gas
For determination of value:
Real Estate Valuation
_ Phil Schirmer, City Engineer
APPLICANTS' WRITTEN NARRATIVE
APPLICATION TO REZONE 759 WELTON AVENUE, SW,
FROM RMF TO RM-l
Wayne O. S. Haig and Sharon M. Haig ("Applicants"), in November of2007,
purchased land containing approximately four acres in the City of Roanoke located at, 759
Welton Avenue, SW, and bearing official tax number 1250133. Said tract is currently zoned
RMF, Residential Multifamily. Improvements on the property consist of a very large, old
home ("Welton Mansion") which was partitioned in 1988 into six apartments and, sometime
after August of 1992, was further partitioned into seven apartments. A carriage house and a
garage are also located on the property. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a Concept Plan
showing the property and improvements. Attached as Exhibit B is a Location Map
identifying the property and the surrounding neighborhood. In 1992, approximately four
years after Welton Mansion was partitioned into apartments, the prior owner of the property
petitioned the City to have the property rezoned from RM-l, Residential Multifamily, Low
Density District, to RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, since the use
of the property at that time for multifamily purposes was not permitted in a district zoned
RM-l. (The prior owners of the property never obtained the required building permits or
inspections from the City to partition the house lawfully.) By City Ordinance No. 31140-
082492, enacted on August 24, 1992, City Council granted the petition of the prior owner,
and the property was rezoned RM-2, subject to certain proffered conditions filed in the
Office of the City Clerk on January 9, 1992. The property was subsequently zoned RMF,
Residential Multifamily, when the current zoning ordinance was adopted on December 5,
2005, subject to the proffered conditions approved by City Ordinance No. 31140-082492.
Applicants now request that the property be rezoned from RMF, Residential Multifamily, to
RM-1, Residential Mixed Density District, with no proffered conditions, for the purpose of
allowing them to use the property as a single-family residence.
The rezoning of this property is consistent with the intent and purposes of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. All of the neighboring properties surrounding this tract are zoned
RM-1 and consist of single-family homes and duplex units. Therefore, rezoning the
property to RM-1 would bring it into conformity with the RM-I zoning of the entire
surrounding neighborhood. Attached as Exhibit C is a listing of adjoining property owners.
Rezoning the property to RM-1 to permit a single-family residence would also
improve the character of the neighborhood, as the upkeep and repair of Welton Mansion and
its grounds would be best assured by resident owners of the property. While being used as a
multi-family tenement house, Welton Mansion fell into a state of significant disrepair. It is
noted that the electrical upgrades that were included in the special conditions approved by
Ordinance No. 31140-082492 were never performed. Applicants will completely upgrade
the electrical and plumbing systems and will further install a new HV AC system for Welton
Mansion.
Rezoning the property to RM-l to permit a single- family residence will further the
City's interest in protecting homes with genuine historical character and significance.
Welton Mansion was originally conceived and constructed as a single-family residence, and
it was unlawfully partitioned in 1988 into apartments. Rezoning the property to RM-1
would permit the restoration of a classic, Tudor Revival home (that was constructed over a
number of years and finally completed in 1911) in conformity with the intentions of its
original architect and owner.
2
Rezoning the property to RM-1 to permit a single-family residence would reduce
traffic in the surrounding neighborhood and would lessen the burden on municipal services.
Applicants would therefore request that the property be rezoned from RMF to RM -1,
with no conditions, and that Ordinance No. 31140-082492 and the proffered conditions it
enacted be repealed. Attached as Exhibit D is a statement of the Written Proffers to be
repealed. Attached as Exhibit E is a copy ofthe previously adopted Ordinance (Ordinance
No. 31140-082492).
Respectfully submitted,
u~
Wayne O. S. aig
1147 Welch Road, SW
Roanoke, VA 24015
JAct1a\ m~~
Sharon M. Haig
1147 Welch Road, SW
Roanoke, VA 24015
3
~~~~ i;:~~.C,"'):-' '" ~~~~~~~t-J~~~ f.1 trj
,., z
iT~l1z nUl '" '"
g~s:l'1~ ,., ~~~~~8~~Q~;; g
a>:l i1l I' ~
g)>.~~;u Z i"T1 >< 1"Tl>~Vl
>"'~ ~~~p~ n tii_~~5:~~~~~~ %
m ~~p '" 0 =-
'" OJ~~~~ ~[1~~~ ;:: '" wl>lJ< g_gms~:i~~~-l ~
,. e"'tlno 8 Vl ~~~~s;~~~~~~ ....
, "'0 :l' 0:1; -I
~ ~~?;~~ SIJ-<:;;gr 6'" '" 0 25J." m;-f~~~~~~~P~ 'Cf
oP!!!;;l~ ~ ..'"
Ii -<
" ~: ~~~ p:g~Q "O""iJoO VlVl~ 6:UO~~ffi~~~~~ ..,..
" ~~~~ edOl "*
n ~~ o~o ~~~?;;F nz", 0 ~\ M~~~CD~g~g~~
'" ::OJ:::;:o:I: 8["\ '",
" ~ d~; . 8;d~2: -0 ~~ g~ ~~ ~$'lO _ =<~a >
'" !J ~gz~ZU;ZLl)z~g;
~ ~ rr1 ~~?;.~~ ~ 1Tl0
o o:?:;n '" ;; g~d!;d~~~~S!'1~
z N~':(~ . R-~~.fT1 '" ,.
'" 19.1' -co 00::;;' >_(I)~O
8>:t=i ~.'1e~ pORCH ;Z:-OZ~8~g~S~~
p>-lr"ln . fB j:t" 8~VitDU):lJ~~~~
00 00 ;o:~_> ;~~r: ~~~
"''' "
"'''' "n
='-1 ;;1'" ~ !!!fT1-~g~~A)..(~
~~ 0,'" p ~~~C~~jjnj'l""'10
~~ ~~ ,. ~~Q~~~~~~;
"n )> ?~;~g~N ~=1
"=,
"'Q ~~ :<
g.~~ Z )>o;2~~iiiP~ 8~
-"z '"
~~~ _0 !;; ::~:M~~x ~~
^~25 ~:.. '" ~n::~~~>~ ~~
I ~F~ -<
'- fT'l-{(%lCiOOUl C);::IJ
,. ~~ :~gt ~:
:::~ 2: ,.
~!;t!'1 0 n
'" =:: .0 5
~-I mO
~~
z"
~ ~~
:i!'" tOT 6
~ " JoNA PRoPr%~Ci( J
0 ~/5 INS['tA/o/ 8. ",:"
~ z;Ui TAX ~ OJOOO6~~l:"N
'"
~ ;Ii:;! 1250156 s
"'1 ~u;
~ ,."
n "'S;:
'" "'"
~ lnUi
!"'t- " 'i!'"
0 " "'~
-( ~8
r.:r ;:: ""
n zo <;) ~z
MZ
~ Z " ~ ",;1; ;;:;
" 0" g :> n
;ii s- 'tl 0-<
"'1 "n llSl ,,:< 0
'" ~~ ~ Z
~ ~ . ;:j n 0 r5 Q
:0 g~
N =- 9~ \;!1 en '" :=
0 '" n -I".. "!~
ltlp " ,..
== " ~ ,: S5:f &5:: ~
" 1:10
'"
~ 0'" '-',. '"liP ~
," ~>o
Q.. !"", gn-; ~
-;Ii _:u~ /ii
G.-( "'f'l
!"'t- ~' '-'(f) "*
0 '",
"> .0 ~
p~
~ g:z .~
"f" --
~
I :=
"""'" "Tl~
g:;!
... z
rIJ 0
=:r
...
(1Q
=:r
-
...
(1Q
::r ~O
....
~ ~
Q..
.
tzr 'od '9rOl '8'0
"0 NVIOIillY<
..
2:0 -I ~
f:n~ " yq
x "C
..~ 2: f';i
!o " al" "C
I", 5~ -
-
N", '" R- ~ ~1:3~ f":
~n "' )> ~@5Vl :;.:
0 '-'~
~ "'C <A !:1:n S ;;0 m ~~~ -
'" c:"." >-
~ >g1'; -l '" ~~-< ..
Z c;
~ 0 ~ ~;;l~A z 0 fI
'" 0"0
~g.-~ ,. "'Z'"
["l '" OOUl
~ m ~ ~~~R' -< z~z:
pl U> 00 -</!
J"1~~~ ,. 0 -</!
oC)' :I: c; Z~-I
s:: ~~~~ :u Ft~g =-
:~~ fT1 ;.; or-1;tl[> or-l:::ot> ot""'-l:tlp oc~.. i s:: ~
:c n n B U :Z:u R n II :I: II II n It :I: II n II H r =
OJ ~~~:: r -< nz '" OJ t...o!
h)~ 0 r d ~~ .fo.~~~O~ 0 II l'.)-..,JP>J ~ II OO..,J"..- . n U--P>J . < 20 ""'l >-
r ,. c:tnp ^ oc! ~.~~~~-~. q ~~~~g~ ~ (.01(1)(110)000 0)> I 0 >-
a~)ad r.t "'-- )> '" !'J (XI-...sPtJ "". ~gg.~.g:; -; g ",:::l n
I V'g~ ~ ;i't Olr5UlO!.gt.-l. !'J_~t--J..Ql..o.q, ~~ \ =
I . 1"0> ~. > 0" l:l - ~ "0 q I ~
-0 ~ ~ ~ C;g -0 ,. ". f;i;: ~
pz z ~ lJ
0 .- oll) ~o 0 '" " '" )> G')
-~~g ~ g~~ ~~ " " ~
I ~ ":S '" '" I
I ~il:n:, ~ 1m.. "," I :=
~ ~~ ~ l i ~~~..... "''" l-
I ... '. .:::.~ I = I-
;;:~~~~~ co"'. -. =:0:
a ~:Jt: ~2,; ~~q ~ ..
(J(
Exhibit B
Applicants: Wayne O. S, Haig
Sharon M. Haig
Sf) ~--SE' e-r P R OPE:f!TJ
http:// gis.roanokeva.gov /servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=rnke&ClientV er... 7/16/2008
Exhibit C
Applicants: Wayne O. S. Haig
Sharon M. Haig
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS LISTING
Owner's Name and Address Property Address Tax Map #
Llewellyn H. Hedgbeth 702 Welton Avenue, SW 1251033
1004 19th Street Roanoke, V A 24015
Arlington, V A 22202
Llewellyn H. Hedgbeth 708 Welton Avenue, SW 1251032
708 Welton Avenue, SW Roanoke, V A 24015
Roanoke, V A 24015
JKM One, LLP 716 Welton Avenue, SW 1251031
410 1st Street, SW Roanoke, V A 24015
Roanoke, V A 24011
Gary N. Oyler 722 Welton (724) Avenue, SW 1251030
Jennifer T. Oyler
3258 Bromley Road Roanoke, V A 24015
Roanoke, V A 24018
Gregory W. Wallding 728 Welton Avenue, SW 1251029
Jennifer L. Wallding
5898 Lakemont Drive Roanoke, V A 24015
Roanoke, V A 24018
Craig S. Riddle 732 Welton Avenue, SW 1251028
P.O. Box 48 Roanoke, V A 24015
Roanoke, V A 24002-0048
Mildred B. Thompson 736 Welton Avenue, SW 1251027
736 Welton Avenue, SW Roanoke, V A 24015
Roanoke, V A 24015
DGL Management, LLC 740 Welton Avenue, SW 1251026
2602 Stephenson Avenue, SW Roanoke, V A 24015
Roanoke, V A 24014
Melinda D. Blankenship 748 Welton Avenue, SW 1251025
748 Welton Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24015
Roanoke, V A 24015
Larry H. Moore 750 Welton Avenue, SW 1251024
Elizabeth F. Moore Roanoke, V A 24015
813 Franklin Road
Roanoke, V A 24016
Earl S. Vest 754 Welton Avenue, SW 1251023
Mamie P. Vest
754 Welton Avenue, SW Roanoke, V A 24015
Roanoke, V A 24015
Bonnie B. Maxwell 760 Welton Avenue, SW 1251022
760 Welton Avenue, SW Roanoke, V A 24015
Roanoke, V A 24015
Owner's Name and Address Property Address Tax Map #
J. Wysor Smith, Jr. 766 Welton (768) Avenue, SW
1010 2nd Street, SW 1251021
Roanoke, V A 24016 Roanoke, V A 24015
1. Wysor Smith, Jr. 770 Welton Avenue, SW
1010 2nd Street, SW Roanoke, V A 24015 1251020
Roanoke, VA 24016
Mark R. Henry
Catherine J. Henry 1802 Lawnhill Street, SW 1251001
1802 Lawnhill Street, SW Roanoke, V A 24015
Roanoke, V A 24015
Thomas W. Markwood, Jr.
Deborah L. Markwood 804 Welton Avenue, SW 1250143
11725 Cliff Lawn Road Roanoke, V A 24015
Chester, VA 23831-2010
Robert S. Hartman
Catherine 1. Hartman 810 Welton Avenue, SW 1250142
8272 Olsen Road Roanoke, VA 24015
Roanoke, V A 24019
Wayne O.H. Haig
Sharon M. Haig Welton Avenue, SW 1250152
1147 Welch Road, SW Roanoke, V A 24015
Roanoke, V A 24015
Jonathan B. Snowden 930 Floyd Avenue, SW
2053 Memorial Avenue, SW 1250156
Roanoke, V A 24015 Roanoke, V A 24015
Stephen P. Agee
Janice Chandler 929 Floyd Avenue, SW 1130612
763 Oakwood Drive, SW Roanoke, V A 24015
Roanoke, VA 24015
Ray Carl Hopson
Caroline S. Hopson 852 Kerns Avenue, SW 1130613
852 Kerns Avenue, SW Roanoke, V A 24015
Roanoke, VA 24015
2
Exhibit D
Applicants: Wayne O. S. Haig
Sharon M. Haig
WRITTEN PROFFERS TO BE REPEALED
The Applicants hereby request that the following Proffered Conditions enacted by
Ordinance No. 31140-082492, set forth below, be repealed as they pertain to Official Tax
No. 1250133:
(a) No further development of multifamily dwelling units will be made
on the property, although Petitioner reserves the right to develop single-family
and/or two-family residences on lots subdivided from the property, as consistent with
proffer (b) below.
(b) The area along Welton Avenue marked "Frontage A" on Exhibit B to
this petition will be developed, if at all, only with single-family residences on a
maximum often (10) lots subdivided (in accordance with applicable ordinances)
from the property. The area along W elton Avenue and Floyd Avenue marked
"Frontage B" on Exhibit B to this petition will be developed, if at all, with single-
and/or two-family residences on a maximum often (10) lots subdivided (in
accordance with applicable ordinances) from the property.
(c) The exterior of the main house will not be materially altered except:
(i) as may be required for normal maintenance and repair; (ii) for the addition of one
or more porches or decks in a manner architecturally consistent with existing
conditions; (iii) in order to weatherproof doors and windows.
(d) No trees with a caliper of twelve inches (12") or greater (measured
three (3) feet from the ground) will be removed from the property unless diseased or
damaged or unless necessary to permit construction on lots subdivided from the
property in accordance with applicable ordinances.
( e) If a building permit for electrical system upgrade to be made to the
mansion on the property is not obtained and the permitted work completed and
inspected and approved by City building officials within one (1) year from the
effective date of the ordinance rezoning the property, the zoning shall revert to
RM-l, Residential Multifamily, Low Density District without further action of City
COWlcil.
2
~.,
.....
-----
I
\
" I i I:,
. 'I ~
I . OM
II "
10 ~
I :'i= ~:!/
. ~ I
lIr 7~i
i;~;
..
.'"
~
'to
~
..
!~ .~
~
..
CURVE oa;
@@ @Q
~ III III .
't 't c
1M .. .. !
~ .. ~ ~ ~
.;
"I ..
i_;_=_~t_ ~
8 .. .. 4 g
'" _ I.l! \It. ~
" .. &: .. .. ..
a .. )0 '" ..
~ .. .. <4 ~
0( lI\ ~
I:) ~ ;It ~ ~'1i
, ~ ~ .. ~ ..
"! ~
.. ; ~ .. :=
'" ,..
~ ~ '" ~ ~,
"!
011 '" UI
... ill '"
.. ~
~ ~ Ii
.. ... ~
.. ,
.i ..
)-'
~
.
.'
~-
",
,...... -.'
,
/
/'
.'
./
'.,~_.'-"":
.~
';Ii<
Exhibit E
Applicants: Wayne O. S. Haig
Sharon M. Haig
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 24tb day of August. 1992.
No. 31140-082492.
AN ORDINANCE to amend S36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 125, Sectional 1976 Zone Map,
City of Roanoke, to rezone certain property within the City,
subject to certain conditions proffered by the applicant.
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City
of Roanoke to have the hereinafter described property rezoned from
RM-l, Residential Multifamily, Low Density District, to RM-2,
Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, subject to
certain conditions proffered by the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, which after giving
proper notice to a~l concerned as required by S36.1-693, Code of
the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and after conducting a
public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to
Council; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by City Council on said
application at its meeting on August 10, 1992, after due and timely
notice thereof as required by S36.1-693, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, at which hearing all parties in
interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard, both
for and against the proposed rezoning; and
WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the aforesaid
application, the recommendation made to the Council by the Planning
Commission, the' City's Comprehensive Plan, and the matters
, l
presented at the public hearing, is of the opinion that the
hereinafter described property should be rezoned as herein
provided.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that S36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended, and Sheet No. 125 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of
Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other:
A tract of land located at 759 Welton Avenue, S.W., and
designated on Sheet No. 125 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of
Roanoke, as Official Tax No. 1250133, be, and is hereby rezoned
from RM-1, Residential Multifamily, Low Density District, to RM-2,
Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, subject to those
condi tions prof fered by and set forth in the Second Amended
Petition, filed in the Office of the City Clerk on July 9, 1992,
and that Sheet No. 125 of the Zone Map be changed in this respect.
ATTEST:
"" ~
1. Pa.....t.
City Clerk.
The Roanoke Times
Roanoke, Virginia
Affidavit of Publication
The Roanoke Times
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+- ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
HAIG, WAYNE
1147 WELCH
ROANOKE VA
RD
24015
REFERENCE: 80089201
11117467
Wayne O. H. Haig
r
i
I
I
The Council of the'City 01
: Roanoke will hold a public'
, hearing on Thursday!
October 23, 2008, at 7:0~
! p.m., or as soon thereaftei
, as the matter may be heard:
in the Council Chamber!
fourth floor, in the 'Noel C,
: Taylor Municipal Building:
215 Church Avenue, S.W.I
i Roanoke,' Virginia, to
j consider the followi~: i
i Request from Wayne O. H:
'I Haig and Sharon M, Haig to
. repeal conditions on property
at 759 Welton Avenue, S,W.;
Official Tax No, 1250133, as
set forth In Ordinance No.1
31140-082492 and to'
, rezone such property from
, RMF, Residential Multifamilyl
, District, to RM-1, Residential!
, Mixed Density District, for:
'uses permitted in the RM'l
zoning district. '
A copy of the application is I.
available for review in the
Office of the City Clerk,
Room 456, Noel C. Taylor I
Municipal Building, 215,
Church Avenue, S,W,,:
Roanoke, Virginia. ;
All parties in interest and I
citizens may appear on the'
above date and be heard on
the matter. If you are a
person with a disability who
needs accommodations for
this hearing, please contact
'the City Clerk's Office, at
853-2541, before noon on i
the Thursday before the date I
of the hearing listed above, I
GIVEN ,under my ~and this
30th day of September,
2008.
Stephanie M, Moon, CMC
City Clerk,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
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 Ro~noke, in the State of
Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was
published in said newspapers on the following
dates:
City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of
Virginia. Sworn and subscribed before me this
__l~~day of Oct 2008. Witness my hand and
official seal.
__~~~~~ ~~otary Public
My commission ~Pi~~~~____lO~~~J_L_.
PUBLISHED ON:
10/06 10/13
\\\\1111/11/
",\\:-{ A LA r: "'"
..,' ~\)..,',..., ,1lt'1. ',o'
~ ~~"'NOiAR'{ ....~ -::.
= t:t:j :' PUBLIC ". ~
-: ""7090930 . * -
-: . REG, 'tt" .
: *: NN COMMISSION .: ~ =
'~ ,C' ". -E~'pI~t, \.-" ~ ~
#",0-. ~. ~~.....""
.,,~~.... ......,~......
'''70 '" . , . ;\( '" ...
',,.?1/WEAL1\\ \) ",......
. ""', n,' \ \ \ \
(11117467)
TOTAL COST:
FILED ON:
355.68
10/13/08
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
....
Billing Services Representative
'<
'\.
{:
S ~\-s> y~
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a public hearing on Thursday, October 23,
2008, at 7:00 p.m" or as soon thereafter as the matter maybe heard, in the Council Chamber, fourth
floor, in the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, to
consider the following: '
Request from Wayne 0, H. Haig and Sharon M. Haig to repeal conditions on
property at 759 Welton Avenue, S,W" Official Tax No. 1250133, as set forth
in Ordinance No. 31140-082492 and to rezone such property from RMF,
Residential Multifamily District, to RM -1, Residential Mixed Density
District, for uses permitted in the RM -1 zoning district
A copy of the application is available for review in: the Office ofthe City Clerk, Room 456,
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S,W., Roanoke, Virginia.
All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be heard on the matter.
If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this hearing, please contact the
City Clerk's Office, at 853-2541, before noon on the Thursday before the date of the hearing listed
above,
GIVEN under my hand this 30thdayof September
,2008.
,
i
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk.
, ... t.... ..1 ...~'
',_ ~...l j...:l.. ... .:'
,_.t'_: ....~.
Wayne HaiQ-rezone & amend nroffer"r1or
Notice to Publisher:
Publish in the Roanoke Times on Monday, October 6, 2008, and October 13,2008.
Send affidavit to:
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC, City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541
NPH-Wayne Haig-rezone & amend proffers,doc
Send bill to:
Wayne O. H. and Sharon M. Haig
1147 Welch Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
(540) 982-8543
..
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@roanokeva,gov
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
CECELlA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
STEPHANIE M, MOON, CMC
City Clerk
October 24, 2008
Darlene L Bu rcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 38264-102308 authorizing the lease of
748 square feet of space located within City-owned property known as the City
Market Building, to Min Sho, doing business as Hong Kong Restaurant, for a
month to month term beginning November 1, 2008.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Thursday, October 23, 2008, and is in
fu II force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
~hJ. lrJolMJ
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
pc: Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Brian K. Brown, Economic Development Administrator
Cassandra L. Turner, Economic Development Specialist
o~
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 23rd day of October, 2008.
No. 38264-102308.
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the lease of 748 square feet of space located within City-
owned property known as the City Market Building, for a month to month term beginning November
1,2008; and dispensing with the second reading ofthis ordinance by title.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 23, 2008, pursuant to 9915.2-1800(B) and
15.2-1813, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens
were afforded an opportunity to be heard on the proposed lease.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The City Manager and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute and attest,
respectively, in a form approved by the City Attorney, an agreement with Min Shao, doing business
as Hong Kong Restaurant, for the lease of approximately 748 square feet of space located within
City-owned property known as the City Market Building, for the operation of a food service
business, for a month to month term, not to exceed twelve months, at a rental rate of$1745.33 per
month, beginning November 1,2008, upon certain terms and conditions, and as more particularly
described in the City Manager's letter to this Council dated October 23, 2008.
2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 ofthe City Charter, the second reading of this
ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
, ,
~:\\,'\'J3\,', iJ.:
~'Vll"\ ~t/Y{)
, City Clerk.: .tv;
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
\
\
-,,/
October 23, 2008
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Vice Mayor
Honorable Gwendolyn W. Mason, Council Member
Honorable Alvin L. Nash, Council Member
Honorable AnitaJ, Price, Council Member
Honorable Court G. Rosen, Council Member
Honorable David B. Trinkle, Council Member
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Background:
Subject: Lease Renewal for Hong
Kong Restaurant in the City
Market Building
Min Shao, owner and operator of Hong Kong restaurant, has requested a
renewal of his lease for 748 square feet of space located in the City Market
Building at 32 Market Square, Roanoke, Virginia 24011. The current lease
expires October 31, 2008. The new lease term is month to month, not to
exceed twelve months, effective November 1, 2008. The proposed
agreement establishes a base rent to be paid as provided by the following
schedule:
Period Square Per Square Monthly Rent Annual Rent
Footage Foot Amount Amount
Amount
11/1/08 - 748 $28.00 $1,745.33 $20,944
11/30/08
The Common Area maintenance fee, to be paid in addition to the rental
amount described above, is $300.00 per month.
. $).
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
October 23, 2008
Page 2
Recommended Action:
Authorize the City Manager to execute a lease agreement with Hong Kong
restaurant, for approximately 748 square feet of space in the City Market
Building, located at 32 Market Square, Roanoke, Virginia 24011, for a period
of month to month, effective November 1, 2008, not to exceed twelve (12)
months. Such lease shall be upon form approved by the City Attorney.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene L. Bu cham
City Manager
DLB/c1t
c: Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Brian K. Brown, Economic Development Administrator
Cassandra L. Turner, Economic Development Specialist
CM08-00162
LEASE
Between
THE CITY OF ROANOKE
And
Min Shao t/a Hong Kong Restaurant
c: \OOCUME-l \CMJBl \LOCALS-l \TEMP\NOTESFFF692 \HONG KONG LEASE. DOC
LEASE
INDEX
HEADING
PAGE
PREMISES
TERM
BASE RENT; ESCALATIONS
COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE
2
LANDLORD OBLIGATIONS
2
TENANT'S OBLIGATIONS
3.
USE OF PREMISES
3
EXCLUSIVITY
4
ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING
4
IMPROVEMENTS
4
SURRENDER OF PREMISES
4
INSPECTION
4
"
INSOLVENCY OR BANKRUPTCY OF TENANT
4
TRANSFER OF LANDLORD'S INTEREST
5
ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE
5
DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES
5
DEFAULT OF TENANT
6
6
CONDEMNATION
COVENANTS OF LANDLORD
6
NO PARTNERSHIP
7
BROKERS COMMISSION
7
NOTICES
7
HOLDING OVER
7
BENEFIT AND BURDEN
7
GENDER AND NUMBER
7
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
7
C\DDCUME-l \CMJ" 1 \LOCALS-l \ TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HONG KONG LEASE.DOC
I
INVALIDITY OF PARTICULAR PROVISIONS 7
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 7
INSURANCE 8
SECURITY DEPOSIT 9
INDEMNIFICATION 9
COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS 10
FORUM SELECTION AND CHOICE OF LAW 10
\
FORCE MAJEURE 10
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 10
DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE 10
RULES AND REGULATIONS 1 1
SIGNAGE 11
GUARANTY 1 1
LIABILITY OF LANDLORD 11
TENANT IMPROVEMENTS 11
BUSINESS HOUR MODIFICATION 11
Exhibit A Floor Plan
Exhibit B Common Area Floor Plan
Exhibit C Menu
Exhibit D Rules and Regulations
Exhibit E Sign Regulations
Exhibit F Guaranty
C\DOCUME-l \CMJBl \LOCALS-l \ TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HONG KONG LEASE.DOC
II
LEASE
THIS LEASE is made this ____day of ____________________2008 by and between the
CITY OF ROANOKE (hereinafter referred to as "Landlord"), and Min Shao t/a Hong
Kong Restaurant (hereinafter referred to as ''Tenant''),
WITNESSETH:
In consideration of the mutual agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties
hereto mutually agree asfollows:
1. PREMISES Landlord hereby leases to Tenant and Tenant hereby leases
from Landlord, for the term and upon the conditions hereinafter provided" a
section of the building known as the Roanoke City Market Building (herein
referred to as the "Building") located at 32 Market Square, Stalls #122.123. 103A
and 103, Roanoke, Virginia 24011, as is delineated on Exhibit "A" hereto, which is
hereafter referred to as the "Premises." The Premises consists of approximately
748 square feet of space. .
2; TERM The term of this Lease shall commence on November 1,
2008, ("Commencement Date") and shall expire at 11 :59 o'clock p.m. on
November 31. 2008. Unless written notice is given by the City at least sixty (60)
days p'rior to the end of the initial term, or any renewalterm, by the tenant, this
Lease shall automatically renew for another month. Each renewal term shall be
upon the same terms and conditions as the prior month, and upon the mutual
agreement of the parties. Provided that such renewal terms shall not exceed a
maximum of eleven (11) months. A key will be given to Tenant upon execution of
the Lease.
3. BASE RENT: ESCALATIONS The base rent for each month of the term
shall be based on cost per square foot. Tenant shall pay as base rent for the
Premises for each month of the Lease accordinq to the followinq schedule:
Period Square Per Square Monthly Rent Annual Rent
Footage Foot Amou nt Amount
Amount
11/01/08 748 $28.00 $1745.33 $20,944
to
11/30/08
If the Commencement Date is other than the first day of thf month, the first
month of the Lease term shall be deemed to be extended to include such partial
month .and the following month, so as to end on the 'ast day of the month. In the
event the Commencement Date is other than the first day of a calendar month,
the Base Rent ("Rent") (as well as the Common Area Maintenance Fee provided
hereunder) for the portion of the then current calendar month shall be prorated
on the basis of a thirty (30) day month and shall be paid immediately upon the
commencement of the Term.
On the first anniversary of the Lease, and upon ~ach successive anniversary
thereafter, the monthly rent for the next twelve (1 2~ months shall be increased by
three percent (3%) of the previous year's monthly rental.
Rent shall be paid monthly. The first monthly IJi'yment shall be made at the time
of execution of this Lease by the parties; the ';e( and and all subs~quent monthly
payments shall be made on the first day of each and every calendar month during
the term. Any monthly payment of rent which is not received by Landlord by the
C\DOCUME-l \CMjBl \LOCALS-l \ TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HONG KONG LEASE.DOC
1
end of the fifth (5th) day of the month shall be assessed a late charge in the
amount of five percent (5%) of such total monthly rent payment. All delinquent
rent, and other charges due under this Lease shall accrue interest at a rate equal
to the current prime rate, as established by the United States Government, plus
two percent (2%) per month or the maximum amount permitted by law, from the
due date of such payment and shall constitute additional rent payable by Tenant
under this Lease and shall be paid byTenant to Landlord upon demand. Payment
shall not be deemed as received if Tenant's payment is not actually collected
(such as payment by insufficient funds check). Tenant shall pay rent to Landlord
at City of Roanoke, 215 Church Ave, Roanoke, Virginia 24011, or to such other
party or at such other address as Landlord may designate from time to time by
written notice to Tenant, without demand. Checks shall be made payable to
Treasurer, City of Roanoke.
\ .
4. COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE Tenant agrees to pay Landlord, as
additional rental, Tenant's proportionate share of the costs ("Common Area
Maintenance Fee") of maintaining, operating, repairing, replacing and insuring the
"Common Areas" defined herein.
The Common Area Maintenance Fee for this lease will be a flat fee charge of Three
Hundred Dollars ($300.00) per month. These fees will increase by three (3%)
percent upon each anniversary of this Lease.
The term "Common Area Maintenance Fee" includes all costs and expenses of
every kind and nature paid or incurred by Landlord in operating, managing,
equipping, policing, lighting, repairing, replacing items in the Building and
maintaining the Building. Such costs and expenses will include, but not be limited
to, the following:
(a) utilities (electric, gas, waste removal, water and sewer charges, storm water
charges; individual telephone service is specifically excluded),
(b) insurance premiums for public liability and property damage for the
Building(excluding Tenant's Premises)
(c) maintenance costs of heating, ventilating and air conditioning,
(d) insect and rodent treatment,
(e) snow and ice removal,
(f) electrical and plumbing repairs in the Common Areas of the Building,
(g) management costs and repairs to the structure of Building which includes
roof and wall repairs, foundations, sprinkler systems, utility lines, sidewalks
and curbs,
(h) security camera systems,
(i) lighting,
U) sanitary control, drainage, collection of rubbish and other refuse,
(k) costs to remedy and/or comply with governmental and/or environmental
and hazardous waste matters(excluding Tenant's Premises)
(I) repair and installation of equipmF:nt for energy saving or safety purposes,
(m) reserves for future maintenance and repair work (which Tenant hereby
authorize Landlord to use as necessary),
(n) depreciation on equipment and machinery used in maintenance, costs of
personnel required to provide such services, .
(0) All costs and expenses associated with Landlord's obligation to repair and
maintain and such other items of cost and expense which are relatable to
proper maintenance of the Building and its Commo~ Areas.
The "Common Areas" are defined as all areas and spaces in the Building and
equipment in the Building, as further shown on the attached Exhibit B provided by
Landlord for common or joint use and benefit ofthe tenants ofthe Building, their
C\DDCUME-l \CMjB 1 \LOCALS-l \TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HONG KONG LEASE.DOC
2
employees, agents, servants, customers and invitees. The Common Areas further
include, without limitation, roofs, walls, vacant areas, food court, elevator(s),
restrooms, stairways, walkways, ramps, foundations, signs (excluding Tenant's
signage), security cameras, lighting fixtures and equipment, and the facilities
appurtenant to each of the aforesaid, and any other facilities maintained for the
benefit of the Building. Landlord shall have the right to modify the Common
Areas from time to time as deemed reasonable by L~ndlord.
5. LANDLORD'S OBLIGATIONS
responsible for the following:
Landlord hereby agrees to provide and be
(a) make all structural and capital repairs and replacements to items in the
,Building and to the Common Areas, as defined above, and to maintain the
Building and its Common Areas. Structural and capital repairs and
replacements are defined as repairs or replacements which include but are
not limited to repairs or replacements to the roof, elevators, electrical
wiring, heating and air conditioning systems, toilets, water pipes, gas,
plumbing, other electrical fixtures and the .exterior and interior walls.
Structural and capital repairs to Tenant's Premises are specifically excluded.
(b) pay for the cost of Tenant's utilities (gas, electric, heating, water, telephone
service specifically excluded) and all other services identified through use
of funds from the Common Area Maintenance Fee described above.
(c) provide a key to Tenant upon execution of the Lease Agreement,
6. TENANT'S OBLIGATIONS Tenant, at its sole cost and expense, agrees
to provide and be responsible for the following, in addition to its other
responsibilities pursuant tothis Lease.
(a) Tenant shall keep and maintain the Premise in good repair, condition and
appearance during the term ofthis Lease, ordinary wear and tear excepted,
and not use any part of the Premises orthe Common Areas of the Building
in a negligent manner.
)
(b) Tenant shall take good care of the Premises, its fixtures, and appurtenances
and suffer no waste or injury thereto, and shall pay for all repairs and
replacements to the Premises, necessitated by Tenant's actions, whether
capital, structural as defined above, or otherwise.
(c) Tenant shall surrender the Premises at the end of the term in as good
condition as Tenant obtained the same at the commencement of the term,
reasonable wear and tear excepted.
(d) Tenant shall operate its business as described in Section 7 of this Lease.
(e) Tenant shall pay rent timely as provided in Se( .ion 3 of this Lease.
(f) Tenant shall obtain the insurance as requir~ d in Section 29 of this Lease.
7. USE OF PREMISES The Premi es shall be used for the purpose of
conducting therein the sale of Chinese Guisi' e menu items. Tenant covenants
and agrees that at all times during the term ,ereof, Tenant will actively conduct
such a business in the Premises, keep the PH mises amply stocked with goodand
fresh merchandise and keep the Premises or ~11 for business during the customary
business hours of 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Ill It less than eight (8) hours per day,
Monday through Saturday) of the Building a~ established or as may be amended
C\DDCUME-l \CMJB' \LDCALS-l \TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HONG KONG LEASE. DOC
3
by Landlord and (ii) the Premises shall be used only for such purpose. The
Building will be closed for the following Holidays or as observed: New Year's Day,
Memorial Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Nothing herein
shall require the City of Roanoke to open the Building outside of the above
designated hours. The Premises shall not be used for any other purpose without
the written permission of Landlord. Tenant shall not open the Building to the
public outside of the customary business hours or on the Holidays stated above.
8. EXCLUSIVITY. Tenant operates a restaurant as outlined in attached
menu noted as Exhibit "C". Tenant must obtain written approval of Landlord
before adding any item, otherthan soft drink beverages, to its menu and shall pay
a $100 per item to the Landlord if Tenant does not obtain such approval. If menu
changes persist beyond thirty (30) days without the written approval of the
Landlord the tenant is thereby in default of its Lease. Landlord and Tenant
acknowledge that it is the intent of the parties that current and prospective
tenants of the Building not be allowed to market products that would impair the
sales of the other tenants of the Building. Accordingly, Landlord agrees not to
lease to tenants selling similar food, cuisine or fare as existing tenants of the
Market Building, as determined in the sole discretion of the Landlord, or which
will in the opinion of the Landlord be inconsistent with the intended uses of the
Building. Tenant further agrees not to market any product that would impair a
current Tenant's sales. Tenant acknowledges and agrees that if there is any
disagreement over whether any item sold by a tenant is an item sold by another
tenant of the Building that would impair Tenant's sales; such dispute shall be
determined and resolved in the Landlord's sole discretion.
9. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING Tenant shall not voluntarily or
involuntarily assign this Lease in whole or in part, nor sublet all or any part ofthe
Premises without following the procedures detailed herein and obtaining the prior
written consent of Landlord, in Landlord's sole discretion. The consent by
Landlord to any assignment or subletting shall not constitute a waiver of the
necessity for such consent in any subsequent assignment or subletting.
In the event that Tenant receives a bona fide written offer from a third party for
the sublease or assignment of the Premises, Tenant shall forthwith notify
Landlord in writing, attaching a copy of such offer, of Tenant's desire to sublet or'
assign this Lease upon the terms of such offer, whereupon Landlord shall have
thi~ty (30) days to accept or reject such assignment or sublease.
10. IMPROVEMENTS Landlord must approve :ill alterations,
redecorations, or improvements in and to the Premises in wr ting beforehand.
Such alterations, redecorations, additions, or improvements sj,all conform to all
applicable Building Codes ofthe City of Roanoke, federal and state laws, rules and
regulations.
11. SURRENDER OF PREMISES At the expiration of the tenancy hereby
created, Tenant shall peaceably surrender the Premises, including all alterations,
additions, improvements, decorations and repairs made thereto (but excluding all
trade fixtures, equipment, signs and other personal property installed by Tenant,
provided that in no event shall Tenant remove any of the following materials or
equipment without Landlord's prior written consent: any free standing signs, any
power wiring or power panels; lighting or lighting fixtures; wall coverings; drapes,
blinds or other window coverings; carpets or other floor coverings; or other
similar building operating equipment and decorations), broom cleaned and in
good condition and repair, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Tenant shall
remove all its property not required to be surrendered to Landlord before
surrendering the Premises and shall repair any damage '.0 the Premises caused
C:\DOCUME-l \CMJBl \lOCALS-l \ TEMP\NOTESFFFG92\HONG KONG LEASE,DOC
4
thereby. Any personal property remaining in the Premises at the expiration ofthe
Lease shall be deemed abandoned by Tenant, and Landlord may claim the same
and shall in no circumstance have any liability to Tenant therefore. If physical
alterations were done by Tenant, Landlord, at its option, may require Tenant to
return Premises to its original condition (condition at occupancy) when Tenant
vacates Premises. Upon termination, Tenant shall also surrender all keys for the
Premises to Landlord and, if applicable, inform Landlord of any combinations of
locks or safes in the Premises. If the Premises are not surrendered at the end of
the term as herein above set out, Tenant shall indemnify Landlord against loss or
liability resulting from delay by Tenant in so surrendering the Premises, including
without limitation, claims made by the succeeding Tenant founded on such delay.
Tenant's obligation to observe or perform this covenant shall survive the
expiration or other termination of the term of this Lease.
12. INSPECTION Tenant will permit Landlord, or its representative, to enter
the Premises, upon reasonable notice to Tenant, without charge thereof to
Landlord and without diminution of the rent payable by Tenant, to examine,
inspect and protect the same, and to make such alterations and/or repairs as in
the judgment of Landlord may be deemed necessary, or to exhibit the same to
prospective Tenants during the last one hundred twenty (120) days of the term of
this Lease.
13. INSOLVENCY OR BANKRUPTCY OF TENANT In the event Tenant makes
an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or a receiver of Tenant's assets is
appointed, or Tenant files a voluntary petition in any bankruptcy or insolvency
proceeding, or an involuntary petition in any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding
is filed against Tenant and the same is not discharged within sixty (60) days, or
Tenant is adjudicated as bankrupt, Landlord shall have the option ofterminating
this Lease. Upon such written notice being given by Landlord to Tenant, the term
ofthis Lease shall, atthe option ofLandlord, end and Landlord shall be entitled to
immediate possession of the Premises and to recover damages from Tenant in
accordance with the provisions of Article 17 hereof.
14. TRANSFER OF LANDLORD'S INTEREST Landlord shall have the right to
convey, transfer or assign, by sale or otherwise, all or any part of its ownership
interest in the property, including the Premises, at any time and from time to time
and to any person, subject to the terms and conditions of this Lease. All
covenants and obligations of Landlord under this Lease shall cease upon the
execution of such conveyance, transfer or assignment, but such covenants and
obligations shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the subsequent
owner(s) thereof or of this Lease during the periods of their ownership thereof.
15. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE Tenant agrees, at any time, and from time to
time, upon not less than ten (l0) days' prior notice by Landlord, to execute,
acknowledge and deliver to Landlord, a statement in writing addressed to
Landlord or other party designated by Landlord certifying that this Lease is in full
force.and effect (or, ifthere have been modifications, that the same is in full force
and effect as modified and stating the modifications), stating the actual
commencement and expiration dates ofthe Lease, stating the dates towhich rent,
and other charges, if any, have been paid, that the Premises have been completed
on or before the date of such certificate and that all conditions precedent to the
Lease taking effect have been carried out, that Tenant has accepted possession,
that the Lease term has commenced, Tenant is occupying the Premises and is
open for business, and stating whether or not there exists any default by either
party contained in this Lease, and if so specifying each such default of which the
signer may have knowledge and the claims or offsets, if any, claimed by Tenant; it
being intended that any such statement delivered pursuant hereto may be relied
C\DOCUME-' \CMJBl \LOCALS-l \ TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HONG KONG LEASE.DOC
5
upon by Landlord or a purchaser of Landlord's interest and by any mortgagee or
prospective mortgage of any mortgage affecting the Premises. If Tenant does not
deliver such statement to Landlord within such ten (10) day period, Landlord may
conclusively presume and rely upon the following facts: (i) that the terms and
provisions of this Lease have not been changed except as otherwise represented
by Landlord; (ii) that this Lease has not been canceled or terminated except as
otherwise represented by Landlord; (iii) that not more than one (1) month's
minimum rent or other charges have been paid in advance; and (iv) that Landlord
is not in default under the Lease; and (v) no disputes exist. In such event Tenant
shall be estopped from denying the truth of such facts. Tenant shall also, on ten
(10) days' written notice, provide an agreement in favor of and in the form
customarily used by such encumbrance holder, by the terms of which Tenant will
agree to give prompt written notice to any such encumbrance holder in the event
of any casualty damage to the Premises or in the event of any default on the part
of Landlord under this Lease, and will agree to allow such encumbrance holder a I...
reasonable length oftinie after notice to cure or cause the curing of such default
before exercising Tenant's right of self-help under this Lease, if any, or
terminating or declaring a default under this Lease.
16. DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES If the Building or the Premises shall be
partially damaged by fire or other cause without the fault or neglect of Ten ant, its
agents, employees or invitees, Landlord shall diligently and as soon as practiCable
after such damage occurs repair such damage at the expense of Landlord,
provided, however,that if the Building is damaged by fire or other cause to such
extent that the damage cannot be fully repaired within ninety (90) days from the
date of such damage, Landlord or Tenant, upon written notice to the other, may
terminate this Lease, in which event the rent shall be apportioned and paid to the
date of such damage. During the period that Tenant is deprived ofthe use ofthe
damaged portion of Premises, Tenant shal! be required to pay rental covering only
that part of the Premises that Tenant is able to occupy, and Rent for such
occupied space shall be the total rent divided by the square foot area of the
Premises and multiplied by the square foot area that the Tenant is able to occupy.
17. DEFAULT OF TENANT If Tenant shall fail to pay any monthly installment of
Rent and/or as required by this Lease, or shall violate or fail to perform any ofthe
other conditions, covenants or agreement on its part contained in this Lease and
such failure to pay Rent or such violation or failure shall continue for a period of
ten (l0) days after the due date of such payment or after written notice of any
such violation or failure to perform by Tenant, then and in any of such events this
Lease shall, at the option of Landlord, cease and terminate upon at least ten (10)
days' prior written notice of such election to Tenant by Landlord, and if such
failure to pay rent or such violation or failure shall continue to the date set forth
in such notice of termination, then this Lease shall cease and terminate without
further notice to quit or of Landlord's intention to re-enter, the same being hereby
waived, and Landlord may proceed to recover possession under and by virtue of
the provisions of the laws of Virginia, or by such other proceedings, including
re-entry and possession, as may be applicable. If Landlord elects to terminate this
Lease, everything herein contained on the part of Landlord to be done and
performed shall cease without prejudice, however, to the right of Landlord to
recover from the Tenant all rental accrued up to the time of termination or
recovery of possession by Landlord, whichever is later. Should this Lease be
terminated before the expiration of the term of this Lease by reason of Ten ant's
default as hereinabove provided, or if Tenant shall abandon or vacate the
Premises before the expiration or termination of the term of this Lease, Landlord
shall use its best efforts to relet the Premises on the best rental terms reasonably
available under the circumstances and ifthe full rental hereinabove provided shall
not be realized by Landlord, Tenant shall be liable for any deficiency in rent. Any
C\DOCUME-' \CMJBl \LOCALS-l \ TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HONG KONG LEASE.DOC
6
damage or loss of rental sustained by Landlord may be recovered by, Landlord, at
Landlord's option, at the time of the reletting, or in separate actions from time to
time, as such damage shall have been made more easily ascertainable by
successive relettings, or at Landlord's option, may be deferred until the expiration
of the term of this Lease in which event the cause of action shall not be deemed
to have accrued until the date of expiration of such term. The provisions
contained in this paragraph shall not prohibit any claim Landlord may have
against Tenant for anticipatory breach of the unexpired term of this Lease.
18. CONDEMNATION If any part of the Building or a substantial part of
the Premises shall be taken or condemned by any governmental authority for any
public or quasi-public use or purpose (including sale under threat of such a
taking) then the term of this Lease shall cease and terminate as of the date when
title vests in such governmental authority, and the annual rental shall be abated
on the date when such title vests in such governmental authority. If less than a
substantial part of the common area of the Premises is taken or condemned by
any governmental authority for any public or quasi-public use or purpose, the rent
shall be equitably adjusted on the date when title vests in such governmental
authority and the Lease shall otherwise continue in full force and effect. Tenant
shall have no claim against Landlord (or otherwise) for any portion of the amount
that may be awarded as damages as a result of any governmental taking or
condemnation (or sale under threat of such taking or condemnation) or for the
value of any unexpired term of the Lease. For purposes of this Article 18, a
substantial part of the Premises shall be considered to have been taken if more
than fifty percent (50%) of the Premises are unusable by Tenant.
19. COVENANTS OF LANDLORD Landlord covenants that it has the right to
make this Lease for the term aforesaid, and that if Tenant shall pay the Rent and
perform all of the covenants, terms and conditions of this Lease to be perfor,med
by Tenant, Tenant shall, during the term hereby created, freely, peaceably and
quietly occupy and enjoy the full possession ofthe Premises without molestation
or hindrance by Landlord or any party claiming through or under Landlord.
20. NO PARTNERSHIP nothing contained in this Lease shall be deemed or
construed to create a partnership or joint venture of or between the Landlord and
Tenant, or to create any other relationship between the parties hereto .other than
that of Landlord and T~nant.
21. BROKER'S COMMISSION Te"nant represents and warrants that it has
incurred no claims or finder's fees in connection with the execution ofthis Lease.
22. NOTICES All notices or other communications hereunder shall be in
writing and shall be deemed duly given if delivered in person or by certified or
registered mail, return receipt requested, first-class postage prepaid, (i) if to
Landlord at City of Roanoke, 117 Church Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia 24011,
Attention: Director of Economic, and (ii) if to Tenant, at 32 Market Square. SE,
unless notice of a change of address is given pursuant to the provisions of this
Article.
23. HOLDING OVER In the event that Tenant shall not imm'ediately surrender
the Premises on the date of expiration of the term hereof, Lease shall
automatically renew itself month to month, at twice the Rent rate for the last year
of the Lease plus all other charges accruing under this Lease, and subject to all
covenants, provisions and conditions herein contained. Landlord and tenant shall
both have the right to terminate the holdover tenancy upon thirty (30) days
written notice. Tenant shall not interpose any counterclaim(s) in a summary
proceeding or other action based on holdover.
C\DOCUME-l \CMjBl \LOCALS-' \ TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HONG KONG LEASE.DOC
7
24. BENEFIT AND BURDEN The provisions ofthis Lease shall be binding upon,
and shall inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and each of their respective
representatives, successors and assigns.
25. GENDER AND NUMBER Feminine or neuter pronouns shall be substituted
for those of the masculine form, and the plural shall be substituted for the
singular number, in any place or places herein in which the context may require
such substitution. \
26. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Lease; together with any exhibits attached
hereto, contains and embodies the entire agreement of the parties hereto, and
representations, inducements or agreements, oral or otherwise, between the
parties not contained in this Lease and exhibits, shall not be of any force or effect.
This Lease may not be modified, changed or terminated in whole or in part in any
manner other than by an agreement in writing duly signed by both parties hereto.
27. INVALIDITY OF PARTICULAR PROVISIONS If any provision of this Lease or
the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall to any extent be
invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease, or the application of such
provisions to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is invalid
or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each provision of this Lease
shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.
28. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES Tenant covenants and warrants that Tenant,
and Tenant's use of Premises and any alterations thereto will at all times comply
with and conform to all laws, statues, ordinances, rules and regulations of any
governmental, quasi-governmental or regulatory authorities ("Laws") which relate
to the transportation, storage, placement handling, treatment, discharge,
generation, removal production or disposal (collectively "Treatment") of any waste
petroleum product, waste products, radioactive waste, Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCB), asbestos, lead-based paint, or other hazardous materials of any kind, and
any substance which is regulated by any law, statute, ordinance, rule or regulation
(collectively "Waste"). Tenant further covenants and warrants that it will not ,
engage in or permit any person or entity to engage in any Treatment of any Waste
on or which affects the Premises.
Immediately upon receipt of any Notice (as hereinafter defined) from any person
or entity, Tenant shall deliver to Landlord a true, correct and complete copy of any
written Notice. "Notice" shall mean any note, notice or report of any suit,
proceedings, investigation, order, consent order, injunction, writ, award or action
related to or affecting or indicating the Treatment of any Waste in or affecting the
Premises.
Tenant hereby agrees it will indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless Landlord
and Landlord's officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, partners, and
the respective heirs, successors and assigns (collectively "Indemnified Parties")
against and from, and to reimburse the Indemnified Parties with respect to, any
and all damages, claims, liabilities, loss, costs and expense (including, without
limitation all attorney's fees and expenses, court costs, administrative costs and
costs of appeals), incurred by or asserted against the Indemnified Parties by
reason of or arising out of: (a) the breach of any representation or undertaking of
Tenant under this section or (b) arising out of the Treatment of any waste by
Tenant or any licensee, concessionaire, manager or other party occupying or
using the Premises.
Landlord is given the right, but not the obligation, to inspect and monitor the
C\DOCUME-l \CMJBl \LOCALS-l \TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HONG KONG LEASE.DOC
8
Premises and Tenant's use of the Premises, including the right to review
paperwork associated with Treatment activities in order to confirm Tenant's
compliance with the terms of this Section. Landlord may require that Tenant
deliver to Landlord concurrent with Tenant's vacating the Premises upon the
expiration of this Lease, or any earlier vacation 'of the Premises by Tenant, at
Tenant's expense, a certified statement by licensed engineers satisfactory to the
Landlord, in form and substance satisfactory to Landlord, stating that Tenant, and
any alterations thereto and Tenant's use ofthe Premises complied and conformed
to all Laws relating to the Treatment of any Waste in or affecting the Premises. .
Tenant agrees to deliver upon request from Landlord estoppel certificates to
Landlord expressly stipulating whether Tenant is engaged in or has engaged in
the Treatment of any Waste in or affecting the Premises, and whether Tenant has
caused any spill, contamination, discharge, leakage, release or escape of any
Waste in or affecting the Premises, whether sudden or gradual, accidental or
anticipated, or any other nature at or affecting the Premises and whether, to the
best ofthe Tenant's knowledge, such an occurrence has otherwise occurred at or
affecting the Premises.
29. INSURANCE Prior to the delivery of possession of the Premises
to Tenant, Tenant shall provide Landlord evidence satisfactory to Landlord (i) that
fire and casualty and workers' compensation policies in amount and in form and
content satisfactory to Landlord have been issued by a company or companies
satisfactory to Landlord and will be maintained throughout the course of Tenant's
work at Tenant's cost and expense and (ii) that Tenant has complied with the
comprehensive liability insurance requir~ments set forth in the following
paragraph.
Tenant will, at all times commencing on the date of delivery of possession of the
Premises to Tenant, at its own cost and expense, carry with a company or
companies, satisfactory to Landlord, comprehensive general liability insurance
including public liability and property damage, in a form satisfactory to Landlord,
on the Premises, with the combined single liability limits of not less than One
Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrenc,e, which insurance shall be written
or endorsed so as to protect Landlord, its officers, agents and employees as
additional insu'reds. The Tenant agrees that the above stated limits and
coverages are minimum limits and coverages, and that Tenant shall provide such
additional insurance as set forth above, in such amounts and against such risk as
may be required in the Landlord's sole but reasonable judgment, to equal the
amounts and types of coverages carried by prudent owners and operators of
properties similar to the Building. Tenant shall increase such limits at its
discretion or upon reasonable request of Landlord but not more often than once
every year and such increases shall not be in excess of generally accepted
standards in the industry. Tenant covenants that certificates of all of the
insurance policies required under this Lease, and their renewal or replacement,
shall be delivered to Landlord promptly without demand upon the commencement
of the term of this Lease and upon each renewal ofthe insurance. Such policy or
policies shall also provide that it shall not be cancelled nor shall there by any
change in the scope or amount of coverage of the policy without thirty (30) days
prior written notice to Landlord. If same is not provided with ten (10) days after
demand, Landlord is authorized to secure such policy from such companies as it
deems appropriate and collect from Tenant in such a manner as it deems
appropriate the cost of the premium.
30. SECURITY DEPOSIT
(a) AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT Tenant will deposit a sum equal to the amount of
C:\DOCUME-l \CMJBl \lOCALS-l \ TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HONG KONG LEASE.DOC
9
the rent in the last month of the Lease with the Landlord before the
commencement of this Lease. Such deposit shall be held by Landlord,
without liability for interest, as security for the faithful performance by
Tenant of all ofthe terms, covenants and conditions ofthe Lease by Tenant
to be kept and performed during the term hereof. If at any time during the
term of this Lease any of the rent herein reserved shall be overdue and
unpaid, or any other sum payable byTenant to Landlord hereunder shall be
overdue and unpaid, the Landlord may, at the option of Landlord,
appropriate and apply any portion of such deposit to the payment of any
such overdue rent or other sum. -
(b) USE AND RETURN OF DEPOSIT In the event of the failure of Ten ant to
keep and perform any ofthe terms, covenants, and conditions ofthis Lease
to be kept and performed by Tenant, then the Landlord at its option may
appropriate and apply the entire such deposit, or so much thereof as may
be necessary, to compensate the Landlord for loss of damage sustained or
suffered by Landlord due to such breach on the part of Ten ant. Should the
entire deposit, or any portion thereof, be appropriated and applied by
Landlord for the payment of overdue rent or other sums due and payable to
Landlord by Tenant hereunder, then Tenant shall, upon the written demand
of Landlord, forthwith remit to Landlord a sufficient amount in cash to
restore such security to the original sum deposited, and Tenant's failure to
do so within five (5) days after receipt of such demand shall constitute a
breach of this Lease. Should Tenant comply with all of such terms,
covenants and conditions and promptly' pay the entire rental herein
provided for as it falls due, and all other sums payable by Tenant to
Landlord hereunder, such deposit shall be returned in full to Tenant at the
end of the Lease Term or upon the earlier termination of this Lease.
31. INDEMNIFICATION Tenant agrees to save and to protect, indemnify and
hold Landlord harmless from and against and to reimburse Landlord from any and
all liabilities, damages, costs, expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable.
attorneys' fees, causes of action, suits, claims, demands, or judgments of any
nature whatsoever arising from injury to or death of persons or damages to
property resulting from Tenant's use of the Premises caused by any act ,or
omission, whether intentional or otherwise, of Tenant or its employees, servants,
contractors or agents.
32. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS Tenant agrees to and will
comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances and
regulations. Tenant acknowledges and agrees that it will dispose of trash and
grease in the containers designated by the Landlord for such disposal and not
dispose of such substances in a manner that would violate applicable federal,
state and local laws, ordinances or regulations.
33. FORUM SELECTION AND CHOICE OF LAW By virtue of entering into this
Lease, Tenant submits itself to a court of competent jurisdiction in the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, and further agrees '.hat this Lease is controlled by the laws of
the Commonwealth of Virginia and that all claims, disputes, and other matters
shall only be decided by such court according to the laws of the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
34. FORCE MAJEURE In the event that either party hereto shall be delayed or
hindered in or prevented from the performance of any act required hereunder by
reason of strikes, lockouts, labor troubles, inability to procl/re materials, failure of
power, restrictive governmental laws or regulations, riots, insurrecti()n, war, or
other reason of a like nature not the fault of the party delayed in performing the
work or doing acts required under the terms ofthis Lease, then the time allowed
C\DDCUME-l\CMJB' \LDCALS-l \ TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HONG KONG LEASE.DOC
10
for performance for such act shall be extended by a period equivalent to the
period of such delay. The provisions of this Section shall not operate to excuse
Tenant from the prompt payment of rent, Common Area Maintenance Fee or any
other payments required by the terms of this Lease.
35. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY: During the performance of this
Agreement, Tenant agrees as follows:
(a) Tenant will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment because of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age,
disability, or any other basis prohibited by state law relating to
discrimination in employment, except where there is a bona fide
occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of
its business. Tenant ilgrees to post in conspicuous places, available to
employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the
provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
(b) Tenant, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on
behalf of Ten ant, will state that Tenant is an equal opportunity employer.
(c) Tenant will include the provisions of the foregoing subsections (a) and (b) in
every contract or purchase order ofover ten thousand dollars and no cents'
($10,000.00) so that the provisions will be binding upon each contractor or
vendor.
36. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE:
(a) During the performance of this Agreement, Tenant agrees to (i) provide a
drug-free workplace for its employees; (ii) post in conspicuous places,
available to employees and applicants for employment, a statement
notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, sale, distribution,
dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance or marijuana is
prohibited in the workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken
against employees for violations of such prohibition; (iii) state in all
solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of
Tenant that Tenant maintains a drug-free workplace; and (iv) include the
provisions of the foregoing clauses in every subcontract or purchase order
of over $10,000, so that the provisions will be binding upon each
subcontractor or vendor.
(b) For the purposes of this section, "drug-free workplace" means a site for the
performance of work done in connection with a specific contract awarded to
a contract awarded to a contractor, the employees of whom are prohibited
from engaging in the unlawful manufacture, sale, distribution, dispensation,
possession or use of any controlled substance or marijuana during the
performance of the Agreement.
37. RULES AND REGULATIONS Tenant agrees to comply and adhere to
Landlord's rules and regulations concerning the Building as stated in the attached
Exhibit "D" attached hereto and made part of this Lease
38. SIGNAGE Tenant agrees to comply and adhere to Landlord's regulations
concerning signage as stated in the attached Exhibit "E" attached hereto and made
part of this Lease.
39. GUARANTY By virtue of entering into this Lease, Tenant agrees to
have executed the Guaranty contained in Exhibit "F" attached hereto and made
part of this Lease. Such Guarantor(s) shall first be approved by Landlord in
C\DDCUME-l \CMjB 1 \LOCALS-' \ TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HDNG KONG LEASE.DOC
11
writing. Tenant agrees to provide information concerning Guarantor(s) to Landlord
upon request.
40. LIABILITY OF LANDLORD Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant, its
employees, agents, business invitees, licensees, customers, clients, family
members, guests or trespassers from any damage, compensation or claim arising
from the necessity of repairing any portion of the Building, the interruption in the
use of the Premises, accident or damage resulting from the use or operation
(Landlord, Tenant, or any other person or persons whatsoever) of elevators, or
heating, cooling, electrical or plumbing equipment or apparatus, or the
termination of this Lease by reason of the destruction of the Premises, or from
any fire, robbery, theft, and/or any other casualty, or from any leakage in any part
or portion of the Premises or the Building, or from water, rain or snow that may
leak into, or flow from, any part of the Premises or the Building, or from drains,
pipes or plumbing work in the Building, or from any other cause whatsoever. Any
goods, property or personal effects, stored or placed by Tenant in or about the
Premises or Building, shall be at the risk of Ten ant, and Landlord shall not in any
manner be held responsible therefore. The employees of Landlord are prohibited
from receiving any packages or other articles delivered to the Building forTenant,
and if any such employee receives any such package or articles, such employee
shall be the agent of the Tenant and not of Landlord.
Intentionally Omitted
,
C\DOCU ME-l \CMjB 1 \LDCALS-l \ TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HONG KONG LEASE.DOC
12
ATTEST:
Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Assistant City Attorney
C\DOCUME-l \CMjB l\LOCALS-l \ TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HONG KONG LEASE.DOC
LANDLORD:
CITY OF ROANOKE
By:' (SEAL)
Print Name: Darlene Burcham
Title: City Manaqer
TENANT:
By:
Print Name:
Title:
(SEAL)
SS#: ______________________________
13
EXHIBIT A
FLOOR PLAN
C\DOCUME-l\CMJBl \lOCAlS-l \TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HONG KONG LEASE-DOC
14
EXHIBIT B
COMMON AREAS FLOOR PLAN
Attach here
C\DOCUME-l \CMjBl \LOCALS-l \ TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HONG KONG LEASE. DOC
1-5
r
EXHIBIT C
MENU
Attach here if Food Court Tenant
C\DOCU ME-l \CMJBl \LOCALS- 1 \ TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HONG KONG LEASE.DOC
l6
EXHIBIT D
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1. . All trash must be kept in a covered container, or if requested by
Landlord, in a Dumpster or similar container furnished and serviced at
Tenant's expense.
2. Tenant shall keep lights on in show windows, leased food court space
and lights on under marquee, if any, from 1 0:00 a,m. until 6:00 p.m.
3. Tenant agrees to handle all deliveries and refuse through tne Salem
Avenue entrance (if one) of the Premises.
4. No sign shall be permanently affixed to the plate glass of any window
without prior written consent of Landlord.
5. No solicitation material shall be displayed inside the building or affixed
to the exterior of the building.
6. Tenant shall keep Premise's, windows and window frames clean (inside
and out) at all times and wash them weekly.
7. Tenant shall keep Premises' floors free of trash, chewing gum and other
debris, and shall scrub and wax all tile or plastic flooring at least weekly.
8. Tenant is responsible for the replacement of light bulbs in its space
9. Tenant is responsible for the replacement of air-filters and the monthly
maintenance of their exhaust fans in its Premises by a licensed
contractor on a basis predetermined by the Landlord.
10. Tenant shall be responsible for breaking down and having all cardboard
boxes ready for pick up.
11. (Applies only to Food Court Vendors) Providing the availability of space
for the purpose of storage, Landlord will allocate equally among all food
vendors a set amount of space for the storage of a freezer or a
refrigerator, food items and paper products. Items must be stored in
accordance with Health and Fire codes. No restaurant equipment
(unused or in disrepair) is to be stored in the area under any
circumstances. Any prohibited items stored in this area will be removed
at Tenant's expense. Tenant's not maintaining their own storage space
per Health and Fire code requirements will be assessed a $100.00 fee
per occurrence. If a Tenant's space is in violation more than three times
in a given year, Landlord will rescind Tenant's option to use available
space.
C\DOCUME-l \CMjBl \LOCALS-l \ TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HONG KONG LEASE.DOC
17
EXHIBIT E
SIGN REGULATION
No sign, advertisement or notice shall be inscribed, painted, affixed or
displayed on walls, windows, or any part of the outside or the inside of the
Building including the directories, in place, number, size, color and style,
unless approved by Landlord. If Tenant nevertheless exhibits such sign,
advertisement or notice, Landlord shall have the right to remove the same and
Tenant shall be liable for any and all expenses incurred by Landlord by such
removal. Tenant further agrees to maintain such sign, canopy, decoration,
lettering, advertising matter or other thing as may be approved in good
condition and repair at all times. Landlord shall have the right to prohibit any
advertisement of Ten ant which in its opinion tends toimpair the reputation of
the Building or its desirability as a high-quality festival marketplace for retail
stores or food related businesses, other institutions of like nature, and, upon
written notice from Landlord, Tenant shall immediately refrain from and
discontinue any such advertisement.
C\DOCUME-l \CMjB 1 \LOCALS-l \ TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HONG KONG LEASE.DOC
18
EXHIBIT F
GUARANTY
PERSONAL GUARANTEE
Intentionally Omitted
~
C:\DOCUME- 1 \CMJBl \LOCAlS-l\ TEMP\NOTESFFF692\HONG KONG LEASLDOC
19
The Roanoke Times
Roanoke, Virginia
Affidavit of Publication
The Roanoke Times
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\,,,1111/11, I
\ \ \ 1\ LA \... '" I
\\ :-{ I'" rJ!1 "
......... ~ ,.,....", "-<lA. ".. I
... ~.' ...,,0.'1 .,'V ..
.. ~. o,r" ' ... I
20: ;' ~ \.l'O\.\C .... ic ~
= ClJ :. \' #1agag3~: = I
= : \'I.cG. o~~\c;,'2,\O\~ : ~ = I
~~.... ~c~\~J",...~g I
-:'C'/)'.. ~.,~~ I
TOTAL COST: 177. 84 ......,.t:.Zf~.'.......,'<0~ ,............ I
~ = ~~~ _ ~~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ = ~ ~ =: ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~"~,/~v~ ~~~~ ': ': _ _ -1- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC
117 CHRUCH AVE
ROANOKE VA 24011
DEVELOPMENT
REFERENCE:
80084300
11136325
Hong Kong Lease
NPH-
State of Virginia
City of Roanoke
I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative
of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation
is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily
newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of
Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was
published in said newspapers on the following
dates:
City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of
Vir~inia. Sworn and subscribed before me this
___i~day of Oct 8. Witness my hand and
official seal.
MY-~;:~;;
Notary Public
--- - t-..... L-I L
_________l~~ __ __'
PUBLISHED ON:
10/15
Authorized~"" v1-rYlt
Signature'~7'V___~jt'
. ~ff .:.'J
C113632S)
ling Services Representative
ol1L
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City of Roanoke proposes to lease approximately 748 square feet of City-owned property
located in the Roanoke City Market Building, located at 32 Market Square, to Min Shao t/a Hong
Kong, to be used as a restaurant, on a month-to-month term basis, such terms not to exceed one year.
Pursuant to the requirements of 9915.2-1800 and 15.2-1813, Code of Virginia (1950) as
amended, notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a public
hearing on the above matter at its regular meeting to be held October 23,2008, commencing at 7:00
p.m., in the Council Chambers, 4th Floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue,
S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, 24011. Further information is available from the Office ofthe City Clerk
for the City of Roanoke at (540) 853-2541.
Citizens shall have the opportunity to be heard and express their opinions on said matter.
If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this hearing, please
contact the City Clerk's Office at (540) 853-2541, before 12:00 noon on October 16,2008.
GNEN under myhand this 13tlijayof October ,2008.
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk.
'. .: ': - -'~.
. - ...". '.";.
Notice to Publisher:
Publish in the Roanoke Times on Wednesday, October 15,2008,
Send affidavit to:
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC, City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541
Send bill to:
Brian Brown
Economic Development Administrator
117 Church Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2715
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue,S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov
SHEILA N. HARTMAN, CMC
, Deputy City Clerk
STEPHANIE M, MOON, CMC
City Clerk
October 24, 2008
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
Mr. Douglas F, Turner
545 Highland Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016-421 5
Dear Mr. Turner:
Your Petition for Appeal of a decision of the Architectural Review Board with
regard to a Certificate of Appropriateness for approving Highland Park as the
location of a proposed dog park, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting held on Thursday, October 23,2008.
J~_______
- On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the Council affirmed the decision of
the City of Roanoke Architectural Review Board on August 14, 2008, and
recommended that a Certificate of Appropriateness be issued for the siting of a
four foot high, black, vinyl coated, chain link fence to be installed in Highland
Park, as set forth in the Application for Certificate, of Appropriateness on the
grounds that the proposed installation and location are architecturally
compatible with the structures or historic landmarks in the H-2 District.
Sincerely,
~~ dY), T
Stephanie M, Moon, CMC
City Clerk
SM M :ew
pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M, Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J, Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Thomas Carr, Director, Planning, Building and Development
Barbara Botkin, Chair, Architectural Review Board, 616 Marshall
Avenue, S, W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Erica J. Taylor, Agent, Architectural Review -Board
Candace R. Martin, Secretary, Architectural Review Board
cA l,~
, to\W
SUGGESTED MOTION TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND TO GRANT THE REQUEST
FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE SITING OF A FOUR FOOT
HIGH, BLACK, VINYL COATED, CHAIN LINK FENCE TO BE INSTALLED IN
HIGHLAND PARK
"Based upon the evidence (testimony and documents) presented to this Council at
today's hearing, I move that the decision of the City of Roanoke Architectural Review Board
. on August 14, 2008, be affirmed and that a Certificate of Appropriateness be issued for the
siting of a four foot high, black, vinyl coated, chain link fence to be installed in Highland
Park as set forth in the Application for Certificate of Appropriateness on the grounds that the
proposed installation and location are architecturally corripatible with the structures or
historic landmarks in the H-2 District."
Or
SUGGESTED MOTION TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE CITY OF
ROANOKE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FOR RECONSIDERATION
"Based upon the evidence (testimony and documents) presented to this Council at
today's hearing, I move that this matter be remanded to the City of Roanoke Architectural
Review Board for reconsideration."
Or
SUGGESTED MOTION TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND TO DENY THE REQUEST
FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE SITING OF A FOUR FOOT
HIGH, BLACK, VINYL COATED, CHAIN LINK FENCE TO BE INSTALLED IN
HIGHLAND PARK
"Based upon the evidence (testimony and documents) presented to this Council at
today's hearing, Imove that the decision ofthe City of Roanoke Architectural Review Board
on August 14,2008, be reversed and that no Certificate of Appropriateness be issued for the
siting of a four foot high, black, vinyl coated, chain link fence to be installed in Highland
Park as set forth in the Application for Certificate of Appropriateness on the grounds that the
proposed installation and location are not architecturally compatible with the structures or
historic landmarks in the H-2 District."
MOTIONS- Highland Park.doc
.. --: .
.. .. '.' - ~~ .
VIRGINIA:
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
IN THE MATTER OF
)
)
)
)
PETITION FOR APPEAL
Douglas F, Turner
Property Owner
545 Highland Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24016-4215
)
This is a Petition for Appeal from a decision of the Architectural Review Board
under Section 36.2-53(c)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended.
1. Name of Petitioner: Douglas F. Turner
2. Property that is the subject of this appeal: Highland Park. A dog park within
Highland Park.
3. Overlay zoning H-2, Historic Neighborhood District.
4. Appealing a decision regarding the location and design of a dog park made by the
Architectural Review Board at its meeting of August 14, 2008.
5. Grounds for appeal:
a, The location of the fence for the dog park is inappropriate, The fence would
enclose a dog park on the hillside currently used for seating at the
amphitheater in Highland Park. Locating the fence in the area approved by
the Architectural Review Board would spoil the amphitheater. If a dog park is
to be located in or adjacent to Highland Park, there are alternative sites at
Highland Park that are more appropriate.
b. The Architectural Review Board has not approved the design of the dog park.
The design of previous projects within Highland Park (Gazebo, lighting,
improvements to the Gish House) required approval by the Architectural
Review Board. Design elements not yet reviewed by the Architectural
Review Board include such things as lighting, signage, material-if any-to
be used for the ground cover, type and number of water fountains (for people
and for dogs), and security issues such as the location and number of gates.
Also, the exact location and dimensions of the fence have not been approved.
~ . I.. .
1
6. Name, address, and telephone number of the Petitioner:
Douglas F. Turner
545 Highland Av., SW
Roanoke, VA 24016-4215
"
'"
(540) 982-1911
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner requests that the action of the
Architectural Review Board in regard to the location of the fence for the dog park
be reversed or modified, and that the Architectural Review Board review the
design of the dog park.
~
,~
TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK:
Received by:
Date
~/5//)k
, ,
2
CITY OF ROANOKE
PLANNING BUILDING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
215 Church Avenue, S,W" Room 166
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (540) 853-1730 Fax: (540) 853-1230
E-mail: planning@roanokeva,gov
Architectural Review Board
Board of Zoning APP~i'ls
Planning Commissio~.
1
(~
\I
'.(
,
,
'J
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
Honorable Sherman p,\ Lea, Vice Mayor
Honorable GwendolynlW. Mason, Council Member
Honorable Alvin L. Nash, Council Member
Honorable AnitaJ, Pric~, Council Member
Honorable Court G. Rosen, Council Member
Honorable David B, Trinkle, Council Member
October 23, 2008
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council
Subject:
Appeal of decision of Architectural Review Board to
Issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the location
and design of a fence in Highland Park
Background:
On May 23, 2008, the City of Roanoke applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to construct a fence within Highland Park, located
between Highland Avenue, Walnut Avenue, and 5th Street, SW, The
purpose of the fence is to establish an off-leash dog park.
The Architectural Review Board considered the request at its July 10,
2008, session, Following discussion between the applicant and the
Board, the applicant amended the application to include only the design
of the fence, The Board, by a vote of 3-1 (Messrs, Schlueter and Fulton
and Ms. Botkin voting yes and Mr. Bestpitch voting no, Messrs. Richert
and Cundiff, and Mrs. Blanton absent), approved Certificate of
Appropriateness No, 08-057 for the design of the fence as a vinyl-coated
chain link fence, four feet in height, The design was considered
appropriate and consistent with the Architectural Design Guidelines for
the H-2 Historic Neighborhood District, The Board did not consider the
location of the fence at that time, citing outstanding concerns about the
location and the need for additional citizen input.
Members of City Council
October 23, 2008
Page 2
City of Roanoke Parks and Recreation sponsored a public meeting on
August 5, 2008, in the City Council Chamber, The meeting was
advertised by mailing to approximately 1,000 households in the
neighborhood. An estimated 90 citizens attended and 31 attendees
spoke at the meeting. Twenty-seven spoke in support of the proposed
fence location, and four spoke in opposition.
On August 14, 2008, the Architectural Review Board considered the
proposed location of the fence and approved Certificate of
Appropriateness No. 08-067 by a 3-2 vote (Mrs. Blanton, Ms, Botkin, and
Mr. Cundiff voting yes and Messrs. Bestpitch and Richert voting no, and
Messrs. Fulton and Schlueter absent).
An appeal to City Council was filed on September 5, 2008, by Douglas F.
Turner stating that he is aggrieved by the Board's decision to approve the
location of the fence.
Considerations:
The fence is classified by the Zoning Ordinance as a structure that is
subject to review by the Architectural Review Board, As with any fence,
only the design and location of the fence are suoject to Board review.
The Board's authority does not extend to the evaluation of any impacts
on the surrounding area, whether positive or negative, which are not
related to architectural compatibility. Moreover, the Board does not have
the authority to evaluate or regulate land use.
The H-2 Architectural Design Guidelines adopted by the Board and
endorsed by City Council provide the following recommendations for
consideration of fencing:
Do not use incompatible fencing such as split rail, plastic,
fiberglass or plywood fences, or concrete or concrete block walls
within the historic district. The use of chain link fences at rear
yards is acceptable as long as the fence is coated, The installation
of chain link fencing on front or side yards is prohibited, as is the
installation of "raw" or untreated chain link fencing, regardless of
location. [Emphasis added]
A majority of the Board found that the proposed fence is consistent with
the Guidelines and compatible with the character of the H-2 District. The
fence would be located in a portion of the park that is not visible from
any public street, so the location is similar to a rear yard. The chain link
material is therefore consistent with the guidelines.
Members of City Council
October 23, 2008
Page 3
The appeal also cites items that were not approved. Only the items
contained in the application were considered and approved, so the only
structures authorized for construction are those contained in the
application. The erection of any new structure associated with the park
would require a Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to Section 36,2-
331 (c) of the zoning ordinance, The term "structure" as defined by the
zoning ordinance would encompass anything which is constructed or
erected with a fixed location on the ground, or attached to something
having a fixed location on the ground. Items classified as structures such
as lighting, signs, benches or fountains would require a separate
Certificate of Appropriateness.
Recommendation:
The Architectural Review Board recommends that City Council affirm its
decision to issue the Certificates of Appropriateness to permit the
construction of the fence.
Sincerely,
6~~1f ~
Barbara Botki n
Architectural Review Board
cc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager
Erica Taylor, Agent, Architectural Review Board
Attachment 1 - Petition for Appeal
Attachment 2 - Certificate of Appropriateness 08-067
Attachment 3 - Transcript of August 14, 2008, ARB Meeting
Attachment 4 - Certificate of Appropriateness 08-057
Attachment 5 - Transcript of July 10, 2008, ARB Meeting
ATTACHMENT 1
VIRGINIA:
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
IN THE MATTER OF
)
)
)
)
PETITION FOR APPEAL
Douglas F. Turner
Property Owner
545 Highland Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24016-4215
)
This is a Petition for Appeal from a decision of the Architectural Review Board
under Section 36.2M53(c)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended.
1, Name of Petitioner: Douglas F. Turner
2. Property that is the subject of this appeal: Highland Park. A dog park within
Highland Park.
3, Overlay zoning H-2, Historic Neighborhood District.
4, Appealing a decision regarding the location and design of a dog park made by the
Architectural Review Board at its meeting of August 14,2008,
5, Grounds for appeal:
a. The location of the fence for the dog park is inappropriate. The fence would
enclose a dog park on the hillside currently used for seating at the
amphitheater in Highland Park. Locating the fence in the area approved by
the Architectural Review Board would spoil the amphitheater. If a dog park is
to be located in or adjacent to Highland Park, there are alternative sites at
Highland Park that are more appropriate,
b. The Architectural Review Board has not approved the design of the dog park.
The design of previous projects within Highland Park (Gazebo, lighting,
improvements to the Gish House) required approval by the Architectural
Review Board, Design elements not yet reviewed by the Architectural
Review Board include such things as lighting, signage, material-if any-to
be used for the ground cover, type and number of water fountains (for people
and for dogs), and security issues such as the location and number of gates.
Also, the exact location and dimensions of the fence have not been approved.
1
6. Name, address, and telephone number of the Petitioner:
Douglas F. Turner
545 Highland Av" SW
Roanoke, VA 24016-4215
(540) 982-1911
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner requests that the action of the
Architectural Review Board in regard to the location of the fence for the dog park
be reversed or modified, and that the Architectural Review Board review the
design of the dog park.
~
~
TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK.:
Received by:
Date
1/5//)'t
, (
2
ATTACHMENT 2
....~~~.....-
, .
. ....
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
Architedunl Review Board
BOlrd of Zoninc Appeals
Planning Commission
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
No.: 08-067
Date: August 14,2008
On August 14, 2008, the City of Roanoke Architectural Review Board granted
this Certificate of Appropriateness to City of Roanoke Parks and Recreation
approving the location of a proposed dog park in Highland Park, between
Washington and Walnut Avenues, S.W., as per the application and plans
presented to the Board on the date set out above.
This Certificate is valid for one year from the date set out above.
L5a1~ jJ,~
Barbara Botkin, Chair
ATTACHMENT 3
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 8
Ms. Botkin asked for further Board comments, There were none,
Mr. Harwood amended the application to state Oak Ridge shingles would be
used and the color would be determined at a future date.
The amended application was approved by a roll call vote of 4-0, as follows:
Mr. Richert-yes
Mr. Bestpitch-yes
Mr. Cundiff-yes
Ms. Botkin-yes
For clarification, Mr. Harwood asked the Board if the gable window was not
included.
Ms. Botkin said that was correct.
6. Reauest from Citv of Roanoke, represented bv Steven Buschor, for a
Certificate of Appropriateness approvina the location of the proposed doa
park in Hiahland Park. between Washinaton and Walnut Avenues. SoW.
VERBATIM:
Ms. Botkin: Let me note, this is the second time this matter has appeared on the
agenda. We are here to address the location of the dog park only, please
address your comments to the dog park, nothing more. If other comments are
made not pertaining to this location, we will give one reminder to keep the
comments to the location and you may be asked to return to your seat. With that
said ...
Mr. Richert: Could I ask for a point of clarification before we proceed? It is my
understanding that this subject is going to be handled, probably in three steps,
and this is the second of the three. First being the material question, the second
being the location and the third being the design because as you know, anytime
.somebody's going to build something, whether it is in the park or wherever, we
want to know precisely what its dimensions are, we want to see a plat map of
how it's going to be laid out, in this case, if it is going to be multiple vestibules for
entry and exit, there is going to be signage, there may be plastic fire hydrants, I
have no idea what the interior of this thing is going to look like. What I want
clearly understood is that the approval of location along with material does not
constitute review by this Board to approve the construction of whatever is being
proposed. We are not seeing any details other than area identified crudely at
best. I want to make sure the Board knows where we are going with this. In my
way of thinking this is not the end of the subject: it is the second of three parts.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 9
Ms. Botkin: Do you agree with that? (Talking to Chris Chittum)
Mr. Chittum: No I would not. I believe that the application for last month was
considered the material and that was approved. The remainder of the application
is for the location and I heard no further comment on any further design detail on
the fence. A four foot fence, vinyl coated in the location platted pretty precisely
on that map is what is up for consideration today.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you.
Mr. Buschor: My turn?
Ms. Botkin: If you could give us a brief update from the last meeting, what has
happened from the last meeting until now.
Mr. Buschor: Sure. Since the last meeting obviously the ARB had asked for
additional input, public input if you will and to let you know that since that time
there was a meeting called by Old Southwest, Inc., which was well attended by a
number of residents. I think in the average area of around 60 or 70 residents. I
attended it to take input from that. The City also called a public input meeting
which was held. We mailed out nearly 1000 postcards to the residents of the Old
Southwest neighborhood and the Highland Park neighborhood, as well as taking
out an ad in the Roanoke Times inviting other members of the community to
come and speak if they had concerns with regards to the location of the park.
Again, I can state that in attending both of these meetings and conducting the
second of the two, it was pretty clear that the preponderance of the folks that
were speaking, were speaking in favor of the proposed location.
Ms. Botkin: Okay, staff comments.
Ms. Taylor: Staff supports the location. Location of the proposed dog park will
have little effect on the surrounding streetscape by virtue of its location in the
valley to the west of the main section of Highland Park.
Ms. Botkin: At this time we are going to hear the public comments. That way
any Board comments can be made on those.
Ms. Taylor: We got a rather large amount of submissions via email. Similar to
what we did at the last meeting, we would like Ms. Martin to read the names of
those in support and those in opposition and those will be attached the meeting
minutes.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 10
Ms. Martin: We got 22 letters for supporting the dog park from Allie Hasson, Gail
Barrow, Courtney Weigard, Mary Margaret Tuthill, Jeffrey Cheng, Katie Camper,
Holly Bennett, Renu Musellwhite, Nicole Hall, Aparna Williams, Hannah Phillips,
Amy Morgan, Susan Perry, Trevor Winters, Andrea Martin, Ashley Heavner,
Carolyn Burnett, Whitney Anderson, Spencer Wiegard, John Johnson, Kathryn
Nell, and Sherri Wallace. We received two in opposition from Claire English and
Richard Edwards.
Ms. Botkin: 22 for and 2 against?
Ms. Taylor: Yes. You should also have a petition as well that will be included in
that.
Ms. Botkin: In front of us, we have a petition in favor of a fenced off leash dog
park located in historic Old Southwest that has...
Ms. Taylor: Approximately between 200 and 300 signatures.
Ms. Botkin: We will just let the record note that. First to speak is Jan Keister.
Jan Keister: I am Jan Keister, grants chair and member of the public safety
committee from Old Southwest Inc. I support the dog park in the proposed
location in Highland Park which is an excellent location for the City's first public
dog park because it is centrally located in the City and puts to use a problematic
area of the park. In addition, the area's neighborhood association, Old
Southwest, Inc, has demonstrated that is has the ability of take on a project like
this and find funding for it. As a member of the Old Southwest, Inc., public safety
committee I am aware of the problems with male prostitution at the stage area.
Ms. Botkin: Excuse me, let's please keep it to the location.
Ms. Keister: Isn't that by the stage area?
Ms. Botkin: It is irrelevant. The location is what we are looking at.
Ms. Taylor: Not so much the social problems in that location.
Ms. Keister: Okay.
Ms. Taylor: It is just the appropriateness of the location in the park itself.
Essentially based on the vista, can it be seen from streetscape, that kind of thing.
The social problems that are currently in that area are not part of this application.
Ms. Keister: I have some comments about noise, is that appropriate?
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 11
Ms. Taylor: Okay. I have comments about interfering with the use of the stage,
is that appropriate?
Ms. Botkin: Yes.
Ms. Keister: I will just mention that I use the stage regularly every other week
with my drum circle. Residents have been concerned that the dog park will
interfere with the use of the stage. The dog park location allows room for a large
audience to the north and east. Can I speak about parking for the dog park?
Ms. Botkin: Sure.
Ms. Keister: I will note that the lack of parking is a problem. The plan to make
the road through the park one way and allow parking on one side of it will solve
that problem. Four additional spots will also help. Steve Buschor has already
started the process of making the road one way. May I speak about the sledding
hill that it has been used for in the area?
Ms. Botkin: I think so.
Ms. Keister: I am sorry to reduce the size of the area for sledding but that is an
activity that happens once or twice a year and a dog park would benefit the
community every day. Thank you.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you. I think everyone knows at this point what they can
comment on. Next we have Josh Shields.
Josh Shields: Good evening everybody, ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate the
time to come up and speak to you. As you all know, I playa rather vital role in
participating on behalf of Old Southwest and residents. The petition you have in
front of you is authored by myself. Just to clarify the record, there are a total of
142 signatures in the packet that you have. I have an additional 44 at home that
did not get included in that. Of those, 84 are residents of Old Southwest.
Ms. Botkin: Just for public knowledge, do you know how many residents are in
Old Southwest?
Mr. Shields: The latest census count was around 9,000. When we send out a
mailing, they are roughly 996 addresses to which we send information so I guess
my 9,000 number is probably on the high side if you figure three people per
household.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 12
Mr. Shields: Old Southwest and I in particular, have conducted multiple studies
and research in this matter. I did include a listing of all the calls to the Roanoke
City police department to Highland Parl<. Our reasoning behind this location is
the incorporation of crime, noise, accessibility by handicap and members of the
public, access to public utilities including electricity and water, a buffer from
homes, and most importantly a visual impact on the neighborhood. The location
as it is proposed, as you can see by the diagram, is located on the hill off the left
side of this photo. There is an additional hill that points to the south. The hills
that surround this area create a natural sound bowl that deflects all of the noise
from the amphitheatre as well as the noise from all the activities in that area
towards the Norfolk Southern railroad tracks to the south of Old Southwest. In
addition, with regards to parking there is a four spot parking lot that currently
exists. We have spoken with the City about extending that parking lot as part of
the proposal perhaps as a second phase of the project. There is a process in the
works right now with Steve Buschor and the Roanoke Advisory Parks Committee
to create a one way thoroughfare which would allow additional parking.
Certainly, it has been brought up numerous times from our residents that there is
a very distinct concern about visitors to the park parking on the neighborhood
streets. This is about as far away from any neighborhood street as you can be in
Highland Park. For people who are traveling in, certainly neighborhood residents
are going to walking, our intent is to encourage them to park near the dog park
rather than on the outlying community streets. There has been some additional
discussion this evening and other email with citizens such as Mr. Rosen about
those issues and we want to take that into consideration. With regards to the
park, there has been significant discussion and I appreciate Mr. Richert and Mr.
Bestpitch attending the Old Southwest meeting. Multiple people here this
evening have come in support and have done the same thing over multiple
meetings now. I hope the ARB will take it upon themselves to bring a close to
the matter in a reasonable amount of time. I understand you may have some
concerns and questions but I think I speak for the group when I say we don't
want this become our next Mill Mountain and speaking in the general scheme of
things, this really is a significant improvement but I don't think it has the impact
that a lot of people are making it to be. Thank you for your time.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you. Next we have Carl Rosen.
Mr. Rosen: For many years the residents, the Board and the members of Old
Southwest, have implemented many projects in our neighborhood. Much
research has always been done so that along with the neighborhoods
government partner, the ARB, each project is completed smoothly and in
accordance with historical guidelines. That has changed. Recently a group with
the endorsement of the Board of Old Southwest requested that a chain link fence
be put in Highland Park. In part using the reasoning that it won't be seen from a
public road. What is the difference between a public road and a road used by the
public? I say none, especially when Parks and Rec has expressed interest in
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 13
making the road through the park a public road. In my opinion, the Board of Old
Southwest has let our historic neighborhood down. In supporting this request...
Ms. Botkin: Let's keep to the location.
Mr. Rosen: And continues to fail us by pursuing a dog park in a historic district.
quote "recognizing the historical significance of individual properties and the
neighborhood as a whole" end quote. That is directly from OSW's mission
statement. There is no historical significance to a dog park. It belongs in a
neighborhood that is not in a historic district.
Ms. Botkin: Richard Edwards.
Mrs. Edwards: He had to leave but I am his wife and would like to speak. I live
at 610 Walnut which is right at the entrance or the egress of the park. My house
is the first one you see coming out of the park. The last meeting we had there
was discussion of maybe moving this location a little bit further towards the Gish
House without coming down into the Gish House. Also, it was mentioned about
possibly putting in down in front of the Quonset hut. My husband and I have big
concerns the closer it gets in that direction. We really don't want it there. The
other concern we have about location, parking has been mentioned. The people
on the 600 block of Walnut Avenue are very much affected by anything going on
in the park because we are the dead-end street and can only turn around as we
go around the park drive, turn around in the snow or whatever. We can't park
our own cars there, we share driveways and don't have enough space. People
do choose to park where our houses are located. That is the one thing about
location. If they park at the Gish House parking lot that is different but if they
want to park in front of our houses and we have 21 cars, that is our concern.
Ms. Botkin: Bill McClure.
Mr. McClure: I live at 542 Walnut Avenue. I had a problem with the location as
far as parking similar to Mrs. Edwards. As I was looking through ARB guidelines
on parking, the very first statement says "traditionally on-street parking spaces,
driveways, and private garages provided adequate parking for adjacent single
family residences", I won't read anymore I am sure you all are very familiar with
this by now. The main point I am trying to make on location, there are three
different points. We are more dependent than any other area of town on parking
due to the fact that most of us have a very small width, I can get one car and one
car only down my driveway. Also, unique to Walnut Avenue is the fact that there
is parking only on one side of the street. On Washington there are two sides. As
I was looking and doing research on the impact location on parking, I did find that
in Brookdale, New Jersey, dead end streets as Mrs. Edwards mentioned earlier,
the streets they found had become a magnet for dog owners seeking to get a
spot close by. There are other myriads of parking that seem to crop up. Has
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 14
anyone done a parking study? I haven't heard if there has been a full study done
and at this location, the only two places you are going to be able to go is a short
area of Washington and will impact quite a bit, especially the 600 block of Walnut
Avenue. I wanted to make that point as far as the location goes.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you. I have to comment on the parking thing. I live in Old
Southwest and would be lucky to have a driveway. Next we have Jeff Campbell.
Mr. Campbell: President for Old Southwest Inc. The board of directors for Old
Southwest Inc. supports the application before you today regarding the proposed
location of the off leash dog park in Highland Park. We support this application
with the knowledge that a great deal of thought and effort has been put forth by
the City of Roanoke, NewVaconnects, and Old Southwest, Inc. in choosing the
appropriate parcel of land in Highland Park to accommodate this project. There
were several amenities that that were necessary in choosing the proper location
for the dog park in Highland Park and more importantly the proposed location.
Those were access to water supply, access to electricity, suitable accessibility to
people with disabilities and parking. While keeping these necessities in mind, the
need to place this dog park in an area of Highland Park that would not be in view
of homes surrounding the park was also discussed. I believe this location would
accomplish that. In addition, this location will have minimal impact to the overall
use of Highland Park due to its proposed location in the back of the park. This
project also stands to have a positive impact on the neighborhood for Old
Southwest.
Ms. Botkin: Kirsten Shields.
Mrs. Shields: Good evening. I live at 501 Jannette. I just wanted to say that
people generally want to park close to their destination. For example we circle
around the mall to get close. The fact is when the park drive is made one way it
will add significantly more parking to the immediate area. Furthermore, I wanted
to say that Walnut Avenue is a public street. I am not saying that we want people
to park there but if the argument is going to be made that throughfare around the
park is a street then Walnut is also. Thank you.
Ms. Botkin: Emily Faye Jewett.
Ms. Jewett: I live at 617 Highland Avenue, SW. I live right over the hill from
where this is proposed and people will probably be parking on Highland in front
of my street too because it would literally take me about 45 seconds to walk over
there. I think as far as parking goes, one of the speakers had said that parking in
front of their house is affected anytime there is anything going on in the park and
the discussions about the location for this park have been to move across the hill
or move it down a little bit but that it still in the park. I think in order to eliminate a
lot of these concerns about parking, it is just not going to have to be Highland
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 15
Park. Any of the locations, there is still going to be parking in the exact same
spot and walking to it. I do recognize the concerns about that but luckily we have
a driveway and are on a corner. I don't think that is a concern enough to
overcome this location because it is going to be affected if it is in Highland Park
period. As far as the location with resources I think it is an excellent location
because it has a source of water, which will probably cost a lot of money to
plumb if it were taken to another place but there is already a water fountain there
that could be adjusted to a pup water source, a lot easier than plumbing to a
separate location. I am not sure if this is allowed but could people could stand in
the audience that are in support of it.
Ms. Botkin: Sure. (Most of audience stood up)
Ms. Jewett: That's all. Thank you.
Ms. Botkin: Lauren Ellerman.
Ms. Ellerman: I am unfortunately no longer an Old Southwest resident but I do
live in the City on Jefferson. At the last ARB meeting held on July 11th this body
gave us homework. This body told us to go out and get public input on whether
or not this location was suitable. We are good students of the ARB we did
exactly as we were asked. Mr. Buschor received 84 votes of encouragement for
this location in email form, people that spoke at the public meeting held last
week. There were six people who either stood up at the meeting or emailed their
votes against the location. We also heard Ms. Taylor say she received 22 emails
today in favor and 2 against. We just had the entire room almost, but for 10 or 12
people say they are in support. We have done our homework. In addition, the
staff has recommended approval of our location at this proposed location with
good reason. We have handicap access and it is one out of 32 acres. Similar
uses, if you stand on the stage and look up the hill on a given Saturday, you will
see flag football, soccer, rugby, and tennis. None of these historically occurred in
Old Southwest in 1900, that doesn't mean they are not important to the park
today or important to the neighborhood. I am quite confident that Frisbee did not
occur around the turn of a century. We have made every attempt we can to seek
public input. We have had two meetings and literally hundreds of hours have
gone into finding this location. We have done our part and we ask that the Board
vote in approval for this location. Public support is overwhelming in support of it
and it is just going to be a wonderful amenity for the City of Roanoke. Thank
you.
Ms. Botkin: Bill Robertson.
Mr. Robertson: I live at 410 Albemarle Avenue, SW. about % block from the
park. I have been a resident of Old Southwest for over 18 years. One of the
main reasons we moved into this neighborhood is the proximity of the large open
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 16
green and undeveloped perimeter of Highland Park. We had a map that was an
overlay of the entire park, (asked Erica to display map on PowerPoint). We could
walk our dog, our children through this area as it was undeveloped. I don't want
to see the park segregated with a chain link fence which would ruin its appeal. I
don't think that would attract anyone to this area. The area directly beside the
amphitheatre which is being proposed for the fenced dog park effectively cuts the
seating area in half for the amphitheatre. The images that were displayed in that
area were taken by Josh Shields. None of those show the complete hillside.
(Mr. Robertson walked away from the microphone to the PowerPoint
presentation and was inaudible.) Today I took pictures standing on the stage
looking directly up the hill, the camera was lined with the boards on the stage
which are also aligned with the hill so I have a very accurate image of what this
looks like when you are facing either direction. I also took pictures from the top
of the hill and none of the photographs look like what we are seeing tonight.
Another thing is the overview of the park makes the park look very small because
it is a very small picture. This is an enormous area and if you want to walk your
dog, walk your dog, there are plenty of places to do that. Having it obstructed
where you can no longer walk from one end of the park without having to go
through the other development in the center is not only an eyesore but is
something that is public hindrance to the park. Further, the area beside the
stage is the only level area where folks sit up picnic tables, grills, etc., for musical
events or speeches or whatever they have at the stage area. It also contains
only one of two water fountains in the park which is essential for all park guests
not just dogs. Several alternative areas had been suggested, one was
immediately across the road from the stage behind it, one was behind the area of
Walnut which was the very far left corner which is my particular favorite because
it is completely invisible from the park and is hidden by trees, already fenced, it is
level, the City owns it, it is large, there is parking. I understand the concerns of
the people who live along it because I have been here for 18 years and I have
friends that live there. There were also other alternatives that I have suggested.
I would like to have the minutes of the meeting corrected. At the beginning of 4c,
there was a count of emails that were received and there only two oppose,
evidently you neglected to count mine.
Ms. Taylor: We may not have received it prior to the meeting.
Mr. Robertson: Most everyone on the Board received it, Parks and Recreation
received it and members of City Council, Roanoke Times and the Mayor received
it. There also other places that would be more appropriate without creating this
eyesore and obstruction of use of the park and just in general disrupting the
greenspace here. I had suggested these in my email, the master plan for the city
parks was to, I thought and someone can correct me if I am mistaken, to link
Smith Park, Wasena Park and Highland Park via Wasena Bridge with a jog and
biking trail. Obviously they can't jog or ride a bike through the fence. The other
suggestion for the location of the park, which I think is a real good one and has a
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 17
water source, level. has parking and its going unused and connects all these
parks, is the area that used to be the old transportation museum.
Ms. Botkin: Do you have anymore comments based on this location?
Mr. Robertson: I believe we have covered the aesthetics and the
appropriateness of it and the disruption of a couple of activities. That's all.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you.
Ms. Taylor: I would like to state that we did receive Mr. Robertson's letter and it
actually went out in the ARB packets. It was not part of the 24 that I received
today. We do have it and will reflect it in opposition.
Ms. Botkin: Marla Robertson.
Ms. Robertson: Thank you for having me today I really appreciate you guys
hearing what we have to say. My name is Marla Robertson, I live at 618 Walnut
Avenue. I do live in what is said to be the congested area of the park. In fact my
house is one of the ones that come out of the egress of the park. I just wanted to
make a couple of comments on what was said earlier. Mr. Robertson that spoke
earlier mentioned a couple of large objects that bordered the park that were
historically appropriate. I don't know if he noticed the primary colored jungle gym
that is there also but it definitely not historically appropriate and I know that is
probably is something that was not there. Also, I hear that the dog park is
inappropriate historically because of where it is in the park. Mrs. Richert
mentioned at one of the meetings that there was a petting zoo there. I would
rather have a picked up dog park than a llama in the park because that would be
a little bit cleaner and I would be excited to have my dogs there. I do want to
mention that to the right of the stage there was enough room to put up a 100 foot
inflatable kids slide thing that we had there. There is so much extra space and is
plenty of room for this dog park. Once we have the one way that will be put
through there for parking, I think the statistics that Steve gave us, there could fit
500 cars from one end of the park to the other. That is quite a bit of parking.
Who wants to let their dog go out at the park. I know my main reason for the
specific area here is, I know a lot of people are concerned about the Sycamore
tree. I witnessed two weeks ago, two men having sex on that Sycamore tree and
I actually would much rather see my dog peeing on it than two men having sex
on it any day. This location and the items happening in it can be solved and dog
parks have been proven to reduce crime, end it or rid it altogether. We have
done the statistics and the homework. We are thrilled to have such an amenity in
our park. My children need it. (Showed pictures of her dogs.) I thank you so
much for hearing me and I really do appreciate it.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you. Seth Marlow.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008 .
Page 18
Mr. Marlow: I live at 617 Allison Avenue. I want to speak in favor of the
proposed location. In addition to other things that have been mentioned, I would
really like to stress about this particular location that it offers accessibility that
other locations don't, particularly the location that has been brought up
immediately across the street on the steeper hill. While for people who don't
have special needs and dogs who don't have special needs that may be a great
location. It really is prohibited who use wheelchairs for mobility or have other
mobility issues. I think that is extremely important for all of us here to keep in
mind. The parking issues with some of the other locations particularly the one
near the Quonset hut have also been addressed. I think making the
thoroughfare through the park one way addresses a lot of the parking problems.
Additionally concerns about the stage and the use of that area, I think most folks
who have been involved with this project are amiable to the idea of closing the
dog park when there are events in the park so that it is not a conflict of interest in
having folks there for events and there with their dogs as well. I keep hearing
how a dog park is not historically appropriate in the park. My guess is that dogs
have been playing in the park for sometime and didn't just bring them in the area
in the last 50 years or so. The fence has been approved and now we are
concerned about the location. I think the historical relevance of dogs playing in
the park doesn't come into play here. In terms of what this location has to offer in
regards to how it seen by homes, the impact of noise, accessibility for people
who have mobility issues, it really is the best location in the area.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you. Amy Morgan.
Ms. Morgan: 'live Meltzer Street in Garden City and am also a part of the dog
park steering committee. I am in support of the location we are currently
proposing in Highland Park. This is centrally located within the City and is easily
accessible to many of its residents. It has all the amenities we need for a
successful dog park including water and utilities and accessibility to those who
are handicapped. We have the majority of support from our community and the
park will provide minimal effect to the natural surroundings of the park. It actually
abuts the tree line in the back of the park and three sides of the fence are all that
will be into the main portion of the park. There is also natural shade for dogs and
their owners with a couple of trees that will be inside the fenced in area. It does
not require us to grade or change any of the terrain. It is handicap accessible for
disabled pets as well as their people. The area is long enough and wide enough
to allow dogs to play amicably without having issues with the dogs. I would like
to say I am in support of this location.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you. Will Farmer.
Mr. Farmer: I currently serve as the chairman for NewVaconnects whose
mission it is to enhance the quality of life of young professionals in our region.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 19
We have been advocating for the dog park for over a year. This came about
from a survey that we had from our membership last year where we received
overwhelming support for a dog park in any location. The location of this dog
park has been carefully considered after many months of input and discussion.
We feel the current location in Highland Park ;s the best place. While the dog
park is not one silver bullet that will magically start to attract and retain young
professionals to our region, it will be a tool in our fight. I and the board of
NewVaconnects are in support of a dog park in the proposed location in Highland
Park.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you. Terry Winborne.
Mr. Winborne: I live at 376 Woods Avenue. I do support the dog park in the
current location. A lot of things have mentioned as far as accessibility. If we look
at alternate sites, none of the them are accessible to me. I use the park or my
wife does everyday, we have for 17 years walking various dogs and this would
be a great location. The only thing I would urge the City to do is make all the
curb cuts necessary in the neighborhood so that all of us can get to the park
without having to go in the street. Thank you.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you. Charles Nave.
Mr. Nave: 1225 3rd Street, S.w. I won't go over all the points that I came in here
with because most of those have been talked about already. I would like to say
that there are a lot of historically appropriate uses in the park right now. We have
heard about flag football, soccer, rugby and tennis. I think historical
appropriateness would compel us to locate the dog park in the park because the
Alexander Gish House was the centerpiece of an old farm. This park is what is
left of that farm and every farm I have ever seen had a large fenced area with
animals in it. The dog park works very well there and aside from that, practically
speaking, the dog park is well located because of its distance from homes,
handicap accessibility and it is the least obtrusive place in the park for it.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you. Joel Richert.
Mrs. Richert: 415 Allison Avenue. When I come before you I always speak
about the history of Old Southwest. At the July meeting I spoke to some of you,
three of you were missing and I hope you have read the minutes and understand
what happened at the Gish House when it was the Gish farm when it was bought
in 1901 by the City of Roanoke. It was to be used as a greenspace within our
City. I told you about John Nolen doing a comprehensive plan in which
greenspaces were extremely important to a growing city where automobiles were
taking streets, where children were playing and riding their horses in our
neighborhood. Now we are being used by automobiles. We needed a safe
place for children to play. As the city park developed it went from, as I mentioned
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 20
before. In 1904 Hiawatha was performed there at that location where the
amphitheatre is. In the 1940's, I have photographs of children doing
performances at that location. In 1980, a group of 25-30 year olds went out and
did fund raisers so they could put a new stage at the location. They were all
interested in preserving that special place in which was used very heavily then.
We had at least 10 Highland Flings and that stage was used during that weekend
every year. The Hemlock trees that sit there behind the stage were put there as
a backdrop to that bowl where the amphitheatre sits. Obviously the sledding hill
beside it was left open originally for sledding so there were no trees or obstacles
in the way. We have a neighborhood that is very protective of its greenspace.
Many people that are residents of the neighborhood a long time ago speak
happily of hitting home runs there or have memories of courting in Highland Park.
History is so easily destroyed and we are never able to get it back. When we
started working in the neighborhood in 1971, we had over 4,000 residents and
1,200 houses. We now have 800 structures in our neighborhood, we have lost a
lot of our history. The people sitting in the audience that live in the neighborhood
have bought a historical house...
Ms. Botkin: I know we are getting a history lesson but we need to talk about the
location.
Mrs. Richert: If we destroy part of the park that is historical, traditionally used as
a historical item in the park, I feel like this is a desecration to the park itself. It
would be like taking out every other house in the neighborhood. You are
destroying a part of the history of the neighborhood where the park was a very
important part of every day life. I feel that using a part of the park that does not
have a historical significance, in other words the location could be moved south
and west of the hill along the road in the back. You could get a very nice dog run
through there. There is plenty of room from the water fountain down to the end
of trees near the Gish House. That is a beautiful area through there and not
heavily used at all and has no significant historical presence in the park. I would
recommend using that part of the park along the road as a dog park. Don't
destroy the two significant historical parts by putting a dog park so close at that
location. Wal-Mart may increase the quality of our life too but there are a lot of
historical things that we need to maintain and keep too. These two uses of
Highland Park say that we ought to consider another location within the park, not
very many feet away, but at least preserve these two historical uses. Thank you.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you. Claire English.
Ms. English: I would like permission to respond to the homework given to
NewVaconnects about the process regarding location. Would that be alright?
Ms. Botkin: I think so, briefly.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14,2008
Page 21
Ms. English: I attended a meeting at Highland Park on July 17, 2008 regarding
the Highland Park off leash dog park. The people in charge of this meeting,
including NewVaconnects made it clear that this was not a public hearing but
only to better inform us about the dog park, an information session not a debate
they said. We were also asked to keep an open mind and closed mouth during
the presentation and to remain rational and polite. Odd, I would assume that
people at meetings ordinarily would be rational and polite. All this before one
word of the project had been spoken. Needless to say, I became a bit alarmed.
We were also told that we were there to hear resident concerns as well as
discuss location for the dog park. We were there to learn the location had
already been targeted next to the Highland Park stage. The long presentation
that followed quoted only those sources that were fully in favor of dog parks and
fully in favor of a dog park in Highland Park and fully in favor of the dog park in
one specific location next to the stage. One sided debate, no balance.
Obviously, many hours, days and weeks went into this presentation and yet us
unfamiliar with dog parks and this particular issue were expected, once we were
allowed to talk, to make a contingent stand for our own personal options on the
spot. No hours, no days, no weeks to think about the full extent of what was
being presented. At that time I heard a train whistle and I thought we are being
railroaded. On August 5, 2008, NewVaconnects packed the municipal meeting
with their members and dog park enthusiasts who agreed with them.
NewVaconnects made it a point to loudly applaud and stand to congratulate
themselves at every possible opportunity. The meeting had the feeling of a
hostile pep rally and those of us with neighborhood concerns were certainly
outgunned. Since that time, I have spent many hours and days researching dog
parks and NewVaconnects. NewVaconnects are very busy folks. Good folks
with a mission. They have their own website, their own blog ...
Ms. Botkin: Now you are straying.
Ms. English: They have been concentrating on the dog park issue for quite
some time, the rest of us poor schmucks are just starting to catch up. I thought
the dog park was in Fishburn Park, what did I know. Now I know the people of
Grandin Court in southwest Roanoke had many concerns which led to a failure of
a pilot:program in Fishburn Park. That is the point of a pilot program after all to
see if the beautiful vision of the perfect dog park bears out in reality. I ask the
ARB to consider a much more appropriate area of Highland Park that is already
fenced in. No new fence will be needed and if the pilot program at this location is
as wonderful as its proponents will have us believe, we may all be on board and
ready for the next step. I would like to remind everyone concerned that this
project is a process. Process takes times and doesn't mean NewVaconnects
has to put the fund raising efforts on hold. It only means that they are fair-minded
and in the spirit of cooperation, they can appreciate the concerns of a
neighborhood that is just beginning to understand the concept and ramifications
of a dog park close to home. Although Highland Park is a small neighborhood
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 22
park at 30 acres, it is divided by purpose into several zones of usage. The
school and main playground represent the main face of Highland Park oriented to
families and children. Sports of all types are featured on flat fields at the top of
the hill, the muscle and high energy of the park. The stage area is already
established as a music festival and performance site. I have performed there
and had stage readings there and have performed there with children. Over the
years, the stage area located in a grassy amphitheatre has been the hub of
events that has benefited from a raised platform. It there is a performance heart
in the Old Southwest neighborhood, it is here and its history of use is no more
compatible with the dog park than the playground on 5th Street or the playing field
at the top of the hill. It is this highly visible festival area near the stage which has
been targeted by NewVaconnects for an off leash dog park. Mostly sloping grass
and is an inexpensive option initially but someone must fence it in and regularly
mow it, water and reseed and repair the holes and ruts. After some use as a dog
park the soil will become compacted which makes for poor drainage and mud. In
addition, rain runoff will carry fecal bacteria into adjoining public areas. In the
best of all possible worlds this area of Highland Park and even Highland Park
itself would not being under consideration. That being said, I believe Old
Southwest residents may be able to agree to a well funded off leash dog park
pilot program in another area of Highland Park that is currently underused by
Parks and Recreation for storage. The area is flat and already has water nearby
as well as sufficient parking and totally fenced at a height preferred by
professional dog park planners. It has potential to meet criteria such as
aesthetics, sufficient flat areas for parking and handicap access both to the
parking throughout the entire site. My personal belief is that the optimum off
leash dog park is one that would be consistently maintained and manned, a fee
based facility with staff that can properly screen and enforce park regulations. It
is my hope that considering Highland Park for an off leash dog park sufficient
weight will be given by the City to these criteria and to long term safety and
maintenance issues.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you. Doug Turner.
Mr. Turner: (brought in charts for the Board) I live at 545 Highland. Thank you
for suggesting that the Department of Parks and Recreation seek community
input on alternative locations for a fence related to a dog park in Highland Park.
Regarding locations, the input of Old Southwest residents should be of primary
importance. It is the residents of the neighborhood who would benefit the most
or suffer the greatest from a dog park in Old Southwest. The petitions in favor of
a dog park that had been mentioned previously do not address the alternative
locations within the park at Highland. They only look at the issue of whether or
not there will be a dog park.
Ms. Botkin: That is true. We are only looking at this location.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14,200B
Page 23
Mr. Turner: This location is bad for these reasons. I am saying that the proposal
by the Department of Parks and Recreation to locate a dog park with a fence at
the amphitheatre would be a mistake for a number of reasons. The fence would
divide and seriously reduce the seating for the amphitheatre. 'just went over
and took a picture standing on the stage looking up at the hill and the fence
would actually block my direct line of vision so it would seriously hamper the
seating and remaining seating would be subject to dogs littering the area as they
came to and from the fenced in area. Locating the fence at the stage would
diminish the liability of the amphitheatre. The location of the amphitheatre is
ideal for its current use. Parks and Recreation surveyed Roanokers and citizens
ranked an amphitheatre seventh in importance and a dog park only 17th in
importance. So why butcher a good amphitheatre to make a dog park when
there are other locations for the dog park. I would like to present a survey that I
did this last Sunday. I took a random survey of 50 residents living on streets
near Highland Park and I am presenting this list of responses from those 50
residents. I interviewed people on Highland, Washington, Albemarle, Walnut and
Allison Avenues and ask them their preference on five alternatives. (Map was
displayed.) You will see that the alternatives are A,B,C, D or E. A is west of the
road going through Highland Park, B is at the end of Walnut Avenue, and C is
east of the road going through Highland Park. All three of those locations have
some handicap access. B and A have the most and are level. C has some
relatively level area beside the road there.
Ms. Botkin: E is the proposed location that we are looking at today?
Mr. Turner: Yes. D;s no dog park at all. I then asked each person for their 1st
and 2nd choices when I did the survey on Sunday. Could we see the results of
that survey? The results are that people want a dog park, no question, but they
do not to locate it beside the amphitheatre. 76% of the residents surveyed want
the park in location A, B, or C rather than beside the amphitheatre. Only 16% of
the residents want it beside the amphitheatre. 7% don't want a dog park at all in
Highland Park. If you combine the 1 st and 2nd choices of the people in that area
on those five streets and take only the 1st choice, it would to locate the dog park
in area B which is currently used as storage by Parks and Recreation. It is the
area that is fenced and has an adjacent parking lot. 36% of the respondents said
this was their 1st choice. This alternative needs further study. One negative of
alternative B is that it is closer to some of the residents. Alternative A and C
received about the same number of votes if you combine the 1 st and 2nd choices
of people. I respectfully request that the proposal to locate a fence for dog park
beside the amphitheatre be denied. People want a dog park but not a cost of
devastating the amphitheatre.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you. Dave Black.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14,2008
Page 24
Mr. Black: I live at 709 Highland Avenue. I live on the other dead end street
across from the park. First of alii applaud Southwest Inc. and NewVaconnects
for doing an excellent job in trying to put the dog park in. They have done a lot of
work, however since this is the 1st free dog park that is going to in Roanoke, I
believe the Wasena Park would be a much better location. It appears to be
more parking, flatter and they do have access to water and electricity. Quite
frankly, I am also concerned about parking. I believe that using the road as a
one way street and parking on the side is an exceptional idea, however it is not
done yet. I am really being pessimistic in saying that I still believe people are
going to be parking on the curb side. I think it is just going to be human nature
because they are concerned about the congestion and perhaps their vehicle
being hit.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you. Mark Kary.
Mr. Kary: I live at 813 5th Street in Old Southwest. I have been a property owner
since about 1982 and I appreciate the time you all are taking to cogitate on this
issue. I had no idea that this park where we see this fabulous sledding hill was
going to be such a cancer to Old Southwest Park. This is a City park; this is a
City issue we happen to be blessed in Old Southwest with the opportunity to live
around a City park which belongs to every single resident. If you look at some of
the pictures on this, when I was a kid in Illinois I used do a lot of sledding, if you
stand at that tree (in the photo) and look across the park, there is about a 50'
slope it then goes into a dip and a flat. I got to tell you if I were 12 years old I
would not be caught dead on that hill. I would be right over below the baseball
diamond on that long hill where I wasn't going to wrap my neck around a tree.
As far as a park goes, I think the parking issue has been addressed. I think
Parks and Recreation has been very proactive in this process. I think the
location is superb. It abuts the area of the park which is subject to pretty loud
train noise and puts in an area that is wonderful for us as residents to walk to.
Most of the people I see headed for that area are walking their dogs. I think
Terry Winborne also being handicapped has addressed the mobility issues and
the access issues. The area across the road is not compatible with the handicap
access that we need. I think uses for the park, let's see it is a recreational use
isn't it? We don't ride horses in the park but if we did I guess we would be
picking up after them. We have seen very comprehensive studies of 50 people
broken down into percentages and hashed around. On the other hand, we have
had this location brought up as not being discussed publicly. Old Southwest had
an Old Southwest meeting where there was a very comprehensive presentation
on this dog park topic. Steve Buschor gave people the opportunity from
throughout the City of Roanoke to address these issues and concerns. This
location, as long as it fits with the access that we need for the handicap or
mobility challenged people, is wonderful. We have room for the stage which I
think only Jan Keister said she used for her drumming circle, other than that, the
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 25
stage is generally a one man stage. We have a wonderful location here and will
have a wonderful impact on our community because our community is City wide.
Ms. Botkin: Marwood Larson-Harris.
Mr. Harris: When I moved into 517 Washington across from the park about six
years ago, I realized the park represented a unique opportunity to get know
Virginia's trees. I started meeting with Dan Henry frequently and he gave me this
species map of the park. My comments about the location have to do with its
impact on the park as a whole. Histories of parks is a gray area but the park as a
natural resource is a pretty concrete thing. Highland Park is quite unique. It is
not just a 32 acre greenspace but it is a collection of 62 species of trees which
make it not just a park but arboretum. It has twice as many tree species as
Virginia Western's arboretum and is a great undeveloped place to learn about
Virginia's native species. When I think about a dog park being there, I think it is
taking away from the treasure that Highland Park is by itself. Specifically, to this
location I want emphasize what somebody else said before you, when you look
at the park map, most of the areas of the park are taken up by specific activities.
The undeveloped part of the park is smaller than 32 acres and as he mentioned
is actually the perimeter that represents the most valuable aspect of that. If you
want to walk the park that is where you tend to walk it. If you are walking a dog
or by yourself and want undeveloped greenspace it is not cutting through the
middle taken up by different activities. The perimeter is unique aspect of this
park. In terms of it being an arboretum, it is a really useful way of thinking about
Highland Park. There is a grove of Sycamore trees that is only in that location on
the side, a lovely little area. The area right along the fence may become a
dangerous margin because the fence of the dog park will be very close the cliff
drop off and maybe areas for kids to start to run back there and get into hazards.
People have talked about parking and may be a small part of this issue. There is
upwards of 90,000 to 95,000 people in this City but there must be around 10,000
dogs. If this park is advertised the idea of even a tiny fraction of those 10,000
wanting reasonably frequent access does stagger my imagination. I think the
park will become absolutely glutted. If there has to be a dog park in Highland, I
agree with those people with would like to put it across the street because it less
frequently used. Accessibility can be dealt with. I hope the Board will vote down
the proposed location.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you. That is the end of the public comments. Please state
your name and address.
Mr. Howard: Duane Howard. I live at 1221 6th Street, S.E. I lived on Highland
Park for almost nine years. There have been so many false statements made
here today. First of all, 'lived on Walnut Avenue on Highland Park for nine
years. You have all the activities that do go on there that brings a tremendous
amount of parking to the area. Nothing has been done to object to that and do
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 26
away with the activities. Referring to the last gentlemen's statement about the
number of dogs, 1 just returned from Arlington, Virginia, where Parks and
Recreation took me on a five hour tour of all seven dog parks. I didn't research it
on the internet looking at papers, graphs, and charts, I went there to seven dog
parks looking at all locations and everything involved. One lady talked about
drain off of feces that just got my blood boiling because us dog owners are the
kind that would use a dog park and pick up after our dogs. If you have a dog
park at that location in Highland Park, the rest of Highland Park is going to be
one of cleanest most sanitary parks in the City of Roanoke. You want to talk
about drain off, where do you think it is running now. I couldn't enjoy Highland
Park for the nine years that J lived there because you can't walk through the park
without stepping through dog mess. That problem will be solved and the other
gentlemen that talked about the article in the paper, Mr. Kary made that point
extremely well. Tell me how many baseball fields and basket ball courts and
tennis courts and soccer fields do we have. They are all sponsored taxpayer
things and I don't use anyone of those facilities and my tax dollar is paying for
every one of those facilities and yet no one's tax dollar wants to pay for a dog
park. That is wrong. We the citizens and taxpayers deserve as much as our tax
dollars going to pay for a dog park as everyone else that uses al the other Parks
and Recreation amenities. It is simply that simple. I don't believe the parking will
be as big a problem because the fact is dog owners are considerate people. I
will either drive my car down the hill and park it somewhere not close to Highland
Park and continue to walk with dog over to the park. I think dog owners will be
considerate of not blocking driveways and pulling up on curves. That is the
nature and kind of people dog owners are. We will need more dog parks but we
have to start somewhere and then when we see how heavily it is used we will be
forced to build dog parks around the City to accommodate this tremendous use
and need like what the City of Arlington has done for the assets and economic
benefits it brings to the county.
Ms. Botkin: We will now move to Board comments.
Mr. Richert: I have some questions for Mr. Buschor. Erica, will you please put
the diagram that is laying flat on the easel for me. Steve, I would like to talk a
little bit about the evaluation process or at least hear a little bit about the
evaluation process. Are there any of these locations A,B,C or E that are a
surprise to you?
Mr. Buschor: No.
Mr. Richert: Okay. Tell me how you and your staff evaluated those four
locations. A,B,C, and E, to try to determine what might be the most appropriate
for this dog park.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 27
Mr. Buschor: It was evaluated by myself and also members of NewVaconnects
and also Old Southwest in considering all four. C was seen as an impediment to
ADA access because of its topography, lack of water, no parking in the general
vicinity. A was determined to be too narrow with the same holdbacks, no
parking, limited parking, no access to utilities and B is currently being utilized by
my staff for the current storage of our heavy equipment.
Mr. Richert: So what you are telling me is that you put your finger in the air and
watched the applause meter. That is what I am hearing you say. I don't see any
rational evaluation here where the criteria for selection was outlined. Perhaps
each of those criteria, given a weighted value, and then evaluating each one to
see which one comes up with the highest score relative to appropriateness. I do
understand, have for many years, that it is the City and Parks and Recreation
that their intention is to abandon that B location for two reasons. One is that it is
inconvenient and two, it requires a movement of heavy equipment up and down
Walnut Avenue which the residents of Walnut Avenue have been subjected to for
many years. I see no reason why we shouldn't include that in as a consideration
given that Parks and Recreation does have other places and most of the time,
what is in that yard, my understanding is that you don't use the Quonset hut
anymore because you think it may be dangerous but what is in that yard is piles
of mulch and dirt and whatever else you need to store somewhere. I notice there
are some railroad trucks in there which is a peculiar Parks and Recreation item. I
don't think I am hearing anything that sounds like a creative evaluation of the
alternatives, given that the City administration and Parks and Recreation have
decided that there will be a dog park in Highland Park at the request of Old
Southwest, Inc. Board of Directors and NewVaconnects. The way I would
approach an evaluation of alternatives is as I said, put down a list of criteria, give
each one a value, if they are not of equal value, and then do an analysis that
says there are pluses and minuses that go with each one of those locations. I
did not hear that kind evaluation and I would not consider that to be careful
consideration. I think what you have been doing is watching the applause meter
so I am not happy with that. I will reserve further comment until before we vote. I
would like to hear what the other Board members would like to know about.
Mr. Bestpitch: Erica, could we go back to the photo that is labeled looking north
towards Highland Avenue from Park Road. The one that shows the road and the
stage on the right hand side. First of all , I want to be very clear about the fact
that I have listened very carefully to all of the input that I have had access to
during this whole process and I have no objection to having a dog park and no
objection to locating the dog park in Highland Park, none whatsoever. If you look
at this photo, right at the area where the shadow ends and the sunlight begins,
there is a little bushy tree planted there. It was a tree that was planted as a
memorial to Sam Garrison. I was reminded earlier today that not everybody and
especially some people that may not have lived in Roanoke quite as long as I
have, not everybody knows who Sam Garrison was. Sam was a former
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14,2008
Page 28
Commonwealth's Attorney of the City. He served on the congressional
committee staff during the Watergate hearings which some of us remember.
Most importantly, when Sam came back to Roanoke and especially the latter
years of his life, he worked hard as advocate for community inclusiveness. Sam
believed very strongly that we shouldn't just depend on the majority all the time.
We should try to be inclusive as a community and listen to each other and
respect each other and not just count noses or as Mr. Richert puts it the
applause meter as the only measure of what's best for the community as a
whole. I must say that I feel quite distressed at this point. After all the effort that
the City and Old Southwest went into to put notices in the newspaper, to mail out
postcards, make sure everybody knows about very important meetings where
this issue was going to be discussed that the message seems to be if haven't
been on board with us all along, your opinion doesn't count. We are only
interested in what the majority thinks and we are not interested in one inch of
accommodation, we are not interested in one inch of adjustment or compromise
or any other possibility to deal with the quality of the concerns that have been
raised about the proximity of this location to other uses of the park. That is a
Magnolia tree, the type of Magnolia that tends to grow to the ground and spread.
Over the next few years we can expect one of two things to happen. Either a
significant amount of the area that is proposed to be for the purposes of
exercising dogs will disappear or my opinion more likely, the branches will
disappear and very probably the tree itself will not survive due to these uses. So
there is no way that I am going to support any location for this dog park that
includes that tree. If you want to move the fence back to this side of the tree,
there is a utility pole just to the right of the yellow line and run it on back to the
south from there and come up with a location that works. There are other
locations that have been proposed. I understand the concerns about ADA
accessibility for the area on the other side of the road, the area identified as C on
the drawing although I think if you start at a point across the park road from the
stage it would be relatively simple matter to pave a pathway that could be used
for mobility access and I am certainly not convinced that there is no money
available on the City's side to help out with some the costs for that type of thing.
I happen to know there is almost no meeting of City Council that goes by without
some budget amendment or some ordinance to move money from one budget in
the City to somewhere else. We are not talking about a huge expense here so
the idea that all this money has to be raised privately, with none of our tax dollars
being used to support this project, is little bit more than I am able to swallow. So,
I really regret that there seems to have been an effort here to put us in a position
of voting up or down on this location without any willingness, that I can detect, to
really give serious consideration to the concerns that have been raised and the
alternate sites that have been proposed. If that is the way you want to do it then
my vote is no.
Mrs. Blanton: The location that you mentioned that your equipment is in now,
how is that chosen to locate your equipment there and is there another place
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 29
where it could be put and if the equipment wasn't the issue, how does it meet
that other criteria?
Mr. Buschor: In some point and time, the equipment and the use of the Highland
storage area will cease. Not until a master plan is done at public works where it
appears that our parks crew members will be ultimately relocated to. Again,
there is no plan at this time and has been no discussion of removal of our
presence at that location and still even after our crews leave to go to public works
facility, the Highland compound may still be used for the storage of mulch and fill
and stones and plant materials and those types of things. Of all of things that we
are lacking most in our department is sufficient storage.
Mrs. Blanton: There aren't any other locations in the park system where that
could be relocated?
Mr. Buschor: It hasn't been investigated.
Mrs. Blanton: If the equipm~nt is not there, how does that location rank as far as
accessibility, water and access among the other criteria?
Mr. Buschor: Have you ever been inside the compound?
Mrs. Blanton: I apologize, I have not.
Mr. Buschor: The compound is basically stone road storage area, an old
Quonset hut and again most of the outdoor landscaping materials that we buy in
bulk for use in our parks are stored in that location and other locations. To
answer your question, I wish we had more storage and area, but that one is one
that is of value at this point in time.
Mrs. Blanton: Would it be accessible and would it have water?
Mr. Buschor: Yes there is water there on that location. They have access to
water. I think the water actually comes out of the back of the Gish House.
Mrs. Blanton: I don't know the park as well as everybody here does. I am not
opposed to a dog park but I want to make sure it is the place that has the least
impact on the park. Someone brought up Wasena Park where the old
transportation museum is located. That intrigues me a little bit because it is
somewhat centrally located to Old Southwest, Raleigh Court and the Wasena
area as well as the south Roanoke areas. They would be equally accessible to
all of them. Oid you all look at that?
Mr. Buschor: I would say with the popularity, as a matter of fact, I can actually
speak to the public forum we had in this very chamber. After the meeting I had
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 30
two different folks ask about wanting to build off leash dog parks In their
neighborhoods. One spoke that evening about not picking his park and I think as
one of the speakers said earlier, it is going to be appropriate to remind folks that
this indeed is an effort to do something different and unique. This is something
that we have an opportunity to move forward on and this is just the start of it.
This is the beginning. This is just the first one and I am certain that there will be
many more to follow. The City of Alexandria and Arlington and other Virginia
communities that we have talked with and done business with regards with the
key elements to having an off leash area. This is not something that have
frivolously decided to do at the last moment, come to the ARB and say may we
have an off leash area in this location. I have to say also that we have taken the
time. We in the Parks and Recreation department in the City and Mr. Bestpitch
knows that we rely on our civic associations for much of the information that we
gain. We use the information in our civic associations to find out what our
citizens want. As a public servant I take great pride in saying that our listen to
our citizens and it is not an applause meter. It is called democracy. It's called
talking to people to find out what they want. That is what we hope to do through
the public meetings and meetings that Old Southwest has had and numerous
other places that have had them. We have tried to take all of that information
and synthesize it into how we best deliver a product for our customers. Again, I
am just a public servant trying to deliver a product to people who are telling me
this is what they want. When we decided to look at Highland Park we were
looking in Fishburn Park and we had pretty much run out of alternatives based on
what we were hearing from the group and also our partners, NewVaconnects,
and others that are in the group that have said, "I don't know that we are going to
be able to come to a conclusion or resolution to finding something in Fishburn."
That is when we were approached by Old Southwest. Old Southwest came to us
and said we would like to have the City's very first dog park in Highland Park.
They said it is even a part of our neighborhood plan. So we began dialog and
discussion. NewVaconnects and ourselves and the folks at Old Southwest
prompted all the dialog, all the meetings and conversation. I understand
perfectly that there are folks that are going to be on both sides of the issues and
very seldom do you get an opportunity to have complete 100% consensus. I am
still that guy with the glass is half full. We have tried and have listened to all the
concerns and considerations and we have worked to address many of those. I
don't know that we will ever make everyone 100% happy but the fact is that we
have a contingent of citizens that have approached us and citizens that
approached us that aired our concerns. We have listened to those. Bringing this
application before you this evening to talk about location is the next step. Mr.
Richert is absolutely right, I agree, I would never dream of even considering to
move forward without sharing information with the neighbors about what kind of
benches, what kind of waste receptacles will be located there. Those are things
we have pretty well standardized in Highland Park and know what the community
has expressed an interest in seeing in the past and will do our best to deliver
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 31
those same things in the future. Tonight we ask to consider our application for
location. I am sorry to be long winded in answering your question.
Mrs. Blanton: I have to say I have listened carefully and I was not here the last
meeting but I do believe the parking issue could be addressed with permits along
those streets. No matter where it is in the park, you are going to have parking
issues and already have a parking issue whenever there is an event at the park
and that is a good thing. Perhaps we can look at things like permit parking and
for the larger events shuttles or something to address that. That in itself does not
make me opposed to the dog park. Again, I am not opposed to it being in
Highland Park in general I just want to make sure that people have gone through
and feel very confident that this is by far the best location and has the least
impact on other uses in the park.
Mr. Buschor: Absolutely.
Mr. Cundiff: I am going to beat the dead horse and go over one more time, B
and C are out. A seems preferable other than the only concern that I have heard
you say is the width. Can you speak more to what that means with respect to a
dog park or what that limits or restrictions, as well as the proximity to other
services?
Mr. Buschor: The only objection there is to A other than not having ready access
to water and parking, parking is up around the stage more near to the stage. We
considered and debated about moving it down that way but in the middle area it
is really narrow. It is probably 45' to 50' wide at the widest. People were
concerned about more of an open area for pets to be able to run in general
directions and not make it into a dog run so to speak and that was the concern.
It was long and narrow and also becomes much closer and more obvious to
those folks using the Gish House. It would be within easy eyesight of the Gish
house and some of the members of the group said I don't think it needs to go
near the Gish House. If you take an acre of land and narrow it down obviously
the polygon becomes longer and it would be a much larger expanse linearly.
Mr. Cundiff: Personally, not really having a great deal of involvement with this
project and not living in the neighborhood and having a vested interest, just from
pure design and site planning point of view, it seems to me that if the dog park
started to the south and connected to the parking lot and came up a little north
and then tried to come down into area A, in order to get the land and make the
compromise there that would be the better choice. However, at that the end of
the day Steve, I am going to trust that Parks and Recreation have done their
research and done everything they need to do to be satisfied that area E is the
best option.
Mr. Buschor: We feel that it is.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 32
Mr. Bestpitch: I just want to say that we are talking about two separate dog
areas, correct? A dog park that would be somehow divided into two areas, one
area for larger dogs and one area for smaller dogs?
Mr. Buschor: At this point, Mr. Bestpitch, we are not talking about two areas. We
are talking about one large area with a fence around the perimeter at this point.
Mr. Bestpitch: If we approved this location then as discussed earlier in this
meeting today, the actual design of the fence, the vestibules or lack of is not part
of the purview of the ARB?
Mr. Buschor: When you refer to vestibules?
Ms. Botkin: They are talking about gates.
Mr. Buschor: Gates.
Mr. Bestpitch: We talked about having areas where people could enter unleash
their dogs and then close the gate behind them and open the second gate.
Mr. Buschor: Yes that is true.
Mr. Bestpitch: At the meeting that was held last month, the regular Old
Southwest membership meeting at which this issue was discussed at quite some
length, it was pretty clearly stated that the intention was to have two areas, two
vestibules and a division splitting the dog park into one area for larger dogs and a
second area for smaller dogs.
Mr. Buschor: That is not my recollection or understanding. We have decided
that we are going to put a perimeter fence around the area with a double gate
and that is it.
Mr. Bestpitch: Okay. I want to go back to your passionate comments about your
democratic comments and attention to the public. You acknowledge the fact that
you are not only in favor of having a dog park and having it in Highland Park but
of this specific location and you also said you heard some concerns from people.
Very specific clear concerns about this exact location. I don't want to
mischaracterize anything here Steve, so please tell us your response to those
citizens and concerns.
Mr. Buschor: Through the process, through the public process, I heard concerns
that were brought up from folks...
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 33
Mr. Bestpitch: And I am asking you for your response to those concerns. What
is your response to those citizens? I don't want to mischaracterize anything
here, how do you respond to them?
Mr. Buschor: I have recorded their comments just as , did the positive comments
and took them under advisement as we looked at the opportunity for where we
thought the best location for this dog park would be.
Mr. Bestpitch: And decided that if you are not in the majority then democracy
says your concern is not one that we can make any adjustment, we cannot do
anything at all to modify our original proposal based on the concern that you
raised. Thank you.
Mr. Richert: I have listened to more than enough public input on this subject over
the last six weeks and I have to state that I profoundly disappointed in the lack of
creativity by the City administration and Parks and Recreation in terms of
evaluating this process of trying to find a better way to do this. I do not agree
with the staff that this constitutes a complete application. I understand that picnic
tables, park benches and whatever are not an issue but every document that I
have studied or looked at with regard to dog parks, there are a number of
amenities that are included in terms of landscaping and/or pathways, hills to
climbs. there are all kinds of things that go into these parks that give dogs
something to do besides stand around and leave their mark. They include
everything from doggy things you climb over to fake fire hydrants. I suspect that
there are going to be some things here besides mulch walkways and perhaps
paved places that give the handicap better accessibility and if it is going to be
above ground level, this Board has something to say about how it is going to
look. As well as this vestibule area in terms of how you get in and out and some
people have said two to three spaces you go through to get in and out. I am not
concerned about these well trained dogs jumping over a 4' fence. I think if
someone goes in there with a dog that is going to jump the fence then they don't
belong there at all. That part of the application I considered to be incomplete. I
am also very much concerned about traditionally and historical uses and how
they are eliminated by new uses which mayor not be useful than others. Most of
the recreational spaces in the park are used for multiple spaces in the park are
used for multiple uses. Even the tennis courts get roller skaters or roller bladders
in and out or people who run race cars or whatever. The basketball court is the
same way and all the playing fields up top get people in them and people walk
their dogs with their leashes all the time. Anytime you come into a public park
and start talking about exclusive uses, I think that is what we are talking about
here because it is unlikely that the walkers are going to go in or through. The
fact that this particular location without modification eliminates one traditional and
historical usage and impinges upon another one which I consider more important
because the stage amphitheatre part of the park is one of those venues that does
not get used enough but is generally quite successful when it is used and with
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 34
the availability of power and other amenities there. I am very much opposed to
anything that is going to impinge upon the amphitheatre or its enjoyment by
those who use for it for entertainment or drumming. When the top of the park
was flattened there was a gully and they filled it in and sculpted it and their
intention was to provide an area where you could have performances. Based on
those considerations given no other alternative, I am not going to support this
petition. It doesn't mean that dog park does not have a place in Highland Park.
We have identified other places that would be appropriate but I don't think the
application is complete. I believe this location impinges upon historically and
traditional uses. They may be few in number; but are important to historical and
ambiance that the neighborhood provides, and the park is included. I think that
the fact that the neighborhood takes ownership of and has a vested interest in
the park is very important. I am sure Parks and Recreation understands that
while any park belongs to all the citizens and the neighborhood takes a
responsible view of it, it is not only important to Parks and Recreation but to the
parks general presentation of the public.
Ms. Botkin: I am in support of the dog park where it is located. I don't have any
issues with how it has been presented. I have listened to all of the comments
both opposed and for and just like anything else that we vote on everyone has
their opinions as to why and why not it is good or bad place. I am going to use
this as an example which going to probably going to come back to haunt me, this
Board recently adopted new guidelines in which publicized meeting after meeting
and we got very few people to attend. This is a very good example of that same
thing where it is has been publicized and hardly anybody came to the meeting
and when they did come the meeting they did address the issue that was at
hand. So, we went forward and addressed issues in the same manner that you
did, we wrote them down, who had issues for and against it, we tried to do it
publicly and in written form but we addressed it in some form. I think the dog
park is wonderful addition to Highland Park and Old Southwest and to Roanoke
City. I think that it will be, one will end up in Wasena and so on and so forth
because there is a lot of people and animals that need taken care too. In
Roanoke City there is a cat issue also and I am feeding them and taking them to
get them fixed. I would like to see someone step up and take care of that issue.
I think the dog park is great, I recently got a puppy so I am all for it. (Applause
from the audience)
Mrs. Blanton: You all mentioned earlier that the dog park at Fishburn was
provisional. We are just voting on the location and I am assuming that the
fencing and everything was handled, is there anything set in place to see how it
works? Once it happens, this is not a zoning issue right?
Ms. Botkin: It is not a permanent fixture. It is to a point but is there anything in
there that says that if it causes all kinds of problems that adjustments can't be
made to the location later.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
August 14, 2008
Page 35
Mrs. Blanton: I know there is a financial investment that you hate to have to redo
but I am just curious to know if there is anyway that can be set up to set it in
place and review how its doing?
Mr. Buschor: Obviously whatever takes place from this day forward is going to
be very observed by staff, residents, members of NewVaconnects and people in
Old Southwest. As I have shared with people that have communicated with me
as I have returned communication saying that if you are concern might be a
maintenance issue or people don't clean up atter themselves. One of the things
that we have gone into this project together that we are going to have posted
rules. The users are going to police themselves but if again, if the off leash area
becomes burdensome on the Parks and Recreation department then appropriate
action will be taken. I say that meaning that up to and including the removal of it
if indeed it becomes so troublesome that it needs to be removed. The
commitment that has been made on the part of our partners, the folks that have
come to us and said we want to see this happen, I think they are passionate
enough to see that those rules are indeed followed.
Mrs. Blanton: People have valid concerns and reasons to support it. I have a
feeling it will be somewhere in the middle. I just would like to make sure that it
will be continued to be evaluated and if it begins to have a negative impact either
on the park, use of the amphitheatre, the neighborhood or something like that, it
would be reconsidered and adjustments would be made.
Mr. Buschor: Of course.
Ms. Botkin: Based on the fact that the tennis courts are being used for skate
boarders and roller bladders, I am sure that is added costs out of the City's
pocket to keep them up to date. Holes in the nets and roller blades on the
courts. Mr. Richert's comment about multiple uses for locations of activities, I am
sure in the winter time if the dogs aren't in the hill, you could take your kids there
and slide down the hill at least they can't get out of the fencing areas. As far as
the stage goes I don't think amphitheatre is the correct term to be used to classify
it. I have rarely heard of any events taking place on that platform. With that said
I am in full' support of the dog park. Ms. Martin.
Ms. Martin called the roll.
The application was approved by a roll call vote of 3-2, as follows:
Mr. Richert-no
Mr. Bestpitch-no
Ms. Blanton-yes
Mr. Cundiff-yes
Ms. Botkin-yes
Architectural Review Hoard
Board of Zonin~ ^J11,eals
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
'OIJ.~juiYJ.9,j2008, the City of Roanoke Architectural Review Board granted this
Certificate of Appropriateness to City of Roanoke Parks and Recreation
Department approving installation of a four foot vinyl coated chain link fence to
be utilized as a dog park, the location to be submitted at a later date, as per the
amended application and plans presented to the Board on the date set out
above.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
No.: 08-057
Date: July 10, 2008
This Certificate is valid for one year from the date set out above.
/"1
/J" 0 I/L,'7~.
. (:'c.U'j6I.J'0'- . ' J~~t,.. j
Barbara Botkin. Chair
ATTACHMENT 4
A TT ACHMENT 5
Architectural Review Board Minutes
July 10, 2008
Page 6
Ms. Botkin said she would be more comfortable having a plan view of the porch
with the size of the columns shown, types of bases and capitals, and handrails.
Mr. Hodgkin said he agreed with Mr. Bestpitch's comments.
Ms. Botkin said with Mr. Hodgkin's approval, she would like to table the
application until next month's meeting.
Mr. Hodgkin said he was in agreement with tabling but had one request. He said
he wanted to go ahead and work on the columns if possible.
Ms. Botkin said without the detail drawing of the columns the Board could not
approve anything yet.
Mr. Bestpitch made a motion to table the application until the August 14, 2008
meeting with the applicant's permission.
The application was tabled by a roll call vote of 4-0, as follows:
Mr. Bestpitch-yes
Mr. Fulton -yes
Mr. Schlueter-yes
Ms. Botkin-yes
6. ReQuest from City of Roanoke. represented bv Steven Buschor. for a
Certificate of Aopropriateness approvinQ the installation of four foot vinvl
coated chain link fence in HiQhland Park between Washinaton and Walnut
Avenues. S.w.
VERBATIM:
Mr. Steven Buschor: Thank you for reviewing my application this evening. I
think the application speaks mostly for itself. I know that Ms. Taylor has included
a new photo of the location that was different than the original location and that
was also. mapped out, painted and flagged for the Board's review this afternoon
for their tour. The only comment I have for the record is that this has been a
team approach with the City as well as Old Southwest neighborhood, as well as
NewVaConnects group also affiliated with Valley Forward. I will, for the record,
express my deep gratitude and express my sentiment to them that they have
been a great pleasure to work with and they have, at every turn, taken the
guidelines of the ARB into consideration with the siding, size, and all of the other
things that go into the overall process. I want to commend them on their effort
and due diligence as well. I will make myself available for questions atter the
public comment if that is okay.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
July 10, 2008
Page 7
Ms. Botkin: Thank you. Staff comments.
Ms. Taylor: Staff supports the application. The installation will have little effect
on the surrounding streets cape by virtue of the fencing and its distance from the
public street.
Ms. Botkin: We have a number of letters that have been sent in support of the
dog park and Ms. Martin will read the names of the letters, we are not going to
read them all, so that they are admitted into record.
Ms. Martin: We actually had eight letters from Marla Robertson, Jeff Campbell,
Suzanne Hastings, Kathryn Baum, Anna and Clinton McLaughlin, Kirsten
Shields, Lynne Ludovici, and Getra Hanes.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you. We have a number of people signed up to speak on this
application. Let me remind everyone again to keep to the design, materials and
location of the fence. First on the sign in sheet is Joel Richert.
Joel Richert: I will quickly read my comments because I planned them for five
minutes because I thought that was what we got yesterday. I do not support the
request for the fence made of chain link material. A fence similar to material and
style to the one of 5th Street in the park would be appropriate. In design, a fence
should relate to its surroundings, the tree lined street, and green space too. I do
not support the location of the dog park. The sledding hill to the left and up
beside the amphitheatre is a wonderful exciting place for fast sleds, long and no
danger of going into the street. Inner-city children and adults have been using
this sledding hill for 100 years. I would like to see consideration for the layout of
the dog park to run horizontally instead of up the hill. A compromise can surely
be reached. The City of Roanoke bought the Gish farm in 1901, Highland Park.
In 1928, John Nolen made a plan for a big section on inner-city parks, he placed
great value on open spaces. The park was made for neighborhood use as house
lots were very small, back yards contained horse stalls, chicken coops, grape
arbors and servants quarters. In the 1920's, children from the neighborhood
spent all day playing in the park. Softball, tennis, water sprinklers, slides, swings
and even a small zoo occupied the park. The first amphitheatre production was
at Hiawatha in 1904 and Mr. Nolen said "as the number of automobiles grow,
parks and green space in the inner-city become more important." I would
suggest tabling this application for a month so that more options and designs
could be considered.
Ms. Botkin: Next we have Phillip Morgan.
Phillip Morgan: Thanks for letting me be here. Phillip Morgan, I have been a
resident of Old Southwest since 1962 and I grew up on Walnut Avenue across
from the park and I have now bought a house down the street from where I grew
Architectural Review Board Minutes
July 10, 2008
Page 8
up. I am all for a dog park, no problem, I do have two concerns with a dog park
though. I think the material used for an enclosure should not be a chain link, it
should be more in keeping with sort of what is along 5th Street. It should not be
chain link because it is visible from the road even though it is considered a
private road through the park. My second concern is its location, like Mrs.
Richert said if you put it where they are proposing, it blocks the sleigh riding hill
that I and countless others have been using since 1900. I think better location,
maybe in that same area will be the same benefit of safety and that sort of thing.
I really wish you would think about material and a new location and not take
away our sledding entertainment. Thanks.
Ms. Botkin: Thanks. Next we have Jan Keister.
Jan Keister: I am Jan Keister, Grant Chair and public safety committee member
of Old Southwest, Inc. which supports a fenced dog park in Highland Park. I am
perhaps uniquely qualified to talk about this project because before coming to
Roanoke I was vice president of the dog owners training club of Lynchburg. To
those of you who are not dog lovers, a fenced dog area for dogs to run loose
may seem strange but they have been around for years and they do work.
NewVaConnects has researched thoroughly the design and operation of dog
parks. Long before they contacted Old Southwest, Inc., members discussed the
desire of having a dog park in our neighborhood and in response two years ago I
received research placing one on vacant property owned by Old Southwest, Inc.
concluding that site was too small. So why a dog park, without going into
enormous amounts that NewVaConnects has collected, I will just say the citizens
of Roanoke and Old Southwest have made it clear that they want a fenced dog
park. Such an area is beneficial to the health and well-being of dogs and
improves the quality of life of dogs and dog owners. I will have to ask non-dog
owners to trust dog experts' words on this issue as I as a non-parent have
trusted the research of parents, educators and other experts of the needs for
schools, playgrounds and activities for children. Why Highland Park? This park
is centrally located and thus equally accessible to all City residents. As a public
safety committee member, I know the area proposed for the dog park has a
problematical reputation as a pickup spot for male prostitutites. Having a
legitimate activity in this area causes the perpetrators to go elsewhere. I know
this because I belong the Roanoke Valley Drum Circle, a group that meets
regularly to play hand drums. We have moved our meetings next to the stage,
next to the proposed dog park and have seen the men hanging around that area,
leave as soon as we arrive. Highland Park is ready for development and the
Parks and Recreation Department is moving forward to create a plan that will
include many improvements to benefit the City's residents. This dog park is one
of several improvements residents have requested. The point of contention for
the dog park project is the fence. Normally I support using historically accurate
materials in our neighborhood but in this case I don't see how it is possible. For
the safety of canine and human occupants, the interior of the fenced area must
Architectural Review Board Minutes
July 10, 2008
Page 9
be visible from outside and the fence must be tall enough to contain large dogs.
The mesh must be tight enough to contain the smallest dogs and must be of a
material that will not cut or catch paws or snouts. The material must be
inexpensive to purchase and maintain. I can't think of any historically accurate
material that meets these needs. NewVaConnects has proposed a black coated
chain link fence which is relatively low in cost and easy to maintain. This is
consistent with the fencing already in use in Highland Park around the tennis
court and west side of the park. Since the proposed dog park area isn't visible
from the residential streets around the park it will not affect the appearance of the
neighborhood anymore than the tennis court fencing and will add significantly to
the quality of life of City residents. Thank you.
Mr. Bestpitch: May I make a comment before you call the next speaker. I just
want to reiterate what the Chair was trying to say at the beginning, it is not the
prerogative of the ARB to decide whether or not a dog park is a good idea or
which park it should be placed in, that is not our decision to make. While we may
have individual opinions, officially as Board members, it makes no difference to
us one way or another. The only questions before the ARB are the location, and
the design and materials of the fence so if we could please confine the public
comments to issues related to where the fence is going to be and what the fence
is going to look like. Thank you madam Chair.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you. That saved me from saying it again. Next we have Doug
Turner.
Doug Turner: I will make my comments very brief. I just feel that we need to
delay the action on this matter for one month to let the citizens of the have a
chance to know what is coming in terms of the design and location of the fence.
There are some alternative there as you flip from picture to picture you will see
there is a level spot where the fence could be located rather than on the side of
the hill that might be less of a problem with interfering with the facilities that
presently exist. I am just requesting that we have time to let the neighbors
review the plans and look at some alternatives.
Ms. Botkin: Next we have Lori Rosen.
Lori Rosen: I live at 602 Walnut Avenue directly across from the park. I have
been there for 14 years and I am speaking today out of concern for the park. I
am neither for nor against a dog park; I am, however, concerned with the
placement of the proposed park and most importantly the design and materials. I
believe great care needs to be taken in regards to these matters because once in
place the dog park is permanent. I shudder to think that on a walk or drive
through the park I will be confronted not only with a large dog run, visible to all,
because let's remember it is a public park and that makes it a public street even
though it is not residential but with a zoo-like fence made with chain link, vinyl
Architectural Review Board Minutes
July 10, 2008
Page 10
coated, black or green makes no difference, a chain link fence will serve as a
visual barrier to our pristine and almost original view of the park as it has been
since 1901. Highland Park is a beautiful green space and the Department of
Parks and Recreation, as part of Roanoke City's master plan for its parks, has
ensured that it remains a natural park not too manicured or landscaped but a
beautiful woodland and field space for all to enjoy. I implore you to take into
consideration the natural scenic beauty of Highland Park and consider the
placement, design and materials used for any project in the park very carefully.
Thank you.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you. Next we have Jeff Campbell.
Jeff Campbell: Hello, Jeff Campbell, currently serving as president of Old
Southwest, Inc. I speak to you tonight representing Old Southwest, Inc. and a
number of individuals you see behind here tonight with the support the dog park
stickers. As you can see the information I have supplied, we have established
the presence of the same fencing material already in place in and around
Highland Park. In addition to the presence of this fencing material in the park,
there is also a fair amount of its use residentially around the neighborhood of Old
Southwest. I would add that the use of chain link fencing, as long as it is coated,
is acceptable for the rear of homes in the historic district. The location proposed
for the off-leash area dog park will be located, in essence, in the back yard of
Highland Park which is out of direct view from public street surrounding it. I have
a done a little research in seeking other historic district or neighborhoods around
the nation with the same fencing material in use for an off-leash area dog park
and did find one that provided information and photos to the effect. Additionally, I
inquired with the group responsible for the off-leash area dog park for their
motives for adding this area to their neighborhood and they are quite similar to
our own. The area in question is frequently visited by individuals looking to
participate in lewd conduct. The area in question is also listed on numerous
websites for frequented use of the same not to mention the frequent visits of drug
dealers, users or the homeless. This is an issue and image that Old Southwest is
striving to clean up. We feel very strongly that the off-leash area dog park will do
just that, get rid of and clean up the seedy traffic. I would also like to add a
couple of comments. In addition to accommodations to the stage area,
accommodations were made in the fact that it will not hinder its use,
accommodations were also made for use by handicapped as it will have a large
portion of area that is flat. The area is one acre versus the 32 acres that we do
have available for use for public. I appreciate your time and hope the ARB will
vote in favor of the proposed fencing material to be used at the Highland Park
off-leash area dog park. Thank you.
Mr. Bestpitch: Mr. Campbell, in representing Old Southwest, can you tell us
whether the residents of Old southwest were ever notified that there was going to
be a meeting at which this issue was going to be discussed for the park.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
July 10, 2008
Page 11
Mr. Campbell: Yes it was on your website. It has also been in several
newsletters.
Mr. Bestpitch: So those people who received the newsletters and was on the
website knew about it but all the residents were never notified of such a meeting?
Mr. Campbell: All the members of Old Southwest, who I represent, were notified
yes.
Ms. Botkin: All the members were but not everyone that lives in Old Southwest.
Mr. Bestpitch: I am just asking the question, that's all.
Mr. Campbell: I appreciate your question.
Ms. Botkin: Next we have Polly Bixler from 502 Highland Avenue.
Polly Bixler: This came as such a surprise to me. I found it in the newsletter that
it was happening. I have lived on Highland Avenue since 1979, we were one of
the pioneers and are still there. We walk our dogs in Highland Park one or two
times a day and always have. I don't feel that Highland Park is the place for a
dog park, even though that is not what we're are here to discuss, particularly the
hillside we are discussing. It is in direct relationship to the amphitheatre which is
used frequently. People have play readings there, musicians congregate there,
people sit on the hillside there to listen to the music, not to mention the kids and
their sleigh riding because they no longer have see-saws, they no longer have
those whirly things we had when we were kids, everything has been taken away
from them but if we get a snow, they can at least go sleigh riding. The other
thing that bothered me so much about this was I remember when we set about
identifying the neighborhood as a historic district, we sent out mass letters to
everybody in the neighborhood and we had meetings and meetings with all the
people in the neighborhood be they renters, people who owned a property there
but we had several meetings and this is what has disturbed me the most. There
have been no meetings about this, we don't know who is going to clean it up and
the other thing is veterinarians used to be very cautious about these places
because there is no one at the door to check and see if your dog has had its
distemper vaccination, worms, fleas, or kennel cough or has any airborne viruses
that they can catch very easily, that has not been mentioned by anybody, but I
am assuming that is very much a problem. I just think that hillside there is
pristine and it is for everybody in the City and it's not the old stick in the mud who
doesn't want to see change. I think that park, I have a picture of my mother
sitting on that hillside in 1912, so that park goes way back, it's been unchanged
for a number of years. We don't need to add more parking spaces. We went
through that a number of years ago because the school needed more parking.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
July 10, 2008
Page 12
Every time something comes around with two or three more parking spaces then
we have that problem too. Now to speak to what goes on in the corner...
Ms. Botkin: Can we stick to the fence?
Ms. Bixler: I was going to speak to the hillside. It is a lot better than it used to be.
It used to be just awful but I think it has cleaned up over the years. I will say I
have talked to other people in the neighborhood who share some of the same
concerns about smell, who cleans up disease, and that sort of thing. Also the
location, while it may not be visible from outside the park it certainly will be visible
from inside the park. I would ask to put this off until after the groups can hold
meetings for the entire neighborhood to come together and discuss it and come
up with a proper place to have it.
Ms. Botkin: Thank you. Josh Shields, 501 Janette Avenue.
Josh Shields: I am sorry about previously, I wanted to address Mr. Bestpitch
first. With regards to notifying the neighborhood, three months ago we sent out a
neighborhood wide newsletter, every home and business, I helped chair that
committee. As the treasurer of the Old Southwest organization, I can attest to
the fact that we spent over $3,000 this year in newsletter mailings. The past two
newsletters, which have gone out to our entire neighborhood and our
membership had references to the dog park. Furthermore, the City held a
neighborhood planning session in April and this issue was discussed there.
There is no reason why members of the neighborhood and residents that are
actively participating in both neighborhood organization events and City public
hearings should not have heard about this issue.
Ms. Botkin: One comment to clarify on that. Mr. Bestpitch's question to Mr.
Campbell was just a question. Our job here is to vote on the materials, location
and the design of the fence so whether the public was notified accurately, that
was just a general question.
Mr. Shields: I just wanted to clarify.
Mr. Bestpitch: But to speak to the question, since we are there. The question
was did the newsletters that you are referring to identify a specific date and time
when this matter would be on the agenda? I understand about raising the issue
in people's minds, but were people informed that this issue was going to be
discussed and the position of Old Southwest is going to be determined at this
meeting on this date and this time.
Mr. Shields: With regards to the dog park, the newsletters do address the dates
and times of our meetings and this was an agenda item in our monthly.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
July 10, 2008
Page 13
Mr. Bestpitch: And the newsletter stated that this was going to be an agenda at
this month's meeting.
Mr. Shields: We don't publish our agenda. It was in our newsletter and it did
state that we encourage residents to attend our meeting.
Mr. Bestpitch: Josh, I am asking a very specific question, was it in your
newsletter that this was going to be on this agenda at this meeting for a
determination to be made of the position of Old Southwest, yes or no?
Mr. Shields: The way that you are stating it, no. With regards to the location,
people this evening have spoken to visual impact that such a fence would have
on the park. I wanted to present this photo, unfortunately it is not included in the
slideshow. This photo was taken on Park Drive, which according to the City of
Roanoke, an official designated street in the City. That picture is of 10' coated
vinyl chain link fence from approximately 300' away. That is the same distance
from any residential home, actually a little closer view from any residential home
that is actually taken from the corner of 6th and Washington. If you look closely,
you can see the chain link and only where the sky is. A 4' black vinyl chain link
fence has very little visual impact. Alternatively, the fencing which is the metal
slat fence along 5th, would have a much more dramatic impact on the fence
simply because, just like the fencing that is along 5th now has plastic green, snow
fencing to prevent animals from going through it. As it stands right now, the
fencing along 5th has the plastic traffic control fencing, it is dark green colored.
With regards to sledding, I understand the neighborhoods concerns about
sledding. According to the Farmer's Almanac, our average number of snow days
is five a year where there is enough snow to have applicable sledding. We are
talking 360 days where that area of the park, which is underutilized, would be
able to be used by residents in and out of Old Southwest, their pets and offer
solicitation. Finally, with regards to the amphitheatre and placement, there are
some concerns about parking and views from homes. This location was chosen
because it is the only location in the park where it cannot be seen by any homes.
The only exception to that would be if you stand on the roof of some of the
homes on Highland Avenue. The view is minimally impacted. The placement
was chosen because there is ample parking compared to some of the other
options, and it's a nice terrain for dogs to run. Thank you.
Ms. Botkin: Next we have Laura Ellerman, 2323 Jefferson Street, SW.
Laura Ellerman: Thank you so much for your time tonight. I am no longer a
resident of Old Southwest. I lived there the first two years I lived in Roanoke. My
presence here this evening is representing NewVaConnects, the young
professional organization that originally started this project, I have been on the
Board of NewVaConnects for three years now and I have the delight and
pleasure of being one of the dog park co-chairs. I am also an attorney, which
Architectural Review Board Minutes
July 10, 2008
Page 14
means the challenge of coming to a meeting and not talk about the dog park
when everyone wants to talk about the dog park, I accept and I will focus my
attention specifically on the material, location, and specifically when I am reading
your guidelines, page 36 as Mr. Campbell quoted the use of chain link fence at
rear yards is acceptable so long as the fence is coated. We support Parks and
Recs application of a coated chain link fence because it serves all of our
purposes at once. It is protection for the animals that will use it, it allows visible
space for those who will use that park so safety is not a concern and there is a
history of its use in Highland Park as well as Old Southwest Inc. If you stand in
the area where the proposed fence is marked and you look 360 degrees around
you, one entire side of the park has a chain link fence right now. It is on the
Norfolk Southern side down by the rails. Yes, we have years of growth over it
but that nasty chain link fence has been there historically for a very long time.
Then we look at the tennis court, they are a sporting activity and the
neighborhood probably not support a wooden tennis court fence or an iron tennis
court fence because of both the safety and use concerns. A dog park is no
different. We are talking about a sporting activity and appropriate fence. As Mr.
Campbell pointed out, there is nothing in the guidelines that defines a rear yard.
I wish there was. If it was 100 or 200 feet from a home, so what we have to go to
is what is the purpose of the guideline. The purpose of the guideline is to allow
black chain link fence when it is not an eyesore and if you stand on the proposed
location, you can't see any of the homes, and it is in the furthermost corner of the
park. One of the other things I wanted to address, NewVaConnects has a list
serve of 600 people and 600 people voted last year that this was a project that
would make them happy. Who knew that 600 Roanokers could be happy with a
one acre, 4' chain link fence but that's what they told us. We also as a dog park
have 150 people on our list serve and all of those people were informed about
the meeting today. They were informed about the June neighborhood meeting
which I attended and presented in Old Southwest as well as the May board
member meeting in Old Southwest. We have working on this a long time and I
will defer any questions you have to Steve who gets to be the boss of me through
this entire process. I thank you for your time and attention tonight and for our
application.
Mr. Bestptich: As an attorney, since you raised the issue. Are you aware of the
fact that 'rear yard is a term of art and is defined in the zoning ordinance? The
reason it is not defined in the guidelines is because it is already defined in the
zoning ordinance.
Ms. Ellerman: I will be honest, suing nursing homes, I didn't read the zoning
ordinance, but if you have that definition I would be grateful to hear it.
Mr. Bestpitch: The point is simply that it is defined. The term rear yard is a
defined term in the zoning code.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
July 10, 2008
Page 15
Ms. Botkin: Next we have Charlie Nave, 1225 3rd Street.
Charlie Nave: I can't say that I can improve on everything that has been said
already but I can hit the high points. It seems pretty clear to me that this location
has been researched over and over again and no matter what, someone is going
to have a problem with any location we pick but this one seems to have some
sort of consensus built around it by the City, by NewVaConnects, by Old
Southwest and more importantly is the least visible from the road and is still
going to allow some sledding. If you look at the big map the hill is pretty long and
doesn't seem to block out the entire sledding area to the extent that it is an actual
problem. Most importantly, this is going to help chase away the unsavory, the
unwholesome activity that is happening in that corner. The most important
aspect of the location decision is what it is going to do to improve the park.
Improving the quality of activity that is going on in the park I think would go a long
way over improving the park overall. Regarding design, the fence would match
three fences that are already in the park and that are already visible in the park
from various places. It would seem that this got the same sort of notice to the
City and residents as any other agenda item the ARB would have.
Ms. Botkin: Next we have Ruth Harris. (She chose not to speak.)
Ms. Botkin: Next we have Marwood Harris from 517 Washington Avenue.
Marwood Harris: Just briefly, I have listened to a lot of people say things about
research and consensus about this location and the use of both of those terms
confuses me but I would speak against this location very strongly. I am shocked
that anyone would want to destroy the area around the stage. I think the stage is
used very interestingly right now, it can be used a lot more. It itself is a great
resource and putting a dog park there would essentially destroy its usefulness to
the residents or anyone else who wants to use it for theater and music. I just feel
that the location is very bad. The chain link fence is unfortunate but it is probably
true that you can't have a dog park without some kind of chain link fence. I do
want to return to the item about how we notified. I did get a letter.
Ms. Taylor: That letter is just notification that it was going to be on the ARB
agenda.
Mr. Harris: I am confused as to why it doesn't say Dog Park on the letter.
Ms. Taylor: Because there is really no address.
Mr. Harris: I don't feel like the residents have been officially notified that a dog
park is being considered at a location like this. We certainly weren't notified
about what the decision making process is. I echo Mr. Turner by saying, at the
very least this must be withheld for one month so the neighborhood can be more
Architectural Review Board Minutes
July 10, 2008
Page 16
clearly notified with a letter that does say dog park with a drawing that shows the
location with some photos that shows how it is going to effect the drive through of
the park. Although this is a public park that can be used by everyone in the City,
the neighborhood residents do spend a lot more time than other City residents in
this park and should have a certain amount of say in whether or not an outside
group brings in a dog park. Even though it is supported by the Board, the Board
itself does not speak for the neighborhood. That has to be remembered. The
Board speaks for the Board and the people who vote them in are not, by any
means, a representative of the entire neighborhood. Although they are in favor
of it that does not represent all of Old Southwest so let's hold onto it for a month.
I don't think the location is a good one.
Ms. Botkin: Next we have David Black.
David Black: First of all, thank you for allowing me to speak. I live on 709
Highland Avenue and I have three concerns. One would be parking. If we had
extra parking along my street, people parking against the curb make it a lot more
difficult for people who do have driveways to pull out and in because they weren't
designed for that. Also, from just in my small neighborhood with six houses,
people's working hours, we represent pretty much every hour of the week. My
concern would be the noise from the dog park which concerns the location of it.
People said you wouldn't see it from the street and I think that is a good thing but
again I am concerned about the noise. Other than that, I would like to see a win-
win situation, I think it's great if we could get a dog park in and everyone would
be happy because I know the dogs would be happy.
Ms. Botkin: Mr. Black was the last on the list. Do we have anymore Board
comments? I would like to make a statement. We need to strongly reiterate the
issue that we are voting on the fence, the location and design of the fence. This
is a 4' fence being located in Highland Park in the location shown. With that, Mr.
Bestpitch.
Mr. Bestpitch: I guess my first question is for Ms. Taylor as ARB staff. I noticed
if we go back for example to the previous application, staff comments were staff
supports the installation of the round porch columns as they meet the H2
guidelines "for porches based on their material, size and design. That's really a
very common element of the staff comment on just about every application that
comes in front of us. The staff comment on this application reads staff supports
the application, the installation will have little effect on the surrounding
streetscape by virtue of the fencing type and its distance from the closet public
street. There is no reference in the staff comments to the guidelines whatsoever.
I just wonder if you could help us understand.
Ms. Taylor: As you read under additional considerations, guidelines do not
provide specific guidance for this type of application but do permit the use of vinyl
Architectural Review Board Minutes
July 10, 2008
Page 17
coated chain link in a less visible location such as rear yards of interior lots.
While the fence will be visible from Highland Avenue, this was prior to having a
more correct location, visibility would be limited. This is not something that is
specifically outlined in the guidelines. If we do go back the description of a rear
lot this is not it, this is a public venue. We are in a gray area. This is the reason
it does not specifically say I support based on the guidelines or I would suggest
denial based on the guidelines because this is not something that happens
everyday. We are working in a little gray area so please understand and bear
with us as we try to figure out what is the best course of action based on design,
material, and location.
Mr. Bestpitch: I appreciate that. That really is part of the dilemma that we face is
that the people want us to refer to the guidelines. One of the criticisms that the
ARB gets quite often is that some of the decisions are seen as arbitrary and
inconsistent and if we are going to have guidelines we need to go by the
guidelines. Sometimes we get into these gray areas. Clearly, this is not a rear
yard although we could make the argument that is has some of the
characteristics of a rear yard. My other questions are for Mr. Buschor. To those
of us who take the time to get involved in things like ARB, Parks and Rec
Department and Planning, and all the other categorizations. To most of the rest
of the world it is the City of Roanoke and even to our friends right across the
street in the courthouse when things gets so unresolved that someone has to get
in front of a judge, it's the City. This is a very important application before this
Board and we don't have very many application that get the advanced publicity
that this one has got all the way up through and including an editorial by the
Roanoke Times weighing in on this issue. I think it's clearly demonstrated how
important this issue is. One of the things that the City has gotten a fair amount of
criticism in recent times is rushing to judgment, making decision without allowing
for adequate public input and believe I know better than most of the people in
this room, that when we put something on an agenda and try to publicize it in
advance and you tell people exactly this is the day, the time and the location that
we are going to discuss this, a lot of people don't pay attention until they read
about it the next day in the paper. I think you understand my point. My question
to you at this point is given alt of that and everything we heard, does it make
sense for us to just hold off a little bit; nobody's dog is going to go crazy in four to
five weeks time, and allow for a public notice to be given for a specific date, time
and place where everybody has an opportunity to voice their concerns, address
these issues and see if we can reach some consensus that satisfies all the
interests that have been raised.
Mr. Buschor: If I might address it just briefly. We have been down this road
eighteen months, talking about siting an off-leash area somewhere in a public
park based on a recommendation of a City Council adoption of a master plan,
which calls for a development, design and implementation of two off leash areas
within our community. We started out with the Fishburn area and
Architectural Review Board Minutes
July 10, 2008
Page 18
inconsequence, looking at Fishburn as an alternative, we were approached.
When we found there were some difticulties with the oft-leash area that we had
originally identified within the Fishburn Park area, NewVa Connects and our
department we approached by some folks that said yes we would love to be a
park that has the first oft-leash area in it. Since that time, I have done a
presentation to the Old Southwest board, NewVa Connects ,has done a
presentation to the Old Southwest board and from my understanding as
explained in the testimony this evening, there have been announcements made
for several public meetings which were not attended by those in opposition. I will
say that I have attended several meeting with Old Southwest and
NewVaConnects at Highland Park myself, personally on two if not three separate
occasion where there 10, 12, or 15 folks in attendance. I am operating under
the understanding that the due diligence with regards to public input has been, in
Old Southwest Board's eyes, has been satisfied. Again, I am not saying that I
am not willing or would not consider an opportunity to invite additional public
input and at the same time we are here to talk about the fence. I would like to
see the fence judged on its merit. If indeed it does stand the test of the ARB
because obviously if we don't have some kind of ruling on the fence, the public
hearing is a moot issue.
Mr. Bestpitch: Your position is, if I understand correctly, you would like to have
some discussion on the fence and then you are willing to entertain a motion to
table this to come back next month.
Mr. Buschor: In coming back next month, if there is public input on either side, if
the ruling of this body would be to deny this application, further consideration or
dialog publicly or privately about an oft-leash area at Highland would be a moot
issue.
Mr. Bestpitch: Let me ask you some questions about the fence. The editorial
that I referenced pointed out, in my view, that the appropriate question for this
Board is the historic and architectural accuracy of the fence and we have heard
lots and lots of comments about the fence, but several people in their letters or
comments, pointed out that one of the concerns that some of us have up here is
whether or not chain link is appropriate from the standpoint of the history and
architecture. Even though people acknowledge it, they don't address the
concern. Is this fence historically and architecturally appropriate for the historic
district?
Mr. Buschor: Prior to creating the application, I think that the folks at NewVa
Connects and Old Southwest have been very helpful in creating more and
additional dialog with regards to the guidelines. I don't think there was anyone
that said let's just go there and do everything against the ARB's guidelines and
ram this thing through. I think they said what are the guidelines that we have to
after. There is a somewhat gray area that you have explained and Ms. Taylor
Architectural Review Board Minutes
July 10, 2008
Page 19
has re-iterated as well. I think what's important is that they have taken into
account the positioning of this fence and the type of fence based on the
guidelines. That is really the litmus test. It says the use of chain link in rear
yards is acceptable if coated. I can tell you right now, I am familiar with Highland
Park, you can't get anymore rear yard than where they have decided to site this
area. Secondly, where fences are seen from the street, they shall be painted an
appropriate color. That is a given. We want the black because we know it
blends in and the coated because it is safe for anyone who is using it. Also, the
use of vinyl chain link fences in visible locations in interior lots and rear areas.
We didn't want this to be prominent, we wanted it to blend in with the historic
character of the park. The precedence has already been set many years ago
when the residents of the community said lets put up a backstop for the ball fields
and chain link fence for the tennis courts. Those are 10', 12', and 15' high. The
siting of this was done with great care in the fact that we didn't interfere with the
sledding hill. A great majority of the sledding hill, with the positioning of the
fence, still remains. I understand the pleasure of sledding even though we don't
get to do it as much as when I grew up in Ohio but at the same time we have
tried to take everyone's considerations into account when siting the fence and at
the same time allowing an area that is discreet and in a remote back part of the
park so that it is not seen from the surface streets.
Mr. Besptich: If the area was to come down, slide down so you have essentially
the same amount of area there, but more level ground. What would your
response to that be? More on level ground and less on the hillside.
Mr. Buschor: I think if we move it further to the southern direction, as long as
there was an acre of useable space, I think that would be appropriate.
Mr. Bestpitch: I have made a list here of issues that people raised. I want to go
back to where chain link is appropriate. Evidently somebody decided they
needed to attach the plastic mesh material to the fence on 5th Street. At some
point, if that fence needed to be replaced would you consider chain link an
appropriate material in that location?
Mr. Buschor: No.
Mr. Bestpitch: Where would you draw the line? How would you differentiate
from where we would use chain link and not?
Mr. Bushor: I think in Highland Park specifically, because of the fact that in the
remote back portion of the park, I don't know that I know of another use for chain
link other than the one described in this application. The type of fence in front of
the park is duly appropriate for the historic value of the park and would never
consider using chain link to replace that.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
July 10, 2008
Page 20
Mr. Bestpitch: I think Ms. Ellerman raised the point about the chain link fence
that is already there at Norfolk Southern. I really have to question bringing that
into this discussion because it is not part of Old Southwest. As matter of fact,
being down there this afternoon, I actually thought it may be better to hook into
that fence but you can't do that.
Mr. Buschor: Not only that but parts of the fence are actually knocked down.
Mr. Bestpitch: Most of the fence is not even visible when you are standing a few
feet from it because of vegetation and it's down the hill but it is not part of Old
Southwest. The biggest question in mind is I am having hard time being
convinced that chain link is the only thing that will work. To talk about dogs that
can squeeze through a two to three inch space, I just think they are going to have
a lot more problem in a small one acre confined area with much larger dogs. I
don't know if it's appropriate to bring a dog that small into an enclosed area. I
haven't seen anything about what other materials might be appropriate and might
work that could be funded in the same manner. I just am having trouble with that
piece of it that nothing else except chain link is going to work here.
Mr. Buschor: To answer your question, chain link was the preferred material
basically because in reading the guidelines, the application met the guidelines
and standards. Also, in our many months of investigation, this is not a project
where we said let's pick out a spot and put up a fence and call it an off-leash
area. We have done research and all kinds of research with places like Seattle,
Portland and Chattanooga. We have checked with almost every off-leash dog
park in Virginia and they almost utilize the same type of material.
Mr. Bestpitch: How many of those parks are located in registered historic
districts?
Mr. Buschor: I am familiar with those locations so I don't know but we were
looking at common use and materials.
Ms. Botkin: One thing I think is important is the appropriateness. In every aspect
whenever we look at material it goes back to the appropriateness of which it is
being used. I am in favor of this application. I will support it. I think that a vinyl
fence is an appropriate use for what it is going to be used for. The statement
about the fence along the front of the street, I think that is correct, you would
never put a chain link fence at the front of the park, it goes back to the
appropriateness. Chain-link fencing is on the backstop of the softball field and
tennis courts because it is an appropriate material for those things. Yes, it is in an
historic district and we have to consider that. We are in a gray area. However, I
feel that the location is appropriate. I have heard everyone's concerns about the
location and the issues both for and against it. I am for this application.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
July 10, 2008
Page 21
Mr. Schlueter: I would like to say that the chain link is really not a major issue to
me given that location. That location and effects on that part of park I am
concerned about. As a number of people stated, the stage is adjacent to this
area. I don't know if you are planning to shut down the dog park during the times
the stage is going to be used or how that would be handled because I don't think
the uses would be very compatible with each other. I think that would cause a lot
of friction on some level. Even moving the dog park down to the south might
help the situation but may not solve it. That is my primary problem.
Mr. Fulton: I feel the same way as Jim. I don't have a lot of heartburn with the
chain link fence I have more of a heartburn with the location and the whole
concept of the dog park in Highland Park. I just don't think it is a good match
personally. We are leaving out number, they are plenty of dogs that can easily
get over a 4' fence and number two there are pictures I see here of Florida and
other park locations, they are not, in my opinion, very attractive. I think they take
away from the fact that it is located in a historic district and also every one of the
locations has a lot do with signage. There is a tremendous amount of signage
that is attached to the side of the fence and it is not very attractive. If there is
going to be a sign you would have to go come back to us and get approval for a
sign but when I think about the concept of what you are doing it doesn't bother
me as much but then I see these pictures of Florida and it bothers me greatly
because I don't think it is a good example of how to set this up as a dog park in a
historic district. Being in a district as old as this district is, I too would have
concern about the location but when you look at the power point of the actual
location of the area included it is beautiful. It is a lovely sight. I don't know that
we are necessarily entrusted with that decision as much as it is a decision about
can we or can we not use this fence. I would have to support the fence but I am
not sure I like the location.
Mr. Bestpitch: It sounds like you have three out of four for the fence but it sounds
like there are other concerns about issues. The application form says signature
of the property owner and the signature is Steve Buschor.
Mr. Buschor: I don't own the property, the citizens of the City do.
Mr. Bestpitch: Thank you. That is the concern I have here. I have great respect
for the 18 months of work that have gone into this and all the involvement of
many people.
Mr. Buschor: I would entertain and encourage a vote this evening on the
appropriateness of the fence and make an assurance to the Board and the
neighborhood that with the opportunity to go forward with the fence in its
appropriate state and getting more feedback and more input from the neighbors
of Old Southwest to make sure there is a comfort level with those all involved, we
Architectural Review Board Minutes
July 10, 2008
Page 22
would entertain the opportunity for more public input. I would encourage inviting
you to every one of the meetings.
Mr. Talevi: We are just here on the application.
Ms. Botkin: My request would be to amend the application to remove the
location of the fence and we vote on the design and material of the fence alone.
Mr. Talevi: And have him come back on the location?
Ms. Botkin: Yes.
Mr. Talevi: Mr. Buschor, are you willing to amend your application to that extent?
Mr. Buschor: I would prefer that we maintain the application in its current state
and at a time when a new location needed to be reconsidered as to reapply.
Ms. Botkin: You want to remove your application?
Mr. Buschor: No. I would encourage a vote on the current application as it
stands.
Ms. Botkin: No you don't. If you vote on the application as it is you can't come
back for approval on the same application for one year. It would be in your best
interest to vote the actual fence and remove the location from the application.
From listening to the Board if we do the whole thing at once it won't be approved.
Mr. Buschor: If we amend the application by removing the location you would
take a vote this evening on the actual fence itself?
Ms. Botkin: Correct. Which would allow you to bring this location or another
application back to the Board.
Mr. Buschor: Yes. I agree.
Mr. Talevi: Mr. Buschor has amended his application by withdrawing that part of
it and now we have that before the Board.
Ms. Botkin: Now we are voting on the amended application?
Mr. Talevi: That is correct.
Ms. Botkin: Do you have that Ms. Martin?
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Architectural Review Board Minutes
July 10,2008
Page 23
After discussion of amending the application to remove the location from the
application and just vote on the fence. the amended application was approved by
a roll call vote of 3-1, as follows:
Mr. Bestpitch-no
Mr. Fulton -yes
Mr. Schlueter-yes
Ms. Botkin-yes
Ms. Botkin: I would like to thank all the public for their comments and patience
on this matter.
End of verbatim.
7. Reauest from Kenneth Scott Hale for a Certificate of Appropriateness
approvina removal of existina metal roof and installation of new metal roof
and removal of three chimnevs at 378 Washinaton Avenue, S.W.
Mr. Kenneth Hale appeared before the Board and said on the third chimney the
brick still exists. He said there was a gas furnace in the basement vented into
the chimney so nothing is going to be done with that.
Mr. Bestpitch asked Mr. Hale if he was removing that chimney from the
appl ication.
Mr. Hale said yes. He said he had only owned the property for two years and the
previous owner really neglected a lot of things. He said the front porch would be
returned back to metal shingles.
Ms. Botkin asked for public comments. There being none, Ms. Botkin asked for
staff comments.
Ms. Taylor said staff supported the removal of the existing standing seam roof
and installation of the new standing seam metal roof as it meets the H2
guidelines for roofs. She said staff also supported the removal of the two small
concrete covered chimneys but could not support the removal of the decorative
unpainted chimney as it was greater value as a character-defining feature of the
building and should be retained.
Ms. Botkin said the other chimney on the streetscape side of the house should
be rebuilt to its original look. She said she wanted to commend Mr. Hale for
putting the roof back on.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: c1erk@roanokeva,gov
SHEILAN. HARTMAN
Deputy City Clerk
STEPHANIE M, MOON, CMC
City Clerk
CECELIA R. TYREE
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
September 5, 2008
REVISED
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
I am enclosing copy of a Petition for Appeal filed by Douglas F, Turner, in
connection with a decision of the Architectural Review Board at its meeting of
August 14, 2008 approving the location of a proposed dog park in Highland
Park, between Washington and Walnut Avenues, S,W, The petition was filed in the
City Clerk's Office on Friday, September 5, 2008,
Section 36,2-530(c)(5), Certificate of Appropriateness, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1 979), as amended, provides that any property owner aggrieved by any
decision of the Architectural Review Board may present to the City Council a
petition appealing such decision, provided such petition is filed within 30 days
after the decision is rendered by the Board, The Council shall schedule a public
meeting and render a decision on the matter within 60 calendar days of receipt
of the petition, unless the property owner and the Agent to Architectural Review
Board agree to an extension, Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision
of the Architectural Review Board, in whole or in part, or it may refer the matter
back to the Board.
With the concurrence of Council, I will include the Petition for Appeal on the
Thursday, October 23, 2008, 7:00 p,m., City Council agenda.
Sincerely,
~m,~
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
SMM:ew
Enclosure
K:\Appeals to the ARB\Appeals 2008\Douglas F Turner Dog Park Appeal.doc
Mayor and Members of Council
September 5, 2008
Page 2
pc: Mr. Douglas F. Turner, 545 Highland Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24016-421 5
Darlene L. Bu rcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J, Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Thomas Carr, Director, Planning, Building and Development
Barbara Botkin, Chair, Architectural Review Board, 616 Marshall
Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
EricaJ, Taylor, Agent, Architectural Review Board
Candace R. Martin, Secretary, Architectural Review Board
K:\Appeals to the ARB\Appeals 2008\Douglas F Turner Dog Park Appeal.doc
o^ .\
~OANO~IE [DlOG ~A~t{
not iust for dol!
'W"lfW.~Il\lO~o~rrEt.\Co:m
Roanoke Dog Park By the Numbers
16,300
6,000
1,000
700
117
84
50
31
22
5
2
1
Dollars raised to date by private citizens to pay for a project that benefits our
entire community
Number of licensed dogs in the City of Roanoke
Number of volunteer hours contributed by Old Southwest Inc., NewVaConnects
and the Roanoke Dog Park Steering Committee in raising awareness and funds
for the dog park
Number of people surveyed in a 2007 NewVaConnects poll who listed
"establishing a dog park" as the top priority to enhance the lives of
young professionals in our region
Signatures gathered over the course of four days in July and August 2008
in support of locating Roanoke's first public dog park within Highland Park
(please refer to Appendix 1)
Votes cast in support of the dog park (either in person or via email) at the
public meeting held by the City of Roanoke Parks and Recreation
Department on August 5, 2008; six persons voted against the location
Number of people surveyed by Old Southwest resident Doug Turner to
establish his basis for appealing the Architectural Review Board's approval of
the dqg park's location within Highland Park
Number of acres in Highland Park that will remain unchanged by this
one acre dog park project
Emails sent to the ARB in support of the locating the dog park within Highland
Park; 2 emails sent to the ARB expressing opposition to the dog park
Number of official public meetings held by OSW, Parks and Rec and/or the
'ARB where dog park supporters have outnumbered those against 3:1
Number of neighborhood plans approved by City Council that specifically
identify a dog park as a neighborhood priority (Note: Of the City's 27
designated neighborhoods, Old Southwest and Raleigh Court have
officially requested dog parks)
Number of times this year that citizens have requested a permit to reserve
the wooden stage in Highland Park (refer to Appendix 2)
~OANOk(E DOG PA~~
not just for does!
'W'WW.Il'OOIl1IO~ooo~~~lIr~.1C1OOtJ1
Roanoke Dog Park Quick Facts and Figures
Fencing Material
. Chain link is the material recommended and preferred for fencing dog parks.
. Slack vinyl-coated chain link is the ideal fencing material, as it has an amazing ability to "ghost"
or blend into the landscape.
. Precedent for this exact type of fencing material is already established in Highland Park, as it is
used to enclose the tennis and basketball courts.
. The Architectural Review Soard approved the use of black vinyl-coated chain link fencing to
enclose the dog park at its meeting on July 10, 2008.
Choice of Highland Park as a Home for Roanoke's First Public Dog Park
. First and foremost, the board members of Old Southwest Inc. and the residents of the Old
Southwest neighborhood expressly requested a dog park and identified placement of such an
amenity within Highland Park as a priority for their neighborhood plan, which was officially
submitted to the City of Roanoke.
. Highland Park is centrally located within the City of Roanoke.
. Highland Park is located within close proximity to the growing downtown residential population,
many of whom have dogs and are seeking a viable, convenient green space in which to exercise
their pets.
. Old Southwest is a highly pedestrian neighborhood. Recognized for its dog-friendly, familiy-
orientated and inclusive values, this neighborhood - and specifically Highland Park - offers
urban residents a place to exercise their dogs and socialize with their neighbors.
. Locating a dog park within Highland Park will serve to enhance the desirability of Old Southwest,
increasing property values of homes in the community, strengthening the neighborhood and
potentially attracting new residents.
Proposed Location of a Dog Park Within Highland Park (Refer Also to Exhibit A, Pictures)
. The location proposed for the dog park within Highland Park was identified, evaluated and
chosen by the Soard of Directors of Old Southwest Inc., with input from neighborhood residents,
other Roanoke citizens and Parks and Rec, because this site offers every possible amenity:
a Mixture of terrain, from flat to hills, providing natural visual barriers that create a
more enjoyable and safe environment for both dogs and humans.
a Proposed one acre footprint is the minimum recommended by dog park planners as
desirable for a successful dog park design.
a Green space within Highland Park will not be lost, rather, it is redefined, allocating
one acre within 32 overall acres for use by people and their pets.
a Readily accessible for people with disabilities and pets with mobility issues.
a Access to existing parking spaces.
a Access to existing utilities, including water, electricity and restrooms.
a Located in the "backyard" of Highland Park - not visible from any homes.
a Current uses of this area of the park are undesirable - it is well-known as a place
frequented by prostitutes and drug dealers. Many urban parks have reported a
significant reduction in crime and vagrancy where dog parks have been established.
~OANO~IE IDOG PA~t{
not iust for dol!
W'lfW.mf:lIli1lltll~o.m.l!:cm
Roanoke Dog Park Quick Facts and Figures
Proposed Location of a Dog Park Within Highland Park (Continued)
. The location proposed for the dog park within Highland Park does result in a few drawbacks,
most prominently its close proximity to Highland Park's wooden stage. It bears noting that:
o Use of the dog park in its proposed location and the wooden stage are not mutually
exclusive - this is not an "either/or" proposition - please refer to the photographs
included in Exhibit A.
o The wooden stage within Highland Park has been officially reserved through the
City of Roanoke's Parks and Recreation Department just 12 times in the past
seven years - that's an average usage of less than two times per year, as compared
with a dog park that would be utilized and enjoyed by both two- and four-legged
citizens 365 days a year.
o Should someone officially reserve the wooden stage, Parks and Rec has the
authority to close the dog park for the time period allotted for that event.
. The location proposed for the dog park within Highland Park was approved by the Architectural
Review Board at their meeting on August 14, 2008.
Parking
. Traffic through Highland Park would be converted to one-way to allow for parallel parking along
one side of Park Road, thus providing ample parking inside Highland Park for dog park users.
· Impact to parking on the streets adjacent to Highland Park, especially for residents who live near
the park, would thus be minimized when this traffic and parking plan is enacted.
Cleanliness
· With legal, off-leash areas designated for use by dogs, there is stronger peer pressure to pick up
dog droppings and trash.
· Public dog parks tend to be far cleaner than a municipality's other public areas, because users of
the dog park self-police and engage in a greater sense of ownership and pride in "their dog park
community" (refer to Appendix 3, Washington Post article, "Dog Parks Are Becoming the
Preferred Place to Meet and Greet For Canines and People Too").
· With a dog park serving as a "destination area" within Highland Park, the logical end result is
both a park and a neighborhood that is ultimately cleaner and greener than the community's
current walking orientation, which encourages people to let their pets defecate and quickly walk
away from the "scene of the crime" with no repercussions.
Public Meetings to Inform Citizens and Gather Input
· Over the course of the past six months, there have been at least five public meetings organized
by Old Southwest Inc., the City of Roanoke Parks and Recreations Department and the
Architectural Review Board, where citizens have had the opportunity to learn about the proposed
public dog park and voice their concerns and opinions.
· At each of these public hearings, dog park advocates have outnumbered opponents by 3: 1.
~OANO~E DOG PA~t{
not iust for doas!
W'WW.rroorroobmlO~u1X.(to:nn
Roanoke Dog Park Quick Facts and Figures
Other Public Dog Parks in the Commonwealth of Virginia
. Alexandria (4 fenced parks, 1 unfenced)
. Arlington (at least 8 public, fenced parks)
. Charlottesville (at least 1 fenced park with more on the way)
. Chesapeake (3 fenced parks)
. Fairfax County (6 fenced parks)
. Fredericksburg (1 fenced park)
. Hampton (2 fenced parks)
. Hanover County (1 fenced park)
. Henrico County (1 fenced park)
. Leesburg (plans for a dog park to be complete in 2008)
. Lynchburg (plans underway for a dog park)
. Norfolk (2 fenced parks, one of which is 1 acre in size)
. Richmond (2 fenced parks, 1 public, 1 private and FREE)
. Vienna (1 park)
. Williamsburg (yes, even Colonial Williamsburg has a dog park!)
Sister Cities/Regions (Similar in size and industry to Roanoke) with Dog Parks
. North Carolina
o Asheville
o Boone
o Cary
o Chapel Hill
o Charlotte
o Greensboro
o Raleigh
o Wilmington
o Winston-Salem
. South Carolina
o Columbia
o Greenville
. West Virginia
o Charleston
o Morgantown
. Tennessee
o Knoxville
o Memphis
o Nashville
A Sample of Historic Districts Across the Nation with Established Dog Parks
. Washington, DC . Encanto Village in Phoenix, AZ
. Savannah, GA . Oakhurst Historic District in Decatur, GA
. Hyde Park in Boise, ID . Wethersfield, CT
. Prospect Park in Minneapolis, MN . Fiske Terrace-Midwook Park in Brooklyn, NY
Roanoke Dog Park Quick Facts and Figures
~OANOk{1E IDOG I?A~~
not just for dol!
'W'WW.~llllCI!OOO.Dtt.Cl:c:iil1l
Alternate Locations Suggested as Viable for Locating a Dog Park Within Highland Park
Doug Turner's Diagram
(Not to scale)
Location A: "Dog Run"
. Although not accurately revealed in this rendering provided by
petitioner Doug Turner, Option A is more like a dog run that a dog
park. While this location is flat (which is good), the extremely
narrow width could create a number of problems
that the larger site (Option E) does not.
o PRO: Flat.
o PRO: Could work as a suitable small dog area onlv.
o CON: Too narrow - technically a 'dog run.'
o CON: Excessive wear on terrain when only have one
direction to run; dogs typically patrol the perimeter of
any given area.
o CON: Not enough room for dogs to socialize; issue of
cornered or threatened dogs, allowing dogs to 'gang
up' in tight spaces.
o CON: Visible from Gish House.
o CON: Most exposure to Park Road, the thoroughfare
which runs through Highland Park.
~O~NOt{E [DOG PA~t(
not just for dol!
'WWW.fl'CtIlU1lCIredO~rlt.<<:c:JlJ1
Roanoke Dog Park Quick Facts and Figures
Alternate Locations Suggested as Viable for Locating a Dog Park Within Highland Park
(Continued)
Location B: "Area Behind Gish House"
. Option B is currently being used by the City of Roanoke Parks & Rec as a storage area. The
surface consists of gravel (not grass), and Parks and Rec has no current plan to abandon its
current use. If this site should be selected, essentially the City is agreeing not to create a dog
park as the timeline is completely unknown.
a PRO: Currently fenced (partially).
a PRO: Flat, level surface.
a CON: Would need to be resurfaced with a dog-friendly material.
a CON: Not currently available, as it is used by Parks & Rec for storage.
a CON: If Virginia creeper remains on the fence, there are significant security issues -
this area is not safe as it is blocked from public view and would therefore discourage
single women, especially, from using the dog park.
a CON: Very close to neighboring homes, within site and sound of Walnut Avenue
residents.
Location B proposes placing the
dog park behind this tall hedge.
Roanoke Dog Park Quick Facts and Figures
~OANO~IE IDOG P.A~~
not iust for doss!
'W'#W.IJ'OOIlilC~\lllI'eJ~uf.c.<<:c:ii1li
Alternate Locations Suggested as Viable for Locating a Dog Park Within Highland Park
(Continued)
Location C: "Across Park Road on the Hillside Under Restrooms"
· Option C is located almost 100% on a steep hillside. Although it is, for the most part, not visible
by homes, it does not provide an area where handicapped members of our community can enter
the park on a level service. Furthermore, the steep topography is entirely unsuitable for use as a
dog park.
o PRO: Located across the street
from the wooden stage.
o PRO: Shaded area.
o CON: Steep terrain.
o CON: Not handicapped
accessible.
o CON: No parking on that side of
the street, further negating this
location's use by handicapped
citizens.
o CON: Within site of Gish House
and some residents of Walnut
Avenue.
\.
In conclusion, we would also like to direct your attention to two publications provided at the end of this
document:
· Appendix 4, the American Kennel Club's "Establishing a Dog Park in Your Community"
· Appendix 5, the Association of Pet Dog Trainers' "What Makes a Good Dog Park"
These are nationally recognized and respected guidelines we have diligently followed in our efforts to
establish Roanoke's first public dog park.
Thus we, as residents of the City of Roanoke and founding members of the Roanoke Dog Park
Steering Committee, respectfully request that Roanoke City Council affirm the Architectural
Review Board's decision to issue the Certificate of Appropriateness and allow construction of
the dog park fence within Highland Park to proceed, We thank you for your consideration,
The Roanoke Dog Park Steering Committee:
Lauren Ellerman, Chair
Christa Hall Stephens, Co-Chair
Vickie McCormick
Amy Morgan
Sherry Wallace
October 22, 2008
~OAIN!OKIE DOG PAI%OC
not just for doss[
~.lrOOIl1llobdo~~.l!:o:J1i'II
Exhibit A
Photos of Proposed Public Doo Park Located in Hiqhland Park
~OAINlO~lE IDOG ~A~OC
not just for dol!
~.lJ'OOli'IlcOOdo~~.4:c:JlJ'iI
Exhibit A (Continued)
Photos of Proposed Public Doq Park Located in Hiqhland Park
~OANOk(1E [DOG PA~OC
not just for doll
~.Il'Cl'.1Ii1loltOOo~~.(!:a:m
Exhibit A (Continued)
Photos of Proposed Public Doo Park Located in Hiohland Park
<:""~:'.""...',:~,,>..~.-',~:~~ ~" ",:, " ,'! ",.', ,",'~'., ";:"";";'::';'~;':~~:i
~OAMO~lE 100G PA~~
not just for dol!
WWW.IJ'OOIl1lIO~O\Rlp1?lir&:.(!';am
Exhibit A (Continued)
Photos of Proposed Public Doo Park Located in Hiohland Park
~OAINO~lE DOG PA~I:{
not just for does!
WW"'ttJ.~lnlc1mdo~~!rfu:.com
Exhibit A (Continued)
Photos of Proposed Public Doq Park Located in Hiqhland Park
~O~IN!Ot(1E [OOG ~A~t{
not just for doSS!
.WWW.Ii.OO!.lIO~o~pml.ca;m
Appendix 2
City of Roanoke Parks and Recreation Facility Reservation Form for the Wooden Stage in Highland Park
~ityo(~i!~:~?\(Ei,
Run 08t;';;(i9(15/08
~u~;'Ti~~;J:J~~;:
Rg,anpk, e Pa~~sJar1.9 ~~ci~a.ti,p.ri"
, ,-,.. ., - . . ',,"-.<
FACI.LITY S'CHEPl)LE',B.Y DATE
P;~91=!: r
Us,at Jl;:T
r. ~O:ate;J.yp.er. JZPc.'n;:J:a.cii;,BjQmi:ileiend,.Tirrie;R~v N~ l~Ql(upJ~'-arillf
I:tb:rrie:phon'e~ WOrk.,ph'ofilil,Src,Malnt' €n~;-,statl
9:00ip..1035$ 'PriiJe)nThepafk:
" Conl4lct:ChaJ1esRiehard$ ..
?u,jxiie:"Mentorial SeMee
I.RESERVATlON'COL:JNT,FOR'AB0VE'DATE:: f
:09rz3J2@.1' 'I\MPTH' HG:l-iI.J.j r1Q:09A
"O~12?f.l~P 1
~pn-i H~HLN f
10:00A
.,~pg.p.. '. ..' 1939' ., Pod" l.n The l"~
~~nt.a!;t c;:tliine~'Ricit1:lirds
'Pu~e::GllY & LeSbian Pride.celebJ<ilioo
'I'RESERVATION..COl:JNTF.OR'A!30VE DATE:: 1
()412~(2gQ~ AMp'TH Hc;,~~N '1~;OCl:l\
8;QOP "tl.~ S!)ulh'^.'est Inc,J~ld
CoriJIlI* Phftlip~cirgllry '. '. ' . . .'
p'urs':EirUH)a' CelebrntloNOld SW lliC.
! RESERVATION ,COUNT: FOR ABOVE OATE:;1'
0511>112002 AMPTHijGHLN 1 10:Q~' 9:00P 12234 Hlghl~nd,park..Ell!men
Coillact Ci.ndl Ric;,a-rds
Pur" ~e: Hl'htand Park,s.coool FLlr'lD<i .
: RESERVA TlON,COIiINT: fOR'ABOVE DA TE:~ 1,
, O,91~I2~02 A~PTH ~~HLN 1 10:qOA 9:00fl 12039 COuncll OfCammuni1y
.Coillact6:11,J~I.c:iiComm'~~ty":Se~'s- ,;.-
flll' se:Wor1d AidsDa SLimmer Event
'RESERVATl0N:COIiINTd'O'ORABOVE DATE:T
0912212002 - "AMPTHHGHLN 1" - 10:0QA '9:00P 11879 W~cldle.D~le
. .~I<(~ Dale W~dia
. p(jrpe;se:,'PrKlein Tile Park
I:RESERVATlONCOUNT J:OR'ABOVEOATE:,1 _
. O~ip,B/20.oi A,..,PTH H~.I-I,l.N 1, 10:qOf\. 9:00P 13.SQaCou.ncil Of QOmmunl,ly
~tclcl:cOuncilOi:CommlmilyService&; ,
f'urilose:C(ii,il'li:~Eveni
I RESERVATlONOOUmF.0RiABOVE OATEi.t
09107/2003 :AMPTtlH(;HLN " lo:Q<lA
; RESERVATION COUNT fORABOVEDATE;'1,
09l?tf2j)(}3'AMPTli ttGHLN, 110:0GA 9:0.0fl 13410 Pric!e In The'Piuk.
(;Qnia'ct: Charles.RIChardS' . .
p~e: Pride'in the Park Celebration
I,RESERVATI0N 'COUNH'ORA80VE.DATE:'L
07fQ11/20~ 'AMPTH tlGHLN f"' t:OOP
I"RESERVATlON:COUNTfOR 'ABOve'DATE:,'
p7/1~~~O,~,; '\~~PTH HCO.,l.,N 13:00P 9:00P 16866 . Hamill ClWl,es
cOnl~cl: CI1arle:s,Hamill .
PUroOse: DoWntown Music EvenVOance Contes.l
I.RESERVAI10NJi:OUNTFOR"ABOVE DATEr1, ..
071CW2008 ' AMP-It:! HGHlN t . 10:30A9:00P 18422 . Marston Joseph
~tBcl:'.,Jo~~l)hMa'r$tOi"i' .
f'u'J' 'se: FamiCookoUt
; 9:00P , 5022 C!;1riS!ia.n FellOW$l'lip
Co'n~l;; U';lted:Christian' F~il~$hlP:
pJ~~e:(ilUrch plcrilc' ,
RESERVA'rION:C0UNT FORABOVEDATE::1
fojALJ~Edo~Q$JN.Cl~QEQ It:!, ,SI:L1:~tEo,~~Ge:!12
~OAMOt(1E [}lOG ~A~~
not just for doSSI
o:Nffl.~l11lcbdc~~i"&:.ICc:m
Appendix 3
Washington Post: "Dog Parks Are Becoming the Preferred Place to Meet and Greet For Canines
(and People Too)"
~:'!'~~"":"..,'~'
.
[:fIu t tl'llsj.u,nion,:.'loJtl.'
. . . ~ , ,. 'J, . ':Bt'. .'tY ' ..
==
l'-1r,
'."c~
.1-r..,c
..~..~..
(!I,: ,\i ': :,
. ~~- r~':..:~ ~-'
~:
"r::-'.., ' :' J.. '..0>,.'
,Sp":l,@~,:'Q~TO:&Il~t48';"~'OOZi
~ . . .' . _. . lot -. ... '--:,-, ....y ~
'''!It.~g~''f1#~~djlg~~ib'e~~~II'~~tite'~~~~p'~~~'~.~M~' .
~~~Jd.;A'2011~'~~cmild IdthocOliJitifcim'd~'_'~plG:~UldfiJ9~.di~ltI'lICccerrJetdii .
For Canines .(andPoople,To.o)
t>qg~CUfks..Ate'B:e€omirfgjjhe;PreteFt.e~aCl?t(l(~~ tti)'M€~et:andGteet'
. ~-
.8Y.ti , ::b..~N'l. r
lfj . .:~'~I'S~c!.Q1I"fiIU' . . . "l
~.err;uro:~~~W.~~~~~. 1
Ij@. ~.' ;ilp;receri ,di~Chll(tl.n9w. ,going:' t
'.~tJ'~:~;~~~',
tt~, ':~~$d. ]4
IDth!:. '.' ,01,;\111 .Uil1t h&rtntlie ..
~. ,'~ .......: ....W~F~l~.aa -~~~~n,g:.ft'.. ...'~.~~_;.~.: '_' '.Jcs'.'~';, ...
"". . .' :Y;~~'6, ,'""'\:'-""..
, of-boil ei'lieSt irieridsi.wid ber
dtl.lden, ..Ab~':at: 'an ArtJ1i"""n 1.
4':' . . . . ,,'fl... . '. 6~ i
Gr!in!td .",.. l.
"Ita t)e'.$Il 'j'iU"diiliI~t' ..
.ftio'. i..".vk; '....iri62... ::.sald'reee ....I'l1I. ',; f'
,~"l .^vt'..... . ,.' ., . .Y..
00';8.; PiJ:idcl!lbl!!~rr.(lima~~rby. .
-: . ,.-0; ai' tJie:Fort' .. Allim t
. . ,fu!r'e:iS.ik Cell . . '11.0(,1 1:
.,ilrydaY.J't~it;li~WiUfO,u.ti' . ".
. '1'h€1~ dt'ark,liaUoUod:i etnia'-'
. " , g:p .u.."'.;1::i:' .:0,;.. P."
nerll'llori,le'.: ~;'Jh!!- "-~";"~~n TE;Ji~Il;. '.
.:eiPJYiJft,;iJlut,l):plli~5wlf~~;PAAi!.le' ~ r'
. :fiDd 'and~liiii1itaCQiiintunily; iii'il'i~prowI", f
'~:~:tS~~'~IJ~~~'~O~
p~P!e'l!f~i!~s~em!!t.~~.'
~;rly.'~'aGUllfi1'tDvliwJUlOut'I~..mo Aid.
.......... tw:....i~~~~~:........
J
<,t
,
, ,
l
'/
~ .i-
f
,
(
I
i
I
I
\
!
I
(
(
I
t
, \
f
I
.~
L ~_ _.___
"...'.....-J
j:t!
.-a-
:I:
Ii
11
I'
J
l'
l
.I'
j', ~
!, I
_ A
Appendix 4
American Kennel Club CAKC): "Establishinq a Doq Park in Your Community"
~OA.NOKIE IDOG PA~OC:
not just for doSS[
www.l/.CCi.ilO~eJdO~p<<:8u-&:.lCo:1iI.il
sharing expenses with the city can be a great public relations tool. It shows
officials that you are committed to the project, will help foster good community
relations and may increase your chance for the park's approval.
Depending on your situation, you will have to determine how you will
genenite revenue for your budget. One possibility to consider is user fees ...:
requiring all park users to pay an annual or daily fee. Permits could be
obtained from the city or town or through the park association. Fund.raisers
such as a dog wash or concession sale at a local dog show can also help to
generate money to cover expenses and maintenance costs. Finally, consider
soliciting town and city sources. By convincing elected officials that there is
wide support for a dog park among taxpayers and voters, you may help
encourage funding for the park.
Solicit the input and see/i, the approval of significant organizations in
your community. Meet with the proposed park's neighbors before talking to
city hall. As soon as someone brings up a concern, address it and try to come
up with a solution. With a little good will and cooperation, neighborhood
differences can usually be resolved.
AMERICAN
KE.NNE.L CLUB~ 7
OK, you've gathered your resources. Where do you
go from here?
Create a proposal. Your well-prepared presentation will include your mission
statement and goals and should address issues such as location, funding,
maintenance and enforcement. Committee members will be expected to
establish and enforce reasonable health and safety rules for the park, and these
should be included in the proposal as well. Suggestions for these guidelines can
be found in the "Rules and Regulations" section of this brochure. A good
proposal will also do the following:
Demonstrate need. Do this by gathering statistics on the dogs and the
people in your community.
· How many dogs would use a dog park?
· What are the demographics of the people in your city?
· Who currently uses city parks - and who doesn't? Downplay the "dog
factor" and emphasize people issues. Dogs don't pay taxes or vote.
8 Establishing a Dog Park
Demonstrate support. In many communities, organizers found that a simply
worded request, circulated on a petition, helped convince city officials that
there was indeed both a need and widespread public support for a responsibly
run dog parle
· Place petition gatherers at supermarkets, pet-supply stores and other high-
traffic areas.
...~ 1'~" '~'='~'lf }j0:}~"'-"" ~"'~" "';, ''''>' ,,~} " ~)" ;;0"ij.~ ",~ ~ >z" "' 1 ~
I SUCCESS STORY #2' " "
Sarasota County, Florida
Sarasota County is the proud home to
two successful "paw parks," thanks in
part to some active AKC~affiliated dog
club members.
One long-time club member chaired the
Animal Welfare Advisory Committee that
approved the opening of the 17th Street
Paw Park last year. The chairman and
his rescued Greyhound participated in a
ribbon-cutting ceremony that attracted
the attention of enthusiastic dog owners,
media and city officials alike. The
overwhelming success of the 17th Street
Paw Park led to the creation of a second
off-leash area at Woodmere Park in
Venice, Florida. In support of the move,
the Greater Venice Florida Dog Club
donated a decorative sign to mark the
new paw park's location.
In the last year, county officials from
across the nation have contacted the
Sarasota County Parks and Recreation
department regarding their success in
developing and maintaining paw parks.
Based on the positive response
community residents have had to the
parks, both off-leash areas will continue
to serve as models for dog groups in the
future,
AMERICAN
KENNEL CLUB~ 9
.
Enlist the support of local veterinarians, groomers, dog walkers and others
who have a real interest in seeing a community filled with healthy, well-
socialized dogs. Involve them in gathering petitions, writing letters to the
editor of local papers and generally spreading the word.
Organize local residents to contact their community representatives, parks
department officials and media in the form of letters, e-mails and phone
calls, asking for their support.
Consider sending press releases to local media, explaining how the
community will benefit from a dog park and providing information about
the success of existing parks in other areas.
You'll need to get the neighbors' approval, too. Explain your proposal to
them, as well as the ways that a dog park will benefit them, and ask them to
sign a separate petition stating that they are willing to have the park in
their neighborhood.
.
.
.
Get to know local officials - your city council members and the
director of your department of parks and recreation. Attend meetings,
join them at fund-raisers. Find out what they need from you to move the dog
park forward. To help you get started, the AKC's Canine Legislation
Department can provide you with brochures offering tips on working with
government officials.
10 Establishing a Dog Park
When you're ready, request a hearing with city government to discuss
your proposal. Have two or three carefully selected, knowledgeable and
articulate members of your group present your plan, clearly expressing its
many benefits to the community and calmly addressing any concerns. Be
prepared to deal with a range of concerns, including the risk of dog fights, dog
bites, noise level, parking and traffic needs, liability issues and maintenance.
Explain why some of these are nonissues - the park's dogs, for example,. will be
well-socialized and therefore less likely to fight, bite and cause accidents in the
community. Have a plan to address legitimate issues, like traffic and noise.
Be patient and flexible. Dealing with city government is rarely a quick
process, but don't give up! Follow through with continued letters and e-mails,
and be willing to work toward compromise.
~UJJ~moo ~TI'(Q)Illif fJ)~
Sausalito, California
In early 1991, the City of Sausalito
passed a law requiring dogs to be leashed
at all times within the city limits. Mter
receiving a citation and fine for walking
her dog Remington without a leash, one
owner led a citizen group that worked with
the city council, the parks and recreation
department and the Marin Humane
Society to establish a dedicated enclosed
area where the dogs of Sausalito could be
off leash.
During that summer volunteers raised
funds to fence a 1.3 acre area in the
Martin Luther King School area, located
on the north side of Sausalito, to be used
as a dedicated dog park. In November
1991, the "Remington Dog Park" was
officially opened with a gala ribbon cutting
attended by city council members, local
citizens and their dog companions.
Although the city provides utilities,
including water, electricity and garbage
removal, the park has been maintained by
its users since the opening. Regularly
scheduled work parties cut the grass as
well as maintain and improve the grounds.
Improvements to the park in excess of
$36,000 to date have been made through
donations solely from park users. In
addition to original fencing the park now
has lighting, a storage shed, a riding
lawnmower, picnic tables, benches, a dog
drinking-water area and a "scooper"
cleaning station.
The park is the home of champion show
dogs as well as mixed breeds. Dog owners
have adopted over 30 "rescue" dogs. Many
owners now have two dogs as a result of
this program.
Having received the highest rating of "4
Paws" in The California Dog Lover's
Companion, the Sausalito Dog Park is now
used by over 300 dogs per day. From
sunup to sundown, dogs of all ages, sizes
and types can be seen romping in the
park, chasing a never ending supply of
tennis balls, simply lying at their masters'
feet under a picnic table or on top of the
picnic table demanding face-to-face
attention.
(See also www.dogpark-sausalito.com.)
II
1:.~'" "SUCCESS STORY #4' ,,'>?!"~;:~l::~.,gi.~~~.~'."~:,:::>;~"'''t'.; " ", ~.~~~.~~~!i'i:~'jf~
"
Tallahassee, Florida
Memliers of the Ochlockonee River
Kennel Club are always looking for ways to
give back to their community, so when the
opportunity came to help with the
establishment of a dog park in Tallahassee,
they jumped at the chance.
The group had long realized how
important it was for dog owners to have a
place where they could socialize with others
and let their dogs run or play Frisbee. At
the same time, their community was facing
problems at a nearby city park where
owners were permitting their dogs to
illegally roam off-leash. The solution
seemed simple -build a dog park! A public
committee was formed, and an ORKC
board member volunteered to serve on
behalf of the dog community.
While the city of Tallahassee was
receptive to the idea, it was clear that little
could be done without funds for fencing,
pooper-scoopers and the like, ORKC,
which donates to various organizations
every year, soon agreed to give the city the
$4,000 that would be needed to fence the
two-acre park. Other clubs and fanciers
followed suit, donating money for watering
holes, cleanup facilities, shade trees and
benches. The city even donated old fire
hydrants to add to the fun.
The park has been extremely popular
since its opening in the summer of 1999,
and city officials, who originally agreed to
open the park on a trial basis only, are now
enthusiastic about developing more.
Members of the ORKC are pleased to have
had a helping hand in the park's
establishment and see it as a great
opportunity to increase awareness of
responsible dog ownership.
12 Establishing a Dog Park
Congratulations - they approved it! Now what?
Your efforts have been successful, and development of the dog park is moving
forward. Now is the time to thank everyone who helped bring the park to
fruition, including volunteers, government officials and community residents.
As a result of everyone's hard work, many dog owners will soon have a new
opportunity to enjoy their canine companions! Be sure to share this good news
with the AKC's Canine Legislation Department so we can pass it on to others.
The key to future and continued success of the dog park will lie in responsible
park-association members and park users who strictly enforce the rules. For
the most part, this will mean getting people to clean up after their dogs, quiet
excessive barking and curtail any aggressive behavior. Occasionally larger
issues may arise, and it will be up to you to help settle disputes in a responsive,
flexible manner.
Maintenance will be another important consideration. In some areas, park
associations work in conjunction with local kennel clubs and parks department
officials to organize volunteer "park cleanup" days. Kennel clubs and other dog
organizations may also be willing to donate funds for future supplies of
scoopers, trash bags and cans.
The development of a successful dog park requires a great deal of planning
and effort. But your involvement and dedication will hopefully lead to the
ultimate reward - the joy of creating and maintaining a special place where
dogs and their families can run, romp and socialize.
AMERICAN
KENNEL CLUB ~ I 3
HOUjR,S~
", -,.-.:-.--.--;' --_.-,. 't._:
'ai30~'A;M~8'PM .,". ,',' '. '. , ." ""." ,
,~AyUG1{F' sAVINe:s TI,M.e' ~6;dvj;M)~i9)~')M
.:'i,
B'.A' .'..R.~"K-:FRE'E.,2()NE
~~J;;6;~~!B~~~tJ'$W,~~Tg" .~QJ~E
,F~tl,~.Tl.-tJE ,'.:@,~, J~., ,A;. .~~ 'l1\,tslPE;l'
.T~ e,l.JFl MEI ,., 'B:~R$. '[)~~ ,';. TH:~T
,flA:R~PEfrSlsTarsm~~Y:', MUST ~,i;::
REM<DVEO 'FRQM'TI:IE::.~' PREM1Ses,',
. '. " -.' ., '~""-;' ...... "',-.' .. ~- -;" ..' " .. :iI~' -'.'.,,~
. , .~ ;- "
!UNATTeN'D'E:-I~)',I)OG-'S
~Wh.~.:L, 'BE' i:MPOUN:D'EID,
. .. ,.__., ',c., ..' _ .. ';...... _ '. ..... '0. ~-:;. _ ~ _ ,,~
~g:JI' ~'(trr'4Et\\iE~miJ~per' 1m THE
O(l)$A:;)AR~, 'WITFltlJ.xr~lWA'ER\:l.ISleN:.
~AJ".L 'ffiE'
'MAFr:lN 'HU"M:AJ~E;;: !SOCIJET'V
'.8~8'3~,4lS'21
TQRep@Rl:A'Gl.O,6~:RGatEM
<J:'R~~~$7r- PE"t
i
. J
~..<'
" '1..1
. '. j
"
14 Establishing a Dog Park
Dog Park Design:
The Ideal Dog Park Should Include
. . .
· One acre or more of land surrounded by a four- to six-foot high chain-link
fence. Preferably, the fence should be equipped with a double-gated entry
to keep dogs from escaping and to facilitate wheelchair access.
· Cleaning supplies, including covered garbage cans, waste bags and pooper-
scooper stations.
· Shade and water for both dogs and owners, along with benches and tables.
· A safe, accessible location with adequate drainage and a grassy area that is
mowed routinely.
· Signs that specify park hours and rules.
· Parking close to the site.
, . ~. j
,. ,--' ~-, r~~.".'1
A double-gated'entryp~eyents', i
____~_:::~::~'escaping. ~_i-~~~j
IS
Rules and Regulations
Members of a dog park committee should establish
and enforce reasonable health and safety rules for
the park, such as the following:
· Owners are legally responsible for their dogs and any injuries caused by
them.
· Puppies and dogs must be properly licensed, inoculated and healthy.
· Animals should wear a collar and ID tags at all times.
· Owners must clean up after their dogs.
· Dogs showing aggression toward people or other animals will be removed
from the parle Animals who exhibit a history of aggressive behavior will
not be permitted to enter.
· Puppies using the park must be at least four months old.
· Owners should not leave their dogs unattended or allowed out of sight. If
young children are permitted in the dog park, they too should be under
constant supervision.
· Dogs in heat will not be allowed inside the parle
· Owners must carry a leash at all times. Dogs should be leashed before
entering and prior to leaving the park.
· Violators will be subject to removal from the park and suspension of park
privileges.
16 Establishing a Dog Park
Appendix 5
Association of Pet Doq Trainers (APDT): "What Makes a Good Doq Park"
~OANOt{1E IDOG PA~~
not iust for doesl
o:mw.IrOOII'ilC~O~~~.(l:1l:m'il
~ Whqf Mqkes q Cooel Dog Pqrk
ASSOCIATlot'''of;PETt[)O~fRAINERSI A dog park can be a wonderful place for dogs to socialize. However, some
1:1I11"1I~[otI:I~Il~'''''''~III~...'tII:I'l.]I[ei:U'1I1.UIl.'~'~ dog parks are better than others, and some dogs do better at dog parks than
,..""...' other dogs. To help you assess your local dog park, the Association of Pet
Dog Trainers provides this information to help you decide if a particular dog park is the best option for your
dog. Below are attributes which can make a dog park a good place to bring your dog or a place that has the
potential for problems. Very few dog parks are perfect so consider your dog's temperament along with the fea-
tures of the dog park and make an informed decision about whether or not your dog will have an enjoyable
time at the park! For more information on dog parks and other dog issues, check out the APDT web site
at www.apdt.com.
~ 6~:~:
v--3
Materials for cleaning up after dogs (bags and
garbage cans) - The ability to clean up after
P' . our dogs is essential for basic good health for
, both dogs and humans. Many canine diseases
are spread through feces, and feces attract in-
. sects which can spread disease to humans.
Cleaning up after your dog - particularly in urban
areas - is a demonstration of good citizenship we
should all practice.
Drinking Water and shade - Dogs can't cool themselves as efficiently as humans and
therefore must have access to drinking water and shade. Dogs play very strenu-
ously in dog parks and water is an absolute necessity - if there is no water avail- (~
able, it is very possib~e that dogs may suffer from heatstroke, which can be fatal. f~/.
,_., Additionally, there should be shady areas where dogs can lay ,",,\~ \,';!."
\H down, cool themselves, and rest before continuing their strenuous play.
.J Enough space to avoid crowding - If dogs become too crowded, it is much easier
for a "bully~' or a pack of dogs to corner and harass another dog. Fights tend to break
. out more often under crowded conditions, '
~
ALL DECENT DOG PARKS SHOULD
HAVE THESE FEATURES
A GOOD PARK WILL HAVE ALL THE ABOVE ITEMS AS WELL AS SOME OR ALL OF THESE ITEMS
Separate entrance and exit gates if fenced - Separate entrance and exit gates allow dogs to come
and go without meeting each other in a cramped area. Dog fights often break out when one or more
dogs feel threatened yet have no way to remove themselves from the threat. Additionally, when two
people attempt to get their dogs in and out of the gate, they are not focused on the dogs running loose in the
dog park, and there is the potential for a dog to escape.
Natural visual barriers within the park (hills, trees, etc.) -
Not only do natural visual barriers create a more enjoyable environment for both dogs and hu-
mans, but they also offer dogs a way to avoid problems. If a dog feels he is being targeted by
a bully or pack, he can remove himself to a location where the bullying dog(s) cannot see him
and they will quickly forget about him and move on to other activities.
j~\
. . c:o..
t.~:{1
,,!t':~
~'." "\
C:;' ~::: :1'
,. ,..',.,.., ,'1"
'};' '.
" "'J./.'
_ ..,".)..-..'
.' r'
~_+,~f., .,\. ','..
;t~\. ""
",-~:*....- ,.
/::-J-j-_~- 'l
Entrances and exits with a two-gate system so dogs can't
escape from the park accidentally - Parks with a two-gate
system avoid the possibility of dogs escaping from the park,
increasing the safety of all the dogs.
THESE ITEMS ARE BELOW STANDARD
ACCEPTANCE LEVELS
Dog(s) bullying another dog - Although this will
happen occasionally, if it happens often in a par-
ticular park, it is an indication that aggressive
and/or fearful behaviors are more likely to develop
in some dogs because of exposure to the dog
park. Dogs will gang up and bully another dog; or,
individual dogs will bully a dog that they perceive
to be weaker or more submissive. In a good dog
park, the owners are on the lookout for this type of
behavior and will not allow it to continue. By stop-
ping the behavior, they are teaching the bullies
how to behave appropriately in a social situation.
1\
1
(,J
". ,?-;:' ;
, "".
i~: ~'~\,F
.;00
Dogs forming loose packs
If dogs begin forming loose packs
and no one breaks them up, there
is potential for serious behavior
problems. These dogs will gang up
on weaker dogs and may even
physically attack them. If, on a
regular basis, the dogs (particularly if they are al-
ways the same dogs) continue to pack together,
this is a park to be avoided unless the problem
can be effectively addressed.
For more information on dog parks and
other dog issues, check out the APDT web
site at www.apdt.com!
REALLY EXCEPTIONAL PARKS HAVE ALL
OF THE "DECENT," MOST OF THE "GOOD,"
AND SOME OF THE EXCEPTIONAL ITEMS.
No 900 angles in the fence - Fences which have 90%
angles allow dogs to corner other dogs and bully or attack
them. Fencing without a 900 angle makes it easier for a
dog to escape.
Several entrance and exit gates if park is fenced - If
there is only one entrance and exit gate, or one entrance
and one exit gate, the dogs in the park quickly learn where
newcomers will enter. They then congregate at the en-
trance which can result in fights or dogs escaping from the
park. If there are several ways for dogs to come in and out,
they will not target a
particular gate.
Special enclosed
areas for smaller
dogs; e.g., under
20 Ibs. -It can be
very dangerous to
take a small dog to a
park frequented by
large dogs. The large dogs may not mean to hurt the
smaller dogs, but they can play too rough, or they may see
the small dog as a prey animal and pick it up and shake it,
which can be fatal. Exceptional dog parks have an en-
closed area specifically for small dogs. This keeps them
safe, yet still allows them to socialize which is especially
important for smaller dogs,
Fun stuff (agility equipment, etc.) - A park that provides
equipment for dogs to practice their natural skills is an ex-
ceptional park. Having some basic agility equipment - al-
though the park should not have equipment that might pose
a safety problem if the owner and dog have not been
trained - is a fun way for dogs and owners to interact to-
gether. It also shows that the park is aware of what dogs
and owners enjoy and seeks to enhance their experience.
!..(J". '\ ..... . ,,;st..
CITY CLERK '08 OCT 23 Pf112:37
Dear Roanoke City Council members:
I am writing to express my support of the dog park as proposed in Highland Park. I
have attended every dog park meeting thus far, and apologize for not presenting
my support in person but I have a scheduling conflict. By letter, I implore you to
vote in favor of the dog park as proposed. As a resident of Old Southwest, I feel
the dog park could not only provide a new, exciting use of Highland Park, but also
a great place for all city residents to bring their dogs for exercise and playtime.
With the exception of four other homes, my house is physically located as close to
the proposed dog park as possible. I am at the corner of Ferdinand and Highland,
directly over the hill from the dog park. Even with my close proximity to the park, I
support the location 110%. I understand some of the residents' concerns over
noise, but those concerns are not based in reality. The reasons their concerns are
not realistic are as follows:
1. The location of the dog park is such that it will deflect most, if not all, of
the noise created by the fun-loving dogs away from houses. The park as
approved is on a hill that faces the park, away from residences, which will
naturally send the noise away from houses. I know this for a fact because
the drum circle that plays at the amphitheater on occasion makes quite a
racket if you are on the amphitheater side of the hill; on my side of the hill,
it sounds like nothing more than a car radio. And, as I stated, I would be
about as close to the noise as could be, and it is negligible.
2. On any given moment in the neighborhood, there are at least one or two
dogs barking quite loudly. These dogs are in the backyards of many Old
Southwest residences, and the barking is very loud because they are at
street level where the noise bounces off the houses and other structures.
These are noises that are already in the neighborhood, and noises that come
with the territory of having domesticated animals. These noises are much
louder than the dog park noises will be, however, due to the natural
deflection of the hill, as stated above. And yet, no one would even suggest
of banning all dogs from backyards or ban them from barking where anyone
with hearing is situated.
I also understand residents' concerns over amphitheater seating, which is
traditionally done on the side of the hill. Again, these concerns are not well
founded for the following reasons:
1. The dog park is situated far to the right (if facing the stage) of the stage,
and leaves an entire hillside to serve as seating for events taking place on
the stage.
2. The very, very, very limited events that actually take place on the stage do
not draw h,undreds of viewers. However, even if they did, the hillside is
quite expansive in front of, to the right and to the left of the stage that
there would be plenty of seating for all in attendance. \
3. The stage had one event last year. Let me repeat that... the stage had
ONE actual event last year outside of an Old Southwest Association
function. There are occasional groups that utilize the stage for small
gatherings, such as the drum circle, but those are not the type of event
that would draw a crbwd sufficient to justify any concerns over seating, as
they are informal gatherings that have not been advertised. This is
opposite of the daily use that would occur if the dog park were approved.
I understand residents' concerns over alternative locations. However, after even a
cursory review of the alternative sites proposed, it is clear that those concerns and
suggestions are not well proposed, either, for the following reasons:
1. The proposed site directly across the street from the park as is currently
approved is not suitable at all. First of all, the location is on a very steep
hill, which would be neither handicapped accessible nor provide a line of
vision for the dogs if they were at the top of the hill. Handicapped'
accessibility is of the utmost importance in our neighborhood because there
is at least one individual in a wheelchair who walks his dog that will
absolutely utilize the dog park (I know this because my dog plays with his
dog every single day in the park, where we have concerns of them eating
chicken bones and other harmful things, which would not be present in a
fenced dog park, but I digress...). Line of vision is crucial so as to allow
dog owners to monitor the behavior and bathroom habits of their dogs.
Dog owners will be responsible for picking up after their dog, as well as
ensuring that all dogs are getting along, and without the line of sight, that
will not be possible. Further, the steep incline could prove to be
problematic in the winter when the ground is icy or slick, and an owner is
forced to trek up the hill after the dog. This could potentially cause injury
to dog owners. Additionally, as a matter of general health and fitness, the
hill is steep and there will certainly be some individuals who are in poor
health that will have a difficult time getting up the hill to retrieve their dogs
in a safe and timely manner. Finally, this location does not have a source
of water, which the current location does, which is necessary for the dogs
when they are running and playing.
2. The extended skinny suggested location at the base of the park as currently
approved would not be an acceptable location, as it would essentially be a
dog JJrun" due to its length and width. While this is a flat piece of land,
there would not be sufficient room for the dogs to play, which is the whole
point of the dog park. As with the first suggested alternative location, this
location does not have a source of water.
3. The parking lot next to the Gish House is just as unacceptable. Like the
first two, this location does not have a built-in source of water. Further,
this is a gravel parking lot, which is not an acceptable surface for a dog
.'
park. Additionally, this location is directly beside houses, with nothing to
deflect noise, which would certainly affect the quiet enjoyment, not to
mention the housing value, of those houses located directly adjacent to the
lot. Finally, this property is utilized by the City for storage, as well as (my
understanding is) serving as overflow parking for a nearby company when
the river runs too high.
The dog park is a chance for Highland Park to be modernized and utilized in a way
never thought possible when it was first created. In this time when more and more
people rarely leave their house, do not have a sense of "neighborhood" or
"community", and get their exercise by playing tennis or bowling on a video game,
the dog park offers a truly unique opportunity for Roanokers to come together with
one thing in mind: a love of their pets. This will get people out, moving and most
of all socializing in ways and with people that they would never have met. And
isn't that, after all, what a park is all about?
Thank you for your consideration of my comments. I hope to be taking my
chocolate Labrador Charlie to the dog park to play with his friends Toby and Kepler
as soon as it is built.
ver~rUIY~,urs.~, ,~
II/IY:J./ ,VIti'::
Emily Fay\ J "e1;t
V
~
~
CD
(')
CD
::I
(jj
...,
"o^
..., c CD
III ...... CD
~g-'U
=::.:::r
::10..;::;':
::0 S' g.
0.. lC -,
1Il ::I
l<<> lC
m 'U
- 0
3 1Il
)> u;
<
CD
(')
o
::I
(')
~
!!l..
III
::I
CD
to'
::r
0-
o
...,
::r
o
o
0..
'U
CD
0..
CD
~
...,
iij'
::I
-
...,
oj'
::I
0..
-<
1Il
(')
III
.CD
0..
o
::I
..;:
~
a:
,CD
,::I
^CD 9. sa ~ :;I :;I
< III -. III CD
.g:CDlCQllllCD
-S CD r+ ::T
(') !!!. III CD l<<> ()
o-<::J~...,~
300..CDCDo
3-1ll CD (')'U
c..., 3 1Il'<,<
::I CD (')
o' !!!. '2. ;-
~~=r (Q
0' ;:t lR S'
::I 1Il...... Ill_
o ~
-0 m
CD '<
::I 1Il
III
c-
o
S.
......
...,
CD
CD
-0
iil
::I
......
S'
(Q
S'
3
CD
0..
iij'
::I
1Il
-l^IllJ)> ::0 09.n;l~;;!;;;!;;;!;
ro CD 00' ::I,~ CD
0.. CD <XX(QlIllC
CD.g:8'~'< C CD CD _. CD ~ 8' ~
ro )> ::I. (J) ~ (') ::I iil ::I 0.. III ::I. III
"Q. ::0 (') a: ~ CD 1Il ;::;.: (') N ::I (') ::I
0.. 'U'<CDoo..-Uo..
IllllJQCDlIl 0.. III 0 ::I ::I
(') III ..., ~ (') _ ~ -. -u a -u
CD CD'UCii~~'U~
CD (Q 0- III ::I
3 CD ~ 1Il Ollllll ^CD^
CD ::I -< ::I -. ~
::I (J) _.
;:t...... ^...... (')CD
~ -. (') ::r 1Il
l<<> 0 ::I 0 0
3 lC - 0
3 G) Q -
Ql N CD 1Il
:;' 0 0
(jj ::I c.a
S' I
::I (Q CD
III
::I 0 )>
(') a. ...,
CD lC
0 :i' 0
- III ::I
0 ::J ::J
a: () CD
CD Q
...... (')
..., ...,
CD ::r (')
CD III ~
1Il ::J
(Q
CD
:E
:::r
III
0-+
0..
o
'<
o
l:
(") -.
o ~
:l CD
~. 3
:l 0
(") 1II
CD ....
III III
taO"
o g
o ....
0..,<
::ro
CD l:
:l ..,
c..:l
.... ~.
Ota)>
3 g:.:...
00<
< .., <
CD:::r:::r
o III
:l 0 ....
0-+0..<
o 'v <
.... CD
:::r<z
CD < CD
:l :::r CD
~, ~ c..
ta ::E ....
:::r 0 0
8"=-^
.., 0.. ~
:::r '< "C
o 0
~l:
..,
:E CD
:::r~
III CD
.... ....
::E -
o ~
=- 5'
c..cc
'< 'v
o _
l: -
1II'<
III 0
'< l: I
,v::E
CD I
~ I
....
..,
'<
:l
ta
....
o
,r
..
i. '1
~l
~
o
Ie.
iii' en
....0
o s::
-....
():::T
o ~
3 tJl
3 ....
CD Z
~ CD
....
tJl(Q
~g:
o 0
'""l ""'I
,,:::T
tJl 0
:::TO
o e.
"0 "'0
~Qi
01~
::i:c
01"0
-e.
oQl
00....
CD
s:
><
~
x"
CD
0..
C
Ul
CD
N
o
::I
S'
S
'0
...,
o
'0
CD
::+
ro"
.CI!
o
:!l
o
CD
Ul
III
...,
CD
to
o
o
0..
::I
!!!"
to
:T
0'
o
...,
Ul
s:
III
::I
'<
III
'0
III
::+
3
CD
::I
-
...,
CD
Ul
a:
CD
::I
ur
<"
CD
:T
CD
...,
CD
0'
CD
o
III
C
Ul
CD
Ul
o
:T
CD
III
'0
::I
2-
0'
CD
o
III
C
Ul
CD
o
.,...
g:
CD
::I
CD
10"
:T
0'
o
...,
:T
o
o
0..
z
CD
10'
:T
0'
o
....
:T
o
o
0..
Ul
o
...,
CD
Ul
!('o
o
III
CD'
Ul
o
III
::I
0'
CD
...,
CD
S"
0'
...,
o
CD
0..
3
'0
...,
o
<
CD
::E
:T
~
Ul-
:T
CD
...,
CD
3
'0
....
o
<
CD
o
...,
o
Ul
Ul
::E
!!!.
;>\"'
III
-
;US:C;U
CD 0 ::I CD
'0 ..., 0.. '0
III CD CD III
~""C"""'I<
Ul CD <Q CD
a: ~" 0 0
CD 0 C III
<:0..::10..
<; Ul 0..
!!!.q-C::I
iri~g'O
Q).....~~
g, 10" Ul ;>\"'
:T
:J r-+
:!!Ul
::I
CD
::E
Ul
a:
CD
::E
!!!.
;>\"'
Ul
::E
:T
CD
....
CD
::I
CD
CD
0..
CD
0..
W
....
0..
~
0'
CD
~
CD
CD
::I
m
3"
Qo
s:
o
C
::I
W
~
il
...,
III
::I
c:
S"
III
::I
0..
IT!
3
III
::I
0..
Ul
a:
CD
~
;;;:
o
::I
TI
....
III
:J
c:
S'
o
I
10"
:T
iii'
::I
0..
fQ:;E
~" III
o ::I
~c;
o CD
o 0
0..0
CD iil
CD ~
::I <
O'CD
.... -
~ iil
3 ;
CD Cil
.ao
g~
'Ow
.... 0
.gm
CD Ul
::+
ro"
Ul
::E
~
III
0'
Ul
CD
::I
CD
CD
iii'
::I
0..
5'
...,
0..
Ul
:E
:T
III
-
~
o
s:::
0::
'<
o
s:::
"
CD
-
o
(")
:T
III
-. ::::s
::::scc
:TCD
CD 0
::::s :.
!!!. 3
cc-c
:T..,
0"0
Q ~ m
:T1ll_
00"<
00<
c..s::::T
'oU _ III
-
:E~ :E
:T s::: CD
III ..,
-::::sz
~ !!!. :g
o cc c..
=-:T_
c..0"0
'< Q 0
O:T:T
s::: 0 III
o ::::s
-. c.. cc
~ 'oU CD
- -
o ::l
111 _
CD CD
CD ::::s
cc'<
o m
::::s ..,
CD 111
'oU ~
~
:T
III
-
~
s:::
0::
'<
o
s:::
"'"
CD
-
o
111
CD
CD
o "\J)>)> 0 "\J(J)o;u
OCDOo;:;:Oq-OCD
0.. 0 0 :T '< ::: 0 0.. :J
CD~rn;:;::T~:JCDw
mCDUlCDlll tOm-
::JUi'".....uU>"Q:J:J
O'OOCO'CDCDO'~
.... Q" 0.. iil CD Ul 10' ..., '0
OIllO_CDCD:TOCD
CD-::E(J)::I::IO'CDO
3 III ::I - Ul 0 0 3 ~
CD -3 -'< C CD .... CD 0
::I Om'O :T::I::I
-O::EUl'O 8-"\J
~{g::l 3. 0.. 0
en :; -, lC lC
CD <.......,
0'..., CD 0 III
~CD ~ 3
:J
to
o
o
0..
~
'0
o
~
:J
to
a I
'0
CD
::+
ro"
Ul
00
o C
3 ro"
3 -
C ::I
:J !!!,
-, to
o :r
~O'
-" 0
o ...,
::I :r
::E 0
-" 0
g:o..
'0
o
(')'
CD
III
::I
0..
o
g:
CD
...,
o
~
0..
CD
'0
III
::+
3
CD
::I
Ui
"
~ C/) .I:>. (J) Z ~ m )> 'U -l s: :!! m,Q CD 0 ." ;;u m ~
5' :r -" 0 ::J 0 Q) 0 Q) Cii ~1 ..., 0 CD CD
CD ::J 0: ::T
CD ::E ...... .I:>. Q: CD 0- )> < '0 Ul Q) ::J III "0 3 '<
CD 0 CD - ::J -<,J (Q :J !!!, III 5'
a. a. III m a. Ci ..., 3 CD 0 n 2~ CD CD ~ :::h
3' 5' III lI<> ..., , ..., ~ ><
~' ~ '< Q) CD Q) iii' n.
::E ::J 3 3 ::J "0 ::T ,::;!: =l' 0- 0' CD
::J a. 0 "0 '< iil ~~l 0 0' -< ..., a.
:J a a. III -, 3 0' ::J
::J CD l:: - Ul 0- ::J ::J ::J Ul ^ 0
- CD 0 "0 ..., 5' 5' 0 Ul e- o ::J
:r iil a. -.. Q) 0 - 0 0- CD ::J ,Q)' I - Ul -..
0 Ul Q) ::J Q) Q) ;:!. -~.' 0 a. 0: ...,
CD ::!; 3 ::J ..., ..... ^' cO' 0 CD
.I:>. ::T ::J 5' a. ::T"", '< ...,
"0 0 Q) 0 0 Ul I <' CD )~,i ::T 0 CD Q) Ul
~ m 0 < CD 0: III ::J cO' CD iil :r 0 ::E 0 0:
III 0' CD =(Q ::J m -.. Q) ^ CD
~ '< ..., a. 0 ::E CD ::T 8' CDk9f ::J CD Q)
iii' CD ~ ::J '< ::T iil cO';:i; a. ..., ~ ;;;: ::T ;:!.
Ul, ~ 0 ..., "0 Ul 0 iii'
- CD 0' "0 Ul ::J LJ
0 Qo ::J ^ C CD ~'iir Q) :3 c
"0 0- ::J CD Ul CD Ul a. < III ..., Ul
0 Ul 0 CD 0 ::J' ..., ^ ~ ::E
"0 CD 'U ..., 0.:, ^ Ul CD
Ul :r ..., (Q Ul :+ Ul CD
cO' 0 0 CD Q) ::T ; ".,' ~ 8' III ::J ...... ~
CD CD ::J ..., (Q 0 :1JJ (Q I "0
::J ..., 3 0- ^ ..., 0 Q)' ::J ...,
.Ul a. 0 ::E CD Q) a. :,"'::'1'1 C/) a. -" 0 0
CD ~ ::T ~ ::J :J .~?S 3 ~ -..
CD ;:!. 0 a. (Q ::E I ."
." g- o CD CD \;1 s: CD ~ iil
::;' 0 "0 W' III
CD (ii' 0 ::E S- CD - CD CD '< ::J
...... -.. ::J ::J ::T a. 'U :J ~ 0' ~
m ::J 5' CD 0- ~ CD, Ul III ::E ::J
s: ..., ..., ...,
~ 0 a. c CD 8' ^ Q) CD :J
C/) "0 "0 ;;;: (ii' a. '< CD ;;u
CD CD 0 (Q Ul -
cO' ..., "0 3 0 Ul 0
'< iil 0 ::J
::J "0 0' C - Q)
0- lI<> a.
0 CD CD ^ ;::;: 0
..., :+ c ~ ~ :r en
CD ro' "0
Ul < ~, CD ::T
Ul CD Ul m 0 0
::T Ul C
cO' 0' CD 3 a. -< III 0:
::J CD (Q Ul ~ - 3
Ul 0 CD 3
Ul 0
s: So !!!, Ul x'
::J ~ CD
CD CD (Q a.
Q) cp- O
..., ..., -.. l::
Ul- -< W' Ul Ul
I 0 CD
3 ::T N
-< 0 0
CO Q. ::J
0 Ul 'S'
.I:>. 0 (Q
s: ::T 0-
Q) CD
Q) ::J 0
...,
Ul (Q 0
::T CD :J
~ Ul Ul
.::::;; 0 0:
::T CD
0 CD
Q. a.
a. ~
Ul
-
::!,
n.
3
III
"0
I
!
I I
I
o
..,
CD
III
CD
-
c:
..,
::J
III
a
c:
::J
e..
III
m
III
en
III
-
e..
CD
III
e..
CD
::J
e..
~
..,
CD
CD
Ui
s:z
o CD
.., CD
CD e..
liien
en -
rom
_CD
c: (jj
"C 0
o III
0"C
^CD
~ 3'
O"C
o ..,
3 0
3 n;
CD 3
Q, ~
~(i)
c:
en
CD
en
CD
to
OJ
Qo
OJ
en
en
3
~
o
III
or
en
z
o
iii'
CD
III
0'
III
CD
3
CD
::J
-
-
..,
o
3
N
N
o
III
::J
e..
2'
2'
...,
CD
o"U"U"U
ms.a~
~O'2:c.
CD ~ Q:~
-~-
""::1-0
g,~~~
CD en to 0
'<IllCD-
~, 5. g III
:T:::!l ~~
.....,0...,,,,
m :E en
.QCDj?o
~;q-
::J III c:
-enO
en^^
o~en
"C en
en 0
O'::J
..., "C
O~
0:: 0'
ene..
o en
c: q-
-CD
~~
rn ocr
.... :T
:r en
en
CD
III
e..
o
-
o
c:
...,
...,
CD
~
0'
c:
en
CD
en
T
~
W
0'
CD
to
S'
o
0'
o
^
~
3'
"C
III
U.
III
::J
e..
:T
o
:E
-
o
III
e..
e..
...,
CD
en
en
I
<3'
:T
W
::J
e..
"U
III
...,
~
:E
o
...,
^
S'
(Q
0'
c:
::J
~
::J
o
::J
CD
~
III
'<
~
...,
CD
~
-
:T
..,
o
c:
to
:T
"C
III
...,
.^
o
o
<
CD
...,
CD
e..
en
:T
CD
;:;:
CD
,""
"C
c:
Q:
0'
III
.::1.
...,
CD
"C
III
=;'
en
0.:
CD
:E
~
^
en
~S:$
_00
~ CD Q
0- q- iii'
-g:::I
e..:Ten
(f)o~
o III CD
c: ::J ~
:T en _.
:E to
CD ;:r
en en
;;;- ~
en
:T
CD
::J
CD
~
0'
o
c:
en
III
...,
CD
III
-
o
..,
::J
<
CD
en
3'
CD
::J
-
o
-
o
~
en'
or
e..
CD
...,
~
to
...,
III
~
-
c:
::J
e..
en
o
o
...,
::J
CD
...,
en
"U
S.
^
0'
en
^
en
III
::J
e..
--
o
...,
0'
CD
::J
o
:T
CD
en
~
0'
c:
en
en
o
"C
en
o 3 -' 0
:T"C 3 a
w ..., ;::;: CJ'J
::J 0 en en
to<"C:E
CD CD CD III
"C :T !2, ;;;:
~ CD III III
~OCD;;;
"C -, X ....
~.:<~ :T
g:E"S-Qo
o ~ o'!:!!
- ::J 3
e.. ~, en
CD - 0
::I CD ::I
~. <
.:< III
o
3 III
o ~
...,
CD
e..
CD
::J
!!!,
.:<
o
III
::J
0'
CD
to
o
o
e..
::;;
0'
~
..,
<3'
;:r
W
::J
e..
ms:
e..o
c: ...,
o CD
III
-::J
o 0
::J CD
III ~
g ~'
S.en
::J 0'
CD ...,
-, :T
<g.o
0'3
o CD
..., 0
5:E
o ::J
e..CD
~ en
:T
III
::J
to
CD
"C
CD
...,
o
CD
"S-
o'
::J
CD
e..
c:
o
III
CD
m
III
s=
...,
en
s:
III
^
CD
::J
CD
...,
en
CD
o
....
0'
::I
en
""
~
III
'<
en
o
"C
en
:E
;::;:
:T
en
o
"C
0'
III
..,
en
s:
III
^
CD
III
::I.
CD
...,
iii'
~
m
CD
(jj
3
o
m
0'
'<
o
'<
Q.
CD
--
"C
CD
e..
CD
~
...,
iii'
::I
-
...,
ro'
::J
e..
-<
III
e..
e..
o
...,
o
en
en
:E
~
^
en
II 00 'TI
.., o ;::;: 0
0 3'< (')
< c
Ci 3 ~ en
CD c 0 0
'0 ::l C ::l
.., c)" a: <
0 ~3 III
c.
C o III C
(') ::l -, CD
en ::l ;::. 0
III CD Q!, ....,
::l
::l CD ::l CD
C. ~~ to'
:3 c. ::l' ::l'
III rr~ rr
~ CD -" 0
r+ r+ 3-
iir :!:: ~I 0
(jj CD 0
CD c.
=r, ::l - ,
~ . -'" 1 0
0 !e. ~
.., ClJ en
~ III ::l'
"8- 0
III ~ C
C. a:
iii" III I ::l
(') ::l <
0 c. CD
c :f !e.
;::. CD ~
0 0- ..,
en
::l' .:< r+
CD ::l
iJ 0 ::l
'0 C. =r
CD CD III
0 ro !e.
'0 .., ..,
CD ~, c
(')
:!:: ::l C-
St CD ro
0'
::l' ::l rr
0 to CD
3 ....,
ro 0
CD ..,
31 CD
3 :f
III C CD
S" en
ro CD '0
..,
::l 0 ;;::"
III ...., III
::l '0 ro
(') ..,
CD 0 en
'0 CD
CD (')
::+ 0
roO
en ..,
I 5"1
I ~I
::l
CD
US"
::l'
rr
0
3-
0
0
c.
I I
I
I