Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Council Actions 06-17-13
ROSEN 39683-061713 ass mIt G 6O. ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION JUNE 17, 2013 2:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER AGENDA 1 . Call to Order--Roll Call. All present. 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: Today's Council meeting will be televised live and replayed on RVTV Channel 3 on Thursday, June 20 at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday, June 22 at 4:00 p.m. Council meetings are offered with closed captioning for the hearing impaired. ANNOUNCEMENTS: THE PUBLIC IS ADVISED THAT MEMBERS OF COUNCIL RECEIVE THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AND RELATED COMMUNICATIONS, REPORTS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, ETC., ON THE THURSDAY PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL MEETING TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TIME FOR REVIEW OF INFORMATION. I 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, CLICK ON THE GOVERNMENT ICON. 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. PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONTACT 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 MAY CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT 853-2541, OR ACCESS THE CITY'S HOMEPAGE TO OBTAIN AN APPLICATION. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE IS SEEKING APPLICATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING CURRENT OR UPCOMING EXPIRATIONS OF TERMS OF OFFICE: FAIR HOUSING BOARD - ONE VACANCY (UNEXPIREDTERM OF OFFICE) ROANOKE NEIGHBORHOOD ADVOCATES - ONE VACANCY (THREE-YEAR TERM OF OFFICE) 2 2. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Certificate of Recognition from the Department of Defense Vietnam War Commemoration to the City of Roanoke as a Commemorative Partner upon the 50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War. A resolution recognizing Fire/EMS Deputy Chief Ralph Tartaglia upon his retirement. Adopted Resolution No. 39683-061713 (7-0). The Mayor presented a ceremonial copy of the resolution and a City gift to Deputy Chief Tartaglia. Recognition of Sanitation Workers. The Mayor recognized City Sanitation Workers and June 17 as National Solid Waste Day. Presentation of the 2013 Government Finance Officers Association Award for Excellence in the Pensions and Benefits Category to the Department of Finance. The Mayor presented a plaque to the Director of Finance and recognized staff. Certificate of Recognition from the Roanoke Natural Foods Co-op for founding Heritage Point, the urban farm within the City of Roanoke. The Mayor presented to the City a plaque from the Roanoke natural Foods Co-op. 3. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: NONE. 4. CONSENT AGENDA (APPROVED 7-0) ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION.THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. C-1 Minutes of the regular meetings of Council held on Monday,April 1,2013 and Monday, April 15, 2013; recessed until Thursday, April 25, 2013. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Dispensed with the reading of the minutes and approved as recorded. 3 C-2 A communication from Council Member Anita J. Price, Chair, City Council Personnel Committee, requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss personnel matters being the annual performance evaluation of a Council- appointed officer, and performance of a Council-appointed officer, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concurred in the request. C-3 Minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on June 5, 2013. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Received and filed. C-4 Reports of qualification of the following individuals: Andrea Trent as the Director of Finance designee of the Defined Contribution Board for a four-year term of office ending June 30, 2017; M. Rupert Cutler as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission for a three-year term of office ending June 30, 2016; and Betty Field as a member of the Mill Mountain Advisory Committee for a three-year term of office ending June 30, 2016. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Received and filed. REGULAR AGENDA 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. 6. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: NONE. 7. REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS AND COMMENTS OF CITY MANAGER: a. CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: NONE. 4 ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: 1. Recognition of funding for the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board Workforce Investment Act Dislocated Worker/Rapid Response and Incentive Award programs for periods February 2013 to June 2014; and July 2012 to June 2013, respectively. Adopted Resolution No. 39684-061713 (7-0). 2. Acceptance and appropriation of funds in connection with a United States Marshals Service (USMS) Capital Area Regional Fugitive Task Force (CARFTF) Vehicle Purchase Grant for the City of Roanoke Police Department. Adopted Resolution No. 39685-061713 and Budget Ordinance No. 39686-061713 (7-0). 3. Appropriation of funds in connection with the Fiscal Year 2013 Real Estate Tax revenue and the Roanoke City Public Schools expense adjustment. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 39687-061713 (7-0). 4. Appropriation of funds in connection with a budget adjustment in billing for off-duty security services provided by the Roanoke City Police Department. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 39688-061713 (7-0). COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER. The City Manager shared the following comments: Response to June 13 Storm • Commended city departments for their response to the massive accident on 1-581 last Wednesday. Fire-EMS and Police worked well together to assist victims of the accident, conduct traffic, and address other concerns. • E-911 received over 478 calls for service related to the wind event between 2 p.m. and 6:45 p.m. the afternoon of the storm (Thursday). • As of this morning, Appalachian Power reports power has been restored to all City of Roanoke customers. • DoT GIS staff developed outage maps for use with relevant city agencies. This was an area for improvement identified with the Derecho response. 5 • Crews from across city departments responded to the storm, including Fire-EMS, Police, Transportation, and Parks and Recreation to clear downed trees and other situations that resulted from the storm. • Solid Waste crews began working the northwest area of the city for brush collection from the storm on Saturday. • For the week of June 17-21, bulk collection has been suspended so that crews can conduct a full sweep to collect debris from the storm in all neighborhoods. • Solid Waste crews have caught up on trash collection from last week, and are on schedule for the week of June 17-21. • Parks and Recreation temporarily closed several parks and pools but have since re-opened. • Urban Forestry has actively worked to address several downed trees and has been coordinating with AEP for safety reasons. • City Schools started summer school today and several of those were without power with the event. Schools worked with AEP and the City to ensure those identified with critical infrastructure were restored in timely fashion. Management and Budget • The FY 2013-2014 budget document is being released today. • The budget document will be available on the city's website through a link on the home page as well as a copy at the Main Library. Parks and Arts • The Parks and Arts Program held its second event in Jackson Park from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., with "Art is Happening." • Neighborhood residents enjoyed performances from Opera Roanoke, Mill Mountain Theatre, the Southwest Virginia Ballet, as well as interactive exercises to engage attendees. • Taubman Museum of Art provided hands-on activities for including making masks. Juneteenth • The event was held in Washington Park on Saturday from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. and was well attended. • Representatives from city departments were invited to attend and reach out to the community to educate them about government services. 6 Color Run • The Roanoke Times reported that more than 4,000 people attended Saturday's Color Run, which started at 9 a.m. at Roanoke Civic Center. • Organizers of the run and volunteers pelt participants with little packets of dyed powder as they make their way around the course. Along with the run, there were dancing and free prizes at the Civic Center. • The Color Run partners with various charities in each city to promote awareness and recognize important issues. In Roanoke, the run teamed up with the American Cancer Society and the Blue Ridge Autism and Achievement Center. 8. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. 10. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: a. Ordinance No. 39680, on second reading, increasing and establishing the annual salaries of the Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Council Members for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014. The matter was tabled until July 1 Informal Session of Council at 9:00 a.m., for further dialogue. (5-2, Council Member Lea and Mayor Bowers voting no) 11. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 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. At 3:28 p.m.,the Council meeting was declared in recess fora Closed Meeting in the Council's Conference Room, Room 451, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. At 6:09 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED MEETING. (7-0) 7 AT 6:10 P.M., THE COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED UNTIL 7:00 P.M., IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, ROOM 450, NOEL C. TAYLOR MUNICIPAL BUILDING. 8 ormit It Ak s �.... rtt ; nr1/4' ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION JUNE 17, 2013 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER AGENDA Call to Order--Roll Call. Council Member 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: Tonight's Council meeting will be televised live and replayed on RVTV Channel 3 on Thursday, June 20 at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday, June 22 at 4:00 p.m. Council meetings are offered with closed captioning for the hearing impaired. The City Manager introduced Aisha Johnson as the new Assistant to the City Manager; and Marcus Huffman, Student, University of Phoenix,as the summer intern in the City Manager's Office. 9 A. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Request of HomeTown Bank to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan as it pertains to 3209 Southwood Manor Court, S. W., containing approximately 0.6110 acres, to permit construction of two single-family dwelling units instead of one single-family dwelling unit previously permitted by the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Plan (MXPUD), pursuant to Ordinance No. 38318-121508 adopted on December 15, 2008. Mike Pace, Attorney, Gentry Locke Rakes and Moore, Spokesperson. Adopted Ordinance No. 39689.061713(5-0,Vice-Mayor Rosen abstained from the vote). 2. Request of Gary L. Deane to rezone property located at 803 Patterson Avenue, S. W., from Mixed Use District (MX) to Downtown District (D), subject to a certain proffered condition. Gary L. Deane, Petitioner, Spokesperson. Adopted Ordinance No. 39690-061713 (6-0). 3. Request of Mincon, Inc. to rezone property located at 619 Centre Avenue, N. W., and four unaddressed lots on Centre Avenue, N. W.,from Residential Mixed Density District(RM-1)and Light Industrial District(I-1)to Urban Flex District (UF), subject to a proffered condition. Cecil Kelly, Chief Financial Officer, Spokesperson. Adopted Ordinance No. 39691-061713 (6-0). 4. Request of Charles and Jennifer Basham to permanently vacate a dead-end cul-de-sac on 6 % Street, S. E., adjoining property located at 661 and 663 Morrill Avenue, S. E. Charles "Billy" Basham, Petitioner, Spokesperson. Adopted Ordinance No. 39692-061713 (6-0). 5. Proposal of the City of Roanoke to issue General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds of the City, in the principal amount of not to exceed $15 million, in connection with various capital improvement projects. Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance. Adopted Resolution No. 39693-061713 and Budget Ordinance No. 39694-061713 (6-0). 10 B. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Petition for Appeal filed by John D. Hodgkin, appealing a decision of the Architectural Review Board to deny issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for repairs at 925 First Street, S. W. Matter was remanded back to the Architectural Review Board for further negotiations. (5-0, Mayor Bowers abstained from the vote). C. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: NONE. D. ADJOURNMENT - 7:51 P.M. 11 . DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 11.7;.:::;.1Z:: :rte: 'k Y /�; V VIETNAM WAR COMMEMORATION ,\ :� i:1 %:�4 9 5 T ATES O ... ,1 pao,? c' �.n i441110� Oil,p s. 1 _ .,l. 1 + 1 Recognizes CITY OF ROANOKE s.---, s. -----,-_ as a_____.,_ Commemorative Partner .. ""V'' Awarded in recognition of your willingness to assist and support a 14U'11i} grateful nation in thanking and honoring our Vietnam War Veterans, 40`.1 1111, their families, and those who served with, or in support of, the Armed "'"F W"■`,';,r Forces. Done this 23 day of MAY 2013 'A C�rart f ill 'Nari�>>i �lialiks nlic��?��>nL'rs � to . olir vier»am 1Var 1'errraiis for'T(eir SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT 0 HI.S OF AFF Service,vaior Sacrifice C�9 ,9?eioIclon IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 17th day of June, 2013. No. 39683-061713. A RESOLUTION recognizing City of Roanoke Fire-EMS Deputy Chief Ralph Tartaglia. WHEREAS, Deputy Chief Ralph Tartaglia was hired as a firefighter for the City of Roanoke on January 5, 1976; promoted to Lieutenant on November 18, 1982; and promoted to the rank of Captain on November 15, 1985; WHEREAS, Deputy Chief Tartaglia became an Emergency Medical Technician when the Roanoke Fire Department and Emergency Medical Services merged in 1995; and was promoted to Battalion Chief on April 23, 1999; WHEREAS, Deputy Chief Tartaglia was promoted to Assistant Chief by retired Roanoke Fire-EMS Chief Jim Grigsby on January 7, 2003; and was then promoted to Deputy Chief of Operations on May 8, 2007; and WHEREAS, Deputy Chief Tartaglia has taken numerous National Fire Academy Courses, completed his Career Studies Certificate for Firefighting and Prevention, has been team leader on several FEMA deployments to Louisiana and Florida and has received numerous letters of commendation from citizens, colleagues and businesses along with many thank you letters and kudos over the course of his 37 year career, and has always demonstrated remarkable teamwork, dedication, character, and passion for the City of Roanoke, its Citizens and the members of the Roanoke Fire-EMS Department THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: The Council adopts this Resolution to congratulate Deputy Chief Ralph Tartaglia on his retirement from the City of Roanoke Fire EMS Department, to recognize his extraordinary commitment to Roanoke, and to thank Deputy Chief Ralph Tartaglia for his years of dedicated service to the people of Roanoke; and instructs the City Clerk to forward an attested copy of this Resolution to Deputy Chief Tartaglia. APPROVED ATTEST: Stephanie M. Moon,MMCy David A. Bowers City Clerk Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE a� ^4 . ;1 CITY COUNCIL � 1� Fiai 215 Church Avenue.S.W. , z "v.�'% Noel C Taylor Municipal Building,Suite 456 Roanoke Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone'. (540)853-2541 DAVID A.BOWERS Fax: (540)853-1145 Council Members Mayor William D. Bestpinh Raphael E.'Ray"Fans Sherman P. Lea Anita J. Price Court G.Rosen David B.Trinkle June 17, 2013 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council: I wish to request a Closed Meeting to discuss the annual performance evaluation of a Council-appointed officer, and performance of a Council-appointed officer, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A) (1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. ' Sincerely,� y` � ,`i , Ch Anita J. Pric Chair City Council Personnel Committee AJP:ctw MINUTES Audit Committee of Roanoke City Council Location: Council Conference Room Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, Room 364 South Date: June 5, 2013 Time: 4:02 p.m. to 4:55 p.m. Attendees: Court Rosen, Audit Committee Chair Ray Ferris, Audit Committee Member Drew Harmon, Municipal Auditor Dawn Hope Mullins, Assistant Municipal Auditor Pam Mosdell, Information Systems Auditor Debbie Noble, Senior Auditor Wayne Parker, Senior Auditor Tim Conner, KPMG Alisha Royal, Auditor Ann Shawver, Director of Finance Dan Callaghan, City Attorney Sherman Stovall, Assistant City Manager— Operations Evelyn Powers, Treasurer David Ress, Roanoke Times 1. Call to Order: Mr. Rosen called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. 2. KPMG —Audit Plan for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2013: Mr. Conner reviewed KPMG's audit plan with the Committee. The scope, objectives, and methodology planned are consistent with prior years' audits. Preliminarily, it appears the City may qualify as a low risk auditee for purposes of single audit testing. This may reduce the number of grant programs that have to be audited. Mr. Conner discussed the new accounting pronouncements effective for 2013 and noted that they are not expected to significantly impact the City's financial reporting. He highlighted the new concepts of deferred inflows and deferred outflows, as well as the change of the term "Net Assets" to "Net Position." Mr. Conner also highlighted the changes to the format of the Auditor's report required under SAS 122. Mr. Conner stated that the Roanoke City Public Schools and the Roanoke Civic Center engage other firms to audit their respective financial statements. Mr. Harmon noted that Municipal Auditing works with both organizations to coordinate year-end financial audit activities. The Schools' Audit Committee reviews the audit plan for the School Division and receives the auditor's reports. The company that manages the Civic Center is required by contract to engage an audit firm to audit the Roanoke Civic Center's financial statements and to provide the auditor's report to the City. June 5, 2013 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Conner discussed KPMG staffing for the City's audit, noting that he was working to identify a replacement for one of the Senior Managers who had recently resigned. Mr. Rosen asked Mr. Conner about his plans for staffing the Senior Manager position. Mr. Conner responded that KPMG has substantial resources within its Virginia business unit [Roanoke/ Richmond/ Norfolk] and that he is working to identify an appropriate replacement. Planning for the audit has been completed and in-charge staffing is largely in place to perform single audit and other interim work. Mr. Conner promised to keep Mr. Harmon and Mr. Rosen apprised as he identifies a replacement. The audit plan was received and filed without objection. 3. Clerk of the Circuit Court: Mr. Harmon stated that the audit was completed according to the Virginia Auditor of Public Account's requirements and that there were no findings. The report was received and filed without objection. 4. Real Estate Billing: Mr. Harmon provided a brief history on the efforts of the City to procure and install a comprehensive tax and treasury system. He noted that there were limited choices in the market at the time and that the vendor selected by the City, Manatron, also owned the Proval real estate appraisal system that the City had been using for several years. The City chose to implement the real estate billing and the cashiering systems in the first phase and had plans to install personal property billing and business license billing in subsequent phases. The City experienced a number of challenges with the vendor and the software during the implementation of real estate and cashiering. A second effort to implement the system was successful, but a number of issues remained to be addressed by the vendor after implementation. Manual processes were adopted to help manage system issues while fixes were developed. The City decided not to install Manatron's personal property tax and business license tax systems. Mr. Harmon noted that one of the benefits of the audit was the detailed documentation of the processes for using the system that the audit produced. He stated there were no significant concerns identified with the processes for using the system. The most notable issue identified was the need to revise the City Code governing real estate tax assessment and collection so that it reflects the changes in technology and processes that have occurred since the code was written in the 1980s. The departments are currently working to identify the necessary revisions. Mr. Emerson commented that the documentation from the audit was helpful and a useful tool for looking at things that might be done differently. He believes that subsequent meetings will help to move the system forward. June 5, 2013 Page 3 of 4 Mr. Holland commented that the audit pulled together processes so that everyone could see the entire process. He also commented that the audit helped identify the issues with the City Code being outdated and not reflecting the change from a calendar year basis for real estate tax to what is now a fiscal year basis for real estate tax. Mr. Holland stated that it was a good audit. Ms. Powers agreed that the audit was helpful and stated that she looks forward to the review of the cashiering system. She commented that the City Attorney's office has reviewed the City Code for personal property and business license tax in advance of developing those systems and that this should help identify needed changes before the systems are implemented. Mr. Ferris commented that he had heard there were problems with Manatron's system and asked if the software updates and patches were fixing those issues. Mr. Harmon responded that the updates and patches help but that there would likely always be other issues to fix. Mr. Ferris asked if the issues with the system create more work for City employees and / or Manatron employees. Mr. Harmon responded that Manatron's resources were used to develop updates and patches, but City staff resources were used to test and install changes. Mr. Stovall commented that the City is withholding part of the payment to Manatron until certain problems with the software are satisfactorily addressed. Ms. Shawver commented on the new approach being taken by the City's Department of Technology to develop the personal property and business license tax systems in-house. This may provide for lower costs and greater customization. Mr. Ferris commented that this kind of in-house development reflects well on the City's information technology staff The report was received and filed without objection. 5. Quarterly Audit Plan Update: Mr. Harmon noted that the Auditing department is fully staffed for the first time in over a year. The plan for the next three months is to complete the audits currently open, to clear the back log of investigations and follow up audits, and to start no new projects except for those routine audits that are performed annually at this time of the year. The one addition to the audit plan since last quarter is a turnover audit for those functions transferring from Billings & Collections to the City Treasurer's Office. Ms. Shawver had asked about the need for a turnover audit, and Mr. Harmon had agreed that it would be a good idea. Audit staff have already begun meeting with employees from Billings & Collections, the Treasurer's Office, and the Department of Technology. The formal transfer of responsibilities is scheduled to take place on July 1. Finally, Mr. Harmon discussed the financial condition report that Auditing began developing in 2012 and which it abandoned due to other pressing work. He continues to believe in the value of such a report and plans to complete it in fiscal year 2014. June 5, 2013 Page 4 of 4 The report was received and filed without objection. 6. Hotline Update: Mr. Harmon noted that there were 14 reports currently open that were either referred to other agencies or in the process of being investigated by the Auditing department. He referred to the table on page two (2) of the Update and noted that there have been no frivolous reports to the hotline. There have been a few reports of suspected criminal activity(involving the public, not City employees, Departments or operations) that would have been more appropriately reported to the Police Department and which were immediately referred to the Police Department by Auditing. Mr. Harmon commented that the hotline has brought forward important issues and is fulfilling its potential. The methods for investigating and reporting hotline reports will continue to evolve as we gain experience. Auditing is working closely with Human Resources and the City Attorney's Office to ensure appropriate transparency while protecting employee confidentiality. . The report was received and filed without objection. 7. Other Business: The next Audit Committee meeting is scheduled for the first Wednesday in September [September 4] at 4:00 p.m. 8. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Drew Harmon, CPA, CIA Municipal Auditor Audit Committee Secretary CITY OF ROANOKE t yj - OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK V.-,1_ . 215 Church Avenue,S.W.,Suite 456 '° Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC E-mail: alerkQroanokeva.gav JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk June 18, 2013 Ann H. Shawver Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Shawver: This is to advise you that Andrea Trent has qualified as your designee of the Defined Contribution Board for a four-year term of office ending June 30, 2017. Sincerely, � Stephanie M. Moon, MMC o City Clerk Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, Andrea Trent, do solemnly swear 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 the Director of Finance designee of the Defined Compensation Board, for a term of four-years commencing July 1, 2013 and ending June 30, 2017, according to the best of my ability. So help me God. O^ k, Andrea Trent The foregoing oath of office was taken, sworn to, and subscribed before me by Andrea Trent this // dayof cJ C 2013. Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of the Circuit Court Decal? By j—�i.//Litt/ l , Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE s1 4 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue,S.W.,Suite 456 1, _.4 Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC E-mail: elerlc( roenokeva.gav JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk June 18, 2013 Melissa Murray, Secretary Roanoke Arts Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Murray: This is to advise you that M. Rupert Cutler has qualified as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission for a three-year term of office ending June 30, 2016. Sincerely, Q Stephanie M. Moon, MMC City Clerk Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, M. Rupert Cutler, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission for a three-year term of office ending June 30, 2016, according to the best of my ability. So help me God. frith _ M. RUPERT CUTLER The foregoing oath of office was taken, sworn to, and subscribed before me by M. Rupert Cutler this \\ ' day of C c.c'.a 2013. Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of the Circuit Court By - m t ler of " CITY OF ROANOKE : OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK -�- s 215 Church Avenue,S.W.,Suite 456 q, !=� Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC E-mail: clerk @roanokeva.gov JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk June 18, 2013 Nicole Ashby, Secretary Mill Mountain Advisory Committee Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Ashby: This is to advise you that Betty Field has qualified as a member of the Mill Mountain Advisory Committee for a three-year term of office ending June 30, 2016. Sincerely, � h^) Stephanie M. Mo on, MMC yy ,,,, Uv City Clerk Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, BETTY FIELD, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the Mill Mountain Advisory Committee for a three-year term of office ending June 30, 2016, according to the best of my ability. So help me God. B BETTY PIE LD The foregoing oath of office was taken, sworn to, and subscribed before me by Betty Field this �Dy of � 013. (/ Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of the Circuit Court By (. ; /Lam/Cle/irk if CITY OF ROANOKE Il ° 1 # OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK r _ 215 Church Avenue,S.W., Suite 456 �" .'= S. Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC E-mail: clerk®roanokeva.gov JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk June 18, 2013 Hawatha Nicely, Chair Western Virginia Workforce Development Board 108 N. Jefferson Street, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Dear Ms. Nicely: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 39684-061713 acknowledging and recognizing the Workforce Investment Act funding of $249,993.00 to be administered by the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board for the award period of February 1, 2013 - June 30, 2014, and the Workforce Investment Act Incentive Award of $1,500.00 to be administered by the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board for the award period of July 1, 2012 - June 30, 2013. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 2013. Sincerely, Stephanie M. Moon, MMC City Clerk Enclosure pc: Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance Amelia Merchant, Director, Management and Budget IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of June, 2013. No. 39684-061113.. A RESOLUTION acknowledging and recognizing the Workforce Investment Act funding of $249,993 to be administered by the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board for the award period of February 1,2013 —June 30,2014, and the Workforce Investment Act Incentive Award of $1,500 to be administered by the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board for the award period of July 1, 2012—June 30, 2013. WHEREAS,pursuant to the Workforce Investment Act(WIA),federal funding is provided to support various programs in support of various client populations as more particularly described in the City Council Agenda Report dated June 17, 2013; WHEREAS,on February 28,2013,the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board was designated as the fiscal agent for WIA funds and administers the federal funds provided by WIA for Area 3, the designated area which encompasses the counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig, Franklin, and Roanoke, and the cities of Covington, Roanoke, and Salem; WHEREAS, the WIA funding for award period February I, 2013 - June 30, 2014 in the amount of$249,993 will be allocated for certain programs as designated in the City Council Agenda Report dated June 17, 2013; WHEREAS, WIA funding for the WIA Incentive Award for outstanding performance for the award period July I,2012-June 30,2013 in the amount of$1,500 will be allocated for certain WIA programs as designated in the City Council Agenda Report dated June 17, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board requires an acknowledgment and recognition of the WIA funding by the City in order for the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board to administer such funding. THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Council acknowledges and recognizes for the purpose of administering the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board Workforce funding in the amount of$249,993 from the Workforce Development Act,with no local match from the City,to be used during the award period of February 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014, for the purpose of administering the Workforce Investment Act(WIA) Programs for certain WIA client populations, as more particularly set out in the City Council Agenda Report dated June 17, 2013. 2. Further, Council acknowledges and recognizes for the purpose of administering the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board Workforce Incentive Award from the Virginia Community College System in the amount of$1,500 for outstanding performance for the award period of July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013, to be used for WIA programs. 3. The City Manager is directed to furnish such additional information as may be required in connection with the acceptance of the foregoing funding. 4. The City Clerk is directed to provide an attested copy of this Resolution to the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board. ATTEST: :YA JCINJ ` r I ' " City Cler 2 a loo -r' CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: June 17, 2013 Subject: Funding for Western Virginia Workforce Development Board Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Programs Background: The City of Roanoke is the grant recipient for Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funding, thus, City Council must recognize the funding for all grants received in order for the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board to administer WIA programs. On February 28, 2013, the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board was designated as the fiscal agent for WIA funds and, therefore, administers the federally funded Workforce Investment Act (WIA) for Area 3, which encompasses the counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig, Franklin and Roanoke, and the cities of Covington, Roanoke, and Salem. WIA funding is for four primary client populations: • Dislocated workers who have been laid off from employment through no fault of their own. Services provided these individuals include intensive job search assistance and employment counseling, additional training to upgrade skills or obtain initial certification or degree, on the job training and supportive services. • Economically disadvantaged individuals as determined by household income guidelines defined by the U.S. Department of Labor. Services provided these individuals include intensive job search assistance and employment counseling, additional training to upgrade skills or obtain initial certification or degree, on the job training and supportive services. • Youth who are economically disadvantaged, or who have other barriers to becoming successfully employed adults. Services provided these individuals include career counseling and exploration, incentives to remain in school, work readiness classes, summer work program, mentoring, tutoring and post secondary education/training. • Businesses in need of employment and job training services. The Western Virginia Workforce Development Board has received a Notice of Obligation, from the Virginia Community College System, allocating WIA funding of $249,993 to the Dislocated Worker/Rapid Response program for award period (February 1 , 201 3 -June 30, 2014). Additionally, the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board has received a Notice of Obligation, from the Virginia Community College System, allocating a $1 ,500 WIA Incentive Award for outstanding performance during PY2010, for award period of July 1 , 2012 to June 30, 2013. Considerations: • Program Operations - Existing activities will continue and planned programs will be implemented. • Funding - Funds are available from the Grantor agency and other sources as indicated, at no additional cost to the City. Recommended Action: Recognize the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board WIA Dislocated Worker/Rapid Response funding of $249,993 for award period February 1 , 2013 to June 30, 2014 and the PY2010 WIA Incentive Award of $1 ,500 for award period of July 1 , 2012 to June 30, 2013. stopher P. Morrill City Manager Distribution: Council Appointed Officers R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Jane R. Conlin, Director of Human/Social Services 2 U IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of June, 2013. No. 39685-061713. A RESOLUTION authorizing acceptance of a donation of vehicles awarded the Roanoke City Police Department by the United States Marshals Service,and authorizing execution of any and all necessary documents to accept the funds. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized on behalf of the City to accept from the United States Marshals Service the donation of a new 2014 Ford Taurus,valued at$26,669.05,and a new 2014 Chrysler Grand Caravan,valued at$26,533.82,making a total donation of vehicles in the amount of$53,202.87, with no matching funds required from the City, to the Roanoke City Police Department to be used by the Warrant Service Unit. This funding is more particularly described in the City Council Agenda Report dated June 17, 2013 2. Further, the City Manager is hereby authorized on behalf of the City to accept from the United States Marshals Service the sum of$10,000 to be awarded to the Roanoke City Police Department to purchase emergency equipment and radios for the aforementioned donated vehicles. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute and file,on behalf of the City,any documents required to accept such donations. All documents to be executed on behalf of the City shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney. ATTEST: ikadrn . )Y J City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of June, 2013. No. 39686-061713. AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding from the United States Marshals Service for the U.S. Marshals Capital Area Regional Fugitive Task Force (CARFTF), amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2012-2013 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following sections of the 2012-2013 Grant Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Expendable Equipment (<$5,000) 35-640-3668-2035 $ 10,000 Revenues US Marshals Automotive Grant FY13 35-640-3668-3668 10,000 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: len)1 x yy�N CiCler Its Hoz.. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ry;> To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: June 17, 2013 Subject: United States Marshals Service CARFTF Vehicle Purchase Grant Background: The United States Marshals Service (USMS) regularly supports local law enforcement efforts to apprehend fugitives from justice. The Roanoke Police Department participates in the Capital Area Regional Fugitive Task Force (CARFTF) which is sponsored by the USMS. The USMS frequently uses its asset forfeiture funds to purchases vehicles and vehicular equipment for agencies participating in its regional task forces. Considerations: The United States Marshals Service has agreed to give the Roanoke Police Department two new vehicles. The vehicles are a 2014 Ford Taurus valued at $26,669.05 and a 2014 Chrysler Grand Caravan valued at $26,533.82. The United States Marshals Service has also awarded the Roanoke Police Department $10,000 to purchase emergency equipment and radios for the vehicles. The warrant service unit will use the new vehicles to aid in the apprehension of wanted persons. Upon acceptance, these vehicles will become property of the City of Roanoke. There is no matching funds requirement for this program. The addition of these vehicles will not increase the allotted vehicle compliment of the Roanoke Police Department. Recommended Action: Accept the vehicles and vehicle equipment grant offered by the United States Marshals Service. Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary grant agreement or related documents after review and approval by the City Attorney as to form. Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in the amount of $10,000 and appropriate funding in the same amount in accounts to be est.blired by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund. istopher P. Morrill City Manager Distribution: Council Appointed Officers Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Christopher Perkins, Chief of Police IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of June, 2013. No. 39687-061713. AN ORDINANCE to increase the Roanoke City Public Schools transfer and Contingency expenditures, and Real Estate and Sales Tax revenue budget estimates, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2012-2013 General 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 2012-2013.General Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Transfer to Schools 01-250-9310-9530 $ 820,000 Contingency 01-300-9410-2199 284,000 Revenues Real Estate Tax 01-110-1234-0101 611,000 Sales Tax 01-110-1234-0201 493,000 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: City Clerk. efrynoit A.( yj . CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: June 17, 2013 Subject: FY 2013 Real Estate and Sales Tax Revenue Adjustment and Increase in Funding for Roanoke City Public Schools Background: The Council adopted school funding formula designates that 40% of the adjusted local tax revenue of the City be provided in support of Roanoke City Public Schools (RCPS). Both Real Estate and Sales Taxes are outperforming the adopted FY 2013 revenue estimates. The Real Estate tax revenue estimate was developed using conservative assumptions regarding the impact of tax credit programs and new construction. The impact of tax credit programs was less significant than estimated and new construction has exceeded expectations. Sales tax will outperform the adopted estimate based on the strong FY12 performance which serves as the basis for the current projection. Based on the performance of these two tax revenues, the following revenue adjustments should be made to enable the City to provide additional funding to RCPS: • Real Estate Tax $ 611 ,000 • Sales Tax 493.000 Total: $1 ,104,000 An updated computation of the local share of tax revenue for RCPS as of June, 1 , 2013 provides that additional funding in the amount of $820,000 or 1 .1%will need to be allocated to the school division. The resulting total funding provided to RCPS by the City of Roanoke will be $73,590,400. Residual funding in the amount of $284,000 will be appropriated to Budget Contingency. Considerations: City Council action is needed to revise the revenue estimate for Real Estate and Sales Taxes, increase the appropriation for Roanoke City Public Schools and increase the appropriation for Budget Contingency. Recommended Action: Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to increase the revenue estimates for Real Estate Tax (01-110-1234-0101) in the amount of $611 ,000, Sales Tax (01-110-1234- 0201) in the amount of $493,000, appropriate $820,000 to Transfer to Schools (01- 250-9310-9530) and appropriate $284,000 to Budget Contingency (01-300-9410- 21 21 topher P. Morrill City Manager Distribution:Council Appointed Officers IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of June, 2013. No. 39688-061713. AN ORDINANCE to increase Police Off-Duty Earnings expenditure and revenue budget estimates, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2012-2013 General 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 2012-2013 General Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Off-Duty Earnings - Police Administration 01-640-3111-1015 $ 12,000 Off-Duty Earnings - Police Patrol 01-640-3113-1015 39,600 Off-Duty Earnings - Police Training 01-640-3115-1015 4,200 Revenues Off-Duty Billings - Police 01-110-1234-1298 55,800 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: ��y� 1 i - / 9i /• 17Uu`N City Clerk. aI .Q_ t atCITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: June 17, 2013 Subject: Off-Duty Earnings Budget Adjustment Background: City of Roanoke police officers are allowed to provide off-duty security service as approved by the Chief of Police. Those organizations making the request to the City for off-duty officer security services remit payment to the City of Roanoke and the officers are compensated through the City's payroll system. The rate structure is outlined in the table below. Off Duty Request Officer Compensation City sponsored event Overtime rate Grant funded program Overtime rate Organization request $30/hour Organization request - more than 4 officers 5th Officer - $35/hour Organization request - less than 48 hours $45/hour for first 48 hours; notice $30/hour for additional hours Considerations: In anticipation of a moderate level of requests from external organizations, a revenue estimate of $120,000 was included in the FY 2012-2013 adopted budget. Due to an increase in the number of requests for off-duty officers, the anticipated revenue and expenditure estimates will be exceeded by approximately $55,800. The increase in the provision of off-duty officer services is due to requests for extended assignments at companies such as Shenandoah Life, New Life Christian Church, AKXO Nobel and events such as Susan G. Kommen, the Drew Expo and Festival in the Park. Recommendation: Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to increase the revenue estimate for Off- Duty Billings-Police (01-110-1234-1298, $55,800) and appropriate funding to the following expenditure accounts totaling $55,800. Police - Administration (01-640-3111 -1015) S 12,000 Police - Patrol (01-640-3113-1015) 39,600 Pol. / aining (01-640-3115-1015) 4,200 $ 55,800 istopher P. Morrill City Manager Distribution: Council Appointed Officers R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Amelia C. Merchant, Director of Management and Budget Christopher Perkins, Chief of Police s o"°IA CITY OF ROANOKE tit A . „S OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK r, __ �` - 215 Church Avenue,S.W.,Suite 456 W Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 `r Est I nv Telephone; (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC E-mail: clerk @raanokeva.gov JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk June 18, 2013 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council: At the regular meeting of the Council held on Monday, June 17, 2013, Ordinance No. 39680, on its second reading, increasing and establishing the annual salaries of the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Council members for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015, and for succeeding fiscal years, unless subsequently modified by ordinance duly adopted by Council as follows: Mayor $23,000.00 Vice-Mayor and Council Members $20,000.00 Following discussion, the matter was tabled until the July 1 Council meeting at 9:00 a.m., for further dialogue. Sincerely, - rn. inektiori Stephanie M. Moon, MMC City Clerk pc: Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance Drew Harmon, Municipal Auditor 4 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA AN ORDINANCE increasing and establishing the annual salaries of the Mayor, Vice- Mayor, and Council members for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014; and providing for an effective date. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The annual salaries of the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Council members shall be increased as follows for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015, and for succeeding fiscal years, unless subsequently modified by ordinance duly adopted by Council: Mayor $23,000 Vice-Mayor and Council Members $20,000 2. The provisions of this ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and after July 1, 2014 and shall be first paid with the paycheck of July 2, 2014. ATTEST: City Clerk. 'n(III�(f1 PtyM'-rt. •• Mr. Mayor and fellow city council members: My name is William Drewery. I have spoken to this board on the last 2 occasions concerning the pay increases for the city council. The last time I try to appeal to your sense of fair play, but that didn't work. This time I am going to use the words of the Mr. Bowers and the Roanoke Times to put in front of you facts that should help me put my point across. After the meeting on lune3rd, I saw Mr. Bowers being interviewed on the Channel 10 news. He was talking about the pay increases that city council has been given compared to the other city workers. The amount that was being suggested was 1.6 to 1.7 percent. Even though I believe that this is a low amount, we will use these numbers. After adding this up, I came up with 14.7 to 15.3 per cent. These numbers are low because of 1 year, 2009. That is because in 2009,the city council cut their pay by 5percent because of the economic climate at the time. But wait,they reverse that decision just last year. So we need to add that in on the amount that was just indicated, which means that over the last 10 years the council has been awarded the amount of 19.7 to 20.3 percent pay increases. Now you want to give yourself and the rest of city council members a pay increase of 15 to 28.7 percent. Those,after adding the amounts that are on the conservative side, mean that over the last 10 years you would have received a pay increase in the amount of close to 33.7 to 35.3 for city council and 50 percent for the Mayor's position. Now let's consider the real amount. Not only is this a part time position, but you also have the added benefit of the best retirement and health package available that the city can afford. I have a deep sense of what is right and wrong. What you are doing, is really a public service. If you find that this is keeping you from doing your full time employment,then you need to consider removing yourself and pursue your job. Just the benefit package itself should be enough to compensate you for what surely to be a position that brings with it a lot of recognition and some fame, which if you count that, it's all part of the package too. Although you have already voted on the increase, you should remember that the people that you are representing live in far lower standards then you, and they are having a difficult time in just the basic needs of living. Should you ever have the time to really "see "the people and how they are making ends meet, then you will see the reason that I am against the increase that you are proposing. Mr. Trinkle put forth a suggested amount of pay increase, and the member's didn't even vote to listen on the subject. I am not trying to be disrespectful in any way, but that in itself shows that this board is more interested in giving themselves a better living than trying to help the people that this city needs to help. As an afterthought, I was here when the council was presented a proposal from the task force that is trying to control the drinking and driving issue in the Roanoke valley. I know that the selling of beer and wine and liquor is a big business in the valley and that there are plenty of restaurants that serve alcohol, but as I sat and listen to the what was being suggested not one person , no not one, suggest the solution of just not drinking. Although I know this is not going to happen, due to a couple of reasons. The first and foremost is the money. Without the selling of alcohol,the restaurants would not do as much business as they do now. People would not go just for the enjoyment of eating. Second, again a money issue,the city would not profit. The stopping and the arresting of individuals for drinking and driving has the added benefit of putting money into the justice system to pay for the clerks and city employees. This sounds like I against the police force for the arresting of drunken people behind the wheel of a 3thounsand weapon, but I stand with Elder Lea on this issue. I am strongly against drinking and driving. But my point comes down to this;the council has some responsibility in this matter. Not to say that the people are not going to do this, but to say that the council needs to try to work on an ad campaign that will help in showing the people that they can enjoy their life without the necessity of going into a restaurant to have a few drinks, at the end of the day, or just to let off a little steam. CITY OF ROANOKE l ° OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK , 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Suite 456 t 'r Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC E-mail: clerkgroanoluva.gov JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk June 18, 2013 Michael Pace, Jr., Esquire Gentry, Locke, Rakes and Moore 10 Franklin Road S. E., Suite 800 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Mr. Pace: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 39689-061713 reflecting the amendment of the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Plan, as it pertains to 3209 Southwood Manor Court, S. W., as set forth in the Amended Application No.1, dated May 2, 2013. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 2013; and is in full force and effect upon its passage. Sincerely, ,t- .ca..a, fl °'Yv Stephanie M. Moon, MMC City Clerk Enclosure pc: R. William Reid Builder, Inc., 5007 Carriage Drive, S. W., Suite 102, Roanoke, Virginia 24018 BGGT, LLC, 494 Glenmore Drive, Salem, Virginia 24153 Gertrude D. Saunders, Trustee, Saunders Living Trust, 3228 Northshire Court, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Joe and Donna Abbatello, c/o Tax Service Division, Suntrust Mortgage, P.O. Box 85188, Richmond, Virginia 23285 Michael Pace, Jr., Esquire Gentry, Locke, Rakes and Moore June 18, 2013 Page 2 pc: Kenneth Laughon and Lisa Pierce, P.O. Box 8937, Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance Steve Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Philip Schirmer, City Engineer Susan Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation Rebecca Cockram, Secretary, City Planning Commission r IS< \\) ,�� IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,VIRGINIA The 17th day of June, 2013. No. 39609-061713. AN ORDINANCE to amend §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,to amend the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Plan,as it pertains to 3209 Southwood Manor Ct., S.W.,bearing Official Tax Map No. 1290107; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. WHEREAS,HomeTown Bank,has made application to the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia ("City Council"), to amend the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Plan, to permit construction of two single-family dwelling units instead of one single-family dwelling unit as previously permitted by the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Plan, Ordinance No. 38318- 121508,adopted by City Council on December 15,2008,as it pertains to the parcel bearing Official Tax Map No. 1290107; WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, after giving proper notice to all concerned as required by §36.2-540, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and after conducting a public hearing at its meeting on June 11,2013, 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 June 17, 2013, after due and timely notice thereof as required by §36.2-540, 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 amendment of the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Plan, for the property described as Official Tax Map No. 1290107; and WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the aforesaid application, the recommendation 1 made to the 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,requires the amendment of the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Plan,as it pertains to the parcel bearing Official Tax Map No. 1290107, as herein provided. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. 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 the amendment of the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Plan,as it pertains to the parcel bearing Official Tax Map No. 1290107, as set forth in the Amended Application No. 1, dated May 2,2013. 2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter,the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: ��yy--yyyy����,,,,,,`` 11 •r) /t 2 STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST I (cuff 12t75cA state that I have a personal interest in agenda itemA I regarding Ref " of 4on ( oQn �bamk because pAtk to t fre, Is a_ pq r't v\1 HA. 0Av f 1 run toN,Lys O'r +KL 0,010k..\C a v . 4 Therefore, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 2.2-3112, I must refrain from participation in this matter. I ask the City Clerk to accept this statement and ask that it be made a part of the minutes of this meeting. Witness the following signature made this I X71"day of Tv NE , 2013. i� �� (SEAL) owo CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 01 I To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: June 17, 2013 Subject: Application by HomeTown Bank to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan as it pertains to 3209 Southwood Manor Ct., SW, containing approximately 0.6110 acres, bearing Official Tax No. 1290107, to permit construction of two single-family dwelling units instead of one single-family dwelling unit previously permitted by the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Plan (MXPUD) permitted by City Council when it adopted Ordinance 3831 8-1 21 508 on December 15, 2008. Planning Commission Public Hearing and Recommendation: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 11 , 2013. By a vote of 5-0, the Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request, finding the Amended Application No.1 , dated May 2, 2013, to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Franklin Road/Colonial Avenue Area Plan, and Zoning Ordinance. Application Information Request: Amendment of Planned Unit Development Owner: HomeTown Bank, John C. Stone Applicant: HomeTown Bank, John C. Stone Authorized Agent: Gentry Locke Rakes @ Moore LLP, Mike Pace City Staff Person: Katharine Gray, Land Use and Urban Design Planner Site Address/Location: 3209 Southwood Manor Court, SW Official Tax Nos.: _ 1290107 Site Area: 3.97 acres Existing Zoning: MXPUD, Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District Proposed Zoning: MXPUD, Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District - Existing Land Use: Vacant Proposed Land Use: Dwelling, Single Family Detached Neighborhood Plan: Franklin Road/Colonial Avenue Area Plan Specified Future Land Use: Mixed Density Residential Filing Date: Original Application: October 31 , 2012 Amended Application No. 1 : May 2, 2013 Background On May 21 , 2007, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 37790-052107 amending the conditional MXPUD for the construction of nine single-family detached units, twelve multifamily units in a new building, and six multifamily units and a community center in the existing dwelling. The amended development plan showed 13 single-family units with one of those units being the existing manor home. Each unit would have a front loaded two-car garage accessed by individual or shared driveways. The lots would be accessed by a private street consisting of a 24 foot roadway, six foot planting strips with large deciduous trees and pedestrian scaled lighting, and four foot sidewalks. On December 15, 2008, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3831 8-1 21 508 amending the conditional MXPUD to permit construction of a maximum of 13 single family dwelling units instead of 27 single-family and multifamily dwelling units previously allowed by City Council, to remove a community green area, and to construct a landscaped cul-de-sac street, for properties, identified by Official Tax Nos. 1290107, and 1290220 through 1290229, inclusive, located at 3209 Queen Anne Court Circle, S. W., as herein provided. The plan provided for compatible architecture in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and existing residence on the property; accommodations for automobiles and pedestrians; efficient management of quality and quantity of storm water; addition of large street trees to provide shade and separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic; and the preservation of steep slopes, existing trees and the 1940s dwelling. In October 2012, members of the project team met with City staff to discuss an amendment to the Planned Unit Development Plan as it pertains to 3209 Southwood Manor Court SW. They proposed to raze the 1940's dwelling and build three single-family detached dwellings in its place. In October 2012, HomeTown Bank filed an application to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan as it pertains to 3209 Southwood Manor Court SW. In December 2012, HomeTown Bank requested a continuance to May 14, 2013 in order to explore a possible sale of the property in its current state. In May 2013, HomeTown Bank requested a continuance to June 11 , 2013 in order to address current market conditions with an amended application. In May 2013, HomeTown Bank filed an amended application. They proposed to raze the existing dwelling and build two single-family detached dwellings in its place. Conditions Proffered by the Applicant As a MXPUD, the development plan attached to this amendment is binding for 2 future development. Development guidelines are listed directly on the development plan. Considerations Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning District Land Use North MXPUD, Mixed Use Planned Unit Dwelling, Single Family Detached Development District South MXPUD, Mixed Use Planned Unit Dwelling, Single Family Detached Development District East MXPUD, Mixed Use Planned Unit Dwelling, Single Family Detached Development District West MXPUD, Mixed Use Planned Unit Dwelling, Single Family Detached Development District Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance: The proposed development plan fulfills most objectives stated in the purpose of the MXPUD District. The plan provides for compatible architecture in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and existing structure; accommodations for automobiles and pedestrians; efficient management of quality and quantity of stormwater; addition of large street trees to provide shade and separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic. The proposed street section is consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance by providing a four foot sidewalk, a six foot planting strip with large deciduous trees and street lights, curb and gutter, and a narrow street. Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Plan: Vision 2001- 2020 and the Franklin Road/Colonial Avenue Neighborhood Plan emphasize housing choice, environmental quality, transportation options and efficient land use through good design. Staff is concerned that the proposed amendment has reduced housing choice to only single-family units and removed the positive relationship between the units and street (inconsistent setbacks, and private sidewalks connecting the front door to the driveway and not the street). Many positive features would remain, however, including narrow streets with sidewalks and large deciduous trees; preservation of existing trees and steep slopes; and the retention and reuse of the existing 1940s dwelling. Relevant Vision 2001-2020 policies: The following policies of Vision 2001- 2020 are relevant in the consideration of this application: NH PS. Housing choice. The City will have a balanced, sustainable range of 3 housing choices in all price ranges and design options that encourage social and economic diversity throughout the City. EC P3. Viewsheds. Roanoke will protect steep slopes, ridgetops, and viewsheds within the City as important environmental and scenic resources and will cooperate regionally to protect such resources located outside of the City. EC P4. Environmental quality. Roanoke will protect the environment and ensure quality air and water for citizens of the region. Storm water will be addressed on a regional as well as local level. (Note EC Al 3 and EC Al 5 which state that impervious surfaces should be limited to reduce runoff and that the integrity of storm and water systems should be ensured.) EC PS. Trees. Roanoke will maintain and increase its tree canopy coverage as a way to improve air quality. Relevant Franklin Road/Colonial Avenue Neighborhood Plan Policies: The following recommendations of the Franklin Road/Colonial Avenue Neighborhood Plan are relevant in the consideration of this application: Community Design • Franklin Road Area: Require new developments to incorporate urban amenities (e.g. sidewalks and curbs), and mixed- use commercial and residential) where possible. Residential Development • New development: New development should be well-planned and use limited land resources wisely. Infrastructure • Streetscapes: Streetscapes should be well maintained, attractive and functional for pedestrian, bicycle and motor traffic. • Street width: Streets should be kept at the minimum width necessary to accommodate vehicular traffic and on- street parking. City Department Comments: None. Public Comments: None. Planning Commission Work Session: None. Planning Commission Public Hearing Discussion: 4 None. Lora Katz, Chair b�. City Planning Commis on cc: Chris Morrill, City Manager R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney John C. Stone, HomeTown Bank G. Michael Pace, Esquire 5 Zoning Amendment Applic RECEIVED a arm 401 MAY 2- 2013 ROANOKE Department of Planning,Building and Development Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building CITY OF ROANOKE 215 Church Avenue, S . PLANNING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT Roanoke,Virginia 24011 Click Here to Print Phone: (540)853-1730 Fax: (540)853-1230 Date: May 2,2013 Submittal Number: Amended Application No.1 Rezoning,Not Otherwise Listed [ Amendment of Proffered Conditions ❑ Rezoning,Conditional I31 Amendment of Planned Unit Development Plan ❑ Rezoning to Planned Unit Development f-1 Amendment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay District I_I Establishment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay District Proms Irtforatatioit Address: 3209 Southwood Manor Court,S.W.,Roanoke,Virginia Official Tax No(s),: 1290107 Existing Base Zoning: ❑ With Conditions (If multiple zones, please manually enter all districts IMXPUD,Mixed Use Planned Unit Development ( p p y ) © Without Conditions Ordinance No(s).for Existing Conditions(If applicable)'. 38318-121508 Requested Zoning: MXPUD,Mixed Use Planned Uni Proposed Land Use: two single family dwelling units 2.11T.1 11 Q 12(-i� l -11;S r•l iiiF_-SIGs"t Name: HomeTown Bank Phone Number: +1 (540)278-1701 Address'. 202 5.Jefferson Street,Roa oke,Virginia 24011 E-Mail: 15tone @hometownhankva.com Property Owner's Signature'. s1r■11 Name: same Phone Number: Address: 1 E-Mail: Applicant's Signature: .. I. lif:r f q fl (( i P„r r r.la rl( :I-I 91r ( rt. Name: G.Michael Pace,Jr./Gentry Locke Rakes&Moore LLP Phone Number: +1 (540)983-9312 Address: 1t. ,ranklin Road, Ro.'• e,Virgin . 24011 E-Mail: pace @gentrylocke.com .3�t Autho ized Agent's ignature: CEP fl9 Amendment ROANOKE 7 Completed application form and checklist. X Written narrative explaining the reason for the request. rx Metes and bounds description, if applicable. F Filing fee. `..G' 1', ;dip s 51 'F l.o l it •^lx F Concept plan meeting the Application Requirements of item'2(c)'in Zoning Amendment Procedures. PEA f i° k ' a I F Written proffers. See the City's Guide to Proffered Conditions. Concept plan meeting the Application Requirements of item'2(c)'in Zoning Amendment Procedures. Please label as r 'development plan' if proffered. For !, w r, r oiit AoltiteafolloWirkPreintiONAtibinJW. F Development plan meeting the requirements of Section 36.2-326 of the City's Zoning Ordinance.;.0)141r:'. ryry.4 *tell A.1i'li'�l6 i ! ! l)r.[+ ar `UM"!'.. F Comprehensive signage plan meeting the requirements of Section 36.2-336(d)(2)of the City's Zoning Ordinance. *44; A 1=llre ! a...i � ,[du`lr s ; f4I ` !➢r j 'h1 I�Ck ,.Ulnol(r-)"r Amended development or concept plan meeting the Application Requirements of item'2(c)'in Zoning Amendment Procedures, if applicable. F Written proffers to be amended. See the City's Guide to Proffered Conditions. F Copy of previously adopted Ordinance. thy LId d I %le } ! rIr alp c1H !nJo�'sdrr t. ):Hi r Amended development plan meeting the requirements of Section 36.2-326 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Iz Copy of previously adopted Ordinance. F mended comprehensive signage plan meeting the requirements of Section 36.2-336(d)of the City's Zoning Ordinance. r Copy of previously adopted Ordinance. IJ't I n li ;I I •h - 'd 11111 , l 'r �'l, i- 'I I, r lr, r[4:',11'(:;17[1:; F A Traffic Impact Study in compliance with Appendix B-2(e)of the City's Zoning Ordinance. "'(Gtl I tFi Ia' mot l I Elf,I, i'fi I , ,e a4 :F, [ I Orl,l'lC' rlI - ;MI 11111.l.d r Cover sheet. F Traffic impact analysis. F Concept plan. F roffered conditions,if applicable. 7 Required fee. *An electronic copy of this application and checklist can be found at www.roanokeva.govlpbd by selecting'Planning Commission'under 'Boards and Commissions'. A complete packet must be submitted each time an application is amended,unless otherwise specified by staff. NARRATIVE AMENDED APPLICATION NO. 1 AMENDMENT OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO: PLANNING-BUILDING-DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE FROM: HomeTown Bank DATE: MAY 2, 2013 SUBJECT: AMENDED ZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 1/AMENDMENT OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3209 Southwood Manor Court, S.W., Roanoke, Va. A.) Description of proposed use and development of the property. • The applicant proposes to raze the 7,244 square foot, two story, Colonial style home located on the "Manor Lot" in the MANOR HOMES OF SOUTHWOOD SUBDIVISION, and subdivide the "Manor Lot" into two separate tax parcels for the purpose of building two single family dwelling units similar in configuration and area to the twelve other lots in the MXPUD District. B.) Justification for the change. • In 2008, Queen Anne Court of Southwood, Inc., then owner of the Southwood property, submitted a Zoning Amendment Application to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan for "Manor Homes of Southwood." By Ordinance No. 38818-121508, effective December 15, 2008, Queen Anne Court of Southwood, Inc. was permitted to construct a maximum of 13 single family dwelling units, remove a 18367/25/6263325vI community green area, and construct a landscaped cul-de-sac street. The "Manor Lot" was one of the 13 single family dwelling units, previously designated as a community center. • In 2009, C. Alan Henry, one of the principals of the developer, purchased the "Manor Lot," consisting of 26,615 square feet and the 2 story, 7,244 square foot home. However, consistent with past attempts to salvage the structure, the repairs required to make the home habitable were beyond the scope of the owner's financial abilities. Ultimately, by Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure dated December 31, 2010, HomeTown Bank, the current applicant, became owner of the "Manor Lot." • The home, although possessing an attractive outer residential shell, has many negative attributes on the inside. Built in 1948, the home appears much older from the outside. The inside, with minimal upgrading, still has cold concrete floors and walls, dated bathrooms, and low ceilings. The bulk of the residents in the Southwood community are "empty nesters," and there has been no interest or demand for this outdated, 7 bedroom, massive structure. The home has become a functionally obsolete, vacant home visibly located in the center of an otherwise beautiful residential community. • HomeTown Bank would like to demolish the home and subdivide the acreage tract into two large lots and develop them as single family dwelling units. This will allow for optimal use and highest value of the Manor Lot, also generating additional tax for the City of Roanoke. 18367/25/6263325v1 • This proposal to resubdivide the Manor Lot and construct two dwelling units continues the existing conformity with the City of Roanoke Zoning Ordinance. It adheres to the purpose of the MXPUD zoning designation by providing for additional compatible architecture in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood, and continues to provide for accomodations for automobiles and pedestrians, efficient management of quality and quantity for stormwater, large street trees, and the preservation of steep slopes. This proposal is an efficient use of the land and is in harmony with the existing development. C.) Effect of the proposed amendment on the surrounding neighborhood (e.g. traffic generation). • Aesthetically, the two new tax map parcels and their single family dwellings will be a seamless addition to the community. The proposed use will provide additional, attractive choices for single family dwelling units and preserve the cohesive, high quality nature of this subdivision in harmony with the three other sections of the Southwood community. The subject property is also surrounded by and consistent with similar residential structures. • The addition of the two residential units will generate a nominal increase in traffic, if any, and will not require a Traffic Impact Study. • The approval of this proposal would cause a net increase of one dwelling above the current Development Plan. This is not a significant change that would impose new or unexpected demands on the water and sanitary 18367/25/6263325v1 sewer systems. Therefore, the previous assessment of the systems remains adequate for the new proposed dwellings. • The existing Stormwater Management Facility and Stormwater Quality BMP have been analyzed for capacity and adequacy to accommodate the proposed changes in impervious area and drainage patterns. The preliminary analysis shows both the stormwater quantity and quality facilities should be sufficient for two new lots and dwellings. D.) Availability of other similarly zoned properties in the general area and in the City. • The subject property is surrounded by other similarly zoned properties in the immediate area of the Southwood community. There has been a demand for newer single family subdivisions in this vicinity. E.) Relationship of the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Plan. • The proposed Amendment to Development Plan will not alter the existing conformity to the Comprehensive Plan (Vision 2001-2020) or the Franklin Road/Colonial Avenue Neighborhood Plan. This proposal encourages efficient development patterns that maximize potential of the land. The subject property falls into the category of"Mixed Residential" on the Future Land Use Map and will remain consistent with the goals of this future land use. 1836712516263325v1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION MANOR LOT, containing 26,615 square feet,as more particularly shown on that certain Plat Showing The Combination&Resubdivision of"Queen Anne Court" (M.B. 1,Pg. 3339-3342 & 3345), Original Lots 1 thru 9, 11 & 12, Property of Queen Anne Court of Southwood, Inc. (Instrument#070013456),Creating Hereon"Manor Homes of Southwood,"Lots 1-12, 12A, S WM Lot& Southwood Manor Coup, S.W., (12,441 s.f variable width private R/W & access easement) and Original Lot 10, Property of C. Alan Henry (Instrument#090007300) Creating Hereon"Manor Lot"—26,615 S.F., situated along Southwood Manor Court, S.W.,dated November 30,2009,prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., Engineers-Surveyors-Planners,and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke,Virginia,in Map Book I,pages 3539-3543 (the`Plat"). I9J5b'-I0 SUCvI CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Y • 215 Church Avenue,S.W,Suite 456 Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone (540)853.2541 Fa: (540)8531145 • Ewil:cicigemnkengov SHEILA N.HARTMAN)CMC SrDHANIE M.MOON.CMC Deputy City Clerk City Cleat - CECELIAT WEBB Assistant Depuy thy CIak December 16,2008 Ms. Veronica Van Deventer Queen Anne Court of Southwood, Inc. 327 Hershberger Road, N. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Dear Ms. Van Deventer: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 38318-121508 reflecting the amendment of the Planned Unit Development Plan to permit construction of a maximum of 13 single-family dwelling units instead of 27 single-family and multifamily dwelling units previously allowed by City Council, to remove a community green area, and to construct a landscaped cul-de-sac street, for properties identified by Official Tax Nos. 1290107, and 1290220 through 1290229, inclusive, located at 3209 Queen Anne Court Circle, S. W., as set forth in the Zoning Amended Application No. 1 dated October 31, 2008. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 15, 2008, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. . Sincerely, 1�f • /"''-"i " � m• h1DDnJ Stephanie M. Moon, CMC �-- City Clerk SMM:ew • Enclosure Ms. Veronica Van Deventer December 16, 2008 Page 2 • pc: Mr. Kevin B. Barnes, Lumsden Associates, PC, 4664 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Southwood Reserve LLC, 13161 Booker T. Washington Highway, Hardy, Virginia 24101 Southwood Master Association, 2772 Electric Road, Suite 2, Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Mr. Chester F. Lang and Mr: Robert H. Walter, Trustees, 3306.KGngsbury Circle, S. W:, Roanoke,Virginia 24018 Mr. and Mrs. Bill Bridger, 3302 Kingsbury Circle, S.W., Roanoke,Virginia 24018 Boone Boone&Loeb Inc., 3922 Electric Road, S.W., Roanoke,Virginia 24018 Mr. J. Ronald Nowland,2730 Carolina Avenue, S. W., Roanoke,Virginia 24018 Mr. Reinhard A. ONeill,Trustee, 3208 Northshire Court, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Mr. and Mrs. John Zalubowki, 3212 Northshire Court, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Boone Homes Inc., of Roanoke, 3922 Electric Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Mr. Charles A. Zubieta, 1114 Queensferry Road, Cary, North Carolina 27511 Gertrude D. Saunders, Trustee, 522 Deer Ridge Lane, Vinton, Virginia 24175 Darlene L. Burnham, City Manager William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi,Assistant City Attorney 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 `may IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,VIRGINIA The 15th day of December, 2008. No. 38318-121508. AN ORDINANCE to amend §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,to amend the Planned Unit DevelopmentPlan to permit construction of a maximum of 13 single-family dwelling units instead of 27 single-familyand multifamily dwelling units previously allowed by City Council,to remove a community green area,and to construct a landscaped cul-de-sac street, for properties, identified by Official Tax Nos. 1290107, and 1290220 through 1290229, inclusive, located at 3209 Queen Anne Court Circle, S.W.; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. WHEREAS, Queen Anne Court of Southwood, Inc. has made application to the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia ("City Council"), to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan to permit construction of a maximum of 13 single-family dwelling units instead of 27 single-family and multifamily dwelling units previously allowed by City Council,to remove a community green area,and to construct a landscaped cul-de-sac street, for properties, identified by Official Tax Nos. 1290107, and 1290220 through 1290229, inclusive,located at 3209 Queen Anne Court Circle,S.W.; WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, after giving proper notice to all concerned as required by§36.2-540,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; OQueen Arne Court-amend Guu Plan dec • WHEREAS,a public hearing was held by City Council on such application at its meeting on December 15,2008,after due and timely notice thereof as required by§36.2- , 540, 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 amendment of the Planned Unit Development Plan for the properties idehtifiedby Official Tax Nos. 1290107,and 1290220 through 1290229,inclusive,located at 3209 Queen Anne Court Circle,S.W.;and WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the aforesaid application, the recommendation made to the Council by the Planning Commission, the Citys Comprehensive Plan,and the matters presented at the public hearing,finds that the public necessity,convenience,general welfare and good zoning practice,requires the amendment of the Planned Unit Development Plan to permit construction of a maximum of 13 single- family dwelling units instead of 27 single-family and multifamily d welling traits previously allowed by City Council,to remove a community green area,and to construct a landscaped cul-de-sac street, for properties, identified by Official Tax Nos. 1290107, and 1290220 through 1290229, inclusive, located at 3209 Queen Anne Court Circle, S.W., as herein provided. THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke than 1. Section 36.2-100,Code of the City of Roanoke(1979),as amended,and the Official Zoning Map,City of Roanoke,Virginia,dated Decembei 5,2005,as amended,be amended to reflect the amendment of the Planned Unit Development Plan to permit construction of a maximum of 13 single-family dwelling units instead of 27 single-family and multifamily dwelling units previously allowed by City Council,to remove a community 0-Queen Ann[Com,-amend Pun van erc green area, and to construct a landscaped cul-de-sac street, for properties, identified by Official Tax Nos. 1290107, and 1290220 through 1290229, inclusive, located at 3209 Queen Anne Court Circle,S.W.,as set forth in the Zoning Amended Application No. 1 dated October 31,2008. 2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter,the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST::� yy� City Clerk. 0-Queen Anne Caw•amend Pun Plan dx CITY OF ROANOKE "F.inr ` PLANNING BUILDING .�r(f ei.., r,,1y_y . & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 215 Church Avenue,3.W Room 166 ,},@��p'.'} `• Roanoke,Virginia 24011 • Telephone•. (540)853-1730 Fax: (540)853-1230 &mai: annin l ov P s®roan okeva.a December 15, 2008 ArtNtrenN Rat.Bond Board a Zoning Appeals mown c onorable David A. Bowers, Mayor Honorable Sherman P. Lea,dice 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: Request from Queen Anne Court of Southwood, Inc., to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan to permit construction of a maximum of 13 single-family dwelling units instead of 27 single-family and multifamily dwelling units previously allowed by City Council, to remove a community green area, and to construct a landscaped cul-de-sac street, for properties located at 3209 Queen Anne Court Circle, S.W., Official Tax Nos.1290107, and 1290220 through 1290229, inclusive. Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation Planning Commission public hearing was held on Thursday, November 20, 2008. By a vote of 6-1, Messrs. Chrisman, Rife, Scholz and Williams and Mrs. Penn and Ms. Prince voting for and Mr. Manetta voting against), the Commission recommended approval of the request. finding the application to amend the planned unit development to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Franklin Road/Colonial Avenue Neighborhood Plan. The plan provides for compatible architecture in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and existing residence on the property; accommodations for automobiles and pedestrians; efficient management of quality and quantity of storm water; addition of large street trees to provide shade and separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic; and the preservation of steep slopes, existing trees and the 1940s $'elling. Respectfully submitted, W,41/19 14.144-ter- Henry Scholz Roanoke City Planning Commission Members of City Council Page 2 December 15, 2008 cc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager Steven J. Talevi,Assistant City Attorney Application Information Request: Amendment of Planned Unit Development Plan (Ordinance No. 37790-052107) Applicant: Queen Anne Court of Southwood, Inc. Representative: Kevin Barnes, Lumsden Associates, PC Site 3209 Queen Anne Court Circle, S.W. Address/Location: Official Tax Nos.: 1290107, 1290220, 1290221, 1290222, 1290223, 1290224, 1290225, 1290228, 1290227, 1290228, & 1290229 Site Area: 3.972 Acres Existing Zoning: MXPUD, Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Proposed Zoning: _ MXPUD, Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Existing Land Use: Vacant 1948 Brick Residence Proposed Land Use: 13 Single-Family Detached Units Neighborhood Plan: Franklin Road/Colonial Avenue Neighborhood Plan Specified Future Mixed Residential Land Use: Filing Date: Original Application: September 30, 2008; Amended Application No, 1: October 31, 2008 Background On May 21, 2007, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 37790-052107 amending the conditional MXPUD for the construction of nine single-family detached units, twelve multifamily units in a new building, and six multifamily units and a community center in the existing dwelling. The amended development plan now shows 13 single-family units with one of those units being the existing manor home. Each unit would have a front loaded two-car garage accessed by individual or shared driveways. The lots would be accessed by a private street consisting of a 24 foot roadway, six foot planting strips with large deciduous trees and pedestrian scaled lighting, and four foot sidewalks. Conditions Proffered by the Applicant As a MXPUD, the development plan attached to this amendment is binding for future development. Development guidelines are listed directly on the development plan. Members of City Council Page 3 December 15, 2008 Considerations Surrounding Zoning Districts and Land Use: • Zoning District Land Use North CG, Commercial-General Vacant parcel subject to Ordinance No. District with Conditions 34406-080299 and a motor vehicle repair/service establishment located on Franklin Road, S.W. South MXPUD, Mixed Use Single-family dwellings (Southwood). Planned Unit Development with Conditions East CG, Commercial General Across Franklin Road, S.W., is a motor and R-7, Single-Family vehicle sales/service establishment and Residential single-family dwellings. West MXPUD, Mixed Use Single-family dwellings(Southwood). Planned Unit Development with Conditions Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance: The proposed development plan fulfills most objectives stated in the purpose of the MXPUD District. The plan provides for compatible architecture in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and existing structure; accommodations for automobiles and pedestrians; efficient management of quality and quantity of stormwater; addition of large street trees to provide shade and separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic; and the preservation of steep slopes, existing trees and the 1940s°Welling. The orientation of Units 7, 8, and 9 have been a concern. The Ordinance requires a 30 foot setback from all property lines abutting a non-MXPUD District as well as a maximum 30% driveway coverage for the front yard. This coupled with the applicants need to maintain 12 new units each with a two car garage and corresponding driveway has created awkward building placement and vehicular access for these lots. The applicant has responded to this concern by requiring that the front door of Unit 7 will face the abutting private street. The proposed street section is consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance by providing a four(4)foot sidewalk, a six (6)foot planting strip with large deciduous trees and street lights, curb and gutter, and a narrow street with some on-street parking. The proposed sign (6' height monument type with a maximum 24 square foot sign face) is consistent with dimensional regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance for a residential development identification signs. Members of City Council Page 4 December 15, 2008 Conformity with the Comprehensive and Neighborhood Plan: Vision 2001-2020 and the Franklin Road/Colonial Avenue Neighborhood Plan also emphasize housing choice, environmental quality,transportation options and efficient land use through good design. Staff is concerned that the proposed amendment has reduced housing choice to single-family units only and removed the positive relationship between the units and street(inconsistent setbacks, and private sidewalks connecting the front door to the driveway and not the street). Many positive features have remained, however, including narrow streets with sidewalks and large deciduous trees; preservation of existing trees and steep slopes; and the retention and reuse of the existing 1940s dwelling. The following policies of Vision 2001-2020 are relevant in the consideration of this application: • NH P5. Housing choice. The City will have a balanced, sustainable range of housing choices in all price ranges and design options that encourage social and economic diversity throughout the City. • EC P3 Viewsheda Roanoke will protect steep slopes, ddgetops, and viewsheds within the City as important environmental and scenic resources and will cooperate regionally to protect such resources located outside of the City. • EC P4. Environmental quality. Roanoke will protect the environment and ensure quality air and water for citizens of the region. Storm water will be addressed on a regional as well as local level. (Note EC A13 and EC Al 5 which state that impervious surfaces should be limited to reduce runoff and that the integrity of storm and water systems should be ensured.) • EC P5. Trees. Roanoke will maintain and increase its tree canopy coverage as a way to improve air quality. The following recommendations of the Franklin Road/Colonial Avenue Neighborhood Plan are relevant in the consideration of this application: • Community Design o Parking: Paved parking spaces should be minimized. • Franklin Road Area: Require new developments to incorporate urban amenities (e.g. sidewalks and curbs), and mixed-use (commercial and residential)where possible. • Residential Development o New development: New development should be well-planned and use limited land resources wisely. • Infrastructure o Streetscapes: Streetscapes should be well maintained, attractive and functional for pedestrian, bicycle and motor traffic. o Street width: Streets should be kept at the minimum width necessary to accommodate vehicular traffic and on-street parking. Members of City Council Page 5 December 15,2008 o Curb, gutter and sidewalk Improvements: New developments and arterial and collector streets should have urban amenities such as sidewalks and curb and gutter and appropriate species of trees should also be planted along streetscapes. o Storm water Drainage: Storm water runoff should be mitigated as much as possible through improvements that are consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Conformity with Vision 2001-2020's Design Principles: Design Principles: Application's Conformity: Traditional neighborhood principles The revised layout is suburban in should be applied to new development nature which is consistent with the rest of the Southwood development. The street is terminated with a landscaped cul-de-sac; houses will have a 2 bay, front loaded garage; and private sidewalks connect the front door to the driveway instead of the street. Sidewalks, street trees, and narrow pavement width will be incorporated. New streets should focus on greater Street connections are limited for the vehicular connection, pedestrian parcel due to existing development and amenities, and reduction of pavement steep topography of the adjacent site, width. which has a slope exceeding 25%. The applicant is proposing a narrow roadway and has employed a landscaped cul-de-sac to reduce pavement area. A large planting strip with large deciduous trees has been incorporated to buffer pedestrians from moving vehicles. Numerous curb cuts interrupt the sidewalk which may create conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Signs(private and public) should be The applicant has stated on the limited in number and scaled in a size development plan that signage will be to minimize visual clutter. limited to an identification sign. Planning Commission Public Hearing: The following questions were posed by the Planning Commission during their November 20th public hearing: Members of City Council Page 6 December 15, 2008 1. Mr. Williams asked what objectives of the MXPUD District the proposed development plan did not fulfill. Staff responded that the MXPUD encouraged a variety of housing types to be incorporated into new developments. The proposed development plan only provides for single- family dwellings while the previous plan consisted of single-family dwellings as well as multifamily dwellings. Staff reminded the Planning Commission that while a variety of housing types is encouraged It is not required. 2. Mr. Manetta and Mr. Williams expressed concern over the front loaded garages and their inconsistency with the design principles of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. Mr. Rife disagreed with Messrs. Manetta and Williams, stating that front loaded garages were consistent with the rest of the Southwood neighborhood and were therefore appropriate in This circumstance. 4. Mr. Chrisman asked if there could be a connection to the adjoining parcel from the proposed cul-de-sac. Staff responded that that because of the 28%slope, that there would probably not be a connection from the cul-de- sac Staff said there could possibly be a connection from a northern parcel. Public Comments: The following questions were posed by the public during the Planning Commission's November 20th hearing: Mr. Dan Sommerlin appeared before the Commission and asked: (1)what design standards the Commission thought were being compromised; (2) if the manor home would be just one dwelling; and (3) is the cul-de-sac shown on the plan the same cul-de-sac currently located on the property, The applicant responded that the manor home would be a single-family residence and that the cul-de-sac would be moved to accommodate all homes. • 0 fa7 kr C`jfir ?rU 1 71: Pr ° t,- A . it ir .-At rT r.R ., ti 7799 J.. g s r �3v /.,!�ru �.;,di3 ! .� ✓ 'fin. v ?.; 'Y as Department of Planting,Building and Development ROAN O 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: 31 October 2008 Submittal Number Amended Application No.1 ❑Rezoning,Nol Otherwise Listed ❑Amendment of Proffered Conditions ❑Rezoning,Conditional © Amendment of Planned Unit Development Plan ❑Rezoning to Planned Unit Development ❑Amendment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay District ❑Establishment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay District dX 1:entri Address. 13209 Queen Anne Court Circle,S.W. Roanoke,Virginia 24014 Official Tax No(s).: 1290107,1290220,1290221,1290222,1290223,1290224,1290225,1290226,1290227,1290228,&1290229 Existing Base Zoning: ❑With Conditions (II multiple zones,please manually enter alt districts.) MXPUD,Mixed Use Planned Unit Development El Without Conditions Ordinance No(s).for Existing Conditions Of applicable) 37790-052107 Requested Zoning: MXPUD,Mixed Use Planned Uni Proposed Land Use: Historic Home&Single-Family Residential Development Name: 1Queene Anne Court of Southwood,Inc Phone Number 1 +1(540)904-4354 Address: 327 Hershberger Road,N.W. Roanoke Virginia 24012 E-Mail: wvandeventerokondevelopmenti 14 / 1x56 Meon ear C.nedfiO4 a,4og5 Property Owners Signature 7-e "Tr rtlr' - T r-^:nr_;r ,Ir . Name: zA,y„u-4.7j- OA-Qpi rv-.e,ta.,ev Phone Number 5YO-,s3?-7W6 Address: E-Mail: Applicants Signature: Name: Lumsden Associates,PC do Kevin Barnes Phone Number +1 (540)774-4411 Ad ress: 14564 Brambleton Avenue,S.W. Roanoke,Virginia 24018 E-Mail: kbarnes@lumsdenpc.com tholzed Agents Signature. 2. ZONING AMENDMENT NARRATIVE After amending the subject property's zoning in the spring of 2007,the applicant, Queen Anne Court of Southwood, Inc. (QAC),proceeded to hire an engineering firm and architect to develop construction plans to comply with the approved zoning amendment During the development of the Comprehensive Site Plan documents, QAC began receiving bids for the construction of the development The construction estimates were one-hundred and fifty percent(150%)above the preliminary estimates. With this fact and the housing market in the state it is currently in, QAC has decided that to better utilize its existing property surrounding the Manor Home at Southwood; it will need to modify the Development Plan approved back in the spring of 2007. The intended use for the property, fast and foremost, includes preserving the historic Manor Home as a single-family residence. The new layout provides more foreground for the Manor Home with an increase in the lawn and landscape area in front of the home, allowing the large Pin Oak on the left side of the lawn to be preserved. The remaining portion of the property will be developed Into twelve (12) single-family residences much like the residential homes which make up the majority of the overall neighborhood of Southwood. Unlike the existing homes and few homes still under construction,QAC intends to provide slightly larger units with an emphasis on aesthetic value and homogeneous appeal. One of the methods to achieve this will be to construct two-story units; all except one will include walk-out basements. True two-story units will compliment the texture of the historic Manor Home. The new subdivision and house design will be in continuity of the existing three subdivisions of Southwood. A cul-de-sac with a landscape area at the center will provide ingress and egress from the development. A sidewalk will encompass this cul-de-sac providing a pedestrian loop through this neighborhood extension and terminus. The proposed units have been pulled back from the proposed street to allow for parking off the street. Each of these units is planned to include a two-car garage. There is a larger front yard to a nice green look when entering the subdivision and privacy from the sidewalk to the front porch for the home owner. The prior Development Plan allowed for twenty-seven(27)units to be built on the property. The proposed Conceptual Plan will decrease that density to a maximum of thirteen (13) units. Because of this decrease in density, a Traffic Impact Study should not be necessary to complete. The additional development will comply with City of Roanoke's Stonnwater Management Ordinance requiring land-disturbing activities maintain the same after-development runoff characteristics, as nearly as practicable, as the pre-devebpment runoff characteristics in order to reduce flooding, siltation, stream bank erosion, and property damage associated with land- disturbing activities; among the other objectives defined in the Ordinance. In addition, the applicant will address water quality for the additional development by complying with pollutant removal requirements. These objectives and requirements will be met as a result of modifying the existing stormwater management facility or installing additional measures. The storm sewer system along Somercrest Court which the proposed storm sewer for this development will tie to flows to an existing stormwater management facility located at the base of the development along the south side of U.S. 220. In addition to utilizing this facility, this development may need to provide some on-site water quantity and quality control within the Manor Homes of Southwood Page 5 underground storm sewer system. See Preliminary Site Plan on Page 5 for location of storage and Junction box with stormwater quality filters. The applicants proposed amendment appears to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the applicable Neighborhood Plan. 3. WRITTEN PROFFERS No proffers are offered at this time. Manor Homes of Southwood Page 8 , 4 /a Wn to no*o� [s R1aliI11a 3 i r �\ a ine- ■� II • 2 ,4:24 r : (� „ °y v it se.1/ i p 1� i Fir c \ i 'F'-:•,':-- . S1t'A , Rr : s > t:�� , fin oratoormososoota II 1 ; 1 Io, j Si -7---- ° i -..11 'r . §�4II w...... 811111 ous T _ =4�. e�.� .. I omrn ere ow.Fxi .AID 1 /:___ 1` . r I e.. . ETA 7 1a ransom uanaonnn oG41b Q u .3 LG El! owua� = m' nvi�um 111° 1 Apar � 9 ` \ 1 /� j { t") 1 Y .. TL ti =a ip ; . stor.: , PRI I „„4117- „_,_,--_,. - . ,, .,..,:zei..e. t , 1 Id . • �0�cafQu _IEr7w ♦ / t--.. _ � fib,� O .� l -1-- \ JIt f: °. Jy cuY\riZ�ia���iNlMl� 'iii '�'� , / /y t< �r\ 4-. wamawv d it p ._ 1 a� n gat r, g� t I Y ,l may. I �(,� , 3a8 Pi ■ . xu — Of ssW-" mr Lrn¢'.r r,"2 Mco asm.,..ame .�.42am0: gw. TYPICAL STREET SECTION • i 1; ; 1c I "ti '1$ 1 1/17elt-1„1 li Aw j '^ �?. = IIIIwsrrt of Yw.['swna-an TYPICAL STREET SECTION�� MKT AND PEOEaIw M'S '.J,"" Nmrld p el BWEinool6L It.Mein Ml been Sa e.p. "TA ! os1 PtWYnMnnM_MsWnanet StHs_WOknf 3Y3 Mon othdh,woman tkw4tl, lM— tp. orn., pwNe10•111ti bonyymyB nolO IS .aYJ4eotl IMariall 0\61 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,VIRGINIA The 21st day of May, 2007. No. 37790-052107. AN ORDINANCE to amend §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,by repealing Ordinance No. 34406-080299 and Ordinance No.34407- 080299, to the extent that they placed certain conditions on Official Tax No. 1290107, located at 3215 Franklin Road, S.W, and to approve a now development plan on the subject property,and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. WHEREAS, Icon Development, LLC, represented by Maryellen F. Goodlahe, attorney, has filed an application to the Council of the City of Roanoke to repeal Ordinance No. 34406-080299, adopted August 2, 1999, and Ordinance No. 34407- 080299, adopted August 2, 1999, to the extent such ordinances placed certain conditions upon property bearing Official Tax No. 1290107, located at 3215 Franklin Road, S.W., and to approve a new development plan related to the parcel in order to create a residential development which includes 9 units of single-family detached dwelling units and 18 units of multi-family dwelling units; WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, which after giving proper notice to all concerned as required by§362-540,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 Counc%on such application at its meeting on May 21, 2007, after due and timely notice thereof as required by §362-540, 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 bearing,finds that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice, require the repeal of Ordinance No. 34406-080299, adopted August 2, 1999, and Ordinance No. 34407- 080299, adopted August 2, 1999, to the extent such ordinances placed certain conditions upon property bearing Official Tax No. 1290107, located at 3215 Franklin Road, S.W., and the adoption of the proffers pertaining to the subject property as set forth herein,and for those reasons, is of the opinion that the subject property should be rezoned as herein provided. THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that 1. Ordinance No. 34406-080299, adopted by the City Council on August 2, 1999, and Ordinance No. 34407-080299,adopted by the City Council on August 2, 1999, to the extent that it placed certain conditions on Official Tax No. 1290107, located at 3215 Franklin Road, S.W., are hereby REPEALED, and that the Official Zoning Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia, dated December 5, 2005,as amended, be amended to reflect such action. 2. The Application for Amendment of Proffered Conditions, of Icon Development, LLC, by Maryellen F. Goodlatte, attorney, Amended Application No. 1, filed in the Department of Planning, Building and Economic Development, on April 2, 2007, is granted pertaining to Official Tax No. 1290107, so that such property will be zoned MXPUD, Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, and that §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 such action. 3. Pursuant to the provisions of§12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST:S / \m jy,ra ciity Clerk. 0-CON De ebpme t,U.0-repeal&Ord proaep 052107 6. LOCATION MAP ti ' 1i a Source: City of Roanoke GIS Page 13 Manor Homes of Southwood 7. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS � r •"" 7 l l � v Yff /fly r� Fl AAA tT4r rn� / _ h7� . a :1: Southwood Master Association, Inc. 1290119 MXPUD Boone Boone 8 Loeb, Inc. 1290177 MXPUD Trustee for Gertrude D. Saunders 1291219 MXPUD O Charles A.Zubieta 1291218 MXPUD Boone Homes of Roanoke, Inc. 1291217 MXPUD Boone Homes of Roanoke, Inc. 1291216 MXPUD John A. 8 Hilda C.Zalubowki 1291215 MXPUD Trustee of Reinhard A. O'Neal 1291214 MXPUD O Page 14 Manor Homes of Southwood J. Ronald Howland 1291213 MXPUD® Southwood Reserve, LLC 1290108 CG Queen Anne Court of Southwood, Inc. 1290230 MXPUD Trustee for Chester F. Lang&Robert H.Waiter 1290170 MXPUD Bill&Nettie A. Bridger 1290172 MXPUD 8. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY/ANALYSIS STATEMENT Due to the decrease in density from the original application for amended zoning approved in the spring of 2007,a Traffic Impact Study should not be warranted for this new zoning amendment. Manor Homes of Southwood Page 15 The Roanoke Times • Roanoke, Virginia Affidavit of Publication . The Roanoke Times LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES PO BOX 20669 ROANOKE VA 24018 • i • or . REFERENCE; 80030791 - rwm:aampa 11198273 Queen Anne Court - 1 aew•4t,bSif bk State of Virginia t maw,rm City of Roanoke - dw.'u.epupni�e.m�°b 4muNnnepnmme Neee: r •uawpwfwwn I, the undersigned) an authorized representative Iss cwweewew.s.nl;: Rnote W,(Ifn, le of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation crww°'ww nem Pw.aenp� is publisher of the Roanoke Times., a daily .W w.rkamd,.ir; newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of 4:we :dupple a▪ Ma MaYMerni Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was a-is: nrr":S°'i iml� published in said newspapers on the following 0•'e guess Wntlpway dates: awsa5p aiC.ac*to re a ie c,s7 mep rri• . 4..14. I}Da SW..pmm°au°Tee Nee! }29010] en.1}90220) evayr 124M2A NNNw. city/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/Stage of mlmeoSn la tilt Vir lnia. Sworn and subscribed before me this Rom•45.0,Noel Tay/or '1i'� .al wnl..n,w __ day of Dec 2008. Witness my hand and Much ansu. W.. official seal . ce.mi lvuue.4.w.; "e Reek,is 10*rent end remrewma,appear en rnw One and w heard en _ votary Public ue matter. It You e>. My commission a ire *mall a cambi l! nai 10'31-1I iI p-q0.s.wn,,,,I 11M CI51tj CIe,VS Wee.n 5534541.Mere own en I the Twiatbwbnne®b my Patti* oleo haft rznerietcn- - ,.`aQV aA L4 Y,{;q'� :as,n day of Nweme... PUBLISHED ON: 11/28 12/05 -P °p�:1 },ga.uea QV OVIC ,`at- 'NOT e:/ PUBLIC UC 110 EG.#7090930 :*_ I(111902731* :. coMM)5 ' 1Q= -"O'. 18i-t• &C 0 • TOTAL COST: 386. 88 # �N� WEADk.... `` FILED ON: 12/05/08 Authorized. / ,I - Signature: /1441(Ad(�[{— I it /-1'-'"��_ Billing Services Representative • • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a public hearing on Monday,December 15, 2008,at 7:00 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as the matter may be 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 Queen Anne Court of Southwood,Inc.,to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan to permit construction of a maximum of 13 single- family dwelling units instead of 27 single-family and multifamily dwelling units previously allowed by City Council,to remove a communitygreen area, and to construct a landscaped cul-de-sac street,for properties located at 3209 Queen Anne Court Circle,S.W., Official Tax Nos. 1290107, and 1290220 through 1290229, inclusive. A copy of the application is available for review in the Office of the 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 tor this hearing,please contact the City Clerk's Office,at 253-2541,before noon on the Thursday before the date of the hearing listed above. GIVEN under my hand this25th day of November , 2008. Stephanie M.Moon, CMC City Clerk. Queen Anne Cet,r4YP¢nd PUD pion d« Notice to Publisher. Publish in the Roanoke Times on Friday, November 28, 2008, and Friday, December 5, 2008. Send affidavit to: Send bill to: Stephanie M. Moon, CMG, City Clerk Lumsden Associates, PC 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Room 456 do Kevin Barnes Roanoke, Virginia 24011 4664 Brambleton Avenue, S. W. (540)853-2541 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 (540) 774-4411 AFFIDAVIT PERTAINING TO THE AMENDMENT OF PUD.REQUEST OF: • Queen Anne Court of Southwood,Inc.,3209 Queen Anne Court Circle )AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF ROANOKB • ) TO-WIT:) The affiant,Martha Pace Franklin,first being duly sworn;states that site is Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning Commission,and as such is competent to make this affidavit Of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that,pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia,(1950),as amended,on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke,she has sent by first-class mail on the 3r°day of November,2008,notices of a public hearing to be held on the 20th day of November, 2008,on the request captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels as set out • below: Tax No. Name MailinQAddress 1290108 Southwood Reserve LLC 13161 Booker T. Washington Hwy Hardy,VA 24101 1290119 Southwood Master Association 2772 Electric Road,Suite 2 Roanoke,VA 24018 1290170 Chester F.Lang Trustee 3306 Kingsbury Circle Robert H.Walter Trustee Roanoke,VA 24018 1290172 Bill and Nettie Bridger 3302 Kingsbury Circle, SW Roanoke,VA 24018 1290177 Boone Boone&Loeb Inc. • 3922 Electric Road,SW Roanoke,VA 24018 1290230 Queen Anne Court of Southwood 1256 Moon Ridge Lane Inc. Goodview,VA 24095 1291213 J.Ronald Nowland 2730 Carolina Avenue, SW Roanoke,VA 24018 1291214 Trustee of Reinhard A.ONeill 3208 Northshire Ct.,SW Roanoke,VA 24014 1291215 John and Hilda Zalubowki 3212 Northshire Ct.,SW • frehellitAkd 4-6-0 Martha Pace Franklin SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me,a Notary Public,in the City of Roanoke, Virginia,this 3ra day of November,2008. Notary Public A�F My Commission Expires: a � C'.a0 I i ce,,,N pqC_ tato •4P toy, 9 A bO :. .. lW I• -C e Yr n; . CWT . - - _. CITY OF ROANOKE b, , OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK •-±V."- 215 Chunk Avenue,S.W.,Suite 456 ;31-'' :C: Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 ,•1,:.�• Telephone: (540)253-1541 Fay (540)IS3-1115 S1TEaANIt M.MOON,CMC Een 1 ekrharoeookevnov SHEILA N.HARTMAN,CMC Ciry Creek • - Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T.W®2 November 26, 2008 Assistant Deputy ra,Clerk Southwood Reserve LLC Queen Anne Court of Southwood, Inc. Southwood Master Association Mr,J. Ronald Nowland Chester F. Lang, Trustee Reinhard A. ONeill,Trustee Robert H.Walter Trustee Mr. and Mrs.John Zalubowki Mr. and Mrs. Bill Bridger Boone Homes Inc., of Roanoke Boone Boone & Loeb Inc. Mr'Charles A. Zubleta Gertrude D. Saunders, Trustee Ladies,and Gentlemen: Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, I have advertised a public hearing for Monday, December 15, 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., City of Roanoke, request of Queen Anne Court of Southwood, Inc., to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan to permit construction of a maximum of 1 3 single-family dwelling units instead of 27 single-family and multifamily dwelling units previously allowed by City Council;to remove a community green area,and to construct a landscaped cul-de-sac street, for properties located at 3209 Queen Anne Court Circle, S.W. This letter is provided for your information as an interested property owner and/or adjoining property owner. If you have questions with regard to the matter, please 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. Area--Ms Sincerely, S Stephanie M. Moon, CMC City Clerk • SMM:ew City of Roanoke- Owner Search Query Labels Page 1 of 1 Adj,Oln �y Pa�perl OonerKS aabq cc34--ktwcnd VYt ror CaA-- 1ag0 1(3"7 1ag017i HOMETOWN BANK BOONE BOONE&WEB INC 202 S JEFFERSON ST 3922 ELECTRIC RD SW ROANOKE VA 24011 ROANOKE VA 24018 • R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 ROANOKE VA 24018 ROANOKE VA 24018 ROANOKE VA 24018 I a.CO .3P 12Goa.4g R WLLIAM REID BUILDER INC R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC THE ROBERT N FISHBURN 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 5007 CARRIAGE OR STE 102 REVOCABLE TRUS ROANOKE VA 24018 ROANOKE VA 24018 3226 SOUTHWOOD MANOR CT ROANOKE VA 24015 Iam gw e)3-7 13- goa3 <K Iago 239 R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 ROANOKE VA 24018 ROANOKE VA 24010 ROANOKE VA 24018 la °RuaV.o Iag094-7 13 g0■a '4 I R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 ROANOKE VA 24018 ROANOKE VA 24018 ROANOKE VA 24018 Iaglalco 1 glal --L lagiaig SHRADER WILLIAM R JR LAUGHON KENNETH&LISA PIERCE ABBATELLO JOE A&DONNA J 3216 NORTHSHIRE CT PO BOX 8937 PO BOX 85188 ROANOKE VA 24014 ROANOKE VA 24014 RICHMOND VA 23285 1a91aiq SAUNDERS GERTRUDE D TRUSTEE SAUNDERS 3228 NORTHSHIRE CT SW ROANOKE VA 24014 http://giscentral/website/rnke/labels_template.cfm?label_type—mapnolist&mapnolist=129... 11/05/2012 az x. yzPub � C ' /24$2 ir %AA. /' rt , t• °� ti !" �1 a,ry x1v {I l .• :1` r 11%.,•`'c I iwp , d /6111§, 4 ` , n + w : .4, d r 9 e , h ' i'•-r xo a' $.3,,,,, «, a l � ;y r s .+ �a SOS ,� 177 + gyp` y s. ,n ..oet O who 'fN' Jy0 x «,: im e • '. .S 1. ' z.`a.: ✓' , .- 1.04;,,.. C eoss#i°ems°ee •• 129 �0 1'• 1eeoeeeeeeeeette.sooe°e°e� •r.rr-'y' .; j '1 iiei• eeosi eooeeee•o $ t.- . On Old leeeeJ'•Ree�•°e�m1•�e�••.tf p ..: 129 wry° ,. 6ti A444:7w4mit ♦ 1 ykr- 0241 s� eeee 11a ,. i mJJeseaee.. 00 c{' ,�' re °OOe°Oi °m�e°eoVA•4 7 ! wh v7 eeeee°ee°seeeoom. roeeeeaeeome�evo 72902 se ee♦ ♦>osJsosos� A:0182 °ee°if°eei°e°i°e°s°Oe°e°o°e°m°e° 4 014 ♦♦ eeOeeeeedeeseeeeeeeo 0 9 ^1 ..•404,O• P 12 g 4. 0239'�u D ,`^ h O' r 1 w e .•:•:44•• Oi o to •4 wr;m A 3 1% q -e j J 1"2902 r ; 0248 ,,129 3 17, f:R Sp .' l l s -. Op 136' ! h 0 9 r 90111 } 1, s S'}4n Pet ,. . 041 Y Y i 1? �; MPUD�«, P� � . ' r 4 128 �� ,�\'PG p �OIOO\ r.. 1290 •; ,fir 9, .,- ; 11 � p, ., .b.a mil,. M gg II CiP wh ' 0717 r • 3209 Southwood Manor Court, S.W. a '1�9oise j Official Tax Map No. 1290107 129016 290 O O ■ SB 0 Ca SAL _ / 5225) 8686 rnvm I Ifvi� e 7 T� I / ( ,,, - u itin)t s[xrr A ) NEW 3 , i NEW 14 X 10I II J r / {( wm_ LOT 12 , LOT 14 -1 f ti ( 1955 SF) /02�so sr) t,or 10 4 / F is / I� � (.•rim I ! �/ l OT 9 { 1 �P: , ...„7„,,,. —° / �� ( - ♦ /•/ SITE AND ZOM1G TABULATIONS . 'yOF k ` /a Nag pus\' i& 'Mnxax EBT z 1 �� c uxwo wm l Ai l N Qa� re 'Q Ji / /� ` SOUTHWOOO MANOR COURT +�7� BA f665 SF) )vr ��/// ,, CBG BE A 0APC' /\\FAX AV907[ A' KIN059URY I MN/ )� r� REAR 5 p� _ LOT '] *MINIMUM „ I' I i. m■ V°'� Vnnv STRUCTURE HEIGHT %1 \ '! ) I �, M A M M A/ MPE SURFACE 5pp YPERnWS suRFACE Al I ■ ?Munw trcm xlw.wr s 23- - —j 2 I ■g Pe n ss '� ! dI �: aM.Tase onhn ams s mew wwx¢cm:wu w ii �/' Ir I.� � LJ 1' DEVELOPMENT PLAN .-�..._.< _.< 1, %_ FOR "MANOR LOT” _1 \ ry\ 1 /' TAX MAP#1290107 LOT 12a MANOR HOMES OF SOUTHWOOD - 0 PREPARED FOR TABLE TA OD' - HOMETOWN BANK Cr rs:.RR 5S6, 26.0. 55.34 R),,.5I E ScaEe. = fio / SITUATED AT 3209 SOUTHWOOD MANOR COURT,SW LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, 1t P THE CITY OF ROANOKE.VIRGINIA Ls LUMSDEN ASSOCIA l Eq P.C. 4664 BRAMBLETON AVENUE PHONE:(540)774-4411 BA E April 26,2013 ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS P.O.BOX 20669 FAX (540)772 9445 COMM NO 12 161 - ROANOKE,VIRGINIA ROANOKE,VIRGINIA 24018 E-MAIL,MAJL @LUMSDENPC COM SCALE 1"=60' - City of Roanoke - Owner Se 1 Query Labels Page I of 1 _4. ai 01 • 1 �� � �2 �e � e( � 2,- bq Ply?I-104._ucod UYtLror Cccrf l AO I0-7 I3,90I -7/ v HOMETOWN BANK BOONE BOONE 8 LOEB INC . 202 S JEFFERSON ST 3922 ELECTRIC RD SW ROANOKE VA 24011 ROANOKE VA 24018 R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 ROANOKE VA 24018 ROANOKE VA 24018 ROANOKE VA 24018 I agoa3lp 1 a-cloaq ✓ R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC THE ROBERT N FISHBURN 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 REVOCABLE TRUS ROANOKE VA 24018 ROANOKE VA 24018 3226 SOUTHWOOD MANOR CT ROANOKE VA 24015 I aH go 03-7 y Iag0a3 � .../ la qt ';- c ✓ R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 ROANOKE VA 24018 ROANOKE VA 24018 ROANOKE VA 24018 a °o -2.7- O ✓ I 2o 4 ✓ ! ageav- 1 I R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 ROANOKE VA 24018 ROANOKE VA 24018 ROANOKE VA 24018 IaGlalLo I glal —r lags l2 SHRADER WILLIAM R JR LAUGHON KENNETH&LISA PIERCE ABBATELLO JOE A 8 DONNA J 3216 NORTHSHIRE CT PO BOX 8937 PO BOX 85188 ROANOKE VA 24014 ROANOKE VA 24014 RICHMOND VA 23285 i 9falq V SAUNDERS GERTRUDE 0 TRUSTEE SAUNDERS 3228 NORTHSHIRE CT SW ROANOKE VA 24014 http://giscentral/website/rnke/labelstemplate.cfm?label type=mapnolist&mapnolist=129... 11/05/2012 -- -- 12 MXPUD 2g' j9 729 72,3 MXPUD 1,),,,, 8 1291200 • 12g1274 N. CG(c) ry '2g'20B Z• 1291218 1190? • 99 1.791207 •7267, 1291216 190 .....-.... 00 �y X99 19 ryo0 1190 ,,.......:, 0 11 146 17n 0 9i1 0243 I: 1) a N. y S I , , , 4,9 z9O? �1 9j 7° /290242 p0 1 nryppn 19i1i � i XP '290241 9 �p �y eg ppn �i nti 12g0240 -•0182 pnAp r� ti9 �1°o n S i a 1290239 0 1� p0 :'Ij /K/NV. h m e my ry° 129p23A 1290248 '200238 SO4 '1 '19j '2901j3 I RCRO�r �, 1290236 _ 991�, 901 01i�9 / 129p1,2 MXPUD 19 4 129 °O41 G# '?sO' 12gp1�0 129 + 4,S, v0 N p p M , U D 0 u 0 n 1290169 o el 0 nRpp 1290 •�- 141 3209 Southwood Manor Court, S.W. 1290168 N Official Tax Map No. 1290107 A\ \ \ \ 129016 2901 AFFIDAVIT APPLICANT: Home Town Bank, LOCATION: 3209 Southwood Manor Ct., SW, Official Tax No. 1290107 REQUEST: Rezoning —Amend Planned Unit Development Plan COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA TO-WIT: CITY OF ROANOKE The affiant, Rebecca Cockram, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first-class mail on the 29th day of May, 2013, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 11th day of June, 2013, on the request captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels as set out below: Tax No and Owner's Name and Address 1290248 R WILLIAM REID BUILDER INC 1290249 5007 CARRIAGE DR STE 102 1290247 ROANOKE VA 24018 1290236 1290237 1290238 1290239 1290240 1290241 1290177 BGGT, LLC 494 Glenmore Drive Salem, VA 24153 1291219 SAUNDERS GERTRUDE D TRUSTEE SAUNDERS LIVING TRUST 3228 NORTHSHIRE CT SW ROANOKE VA 24014 1291218 ABBATELLO JOE A & DONNA J TAX SERVICE DIVISION SUNTRUST MORTGAGE PO BOX 85188 RICHMOND VA 23285 1291217 LAUGHON KENNETH & LISA PIERCE PO BOX 8937 ROANOKE VA 24014 Letth ML o &j Rebecca Cockram SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this 29t ay of May, 2013. y ' �g Notary Public seedx oissiwwo06yj 9 Z9 tag CANDACE R. MARTIN i eiui6AAa eeMUOwwoQ NOTARY PUBLIC 011 R1V10N Commonwealth of Virginia Nil 30VONV0 Reg.#28207. My Commission Expires The Roanoke Times Roanoke, Virginia Affidavit of Publication Application by Dart t. Deane to rezone property located at 803 Patterson Ave.,S.W.bearing Official The Roanoke Times TaxnNo.1i 2219 The ♦ ———property from Mixed Use PUBLIC HERRING District(MX)to Downtown District(0).The land use CITY OF ROANOKE, PDV NOTICE categories term'ittedInte. residential; e PLANNING, BLDG. , GEV All public hearings be oeenonsand gmep n.mg, advertised herein will be commercial, Industrial: 215 CHURCH 166 held nine city Council m b I v and ROANOKE VA 24011 chamber.fourth floor,Noel eniertemmeni;phablm, C Tallor Munbpal Building, institutional and wmmuoey 215 Church Avenue,S.W_ facilities transportation, Ro noxe, Virginia All and applications re available tom area agricultural,P I In the Planning comprehensive Hh of150.The REFERENCE: 80076514 Building dDeelp t omprehensive plan office, Room 168,215 designates the property for 13333369 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIC church AVasw.,waanoxe, Downtown Development' VA 1 Theprnial&Commercial. Ar,@4 with Ca disability' p„ pert °mixed the State of Virginia �n'ceoAYt Te of building shp td lelential City of Roanoke p ciliate in tfie apartments hearings n uld contact Planning Belfding and Application by Ml n,Inc. the undersi ned) an authorized representative Dave to P rat 1540) 0 to rezone property locatedI I, ( g p 853 73 at fl days t nl9 ce ea A N W., of the Times-world Corporation, which corporation prior to the scheduled 2112216, al amour is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily a eat t The City mRoanoke A:euw eng Dne newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of h hold 1 o o neaen 6 2112214 2112213. Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was I1 611 2o1o,at� D 2112218 The p o n r lore the published in said newspapers on the following n nosy be heard,t fomR e tiall Miixee roh a u ppbmt Density DM DNM.1)and dates] tight Industrial Di sd (I1 1 1A Pp II Application i to Urban R District(9 k to amend the% tl The lend categories I0 110 lOMPen Itl permit dl tH UPDitrict Pei-tens to 3209' include residential,3 d M or C13el aan nmand�to B l t ly 0 6110 ores,bearing! dustr l wareh g and ,livig el Official T No.]29010] d tebuti assembly nd I City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of to permit,construction of tert nt;pub Il two gist eaddwelling, ttytlen a common Virginia. Sworn and subscribed before me this t Instead of facilities;transportation, sl gl f ily dwelling t n tr o a structures, day of June 2013. Witness my hand and Previously y mittedbyth M ult l e cs rI official seal. Mixed Development PPI (MCPUD)I The sgonatestn property comprehensive Mani official permitted bby City Council Business/Residential Mi when it C)-,pt� y 6 �/ y 33318-121508 P pYproposed loci L -.,Z. '/oLGNwrt/ (. Notary Public 6 1s 2ooe Ti r permitted a the MXPU D' Request f Bash Charles to am District include p a tly ate a' sn1 gaccornmo ry he ns r group s °id i-0 , commercial; L g1IIp I assembly p bild, 6e W 6Poe 3 M M gI osaMer II A I atT t 661nM .d ' i�`� a community uH t Prlt Nos, 4141409 d\ aass., PUBLISHED ON: 05/29 06/05 IIY e on r a ° 4141530 d e ty dwelling It City Council will hold a l} �� ' 1,800 p Ie I public hearing' th ppa pTahtey f p et xF o 1 pf 1] 200P1l3 ti ITOM1O e^i :4+ �Ma residential o The! matter maybe heard applicant proposes tol t subdivide b i xadY Stephanie M Moon,t MMC,CIty CIM TOTAL COS^_ : 1, 122. 00 IMp1 The perty ebdWded,i Rebecca Cock ram, s,ngl¢hmlly residential. Secretary, FILED ON: 06/05/13 city Planing Commission —'— + 113333369) I Authorized Signature: \ , 1 , Billing Services Representative •1V PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE All public hearings advertised herein will be held in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor,Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia. All applications are available for review in the Planning Building and Development office, Room 166, 215 Church Ave. S.W., Roanoke, VA. Any person with a disability requiring any special accommodation to attend or participate in the hearings should contact Planning Building and Development at(540) 853-1730 at least five days prior to the scheduled hearing. The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on June 11, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the matter may be heard, to consider these applications: Application by HomeTown Bank to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan as it pertains to 3209 Southwood Manor Ct., S.W., containing approximately 0.6110 acres, bearing Official Tax No. 1290107,to permit construction of two single-family dwelling units instead of one single-family dwelling unit previously permitted by the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Plan (MXPUD)permitted by City Council when it adopted Ordinance 38318-121508 on December 15, 2008. The land use categories permitted in the MXPUD District include residential; accommodations and group living; commercial; assembly and entertainment; public, institutional and community facilities; transportation; utility; agricultural; and accessory, with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 1,800 square feet of lot area. The comprehensive plan designates the property for mixed residential use. The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into two separate tax parcels. The proposed use of the property, as subdivided, is single- family residential. Application by Gary L. Deane to rezone property located at 803 Patterson Ave., S.W. bearing Official Tax No. 1112219. The application is to rezone the property from Mixed Use District(MX) to Downtown District(D). The land use categories permitted in the D District include residential; accommodations and group living; commercial; industrial; assembly and entertainment;public, institutional and community facilities; transportation; utility; agricultural; and accessory, with a maximum floor area ratio of 15.0. The comprehensive plan designates the property for Downtown Development: Residential & Commercial. The proposed use of the property is mixed use building containing a place of worship and residential apartments. Application by Mincon, Inc. to rezone property located at 619 Centre Ave.,N.W., bearing Official Tax No. 2112216; and four unaddressed lots on Centre Ave., N.W., bearing Official Tax Nos. 2112213, 2112214, 2112215, 2112217. The application is to rezone the property from Residential Mixed Density District (RM-1) and Light Industrial District (I-1)to Urban Flex District(UF). The land use categories permitted in the UF District include residential; accommodations and group living; commercial; industrial; warehousing and distribution; assembly and entertainment; public, institutional and community facilities; transportation;utility uses and structures; agricultural; and accessory. The comprehensive plan designates the property for Business/Residential Mix. The proposed use of the property is office. Request from Charles and Jennifer Basham,to permanently vacate a dead-end cul-de-sac on 6 Vz Street, S.E., adjoining property located at 661 and 663 Morrill Ave., S. E., bearing Official Tax Map Nos. 4141409 and 4141530. City Council will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid applications on June 17, 2013, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon as the matter may be heard. Stephanie M. Moon, MMC, City Clerk Rebecca Cockram, Secretary, City Planning Commission Please publish in newspaper on May 29 and June 5, 2013. Please bill and send affidavit of publication to: Rebecca Cockram, Secretary City Planning Commission Room 166,Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 853-1730 0 CITY OF ROANOKE i A ; OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue,S.W., Suite 456 : tf, Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC E-mail elerk@roanokeva.gov JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk June 18, 2013 Gary L. Deane 3801 Long Meadow Avenue, N. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Dear Mr. Deane: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 39690-061713 rezoning property located at 803 Patterson Avenue, S. W., from Mixed Use District (MX) to Downtown District (D), as set forth in the Zoning Application No. 1 dated April 24, 2013. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 2013; and is in full force and effect upon its passage. Sincerely, Stephanie M. Moon, MMO City Clerk Enclosure pc: Michael Deane, 325 Longwood Lane, Blue Ridge, Virginia 24064 Greg Igbokidi and Oyidie Igbokidi, 105 Coyte Court, Hot Springs, Arizona 71901 Kenneth Overstreet, 808 Patterson Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Trustees, Greater Prayer Temple Ministries, P.O. Box 6545, Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Gary L. Deane June 18, 2013 Page 2 pc: Trustees, Holy Temple Church, P.O. Box 6545, Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance Steve Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Philip Schirmer, City Engineer Susan Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation Rebecca Cockram, Secretary, City Planning Commission IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of June, 2013. No. 39690-0611713. AN ORDINANCE to amend § 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, to rezone certain property within the City, and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. WHEREAS, Gary L. Deane has made application to the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia ("City Council"), to have the property located at 803 Patterson Avenue, S.W., bearing Official Tax No.1112219, rezoned from Mixed Use District(MX) to Downtown District (D); WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, after giving proper notice to all concerned as required by §36.2-540, 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 June 17, 2013, after due and timely notice thereof as required by §36.2-540, 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 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 rezoning of the subject property, and for those reasons, is of the opinion that the hereinafter described property should be rezoned as herein provided. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. Section 36.2-100, 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 Official Tax Map No. 1112219, located at 803 Patterson Avenue, S.W., be and is hereby rezoned from Mixed Use District (MX) to Downtown District (D), as set forth in the Zoning Application No. 1 dated April 24, 2013. 2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: Wtrk. K\Talevi'Measures\Planning Commission Measures\O-Rezone 803 Patterson Avenue.doe el A� tGS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT tv: To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: June 17, 2013 Subject: Application by Gary L. Deane to rezone property located at 803 Patterson Ave., S.W. bearing Official Tax No. 1112219. The application is to rezone the property from Mixed Use District (MX) to Downtown District (D). Planning Commission Public Hearing and Recommendation: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 11 , 2013. By a vote of 5-0, the Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request, finding the Original Application, filed April 24, 2013, to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Hurt Park/Mountain View/West End Neighborhood Plan, and Zoning Ordinance as it will enable an existing building to be reused for an active use appropriate to the surrounding neighborhood. Application Information Request: Rezoning Owner: Gary L. Deane Applicant: N/A Authorized Agent: N/A City Staff Person: Katharine Gray, Land Use and Urban Design Planner Site Address/Location: 803 Patterson Ave., SW Official Tax Nos.: 1 1 12219 Site Area: 0.1155 acres Existing Zoning: MX, Mixed Use District Proposed Zoning: D, Downtown District Existing Land Use: Mixed Use Building (Place of Worship; Dwelling, multifamily) Proposed Land Use: Mixed Use Building (Place of Worship; Dwelling, multifamily) Neighborhood Plan: Hurt Park/Mountain View/West End Neighborhood Plan Specified Future Land Use: Downtown Development: Residential & Commercial Filing Date: Original Application: April 24, 2013 Background In April 2013, Mr. Deane met with staff from the City of Roanoke to discuss rezoning the property to D to allow for an expansion of the place of worship on the first floor within the existing building. The place of worship is a legally non-conforming use in this location with zoning code limitations on the ability to expand. The proposed expansion of the place of worship use exceeds the 15% expansion limitations of the code and is not permitted in the current MX district. In April 2013, Mr. Deane filed an application to rezone Official Tax Number 1112219 located at 803 Patterson Ave., S.W. The application included a concept plan to show the existing development of the site. Conditions Proffered by the Applicant None. Considerations Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning District Land Use North MX, Mixed Use District Dwelling, single-family detached and Dwelling, multifamily South D, Downtown District Vacant, and Motor vehicle repair or service establishment East D, Downtown District Vacant West MX, Mixed Use District Dwelling, single-family detached and Dwelling, multifamily Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance: Per the Use table for multiple purpose districts in section 36.2-315 and the Dimensional regulations for multiple purpose districts table in 36.2-316, the use and structure are nonconforming in the MX district . The use of the property as a church is not allowed either by right or by special exception in the MX district, but in a portion of the property, the use of the property as a church is legally non-conforming because it existed before the zoning district was changed. The structure is non-conforming due to its location on the lot, which violates the side yard setback requirement. In the D district, the use of the property as a church will be a use allowed by right, and thus conforming, and the structure will be conforming since there is no minimum side yard requirement in the D district. 2 Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Plan: Both Vision 2001-2020 and the Hurt Park/Mountain View/West End Neighborhood Plan recognize the need for the redevelopment in key areas to serve the needs of citizens and visitors while reweaving the urban fabric to transition well from one type of district to another. The parcel is located in an area denoted as a downtown development area. The change in zoning will allow for redevelopment of an existing underused building in a manner appropriate to the neighborhood. Relevant Vision 2001-2020 policies: • NH P3. Neighborhood Plans. The City will adopt neighborhood plans for all neighborhoods. Neighborhood plans will address land use, zoning, transportation, infrastructure, neighborhood services, and the development of village centers and recognize those neighborhoods with architectural and historic value, among other issues. (excerpt) • ED P6. Commercial development. Roanoke will encourage commercial development in appropriate areas (i.e., key intersections and centers) of Roanoke to serve the needs of citizens and visitors. • City Design o Downtown • Downtown is characterized by a pronounced skyline, pedestrian friendly streets and a mixture of retail, office, residential, and light industrial uses. Downtown is not confined to the Central Business District, but extends into the Belmont, Gainsboro, and Old Southwest neighborhoods. Downtown streets form an interconnected grid and are designed to accommodate both vehicular and pedestrian use. Buildings are typically set close to the street and often adjoin each other. Parking is generally concentrated in parking structures or is located to the side or rear of principal buildings. • Design Principles • Downtown should have a recognizable skyline; tall buildings and maximum site development should be permitted. Buildings should be set close to the street with groundfloor facades that emphasize pedestrian activity. • Buildings should be designed to accommodate a mixture of uses. (excerpt) Relevant Hurt Park/Mountain View/West End Neighborhood Plan Policies: Future Land Use 3 • Three transitional areas on the future land use map will be key to the future zoning of the neighborhood. These areas are: Campbell and Patterson Avenues between 5th and 10th Streets - the southern side of Campbell is an office district that reduces in density west of downtown. Much of the northern sides of Campbell and Patterson Avenues are currently zoned LM and should be rezoned to conform to the development pattern of the south side and provide a transition from downtown. Future Land Use Map • The map depicts the area at 8th and Patterson as a future downtown development area for residential and commercial. Community Design Policies • Development Model: Future development should follow the traditional neighborhood model prescribed by Vision 2001-2020. Community Design Actions • Encourage corner commercial: Develop and implement zoning regulations to encourage appropriate reuse of corner commercial buildings. City Department Comments: None. Public Comments: Ms. Ruby Delp called in to state her support of the rezoning. Planning Commission Work Session: None. Planning Commission Public Hearing Discussion: None. Lora Katz, Chair %j City Planning Commission cc: Chris Morrill, City Manager R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Gary L. Deane, Property Owner 4 3Si Department of Planning, Building and Development ROA N O K E Room 166, Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building CITY OF ROANOKE 215 Church Avenue, S . PLANNING BUILDINGAND DEVELOPMENT Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Click Here to Print Phone: (540)853-1730 Fax: (540)853-1230 Date: 24 A R - 2-0{2 Submittal Number. �Te..16 i N A L- Rezoning Not Otherwise Listed ❑ Amendment of Proffered Conditions ❑ Rezoning, Conditional E Amendment of Planned Unit Development Plan U Rezoning to Planned Unit Development I I Amendment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay District ❑ Establishment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay District Property Information: Address. ?Lid' an AVE jj Official Tax No(s),: I 22-1 9 Existing Base Zoning: (, X/'�/ / ' I ❑ With Conditions (If multiple zones, please manually enter all districts.) r" 1 M IkED U' T(5 ithout Conditions Ordinance No(s).for Existing Conditions(If applicable): Requested Zoning: `7 (6ct sz tJ c s'[s i-- Proposed Land Use. p✓, Xk-TJ--( . L'G,I I Lei 4 G Proportpowgpr IM,biimatlon; Name: iA L . l/ N_ Phone Number ,'' ,3-961gS Address'. ,, t ! 6i Mf.APAIJ t\VE .0 RacKbice E-Mail: ktdj,4alf1' a c &wt+Lenin c ........• LatArdf -6' i 1/2 A • • 7 • 'roperty Owli Signature. r C '. fir. .0 .r .7e�41r.• II * 1 .; Name, Phone Number: Address: E-Mail: Applicant's Signature: 'l 1.7.ff. _t"} ■? T I r,.l`1ii Criv,11 rf'. , r•• .I:^.,' Name: Phone Number: Address. E-Mail: Authorized Agent's Signature: Y k tide — , r r , "` M IIPIAIPIZI The dila`� g nusstbesubm @tfilarallappliea�ors: ROANOKE Completed application form and checklist ritten narrative explaining the reason for the request. F Metes and bounds description, if applicable. I— Filing fee. Fot40zo ing notaltb-e MsW;L[et@d;ithe fo1(o itiga '':,'alealisubmitted: l— Concept plan meeting the Application Requirements of item 2(c) in Zoning Amendment Procedures, For a conditional rezoning,the following must also be submitted: F Written proffers. See the City's Guide to Proffered Conditions. Concept plan meeting the Application Requirements of item'2(c)'in Zoning Amendment Procedures, Please label as r 'development plan' if proffered. For a planned unit development,the following must also be submitted: F Development plan meeting the requirements of Section 36.2-326 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. For a comprehensive sign overlaydistrict;the following must be submitted: F Comprehensive signage plan meeting the requirements of Section 36.2-336(d)(2)of the City's Zoning Ordinance. For an amendment istproffered conditrolni thafoltpwingrmustalso be submitted: Amended development or concept plan meeting the Application Requirements of item'2(c)'in Zoning Amendment Procedures, F if applicable, F Written proffers to be amended. See the City's Guide to Proffered Conditions, F Copy of previously adopted Ordinance. For a planned unit development amendment,the following must also be submitted: F Amended development plan meeting the requirements of Section 36.2-326 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. r- of previously adopted Ordinance. For a comprehensineiai t 6 erla1010.0ldr0151#4110tfpllbWingi3Austaleo be submitted F Amended comprehensive signage plan meeting the requirements of Section 36.2-336(d)of the City's Zoning Ordinance. F Copy of previously adopted Ordinance. Fora proposal that requites,a*atf efiepapt,a udy beleubmtttadto,the Gityohertollotyingdpystalso be submitted= F A Traffic Impact Study in compliance with Appendix B-2(e)of the City's Zoning Ordinance. For a proposal that elsda4raffl&lm,Thtsb3leus be zeobfiitt§dit6VDOT,4MEfollOvgln du§taleolb§ ulflttltt d F Cover sheet. F Traffic impact analysis. F Concept plan. F Proffered conditions, if applicable. F Required fee. *An electronic copy of this application and checklist can be found at www.roanokeva,govlpbd by selecting'Planning Commission'under 'Boards and Commissions'. A complete packet must be submitted each time an application is amended, unless otherwise specified by staff. 803 Patterson Ave SW Rezoning Application Narrative The property at 803 Patterson Ave SW (also known as 801 Patterson Ave SW), Official Tax Parcel No. 1112219, has been in the family for all of the owner's life and his grandparents lived in the upper floor and operated a grocery store in the lower floor. The current owner has owned the property since 2010. The uses in the building upon ownership were two residential apartments and storage in the two story building and place of worship in the single story addition. The place of worship is a non-conforming use in the Mixed-Use Zoning District and therefore expansion of that use is very limited. The church has grown and occupies a portion of the first floor of the two story building creating a non-compliance situation. The owner desires to rezone the building to Downtown (D) so that all uses that have historically and currently occupied the building are in compliance with all codes. No changes to the outside of the building are planned. No increase in traffic is anticipated due this change. This change is supported in the Neighborhood Plan. ° z 7 Gary L. Deane Owner Map Output Page 1 of I 803 Patterson Ave SW r� 3{ ■ � 1 • 1 s OgriRrifire 1 I ,M ,.;; Copyright 2001 -2013 City of Roanoke "2'2 l L co-/lc'? /4/4- -9-7 ','� — http://ais.roan okeva.¢ov/servlet/com.esn esrimapt srimao?ServiceName=rn/ke&ClientVersion=3.1&Form=True&Encode=False 04/740014 Adjoining property owners 803 Patterson Ave., SW TAXID LOCADDR OWNER OWNERADDR1 MAILCITY MAILSTATE MAINZIPCOD 1112217 807 PATTERSON AVE SW DEANE MICHAEL D 325 LONGWOOD LN BLUE RIDGE VA 24064 1112218 315 8TH ST SW DEANE MICHAEL D 325 LONGWOOD LN BLUE RIDGE VA 24064 1112310 735 PATTERSON AVE SW IGBOKIDI OVIDIE 105 COYTE CT HOT SPRINGS AR 71901 1112814 808 PATTERSON AVE SW OVERSTREET KENNETH RAY 808 PATTERSON AVE SW ROANOKE VA 24016 1112815 0 CAMPBELL AV SW TRS GREATER PRAYER TEMPLE MINISTRIES PO BOX 6545 ROANOKE VA 24017 1112816 0 CAMPBELL AV SW TRUSTEES OF THE HOLY TEMPLE CHURCH PO BOX 6545 ROANOKE VA 24017 :r_. :e.:::.1,:‘ ., .11$'‘141je:1_4:: ;;1 ,''',.',13;'-':4''' 1111613 111161., r112 1 , .,..,.., . . . 4 `43 .},1 4 ..; M 2' 1112301 .. ;.-. w, . ,, 5 ., ... :. -,;,. v - . . [i;.-.1.-..... . ,:: .-4:._ if .t-iN .. 71,231„- .?,... „ . , . , . ..1.;?, ..... fr: - ,,-,•.- 2....1., . ,.- '. • , , . :. : _ 1112210 ..... , [I' !!' ' rii!". , 1 ,..,..t:, ,',. . . fi •, .e11,44,-:iiiiiii--.7.1.,_ allitilai :: .1i;i1 in2320 ,,1-...A.... , . .. 1'4 i • • j ''‘ f‘i br 't:'IN :::I •ri I ..•I :. I ..: :t r‘i .::.! .1 ,, ... .• . . _ ... ... , ... ,. . • • 1:4i it it tir ....1 ..,1 ....I H ...1 ...] ? il ..!, . 1 .. • : - '. 1 .1ill:d1 ;:l '.1 ;.1 .1 t; ; ... '..... 1. - 4 -,,,; •• . • .. . I neit41 ':Teil -..'''', 'st.•41 4,44,....... ., , t - . ,+:4:1::40:44.41:4 ,,,,,,tirf,:. v. .:--.:::1 ::. ...•. ;.•. ,-.1..,....t.k.t..1 Et.t ' .c 'ill t I..s., ,./.,,,:, of I :. -r..t. . .i ..I .t.i :'...I t.I ;11 t.I '.',.I i?I ;:I ; ''.' ;'.I ......I ',...I t.I i..I ;!1 .i...I;)I iti.. .f. 1 7 . ...:, ,,`' -n•-•... .:-; r.1 t.I .....I td i'.I t i r',..: t.I ;'.I '....i iil''...t t.' : ' .,' '....1 t.! i.I ;..I .." i.31 [.....: I I : .I ' . ., .. ....... ,: •,1 ...,1 Hi 1 ,: ,I ;,, .T .., 4,,,, ..• P. i :. , .. -i.J.4..„...::4:i';.6 : -: I .:1 : :: :T I ::I .: 1 ' ' —I .'1 Hiiii.gliikr,:E a -•:-.A -44t:::tww:,,,t(....•41,": • I . 1 ..d th ..1 :..1 .., "•151 :.riltyr : r r r r• • :,r ., ,r :,r ,r ..r ..:,1 .r,r .•.!1 ::ir ,..1 .1 .., .•: :::1 :.'.', r:r :,-;-...".I ,.", ,:i:.:; .,: :., •.,1 -.4 , .. t r.! - - )- ,11 ,1 :Jr :Jr :sr :iii ..,:ii :::i it i ;:si r.ti :....LH ....d f.' -• :'. ' ' .,;' P:',I %,.• !.;i :'.i 1 9ii hi i%I r,i::".'l ril ..ii...,i :,I :,I , 2, .:,1 :,: :, :, ,, :,1 :..i ...,1 ..,121..!I.,...1 ..„,I,.. r--.--- "-''--'' - -- -- :: ' ••I '-' '-::1 -';', -:" -:" -, ' - I -01 :i1 :-.1 :-.1 :.1.:,i1Th....1.',.1 .::1 ,..1;,?1 ,..,10e1 .:,' ../1 .:' ..' :: • : : ,: : : : , , xi ,„44,44./. , .. .... ... }.? , . dun „1. , .. •, . ,.. •.; pl. pi ,. ,r ..., ..,1 .!1 " z.,,,., . * N 803 Patterson Avenue, S.W. ';',',94 i;!;,..",,L, , I I. ' % ' A 1 Official Tax Map No. 1112219 e:4:„,.-: ' .re : 'e.i'.....1 :)1 ;:ei ...riir..,1 .;:e 1 ILL'ii:e...1 ....e; A .....1 ;:iii:1 .,,:ii i'.:1 e , ,J, ,2. ,V3 ZPI7F1W71 , -.. . I' ' ill EAJIteli I :11 iii.alniaer'kJ i'd 11•+.1 ",' :t :, '_ : •• AFFIDAVIT APPLICANT: Gary L. Deane LOCATION: 803 Patterson Ave., S.W., Tax No. 1112219 REQUEST: Rezone MX to D COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA TO-WIT: CITY OF ROANOKE The affiant, Rebecca Cockram, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first-class mail on the 29th day of May, 2013, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 11th day of June, 2013, on the request captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels as set out below: Tax No and Owner's Name and Address 1112217 DEANE MICHAEL D 325 LONGWOOD LN BLUE RIDGE VA 24064 1112218 JENNIFER H DEANE MICHAEL D. DEANE 325 LONGWOOD LN BLUE RIDGE VA 24064 1112310 GREG IGBOKIDI OYIDIE IGBOKIDI 105 COYTE CT HOT SPRINGS AR 71901 1112814 OVERSTREET KENNETH RAY 808 PATTERSON AVE SW ROANOKE VA 24016 1112815 TRS GREATER PRAYER TEMPLE MINISTRIES PO BOX 6545 ROANOKE VA 24017 1112816 TRUSTEES OF THE HOLY TEMPLE CHURCH PO BOX 6545 ROANOKE VA 24017 CLALik Rebecca Cockram SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this 29t. day of May, 2013 /.///it -, A . h" Notary Public CANDOAACP . MARTIN Commonwealth of Virginia Peg #28207• My Commission Expires The Roanoke Times 8 Roanoke, Virginia Affidavit of Publication Application by aenerty located at 803 Patterson Ave.,s.W.bearing Official The Roanoke Times Tax No 1112219. The + _ application is to rezone the -property from Mixed Use PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE District m to District(0).The land use CITY OF ROANOKE, PDV Categories permitted in the D District Include. residential; e PLANNING, BLDG. , DEV An public hearings C 0mmsandgoup hviAg;' advertised herein will he hell Industrial' strial' 215 CHURCH 166 held be me City Council 'commercial,b l y a n d ROANOKE VA 29011 Chamber.fourth noon Noel assembly community C 5Church Avenue,Building, institutional Community 215 Church Avenue,5.W:, facilities,es,transportation; applications Virginia. All accessory with a maximum the PI REFERENCE: 80076519 Building f R and Room 186,meat, e comprehensive plan 215 13333369 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIC Church Ave.SW..Roanoke. DowntowntDevelopm:m: VA. i Theidential&Commercial. M1 .Proposed tl of se State of Virginia re 'ag.a>i¢.-,sdpgee property rii t ing Mixed use, nation YbR9e of worship and residential City of Roanoke o .paiplpate in Ore apartments hs h o u l d earings e t Planning B Ild]n§( d Application by Minion,Inc I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative Development▪53-13 m leetfivedys to t 69Cennpre',NwdlI of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation nfrog bha scheduled unad , le Tax No.four is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily The City of wo x Ave dNW oft Centre g Official newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of Planning C mmissl n will Tex Nos 2112213, e Itl a p b)c hearing on 21 12 214 2112215, Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was smoil 2010,at 130 211]21] The P o the] o re me property published in said newspapers on the following n may be heard t � from x a tilMleal roes a these applications; Density Dm d(RMtl and dates: Light Ind cct(I1)Appl t n by Hometown, to Urban Flex District(Ue6 k t mend the Pl a The land categories Unit D e pment Plan al p .mild el th de OI mct P i to 3209 Include residential; Southwoqd M crp sw•.:: . a&i'-m edal) p8 ep living; ercial.06110bearing st warehousing and, ,OX l T N 1290107- distribution. m, City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of oenoal g tulinept , a twanglamr. weumg f nury lttl°ie a t w dp f u I asryi Virginia. Sworn and subscribed before me this units instead oriel •single-family unit' Y/A� .., day of June 2013 . Witness my hand and C r Pe mir'uh agricultural; 4pit du Permitter' f an comprehensive official seal. Development Business/Residential pem foc foci by City designates Mix. when 4 a pt d Ordinance proposed use of(bej^frtf_ .,;t a m,oee Notary Public 38318121E08 on December 15 2008 The P Deny s Ordt land use categorie a Request f Charles ndi c. Permitted in the WOMB) Permanently 8 hacate to a accommodations include residential, a t nag p 4 a nil E., adjoining'ie rh \MIfMtlb1 l• ; a yt ld sl t.s E g`, p Mo CM tl e. S. a \\� f lull 1 1 d t p unit 1663 MO Il A 3 ap f• It t n N 90H Ili m p �.T3} N {141409 and PUBLISHED ON: 05/29 06/05 r 01/1 ~ testy,accessory.agricultural,and alass3o ea 1 t//��'' ,y u y t a flrlg l ptyct n gin t esty e. ,1 Pea Thet (pl fl public n B- 10 Y.�..rrrr�� rh p M1 f e d 013 tl �awrw�p�T pl pd y18 to tM1 1 '.1] 2013 as the wS _ a I ' mixed s id P ner°naab n ad the N pbU tl thpp pedy t fi�eph M M n I {.$"�`4,. J. It separate t p MMC Crty Cl M TOTAL COST: 1,122.00 �y caw � Property,as proposed Red c k m, ui singefarmly residential. secretary. FILED ON: 06/05/13 - CityPlenning Commission + 113333369) f Authorized 1 Signature: \ . I , Billing Services Representative PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE All public hearings advertised herein will be held in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building,215 Church Avenue, S.W.,Roanoke, Virginia. All applications are available for review in the Planning Building and Development office, Room 166, 215 Church Ave. S.W., Roanoke, VA. Any person with a disability requiring any special accommodation to attend or participate in the hearings should contact Planning Building and Development at(540) 853-1730 at least five days prior to the scheduled hearing. The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on June 11, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the matter maybe heard,to consider these applications: Application by HomeTown Bank to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan as it pertains to 3209 Southwood Manor Ct., S.W., containing approximately 0.6110 acres, bearing Official Tax No. 1290107,to permit construction of two single-family dwelling units instead of one single-family dwelling unit previously permitted by the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Plan(MXPUD)permitted by City Council when it adopted Ordinance 38318-121508 on December 15, 2008. The land use categories permitted in the MXPUD District include residential; accommodations and group living; commercial; assembly and entertainment; public, institutional and community facilities; transportation; utility; agricultural; and accessory, with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 1,800 square feet of lot area. The comprehensive plan designates the property for mixed residential use. The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into two separate tax parcels. The proposed use of the property, as subdivided, is single- family residential. Application by Gary L. Deane to rezone property located at 803 Patterson Ave., S.W. bearing Official Tax No. 1112219. The application is to rezone the property from Mixed Use District (MX)to Downtown District(D). The land use categories permitted in the D District include residential; accommodations and group living; commercial; industrial; assembly and entertainment; public,institutional and community facilities; transportation; utility; agricultural; and accessory, with a maximum floor area ratio of 15.0. The comprehensive plan designates the property for Downtown Development: Residential & Commercial. The proposed use of the property is mixed use building containing a place of worship and residential apartments. Application by Mincon, Inc. to rezone property located at 619 Centre Ave.,N.W., bearing Official Tax No. 2112216; and four unaddressed lots on Centre Ave.,N.W., bearing Official Tax Nos. 2112213, 2112214, 2112215, 2112217. The application is to rezone the property from Residential Mixed Density District(RM-1) and Light Industrial District(I-1) to Urban Flex District(UF). The land use categories permitted in the UF District include residential; accommodations and group living; commercial; industrial; warehousing and distribution; assembly and entertainment; public, institutional and community facilities; transportation; utility uses and structures; agricultural; and accessory. The comprehensive plan designates the property for Business/Residential Mix. The proposed use of the property is office. Request from Charles and Jennifer Basham,to permanently vacate a dead-end cul-de-sac on 6 'h Street, S.E., adjoining property located at 661 and 663 Morrill Ave., S. E.,bearing Official Tax Map Nos. 4141409 and 4141530. City Council will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid applications on June 17, 2013, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon as the matter maybe heard. Stephanie M. Moon, MMC, City Clerk Rebecca Cockram, Secretary, City Planning Commission Please publish in newspaper on May 29 and June 5, 2013. Please bill and send affidavit of publication to: Rebecca Cockram, Secretary City Planning Commission Room 166,Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 853-1730 0 CITY OF ROANOKE 1 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 1q.t _ 215 Church Avenue,S.W.,Suite 456 .c Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk June 18, 2013 Cecil Kelley, Chief Financial Officer Mincon, Inc. P. O. Box 13866 Roanoke, Virginia 24038 Dear Mr. Kelley: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 39691-061713 rezoning property located at 619 Centre Avenue, N. W., and four unaddressed lots on Centre Avenue, N. W., from Residential Mixed Density District (RM-1) and Light Industrial District (II), to Urban Flex District (UF), with a condition, as set forth in the Zoning Amended Application No. 1 dated May 30, 2013. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 2013; and is in full force and effect upon its passage. Sincerely, Stephanie M. Moon, MMC City Clerk Enclosure pc: Othello Petty, 704 Loudon Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Andrew Roberts, Ill, P. O. Box 8002, Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Cheryl Harvey, P. O. Box 412, Justice, West Virginia 24851 Barry and Delores Hubbard, 626 Loudon Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Cecil Kelley, Chief Financial Officer Mincon, Inc. June 18, 2013 Page 2 pc: Bruce Staples, 1118 Rugby Boulevard, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Northwest Neighborhood Environmental Organization, Inc., 802 Loudon Avenue, N .W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Willie Mack, Jr., 2327 Delaware Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Loretta Roy and Mazie Board, P. O. Box 5462, Martinsville, Virginia 24115 Ernest Littlefield, 5359 Black Bear Lane, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Brooke Nestle LLC, P.O. Box 8004, Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Curtis Fuller, 1942 Brandon Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Ronald Buckner, 1702 Orange Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance Steve Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Philip Schirmer, City Engineer Susan Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation Rebecca Cockram, Secretary, City Planning Commission IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,VIRGINIA The 17th day of June. 2013. No. 39691-061713. AN ORDINANCE to amend § 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, to rezone certain property within the City, and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. WHEREAS, Mincon, Inc., has made application to the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia ("City Council"), to have the property located at 619 Centre Avenue, N.W., bearing Official Tax Map No. 2112216, and four unaddressed lots on Centre Avenue, N.W., bearing Official Tax Map Nos. 2112213, 2112214, 2112215, and 2112217 rezoned from Residential Mixed Density District (RM-1) and Light Industrial District (I-1), to Urban Flex District(UF), with a condition; WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, after giving proper notice to all concerned as required by §36.2-540, 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 June 17, 2013, after due and timely notice thereof as required by §36.2-540, 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 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 rezoning of the subject property, and for those reasons, is of the opinion that the hereinafter described property should be rezoned as herein provided. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. Section 36.2-100, 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 Official Tax Map No. 2112216, located at 619 Centre Avenue, N.W., and four unaddressed lots on Centre Avenue, N.W., bearing Official Tax Map Nos. 2112213, 2112214, 2112215, and 2112217, be and are hereby rezoned from Residential Mixed Density District (RM-1) and Light Industrial District (I- 1), to Urban Flex District (UF), with a condition, as set forth in the Zoning Amended Application No. 1 dated May 30,2013. 2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: kW ' I Ir I4)r%) City Clerk. ll K\Talevi\bteasures\Planning Commission Measures\Rezone-619 Centre Avenue.doc 0. cfle -. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: June 17, 2013 Subject: Application by Mincon, Inc. to rezone property located at 619 Centre Ave., N.W., bearing Official Tax No. 2112216; and four unaddressed lots on Centre Ave., NW, bearing Official Tax Nos. 2112213, 2112214, 2112215, 2112217. The application is to rezone the property from Residential Mixed Density District (RM-1 ) and Light Industrial District (I-1 ) to Urban Flex District with a condition (UF-c). Planning Commission Public Hearing and Recommendation: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 11 , 2013. By a vote of 5-0, the Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request, finding the Amended Application No.1 , filed May 30, 2013, to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Gilmer Neighborhood Plan, and Zoning Ordinance as vacant lots will be redeveloped with the expansion of an existing business in a manner appropriate to the surrounding neighborhood. Application Information Request: Rezoning Owner: Mincon, Inc. Applicant: Mincon, Inc. Authorized Agent Cecil Kelley, Mincon, Inc. City Staff Person: Katharine Gray, Land Use and Urban Design Planner Site Address/Location: 619 Centre Ave., NW, 0 Centre Ave., NW, 0 Centre Ave., NW, 0 Centre Ave., NW, 0 Centre Ave., NW, Official T a x Nos.: 2112216, 211221 3, 21 1 2214, 211221 5, 211 221 7 Site Area: 0.5965 acres Existing Zoning: RM-1 , Residential Mixed Density District and I-1 , Light Industrial District Proposed Zoning: OF (c), Urban Flex District - with a condition Existing Land Use: Vacant and Office Proposed Land Use: Office, general or professional Neighborhood Plan: Gilmer Neighborhood Plan Specified Future Land Use: Business/Residential Mix Filing Date: Original Application: May 2, 2013 Amended Application No.1 : May 30, 2013 Background In April 2013, a representative of Mincon, Inc. met with City staff to discuss a proposed office building adjacent to their current manufacturing/warehouse facility on Centre Avenue, N.W. The new office building would be constructed on the vacant parcels and replace a modular office building currently in use at the manufacturing/warehouse facility. One of the parcels is zoned I-1 and the four other parcels are zoned RM-1 . The proposed use is not permitted in the current RM-1 district. In May 2013, Mincon, Inc. filed an application to rezone tax map numbers 21 12216, 21 12213, 2112214, 21 1221 5, and 21 1221 7 located on Centre Avenue, NW. The application included a concept plan to reflect the applicant's proposed development for the site. The applicant proposes to develop four of the five parcels for the new office building and leave the remaining corner parcel for future commercial development. In May 2013, Mincon, Inc. filed an amended application in response to comments from the work session regarding materials of the building. Conditions Proffered by the Applicant Standard concrete block shall not be used as an exterior building material on the front facade of any building. Considerations Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning District Land Use North RM-1 , Residential Mixed Density Vacant and District Dwelling, single-family detached South RM-1 , Residential Mixed Density Vacant and District Dwelling, single-family detached East I-1 , Light Industrial District Manufacturing/Warehouse West I-1 , Light Industrial District Motor vehicle repair or service establishment Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance: Development on the parcel will be subject to zoning ordinance requirements that help buildings relate to the streetscape. Such requirements include placing the building so that 60% of the front facade is 0-10' from the front lot line, providing pedestrian access from the right-of-way to the primary entrance, and the locating a primary entrance on the facade facing primary street frontage. 2 These requirements caused some concern with the applicant due to the proposed operational consideration. Planning staff and economic development staff visited with Mr. Kelley of Mincon to discuss the operations and discuss potential alternatives that would meet his goals as well as comply with zoning requirements. Staff offered potential solutions that would achieve mutual goals. One was to simply add a second entrance on the east side of the building in addition to an entrance facing Centre Avenue. Another potential solution would be to place an entrance at the front right corner of the building. Both approaches have been employed successfully with other development projects. Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Plan: Both Vision 2001-2020 and the Gilmer Neighborhood Plan recognize the need for the redevelopment of vacant or underused sites in a manner that reinforces the physical and social fabrics of the existing neighborhood. The vacant parcel is located in a transition zone between mixed density residential and industrial property along Shenandoah Avenue, N.W. The change in zoning will allow for development that better reflects the transition in forms and uses from industrial to residential in the area in which the property is located. Relevant Vision 2001-2020 policies: • NH P3. Neighborhood Plans. The City will adopt neighborhood plans for all neighborhoods. Neighborhood plans will address land use, zoning, transportation, infrastructure, neighborhood services, and the development of village centers and recognize those neighborhoods with architectural and historic value, among other issues. (excerpt) • Economic Development - 3.3.2 Industrial Development Map The map depicts the Centre Avenue NW as along the edge of an area for future industrial development opportunities. • ED P5. Industrial development. Underutilized and vacant industrial sites will be evaluated and redevelopment encouraged. Local policies and incentives and state economic incentives will strengthen the businesses and industries in the Enterprise Zones and provide jobs. Design Principals: • City Design o Design principles: Buildings • Building height and location should create a feeling of enclosure along a street. Residential and commercial buildings should be located very close to streets with low vehicle speeds. Large public and institutional buildings should generally have deeper setbacks. Building setbacks should be consistent along the street. • Building fronts and entrances should face a street. 3 Relevant Gilmer Neighborhood Plan Policies: Neighborhood Businesses • Changes in land use are also recommended to reduce conflicts between industrial and residential uses along Centre Avenue between 5th and 9th Street. Currently, there are scattered industrial, commercial, and residential uses that result in no real land use uniformity or direction for the future. To address this issue, the Final Concept Plan recommends a mixed commercial and residential "transition" area that encourages more light commercial uses rather than industrial uses. Commercial/Industrial Guidelines • In order to maintain the historic appearance of the streetscape, the minimal front yard setback should be maintained. Sidewalks will abut the front facade—in no case should parking be permitted at the front. It is critical to relate the building to the street. This is accomplished by maintaining the same setback as adjacent structures. If there are not enough structures surrounding the site, front the building as close as possible on existing streets. • As the building relates to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, a recognized building entry should be present to the front; storefronts should be recognized as fronts. • In general, the building height should not exceed three stories. Building height is measured from existing grade to the top of the parapet or roofline. A building's height is most important on facades that face streets, or on sides that are visible from the street. Rear or concealed side building elevations are less critical. • The traditional building materials used in commercial and industrial buildings in Roanoke are brick or stucco application. Materials used in new construction should be similar to that of surrounding buildings and would therefore most likely be brick or stucco. Detailing should be similar to or relate to that of adjacent structures. Recognize that some materials, even if present in surrounding buildings, are not desirable. These include metal building facades, T1 -11 (plywood), exposed concrete block, faux stone, vinyl, plywood, extensive glass, and some stucco veneer applications. Though relatively expensive, brick veneer offers a maintenance-free surface while providing compatibility with most commercial facades. Transition Areas between Light Manufacturing and Residential Uses • When a commercial or industrial building is near or adjacent to residential uses, maintain the commercial look of the building but be sensitive and compatible with the residential structures (i.e. don't make the commercial building look residential). 4 City Department Comments: Planners • 60% of the front facade must be between 0-10' from the front lot line • Unobstructed pedestrian access must be provided from the sidewalk to the front entry • Primary entrance must remain in facade facing primary street frontage (as currently shown) Development Review Coordinator • How will stormwater management be addressed? There is an existing drainage problem at the intersection of 7th Street and Centre, in addition the current storm drain system in Centre Ave may not be adequate. Fire Marshall & Assistant Fire Marshall • Water and fire code regulations would apply for this project on the comprehensive submittal. Public Comments: None. Planning Commission Work Session: Planning Commissioners requested a limitation on building materials that excludes standard concrete block on the front facade. Planning Commission Public Hearing Discussion: None. '<cc&, '11 - Lora Katz, Chairs} ( hL City Planning Commission cc: Chris Morrill, City Manager R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Timothy R. Spencer, Assistant City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Tom Purcell, Mincon, Inc. Cecil Kelley, Mincon, Inc. 5 Zoning Amendment ■ ' RECEIVED ■ Appl catio JUN g 2013 /�y Department of Planning, Building and Development ROA N O K E CITY OF ROANOKE Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building PLANNING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT 215 Church Avenue,S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Click Here to Print Phone: (540)853-1730 Fax (540)853-1230 Date. /rygy 3o to/3 Submittal Number: y,4SNVea Aw<.car o.✓ /✓a / Request (select all that apply);: I I Rezoning, Not Otherwise Listed ❑ Amendment of Proffered Conditions ❑ Rezoning,Conditional ❑ Amendment of Planned Unit Development Plan ❑ Rezoning to Planned Unit Development ❑ Amendment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay District I I Establishment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay District Property Information_ Address', 0 cane-ALENo, OOE6o?F9✓F,.✓k4 a CFNff6An6„Jyl, oeaw,zE9✓i,NW 4 L/f C'6 EAVe N.4L Official Tax No(s).: 2//LZ/a 2//zz/3 2/fizz .0' 0-/ Existing Base Zoning: ❑ With Conditions (If multiple zones, please manually enter all districts.) /QH-/ //N9 I'/ lxi Without Conditions Ordinance No(s).for Existing Conditions(If applicable): Requested Zoning: i,c -u,P®sJ f[e/' Proposed Land Use: Consraueno,J Op o.C.eF Buruv�✓y' Property Owner Information: Name', ry/n/em✓ ?dd Phone Number: (5-1<a) 15/11-7739 Address: ,ea Sox/36,a .(onwaKE UA t41o3( E-Mail: r raNfizzgeE/L/0..%Ne'o4 lay Property Owner's Signature: Auolicant Information (If different from owner); Name: Phone Number: aild 3tct-973? Address. E-Mail: fazyszfeezz.e Sile0,4 eo y Applicant's Signature: Authorized Agent Information (If anolicable)! Name: OWL teeter' Phone Number: /430 798-Lo89 Address: /9L5 /V,9y/4'A1 S94Ery ✓A 2-5/S3 E-Mail: Ln,M-ezcfyo ryiNo.1,C4 Authorized Agent's Si nature: wash lir / 1 • i . ` 't P ds 1 �' .‘ n*.,t P 4 The fbllbwidgrmyst be submitted-for all applications: R OA I V O K E f—✓Completed application form and checklist, (✓Written narrative explaining the reason for the request. ri/Metes and bounds description, if applicable. ri/Filing fee. Fora rezoning not otlfej'ielse'lieted'rtbe full§"vh'u§.mustelfO,6e'submitted; r✓Concept plan meeting the Application Requirements of item 2(c)' in Zoning Amendment Procedures. For a conditional rezoning,the following must also be submitted: F Written proffers. See the City's Guide to Proffered Conditions. Concept plan meeting the Application Requirements of item'2(c)'in Zoning Amendment Procedures. Please label as (— 'development plan'if proffered. For a planned unit development,the following must also be submitted: F Development plan meeting the requirements of Section 36.2-326 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. For a comprehensive sign o$ day distiict,the following must be submitted: F Comprehensive signage plan meeting the requirements of Section 36.2-336(d)(2)of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Fot anam'eridelent of gOreld copdit(ons,%rye eilkeg;mstaiso be submitted: r Amended development or concept plan meeting the Application Requirements of item'2(c)'in Zoning Amendment Procedures, if applicable. r Written proffers to be amended. See the City's Guide to Proffered Conditions. F Copy of previously adopted Ordinance. Fot a planned unit development amendment;the following must also be submitted: F Amended development plan meeting the requirements of Section 36.2-326 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. F Copy of previously adopted Ordinance. Fora comprehensve igp;exerlaysiefadinentc tbefollgwiii'g,mustalso:be;submitted; F Amended comprehensive signage plan meeting the requirements of Section 36.2-336(d)of the City's Zoning Ordinance. F Copy of previously adopted Ordinance. For a proposal that requires a trellis Impact study be submitted to the City,the following must also be submitted: F A Traffic Impact Study in compliance with Appendix B-2(e)of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Forte proposal that requires a traffic impact analysts be Sueniittea to VDOT,the following must also be submitted: F Cover sheet. F raffic impact analysis. f Concept plan. F Proffered conditions, if applicable. F Required fee. *An electronic copy of this application and checklist can be found at www.roanokeva.gov/pbd by selecting'Planning Commission'under 'Boards and Commissions'. A complete packet must be submitted each time an application is amended,unless otherwise specified by staff. 11 Rotkdr;�llrf .. . _ Mincon Inc P O Box 13886 Roanoke, VA24038 Tel (540) 344 9939x I ax (540) 344 9942 Mincon, Inc. is part of Mincon International which was founded in 1977 in Shannon, Ireland. There are manufacturing plants in Shannon, Ireland, Perth,Australia,and Benton Illinois. Mincon, Inc.sells and markets worldwide state-of-the-art hammers and bits for a variety of industries including Construction, Exploration,Geothermal, Mining, HDD,Oil&Gas,Seismic and Water wells Mincon, Inc. relocated from Winder, GA to Roanoke,VA in 2001. It has continued to grow and is at the point more office space is needed. A new office building will not increase traffic but will provide an attractive building which will improve transition between industrial and residential areas. Neighbors with whom we discussed the proposed rezoning and construction have been very enthusiastic about the improvement a new office building would bring to the neighborhood. We believe our proposal to rezone and construct a new office building will enhance the Economic Development policies and actions as given in the Gilmer Neighborhood Plan of 2004. Applicant Mincon, Inc. request following lots be rezoned to OF-Urban Flex from RM-1 and I-1: W Y Lot 11 BLK 26 RF& H,Tax map number 2112214 E Y.Lot 11 BLK 26 RF& H,Tax map number 2112215 PT Lot 12 BLK 26 RF&H,Tax map number 2112216 E A Lot 12 BLK 26 RF:H,Tax map 2112217; And further request lots be consolidated into one lot for the purpose of constructing a one story office building to replace existing office building which will be removed. If it meets the overall plan for the neighborhood we would not object to the rezoning of Lot 9-10 BLK 26 RF&H to OF-Urban Flex "LEADERS IN THE FIELD OF DRILLING TECHNOLOGY" Proffered Conditions to be Adopted The applicant hereby requests that the following proffered condition be adopted as it pertains to 619 Centre Ave., N.W., bearing Official Tax No. 2112216; and four unaddressed lots on Centre Ave., NW, bearing Official Tax Nos. 2112213, 2112214, 2112215, 2112217. 1. Standard concrete block shall not be used as an exterior building material on the front facade of any building. /. - / --I----- ,z/ ‘,-,‘- ��: .. . / / p /L NOT FOR CON::::-. .. .... . Z 3 _ PP r o ' I �> \a> - E w TO N 0 W -C _1 I 1 E cs- -Ex ssI:N Fervcr GI I- 1i,627 42 111 U O LL Z 4•I 1 ji 1 J y FI w _ H Q 1 V P€i G I 1 Z g� I I s H pSg� -�p�TVn snerr 1 r..8 333 :3 SCI ft PP EXISTING FENCE U 4 r [ I SIN 482_92 e . A RIB ; - r- le --- HE USED Fl s::... EXISTING FENCE a o N I �� � � ND AC 98,33 88 Et 9 y_ . ....... .., Er1± ._ _ _--- 'GATE ® PP —ruunNGSTRIP m CUR:AND GLUIER MH ._._ , ,r. w, . ._t / e - ---- _- I PREL'aR a NOT FOR Ca ..`> I .144, 4_. a/2�7 PP ot- EXISTING FENCT TO REMAIN DECK SO.FT. 627.42 sq ft A SITE SQ.FT. 12992.18 sq £t� —.e446-16 _ EXISTING ENC TO REMAIN 'GATE EDGE PAVEMENT PP dUOSDNU.NVId II31FfID QNY BNfID l'' •?Iiii-, • i° ,i it,. ftli ' v.- . _ a a - e " -a :7-4- , I Sr:al I - Pirrtr;*77M-- i 1 1 1 I ' d 1111 : 1 11 I 111.4"--447` iiiid III fliRglig. 1 Ala vial a 2 ,, fill...:._- _ filliiIIIIIF 1,1 - .•....Ants.vtig/14/01filpivangslaispimessoisec e..,...7.7asymnsniusairitstirmang 4 iiimsnatear- II. * ' 'Ir - 1.74.4.,. . ... 4 : i __,*„..t.-4,t iiiii.milrilli‘ Ariritt pi oc;11111111110110a. I tsui - --- ---, - ,,, ..4-faczz:;:z • 14%4 :I< e.17-11 S:E:Ir ;1:4 iirt 4: ..Li'Lta 5 7..4 , '.1' : - ' ' 1,.-°;:,' '-- - „. ,e- 44 4 - .s.,,- . ,- ..*: NN":41"::-''. ' Itrt4-‘' •": " P R Fit Ail i NIA R V --- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTiO . ‘ih/9 ._..i.ws n j. ,p Q3 804 ION --). AUVNIW9l3bid °; r 4'l , ;1#II$ 1 Iii ; '' ° U _ _ _ _ --=s __ _tom mm. g � _ _ i s N.. WLi i,6a bl en en a.M.irwr.� 3. ° t tr.-7:i t_ i 4 a i#$ .a__i .w..a.nw r .al t • 'g`.mss `(�i - tas am sa' " nan:.cam .y fia ,2 tit a _ c _ 3 i•- - , ,. �,.,,,,m_. a - - - , �±`� err .a - I a„ m,4- , TAXID LOCADDR OWNER OWNERADDR1 MAILCITY MAILST.ATE MAJNZIP 2112109 0 7TH ST NW PETTY OTHELLO D & MAMIE 0 704 LOUDON AVE NW ROANOKE VA 24016 2112119 0 CENTRE AV NW ROBERTS ANDREW L III PO BOX 8002 ROANOKE VA 24014 2112202 07TH ST NW HARVEY CHERYL PO BOX 412 JUSTICE WV 24851 2112203 626 LOUDON AVE NW HUBBARD BARRY A 626 LOUDON AVE ROANOKE VA 24016 2112204 624 LOUDON AVE NW STAPLES BRUCE C 1118 RUGBY BLVD ROANOKE VA 24017 2112205 0 LOUDON AV NW NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENTAL 802 LOUDON AVE NW ROANOKE VA 24016 2112206 618 LOUDON AVE NW MACK WILLIE JR 2327 DELAWARE AVE NW ROANOKE VA 24017 2112207 0 LOUDON AV NW BOARD MAZIE L PO BOX 5462 MARTINSVILLE VA 24115 2112218 0 CENTRE AV NW MINCON INC PO BOX 13886 ROANOKE VA 2401" 2112711 702 CENTRE AVE NW LITTLEFIELD A ERNEST 5359 BLACK BEAR LN SW ROANOKE VA 240.. 2112801 628 CENTRE AVE NW NESTLE BROOKE LLC PO BOX 8004 ROANOKE VA 24014 2112802 624 CENTRE AVE NW NESTLE BROOKE LLC PO BOX 8004 ROANOKE VA 24014 2112803 622 CENTRE AVE NW FULLER CURTIS E 1942 BRANDON AVE SW ROANOKE VA 24015 2112804 620 CENTRE AVE NW BUCKNER RONALD MICHAEL 1702 ORANGE AVE NW ROANOKE VA 24017 2112805 618 CENTRE AVE NW BUCKNER RONALD M 1702 ORANGE AVE NW ROANOKE VA 24017 2112806 614 CENTRE AVE NW BUCKNER RONALD M 1702 ORANGE AVE NW ROANOKE VA 24017 ----— - -„. . . I-7.--i- 2112710 2112116 ..... 21 i CD , 71210 , e4.• S (...7Orr.--: .afg.,__, ?_-_,„.• -•.,--. 27- -r, . _ _:. 128.7-tr-r-' -- i . , ..... . . — . 277, "7-- . . 2172, <102 , "---.4 1207 ' (n .:n -:-."rr 2109 1 -1 - 271, / . -.. . 2172, • x.:. , •e• `109 7 rs) • , , 002 • •0/—•• •700... 1 • ' Lt.,:,• 2 ,5-•'•/. ,‘,;•<(;„\\‘,. -x•-•.;,\\•.‘ - ,, s•-, . . 21 ., . _a, s• 7-803 211.2 a ' 804,VI d7 / 2/ a OS -,S/'\"-'-*<'.\,/VS'.\':/`?Z,..1,%\rA-\\.'>.a,...':.')\,\'\',\Y'"A...4'•''•.,‘,:'-/'."</:l>•.> \.. I 2 v 27 7271c,2 01 277 29 203 '/ r-----2-,-2--,- --------------._,,„1, 44.?....." •,,,..1•4,%St• ,, 27 / na r rtestr•• ••74).4fAt•it•sk-V. 1/2, / 2172806 L-04' ,0•°-..••"1'140'4,--11/4"S.•a :ite,"•4 1 ha - S' f %:':''a:'.h.>44% % ses, 21 , I ..444.3,t•str, .4.•44, / e•e".-...,-.."-v- - ‘ 7-209 E is:-..,......- 4,0 41,...4.. 44 - 4-,-......--t.r. -,..444.:. 51,--,itt•latitir-; 1 -1• 20 , 7<070 o.) _ '4":64.tc. co . _ 2172, a07 _ . 2772 206 . ; L' roc:';; P-- 201 ..;.: - . ' 1 7' / "201 27728_ 27722 . 02 / b 08 2 712288 °120-7, 2 , , a'cr 772, ' o09 - 2172209 / ‘) - -' / ' m _ 4 A , 1 / 20- ----- ..) , RC:7n . r erif „ . 27722 77-210 , / , ri >sr z -----. I - 2112211 / 2012015 •-•.....„ i _ - AFFIDAVIT APPLICANT: Mincon, Inc. LOCATION: 619 Centre Ave., N.W., Centre Ave., NW REQUEST: RM-1 and I-1 to OF COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA TO-WIT: CITY OF ROANOKE The affiant, Rebecca Cockram, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first-class mail on the 29th day of May, 2013, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 11th day of June, 2013, on the request captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels as set out below: Tax No and Owner's Name and Address 2112109 PETTY OTHELLO D& MAMIE 0 704 LOUDON AVE NW ROANOKE VA 24016 2112119 ROBERTS ANDREW L III PO BOX 8002 ROANOKE VA 24014 2112202 HARVEY CHERYL PO BOX 412 JUSTICE WV 24851 2112203 BARRY A HUBBARD DELORES S HUBBARD 626 LOUDON AVE NW ROANOKE VA 24016 2112204 STAPLES BRUCE C 1118 RUGBY BLVD ROANOKE VA 24017 2112205 NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION INC 802 LOUDON AVE NW ROANOKE VA 24016 2112206 MACK WILLIE JR 2327 DELAWARE AVE NW ROANOKE VA 24017 2112207 % LORETTA ROY BOARD MAZIE L PO BOX 5462 MARTINSVILLE VA 24115 2112218 MINCON INC PO BOX 13886 ROANOKE VA 24038 2112711 LITTLEFIELD A ERNEST 5359 BLACK BEAR LN SW ROANOKE VA 24018 2112801, 2112802 NESTLE BROOKE LLC PO BOX 8004 ROANOKE VA 24014 2112803 FULLER CURTIS E 1942 BRANDON AVE SW ROANOKE VA 24015 2112804, 2112805, 2112806 BUCKNER RONALD MICHAEL 1702 ORANGE AVE NW ROANOKE VA 24017 Rebecca Cockram SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this 29th y of May, 2013 Notary Public CANDACE P. MARTIN NOTARY PUBLIC Commonwealth of Virginia Reg. #28207A My Commission Expires/ /°10/a71/� The Roanoke Times Roanoke, Virginia Affidavit of Publication Application by Cary 1. Deane to razore property. located at 803 Patterson The Roanoke Times Ave.,s,w bearing T' Ave No.11e22g .O The apppeton i4 to rezone The ♦ I ---property from Mixed Use PUBUCHUAHMG District(MX)to Downtown District riesp The land use NOTICE residential' in the CITY OF ROANOKE, PDV D District Include. eslaennel; a PLANNING, BLDG. , DEV all public hearings residential'Noun trio advertised herein will be 'commercial;Industrie', 215 CHURCH 166 bola be the City Council m b l y and Chamber,fourth floor.Noel antes tainmenl;phbllc ROANOKE VA 29011 cTaylor Mamapal6l:Imn¢, instumion&and common':" 215 Church Avenue,5 Wl., faollty agricultural,(anon. Roanoke, Virginia. ble utilitso{agricultural;and applications are available accessory with a maximum for in the Planning comprehensive area t1 of150The REFERENCE: 80076519 Bala gxoome ee 215' a iggo 1 hth n e tyt r 13333369 PUBLIC HEARING NCTIC Church A &w.,Roanoke, Downtown Development VA Residential&Commercial. The proposed use of the State of Virginia rL jNNAIN I property i gc 1 ing apt el analgh City of Roanoke alp to ni fie of worship and residential hearings should,contact apartments. 0 p Building at 560) to rezall property 6yl heel I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative 8531730 t`leastf days at sioeeht Ae,NW.,. of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation prior eaent the Scheduled bearing Dyla rtas nc. 6 2n112g16, a Tax bur. is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily The City of Roanoke AveaNW tam Centre bearing official newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of Planning c Commission will Tax Nos 2112213, hold a public hearing on 2112214, 2112215, Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was lune 11 So1o,atv301 2112217 The or published in said newspapers on the following p rc may be he d I fromeResdemlal Mixed consider them applications. Density District DAMN and dazes: Light lanFleal NMr II)Appl op by Hometown, to urban f ft t(ge)e x mend the Planned, The lane a categories Unit D lopment Plan el permpi tFLRnt 11 p tarn s to 3209 include residential; Southwded Manor Ct,S.W accommodations tI1 gapprobl tIg II living; aal, Of61alT x .12901077 disc but'warehousing bly end i City/Ccunty of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of to peeps conntruction of la NaN r,public, af t l &I loII' lai¢a � m Vifinia. Sworn and subscribed before me this units instead f el facilities; p tal day of June 2013. Witness my hand and single-family ly miteld bymt utility cut da `Issory' Mixed Use Planned a Il de comprehensive e a yIZ' official seal. Development Plan MYPUD) a igna m enM rt for Permitted by City Council e me55/R Ie IIaf the Y .179 —x when il adopted Ordinance The prtyP�e Cot the' ,,.i //1a l..vm/.Z. Notary Public December Ss 2008 The use categories Requestfrom Charles am Permitted 1 M1 MxpuL lonhif er D M1 to District include act and group dead-end nen E, vacate ffMfI1q g b l Ya 1 Ia st , s e adjoining P P n laal a 18on M .. . ars $p n 1 N 0141609 d ♦� f PYI s e' t IIIY g II r d tit i0 PUBLISHED ON: 05/29 06/05¢ „s,i,6 ry.mb j a ty r nag c y Co x n la al -illnesses it a 13Thec 1 1 sit p rn d g' the f The p n e tl 011 a (w pl designates the, 1 :.1720so tithe 1 property residential Th el P matter o tnei' m be' heard. proposes NN 1 t Subdivide Ih p peDyi i Stephanie M Moog M1 two xP Is • The proposed i f the MMG CIry CI M TOTAL COST: 1,122 . 00 fin Pue ty,assdp e Rebecca Coolm 'r -rr subdivided, Secretary, FILED ON: 06/05/13 city Plannitgcammaion + 113333369) I Authorized I II Signature: C \ . 1I) S Billing Services Representative PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE All public hearings advertised herein will be held in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor,Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke,Virginia. All applications are available for review in the Planning Building and Development office, Room 166, 215 Church Ave. S.W., Roanoke, VA. Any person with a disability requiring any special accommodation to attend or participate in the hearings should contact Planning Building and Development at (540) 853-1730 at least five days prior to the scheduled hearing. The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on June 11, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the matter may be heard, to consider these applications: Application by HomeTown Bank to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan as it pertains to 3209 Southwood Manor Ct., S.W., containing approximately 0.6110 acres, bearing Official Tax No. 1290107, to permit construction of two single-family dwelling units instead of one single-family dwelling unit previously permitted by the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Plan (MXPUD)permitted by City Council when it adopted Ordinance 38318-121508 on December 15, 2008. The land use categories permitted in the MXPUD District include residential; accommodations and group living; commercial; assembly and entertainment; public, institutional and community facilities; transportation; utility; agricultural; and accessory, with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 1,800 square feet of lot area. The comprehensive plan designates the property for mixed residential use. The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into two separate tax parcels. The proposed use of the property, as subdivided, is single- family residential. Application by Gary L. Deane to rezone property located at 803 Patterson Ave., S.W. bearing Official Tax No. 1112219. The application is to rezone the property from Mixed Use District(MX) to Downtown District(D). The land use categories permitted in the D District include residential; accommodations and group living; commercial; industrial; assembly and entertainment; public, institutional and community facilities; transportation; utility; agricultural; and accessory, with a maximum floor area ratio of 15.0. The comprehensive plan designates the property for Downtown Development: Residential & Commercial. The proposed use of the property is mixed use building containing a place of worship and residential apartments. Application by Mincon, Inc. to rezone property located at 619 Centre Ave., N.W., bearing Official Tax No. 2112216; and four unaddressed lots on Centre Ave., N.W., bearing Official Tax Nos. 2112213,2112214, 2112215, 2112217. The application is to rezone the property from Residential Mixed Density District (RM-1) and Light Industrial District(I-1)to Urban Flex District (UF). The land use categories permitted in the UF District include residential; accommodations and group living; commercial; industrial; warehousing and distribution; assembly and entertainment; public, institutional and community facilities; transportation; utility uses and structures; agricultural; and accessory. The comprehensive plan designates the property for Business/Residential Mix. The proposed use of the property is office. Request from Charles and Jennifer Basham, to permanently vacate a dead-end cul-de-sac on 6 '/ Street, S.E., adjoining property located at 661 and 663 Morrill Ave., S. E., bearing Official Tax Map Nos. 4141409 and 4141530. City Council will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid applications on June 17, 2013, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon as the matter may be heard. Stephanie M. Moon, MMC, City Clerk Rebecca Cockram, Secretary, City Planning Commission Please publish in newspaper on May 29 and June 5, 2013. Please bill and send affidavit of publication to: Rebecca Cockram, Secretary City Planning Commission Room 166,Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 853-1730 CITY OF ROANOKE tl ° ' OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ',VA- _: 215 Church Avenue, S.W.,Suite 456 - t-:"' Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 ' .,�. Telephone: (540)853-2541 En: (540)853-1145 STEPIIANIEM.MOON,MMC E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk June 18, 2013 Charles "Billy" Basham 661 Morrill, Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Dear Mr. Basham: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 39692-061713 permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing a dead-end cul-de-sac on 6 '/2 Street, S. E., adjoining property located at 661 and 663 Morrill Avenue, S. E. Ordinance No. 39692-061713 further ordains that you shall, upon meeting all other conditions to the granting of the application, deliver to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, a certified copy of this ordinance for recordation where deeds are recorded in such Clerk's Office; and upon a certified copy of this ordinance being recorded by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, you shall file with the City Engineer the Clerk's receipt demonstrating that such recordation has occurred. If the above conditions have not been met within one year from the date of the adoption of this ordinance, then Ordinance No. 39692-061713 shall be null and void with no further action by City Council being necessary. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 2013; and is in full force and effect upon its passage. Sincerely, Stephanie M. Moon, MM City Clerk Enclosure Charles "Billy" Basham June 18, 2013 Page 2 pc: Clara Eanes, 5757 Crystal Creek Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Wesley Terry Heims, 663 Morrill Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Karen Neal, 1420 6 '/ Street, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Sharon Ann Hartwell, 1414 6 '/ Street, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 The Honorable Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of the Circuit Court Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance Steve Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Philip Schirmer, City Engineer Susan Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation Rebecca Cockram, Secretary, City Planning Commission ll�� IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of June, 2013. No. 39692-061713. AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing a certain public right-of-way in the City of Roanoke, as more particularly described hereinafter; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. WHEREAS, Charles and Jennifer Basham filed an application with the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia ("City Council"), in accordance with law, requesting City Council to permanently vacate, discontinue and close a certain public right-of-way described hereinafter; WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, after giving proper notice to all concerned as required by §30-14, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and after having conducted a public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to Council; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on such application by City Council on June 17, 2013, after due and timely notice thereof as required by §30-14, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were afforded an opportunity to be heard on such application; WHEREAS, it appearing from the foregoing that the land proprietors affected by the requested closing of the subject public right-of-way have been properly notified; and WHEREAS, from all of the foregoing, City Council considers that no inconvenience will result to any individual or to the public from permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing such public right-of-way. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, that the public right-of-way situated in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and more particularly 1 described as follows: a dead-end cul-de-sac on 6 92 Street, S.F.., adjoining property located at 661 and 663 Morrill Avenue, S.F,., bearing Official Tax Map Nos. 4141409 and 4141530 be, and is hereby permanently vacated, discontinued and closed, and that all right and interest of the public in and to the same be, and hereby is, released insofar as City Council is empowered so to do with respect to the closed right-of-way, reserving however, to the City of Roanoke and any utility company or public authority, including, specifically, without limitation, providers to or for the public of cable television, electricity, natural gas or telephone service, an easement for sanitary sewer and water mains, television cable, electric wires, gas lines, telephone lines, and related facilities that may now be located in or across such public right-of-way, together with the right of ingress and egress for the maintenance or replacement of such lines, mains or utilities, such right to include the right to remove, without the payment of compensation or damages of any kind to the owner, any landscaping, fences, shrubbery, structure or any other encroachments on or over the casement which impede access for maintenance or replacement purposes at the time such work is undertaken; such easement or easements to terminate upon the later abandonment of use or permanent removal from the above-described public right-of-way of any such municipal installation or other utility or facility by the owner thereof BE IF FURTI IER ORDAINED that closure of the subject right-of-way shall be subject to the condition that the applicant submit to the Subdivision Agent, receive all required approvals of, and record with the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke, a subdivision plat, with such plat combining all properties within the right-of-way to be vacated in a manner consistent with law, and retaining appropriate easements, together with the right of ingress and egress over the same, for the installation and maintenance of any and all existing utilities that may be located within the right-of-way. 2 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the applicant shall, upon meeting all other conditions to the granting of the application, deliver to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, a certified copy of this ordinance for recordation where deeds are recorded in such Clerk's Office, indexing the same in the name of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as Grantor, and in the name of the applicant, and the names of any other parties in interest who may so request, as Grantees, and pay such fees and charges as are required by the Clerk to effect such recordation. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the applicant shall, upon a certified copy of this ordinance being recorded by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, where deeds are recorded in such Clerk's Office, file with the City Engineer for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, the Clerk's receipt, demonstrating that such recordation has occurred. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if the above conditions have not been met within a period of one year from the date of the adoption of this ordinance, then such ordinance shall be null and void with no further action by City Council being necessary. BE IT FINALLY ORDAINED that pursuant to the provisions of§12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: m� r' City Clerk. 3 t o Ro i., vt; CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: June 17, 2013 Subject: 661 Morrill Avenue, S.E. Alley Closure Request Planning Commission Public Hearing and Recommendation: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 11 , 2013. By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommended vacation of that portion of the right-of-way which is northwest of an extension of the rear property line of Tax Map No. 4141530 to an intersection with the existing property line of Tax Map No. 4141409. The applicant will not gain the benefit of further developing the property, thus the applicant should not be charged for the right-of-way. Vacation should be subject to the following conditions: 1 . The applicant shall submit a subdivision plat to the Agent for the Planning Commission, receive all required approvals of, and record the plat with the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke. Such plat shall combine all properties which would otherwise dispose of the land within the right-of-way to be vacated in a manner consistent with law, and retain appropriate easements for the installation and maintenance of any and all existing utilities that may be located within the right-of-way, including the right of ingress and egress. 2. Upon meeting all other conditions to the granting of the application, the applicant shall deliver a certified copy of this ordinance for recordation to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke, Virginia, indexing the same in the name of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as Grantor, and in the name of the petitioner, and the names of any other parties in interest who may so request, as Grantees. The applicant shall pay such fees and charges as are required by the Clerk to effect such recordation. 3. Upon recording a certified copy of this ordinance with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, the applicant shall file with the Engineer for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, the Clerk's receipt, demonstrating that such recordation has occurred. 4. If the above conditions have not been met within a period of one year from year the from the date of adoption of this ordinance, then such ordinance shall be null and void with no further action by City Council being necessary. Planning Commission Public Hearing Discussion: Wesley Heims, of 663 Morrill, the next door neighbor, stated he was in favor of the closure. Ms. Katz asked if the applicant would fence the property given the topography is sloped and uneven. Mr. Basham stated he would fence the property in cooperation with Mr. Heims and topography was not a major issue. Planning Commission recommended approval subject to conditions stated in the staff report. , cutcs_ Lora Katz, Chair` City Planning Commission cc: Chris Morrill, City Manager R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Billy and Jennifer Basham 2 APPLICATION STREET OR ALLEY VACATION ROANOKE Date: April 29.2013 r7 IY %'(81 lt To: Office of the City Clerk Fourth Floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 Phone: (540) 853-2541 Fax: (540) 853-1145 All submittals must be typed and include all required documentation and a check for the filing fee. Application is hereby submitted for street or alley vacation for the property located at: Location and description of street or alley to be closed: The dead-end cul-de-sac of 61/2 Street,SE,Roanoke,VA 24013 that adjoins parcel#'s 4141409 and 4141530;661 Morrill Ave and 663 Morrill Ave..respectively. Mr.and Mrs.Basham are willing to concede ownership of the flange(adjoining parcel 4141412)to the City in exchange for the land encompassed by the cul-de-sac(see attached GIS map with proposed boundary drawn in.). Proposed use of vacated street or alley: Extend residential plat;no development,resale,construction,or other modifications to existing parcels is imminent. Applicant desires the current property line dividing said parcels is extended to 6112 Street. Name of Applicant/Contact Person: Jennifer and Billy Basham Mailing Address: 661 Morrill Ave.,SE,Roanoke,VA 24013 Telephone: ( ) 653-6646 Fax: ( ) E-mail: billy.baaham @roanokeva.goy Applicant(s) signature(s): )€ _ _ 5 "6' v. r a:. • • Copyright 2001 201 City of Roe 65(L W E S http://gis.roanokev a.gov/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?S erviceName=mke&Client V e. . 07/26/2012 CITY OF ROANOKE , 'u ^.x t 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 JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC Deputy City Clerk City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk REVISED May 1, 2013 L--R{becca Jo Cockram, Secretary City Planning Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Cockram: Pursuant to Section 30-14(3), Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am attaching copy of an Original Application for Street or Alley Vacation received in the City Clerk's Office on April 29, 2013, from Charles W. "Billy" and Jennifer Basham requesting that the dead-end cul-de-sac of 6 1/2 Street, S. E., that adjoins properties at 661 and 663 Morrill Avenue, S .E., be vacated, discontinued and closed. Sincerely, 1 Stephanie M. Moon, MM City Clerk Enclosure pc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Charles W. "Billy" and Jennifer Basham, 661 Morrill Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Adjoining property owners 661 Morrill Ave. TAXID LOCADDR OWNER OWNERADDR1 MAILCITY MAILSTATE MAINZIPCOD 4141412 1421 6 1/2 ST SE EANES CLARA K 5757 CRYSTAL CREEK DR ROANOKE VA 24018 4141530 663 MORRILL AVE SE HEIMS WESLEY TERRY 663 MORRILL AVE SE ROANOKE VA 24013 4141531 1414 6-1/2 ST SE HARTW ELL SHARON ANN 1414 6 1/2 ST SE ROANOKE VA 24013 4141533 1420 6-1/2 ST SE NEAL KAREN S 1420 6-1/2 SE ROANOKE VA 24013 . . 409• . . _. 4140945 .7 v s2 c 97A 7S ‘36,) 7 Sj 4141448 9 y0� 4 y N y� N pap 141.03 to SIC Y\ to Pt Vflit 41 . 150• R -1 p141533 0 47 97 �QQ 2 na Q1g1gaS Ob OO a bra^ A1d13n50 w N 661 Morrill Avenue, S.E. e' Official Tax Map No. 4141409 Potential Land Swop 414153 N Area to be Vacated A AFFIDAVIT APPLICANT: Jennifer and Billy Basham LOCATION: Dead End Cul-de-Sac adjoining 661 and 663 Morrill REQUEST: Closure COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA TO-WIT: CITY OF ROANOKE The affiant, Rebecca Cockram, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first-class mail on the 29th day of May, 2013, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 11th day of June, 2013, on the request captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels as set out below: Tax No and Owner's Name and Address 4141412 EANES CLARA K 5757 CRYSTAL CREEK DR ROANOKE VA 24018 4141530 HEIMS WESLEY TERRY 663 MORRILL AVE SE ROANOKE VA 24013 4141533 NEAL KAREN S 1420 6-1/2 ST SE ROANOKE VA 24013 4141531 HARTWELL SHARON ANN 141461/2 ST SE ROANOKE VA 24013 '-- Cod Rebecca Cockram SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this 29t. .ay of May, 2013 Notary Public CANDACE R. MARTIN NOTARY PUBLIC Commonwealth of Virginia Reg. #28207. My Commission Expires AI, I of CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ,� 215 Church Avenue, S.W.,Suite 456 ' .t. Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 H - Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 E-mail: clerk®roanokeva.gov JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC Deputy City Clerk City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk REVISED May 1, 2013 Rebecca Jo Cockram, Secretary City Planning Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Cockram: Pursuant to Section 30-14(3), Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am attaching copy of an Original Application for Street or Alley Vacation received in the City Clerk's Office on April 29, 2013, from Charles W. "Billy" and Jennifer Basham requesting that the dead-end cul-de-sac of 6 1/2 Street, S. E., that adjoins properties at 661 and 663 Morrill Avenue, S .E., be vacated, discontinued and closed. Sincerely, 1n,, Stephanie Moon, MM6Y City Clerk Enclosure pc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Charles W. "Billy" and Jennifer Basham, 661 Morrill Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney APPLICATION STREET OR ALLEY VACATION ROANOKE Date: April 29,2013 To Office of the City Clerk Fourth Floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building itjj 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 Phone: (540) 853-2541 Fax: (540) 853-1145 All submittals must be typed and Include all required documentation and a check for the filing fee. Application is hereby submitted for street or alley vacation for the property located at: Location and description of street or alley to be closed: The dead-end cul-de-sac of 6 1/2 Street,SE,Roanoke,VA 24013 that adjoins parcel/Ps 4141409 and 4141530;661 Morrill Ave and 663 Morrill Ave.,respectively. Mr.and Mrs.Basham are willing to concede ownership of the flange(adjoining parcel 4141412)to the City in exchange for the land encompassed by the cul-de-sac(see attached GIS map with proposed boundary drawn in.). Proposed use of vacated street or alley: Extend residential plat; no development,resale,construction,or other modifications to existing parcels is imminent. Applicant desires the current property line dividing said parcels is extended to 61/2 Street. Name of Applicant/Contact Person: Jennifer and Billy Baeham Mailing Address: 661 Morrill Ave.,SE, Roanoke,VA 24013 Telephone: ( ) 853-6846 Fax: ( ) E-mail: billy.basham @roanokevagov Applicant(s) signature(s): w 5 Map Output Page 1 of 1 Itts °j °B, Q ,\ °.; % \ r- „ tea �' ( -m Copyright 2001 -2012 Cyr of Roanoke / t / �d Sit \- Ai W E S http://gis.roanokeva.gov/servl et/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName--rnke&Client V e... 07/26/2012 Adjoining property owners 661 Morrill Ave. TAXID LOCADDR OWNER OWNERADDR1 MAILCITY MAILSTATE MAINZIPCOD 4141412 1421 6 1/2 ST SE EANES CLARA K 5757 CRYSTAL CREEK DR ROANOKE VA 24018 4141530 663 MORRILL AVE SE HEIMS WESLEY TERRY 663 MORRILL AVE SE ROANOKE VA 24013 4141531 1414 6-1/2 ST SE HARTWELL SHARON ANN 1414 6 1/2 ST SE ROANOKE VA 24013 4141533 1420 6-1/2 ST SE NEAL KAREN S 1420 6-1/2 SE ROANOKE VA 24013 The Roanoke Times Roanoke, Virginia Affidavit of Publication oeareto lreaoby among located at 803 Patterson Ave.s W bearing Official The Roanoke Times Tax N .1112219. The application Is to rezone the ---Property from Mixed Use PURLICHEARING DistrictNa)to wntown I DIstrict D) The land use NOTICE categories permitted in the CITY OF ROANOKE, PDV DDistric ei Jude, PLANNING, BLD6. , DEV au Public hearings odaationsandgraup Thing; advertised herein will be 'commercial,Industrial, 215 CHURCH 166 held in city councn rm b I y a n d Chamber.fourth floor,Noel entertainment, public, ROANOKE VA 29011 cTaylor Municipal Building, institutional and wmmubny 215 Church Avenue,S W. facilities,transportation, Roanoke, Virginia All aid applications are available. floor ar agricultural; _ry,tutu a maximum for the Building dDelelap Planning, d rar a dive PTh REFERENCE: 13333369 office, Room 168 215 designates ncomprehensive property f 13333369 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIC Church it sw,Roanoke. Downtown Development VA Residential proposed M I. Any person with as ally The per y a e the State of Virginia 4STO idatIun op d of worship containing teal City of Roanoke t hearings cc pate alone apartments. Pl Bmlamg d Application by Ml Inc I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative 1 53 Development 30 ilaiil Se Dy at sia9Ce Property l located of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation prior eanat. the Scheduled beapng,a)nctel Tax No. zwader-eased 122162 a. four is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily lots on Centre The City of Roanoke Ave:,N W b¢ 2 al newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of Planning Commission will Tax x 2111221 213, hold public hearing on, 2112214 2112215, Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was lung.u as Soon as 1„Cl 210 re ethapplication r pm ix published in said newspapers on the following matter Mixed' mrbfr at onmResidential M'xee consider these applicatIons. oensftr Ontrict 1RM 1)Mrict and dates: Appb tlnby NomT n to Urban Flex DBJctf(Uur) Bank Unit Development W end the N e' melena categories R nl permittedinthe UWD t 1 Pertains to 3209 include residential, Southwood ManorCt sW arcm daU rd group t l gapproxl telr' living commercial, 06110 acres,hearing' industrial;warehousing and. Official T No.1290107 distribution;assembly and, City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of t p e copttrucN f entertainment;public,. two Virginia. gSworn and subscribed before me this &1 f oddwelling tlitiesm m , instead.of community tarns, 161 f ry n to g t my Cie t t wsl y day of June 2013. Witness my hand and p Irp muted bym s nn T a ry. Mixed Use The tse t lf;official seal. PaMXPLD) igath pro pr e n I by ityCouncil e /R m Mx.Iwh it permitter/ The proposed use of on E cc a.c /111 Notary Public D 5 15 2008 The R Pest office. land categories' Request Charles and, permitted In the MXPai 1 envier,.Bannon, to District include residential, Permanently te a' accoramodations and g p dead-end E. 0M _...W„bbsg living; 5t t,5 E adjoining assembly and 8p located t 881 M f p� ik entertainment, P LII 1663 63 Morrill Ave S. E„ • ItU d ly bearing. 41 official T Map .l,��y f Iltt t p tl t N 41A3409 d PUBLISHED ON: 05/29 06/053 't,/A enSy ygW n° a City Ooh yT spa ,y ry a ll 8 0 p public will hold t �( sq P SeTh y preheMl pt>uahearing ti the gyy.s.�.,,r., 01 applications Rim pT a Ig to lh 1 -.1] 2013 t>:00 p a tl r m the 13.111, the. _ applicant proposes oa maYbeMani. i / II btl Id at property ses Into Stephanie H Moon,'The proposed t t p f the MIND City Clerk TOTAL COST: 1,122. 00 nom Property,as subdivided,is Rebecca Cockram smglefamnv residential. SecretaM FILED ON: 06/05/13 City Planning Commission 4 (13333369) Authorized Signature: V \ - , Billing Services Representative PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE All public hearings advertised herein will be held in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor,Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W.,Roanoke, Virginia. All applications are available for review in the Planning Building and Development office, Room 166, 215 Church Ave. S.W., Roanoke,VA. Any person with a disability requiring any special accommodation to attend or participate in the hearings should contact Planning Building and Development at (540) 853-1730 at least five days prior to the scheduled hearing. The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on June 11, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the matter maybe heard,to consider these applications: Application by HomeTown Bank to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan as it pertains to 3209 Southwood Manor Ct., S.W., containing approximately 0.6110 acres, bearing Official Tax No. 1290107, to permit construction of two single-family dwelling units instead of one single-family dwelling unit previously permitted by the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Plan(MXPUD)permitted by City Council when it adopted Ordinance 38318-121508 on December 15, 2008. The land use categories permitted in the MXPUD District include residential; accommodations and group living; commercial; assembly and entertainment; public, institutional and community facilities; transportation; utility; agricultural; and accessory, with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 1,800 square feet of lot area. The comprehensive plan designates the property for mixed residential use. The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into two separate tax parcels. The proposed use of the property, as subdivided, is single- family residential. Application by Gary L. Deane to rezone property located at 803 Patterson Ave., S.W. bearing Official Tax No. 1112219. The application is to rezone the property from Mixed Use District (MX) to Downtown District(D). The land use categories permitted in the D District include residential; accommodations and group living; commercial; industrial; assembly and entertainment;public, institutional and community facilities; transportation; utility; agricultural; and accessory,with a maximum floor area ratio of 15.0. The comprehensive plan designates the property for Downtown Development: Residential & Commercial. The proposed use of the property is mixed use building containing a place of worship and residential apartments. Application by Mincon, Inc. to rezone property located at 619 Centre Ave., N.W., bearing Official Tax No. 2112216; and four unaddressed lots on Centre Ave.,N.W., bearing Official Tax Nos. 2112213,2112214, 2112215, 2112217. The application is to rezone the property from Residential Mixed Density District(RM-1) and Light Industrial District(1-1) to Urban Flex District(UF). The land use categories permitted in the UF District include residential; accommodations and group living; commercial; industrial; warehousing and distribution; assembly and entertainment; public, institutional and community facilities; transportation;utility uses and structures; agricultural; and accessory. The comprehensive plan designates the property for Business/Residential Mix. The proposed use of the property is office. Request from Charles and Jennifer Basham,to permanently vacate a dead-end cul-de-sac on 6 Ye Street, S.E., adjoining property located at 661 and 663 Morrill Ave., S. E.,bearing Official Tax Map Nos. 4141409 and 4141530. City Council will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid applications on June 17, 2013, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon as the matter may be heard. Stephanie M. Moon, MMC, City Clerk Rebecca Cockram, Secretary, City Planning Commission Please publish in newspaper on May 29 and June 5, 2013. Please bill and send affidavit of publication to: Rebecca Cockram, Secretary City Planning Commission Room 166,Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 853-1730 CITY OF ROANOKE i As„ OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue,S.W., Suite 456.��44 Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 -1 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)8539145 STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC E-mail: clerkgroanakeva.gov JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk June 18, 2013 The Honorable Brenda S. Hamilton Clerk of the Circuit Court Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Hamilton: I am enclosing a certified true copy of Resolution No. 39693-061713 authorizing the issuance of not to exceed fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) 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 improvement projects of and for such city (including related design and architectural and engineering services) and the acquisition and installation of various capital equipment projects of and for the city; fixing the form, denomination and certain other details of such bonds; providing for the sale of such bonds, together with other General Obligation Public Improvement bonds of the city; 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. Pursuant to Section 12 of Resolution No. 39693-061713, the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of this Resolution, certified by such City Clerk to be a true copy hereof, with the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, all in accordance with Section 15.2-2607, Code of Virginia (1950). The Honorable Brenda S. Hamilton Clerk of Circuit Court June 18, 2013 Page 2 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 2013. Sincerely, Spittri Stephanie M. Moon, MMC l City Clerk Enclosure pc: Donald G. Gurney, Esquire, Hawkins, Delafield & Wood, LLP, One Chase Manhattan Plaza, 42nd Floor, New York, New York 10005-1401 Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance Amelia Merchant, Director, Management and Budget IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of June, 2013. No. 39693-061713. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLARS ($15,000,000) 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 IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS OF AND FOR SUCH CITY (INCLUDING RELATED DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES) AND THE ACQUISITION AND INSTALLATION OF VARIOUS CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PROJECTS OF AND FOR THE CITY; FIXING THE FORM, DENOMINATION AND CERTAIN OTHER DETAILS OF SUCH BONDS; PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS, TOGETHER WITH OTHER GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF THE CITY; 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 WHEREAS, in the judgment of the Council (the "Council") of the City of Roanoke, Virginia (the "City"), it is desirable (i)to authorize the City to contract a debt and to authorize the issuance of not to exceed $15,000,000 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, enlargement and equipping of various public improvement projects of 1262287.1037674 RSIND and for the City (including related design and architectural and engineering services) and the acquisition and installation of various capital equipment projects of and for the City, (ii)to authorize the issuance of a like principal amount of General Obligation Public Improvement Bond Anticipation Notes in anticipation of the issuance of such Bonds and (iii) to authorize the sale of such Bonds, together with other previously authorized general obligation public improvement bonds of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: SECTION 1. (a) Pursuant to Chapter 26 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, the same being the Public Finance Act of 1991 (the "Public Finance Act of 1991"), for the purpose of providing net proceeds of sale (after taking into account costs of issuance, underwriting compensation and original issue discount) to pay the costs of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, extension, enlargement and equipping of various public improvement projects of and for the City (including related design and architectural and engineering services) and the acquisition and installation of various capital equipment projects of and for the City, set forth in Section 7, the City is authorized to contract a debt and to issue not to exceed $15,000,000 principal amount of general obligation bonds of the City to be designated and known as the "City of Roanoke, Virginia, General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds" (referred to herein as the "Bonds"). (b) The Bonds shall be issued and sold in their entirety at one time, or from time to time in part in series, as shall be determined by the Director of Finance. There shall be added to the designation of the Bonds a series designation determined by the Director of Finance. The Bonds shall be issued in fully registered form in the denomination of$5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof. The Bonds of a given series shall be numbered from No. R-1 upwards in order of issuance. The Bonds shall bear interest from their date payable on such date and semiannually thereafter as shall be determined by the City Manager and the Director of Finance in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 hereof. The Bonds of each series shall be issued in such aggregate principal amounts (not exceeding the aggregate principal amount specified in Section 1(a)); and shall mature on such dates and in such years (but in no event exceeding forty (40) years from their date or dates), and in the principal amount in each such year, as shall be determined by the City Manager and the Director of Finance in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 hereof. Interest on the Bonds shall be calculated on the basis of a three hundred sixty(360) day year comprised of twelve (12) thirty(30) day months. (c) The Bonds (or portions thereof in installments of$5,000) shall be subject to redemption at the option of the City prior to their stated maturities, in whole or in part from time to time on any date, in such order as may be determined by the City (except that if at any time less than all of the Bonds of a given maturity are called for redemption, the particular Bonds or portions thereof in installments of$5,000 of such maturity to be redeemed shall be selected by lot), upon payment of such redemption prices (expressed as a percentage of the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed), together with the interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for the redemption thereof, as shall be determined by the City Manager and the Director of Finance in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 hereof. - 2 - 1262287.1 037674 RSIND (d) (i) If any Bond (or any portion of the principal amount thereof in installments of $5,000) shall be called for redemption, notice of the redemption thereof, specifying the date, number and maturity of such Bond, the date and place or places fixed for its redemption, and if less than the entire principal amount of such Bond is to be redeemed, that such Bond must be surrendered in exchange for the principal amount thereof to be redeemed and a new Bond or Bonds issued equalling in principal amount that portion of the principal amount thereof not to be redeemed, shall be mailed not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for redemption, by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the registered owner thereof at the address of such registered owner as it appears on the books of registry kept by the Registrar as of the close of business on the forty-fifth (45th) day next preceding the date fixed for redemption. If notice of the redemption of any Bond shall have been given as aforesaid, and payment of the principal amount of such Bond (or the portion of the principal amount thereof to be redeemed) and of the accrued interest payable upon such redemption shall have been duly made or provided for, interest thereon shall cease to accrue from and after the date so specified for the redemption thereof (ii) Any notice of the optional redemption of the Bonds may state that it is conditioned upon there being on deposit with the City on the date fixed for the redemption thereof an amount of money sufficient to pay the redemption price of such Bonds, together with the interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for the redemption thereof, and any conditional notice so given maybe rescinded at any time before the payment of the redemption price of such Bonds, together with the interest accrued thereon, is due and payable if any such condition so specified is not satisfied. If a redemption of any Bonds does not occur after a conditional notice is given due to there not being on deposit with the City a sufficient amount of money to pay the redemption price of such Bonds, together with the interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for the redemption thereof, the corresponding notice of redemption shall be deemed to be revoked. (iii) So long as the Bonds are in book-entry only form, any notice of redemption shall be given only to The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York (`DTC'), or to its nominee. The City shall not be responsible for providing any beneficial owner of the Bonds any notice of redemption. SECTION 2. The full faith and credit of the City shall be and is irrevocably pledged to the punctual payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds as the same become due. In each year while the Bonds, or any of them, are outstanding and unpaid, the Council shall be authorized and required to levy and collect annually, at the same time and in the same manner as other taxes of the City are assessed, levied and collected, a tax upon all taxable property within the City, over and above all other taxes, authorized or limited by law and without limitation as to rate or amount, sufficient to pay when due the principal of and interest on the Bonds to the extent other funds of the City are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose. SECTION 3. (a) The Bonds shall be executed, for and on behalf of the City, by the manual or facsimile signature of the Mayor and shall have a facsimile of the corporate seal of the City imprinted thereon, attested by the manual or facsimile signature of the City Clerk. - 3 - 1262287.1 037674 RSIND (b) The Director of Finance is hereby authorized to appoint a Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds (the"Registrar"). (c) The Director of Finance shall direct the Registrar to authenticate the Bonds and no Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose unless and until the certificate of authentication endorsed on each Bond shall have been manually executed by an authorized signatory of the Registrar. Upon the authentication of any Bonds the Registrar shall insert in the certificate of authentication the date as of which such Bonds are authenticated as follows: (i) if a Bond is authenticated prior to the first interest payment date, the certificate shall be dated as of the date of the initial issuance and delivery of the Bonds of the series of Bonds of which such Bond is one, (ii) if a Bond is authenticated upon an interest payment date, the certificate shall be dated as of such interest payment date, (iii) if a Bond is authenticated after the fifteenth (15th) day of the calendar month next preceding an interest payment date and prior to such interest payment date, the certificate shall be dated as of such interest payment date and (iv) in all other instances the certificate shall be dated as of the interest payment date next preceding the date upon which the Bond is authenticated. in the event the Bonds of any series shall be dated as of a date other than the first day of a calendar month or the dates on which interest is payable on such series are other than the first days of calendar months, the provisions of this Section 3(c) with regard to the authentication of such Bonds and of Section 9 with regard to the form of such Bonds shall be modified as the Director of Finance shall determine to be necessary or appropriate. (d) The execution and authentication of the Bonds in the manner set forth above is adopted as a due and sufficient authentication of the Bonds. SECTION 4. (a) The principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be payable in such coin or currency of the United States of America as at the respective dates of payment thereof is legal tender for public and private debts. The principal of the Bonds shall be payable upon presentation and surrender hereof at the office of the Registrar. Interest on the Bonds shall be payable by check mailed by the Registrar to the registered owners of such Bonds at their respective addresses as such addresses appear on the books of registry kept pursuant to this Section 4;provided, however, that so long as the Bonds are in book-entry form and registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, or in the name of such other nominee of DTC as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC, interest on the Bonds shall be paid directly to Cede&Co. or such other nominee of DTC by wire transfer. (b) At all times during which any Bond of any series remains outstanding and unpaid, the Registrar for such series shall keep or cause to be kept at its office books of registry for the registration, exchange and transfer of Bonds of such series. Upon presentation at its office for such purpose the Registrar, under such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, shall register, exchange or transfer, or cause to be registered, exchanged or transferred, on the books of registry the Bonds as hereinbefore set forth. (c) The books of registry shall at all times be open for inspection by the City or any duly authorized officer thereof. - 4 - 1262287.1037674 RSIND (d) Any Bond may be exchanged at the office of the Registrar for such series of Bonds for a like aggregate principal amount of such Bonds in other authorized principal sums of the same series, interest rate and maturity. (e) Any Bond of any series may, in accordance with its terms, be transferred upon the books of registry by the registered owner of such Bond in person or by the duly authorized attorney for such registered owner, upon surrender of such Bond to the Registrar for cancellation, accompanied by a written instrument of transfer duly executed by the registered owner in person or by the duly authorized attorney for such registered owner, in form satisfactory to the Registrar. (f) All transfers or exchanges pursuant to this Section 4 shall be made without expense to the registered owners of such Bonds, except as otherwise herein provided, and except that the Registrar for such series of Bonds shall require the payment by the registered owner of the Bond requesting such transfer or exchange of any tax or other governmental charges required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. All Bonds surrendered pursuant to this Section 4 shall be cancelled. (g) (i) The Bonds shall be issued in full book-entry form. One Bond representing each maturity of the Bonds will be issued to and registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, as registered owner of the Bonds, and each such Bond will be immobilized in the custody of DTC. DTC will act as securities depository for the Bonds. Individual purchases will be made in book-entry form only, in the principal amount of$5,000 or any whole multiple thereof. Purchasers will not receive physical delivery of certificates representing their interest in the Bonds purchased. (ii) Principal and interest payments on the Bonds will be made by the Registrar to DTC or its nominee, Cede& Co., as registered owner of the Bonds, which will in turn remit such payments to the DTC participants for subsequent disbursal to the beneficial owners of the Bonds. Transfers of principal and interest payments to DTC participants will be the responsibility of DTC. Transfers of such payments to beneficial owners of the Bonds by DTC participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of such beneficial owners. Transfers of ownership interests in the Bonds will be accomplished by book entries made by DTC and, in turn, by the DTC participants who act on behalf of the indirect participants of DTC and the beneficial owners of the Bonds. (iii) The City will not be responsible or liable for sending transaction statements or for maintaining, supervising or reviewing records maintained by DTC, its participants or persons acting through such participants or for transmitting payments to, communicating with, notifying, or otherwise dealing with any beneficial owner of the Bonds. SECTION 5. (a) CUSIP identification numbers may be printed on the Bonds, but no such number shall constitute a part of the contract evidenced by the particular Bond upon which it is printed; no liability shall attach to the City or any officer or agent thereof(including any paying agent for the Bonds) by reason of such numbers or any use made thereof(including any use thereof made by the City, any such officer or any such agent) or by reason of any inaccuracy, error or omission with respect thereto or in such use; and any inaccuracy, error or - 5 - 1262287.1037674 RSIND omission with respect to such numbers shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the successful bidder or purchaser to accept delivery of and pay for the Bonds in accordance with the terms of its bid. All expenses in connection with the assignment and printing of CUSIP numbers on the Bonds shall be paid by the City; provided, however, that the CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of such numbers shall be the responsibility of the successful bidder for or purchaser of the Bonds. (b) A copy of the final legal opinion with respect to the Bonds, with the name of the attorney or attorneys rendering the same, together with a certification of the City Clerk, executed by a facsimile signature of that officer, to the effect that such copy is a tine and complete copy (except for letterhead and date) of the legal opinion which was dated as of the date of delivery of and payment for the Bonds, may be printed on the Bonds. SECTION 6. To the extent it shall be contemplated at the time of their issuance that the interest on any Bonds issued hereunder shall be excludable from gross income for purposes of federal income taxation, the City covenants and agrees that it shall comply with the provisions of Sections 103 and 141-150 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the applicable Treasury Regulations promulgated under such Sections 103 and 141-150 so long as any such Bonds are outstanding. SECTION 7. The net proceeds of the sale of the Bonds authorized for issuance in the principal amount of not to exceed $15,000,000 in Section 1(a) hereof(after taking into account costs of issuance, underwriting compensation and original issue discount) shall be applied to the payment of the cost of the following public improvement projects of and for the City in substantially the following respective amounts: Purpose Amount Public Schools $3,000,000 Public Libraries 2,800,000 Parks and Recreation 1,000,000 Bridge Renovation Projects 1,800,000 Stormwater Management Projects 1,120,000 Civic Center Improvements 1,000,000 Curbs, Gutter and Sidewalk Improvements 750,000 Streetscape Improvements 500,000 Rail Passenger Infrastructure Improvements 600,000 Roanoke Police Academy Expansion Project 250,000 Broadband Improvement Project 1,000,000 Total $13,820,000 If any project set forth above shall require less than the entire respective amount so set forth, the difference may be applied to any of the other projects so set forth. SECTION 8. (a) The Bonds shall be sold at negotiated or competitive sale on such date or dates and at such price or prices as shall be determined by the City Manager and the Director of Finance. - 6 - 1262287.1037674 RSIND (b) If the Bonds are sold at competitive sale, the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to prepare and distribute, or to cause to be prepared and distributed, via electronic dissemination or otherwise, a Preliminary Official Statement and an Official Notice of Sale relating to the Bonds. In preparing the Official Notice of Sale relating to the Bonds, the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to provide that bids for the purchase of the Bonds may be received by electronic bidding. (c) If the Bonds are sold at competitive sale, the City Manager and the Director of Finance, without further action by the Council, (i) are hereby authorized to determine the dated date of the Bonds of each series, the dates the Bonds of each series shall mature, the dates on which interest on the Bonds shall be payable, the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds of each series and the principal amount of the Bonds of each series maturing in each year and (ii) are hereby further authorized to receive bids for the purchase of the Bonds of each series and to accept the bid offering to purchase the Bonds of each series at the lowest true interest cost to the City;provided, however, in no event shall the true interest cost to the City with respect to the Bonds of any series exceed six percent (6.00%). The City Manager and the Director of Finance are further authorized to fix the rates of interest to be borne by the Bonds of each maturity of each series as specified in the bid accepted by them in accordance with the immediately preceding sentence. The City Manager and the Director of Finance are hereby authorized to determine the provisions relating to the redemption of the Bonds upon the advice of the City's financial advisor; provided, however, in no event shall any redemption premium payable by the City exceed two percent (2.00%). (d) If the Bonds are sold at negotiated sale, the City Manager and the Director of Finance, without further action of the Council, (i) are hereby authorized to determine the dated date of the Bonds of each series, the dates the Bonds of each series shall mature, the dates on which interest on the Bonds shall be payable, the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds of each series and the principal amount of the Bonds of each series maturing in each year and (ii) are hereby authorized to select the underwriters of the Bonds (the "Underwriters") and to sell the Bonds in one or more series in accordance herewith to the Underwriters. If the Bonds are sold at negotiated sale, the Bonds shall bear interest at such rates per annum as shall be approved by the City Manager and the Director of Finance;provided, however, in no event shall the true interest rate for the Bonds of any series exceed six percent (6%). The City Manager and the Director of Finance are further authorized to fix the rates of interest to be borne by the Bonds of each maturity of each series as negotiated with the Underwriters in accordance with the immediately preceding sentence. The City Manager and the Director of Finance are hereby authorized to determine the provisions relating to the redemption of the Bonds upon the advice of the City's fmancial advisor;provided, however, in no event shall any redemption premium payable by the City exceed two percent (2.00%). Either or both of the City Manager and the Director of Finance are authorized to execute and deliver to the Underwriters one or more Bond Purchase Contracts relating to the sale of the Bonds by the City to the Underwriters. (e) The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the purchasers of the Bonds an Official Statement of the City relating to the Bonds, in substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds, after the same has been completed by the insertion of the maturities, interest rates and other details of the Bonds and by making such other insertions, changes or corrections as the Mayor, based on the advice of the - 7- 1262287.1037674 RSIND City's financial advisor and legal counsel (including the City Attorney and Bond Counsel), deems necessary or appropriate; and this Council hereby authorizes the Official Statement and the information contained therein to be used by the purchasers in connection with the sale of the Bonds. The Preliminary Official Statement is "deemed final" for purposes of Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Rule 15c2-I2"). The City Manager and the Director of Finance are hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the City and deliver to the purchasers a certificate in substantially the form to be included in the Official Statement under the caption "Certificate Concerning Official Statement". (f) The City Manager and the Director of Finance are hereby authorized to execute and deliver to the purchasers of the Bonds a Continuing Disclosure Certificate relating to the Bonds evidencing the City's undertaking to comply with the continuing disclosure requirements of Paragraph(b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12 in such form as shall be approved by the City Manager and the Director of Finance upon advice of counsel (including the City Attorney and Bond Counsel), such approval to be conclusively evidenced by their execution thereof. (g) All actions and proceedings heretofore taken by this Council, the City Manager, the Director of Finance and the other officers, employees, agents and attorneys of and for the City in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds are hereby ratified and confirmed. SECTION 9. The Bonds, the certificate of authentication of the Registrar, and the assignment endorsed on the Bonds, shall be in substantially the forms set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. SECTION 10. General obligation public improvement bond anticipation notes (the "Notes") are authorized for issuance and sale by the City Manager and the Director of Finance in anticipation of the issuance of the general obligation bonds authorized for issuance herein. Such Notes shall be sold at competitive or negotiated sale at such price or prices and on such other terms and conditions as shall be determined by the City Manager and the Director of Finance. The City Manager and the Director of Finance (i) are hereby authorized to determine the dated date of the Notes of each series, the dates the Notes of each series shall mature, the dates on which interest on the Notes shall be payable, the aggregate principal amount of the Notes of each series and the principal amount of the Notes of each series maturing in each year and (ii) are hereby further authorized to receive bids for the purchase of the Notes of each series if sold at competitive sale or proposals for the purchase of the Notes of each series if sold at negotiated sale and, without further action of the Council, to accept the bid or proposal offering to purchase the Notes of each series at the lowest true interest cost to the City; provided, however, in no event shall the true interest cost to the City with respect to the Notes of any series exceed six percent (6.00%). The City Manager and the Director of Finance are further authorized to fix the rates of interest to be borne by the Notes of each maturity of each series as specified in the bid or proposal accepted by them in accordance with the immediately preceding sentence. The City Manager and the Director of Finance are hereby authorized to determine the provisions relating to the redemption of the Notes upon the advice of the City's financial advisor; provided, however, in no event shall any redemption premium payable by the City exceed two percent (2.00%). If such Notes are offered for competitive sale, a Detailed Notice of Sale or - 8 - 1262287 1 037674 RSIND Summary Notice of Sale shall be prepared, published and distributed in accordance with the requirements of Section 8. If such Notes are publicly offered, there may also be prepared and distributed a Preliminary Official Statement and a fmal Official Statement relating to such Notes in such form as shall be approved by the Director of Finance. The issuance and details of such Notes shall be governed by the provisions of Section 15.2-2628 of Title 15.2, Chapter 26, Article 2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950. The provisions of Sections 2 and 6 shall apply to such Notes to the same extent the same apply to the Bonds except, in the case of the provisions of Section 2, only to the extent such Notes are not paid from the proceeds of the Bonds or from any other available finds. Bonds in anticipation of which such Notes are issued pursuant to this Section 10 may be issued and sold in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution at any time within five (5) years of the date of issuance of the first Notes issued in anticipation of such Bonds. SECTION 11. The Council hereby authorizes the City to make expenditures for the purpose for which the Bonds are to be issued in advance of the issuance and receipt of the proceeds of the Bonds and to reimburse such expenditures from the proceeds of the Bonds. The adoption of this Resolution shall be considered an "official intent" within the meaning of Treasury Regulation Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. SECTION 12. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of this Resolution, certified by such City Clerk to be a true copy hereof, with the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, all in accordance with Section 15.2-2607 of the Code of Virginia, 1950. SECTION 13. All ordinances, resolutions and proceedings in conflict herewith are, to the extent of such conflict, repealed. AT TEST: — City Clerk. - 9 - 1262287.1037674 RSIND EXHIBIT A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF ROANOKE GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BOND SERIES REGISTERED REGISTERED No. R- S MATURITY INTEREST DATE: RATE: DATE OF BOND: CUSIP NO.: REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO. PRINCIPAL SUM: DOLLARS THE CITY OF ROANOKE, in the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "City"), for value received, acknowledges itself indebted and hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner (named above), or registered assigns, on the Maturity Date (specified above) (unless this Bond shall be subject to prior redemption and shall have been duly called for previous redemption and payment of the redemption price duly made or provided for), the Principal Sum (specified above), and to pay interest on such Principal Sum on and semiannually on each and thereafter (each such date is hereinafter referred to as an "interest payment date"), from the date hereof or from the interest payment date next preceding the date of authentication hereof to which interest shall have been paid, unless such date of authentication is an interest payment date, in which case from such interest payment date, or unless such date of authentication is within the period from the sixteenth (16th) day to the last day of the calendar month next preceding the following interest payment date, in which case from such following interest payment date, such interest to be paid until the maturity or redemption hereof at the Interest Rate (specified above) per annum, by check mailed by the Paying Agent hereinafter mentioned to the Registered Owner in whose name this Bond is registered upon the books of registry, as of the close of business on the fifteenth (15th) day (whether or not a business day) of the calendar month next preceding each interest payment date; provided, however, that so long as this Bond is in book-entry only form and registered in the name of Cede& Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), or in the name of such other nominee of DTC as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC, interest on this Bond shall be paid directly to Cede & Co. or such other nominee of DTC by wire transfer. Interest on this Bond shall be calculated on the basis of a three hundred sixty (360) day A-1 1262287.1037674 RSIND • • year comprised of twelve (12) thirty (30) day months. The principal of this Bond is payable upon presentation and surrender hereof, at the office of Regions Bank, as the Registrar and Paying Agent, in the City of Richmond, Virginia. Principal of and interest on this Bond are payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America which, on the respective dates of payment thereof shall be legal tender for public and private debts. This Bond is one of an issue of Bonds of like date, denomination and tenor except as to number, interest rate and maturity, which is issued for the purpose of providing funds to pay the costs of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, extension, enlargement and equipping of various public improvement projects of and for the City(including related design and architectural and engineering services) and the acquisition and installation of various capital equipment projects of and for the City, under and pursuant to and in full compliance with the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including Chapter 26 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 (the same being the Public Finance Act of 1991), and resolutions and other proceedings of the Council of the City duly adopted and taken under the Public Finance Act of 1991. The Bonds of the issue of which this Bond is one (or portions thereof in installments of$5,000) maturing on and after 1, 20 are subject to redemption at the option of the City prior to their stated maturities, on or after 1, 20 , in whole or in part from time to time on any date, in such order as may be determined by the City(except that if at any time less than all of the Bonds of a given maturity are called for redemption, the particular Bonds or portions thereof in installments of$5,000 of such maturity to be redeemed shall be selected by lot), upon payment of a redemption price equal to the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed, together with the interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for the redemption thereof The Bonds of the issue of which this Bond is one maturing on _ are subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption on and on of each year thereafter and to payment at maturity on _ in the principal amounts in each year set forth below, in the case of redemption with the particular Bond or Bonds maturing on or portions thereof to be redeemed to be selected by lot, upon payment of the principal amount of the Bonds maturing on _ to be redeemed, together with the interest accrued on the principal amount to be redeemed to the date fixed for the redemption thereof Year Principal Amount The City, at its option, may credit against such mandatory sinking fund redemption requirement the principal amount of any Bonds maturing on which have been purchased and A-2 1262287.1 037674 RSIND cancelled by the City or which have been redeemed and not theretofore applied as a credit against such mandatory sinking fund redemption requirement. If this Bond is redeemable and this Bond (or any portion of the principal amount hereof in installments of$5,000) shall be called for redemption, notice of the redemption hereof, specifying the date, number and maturity of this Bond, the date and place or places fixed for its redemption, and if less than the entire principal amount of this Bond is to be redeemed, that this Bond must be surrendered in exchange for the principal amount hereof to be redeemed and a new Bond or Bonds issued equalling in principal amount that portion of the principal amount hereof not to be redeemed, shall be mailed not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for redemption, by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the Registered Owner hereof at the address of such Registered Owner as it appears on the books of registry kept by the Registrar as of the close of business on the forty-fifth (45th) day next preceding the date fixed for redemption. If notice of the redemption of this Bond (or the portion of the principal amount hereof to be redeemed) shall have been given as aforesaid, and payment of the principal amount of this Bond (or the portion of the principal amount hereof to be redeemed) and of the accrued interest payable upon such redemption shall have been duly made or provided for, interest hereon shall cease to accrue from and after the date so specified for the redemption hereof. Any notice of the optional redemption of this Bond may state that it is conditioned upon there being on deposit with the City on the date fixed for the redemption hereof an amount of money sufficient to pay the redemption price of this Bond, together with the interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for the redemption hereof, and any conditional notice so given may be rescinded at any time before the payment of the redemption price of this Bond, together with the interest accrued thereon, is due and payable if any such condition so specified is not satisfied. If a redemption of this Bond does not occur after a conditional notice is given due to there not being on deposit with the City a sufficient amount of money to pay the redemption price of this Bond, together with the interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for the redemption hereof, the corresponding notice of redemption shall be deemed to be revoked. Subject to the limitations and upon payment of the charges, if any, provided in the proceedings authorizing the Bonds of the issue of which this Bond is one, this Bond may be exchanged at the office of the Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of Bonds of other authorized principal amounts and of the same issue, interest rate and maturity. This Bond is transferable by the Registered Owner hereof, in person or by the attorney for such Registered Owner duly authorized in writing, on the books of registry kept by the Registrar for such purpose at the office of the Registrar but only in the manner, subject to the limitations and upon payment of the charges, if any, provided in the proceedings authorizing the Bonds of the series of which this Bond is one, and upon the surrender hereof for cancellation. Upon such transfer a new Bond or Bonds of authorized denominations and of the same aggregate principal amount, issue, interest rate and maturity as the Bond surrendered, will be issued to the transferee in exchange herefor. This Bond shall not be valid or obligatory unless the certificate of authentication hereon shall have been manually signed by the Registrar. A-3 1262287.1 037674 RSIND The full faith and credit of the City are irrevocably pledged to the punctual payment of the principal of and interest on this Bond as the same become due. In each year while this Bond is outstanding and unpaid, the Council of the City shall be authorized and required to levy and collect annually, at the same time and in the same manner as other taxes of the City are assessed, levied and collected, a tax upon all property within the City, over and above all other taxes, authorized or limited by law and without limitation as to rate or amount, sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on this Bond to the extent other funds of the City are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose. It is certified, recited and declared that all acts, conditions and things required to exist, happen or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond do exist, have happened and have been performed in due time, form and manner as required by law, and that the amount of this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the City does not exceed any limitation of indebtedness prescribed by the Constitution or statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Bond to be executed by the manual or facsimile signature of its Mayor; a facsimile of the corporate seal of the City to be imprinted hereon attested by the manual or facsimile signature of its City Clerk; and this Bond to be dated the date first above written. CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA [SEAL] Mayor Attest: City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Bond is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the within-mentioned proceedings. REGIONS BANK, as Registrar By: Authorized Signatory Date of Authentication: A-4 1262287.1 037674 RSIND ASSIGNMENT FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned hereby sell(s), assign(s) and transfer(s) unto (Please print or type name and address, including postal zip code of Transferee) PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER TAX IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF TRANSFEREE: the within Bond and all rights thereunder, hereby irrevocably constituting and appointing , Attorney, to transfer such Bond on the books kept for the registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Signature Guaranteed: NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed (Signature of Registered Owner) by a member firm of The New York Stock NOTICE: The signature above must Exchange, Inc. or a commercial bank or trust correspond with the name of the Registered company. Owner as it appears on the face of this Bond in every particular, without alteration, enlargement or any change whatsoever. A-5 1262287.1 037674 RS1ND IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of June, 2013. No. 39694-061713. AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding to be provided by the issuance of general obligation Bonds to the Civic Center Building Upgrades, Broadband Infrastructure, City-wide Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk FY14, Passenger Rail Infrastructure, Franklin Road over Norfolk Southern Rail Way - Bridge Replacement, Main Library 1st Floor Improvements, Parks & Rec Master Plan - Phase II, Neighborhood Storm Drains, Streetscape Improvements, Roanoke Police Academy Expansion, Virginia Heights Improvement & Expansion, and Round Hill Expansion — Phase I projects, and to appropriate funds from the Main Library 1st Floor Improvements to be placed back into the Economic and Community Development Reserve, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2012- 2013 Civic Facilities, Capital Projects and School Capital Projects Funds, 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 2012-2013 Civic Facilities, Capital Projects and School Capital Projects Funds Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, added, amended, and reordained to read and provide as follows: Civic Facilities Fund Appropriations Appropriated from 2014 Bond Funds 05-550-8681-9360 $ 1,000,000 Civic Center Upgrades 05-550-9506-9340 ( 1,000,000 ) Capital Protects Fund Appropriations Appropriated from 2014 Bond Funds 08-310-9692-9360 1,000,000 Broadband Infrastructure 08-530-9535-9346 ( 1,000,000 ) Appropriated from General Revenue 08-530-9775-9003 ( 500,000 ) Appropriated from 2014 Bond Funds 08-530-9775-9360 750,000 City-wide Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk FY14 08-530-9535-9361 ( 750,000 ) Appropriated from 2014 Bond Funds 08-530-9963-9360 600,000 Passenger Rail Infrastructure 08-530-9535-9362 $ ( 600,000 ) Appropriated from 2014 Bond Funds 08-530-9965-9360 1,800,000 Franklin Rd over NSRW— Bridge 08-530-9535-9342 ( 1,800,000 ) Replacement Appropriated from 2014 Bond Funds 08-530-9975-9360 2,800,000 Main Library let Floor Improvements 08-530-9535-9343 ( 2,800,000 ) Appropriated from 2014 Bond Funds 08-620-9770-9360 1,000,000 Parks & Rec Master Plan - Phase II 08-530-9535-9344 ( 1,000,000) Appropriated from 2014 Bond Funds 08-530-9734-9360 1,120,000 Neighborhood Storm Drain Projects 08-530-9535-9337 ( 1,120,000 ) Appropriated from 2014 Bond Funds 08-530-9777-9360 500,000 Streetscape Improvements 08-530-9535-9363 ( 500,000 ) Appropriated from 2014 Bond Funds 08-530-9998-9360 250,000 Roanoke Police Academy Expansion 08-530-9535-9345 ( 250,000 ) Fund Balance Economic and Community Development Reserve - Unappropriated 08-3365 500,000 School Capital Projects Fund Appropriations Appropriated from 2014 Bond Funds 31-065-6036-9360 2,400,000 Virginia Heights Improv & Expand 31-060-9506-9366 ( 2,400,000) Appropriated from 2014 Bond Funds 31-065-6037-9360 600,000 Round Hill Exp— Phase I 31-060-9506-9367 ( 600,000 ) Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: ticla•-■•■Qi- I/4 ir atM-1 City Clerk. U al at,1y _ .,:; ,. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT • f,. F < C. To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: June 17, 2013 Subject: Authorization of FY 2014 Bond Issuance and Appropriation of Funds for Capital Projects Background: On May 13, 2013, City Council approved the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Update for FY 2014-2018. The CIP included planned bond issuance in FY 2014 in the amount of $18,620,000 for the following projects: • School Facility Maintenance and Improvements - $5,000,000 Funding provides for HVAC system improvements, construction of classrooms and gymnasiums or multi-purpose rooms, and various other school improvements. • Bridge Renovation - $1 .800,000 Funding provides for identified bridge renovation projects. • Library Master Plan - $2,800,000 Funding provides for Main Library renovations as well as architectural and design work for the Raleigh Court branch renovations. • Parks and Recreation Master Plan - $1 .000,000 Funding provides for priority Parks and Recreation Master Plan projects. • Civic Center Improvements - $1 ,000,000 Funding provides for prioritized capital improvements within the Civic Center complex. • Stormwater System Improvements - $1 ,120,000 Funding provides for addressing prioritized stormwater issues throughout the city. • Elmwood Park Improvements - $2,800,000 Funding provides for construction of Elmwood Park improvements. • Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Program - $750,000 Funding provides for prioritized curb, gutter and sidewalk projects. • Streetscapes - $500,000 Funding provides for streetscape improvements (landscaping, textured crosswalks, and other improvements) in prioritized areas. • Passenger Rail Infrastructure - $600,000 Funding provides for planning and engineering work for reinforcement of infrastructure under the needed track platform. • Roanoke Police Academy Expansion - $250,000 Funding provides for expansion of the existing parking lot at the academy. • Broadband - 51 ,000,000 Funding provides for the implementation of the Roanoke Valley Fiber/Broadband Task Force recommendations in order to enhance the broadband services available in the Roanoke region. The FY 2014-2018 CIP included additional debt issuance of $4,800,000 in FY 2014 to support both the Elmwood Park Improvements project and School Facility Maintenance and Improvements. In FY 2013, Council authorized the inclusion of both the Elmwood Park project of $2,800,000 and a portion of the School Facility and Maintenance projects ($2,000,000) in the FY 2013 debt issuance to facilitate the award of construction contracts for the Elmwood Park Improvements project and to take advantage of the limited time frame available for school related projects. The remaining FY 2014 debt requirement is $13,820,000. On May 20, 2013, Council approved the appropriation of $500,000 from the Economic and Community Development Reserve to facilitate the timely completion of the Elmwood Park Improvements in conjunction with the planned construction of the deck/terrace on the rear of the Main Library. It is necessary to appropriate funding back to the Economic and Community Development Reserve with the FY 2014 bond proceeds. Considerations: City Council authorization is required for the issuance of bonds to provide funding for the projects listed below: School Facility Maintenance and Improvements $ 3,000,000 Bridge Renovation $ 1 ,800,000 Library Master Plan $ 2,800,000 Parks and Recreation Master Plan $ 1 ,000,000 Civic Center Improvements $ 1 ,000,000 Stormwater System Improvements $ 1 ,120,000 Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Program $ 750,000 Streetscapes $ 500,000 Passenger Rail Infrastructure $ 600,000 Roanoke Police Academy Expansion $ 250,000 Broadband $ 1 ,000.000 Total $13,820,000 In order to provide sufficient flexibility to support bond issuance in the event of a premium on the sale of bonds, authorization of issuance of up to $15 million is recommended by the City's financial advisor, Public Financial Management (PFM). Recommended Action: Hold a public hearing on the issuance of general obligation public improvement bonds. Following the public hearing, adopt the accompanying resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds up to $15,000,000 for the projects previously referenced. This resolution shall include language declaring the City's intent to reimburse itself from the proceeds of these bonds. 2 Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to appropriate, in advance of issuance, Series 2014 bond funding in the amount of $13,320,000 to project accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Capital Projects Fund and appropriate $500,000 back to the Economic and Community Development Reserve. istopher P. Morrill City Manager Distribution: Council Appointed Officers Rita D. Bishop, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools Donald G. Gurney, Bond Counsel, Hawkins Delafield & Wood LLP JoAnne Carter, Managing Director, Public Financial Management Inc. Robyn Schon, Global Spectrum General Manager, Roanoke Civic Center 3 The Roanoke Times NOTICE OF PUBLIC Roanoke, Virginia NEARING Affidavit of Publication NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, Pursuant to Section The Roanoke Times 15.22606A of the Code of Virginia,1950,as amended, + that he Council of City, of Roanoke,Virginia(the 'City l,will hold a public ANN H. SHAWVER, DIRECTOR OF FINA hearing on Monday,June ANN H. SHAWVER, DIRECTOR OF FI local time,or 7:00 soon 215 CHURCH AVENUE W. 4 5 I thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the ROANOKE VA 24011 Council Chamber,Fourth Floor. Noel Buillding,Taylor Church Avenue. S.W., Roanoke.Virginia 24011, ,loll members of the public with respect to the and members individuals REFERENCE: 80165721 Proposed adoption by the ane lrrverEte such Council of a resolution iar In and to attend appear and 13337746 NOTI CEOFPUHL I CHEARIN authorizing the City to present)nut view and contract a debt and issue pres general obligation public Proposed resolution and the State of Virginia improvement tbonppamf proposed bond ins 9 in anticipation ay such both ld wrrand ow'ents the bonds s to of any such Ub pre written comments City of Roanoke blige issue general I nepidemeadmreecopies improvement public theulund rsigned at to impwten notes tt oft a the undersigned at or I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative city) pri of the If before me public person with 9 P amok �n the po exceed dsauney who needs a of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation amount of not exceed If accommodations.no neees 61pose of000 for the dating, for this is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily purpose providing(after net public nearing, please proceeds of sale (after tact the City Clerk's newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of taking into account costs of office at(540) 63-2541. underwriting M Thursday, 13,2013. Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was issuance, and original The full text of theproposed the issue discount)to pay the reazminecoc Mn th published in said newspapers on the following costs onne acnuismon, e.Taylor tdunmpale ,Noel dates: wnmmnme.remxtension, Room 456, 215 Church improvement,etlepping, Avenue,5 W..Roanoke, enlargement.equipping, Virginia 24011. rehabilitation and repair mnt ran• various public and d for Dated: lune 3,2013 projects of red to the ign STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC and architectural and City Clerengineering services)and City of R Virginia City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of installation end the Mahon of various (333377461 Virginia. Sworn and subscribed before me this capital and for the Citypforethe purposes and in the I Idi-Orpay of June 2013 . Witness my hand and amounts set forth below; official seal. .., provided that, if any shall require ei forth \ entire respective amount so Notary Public set forth,the difference .►\\..ea. _ y may be applied to any of . I the other purposes so set forth: Purpose Amount � `` QY A . ' Public schools $3,000,000 xrD r` .. Y Public libraries 2,800.000 QP Parks and Recreation j NOiABY `.�9�" ridge Renovation 1,000,000 PUN Ir d 1,800,000 PUBLISHED ON: 06/03 06/10 =* C REG. e7090930 f * ..rote tormwater Management — : MY COMMISSION me Center Improvements Z. •CD ! I \ and`T wboOutlet and 55,,0016 a��/ � Streetscape Improvements j11�1x.111 \\‘‘XL 5nger �k infrastructure frastrucmrc s s g e Improvements 600,000 TOTAL COST: 853 .68 1 Roanoke Police Academy Expansion Project 250,000 FILED ON: 06/10/13 I Project improvement 513,820,000 Authorized Signature: /j,, sr Y,/ id i /„/ ' , Billing Services Representative NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 15.2-2606.A of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, that the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia (the "City"), will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 17, 2013, at 7:00 P.M., local time, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chamber, Fourth Floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011, with respect to the proposed adoption by the Council of a resolution authorizing the City to contract a debt and issue general obligation public improvement bonds of the City (and in anticipation of the issuance of any such bonds to issue general obligation public improvement bond anticipation notes of the City) in the principal amount of not to exceed $15,000,000 for the purpose of providing net proceeds of sale (after taking into account costs of issuance, underwriting compensation and original issue discount) to pay the costs of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, extension, enlargement, equipping, rehabilitation and repair of various public improvement projects of and for the City (including related design and architectural and engineering services) and the acquisition and installation of various capital equipment projects of and for the City for the purposes and in the amounts set forth below;provided that, if any purpose set forth below shall require less than the entire respective amount so set forth, the difference may be applied to any of the other purposes so set forth: Purpose Amount Public Schools $3,000,000 Public Libraries 2,800,000 Parks and Recreation 1,000,000 Bridge Renovation Projects 1.800,000 Stormwater Management Projects 1,120,000 Civic Center Improvements 1,000,000 Curbs, Gutter and Sidewalk Improvements 750,000 Streetscape Improvements 500,000 Rail Passenger Infrastructure Improvements 600,000 Roanoke Police Academy Expansion Project 250,000 Broadband Improvement Project 1 000 000 Total $13,820,000 All members of the public and interested individuals are invited to attend such hearing and to appear and present their view on the proposed resolution and the proposed bond issuance, both orally and in writing. Should written comments be presented, three copies should be made available to the undersigned at or before the public hearing. If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this public hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at(540) 853-2541, by Thursday, June 13, 2013. 1261815.1 037674 FRMS -z- The full text of the proposed resolution is on file in the office of the City Clerk, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, Room 456, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011. Dated: June 3, 2013 STEPHANIE M. MOON, MMC City Clerk City of Roanoke, Virginia PTO BE PUBLISHED ON MONDAY, JUNE 3, 2013, AND MONDAY,JUNE 10, 2013 1261815.1 037674 FRMS -2- Notice to Publisher: Publish once in the Roanoke Times on Monday, June 3, 2013 and Monday, June 10, 2013. Send affidavit to; Send Bill to: Stephanie M. Moon, MMC, City Clerk Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Room 465 Roanoke, VA 24011 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (540) 853-2541 (540) 853-2062 1261815.1 037674 PRMS e tzo l y CITY OF ROANOKE ekt OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W.,Suite 456 w Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk June 18, 2013 John D. Hodgkin 925 First Street, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Dear Mr. Hodgkin: Your Petition for Appeal of a decision of the Architectural Review Board with regard to a Certificate of Appropriateness for repairs at 925 First Street, S. W., which is not consistent with the H-2 Guidelines, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 2013. Based upon evidence (testimony and documents) presented at the Council meeting, the matter was remanded back to the Architectural Review Board for further negotiations. Sincerely, ' � Stephanie M. Moon, MMC , City Clerk pc: Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Jillian Papa, Agent, Architectural Review Board Candace R. Martin, Secretary, Architectural Review Board SUGGESTED MOTION TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO DISASSEMBLE AND RELOCATE A STONE WALL AT 925 1sT STREET, S.W. "Based upon the evidence (testimony and documents) presented to this Council at today's hearing, and while it is unfortunate that a Certificate of Appropriateness was not obtained before the subject wall was torn down, I discount that fact and give no weight to it in my decision in this matter, I move that the decision of the City of Roanoke Architectural Review Board on April 11, 2013, be affirmed and that no Certificate of Appropriateness be issued to allow the Applicant to disassemble and relocate a stone wall at 925 1St Street,S.W., as requested in the Application dated March 26, 2013, on the ground that the proposed disassembly and relocation are alterations of a significant character-defining feature and that the disassembly and relocation will result in a feature which is not architecturally compatible with the existing structures or historic landmarks in the H-2 District and do not respect the character of the streetscape or the H-2 District." Or SUGGESTED MOTION TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REINSTALL A STONE WALL AT 925 1sT STREET, S.W. "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 April 11, 2013, be reversed and that a Certificate of Appropriateness be issued to allow the Applicant to reinstall a stone wall at 925 1st Street, S.W., as set forth in the Application for Certificate of Appropriateness on the ground that the proposed installation and location are architecturally compatible with the structures or historic landmarks in the H-2 District." Motions - 925 1st Street SW.doc STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST I mow' D 13e tAi£ s state that I have a personal interest in agenda item ' I regarding +W ovl - pc o.neck\ . To kv‘ o� >% ► N because T \ o 9 D A ! cdedickl'og■nl W • Therefore, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 2.2-3112, I must refrain from participation in this matter. I ask the City Clerk to accept this statement and ask that it be made a part of the minutes of this meeting. Witness the following signature made this ( 7 `day of -To IJC_ , 2013. z AL) K 1."1411.11 PLANNING, BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT AlpNoel a . 11111141112 Roanoke,Chur C. ylor AvenueMunicipal,SW, Room Building 166 Roanoke,Virginia 24011 540.853.1730 fax 540.853.123o ROANOKEplanning @roanokeva.gov June 11, 2013 Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor Honorable Court G. Rosen, Vice Mayor Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member Honorable Raphael "Ray" E. Ferris, Council Member Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member Honorable Anita J. Price, Council Member Honorable David B. Trinkle, Council Member Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council: Subject: Appeal of decision of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to deny the issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness No. COA130078 for 925 1st Street, S.W. Background: The H-2, Historic Neighborhood District provides that ordinary maintenance or in- kind replacement with the same materials, proportions, and design does not require a Certificate of Appropriateness. In such cases, the ARB Agent authorizes such work by having the owner or contractor complete a simple "In- Kind Replacement/Repair Form." The owner or contractor provides a statement of the work to be performed, and is released to proceed (and get a building permit if necessary). Any work that constitutes a change in materials, proportion, and design of a structure or property within the H-2 Overlay requires a Certificate of Appropriateness, issued by either the ARB Agent or the Architectural Review Board (ARB). On February 8, 2013, a Code Compliance Inspector issued a Stop Work Order (Attachment A) after receiving a complaint that unauthorized work at the above- referenced property had taken place. A 92' concrete retaining wall on the north side of the property was removed and replaced with Alan block and an historic stone wall adjacent to the existing driveway was demolished. The owner was advised immediately that the work performed constituted a change in design and therefore would require a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) requiring approval by the ARB and building permit in order to proceed. Staff advised the property owner that removal of a character-defining feature, specifically, the historic stone wall at the front of the property to expand the existing driveway directly conflicts with the H-2 Guidelines. In-kind replacement of the stone wall at the front of the property was recommended. On February 21, 2013, the property owner submitted a COA application for the replacement of a 92 linear foot concrete retaining on the north side of the property with an Alan block wall. The COA application also included a request to remove existing historic stone wall immediately adjacent to the existing concrete driveway and rebuild the stone wall using existing materials, relocating the wall 2 feet to the south to allow for an expanded parking area. ARB members expressed concern that a portion of the request (pertaining to the demolition of the historic stone wall and proposed location, was not consistent with the Architectural Review Guidelines. At Mr. Hodgkin's request, the ARB approved an amended COA application for replacement of the 92' concrete wall with Alan block to allow Mr. Hodgkin to consider other courses of action for the treatment of the historic stone wall at the front of the property as a separate matter. The original application (dated February 21, 2013), staff report and meeting minutes are enclosed as Attachment B. Mr. Hodgkin decided to seek a COA for the demolition of the stone wall on the south side of the existing driveway and construction of a stone wall 2 feet from the driveway edge to accommodate an expanded parking area. The application appeared before the ARB on April 11, 2013 (COA application dated March 26, 2013 and staff report are enclosed as Attachment C). Mr. Hodgkin indicated that the replacement wall would re-use the existing stones and that the wall is broken at the mortar joints, but that the stones themselves were not damaged/broken as part of demolition. Please see photographs of the existing condition of the historic stone material in question as Attachment D). During the public comment portion of the discussion, Ms. Joel Richert, 415 Allison Avenue, S.W., testified on behalf of the Board of Old Southwest Inc. concurred with the assessment of the ARB Agent as outlined in the staff report and requested that the application be denied. Please see email correspondence from the Board of Old Southwest, Inc. enclosed as Attachment E. It should be noted that staff received one phone call in favor of the request from a neighboring property owner at 924 2nd Street, S.W. The ARB asked Mr. Hodgkin to consider rebuilding a column in the previous location, with the wall tapering down in height adjacent to the driveway. This alternative address the applicant's concern that his clients' vehicle doors are scraped by the wall, while preserving the distinct relationship of the wall relative to the streetscape, and does not visually expand the parking area. Mr. Hodgkin rejected this option, stating that the issue was not the opening of a car door in the driveway, but rather the turning radius to safely ingress and egress the walled driveway without scraping a vehicle. The April 11, 2013 meeting minutes and are enclosed as Attachment F. It was also noted that subject property has access to off-street parking from the alley and as well as on-street parking options for clients with larger vehicles. The parcel adjacent to the south is a surface parking lot under the same ownership of 925 1st Street LLC, which is another potential location for parking larger vehicles. Additionally, the existing driveway expands to approximately 13 feet in width beyond the original location of the stone wall, providing clients with physical disabilities ample space to operate and readily access the front porch. The cumulative effect of these features provides more than sufficient means for a motor vehicle to safely ingress and egress the property. See diagram and photographs of available parking area enclosed as Attachment G. The ARB, by vote of 0-5, denied the COA request. The ARB determined that the removal of a historic feature, the stone wall at the front of the property, was inconsistent with the H-2 Architectural Design Guidelines for Walls and Fences (Attachment H). The applicant did not provide evidence of deterioration (or alternative justification) that justified demolition of the wall, which distinguishes the property. Mr. Hodgkin was notified in writing of the COA denial and his right to appeal to City Council by letter dated April 15, 2013 (Attachment I). Mr. Hodgkin, filed an appeal of the ARB's decision on April 29, 2013 (Attachment J). Considerations: City Council established the ARB with the stated purpose of protecting designated historic properties against destruction or architecturally incompatible buildings and structures. The ARB's review criteria are based on the standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, and, where applicable, its adopted Architectural Design Guidelines (Guidelines). The Guidelines adhere to the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, which are federal criteria for appropriate treatment of historic buildings and contexts. The H-2 Guidelines for siding are relevant to consideration of this application. Staff and the ARB cited these specific sections: "Identify and keep all important features and characteristics of historic wall fences, including textured masonry, distinctive profile, craftsman-like details, decorative coping, distinctive gates and steps, and traditional bonding pattern and mortar joint profile." (Walls and Fences) "Do not remove historic features, such as stone retaining walls and wrought- iron fences." (Walls and Fences) "Respect the character of the streetscape when deciding whether or not to use a wall or fence, what materials are appropriate to your house and neighborhood, and the height, location, and design of the wall or fence." (Walls and Fences) "Repoint brick or stone walls that have deteriorated mortar. See Masonry Features and Walls for information on proper repointing techniques." (Walls and Fences) "Identify and keep the original materials and features of walls and masonry that make them unique. Important character-defining features include brackets, cornices, bonding patterns, lintels, mortar joints, textures, colors, and sills." (Masonry) "Remove deteriorated mortar by carefully hand-raking the joints with a chisel to avoid damaging the masonry." (Masonry) "Keep driveways as narrow in width as possible to reduce their visual impact." (Parking Areas) "Use alleys for access to rear yard parking whenever possible." (Parking Areas) "Do not allow parking to overwhelm the relationship between a building and its landscape setting. In general, limit parking areas to not more than two spaces." (Parking Areas) "Do not locate parking areas in front yards." (Parking Areas) "Design unobtrusive new onsite parking that preserves the relationship between the building, site and the street." (Parking Areas) Certificate of Appropriateness applications are reviewed by the ARB in accordance with the applicable guidelines in its decision to issue or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness. The H-2 Guidelines for Walls and Fences state "do not remove historic features, such as stone retaining walls". If an application does not adhere to the ARB Guidelines, and/or if historic materials are being replaced rather than repaired, the applicant is required to provide the ARB with justifications. The applicant did not provide evidence of deterioration that justifies removal of the wall, which distinguishes the property. The removal or disassembly of the stone retaining wall jeopardized the physical condition of important character-defining materials and features of the wall, which included a distinctive mortar joint profile. Although the applicant indicated the stone wall was in disrepair, the guidelines clearly provide appropriate measures to address the condition of the masonry wall rather than removal and relocation. The photographs provided by the applicant do not depict significant damage that warrants replacement, but rather, maintenance in-situ. The H-2 Guidelines state that walls are traditional ways of defining residential yards by delineating property lines and separating public and private outdoor space. Walls are defining features in characterizing the relationship between an historic building and its landscape setting. Stone retaining walls contribute to the character of the H-2 District. The proposed alteration would alter the property's historic relationship to streetscape by increasing the scale and visual impact of the parking area, which also does not comply with the H-2 Guidelines for Parking Areas. In conclusion, the ARB was not provided with sufficient evidence regarding the overall condition of the material to warrant removal of the stone wall. Moreover, the proposed relocation to increase the drive aisle width by 18-24" is not an appropriate justification for altering a significant, character-defining feature, given that ample off street and on-street parking options are accessible from the alley for clients with larger vehicles. Please find a copy of the complete case file COA130078 (and COA130058) enclosed for your review. The ARB members offered a design solution to help mitigate potential effect of the stone wall on vehicles parked within the driveway and to complete the project in a manner that conforms to the H-2 Design Guidelines. We feel that the ARB and ARB Agent exhausted every potential avenue to guide the applicant, without compromising our mission to apply the Design Guidelines equally and objectively. Recommendation: The Architectural Review Board recommends that City Council affirm its decision to deny the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the stone wall at the front of the property and rebuild it 2 feet to the south to accommodate an expanded parking area. The ARB recommends that the historic stone wall be rebuilt in its original location according to the same design, dimensions and materials, including mortar profile. Sincerely, 1 Derek B. Cundiff, Chair Architectural Review Board cc: Christopher Morrill, City Manager Daniel J. Callahan, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager Chris Chittum, Director an Shaw, Planning Administrator Jillian Papa, Agent, Architectural Review Board Enclosure: COA130078, COA130058 ATTACHMENT A Mr. Christopher Boehling ..diew Codes Compliance lnspt;ctor ROAN,IOKE (540) 853-1732 Stow order 925 1st st sw 02-08-2013 ■1111111# 1114 2 ' LEGA1P : CE City of Roanoke Building i nspettion<. ROANOKE attti Code Enfor(_i=Jnent Division 4%'`Ds -30 t STOP WORK t l_,•• rf,■r-irff■ il•ri1 that Veil, j� rrrlla, cias s-r. being executed contrary to the p - - ons of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, • in accordance with the above Code that all pe,sorts cease and desist from and STOP WORK at once pertaining to the work listed below. All persons acting contrary to this order or removing or mutilating this notice are subject to prosecution in accordance with Section 36 106 of the Code of Virginia. ((100 ,' 1p4$ 'lS (j.31141 Ril+r`a v 641 a ,4. tw 1 fig'..-- of b toe.k Lortii Oir A11 >p►bS�D4i.^Iva 6i i .S T.itc-p.hRTi at.) $+ a,4 ties; eh/'3 A.c..krrirtawal 1044/4 VOL t Ai ri • X53t73_8-n Jr reo:r , • ATTACHMENT B 1 AGENDA ITEM IV.C. _,,digir PLANNING, BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building 215 urch enue,SW,Room 166 RoanokeCh ,VirgiAvnia 24011 ROA N O K E 540.853.1730 fax 540.853.1230 ptanning@roanokeva.gov March 14, 2013 Mr. Derek Cundiff, Chair and Members of the Architectural Review Board Roanoke. Virginia Dear Members of the Board: Subject: Request from 925 1st Street, LLC represented by John D. Hodgkin, to replace a stone retaining wall at the front of the property, replace a concrete retaining wall at the sides and rear of the property with an Alan block wall, for the property located at 925 1st Street, S.W. Background The building at 925 1st Street, S.W., was built circa 1910 and is classified as contributing to the Old Southwest Historic District. Located within the Historic Neighborhood Overlay (H-2), distinguishing features of the 21/2 story dwelling include a hipped roof with a gable dormer, and a two-bay front porch supported by stuccoed columns. The applicant requests approval for the following work: 1. Replace 92 linear foot concrete retaining was on the north side of the property with an Alan block wall not to exceed 46" above grade. The easternmost 30' linear of the wall will be 32"to 34" above grade. 2. Remove existing historic stone wall westernmost wall immediately adjacent to the existing concrete driveway. 3. Relocate and rebuild the stone wall using existing materials. The wail will be relocated 2 feet to the west to allow for an expanded driveway. Findings: The H-2 Architectural Design Guidelines for Walls and Fences recommend: Retaining Existing Features • Identify and keep all important features and characteristics of historic wall fences, including textured masonry, distinctive profile, craftsman-like details, decorative coping, distinctive gates and steps, and traditional bonding pattern and mortar joint profile. • Do not remove historic features, such as stone retaining walls and wrought-iron fences. While the applicant is proposing to reuse the stone material, which is an important characteristic of the historic wall that was removed, the application does not address the bonding pattern and mortar joint profile. Additionally, the application does not provide evidence of deterioration that justifies removal and alteration of the location of the stone wall feature, which distinguishes the property. Materials • Use traditional or traditional-appearing materials to build walls and fences, such as unpainted back, unpainted stone, painted wrought or cast iron, painted wood, combinations of masonry with wood or metal, aluminum and other metals that mimic the appearance of iron or worked metal, ornamental wire, and composite materials. • Do not use synthetic fence materials that do not have the appearance of wood or other traditional materials. • Retain and maintain existing boundary hedges whenever possible that contribute to the character of a property or the historic district. • Build retaining walls, where necessary, of stone, reinforced or fully bonded brick, or masonry veneer over reinforced concrete block. Decorative concrete block that matches that used in the district is also acceptable. Logs and railroad ties may be appropriate for edging planting beds or for landscape steps, but should not be used for retaining walls that will be visible from the street. • 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.Where incompatible fence materials exist, owners are encouraged to remove them whenever feasible, either when making repairs or undertaking a comprehensive rehabilitation. The proposed Allan block is an acceptable material toward the side and rear of the property according to the guidelines stated above. Height • Use walls that range in height from 1'-0"to 4'-0". The recommended height for retaining walls used with or without fencing, or freestanding walls, is 2'-6," however walls may be built higher due to topographical issues. Feeve ih941Ws are i'i'n'L'9M∎51 bt•A w 26)ri\iv ard.tirmiv r8 The application complies in terms of height. Other Design Considerations • Choose a fence design that relates to the character of your house or building. In addition, if both picket and privacy fences are used, make sure that the designs relate to each other. • Respect the character of the streetscape when deciding: whether or not to use a wall or fence, what materials are appropriate to your house and neighborhood, and the height, location, and design of the wall or fence. • Keep walls in a front yard low in height (2"-6"or less) or combine them with picket fencing placed between solid piers. • Consider planting vegetation adjacent to walls and fences to soften their appearance. • If used, modular wall systems should be indistinguishable in appearance from historic walls. The proposed relocation of the historic stone wall does not respect the character of the streetscape as relates to the location and design of historic stone walls within the district. Maintenance • Repoint brick or stone walls that have deteriorated mortar. See Masonry Features and Walls for information on proper repointing techniques. • Prevent water damage to masonry walls by properly grading the ground at their base and by maintaining wall caps or copings. • Replace missing items from cast or wrought-iron fences by finding suitable replacements in a salvage yard or by having them recast. The applicant has indicated the stone wall was in disrepair. The guidelines stated above are appropriate measures to address the condition of the wall rather than removal and relocation. Since the wall was removed, the ARB and staff are unable to make an informed assessment of the condition. The H-2 Architectural Design Guidelines for Masonry recommend: • Identify and keep the original materials and features of walls and masonry that make them unique. Important character-defining features include: brackets, cornices, bonding patterns, lintels, mortar joints, textures, colors, and sills. t�0∎st.s°8Xi'sA1ng v`1r�r*',rn a taC' i8 7d1' v'riTerkliV masonry repairs. Preventing Deterioration • Prevent water damage to masonry and stucco walls by grading the ground to slope away from the building. • Employ the services of an experienced professional who is familiar with historic buildings when considering techniques such as parging or applying sealants or water-repellant coatings. • Avoid using salt to melt snow near masonry walls. Cleaning Masonry and Stucco • Clean masonry and stucco using the gentlest means possible. Gentle cleaning methods include low-pressure water washes with detergents and natural bristle brushes. Such work should be undertaken only by an experienced professional who is familiar with the cleaning of historic buildings. • Do not use abrasive or reactive techniques when cleaning masonry or stucco that can permanently erode the material's surface such as: sandblasting, high-pressure water cleaning, acid washes, and other chemical treatments not specifically formulated for a particular cleaning problem. • Remove deteriorated mortar by carefully hand-raking the joints with a chisel to avoid damaging the masonry. • Duplicate original mortar joints in width and profile, mortar color and texture, and mortar composition and strength (usually mortars that have a higher proportion of lime than cement). • Avoid repointing with a mortar mixture high in Portland cement content. This mortar is too hard and will not allow for the expansion or contraction of masonry, which will result in the masonry cracking. • Do not use sealants or water-repellent masonry coatings in place of proper repointing or masonry repair techniques. Coatings often alter the appearance of historic masonry and may actually trap moisture within the wall, leading to future damage. Repairing Damage • • Repair minor damage to brick, stone, decorative block, or stucco by patching, piecing in, or consolidating the materials. • Reuse existing masonry wherever possible. • Ensure that replacement bricks, stones, and/or mortar match the color and appearance generally of existing bricks, stones, and/or mortar. • Repair damage that may have resulted from the installation of surface- applied siding, as well as any pre-existing damage that such siding may have concealed. • Borrow original materials from less conspicuous areas such as the side or rear of a building. The borrowed materials can be replaced with compatible new materials. • Employ the services of skilled and experienced plasterers when making repairs to historic stucco. • Repair haihthe crags in stucco with a compatibie coat of paint or white wash. • Do not use commercial caulking compounds to repair cracks in stucco. They weather differently from stucco and become highly visible. • Avoid using a high Portland cement stucco mix. When it freezes, it will cause spalling. Replacing Missing Masonry or Stucco • Replace missing masonry or stucco with decorative block, brick, stucco, or stonework that conforms to the original in: size and shape, color and texture, bonding pattern and mortar joint character, and composition and strength. • Do not replace a missing feature with a new feature that is incompatible with the original materials. • Do not use Exterior Insulation Finish Systems (EIFS), permastone, or other faux siding materials over masonry. • Use substitute materials such as cast epoxy or fiberglass with caution; they may be acceptable when a feature is missing and cannot be replaced in kind. Be sure to compare a sample of the proposed replacement with the original feature and consider how it is attached. The H-2 Architectural Design Guidelines for Parking Areas recommend: Compatible Design • Keep driveways as narrow in width as possible to reduce their visual impact. • Use two strips of concrete as the driveway instead of paving large areas. • Use plantings to improve the appearance of the edges of driveways and parking areas. • Use alleys for access to rear yard parking whenever possible. • Limit parking on corner lots. • Do not allow parking to overwhelm the relationship between a building and its landscape setting. In general, limit parking areas to not more than two spaces. • Do not locate parking areas in front yards. Commercial Parking • Design unobtrusive new onsite parking that preserves the relationship between the building, site and the street. • Limit commercial parking areas to the rear yards of buildings. • Explore opportunities to share parking between two or more businesses that have their maximum parking uses at different times of the day or week. Shared parking reduces the overall size of the parking area. Staff has not been provided with sufficient evidence regarding the overall condition of the material to warrant removal of the stone wall. Moreover, the proposed relocation to increase the driveway (or drive aisle width) by 2 feet has not been adequately justified given that ample off street parking options are accessible from the alley. Design Application Review Committee comments: • Provide a justification for removal of the historic stone wall. Is the justification to widen the driveway? • Clarify the items depicted on the site plan. Indicate the location, material, height and liner dimension of proposed wall replacement. The applicant provided a written response to the comments above. Staff Comments: Staff recommends approval of items 1 and 2. The applicant has not submitted sufficient justification regarding item 3 to demonstrate compliance with the H-2 Guidelines for Walls and Fences, Masonry and Parking Areas. Staff recommends that the historic stone wall be rebuilt in its original location according to the same design, dimensions and materials, including mortar profile. Jillian Papa, Agent H-2, Historic Neighborhood Overlay District Application for Certificate of Appropriateness Date of Application [Feb 15,2013 ROA N O K E Site Address 19251ST STreet SW,Roanoke,VA 24016 -- - —1 Property Owner. Name: 9251ST LLC Address: 19251ST Street. – __ - City: (Roanoke I State: [VA Zip Code: 124016 Phone Number +1 (540)777-0927 , E-Mail:hodgkinjdh@gmall.com Owns. Bepresentative(if applical RECEIVED Name: -- FEB 11 2013 Address: CITY OF ROANOKE CI City: [ __ J State: L._ _ Zip Code: Pnone Number: I j E-Mail: Application Prepared By: John D Hodgkin Current Use; [; Single-Family ❑ Two-Family(Duplex) ❑ Multifamily C-1 Townhouse II Commercial if Commercial.Describe Use:'Business oAlce Project Type; [7 Roof [: Porch l 1Mndows and Doors C`1 New Construction ❑ Signs ll Walls and Fences ❑ Parking and Paving [j Demolition p Other: 'PLEASE USE ATTACHED SHEET FOR PROJECT DESCRIPTION. I• - •• ACknOwl00054beitt of Responsibility: I understand that all applications requiring review by the ARB must be complete and must be submitted before application deadlines;otherwise consideration wYl be deferred to the following meeting. I agree to comply with the conditions of this certificate and all other applicable city regulations and to pursue this project in strict conformance with the plans I approved by the ARB, I understand that.;,./anges are• ed without prior approval by the City. Signature of Property Owner. +rAP / , Date: lFeb 15,2013. Section Mow to be Canpletsd by Staff Approval By: ARt� i Agent Certificate Number: Other approvals needed: Tax Parcel Number. IOR 1 1I _ 1 fl Zoning Permit r BM /Planning Commission Base Zoning District: ...._ ..- �� n Building Permit [Other •,A3tent.Aatlitertural.Re w.Pnaal: dial? - Member"Architectural Review Board: I �_-....�.1 Date: _—_ Form updated 12111 Page 2 of 3 Application for In-Kind Replacement & Repair WI'VP This form is to be used for work not requiring ARB approval. .../1111,1110 Date of Application 02/06/2011----":77-7-77-3 J r' r —- -- ROA l V O K E Site Address 925 1ST Street SW, Roanoke,VA 24016 RE� Property Owner: FEB 12 2013 Name: 925 1ST Street LLC - — -_ -- - -=---�'OF.B __ J Address: [925 1ST Street SW c rJUN r,FF 8C/14.GiPl�nln nFvEThPA -` C' Roanoke State: VA Zip Code;L 24016 Phone Number. L 540-777-0927 --- — -- 1E-Mall: Hodgkinjdh@gmai Repair and_ replace front wall with existing stone. n + b� Replace failed concrete driveway wall with Allan I v Block engineered wall. � I I 1 ) Brief Project i N K 1 - J ' Description: 1/ AAA OV44, (Work not requiring ARB approve!Includes painting and ordinary maintenance activities and replacerneftf of porches,stake,awnings, roofing materials,windows,or other simikir modifications to an element of a building, structure or landmark where materials of the same design are used and the architectural defining features of the structure are maintained.) Submittal Checklist El A completed application. Rq Photograph(s)of existing condition of the fedture(s)proposed for repair or replacement(please provide as attachment). CartificAtien; I hereby certiffy that the exterior work to be undertaken on this property will be done as described above and will be limited to the described maintenance and in-kind replaC95nent. f Signature of Property Owner. 61_ / Date: Z. • L •P.:I...III:I •1 • • 1 1.4 : .• 1• :1,.1 $•,I:•dl /:aG!i II.:.II AB .AgSlt Room'166,Noel C.T. ►r Mu' pal Building Frederick Custer,City Plainer II 215 Church Avenue,S.'•. 'Phone: (540)853-1104 Roanoke,Virginia 24011 E-rrialh fr8derick.gusl roenokeva.gov Phone:(540)853-1730 Fax: (540)953.1210 Section Befowto be Completed by Staff ... ---1 Tax Parcel Number: Other approvals needed: - — -�. 0 Zoning Permit Base Zoning District: I:. i 0 Building Permt OveriayZon:? +� l ❑Other _--- _ Approved: Agent,Architectural Review hoard: -- I Date: • ...... ,., 9 iiiii,44'... S1) 1, U SAMUEL J. B1KKERS Lie. No.002304 _ s �l r ALLEY _ �-� I' 04'08' W �DEEO) PE�i4R(F) p 5.3.20 _ 4,4: 7 .--::_lb ct (.., .. ,.. la eALL - ,(ef . .. 1,4 tif l� , v ...41 .. —GRAVEL i, v _ o �T 10, BLOCK �,► _ 4„„v,„. X MAP# 1021711 °-3 C-"-, I. - . 018s ACRE '� MERIDM ' a�. a �-, 1 �. $* -. :/ a 1447./.4: cl, - ,` ,, . 32.3'. ' 11,0" Op , � e eh tii, { R TORY MA K' f ,,% 1 VS- 1 . . ! yA � .i.: \• �s TAX AMP/ 10217i0 N r.►1\ ‘.1.1 \ .** 71,4„„ I ORE ENCUMBRANCES ,.....,. .....,.... �.,r., i VN HEREON. FOR PARCEL II 10 DOES EY SSW. 13 CALM T1itS �AY,TH OF D� SO SAD.OFFTCIAL ULY SURVEY. 199 ,zjJj & AMUEL J. 9IIKBRS LW. No.002304 • 3- Z1 -I z 3/8 REBAR (F) ALLEY 1 MRS S 15'01'08. E (N 04'08' W DEED) GAPPED 0.4' FROM CORNER ► 5x'51" W--- _ (F) ., _ * s'51 , — ___. r. _.WALL WALL-----1' VEST PART OF 'T 11. BLOCK 3 a°o. GRAVEL ' At4P,f 1021713 d illi . LOT 10, BLOCK 3 TAX 1021711 r ' w p�) CONCRETE I/ 0.188 ACRE' V 00'4 157E PAD (I • MEMO OF J 49.fi - - i ; S , ii Rik f3 CAPPED KEW (F) BEARS N 48'23144' W 323 • 11.0' 0.3' FROM CORNER I W "` , . e )(Hid /�I 2 STORY FRAdtF I�I I i x ',qp 182t712 3 W/LUSE ENT v L 117 ACRE 1, 1925 i. h L 2, IwiL i la 72' _ •.? •, C T v 9, BLOCK 3 'G LOT 1z7' 1.2' PORdi 1 `r"!.8.5' -le 15.3`. _I .- . �1, fr i ,Itlll srlPs ,� sup 111 �` + - , f.,�� ! gi '°s a ' i• pm MBAR F ``, i .3 S 1111A!4.�F� I! (lam. - 1.0' –.._.. _ GAFFED 5/81 moo' i Row 0 6a00' RJR (F,. . {I ..�.. IL -'A' N 05'28'03" W.- ' DEED) .w (S 04'30' E DEED) i ■..r rvrr„-r-r rye! 1 OpE•��'CUMppAN.Ei 1.4%,r1r A 1\VdL,vlq 1LrV'RJ 01 HEREON. FOR PARCEL W 10 DOES/3 EY $ 01:1 Op SW.SW. CALLS, T11 tfr SON s DATED o�aal SURVEY. a � �r SON, DAZED JULY 29, 1998. 21,1).u SAMUEL J. IIIXKERS Lie. No.002304 3 - .) -/ ?,— t` stroCt 3/8 REENR (F) ALLEY BEARS S 15'01'08' E (N 04'08' W DEED) CAPPED 0.4' F— CORNER , 5'30 , -- REa4R (F)53.20' •I _. WALL _.� VEST PART OF 11 , JT 11, BLOCK 3 21 GRAVEL ' MAP/ 1021713 a LOT 10, BLOCK 3 NI 00'W '�> CONCRETE ( TAX QAI�W/ 1021711 i AeOLVIf � 4557E x� FDAL SIJRVEy CAPPED PEW? i BEARS N 48'23'44"W ili 3Z3 - 11.0' 0.3' FROM CORNER - ' p a,5, '., °O Pb•T PART OF -� x 11, BLOC( 3 tl4 2 STORY FRAME I'AAP# 1712 IV/BASEMENT ' 117 A 3 1, YALE ti x g 2/ 1 7.2' IALT a - I G LOT 127' w • 9, BLOCK.3 1 le 15.3:. I TAX MAP/P# 1021710 14' ,i PORCH ` i''g.5' x .f • 1 1w �...., SIOOP I . 41 STEPS � � �� PED REAR (fj I j S 1 roo'ar E\ j• r! 1.0' FROM CORNER II I+' � CAPPED 5/8' oo` U - (F _60.00' _ (� --• r!-. .. ,.''' A __ i� 2 " ,j 1----- __ DEED)E (S 04'30' E DEED) J I'VM• IN'rru-r-r 6,41, Tex no. 1021711 Jilllan Papa to Jillian Papa 02!06!2013 02:20 PM 11111s- His ory: This message has been forwarded. x_. 777 .0911 • �� '.1v. �:, icy bi'Vrt. "• • . 4t {7 i �.± "1 rC _ to• ✓y.3. • • Condition of Wall that was taken down along the driveway on the street side. Stones have been saved and are being cleaned for re- . installation e '1 r • -"-t w f • 1 a , Transition from front drive wall to side driveway Y. ; wall. The existing wall was poured concrete, it •A` ' f was cracked in several places and leaning into the driveway. A portion of the wall had caved in and the wall wa[Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point.You can w..n3Nnw•k..•n...L....-...w..l......:...1...di............. 111.1k 06. j* ?) -4 ......, 44'".■:,,,,sli; i.''t A r''''''t I ii„1 4.;1::-:,6 '•■1' '4.e.sfi.,4 tilM.:$.', ,, ?P c, x +7 't.(v.h1 •p. Area where side wall was removed. An 18" footing was dug, and filled with#57 crushed stone in readiness for installation of new Alan Block wall. The wall should be replaced as soon as possible to avoid collapse of it parking lot above due to erosion. 1 Iry f • 44 I1 p ii . _7 '}Y � � � 1 i :�,< mar► _� Another example of condition of wall ca that was removed to be repaired and replaced with existing stone. Section of wall along street and where wall to the right of the drive - — _ __ was removed to be repaired and - f r replaced. This section of wall will also be relocated about 24"to allow drive • to be widened. 4 4 h ^44 • •• n- 1 • Architectural Review Board March 14, 2013 Page 3 good with the size of the logo. Mr. Cundiff said, for clarification, the location of the logo was moving from the front to the side and they would shrink the Jack Browns logo so Coca-Cola could go underneath their logo. Ms. Botkin made a motion to approve the application. WD 2nd Mr. Dalhouse seconded the motion and the application was approved by a roll call vote of 5-0, as follows: Ms. Dykstra-yes Mrs. Blanton-yes Ms. Botkin-yes Mr. Dalhouse-yes Mr. Cundiff-yes 5. Request from 925 1St Street, LLC represented by John D. Hodgkin, to replace a stone retaining wall at the front of the property, replace a concrete retaining wall at the sides and rear of the property with an Alan block wall, for the property located at 925 1st Street, S.W. Mr. John Hodgkin, owner of 925 1St Street, LW, appeared before the Board and said he wanted to repair or replace two retaining walls on the property. He said the wall on the left of the driveway was bordered by a stone wall. He said he wanted to reconstruct the front wall with existing river rock and widen it. He said the second portion of the driveway had a retaining wall on the right side that went from the front to back. He said he had the wall removed and replaced it with an Alan block retaining wall instead of a poured concrete wall. He said the wall matched the river rock wall in the front of the property. Mr v ZmAitc os,kc%4 f it s,tato C;191^LAiNtf. Ms. Joel Richert, 415 Allison Avenue, S.W., said she was speaking on behalf of the Old Southwest Inc., Board of Directors. She said she found photographs showing the wall to the right of driveway in the Virginia room at the library. She said the building was once addressed as 931 1st Street and was built in 1921. She said in 1930 the building was used for six apartments. She said the exterior was stucco. She said Old Southwest, Inc. passed a motion opposing the demolition of the stone wall and wanted it rebuilt. She said the Old Southwest historic district had many walls of the same material and design as 925 1St Street. She said the wall was a common feature for the homes built in that part of Roanoke. She said the alley in the rear of the property was adequate for ingress/egress for parking as well as on-street frankfr y. S're said Ale dwr1er c act r4nttlVv pranxubre.tt3(Nrta it arty ct'rarttge ene property and owned other properties in Old Southwest. She said the purpose of the H2 designation and guidelines was to protect the historically built fabric of the neighborhood. She said removing the wall was inappropriate and the Old Southwest Board of Directors agreed the wall should be rebuilt where it was using historic materials. She asked that the Board table the application so the owner could present plans on how the wall was to be restored to its original Architectural Review Board March 14, 2013 Page 4 location and design. Mr. Cundiff asked for staff comments. Ms. Papa said the applicant indicated that the stone wall was in disrepair. However, the staff and Board were unable to make an informed assessment of the wall's condition. She said the guidelines contained appropriate measure to address such conditions. She said staff had not been provided with sufficient evidence regarding the overall condition of the material to warrant removal of the stone wall and the proposed relocation to increase the driveway (or drive aisle width) by 2 feet had not been adequately justified given that ample off street parking options were accessible from the alley. She said staff recommended approval of items 1842 as listed in the staff report but did not have sufficient justification on item 3 to demonstrate compliance with the H2 guidelines for walls and fences as well as masonry and parking areas. She staff recommended the historic stone wall be built in its original location according to the same size, dimensions, and materials including the mortar profile. Mr. Cundiff asked for Board comments. Ms. Botkin said she agreed with staff comments. Mr. Hodgkin said he was confused. He said the wall is being built exactly where it was but moving it over 18 inches so a car could get into the driveway. He said it was not possible for someone to pull in and out of the driveway where the existing wall was. He said the wall was crumbling and needed to be replaced. He said beyond the right side of the wall was never a stone, it was a poured concrete wall that was falling down. He said he was asking to put the wall back the way it was in the front. He said he was trying to restore and improve the property. He said it was unreasonable to ask that it be back into the width of original driveway. He said it was impossible to pull into the driveway and an open a door. Mr. Dalhouse said he was also confused. He asked if the wall would be demolished or rebuilt. Mr. Cundiff said the wall had already been removed from where it was originally located and there were two walls. He said the wall left of the drive had been removed without a permit. He said the second component was a wall beyond the driveway. He said it was 92 foot wall made of poured concrete that had been removed and he proposing to put it back with Alan block. Mr. Dalhouse asked if the wall in front was limestone. Ms. Papa said yes. tOhr ii►t vtgibi^saki tip 6'86 well'wee inieK6k1 avitrelt,s ' Doss iserfiriv 61' 15-etAkea. SWAY Versa block would more closely match the stone wall in the front. He said he owned the business in the building and had clients coming in. He said he went ahead and has somebody come in and break down the concrete wall to make it safe and while he was there he told him the stone wall needed to be repaired and it was taken down. He said the stone was stacked in the front yard and planned to put it back in better shape than it was in. He Architectural Review Board March 14, 2013 Page 5 said he wanted to restore the wall and stairway in the Parking lot on the corner also. Mr. Cundiff said Mr. Hodgkin's solution to use versa block on the rear wall was fine. Mrs. Blanton asked if the versa block wall would have a cap. Mr. Hodgkin said most of it would have a cap and part of it would have plantings on it that would cascade over the wall. He said it was the wall closest to the alley. Mr. Dalhouse asked Mr. Hodgkin if he was intending to take the stone he had stacked in the front yard and rebuild the front wall like it was but move it 18 inches into property. Mr. Hodgkin said that was correct. Mr. Cundiff said for future reference that Mr. Hodgkin always needed to come to the Board before the work has started and also get a building permit. He said the stones were not taken down in a methodical manner and they did not get a chance to see the wall before it was taken down. Mr. Hodgkin said he had a contractor that could get the wall back like the original. Mr. Cundiff said generally the Board had to make an evaluation as to whether the application would be approved if it came to the Board before the work was done. Ms. Botkin said there was a difference between pulling in the driveway and stopping on a slant and opening the door. She said from the step at the top of the driveway there was plenty of room to open a door. She said it was matter of pulling in and out of the driveway. Mr. Hodgkin said his clients were elderly and drove larger cars and it was not practical to keep the driveway narrow. He said it was his intent to set the wall back and the driveway would remain the same width. He said he wanted to make it easier to pull in and use the facility. Mr. Dalhouse asked Ms. Papa if the guidelines would be violated if the wall was moved in 18 inches. Ms. Papa said the wall was a character defining feature and we needed an appropriate justification for its removal. She said based upon the guidelines, to remove historic material to simply open a car door was not an adequate justification to remove or relocate historic materials. Mr. Dalhouse said the Board still needed to treat the application as if it were new. Ar �,w d tf asketi Af.he.►t94 cSVuidvar f She enKI •‘C hl?sa0.thT ad allow a previous applicant to widen the entranceway and to chamfer the corner to allow better views. He said he would like to have more information or a sample to make sure the infill stone could be bought to match. He said he wanted Mr. Hodgkin to understand the costs associated with getting the pieces to reconstruct the wall. Architectural Review Board March 14, 2013 Page 6 Mr. Hodgkin said he looked at chamfering but the character of wall was square all the way around. He said none of the stones were broken and his contractor was pretty confident he could put it back the way it was. He said the original wall had no foundation and when they put it back they wanted to put a solid foundation under it. He said he didn't think it was an issue since he was putting the same wall back up but just moving it in 18 inches. Mrs. Blanton said she agreed with Mr. Hodgkin regarding the rounded corner. She said it was more character defining that it had a right angle corner. She said since it was flanked on both sides of the driveway with the wall was a character defining feature that she would rather see kept. She said they didn't know the condition of side wall that was taken down but the front of the wall did not look to be in bad shape. Mr. Hodgkin said there were places in the wall that needed to be repaired. Mrs. Blanton asked if there was a way to do that with trenching out behind wall without dismantling the wall to make repairs. Mr. Hodgkin said his contractor said the stones needed to be taken out, cleaned up and put back in with mortar so water could not get in. He apologized for moving ahead. Ms. Dykstra asked if Mr. Hodgkin intended to widen the driveway. Mr. Hodgkin said the driveway would stay exactly as it was but 18 inches off the driveway they would put low ground cover and shrubs. He said they were Just moving the wall back. Ms. Dykstra said she lived in house with a driveway somewhat similar. She said she didn't think the problem would be solved. Mr. Hodgkin asked if it would be acceptable to put crushed rock or brick to the left of the driveway. Ms. Papa said neither the guidelines nor the zoning ordinance allowed crushed material. Mr. Cundiff said the Board was fine with the retaining wall in the back. He said he would have a hard time approving moving the wall as it stood now. He suggested tabling the application to consider other options. Mr. Hodgkin said he had a hard time building a wall back that would destroy his client's cars. He asked the Board if their decision was final and the wall had to go back. Ms. Botkin said the Board could either table the application or vote on it as it was. Mr. Dalhouse said the Board was put in a bad place. Mr. Hodgkin said he was hearing that the Board preferred to table the front wall part of the application and approve the rest. Architectural Review Board March 14, 2013 Page 7 Mr. Cundiff said yes. Mrs. Blanton said in addition to reusing the stone and finding matching stone, the joint tooling was just as important as the stone itself. She asked Ms. Richert if the actual location of the wall was important. Ms. Richert said in 1890 there were no cars. She said if you looked up street there was a wall to the south of the property. She said there was a two car garage in the back. She said they knocked down part of a wall of a different material in 1930. She said the back entrance would better serve elderly clients. She said the infill would bother her. She said she would like the Board to table the whole front section and go ahead do the back end. Mr. Talevi asked Ms. Papa if a Certificate would be issued for item number one. Ms. Papa said the cleanest way would be to exclude item 3 from the application and approve the amended application and have the applicant file a new application. Mr. Talevi asked Ms. Papa to articulate for the Board the importance of the relocation of the wall from an architectural standpoint. Ms. Papa said the relocation of the wall had not been adequately justified. She said it was a character defining historic material and when changing the material you had to have a justification such as deterioration and that had not been properly addressed. She said the wall had already been removed and accommodating a car door opening was not a justification within the guidelines to change a historic feature. Mr. Talevi asked if there was justification for changing the location, what the impact would be for fitting in with the neighborhood. Ms. PPoa said the guidelines did not allow changes to historic materials unless the 4golicant provided a justification. Mr. Talevi asked the applicant when he bought the property. Mr. Hodgkin said in May of 2012. He said a driveway was put in to accommodate a 1930 vehicle and he wanted the driveway to accommodate a current vehicle. Mr. Talevi asked if there was any evidence of the wall extending across the driveway. Mr. Hodgkin said no. He said part of what kept the integrity of the neighborhood was businesses coming in and putting money in the properties and he understood keeping the integrity but the people who pay for that were putting in properties and living in them. Mr. Cundiff asked Mr. Hodgkin if he wanted to separate item 1 from items 2 &3. Ms. Papa said he could amend the application to exclude items 2 & 3 and the Board would ynto and then a now arloOration would he.films. Architectural Review Board March 14, 2013 Page 8 Mr. Hodgkin said he would like to amend the application to exclude items 2 & 3 and just consider item 1. Ms. Dykstra made a motion to approve the amended application. Mrs. Blanton seconded the motion and the application was approved by a roll call vote of 5-0, as follows: Ms. Dykstra-yes Mrs. Blanton-yes Ms. Botkin-yes Mr. Dalhouse-yes Mr. Cundiff-yes 6. Request from Downtown Roanoke Inc. to recover the existing vendor stall awnings along Market Street, S.E. Ms. Tracy Hughes, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., appeared before the Board and said she wanted the Board to approve a new material to replace the blue and white awnings which were in dire need of repair. She said they picked a different type of cloth similar to the cloth on the buildings and it would complement the building instead of jumping out like the blue and white did. Mr. Cundiff asked for public comments and there were none. He asked for staff comments. Ms. Papa said the proposed fabric is restrained in design, however the Market would benefit from a solid or traditional striped fabric that provides variation from the proposed painted supports and the existing concrete tables and reinforce traditional color schemes found in the district. She said items 1 and 2, as listed above, generally comply with H-1 Guidelines for Awnings and"Canopies as well as Fainting, however staff-does not have enough intbrmatibn regarding the lighting to make a recommendation at this time. Ms. Hughes said the lighting would be moved to a later time. Mr. Dalhouse said the chosen fabric would not allow the sunlight through. Ms. Hughes said the light would come through the fabric. Mr. Dalhouse said it was translucent but was dark fabric. Ms. Hughes said the lighter fabric showed dirt. Ms. Papa encouraged the Board to look at the H1 guidelines for color schemes regarding the awnings. Ms. Hughes said the fabric was a classier type of material and instead of the structure jumping out it would be the produce. ATTACHMENT C AGENDA ITEM IV.A. PLANNING, BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT Aar Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue,SW,Room 166 Roanoke,Virginia 24011 ROANOKE 540.853.1730 fax keva.g5j.1z3o planning @roanokeva.gov April 11, 2013 Mr. Derek Cundiff, Chair and Members of the Architectural Review Board Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of the Board: Subject: Request from 925 1st Street, LLC represented by John D. Hodgkin, to remove, relocate and rebuild a stone wall at the front of the property located at 925 1st Street, S.W. Background The building at 925 1st Street, S.W., was built circa 1910 and is classified as contributing to the Old Southwest Historic District. Located within the Historic Neighborhood Overlay (H-2), distinguishing features of the 21/2 story dwelling include a hipped roof with a gable dormer, and a two-bay front porch supported by stuccoed columns. The applicant requests approval for the following work: 1. Remove the historic stone wall on the south side of the existing concrete driveway and rebuild the wall 18" to 24" toward the interior of the property. 2. Install brick pavers adjacent to the concrete driveway. Findings: The H-2 Architectural Design Guidelines for Walls and Fences recommend: Retaining Existing Features • Identify and keep all important features and characteristics of historic wall fences, including textured masonry, distinctive profile, craftsman-like details, decorative coping, distinctive gates and steps, and traditional bonding pattern and mortar joint profile. • Do not remove historic features, such as stone retaining walls and wrought-iron fences. The applicant is proposing to reuse the stone material, replicate the bonding pattern and mortar joint profile all of which are important characteristics of the historic wall that was removed. However, the application does not provide evidence of deterioration that properly justifies removal and alteration of the location of the stone wall feature, which distinguishes the property. Materials • Use traditional or traditional-appearing materials to build walls and fences, such as unpainted brick, unpainted stone, painted wrought or cast iron, painted wood, combinations of masonry with wood or metal, aluminum and other metals that mimic the appearance of iron or worked metal, ornamental wire, and composite materials. • Do not use synthetic fence materials that do not have the appearance of wood or other traditional materials. • Retain and maintain existing boundary hedges whenever possible that contribute to the character of a property or the historic district. • Build retaining walls, where necessary, of stone, reinforced or fully bonded brick, or masonry veneer over reinforced concrete block. Decorative concrete block that matches that used in the district is also acceptable. Logs and railroad ties may be appropriate for edging planting beds or for landscape steps, but should not be used for retaining walls that will be visible from the street. • 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. Where incompatible fence materials exist, owners are encouraged to remove them whenever feasible, either when making repairs or undertaking a comprehensive rehabilitation. Height • Use walls that range in height from 1'-0" to 4'-0". The recommended height for retaining walls used with or without fencing, or freestanding walls, is 2'-6," however walls may be built higher due to topographical issues. • Fence heights are mandated by the Zoning Ordinance. Other Design Considerations • Choose a fence design that relates to the character of your house or building. In addition, if both picket and privacy fences are used, make sure that the designs relate to each other. • Respect the character of the streetscape when deciding whether or not to use a wall or fence, what materials are appropriate to your house and neighborhood, and the height, location, and design of the wall or fence. • Keep walls in a front yard low in height (2"-6" or less) or combine them with picket fencing placed between solid piers. • Consider planting vegetation adjacent to walls and fences to soften their appearance. • If used, modular wall systems should be indistinguishable in appearance from historic walls. The H-2 Guidelines state that walls are traditional ways of defining residential yards by delineating property lines and of separating public and private outdoor space. These may take the form of retaining walls, low stone walls, wrought-iron fences, wood picket fences, and privacy fences, many of which are important in helping to define the character of the 11-2 District. The proposed alteration does not respect the historic character of the streetscape as relates to the location of the stone walls commonly found within the district by increasing the scale and visual impact of the parking area, which does not comply with the 142 Guidelines for Parking Areas. Maintenance • Repoint brick or stone walls that have deteriorated mortar. See Masonry Features and Walls for information on proper repointing techniques. • Prevent water damage to masonry walls by properly grading the ground at their base and by maintaining wall caps or copings. • Replace missing items from cast or wrought-iron fences by finding suitable replacements in a salvage yard or by having them recast. The H-2 Architectural Design Guidelines for Masonry recommend: • Identify and keep the original materials and features of walls and masonry that make them unique. Important character-defining features include brackets, cornices, bonding patterns, lintels, mortar joints, textures, colors, and sills. • Reuse existing original materials whenever possible when making masonry repairs. Preventing Deterioration • Prevent water damage to masonry and stucco walls by grading the ground to slope away from the building. • Employ the services of an experienced professional who is familiar with historic buildings when considering techniques such as parging or applying sealants or water-repellant coatings. • Avoid using salt to melt snow near masonry walls. Cleaning Masonry and Stucco • Clean masonry and stucco using the gentlest means possible. Gentle cleaning methods include low-pressure water washes with detergents and natural bristle brushes. Such work should be undertaken only by an experienced professional who is familiar with the cleaning of historic buildings. • Do not use abrasive or reactive techniques when cleaning masonry or stucco that can permanently erode the material's surface such as: sandblasting, high-pressure water cleaning, acid washes, and other chemical treatments not specifically formulated for a particular cleaning problem. • Remove deteriorated mortar by carefully hand-raking the joints with a chisel to avoid damaging the masonry. • Duplicate original mortar joints in width and profile, mortar color and texture, and mortar composition and strength (usually mortars that have a higher proportion of lime than cement). • Avoid repointing with a mortar mixture high in Portland cement content. This mortar is too hard and will not allow for the expansion or contraction of masonry, which will result in the masonry cracking. • Do not use sealants or water-repellent masonry coatings in place of proper repointing or masonry repair techniques. Coatings often alter the appearance of historic masonry and may actually trap moisture within the wall, leading to future damage. Repairing Damage • Repair minor damage to brick, stone, decorative block, or stucco by patching, piecing in, or consolidating the materials. • Reuse existing masonry wherever possible. • Ensure that replacement bricks, stones, and/or mortar match the color and appearance generally of existing bricks, stones, and/or mortar. • Repair damage that may have resulted from the installation of surface- applied siding, as well as any pre-existing damage that such siding may have concealed. • Borrow original materials from less conspicuous areas such as the side or rear of a building. The borrowed materials can be replaced with compatible new materials. • Employ the services of skilled and experienced plasterers when making repairs to historic stucco. • Repair hairline cracks in stucco with a compatible coat of paint or white wash. • Do not use commercial caulking compounds to repair cracks in stucco. They weather differently from stucco and become highly visible. • Avoid using a high Portland cement stucco mix. When it freezes, it will cause spelling. Replacing Missing Masonry or Stucco • Replace missing masonry or stucco with decorative block, brick, stucco, or stonework that conforms to the original in size and shape, color and texture, bonding pattern and mortar joint character, and composition and strength. • Do not replace a missing feature with a new feature that is incompatible with the original materials. • Do not use Exterior Insulation Finish Systems (EIES), permastone, or other faux siding materials over masonry. • Use substitute materials such as cast epoxy or fiberglass with caution; they may be acceptable when a feature is missing and cannot be replaced in kind. Be sure to compare a sample of the proposed replacement with the original feature and consider how it is attached. The applicant has indicated the stone wall was in disrepair. The guidelines stated above are appropriate measures to address the condition of the masonry wall rather than removal and relocation. Since the wall was removed, the ARB and staff are unable to make an informed assessment of the condition. The photographs provided do not depict significant damage that warrants replacement, but rather, maintenance in-situ. The H-2 Architectural Design Guidelines for Parking Areas recommend: Compatible Design • Keep driveways as narrow in width as possible to reduce their visual impact. • Use two strips of concrete as the driveway instead of paving large areas. • Use plantings to improve the appearance of the edges of driveways and parking areas. • Use alleys for access to rear yard parking whenever possible. • Limit parking on corner lots. • Do not allow parking to overwhelm the relationship between a building and its landscape setting. In general, limit parking areas to not more than two spaces. • Do not locate parking areas in front yards. Commercial Parking • Design unobtrusive new onsite parking that preserves the relationship between the building, site and the street. • Limit commercial parking areas to the rear yards of buildings. • Explore opportunities to share parking between two or more businesses that have their maximum parking uses at different times of the day or week. Shared parking reduces the overall size of the parking area. Staff has not been provided with sufficient evidence regarding the overall condition of the material to warrant removal of the stone wall. Moreover, the proposed relocation to increase the drive aisle width by 18-24" is not an appropriate justification for altering a significant, character-defining feature given that ample off street and on-street parking options are accessible from the alley for clients with larger vehicles. The parcel adjacent to the south is a surface parking lot under the ownership of 925 1st Street LLC, which is another potential for parking larger vehicles. Additionally, the existing driveway expands to approximately 13 feet in width beyond the original location of the stone wall, providing clients with physical disabilities ample space to operate and readily access the front porch. The proposed relocation of the stone wall does not preserve the relationship between the building, site and street as stated in the guidelines above, by increasing the width of parking area, impervious surfaces and their visual impact on the historic streetscape. Design Application Review Committee comments: None. Staff Comments: The application does not comply with the H-2 Guidelines for Walls and Fences, Masonry, and Parking Areas. Staff recommends that the historic stone wall be rebuilt in its original location according to the same design, dimensions and materials, including mortar profile. A..t) o'\,f Jillian Papa, Agent H-2, Historic Neighborhood Overlay District Application for Certificate of Appropriateness Date of Application [Mar 26,2013 ROA N O K E Site Address 1925 1ST Street SW Property Owner: Name: 1925 1ST Street,LLC Address: 19251ST Street,SW City: !Roanoke State IVA Zip Code: 124016 Phone Number. I +1 (540)777-0927 E-Mail: hodgkinjdh@gmail.com Owner's Representative(if applicable): Name: 'John D Hodgkin Address: (SAME City. I State: I Zip Code: I Phone Number I E-Mail: Application Prepared By ISohn D Hodgkin Current Use: E Single-Family f Two-Family(Duplex) r Multifamily r" Townhouse R. Commercial If Commercial.Describe Use:'idusinesaOffices Project Type: r Roof r" Porch r Windows and Doors fl New Construction r Signs r Waits and Fences r Parking and Paving r Demolition Other: !Wan and landscaping *PLEASE USE ATTACHED SHEET FOR PROJECT DESCRIPTION. Acknowledgement of Responsibility: I understand that all applications requiring review by the ARB must be complete and must be submitted before application deadlines,otherwise consideration will be deferred to the following meeting. I agree to comply with the conditions of this certificate and all other applicable city regulations and to pursue this project in strict conformance with the plans approved by the ARB. I understand that no changes are permitted without prior approval by the City.. Signature of Property C>vvner:r .E Date: (Mar 26,2013 Section Below to be Completed by Staff Approval By. f4 r Agent Certificate Number: I Othe p .n nrniait . Tax Parcel Number. + /)Q 1r) / ) r'] Zoning Permit r° BZA/Pianning Commission Base Zoning District: f ( r Building Permit r• Other Agent,Architectural Review Board: 1 _ Date: 1 Member,Architectural Review Board: Date: 1� r Form updated 12111 Page 2 of 3 H-2, Historic Neighborhood Overlay District Detailed Project Description ROANOKE Site Address 1925 1ST Street SW, Property Owner. 1925 1ST Street,LLC i Rebuild Stone Wall on South Side of Front Drive Current Condition: The existing drive was lined with stone walls on either side at a width of 96". The south side wail was also in need of repair, (similar to the condition of the wall at the front and south side of the property). The wall on the north side of the drive is in significantly better repair. Since it is on the property to the north of 925,its better condition may be a result of later and or better construction. Many of my clients are elderly and cannot easily navigate the front steps up to the office. Our office is located In the front of the building and parking in the rear would require a dient to walk down the driveway to the front of the building. Parking at the top of the driveway will allow a dient to step up one step onto the front porch and into the building. Concern:The width of a typical full size car not counting mirrors Is 785"leaving a clearance of less than 9"on each side of the vehicle. Some of my clients have larger vehicles i.e.full size pickup trucks and the narrow drive bordered by jagged rock walls was not workable Recommended Solution: Project Option 1)Add a square column at the north end of the front wall centered 24'from the existing driveway edge to match my neighbor's wall column and leave the front lawn tapered down to the existing drive with no wall on the Description: south side of the drive way. This option will permit the best opportunity to add plantings that will Improve the appearance of the edge of the driveway compatible with the character of the neighborhood,and virtually eliminates the possibility of a dient's car from scraping a wall. Option 2)Restore thewall to the identical shape finish and form of the previous wall only locating it centered 24" south of the driveway edge(the face of the wall will be approximately 18'from the driveway edge as the wall is approximately 12'thick). Brick pavers would be Inserted between the wail and the existing drive as 18'Is not suttkient space to punt srAruddery. The stone mason who quoted installation of a column or replacement of the wall indicated he would re-use the existing stones. The wall is broken at mortar Joints,but the stones are not broken. Regarding the'flit material 'referenced at the hearing;it is the small pieces of rock,and brkkthat was typically used In the construction of this type of wall to fill in behind the face stones. What is seen from the front of the wail is a uniform face,but the actual stones are of varying shapes and thicknesses and are filled In behind with mortar and filler stones. This particular wall will be about 12'thick at the bottom and taper on the back side to about 8"thkkat the top of the wall. Our mason has a V:round tool used to shape the convex mortar joints to match existing joints. Additional information to be gubmitted: rg)Photographs iA Site Plan ISZ Elevation Drawings Sample,Photograph,or Catalog Pictures of Proposed Material ill Other: I - -- Form updated 12111 Page 3 of 3 Rebuild Stunt Wall on Soule side_of Front Drive Current Condition: The existing drive was lined with stone walls on either side at a width of 96". The south side wall was also in need of repair',°(similar to the condition of the wall at the front and south side of the property). The wall on the north side of the drive is in significantly better repair. Since it is on the property to the north of 925,its better condition may be a result of later and or better construction. Many of my clients are elderly and cannot easily navigate the front steps up to the office. Our office is located In the front of the building and parking in the rear would require a client to walk down the driveway to the front of the building. Parking at the top of the driveway will allow a client to step up one step onto the front porch and Into the building. Concern:The width of a typical full size car not counting mirrors is 78.5" leaving a clearance of less than 9"on each side of the vehicle. Some of my clients have larger vehicles i.e.full size pickup trucks and the narrow drive bordered by jagged rock walls was not workable. Recommended Solution: Option 1)Add a square column at the north end of the front wall centered 24"from the existing driveway edge to match my neighbor's wall column and leave the front lawn tapered down to the existing drive with no wall on the south side of the drive way."' This option will permit the best opportunity to add planting?that will improve the appearance of the edge of the driveway compatible with the character of the neighborhood,and virtually eliminates the possibility of a client's car from scraping a wall. Option 2)Restore the wall to the identical shape finish and form of the previous wail only locating it centered 24"south of the driveway edge(the face of the wall will be approximately 18"from the stsvcw+tr, 9 3s ths,4(4.1s,visvmdcm2tny'12" Stdctf pue rs sits+haivu.9.tgs+ kv'mall and the existing drive as 18"Is not sufficient space to plant shrubbery. The stone mason who quoted installation of a column or replacement of the wall indicated he would re- use the existing stones. The wall is broken at mortar joints,but the stones are not broken. Regarding the`fill material'referenced at the hearing;it is the small pieces of rock,and brick that was typically used In the construction of this type of wall to fill in behind the face stones. What is seen from the front of the wall is a uniform face,but the actual stones are of varying shapes and thicknesses and are filled In behind with mortar and filler stones. This particular wall will be about 12'thick at the bottom and taper on the back side to about 8"thick at the top of the wall. Our mason has a%round tool used to shape the convex mortar joints to match existing joints. See photo of falling/repaired wall 'See photo.of falling/repaired wail See drawing of proposed column and landscaping Iv See sketch of shrubbery location See drawing of replaced wall and paver stones Condition of Wall that was taken down along the driveway on the street side. Stones have been saved and are being cleaned for re- installation 9 i' Another example of condition of wall that was removed to be repaired and replaced with existing stone. 1 X ":_ _. 1 6 I 1 Liu iA ..... f. 4 ski i .. m O a 2 STORY , WfilASEMENT :, ,#925 M . , 2.'j f i 9, ROCK .3. 127 ;I . TM MAN 1021710 . : ,.15.31* • • ipst " sr mrit 10 AJ r' Nas 1-5,P0 1.0' A"°4°la:0 (I. , Milli OCASI 5/11 "'.. s r ' 00 a .........----•° J° ■ . f . .. - _ 4.,ont, .... .., 1 AXI-Vi. ...it t ti K. I _..... iiii.fi ( \ . 0 4 --I..' --- r . .,---f:. .! , \ ..„, . _....., ! , ‘,. ral ,,i Oil - N _nom a� 1.4.44)Ai • > , 1 L ,, C-0144 •� t, kj ,\ 1 Fi ,I r.('''''''‘;'-'-''-'-‘iiitir4t)" 'ill: rte^ } r .St 4 tl SIG-:�f�.0 I.i..r''. _ ,' ..t ", IAN • Tw.-.,.+.o,i,....o k., r,-•..uoaw.,...e.m.,--. _.. "`..'....,,,...1.11a., -'n.... '.. .. y—......~ tawyWA1HU7«o n-i ,,,,,,,.a.. 1 1 X 1 eV ift•-- ti I k Pi tu 1 w i co 5 z 2 SiT1F( FAA ' 440111116' iii.8*‘*"....- 11411: 117 . TAX MAO 1o21hC t! t 143'.41. ` ..... i .grow I . . 1 ,.. ,. - .q. . • 7F h/ Z 1, • , . . .'...\ 4 .44: • Ic.1 C.K. s z/P4 oil • .r- iii POP O ....•■..... 1 ' '5 0410 E DEED) .wr,istne r Ott : .•-...f . ` 0 4 ,meet . 140i4- ��FOyRcyA�ARCEL�Ii�1p ; 10 DOS ,,a,' 0, !ON SAND OFF1 lit SURVEY.. .►/`� SON, DATED JULY 29; 1986. �`� .1 1$414:. SAMPEL I. MINN " lAo. No.00230t . 3^ Zl `1i. . S 3//8 Raw(F) ALLEY BEARS S 1SOib8'E COMER (N 4'FROE! RN 049' W DEED) CAPPED a ____ ' __' u-' _.._ 5,3.20 `,i�l - . WAIL i ' 1NALL li VEST PART OF )T 11, B(000J (TRAVEL *`~ GIAi� 1021713 r. III tor 10• BLOCK 3 ■ "OW W DEED) 180 Q AClZETt i OO' 1 1 OF E . , , ; L Amer. , 111t Al 1 ONO REDC BONS N 48'2544 M' ' 1.0' . a3'Rtcd c NlO? .1 '" g I � 1. I tti 1 ; I s •1 PART OF -� 2 RIMY FPaWE I 1!, BLOW 3 � I b 's MO,teltIV 117 Aft ! ±1 4' . D 1-1 to r Ti LOr Y� TAX�PAW 1 710 I • I +3 • ills MOP . .A .1, Ill ii . INT ROAR 1 N S 1 Y0O'4 E • 1.0' FROM CORNER • [1801 ._ 0 OAS' D Cflaiig r _ •_ .. .... . 4':1 . .00.. . jig' t.. _. t .�.. 0lh .W -s r.. 0 . : :: .- "1 (SO4'30' E oED) ATTACHMENT D ) Current condition of historic material after demolition 1 ,• i • ..., .,,. --_ • r.„. . . • 411111` .. V ,. 1111 t IIP vi,... .... i I 1 , . 414" 4*- --'6.44011114411111411M1011 • '46%. I Arlaree ablP• -411101 Example of intact design, material on the subject property. Note the distinctive mortar joint profile. Nut- s or e' . 4. Existing conditions of area where subject wall was removed. Existing conditions of stone material. Stones are damaged/broken rath(3r than disassembled at their mortar joints for later re-use. 1411411111 1111111114•• 4 III. 1.11' • i■ A ATTACHMENT E Page 1 of 1 aag I Si- Robert Richert From: Joel[dkbtide @yahoo.comj Sent: Thursday,April 11,2013 12:16 PM To: Robert Richert Subject:ARB ARB Repot from the OSW BOD 4.9.2013 1V.New Business. P 925 First St SW The OSW BOD again discussed the wall application and concluded that the issues in the application were clearly and thoroughly addressed by Jillian Papa,agent. The OSW BOD agrees with staff that there is ample room near the front door for vehicles to unload amd additional client parking at the rear of the building,in a vacant lot next door owned by the applicant and on the street. (See survey#6.) The USW BUD also agrees with staff that the integrity of the historic wall should be reinstated in it's original site and configuration. (refer to 112 Guidelines) The OSW BOD felt that the applicant should have worked with staff before removing the wall. Please refer to the attached letter from the OSW BOD dated 3.14.13 for additional comments. The OSW BOD again asks that this application be denied. Thank yo t— Tony Adams, Presid t of OSW,Inc. 4/11/2013 A11)letter.925 First St SW-Yahoo!Mail hup:llus.mc14144nail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?mid-2_0_... „A1-1001, MAIL Classic: ARB letter.925 First St SW Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:43 PM From: "Joel" <dkbtldeglyahoo.com> To jillian.papaoroanokeva.gov Cc dkbtide @yahoo.com TO: Architectural Review Board FROM:Old Sothwest Board of Directories DATE: March 14,2013 SUBJECT: 925 First St SW According to historical records located in the Virginia Room at the downtown library 925 First St(once �a 481)was built in 1890 for a Charles Brown.. In 1930 this house was six apartments and had a two car garage. The exterior of the building was stucco. (Records also show that WK 8 T sold this property to 925 1st St,LLC for$132,000 in May ti i'2.) The Old Southwest, Inc. Board of Directors at their February 14th meeting and again at their March 12th meeting passed a motion unanimously opposing the demolition of the stone wall and asked "that the stone wall be rebuilt." At the March 12th meeting the application was thoroughly reviewed. The following points were made: 1.The Old Southwest historic district has many walls of this material and design. The wall is a common feature for the fine homes built In this prestigious part of early Roanoke. 2.The alley is adequate for ingress and egress to the rear of the property for parking as well as on street parking. 3.The owner of this property did not follow the procedure required to obtain any change to the property. It is understood that he owns other property in the Old Southwest historic district. 4.The purpose of the H2 designation and gukielines is to protect the historical built fabric of the neighborhood. 5.Removing this defining feature was inappropriate and the Old Southwest Board of Directors agrees that the wall should be rebuilt as and where it was using the correct and historic materials. 6.The OSW SOD requests that the application be tabled and that plans be presented by the owner showing precisely how he plans to restore this wall to its original location and design. Thank you for your consideration to this important matter. Tony Adams,President of OSW,Inc. 1 of 1 3/14113 6:53 PM ATTACHMENT F Architectural Review Board April 11, 2013 Page 2 Ms. Dykstra seconded the motion and the consent agenda was approved by a roll call vote of 4-0, as follows: Ms. Dykstra-yes Ms. Botkin-yes Mr. Dalhouse-yes Mr. Cundiff-yes 2. Request from Stephen Rosenoff,202 Market, represented by Tammy Palmer, for approval of vinyl adhesive window and door signs for the building located at 202 Market Square, S.E. Mr. Cundiff said Ms. Palmer had removed items two and three from the application and was looking for approval for item one which was installation of a 44" x 179" solid red vinyl adhesive with a white "202 Market" decal facing Campbell Avenue and item four which was installation of two 66"x 22" solid red vinyl adhesive door signs with a 202 Market logo in white lettering. Ms. Tammy Palmer said that was correct. Mr. Cundiff said they needed to amend the application to remove items two and three and approve items one and four. Ms. Papa said the applicant needed to request the amendment. Ms. Palmer said she wanted to amend the application to include only items one and four. Mr. Cundiff asked for staff comments. Ms. Papa said staff recommended approval of the amended application. Mr. Dalhouse made a motion to approve the amended application. &c.m4 he a1^ va,` a''nikati#i.1^41W epy,1C9J u',..'y a.c 'caM vote of 4-0, as follows: Ms. Dykstra-yes Ms. Botkin-yes Mr. Dalhouse-yes Mr. Cundiff-yes 3. Request from 925 1't Street, LLC represented by John D. Hodgkin.to remove relocate and rebuild a stone retaining wall at the front of theproperty located at 925 1' Street. S.W. Mr. John Hodgkin appeared before the Board and said the wall had already been removed and he was there about how to get it consistent with the architectural design of the area. He said the retaining wall was approved last time. He said he had another meeting with the stone mason about the wall in the front and was assured the stones could be separated at the Architectural Review Board April 11, 2013 Page 3 mortar joint line and would be available to reconstruct the wall. He said the stone mason assured him he could reconstruct the wall with the convex mortar joint and would be consistent with the rest of the wall. He said after the previous meeting, he went back and looked at the wall and much of it had the convex mortar joints but a full third of it had flat mortar joints where it had been repaired over the years. He said it appeared his wall was built earlier than his neighbor's wall. He said the walls were similar but his neighbor's wall was better constructed and his wall was not in as good a condition as his neighbor's wall to the north. He said he was recommending two potential options to rebuild the wall. He said he wanted to square up the end of the wall 18" from driveway with column that matches neighbor's stone column with a square cap. He said that option would enhance their property. He said that would allow a car to leave the street and turn into the driveway. He said the other option was to put the wall back exactly like it was constructed on the south side of the property. Mr. Cundiff said the Board received additional comments from the Old Southwest Board of • Directors that recapped their initial comments and concerns that were included in the record at last month's meeting. He asked for staff comments. Ms. Papa said the H-2 Architectural Design Guidelines for Walls stated to respect the character of the streetscape when deciding whether or not to use a wall or fence, what materials are appropriate to your house and neighborhood, and the height, location, and design of the wall or fence. She said the H-2 Guidelines stated that walls were traditional ways of defining residential yards by delineating property lines and of separating public and private outdoor space. She said these may take the form of retaining walls, low stone walls, wrought-iron fences, wood picket fences, and privacy fences, many of which are important in helping to define the character of the H-2 District. She said the proposed alteration did not respect the historic character of the streetscape as it related to the location of stone walls commonly found within the district by increasing the scale and visual impact of the parking area, which did not comply with the H-2 Guidelines for Parking Areas. Mr. Cundiff asked for Board comments. Ms. 3otkin said she had"the same comments from last months meeting. She said option one was an option and option two could possibly be but only if the wall was put back where it came from, along the driveway and have it dive into ground. She said it would solve the problem. Mr. Hodgkin said it would not solve the problem because the wall was already down in the ground. He said the problem wasn't being able to open cars doors in the driveway, it was leaving the street and turning into the driveway. He said if he put it back where it was, he had a 96" wide wailed drive and you could not leave the street and turn in the driveway without scraping your car. He said the angles would not allow that. He said Ms. Richert stated at the last meeting that when the wall was built it was a continuous wall that connected with the adjacent wall. He said at some point the driveway was opened up to accommodate cars at that time. He said Ms. Papa stated that the corner of the wall defined the property line but his property line was the corner of his neighbor's wall and the application had nothing to do with defining the property line. He said in his drawing, he showed a shrub at base of the wall which visually kept the driveway the same width. He said it would not be prudent to put a wall Architectural Review Board April 11, 2013 Page 4 back up that would damage his client's cars. He said he did not see sufficient reason to put it back up along the driveway. He said he was willing to restore the wall exactly as it was. He said Mr. Cundiff recommended they chamfer the corner of the wall and to him that really compromised the integrity of the design. He said what he was asking to do was make it more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood design. Mr. Dalhouse said the Board could not change the rules at the meeting. He said they had to live within the H2 guidelines. He said since the wall got torn down without permit, all they Board could do was require it be put back as it was before at the same location. Mr. Hodgkin said he had read the same rules the Board were reading and did not see the rule that said it had to be on the edge of his driveway. Mr. Dalhouse said the rule stated that you could not tear down the wall without approval of the Board Mr. Hodgkin said he could not un-tear down the wall Ms. Botkin said that was why the Board wanted him to put the wall back where it was. Mr. Hodgkin said that was punishment for his ignorance of tearing the wall down. Mr. Dalhouse said the flip side would be a reward for citizens not ignoring the guidelines. Mr. Hodgkin said he apologized and could not un-tear down the wall. He said he was in keeping with the guidelines that stated to keep all important features and characteristics of historic walls. Ms. Botkin said the wall was a character defining piece of the property. Mr. Cundiff said to tear down the wall would get rid of the character defining features of the wall. 14fr. Hodgkin said-he was putting it back with the exact same stones. Mr. Cundiff said it was not in the same place. Mr. Hodgkin said the location of the wall did not define the character. Ms. Papa restated the guideline that said to respect the character of the streetscape and the height, location, and design of the wall or fence. Mr. Cundiff said they were at an impasse where the Board did not agree with the proposal. Mr. Talevi asked Mr. Cundiff to articulate why the location of wall was a character defining feature for the property. Mr. Cundiff said the very nature of the length, height, and turns of the wall were all historic Architectural Review Board April 11, 2013 Page 5 character. He said since Ms. Richert could not find photo documentation of the wall so they did not know how the wall was. He said they had to take the wall as a character defining feature of the site plan of the house. He said it was not just the materials of the wall, it was also the length and height. Mr. Hodgkin said the guidelines said no more than 2'6" asked if that meant he needed to take the top of the wall because it was close to 3'. Mr. Cundiff said that guideline was written with respect to a flat site. Mr. Hodgkin said it ludacris to take the wall down to 2'6" but the Board was straining to say the wall had to be in the same place. He said it would restrict his business and he could be liable for damages if it was put back where it was. He said he did not see where the guidelines specified that it needed to be on the edge of the driveway. Ms. Botkin said the guidelines specified that the wall needed to be put back in the location it was located before it was torn down. Mr. Hodgkin apologized for tearing it down. He said it was a mistake and he could not un-tear the wall down. He said he could not put the wall back in the same spot when it would damage his client's cars. Mr. Dalhouse said when the property was acquired the stone wall was exactly where it was. Mr. Hodgkin said that was exactly right. He said he had no idea he could not move the wall to accommodate todays cars. Mr. Cundiff said Mr. Hodgkin knew he was purchasing property in the H2 district. Mr. Hodgkin said he did know that. He said he was putting a lot of money in the property improving the site. He said he had a lot of clients coming into Roanoke and wanted the Board to cut people who improved the properties some slack. He said the house was a wreck when he purchased ft. Mr. Cundiff said nothing the Board was saying was meant to take away from the work being done. He said the Board was in a difficult position. He said since the wall was a character defining element, the guidelines stated that needed to be respected, justification was needed before taking it down and approval by the Board. He said the Board had to approach it as though it were coming to the Board before being torn down. Ms. Dykstra said the Board had done it before and they felt the frustration but consistency was important. She said it was no different from moving a window over from the facade of the house. She said the Board needed to have the consistency to say it needed to stay where it was. She said she agreed with Mr. Cundiff's comments. Mr. Hodgkin asked what punishment would he received if he decided to pack up the rocks and haul the off to the landfill and not rebuild the wall. Architectural Review Board April 11, 2013 Page 6 Ms. Papa said code enforcement could site him for failure to get approval to remove the wall and then if he didn't respond he could end up in court. Mr. Cundiff said the Board needed to vote on the application as it stood, table it or consider other options the Board had not seen. Mr. Hodgkin said he wanted the Board to write an opinion on the code that specifically showed him how the code required him to put the wall back on the edge of the driveway since he was putting the wall exactly as it was. Mr. Cundiff said the Board's opinion was a matter of the meeting minutes. Mr. Hodgkin said in the last meeting minutes he made motion to vote on items one and two, it was his understanding that the Board approved items one and two. He said it thought they got past the fact that the wall had been taken down. Mr. Daihouse said they did not approve the removal of the wall. Ms. Papa said the ARB secretary had already clarified the minutes with the applicant and the minutes did not reflect that. Mr. Hodgkin said it was his understanding that they had gotten past the fact that the wall had been taken down and he would come back with a recommendation of how he would restore the wall in a place that would make sense for his business and it would materially meet the Boards recommendations. He said the Boards recommendations were not absolutely locked down tight that there was no room for interpretation. Mr. Cundiff said the wall needed to be rebuilt where it was. Mr. Hodgkin said he wanted the Board to state in the minutes of the meeting exactly why. Ms. Papa said that was not in the Board's purview. She said they made decisions based on applicant's application and interpret the guidelines but did not provide written opinions. Mr. Cundiff said the Board needed to vote on the application as it stood. The application was denied by a roll call vote of 0-5, as follows: Mr. Fulton-no Ms. Dykstra-no a6‘#kin,1 Mr. Daihouse-no Mr. Cundiff-no 4. Request from Downtown Holdings, to pave an asphalt driveway for the property located at 19 Highland Avenue, S.W. Mr. John Hodgkin appeared before the Board and said he rehabbed the property and had a Architectural Review Board April 11, 2013 Page 7 new tenant in lower unit. He said the tenant wanted the driveway resurfaced and they hired a paving contractor to do it. He said two months later they received a code compliance violation that someone in Old Southwest had made a complaint. He apologized and said he did not realize he needed to come before the Board to resurface a driveway. He said in the pictures shown they had the same footprint except a foot of width was new. Ms. Botkin said she wanted to clarify in the picture what was essential and what was not. She said it was two strips in the picture. Mr. Hodgkin said he was talking about the width of the driveway. Mr. Cundiff asked for public comments. Mr. Ron Owens said he owned the adjacent property. He said it was a single gravel drive with an apron. He said Carillon last used the property and it was always a single driveway. He said it had been widened to take part of the yard and was not in keeping with Old Southwest to maintain the integrity of the community. He said it looked more like a commercial business. He said there should have been a request for a permit before the work was done. He said he owned property there and thought the neighborhood was beautiful. Mr. Dalhouse said it was another case of coming to the Board after the fact. He said it had already been done and was not acceptable. Mr. Cundiff asked for staff comments. Ms. Papa said the H-2 Architectural Design Guidelines for Parking Areas recommended keeping driveways as narrow in width as possible to reduce their visual impact, limit parking on corner lots and do not allow parking to overwhelm the relationship between a building and its landscape setting. She said in general to limit parking areas to not more than two spaces. She said the design and scale of the asphalt driveway was inconsistent with the guidelines stated above. She said the driveway was significantly wider than necessary, and the visual impact on the street was obtrusive, especially since the driveway was located on a corner lot. She said the design of the driveway introduced an impervious surface up to the building and flared to accommodate additional parking and/or turnaround, which overwhelmed the relationship between the building and its landscape setting. She said staff recommended the use of two strips of concrete as the driveway, narrowing the overall driveway width to provide additional landscaping between the impervious surface and building, the use of planting to improve the appearance of the driveways edges, and/or exploring shared parking options with neighboring commercial properties. Mr. Cundiff said Old Southwest had submitted comments and agreed with staff comments. They said the current design of the parking area did not comply with the H2 guidelines for driveways and ask that the application be denied. Mr. Cundiff asked for Board comments. Mr. Dalhouse said he agreed with staff comments. Mr. Futon said he agreed with staff comments also. Architectural Review Board April 11, 2013 Page 8 Mrs. Blanton said the landscape buffer between the building and asphalt helped protect the building. She said the water hitting the asphalt and splashing back up could cause damage to the building. Mr. Hodgkin asked if there was any way the Board would work with him if he removed the extending area and kept the apron, in the width. Mr. Cundiff said it would take more work on Mr. Hodgkin's part to get it resolved. He said first of all, a building permit should have been purchased. He said in that area you were required to have a certain percentage of impervious surface area. He said he did not know that number but was pretty sure it was not above 50%. Mr. Fulton said the street right of way falls close to the property line and the turnaround area may be on someone else's property and not on your property. Mr. Cundiff said Mr. Hodgkin had work to do before coming back to the Board. He said he may have issues with the building department and provide a site plan to see what they will allow as far as impervious surfaces and then seek Board approval. He said the Board had no other choice but to deny the work that was done and go back through the proper channels. Mr. Hodgkin asked if it could be tabled instead of denied. Ms. Papa asked Mr. Hodgkin if he had received anything in writing from Code Enforcement. Mr. Hodgkin said he didn't believe so. Mr. Cundiff said since there was no formal documentation from code enforcement it would be Mr. Hodgkin's choice to table. He said he needed a site plan and to make sure it's compatible with the building code. He asked Mr. Hodgkin if he preferred to table the application. Mr. Hodgkin said yes. Mrs. Blanton said she appreciated what he had done to the house. Mr. Hodgkin said he had paved numerous driveways in the past seven or eight years and didn't know he needed a permit. Mr. Cundiff said it was a great house. Mrs. Blanton made a motion to table the application to June 13, 2013. Mr. Dalhouse seconded the motion and the application was tabled by a roll call vote of 6-0, as follows: Mr. Fulton-yes Ms. Dykstra-yes Mrs. Blanton-yes Architectural Review Board April 11, 2013 Page 9 Ms. Botkin-yes Mr. Dalhouse-yes Mr. Cundiff-yes 5. Request from Robert Fielding to install a prefabricated metal carport on the property located at 1221 Wasena Terrace, S.W. The applicant was not present. Mr. Cundiff moved the application to the end of the agenda. 6. Request from Thomas Beckner and Mauricio Ticas, represented by Adrien Milan, Titan Construction, to replace the cedar shake main roof with standing seam metal for the building located at 402 Albemarle Avenue, S.W. Mr. Mauricio Ticas appeared before the Board and said he fell in love with old homes maybe 20 years ago. He said he moved from Washington, D.C. and wanted to live in a neighborhood that didn't look like any other neighborhood. He said the cedar shingles were installed 15 years ago and did not have them prior. He said there were not many pictures available for the property but a lot the homes had strong consistency. He said most roofs were metal or slate. He said as he interviewed builders he asked what kind of roof they thought the house may have had. He said most of them said it would have been metal. He said it took six months to decide about the metal roof. He said he was very comfortable with the metal roof. He said the roof had a 50 year warranty and plan to stay in the house for 50 years. He said he was very excited about the roof and had worked on the house for the last seven years. Ms. Botkin said it was a great house. Mr. Cundiff said it was a beautiful house. He asked for public comments. He said Old Southwest had sent in an email stating the Board of Directors had discussed the application at their April 9, 2013 meeting. They said historically in the neighborhood cedar shakes were common rooting material particularly on houses constructed in the period between 1890- 1904. They said a 1983 photo showed a cedar shake roof. They asked the applicant to supply the Board with more information about products and roofing contractors. They said it was important to keep historical features in the Old Southwest Historic District and the Old Southwest Board hoped the prominent house could continue to represent the era in which it was built. He asked for staff comments. Ms. Papa said she had additional evidence for the Board to review. She said she had a 1983 National Register Historic Survey form with a picture that showed the roofing material as composition shingles and not wood shingles. She said in 1995 there was a permit pulled to replace cedar shingled roof with the same. She said the sanborn map from 1907 referred to a shingle roof but did not distinguish the material. She said staff supported the request upon receiving the additional information. Ms. Botkin made a motion to approve the application. ATTACHMENT G • O E ETI(CUMVi 4NCcS I-...V.1.L 1�VJ11%,*N aAtli-T J ►P1 HFON. FOR PARcias IB 10 006 `'., EYS,W 13 NIS 1H 'OM MAW, ► '••'SAID °MGMAW,SON, DATED JULY 29, 1998. t"�J) 44-- .4- sAM1J L I. MUM ' 110. No.0012 . Existing gravel 3- Z./-1Z. parking area . — — -accessed from — = • ' ' 3/8 R001(F) -alley ALLEY BEARS S 19'01'08' 04 08' W D®) G4APED a4' MY ooRNFl1 ININ♦NI111011 -.‘:.f1.4ti.c.: .1■s► :, • (F) WALL . 1 WALL VEST PART OF IT 11, Ewa( 3 ,t GRAVEL 'µ4P 1021713 ,r;�f WT M. BLOIX 3 R TAX 1021711 ,08. w OF + aim ACRE I or I e sly. it te � I ,��. .I# ^^,, rE/ Rate (9 `4 4 MARS N 48'23'44 W 7.0` a3'FRON.CORRER w °! Q RI 1 . !f ; Existing driveway il.�,PARS 0� -r . : la widens to 13.3', 11, BLOCK 3 ? 2 '�MNE # tom, allowing ample ' 11x11712 Wj117 space to open car doors sib ,,:V o'�f�ft T '0 01 127 x 1 • 9. SOCK.3• 12' POAri � 1 ' j TA MW 1041• 710 + ). • ......... I STOOP r..c4 . Ii` ii SlEFS 13 1400'47°E 1.0 MOM M ,I�! • i0,00' ' '' 60.001 _ SIR (�� 'n 0'�J,E r (S 04'30'F DEED) .DEED . • •of• voirruwer "AI 'Historic stone wall 1 l Existing parking area at the rear of the building, accessed from alley "MOW Parking area ties into existing driveway. Alan block wall approved by ARB per 410. 5 1 ilhra. ,......_ .„ ,i i. .. • . ----��� View of adjacent surface parking lot under -''rte same ownership as the subject property. ATTACHMENT H 33' Walls and Fences ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE H-2 DISTRICT CITY OF Retaining Existing Features +► i I i Identify and keep all important features -� and characteristics of historic wall fences, , t i including: ` • textured masonry, s) r !. distinctive profile, 'i • craftsman-like details, V -, - • decorative coping, • distinctive gates and steps,and i Vr' •u.. ;. • traditional bonding pattern and mortar The retaining wall provides for a level, elevated joint profile. front yard,while the fence offers privacy with- Do not remove historic features,such as out obscuring the view of the house from the stone retaining walls and wrought-iron street and sidewalk. fences. IN Walls and fences are traditional ways of 6 176,10 anQshapc s� N 0 defining residential yards by delineating /iI,4�M�`����,i' Pi�G`c .N.tt�• ti , property lines and of separating public and -_-- : 7�� private outdoor space. These may take the ,i ��form of retaining walls,low stone walls, wrought-iron fences,wood picket fences, texture and privacy fences,many of which are im- j •wwr portant in helping to define the character of � the H-2 District. PO , Walls and fences are important space-defining DEFINITIONS Coping The protective cap features of many residential neighborhoods in• or top of a wall,often of the H-2 District. concrete or stune. Walls and fences provide an opportunity to Picket: A partial column or extend the architectural style or character of a post engaged with a wall. Picket fence: A fence building into the surrounding landscape. .- formed of wood or metal Hedges and other plant materials often can • pickets,generally spaced a help soften the enclosure provided by a wall or .:, uniform distance apart,that 1 provides varying degrees of rice. visual screening or enclo- sure. Historic fences such as this one should be re- . Privacy fence: A fence ,AV)V> ii I:I{ •i I3I I.I 1.1. I ;'.`", tained. formed of boards or pickets - • arranged in a solid or over- • Recommended actions or treatments lapping manner to provide are indicated by 'I. Materials visual screening. Streetscape: The overall • Actions or treatments not recommended 44 Use traditional or traditional-appearing appearance of buildings, and other warnings are indicated by X. materials to build walls and fences,such as: signs,lights,plantings,and other elements along a street. • unpainted brick, street. • unpainted stone, X Do not use incompatible fencing such as 34 • painted wrought or cast iron, split rail, plastic,fiberglass or plywood • painted wood, fences,or concrete or concrete block walls • combinations of masonry with wood within the historic district. The use of chain link fences at rear yards is acceptable or metal, as long as the fence is coated. The installs- • aluminum and other metals that mimic don of chain link fencing on front or side the appearance of iron or worked yards is prohibited, as is the installation of metal, "raw"or untreated chain link fencing,re- • ornamental wire, and composite mate- gardless of location. Where incompatible rials fence materials exist,owners are encour- aged to remove them whenever feasible, — — -"� — either when makin re airs or undertaking 7 g P 2..a- :1a comprehensive rehabilitation. >.: r� ' �1�11 --T+ _,— Use walls that range in height from l'-0" - - - to 4'-0". The recommended height for re- Pictured are examples of appropriate masonry taining walls used with or without fencing walls and walls combined with iron fencing and or freestanding walls,is 2'-6,"however plants walls may be built higher due to topog- raphical issues. Fence heights are mandated by the Do not use synthetic fence materials that Zoning Ordinance. do not have the appearance of wood or other traditional materials. Retain and maintain existing boundary Other Design Considerations hedges whenever possible that contribute �I Choose a fence design that relates to the to the character of a property or the historic character of your house or building.In ad- district. dition,if both picket and privacy fences are 'I Build retaining walls,where necessary,of used,make sure that the designs relate to stone,reinforced or fully bonded brick,or each other. masonry veneer over reinforced concrete I Respect the character of the streetscape block. Decorative concrete block that when deciding: matches that used in the district is also ac- • whether or not to use a wall or fence, ceptable. Logs and railroad ties may be • what materials are appropriate to your appropriate for edging planting beds or for house and neighborhood,and the landscape steps,but should not be used for height,location,and design of the wall retaining walls that will be visible from the • 1 11 .1 4•F -[ 1!11111 • . Shown are examples of appropriate metal fences. or fence. '1 Give fencing in a front yard an open de- sign by using a simple iron or wood picket The stone construction shown here is an appro- design. priate model for district retaining walls. Ensure that wood fence posts either have face into the property and the finished side a solid cap or are sloped to shed water and or pickets face the street or the adjacent prevent deterioration. neighbor. t I I l ( I I I 'IiI'I'iiI'P 111111 it, Shown are examples of appropriate wooden i I I I j°��111�'Gtill ii ' picket fences. I !1 1 Iii 11 ,, Choose a compatible profile and appear- . e ance for wood fence posts that are in the same plane as the pickets. Posts located behind the line of pickets and which are not a major visual element may be of a sim- This fence is appropriately oriented so that the pier design as long as they shed water. finished side is toward the street and the strut- N1 Size picket fence elements appropriately. tural side is toward the interior of the yard. Its '. w; w/2 ,Iwi low height is appropriate for its front yard placement. MI .. •• • • 1 Where fences are seen from the street, I I I I they should be painted an appropriate color. Shown is appropriate picket spacing. Metal fences should be black or dark green; wood fences should be white,dark green,or Metal pickets should be spaced 3" to 6" a color taken from the building color apart. Wood pickets should be 1-1/2" to 3- scheme-provided it is subdued in charac- 1/2"wide with a space between the pickets ter. ranging from one-half to equal to the picket width. ' 4 is r h"-.— lij?11,, 1 .1i: !:"I ,04,440 t�� t :1 ee DEFINITIONS `x i• Picket: A partial column or ^+ire— 1111110.61.post engaged with a wall. 1111110.61. Picket fence: A fence — The color of this fence is appropriately subdued formed of wood or metal pickets,generally spaced a and in sympathy with that of the adjoining build- uniform distance apart,that Plants alongside fences soften their visual im- ing. provides varying degrees of pact some-what. visual screening or enclo- sure. `I Fences in front of the front building line Pier. A column,typically `I Keep walls in a front yard low in height should be painted in a manner consistent square in shape,that sup- (21-6"or less)or combine them with picket with the house. ports a concentrated weight fencing placed between solid piers. above. X Do not use wood privacy fences in a resi- Staeetscape: The overall `I Consider planting vegetation adjacent to dential front yard.Alternatives include: appearance of buildings, walls and fences to soften their appearance. wood picket fences, signs,lights,plantings,and I Fences should be two sided or oriented so • hedges or shrubs, other elements along a g street. that the posts,rails,and braces face • decorative metal fences,and other plantings. iij f ''': \- f/ , 1 �- se..ee.w I ,.. 1 f. _1 i , _ , . A, , •111. I,. , _ ,- ,.,, , . 1---I. , -.01 I ■ IC 1 1 i bYES YES NO The two configurations on the left are appropri- 1 ate for the installation of privacy fences;the one <<�att; on the right is not.L 1 1\ '. ■ • L ' '-I Shown is an appropriate privacy fence at the rear of this dwelling. i If used,modular wall systems should be indistinguishable in appearance from his- toric walls. i Do not allow fences or walls to conceal or Shown are examples of appropriate privacy visually overpower nearby buildings. fences. Fences on slopes should be stepped for consistency or should be designed to con- a-.-.k r form to the slope itself. X Maintenance V Repoint brick or stone walls that have deteriorated mortar.See %1 r-r'?l ; I t- r! A _ for information on proper repoint- 3! ing techniques. , Prevent water damage to masonry walls 111 by properly grading the ground at their ►u base and by maintaining wall caps or cop- ings. This iron fence is a good example of a period Replace missing items from cast-or appropriate fence that is properly stepped. wrought-iron fences by finding suitable re- placements in a salvage yard or by having them recast. ATTACHMENT I PLANNING, BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue,SW,Room 166 Roanoke,Virginia 24011 RO,4NOKE 540.853.1730 fax 540.853.1230 planning @roanokeva.gov April 15, 2013 925 1" Street, LLC 925 1" Street, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24016 Dear Property Owner: Subject: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness No. COAL 30078, 925 1" Street, S.W. On April 11 , 2013, the Architectural Review Board of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, considered your request to remove, relocate and rebuild a stone wall at the front of the property at 925 1' Street, S.W., and your Certificate of Appropriateness was denied, (0-5). The Board found that the application was not consistent with the following H-2 guidelines: H-2 Guidelines for Wallssand Fences:_ Retaining Existing Features • Identify and keep all important features and characteristics of historic wall fences, including textured masonry, distinctive profile, craftsman-like details, decorative coping, distinctive gates and steps, and traditional bonding pattern and mortar joint profile. • Do not remove historic features, such as stone retaining walls and wrought-iron fences. Other Design Considerations • • Respect the character of the streetscape when deciding whether or not to use a wall or fence, what materials are appropriate to your house and neighborhood, and the height, location, and design of the oiree'cirICfllam. Maintenance • Repoint brick or stone walls that have deteriorated mortar. See Masonry Features and Walls for information on proper repointing techniques. The H-2 Architectural Design Guidelines for Masonry: • Identify and keep the original materials and features of walls and masonry that make them unique. Important character-defining features include brackets, cornices, bonding patterns, lintels, mortar joints, textures, colors, and sills. Cleaning Masonry and Stucco • Remove deteriorated mortar by carefully hand-raking the joints with a chisel to avoid damaging the masonry. The H-2 Architectural Design Guidelines for Parking Areas: Compatible Design • Keep driveways as narrow in width as possible to reduce their visual impact. • Use alleys for access to rear yard parking whenever possible. • Do not allow parking to overwhelm the relationship between a building and its landscape setting. in general, limit parking areas to not more than two spaces. • Do not locate parking areas in front yards. Commercial Parking • Design unobtrusive new onsite parking that preserves the relationship between the building, site and the street. Per Sec. 36.2-530. "Within the H-1 or H-2 Overlay District, no structure or historic landmark shall be erected, reconstructed, altered, demolished, moved, or restored until a Certificate of Appropriateness has been issued by the Architectural Review Board." Certificate of Appropriateness applications are reviewed by the ARB in accordance with the applicable guidelines in its decision to issue or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness. The H-2 Guidelines for Walls and Fences state "do not remove historic features, such as stone retaining walls". If an application does not adhere to the ARB Guidelines, and/or if historic materials are being replaced rather than repaired, the applicant is required to provide the ARB with justifications. The applicant did not provide evidence of deterioration that justifies removal of the wall, which distinguishes the property. The removal or disassembly of the stone retaining wall jeopardizes the physical integrity of important character-defining materials and features of the wall, which includes a distinctive mortar joint profile. Although the applicant indicated the stone wall was in disrepair, the guidelines provide appropriate measures to address the condition of the masonry wall rather than removal and relocation. The photographs provided do not depict significant damage that warrants replacement, but rather, maintenance in-situ. The H-2 Guidelines state that walls are traditional ways of defining residential yards by delineating property lines and separating public and private outdoor space. Walls are defining features in characterizing the relationship between an historic building and its landscape setting. Stone retaining walls contribute to the character of the H-2 District. The proposed alteration would alter the property's historic relationship to streetscape by increasing the scale and visual impact of the parking area, which also does not comply with the H-2 Guidelines for Parking Areas. in conclusion, the ARB was not provided with sufficient evidence regarding the overall condition of the material to warrant removal of the stone wall. Moreover, the proposed relocation to increase the drive aisle width by 18-24" is not an appropriate justification for altering a significant, character-defining feature, given that ample off street and on- street parking options are accessible from the alley for clients with larger vehicles. The parcel adjacent to the south is a surface parking lot under the same ownership of 925 1" Street LLC, which is another potential for parking larger vehicles. Additionally, the existing driveway expands to approximately 13 feet in width beyond the original location of the stone wall, providing clients with physical disabilities ample space to operate and readily access the front porch. The historic stone wall should be rebuilt in its original location according to the same design, dimensions and materials, including mortar profile. If you are aggrieved by this decision of the Architectural Review Board, you have the right to appeal the Board's decision to City Council within 30 days of the date of the decision. Information on the appeals process is enclosed. Please contact jillian Papa at 853-1522 if you have additional questions. Sincerely, Derek B. Cundiff, AIA, Chair City Architectural Review Board /m enclosure 'ATTACHMENT J CITY OF ROANOKE 11"0;' 6' OF THE CITY CLERK �1; �s 215 Church Avenue,S.W.,Suite 456 Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 &mall: elerk®roanokeva.gov JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC Deputy City Clerk City Clerk CECELIA T.April 30, 2013 Assistant Deputy ECity Clerk 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 flied by John D. Hodgkin, in connection with a decision of the Architectural Review Board at its meeting of April 11, 2013, denying a Certificate of Appropriateness to reinstall a stone wall that had been disassembled in order to repair and relocate 18 inches north to allow safe access to the drive way at 925 1st Street, S. W., which is not consistent with the H-2 Guidelines. The petition was filed in the City Clerk's Office on Monday, April 29, 2013. Section 36.2-530(c)(5), Certificate of Appropriateness, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), 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 calendar 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. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Architectural Review Board, in whole or in part, or refer the matter back to the Board. With the concurrence of CRy Council, a public meeting will be scheduled for IOronday; Arne -tt of T dt'f p.m., or as soon thereafter as dm matter may ire ereard, to render a decision in connection with the Petition for Appeal flied by Mr. Hodgkin. Sincerely, 4.9414.4u4.4) Stephanie M. Moon, MMC City Clerk Enclosure Mayor and Members of Council April 30, 2013 Page 2 pc: John D. Hodgkin, 925 1st Street, LLC, 925 1st Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney ■ Jillian Papa, Agent, Architectural Review Board Candace R. Martin, Secretary, Architectural Review Board VIRGINIA: IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE IN THE MATTER OF ) PETITION FOR APPEAL This is a Petition for Appeal from a decision of the Architectural Review Board under Section 36.2-530(c)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended. 1. Name of the Petitioner(s): John D Hodgkin 2. Doing business as (if applicable): 925 1ST Street, LLC 3. Street address of property which is the subject of this appeal: 925 1ST Street, SW 4. Overlay zoning (H-1, Historic Downtown Overlay District, or H-2, Historic Neighborhood Overlay District) of property(ies) which is the subject of this appeal: H-2 5. Date the hearing before the Architectural Review Board was held at which the decision being appealed was made: 04/11/2013 6. Section of the Code of the City of Roanoke under which the Certificate of Appropriateness was requested from the Architectural Review Board (Section 36.2-330, if H-1 or Section 36.2-331, if H-2): 36.2-331 7. Description of the request for which the Certificate of Appropriateness was sought from the Architectural Review Board: Approval to reinstall a stone wall that had been disassembled in order to repair and relocate it 18"north in order to allow safe access to the drive. In its odiinai location it was Impossible to safely enter the drive from the North and perilous to do so from the South. 8. Grounds for appeal: We have offered several workable solutions all of which meet the spirit of t-1,2 guidelines and allow for cars to enter the drive safely. We are willing to do anything that would allow for safe access to our drive including rounding the corner of the wall to meet the original location along the drive as suggested by Mr.Cundiff in an earlier 511519ttii}�. ii 4trserrrali iiireut7V wiiig1i-reS&Jut-arilbs-o`6"05 tr ii(9.0!" t-Mtat-tTs`d'IETVii31l' 9. Name, title, address and telephone number of person(s)who will in relation to the driveway represent the Petitioners) before City Council: John D Hodgkin, edge. 925 1ST Street,SW,777-0927 _ . WHEREFORE, your Petitioner(s) requests that the action of the Architectural Review Board be reversed or modified and that a Certificate of Appropriateness be granted. Signature of Owner(s) Signature of Petitioner(s) or (If not Petitioner): representative(s), where applicable: • d 4 ame: John D Hodgkin :me:■, o k. (print or type) (print or type) Name: Name: (print or type) (print or type) TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK: Received by: Date: ,z . , - • 4. • yt. >•• ►.ice i 'ti 1 ! ~• 1 sir..` 5 f / r' ( j•111 •� �' k,•,7 • . . e . , CI l[1 ? i s .p„� ------ — ;t♦5 • P1 r 'Si'1• • • Y 4a;' 't t• - rt i L4 L- 4(-F.4 1 j��^t i . . A *L>d�• �a -ter{, E y. .i,{J t• ,. - 1 ` r. i .,y. _ .,F,T� F.j� 1ji-rr.�� 141 _i� if fad..--, / ��l%� , sr ..i,::, ,. 4 ��• 1.....1 ,. _, .4.:A ..._... . 7. : ,, t., , , ,....... , . 1 , . . .., ...... i a ... .: ,_ , _ �f 1 ..., f. . , . , , 4 .... ..•..,.-Ar i .... hvi is \ . \C Till r' I' ..t..... 11,'; ' ':',.44 \. �4 + .'f''''''''_ � F �� + + ,� �; • yfjff a;d �� ���,� if �� .1 �s, r �k a . sa , S t 5r r 1 A ✓1 T,,11 �� f ' 1 '1 '3 ti (tl,,i•Ry,,, ',.‘..1/4, tic, , y + ,: ofi;/J+r4` .y f rtr e r Jm`:,f a.r�..y # r�•� f • •w:— ... ,�p�r r ,• • • ■••'•ex-","%,*--.15..!•',,51- 5•••' • , • ..../4°, !// • 5 •• 5, -- i- .. . zY. li '' ' ' • '.1'4' ' !''tt;,,,,' • . . •... . ,..i. k , pi.i•-.', .7 ir,,,,,'.::-. , 4_ ,..,.. �4YAa ti • er rl ' 'r G s" + , ?•,. 1 v.r1.t' 'tr' 1l, r`f, � .� z{ ' - 4 1 } „' •♦J + y IfS i . t y % LIMBOS K • ,;ff, • ,'t t f ■ � • \ fs. iMZ 4:7 ,; + i �G . 1f re • • ( v f ,. J0, 'rid ''r f �� ! !1•J{ t * s 4.1 It `� +,t : y v J+1�kit r` F '•.1 '�` - r y i t, a. • c✓ 3 cal .�'•`i�js ,) ;;r r sra °t�. 6 ,. 1 '',.'.1,,..4,s,s t S=ri'� ti . . i a :o)*7P t zi � Y z • .v--#.. 1J 11 4.11`...l, . - . , -•�- ' AI, si'r'7- '�' , `*a t ,f 1 t>'y ..IL L - _ • - • • • ( i • • 1 4 la r fly, li I + ! \ `0..',, 1 !'t AF 1. 4i.;... f0' St \� a• j -V ) +�` I Q, i.. 1 L�. - - t T S 4 t ' ;a ; :'NIA �' 1� i nit 11 T ir"t v ` ,il .• •-� '•t'•1 ` „ * ' {" ,:>,,•, t /1 11 } � h y y,. . A t 1 • Y •r <t ■ T .f o 3ti. yyy .r. i 1 • �IL 1 1. ' i f . r.,=...., . CITY OF ROANOKE A OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue,S.W.,Suite 456 '714.-;. • Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 E-mail: clerkCroanokeva.gov JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC Deputy City Clerk City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC April 30, 2013 Assistant Deputy City Clerk 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 John D. Hodgkin, in connection with a decision of the Architectural Review Board at its meeting of April 11, 2013, denying a Certificate of Appropriateness to reinstall a stone wall that had been disassembled in order to repair and relocate 18 inches north to allow safe access to the drive way at 925 1st Street, S. W., which is not consistent with the H-2 Guidelines. The petition was filed in the City Clerk's Office on Monday, April 29, 2013. Section 36.2-530(c)(5), Certificate of Appropriateness, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), 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 calendar 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. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Architectural Review Board, in whole or in part, or refer the matter back to the Board. With the concurrence of City Council, a public meeting will be scheduled for Monday, June 17 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to render a decision in connection with the Petition for Appeal filed by Mr. Hodgkin. Sincerely, r-Y)• 1 � o Stephanie M. Moon, MMC City Clerk Enclosure Mayor and Members of Council April 30, 2013 Page 2 pc: John D. Hodgkin, 925 1st Street, LLC, 925 1st Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Jillian Papa, Agent, Architectural Review Board Candace R. Martin, Secretary, Architectural Review Board VIRGINIA: IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR APPEAL This is a Petition for Appeal from a decision of the Architectural Review Board under Section 36.2-530(c)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended. 1. Name of the Petitioner(s): John D Hodgkin 2. Doing business as (if applicable): 925 1ST Street, LLC 3. Street address of property which is the subject of this appeal: 925 1ST Street, SW 4. Overlay zoning (H-1, Historic Downtown Overlay District, or H-2, Historic Neighborhood Overlay District) of property(ies) which is the subject of this appeal: H-2 5. Date the hearing before the Architectural Review Board was held at which the decision being appealed was made: 04/11/2013 6. Section of the Code of the City of Roanoke under which the Certificate of Appropriateness was requested from the Architectural Review Board (Section 36.2-330, if H-1 or Section 36.2-331, if H-2): 36.2-331 7. Description of the request for which the Certificate of Appropriateness was sought from the Architectural Review Board: Approval to reinstall a stone wall that had been disassembled in order to repair and relocate it 18" north in order to allow safe access to the drive. In its original location it was impossible to safely enter the drive from the North and perilous to do so from the South. 8. Grounds for appeal: We have offered several workable solutions all of which meet the spirit of H-2 guidelines and allow for cars to enter the drive safely. We are willing to do anything that would allow for safe access to our drive including rounding the corner of the wall to meet the original location along the drive as suggested by Mr. Cundiff in an earlier meeting. The vast majority of drives within a 5 block radius of 925 1st have a 18-24" set-back of the wall 9. Name, title, address and telephone number of person(s) who will in relation to the driveway represent the Petitioner(s) before City Council: John D Hodgkin, edge. 925 1ST Street, SW, 777-0927 .11.1�■ ■ WHEREFORE, your Petitioner(s) requests that the action of the Architectural Review Board be reversed or modified and that a Certificate of Appropriateness be granted. Signature of Owner(s) Signature of Petitioner(s) or (If not Petitioner): representative(s), where applicable: .lame: John D Hodgkin :me: k ti 6c A lac,/ • (print or type) (print or type) Name: Name: (print or type) (print or type) ni l J C'VJ I_ 1 n! L� TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK: Received by: Cecelia T. Webb Date: Q4/29/11 Asst Deputy City Clerk ..# v, ° M r ,.. ... .f.,„, . . . . , • . - 'PROFESSIONAL, i. 1 .. . -.--;:.,..-=\4 1 . O RC?-k.vO:E. INC. i i « .r • - • •.-ate ""'*• • fir } • ' «•3. r. i�°" • 1�1st.1 • ..'i.•.;.--i;;;•.''',_::: ...........g=omfe /1/1fffftligiinNelaMilt-"'.*' "V.N11.4 - .- - ''PLI,,,.....slIt'4° - - - . . 7 --. . • • • • r.- • • s ... r 441441? •. �} ` "1,•• .1 �, ,. � . ..,, . t • • � • a,. . ,,rte • %A �� .i, •.� v °{ _ .! _ ,T �:4, p. 1 - ,.. , • •_ 'r.' "` ry _." ` ,t j/ . , • {t )-,...,...0, w • 4 11 i ♦. _? 7 r .4 1 '` b 31, .►�w li �I � '� � r� ` l'� g > ) 0 4 Y %.' '3 i � � � ).r = . ., w ,,$ • • " , � i ► r r •�• " ,1i ., + �-� x "...}� ,+ '! �+sr" , • ' • t '44.1 ••• 9. r ( ". �.• "y-. i _ . i..�• 7 1• f x.44• .. " 41 e' ' ' I .it .. . t.t, t4.1•1 .., c. , .., ,, ,. .':::,,.- ,,,,,'.a',`. ',. 1, ., , ' • '' t :,, . 4, ' ' * sl 'r .: , ft 4,,,k $ $. . ,,:i ,,, . t : .. 1 1 • r . 1 .J i i T • I Y { v a•• . 1 '� its') 1`•r �i • , , �. •1,' • ,,. • ' •, _r • 'j' � ; �I t t% ii" ' • i , • • , . • if, , r t ••� • 17.�t ,• .� ' , a • .tt/��i �� �� ,, r /. .11'•}4� ' .. •i 4i4. (jj (( "• •• fi . :�: , ` 1 rr , y. 1 • , • • • • • r$''fi� ,.',I + ' . i • .r t1 ' St • y,''' F e> n �•, ., J ,. d,t y ..„,„„s„„,, ,1 +t �d +'_ tt f - -2 ? — 4IA - . • ^ i * • = ' ' •C ! , 1 t � 1• • ti r i.. � r • t."'• ��' t r3 - , • .�� ''d, r 4 • • i . .�w w 1, 4t. `� , r! 1� Y � Z ti, if'.... ..) . . . , • • . . la •� ^`tea s 4 r j Q •Cdr av 1 f •, , . . v. . ) * .,,,:s.,:i4 r t,••y• f f a �' �, ♦ I Art. l { � oi s '` ': �' r '.• " s` +far ` .1 'i `� c .1 a d :tit te t. ,tY • is . t r r. -•� .� li • � • �.; yid i ' • • ".da . • �Kk"f si°- 4q. U Ei Y..a #£s1Fti`' • PLANNING, BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT 441, l Ch.Tr ipal � RNoeyh AvenueMunic Building,SW, Room 166 Roanoke,Virginia 24011 ROA N O K E 540.853.1730 fax 540•$53.1230 planning @roanokeva.gov April 15, 2013 925 151 Street, LLC 925 1 " Street, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24016 Dear Property Owner: Subject: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness No. COAL 30078, 925 15` Street, S.W. On April 1 1 , 2013, the Architectural Review Board of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, considered your request to remove, relocate and rebuild a stone wall at the front of the property at 925 1st Street, S.W., and your Certificate of Appropriateness was denied, (0-5). The Board found that the application was not consistent with the following H-2 guidelines: H-2 Guidelines for Walls and Fences: Retaining Existing Features • Identify and keep all important features and characteristics of historic wall fences, including textured masonry, distinctive profile, craftsman-like details, decorative coping, distinctive gates and steps, and traditional bonding pattern and mortar joint profile. • Do not remove historic features, such as stone retaining walls and wrought-iron fences. Other Design Considerations • Respect the character of the streetscape when deciding whether or not to use a wall or fence, what materials are appropriate to your house and neighborhood, and the height, location, and design of the wall or fence. Maintenance • Repoint brick or stone walls that have deteriorated mortar. See Masonry Features and Walls for information on proper repointing techniques. The H-2 Architectural Design Guidelines for Masonry: • Identify and keep the original materials and features of walls and masonry that make them unique. Important character-defining features include brackets, cornices, bonding patterns, lintels, mortar joints, textures, colors, and sills. Cleaning Masonry and Stucco • Remove deteriorated mortar by carefully hand-raking the joints with a chisel to avoid damaging the masonry. The H-2 Architectural Design Guidelines for Parking Areas: Compatible Design • Keep driveways as narrow in width as possible to reduce their visual impact. • Use alleys for access to rear yard parking whenever possible. • Do not allow parking to overwhelm the relationship between a building and its landscape setting. In general, limit parking areas to not more than two spaces. • Do not locate parking areas in front yards. Commercial Parking • Design unobtrusive new onsite parking that preserves the relationship between the building, site and the street. Per Sec. 36.2-530. "Within the H-1 or H-2 Overlay District, no structure or historic landmark shall be erected, reconstructed, altered, demolished, moved, or restored until a Certificate of Appropriateness has been issued by the Architectural Review Board." Certificate of Appropriateness applications are reviewed by the ARB in accordance with the applicable guidelines in its decision to issue or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness. The H-2 Guidelines for Walls and Fences state "do not remove historic features, such as stone retaining walls". If an application does not adhere to the ARB Guidelines, and/or if historic materials are being replaced rather than repaired, the applicant is required to provide the ARB with justifications. The applicant did not provide evidence of deterioration that justifies removal of the wall, which distinguishes the property. The removal or disassembly of the stone retaining wall jeopardizes the physical integrity of important character-defining materials and features of the wall, which includes a distinctive mortar joint profile. Although the applicant indicated the stone wall was in disrepair, the guidelines provide appropriate measures to address the condition of the masonry wall rather than removal and relocation. The photographs provided do not depict significant damage that warrants replacement, but rather, maintenance in-situ. The H-2 Guidelines state that walls are traditional ways of defining residential yards by delineating property lines and separating public and private outdoor space. Walls are defining features in characterizing the relationship between an historic building and its landscape setting. Stone retaining walls contribute to the character of the H-2 District. The proposed alteration would alter the property's historic relationship to streetscape by increasing the scale and visual impact of the parking area, which also does not comply with the H-2 Guidelines for Parking Areas. In conclusion, the ARB was not provided with sufficient evidence regarding the overall condition of the material to warrant removal of the stone wall. Moreover, the proposed relocation to increase the drive aisle width by 1 8-24" is not an appropriate justification for altering a significant, character-defining feature, given that ample off street and on- street parking options are accessible from the alley for clients with larger vehicles. The parcel adjacent to the south is a surface parking lot under the same ownership of 925 1st Street LLC, which is another potential for parking larger vehicles. Additionally, the existing driveway expands to approximately 13 feet in width beyond the original location of the stone wall, providing clients with physical disabilities ample space to operate and readily access the front porch. The historic stone wall should be rebuilt in its original location according to the same design, dimensions and materials, including mortar profile. If you are aggrieved by this decision of the Architectural Review Board, you have the right to appeal the Board's decision to City Council within 30 days of the date of the decision. Information on the appeals process is enclosed. Please contact Allan Papa at 853-1522 if you have additional questions. Sincerely, 91 • Derek B. Cundiff, AIA, Chair City Architectural Review Board /m enclosure COMMITTEE VACANCIES/REAPPOINTMENTS June 17, 2013 VACANCIES: Three-year term of office of Braxton Naff as a member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Advocates ending June 30, 2016. Unexpired term of office of Demond Hammond as a member of the Fair Housing Board ending March 31, 2016.