Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 09-16-24 FITZPATRICK 43020-091624 City of Roanoke, Virginia CITY COUNCIL September 16, 2024 2:00 PM ROA N O K E City Council Chamber 215 Church Avenue, S.W. AGENDA The City of Roanoke is a safe, caring and economically vibrant community in which to live, learn, work, play and prosper. A vibrant urban center with strong neighborhoods set amongst the spectacular beauty of Virginia's Blue Ridge. NOTICE: Council meetings will be televised live and replayed on RVTV Channel 3 on Thursdays at 7:00 p.m., and Saturdays from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and video streamed through Facebook Live at facebook.com/RoanokeVa. Council meetings are offered with closed captioning for the deaf or hard of hearing. 1. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL. All Present. The Invocation was delivered by Mayor Sherman P. Lea, Sr. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Sherman P. Lea, Sr. Welcome. ANNOUNCEMENTS: LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULED FOR 2:00 P.M., IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. (2:45 P.M. — 3:25 P.M.) 2. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Recognition of visiting delegates from Wonju, Korea. Mayor Lea recognized Korean delegates Jang Eung-yul, Kim Chin-hi, and Park In-Ja who are participating in the Roanoke College Korean Artists Residency Program. A proclamation declaring the week of September 16 - 21, 2024, as Welcoming Week. Mayor Lea read and presented the proclamation to Katie Hedrick, Inclusive Services Manager. A proclamation declaring September 15 - October 15, 2024 as Hispanic and LatinX Heritage Month. Council Member Sanchez-Jones read the proclamation declaring September 15 - October 15, 2024 as Hispanic and LatinX Heritage Month. A resolution honoring Evelyn W. Powers, City Treasurer, upon her retirement after 43 years of service with the City of Roanoke. Adopted Resolution No. 43020-091624. (7-0) Mayor Lea presented a ceremonial copy and Key to the City to Evelyn W. Powers, City Treasurer. AT 3:26 P.M., THE COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED TO CONTINUE THE REMIANDER OF THE AGENDA. 3. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: City Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard. All matters will be referred to the City Manager for response, recommendation or report to Council, as he may deem appropriate. Paul Tulou, 1133 Winona Avenue, S. W., appeared before the Council and spoke with regard to protected bike lanes and PedalSafe Roanoke. Laura Hartman, 1209 Campbell Avenue, S. W., appeared before the Council and encouraged them to participate in the Week Without Driving Challenge from September 30,2024 to October 6, 2024. She also thanked Council for creating a smoking area at the Third Street Station. Freeda Cathcart, 2516 Sweetbrier Avenue, S. W., appeared before the Council and spoke with regard to community engagement and concerns regarding the proposed zoning changes. Sylvia King, 3102 Willow Road, N. W., appeared before the Council and spoke with regard to issues in the City related to gun violence, homelessness, drugs, and the people of Roanoke. Barbara Duerk, 2607 Rosalind Avenue, S. W., appeared before the Council and spoke with regard to bicycle safety and transportation infrastructure. She requested the City conduct a transit study. Polly Branch, 6928 Crowell Gap Road, S. E., appeared before the Council and spoke with regard to remembering Roanoke's past history (Washington Park and Gainsboro Area) and working together for restoration and healing.. 4. CONSENT AGENDA: (6-0, Council Member Sanchez-Jones was not present when the vote was recorded.) 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 meeting of City Council held on Tuesday, September 3, 2024. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Dispensed with the reading of the minutes and approved as recorded. C-2. A communication from the City Attorney requesting that the City Council convene in a Closed Meeting for discussion of possible disposal of publicly owned property, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concurred in the request. C-3. Request to Schedule a Public Hearing to Consider Boundary Amendments to Enterprise Zone One A. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concurred in the Request. C-4. Report of qualification of Marc Nelson as a member of the Western Virginia's Regional Industrial Facility Authority for a four-year term of office, commencing February 4, 2024, and ending February 3, 2028. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Received and filed. C-5. A communication from Council Member Patricia White-Boyd, Chair, City Council Personnel Committee, requesting that the Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss a personnel matter, pursuant to Section 2.2- 3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. (7-0) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concurred in the request. REGULAR AGENDA: 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. 6. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Acceptance and Appropriation of the FY25 School Resource Officer (SRO) Grant. Adopted Resolution No. 43021-091624 and Budget Ordinance No. 43022-091624. (7-0) 7. REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS: 1. INTERIM CITY MANAGER: BRIEFING: FY25 Budget - August Monthly Financial/Budget Report - 15 minutes. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: A. Acceptance and Appropriation of the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM)- Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Grant for Downstream Wiley Low Water Bridge Replacement. Adopted Resolution No. 43023-091624 and Budget Ordinance No. 43024-091624. (7-0) B. Acceptance and Appropriation of Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Funds for Westside - Salem Turnpike Pedestrian Improvements. Adopted Resolution No. 43025-091624 and Budget Ordinance No. 43026-091624. (7-0) C. Acceptance and Appropriation of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Grant for the Roanoke River Blueway - Memorial Bridge Access Point. Adopted Resolution No. 43027-091624 and Budget Ordinance No. 43028-091624. (7-0) D. Acceptance and Appropriation of FY24 and FY25 VDOT Street Maintenance Revenue vs Budget Allocation. Adopted Resolution No. 43029-091624, Budget Ordinance No. 43030-091624, and Budget Ordinance No. 43031-091624. (7-0) E. Acceptance and Appropriation of a Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund Summer Jobs Connect Grant. Adopted Resolution No. 43032-091624 and Budget Ordinance No. 43033-091624. (7-0) F. Acceptance and Appropriation of funds from the Virginia Business Ready Site Program (VBRSP) Grant Program to Upgrade Tract 8 in the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology from a Tier 3 to a Tier 4 Site. Adopted Resolution No. 43034-091624 and Budget Ordinance No. 43035-091624. (7-0) G. Acceptance and Appropriation of a Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund Expert Partner and Mentor Stipend. Adopted Resolution No. 43036-091624 and Budget Ordinance No. 43037-091624. (7-0) H. Acceptance and Appropriation of a Virginia Housing FY24 Community Impact Planning Grant. Adopted Resolution No. 43038-091624 and Budget Ordinance No. 43039-091624. (7-0) I. Acceptance and Appropriation of an FY24 Virginia Brownfields Restoration and Economic Redevelopment Assistance Fund (VBAF) Grant. Adopted Resolution No. 43040-091624 and Budget Ordinance No. 43041-091624. (7-0) J. Acceptance and Appropriation of Safer Communities Program from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Criminal Justice Services. Adopted Resolution No. 43042-091624 and Budget Ordinance No. 43043-091624. (7-0) COMMENTS OF THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER. Dr. Patton shared the following comments: Kathryn Hedrick, Inclusive Services Manager in the Communications Office, will serve as the city's Ombudswoman. With this responsibility, Ms. Hedrick will attend City Council meetings where she will listen to citizen speakers' concerns and develop a Report Back to the City Council. The City-County Communications & Marketing Association (3CMA) announced the 2024 winners of its national Savvy Awards Competition during a ceremony at the Loews Arlington Hotel in Arlington, Texas, on Thursday, September 5, 2024. The City of Roanoke won a Savvy Award for `Noke News. The Judges commented, "Great job adjusting to user/viewer video consumption trends and shortening your message to better communicate with your audience. Carol Corbin is a great host, is a natural on camera, and the video production elements are excellent." This evening, September 16, from 5:30 p.m. to 6:45 p.m., a new art exhibit will be unveiled on the 4th-floor hallway outside the City Council Chambers. At 6:00 p.m., a short presentation will acknowledge the partners, panel, and artists. This project is a collaboration between the City and Roanoker Magazine for their 50th year of publication celebration and is entitled "Roanokers Celebrate the Region." Valley Metro, Ride Solutions, and the Roanoke Arts Commission will celebrate the 7th annual Art by Bus Program on Thursday, September 19, 2024, at the Third Street Station. One of the oldest and largest White Oak Trees owned by the City of Roanoke was struck by lightning recently and must be removed. Virginia Tech estimates the tree to have germinated somewhere around 1405-1410, making this tree 614 years old. We will announce when the removal occurs so citizens interested in using pieces of the bark for building furniture can have a part of the historic tree. National Pools, the contractor for the Washington Park Pool project, has finished the excavation work and installed the conduit systems for the water circulation. Additionally, construction on the pool house structure began this week. On Thursday, September 19, 2024, the Roanoke-Blacksburg Regional Airport will conduct a full-scale aircraft emergency exercise from 9:00 a.m. — 11:00 a.m. The simulated crash will occur on Airport property previously known as Countryside Golf Club. 2. CITY ATTORNEY: A. Amendment to Extend the Contract between the Berkley Group, LLC, and the City of Roanoke. Adopted Resolution No. 43044-091624. (7-0) B. Petition the Circuit Court to Request that no Special Election be Ordered to fill the Vacancy that will be created by Treasurer Evelyn Watkins Powers' Retirement. Adopted Resolution No. 43045-091624. (7-0) C. Extension of the terms of office of Certain Council-Appointed Officers from October 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Adopted Resolution No. 43046-091624. (7-0) 8. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: 1. Comments on certain Authorities, Boards, Committees and Commissions in which City Council serve as liaisons or appointees. Vice-Mayor Cobb provided an update from the recent GRTC meeting. Three new electric buses will be delivered in November 2024. Advertising is at capacity. Ridership continues to increase and up 10,000 from last year. A recommendation will be sent to the Interim City Manager requesting that the transit center be named for Margie Jumper, a black woman who violated an ordinance and refused to give a seat to a White man on a trolley, and as a result, was jailed. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. 10. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: 1. Adopted Resolution No. 43047-091624 approving and affirming the action taken by the Greater Roanoke Transit Company (GRTC) d/b/a Valley Metro to implement Fare Free Day Transit Services for Go Fest for Saturday, October 19, 2024; and authorizing the City Manager or her designee to take any necessary action to accomplish such fare. (7-0) 2. Adopted Resolution No. 43048-091624 approving and affirming the action taken by the Greater Roanoke Transit Company (GRTC) d/b/a Valley Metro to implement Fare Free Election Day Bus Service for Tuesday, November 5, 2024; and authorizing the City Manager or her designee to take any necessary action to accomplish such fare. (7-0) 11. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City Council. Katie Hedrick provided Council an overview regarding the certification process to receive a Welcoming City designation. Mayor Lea encouraged residents to attend youth athletic events. Council Member White-Boyd announced the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority 85th Anniversary Gala at the Vinton War Memorial, held on Saturday, September 14, 2024. She also congratulated the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority for celebrating 85 years of community service. Council Member White-Boyd announced that Sheriff Hash hosted a Senior Prom on Saturday, September 14 at the Bella Vista Room. Council Member Fitzpatrick requested that City signage reflect that the City of Roanoke is an eight-time All-America City and that the City recognize the Hunton Life Saving Crew, Inc., the first all-Black volunteer rescue squad in the City of Roanoke. 2. Vacancies on certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council. None. 12. RECESSED - 5:12 P.M. THE COUNCIL MEETING WILL STAND IN RECESS; AND THEREAFTER RECONVENE AT 7:00 PM, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, ROOM 450, NOEL C. TAYLOR MUNICIPAL BUILDING. City of Roanoke, Virginia CITY COUNCIL 7:00 PM ROA N O K E City Council Chamber 215 Church Avenue, S.W. 13. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL. All Present. The Invocation was delivered by The Reverend James Hamm, Pastor, Back To Life Church. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Sherman P. Lea, Sr. Welcome. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED MEETING. (7-0) 14. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Recognition of the fourth floor art exhibit - Cover Story: Roanokers Celebrate the Region. Doug Jackson, Arts and Culture Coordinator, and Anna Morales, Art Director, Roanoker Magazine, introduced the Cover Story exhibit. 15. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Request of the City of Roanoke for proposed amendments to Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by amending and reordaining, adding, or deleting the following code sections to remove barriers for the creation of affordable housing, to make the zoning code consistent with state code, to create an additional zoning district (UC Urban Center), and to make changes to the use tables for residential, multiple purpose, industrial, and planned unit development districts; such amendments not constituting a comprehensive rezoning or change of any densities that would decrease permitted density in any district, unless otherwise noted. The proposed Zoning Amendments are similar in substance to the Zoning Amendments adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2024. Chris Chittum, Planning, Building and Development, Spokesperson. Adopted Ordinance No. 43049-091624. (6-1, Council Member Moon Reynolds voted no) 16. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: City Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard. If deemed appropriate, matters will be referred to the City Manager for response, recommendation or report to the Council. 1. Mary Frazier, 405 King George Avenue, S. W, appeared before the Council and requested a ceasefire resolution for Palestine. ADJOURNED - 9:17 P.M. ' 9 Yi?eiokiI/on IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 16th day of September, 2024. No. 43020-091624. A RESOLUTION recognizing and commending the services rendered to this City by Evelyn Powers as its Treasurer, and expressing the gratitude and appreciation of the City and its people for her service. WHEREAS, Mrs. Powers will resign from her position with the City as City Treasurer effective September 30, 2024, after serving for the past 20 years as the Treasurer for the City; WHEREAS,prior to her service as City Treasurer,Mrs. Powers worked in the Municipal Auditing department where she worked in that department for 23 years. WHEREAS,Mrs. Powers has dedicated 43 total years of service to the City of Roanoke; WHEREAS, Mrs. Powers earned her undergraduate degree from Suffield University and completed her Master Governmental Treasury certification from the University of Virginia the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service in 2008; WHEREAS, before coming to the City, Mrs. Powers spent two years in the private sector working for what is now Wells Fargo Bank; WHEREAS, in her role as City Treasurer Mrs. Powers the City Treasurer is the City's Chief Financial Officer where she managed 21 deputy treasurers', managed the investments of local funds for the City and Roanoke City Public Schools, and was responsible for every form of revenue that comes to the City; WHEREAS, the citizens of Roanoke City elected Mrs. Powers five times as the Treasurer; WHEREAS, Mrs. Powers held many positions with the Treasurers' Association of Virginia to include, Treasurer, Second Vice President, First Vice President, President Elect, and President, she received the President's Award in 2015, and was named Treasurer of the Year in 2017; WHEREAS, Mrs. Powers received the Office Accreditation in 2008 by the Treasurers' Association of Virginia and has achieved accreditation every year since. WHEREAS, Mrs. Powers worked many years with the Miss Virginia Pageant, and was a Loaned Executive with United Way of Roanoke Valley; WHEREAS, Mrs. Powers along with the City of Roanoke was one of the two localities that helped create the Virginia Investment Pool where she has served on the Board as Vice-Chairman of the Virginia Investment Pool with VMLVACo Finance since its inception in 2014. WHEREAS, Mrs. Powers has served the City of Roanoke with the highest professionalism and competence, and exhibited intelligence, skill, and a strong work ethic throughout her tenure as our Treasurer. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. This Council adopts this Resolution as its means of recognizing and commending the meritorious services rendered to the City of Roanoke and its people by Evelyn Powers, expressing the gratitude and appreciation of the City and its residents for her service. 2. The City Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this resolution to Evelyn Powers. Sherman P.Lea,Sr. Mayor _ Attest: Cecelia F. McCoy City Clerk Recommendations for the next budget PEDAL 6�5 � SAFE RSA pedalsof eroa.org 1. We would like the city to focus efforts to achieve a protected, connected, & comfortable network of infrastructure that connects nondrivers to work, school, transit, grocery stores, and other critical needs. 2. We would like a line item in the budget focused on building out this network of protected infrastructure and in the first year, we would at least want money provided to purchase equipment to clean and clear protected bike lanes so that we can remove that obstacle when considering options for infrastructure. We suggest that $200,000 should be sufficient for these purposes. 3. We have heard that there is an issue retaining staff long enough to train them for the street maintenance of cleaning and clearing new infrastructure. We would suggest looking at increasing pay and anything else that would meaningfully impact retention so that this is no longer an issue. 4. Cleaning streets is also a stormwater quality issue, and the stormwater utility fee estimate for 2024 is $8,175,000. We would suggest facilitating better cooperation/coordination between Transportation and Stormwater to help achieve these goals together. 5. We would like the street design guidelines updated to prefer the NACTO guidelines when designing our streets. 6. We would encourage the city to pursue grant opportunities to fund the planning and building, and maintenance of this infrastructure. The city might want to consider adding a person to staff that can focus on chasing grants for this and other initiatives. 7. We would like the city to continue it's efforts on Vision Zero and Safe Streets for all which are in alignment with the city's 2040 plan as well as the Climate Action Plan. 8. We would love for the city to help us achieve the a score of 50 or better in the People For Bikes City Rankings. And then we should continue to push from there to secure our spot as a leader in the state and the country. 9. Finally, on a personal note, Roanoke City Public Schools has a policy that they do not provide transportation services to kids within a certain radius of the school. The expectation is that kids within that radius are close enough that it's reasonable for them to walk or bike. I think this is a good policy, but not every school is accessible or has infrastructure that would allow all kids within that radius to get to school safely. I would suggest that the city should prioritize streets within this radius to slow traffic, and really deliver the infrastructure these kids need to get back and forth to school safely. Paul Tulou 540-818-6325 PedalSafe ROA board member ptulou@gmail.com ROANOKE Office of the City Attorney To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: A communication from the City Attorney requesting that the City Council convene in a Closed Meeting for discussion of possible disposal of publicly owned property, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The City Attorney requests that City Council convene in a Closed Meeting for the purpose of discussing possible disposal of publicly owned property, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body. pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Timothy Spencer, City Attorney City Manager's Report Submitted by: Marc Nelson, Director Department of Economic Development ROA N O K E September 16, 2024 Title: Request to Schedule a Public Hearing to Consider Boundary Amendments to Enterprise Zone One A. Background: Due to anticipated development of key properties which are not presently located within the Enterprise Zone, staff have identified a need to apply for boundary amendments to the City's Enterprise Zone One A. Such amendments, if approved by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, will add approximately 12 acres into the zone, where future development is anticipated into Enterprise Zone One A. Such amendments, if approved by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, will also delete certain areas which are ineligible for Enterprise Zone benefits and/or are not capable of being developed from Enterprise Zone One A and/or have taken advantage of Enterprise Zone incentives in the recent past and are not likely to apply in the future. Additionally, staff have identified a need to apply for incentive amendments to the City's Enterprise Zone One A. Such amendments, if approved by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, will provide partial tax rebates on qualified business equipment purchases, over a period of five years, to businesses located in the Enterprise Zone. This incentive will be structured similarly to the other local incentives offered by the Department of Economic Development. In order to add this new incentive, staff is proposing to remove the Job Training Grant incentive, due to lack of utilization. A public hearing is required to be held by the City Council prior to the submittal and approval of any such amendments by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. Considerations: A public hearing is required to be held by the City Council prior to the submittal and approval of any such amendments by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. Authorize the City Clerk to schedule and advertise a public hearing on the above matters to be held on Monday, October 21 at 7:00 P.M., or as soon as the matter may be reached, or at such later date and time as deemed appropriate by the City Manager. Recommended Action: Concur in the Request. f Lydia Patton, Interim City Manager CITY OF ROANOKE ,.wry • " .`� OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue,S.W.,Suite 456 Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 1/1b3I Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov CECELIA F.MCCOY,CMC CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk RUTH VISUETE PEREZ Assistant Deputy City Clerk September 19, 2024 Virginia Mullen Board Secretary Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Mullen: This is to advise you that Marc Nelson has qualified as a member of the Western Virginia's Regional Industrial Facility Authority for a four-year term of office, commencing February 4, 2024, and ending February 3, 2028. Sincerely, 'm , 6tt.t.&;ti d: C1274- Cecelia F. McCoy, CMC City Clerk Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, Marc Nelson, do solemnly swear(or affirm)that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the Western Virginia's Regional Industrial Facility Authority for a four-year term of office, commencing February 4, 2024 and ending February 3, 2028; according to the best of my ability. (So help me God.) MARC NELSON The foregoing oath of office was taken, sworn to, and subscribed before me by Marc Nelson this L- day of ALiJ tASt 2024. Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of the Circuit Court BY��.rL `� VU Clerk IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43021-091624. A RESOLUTION authorizing acceptance of the FY25 School Resource Officer Grant made to the City of Roanoke Sheriff's Office by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City Manager or her designee is hereby authorized on behalf of the City to accept the FY25 School Resource Officer Grant from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services in the amount of$713,468,with a local match in the amount of$241,723, for eight SRO positions within the City of Roanoke Sheriff's Office. Such grant being more particularly described in the City Manager's Report dated September 16, 2024. 2. The Sheriff and the City Manager or her designee are hereby authorized to execute and file, on behalf of the City, any documents setting forth the conditions of the grant and to furnish such additional information as may be required in connection with the acceptance of the foregoing grant,in a form approved by the City Attorney. ATTEST: C-044-QAzst- (171-te-/ City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43922-091624. AN ORDINANCE appropriating funding from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS)to provide funding for School Resource Officer(SRO) positions, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2024-2025 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 2024-2025 Grant Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Grant Salaries 235-2140-0000-51200-400003 $ 713,468 Revenues DCJS SRO Grant Program FY24-State 235-2140-0000-40122-400003 471,745 DCJS SRO Grant Program FY24-Local 235-2140-0000-40126-400003 241,723 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. Sheriff's Office Antonio Hash, Sheriff ROANOKE September 16, 2024 Title: Acceptance and Appropriation of the FY25 School Resource Officer (SRO) Grant. Background: The Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) is offering state grants to provide funding for School Resource Officer (SRO) positions to establish, enhance and continue the partnerships between local law enforcement agencies and school divisions. Units of local government are eligible to apply for and receive these funds. The Sheriff's Office will manage the SRO positions; however, the grant application must be submitted by, and the funds awarded to, a local unit of government. Considerations: On May 30, 2024, the City of Roanoke was awarded $471,745 in grant funding. There is a required match of$241,723. The total award, including local match, for this grant is $713,468. Funding covers twelve months of salary/benefits for eight SRO positions. In order to comply with grant requirements, allowable expenses for these funds are salary and benefits for full- time or part-time SRO positions to provide coverage during school hours, and does not include school-sponsored activities outside the instructional day. Eight elementary schools, and their respective SROs, were identified as applicable for this grant opportunity. Recommended Action: Accept the SRO Grant described above and authorize the Interim City Manager or her designee to execute the grant agreement and any related documents; such documents to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in the amount of $713,468 (Grant Funds: $471,745 Match: $241.723) and to appropriate the same in an account to be established in the Grant Fund by the Director of Finance. Antonio Hash, Sheriff N o I I S 6 # a 4 on ] e-t rY • t t . , TS t t ? l ' ' `'` 0 0 h..) o coi. # Uo ..-Itl.'f't' : - i • , 0 ' i, r Tn M -D 3 :- , i %� i 4 GI GI Z 3 Z 0 3 r .0 r 0 0 s (; ; z 3 f0 0 S v U � zJa 3 9 3 7.1 i D n 3 gL n ; 3 3 n D ofl -o4 -i � cmnoa f0 (b Dm Z ? fD b m f0 w 0 3 m o 0 0 n `° J 2) J & � 01 0 r - 0 K - N " " c 3 ,, r 3 �p �, O3n00flc � r Q � 0 0 n 3 0 0,, 30 5 CO 0 3 T a ,, D '^, ", 3 ro o rt a ..7. o rt rt o i -I rr fD °' 0 , D D o 0 % x 3• °naomnm PL.. fla 00 0 -1 n -1J ? R00 y N -{ O < ; m m D uL+ 3 u0i th O a 3 0 0 0 n J 9 \ fD J rj 0 y y .(1), I r D f10 , n fo y p 0 p) n n 0 k \Pl. x Cl m .9 a 0 X W G fD 0 C ;+ > 0 k 0 `^ n J rt N j y n k , -1 < n fl 3 0 0. r 3 r ' 0 `< 0 0 01 0 rD � ; 3 0 ; r 'f o f J 0 i y k y O D C m a p m a co LA 0 ° 0 0 ; " o Q rt x r CD 3 O 13 3 ID r J 0 n C f0 3 f0 fD n m r 9 'r < 0 �' c) 3 7 QO l j Ii 3 10 to In -0' ID II 0 tD n • 0 0 1A :o D ✓ p �1, WP , A 0 W P P V W x 0 ,0 r= W VI A 01 , W 10 U1 I O N N N J In N N A 0 3 , 01 N D O V1 co W W to W OO V F+ n 0 W Ut A to W In o N V W N -' ° W , C. A N N 01 N F+ O 01 O V N Q1 W In N In Co l0 In 01 W 0 w O r+ O W .90 -' ID cc A p f0 W ? 1001U1InJlal0UIN V1 co - O! t fD n W t0 to ID 00 A 00 N O y V In O A V m N N O A N N a o N , 0 %+ OV 0 , i tD CO A i W It A F+ V , , V 01 O W CO V A CO UI 00 01 01 i N N .1 P N ID M < 3 3 — — N c f0 0 A VI rt W C c 0 m -- C C 3 T 0 W 1: N H N CA 9 fl - Ol ff0 sl Fo 00 3 T A A p N I, N In V I, I, O O 00 W 01 N I, N UI rt { M 3 tD A W Co N wo lo f0 n O fp sPl CO 00 V V N WN to NAInIOVN0NOU10300 A WO WInN 0 CO O. fD O N 0 W N COAO 00 N F+ N N •• 01 N 0 00 F+ N 00 O V m C W ONO V IDInONNNW V 00 � AANO Vf Q o m o D o m o 0 0 o a W o00000000OOW IA o000o o g O N 0 0 0 VI 00L. 00 fp 0 OOo000000000 0 00000 O h O (7 i - 0 1 �v - of - - — --__�--- ILL_...___ , in in in D 4 D n ID N N co c T1 V W N A W N N A o 93 �? W V 01 h W tO W N W 10 V A A 01 N A 01 N AIWD 01 O CO A O ID A N N P 0W0) 0) W0o01I, 0W W V CO V N , UI ID W ID W W A p N N W S 01 W .I I, N in I, l0 In V In A NI N O 01 W A W 'COA PCO V O L 01 VONN N N V O lD l0 J J N 01 O soo la OW 00 In t0 W W P 01 '0 A N = N 01 i In to W N 01 01 I, 01 oo V V In tD 01 O F-` N 00 O , P W A 00 —I---- — c 0 0 0 CO CO A ? W P P C p I, I, I, I, I, N N I, F+ N C ✓ lO P AD to N CO D ID A N W fl 01 01 O 01 N N 01 lD N UI I, p Ut W A O OO 0 P N Q ✓ ID O N N 101 U1 in ID 01 1 'co c 1r. 0 0 0 o OD 0 o Oo 0 0 01 63 O e o 6 a 00 o* el o\° o o i o\o o\o \ o o*o o o*o \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ oeo \ \ \ \ \ \ .. -0 = —Cu N G7 = 70 CO -CS C Sy Les 1'D = ]::. = CD CI r-s = --1-, 0.) Ai -ro CD a . ,,.... a . Q Cu O cu CDCD Cu m — >4 C a - = (D n CD = S= = ...o. .— r = O.) fD in i/> iel- n A .rt -on 1-u 1-a, N c NJ N F-& NJ 1--► C% 2.I7 00 a1 O W cFI W `cti1 �c�O o0 Ur1 `II v crs Chi i O C'i CC NJ 00 ON C� 0 -te1- i/>- n o n rcs Cq X CD 01 CD T VI CD Ci tea.) n y I-� I w W W 00 W N NJ N Q = -C c0 N W W N G1 'O V O co cr1 1.- O V O O V IN 00 h- N Q N IT) C+ COI O W W W O oo U O 00CD (7) .--r 70 O p Cl N_ 1-� 1--� A 00 I-% N `--r U,' Qj O 00 00 NJ 00 O II NJ 1"` 3 T (=, Cr- a lip CD i 1 c Q. fD s • CD rF CD W -in W 1--� N .1 NJ lO I- . W O '0 '.o 4..0 3 Cl_ Li, (.0 0 00 O OHO V N C• W = — N O 00 W NJ U.) I-• C' e t cep c.0 co I---. L lo LI, C> e.,O 00 I•-• — 1-.1 V V -Po O W NJ V 1-' = 'Vf i/} n A e-i= T �C W N I- a �1-� C1 00 4!1 NJ - N Lro `a�0 NJ gal o W 1 '. C0 00 00 v N I . V NJ C1 '.0 '.0 00 = o 1--h H% Hlc II H� 1 Fcb 1--.% F.ic Cro Clt- 00 V cJ'1 ----IV C1 CD c c c o 0 0 C. 'a 00 N W 0.)o _ C1 Crh 0' C1 CO1 C1 01 CC = 04 CD is .--r c \ \ \ o o \ \ \ LA 0 CD o. cn a- C-) 0 3 3 CD IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43023-091624. A RESOLUTION accepting the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds to the City of Roanoke from the Department of Homeland Security and authorizing execution of any required documents on behalf of the City. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City of Roanoke does hereby accept the VDEM Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds from the Department of Homeland Security in the amount of$213,281.25 with a local match in the amount of $337,968.75 for the replacement of the Downstream Wiley Low Water Bridge, such grant being more particularly described in the City Manager's Report dated September 16, 2024. 2. The City Manager or her designee is hereby authorized to execute and file, on behalf of the city, any documents setting forth the conditions of this grant in a form approved by the City Attorney. 3. The City Manager or her designee is further directed to furnish such additional information as may be required to implement and administer the foregoing Grant. ATTEST: c. L. J-. City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43024-091624. AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), for the replacement of the Downstream Wiley Low Water Bridge, 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 2024-2025 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Appropriated from Federal Grant Funds 308-4310-0000-69065-300193 $ 173,906 Appropriated from State Grant Funds 308-4310-0000-69065-300193 $ 39,375 Revenues Wiley Drive Low Water Bridge Project- 308-4310-0000-40127-300193 $ 173,906 Federal Portion Wiley Drive Low Water Bridge Project- 308-4310-0000-40122-300193 $ 39,375 State Portion Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: ciaii_(:eu (-01-- -ea--e-r City Clerk. City Manager's Report Submitted by: Ross Campbell, PE, Director Department of Public Works ROAN O K E September 16, 2024 Title: Acceptance and Appropriation of the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM)- Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Grant for Downstream Wiley Low Water Bridge Replacement. Background: In March 2024, City Council accepted Virginia Department of Transportation Funds for the replacement of the Downstream Wiley Low Water Bridge. The replacement project will enhance fish passage for the endangered Roanoke Logperch, reduce the floodplain elevation profile, and increase recreational activities, such as kayaking, along the Roanoke River. City staff also applied for additional funds through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Disaster 4644, Virginia Severe Winter Storm and Snowstorm. These funds are awarded to the City through the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Considerations: VDEM-FEMA has awarded the City a HMGP grant for the following amounts and required local match. FEMA Project Funds $147,656.25 FEMA Sub-Recipient Management Costs 26,250.00 Total Federal Funds 173,906.25 VDEM State Project Funds 39,375.00 Total Federal and State Project Funds 213,281.25 Local Project Funds - Match $337,968.75 The local funds are located in Project Account 300193 Wiley Drive Low Water Bridge. Recommended Action: Accept the VDEM-FEMA HMGP award of $213,281.25. Authorize the Interim City Manager to execute the HMGP Grant Agreement FEMA DR-4644-VA-0012 — Phase 1 similar to the documents attached to this report. Such documents shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. Authorize the Interim City Manager to take such further actions and execute such further documents, approved as to form by the City Attorney, as may be necessary to obtain, accept, implement, administer, and use such funds identified above. Adopt the accompanying Budget Ordinance to establish revenue estimates for the funding sources identified above and appropriate funding in the same amount to the expenditure account, Wiley Drive Low Water Bridge. Lydia Patton, Interim City Manager E E .>. - t N �3 ', Asia... . . . R. __ , .... iLu .... - 14-11 - _ z ...e fv...J LIJ Q(� F-{ w <t ul j�, IS 141k Ft .- o - o ii4 0 4co „ Q 1S N15 _ ,..,, ..+ LL ilIR 27.1` ' J > o QvCO 4 61 y ,, o SI 7ef 7b, wr b 73 L II Q ".k .0-' ' - ' girt �I �a S.14.1.714. cn cr CZ a`� 1SNlOcs Yam , �" co s ¢ u, Z1.: a:c.. g'c' Is IIINNMbl Z� IS Hitt z . <y o r .a - , 4. STillimct7t 0 N S 1 Niel. 4• 0 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Department of Emergency Management c1► �F ' 9?11 array. .ut = __DC. Norte •JI _ste'tielc Virginia 23.26 TEL EC-' S _._ . C4.6742'1- =.'.:Y 20427_204. r f y SHAWN G.TALMADGE Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Grant Agreement FEMA-DR-4644-VA-0012 — Phase I This Agreement is made as of this 28'day of July of 2024. by and between the Virginia Department of Emergency Management, hereinafter called "VDEM," and the City of Roanoke, herein after called the "Sub- grantee." The UEI-EFT number for the City of Roanoke is NBFNAEXRHD76. The parties to this Agreement, in consideration of the mutual covenants and stipulations set out herein, agree as follows: (1) GENERAL PROVISIONS: This Agreement is a sub-grant award of federal funds from VDEM to the sub-grantee. VDEM has received a grant from the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 97.039. The sub-grantee shall implement the project as set forth in the grant Agreement documents. These documents consist of: (1) Executed Grant Agreement; (2) Scope of Services,Attachment A; (3) Project Budget, Attachment B; (4) Milestone Table, Attachment C; and (5) Grant Assistance Agreements and VDEM-FEMA General Terms and Conditions and Assurances; Attachment D. State agencies acting as the sub-grantee shall report all federal funds received as part of this Agreement as federal pass-thru funds on their agency's Schedule of Federal Assistance. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as authority for either party to make commitments, which will bind the other party beyond the Scope of Work contained herein. Furthermore. the sub-grantee shall assign, sublet, or subcontract any work related to this Agreement or any interest it may have herein with full compliance with federal and state procurement regulations. The schedule of service set forth in the Scope of Work and Milestone Table shall be deemed to have been consented to, as required by the preceding sentence, upon the execution of this Agreement by VDEM. (2) SCOPE OF WORK: The sub-grantee shall provide the service to VDEM set forth and summarized in the Scope of Work (Attachment A) and Milestone Table (Attachment C). All deliverables shall conform to accepted standards and practices. If there is any change in the original scope of work, a formal request must be made to VDEM for review and approval prior to implementing the change. These attachments are consistent with the original VDEM-FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) grant project application. The sub-grantee shall provide VDEM with quarterly reports and a final report on the progress of work set forth in the Scope of Work. The quarterly reports and final report shall contain the following components: (1) a narrative describing in detail the progress of the sub-grantee in fulfilling the provisions of the Scope of Work; (2) Reimbursement Requests as needed that itemize the expenses incurred by the sub-grantee, including separate columns for the federal, state, and the sub-grantee's matching contribution to the total cost of services as reflected in the Project Budget-Attachment B; and (3) the schedule of specific project tasks with target completion dates and actual completion dates (Milestone Table—Attachment C). The first quarterly report is due to VDEM at the end of the first complete quarter following the award of the grant. Reporting Period Report Due to VDEM January 1 — March 31 no later than April 15 April 1 —June 30 no later than July 15 July 1 — September 30 no later than October 15 October 1 — December 31 no later than January 15 (3) TIME OF PERFORMANCE: The services of the sub-grantee, for Phase I, shall begin on the date of sub-grantee's signature of this document and terminate on 7-28-2025, unless otherwise altered through provisions of this Agreement or extended by written authorization of VDEM. All phases of projects approved under FEMA-4644-DR-VA have a period of performance that expires 3-11-2026, unless otherwise altered through provisions of this Agreement or extended by written authorization of VDEM. Requests for time of performance extension must be received in writing by VDEM within 75 days of termination date with reasons for requested time of performance extension and a revised Milestone Table—Attachment C. All time limits stated are of essence of this Agreement. All funds must be obligated no later than the project completion date.The final request for reimbursement must be received no later than 60 days after the completion date for the project. (4) COMPENSATION: The total grant award from VDEM is $551,250.00 provided through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Disaster 4644, Virginia Severe Winter Storm and Snowstorm. FEMA shall provide funds for the project identified in the Scope of Work (Attachment A) totaling $147,656.25. FEMA shall also provide sub- recipient management cost funds in the amount of$26,250.00. VDEM shall provide funds for the project identified in the Scope of Work (Attachment A) totaling $39,375.00. The sub-grantee agrees to provide a match in the amount of $337,968.75. The sub-grantee is aware of and shall comply with the cost-sharing requirements of federal mitigation grant assistance, specifically, that federal assistance is limited to 28.13 percent of eligible expenditures. VDEM shall release the grant award to the sub-grantee on a cost-reimbursement basis upon receipt and approval of the sub-grantee's quarterly and final reports and deliverables as required by this Agreement or at other times agreed to by VDEM. Any cost overruns incurred by the sub-grantee during the time of performance shall be the responsibility of the sub-grantee. The sub-grantee shall spend the funds according to the specified categories of the contract budget. The sub-grantee shall use mitigation grant funds solely for the purposes for which these funds are provided and as approved by FEMA and VDEM. General policies for determining allowable costs are established in 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 13.22 (included in Attachment D) and the appropriate OMB circulars that identify cost principles for different kinds of organizations. Minor shifts of the funds among categories by the sub-grantee, not to exceed 10%of any budget line item are permissible, but in no case can the total expenditures exceed the amount provided by this contract. Shifts in funds exceeding 10%among budget line items must be approved in writing by VDEM. (5) ASSISTANCE: VDEM agrees upon request of the sub-grantee to furnish, or otherwise make available to the sub-grantee, copies of existing non-proprietary materials in the possession of VDEM that are reasonably related to the subject matter of this Agreement and are necessary to the sub-grantee for completion of its performance under this Agreement. VDEM Recovery and Mitigation Division staff will provide technical support to the sub-grantee and make periodic site visits to monitor progress. (6) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The role of the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) must be clearly stated in all press releases, news articles, requests for proposals, bid solicitations, and other documents describing this project, whether funded in whole or part. Acknowledgement of financial assistance, with VDEM and FEMA logos, must be printed on all reports, studies, web sites, and other products (including map products) supported, in whole or in part, by this award or any sub-award.The sub-grantee is responsible for contacting VDEM staff in adequate time to obtain the logo in camera-ready or digital form. The final draft must be approved by VDEM staff prior to production. The acknowledgement should read as follows: This report was funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through the Virginia Department of Emergency Management via grant Agreement number FEMA-DR-4644-VA-0072 for S557,250.00. (7) CREATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: To the extent that the copyright to any copyrightable material created pursuant to this Agreement is owned by the sub-grantee and/or the sub-grantee is empowered to license its use, VDEM agrees to grant to the sub-grantee, and hereby does grant to the sub-grantee, a license to use the materials so owned for public, not-for-profit purpose within the territory of the Commonwealth and shall execute and deliver such further documents as the Commonwealth may reasonably request for the purpose of acknowledging or implementing such license. A copyright notice shall be placed in an appropriate location on any copyrightable material being distributed or published. Such notice shall include (1) either the symbol " the word "Copyright", or the abbreviation "Copr."; (2) the year of first publication: and (3) the name of the copyright owner(the Commonwealth of Virginia). This information shall be followed by the words, "all rights reserved." (8) STRUCTURAL MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS: Specific requirements must be adhered to for structural mitigation projects such as structural relocation, property acquisition and demolition and structural retrofitting or improvement as detailed in Attachment D. These requirements can include deed restrictions, operation and maintenance plans. and insurance requirements, as dictated by the specific grant and project requirements. (9) BREACH AND TERMINATION: In the event of breach by the sub-grantee of this Agreement, VDEM shall provide written notice to the sub- grantee specifying the manner in which the Agreement has been breached. If a notice of breach is given and the sub-grantee has not substantially corrected the breach within sixty (60) days of receipt of the written notice, VDEM shall have the right to terminate the Agreement. The sub-grantee shall be paid for no service rendered or expense incurred after receipt of the notice of termination, except such fees and expenses incurred prior to the effective date of termination that are necessary for curtailment of its work under the Agreement. Termination of this Agreement can occur as an effect of one of two results: First, as a result of the proper completion and closeout of this project. Second, termination may occur as a result of Termination for Convenience or other termination as allowed or required by 44 CFR for projects, which cannot be completed as described in the FEMA-approved grant project application and the Scope of Work— Attachment, herein. Communication of this decision and information related to the project termination will be provided to the sub-grantee in coordination with FEMA through registered mail. IN WITNESS THEREOF the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by the following duly authorized officials: Sub-grantee: Grantor: The City of Roanoke Virginia Department of Emergency Management By: By: 8-20-2024 Date: Date: Authorized Sub-grantee Signatory Alternate Governor's Authorized Representative Attachment A FEMA-DR-4644-VA-0012 — Phase I Project Scope of Work Project Sponsor: City of Roanoke Project Title: City of Roanoke, Replacement of Wiley Drive Downstream Low Water Bridge Phase 1 Project Description from VDEM-FEMA HMGP application: The Wiley Dr. Downstream Low Water Bridge conveys pedestrian and vehicular traffic from neighborhoods in west Roanoke through the core of the City's parks and green space corridor to the Hospital District, Downtown Roanoke, Mill Mountain and neighborhoods in east Roanoke. Unfortunately, the bridge is inundated by Roanoke River flows between one and two months every year resulting in roadway and greenway closure and significant debris cleanup costs. In addition, the non-standard configuration of the existing bridge - 10 circular culverts set below baseflow - creates a public safety hazard for recreational watercraft and impedes fish passage under all but baseflow conditions. This proposed project would replace the existing bridge with a new structure with improved hydraulic opening that would significantly decrease inundation frequency and cleanup costs and improve passage for recreational watercraft and fish. The proposed bridge configuration would be similar in construction to the bridge immediately upstream. which was replaced in 2007. This project will be phased. Phase I of this project consists of survey, design, and permitting work. Phase II of this project consists of demolition, construction, and includes costs related to construction management and inspection. All Phase I activities and deliverables specified in the Scope of Work must be submitted and reviewed by FEMA prior to the Award of Phase II activities or funding, no construction can begin until Phase 1 is awarded by FEMA. Phase I deliverables include: • Final design of bridge structure and any associated construction such as approaches and bank stabilization. • Demolition plan details such as timing, use of cofferdams, and redirection of water. • Description of all disturbance with locations and dimensions (including depth), Terrestrial ground disturbance, Aquatic (Riverbed and/or banks), And from equipment staging. • Location of equipment staging during each stage of construction. • Erosion and sedimentation control measures to be implemented. • Copies of relevant permitting or coordination. Special Conditions: NEPA Determination: Approval is for planning, design, studies, and permits only. No physical work or ground disturbing activities are approved at this time. Failure to comply with this condition jeopardizes the receipt of federal funding. Attachment B FEMA-DR-4644-VA-0012 — Phase i Project Budget Phase I Project Awarded Budget- Funding Source HMGP: Federal Project Funds (28.13%) $147,656.25 State Project Funds (7.5%) $39,375.00 Local Project Funds (64.38%) $337,968.75 Sub-recipient Management Costs (100%) $26,250.00 Total Project Costs $551,250.00 Phase I Project Budget from VDEM-FEMA HMGP application: Cost Type Quantity Unit Cost Total Average Survey 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Design and Permitting 1 $500,000.00 S500,000.00 Total Project Costs $525,000.00 Cost Type Quantity Unit Cost Total, Average Sub-Recipient Management Costs 1 $26,250.00 $26,250.00 Attachment C FEK4A'DR'4644'Vm,�'O0lZ — Phasc | Pnqczt Milestone Table ~1��� ' - ^ �—°_ Grant Implementation and Kick-off 30Oays RFP/RF{l for Design and Permitting Contractor 60Days Design and Permitting 275Days Total Days 365Danm Attachment FEK4A'DR'4644'VA-0OlZ - Phase | Administrative Requirements and Guidance Federal Administration and Guidance Documents: l. ZCFR Part 200Cost Principles for State, Local, Indian Tribal Governments Z. [ATEX documentation (where required) 3. Structural Mitigation Project Requirements (where required) 4. Current Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Guidelines 5. FEK4A Award Package Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMW) Contamt Gai| Gron|und F[KJA Region III One Independence Mall, 6mFloor 615 [hcsLnut Street Philadelphia, PAl9106'44O4 Mobile: (771) 2O2'06]5 ` Attachment E FEMA-DR-4644-VA-0012 — Phase I Hazard Mitigation Assistance Non-Supplanting Certification I certify that any funds awarded under Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities and will not replace (supplant) non-federal funds. Designated Agent Name Signature Title Agency IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43025-091624. A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") FY25 Transportation Alternatives Program Funds to implement the Westside - Salem Turnpike Pedestrian Improvements Project and authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute, and file appropriate documents to obtain such funds. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City of Roanoke hereby accepts the VDOT FY25 Transportation Alternatives Programs Funds to implement the Westside- Salem Turnpike Pedestrian Improvements Project in the amount of$909,224, with a local match of$227,306, for the installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk with storm drain improvements along the 3800 block of Salem Turnpike,N.W.and the 700 block of Westside Blvd,N.W.,as further outlined in the City Manager's Report dated September 16, 2024. 2. The City Manager or her designee is hereby authorized to accept,execute,and file on behalf of the City of Roanoke any and all documents required to obtain such funding including the VDOT Standard Project Administration Agreement for Federal-aid Projects, Appendix A-Locally Administered Project Details,Appendix B-Locally Administered Federal-Aid Agreement—Special Funding Program Conditions and Requirements, and Appendix C —Department Project Specific Services. All such documents to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. 3. The City Manager or her designee is further directed to furnish such additional information as may be required in connection with the acceptance of the foregoing funding or with such project. r 4. The City Manager or her designee is further authorized to take such further actions and execute such further documents,approved as to form by the City Attorney,as may be necessary to obtain, accept, implement, administer, and use such funds identified above. ATTEST: 0-tca<,-4, J-• Vt)14 -1 City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43026-091624. AN ORDINANCE appropriating funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2024- 2025 Capital Projects 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 2024-2025 Capital Projects Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Expenditures VDOT - Federal Appropriations 308-4310-0000-69065-300192 $ 909,224 Revenues Federal Pass Thru Apropriations 308-4310-0000-40127-300192 $ 909,224 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: (f)1'6642U City Clerk. City Manager's Report Submitted by: Ross Campbell, PE, Director Department of Public Works ROA N O K E September 16, 2024 Title: Acceptance and Appropriation of Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Funds for Westside - Salem Turnpike Pedestrian Improvements. Background: In September 2023, City Council authorized the application for Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) FY25 Transportation Alternatives Program Funds to implement the Westside — Salem Turnpike Pedestrian Improvements project. The improvements include the installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk (CGS) with storm drain improvements along the 3800 block of Salem Turnpike, NW and 700 block of Westside Blvd, NW. Considerations: VDOT has awarded the City the Transportation Alternatives grant for $909,224 with a required local match of $227,306. The local funds are located in Project Account 300192, Westside Blvd & Salem Turnpike CGS. Recommended Action: Accept the VDOT's award of $909,224. Authorize the Interim City Manager to execute the VDOT Standard Project Administration Agreement for Federal-Aid Projects, Appendix A document, Locally Administered Federal-Aid Agreement Appendix B — Special Funding Program Conditions and Requirements and Appendix C — Department Project Specific Services similar to the ones attached to this report. Such documents shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. Authorize the Interim City Manager to take such further actions and execute such further documents. approved as to form by the City Attorney, as may be necessary to obtain, accept, implement, administer, and use such funds identified above. Adopt the accompanying Budget Ordinance to establish revenue estimates for the funding sources identified above and appropriate funding in the same amount to the expenditure account, Westside Blvd & Salem Turnpike CGS. 0.Z;45,* Lydia Patton, Interim City Manager te �p �>t7l\,, l p Cs 040 1l/ y�a _ fr zoeofrie 100) o N ,, „4,41, Qimer +!. 13 raw ror MUSD +. ON a) � . as eft isue MN 4. 9 L 4 CO Ca ,. CL -p );( to a. Y cn 5, ij • #,ify- - .- ,- '44 N s") N o N. ` in C r� 4 ,r Q STANDARD PROJECT ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT Federal-aid Projects Project Number UPC Local Government EN24-12S-523 125623 City of Roanoke THIS AGREEMENT, is hereby made and effective the date of the last (latest) signature set forth below. by and between the CITY OF ROANOKE,VIRGINIA. hereinafter referred to as the LOCALITY and the Commnonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation. hereinafter referred to as the DEPARTMENT. The DEPARTMENT and the LOCALITY are collectively referred to as the "Parties." WHEREAS. the LOCALITY has expressed its desire to administer the work described in Appendix A. and such work for each improvement shown in Appendix A is hereinafter referred to as the "Project:" and WHEREAS. the funds shown in Appendix A have been allocated to finance the Project; and WHEREAS. the LOCALITY is committed to the development and delivery of the Project in an expeditious manner; and WHEREAS, the LOCALITY is responsible for administering the Project in accordance with DEPARTMENT guidelines. including the most current Locally Administered Projects Manual("LAP Manual"). and with the program specific requirements shown in Appendix B, based on the nature of the allocated funding for the Project as shown in the Appendix A; and WHEREAS. the Parties have concurred in the DEPARTMENT's administration of the specific Project services shown in Appendix C: and `'WHEREAS. the Parties have concurred in the LOCALITY's administration of all phases of work for the Project in accordance with applicable federal. state and local laws and regulations; and WHEREAS, the LOCALITY's governing body has by resolution. demonstrated the LOCALITY'S commitment to provide local funding for the Project to the extent contemplated by this Agreement and further, by resolution or otherwise. authorized its designee to execute this Agreement. and said authorizations are attached hereto. NOW THEREFORE. in consideration of the mutual premises contained herein. the Parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The representations. covenants and recitations set forth in the foregoing recitals are material to this Agreement and are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement as though they were fully set forth in this Section 1. Federal Aid Project Administration Aereement Locality:Cityy of Roanoke Project Number:E\24-12S UPC12562= 2. The LOCALITY shall: a. Be responsible for all activities necessary to complete the noted phase(s) of the Project as shown in Appendix A. except for activities. decisions. and approvals which are the responsibility of the DEPARTMENT. as expressly required by federal or state laws and regulations, or as otherwise agreed to, in writing. between the Parties. Every phase of the Project will be designed and constructed to meet or exceed current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials standards when the facilities are locally maintained and shall further comply with all supplementary standards established by the DEPARTMENT when the facilities are maintained by the DEPARTMENT. b. Meet all funding obligation and expenditure timeline requirements in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations. all applicable Commonwealth Transportation Board and DEPARTMENT policies. and those additional requirements as identified in Appendices A and B to this Agreement. Noncompliance with this requirement may result in deallocation of the funding from the Project, rescission of state funding match, termination of this Agreement. or the DEPARTMENT's denial of future requests to administer projects by the LOCALITY. all of which actions are at the discretion of the DEPARTMENT or as can be taken pursuant to applicable laws. regulations. or policies. c. Receive prior written authorization from the DEPARTMENT to proceed with preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation, advertisement and award for the Project. as required in the most current LAP Manual and other applicable DEPARTMENT guidelines. d. Administer the Project in accordance with the DEPARTMENT's most current LAP Manual and other guidelines applicable to Locally Administered Projects as published by the DEPARTMENT. e. Maintain accurate and complete records of the Project's development as required in the LAP Manual and any supplemental guidance and directives of the DEPARTMENT and retain documentation of all expenditures and make such information available for inspection or auditing by the DEPARTMENT upon request. Records and documentation for the Project shall be maintained for no less than three (3) years following the DEPARTMENT'S acceptance of the final voucher on the Project. f. At least quarterly. but no more frequently than monthly. submit invoices with supporting documentation to the DEPARTMENT in the I form prescribed by the DEPARTMENT. The supporting documentation shall include copies of vendor and contractor invoices paid by the LOCALITY. an up-to-date Project summary and schedule, and a summary of all payment requests. payments and adjustments. A request for reimbursement shall be made within 90 days after any eligible Project expenses are incurred by the LOCALITY. Reimbursement for eligible expenditures shall not exceed funds allocated each year for the Project by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in the Six Year Improvement Program. OAG Approved 7'28 2022 2 Federal Aid Project Administration Agreement Locality:City of Roanoke Project Number:E\24-12S-523 CPC125623 g. Acknowledges that for federally-fiinded projects and pursuant to 2 CFR § 200.339. Remedies for Noncompliance. failure to comply with federal laws and regulations. or the terms and conditions of federal awards. may result in the imposition of sanctions including but not limited to possible denial or delay of payment of all or a part of the costs associated with the activity or action not in compliance. h. Reimburse the DEPARTMENT for all Project expenses incurred by the DEPARTMENT if, due to action or inaction of the LOCALITY. federally-funded Project expenditures incurred are not reimbursed by the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA). or reimbursements are required to be returned to the FHWA. or in the event the reimbursement is required by the provisions of§ 33.2-214 or§ 33.2- 331 of the Code of Virginia (1950). as amended. or other applicable provisions of federal. state, or local law or regulations. i. On projects that the LOCALITY is providing the required match to state or federal funds, pay the DEPARTMENT the LOCALITY's match for eligible Project expenses incurred by the DEPARTMENT in the performance of activities set forth in paragraph 2.a. j. Administer the Project in accordance with all applicable federal. state. and local laws and regulations. Failure to fulfill legal obligations associated with the Project may result in forfeiture of federal or state-aid reimbursements. k. If legal services other than that provided by staff counsel are required in connection with condemnation proceedings associated with the acquisition of Right-of-Way. the LOCALITY will consult the DEPARTMENT to obtain an attorney from the list of outside counsel approved by the Office of the Attorney General. Costs associated with outside counsel services shall be reimbursable expenses of the Project. 1. Provide, or have others provide. maintenance of the Project upon completion. unless otherwise agreed to by the DEPARTMENT. Where the Project results in physical constriction. the LOC'ALITY will continue to operate and maintain the Project in accordance with the final constructed design as approved by the DEPARTMENT. The LOCALITY agrees that any modification of the approved design features, without the approval of the DEPARTMENT. may. at the discretion of the DEPARTMENT, result in restitution either physically or monetarily as determined by the DEPARTMENT. 3. The DEPARTMENT shall: a. Perform any actions and provide any decisions and approvals.within a reasonable time. which are the responsibility of the DEPARTMENT. required by federal and state laws and regulations. or as otherwise agreed to, in writing. between the parties. and provide necessary coordination with the FHWA as determined to be necessary by the DEPARTMENT. OAG Approved 7 28:2022 3 Federal aid Project Administration Agreement Locality:City of Roanoke Project Number:EN 4-i S -.t-PC11562= b. Upon receipt of the LOCALITY's invoices pursuant to paragraph 2.f.. reimburse the LOCALITY the cost of eligible Project expenses. as described in Appendix A. Such reimbursements shall be payable by the DEPARTMENT within 30 days of an acceptable submission by the LOCALITY. c. Where applicable. submit invoices to the LOCALITY for the LOCALITY's share of eligible Project expenses incurred by the DEPARTMENT in the performance of activities pursuant to paragraphs 2. a. and 3.a. d. Audit the LOC'ALITY's Project records and documentation as may be required to verify LOCALITY compliance with federal and state laws and regulations. e. Upon LOCALITY'S request. make available to the LOCALITY guidelines to assist the Parties in carrying out responsibilities under this Agreement. 4. If designated by the DEPARTMENT. the LOCALITY is authorized to act as the DEPARTMENT's agent for the purpose of conducting survey work pursuant to § 33.2- 1011 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. 5, Nothing in this Agreement shall obligate the Parties hereto to expend or provide any funds in excess of funds agreed upon in this Agreement or as shall have been included in an annual or other lawful appropriation. State and federal Project funding is limited to those identified in the Appendix A of this Agreement and is allocable only upon LOCALITY's compliance with all requirements of this Agreement. In the event the cost of all or part of the Project is anticipated to exceed the allocation shown on Appendix A. the Parties agree to cooperate in seeking additional funding for the Project or to terminate the Project before Project costs exceed the allocated amount. Any requested increase in federal or state funding is subject to DEPARTMENT policy and procedures applicable to the funding source and is not guaranteed. 6. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of the LOCALITY's or the Conuuonwealth of Virginia's sovereign immunity. . The Parties mutually agree and acknowledge. in entering this Agreement. that the individuals acting on behalf of the Parties are acting within the scope of their official authority and capacity and the Parties agree that neither Party will bring a suit or assert a claim against any official, officer. or employee of either Party. in their individual or personal capacity for a breach or violation of the terms of this Agreement or to otherwise enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The foregoing notwithstanding. nothing in this subparagraph shall prevent the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement by or against either Party in a competent court of law. S. The Parties mutually agree that no provision of this Agreement shall create in the public. or in any person or entity other than the Parties. rights as a third party beneficiary hereunder. or authorize any person or entity. not a party hereto. to maintain any action for. without limitation. personal injury, property damage. breach of contract. or return of money. or property. deposit(s). cancellation or forfeiture of bonds. financial instruments. pursuant to the terms of this Agreement or otherwise. Notwithstanding any other provision OAG Approved 7 28 2022 4 Federal Aid Project Administration Agreement Locality:City of Roanoke Project Number:EN24-12S UPC12=62= of this Agreement to the contrary, unless otherwise provided. the Parties agree that the LOCALITY or the DEPARTMENT shall not be bound by any agreements between either party and other persons or entities concerning any matter which is the subject of this Agreement. unless and until the LOCALITY or the DEPARTMENT has. in writing, received a true copy of such agreement(s) and has affirmatively agreed. in writing. to be bound by such Agreement. 9. This Agreement may be terminated by either Party upon 30 days advance written notice to the other Party. Eligible Project expenses incurred through the date of termination shall be reimbursed in accordance with paragraphs 2.f. 2.h.. and 3.b. subject to the limitations established in this Agreement and Appendix A. Upon termination and unless otherwise agreed to. the DEPARTMENT shall retain ownership of plans. specifications. and right of way. unless all state and federal funds provided for the Project have been reimbursed to the DEPARTMENT by the LOCALITY, in which case the LOCALITY will have ownership of the plans. specifications. and right of way. 10. Prior to any action pursuant to paragraphs 2.b, 2.g. or 2.h.of this Agreement.. the DEPARTMENT shall provide notice to the LOCALITY with a specific description of the LOCALITY's breach of this Agreement. Upon receipt of a notice of breach. the LOCALITY will be provided the opportunity to cure such breach or to provide a plan to cure to the satisfaction to the DEPARTMENT. If, within sixty (60) days after receipt of the written notice of breach, the LOCALITY has neither cured the breach. nor is diligently pursuing a cure of the breach to the satisfaction of the DEPARTMENT. then upon receipt by the LOCALITY of a written notice from the DEPARTMENT stating that the breach has neither been cured. nor is the LOCALITY diligently pursuing a cure, the DEPARTMENT may exercise any remedies it may have under this Agreement or at law or in equity. 11. THE LOCALITY and DEPARTMENT acknowledge and agree that this Agreement has been prepared jointly by the Parties and shall be construed simply and in accordance with its fair meaning and not strictly for or against any Party. 12. THIS AGREEMENT. when properly executed. shall be binding upon both Parties. their successors, and assigns. 13. THIS AGREEMENT may be modified only in writing by mutual agreement of the Parties. OAG Approved 7 28:2022 5 Federal Aid Project Administration Agreement Locality:City of Roanoke Project Number:E\24-12S 23.UPC12562= IN WITNESS WHEREOF. each Party hereto has caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. acknowledging and agreeing that any digital signature affixed hereto shall be considered as an original signature for all purposes and shall have the same force and effect as an original signature. CITY OF ROANOKE,VIRGINIA: Signature Date Title NOTE: The official signing for the LOCALITY must attach a certified copy of his or her authority to execute this Agreement. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: Signature Date Chief of Policy, Commonwealth of Virginia. Department of Transportation Attachments Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C OAG Approved 7 282022 6 Appendix A- Locally Administered Version Revision 1 Prepared Date. 15-Jul-24 Project Details 1 UPC [125623 State Project# EN24-128-523 CFDA# 20.205 Locality UEI# NBFNAEXRHD76 Locality. City of Roanoke Address 215 Church Avenue. SW. Roanoke.VA 24011 Work Description Westside Salem Turnpike CGS: Installation of 1300 If of CGS at intersection of Project Location 24017 6516 Westside Blvd Salem Turnpike. Installation of storm drain along with asphalt paving (Zip+4) Project Points of Contact Locality Project Manager VDOT Project Coordinator Name. Luke Pugh Name David Thompson Phone. 540-853-5208 Phone 540.795 9408 Email: luke.pugh@roanokeva.gov Email David Thompson©vdot virginia.clov Project Estimates Preliminary Right of Way and Construction Total Engineering Utilities Estimated Locality Project Expenses SO SO $1.103.030 $1,103.030 Estimated VDOT Project Oversight S7.500 S1,000 $15.000 S23.500 Estimated VDOT Project Services(Appendix C) $10.000 $0 SO $10.000 Estimated Total Project Costs I $17.500 I S1,000 I $1,118;030 I S1.136,530 Project Financing Allocated Funds Type Allocated Funds Local°o Local Share Total Max Reimbursement Total Estimated Amount Participation to Locality Reimbursement to Locality Transportation Alternatives $1.136,530 20% $227.306 $909.224 • Funding Totals S1,136.530 $227306 S909,224 $875.724 Note-Me Nods orde'.s not indicat vve of tie actjra soe1d cede,o'Nods o7 toe rotect This Appendix supersedes ail previous versions signed by VDCT arc the OCA!ITY for the Project Authorized Locality Official Date Authorized VDCT Official Date ?rinted Name of Locali i Oftcia; °rioted Name of VDO-0ficial -itle of Locality Offices Title of VDCT Cfrai This attachment is certified and made an official attachment to this document by the Parties to this Agreement Updated June 2022 Federal Aid Project Administration Agreement Locality:City of-Roanoke e Project Number:E\24-128 UPC12562= Locally Administered Federal-Aid Agreement Appendix B —Special Funding Program Conditions and Requirements Project Number UPC Local Government EN24-128-523 125623 City of Roanoke S1L4RT SCALE Administration of this Project, including but not limited to the Project estimate, schedule and commitment to funding, is subject to the requirements established in the Commonwealth Transportation Board's (CTB's) most current Policy for Implementation of the S1L4RT SCALE Project Prioriti:ation Process, the applicable requirements of the Code of Virginia. and VDOT's applicable Instructional and Informational Memoranda. Without limiting the foregoing. this Project has been selected through the Smart Scale (HB2) application and selection process and will remain in the Six-Year Improvement Plan (SYIP) as a funding priority unless certain conditions set forth in the CTB's most current Policy for Irnplementation of a Project Prioriti:ation Process arise. Pursuant to the CTB's Policy for huplententation of a Project Prioriti:ation Process, this Project will be re-scored and/or the funding decision re-evaluated if any of the following conditions apply: a change in the scope. an estimate increase, or a reduction in the locally regionally leveraged funds. Applications may not be submitted in a subsequent SMART SCALE prioritization cycle to account for a cost increase on a previously selected Project. This Project shall be initiated and at least a portion of the Project's programmed funds expended within one year of the budgeted year of allocation or funding may be subject to reprogramming to other projects selected through the prioritization process. In the event the Project is not advanced to the next phase of construction when requested by the C'TB. the LOCALITY or the localities within the metropolitan planning organization may be required. pursuant to § 33.2-214 of the Code of Virginia. to reimburse the DEPARTMENT for all state and federal funds expended on the Project. Transportation Alternatives Program This Project shall be administered in accordance with VDOT's most current Transportation Alternatives Program Guile. Without limiting the foregoing. CTB policy for allocations from the Transportation Alternatives Programs requires that the Project must be advertised or otherwise under construction within four years of the initial Project allocation or otherwise be subject to deallocation, unless prior Department approval has been provided. The DEPARTMENT shall conduct all environmental studies necessary to complete an enviromnental document in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. unless otherwise agreed to in writing and attached to this Agreement. The LOCALITY is responsible for implementing any environmental commitments resulting from the environmental studies. In OAG Approved 7 28:2022 7 Federal Aid Proiect Administration Agreement Locality:City of Roanoke Project Number:EN24-12 -523,UPC125623 addition. the LOCALITY is responsible for obtaining any water quality permits and conducting any required hazardous materials due diligence efforts. VDOT's estimated cost for the environmental studies and submissions will be provided to the LOCALITY and deducted from the Project funds. Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Allocated Regional Surface Transportation Program funds must be obligated within 12 months of allocation and expended within 36 months of the obligation. Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CM AO) Allocated Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program funds must be obligated within 12 months of allocation and expended within 36 months of the obligation. Revenue Sharing Tilis Project shall be administered in accordance with VDOT's most current Revenue Sharing Program Guidelines. Without limiting the foregoing. the Project shall be initiated such that at least a portion of the Revenue Sharing Funds are expended within one year of allocation. For any project that has not been initiated within one year. the CTB has the discretion to defer consideration of future allocations until the Project moves forward. Further. if the Project has not been initiated within two fiscal years subsequent to the allocation of Revenue Sharing Funds. the Revenue Sharing Funds for the Project may be subject to deallocation from the Project at the discretion of tile CTB. State of Good Repair (SGR) Bridge Project estimate. schedule. and commitment to funding are subject to the requirements established in the CTB's State of Good Repair Program Prioriti:ation Process Methodology, the Code of Virginia, and VDOT's Instructional and htformational Memoranda. Projects receiving funding under this program must initiate the Preliminary Engineering or the Construction Phase within 24 months of award of funding or become subject to deallocation. lie the event the Project is not advanced to the next phase of construction. the LOCALITY may be required. pursuant to § 33.2-214 of the Code of Virginia. to reimburse the Department for all state and federal funds expended on the Project. This Project has been selected through the State of Good Repair application and selection process and will remain in the SYIP as a funding priority. Pursuant to the C'TB's State of Good Repair Program Prioriti_ation Process Methodology. this Project will be re-scored and or the funding decision re-evaluated if any of the following conditions apply: a change in the scope, an estimate increase, or a reduction in the locally regionally leveraged funds. Applications may not be submitted in a subsequent annual State of Good Repair prioritization cycle for the same bridge structure to account for a cost increase on a previously selected Project. OAG Approved 7 28'2022 8 Federal Aid Project Administration Agreement Locality:City of Roanoke Project Number:EN24-12S UPC12=62= State of Good Repair (SGR) Paving Project estimate. schedule. and commitment to funding are subject to the requirements established in the C'TB's State of Good Repair Program Prioritization Process ItIethodologr. the Code of Virginia. and VDOT's Instructional and Informational Memoranda. Projects receiving funding under this program must be advertised within twelve months of award funding or be subject to deallocation. In the event the Project is not advanced to the next phase of construction. the LOCALITY may be required. pursuant to § 33.2-214 of the Code of Virginia. to reimburse the Department for all state and federal funds expended on the Project. This Project has been selected through the State of Good Repair application and selection process and will remain in the SYIP as a funding priority. Pursuant to the CTB's State of Good Repair Program Prioritization Process Methodology. this Project will be re-scored and or the funding decision re-evaluated if any of the following conditions apply: a change in the scope. an estimate increase, or a reduction in the locallyregionally leveraged funds. Applications may not be submitted in a subsequent annual State of Good Repair prioritization cycle for the same roadway segment to account for a cost increase on a previously selected Project. Economic Access This Project shall be administered in accordance with VDOT's most current Economic Development Access Program Guide. Airport Access This Project shall be administered in accordance with VDOT's most current Airport Access Program Guide. Recreational Access This Project shall be administered in accordance with VDOT's most current Recreational Access Program Guide. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Allocated Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds must be obligated within 12 months of allocation and expended within 36 months of the obligation. Local Funds All local funds included in Appendix A have been formally committed by the LOCALITY board or council. subject to appropriation. Authorized Locality Official Signature and Date Printed Name of Locality Official OAG Approved 7'28 2022 9 Federal Aid Project Administration Agreement Locality:City of Roanoke 4 Project Number:E\' -12S- 23 UPCl25623 Appendix C—Department Project Specific Services Project Number UPC I Local Government EN24-12S-523 125623 City of Roanoke Service Description Detailed Scope Estimate (S) Environmental Services VDOT will perform environmental work S 10.000.00 necessary for advertisement. including NEPA and threatened and endangered species clearance using the VDOT streamlined process Total Estimated Costs of Services S10,000.00 Authorized Locality Official Signature and Date Authorized VDOT Official Signature and Date Printed Name of Locality Official Printed Name of VDOT Official Title of Locality Official Title of VDOT Official OAG Approved 7 282022 10 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43027-091624. A RESOLUTION accepting the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Grant award to the City of Roanoke for the Roanoke River Blueway at Memorial Bridge Access Point and authorizing execution of any required documents on behalf of the City. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City of Roanoke does hereby accept the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Grant award in the amount of$331,652.64 for the Roanoke River Blueway at Memorial Bridge Access Point to allow for ADA-compliant access, as well as pedestrian paths and signage for the Roanoke River Blueway, such grant being more particularly described in the City Manager's Report dated September 16, 2024. 2. The City Manager or her designee is hereby authorized to execute and file, on behalf of the city, any documents setting forth the conditions of this grant in a form approved by the City Attorney. 3. The City Manager or her designee is further directed to furnish such additional information as may be required to implement and administer the foregoing Grant. ATTEST: j; Cad-7 City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43028-091624. AN ORDINANCE appropriating funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation for the Memorial Bridge Access Point Project, amending and re-ordaining certain sections of the 2024-2025 Capital Projects 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 2024-2025 Capital Projects Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Expenditures Appropriations from Federal Grant Funds 308-7124-0000-69065-300221 $ 331,653 Richardson Wayland Property Renovations 308-7124-0000-69065-300201 (82,913) Local Match Funds 308-7124-0000-69065-300221 82,913 Revenues Federal Pass Thru Apropriations 308-7124-0000-40127-300221 $ 331,653 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: 0,XAALui•-• %4-• Yi/LJial _ City Clerk. City Manager's Report Submitted by: Cindy McFall, Director Parks and Recreation ROA N O K E September 16, 2024 Title: Acceptance and Appropriation of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Grant for the Roanoke River Blueway - Memorial Bridge Access Point. Background: Currently, there is not a defined access point to the Roanoke River Blueway located at Memorial Bridge. With the creation of the In-River Park, this will be a crucial amenity for Blueway users and the first river access point for the In-River Park. The access point at Memorial Bridge will include the construction of an Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant water access point on the Roanoke River Blueway, pedestrian access paths, trees, and native perennial plantings to assist with runoff and erosion, as well as signage. Considerations: The Parks and Recreation Department would like to construct a designated access point to the Roanoke River Blueway at Memorial Bridge. This access point will allow for ADA- compliant access, as well as pedestrian paths, and signage for the Blueway. This access point is a critical component of the In-River Park plan, as it will serve as the first upstream access point of the overall project scope. Blueway access and trail accessibility improvements are high priorities of the Recreation Trails Program, which is the funding stream for this grant award. Recommended Action: Accept the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's grant award of$331,652.64 to construct an ADA-compliant access point to the Roanoke River Blueway at Memorial Bridge. Authorize the Interim City Manager to take such further actions and execute such further documents, approved as to form by the City Attorney, as may be necessary to obtain, accept, implement, administer, and use such funds identified above. Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in the amount of $331,652.64 and to appropriate the same in an account to be established in the Grant Fund by the Director of Finance. Re-purpose funds in the amount of $82,913 from the Richardson Wayland Property Renovations to be used as local match for this project. Lydia Patton, Interim City Manager IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43 029-091624. A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of the FY24 and FY25 Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") Maintenance Payments vs. Budget estimate to the City of Roanoke's Transportation Division and authorizing the execution,and filing of appropriate documents to obtain such funds. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City of Roanoke hereby accepts the FY24 and FY25 VDOT Maintenance Payments vs. Budget estimate in the total amount of $5,074,375.82 to be transferred into the Transportation Division's Street Paving capital account, as more particularly set forth in the City Manager's Report dated September 16, 2024. 2. The City Manager or her designee is hereby authorized to accept,execute,and file on behalf of the City of Roanoke any and all documents required to obtain such funding. All such documents to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. 3. The City Manager or her designee is further directed to furnish such additional information as may be required in connection with the acceptance of the foregoing funding. ATTEST: City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43030-091624. AN ORDINANCE appropriating funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation, amending and re-ordaining certain sections of the 2024- 2025 Capital Projects and 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 2024-2025 Capital Projects and General Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Expenditures VDOT Appropriations FY25 308-4120-0000-69065-300144 $1,215,339 Transfer to Cap Projects Fund 101-9310-0000-69508-000000 1,215,339 Revenues Street Maintenance 101-1234-0000-40650-000000 1,215,339 Transfer from General Fund 308-1234-0000-41037-000000 $1,215,339 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: 0.� Crita-404t City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43031-091624. AN ORDINANCE appropriating funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2023- 2024 Capital Projects and 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 2023-2024 Capital Projects and General Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Expenditures VDOT Appropriations FY24 308-4120-0000-69065-300144 $ 3,859,037 Transfer to Cap Projects Fund 101-9310-0000-69508-000000 3,859,037 Revenues Street Maintenance 101-1234-0000-40650-000000 $ 3,859,037 Transfer from General Fund 308-1234-0000-41037-000000 3,859,037 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: 0_14ett:etd—' City Cler-1(-11:t.i--e-7 City Manager's Report Submitted by: Ross Campbell, PE, Director ROA N O K E Department of Public Works September 16, 2024 Title: Acceptance and Appropriation of FY24 and FY25 VDOT Street Maintenance Revenue vs Budget Allocation. Background: Section 33.2-319 of the Code of Virginia establishes the eligibility criteria of localities for receiving funds from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for street maintenance. It specifies two functional classifications of roadways (Principal/Minor Arterials and Collector/Locals) and establishes a base payment rate per lane mile for each classification of roadway. These rates are adjusted annually by VDOT based upon a statewide maintenance index of unit costs for labor, equipment. and materials used by VDOT on roads and bridges. Considerations: Every May, the City's annual budget is adopted prior to knowing what the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) will approve during their July meeting in terms of the annual adjustment of VDOT Street Maintenance Payments to localities. Calculating the difference between the adopted FY24 and FY25 Street Maintenance Payment revenue budget versus the actual revenue received for FY24, and the revenue that will be received during FY25, totals for the two fiscal years just over $5 million. Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution and a budget ordinance to appropriate $5,074,375.82 in FY24 and FY25 VDOT Street Maintenance Payment revenue received that were, or will be, in excess of budgeted revenue per year to Transportation's Street Paving capital account. owe. I Lydia Patton, Interim City Manager \ / fr \ 3 \ \ \ > CA ® / } / / [ \ 0 0 \ n7 \ \ \ 0 \ = c I 7 = _ W_• 0 CO C Q M § § \ \ k § CO \ Cl)• » 2 - $ k 2 o .- N (N 2 > a / q \ U. _ _ _ _ _ _ co @ . — ) o co j2k } 2tt N7 £ ~ \ - a # = w 6 = » E o _ N r = 7 £ = J = E2 � t § \ \ U. Ci. 0 e « CD o , a) R m § R / f )\ \ \ ( _ © w w 6 6 e m r a > $ � § � � - / $ § § & 2 o } 2 u U a I- rti - \ R } Uq ƒ > { B 0 \ \U- 0 0 \ , 22 \ q - \ J � L U \ \ Co \ 7 MN 2 7 } - n k6 ) � 0 / 7 qg Q \ g \ / \ N. \ • k 2 K k > >- U- e e _ 69 _ 69 4.0 CD o \ \ \ko f 22 \ 2 \ - U. _ e O # 0 # ( § E \ c R i 6 < e o f • 2 U-- (0C2 \ U- \ \ 2 MO ® — gt = / 0 \ & (N = = g \ < \ &o \ co ( ` - » s@ N = m _ * $ Ik � � ao » $ ± a (Ni o Li. 02 $ £ _ @ $co / § / _\ ƒ a 0 U .g 0 oy / Z j f 22 0 k 0J0 , t2� 7 I- a)25 jj \ \ \ ) \ VDOT Maintenance Revenue vs Budget Allocation FY2024 and FY2025 FY24 Grand Total VDOT Maintenance Payment Revenue $ 20,227,036.99 FY24 VDOT Revenue Budget Allocated $16.368,000 $ 3,859,036.99 FY25 Grand Total VDOT Maintenance Payment Revenue $ 20,773,338.83 FY24 VDOT Revenue Budget Allocated $19,558,000 $ 1,215,338.83 Combined FY24 and FY25 VDOT Maintenance Payment Revenue beyond Budget Allocated $ 5,074,375.82 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43032-091624. A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of the Cities for Financial Empowerment ("CFE") Fund Summer Jobs Connect Grant to the City of Roanoke from CFE Fund, Inc.; and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City of Roanoke does hereby accept the CFE Fund Summer Jobs Connect Grant from CFE Fund, Inc., in the total amount of$20,000, as more particularly described in the City Manager's Report dated September 16, 2024. 2. The City Manager or her designee is hereby authorized to execute and file,on behalf of the City, any documents required to accept the Grant in a form approved by the City Attorney. 3. The City Manager or her designee is further directed to furnish such additional information as may be required in connection with acceptance of the foregoing Grant. ATTEST: City Clerk. T IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43033-091624. AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding from the Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund, to implement a Summer Jobs Connect Program, amending and re-ordaining certain sections of the 2024-2025 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 2024-2025 Grant Funds Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Grant Fund Appropriations Program Activities 235-8120-0000-52066-400131 $ 10,000 Supportive Services 235-8120-0000-52010-400131 5,000 Advertising & Marketing 235-8120-0000-52018-400131 5,000 Revenues Cities for Financial 235-8120-0000-40125-400131 $ 20,000 Empowerment Fund —Third Party Revenues Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: e•taiul'a" City Clerk. City Manager's Report Submitted by: Marc Nelson, Director -� � Department of Economic Development ROA N O K E September 16, 2024 Title: Acceptance and Appropriation of a Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund Summer Jobs Connect Grant. Background: Cities for Financial Empowerment (CFE) Fund, Inc. is an organization with a mission to help improve the financial stability of low and moderate-income households around the country. They do this by embedding financial empowerment strategies into local government infrastructures. Roanoke's Summer Youth Work Program, which operates through a contract with Goodwill Industries of the Valleys ("Goodwill") and a partnership with the Greater Roanoke Workforce Development Board ("GRWDB"), provides employment services, training, and job placement to Roanoke Valley youth. Goodwill serves youth 14 and 15 years of age, while the GRWDB serves youth aged 16 to 24 through federally funded workforce programs. CFE has selected the City of Roanoke to implement a Summer Jobs Connect program and is ready to provide a $20,000 Summer Jobs Connect Implementation Grant to the City. The grant will be used to embed a comprehensive banking access integration and financial empowerment programming within the City of Roanoke's Summer Youth Work Program. To this end, the Summer Youth Work Program will provide participants with: access to solely- owned bank accounts that meet the CFE Fund's Summer Jobs Connect Youth Account Priorities, the ability to receive paychecks and stipends through direct deposit, support to help youth navigate the direct deposit registration process, and financial education programming. Considerations: City Council action is needed to accept the CFE Fund Summer Jobs Connect Implementation Grant Award and authorize the Interim City Manager or her designee to execute a Grant Agreement between CFE Fund, Inc., and the City. A copy of the Grant Agreement is attached to this letter. The grant is in the amount of $20,000 and is intended to be used only for the purposes outlined in the Program and in accordance with the specific allocations identified in the Grant budget included in Exhibit D in the Grant Agreement. Recommended Action: Accept the Grant as described above and authorize the Interim City Manager or her designee to execute any required grant agreements, including the attached Grant Agreement, to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in the amount of $20,000 and appropriate $20.000 into accounts to be established in the Grant Fund by the Director of Finance. 47•Z/44; Lydia Patton, Interim City Manager 0 Cities for FINANCIAL EMPOWERMENT Fund GRANT AGREEMENT This Grant Agreement (the "Agreement'), dated as of May 1. 2024 (the "Effective Date") is by and between the Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund, Inc. (the "CFE Fund"). with its principal office located at 44 Wall Street. Suite 1050. New York. 10005, a Delaware non-stock. non-profit corporation qualified as exempt from federal income tax under section 501(00) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. as amended (the "Code"). and the City of Roanoke (the "Grantee"). WHEREAS. the CFE Fund works to support municipal engagement to improve the financial stability of low and moderate income households by embedding financial empowerment strategies into local government infrastructure (the "Purposes"). WHEREAS, the CFE Fund has determined that the support of the Grantee in the work contemplated by this Agreement furthers the exempt purposes of the CFE Fund. WHEREAS, the Grantee has agreed to use the Summer Jobs Connect Implementation Grant funds provided by this Agreement (the "Grant") to support the Purposes by managing the implementation and operation of the activities set forth in Exhibit A (the "Request for Proposal & Grantee Proposal") and Exhibit B (the "Scope of Work") (Exhibits A and B, collectively the "Program"). WHEREAS. the CFE Fund and the Grantee desire to enter into this Agreement to provide for the terms and conditions of the Grant and the Program. NOW. THEREFORE. the CFE Fund and the Grantee agree as follows: 1. Grant. The CFE Fund pledges and agrees to provide the Grantee a Grant in the form of cash in an amount not to exceed TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS (S20.000). Grant funds will be paid in U.S. Dollars as provided for in the Grant Payout Schedule in Section 5(b). 2. Use of Grant. The Grant is to be used only for the purposes outlined in the Program and in accordance with the specific allocations identified in the Grant budget included in Exhibit D (the "Grant Budget'). The work detailed in the Request for Proposal should be executed in accordance with the Scope of Work. The Grantee must obtain the prior written consent of the CFE Fund before using the Grant for goods or services outside the Scope of Work. The failure to comply with this provision may invalidate any obligation of the CFE Fund to make grant payments and constitutes a breach of this Agreement. 44 Wall Street,Suite 1050 I New York,NY 10005 I t 3. Term. (a) The Grant term will begin as of the Effective Date and end no later than December 31. 2024 (the "Term"). Any unused Grant funds will be returned to the CFE Fund within thirty(30) days after the Term unless otherwise agreed upon by both parties in writing in advance. (b) This Agreement may be terminated at any time prior to its scheduled termination as set forth above: (i) By either the CFE Fund or the Grantee without cause by giving the other party sixty(60) days prior written notice: (ii) Immediately by a non-breaching party following a material breach of this Agreement by the other party and the expiration of a ten ( 10) day "cure" period after the non-breaching party shall have given notice to the breaching party of such breach: or: (iii) Immediately by the CFE Fund when its objectives can no longer be advanced through the relationship set forth in this Agreement. without limitation. by the Grantee's administration of any Vendor Contract (as defined below). (c) If the Agreement is terminated by either party for any reason. C'FE Fund will have no further obligation to make any payments to the Grantee. except for work already completed but not yet paid for prior to the termination: provided. that (i) such work is within the Scope of Work or (ii) if such work is beyond the Scope of Work. the prior written consent of the CFE Fund has previously been obtained. 4. Vendor(s). (a) The Grantee shall contract with Goodwill Industries of the Valley and Greater Roanoke Workforce Development Board as vendors for the Grantee's 2024 Summer Youth Employment Program ("SYEP") program year. A vendor shall be defined for the purposes of this Agreement as a community-based 501(c)(3) organization. governmental organization or private entity engaged by the Grantee to support the implementation of the Program(each a"Vendor"). Each Vendor may rely upon the direction and instruction of the Grantee. (b) The Grantee shall administer all aspects of each contract entered into with any Vendor for purposes of this Agreement (the "Vendor Contracts"), including. without limitation. payment of Vendor's)' invoices. managing and overseeing the performance of each Vendor under the Vendor Contracts and monitoring such Vendor's adherence to its duties. obligations and responsibilities thereunder. including appropriate insurance. (c) Notwithstanding the above, Grantee shall notify C'FE Fund in timely, written manner of any Vendors engaged for the purposes of this Agreement. CFE FuND GRAN AGREEMENT 5. Conditions of Disbursement of Grant. (a) Disbursements of the Grant shall be subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions: (i) Receipt by the C'FE Fund of a countersigned copy of this Agreement.which includes Scope of Work and Grant Budget (Exhibit D). (ii) Timely receipt of all reports as detailed in Exhibit E ("Reporting"). (iii) Satisfactory performance of this Agreement in accordance with the Scope of Work. (b) Grant Payout Schedule: (i) 100°6 of funds (S20.000) will be paid upon execution of this Agreement. The Grantee will be required to provide a final accounting when all funds have been spent. Any unused Grant funds will be returned to the C'FE Fund. 6. Payment of Grant. The CFE Fund can make payment in one of two ways. Please initial in ONE of the boxes to select the requested payment option. (a) For electronic payment: The CFE Fund will make an electronic payment through the CFE Fund's payment system. bill.com. The Grantee authorizes the below employee to create an account and enter the Grantee's appropriate bank routing and account Sienatotti: number into bill.com. The Grantee will ensure that account information in bill.com is Initial here for accurate throughout the life of the Grant. electronic payment and to authorize employee to set up bill.com account C'ity of Roanoke Brandon Meginley Financial Stability Specialist. Department of Economic Development Brandon.Meginley@ roanokeva.gov 540-853-1120 (b) For payment by check: The CFE Fund will issue a check to the Grantee at the address Signatory: Initial here for provided: payment by check (c) The C'FE Fund's ability to pay out this Grant is dependent on the timely receipt of grant funding from the CFE Fund's fenders. In the event that the C'FE Fund has not received CFE FUND GRANT AGREEMENT 3 sufficient or timely funding from these funders. the CFE Fund may elect to postpone. reduce. or eliminate this Grant prior to disbursement. 7. Covenants. During the term of this Grant. the Grantee is expected to adhere to the terms and conditions below and outlined in the Scope of Work or as set forth in Exhibit B. Failure to adhere to these conditions will constitute an act of default and result in the Grantee's obligation to return part or all of the Grant funds to the C'FE Fund and the termination of any obligation of the C'FE Fund to make grant payments after such default. In such a case. the C'FE Fund will determine in its sole and absolute discretion the percentage of the Grant to be returned. Cessation or reclamation of Grant funding by the C'FE Fund may also result in the Grantee's elimination from consideration for investment from the CFE Fund in any other form. In the event that the C'FE Fund terminates the Grant as provided herein.. the Grantee shall return Grant funds to the CFE Fund within the time period specified by the CFE Fund upon termination. During the Grant term and beyond as applicable, the Grantee under this Agreement agrees to: (a) Coordinate the overall implementation of the Program with respect to the Scope of Work and the Grantee Proposal. (b) Adhere to the uses of the Grant detailed in the Request for Proposal. (i) This Grant is made only for the purposes of implementing the Scope of Work pursuant to the Request for Proposal and this Agreement. Any Grant funds not expended or committed for these purposes within the Grant term will be returned to the CFE Fund. Any prospective changes in the use of this Grant totaling over ten percent(10%)of any individual budget line must be submitted in writing to and approved in advance by the CFE Fund. (ii) The Grantee will provide immediate written notification to the CFE Fund if significant changes or events occur during the term of the Grant which could potentially impact the progress or outcome of the Grant, including, without limitation, changes in the Grantee's or any Vendor(s)' management personnel or lead staff member(s) responsible for implementing the Program. loss of funding or other extenuating circumstances which could affect the Grant Budget or any Vendor(s)' budget. The C'FE Fund. in its sole and absolute discretion. will determine if requests for budget modifications are warranted. (c) To the extent that any Vendor is a tax-exempt entity. to confirm the tax-exempt status of such Vendor at the time of each payment. and ensure that that each such Vendor is maintaining all authorizations. filings. exemptions. insurance. etc. required of a Vendor to perform its duties within and outside this Agreement. The Grantee also agrees to provide immediately any correspondence from the Internal Revenue Service or other related agencies regarding the above. CFE FUND GRANT AGREEMENT 4 (d) Cooperate in the monitoring. evaluation. and reporting of work. as detailed in the Scope of Work and as set forth in Exhibit E. (e) Adhere to the CFE Fund financial compliance stipulations. (i) The Grantee will maintain financial records to clearly account for the Grant funds from the CFE Fund and proper expenditures in furtherance of the Program. The Grantee shall retain and maintain adequate records to substantiate such expenditures according to generally accepted accounting practices. The Grantee shall retain original substantiating documents related to the specific Grant expenditures and make these records available to the CFE Fund upon written request. (ii) The C'FE Fund reserves the right to audit the Grantee's financial and other records to ensure the proper utilization of its Grant funds. During and at least three (3) years following the end of the Grant term. the Grantee must maintain records showing, separately from other accounts kept in its books and records. the receipt and expenditure of the CFE Fund Grant funds. (f) Adhere to the marketing and communications guidance of the CFE Fund as below. and of any grant-relevant CFE Fund partners, as provided by the CFE Fund and as applicable (guidance may be amended. modified, supplemented or otherwise revised). (i) The Grantee agrees to provide details about all Grant-related marketing and communication materials and events to the C'FE Fund thirty (30) days in advance to jointly determine appropriate branding opportunities for the CFE Fund and any relevant CFE Fund partners. Materials include but are not limited to websites. newsletters. media releases.. public announcements, event invitations and programs. The C'FE Fund will provide specific communication protocols including language for recognizing the CFE Fund in text and logo format. Grantee also shall provide to the CFE Fund final copies of all printed materials as part of the progress reports for the Program. (ii) The Grantee will request permission from the C'FE Fund before using the C'FE Fund logo. the Summer Jobs Connect logo, fiinder logos. and related branded materials. (iii) Any Grant-related media interviews or public announcements intended for media or public purposes must he coordinated with and approved by the CFE Fund in advance. (iv) The Grantee and its Vendor(s), if any. may not publicly announce the receipt of this Grant or its details until the CFE Fund and its institutional hinders have made their official announcement or have otherwise given permission in writing. CFE FUND GRANT AGREEMENT (v) Execution of this Agreement provides the CFE Fund and its institutional funders the right to disseminate any products. outcomes. or other information related to the Grantee's efforts in any media of its choosing. The CFE Fund will share these materials with the Grantee prior to publication and give appropriate credit to the Grantee as the provider of this information. The Grantee and its Vendor(s). if any. will be expected to cooperate in any public education or outreach effort undertaken in connection with this Grant, which may include other CFE Fund programs. (g) Adhere to the following prohibitions on the use of the Grant. Under no circumstances shall the Grantee or any other organization receiving the CFE Fund's Grant funds use these funds directly or indirectly for the following purposes or activities: (i) Make a Grant to an individual for travel, study or other similar purpose. as described in section 4945(d)(3) of the Code. (ii) Promote or engage in violence, terrorism. bigotry. or the destruction of any state. nor will it make sub-Grants to any entity that engages in these activities. (iii) Influence legislation. especially for the benefit of the CFE Fund or any of its affiliates or funders, including by publishing or distributing any statements, or any campaign in support of or opposition to any pending legislation. (iv) Any other purposes outside what is stated in the Request for Proposal and Scope of Work without express written permission from the CFE Fund. 8. Compliance with Laws. The Grantee shall comply with. and shall ensure that any Vendors or sub-Vendors engaged by the Grantee in connection with the Program comply with. all local. state and federal laws (including common laws). ordinances, codes, rules and regulations regarding the Program and the Grantee's obligations and performance under this Agreement. The Grantee shall obtain and maintain, and shall ensure that any Vendors or sub-Vendors engaged by the Grantee in connection with the Program obtain and maintain. any and all permits. licenses. bonds. certificates and other similar approvals required in connection with this Agreement. CFE Fu D GRANT AGREEMENT 6 9. Indemnification. (a) The CFE Fund shall indemnify.. defend and hold harmless the Grantee. including the Grantee's staff and its officers. employees and agents. from any and all claims. demands. costs, judgments or liabilities to which they may be subject because of any acts or omissions of the CFE Fund. its officers" directors or trustees, employees, agents. representatives. Vendors, or because of any negligence or fault of the C'FE Fund. its officers, directors or trustees. employees, agents. representatives, or Vendors. This obligation shall survive and continue beyond any termination or expiration of this Agreement. (b) The Grantee shall indemnify. defend and hold harmless the CFE Fund. including its staff. and its officers, directors or trustees. employees and agents. from any and all claims. demands" costs, judgments or liabilities to which they may be subject because of any acts or omissions of the Grantee. or any of its employees. agents. representatives. or because of any negligence or fault of the Grantee or its employees, agents, and representatives. This obligation shall survive and continue beyond any termination or expiration of this Agreement. (c) Each of the parties hereto shall take all steps necessary to ensure that its staff. officers or trustees, employees, agents. representatives, and vendors are covered under all insurance policies necessary to effectuate the provisions of this Section. 10. Non-Impairment of Charitable Status. The Grantee covenants and agrees that it shall take no action. omit to take any action. or engage in any activity that could impair or endanger. either directly or indirectly. the C'FE Fund's exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code. or which could hinder the CFE Fund"s ability to fulfill its charitable mission. 11. Confidentiality. All reports. information or data furnished to or to be prepared or assembled under this Agreement or any Vendor Contract are to be held confidential. unless otherwise herein provided or subject to disclosure by law. 7 CFE FUND GRANT AGREEMENT 12. Intellectual Property. All ownership,title. interest,and intellectual property rights of documents.templates.and other materials provided by the CFE Fund shall remain solely the C'FE Fund's. Nothing in this section or agreement is intended to. and shall not be construed to. transfer any property rights or any intellectual property rights to Grantee to materials developed by the C'FE Fund. The Grantee may use the CFE Fund's intellectual property (i) for internal planning processes; (ii) in furtherance of the Scope of Work; and (iii) if otherwise expressly authorized by the CFE Fund. Any unauthorized disclosure of the CFE Fund's intellectual property without expressed authorization shall be considered a breach of this agreement. The Grantee agrees that CFE Fund may reproduce. publish or otherwise use the work product generated during the Grant term without any restriction whatsoever. including any requirement for approval from the Grantee. 13. Non-Assignability. The Grantee shall not assign. transfer, subcontract, convey or otherwise dispose of this Agreement or of its rights. obligations, responsibilities or duties hereunder or under any Vendor Contract. either in whole or in part. without the prior written consent of the CFE Fund. 14. Compliance with Anti-Discrimination Rules. In its use of Grant funds provided by the CFE Fund, and in the course of all development. marketing and operation activities, the Grantee shall fully comply with all applicable federal. state, local(and any other governmental). anti-discrimination laws, executive orders. rules and regulations. 15. Severability of Provisions. Each provision of this Agreement shall be considered severable and if for any reason any provision or provisions herein are determined to be invalid.unenforceable. or illegal under any existing or future law, such invalidity, unenforceability. or illegality shall not impair the operation of or affect those portions of this Agreement which are valid, enforceable. and legal. 16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and replaces and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings of the parties. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by a writing executed by the parties hereto. 17. Binding Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement. the parties agree that this Agreement constitutes a legal, valid and binding agreement of each party. and is enforceable against each party in accordance with its terms. CFE FUND GRANT AGREEMENT 8 18. Governing Law. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO THE CONFLICT OF LAWS PROVISIONS THEREOF. 19. Submission to Jurisdiction; Service of Process. (a) EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY SUBMITS.FOR ITSELF AND ITS PROPERTY. TO THE NON- EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK SITTING IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SITTING IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK. AND ANY APPELLATE COURT FROM ANY THEREOF. IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT. AND HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AGREES THAT ALL CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING MAY BE HEARD AND DETERMINED IN SUCH NEW YORK STATE OR FEDERAL COURT. THE PARTIES HERETO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVE ANY OBJECTION. INCLUDING ANY OBJECTION TO THE LAYING OF VENUE OR BASED ON THE GROUNDS OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS. THAT ANY OF THEM MAY NOW OR HEREAFTER HAVE TO THE BRINGING OF ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING IN SUCH RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS. EACH PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT AGREES THAT A FINAL JUDGMENT IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING WILL BE CONCLUSIVE AND MAY BE ENFORCED IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS BY SUIT ON THE JUDGMENT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW. (b) EACH PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT IRREVOCABLY CONSENTS TO THE SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND ANY OTHER PROCESS IN ANY OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING RELATING TO THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY. ON BEHALF OF ITSELF OR ITS PROPERTY. BY PERSONAL DELIVERY OF COPIES OF SUCH PROCESS TO SUCH PARTY. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION WILL AFFECT THE RIGHT OF ANY PARTY TO SERVE PROCESS IN ANY OTHER MANNER PERMITTED BY LAW OR COMMENCE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS OR OTHERWISE PROCEED AGAINST ANY OTHER PARTY IN ANY OTHER JURISDICTION. CFE FUND GRANT AGREEMENT 9 20. Waiver of Jury Trial. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO HEREBY EXPRESSLY AND IRREVOCABLY RELEASES. NAIVES AND RELINQUISHES ANY AND ALL RIGHTS TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY CLAIM. DEMAND, ACTION. SUIT. PROCEEDING OR CAUSE OF ACTION IN WHICH ANY OF THEM ARE PARTIES. WHICH IN ANY WAY (DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY) ARISES OUT OF. RESULTS FROM OR RELATES TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING, IN EACH CASE WHETHER NOW EXISTING OR HEREAFTER ARISING AND WHETHER BASED ON CONTRACT OR TORT OR ANY OTHER LEGAL BASIS: (I) THIS AGREEMENT: (II) ANY PAST. PRESENT OR FUTURE ACT. OMISSION, CONDUCT OR ACTIVITY WITH RESPECT TO THIS AGREEMENT; (III) ANY TRANSACTION, EVENT OR OCCURRENCE CONTEMPLATED BY THIS AGREEMENT: (IV) THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY OBLIGATION OR THE EXERCISE OF ANY RIGHT UNDER THIS AGREEMENT; AND (V) THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS AGREEMENT. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO HEREBY FURTHER AGREES THAT THIS AGREEMENT CONSTITUTES ITS WRITTEN CONSENT THAT TRIAL BY JURY WILL BE WAIVED IN ANY SUCH CLAIM. DEMAND, ACTION. SUIT. PROCEEDING OR OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION AND AGREES THAT EACH OF THEM WILL HAVE THE RIGHT AT ANY TIME TO FILE THIS AGREEMENT WITH THE CLERK OR JUDGE OF ANY COURT IN WHICH ANY SUCH CLAIM, DEMAND. ACTION. SUIT. PROCEEDING OR OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION MAY BE PENDING AS WRITTEN CONSENT TO WAIVER OF TRIAL BY JURY. 21. Amendment. The CFE Fund shall consider. but is not obligated to agree to. requests by the Grantee to amend the terms of this Agreement. Amendments to this Agreement shall be made only after (i) the CFE Fund has received written request from the Grantee stating the nature of the amendment request. and (ii) the C'FE Fund has executed a written agreement describing the terms of the amendment. 22. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, including by facsimile or other electronic means of communication, each of which shall be deemed an original of this Agreement and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 23. Notices. Any notices required to be delivered hereunder shall be in writing and personally delivered. mailed or sent by electronic mail. telefacsimile or other similar form of rapid transmission. and shall be deemed to have been duly given upon receipt (a) at the respective party's address listed on Exhibit G ("Notices") or (b) at such other address as may be designated by written notice to the other party. CFE FUND GRANT AGREEMENT 10 IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed by their respective officers as of the day and year first above written. CITIES FOR FINANCIAL EMPOWERMENT FUND, INC. By: Name: Jonathan Mintz Title: President and Chief Executive Officer Date: CITY OF ROANOKE By: Name: Dr. Lydia Pettis Patton Title: Interim City Manager Date: By: Name: Laura Carini Title: Deputy City Attorney Date: ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED BY: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF THE VALLEY By: Name: Brenda Moore Title: Chief of IT and Mission Date: CFE FUND GRANT AGREEMENT 11 ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED BY: GREATER ROANOKE WORKFORCE FORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD By: Name: Morgan Romeo Title: Executive Director Date: CFE FuND GRANT AGREEMENT 12 Exhibit A Request for Proposal & Grantee Proposal (To Be Attached) CFE FUND GRANT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT A 13 Exhibit B Scope of Work ii7rere there mm be discrepancies. this Scope of Mirk supersedes both the Request for Proposal and the Grantee Proposal. 1. Banking Access and Financial Empowerment Programming The CFE Fund will provide the City of Roanoke with S20.000 of funding to embed a comprehensive banking access integration and financial empowerment programming within the City of Roanoke's Summer Youth Employment Program. The Grantee will collaborate with the C'FE Fund to provide banking access and financial empowerment programming within the City of Roanoke's Summer Youth Employment Program by completing the tasks set forth in Exhibit C ("Banking Access and Financial Empowerment"). The Grantee will regularly update the CFE Fund about proposed changes to the program structure and will additionally document program design in the grant report. The Grantee will provide the City of Roanoke's Summer Youth Employment Program participants with access to solely-owned bank and credit union accounts that meet the CFE Fund's Summer Jobs Connect Youth Account Priorities (Exhibit F — "Sumner Jobs Connect Youth Account Priorities: Sole Ownership Accounts for Minors"). The Grantee will provide City of Roanoke's Summer Youth Employment Program participants with the ability to receive paychecks and stipends through direct deposit, and help youth navigate the direct deposit registration process. 2. Evaluation The Grantee must identify, track. and report on financial empowerment programming funded by the CFE Fund. The Grantee and its vendors will also document progress towards the outcomes as structured in Exhibit E ("Reporting"). 3. Learning Community The Grantee will attend the CFE Fund's Summer Jobs Connect Convening in fall 2024. The setting of Summer Jobs Connect convenings will be determined by public health guidance. The Grantee will also attend virtual learning community events throughout the grant term to facilitate sharing of program ideas. The Grantee will respond to requests from the CFE Fund to share best practices with other program grantees. The CFE Fund reserves the right to hold monthly. one-on-one check-in calls with the Grantee. CFE FUND GRANT AGREEMENT ExHIBIT B 14 4. Media and Public Relations The Grantee will document the success of the program. focusing on financial empowerment achievements. throughout the year to conununicate the progress and impact of SJC. To do so. the CFE Fund will compile data and stories from all cities participating in the Summer Jobs Connect program. To prepare for both planned and ad hoc communication opportunities, the Grantee will be expected to prepare and provide content to the CFE Fund that includes. but is not limited to: A. Social media campaign: The CFE Fund will provide the Grantee with social media materials and resources. and the Grantee is encouraged to engage in its own and national SJC' social media efforts, using the -SummerJobsC'onnect hashtag. B. Communications and Press: The Grantee is expected to participate in and include the CFE Fund in all relevant communications and marketing opportunities. including but not limited to press releases. grant announcements. social media posts. launch events. or other program related events where press will be present and or program funders will be recognized. Logos and Collateral Material: Partners can use the CFE Fund. Summer Jobs Connect, and fielder logos in materials —mockups or drafts of logo usage should be sent to Nora Walls (nwallsra cfefund.ora) for approval. CFE FUND GRANT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT B 15 Exhibit C' Banking Access and Financial Empowerment The Grantee will employ the Summer Jobs Connect Logic Model to integrate banking access integration and financial empowerment programming for the Summer of 2024. SUMMER JOBS CONNECT: t �;;(_ l'-.1+ L PLANNING PHASE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE DeS11009a program integration and building required infrastructure. Operating your d7nking iriteyrnlwn at scale• IS inputs Planning Activities tnpiemar4tauen Actin*** O1tptns Outten* tmp.mentetton inputs A,.a&umr c ratan Copi,um the program, A ptai,$or rs n.J.a.`irt ba.4arz4 pimau#e program Mart won rr,gtt' ,..,g.ar0 stet Youth understand Ike heneats f.'i}i:aiT#t1 anon 4pe,4A14404 i snit Mani ialyy Mt4'Ss nrxanc4!empivwei nlem n04141,4:N 9;'1i^a4#,;a 64 banklelq anti directdetf1Stt 4ft$a a4 1 nalmrhry r eiprmni rt,n A p-cy:an . ..».4:Eke.4d t.mrain pi„i a-1 r A,ht d!. vuw!l l040 l t)t»nttnue uas9.; oa,.lair ro,c.nt-rmen.4.11 htepnfy the prcaj4arn eA prngrar<stAft,e,1 Enocale paltirnpant4,n -.Patti r4 404.navr G'044 atCoum'+ nmktnn A(,fk 4wothc-onto,tk.irl.oll.Fb* pail'!r,,,,, irk benntrIct at hanking n.i.ttine' i ]OA.tree• tnmy f annn onirtd tor f,,an;,al .BoKd into appnnatten& riecmt,s or.jrir,U.,,i a marxrat empowerment an44 In,atfs4itl 4.,pas pin t ip-i14r; ntnprswNNmen4 041t; ...'..ii.lir...lzfritthr,0,1 P'=1Gti"nent pro(enet 1,40k1n9ateea9 Are em4re*ried .'Adl,i,.!1zi}3r1 pir;nOri Yriingartwnsy •Bond sni)nlienta:'44r1 H440-- 'p}.4,.tpants rn plary4am041 4,4Ee Eaa"re the program t wet S v -.., r imormitmi Sap'npenril yo.h 1404014 i;w yr 1n:ntrs Ion ovi.ii p4aess anti inten1!ty A=E4lill n,f, •11arn tnwnodd empowittrnerit ,r tel,ac,:.at At .;n44 itagam.pan _5 n+4rhuto Limflan:tInscgo rniontrt4 4pperturdne;for nwwwtdepa4n trainers n-ling!n1Pgratrun3m More frdr1ne•50P,al.l'Atr.11'la" ragiStrattnn 4e,int.. aleaa.a;v ref 011 .otteh:;nett ie .44ce= _<1'.off pelh;,pa,e,repre• PhAt)rarn ylat, a el,e4 h le s1 4,,1loh d"u;!r ;;ae rni14 g41'id 4ntarrflfl51t1p5wl4n Help t4nna0ACE1 pa411f1p4St'5; 4 s i anti leq:s'etnn14 fee theAl he.anflal inst4th,ey15 artt! A cscai p _e51 tar 941P(1 epee,appropt,a!o MC(Wes 1ire;taep0s41 rmg4E4ateacrao44it>,4ha1Meet 14004 1.agar. .Wylie bnancimtn5l4:vnarsIn the SKvn14t4Aitorint pim9'am10edhpnine, rhet,`.htSarin+pants PrH}Enl'^, 5 data 4 4 ,.l'.l,n pleh,r p:arn .prog4arn Stan Oaf nita4e inns1r ritr-On et clutt,5n s,4asa sna 1)rnl4;acc1 a1Lounl aping profess Incnsery:ntpte+rientatron _ ken-f5, oitnei n4pa and rif rentleno ET.Oti pa4lxip has t,4,ret`t luta'.er thirA 1nip-,y'..'11 4t0y r ai'1 tern,44 an depOS.E 441910Ai1`tt!4'Mehl d414414t •Youth.prpytoe account (b otrp a OM 4pr e'stnrn.a4Km In prngrarn slant tc rut,,,,!,;anng new truant 4I ='+Uth tine rice,•••to a seta nr'nno,rernvinfit 9ppnrt„'t,ll1S to re9tsitat+on pc:4! parucWannss .ftnanc.ai lfSlllutaia§prtui,le a r!:qv fIlAt,Oil tW payr0S0 E con,.p.A taro!ran,, {u0,Atlet re r>fh9^aatwg 181at1 des eAthhhte We tinwares! p4Y tale% CFE FUND GRANT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT C 16 Exhibit D Grantee Budget The CFE Fund will provide S20.000 to support the Grantee's efforts to integrate banking access and financial empowerment youth in the 2024 City of Roanoke's Summer Youth Employment Program. 0 c' AN SUMMER JOBS CONNECT F INANCIAL EMPOWERMENT "please complete all sections highlighted in yellow" Fund • City Name: Roanoke VA Budget Year 2024 Amount Budgeted: $20.000 Budget Line • Amount Supportive Services $5,000.00 Program Activities $10,000.00 ------------ Outreach and Marketing $5,000.00 TOTAL PROPOSAL $20,000.00 CFE FUND GRANT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT D 17 Exhibit E Reporting Grant Reports The Grantee will complete one grant report to track progress towards grant objectives and understand financial empowerment accomplishments. challenges, and lessons learned. The final report is due on November 15. 2024. The Grantee is responsible for submitting progress reports using the CFE Fund's online grant portal which can be accessed through the web link below: littps: www.grantinterface.eom Home Logon?urlkev=CitiesFE Financial Reporting The CFE Fund will require financial documentation in the final grant report that demonstrates expenses paid through this grant. Expenses must correspond with the Grantee Budget in Exhibit C. Qualitative Reporting The CFE will require a program narrative in the final grant report. The narrative will address performance, operations. partnerships. and client stories. Quantitative Reporting The Grantee will track and report the following outcomes: Summer Jobs Connect Outcomes "Year'Actual Program How many youth participated in SYEP throughout the city? model How many youth were served by the SYEP your agency oversees/manages? How many youth were taught about the benefits of banking? Financial Education How many youth received follow-up financial education on how to efficiently use a bank account,budgeting,and/or savings? IHow many youth did the city determine banking status for? (Whether participants had an account prior to programming) Account )How many youth identified as unbanked at the beginning of the program? opening How many youth had the opportunity to open an bank or credit union account through the program? How many youth actually opened accounts through the program? How many youth had the opportunity to direct deposit their SYEP paychecks into a ;bank/credit union account? Direct How many youth actually received their pay via direct deposit? Deposit How many youth chose to split their SYEP paychecks into a savings and transactional ;(checking)account? CFE FUND GRANT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT E 18 Exhibit F Summer Jobs Connect Youth Account Priorities: Sole Ownership Accounts for Minors 0 SUMMER JOBS CONNECT YOUTH ACCOUNT PRIORITIES Critkat Featunet N-7c t, a 3 0't et: Scne Pte. •7, c '= 7, f i4iIat It 454, 4 1 ----- -------- -- 4 3,4,t4irert s44 Ott, # " A e: . 7 7— q—7" D. Anil kupirtart fires rot -,toot 40 A7 .- ^ - Bank f CFE FUND GRANT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT F 19 Exhibit G Notices Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund. Inc. Scott Schwartz Deputy Contracts and Grants Director Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund. Inc. 44 Wall Street, Suite 1050 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (347) 382-7003 Email: sschwartz(a.cfefund.ore City of Roanoke Brandon Meginlev Financial Stability Specialist City of Roanoke. Department of Economic Development 117 Church Avenue. SW Roanoke. VA 24011 Telephone: (540) 853-1120 Email: brandon.metinley�iroanokeva.gov Goodwill Industries of the Valley Brenda Moore Chief Transformation Officer PO Box 2420 Roanoke. VA 24010 Telephone: 540-353-7623 Email: bmoorerAgoodwillyallevs.com Greater Roanoke Workforce Development Board Morgan Romeo Executive Director Greater Roanoke Workforce Development Board 1 S Jefferson Street, 3rd Floor Roanoke. VA 24011 Telephone: 540-613-15 59 Email: Inorgan'c�areaterroanokeworks.com CFE FUND GRANT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT G 20 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43034-091624. A RESOLUTION accepting the Virginia Business Ready Site Program ("VBRSP") Grant award to the City of Roanoke ("City") from the Virginia Economic Development Partnership ("VEDP"); authorizing execution of any required documents on behalf of the City; and authorizing the City Manager or her designee to take such further actions and execute such other documents as may be necessary to obtain, accept, implement, administer, and use such grant funds. .BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City does hereby accept the VBRSP Grant award from the VEDP in the amount of $7,500,000, with a local match of $2,500,000, to elevate Tract 8 at the Roanoke Centre for Industry & Technology from a Tier III to a Tier V site, such Grant being more particularly described in the City Manager's Report dated September 16, 2024. 2. The City Manager or her designee is hereby authorized to execute and file, on behalf of the City, any documents setting forth the conditions of this Grant in a form approved by the City Attorney. 3. The City Manager or her designee is authorized to take such further actions and execute such further documents as may be necessary to obtain, accept, implement, administer, and use such grant funds, as allowed by the terms and conditions of the Agreement, with any such documents being approved as to form by the City Attorney. ATTEST: ./411,Lit •,4": City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43035-091624. AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding from the Virginia Economic Development Partnership amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2024-2025 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 2024-2025 Grant Funds Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Grant Fund Appropriations Program Activities 235-8120-0000-52066-400133 $ 250,000 Economic Development — Ivy 101-8120-0000-53968-000000 (50,000) View Performance Agreement Transfer to Grant Fund 101-9310-0000-69535-000000 50,000 Revenues Virginia Economic 235-8120-0000-40122-400133 $ 200,000 Development Partnership — State Revenues Transfer from General Fund 235-1234-0000-41037-000000 50,000 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. City Manager's Report ... I& Submitted by: Marc Nelson, Director ROA N O K E Department of Economic Development September 16, 2024 Title: Acceptance and Appropriation of funds from the Virginia Business Ready Site Program (VBRSP) Grant Program to Upgrade Tract 8 in the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology from a Tier 3 to a Tier 4 Site. Background: In August 2024, the City of Roanoke (City) received a grant totaling $7,500,000 from the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) to elevate Tract 8 at the Roanoke Centre for Industry & Technology from a Tier III to a Tier V site. VEDP will issue these funds in two phases with two separate performance agreements for Tier IV and Tier V, respectively. This report addresses Phase 1 to elevate Tract 8 to a Tier IV site, with an award of $200,000. The City plans to use these funds to complete several critical due diligence items related to development of the site, including a geotechnical survey, wetland confirmation, permitting and design of the site, and bidding for construction. On August 16, 2024. the City received from VEDP a draft performance agreement outlining the terms and conditions for the City to accept the funds. As stated in the performance agreement, eligibility to receive the second round of funds related to Phase 2, totaling $7,300,000, is contingent on successful completion of Phase 1 work. Considerations: City Council action is needed to accept the VBRSP grant award. As required by VBRSP, the City agreed to provide matching funds totaling $2,500,000 in support of the application for both Phase 1 and Phase 2. Of this amount, a city match of $50,000 is required for Phase 1 work. This match will come from excess funds budgeted to the IMD Inc. Performance Agreement. The account number for this item is 101 8120 53968. Recommended Action: Adopt the attached Resolution to accept the awarded grant funding and the attached Budget Ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in the Grant fund of $200,000 from VEDP, and authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute any required grant agreements or documents, such documents to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. opie#oc,;* Lydia Patton, Interim City Manager IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43036-091624. A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of the Cities for Financial Empowerment ("CFE") Fund Expert Partner and Mentor Stipend to the City of Roanoke from CFE Fund, Inc.; authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute the Memorandum of Understanding; and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City of Roanoke does hereby accept the CFE Fund Expert Partner and Mentor Stipend from CFE Fund, Inc., in the total amount of$10,000, as more particularly described in the City Manager's Report dated September 16, 2024. 2. The City Manager or her designee is hereby authorized to execute the Memorandum of Understanding,on behalf of the City,and any documents required to accept the Stipend,in a form approved by the City Attorney. 3. The City Manager or her designee is further directed to furnish such additional information as may be required in connection with acceptance of the foregoing Stipend. ATTEST: Ozta "41t City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43037-091624. AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding from the Cities for Financial Empowerment(CFE) Fund, Inc. for an Expert Partner and Mentor Stipend, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2024-2025 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 2024-2025 Grant Funds Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Grant Fund Appropriations Program Activities 235-8120-0000-52066-400132 $ 10,000 Revenues Cities for Financial 235-8120-0000-40125-400132 $ 10,000 Empowerment—Third Party Revenues Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: \-A/Lte't City Clerk. City Manager's Report 111.11171117,62„-- � Submitted by: Lydia Pettis Patton, Interim City Manager Office of the City Manager ROA N O K E September 16, 2024 Title: Acceptance and Appropriation of a Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund Expert Partner and Mentor Stipend. Background: Cities for Financial Empowerment (CFE) Fund, Inc. is an organization with a mission to help improve the financial stability of low- and moderate-income households around the country. CFE Fund does this by embedding financial empowerment strategies into local government infrastructures. In practical terms, CFE Fund's goal is to make free, one-on-one professional financial counseling a standard public service provided by the participating municipality. In 2019, the CFE Fund selected Roanoke for participation and awarded the city a two-year, $250,000 "Implementation Grant" which was used to build, launch and implement a "Financial Empowerment Center" ("FEC"), at which the city, and its local partners, offer no-cost financial counseling for low- and moderate-income individuals. The CFE Fund has now selected Roanoke's FEC to provide technical assistance to one FEC Grantee locality planning for and/or launching the Financial Empowerment Center model as part of a Planning Grant and/or Implementation Grant phase of their own grant relationship with the CFE Fund, and to maintain the reputation, standards, and integrity of the Financial Empowerment Center Model as a high-quality public service, and actively contribute to the FEC Public Learning Community. The CFE Fund is ready to provide a $10,000 stipend to the city. Considerations: City Council action is needed to accept the stipend and authorize the Interim City Manager or her designee to execute the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"). A copy of the MOU is attached to this letter. Recommended Action: Accept the stipend as described above and authorize the Interim City Manager or her designee to execute any required agreements, including the MOU. to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in the amount of $10,000 and appropriate $10,000 into accounts to be established in the Grant Fund by the Director of Finance. Lydia Patton, Interim City Manager 0 Cities for FINANCIAL EMPOWERMENT Fund MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NDI\G This Memorandum Of Understanding (the "MOU"). dated as of February 1. 2024 (the "Effective Date"), is by and between the Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund, Inc. (the "CFE Fund"). a Delaware nonprofit corporation qualified as exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code")with its principal office located at 44 Wall Street. Suite 1050.New York. NY 10005. and the City of Roanoke (the "Partner"). WHEREAS. the CFE Fund works to support municipal engagement to improve the financial stability of low and moderate income households by embedding financial empowerment strategies into local government infrastructure (the "Purposes"). WHEREAS. the Partner is a former recipient of a CFE Fund grant to implement a Financial Empowerment Center ("FEC"). and the Partner continues to operate their FEC. WHEREAS,the CFE Fund will continue to provide the Partner with technical assistance resources, access to the national FEC learning community ("FEC Public Learning Community"). no-cost licenses to use the CFE Fund's central FEC database, and designates the Partner as both an FEC Expert Partner ("FEC Expert Partner") and as an FEC Expert Mentor ("FEC' Expert Mentor") to continue to provide FEC services as part of the CFE Fund's national FEC' Public platform and the Partner desires to accept such engagement on the terms and conditions set forth hereinafter. WHEREAS. the Partner has agreed to make use of the C'FE Fund offerings provided by this MOLT to manage. implement. and oversee the activities set forth in Exhibit A(the"Scope of Work") and Exhibit B (the "Financial Empowerment Center Model"). WHEREAS.the CFE Fund has determined that the support of the Partner in the work contemplated by this MOLT furthers the exempt purposes of the CFE Fund. NOW.THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements herein contained.the C'FE Fund and the Partner agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work. The primary purpose of the Partner's activities. as set forth in Exhibit A. will be to: (a) Provide technical assistance to one FEC Grantee locality planning for and or launching the Financial Empowerment Center model as part of a Planning Grant and or Implementation Grant phase of their own grant relationship with the C'FE Fund. and to (b) Maintain the reputation, standards. and integrity of the Financial Empowerment Center Model as a high-quality public service, and actively contribute to the FEC Public Learning Cormnunity. 44 Wall Street,Suite 1050 I New York,NY 10005 2. Term. The term("Term") of this MOU shall begin as of the Effective Date and continue until August 1. 202 5 renewable thereafter upon an amendment signed and executed by both parties hereto in the same manner as this MOU. 3. Stipend. The CFE Fund pledges and agrees to provide the Partner a Stipend in the form of cash or cash equivalents in an amount not to exceed TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS (S10.000) (the "Stipend"). The Stipend will be paid in U.S. Dollars in accordance with Section 4. 4. Payment of Stipend. (a) Partner shall be eligible to receive the full Stipend upon full execution of this MOU. (b) The C'FE Fund can make payment in one of two ways. Please initial ONE of the boxes to select the requested payment option. • For electronic payment: The CFE Fund will make an electronic payment through the CFE Fund's payment system. bill.com. The Partner authorizes the below employee to create an account and enter the Partner's appropriate bank routing and account number into bill.com. The Partner will ensure that Initial Here for account information in bill.com is accurate throughout the life of the Grant. Electronic Payment and to Authorize Staff Member City of Roanoke Brandon Meginley Financial Stability Specialist. Department of Economic Development Brandon. feginley'«roanokeva.gov 540-853-1120 Initial Here for Payment by Check • For payment by check: The CFE Fund will issue a check to the Partner at the address provided: (c) If any stipend funds are unspent after meeting Scope of Work obligations, the Partner may use them for general Financial Empowerment Center operations within the period of this MOU. MEMORANDUMI OF UNDERSTANDING 5. Confidentiality. The Partner hereby agrees that during the entire term of this MOU and thereafter the Partner shall not disclose or divulge any Confidential Information (as hereinafter defined). or any part thereof, to any person or entity or use any Confidential Information for its pecuniary benefit or for any other purpose without the prior written consent of the CFE Fund and the FEC Grantee. Upon the request of the CFE Fund. and in any event upon termination of the MOU, the Partner shall promptly deliver to the CFE Fund all documents or other materials in its possession (and all copies thereof) constituting or containing Confidential Information. "Confidential Information" means information which the CFE Fund. in its sole determination. marks as confidential or proprietary including. but not limited to. items. materials, and information concerning the following: data security configuration, source code of software applications, marketing plans or strategies; budgets: designs; promotional strategies; client preferences and policies: creative activities for clients; contact information relating to the CFE Fund's personnel or that of any of its clients: concepts: trade secrets: product plans:; financial information and all documentation. reports and data (recorded in any form). and other data. files, and/or other material, both tangible and intangible, in writing and orally imparted that relates to the CFE Fund's business operations. 6. Compliance with Laws. Partner shall comply with all local, state and federal laws (including common laws). ordinances. codes. rules and regulations regarding the Scope of Work and Partner's obligations and performance under this MOU. Partner shall obtain and maintain any and all permits. licenses. bonds, certificates and other similar approvals required in connection with this MOU. 7. Return of Documents. Upon termination of this MOU. the Partner shall deliver all work product. records. notes. data. memoranda. models and equipment of any nature that are in the Partner's possession or under the Partner's control and that are the C'FE Fund's property or relate to CFE Fund's business. 8. Benefits. The CFE Fund is not responsible for any insurance or other fringe benefits, including. but not limited to. social security, worker's compensation. state unemployment. federal and state income tax withholdings. retirement or leave benefits. for the Partner or employees of the Partner. The Partner assumes full responsibility for the provision of all such insurances and fringe benefits for the Partner and all the Partner's employees. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 9. W-9 Form / Tax I.D. Number. The Partner shall provide to the CFE Fund a signed and completed W-9 Form upon the execution of this MOU. Payment will be made to the entity named on the W-9 Form. The Partner hereby agrees to notify the CFE Fund immediately upon any change of taxpayer information found on the W-9 Form. 10. Termination. Notwithstanding any of the above. this MOU may be terminated by either party after thirty (30) days written notice however. any and all fees due and owing must be paid at the time of termination. 11. Relationship of the Parties. For purposes of this MOLT. the Partner is not an agent of the CFE Fund and the CFE Fund is not an agent of the Partner. Neither party has the right or authority to bind the other party through its actions or any other MOU or communications. 12. Amendment. This MOU. or any part hereof, may be amended from time to time only by a written instrument executed by CFE Fund and the Partner. 13. Assignment. This MOLT may not be assigned by either party without the prior written approval of either party. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties hereto have caused this MOU to be duly executed by their respective officers as of the day and year first above written. CITIES FOR FL\A\CIAL EMPOWERMENT FUND, INC. By: Name: Jonathan Mintz Title: President and Chief Executive Officer Date: CITY OF ROANOKE By: Name: Dr. Lydia Pettis Patton Title: Interim City Manager Date: By: Name: Laura Carini Title: Deputy City Attorney Date: i MEMORANDUM OF LNDERSTANDLtiG 5 Exhibit A Scope of Work FEC Expert Mentor As an FEC Expert Mentor. the Partner shall be paired by the C'FE Fund with one of its Financial Empowerment Center grantee partners ("FEC Grantee") in order to provide techmical assistance to that FEC' Grantee. The FEC' Expert Mentor's designated FEC Grantee is: • The City of Mount Vernon, NY Below is guidance on the FEC Expert Mentor's responsibilities. which are based on supporting FEC'Grantees through their Planning phase and Implementation Phase. The CFE Fund anticipates that FEC Grantees will work with each Expert Mentor based on their own local priorities. needs, and timing. The FEC' Expert Mentor will engage in the following activities and technical assistance: • Participate in one introductory virtual meeting with the assigned FEC Mentee(s) to be coordinated by CFE Fund: • Share (if possible) relevant documents and best practices with the FEC Mentee(s), including but not limited to job descriptions. budget proposals. data sharing agreements. partners evaluations. RFP drafts. marketing materials, fundraising proposals. data reports. etc.: • If appropriate. invite the FEC Mentee(s) to relevant partnership development meetings: • Coordinate one operations-focused virnial or in-person site visit once the FEC Mentee(s) has hired the team of FEC counselors. focusing on service delivery. counselor supervision. marketing. data collection and reporting best practices. etc.: • Host the newly hired counselors for a couple of days of virtual or in-person counseling session observation and shadowing: • Provide at least three virtual one-on-one sessions to the Local Government Manager around FECBOT report features: editing. customizing. creating new reports. exporting data. creating visualizations. storytelling. etc.: • Participate at least once in the Monthly Managers' Call presenting a successful or interesting feature of their work: an FEC' integration, marketing strategy. etc. • Do a quarterly post in the FECBOT Learning Community around a best practices. helpful resource or learning for other members of the FEC Learning Community: and • Report. at your own discretion. completed activities and progress made with the FEC Mentee(s) to CFE fund. Reporting The FEC Expert Mentor will be responsible for one brief Final Report to the CFE Fund. This report will include details on the technical assistance provided, and a financial overview of how the stipend was spent (estimated due date August 1. 2025) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING EXHIBIT A 6 FEC Expert Partner As an FEC Expert Partner. the Partner shall maintain the reputation. standards. and integrity of the FEC Model. and adhere to the following sets of conditions: Implement the FEC initiative in accordance with the model requirements (Exhibit B) provided by the CFE Fund, including but not limited to, free one-on-one counseling, integration with a range of services, counselor training based on a set of training standards,data collection,and active partnership with at least one Financial Counseling Provider to manage the work, unless the Partner provides the financial counseling services itself. 1. The Partner will maintain an active signed agreement with the Financial Counseling Provider(s),unless the Partner provides the financial counseling services itself. If the existing agreement with the Financial Counseling Provider(s) is set to expire before the end of the Term, it should be renewed by amendment or with a new agreement, assuming the Partner intends to proceed with the Financial Counseling Provider(s). The fully executed agreement(s) with the Financial Counseling Provider(s), and any amendments or new agreements. must be shared with the CFE Fund. The Partner will provide immediate written notification to the CFE Fund if significant changes or events occur during the Term which could potentially impact the progress or outcome of its adherence to the FEC Model, including, without limitation. changes in the Partner's or any Vendor(s)' management personnel or lead staff member(s) responsible for managing the FEC. loss of funding or other extenuating circumstances which could affect the FEC. The Financial Counseling Provider(s) must be approved by the C'FE Fund. with such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. conditioned, or delayed. Any changes to or at the selected Financial Counseling Provider(s) during the Term including but not limited to adding additional providers. termination of providers. and staffing changes. must be approved by the CFE Fund. with such approval not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned. or delayed. II. FECBOT Database and Experian Connectivity 1. For the term of the MOU. the Partner will use the CFE Fund's FEC database. FECBOT (Financial Empowerment Center Boost Outcomes Tool). The CFE Fund will provide licenses at no cost for FEC-essential personnel, such as the Financial Counselors. the Program Manager, and the Local Government Manager. Any additional license requests will be at the discretion of the CFE Fund and could be subject to licensing fees and reasonably related management costs. 2. The Partner will ensure that the Financial Counseling Provider(s) maintains rigorous client confidentiality when using FECBOT and Experian. and follows data collection protocols to ensure client confidentiality: a. Maintain the confidentially of all written and electronic client information and data: as well as the configuration of FECBOT and terms and prices of the Experian credit reports. b. Ensure that computer equipment. the FECBOT database. and any other data collection tools will not be used by anyone other than Financial Empowerment Center-trained and MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING EXHIBIT A approved Financial Counselors. City and Counseling Provider Managers and a limited number of support staff; and will not be used outside of the parameters of the Financial Empowerment Centers or Partner's other office locations. Any staff member who is authorized to access FECBOT will be required to sign the FECBOT User Agreement (see Exhibit C — Sample FECBOT User Agreement) and provide a copy to the CFE Fund's FECBOT Administrator. c. Keep all data within a secure limited-access network. maintained by FECBOT through Salesforce; and through Experian. Client data should not be downloaded to hard drives of individual computers or to portable storage devices. d. Ensure each client understands and signs a Client Waiver form approved by the CFE Fund. Partner must ensure that client data is only shared with the consent of the individual client. following the stipulations in the Client Waiver. e. Ensure that all paper documents with personally identifiable information will be stored in locked file cabinets with access limited to Financial Empowerment Center staff. Financial counseling records. including sensitive financial information must be kept in a locked drawer cabinet separate from other Partner client information. Any old. duplicative, or unnecessary documents containing personally identifiable information shall be shredded using a cross-cut paper shredder. Personally identifiable information includes. but is not limited to, social security numbers. full names. telephone numbers. addresses. email addresses. dates of birth, and financial account numbers. f Use standard database security practices when accessing FECBOT and the Experian portal. which include: using strong passwords (combinations of letters. numbers, and special characters) to limit access; changing passwords at least quarterly; and not sharing passwords with other employees or by storing passwords where others may access them. g. Limit the ability of non-Financial Empowerment Center staff members to view data by locking,turning off or logging out of computer systems when not in use. This shall include setting security systems to automatically lock with a screen saver at frequent intervals. not more than ten minutes. Protect computers and other network devices that can be used to access Client data with anti-virus and anti-spyware malware protection software. a firewall, and timely installation of Windows "patches." III. License 1. Subject to compliance with all terms and conditions of this MOU. C'FE Fund hereby provides the Partner a non-exclusive and non-transferrable license to all City of Roanoke Financial Empowerment Center data stored in the FECBOT database during the Term of this MOU. The Partner may only use this data for City of Roanoke Financial Empowerment Center program purposes. as permitted in Exhibit C (the "Sample FECBOT User Agreement"). and in accordance with instructions from the CFE Fund. 2. The Partner acknowledges that CFE Fund owns all right. title. and interest in FECBOT, including all intellectual property rights and FECBOT data. The Partner further acknowledges that the C'FE Fund has dedicated substantial resources to build, administer, and manage the FECBOT database and it is the sole intellectual property of the C'FE Fund. If the Partner violates the terms of this MOU. including not effectively administering the terms and conditions in the FEC'BOT User Agreement. the C'FE Fund may. in its discretion. provide the Partner a reasonable opportunity to cure or remedy the violation. Absent acceptable cure. the C'FE Fund may terminate this License with reasonable notice to the Partner. MEMORANDUM OF LNDERSTA\DL\G EXHIBIT A 8 IV. Intellectual Property 1. The Partner. and its Financial Counseling Provider(s) if applicable. recognize that any and all materials. including but not limited to training manuals and templates and FECBOT. provided by the CFE Fund to the Partner. and its Financial Counseling Provider(s). are the exclusive property of the C'FE Fund. 2. The Partner. and its Financial Counseling Provider(s) if applicable. will not use, transmit, display or publish or otherwise license such materials without the C'FE Fund's prior written consent. V. Adhere to the following CFE Fund marketing and communications guidelines. 1. On any signage or communications pieces related to the FEC, the local government partner logo and financial counseling provider logo will always be included with the FEC logo. 2. The Partner will request permission from the CFE Fund before modifying the FEC Public and FEC logos and related branded materials. The Partner will follow specific communication protocols recommended by CFE Fund. including the guidelines in Exhibit D (the"Financial Empowerment Center Branding Assets"). VI. Adhere to the Financial Empowerment Center Counseling Training Standards 1. Confirm all FEC' staff members are trained and certified in accordance with the FEC' Counseling Training Standards and CFE Fund-administered exam process. including signing the FEC' Code of Ethics. 2. Participate in all trainings. as required by the C'FE Fund, including but not limited to the initial counselor training, any continuing education sessions. and C'FE-Fund hosted trainings. 3. Support continuing education efforts, including identifying opportunities for counselors to learn about existing and new government programs. VII. Participate and actively contribute to the C'FE Fund's FEC Learning Community 1. Participate in all learning community activities. including sharing accomplishments. best practices and lessons learned with the broader field. Such activities could include: i. Attendance at national gatherings hosted by the CFE Fund. ii. Attendance of regular calls hosted by the C'FE Fund. to learn and know how to respond to changing circumstances in the field. iii. Participation in ad-hoc webinars or conference calls with grantees and other partners. iv. Participation in working groups. V. Involvement in written communications about the work. which could include features on the CFE Fund website. newsletter. or written briefs. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDL\G EXHIBIT A 9 As part of this MOU. the CFE Fund will provide technical assistance. Among other things. the CFE Fund will: • Provide FECBOT licenses at no-cost for FEC' program-essential personnel for the duration of an Expert Partner MOU to be signed by CFE Fund and the Expert Partner: • Be available via email to support FECBOT-related needs and support service delivery: • Provide at no-cost the updated Training Standards and certification process to the FEC program-essential personnel, including the administration and evaluation of the FEC' exam. access to the Code of Ethics and the Heart of FEC counseling trainings and other C'FE Fund-facilitated trainings; • Update and share updated marketing materials and branding assets on a regular basis: • Facilitate FEC' Learning Community activities and one-on-one partner connections ad- hoc: • Create a FEC Expert Partner Library to store and share relevant documents of interest for the FEC Learning Community: and • Lead quarterly check-in calls and be available via email to gauge potential financial empowerment expansion plans and needs. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING EXHIBIT A 10 Exhibit B Financial Empowerment Center Model (the "Model") Please note that this provides a broad overview of the Financial Empowerment Center model(the "FEC Model" or the "Model"). During the course of engagement, the CFE Fund team will be providing further details on all components of the model. The Model has been developed by the CFE Fund in order to ensure consistency and high-quality standards. The Model should be actively followed by the Grantee. The Model may be amended. modified. supplemented. or otherwise revised by the CFE Fund. Any changes to the Model will be communicated by the CFE Fund during the course of teclulical assistance to the Grantee. Model: • Professional. one-on-one and free public service. • Systematically track data and outcomes for client management and evaluation. • Connects to a range of local government and nonprofit service delivery systems. • Prioritizes sustainability efforts to become a permanent service in the locality. Operations: • Program implementation and management is led and overseen by the local government. • Service provision is conducted by one or more qualified nonprofit partners or local government agencies. formalized via MOU. • Counselors conduct financial triage with clients to determine the nature of their financial situation. set goals, and establish a specific plan of action with each client focused in four primary areas: banking. savings. debt, and credit. • Client retention. critical to outcome achievement. is prioritized as counselors work with clients to make progress on their action plan. • All program managers and counselors must be trained based on the CFE Fund's training standards and pass a CFE Fund—administered final exam. The Financial Counseling Session As defined for the Model, one-on-one financial counseling and coaching represents a mix of direct service goal setting and light case management provided by highly trained professionals to advise people on their financial and personal goals in the areas of banking. savings. debt. and credit. One-on-one counseling. either in person or remotely. is conducted or tracked with the goal of clients achieving meaningful. defined financial outcomes. A financial counseling session is a confidential. private meeting between an FEC counselor and individual (or household) lasting a minimum of 30 minutes. Sessions can be either in person or remote (i.e. phone. video) given they meet the 30-minute requirement. The initial counseling session consists of a comprehensive financial health assessment. where counselors conduct triage to determine the full nature of the client's financial situation. support the client in setting goals. and establish a specific client-led action plan to manage their finances. pay down debt. increase savings. establish and build credit. and access safe and affordable mainstream banking products. Retention,or returning for more than one session. is critical: clients MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING EXHIBIT B 11 are more likely to achieve outcomes if they participate in multiple counseling sessions. Throughout the process. counselors advise clients. and track progress towards outcomes aimed at enhancing financial stability. Partnership Structure The Model is a partnership between local government and community-based organizations. with critical and distinct roles for each partner. Local Government (city or county) plays a central role of directing and coordinating the initiative on the ground. The local government partner ensures quality and consistency of service delivery by establishing protocols for monitoring and evaluation.using public channels for marketing and promotion of services. and supporting integration of service delivery within other public programs and local government access points. Financial Counseling Providers recruit. hire and supervise the FEC' counselors. They are responsible for all data collection and regular reporting to the local government and the CFE Fund. They support public marketing efforts by participating in outreach events and presentations. In addition. nonprofit providers establish and maintain relationships with other community partners hosting counselors, referral partners. and other outreach and community efforts. This provider role can also be fulfilled by a local government agency. Local and National Counselor Training Partners deliver financial counseling training instruction based on the training standards provided by the CFE Fund. focusing on financial content, counseling and coaching skills. and cultural awareness. Partners can deliver this training in a variety of formats. including at a local college. through self-paced webinars, and/or with program managers or national training providers teaching the curriculum. Prior to working with their own clients, counselors must pass an exam that evaluates their command of training material and succeed at a period of mentored. experiential training (such as role- playing. shadowing. and observation). In addition, local government and counseling provider managers coordinate continuing education opportunities as the program evolves to further counselors' professional development and understanding of new financial issues that those with low incomes face. Programmatic Partners are crucial to integrating the FEC services into the service streams of local government and nonprofit agencies. especially those serving people with low and moderate incomes. Partnerships deeply embed financial counselingicoaching into local government and nonprofit programs. advancing both programs' goals. Partnerships can have a variety of characteristics in a scale of increasing integration. which are: formalized via MOU, defined referral process. co-location. FEC' participation fully integrated. coordinated case management. regular reporting. data sharing agreement, and Super-vitamin Effects Study. Potential complementary program integrations could include homeownership assistance, homeless prevention. foreclosure prevention.workforce development, asset building, financial access. domestic violence prevention, or other social services. Philanthropic Partners are influential in the launch of the FEC' and subsequent enhancement opportunities. At the start of the implementation phase. localities secure funding from local MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING LADING EXHIBIT B 12 and or national funders to partially match the CFE Fund's investment to launch the FEC. Funder engagement in the FEC stems from a range of interests, including geographic footprints.programmatic priorities. innovation opportunities. and issue-based giving. Once the FEC has launched, funders offer opportunities to enhance the Model with targeted pilots.while also providing support to complement the public funding. Data Collection and Reporting Data collection and reporting are essential to the success of the Model.used to improve service delivery. track required outcomes, and further budgetary and political sustainability efforts. The Grantee is required to use FECBOT and participate in all national data collection.tracking. and evaluation activities throughout the Grant Term. The Grantee will have access throughout the Grant Term to all local data collected and is able to create customized reports. Learning Community The CFE Fund operates a national learning community of local government partners engaged in FEC development and implementation. Learning community calls or events are valuable opportunities to learn and share best practices. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING EXHIBIT B 13 Exhibit C Sample FEC'BOT User Agreement A. General agreement FECBOT. the Financial Empowerment Center Boost Outcomes Tool. is a safe and central database for Financial Empowerment Centers (FECs)to gauge client impact, manage counselor performance. and report on key metrics to a variety of stakeholders. To protect the system. and the privacy and confidential information of FEC clients and staff.you agree to use FECBOT in a productive, ethical. and lawful manner. You. as a financial counselor. manager. consultant. data analyst, or other staff member who has been authorized to use the FECBOT system("User). acknowledge and agree that FEC'BOT is provided under license. and not owned by you. You do not acquire any ownership interest in FEC'BOT. its data. materials or products downloaded or stored on FECBOT. You agree that you will use FECBOT in accordance with the limited license granted by the Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund, and subject to all terms, conditions. and restrictions, under this Agreement and as instructed by the C'FE Fund. and its FECBOT Administrator or an approved agent of the C'FE Fund. The C'FE Fund shall not be liable for any loss. cost. expense. or other liability arising out of any use of the FEC'BOT. B. Proper Use Users of FEC'BOT shall always maintain a professional etiquette when using FEC'BOT including. but not limited to, conununication on the platform, client notes. session notes. and participating in the learning community. Poor language. inappropriate comments. use of profanity. bullying, discriminatory language or conduct and other inappropriate behavior is strictly prohibited. Platform use and any communications shared or stored throughout the FECBOT system should resemble commonly accepted.professional and respectful business correspondence. C. Security,Access, and Passwords You understand that it is your responsibility to maintain a safe and secure environment when accessing. using. or working in FECBOT. and responsible for all local security and access of the FEC'BOT system. It is the responsibility of each User to adhere to industry standard IT security guidelines including but not limited to the creation, format. and scheduled changes of passwords. All usernames. passcodes. passwords. and information used or stored on the FEC'BOT system or its network is the property of the CFE Fund. No User may use a username,passcode. password. or method of encryption that has not been issued to that employee or authorized in advance by the FECBOT Administrator. No User shall share usernames, passcodes. or passwords with any other person except the FECBOT Administrator or their authorized agent. A User shall immediately inform the FECBOT Administrator and the CFE Fund if they know or suspect that any username. passcode. or password has been improperly shared. used. displayed. or compromised and if IT security has been violated in any way. Users who have not accessed the FECBOT system for a period of six(6) months will be subject to suspension or have their license terminated at the discretion of the FECBOT Administrator without notice. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING EXHIBIT C 14 D. Privacy All content shared by ally User on the FECBOT system, except client data and where excluded by a superseding client agreement, exists in the FECBOT public domain. Therefore. Users should have no expectation of privacy whatsoever in any message. file. data. document. community post. conversation. or any other kind or form of information or communication they have transmitted to FEC'BOT. The FECBOT Administrator may also store copies of such data and communications from time to time after they are created and may delete such copies from time to time without notice. You agree that such data and communications may also be used for quality and training purposes at the discretion of the FECBOT Administrator and the CFE Fund. A User may also extract data from the FEC'BOT system. consistent with their authorization.training. or as otherwise provided by the FECBOT Administrator, so long as the data extracted maintains an industry standard level of encryption to protect data from unauthorized disclosure and cyber threats. Other data may only be extracted and used upon prior written consent from the FEC'BOT Administrator, the CFE Fund. or an authorized agent thereof. Furthermore. the counselor. employee. agent or User of FEC'BOT acknowledges that any information stored in or shared on the FECBOT system shall not be shared via social media. including. but not limited to. Snapchat.Facebook. Twitter. Instagram. Linkedln. Pinterest.etc. absent the expressed approval in writing of the declarant. the FECBOT Administrator or the CFE Fund. E. Cloud System The CFE Fund maintains a cloud-based data communications network to facilitate all aspects of the FECBOT system. Highly sensitive financial information is stored on the system. Users understand that they may never sign into FEC'BOT using the password or username of another User of FECBOT. No User shall access. attempt to access. alter. or delete any network document on a computer not authorized by the FECBOT Administrator. C'FE Fund. or an authorized agent of the C'FE Fund. All users are required to use industry standard protocols to maintain security from hackers and database intrusion. This includes the limited use of unsecured configurations and 'open access' configurations. which shall include, but not limited to,use of public\Vi-Fi locations. hardware and software installations from an unapproved third-party. objectively hazardous internet"click-bait and settings that permit tllulecessary or unauthorized access to or use of IT systems and networks. Computers and network devices that come with a vendor-supplied. factory-default settings that favor connectivity and data sharing over security shall be subject to evaluation by the FECBOT Administrator. the C'FE Fund or an approved agent thereof. FECBOT Users shall not use FEC'BOT on any public computer. including. but not limited to. library computers. internet cafes. hotel computers. or otherwise. F. Confidentiality and Proprietary Rights FECBOT is the intellectual property. including. but not limited to. all files. documents.templates. forms, guidebooks. training material. communications materials. and other trade secrets of the CFE Fund and is all extremely valuable asset. By signing this agreement.you agree not to jeopardize the system with any personal use of electronic communications systems. including email. text messaging. internet access. social media. and telephone conversations and voice mail. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING EXHIBIT C 15 Disclosure of confidential information to anyone outside of any approved FEC' provider.the FEC'BOT Administrator. or a staff member of the C'FE Fund is strictly prohibited. A User shall ask the FECBOT Administrator if they are unsure whether to disclose confidential information to particular individuals or how to safeguard the company's proprietary rights. Use of the C'FE Fund name, intellectual property. materials. brand names. logos. taglines. slogans, or other trademarks without written permission from the FECBOT Administrator or an authorized representative of the C'FE Fund is strictly prohibited. G. Remedies Users who violate any provision of this agreement are subject to all adequate remedies available at law and equity.up to and including termination or revocation of a contract. general and special damages. and other equitable remedies allowed by law. H.Acknowledgement and Review I, . acknowledge that I have received a copy of this FECBOT User Agreement and that I read it.understood it. and agree to comply with it. I understand that the CFE Fund has the maximum discretion permitted by law to interpret. administer, change. modify, or delete my use of FEC'BOT at any time without any notice. I understand that neither this agreement nor any other communication by the CFE Fund.whether oral or written, is intended in any way to create a contract of employment. [SAMPLE —THIS VERSION NOT FOR SIGNATURE]_ Signature [SAMPLE -THIS VERSION NOT FOR SIGNATURE]_ Printed Name [SAMPLE —THIS VERSION NOT FOR SIGNATURE] Date MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING EXHIBIT C 16 Exhibit D Financial Empowerment Center Branding Assets (To Be Attached) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING EXHIBIT D l? C i 4 i1 c K r .�55 ; v y d CI 40111 -1';' 1' 0 < U. 1.171 -0 -2 ... 14101 , i1 7,1. 5c .a • z 74 1 U f CI) c - c - ' a) 4 � WO y - ., :z :, -3 Q) - E ill! illl. - Cl.) 401 , _, ... .'. .+s c Wg. c.om i U c z Q l,. U _ 2 .4&la _Ii _ W 4011 , = Z d+ p L = a- c M O _ E i W < u. WO •U 5 d a- _ C C O O _ __ v L Y to Ci QOt - € T C E ; < L I_ WO A . -ia& -E yd iWU -`_ 401 - , 4011 : - , _ c 0 o , Q tL W Y = E N - _ 41,1 , ,,,, _ _-,---: J _ Y Z - .t , . :'g-4 ` ` z»': E ! : 3 ;e: 2 . :> : _ \ . } \}\ ) >UT \\ o - 2 \ //§ © \ , . o - $ ` - - \ . \ \ Q - § % .. _ _ §{\ & 2 o ` - ®\71 : - : ® _ _ ; 04< \\ _ �ax, „ � :©m« G»: � . o : .e _a = ; c=: = ' § . ��� � : ! . . .. . : = ; : :» « C c 0 U _ c Q § / 7 ) _ ¢ Q a q ! ( o 2 E E _ - + - E . to \ \ \ \ \ _e 2 = _ ! 2 -- n m 2 - cp _= m I a f - / o + \ = 2 E 2 \ j 2 LL w a = Cl) ) \ \ ± . 0 \ \ g { % 7 ) - ~ 2 7 \ o m 0 0 _ - c E @ ! E - \ / ' E 0 \ ig ° o E 'E m = { 0 2 •r . a 7 \ CO \ \ > \ _ • n g 2 - = - » 0 ' 5 g \ \ \ d \ 0 § � 0 2 : \ [ ! : e J n 3 E 2 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43038-091624. A RESOLUTION accepting the Virginia Housing FY24 Community Impact Planning Grant to the City of Roanoke ("City") from the Virginia Housing Development Authority ("Virginia Housing"); authorizing execution of any required documents on behalf of the City; and authorizing the City Manager or her designee to take such further actions and execute such other documents as may be necessary to obtain, accept, implement, administer, and use such grant funds. .BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City does hereby accept the Virginia Housing FY24 Community Impact Planning Grant from Virginia Housing in the amount of $40,000, to support the creation of a concept plan for an affordable housing development near Norton Avenue, N.E., and Liberty Road, N.E., such Grant being more particularly described in the City Manager's Report dated September 16, 2024. 2. The City Manager or her designee is hereby authorized to execute and file, on behalf of the City, any documents setting forth the conditions of this Grant in a form approved by the City Attorney. 3. The City Manager or her designee is authorized to take such further actions and execute such further documents as may be necessary to obtain, accept, implement, administer, and use such grant funds, as allowed by the terms and conditions of the Agreement, with any such documents being approved as to form by the City Attorney. ATTEST: tj.„: City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43039-091624. AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding from the Virginia Housing Development Authority amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2024-2025 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 2024-2025 Grant Funds Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Grant Fund Appropriations Program Activities 235-3412-0000-52066-400128 $ 40,000 Revenues Community Impact Planning Grant 235-3412-0000-40122-400128 $ 40,000 FY24 — State Revenues Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: 01-e-64'4'j YX46t City Clerk. City Manager's Report Submitted by: Jillian Papa, Acting Director �� Planning, Building, & Development ROAN O K E September 16, 2024 Title: Acceptance and Appropriation of a Virginia Housing FY24 Community Impact Planning Grant. Background: The Virginia Housing Development Authority (Virginia Housing) administers a Community Impact Grant program that can help cover the costs of market research, design and engineering studies, community outreach, neighborhood community design, mixed-use/mixed- income development planning, and other initiatives to provide housing and spur economic growth. The City of Roanoke applied for and received a Virginia Housing FY24 Community Impact Planning Grant in the amount of $40,000 to support the creation of a concept plan for an affordable housing development near Norton Avenue NE and Liberty Road NE. Considerations: The proposed study area is a 1.1-acre site comprising four adjacent properties listed as 2507 Hollins Road NE, 921 Norton Avenue NE, and two parcels addressed as 0 Liberty Road NE, bearing Official Tax Map Nos. 3250203, 3250214, 3250204, and 3250205 respectively. The area has a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The site is at an area identified as an existing neighborhood center that needs additional development. The desired outcome of the project is a Preliminary Architecture and Engineering Report and a Feasibility Study that will help guide future development and identify what funding sources might be necessary to create affordable units. The property owner has been a partner in the submission of the application as they seek assistance in using the property for an affordable housing development. Recommended Action: Accept the Virginia Housing FY24 Community Impact Planning Grant in the amount of $40,000 and adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate for the grant fund in the amount of$40,000. Authorize the Interim City Manager or their designee to take such further actions and execute such further documents, approved as to form by the City Attorney, as may be necessary to obtain, accept, implement, administer, and use such funds identified above. Lydia Patton, Interim City Manager Scope of Work Throughout the work detailed below,The City will require bi-weekly updates with City staff and monthly meetings with a stakeholder committee composed with representatives from the neighborhood and nearby businesses, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority(RRHA), the property owner, City staff and others as deemed appropriate. City staff will compose the stakeholder committee meetings and organize these virtual meetings. Preliminary Architecture and Engineering Report ($20,000 max) • Description of project objectives including income levels and housing types to target (based on meeting between planning dept., owner, and RRHA). • Site analysis (factors such as slopes, hydrology,views, potential entrance points, utility connection points, etc.). • Description of comp plan land use recommendation for area. • Compilation of visual examples of housing types that seem appropriate to the site and the project objectives. • Conceptual building floor plans and elevations. • Conceptual site layout showing building footprints, circulation, parking areas, common areas, and utility connection points. • Illustrative rendering of development concept. • Preliminary development cost estimate. Feasibility Study ($20,000 max) • Description of financial objectives and assumptions for project including rent structure, developer/operator return on investment, and land sale proceeds to current owner. • If it will be special needs housing, such as elderly, discussion of potential service partnerships and any service costs that need to be built into the operating budget. • Pro forma analysis with operating and development budgets, incorporating likely financing scenarios including taking advantage of available state, federal, and local subsidies. • Estimated impact on city (taxes, fees, school-age children, etc.). • Preliminary predevelopment and development timeline, including consideration of application cycles for financing sources. • Recommended next steps, including proposed method for recruiting developer and rezoning process. Consultant Selection Process The City of Roanoke will execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with 921 Norton LLC (Recipient). The Recipient will hire a Consultant to perform the work as required in the City's grant contract.The Recipient will procure the Consultant by soliciting proposals and cost estimates to be based around the Scope of Work.The Recipient will choose the Consultant based on their qualifications, responsiveness to the scope of work and completeness of the proposal, cost-effectiveness, proposed approach, and proposed timeline. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43040-091624. A RESOLUTION accepting the FY24 Virginia Brownfields Restoration and Economic Redevelopment Assistance Fund (VBAF) Grant from the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) made to the City of Roanoke; and authorizing execution of any required documents on behalf of the City. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City of Roanoke does hereby accept the FY24 Virginia Brownfields Restoration and Economic Redevelopment Assistance Fund (VBAF) Grant from the VEDP and DEQ in the amount of $50,000 and the match requirement for this grant has been met with documentation of previous expenditures from the property owners. The funds for this Grant are to be used for further exploration for remediation of the site known as the former Evans Paint property located at 1516 Cleveland Avenue, S.W., bearing Official Tax Map Nos. 1321325 and 1321313, such grant being more particularly described in the City Manager's Report dated September 16, 2024. 2. The City Manager or her designee is hereby authorized to execute and file, on behalf of the City, any documents setting forth the conditions of this grant in a form approved by the City Attorney. 3. The City Manager or her designee is further directed to furnish such additional information as may be required to implement and administer the foregoing Grant. ATTEST: -01-eve-dat City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43041-091624. AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding from the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) amending and re-ordaining certain sections of the 2024-2025 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 2024-2025 Grant Funds Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Grant Fund Appropriations Program Activities 235-3412-0000-52066-400129 $ 50,000 Revenues Virginia Economic Development 235-3412-0000-40122-400129 $ 50,000 Partnership- State Revenues Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: c. L IA-elt City Clerk. City Manager's Report Submitted by: Jillian Papa, Acting Director RDA N O K E Planning, Building, & Development September 16, 2024 Title: Acceptance and Appropriation of an FY24 Virginia Brownfields Restoration and Economic Redevelopment Assistance Fund (VBAF) Grant. Background: The Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) administer and award Virginia Brownfields Restoration and Economic Redevelopment Assistance Fund (VBAF) grants. The City of Roanoke applied for and received $50,000 in funding for additional environmental site assessment and enrollment in the Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) for the site known as the former Evans Paint property located at 1516 Cleveland Avenue, SW, bearing Official Tax Map Nos.1321325 and 1321313. Considerations: VEDP and DEQ have awarded the City of Roanoke a grant totaling $50,000. The match requirement for this grant has been met with documentation of previous expenditures from the property owners that include property settlement statements, demolition costs, and renovation costs incurred on the property. These expenditures have been accepted as match for the VBAF grant. The City used an FY22 Virginia Brownfields Restoration and Economic Redevelopment Assistance Fund (VBAF) grant in the amount of $50,000 to perform environmental site assessments at the former Evans Paint property and to start the process of enrolling the site in Virginia's Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP). The newly awarded FY24 grant will allow the continuation of this work and complete the formal enrollment of the site into VRP and help facilitate the site's future redevelopment. Recommended Action: Accept the FY24 Virginia Brownfields Restoration and Economic Redevelopment Assistance Fund (VBAF) grant award of$50.000 and adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate for the grant fund in the amount of$50,000. Authorize the Interim City Manager or their designee to take such further actions and execute such further documents, approved as to form by the City Attorney, as may be necessary to obtain, accept, implement, administer, and use such funds identified above. Lydia Patton, Interim City Manager VIRGINIA BROW'\FIELDS RESTORATION AND ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FIND PROGRAM SITE ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING GRANT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT Executive Summary Effective Date: 6I24'2024 Grantee: City of Roanoke. Virginia. a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia Project: Site Assessment: Soil'Subsurface:Subslab Vapor Analysis; New Groundwater Sampling: Soil Sampling; Risk Screening; and Project Planning Site: Property known as the former Evan's Paint Building located at 1516 Cleveland Avenue SW. Roanoke. VA 24016 (Tax Parcel Numbers: 1321325 and 1321313) Grant: 550,000 Local Match: i S50.000 as detailed in Exhibit A Performance Date: 3 31 2025 Variations: 1 N A Notices: if to the Grantee: NAME: Wayne Leftwich. AICP TITLE: Planning Manager LOCALITY: City of Roanoke, Virginia ADDRESS: 215 Church Avenue ADDRESS: Roanoke. Virginia 24011 EMAIL w aD uc.leltyv i li roanokev a ,7c)v [SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE. FOLLOWED BY BODY OF AGREEMENT] Page 1 of 18 WITNESS the following signatures as of the effective date. each having the same force and effect as if set forth at the end of this agreement. VIRGINIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP AUTHORITY By: Name: Katherine Goodwin Title: Senior Vice President, Business Investment Date: CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA By: Name: Title: Date: SEEN AND ACKNOWLEDGED: VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY By: Name: Kathryn Perszyk Title: Director. Division of Land Protection and Revitalization Date: VIRGINIA RESOURCES AUTHORITY By: Name: Shawn Crumlish Title: Executive Director Date: Page 2 of 18 This PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT (this "Agreement'). dated as of the Effective Date, by and between the VIRGINIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP AUTHORITY ("VEDP"), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Commonwealth"). and the GRANTEE identified in the Executive Summary above. recites and provides as follows: Recitals: 1. The Virginia Brownfields Restoration and Economic Redevelopment Assistance Fund (the "VBAF") was established pursuant to § 10.1-1237 of the Code of Virginia of 1950. as amended (the "Virginia Code"), to promote the restoration and redevelopment of brownfield sites in the Commonwealth and to address environmental problems or obstacles to reuse so that such sites can be effectively marketed to new economic development prospects: 2. The VBAF is administered by the Virginia Resources Authority ("VRA"). and VEDP directs the distribution of grants from the VBAF: 3. VEDP. in consultation with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ"). has established guidelines for the awarding of Site Assessment and Planning Grants from the VBAF: 4. The Grantee submitted an application for a Site Assessment and Planning Grant (the "Grant") to assist with the Investment(set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto) being made by or on behalf of the Grantee for the Project at the Site: VEDP. in consultation with DEQ and based upon the VBAF priorities. has awarded the Grant to the Grantee for the Project: 6. VEDP and the Grantee desire to set forth their mutual understanding and agreement as to the payout of the Grant. the use of the Grant proceeds, the obligations of the Grantee, and the repayment by the Grantee of all or part of the Grant proceeds under certain circumstances. all of which shall be governed by this Agreement: and 7. The restoration and redevelopment of brownfield sites and addressing environmental problems or obstacles to reuse of such sites constitutes a valid public purpose for the expenditure of public funds and is the animating purpose in making the Grant: NOW. THEREFORE. in consideration of the foregoing, the mutual benefits. promises and undertakings of the parties to this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged. the parties covenant and agree as follows. ` Page 3 of 18 Section 1. Construction and Definitions. (a) Incorporated Terms: The Executive Sumumary, signature page and recitals above. and exhibits attached hereto. all constitute integral parts of this Agreement and are hereby incorporated by reference. (b) Variations: To the extent any terms and conditions set forth in the Variations section of the Executive Summary. if applicable, conflict with the terms and conditions set forth below, the terms and conditions set forth in the Variations section of the Executive Summary shall prevail. (c) Definitions: As used in this Agreement. terms set forth in the first column of the Executive Summary shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the second column. and the following terms shall have the following meanings: "Asbestos Abatement Report- means a report in the form of Exhibit C attached hereto, to be delivered by the Grantee in accordance with Section 4(c) (if applicable). "Grant Report" means a report in the forth of Exhibit B attached hereto, to be delivered by the Grantee in accordance with Section 4(b). "Investment"means expenditures by or on behalf of the Grantee associated with the Project. including the Grant proceeds and the Local Match, to be made in accordance with Exhibit A attached hereto. "Local Match"" means the required one-to-one match by the Grantee of the amount of the Grant from public and:or private sources in either cash or documented reasonable and necessary costs associated with the Project. to be included in the Investment. as identified in the Executive Summary and Exhibit A attached hereto. "Performance Date"' means the date designated as such in the Executive Summary. which is the date by which the Grantee expects to have completed the Project. If VEDP, in consultation with DEQ. deems that good faith and reasonable efforts have been made and are being made by the Grantee to complete the Project. the Performance Date may be extended by up to 15 months and the date to which the Performance Date has been extended shall be the "Performance Date" for the purposes of this Agreement. Section 2. The Grant. (a) The Grant: VEDP. in consultation with DEQ and based upon the VBAF priorities. has awarded the Grant to the Grantee for the Project. (b) Disbursement: Promptly after the full execution and delivery of this Agreement. VEDP will forward a fully-executed copy of this Agreement to VRA. together with a direction to Page 4 of 18 disburse the full amount of the Grant in one lump sum to the Grantee, by wire transfer in accordance with the ACH instructions previously provided by the Grantee. (c) Use of Grant Proceeds: The Grantee will expend the proceeds of the Grant only as permitted by § 10.1-1237 of the Virginia Code and as part of the Investment in accordance with Exhibit A attached hereto. Section 3. Investment. (a) Investment: The Grantee expects to make the Investment and complete the Project on or before the Performance Date. As the Project is undertaken, adjustments to the Investment may be needed. Except for de minimi.s- adjustments (impacting. in the aggregate. less than 10°-0 of the Grant proceeds), adjustments to the Investment require the prior written approval of VEDP and must be reflected on a revised Exhibit A provided to VEDP. (b) Local Match: The Grantee will contribute the required Local Match toward the Investment on or before the Performance Date. Section 4. Reporting. (a) Interim Reports: The Grantee shall provide an interim report on the progress of the Project at such times as VEDP and DEQ may request. (b) Grant Report: Promptly after completion of the Project. the Grantee will deliver the Grant Report to VEDP. Such report must be completed. signed by an authorized representative of the Grantee. and have copies of invoices and all other required supporting documentation attached. (c) Asbestos Abatement Report !if Applicable): If the Project involves the removal of asbestos-containing material. the Grantee will, promptly after completion of the Project, deliver the Asbestos Abatement Report to VEDP. Such report must be completed. signed by an authorized representative of the Grantee, and have all required supporting documentation attached. (d) Status Reports: After the Performance Date. at such times as VEDP and DEQ may request. the Grantee shall provide a written detailed report satisfactory to VEDP and DEQ providing an update on the Site. including whether(i) the Site was successfully marketed to a new economic development prospect. and (ii) the Project generated any additional private investment and job creation. (e) Costs of Reporting: The costs of reporting shall be borne by the Grantee. Page 5 of 18 Section 5. Repayment Obligations. (a) If Investment is Less than Expected: If the Grant Report indicates that the Grantee was able to complete the Project for less than the expected Investment. such that the amount of the Grant proceeds exceeds the Local Match or the Grantee will not need all of the Grant proceeds previously disbursed to the Grantee. the Grantee must repay to VEDP an amount equal to the excess amount or the amount of the Grant proceeds no longer required. (b) If Grant Proceeds are Misspent: If the Grant Report indicates, or any evidence gathered by VEDP reveals. that any Grant proceeds have been expended on anything other than the Investment, the Grantee must repay to VEDP the amount so misspent. (c) Failure to Complete by Performance Date: If it is determined that the Grantee is unable to complete the Project and expend the Grant proceeds by the Performance Date and the Performance Date is not extended, the Grantee must repay to VEDP the unspent proceeds of the Grant as of the Performance Date. (d) Repayments to Fund: VEDP will provide written notification to the Grantee if any repayment is due from the Grantee to VEDP under this Agreement. Within 60 days of receiving such notification. the Grantee will make the repayment to VEDP, subject to appropriation. Any repayment received by VEDP will be promptly transferred by VEDP to the VRA for redeposit to the VBAF. Section 6. Notices. Formal notices and communications among the parties shall be given either by(i)personal service. (ii)delivery by a reputable document delivery service that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery. (iii) mailing utilizing a certified or first class mail postage prepaid service of the United States Postal Service that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iv) delivery by email with transmittal confirmation and confirmation of delivery, addressed as noted below. Notices and communications personally delivered or delivered by document delivery service shall be deemed effective upon receipt. Notices and communications mailed shall be deemed effective on the second business day following deposit in the United States mail. Notices and communications delivered by email shall be deemed effective the next business day, not less than 24 hours. following the date of transmittal and confirmation of delivery to the intended recipient. Such written notices and communications shall be addressed to: if to the Grantee: see Executive Summary Page 6of18 if to VEDP. to: with a copy to: Virginia Economic Development Partnership Virginia Economic Development Partnership One James Center. Suite 900 One James Center. Suite 900 901 East Cary Street 901 East Cary Street Richmond. Virginia 23219 Richmond. Virginia 23219 Email: kellett: vedp.ur,: Email: icanttI si vetip 0i Attention: Director of Compliance Attention: Assistant General Counsel Section 7. Miscellaneous. (a) Can/pi/awe with Laws: The Grantee hereby agrees that all proceeds of the Grant shall be used for the Investment, and all work and activities associated with the Project will he performed and conducted in full compliance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations. (h) Entire Agreement;Amendments: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto as to the Grant, and may not be amended or modified, except in writing, signed by each of the parties hereto. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. The Grantee may not assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of VEDP. (c) Governing Low; Venue: This Agreement is made, and is intended to be performed, in the Commonwealth and shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth. Jurisdiction and venue for any litigation arising out of or involving this Agreement shall lie in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond. and such litigation shall be brought only in such court. In the event this Agreement is subject to litigation, each party shall be responsible for its own attorneys' fees. (d) Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which together shall he one and the same instrument. (e) Severabilit : If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable, invalid. or illegal. then the enforceability, validity and legality of the remaining provisions will not in any way be affected or impaired.and such provision will be deemed to be restated to reflect the original intentions of the parties as nearly as possible in accordance with applicable law. [SIGNATURES APPEAR ON PAGE 2] Exhibit A: Investment Exhibit B: Form of Grant Report Exhibit C': Form of Asbestos Abatement Report Page 7 of 18 EXHIBIT A INVESTMENT Scope of Work: Site Assessment: Soil Subsurface Subslab Vapor Analysis: New Groundwater Sampling: Soil Sampling; Risk Screening: and Project Planning Project Budget: City of Roanoke Scope of Work Budget/Sources of Funding sourat Scepter Were 'we Ltx tStarch-for the 't ►i►ttatit Teter t VSAF Grant Share Shire StsierVanftitio Property Acquisition and Renovations Properly Settlement $50,000 coos was used as mgt.!, Property owner expended $ 64 363 20 $ for rhte FY23 ALP grant Dora in and Fenoral -S4'Kk of trn ar Kwn' e.ing presented as loca? P,,xary ov;nos ecpended S '_.A:a 00 S 47 Xr:2O - mat t f;r+M3 Cur'ent r--,2g apoifcatacei C dtntntst,ate A favai:e 5% Or-i _ 5 2 50C:II - SUBTOTAL $ - $ 138,76720 $ 50.000.00 - Environmental Assessments `.2upplereal Prose II E 3A tc dl gaps de^u`ei after fne.scat sec orn`:-*7:3231 Fnasa li E5A cst p eted 'nes re on.5r, •Addr.r.na soivsz s.ra:e- SUSS,at,"Papv'd3'.a 3>rd?ntl1d Ir tie nay f ESA•eport a the ,EAF G.art S CSC S 5C.ra 1O Pernedo Ardor Flan-Nee gr Und*are, data• of samptirc,as ,2y be rid •Fist,sc c-ensmg Data aralys 3 -e eated s•ofectanrirg izier e:rallor and neaar.and safe."t SUBTOTAL S 50.000.00 $ 50,000.00 TOTAL PROJECTt T 50.0it+O0 $ 50,00000 Page 8 of 18 EXHIBIT B FORM OF GRANT REPORT [ATTACHED] Page 9 of 18 VIRGINIA BROWNFIELDS RESTORATION AND ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FUND PROGRAM SITE ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING GRANT GRANT REPORT Project Summary Grantee: City of Roanoke. Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia Site: Property known as the former Evan's Paint Building located at 1516 Cleveland Avenue SW, Roanoke, VA 24016 (Tax Parcel Numbers: 1321325 and 1321313) Grant Amount: S50,000 Effective Date of Performance Agreement: 6 24 2024 Performance Date: � 3 1 ,7025 Project Report 1. Project Summary. Provide a brief summary of the outcome of the Project: f 3 Page 10 of 18 2. Adjustments to Scope of Work. In the table below, report any adjustments to the scope of work for the Project (as set forth in Exhibit A to the Performance Agreement) and associated costs (or check the box if no adjustments were made). J There were no adjustments to the Scope of Work for the Project. ADJUSTMENTS TO SCOPE OF WORK FOR PROJECT Source Scope of Work Budget Adjustment Local match` EPA Grant VBAF Grant Share Share TOTAL $ $ $ $ 3. Enhanced Value. Provide assessment values for the Site before the Grant and after completion of the Project: After Project Before Grant Completion Assessed Property Value: S I S 4. Reports. Attach complete copies of all studies and reports performed and obtained in connection with the Project. Such studies and reports will be subject to review and requests for supporting documentation and additional materials. Page 11 of 18 5. VRP Enrollment. The Site is enrolled in the Virginia Voluntary Remediation Program(the "VRP") (check appropriate box): Yes J No 6. Invoices. Attach complete copies of all invoices for the Project. 7. Site Photographs. Attach before and after photographs of the Site. CERTIFICATION BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GRANTEE: By my signature below, I hereby certify that: (i) I have examined this Grant Report and the information provided is true, correct. and complete in all respects, and all required documentation is attached: (ii)data collected with respect to the Site reflects certification by the Virginia Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services (DCLS) Virginia Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (VELAP); (iii) if the Site is not enrolled in the VRP, the Project has met appropriate standards of care for reuse of the Site in accordance with the VRP. and the Grantee will maintain all records for facilitating potential future brownfields revitalization of the Site, to demonstrate appropriate care.and to facilitate potential future enrollment in the VRP if necessary: (iv)the Grant proceeds have been used exclusively for the Project in accordance with the Performance Agreement. and any unused Grant proceeds will be promptly repaid to VEDP: (v) the Grantee is delivering a signed and complete Asbestos Abatement Report simultaneously with this Grant Report (if applicable); and (vi) all work and activities associated with the Project were performed and conducted in full compliance with all applicable laws. rules. and regulations. WITv'ESS the following signature. Grantee: CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Submitted bv: Signature of Official Title Name: Print Name Date: Page 12 of 18 EXHIBIT C FORM OF ASBESTOS ABATEMENT REPORT [ATTACHED] Page 13 of 18 VIRGINLA BROWNFIELDS RESTORATION AND ECONOMIC' REDEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FIND PROGRAM SITE ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING GRANT ASBESTOS ABATEMENT REPORT Project Summary Grantee: City of Roanoke, Virginia, a political subdivision of the C'onunonwealth of Virginia Site: Property known as the former Evan's Paint Building located at 1516 Cleveland Avenue SW. Roanoke, VA 24016 (Tax Parcel Numbers: 1321325 and 132 1313) Grant Amount: $50.000 Effective Date of Performance Agreement: 6 24 2024 Performance Date: 331 202_5 Asbestos Abatement Report 1. Introduction and Project Description. Provide a brief summary of the asbestos abatement portion of the Project and its outcome (based on the Asbestos Survey Report): Page 14 of 18 2. Notifications. In the space below, describe any notifications received from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and.or the Virginia Occupational Health and Safety Compliance Program (VOSH) (or check the box if no such notifications were received). Li No such notifications were received in connection with the Project. 3. General Observations. In the space below, provide any general observations of which the VBAF Review Committee should be aware regarding the asbestos and any lead paint abatement processes for this Project. a ' 3 � 4. Air Monitoring Reports. In the space below. generally summarize the findings set forth in the Asbestos Air Monitoring Report(s) obtained in connection with this Project. including any abatement and clearance. Page 15 of 18 5. Special Waste Shipments. In the space below. summarize any special waste shipments associated with the Project. including the identity of any hauling contractors involved. 6. Waste Disposal. In the space below, report the total quantities of waste materials that required or require disposal in connection with the Project. and identify landfills utilized. Page 16 of 18 7. Attachments. Complete copies of all of the following Project documents must be labeled and attached to this Asbestos Abatement Report in the following order: Attachment Description A Accreditation Documentation (DPOR Licenses) B Site Map (Abatement Locations) C' Daily Field Reports (Abatement Activities) D Asbestos Air Monitoring Reports (PC'M) E Asbestos Clearance Reports (TEM) F Photograph Log (Abatement Process) G C'DL Licenses (Special Waste Endorsement) H Shipping Documentation (DOT) I Disposal Records (Landfill) T Building Permit Application (City Code Compliance) IL Asbestos Survey Report (Type and Location of Asbestos) 8. Note on ACMs and Lead Paint. Projects involving the removal of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead paint abatement may require specific permitting and licensing requirements and these criteria must be met. Please check with the Department of Labor and Industry at 804.371.2327 regarding notification requirements and the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation at 804.36 7.8 95 regarding licensing requirements. Removal of ACMs and lead paint abatement must be conducted pursuant to applicable federal and state laws and regulations. including but not limited to, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAP), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. VOSH. and Virginia Regulations for Asbestos Emissions Standards for Demolition and Renovation. Page 17 of 18 C'ERTIFIC'ATION BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GRANTEE: By my signature below. I hereby certify that: (i)I have examined this Asbestos Abatement Report and the information provided is true. correct, and complete in all respects. and all required documentation is attached, and (ii) all work and activities associated with the removal of ACMs and or lead paint abatement and related to the Project were performed and conducted in all respects in full compliance with all applicable laws. rules. and regulations. WITNESS the following signature. Grantee: CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Submitted by: Signature of Official Title Name: Print Name Date: Page 18 of 18 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43042-091624. A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of the Safer Communities Program Grant made to the City of Roanoke by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Criminal Justice Services, and authorizing the execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City of Roanoke does hereby accept the Safer Communities Program Grant made by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Criminal Justice Services in the amount of$2,960,021 for a project period of July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025, to support the existing work of the Gun Violence Interruption Framework, such grant being more particularly described in the City Manager's Report, dated September 16, 2024. 2. The City Manager or her designee, are hereby authorized to execute the grant agreement and all necessary documents required to accept this grant, all such documents to be approved by the City Attorney. 3. The City Manager or her designee are further directed to furnish such additional information as may be required in connection with the City's acceptance to this grant. ATTEST: 06 City Clerk IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43043-091624. AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2024-2025 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 2024-2025 Grant Funds Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Grant Fund Appropriations Program Activities 235-1211-0000-52066-400130 $ 2,960,021 Revenues Safer Communities -State 235-1211-0000-40122-400130 $ 2,960,021 Revenues Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: a-; ‘.1)(L'ef-Ist City Clerk. City Manager's Report Submitted by: Angie O'Brien, Deputy City Manager Office of the City Manager ROA N O K E September 16, 2024 Title: Acceptance and Appropriation of Safer Communities Program from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Criminal Justice Services. Background: The Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the City of Roanoke state funding from the Safer Communities Program. This grant will support the existing work of the Gun Violence Interruption Framework by covering expenses for training, equipment, additional programming to reach the community in a targeted and efficient manner and additional staff. The grant amount is $2,960,021. The project period is July 1, 2024, through June 30. 2025. Considerations: The Gun Violence Interruption Framework spans many interwoven departments. The Police Department, RESET, Youth and Gang Violence Prevention Unit, and Star City Safe work collaboratively to ensure the community's safety. Training will ensure that staff have access to up-to-date information vital to working in the communities they serve, and the equipment purchased will help analyze crimes in the city and engage the community. Community engagement and programming will be expanded to assist at-risk youth gain access to the services needed. Nine (9) staff members will be hired to assist in gun violence prevention, intervention, and enforcement through the different components of the gun violence framework. At the end of the grant cycle, these staff members will remain as part of City staff to ensure access to valuable services remain in the community. Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution accepting the Safer Communities Program grant from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services Award # 535640-2025 to support the existing work of the Gun Violence Interruption Framework. Authorize the Interim City Manager to execute any forms required by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services in order to accept these funds: such documents to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate for $2,960,021 in State grant funds and appropriate $2,960,021 into expenditure accounts to be established by the Director of Finance. Lydia Patton, Interim City Manager IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43044-091624. A RESOLUTION authorizing the Interim City Manager's issuance and execution of an Amendment to extend the contract between Berkley Group LLC ("Berkley") and the City of Roanoke ("City") for the services of Dr. Lydia Pettis Patton, its employee, to continue to serve as Interim City Manager for the City, until such time as Council for the City of Roanoke appoints a permanent City Manager or for such transition period as determined by the City;increase the minimum number of hours worked by Dr. Lydia Pettis Patton from 32 hours per week to 40 hours; and ratifying the terms and conditions of Dr. Lydia Pettis Patton's temporary appointment. WHEREAS,by Resolution No.42949-061124,the Council appointed Dr.Lydia Pettis Patton as the Interim City Manager for the City until such time as Council for the City appoints a permanent City Manager; and WHEREAS, Council believes that it is in the best interest of the City to have Dr. Lydia Pettis Patton continue to serve as Interim City Manager. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. One of the Deputy City Managers is hereby authorized to issue and execute such Amendment as may be necessary to extend the contract between Berkley and the City entered into pursuant to Resolution No.42949-061124 for the services of Dr. Lydia Pettis Patton to serve as Interim City Manager for the City,until such time as Council for the City appoints a permanent City Manager or for such transition period as determined by the City and to increase the minimum number of hours worked by Dr. Lydia Pettis Patton from 32 hours per week to 40 hours. 2. Until such time as Council appoints a permanent City Manager,the City will pay Berkley such amount as is specified by the terms and conditions of the contract between Berkley and the City for the services of Dr. Lydia Pettis Patton, its employee, to serve as Interim City Manager for the City of Roanoke,Virginia. 3. During her term as Interim City Manager,the duties,responsibilities and powers of Dr. Lydia Pettis Patton shall be governed by the Roanoke Charter of 1952, the Constitution of Virginia, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and the Charter and Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended while serving as Interim City Manager. During any transition period,Dr. Lydia Pettis Patton shall serve in a consulting capacity on behalf of the City of Roanoke. ATTEST: Ck.tlX-�' ."4I cf)telAi't City Clerk. ..01110 Office of the City Attorney ROA N O K E September 16, 2024 Title: Amendment to Extend the Contract between the Berkley Group, LLC, and the City of Roanoke. Background: A Contract dated May 8, 2024 was issued to Berkley Group LLC ("Berkley") for the Executive Search & Recruitment Services. This Contract covers the services of Dr. Lydia Pettis Patton. its employee, to continue to serve as Interim City Manager for the City of Roanoke ("City"), until such time as Council for the City of Roanoke appoints a permanent City Manager along with any additional transition time as the Council elects. The amendment will also increase the hours of service to 40 hours per week. Recommended Action: Council authorizes the Interim City Manager to issue and execute an Amendment to the Contract dated May 8, 2024, approved as to form by the City Attorney, extending the services of Dr. Lydia Pettis Patton to serve as Interim City Manager for the City, until such time as Council for the City appoints a permanent City Manager. /a Timothy Spencer, City Attorney IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16t" day of September 2024. No. 43045-091624. A RESOLUTION directing the City Attorney to petition the Circuit Court to request an order that no special election be ordered to fill the vacancy caused by the retirement of City of Roanoke Treasurer Evelyn Watkins Powers, because such vacancy will occur within 55 days prior to the next general election on November 5, 2024 and the next general election thereafter is November 4, 2025. WHEREAS,Evelyn Watkins Powers("Ms.Powers")announced her retirement as Treasurer for the City of Roanoke effective September 30, 2024 ("Date of Retirement") by letter dated August 5, 2024; WHEREAS, Ms. Powers' term of office would have expired December 31, 2025; WHEREAS,Virginia Code§24.2-228.1B,states that if"a vacancy in any elected constitutional office occurs within the 12 months immediately preceding the end of the term of that office, the governing body may petition the circuit court to request that no special election be ordered; WHEREAS,Virginia Code § 24.2-682 states that"[n]o special election shall be held within the 55 days prior to a general or primary election." WHEREAS, Ms. Powers' Date of Retirement is within 55 days of the next general election on November 5, 2024; WHEREAS, the next general election that such election could be legally held is November 4, 2025; WHEREAS, Notwithstanding Virginia Code § 24.2-228.1A, which states that the governing body may request in its petition that the special election be held on the date of the next available general election in November and that the court may order the special election to be held on that date, City Council requests that no special election be held for the vacancy caused by Ms. Powers' retirement, as the office of Treasurer for the City of Roanoke will be filled by election to be held at the next general election on November 4,2025,for a four year term commencing January 1,2026,and ending December 31, 2029; WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 24.2-228.1B and F, provides that if a vacancy occurs in a constitutional office,the highest-ranking deputy officer,who is qualified to vote for and hold that office, shall be vested with the powers and shall perform all of the duties of the office for the remainder of the unexpired term; WHEREAS,the highest ranking deputy officer in the Treasurer's Office who is qualified to vote for and hold the office of Treasurer for the City of Roanoke is Tasha Burkett; and WHEREAS,the members of City Council support the appointment of Tasha Burkett to fill the remaining unexpired term of Ms. Powers as Treasurer for the City of Roanoke. THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that Council hereby directs the City Attorney within fifteen(15)days of Evelyn Powers' Date of Retirement to file a Petition for Writ of Special Election with the Circuit Court asking that the Court issue an order as follows: 1. That the Court issue an order consistent with Virginia Code §24.2-228.1B and Virginia Code § 24.2-682, directing that no special election be held to fill the remaining unexpired term of Treasurer Evelyn Powers, as the office of Treasurer for the City of Roanoke will be filled at the next general election to be held on ,November 4, 2025; and 2. That the Court include in its order that the highest ranking deputy officer, who is qualified to vote for and hold that office, Tasha Burkett,be vested with the powers and shall perform all of the duties of the office of Treasurer for the City of Roanoke for the remaining unexpired term of Treasurer Evelyn Powers' position beginning October 1, 2024 through December 31, 2025. ATTEST: City Clerk. L:,CLERK\DATA JLMCREYNOLDS MEASURES 12024\09-16-2024\NUMBER\43045-091624-RESOLUTION.DOC Jam► Office of the City Attorney ROA N O K E September 16, 2024 Title: Petition the Circuit Court to Request that no Special Election be Ordered to fill the Vacancy that will be created by Treasurer Evelyn Watkins Powers' Retirement. Background: Evelyn Watkins Powers, Treasurer for the City of Roanoke ("Mrs. Powers"), has tendered her notice of retirement effective October 1, 2024. Mrs. Powers has asked that Roanoke City Council direct its City Attorney to petition the Circuit Court to request that no special election be ordered to fill the vacancy that her retirement will create until the next general election could be legally held on November, 5, 2025. Because the vacancy created by Mrs. Powers' retirement will occur within 55 days prior to the next general election on November 5, 2024, state law precludes holding the special election on that date. Therefore. the next general election in which a special election could be conducted is November 5, 2025. The code further stipulates that the highest ranking deputy officer, who is qualified to vote for and hold that office, shall be vested with the powers and shall perform all of the duties of that office for the remainder of the unexpired term. Chief Deputy Tasha Burkett is the highest ranking deputy officer with the Treasurer's Office, who is qualified to vote for and hold the office for the remainder of the unexpired term. Therefore, the resolution asks that Council support the appointment of Chief Deputy Tasha Burkett as acting Treasurer until such time a permanent Treasurer can be elected. Considerations: Roanoke City Council directs its City Attorney to petition the Circuit Court to request that no special election be ordered to fill the vacancy that her retirement will create until the next general election could be legally held on November, 5, 2025. Recommended Action: Roanoke City Council directs its City Attorney to petition the Circuit Court to request that no special election be ordered to fill the vacancy that her retirement will create until the next general election could be legally held on November, 5, 2025. Further, Council supports the appointment of Chief Deputy Tasha Burkett as acting Treasurer until such time a permanent Treasurer can be elected. Timothy Spencer, City Attorney IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43046-091624. A RESOLUTION extending the terms of certain Council appointed officers from October 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024. WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter §9, during the month of September of every even numbered year the City Council "shall elect a city clerk, a municipal auditor, and a city attorney, each of whom shall serve a term of two years from the first day of October...."; WHEREAS, the Council is currently altering the process Council uses to evaluate its appointed officers; and WHEREAS, the Council would like to extend the current term of the city clerk, municipal auditor, and city attorney through the end of the year to implement such evaluation process. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that it hereby extends the terms of the city clerk, municipal auditor, and city attorney from October 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024 at the same salary and benefits as such Council appointed officers are currently receiving. ATTEST: i uf/Xl_eat Oa-di-A- ..... . City Clerk. -,fir Office of the City Attorney ROAN O K E September 16, 2024 Title: Extension of the terms of office of Certain Council-Appointed Officers from October 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Background: WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter §9, during the month of September of every even numbered year the City Council "shall elect a city clerk, a municipal auditor, and a city attorney, each of whom shall serve a term of two years from the first day of October....", WHEREAS, the Council is currently altering the process Council uses to evaluate its appointed officers: and WHEREAS,. the Council would like to extend the current term of the city clerk, municipal auditor, and city attorney through the end of the year to implement such evaluation process. Recommended Action: Council of the City of Roanoke hereby extends the terms of the city clerk, municipal auditor. and city attorney from October 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024 at the same salary and benefits as such Council appointed officers are currently receiving. Timothy Spencer, City Attorney IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43047-091624. A RESOLUTION approving and affirming the action taken by the Greater Roanoke Transit Company (GRTC) d/b/a Valley Metro to implement Fare Free Day Transit Services for Go Fest for Saturday, October 19, 2024; and authorizing the City Manager or her designee to take any necessary action to accomplish such fare. WHEREAS, on September 16, 2024, the GRTC Board of Directors approved and adopted Fare Free Day Transit Services for Saturday, October 19, 2024; and WHEREAS, GRTC has requested that City Council approve and affirm such fare pursuant to Section 34-22(a) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. City Council hereby approves and affirms Fare Free Day Transit Services for Go Fest for Saturday, October 19, 2024, as adopted by the GRTC Board of Directors on September 16, 2024. 2. The Fare Free Day Transit Services shall be effective on October 19, 2024, and shall be fare free for those citizens looking to attend Go Fest activities in the City of Roanoke. 3. The City Manager or her designee are hereby authorized to take any necessary action to accomplish such fare. 4. The City Clerk is directed to certify a copy of this Resolution to the General Manager of GRTC. ATTEST: City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43048-091624. A RESOLUTION approving and affirming the action taken by the Greater Roanoke Transit Company (GRTC) d/b/a Valley Metro to implement Fare Free Election Day Bus Service for Tuesday, November 5, 2024; and authorizing the City Manager or her designee to take any necessary action to accomplish such fare. WHEREAS, on September 16, 2024, the GRTC Board of Directors approved and adopted Fare Free Election Day Bus Service for Tuesday,November 5, 2024; and WHEREAS, GRTC has requested that City Council approve and affirm such fare pursuant to Section 34-22(a) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. City Council hereby approves and affirms Fare Free Election Day Bus Service for Tuesday, November 5, 2024, as adopted by the GRTC Board of Directors on September 16, 2024. 2. The Fare Free Election Day Bus Service shall be effective on November 5, 2024, and shall be fare free for those citizens looking to access their local polling location in order to cast their ballot. 3. The City Manager or her designee are hereby authorized to take any necessary action to accomplish such fare. 4. The City Clerk is directed to certify a copy of this Resolution to the General Manager of GRTC. ATTEST: 0-eatt4' /f)1416t City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 16th day of September 2024. No. 43049-091624. AN ORDINANCE ordaining, reordaining, amending, reamending, adopting, and/or readopting Section 36.2-100, Title; Section 36.2-105, Rules of interpretation and construction; Section 36.2-201, Establishment of districts; Section 36.2-205, Dimensional regulations; Section 36.2-300, Purpose; Section 36.2-310, Purposes of the residential districts; Section 36.2-311, Use table for residential districts; Section 36.2-312, Dimensional regulations for residential districts; Section 36.2-314, Purposes of multiple purpose districts; Section 36.2-315,Use table for multiple purpose districts;Section 36.2-316,Dimensional regulations for multiple purpose districts; Section 36.2-322, Use table for industrial districts; Section 36.2-327, Use table for planned unit development districts; Section 36.2-328, Dimensional regulations for planned unit development districts; Section 36.2-332, Neighborhood Design Overlay District (ND); Section 36.2-336, Comprehensive sign overlay district; Section 36.2-402, Accessory apartments, Section 36.2-403, Accessory uses and structures; Section 36.2-405, Bed and breakfast, homestay, and short-term rental establishments; Section 36.2-409.1,Dwellings; Section 36.2-410,Fences,walls, arbors, and trellises; Section 36.2-411, Gasoline stations; Section 36.2-419, Motor vehicle repair or service establishment; Section 36.2-429,Temporary uses; Section 36.2-431,Townhouses and rowhouses; Section 36.2-551, Development plans, generally; Section 36.2-552, Basic development plans; Section 36.2-622, Exempt lighting; Section 36.2-644, Overall tree canopy requirements; Section 36.2-646, Facade planting; Section 36.2-647, Buffering and screening; Section 36.2-654, Parking and loading area standards; Section 36.2-668, On-premises signs, generally; Section 36.2-669, Changeable copy signs and electronic readerboard signs; Section 36.2-817, Powers and duties, 1 I Appendix A. Definitions; of Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, for the purposes of ordaining, reordaining. amending. reamending, adopting, and/or readopting the following code sections to update, clarify and make the City's zoning ordinance easier to use for its citizens and consistent with state law and the City's comprehensive plan; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. WHEREAS. City Plan 2040, adopted by the City Council in 2020, called for new policies that would allow a range of housing options in all residential zoning districts; WHEREAS, on March 18, 2024, and following a public hearing, the City Council adopted zoning amendments to improve the availability of housing and housing alternatives,and to address concerns related to the effects of district regulations that allow only single-family residential uses, as set forth in Ordinance No. 42902-031824 (the "March 2024 Zoning Amendments "); WHEREAS. the March 2024 Zoning Amendments amended the text of the City Zoning Ordinance, including the text of the district regulations for residential districts. The March 2024 Zoning Amendments did not amend the Official Zoning Map. nor did the March 2024 Zoning Amendments change any district boundaries; WHEREAS. a primary effect of the March 2024 Zoning Amendments was to allow for residential uses in residential districts,by right, in addition to single-family uses; WHEREAS. the City Council's adoption of the March 2024 Zoning Amendments followed the Planning Commission's March 11, 2024 public hearing; WHEREAS. following the March 11, 2024 public hearing, on that same day the Planning Commission deliberated and recommended adoption of the March 2024 Zoning Amendments; 2 WHEREAS. the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendments in the March 2024 Zoning Amendments and supported its recommendation in a report to the City Council, dated March 18, 2024; WHEREAS. the City Council's adoption of the March 2024 Zoning Amendments was preceded by years of study and review by the Planning Staff; WHEREAS. the Planning Staff had briefed the Planning Commission on its progress regarding the March 2024 Zoning Amendments, in two Planning Commission work sessions; WHEREAS, in addition to the March 11, 2024 and March 18. 2024 public hearings referenced above, there was extensive community engagement and opportunities for public participation related to the March 2024 Zoning Amendments. including: a dozen open house sessions held at City libraries; a virtual meeting; and an online survey. WHEREAS.on or about April 17,2024,a lawsuit was filed in Roanoke City Circuit Court, CL24-723, challenging the March 2024 Zoning Amendments (the "Lawsuit"); WHEREAS. the Lawsuit, in part. asserts procedural challenges to the adoption of the March 2024 Zoning Amendments, including alleged deficiencies in the public notices for the March 11. 2024 and March 18, 2024 public hearings: WHEREAS.on June 17,2024,City Council initiated a process to consider adopting zoning amendments similar in substance to the March 2024 Zoning Amendments and. to the extent necessary,the repeal of the March 2024 Zoning Amendments. The City Council Resolution stated that the additional legislative process will address any uncertainty as to the adoption or effect of the March 2024 Zoning Amendments and provide additional opportunities for public comment. Planning Commission review, and City Council review; 3 WHEREAS.the Planning Commission held a work session regarding the proposed Zoning Amendments on June 28, 2024: WHEREAS. Planning staff published a Zoning Amendments Report and Study ("Zoning Study") initially dated July 31, 2024 (and revised on August 2, 2024, August 7, 2024, and August 23, 2024). The Zoning Study discusses the background of zoning and the reasons the City pursued the amendments. The report also analyzes the expected effect of the Zoning Amendments, including projections of new housing units expected to be created as a result of the less restrictive regulations. The Zoning Study uses the projections to assess potential population change, density changes. impacts on city infrastructure, traffic, parking. environmental considerations, and blight reduction. Staff developed the Zoning Study in order to respond to community concerns and for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. This Zoning Study was made available to the community through several methods of communication; WHEREAS. the City Council and Planning Commission held a Joint Meeting on August 5, 2024,which included a briefing and discussion on the proposed Zoning Amendments: WHEREAS.the Planning Commission held a work session regarding the proposed Zoning Amendments on August 9, 2024: WHEREAS.the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 12,2024 to receive public comment with respect to the proposed Zoning Amendments. The Planning Commission's public hearing was preceded by public notices on July 26 and August 2, 2024. WHEREAS. on August 12, 2024 the Planning Commission voted not to recommend the proposed Zoning Amendments for adoption. 4 WHEREAS. the City Council held a public hearing on September 16, 2024 to receive public comment with respect to the proposed Zoning Amendments. The City Council's public hearing was preceded by public notices on August 30 and September 6. 2024. WHEREAS, the City Council considered the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Study, public comments. and the matters presented at the public hearing. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Chapter 36.2, Zoning. of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended. is hereby ordained.reordained, amended,reamended. adopted,and/or readopted.to read and provide as follows: Sec. 36.2-100. Title. This chapter shall be known, cited, and referred to as the "zoning ordinance code" and shall include all provisions contained herein, together with the City's zoning map. * * * Sec. 36.2-105. Rules of interpretation and construction. * * * (c) General construction of language. * * * (9) Where amendments to use names or definitions are made, the amended meaning shall be applied to older terms that remain in the zoning code (e.g., a single-family dwelling means a one dwelling building, two dwelling building means two-family dwelling, and so on). * * * (f) Zoning district boundaries. * * * (2) In case of annexation to the City, or in case property comes into the territorial jurisdiction of the City other than by annexation. the regulations applying to the R-12, Residential Single Family District. shall apply to all such annexed or new territory pending an amendment of this chapter. * * * 5 Sec. 36.2-201. - Establishment of districts. In order to carry out the purposes of this chapter, the City of Roanoke shall be divided into zoning districts as established below: (a) Base districts. The following base zoning districts are hereby established: (1) Residential=oning districts: Residential Agricultural District(RA) Residential District(R 12) Residential District (R 7) Residentia District(R 5) Residentia District (R 3) Residential Mixed Density District (RM 1) Residential M' a _n ty Distr; t(Dl�f 2) Residential M„itif „ily District (RMF) RA Agricultural District R-12 Residential District R-7 Residential District R-5 Residential District R-3 Residential District RM-1 Residential District RM-2 Residential District R\1F Residential District (2) Multiple purpose:oiling districts: Mixed Use District(MX) Commercial General District(CG) Commercial T a a Site District(CT S) Institutional D; trict(l -) Recreation n Space Distr:ct S) Urban Flex District (UF) MX Mixed Use District CN Commercial-Neighborhood District CG Commercial-General District CLS Commercial-Large Site District D Downtown District IN Institutional District ROS Recreation and Open Space District UF Urban Flex District UC Urban Center District 6 9 Sec. 36.2-205. Dimensional regulations. * * * (b) . Dwellings permitted on a lot. (1) When using minimum lot area for each dwelling any fractional dwelling count shall be equal to zero dwelling units. (2) Any lands normally submerged under water shall not be included in computing the allowable number of dwelling units for any lot. (-34 For single f, * * * (d) Lot frontage. * * * T t t t n iir ments for to nhouses and rowhouses shall be ("1) -i governed by Section 36.2 431. (-5-)(4) * * * (i) Yards—Corner lots and through lots. (1) Corner lots having two (2) street frontages shall provide yards as follows: * * * (B) In the MX, CN, CG. D. IN, and UF. and UC Districts. the primary front yard shall be established according to Section 36.2- 319. * * * (2) Corner lots having more than two (2) street frontages shall provide a front yard for each frontage: (B) In the MX, CN. CG, D, IN, and-UF, and UC Districts, two (') maximum yards shall be established according to Section 36.2- 319. * * * (3) Through lots shall provide a front yard for each frontage: (B) In the MX, CN, CG, D. IN, and UF, and UC Districts, the primary front yard shall be established according to Section 36.2- 319 and shall be provided with the minimum and maximum depths of the district or as determined by Section 36.2-313, as applicable. The other front yard shall be subject to only the minimum front yard depth required by the district. * * * ARTICLE 3. REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC ZONING DISTRICTS Sec. 36.2-300. Purpose. The purpose of this article is to establish use, dimensional requirements, and other special requirements,open space. and certain specific regulations for each zoning district. DIVISION 1. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Sec. 36.2-310. Purposes of the residential districts. * * * (b) The purposes of the R-12, R-7, R-5, and--R-3. and RM-1 -dDistricts are protect residentialfesidential-neighbefheeds,to provide a range of housing options. , ' din ing e unit a : l -rt a e types en co o ets heices and to provide opportunities for compatible home-based entrepreneurship., d t f ate neighborheed ti nd s , n ghbo hoo Dimensional and supplemental regulations implement standards that control building form building placement and other characteristics of development. These districts cover the majority of the City's land area and contain most of Roanoke's housing supply. (c) The purpose of the RM 1 and RM-2 district is to provide for all housing types with an emphasis on townhouses, cottage courts. and apartment buildings. Districts is to multi choices. This district is generally mapped in areas near or adjacent to neighborhood and other commercial centers, but also may be applied to existing apartment buildings in neighborhood contexts. 8 3 (d) The purpose of the RMF District is to provide for unified development of 10 or more dwellings. p , tan h p,,,n„ veloent by pr r townhouse dwellings 9 fl Gr y Et _ v nJ .7., N f ,- -. l ... ti. --n ... f v f N -r f -.J - r i ._... _-__ f f V . N l - :N ^J y4.. . .�- C^ N, L = i _ ti i eft` 11 f r,J r.1 rJ f. rr, _. .," M, "` r 1 C - -, C r l 0T "r i -r -I" 1- 7 -I" -1- -rr•�1 r1 r1 ii:iiiiii r•1 ..'1 r1 '"I I".1 ri i r.. I I =.. 11111111/ =. ._ _ _. ! _ I _ ; J r L ~ G r % r..., C 04 v = .. cJl O 7. y -. J ' • "' bf , _ - U ti t r _ ,r. -r _ � - vT. Cf y _ L .. . .- .. i r. . r.,.. J n j-. 7) = 711 ... 4 rf^ •••", en re) 4 / - f - z - - -A- r-- 6 o o o rl r4 t^i ci .,,.... .- g 'A' er, re-, el U 8 8 ,_-: ..=, ,..„.,.... ,.,-.I, ...„ CA 0 0 0 0 0 01 '-.."' •_..--- 0 0 .,..4) 4 7 9 ,...1 , 1 Z Z -r 'f -• rn v- ,^, r-- P-, •• .1 01 0 0{ 0 0 "", —k. "-i \•40 4 a 1 ..... ....I Yr, -r -r. 1 " -..n :Z..; cn 4)n... cs r../) P. P. (..n .-.. '4 a., -10 cll 1-, A 4 rr, rn s.0 P. P. ....., .-: ..... t., ...., ,.. ........., 1. c., •-. .... -. -:,. 0 r-- ---, tr, Cl 0 Q v 4, tr, 0 - g 1 'v- ,r, r.t Z > m ....' .I., - •§..I :ma f P 1.1_ .- ,... 4.- 7 6 0 •4, .... _ - . . . _ ,, ... .=-1 vOl ri Z Z. ...r., ,..,-,:-. 1...-> .z. cn =--.0 clo a..) -; vs .. ty t 1 -— — 04 >, ;..• 4 0 o P..• 0-4 tr) CA X ,` U. V • Ge.. 0 7-e v 0 t7j• .,..•: ..-. I.) ,-, .-; Cs. r.".., ,-, .. -7, -0 cn 1,, , :a) >,„ a, = 7.: _I:, , ta _ 1) _ - o csi — 7= --I :LI g 0. .... •-• :0 t ›-' ir I 1... ,,,, en ,-, ,(c 0 ... 1 .. ,-. - — -0 -,c; cn ..1 = -r- ., .-• CS ;...• ..... 0t 2 _ >1 C:....$ `-' .1-_,.• C.) el/ 4./ .;:,,, = 7.t.' F7] .- •11. - = '"—C1 0..k TT - f _ = 5' -0 = i:s. t_. -:. v - _ - - . 0 _ - - - - - ,, ..., .7-.. '7.-".. • y r.: . 7.: - '.-. ... .., U , ..... ,.. cn --, .--:, ';--1 4 5...2.. •-• = . 1., • c- ,7-1 I 0 7-1 1... eq = ... , T 7.8 eel •„7. • — 'r ' ' 0 , ---. --' - - C.. r-- 7/: 1 \ \ r / - \ o / E • - o X - • • ± ' - o 7 - ( - c / 3 c. - t \ : \ / 3 - • 9 I) \ d - o / 5 • • -o tVI V « ., a \ : • .e ... \ ▪� ! 7 ® § \/ \ d• E / ; to R e ' # 2 © ' - § U ,,.- I.. � . a - 2 0 0 , y ▪ - - \ \ Vt % z : 2 � g _ 2 g3 w \ ® -0 •ƒ \ - 7 a / § R \• '- r \ / \ / § a • tea & 71 / 2 . \ \/ - E ^ t g / / © § Q530 am - C( ems / 9 § t. # § % 5 ' « 7 00 \ / c / • / { \ \ ( / { \ § * \ \ \ \ / } ( k / \ \ / k\ ` r . r \ & DIVISION 2. MULTIPLE PURPOSE DISTRICTS Sec. 36.2-314. Purposes of multiple purpose districts. (a) The purpose of the MX District is to accommodate residential uses and low- intensity, small scale commercial uses. Dimensional regulations implement neighborhood design principles for urban neighborhoods by controlling building size and building placement. ._office use n`' supp rt ser'ic ` wirhi the same rr district. The . The regulations of the district are intended to protect the character and scale of such a mixed-use development pattern by permitting low-intensity development at a scale that recognizes and respects residential patterns of development. * * * (i) The purpose of the Urban Center District is to permit a mixture of retail, office, residential, and light industrial uses in a concentrated pedestrian-friendly area outside of Downtown. The streets form an interconnected grid and accommodate multiple modes of transportation:pedestrian. bicycles, transit, automobiles. Buildings are located adjacent to the sidewalk and often adjoin each other. Parking is generally concentrated in parking structures or is located to the side or rear of principal buildings. Toward that end,the Urban Center District is intended to accomplish the following: (1) Facilitate pedestrian ways and create a convenient and harmonious development of buildings, streets. and open space:, (2) Promote activity on public streets and to protect amenities provided through public investment: and (3) Provide for a mix of high density residential, commercial. retail. government services, entertainment and cultural facilities, and live/work spacer 7965 0047 12066067v1 ‘....,0_, 111111111 ■11■11111111 flhllllli 1111111 01 01 10 \ tkri` O - -. " O ~ �� N CI O O O 1p V r `� e7 7 Ir1 el N (NI N el rd N r1 ra r1 ,O 1D 10 10 10 1G M K 1D iiniiii M M P. II P. V} s ;r iiiiiiiimi sliiin iim P. Ill ✓= lU!HIIIIIIIIIIIUI!I 1 IiiIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIII$IIIIi ,./..: Ii I y 0 .!A ti ›b z 0 1, v yry y y y ti �.. y y i y _ ✓ vJ y y y cc O ^� k.. y d .e .p. y ayi ayi avU"i O c.. cn L y 65 14 Ccrl y y _ CA O .� r'J ? Z b+ .y.. 0 V -� y ^Ui O riyj y y •.!�, �v O p v � �C' tz . ��� y O .cc '. V) v, O , �. R CA Q v � .O et e� H et, vv. c y cc 01 _. O r O .. i _a+ ..-� ^ p Gf y .. .. .. v �' v7 �" 4' `. Y r y• O O y O vri i" _ y _ N iJ1 �U 2� y O ti• 4: 0 .� O O C O i.. Vl fG ram., U ..S .. O ✓' M* flo Pr ;"' i i i i s cn y• OO-tzy L i LJ p 6> -. .— O 0 0 0 0 n y y 'F y yp r; ^ cc cc O cc y O O `.x � QQww1 � Ov gxl � C� C� Cat7 �7 � � � ' I — � P; � qq s N M "f M O I. Cl N , M, K' III II M 0.1 I 11 ,I gLa ,:t6 ✓:'l 0.1 P.! .1 P- /- f. _ _ in fi IN in a. ✓. al a 4� a C. a P. P. f :r. :. , 11111111 III P. a a-, a r.. .^�111111111111 III VA sl a s 0-4 Ca. i 1 _ a P. IIIIIIIIII III a s ✓. a s P. a s .'' ci: P. P. P.. -r. a ✓) cr.Raa aa. aa ✓: sP. C4 av: a 11111111 III val ✓1 ✓,I P. a a a r : C f:Lo CA a acncn f a..Icn r o G C �_ ,� lID Ti di.) ,-. L 4R-�. • Of) CCy s~ yCU 1-4 n . CA 'yO •u O _ O - II� •Oa Q O R. _ ii ! ! v� -o -a .5 iU., y O ec R O c .i % cc O O et i 5 ,y G y cc I.) , i.. c 6. y O uy 3.. cA y .. bI J y .e • _ IilI1 ! : - Il c.ff Oy ti r et cCO G ham c + OO ¢ i c v' cc ) . 0 y cs v id ww ° `" � ar MC -7Z N x rt — -.., .. — :-. :..- :-. .Z.- Z.- .7..... .....- Z-, Z.- ,.._. _ , ... ,.._ .... ......_ .2.. „.... . ... .„... c_.. =..... :::_. ,_. :„_. .,.... ...„.. :...._. ...., ._..4 f 11•11 ".i P. — — _.. — — — _ _ — _ c_ ti C, OIl it ! i 71 1. 47 :J .7 J f 1J - c^ — "" i ✓ J ✓. - E rl VD r1 rl r1 (NI 00 M, r1 tr, en en If, 1'1 �', M M en M M rr, en en el 'C --- O O r 1 C ra 0 0 0 O Vp Tr i7 ct ci er K rt •7 `? ch ri rI Cl Cl rl r1 r1 CI r r1 N M rJ N rd rl r4 rl r1 N .D .O .O .O .O .D Vr .O .6 .6 V . .O .O Vr . . .6 6 1111111 re; M i i rn en M en r+', a.l Ill M ::.: : : : : : VA 0.1 i II HI sl P. a a.1 a a a a P. -l.l f a P. V) P. IIIII a a r a a cn !IH a., II a. a, a., a P. vz a t/D J.1 a, 111 111 a P. ac, asP- V: a vI a a.;- a a,i a ai v; a a en. IHI. III 111111 a a-,Iasfa. ata 0., c•ep Cl, a a el IIIP. P. a. aa.. aa v: v: a I a.; 11111a a ac a uC a. a., as a� 0,1 a, el.) v VI o eu a, h ccs v, U '..Y. a: y ter.: v in y O O O- = s v - • + .o tel R al ••. v w O if, - vR O ''� 0001. V V7 V 1-4 I, -• t.i � s y,, y y bt) "" i. V u V aA U Cr ec v v v 0 O O 0 `" O vt y a1r c CO ,. a, f. ti w v v Ti 0 0 r^, ,^, V y .. —8 O v T ' y V el) T ` u - ....., `. ., `'�' .0.. " •.. O O O r y v v j •..r ca • i4 Of. .a: cz CA _ `1 v .. Of Ot OVi v v O ^ o Wig?g `% 74 A C. 1.°J 6.CC O T.0 a' -.�-vi _ .r-, = - .., r co 4.) �., ayr 4 O v >, L1 U > U T .. sU. v1 atJ y t-�+ v' v: N N ti U v •O O ca ,.., • tr Sr 'B rr 'O 'S7 O u 0 ;,; 0 0 0 r, 44 c = - 1 •' �' .� v j,._" ..vi .-vi U � ._ ti sn v i, v v O O 5 O V "G s.. — - ccs V ^" --• , - V. 0 0 '� V V 0 0 0 0 aG v v p v H - � xH caaa :� a333 ¢ .r � Q ¢ xwxxoo � oxxcH M O vi .' u f 1 •� v v U� f o : Z. II I Ivl 't7 / CIOIo II.r,Ivl --d t I . I/) ) 6 i ) 5 1 : .' N .. Q n N V i ~ -v C ... ii ' t , G Z Z I -Z Z - - O V1 C>., v r.G v 'I. N o Tr.. .E IC 'f o . 0 0 o a .r • i :I II Z r 7 '.r, !I f l 't7 Z J" O O O G1 A — f Z Z iI iI O O Z �•' O O O 'G v v CAV. cl -" u rt h -- oZZ 7---. 000 a s. C/) O � ,0 o 00 v O O y © U /•1 O Z Z O o 0 t/ ti S.. v D n, L o. + 0 o �: Z 1 ��, c o to w cn Ocn a c ' N 0 N I a a G a5 vOi v.) u .O. I-. cr.: 01 -or r - 0 ca C N VI ,� a -I N '. 0 cC cC• 2:1 P =, U. y • G •�-� u v C V s,,,1 >' O 'L7 O ›,. >, y 7° i y 72 _ ., 0 V u r v u r. s Cs S. / % d \ / 7 & 3 s % \ - \ / \ - 2 y • / n \ \ 2 2 \ \ R a a a 2 _ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ j 7 7 \ 7 es 7 7 \ \ 17-1 Z % G G / % Z \ Z / 6 2 - 5 - \ \ \ VC - . ^ c 9 \ / 2 . r . _ = r \ e / \ \ » 2 } \ % _ . a ® - / ? % •r. ; t / \ © - \ - _ \ 3 - 6 w m _ \ 7 ^ g § 6 - �o 2 \ ¢ § 38 •s 7 . . / a 7 7 7 - % \ : \ Z - F.\ / / 5 % & \ / 7. / - f / _ \ & - - 7 / 7 5 £ .- \ \ \ % \ : _ / / . \ \ 6 \ \ \ \ ƒ . \ \ \vol \ \\ 3 — a \ \ \ ' - \ / / liflid .I \ , IbiEd % .- $ j § ) - 1, 7 * z 0 ._ . - a. Qs /.d 2 - - ( 1V... ƒV @ \ E/ \- 2 § \ \ \ ® \ate % 2 2 111 - 2 © \ ./ § \ •\ § ƒ \ / - - r §\ / _ . . ƒ / cC\C _ \ \ 9 / - - - - - a 4 e r \ 30 3E\ a 3 . . / - \2 z : A \.0 - «I.,, ! : - aL)a 4 } 7 " ƒ 2 f\ \ \ - - ^ e § \ « S 3 7 - - a /ee e = •\ / \ •k /±° \ ^ / /2 � :ii G \_ - - / / \ - \ § - / _ #: 99 flhi \ ) - ` _»_\ % - - - 2 \ / o - - _ � � 0. ` \ a ° ® \ \ \k'� ; . _$ . / . - - 2 a _, / . \ / ? \ \ \ k = - - \ \ \ / © 3 - 2 , - - { 2 -2 - _ § / { \ 2 § § _ . _ _ _ _ _ -0 g - § K g a z 2 2 - \ ®» J 3 2 - -, ƒ \ / 2 - \ -- •0 e % 9 e - a . j - _ > & _ _ I / § ( / , _ _ _ - - a /, \ . _ \ _ \ n / ? - . \ . _ 7 / y 2 - &\ - \ % ' � \ \ » - _ - \ 2. , . / / \ \ \ 4 / / \ @ 2 2 - / \ \ .i \ \ Y -t T :. T T T rI ri r4 ri ri rl I r-1 .—1 ,1 — J — — r — — — r r r ,. - r., , J V • Tiny f' f,� G - = = -. v _ J :,. = . ti is — J _ w. 4 ''4 _ .. _ r . = ..., .. ., .. o — . .. — z ! ?. 'v r rl v; r` co -r O M, rt rc Cl Cl N ri rl Cl rJ Vr '06 v6 'C �D 'D ka M. M M r r M Mp a. V: U~ a. aCf) aa. a. a. a ,fa ✓; - - - VIrna, vava cc. v) a. a. a, fi a. cn a. a. v+ a, a, a. cn a. 4 a. _ _ a v a4 Cr ("1 a a a, k w ?' v �J to O _a.) VI Oy z' a T' .r.' w a, v O ..0 O N y -. u •vi _ cC b 0 Z g v .g CC O N 0 '10 0 n k OU R y a. .y-. Of! u . 0 N' 04 iJIUI II y v OU >,a1 O '_ p 4 _, O1J O fl..5.a• O Oki O O ..'i.. b Q 0% �"' i V. v •.-. 5 ' 77 N .C„. --. 'G ,_ •s.: .0 v O0 = this �; N U . ._N., NS". •SO Ste. O ,.•.U. " I. � VS. O '_i. U V O . 0 O ram. ... v O ^. O v a. Q .. O i et; c V ati. S_. N U R N cs stiaz) ^ O N N z-' 04 of) u o.. �. _LI _a a a, y N N my' r +.. •r• O O N sR„ O ti s.. O y N r^ l' v U - dy L S"'.. O„fi U y .- L", ryr N O U G .r-.-. •� r. y cC •-, �' „ 0 a; O O v r". -0 ;---.' v .n J v :: O y a''� «'-.. O ✓ - 0, a, o - u P7 61, U ; . a..a U y C7 v) 5 z -v ... .= o N = - ✓:• y i• , 0 „ DI) m 0U •y.. �O oh W1 O„U OU bU O �' y y ti 0U L. v ti - _"'i 2 '11 N u .y q .� .„.� .� w „ „-, y i-, v .„. `�.. pry p L. `. v .`� l-. O `^ - ; - J u .z y 2 ^ B O 4 -0 0 OU v O a. >. u O N u •ti O cC 'O N � u u O U u u u oh sC O v N oq O _ 'L O a a....�. btu = c w^c6, •,_ - a. a'w .- 4cC, cF., y w C a. O4 O >1 v O„A Sy I _A.' O y O p _ r' U. O ^ ti : cz cn 'C ^ v C O "O >. •`. '' •L3 'Cs.. v i r- �C O O .: - ; = v y v cC 7.. .-Y cC ca R O M .-. = ^ u .`a' O• v .. s� co Ca 0.1 PO .. .d .� Q i tl 4, L ti cc c� 61J a. .4 :� a trt L ^ '� ter/ r i V v 7 - L - tt tl. y CI, _ ..--. J i - J _ ! IJ Vv. L - - _ -' I :✓ y r. — _ 1 v v - y -• n r •1 .-. _ ._ 1. 11 _ _ � _ i. !all - i '+=-i �. i- t1J tt1 - _ ^J — — - _ - - ✓ .n rr, bIf 2, '>' LJ _ J n oh oL ✓ ^ri v f = .J _ rl rl ri ri ri M M en en en en en v-, en en en en 0 0 0 r 1 0 0 0 'O 1. tt ri Cl N N r1 rJ r1 Cl N rJ Cl ri 'O 'O 'J %O O6 s.0 % 10 en en ^n en M en en en en en en en as a a aaaa a as a av: a aa ✓: a aaa aaa av; vl aaa as as as aa ✓iaa a aaaa aaa a as ay., as a. a, acr as aav). aaaa v, ees b4 r b4 N • N al v v C 0 N V, CA >, N cn et ONL 'C Q ti CA CZ: 6 r y 6 - O y '" CA CA U N am. c? c, c�C •c) = b4 ti O - . ma c- o r >, 0 "0 Z 0 a v u O O , r= c c _ _ .. `� ... — N 7, O V Y —' .N. i» y �' '' v Or_., — ,✓� N N N v OU 03 CJ CA ,-• u ry '+�+ y N y O -. + n -• ai r T �, sU. N bq .� C i' t'h y -r - +'". of, tiJ 0 V r cG O -C} 'D bG `"i, rt v`ni r`ni, — N V O O y •, �`w i` r -. 0 ti U 0 y ›' ' .. .9 N N L , J .n i O O u N J: has = -2al .-1 aaa; [-. i—- ala1x � � � � 5 � - Q � QwOOa � u: ti c c — - _ -r -r :-1 rl r1 - -p v V `: ^ ti J J -.." J Q u V. T I ,r l — v lam L j l: it _ ' _ ?,'a �+ — _ _ — — i & & 5 5 / / J 4 spec 3 3 e e _ - , , z = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ cn / \ — - _ \ = »2 \ 2 / 2 - _ \ _ _ 2 - / \ \ 2 ; / - 2 $ g - \ \ . \ _ \ \ . ` - \ \ - - - - 2 \ \ - - - — / y - \ - 2 = \ ( \ _ - - - _ - / - \ « - - \ _- \ ~ - 2 - - z 2 / \ - - \ - - / \ ' \ - / % \ 2 : - - s k - - . - _ _ - / 9 = - \ v \ \ = 2 = \ - \ \ \ \ \ a \ G , - / — - § % - 5 % x * - > 2 — _ » \ { ) - 3 « • ® - N - \ k - 3 7 \ c \ \ \ — \ - \ \ \ -- \ - / / \ \ \ \ \ / 3 5 - - 2 s - \ 3 y / ? 9 7 j ® 6 ( ) > ) - - - § \ \ / _ - \ \ \ \D \ - _ — 2 \ \ \ \ - 2 - = 5 - g e a \ \ g \ \.\ \ /\ _ ` t \ / \ -- \ - \ \ / - \ F \ \ j \ \ \ \ \ . - _ _ - _ - § g § ) 6 - S _ _ - _ _ - 0 \ \ \ 2 _ / 2 / » z } / 2 = ? / _ _ - _ = E. - _ _ - ¥_ & 6 6 / \ 2 - - \ _ » \ ~_ \ \ - \ \ \ \ \ - p - - \ - \ - - - . - \ _ \ % / / 9 ® g7 \ ./\ \ \ \ \ \--. \ \ \ - _ & \ / \ _ _ _ _ _ - _ ` - $ / / _ - t . _ _ \ - - _. - 2 - 2 _ 2 2 _ \ _ s _ _ \ / % 2 \ \ - \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 77 'sr 71- f'i rI K, oh b4 s p J — U ✓ C KV) �ll � 'J — — _ — _ 7 Cl r'J _ - -- Cl Cl r! [^. K _ — .-. _--. X _ I .2_ i u a1 — H. or; _ y _ FA, = 011 O 7 - - J J r ... _ _ M M M M M M M M M rci —. 0 rI 0 0 0 0 0 0 '7 't r ^t 7 "I' 't ''t "t "t „ r! CA N r1 rl rl Cl Cl Cl r! 'C O O O v6 '0 v6 v6 v6 v6 a ^0_0. a U Y CA U L. c2 BQ *a r :. 0.. �. 0. .. y O O 0 O., O ♦`�. 6) y V 0 G *yam Z ~ 3 w © IV 0. .0. ✓: C. 0'.. (ID 00 —.0 . 44 414 V y .=. G1 r " O .. .b a.. a J a. .: w y 0 y X r O U - .. ice., ▪ CA Rs v er t C o v _ N v • Le mew 00• 0 ... .>1 r�.yCI, + n1 v 'W nu y � JOil `� vi =V^ y =74 Y t, ^ a, _ _• q ^ _ v vci, A _ -� -y • e. O . v G O4 y '1J y b4 '>' U y " 'aff. U • Jb!i Cn cC tC C N _ 0 =•C 0 ti - y _ v ti R M a — r ss = u u c. •Of ;n ti Of. ^ - = :" - - O ''0 tal B kk \ f o i VI � \kf2 % • §I ƒ . / \ / ] � @ ( ( § ) ✓ & $4 @ _ @ ty % • \ 01 t \ 74 Al .5 - / 2g $ 8 _ 2 v u ( a / Qt ® 2 � � \ x = m1 a % ::: 2 2' +& ® t ?� � � / /'/ \ § \ p \ / \/ \ � g > \ / / \ \ \ -I / % % .\ k \£ �/ 22� ° \ , » 2 / § ± ƒ 7 \ � fkk \ - .its / = \ © A 4 1.9 \ u = § _ = ® = 2 $ % \ / ) e / ® » - - 2 \ / \ \ \ \ Sec. 36.2-329. Reserved. DIVISION 5. OVERLAY DISTRICTS Sec. 36.2-332. Neighborhood Design Overlay District(ND). * * * (c) Design standards. In considering an application for a zoning permit. the Zoning Administrator shall apply the following standards for construction of, an addition to, or the exterior modification of a dwelling in the ND: (1) Building lens massing: (A) The required front yard shall be determined by the regulations of the a plicable base ng .listrict (B) A new dwellin` shall have two(2) stories above the grade of the front yard where lot on both sides have two story dwellings (C)(A)-The width of single one dwelling and two dwelling buildings- fa two family dwellings shall be within 25 twenty-(20) percent of the average of the widths of such buildings other single family and t.,..,_family dwellings on the same side of the same block. The front of m„ltifamily dwellings shall be broken into sections of thirty (30) feet or less in width through offsets of the vertical plane of the facade of at least twelve (12) inches. _(DjB) Where lots on both sides have dwellings, the height of the foundation facing the street shall be no more than 40 twenty(20) percent greater than the height of the tallest adjoining foundation and shall be no less than 40 twenty (20)percent below the height of the shortest adjoining foundation. Where a dwelling exists only on one (44 side, the foundation height shall be within 40 twenty (-20-)percent of the height of that adjoining dwelling. However. when the first floor of a dwelling meets the standards for {International Code Council] document A117.1 2009 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. the height of the foundation shall lie within forte, (40)percent of adjoining foundation heights rather than twenty(20)percent. Such measurements shall be taken at comparable locations on the respective foundations (i.e.. left side, right side). There is no foundation height requirement where no dwellings exist on either adjoining lot. '965'004' 12066067v1 (3) Entrances and ll•indows: (A) The dwelling shall have at least one(') entrance facing the primary front yard. The number of doors facing the primary front yard shall be limited to one{-14-door for every 15 ciehteen(18) feet of dwelling width. Single f mily and two f mil•,dwellingsOne and two dwelling buildings may have two entrances facing the primary front yard regardless of dwelling width if the second entrance is recessed at least six(6) feet behind the main front entrance. (B) Doors facing a street shall have panel insets or windows. It'i Atl tfft (15) tofthe f ntofthedw-.11ingsha11 c•onsi t of window or door openings A t least ten (1(1l percent oY the de of dwell wh h not the front of the dwelling and 1 h f t t h ll st of window or door on n -het ni g the are of tl e f o nt zr the side of the dwelling � cox cxxc cs czzxzr (D)(C) Windows on the front façade shall have a height that is at least 1.5 one nd ,ne half(1 l-_)times their width. 4E4(D-Windows on the front of the dwelling shall be arranged in a manner that is compatible with that of other dwellings in the district. In general, windows on separate stories of the front should be vertically aligned and windows on the same story should be horizontally aligned. {F3(E)---All stairs facing a required front yard shall have solid risers. (G)(F)-A sidewalk at least three(3) feet in width shall be provided between the front porch of a new dwelling and the street. The sidewalk shall be constructed of an impervious material customarily used for sidewalks in the district. (4) Siding and trim: (A) The siding of any dwelling, exclusive of trim materials, shall not be oriented vertically. (B) Windows and doors shall be surrounded by trim which is at least 4 I 3.5 th d 1 alf l21._1 inches wide, except for dwellings with masonry veneer, in which case no trim around doors or windows is required. However, an addition to or modification of an existing dwelling shall not be required to have window and door trim that is wider than that of the existing dwelling. (C) Vertical corner boards at least 3.5 three and one halt(3'_) inches wide shall be provided on all dwelling corners. except where the dwelling has a masonry veneer. 7965 0047 12066067v1 (D) Any exterior wooden elements on a dwelling's façade facing a required front yard shall be painted or be stained with an opaque stain. (5) Porches. (A) One dwelling and two dwelling buildings Single family and_two family dwellings shall have a front porch at least one-half(' }the width of the dwelling's façade, and having a depth of at least six (6) feet. The front porch shall face the primary front yard. (B) For new and existing dwellings. the front porch shall not be enclosed with siding. (C) Front porch railings shall have a top and bottom rail. Baluster ends shall not be exposed. (D) Front porch columns shall be uniform in shape and style and be at least five(5) inches wide at their bottom and top. Front porch columns shall have a base and cap that are at least one(1) inch thick and are at least 120 one hundred twenty(120)percent of the width of the column. (E) The underside of front porches and stairways between pier supports shall be enclosed. (6) Garages and additions: (A) An attached or detached garage or carport shall be offset at least 24 inches behind the front façade of the dwelling. Bay doors facing a street shall have panel insets or windows. An attached garage shall not make up more than 33 thirty three (33) percent of the front façade of the dwelling. (B) An addition to an existing dwelling shall be located on the rear or side of the dwelling, except a porch constructed in accordance with Section 36.2-332(c)(5)may be added to the front of the dwelling. An addition to the side of a dwelling shall be set back from the dwelling's front face by 24 twenty four(24) inches or more. When an existing dwelling does not have a front porch, an addition may be constructed on the front of the dwelling if it includes a front porch constructed in accordance with Section 36.2-332(c)(5). * * * Sec. 36.2-336. - Comprehensive Sign Overlay District. * * * (d)Procedural requirements. 7965'0047.12066067v1 (1)A request to establish and apply a Comprehensive Sign Overlay District to a specific property or contiguous properties may be initiated by application of the property owner, contract purchaser with the owner's written consent. or the owner's agent in order to provide alternative sign regulations than would otherwise be required by this chapter. Such a request shall be considered an amendment to the zoning r+i oilii11-�•v ,t , and Official Zoning Map, and review and approval shall be subject to the amendment requirements as set forth N. in Section 36.2-540. If a Comprehensive Sign Overlay District is established, the sign limitation established by that overlay district shall govern. * * * Sec. 36.2 402. Accessory apartments. €oll� at (a) An accessory apartment shall be located in a building that is accessory to, and is I tt tit I+, t:r t nt et t ntt n . I f t l t f r�», tt+o r nn;l,lt ;l+lcto_f ;tcT ltot nh��l separately i I �t de t t e to+�,t ich , 1 Y Y I'�ii'Jttl • .._. rHi• Sec. 36.2-403. Accessory uses and structures. 1 * * * (b) General standards. * * * 7965 0047 12066067N-1 (5) ) An accessory use shall be subject to the same screening du buffering requirements of this chapter as may apply to the principal e. (6)(5) Accessory buildings shall be subject to the maximum size and height standards below. These standards apply to any structure meeting the definition of a building in Appendix A of this chapter as well as unenclosed carports or similar shelters, aboveground pools, and any arbors or trellises exceeding the sizes listed in Section 36.2-410(c): (A) The footprint of any accessory structure shall not exceed seventy- five (75) percent of the building footprint of the principal building. (B) The cumulative structure footprint of all accessory structures on the parcel shall not exceed the footprint of the principal building. (C) The maximum height of any accessory structure shall be less than the height of the principal building. However, this maximum height shall not apply to any wind turbines, which are instead subject to the maximum heights specified in Section 36.2-403(m). (7) (6) In any residential zoning district, a manufactured home, mobile home, trailer, camper, or motor vehicle, or portion thereof, shall not be used as an accessory structure for the purpose of storage or for any other accessory use. Sec. 36.2-405. Bed and breakfast, homestay, and short-term rental establishments. X (b) Standards for bed and breakfast establishments in residential districts. (1) Such establishments shall be located on a lot on which a one dwelling building 'w lli `� is the principal use. although such establishments may be located within either the principal structure or an accessory structure. or both. 7965`0047 12066067v 1 (3) The owner of the one dwelling building single family detached dwelling occupied by the bed and breakfast establishment shall reside in the dwelling. * * * (7) Only accessory uses or structures which are incidental and subordinate to a one dwelling building _ shall be permitted in conjunction with a bed and breakfast establishment. * * * 36.2-409.1. Dwellings. These regulations for various dwelling types prescribe the form, location, and orientation of buildings containing dwellings in order to provide for compatibility within the context of neighborhood settings. (a) Accessory dwellings. These standards are intended to regulate number and size of accessory dwellings to ensure they are subordinate to the principal one dwelling use to which it is accessory: (1) One accessory dwelling may be established on a lot containing a new or existing one dwelling building. An accessory dwelling is not subject to minimum lot area requirement for each dwelling nor the maximum number of dwellings per lot. (2) An accessory dwelling located in a detached accessory building shall be limited to 800 square feet or 80 percent of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is less. The accessory building may contain other uses and shall otherwise be subject to the size and placement standards of 36.2-403. (3) The floor area of an accessory dwelling located within a principal building shall be no more than 40 percent of the gross floor area of the building. An exterior stairway or additional entrances, if created, shall be located on facades other than the primary façade. (b) Cottage Courts. A cottage court development is a grouping of attached or detached dwellings arranged and oriented toward an interior courtyard rather than toward a street frontage. Such development is appropriate for an interior or through lot subject to these standards: (1) Any single building façade facing a primary street shall be 35 feet wide or less. (2) Permitted only on a lot with a minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet. (3) At least two buildings shall meet the maximum yard requirement of the district. (4) Window or door openings shall constitute at least 15 percent of facades facing the street frontage. (5) Limited to two stories. (6) Dwelling units have a maximum gross floor area of 1,000 square feet. (7) Buildings may be located on unit lots within a zoning lot. 7965`,0047 1206606'v1 (8) At least 20% of the lot area shall be dedicated to a central courtyard. Each dwelling shall have a doorway fronting on the courtyard. Such courtyard shall have no motor vehicle access. (9) Any garage bay door shall be offset at least 24 inches behind the front façade of the dwelling and the front door. An attached garage shall not make up more than 33 percent of the front facade of the dwelling. (c) One and two dwelling buildings. These buildings are always oriented toward a street frontage. The following standards are provided to ensure compatibility with existing neighborhood contexts: (1) The primary façade width of one and two dwelling buildings shall be no wider than 125 percent of the average of the widths of such buildings on the same side of the same block. (2) Any garage bay door facing a primary street shall be no closer to the primary street than the façade of the dwelling and the front door. An attached garage shall not make up more than 33 percent of the front façade of the dwelling; (3) Window and door openings shall constitute at least 15 percent of the primary façade and at least 10 percent of a secondary façade on a corner lot. (4) Where permitted by the district, a lot may contain multiple one or two dwelling buildings. (d) Single-façade apartment buildings. New and converted buildings oriented in a single mass with one primary facade, and containing three to eight dwellings, shall be subject to these standards: (1) The maximum width of the principal façade of the building shall be 120 percent of the average widths of other dwellings on the same side of the same block. (2) The building shall have one entrance facing the primary front yard. No additional entrances shall face theprimary front yard unless recessed at least four feet behind the primary building facade. (3) Window and door openings shall constitute at least 15 percent of the primary façade and at least 10 percent of a secondary façade on a corner lot. (4) The front façade shall contain a front porch at least one-half the width of the building width and at least eight feet in depth. (5) An addition to an existing building shall be located on the rear or side of the building, except a porch may be added to the front of the dwelling. An addition to the side of a dwelling shall be set back from the dwelling's front face by 24 inches or more. (6) No garage door may face a primary street frontage. (e) Multiple facade apartment buildings. New and converted buildings having a shape with multiple primary facades, and containing three to eight dwellings, shall be subject to these standards: (1) ,Each façade within the primary front yard shall not exceed 120 percent of the average widths of other dwellings on the same side of the same block. Such facades shall be separated by at least 20 feet. 1 '965 004- 1206606-v1 (2) Window and door openings shall constitute at least 1.5 percent of the primary facades and at least 10 percent of a secondary façade on a corner lot. (3) An addition to an existing building shall be located on the rear or side of the building, except a porch may be added to any street-facing façade. (4) An addition to the side of a dwelling shall be set back from the dwelling's front face by 24 inches or more. (5) No garage door may face a primary street frontage. (f) Townhouse buildings. These standards provide additional controls on the scale, massing, and building placement to encourage compatibility within neighborhood contexts. (1) A row of townhouses in a townhouse building shall be limited to 300 feet or less. (2) The minimum width of a dwelling in a townhouse building is 15 feet. (3) Driveways shall be located to minimize curb cuts; (4) Each townhouse dwelling may be located on a unit lot subdivided from the parent zoning lot. (5) Window and door openings shall constitute a t least 15 percent of the primary facade and at least 10 percent of a secondary facade on a corner lot. *** Sec. 36.2-410. Fences.walls, arbors, and trellises *** (b) Fence and wall standards. *** (3) The maximum height for fences and walls shall be based on the following schedule: Zoning Location on Lot Maximum Height District of Fence or Wall RA,R-12.R-7,R- On a lot with only one(1)lot frontage: 48 inches 5,R-3,RM-1,RM- between the building line and the lot RMF,IN.MX. frontage: or MXPUD On a lot with more than one(1)lot frontage: between the building line on which the principal entrance to the building is situated and the lot frontage which it faces On a lot with more than one(11 lot 6 feet frontage: between any building line on which the principal entrance to the building is not situated and the lot frontage which that building line faces Any required side or rear yard 6 feet.except where one(1)of these districts abuts a D.ROS,CN,CG,CLS,I-1. 7965,0047 1206606 1 I-2.IPUD.INPUD.or AD District. maximum height shall be that of the abutting district along that abutting property line D.ROS.CY.CO. Any required yard 8 feet CLS.INPUD,UF, I-1. I-2.IPt .AD Any required yard 10 feet Sec. 36.2-411. Gasoline stations. A Al st t A Yl 11 l ' d� nd man taro a i nds H g stri consisting o� Y r evergreen shut' t a + �1 +. .tt n Se.ti n listed in Section 36.2 642. (c) Any gasoline station shall provide and maintain a street screen or landscaping strip along any adjacent street right-of-way subject to the following requirements: (1) A street screen shall be a minimum height of 30 inches and maximum height of 42 inches, with vertical support posts of metal or masonry spaced at no more than 8 feet on center. Panels between supports shall be metal. masonry, or both. Metal elements shall be painted or coated and of rigid construction, with no members less than 0.25 inch. Exposed concrete block is not an acceptable finish. (2) A landscaping strip shall be of a minimum depth of eight (8) feet shall be planted with a minimum of one (1) evergreen or deciduous shrub. spaced at a rate of no greater than three (3) feet on center and having a minimum height at planting of twenty-four(24) inches, and (3) The storage of motor vehicles within,upon, or in a manner which overhangs any portion of the required landscaping strip shall be prohibited. *** (f) Standards in the MXPUD District. Any gasoline station located in the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District(MXPUD), shall be subject to the following standards: (1) The gasoline station shall not exceed 10 percent of the land area of the overall MXPUD zoned property. (2) Any canopy over a gas pump shall be subject to the following standards: (A) Such canopy shall have a maximum overall height not to exceed the principal building height; 7965`0047 12066067V1 (B) There shall be no illumination of any portion of the fascia of the canopy: (C) Any lighting fixtures or sources of light that are a part of the underside of the canopy shall be recessed into the underside of the canopy so as not to protrude below the canopy ceiling. All such lighting associated with the canopy shall be directed downward toward the pump islands and shall not be directed outward or away from the site: (D) Signs attached to or on such canopy shall not be illuminated and shall not extend beyond the ends or extremities of the fascia of the canopy to which or on which they are attached. (E) Such canopy shall be located no closer than the principal building line to the primary street frontage. *** Sec. 36.2-419. - Motor vehicle repair or service establishment. (b) Additional standards in the CG, CLS, UF, UC. and D District. In addition to the general standards set forth in subsection(a), above, any motor vehicle repair or service establishment in the Commercial-General District (CG), Commercial- ' Large Site District (CLS), Urban Flex (UF). Urban Center(UC), or Downtown District (D) shall be subject to the following standards: *** Sec. 36.2-429. - Temporary uses. Sec. 36.2-429. Temporary uses. (a) Applicability. Authorized temporary uses, including permitted locations, duration. and maximum number per calendar year, and whether or not a zoning permit is required, shall be as set forth in Table 429-1: Table 429-1. Temporary Uses Activity Zoning Maximum Maximum Zoning Districts Duration Frequency per Permit Where Lot Required? Permitted Auction Any district 3 calendar days Calendar Year No Christmas tree sales RA.CN.CO. CLS. 60 calendar days 1 Calendar Year I-1.I-2.LT Construction-related Any district For duration of Not applicable -r activities or model construction activity home office. or emergency need Temporary 7965 004'12066067y1 Government or Public Services Facility,subject to subsection(b), below Fireworks stand, CG.CLS,UF 30 calendar days 1 Calendar Year Yes subject to Section 21-207 of this Code Mobile food and CX. CO.C'LS.D. No limitation Not applicable No beverage vending ROS,UF,UC Industrial districts. and PUD districts Outdoor retail sales. CO. C'LS.OF 10 calendar days 4 Calendar Year Yes subject to subsection(c). below Portable storage Any district RA,R-12,R-7,R-5, See maximum Yes containers,subject R-3,RM-1,RM-2, duration to subsection(d), RiF,MX, below MXPUD: •30 consecutive calendar days. except 60 consecutive calendar days when there is a change of residency in a dwelling unit •Limited to 120 days per calendar year C'X.CG.CLS,I-i. I-2.D,IN,ROS. AD,INPLD.IPLUD. UF.UC: •120 consecutive days •Limited to 120 days per calendar year per lot Produce stand(not RA.C'N. CO.CLS. 90 calendar days, Not applicable Ye applicable to I-1.I LT limited to 1 permit community per any 90-calendar markets) day period per lot Public events. CX.CG,CLS,D. 14 calendar days Not applicable subject to I`.ROS.I-1,I-2, subsection(e). IPLD,LNPUD,UF, below UC Public events, Any district Two calendar days Two Calendar Year, No exempt from with an interval of subsection(e) at least three months below between events Temporary,short- Any District 90 consecutive Once 2 Year Period Yes term filling,grading calendar day period or borrow operation. 7965,0047 12066067V1 1 subject to subsection(f)below Yard or garage Any residential 2 consecutive 2.with an interval No sales,subject to district or dwelling calendar days. of at least 3 months subsection(g), unit limited to the between sales below daylight hours *** (d) Portable storage containers *** (3) In addition to the general standards set forth in subsection(1) above, portable storage containers in the CN, CG, CLS, I-1, I-2, D. IN, ROS, AD, INPUD, IPUD,and UF, and UC Districts shall be subject to the following regulations: *** Sec. 36.2 131. Townhouses and rowhouses. • and convenient use arrangement • • rowhouse unit lot shall be eighteen(18) feet.(3)Density, lot size, and frontage: The dimensional regulations of the zoning district as identified in Section 36.2 312 shall apply to the entire width. the driveways are t a to th - to (10) feet .n widt1, and the garage dame T prevent the creation of a t1 i .] to n ouse lr roIS'll use '7!tying lilt Sec. 36.2-551. -Development plans, generally. *** (b) Combination of lots. When a basic or comprehensive development plan involves multiple lots of record, internal lot lines shall be vacated. relocated. or otherwise altered as a part of an otherwise valid and properly recorded plat of subdivision or resubdivision to create a single lot of record. This requirement may be waived by the Zoning Administrator whenever a new building is not being erected across a lot line, and the new construction consists entirely of a fence, a ramp for handicap accessibility, an addition to an existing one or two dwelling buildingsingle '96.5 0047 12066067v1 family dwelling, or an accessory structure whenever the existing dwelling or accessory structure is already located on a lot line. *** Sec. 36.2-552. - Basic development plans. (a) Applicability. A basic development plan shall be submitted as part of a zoning permit application for the following activities: (1) Construction of, reconstruction of, relocation of, or addition to a one or two dwelling building single -family detached dwelling atingle family-attae-he-d-dwelling,a-two--jamily-dwelling or permitted accessory structure and including associated grading and clearing, where such grading and clearing does not involve adjoining lots; or, (2) Construction of, reconstruction of, relocation of, or addition to a one or two dwelling building g-le-family attached d«ellinn a two_ family dwelling or permitted accessory structure and including associated grading and clearing, on any lot within a subdivision with a valid subdivision site plan; or Sec. 36.2-622. - Exempt lighting. The following outdoor lighting shall be exempt from the requirements of this division: * * * (I) Floodlights mounted on buildings containing one to eight dwellings s; _family dwellings, two _family rlwellingc to., house-, row l ous and multifamily dwellings with four( 1) or fewer units^provided that the lighting is mounted to the structure below the eaves or parapet. is designed to provide light in a concentrated distribution rather than a broad distribution of light in all directions, and is aimed. directed or shielded so as not to present glare on abutting lots or streets and to minimize spill light trespassing upward or across lot lines. * * * Sec. 36.2-644. Overall tree canopy requirements. * * * 7965.004"12066067N-1 ti (b) Applicability. (1) This section shall apply to any development that requires submission of a comprehensive development plan or a basic development plan, except that: (B) Construction of an addition to or accessory structure associated with an existing one or two dwelling buildingsingle family or + _ provided that no required trees are removed as part of the project, shall be exempt from the requirements of this section. * x * Sec. 36.2-646. Façade planting. Buildings Structures-containing fa i1y multifamily dwel in`uil:ts dwellings shall be subject to the following landscaping requirements: Sec. 36.2-647. Buffering and screening. * * * Table 647-1. Buffering and Screening of Certain Uses and Activities Activity or Use Location Buffering Minimum or Height Screening Materials Wall of a principal Between the wall and an abutting residential district or Buffer: building that contains MXPUD district. Deciduous less than 15°o trees and transparency evergreen shrubs 7965`004712066067v1 Base of a retaining Between the wall and an abutting residential district. Buffer: 18 inches wall 5 or more feet in multiple purpose district,or PUD district,or between Evergreen height within 10 feet the wall and any public right-of-way. shrubs of property line Any commercial or Between the location of the activity and any abutting Screen: 8 feet industrial process or residential district,multiple purpose district,or KID Solid fence activity occurring district, located within 15 feet of property line of the or wall outside of a wholly abutting lot or lots. enclosed building Loading area,bay Between the loading area or loading dock and any Screen: 6 feet door,loading dock,or abutting residential district,multiple purpose district. Solid truck terminal or PUD district. fence.wall. or evergreen tree screen Refuse container Perimeter of the refuse container storage area Screen: 12"above the storage area Exception:Not required where the aggregate capacity Solid fence height of tallest of refuse containers is less than 0.5 cubic yard or wall container Ground-mounted Perimeter of the mechanical equipment that would Screen: 6" above the mechanical otherwise be visible from any street frontage or Fall withence or a height tallest ofun the equipment.more than adjacent property 36 inches in height Exception:Not required where the use is a sifngle- maximum family 14 � =� .,n of 40% rttwo dwelling building. open area Ground-mounted Perimeter of the mechanical equipment that would Option 1 Option 1 6" mechanical equipment otherwise be visible from any street frontage or Fence or above the up to 36 inches in adjacent property wall with a height of the height Exception:Not required where the use is a-single maximum tallest unit or one or two of 40% Option 2 IS dwelling building, open area inches at Option 2 planting Evergreen shrubs Mechanical Perimeter of the mechanical equipment that would Screen: -_ vertical equipment on roof otherwise be visible from any street frontage Fence or height of Exception:Not required in any industrial district wall with a equipment from maximum adjacent street of 40° open area. Car wash Between wash bay openings and any abutting Screen: f: residential district,multiple purpose district,or PUD Solid district. fence, soli:: wall,or evergreen tree screen Commercial motor Between any display or service areas and any abutting Screen: 6 feet vehicle sales or residential district Solid service,new or used. fence.solid or commercial motor wall,or vehicle storage area evergreen tree screen Drive-through Between any speaker and any abutting residential Screen: 6 feet facilities district,where the speaker is directed toward the Solid wall abutting residential district 7965-0047 12066067v 1 C Tasoline stations Between the pumps and canopy and any abutting Screen: 6 feet residential district Solid fence. solid wall.or evergreen -lee screen Junkyards.wrecker Perimeter of any area where the storage,collection, Screen: 6 feet yards.and recycling processing or other associated activity occurs,and Solid fence centers which is not wholly enclosed within a building or solid wall,and evergreen tree screen Motor vehicle or Perimeter of any area used to store any visibly Screen: t:;- trailer painting and damaged or inoperative vehicles Solid body repair fence,solid wall,or evergreen tree screen Motor vehicle repair Perimeter of any area used to store any visibly Screen: 6 feet or service damaged or inoperative vehicles Solid establishment fence.solic wall,or evergreen tree screen Motor vehicle sales Between the display area and any abutting residential Screen: 6 feet and service district Solid establishment,new or fence, solic: used wall,or evergreen tree screen Outdoor sports facility Between the facility and any abutting residential Buffer: None district. Deciduous trees Outdoor storage or Between the storage area and any abutting residential Screen: 6 fee: self-storage facility district,multiple purpose district,or PUD district. Solid Between the storage area and any residential district, fence,solid multiple purpose district,or PUD district across a wall,or street evergreen tree screen Outdoor storage lot Between the storage area and any abutting residential, Screen: 6 feet multiple purpose district,or PUD district and between Solid the storage area and any residential,multiple purpose. fence.solid or PUD district across a street wall,or Along street frontage when not abutting a residential, evergreen multiple purpose.or PUD district across a street. tree screen Deciduous trees Portable storage Between container storage area and any abutting Screen: 6 feet container as accessory residential district.multiple purpose district,or PUD Solid fence use district. or solid A _wall Lug collection Between any receptacle and any abutting residential Screen: 6 iee- point district.multiple purpose district.or PUD district. Solid fence or solid wall Towing services Perimeter of any storage area for damaged or Screen: 6 feet inoperative motor vehicles or trailers Solid fence or solid wall Wireless Perimeter of the base of the facility and equipment ci e..i: 6 feet telecommunications Solid facility equipment fence,solid wall,or evergreen tree screen Wireless Frontage facing a street or side visible from a public Buffer: telecommunications street or visible from an abutting residential district Evergreen tower,less than 100 trees feet in height Wireless Frontage facing a street or side visible from a public Buffer: telecommunications street or visible from an abutting residential district Large tower, 100 feet in deciduous height or greater trees Sec. 36.2-654. Parking and loading area standards. (a) General standards. Parking and loading areas shall be subject to the following general requirements: * * * (4) Parking and loading areas shall be so designed as not to require or permit maneuvering to and from a street to access or exit a parking space, except less than four(1) dwelling units on a parcel where such maneuvering to and from a street shall be permitted on a lot containing buildings with eight or fewer dwellings. * * * Table 654-1. Parking and Loading Area Standards Standards for lots containing Standards for all other uses and ,+uildings with eight or fewer zoning districts dwellings two family dwellings,uut ifamily dwellitigs h-up to 4-dwelling mits in-a-stugle structure-ou-a-yz:igle--pa eel;-an d dnivways-regardless of district 7965',004'12066067v1 Material Standards: All parking areas,loading areas. Improved surface required Improved surface required driveways and loading spaces, No curbing required Curbing around all loading areas excluding parking structures Exceptions: and all parking areas with 7 or more Concrete rummers with vegetated spaces,including any interior center and edge strips(ribbon islands driveway) Exceptions: Gravel permitted behind building Gravel permitted: 1)behind line where access is off an alley building line where access is off an Gravel permitted for all parking and alley.2)fleet storage,commercial loading areas in RA District vehicle storage,or 3)any area in an ROS District Curb not required where LID approach is used for stonnwater management Parking structures and garages Exterior driveways as above. Exterior driveways as above. Interior construction in accordance Interior construction in accordance with the Uniform Statewide with the Uniform Statewide Building Code. Building Code. Location Standards: Driveway/parking area location Predominantly located toward 1 Parking area prohibited between relative to principal structures side of the principal structure. right-of-way and principal building Parking spaces shall not be located line. within the middle third of the front Exception: facade,exclusive of garages. Lots in CG District with less than Exceptions not subject to this 100 feet of frontage,and CLS,I-1. requirement: 1-2. AD Districts Circular driveways Townhouse buildings Tewnhett.ses as r eo.u-tre4-bv S Z#}ter} 36.2 131409_ Minimum distance between 20 feet -' t'; driveway entrance/exit and a street intersection Setbacks.any property line abutting None 5 feet ' -leer a street :_' • Exception:Not applicable to a two famil parking area where a street screen is used. a' id ai ,triyewa„s Diniensianal Standards: Front yard coverage: Maximum 30 percent of the lot area between No maximum area of driveways and parking areas the right-of-way and the building in established front yard line Exception: The maximum area specified shall not apply to any areas where a permeable paver system is used. -965004 12066067v1 Width: Cumulative width of all Cumulative width of driveway Cumulative width of driveway driveway entrances at frontage entrances shall not exceed 30 entrances shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot frontage percent of the lot frontage Exceptions: Exception: 10 feet minimum width for all lots 18 feet minimum width for all lots The maximum area specified shall not apply to any areas where a permeable paver system is used. Width:Minimum individual 7 feet R-12,R-7.R-5.R-3.R-A.RM-1 driveway width(applies between One way: 10 feet right-of-way and building line) Two way: 18 feet RM-2,RMF. all multiple purpose districts One way: 12 feet Two way: 15 feet Industrial Districts One way: 12 feet Two way: 18 feet Width:Maximum individual 20 feet or half of the front lot line R-12.R-7.R-5,R-3,R-A,RM-1 driveway width(applies between length.whichever is less One way: 12 feet right-of-way and building line) Exceptions: Two way: 24 feet For lots having a primary street frontage of 90 feet or greater.the RM-2,RMF.all multiple purpose maximum width shall be 30 feet, districts Maximum driveway width shall not One way: 15 feet apply to any areas where a Two way: 24 feet permeable paver system is used. Industrial Districts One way: 18 feet Two way: 30 feet Maximum cross slope where a 2 percent 2 percent driveway crosses a sidewalk Operational Standards: Pedestrian access required per§ No No 36.2-654(c) Exception: Requirement applies to CG and CLS Districts Unobstructed access from parking Yes Yes spaces to driveway/drive aisle Exception: Does not apply to one or two dwelling buildingsingle family dwellings Parking space dimensional 9'x 18'area for each required Table 654-2 for required parking standards parking space provided,adequate Exception: maneuvering space from parking Parking structures space to driveway/drive aisle Exception: Garages Special Provisions for Corner and Through Lots(provisions apply to all frontages unless otherwise listed below): -965 00-' 12066067v1 Corner lots Material: Gravel permitted behind Material: Gravel permitted behind building line of the facade with the building line of 2 frontages when principal entrance and 1 access is from an alley. intersecting street building line when access is from an alley. Location: Standards apply to all frontages with the exception of Location:Driveway%parking area parking between a building and the location relative to principal right-of-way.This requirement structures requirement applies only applies as follows: to the facade of the principal structure containing the principal CN.CG.D,UF,UC.IN.and MX entrance to the building and 1 Districts:Applies to both frontages intersecting frontage. The location where the maximum front yard is of parking spaces shall be located met. predominantly to the side of the All residential districts:Applies to combined intersecting facades. 1 front yard.where maximum front yards apply:standard shall apply to Dimensional:Width standards 1 of the front yards where the apply to all frontages.Lot coverage maximum front yard is met. standards apply to frontage of principal entrance and 1 Dimensional:Apply to all intersecting frontage. frontages. Through lots Location: Standards apply to all Location: Standards apply to all frontages with the exception of frontages with the exception of location relative to principal parking between principal structures.This requirement applies structures and the right-of-way. only to the frontage of the structure This provision applies only to 1 with the primary entrance. frontage and shall be the frontage where the maximum front yard is Dimensional standards: Minimum met where maximum front yards and maximum driveway width apply. standards do not apply between the structure and the minimum front yard for the frontage that does not contain the primary entrance to the structure.The maximum area of driveways and parking areas in established front yard standard does not apply to the front yard that does contain the primary entrance to the structure. * * * (d) Maximum driveway widths as set forth in Table 654-1 may be exceeded in accordance with the following provisions: * * * (3) For lots containing a one dwelling building single family dwellings with a garage, an increase in the maximum driveway width shall be permitted to allow the required flaring for motor vehicles to enter the driveway. * * * Sec. 36.2-668. On-premises signs, generally. 7965004' 12066067v1 * * * Table 668-1. Type,Number, and Size of On-Premises Signs District Type Maximum Maximum Sign Maximum Maximum Permitted Permitted Number of Signs Area Sign Area Height Characteristics RA,R- None Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Not Not Applicable 12.R-7. Applicable Applicable R-3. None Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Not Not Applicable RMI-1 Applicable Applicable R\I Freestanding 1 sign structure 25 sf 25 sf per 6 ft Identification RMF per lot frontage sign sign only structure Building- 25 sf 25 sf Not mounted Applicable MX,CN. Freestanding 1 sign structure ) 0.5 sf per If of lot 32 sf per 6 ft Illuminated IN.ROS. per frontage frontage sign Changeable OF structure copy. Building- N c i_c 32 sf plus 0.5 sf None Not Electronic mounted per If of building Applicable readerboard face or storefront permitted in CN over 32 If,plus and IN additional area per§ 36.2-677 _ C Li F i c estanding 1 sign structure 1 sf per If of lot 100 sf per 25 it Illuminated per frontage frontage sign Changeable copy structure Electronic Building- None 32 sf plus 1 sf None Not readerboard mounted per If of building Applicable face or storefront over 32 If,plus additional area per§ 36.2-677 Upper-story Ncr.e 109ooffaçade None Not Ilh.__r__i;:-e,l area,maximum Applicable 300 sf c L S Freestanding 1 sign structure 1 sf per if of lot 150 sf per 25 17 Illuminated for first 200 frontage sign Changeable copy linear feet of lot structure Electronic frontage. 1 readerboard additional sign for each additional 200 feet of lot frontage up to 4 signs Building- None 32 sf plus 1 sf None Not Illuminated mounted per If of building Applicable Changeable copy face or storefront Electronic over 32 If.plus readerboard additional area per§36.2-677 7965 0047 12066067v1 Lipper-story None 109'0 of facade None Not Illuminated area,maximum Applicable 300 sf D Freestanding 1 sign structure 0.5 sf per If of lot 32 sf per 6 ft Illuminated per frontage frontage sign Changeable copy structure Public service message board Electronic readerboard Building- None 32 sf plus 1 sf None Not Illuminated mounted per If of building Applicable Changeable copy face or storefront over 32 If,plus additional area per§ 36.2-677 Upper-story None 10%of facade None Not Illuminated area.maximum Applicable 300 sf I-1,I- Freestanding 1 sign structure 0.5 sf per If of lot 125 sf per 16 ft Illuminated AD per frontage frontage sign Changeable copy structure Electronic Building- None 32 sf plus 1 sf None Not readerboard mounted per If of building Applicable face or storefront over 32 lf,plus additional area per§36.2-677 MXPI_D. As specified by the PUD development plan,or same as CG when not specified by plan. INPUD. IPUD "sf'means square feet, "lf means linear feet."ft"means feet,and"n/a"means not applicable. "None"means no limit. * * * Sec. 36.2-669. - Changeable copy signs and electronic readerboard signs. * * * (b) Electronic readerboard signs shall be subject to these requirements: * * * (3) An electronic readerboard in a CN. D, IN. UC', or CG District shall not exceed twenty-five (25) square feet in sign area. * * * Sec. 36.2-817. -Powers and duties. * * * (c) Zoning erg n-code and neap amendments. 7965 0047'`.12066067V1 * * * APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS Accessory apartment: A dwelling unit located within a structure that is accessory to. * * * * * * Business services : An establishment primarily engaged in the sale, leasing. or repair of office equipment. supplies, and materials, or the rendering of services used by office, professional. and service establishments. Typical uses include office equipment and supply firms, small business machine repair shops, convenience printing and copying establishments, management and consulting services, office security services, advertising and mailing services, data and records storage,janitorial services, employment or temporary labor services and other professional, scientific, or technical services or administrative or support services not otherwise specifically listed in the Use Tables in Article 3 of this chapter. * * * Community housing services: a small scale operation providing temporary occupancy, and which may provide mental health counseling, employment services,permanent housing assistance, and other supportive services. The temporary housing capacity of a community housing services operation shall be limited to twelve people. * * * • faculty, d e ployees ^+such ,n * * * b• g ` round residential purposes. containing one f" ^ aY ' t ho r k ng units"and including the following specific types: {1 j Dwelling. Single family, attached: A one family dwelling unit, with its own 7965'..0047.12066067v 1 1 (2) one family dwelling units, attached by a common vertical wall, and with each dwelling unit being located ran its r,1Z-:� individual lot (2) Dwelling. .Single fancily detached: A site built, modular, or industrialized building which is not attached te1 r other dwelling by a Deans (3) Dwelling, Two fancily: A building on an individual lot containing two (2) on a single lot, designed for the permanent occupancy of three (3)or more (5)_D 1]' 1.f, ufactured Z.. .i..�. A factoree_b ilt single_fa ily unit dwellingstructure, transportable in one (1) or more sections, subject to federal the r �.uired utiliti es 4 connected to subject to federal regulations and constructed prior to Tune 1;, 1976. .,,l,ich constructed on a chassis for towing to the point of use and designed to be used, 7) Th n' T 1 ho A one_family dwelling unit independent entrance at ground level, which is part of a building consisting of Dwelling: a room or group of connected rooms designed for occupancy by a household as an independent housekeeping unit for 30 days or longer. Dwelling?types: This code identifies the following types of dwellings for the purpose of providing supplemental regulations that prescribe form. location, and orientation. Accessory dwelling: an additional dwelling on a lot where the principal use is a one dwelling building on a lot. (synonyms: Accessory dwelling unit, ADU, accessory apartment) One and two dwelling building: a building that contains one or two dwellings. (synonyms: single-family detached dwelling, single-family attached dwelling, two-family dwelling, duplex dwelling). 7965 0047 12066067v1 Cottage court: a group of two or more buildings that contain three or more dwellings that are limited to 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. with buildings and entrances oriented onto a central court for common access. (Synonym: Courtyard housing) Townhouse building: A building containing two or more dwellings connected by vertical walls. with each dwelling having an independent entrance. (Synonyms: rowhouse. single- family attached dwelling) Single facade apartment building: a building that contains three to eight dwellings and has a single primary façade. Multiple facade apartment building: a building that contains three to eight dwellings and has two or more primary facades. (synonym: courtyard apartment) Large apartment building: a building containing nine or more dwellings. Dwelling, Manufactured home: A factory-built dwelling, transportable in one or more sections, subject to federal regulations and constructed after June 15, 1976, which is constructed on a chassis for towing to the point of use. and is not less than 19 feet in width when assembled. and is set up on a permanent foundation on an individual lot for continuous year-round occupancy as a single-unit dwelling when connected to the required utilities. Dwelling, Mobile home: A structure, transportable in one or more sections, not subject to federal regulations and constructed prior to June 15, 1976, which is constructed on a chassis for towing to the point of use and designed to be used, with or without permanent foundation, for continuous year-round occupancy as a single-unit dwelling when connected to the required utilities. Financial services-�- nt-i-on: The provision of financial and banking services to consumers or clients, including banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, lending establishments, and mortgage offices. and which may include their support services such as call centers, training centers. and offices. Group living:permanent occupancy of a building by nine or more people who may be unrelated and who may receive supportive services or medical care. Group living is characterized by common areas and centralized food services and are distinguished from an apartment building by having no independent dwellings. Such living arrangements may be commonly referred to as nursing homes, congregate care. or group care. Household: a person or group of persons living within a dwelling and sharing kitchen facilities, sanitation facilities, and conunon areas. A household may have one of the following types of occupancy: • (a) A family of related persons of unlimited number. (b) A family defined as up to eight persons with mental illness, intellectual disability, or developmental disability \vho reside with one or more resident or nonresident '965 004' 12066067v1 staff persons in a residential facility for which the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services is the licensing authority pursuant to the Code of Virginia (1950). as amended. Lc) A family defined as up to eight aged. infirm. or disabled persons who reside with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons in a residential facility for which the Department of Social Services is the licensing authority pursuant to the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. (d) A group of up to eight persons who may not be related and may receive supportive services or medical care. Permanent occupancy: Occupancy for any period of 30 days or longer. Regional housing services: an operation providing temporary occupancy. and which may provide mental health counseling. employment services,permanent housing assistance, and other supportive services. The temporary housing capacity of a regional housing services operation is not limited. Short-term rental: An accommodation for transient guests where, in exchange for compensation, a dwelling unit is provided for lodging for thirty (30) days or less less than 30 days. and--whc -is not a "boarding house" or "group care facility" as defined in this chapter. listed-Of-defined-in-this-shaptef, Temporary occupancy: Occupancy for less than 30 days. ?. This Ordinance will become effective immediately upon its passage. 3. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter. the second reading of this Ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: 0.14th-dt—' 114/4-e2T City Clerk 7965 004' 12066067\1 401 RO&j Uti`S , ? `CA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: September 16, 2024 Subject: Proposed amendments to Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, as initiated by Resolution No. 42957-061 724, to implement the comprehensive plan and for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice, to remove barriers to the production of housing and the creation of affordable housing, to create a new zoning district, and to amend the use tables for the residential, multiple purpose, industrial, and planned unit development districts, such amendments reflected in the attached ordinance. Summary: The proposed Zoning Amendments are substantially similar to the Zoning Amendments adopted by City Council on March 18, 2024 (the March 2024 Zoning Amendments). As discussed below, the March 2024 Zoning Amendments and the proposed Zoning Amendments implement specific provisions of City Plan 2040, adopted by City Council in 2020. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered action on the Zoning Amendments on August 1 2, 2024. After the public hearing, the Planning Commission considered a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Zoning Amendments. By a vote of 2-3, with Commissioners Atwood and Glenn absent, the motion to approve the resolution recommending approval failed. Mr. Berry, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Martin commended staff of the citizen engagement process and outreach. Mr. Smith was the only commissioner to provide an explanation for not supporting the amendments, citing that it should be something that workforce development or economic development should be working on. On March 1 1 , 2024, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the March 2024 Zoning Amendments. The Planning Commission action on August 12, 2024 with respect to the proposed Zoning Amendments is inconsistent with the Planning Commission March 1 1 , 2024 recommendation that City Council adopt the March 2024 Zoning Amendments. 1 A suit was filed in April 2024 challenging the March 2024 Zoning Amendments. On June 1 7, 2024, the City Council adopted a resolution to initiate a process to adopt and/or readopt a substantially similar package of amendments as a more timely and efficient means of addressing the issues raised by the lawsuit. In addition, the process of considering and readopting the Zoning Amendments would allow additional opportunities for public comment, staff review, and Planning Commission review. On July 31 , 2024, the planning staff issued a report titled: "Zoning Amendments Report and Study." This Report addresses the background, policy issues, and projected impacts of the Zoning Amendments (including the March 2024 Zoning Amendments). A copy of the Zoning Amendments Report and Study, Revision 3, is attached. Background: Since the adoption of a zoning code in 2005, City Council has adopted 20 amendments to ensure the code remains a relevant tool for implementing the comprehensive plan. The March 2024 Zoning Amendments represented the second set of amendments since the adoption of City Plan 2040 in December 2020. Roanoke's residential zoning districts cover just over half of Roanoke's land area (14,600 acres). Most of those districts were exclusionary because they permitted only one type of housing by-right. These now formerly exclusionary districts cover 13,319 acres, or 91% of the residentially zoned land. The March 2024 Zoning Amendments made multiple important changes related to housing: 1 . Regulate dwellings as a land use Rather than regulating different housing types as uses (single-family, two- family, townhouse, multifamily, etc.), the fundamental activity occurring, which is "dwelling," is now permitted in all residential districts and most multiple purpose districts. The code specifies how many dwellings are permitted on a given lot based on its zoning district and type of lot. The mixing of housing types is a familiar and common pattern of development in Roanoke's neighborhoods. 2. Establish standards for dwelling types Working from well-accepted housing models, the amendments created limits on scale and design standards for one- and two-dwelling buildings, small 2 apartment buildings, townhouses, and cottage court developments (see 36.2-409.1 ). These standards manage the form, location, and orientation of buildings so they will be compatible in neighborhood settings. Another change expanded the use of accessory dwelling units so they can now be located within a house. Amendments would also remove prohibitions on separate utility metering. Note that accessory dwelling units may only be accessory to a single-unit dwelling. An ADU cannot be accessory to a building with two or more dwelling units. 3. Define Household to include nonfamily living arrangements The former code defined a household based on the familial relationships of the occupants and some forms of group living which are already classified as a family by Federal law. The March 2024 Zoning Amendments defined the term household in a way that retained existing family living arrangements, maintained federally required living arrangements, and added nonfamily living arrangements for up to eight people sharing a dwelling unit. 4. Create a Group Living land use The March 2024 Zoning Amendments provide for permanent group housing for nine or more people in more areas and remove discriminatory limitations on housing choice. With the changes, the zoning code now governs the land use taking place rather than the condition or prior status of people. The code regulates group living just like multifamily dwellings. In consideration of the ideas of equity expressed in City Plan 2040, someone's status as disabled, formerly homeless, veteran, in recovery, or formerly incarcerated should not be a consideration in regulating where people live. These distinctions work to severely limit where certain people can live, and therefore, compound whatever vulnerability they may experience. The amended code permits a dispersed, dignified, and low impact model for permanent housing for our vulnerable populations. 5. Create small scale Community Housing Services and larger scale Regional Housing Services The March 2024 Zoning Amendments replaced "transitional living facility" with "Community Housing Services" and "Regional Housing Services." This approach provides for a small, limited community scale version that may be more broadly permitted around the City. Enabling a model of small-scale sheltering options distributed among higher intensity districts is a less impactful, more equitable, and more accessible alternative to a single large 3 1 facility. The Community Housing Services use allows a small-scale operation limited to twelve people and occupying no more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. These are permitted by right in CG, CLS, D, IN, ROS, and OF districts. Regional housing services continue to be very restricted, permitted only in the INPUD district with a special exception. 6. Ensure the City uses remaining land efficiently The March 2024 Zoning Amendments changed the dimensional regulations of each residential zoning district to allow for the more efficient development of the limited vacant residentially zoned land by reducing minimum lot size requirements. 7. Remove Barriers to Child Care and Adult Care The Zoning Amendments make Adult Day Care Homes and Family Day Homes as permitted uses in all residential districts. These are small-scale counterparts of Day Care Center uses and very beneficial services for communities. Under the current code, however, they require a special exception. The extra cost and effort are significant barriers. These services are extremely limited in Roanoke. The intent is to remove land use barriers to establishing these reasonable and compatible community uses in neighborhood settings. 8. Create a new UC Urban Center zoning district The purpose of the UC - Urban Center District is to permit a mixture of retail, office, residential, and light industrial uses in a concentrated pedestrian- friendly area outside of Downtown. 9. Adjust use tables that determine where certain uses are permitted, not permitted, or require a special exception These amendments were developed by planning staff, guided by priority and action items highlighted in City Plan 2040. All planning staff engaged in developing the zoning amendments were involved in the community engagement process that informed the recommendations of City Plan 2040. Considerations: The proposed Zoning Amendments are substantially similar to the March 2024 Zoning Amendments. The Zoning Amendments address the issues listed above. The lawsuit filed in April 2024 was directed at the amendments that allow multifamily dwellings in formerly single family districts. On July 31 , 2024, planning staff issued a report titled "Zoning Amendments Report and Study". This 4 Report addresses the background, policy issues, and projected impacts of the Zoning Amendments (including the March 2024 Zoning Amendments). A copy of the Zoning Amendments Report and Study, Revision 3, is attached. The Zoning Code is one tool (of several) that implements City Plan 2040. The March 2024 Zoning Amendments, and the proposed Zoning Amendments, implement the provisions of City Plan 2040. The discussion below reviews the supporting policies from City Plan 2040. Interwoven Equity Theme Priority One: Trust Policy 1 : Remove legal elements of institutional or structural bias • Review and eliminate City codes and policies based on explicit or implicit biases, and advocate the same approach for state laws and policies. • Enable complete neighborhoods to develop within the framework of the zoning code, providing access to affordable housing, services, and employment. Policy 2: Lead community healing • Build capacity (ability and experience) for neighborhood- based organizations to carry out or direct appropriate community improvements and services. Priority Two: Break the Cycle of Poverty Policy 2: Provide supportive interventions strategically • Ensure preventive mechanisms are in place for helping at-risk people to prevent more serious issues (e.g., underemployment, homelessness, health issues, and unsafe housing conditions) • Make gateways to services accessible in neighborhoods. Priority Three: Neighborhood Choice Policy 1 : Identify and remove barriers to housing choice • Reconsider housing policies rooted in racial segregation efforts such as exclusionary zoning districts that exclude all but single-family houses. • Work to reduce tenure bias [which is the favoring of 5 owner-occupants over renter-occupants}) by reviewing City policy and plans to eliminate such bias. Policy 2: Understand the connection between finances, housing, and literacy in order to remove barriers for vulnerable people like veterans, formerly incarcerated people, and people recovering from addiction. • Review and reexamine how and where zoning codes permit group care facilities and group homes providing housing and supportive services and support distribution of such housing in neighborhood settings dispersed throughout the City • Continue housing first programs and test other innovative housing approaches Policy 4: Develop varied and affordable housing options in each neighborhood. • Ensure affordable housing is available in all neighborhoods in the city. • Promote complete neighborhoods, so all neighborhoods have a broad range of housing types, including multifamily housing. Livable Built Environment Theme Priority Four: Housing Policy 1 : Enable affordable and accessible housing options in all neighborhoods. Policy 3: Enable a range of housing types in each part of the community to achieve inclusive, livable neighborhoods that prosper over time. • Consider ways to introduce different housing types into neighborhoods that lack housing diversity while being mindful of and responsive to concerns about neighborhood character, design, and maintenance • Explore opportunities for alternative living arrangements, such as group living and co-housing, near neighborhood centers. 6 Public outreach and comment: The attached Zoning Amendments Report and Study details the public engagement process prior to the March 2024 Zoning Amendments and since the June 1 7, 2024 City Council Resolution. The topic of zoning reform has been well-publicized. As of mid-August, there have been over 40 media stories addressing the Zoning Amendments. Most City Council meetings in recent months have included at least one speaker addressing the Council on the zoning issues. Staff briefed the Planning Commission and City Council on August 5 and responded to questions. Additional meetings were held on August 27 and 29. Neighborhood groups in South Roanoke and Raleigh Court sponsored additional discussions led by planning staff. The results of these meetings are being provided to City Council. Meanwhile, updates and additional information have been added to the content of the project home page: https://planroanoke.org/zoning/ Planning Commission: The planning commission held a public hearing on August 12, 2024. Following a brief introduction of the item, the public hearing was opened. There were fifteen speakers, roughly evenly divided as supporters and opponents. A summary of their statements is provided below. Generally supporting • Artificially holding low density drives up costs of public services; drives up cost of housing; Roanoke cannot grow geographically; when a community stops growing it starts dying; People can't afford to buy for a number of reasons. Inefficient zoning practices post WWII. Inhibits growth; Great neighborhoods have a variety of housing. • First thought proposal was bold but as examined closer, I saw how details limit too much. Planners created balance and scale. • Home builder's organization has said we need land to build housing, but land is limited, therefore must increase density permitted. • I live in OSW and have vacant lots; market will not support new single-family on those lots. Amendments increase flexibility. That neighborhood was originally built with a mix of duplexes and apartment buildings. 7 • I have developed housing in Roanoke for 30 years; why not fix up vacant homes? I agree. Many are too large and need too much work; by allowing a duplex you could get more people like me could to be interested; with parking we are not seeing issues where we are working; new apartment complex developments are expensive because of all the new infrastructure required, but a vacant lot where a duplex is allowed without having to speak to a board and ask permission makes it easier to do those things; historic areas will probably not be torn down because there are [historic rehab] tax incentives; we need affordable housing for young people to live in the city and hopefully at some point become home owners. • Encourage approval with one caveat that they only apply to new construction. New construction is a positive in the neighborhood. Planning staff has done a good job. Provide for infill which is much better than project on Orange Avenue; neighborhoods can handle it on a small infill scale. Half my neighbors are renters; renters on my street are really good neighbors. The lot next door could be a 2,3, or 4 family home - doesn't scare me - I want to share my neighborhood. Not a bad idea for gentle infill development. The renters are often the essential workers. • Instead of apartment developments, you could have more structures that are not as large. • Speaking in favor of the amendments for Church Women United 80 members 35 congregations; we advocating for equity and affordable housing which is essential to reducing the number of unhoused. Single-family only zoning part of the scaffolding that continues systemic racism; perpetuates patterns of segregation; prevents equity; blocks generational wealth transfer; allowing duplexes and multifamily in all neighborhoods increases ability to create affordable housing. This issue is being characterized as "we" and "me" They fear their property values will diminish and have anxiety that conjures up even more fear - if you study the amendments, you see that is not the case. • Apartments across the street raised the rents. A mixture of housing is good but how do you control the rents? I don't see anywhere where we set that; tell me how rents are affordable? Generally opposing • Speaking on behalf of Old Southwest Inc. Amendments should be tabled; Middle housing may not help with rents; Crime and safety concerns. 8 • Amendments are bit far reaching; Together with previous changes regarding ADUs and parking, headed toward controversy down the road; If you have units next to your house you feel a little different. You won't have any say in the matter; conversions not in character of neighborhood; Other localities have had unintended results, opposite results; not building housing for middle-income and low-income families; 2007 neighborhood plan tightened up the zoning'. Neighborhood plan says the most important aspect is the fact that it is a single-family neighborhood.2 Now seeing baby carriages and young families; hate to see the zoning changes completely undo that success. • The term exclusionary zoning is loosely applied; Walk around Raleigh Court you'll see apartments, duplexes, people of different ages, colors, sometimes different languages. Neighborhood has a balance; introduce a tremendous amount of uncertainty next door with by right with no input concerns or engagements; takes away right of neighbors to engage in conversation about what the neighborhood should look like; ways to meet needs without using such a drastic measure; return for further work. • How many people don't know? Those who know - how many can't make it to a meeting at 1 :30? Oppose how the amendments were marketed by staff. So many vacant buildings and incentives to repurpose; not seeing impacts of stormwater addressed; floodplain doesn't even exist; rescind and do a better more comprehensive approach; corporations buying up houses. • Sees a lot of positive but should be more discussion/collaboration • My doctor moved to other locality instead of Roanoke because she didn't like streets full of parked cars. Moved from Asheville because too crowded, the homeless, and didn't feel safe downtown. 10-1 5 years profound negative effect on Roanoke for the same reason. • Preservation concern; not opposed to equitably affordable housing and growth of Roanoke; concerned that increased density may encourage demolition. Seeing demolition in outskirts of historic districts in other localities like Charlottesville; need to not have such a broad stroke of rezoning; only single-facade apartment building has requirement for porch, not other types.' • Owners I talk to believe their property values will go down; not to mention property enjoyment values; make it easy for developers to come into our 1 No zoning changes were made as a result of the 2007 Greater Raleigh Court Plan; 2 Raleigh Court is not a single-family neighborhood.The neighborhood plan actually says, "The neighborhood features a mix of residential zonings. However,the high concentration of single-family houses has long been cited as one of the neighborhood's foremost attributes." 3 New houses in the Neighborhood Design District have a porch requirement. 9 single-family neighborhoods and pack them with cheap multifamily units. People don't want to worry about property values being driven by high-rise multiunit complexes next door; engagement did not include polling of single-family owners; request that you review the documentation of these amendments. Commissioner discussion Mr. Berry: with the 40 units per year, are there more specifics on that such as where they would be? Could you see 20 in a neighborhood? Staff responded that projection is not in a particular neighborhood but spread among all residential districts across the entire geography of the City. The 98 single-dwellings last year and 78 so far this year gives some idea of scale of change by comparison. Staff will track projects and their geographic distribution. New housing starts tend to happen in new subdivisions and in HUD target areas. Mr. Berry noted that there could be a construction boom in a neighborhood. Staff noted that a localized concentration is possible but unlikely based on the patterns of development we see. He added that there has been difficulty with people thinking about the worst-case-scenario and understanding the way things actually work out with what the zoning allows versus what actually ends up on the ground are two vastly different things. He said that R-1 2 district for example allows 3.3 units per acre but what is on the ground is 1 .1 units per acre. Even with additions from amendments we project 1 .3 in 30 years. We moderated our approach compared to other localities because we want to see what will happen with development outcomes and make adjustments after a year or two. Mr. Smith inquired about the recommendation in the 2020 housing study to consider inclusionary zoning incentives. Staff noted that the General Assembly now allows us to do inclusionary zoning incentives; Staff needs to consider if it's something to implement in Roanoke because there are mixed results; Staff noted that the 2020 housing study expressed concern about stifling development and having the opposite effect of what is intended; the approach would be incentive-based like loan fund. Mr. Chittum noted there are additional meetings scheduled on August 27 and 29. Neither Ms.Smith nor Mr. Terry-Cabbler had any questions or comments Mr. Berry said staff did great job in providing an accessible process providing 10 forums and outreach. He added this has been the most in-depth process by far. Amazing to see and really appreciate that. Mr. Smith thank the public and said it's great when the public gets involved and thanked the staff for their work. He said he is all about accommodating growth and all about erasing exclusionary zoning laws and practices, but it seems like what's going on with the changes to make things more affordable are trying to do what workforce development and economic development should be doing; for that reason he would not support them. He said there are some great things in here but it's just too broad change and didn't think it will yield the return we think it's going to yield Mr. Martin thanked staff for its work and research to bring this back a second time through. He said he would support the recommendation. As information, when considering substantially similar amendments in March 2024, the Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval, with Mr. Martin, Mr. Berry, Mr. Terry-Cabbler, Ms. Glenn, and Ms. Atwood voting in favor, Mr. Smith voting against, and Ms. Smith absent. Conclusions and Recommendations: Ms. Clark read the resolution prepared by the City Attorney's office. There was a motion and second. Upon a 2-3 vote, the motion to adopt the resolution failed. //7 Frank C. Martin, III, Chairman City Planning Commission ATTACHMENTS: A. Summary of Zoning Amendments B. Zoning Amendments Report and Study 11 ATTACHMENT A Summary of proposed amendments to the text of the City of Roanoke Zoning Code 2024 Roanoke adopted changes to its zoning code on March 18, 2024, in order to increase housing options and address issues of equity in our community.These changes are technical amendments to the text and do not change the zoning of any properties. On June 17, 2024, City Council initiated a process to consider adopting amendments similar in substance to the March 18, 2024 amendments and, if necessary,to repeal the March 18 amendments. This process was initiated to address any uncertainty as to the adoption or effect of the March 18 amendments (in light of a lawsuit filed in April 2024),and to provide additional opportunities for further public comment, Planning Commission review, and City Council review. This summary is intended to walk through the proposed amendments in plain language so people can understand the nature of the changes and what they mean. In the summary below, we use the term "amendments;"this refers to the changes adopted on March 18 (which are already in effect and part of the current zoning code), plus additional changes proposed to Section 36.2-403 and Section 36.2-409.1. 36.2-100, 36.2-105 Title and rules of Changes citation of zoning text from "ordinance" to "code." For the purposes interpretation of zoning, City Council adopts an ordinance and then it becomes code. Assigns meaning to older terms that may remain in the code. 36.2-201. Establishment of districts Naming Establishes a new convention for the naming of the districts.The principal convention change is removing the term "single-family" in order to reflect the new code provisions for residential districts. 36.2-205. Dimensional regulations How dimensional Various technical amendments were made to this section to reflect new code regulations are provisions. interpreted and applied 1 36.2-300. Purpose Purpose Improved wording statement for article 36.2-310 Purposes of the residential districts Purpose The previous purpose statements actually described the exclusionary nature of statements for the residential districts. Staff recommended amendment of these statements residential of purpose to make the descriptions of the residential districts more inclusive districts. of other housing types and land uses. The proposed amendments resulted in these purpose statements: The purposes of the R-12, R-7, R-5, R-3, and RM-1 districts are to provide a range of housing options and to provide opportunities for compatible home- based entrepreneurship. Dimensional and supplemental regulations implement standards that control building form building placement and other characteristics of development. These districts cover the majority of the City's land area and contain most of Roanoke's housing supply. The purpose of the RM-2 district is to provide for all housing types with an emphasis on townhouses, cottage courts, and apartment buildings. This district is generally mapped in areas near or adjacent to neighborhood and other commercial centers, but also may be applied to existing apartment buildings in neighborhood contexts. The purpose of the RMF district is to provide for unified development of 10 or more dwellings. While these purpose statements have no effect on development, it is important for regulations to be consistent with these purpose statements. 36.2-311. Use table for residential districts Basic residential The former code regulated residential uses by specifying different housing Uses types in each district. The various housing types were single-family detached, single-family attached, two-family, multifamily, and townhouse. The amendment moved away from regulation by housing type and instead lists "dwellings" as a permitted use in all districts. 2 This change is not fundamentally different from the current code because each district already permits some form of "dwelling" as a land use. However, the new code relies more properly on the dimensional regulations in Sec. 36.2-312 to control how many dwellings the code permits on a given lot. Accommodations The former code excluded certain types of group living based on the status of and Group Living the residents rather than impacts of the land use. Decades of exclusionary Uses zoning have limited housing opportunities for vulnerable populations and thus contributed to homelessness. The amendments eliminated the array of different housing arrangements and replaced them with a simplified and equitable approach. The amendments simplified group living arrangements into a small-scale version and a large-scale version. Group living, with 8 or fewer residents, meets the definition of household. In fact,federal and state laws reinforce this idea for certain protected classes of people. The amended code will permit a dispersed, dignified, and low impact model for permanent housing for our vulnerable populations. Large-scale group living, with nine or more residents, is permitted in multifamily districts and multiple purpose districts because it is fundamentally the same as a multiunit dwelling. The proposed approach treats these uses similar to their counterpart residential uses and eliminates discrimination based on the status or history of people. Note that all group living arrangements are for permanent housing (30 days or more). Sheltering operations remain excluded from residential districts. Commercial Uses The amendments made Adult Day Care Homes and Family Day Homes permitted uses in all residential districts. These are small-scale counterparts of Day Care Centers. Under the former code, they required a special exception. These services are extremely limited in Roanoke; the intent was to remove land use barriers to establishing these reasonable and compatible uses in neighborhood settings. 3 36.2-312 Dimensional regulations for residential districts Minimum lot The amendments reduced the amount of lot area required for each dwelling area for each unit, measured in square feet. To determine how many dwellings are dwelling unit permitted, the lot area is divided by the lot area requirement for each dwelling. This regulation works hand-in-hand with a regulation that specifies an absolute limit on the number of dwellings allowed on a lot, regardless of the lot's size. This approach ensures the number of dwellings is within the norm found in traditional neighborhoods that are zoned R-12, R-7, R-5, R-3, and RM-1. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit was as shown here: RA R-12 R-7 R-5 R-3 RM-1 RM-2 RMF Minimum lot area for each 43,560 12,000 7,000 5,000 3,000 3,500 2,500 1,000 dwelling The resulting minimum lot area for each dwelling unit ranges from 1,000 square feet to 2,500 square feet. The lot area for RA and RMF was not changed. RA R-12 R-7 R-5 R-3 RM-1 RM-2 RMF Minimum lot area for each 43,560 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 1,500 1,000 1,000 dwelling Maximum The amended code establishes an absolute maximum number of dwelling units dwelling units on for corner lots and for interior lots regardless of lot size. In general, corner lots a corner lot; can accommodate more dwelling units than interior lots. This regulation did interior lot. not exist in the former code. RA R-12 R-7 R-5 R-3 RM-1 RM-2 RMF Corner lot maximum 1 3 4 6 6 8 No No number of dwellings limit limit Interior or through lot 1 1 2 3 3 4 No No maximum number of limit limit dwellings Various housing types may or may not be permitted based on the number of dwellings permitted. 4 Minimum lot The minimum lot area and minimum lot frontages control the size of lots when area and subdividing land. Generally, larger lot sizes and lot frontages create inefficient minimum lot development patterns that consume land and reduce housing development frontage (for opportunities. subdivision) The lot size and frontage in the former code are shown here: RA R-12 R-7 R-5 R-3 RM-1 RM-2 RMF Minimum 43,560 12,000 7,000 5,000 3,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 lot area Minimum 150 70 60 50 30 50 50 150 lot frontage The amendment decreased the minimum lot area and frontage for most residential districts, resulting in the following new lot area and lot frontage requirements: RA R-12 R-7 R-5 R-3 RM-1 RM-2 RMF Minimum 43,560 8,000 5,500 4,000 3,000 4,000 4,000 15,000 area of a lot Minimum 150 60 50 40 30 40 50 50 frontage of a lot 36.2-314. Purposes of multiple purpose districts Purpose The amendment to the purpose statement of the MX district now provides a statement better reflection of the character of the district: The purpose of the MX District is to accommodate residential uses and low intensity, small-scale commercial uses. Dimensional regulations implement neighborhood design principles for urban neighborhoods by controlling building size and building placement.The regulations of the district are intended to protect the character and scale of such a mixed-use development pattern by permitting low-intensity development at a scale that recognizes and respects residential patterns of development. The amendments added a purpose statement for an entirely new district created: The UC Urban Center District. The purpose of the Urban Center District is to permit a mixture of retail, office, residential, and light industrial uses in a concentrated pedestrian-friendly area outside of Downtown. The streets form an interconnected grid and accommodate multiple modes of transportation: pedestrian, bicycles, transit, automobiles. Buildings are located adjacent to the sidewalk and often adjoin each other. Parking is generally concentrated in parking structures or is located to the side or rear of principal 5 buildings. Toward that end, the Urban Center District is intended to accomplish the following: (1) Facilitate pedestrian ways and create a convenient and harmonious development of buildings, streets, and open space; (2) Promote activity on public streets and to protect amenities provided through public investment; and (3) Provide for a mix of high-density residential, commercial, retail, government services, entertainment and cultural facilities, and live/work space. 36.2-315. Use table for multiple purpose districts. Uses permitted The amendment carried forward the same approach as residential districts by in multiple adding dwelling as a permitted use in all districts. purpose districts. District MX CN CG CLS D IN ROS UF UC Dwellings P P P P P P P P P The simplified and equitable group living approach was carried over from residential districts into the multiple purpose districts, with small scale permitted by right and larger scale regulated by the special exception process in some districts. District MX CN CG CLS D IN ROS UF UC Group living S S P P P S P P The amendments added certain low-intensity business development as permitted uses in the Multiple Purpose districts: Bed and Breakfast; short-term rental; business services; financial services; medical labs; R&D labs; commercial caterer; community market; workshop; personal service; assembly and entertainment uses. Amendments expanded districts where child and adult care is permitted to remove barriers for creation of new services. Certain automobile oriented activities change from permitted to special exception to provide more oversight: Drive through facilities and kiosks, rental, repair, service, sales, painting, body shop, limousine service. Certain passive, low-activity uses were disallowed in multiple purpose districts: mobile home sales, storage building sales, self-storage building. 6 The former code classified a shelter as a "Group Care Facility, transitional living facility."This use is extremely restricted; the zoning code permitted it only in the INPUD district and required a special exception from the board of zoning appeals. Two new uses replaced the transitional living facility: Community Housing Services and Regional Housing Services. This approach provides for a small, limited community scale version which may be more broadly permitted around the City. Enabling a model of small-scale sheltering options distributed among higher intensity districts is a less impactful, more equitable, and more accessible alternative to one large facility. Community housing services: a small-scale operation providing temporary occupancy, and may provide mental health counseling, employment services, permanent housing assistance, and other supportive services. The temporary housing capacity of a community housing services operation shall be limited to twelve people and occupy no more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. Regional housing services: an operation providing temporary occupancy, and may provide mental health counseling, employment services, permanent housing assistance, and other supportive services. The temporary housing capacity of a regional housing services operation is not limited. The amendments made Community Housing Services a permitted use in CG, CLS, D, IN, ROS, and UF districts and MXPUD and INPUD districts. Regional Housing Services would be very restricted, permitted only in the INPUD district with a special exception. 36.2-316. Dimensional regulations for multiple purpose districts Lot area and lot The amendments reduced the lot area required for each dwelling in the MX frontage district. Residential density is not regulated in most Multiple Purpose Districts. regulations The lot size and frontage and frontage requirements, which apply when subdividing land into lots, were reduced to make more efficient use of land. MX CN CG CLS D IN ROS UF Minimum lot area for 1,000 None None None None None None None each dwelling Lot area Minimum 2,500 2,500 10,000 43,560 None None None None Maximum 15,000 2 ac. 3 ac. None None 5 ac. None 3 ac. Minimum 40 None 50 100 None 50 None None 7 Lot Maximum 150 200 None None None None None 200 frontage 36.2-322. Use table for industrial districts Industrial Dwelling and group living uses were carried forward from residential districts. districts However, they require a special exception because the suitability can vary greatly depending on the context of existing industrial development. I-1 1-2 AD Dwellings S Group Living S Roanoke has residential uses in industrial districts as a vestige of previous zoning remaps. Permitting residential uses by special exception allows them to continue, expand, and be maintained. Permitting residential uses can enable transition from underperforming industrial land to adaptive reuse for needed housing. The amendments restrict or eliminate a number of hazardous and/or nonproductive uses: storage building sales; junkyard; wrecker yard; self-storage building, self-storage facility; storage of commercial motor vehicles; storage of motor vehicles for rental; and tank farm. The new "community housing services" was added as a permitted use in the I-1 district. Sec. 36.2-327. Use table for planned unit development districts Use table Dwelling uses were carried forward and short-term rental is added. MXPUD INPUD IPUD Dwellings P P Short-term Rental P P Group Living P P 8 Assembly uses were added. Regional temporary housing services replaced transitional living facility as a special exception in the INPUD District. Additional uses were added to allow for a more complete neighborhood development within a PUD including: gasoline station; workshop; exhibition, convention, and conference center; indoor recreation; and movie or performing arts theater. Sec. 36.2-328. Dimensional regulations for planned unit development districts. Dimensional The technical changes to this section enhance readability. The planned unit regulations development plan controls these characteristics of development. Sec. 36.2-332. Neighborhood Design Overlay District (ND). Design standards The amendments modified and refined residential design standards that apply for dwellings in traditional neighborhoods. The requirement for a two-story building between two others was deleted. Some standards were moved to supplemental regulations that apply throughout the city (see new 36.2-409.1). 36.2-402. Accessory apartments Accessory This section was deleted, with new content created in supplemental apartment regulations for "dwellings" in Sec. 36.2-409.1. supplemental regulations 36.2-403. Accessory uses and structures Regulations on Delete prohibition on separate metering for accessory uses and structures. accessory uses ***Note, this amendment was NOT adopted March 18 and is to be considered in the upcoming action. Sec. 36.2-405. Bed and breakfast, homestay, and short-term rental establishments 9 Supplemental Technical amendments reflected new terminology for dwelling type. regulations 36.2-409.1. Dwellings. (Supplemental regulations) Supplemental This new section provides standards for residential dwelling types, providing regulations for definition and guidance on form, building location, transparency, and dwellings orientation. The intent of these standards is to provide for compatibility within the context of existing neighborhoods. Accessory dwellings (also known as accessory dwelling unit (ADU), or accessory apartment). The standards limit an accessory dwelling to being associated with a single dwelling. The size is limited to 800 square feet or 80 percent of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is less. The accessory building may contain other uses and shall otherwise be subject to the size and placement standards of 36.2-403. Cottage Courts. A cottage court development is a grouping of attached or detached dwellings arranged and oriented toward an interior courtyard rather than toward a street frontage. The standards limit the floor area and height of units as they are, by design, intended to be a grouping of small dwellings. One and two dwelling buildings. These buildings are the most common type in Roanoke. The standards call for de-emphasizing garage bay doors for compatibility with most of Roanoke's neighborhoods. This will help new houses fit into existing neighborhoods.The standards also establish minimum window and door openings on the façade. Where permitted by the district, a lot may contain multiple one or two dwelling buildings. This means that where more than one dwelling is permitted on a lot, the dwellings do not necessarily need to be in one building. Single-facade apartment buildings. These buildings have a single mass with one primary façade like a typical house. Standards are designed to control the bulk of these buildings (height and width) so they will generally be "house sized." The building shall have one entrance facing the primary front yard. No additional entrances shall face the primary front yard unless recessed at least four feet behind the primary building facade. Here, the regulations require a 10 front porch, essential to making a small apartment building fit into a neighborhood context. Multiple facade apartment buildings.These buildings have a more complex shape with multiple primary facades. They often resemble the letter "C" or "H" or "W" when viewed from above. This feature enables a larger building to fit because the façade is broken into typical house-sized modules. The standards limit the width of the facades so they are comparable to other dwellings in a block. Townhouse buildings.These are buildings containing dwellings sharing common vertical walls. Standards provide additional controls on the width and building placement to encourage compatibility with neighborhood contexts. Front facing parking, garage doors, and driveways are also limited. Note that the large apartment building, containing 9 or more units, is not regulated because they are not permitted in the R-12, R-7, R-5, R-3, or RM-1 districts. ***Note, additional changes are proposed since the March 18 amendments to clarify subsections (c) and(f)based on community feedback. 36.2-431. Townhouses and rowhouses. Deleted supplemental regulations for townhouses and rowhouses. Standards were moved to Section 36.2-409.1 Appendix A. Definitions Community New definitions for community housing services and regional housing services housing services, as forms of temporary sheltering. regional housing services 11 Dwellings Dwelling: a room or group of connected rooms designed for occupancy by a household as an independent housekeeping unit for 30 days or longer. Dwelling types:This code identifies the following types of dwellings for the purpose of providing supplemental regulations that prescribe form, location, and orientation. Accessory dwelling: an additional dwelling on a lot where the principal use is a single dwelling building. (synonyms: Accessory dwelling unit, ADU, accessory apartment) One and two dwelling building: a building that contains one or two dwellings. Cottage court: a group of two or more buildings that contain three or more dwellings that are limited to 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Such located on an interior or through lot with limited size detached or connected dwellings, with such buildings oriented to create a central court for common access. Townhouse building: A building containing two or more dwellings connected by vertical walls, with each dwelling having an independent entrance. Single facade apartment building (house form): a building that contains three to eight dwellings and has a single primary facade. Multiple facade apartment building (courtyard form): a building that contains three to eight dwellings and has multiple primary facades. Large apartment building: a building containing nine or more dwellings. Group living Defines group living, small scale and group living, large scale as forms of permanent residential occupancy. Group living, large scale: permanent occupancy of a building by nine or more people who may be unrelated and who may receive supportive services or medical care. Large-scale group living is characterized by common areas and centralized food services and do not contain independent dwellings. Such living arrangements are commonly referred to as nursing homes, congregate care, or group care. Note: Occupancy by fewer than nine persons is a household. 12 Household Redefines household to include family and nonfamily living arrangements, including living arrangements of people protected by federal law. Household: a person or group of persons living within a dwelling and sharing kitchen facilities, sanitation facilities, and common areas. A household may have one of the following types of occupancy: • A family of related persons of unlimited number. • A family defined as up to eight persons with mental illness, intellectual disability, or developmental disability who reside with one or more resident or nonresident staff persons in a residential facility for which the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services is the licensing authority pursuant to the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. • A family defined as up to eight aged, infirm, or disabled persons who reside with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons in a residential facility for which the Department of Social Services is the licensing authority pursuant to the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. • A group of up to eight unrelated persons who may or may not receive supportive services or medical care. Occupancy Defines permanent occupancy as 30 days or more, and temporary occupancy as less than 30 days. Short term rental New definition for short term rental,which is rental of a dwelling for less than 30 days 4 4 13 Attachment B Wrial ROANOKE PLANNING, BUILDING, & DEVELOPMENT Zoning Amendments Report and Study Koanoke, vH Initial version July 31, 2024 Revision 1 August 2, 2024 Revision 2 August 7, 2024 Revision 3 September 5, 2024 7965\0047\12086129v1 Introduction On March 18, 2024, Roanoke City Council adopted zoning amendments (referred to in this report as the "March 2024 Amendments"),following the Planning Commission's March 10, 2024 recommendation. Both the City Council and the Planning Commission conducted public hearings. In addition,their actions followed a robust public engagement process including work sessions,twelve public information meetings, and a survey conducted between September 2023 and March 2024.All public outreach was performed in the context of implementing City Plan 2040,which itself had an extensive stakeholder engagement process that spanned three years. The effect of the March 2024 Amendments, in general, is to allow by right all types of dwellings, including some types of multifamily dwellings, in all the residential zoning districts and certain multiple purpose zoning districts in the City. The uses of land allowed by right' in these residential districts are no longer limited to single-family residential uses. The March 2024 Amendments are in effect and part of the current zoning code. After the City Council's adoption of the March 2024 Amendments,a number of citizens filed a lawsuit challenging their adoption and validity. On June 17, 2024,City Council initiated a process to consider adopting zoning amendments similar in substance to the March 2024 Amendments and,to the extent necessary,the repeal of the March 2024 Amendments.The City Council Resolution stated that the additional legislative process will address any uncertainty as to the adoption or effect of the March 2024 Amendments and provide additional opportunities for public comment, Planning Commission review, and City Council review. Based on its review—both prior to and after adoption of the March 2024 Amendments—planning staff recommends zoning amendments that effectively readopt/reaffirm the March 2024 Amendments,with the only modifications made to Section 36.2-403 and Section 36.2-409.1 of the zoning code.2 Given the near identity between the March 2024 Amendments and the proposed amendments,this report will use the term "Zoning Amendments"to refer to them both, and generally discusses changes that the "Zoning Amendments" make compared against Roanoke's pre-March 18,2024 zoning code (not the current zoning code). There has been significant public support for the Zoning Amendments,and the underlying concepts, throughout the community engagement processes for both City Plan 2040 and the March 2024 Amendments. This report assembles and presents the planning staff's study of relevant information about the goals and results(projected and Roanoke's experience since March 18,2024) of the Zoning Amendments. For this study, planning staff has reviewed and considered these information resources (among others): City Plan 2040; the 2021 Housing Needs Assessment by the Virginia Tech Center for Housing Research;the December 2020 Citywide Housing Study prepared by RKG Associates, Inc.,and JM Goldson/Community 1"By right"means the land use is permitted without any legislative action such a special exception or special use permit. 2 Documents explaining the proposed amendments,the changes to the current zoning code,as well as the changes compared to the pre-March 18, 2024 zoning code are currently available at: https://planroanoke.org/zoning/and for physical inspection at the Office of the City Clerk,Suite 456,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building,215 Church Avenue SW,Roanoke,Virginia,24011. 1 Preservation and Planning for the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission; extensive information collected by and resulting from planning staff study; citizen comments;the concerns identified by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the adoption of the March 2024 Amendments;the City's experience with the March 2024 Amendments since adoption; and the experience of other localities in Virginia and across the country. Roanoke's residential zoning districts cover just over half of Roanoke's land area (14,600 acres). Under the pre-March 18, 2024 zoning, most of these residential districts permitted only single-family dwellings by right.These limited districts covered 13,319 acres, or 91%of the area zoned for residential uses in the Roanoke. In these single-family residential districts, multifamily dwellings were not allowed by right. Multifamily dwellings were allowed by right in only a small area of the City. The Zoning Amendments address the need for additional housing in Roanoke,the need for more affordable housing,and the need to make the residential zoning provisions more inclusive and to reduce the effect of zoning regulations that exclude residents based on racial or economic factors. The Zoning Amendments allow different types of dwellings, including townhouses,small apartment buildings, cottage courts, one-unit dwellings, and two-unit dwellings by right in all residential districts and certain multiple purpose zoning districts. Supplemental regulations in Section 36.2-409.1 provide design standards for the various housing types to manage the form, location, and orientation of structures so they are compatible in neighborhood settings. These revisions are intended to allow different types of dwellings and thus increase the diversity of housing available in Roanoke over the long range. More specifically,the Zoning Amendments address multiple needs:to generally increase the supply of housing;to increase the supply of affordable housing;and to address the exclusionary history of zoning provisions that limited a large geographic area of Roanoke to single-family residential uses and the persistent exclusionary effects of such zoning restrictions today. Furthermore,the Zoning Amendments implement specific policies stated in City Plan 2040.3 This study analyzes the expected effect of the Zoning Amendments, over time,while taking into account the expected rate of change related to the Zoning Amendments and the expected effects on infrastructure, parking,traffic and public services.As explained in this report, staff concludes that the expected rate of change on the number of new dwelling units and related density will inherently be incremental and gradual over time with limited, if any, effects on infrastructure and public services. 3 The Planning Commission's March 18, 2024 report to City Council (pp.6-8)includes a summary of policies and statements from the City Plan 2040 that relate to the Zoning Amendments. 2 Background Prior to the March 2024 Amendments, half of Roanoke's land area was limited to single-family only zoning restrictions.These single-family only restrictions, and the related effect of excluding people from those districts,were difficult to square with the interwoven equity goals stated in City Plan 2040. Residential Zoning Land Area Exclusionary zones permitting only single-family dwellings ---Inclusionary zones permitting most housing types John Nolen, on the heels of his 1928 plan, drafted Roanoke's first zoning ordinance in 1932. Only five districts were established;two of those were General Residence and Special Residence. General Residence permitted single-family and two-family dwellings while special residence permitted apartment buildings and multiple dwellings. 1r it , .4iirf4; .0.,_ (0) .,,,,,, , ii: mini L] CJ ci----......___ _400er:, ,-.1-.., ..1„ifii.7. __-__„,--141INV,"cati'''' -'-' ',.:::„,-"*.A*"... .,, -,i,-•,,_ -----.. . At,8'&5.-.-../.. .f.,.. ..2:_.z._- „.•., ..._ Via„ r ♦.. . ..L'Ir..iR p.,, i • of 4'��` r. / . - 1i�� � s mell i �.".1_11. 14111 sal * � -- f 1 w _ , 5 rm _ � �� A iii ;ff4Ii . -7, i- ( taw � y ��;� � ' -o ; •iilur, � . � 3 During the ensuing 90 years,zoning evolved into a regulating system that micromanaged the residential land uses that had previously developed according to need and market conditions. City Plan 2040 notes that Roanoke was not unique in this evolution: "The idea of regulating and arranging uses of land began almost as soon as human settlement began and remains the very essence of city planning. Early planning prescribed how various essential uses—the public square,sites for civic buildings, and the streets—are organized on the landscape. During the 20th century, rapid urbanization led to land use regulation becoming a core activity of local governments. Rather than organizing important activities, however, land use regulation evolved into a practice of excluding urban activities from one another. City planning during the second half of the 20th century had a heavy focus on separating land uses. Zoning emerged as a tool to exclude noxious industrial uses from residential areas, but then cities started using it to exclude commercial uses from residential areas. Eventually, it became common to designate vast areas of the city exclusively for single-family dwellings, prohibiting all other uses including other types of residential buildings."' Roanoke's 2005 zoning code contains seven residential zones. Prior to amendments in 2024, in five of those districts,single-family dwelling was the only principal residential use permitted by right. City Plan 2040 states: "This plan recommends continued long-range movement away from obsolete policies of excluding land uses and continued movement toward policies that promote (or permit) mixing and diversity.... Each neighborhood should welcome people of varied demographic dimensions such as income, race or ethnicity, life stage,familial status, housing preference, housing type, and mobility. Such diversity tends to occur naturally in the absence of artificial and deliberate actions to prevent it,so local government's role is to remove or relax barriers(e.g.,exclusive zoning practices)." 5 The planning staff's recommended Zoning Amendments address the ongoing effects of single-family only zoning restrictions that continue racial and economic exclusion.The Zoning Amendments also open up land to other types of housing as part of a larger strategy to addresses chronic housing shortages and escalating housing costs in Roanoke.As noted above,there has been significant public support for the concepts underlying the Zoning Amendments. From the community engagement sessions and after adoption of the March 2024 Amendments, planners have also heard concerns ranging from mild inconvenience to grave concern. These concerns have resulted in considerable discussion on Nextdoor and the imprecisely-named "Mass rezoning" Facebook page.' In these forums, and in the lawsuit filing,there are assertions that the changes will overtax the city's infrastructure, result in overcrowding, increase traffic,depopulate the city, increase "parking congestion", increase property values,decrease property values, reduce tree canopy,and generally affect the "character"of neighborhoods. Some opponents say the City did not engage the 4 City Plan 2040 City Design:Land Use Background 5 City Plan 2040 City Design:Land Use Interventions 6 A rezoning is a change or amendment to the zoning map. The Zoning Amendments do not change the zoning map. 4 public and assert that "people don't know,"despite the unprecedented engagement process and considerable news coverage prior to adoption. In the study that follows, planning staff concludes the increases in housing units will be modest and therefore readily accommodated by our existing civic and infrastructure capacity and that the potential negative effects cited by opponents are not likely to be realized. ti 5 Description of Zoning Amendments The zoning code has two parts. The first is the zoning map,which draws districts over the entire city. Every part of the city is zoned a specific district. Below is an excerpt from the Roanoke zoning map. The yellow and orange areas are residential districts. -_j� / e,' o c j"t S , n �3 t S J m f: e �: ♦ 34 _ \„ rs `"'0. `:tr . , The second part of the zoning code is the text,which spells out what can happen in each district. The regulations are the same in each district, meaning the regulations for an RM-1 district in Old Southwest are the same as an RM-1 district in the Hollins Road area. The Zoning Amendments make changes only to the text. They change the names of some districts, but there was no remapping of districts. The new district names represent the more inclusive character of the districts after amendment. Each district has a list of permitted land uses and a table of dimensional regulations like setbacks, height, lot coverage,and so on. These dimensional regulations address lot size,frontage, and the number of dwellings allowed on a lot. Each type of dwelling is subject to development standards that require that any new dwellings are compatible with existing uses. Accessory dwelling units are allowed only as an accessory to a single-unit dwelling. The Zoning Amendments change how Roanoke regulates housing. Since 1932, housing was regulated by type (single-family,two-family,townhouse, multifamily).This became increasingly complex over time, as each housing type had to be defined meticulously so it could be included or excluded from districts. The Zoning Amendments simplify the code by focusing on the actual activity occurring,which is a dwelling. 6 The number of dwellings permitted on a lot is moved to the dimensional regulations.There is a minimum land area required for each dwelling. Each district also has a maximum number of dwellings permitted on a corner lot and on an interior lot. These two specifications work together to determine how many dwellings the code permits on a given lot. Sec.36.2-311.Use table for residential districts. District RA R-12 R-7 R-5 R-3 RM-1 RM-2 RMF Dwellings IP P IP IP IP IP P means permitted P P Sec.36.2-312.Dimensional regulations for residential districts. District RA R-12 R-7 R-5 R-3 RM-1 RM-2 RMF Minimum lot area For each dwelling 43,560 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 1,500 1,000 1,000 (square feet) Corner lot-maximum number of dwellings 1 3 4 6 6 8 No limit No limit Interior or through lot-maximum number of 1 1 2 3 3 dwellings 4 No limit No limit This change makes the R-12, R-7, R-5, R-3, and RM-1 zones more inclusive by allowing other housing types. RM-2 and RMF already permitted other housing types.The RA zone is an agricultural zone mapped on the few farms and pastures remaining in the city. The following page contains a few examples of the maximum capacity of selected lots.These examples illustrate the operation of the dimensional regulations and the provisions addressing the maximum number of dwelling units.As noted, each type of dwelling is subject to development standards that require that any new dwellings are compatible with existing uses. 7 R12 Corner lot 2,500 per dwelling with absolute max of 3 ;. _? ---� dwellings g1 116; � 28,042 sf of land area_2,500 yields up to 11 dwellings Max per lot is 3 Permitted:3 dwellings R5 Interior lot , 1,500 per dwelling with absolute max of 3 dwellings I 6,673 sfi of land area_1,500 yields up to 4 dwellings Max per lot is 3 Permitted:3 units RM-1 Interior lot i 1,500 per dwelling with absolute max of 4 dwellings 6,500 sf of land area_1,500 yields up to 4 dwellings Max per lot is 4 Permitted:4 dwellings 8 These amendments made other important changes to the Zoning Code: • Defined Household to include Family and Nonfamily Living Arrangements. • Simplified Group Care Facility types into a single Group Living land use • Replaced Transitional Living Group Care Facility with small scale Community Housing Services and larger scale Regional Housing Services • Removed barriers to child care and adult care by making Adult Day Care Homes and Family Day Home permitted uses in all residential districts. • Created a new UC Urban Center zoning district • Adjusted where certain uses are permitted, not permitted or require a special exception,among the various districts. 9 Community Engagement The development of the Zoning Amendments—including adoption of the March 2024 Zoning Amendments—was preceded by an extensive process of community engagement.The first step was City Council's adoption of City Plan 2040 in December 2020.The plan describes the public participation process in developing the new comprehensive plan (pp. 18-23).The Zoning Amendments implement the priorities and policies recommended by the plan. Next, in 2021, City Council repealed minimum parking requirements for new developments on private property.This action removed a barrier to economic development and housing development. Third, planning staff crafted a process to provide meaningful opportunities for citizens to participate through a series of meetings and virtually.The planning staff organized a first round of public, in person, workshops, between September 2023 and October 2023.The first round of workshops was intended to inform residents about the current situation and identify possible ideas on how to address the affordable housing and equity issues. To maximize participation, staff based the open house workshops at community libraries to reach out into neighborhoods and provide venues that were accessible,familiar and comfortable.The staff scheduled the workshops from 4pm to 6pm to accommodate a span of work schedules. Any resident could attend any of the workshops. This first series of workshops occurred before the planning staff developed any specific zoning proposals so that the staff could consider citizen concerns before developing specific language or proposals. Staff used feedback from these sessions to craft specific possible amendments. Following the initial input sessions, planning staff began to look at options for addressing housing barriers and the issues presented above.The planning staff conducted the second set of workshops in February 2024.The second set of workshop meetings allowed citizens to consider the specific proposals developed by the planning staff for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. In addition to the twelve workshop meetings,the planning staff, in conjunction with the Office of Community Engagement and RVTV,developed and produced several Public Service Announcements that were shared through the planroanoke.org/zoning page,the City's Main Facebook page, and the Planning, Building and Development Department's Facebook page.These PSAs were developed over several months and were updated in order to reflect changes in the timing of the Planning Commission's and City Council public hearings.Additionally,these informational PSAs were cross-posted among all of the City's other social media channels. As shown above, prior to adoption of the March 2024 Amendments,the planning staff chose an "all of the above"approach to getting the word out, using media releases and direct email blasts to community members.There was a great deal of interest by the media in the effort. There were 18 different news stories in print media and broadcast news outlets. Planning staff placed nearly 300 yard signs around the community to drive people to the web page containing information about the effort and its progress. 10 The workshop/open house meetings had good attendance considering the subject matter. As important as they are,zoning text amendments typically garner limited community interest. In 2005,there was a complete rewrite of the code and map. Every property owner in the city was affected by the new code, but only one representative of a large land owner attended the City Council public hearing. First Round September 2023 Main Branch Library(10 attended) September 2023 Williamson Road Library(4 attended) October 2023 Raleigh Court Library(21 attended) October 2023 Gainsboro Library(5 attended) October 2023 Melrose Library(16 attended) October 2023 Belmont Library(6 attended) Between October 2023 and January 2024, staff tested various ideas and formulated specific possible zoning text amendments.These changes were published online in advance of the second tour of neighborhoods along with explanatory notes and an 'explainer'video that provided an additional way to understand the changes. Second Round February 2024 Belmont Library(14 attended) February 2024 Melrose Library(6 attended) February 2024 On-line Meeting(12 attended) February 2024 Gainsboro Library(6 attended) February 2024 Main Library(7 attended) February 2024 Williamson Road Library(12 attended) February 2024 Raleigh Court Library(30 attended) Additional community meetings August 13 Neighbors in South Roanoke meeting August 26, Northwest Neighborhood Development Roundtable at Melrose Library August 27, Melrose Library(Planning, Building,and Development) August 29, Belmont Library(Planning, Building,and Development) September 3, Raleigh Court Neighborhood Association meeting Briefings/Public Hearings before Planning Commission and City Council The Planning Commission and the City Council participated in a series of briefings,workshops and public hearings before the Planning Commission's recommendation and the City Council's adoption of the March 2024 Amendments. • September 5, 2023—discussed the initiative in the joint session of Planning Commission and City Council • November 10,2023—Discussed in the Planning Commission work session • January 12,2024—Staff provided a 5-page briefing memo to City Council via the City Manager. • February 5, 2024—Staff provided a one hour briefing to City Council on the planned engagement process and content of amendments. 11 • February 9, 2024—Details of code amendments discussed in the Planning Commission work session • March 8, 2024 Details of code amendments discussed in the Planning Commission work session • March 11,2024 Planning Commission held a public hearing • March 18, 2024 City Council Public Hearing • August 5, 2024 Briefing to joint meeting of Planning Commission and City Council • August 12,2024 Public hearing by the Planning Commission In all, print and broadcast media ran 18 articles or stories about the amendments and the open houses to discuss them, prior to March 18, 2024. Since adoption,the Zoning Amendments have been the subject of additional 20-30 media articles.There was extensive discussion on social media for and against, particularly on the Next Door platform. Outreach Related to Proposed Amendments As discussed above,on June 17, 2024, City Council initiated a process to consider proposed zoning amendments similar in substance to the March 2024 Amendments. As with the March 2024 Amendments,the planning staff, in conjunction with the Office of Community Engagement and RVTV, has developed PSAs shared through the planroanoke.org/zoning page,the City's Main Facebook page, the Planning, Building and Development Department's Facebook page,and cross-posted on the City's other social media channels. Additional PSAs were issued in the weeks prior to the August 12 Planning Commission hearing. . The Planning Commission and City Council held a joint work session on August 5, 2024,which included a briefing and discussion on the proposed amendments. The Planning Commission held a public work session regarding the proposed amendments on August 9, 2024. It held a public hearing on August 12, 2024, prior to its action. City Council will hold another public hearing prior to any action on the proposed amendments. Conclusion The planning staff implemented an extensive community engagement process that provided for meaningful discussion and consideration of the housing issues Roanoke faces and ideas to address those issues. Extensive media coverage since September 2023 has maximized public awareness of the issue. The Planning Commission and City Council have provided continuing opportunities for citizens to express their support and concerns through public hearing and public comment sessions and in writing. 12 Affordability and Housing Supply Roanoke has a significant shortage of affordable housing and needs more and different types of housing, including"missing middle" housing. In the context of the Zoning Amendments, "middle" housing means 2-8 dwelling units on a single lot. Virginia's zoning statutes provide that localities should improve the public health,safety, convenience and welfare of their citizens and plan for the future development of communities.'Zoning ordinances should be designed to give reasonable consideration to facilitating the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community, and to promote the creation and preservation of affordable housing suitable for meeting the current and future needs of the locality.' Findings City Plan 2040 addresses the need for additional housing in a range of types and affordability,'and includes specific observations of the need for a wide range of housing options, including "missing middle" housing10 and the need for more affordable housing." In addition to City Plan 2040,there were two significant studies of housing needs in Roanoke.The 2020 Citywide Housing Study includes the following points: • The population of Roanoke has been gradually increasing,with the percentage of elderly population also increasing. • The housing stock in Roanoke is older, resulting in lower residential real estate values. • Median rents are increasing. • A significant number of households are "cost burdened," meaning they are spending 30%or more of their income for housing costs. • There is a lack of affordable rental housing. Recommendations of this study included regional coordination,developer recruitment, leveraging city owned land for housing production, and establishing an affordable housing loan fund.The first strategy was a recommended regulatory strategy that would "consider zoning changes that allow and potentially incentivize new housing types."12 The study continues on this point: 'Section 15.2-2200 of the Code of Virginia. 8 Section 15.2-2283 of the Code of Virginia. 9 City Plan 2040,p. 13. 10 City Plan 2040,pp.25,35,77,82. 11 City Plan 2040,pp.35,39,40,81,83. 12 Citywide Housing Study p.86 13 "The city's growing population is concentrated in two primary age cohorts—younger professionals and seniors. National trends show housing preferences of both groups in close alignment with a preference toward housing in walkable locations with amenities nearby, attached ownership units or multifamily rental structures with minimal maintenance responsibilities,and amenitized buildings. If the city wants to continue to attract people to live here and retain the residents who are here already, increasing housing choice and diversity should be a key to moving forward. "Zoning changes should respond to resident needs and desires for new housing types and structures that provide additional housing choices yet are still compatible with the built environment in which they are placed. Zoning is one of the few tools the city and local partners can change almost immediately and at very little cost that can have a direct impact on housing production. Zoning can also be used to integrate new housing types across a wide variety of area or neighborhood types in the city..."13 The study also recommends consideration of inclusionary zoning approaches that either incentivize or mandate a certain percentage of new units be designated as affordable, but cautions that mandates could prove counterproductive because they may slow the pace of development. 14 A 2021 study'of housing needs revealed surprising data on how Roanoke's housing supply is occupied by households of different income ranges. As expected,there is a significant deficit of affordable housing for extremely low income households (3,020 unit deficit). What is surprising is the pronounced deficit of units with rents that align with higher household incomes(4,905 unit deficit), and the apparent excess supply of housing units in the middle ranges. Unit Rent Range vs Family Income Range16 Deficit of units Excess units in Income Range in rent range rent range Extremely low income -3,020 Very low income +3,920 Low income +5,435 Moderate income and higher -4,905 13 Citywide Housing Study p.87 14 Citywide Housing Study p.93 16 Virginia Eviction Reduction Pilot(VERP)Planning Grant Needs Assessment.Jones,Choi,Castro,Moore,and Nagle.Virginia Tech Center for Housing Research and Virginia Tech Institute for Policy and Governance,October 2021. 16 VERP assessment;adapted from Table 9 p.24.Source Data:2013-2017 CHAS 14 What this means is that families are renting outside of their presumed affordability,both upward and downward. Because the extremely low cost rental units are scarce, extremely low income families are forced to seek units where there is available supply, but are beyond what they can comfortably afford. Moderate income and higher families,faced with a tight supply of units in their rental range,tap into the excess supply available in the lower cost ranges.This shift to higher rent units results in a cost- burdening situation where those households are paying more than 30%of their income for housing costs. The need for housing affordable for extremely low income families must be addressed by government intervention in the form of assisting nonprofit or for-profit housing developers in the form of financial incentives and direct funding. The pronounced deficit at the higher end of the housing market means that the largest cohort of households must seek housing that is in the lower income rental ranges. When new market-rate housing units are developed,the market would respond to the undersupply of housing in that price range. Presumably, many of those moderate and higher income households would move to new units in their rent range, making more lower-rent units available. The important conclusion is that ALL new housing development, regardless of the rent or cost,will have some benefit to affordability for two reasons. First, increased supply would stabilize rents throughout the market and,second, more existing affordable units would become available as moderate and high income households shift toward units in their rent range. In this context,all new and additional housing production helps address the need throughout the housing market. Zoning policies that limit allowed dwellings to single-family units contribute to the shortage of housing. In Roanoke, these policies have been in place since before World War II. During this period, much land in around Roanoke and other cities was consumed by low density development, facilitated by zoning restrictions that allowed only single-family units in residential districts. Conclusion The Zoning Amendments are intended to allow the development of different types of dwelling units and more affordable housing. Provisions limiting the development in residential areas to single-family uses have been in place since the first zoning ordinance was adopted in 1932. The change in trends of land development resulting from the Zoning Amendments will be incremental, over time. As discussed below,the housing unit gains expected under the Zoning Amendments are expected to be modest, but important, particularly to those who need housing.These expected gains will play a relatively small role in increasing affordable housing in any single year.The Zoning Amendments, however, are only one part of comprehensive efforts by the City to improve the availability,affordability, and quality of housing. Over the course of decades,the Zoning Amendments are expected to be an important factor in increasing the supply of housing and,therefore,stabilize or reduce the rate of increase in housing costs. 15 Projected Housing Units Created What will happen as a result of the Zoning Amendments?This is an important and fair question. Understanding the expected rate of change that may result from the Zoning Amendments is key to understanding the potential impacts on population,transportation, environmental concerns, infrastructure and public services. During citizen engagement sessions, in social media threads,and in the lawsuit challenging the March 2024 Amendments,there were concerns expressed about the possibility of the rapid conversion of neighborhoods into overcrowded places of high density. Related concerns included potential impacts on parking and the character of neighborhoods. Findings The data, information available, and local demographic and development trends actually suggest a slow pace of change of a few dozen new units per year spread across the entire residential geography of Roanoke.Any future change in the number of dwelling units on a lot may occur from construction of a building on a vacant lot,or by conversion to add new units within an existing or expanded building. The expected rate of change is a projection of the net number of additional dwelling units that would result if an owner were to add one or more units to a single-unit building or build a new building with two or more units as permitted (and limited) by the Zoning Amendments. The existing conditions in Roanoke reflect the market's reaction to longstanding constraints and limitations on the types of residential uses allowed.The development market's reaction to the Zoning Amendments will inherently be incremental. It takes time to organize and implement any real estate development project and only a limited number of lots will be available and suitable for development at any time. In these circumstances, rapid changes are unlikely. The planning profession has established reliable tools to project capacity for new housing units on vacant land with a given zoning.There are more variables and factors that affect the projection of expected change resulting from changes to zoning provisions in the context of a fully developed city, making accurate predictions challenging. Demographic factors affect the estimate or projection of the rate of change that may result from the Zoning Amendments.These demographics factors include population growth in Roanoke and the region over time, including the number of households, and median household income. In Roanoke,there has been slow population growth over time with an increase in the percentage of elderly people.There has also been a small increase in the number of households, and median household income is lower in Roanoke than it is in the region. Development patterns are another factor. The analysis of development patterns includes: 16 Residential Building Permits:The number of building permits issued in recent years for residential structures, including single dwelling,two-dwelling,and multifamily structures (up to eight units); including conversions. Residential building permit applications 2018-2024(YTD) Single unit Two-unit Small Multifamily Year Building Building Building Permits(3 Permits Permits to 8 units) 2024(YTD through July 15) 74 3 0 2023 98 5 0 2022 67 0 0 2021 46 4 6 2020 39 0 0 2019 50 1 0 2018 33 5 0 Sales price trends for residential sales: In Roanoke, sales prices for one-unit dwellings increased 4.8% compared to last year to an average of$241,000. This is a pronounced increase since June 2019, when the average was just$140,000.17 Rent rate trends: In Roanoke, average rental rates are volatile from month to month (increasing and declining). The overall trend is a pronounced increase from$1,016 to$1,225 during the period January 2023 through March 2024.18 Construction and development cost trends: In Roanoke,as in the rest of Virginia,construction and redevelopment costs trends have been increasing. Vacancy rate trends in rental housing:Vacancy rates were steady in the years prior to 2014, remaining around 1,000 units that are vacant and for rent.A trend of increase began in 2014 and peaked at 2,500 vacant,for rent units in 2021.19 An increase in vacancy usually indicates a lower demand in the rental market. We know, however that rents were escalating rents during that time period; it is unlikely they were vacant due to easing demand. Rather,owners may have been increasing rents in response to a strong market and holding units vacant longer until there is a willing taker for the higher rent. Another possible explanation could be the mismatch of rents and quality of available units to household incomes. Available units in the single-unit dwelling market: In Roanoke,the inventory of single-unit dwellings for sale has been low. In the past year,44%sold above the listing price and there were no price drops. There were only 115 sales and the median time on the market is a mere 8 days. Roanoke is classified as "very competitive" market.20 17 Roanoke Housing Market: House Prices&Trends I Redfin 18 Average rent in Roanoke,VA& rental prices by neighborhood I Redfin 19 US Census ACS B25004 Vacancy Status; https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT5Y2022.B25004?q=B25004&g=050XX000S51770 retrieved July 2024. 20 Roanoke Housing Market: House Prices&Trends I Redfin 17 Market suitability of a lot for development:The suitability and feasibility of building multifamily dwelling units on a specific lot are subject to variable factors, including: • The number of units allowed on a lot based on its size. • The number of units allowed based on corner vs interior lot; • Other lot characteristics such as width, depth,topography, and amount of street frontage; • Vehicle access from the adjacent street and alley; • Minimum yard requirements (another way of expressing setback requirements); • The application of development standards for specific types of multifamily dwelling units. See Zoning Code §36.2-409.1. In addition,some neighborhoods have more vacant lots and unoccupied structures than others.Taken together,these factors specific to Roanoke suggest moderate demand for new housing of all types, including both single family and multifamily dwelling units. The building permit data is perhaps most relevant. Generally,construction of new single-dwelling buildings is now exceeding pre-Covid rates,while construction of buildings with 2-8 units has been negligible. "Missing middle housing" is clearly missing from Roanoke's housing supply. Since the adoption of the March 2024,Amendments,the City received three applications for middle housing types that would net only five additional units as a result of the Zoning Amendments. By comparison,there were 44 applications for single-unit dwellings. Experience in Virginia Another factor to consider is the experience and expectations of other Virginia localities.Alexandria City, Charlottesville City,and Arlington County have adopted zoning ordinance amendments that are similar to the March 2024 Amendments.The zoning ordinance amendments in these three localities allow multifamily residential uses in formerly single-family districts,with a higher number of dwelling units allowed per lot than are allowed under the Roanoke Zoning Amendments.These three localities all have higher growth and more development pressure than Roanoke.Alexandria City(159,467) and Arlington County(238,643) also have populations larger than Roanoke's (100,014). Alexandria. Alexandria adopted changes that permit up to four units on any type of lot in all residential zones. "Expanded Options in Single Family Zones" are expected to create 178 net new units over 10 years.21 Adjusted for differences in population,this figure would equate to 11 units per year in Roanoke. Charlottesville. Charlottesville (pop. 46,423) adopted a much more ambitious approach than Roanoke in their four residential zones. Their new code permits up to six units on a lot in two districts and up to 12 units on a lot in the other two zones. Charlottesville anticipates a maximum of approximately 1,300 net new units over a three-year period across the formerly single-family zoning districts.Their study notes the projection is not a likely outcome, but is rather a theoretical upper maximum used to evaluate a 21 https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure- 20230925.pdf 18 Portland Portland,Oregon(population 652,503) implemented its "Residential Infill Project" in 2021 and published a report examining the first twelve months of data after the zoning changes. 24 During that time, 271 middle housing units were constructed and 46 older middle housing units were replaced, resulting in a net gain of 225 units total (this net number includes the single units that would have been permitted prior to the zoning changes). This report notes that the most(86%) new missing middle housing units are within a quarter mile of"centers and corridors"with transportation (public transit) and other amenities. Adjusted for Roanoke's population,this would be equivalent to 35 units in buildings with 2-6 units. Minneapolis In 2020, Minneapolis (population 429,954) began to implement its Minneapolis 2040 comprehensive plan,which included provisions to eliminate exclusionary zoning. From 2020 through 2022, Minneapolis averaged 57 units for 2-4 unit housing,a 45%increase over the annual average for 2017 through 2019. Data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, however, indicates that most of the 2-4 unit housing is in areas not previously zoned for single-family housing.25 Adjusting proportionally for Roanoke's population,this level of production would equate to 13 units. Expected Rate of Change The planning staff acknowledges the uncertainty in projecting an expected rate of change given the range of variable factors involved. Based on the available information, planning staff expects the rate of change resulting from the Zoning Amendments will be incremental and gradual over the long range.This conclusion is based on the demographic factors and development trends specific to Roanoke as discussed above. In developing this analysis,the planning staff applied its experience with and knowledge of development patterns and other factors in Roanoke. 22 City of Charlottesville,Inclusionary Zoning Analysis,August 2022,p.43;City of Charlottesville,Infrastructure Capacity Memorandum,July 7,2023. 23 Arlington County/Partners for Economic Solutions,Missing Middle Housing Financial Analysis Results for Developments,April 8,2022,pp.10-11. 25 Bipartisan Policy Center,Comprehensive Zoning Reform in Minneapolis,MN,October 3,2023; https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/comprehensive-zoning-reform-in-minneapolis-mn/ 19 Based on the information available, planning staff has created a model of the net new housing units expected to result from the Zoning Amendments.This model projects that 2%of the parcels in formerly single-family only districts will convert to some higher number of units over a thirty year period.The 2% rate of change was applied to each zoning district to derive a number of net new units expected to be added to each district over thirty years.The 2%can easily be adjusted up or down to understand the results of a higher or lower rate of change. Also,with a year or two of experience,the percentage can be adjusted to modify projections based on actual permit applications. Based on the information available and considering the demographic factors and development trends affecting Roanoke, planning staff projects that the Zoning Amendments allowing multifamily dwelling units on lots in formerly single-family only districts will result in a net increase of new units of 1,151 over thirty years,or 39 units per year. When adjusted for population,the projections and actual experiences of other localities indicates a range of 11 to 45 units per year,with Charlottesville seeming an outlier in terms of its projection. As noted, Charlottesville's analysis includes a theoretical upper maximum, rather than a likely outcome. Also,Charlotte's zoning amendments allow more units on different types of lots as compared to the Roanoke Zoning Amendments. A projection of 40 units is consistent with the high end of the range of estimates and experience reported by Arlington,Alexandria, Portland,and Minneapolis. For context,these figures represent very small percentages of Roanoke's 44,543 housing units. Additional units projected as a result of March 18, 2024 Zoning Amendments Zoning District PROJECTED additional units R-12 18 R-7 208 R-5 338 R-3 11 RM-1 577 30-year TOTAL 1151 Per year 38.3 26 Conclusion The results of the model indicate minimal growth in a given year and modest but meaningful growth over 30 years. Actual experience during the first four-plus months since the March 2024 Amendments were adopted seems to confirm small rates of change: there were only three permit applications,that will create five additional net new units on lots in formerly single-family-only zones. 26 Staff refined and revised these projections for Revision 3. 20 Residential Density Changes In each zoning district, a target or allowable density for the district is expressed by the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement. Allowable Density Prior to March 18, 2024,Zoning Amendments District Lot area/dwelling required Equivalent density R-12 12,000 sf per unit 3.1 units per acre R-7 7,000 sf per unit 5.2 units per acre R-5 5,000 sf per unit 7.3 units per acre R-3 3,000 sf per unit 12.1 units per acre RM-1 3,500 sf per unit 10.4 units per acre The planning staff calculated the area of each district, and the number of existing lots in each district,to determine the actual development lot density that exists in 2024. We used the term "lot density" because the number of lots and the number of dwelling units permitted are the same. The planning staff then calculated the potential density of lots in the district based on the expected number of net new units allowed by the Zoning Amendments, as projected by the planning staff's expected rate of change model. Findings The actual, existing density in the residential districts in Roanoke is far below the target/allowable density as shown in the table above.There is considerable capacity to increase the number of dwelling units in all the affected residential districts and remain well below the target/allowable density. The table below shows the projected effect on density. The net new dwelling units expected to be generated by the Zoning Amendments will result in very small increases in density that remain well below the pre-March 18, 2024, code's target/allowable density; in most cases, remaining below half of the allowable density. Changes in density projected over 30 years ALLOWABLE Density before ACTUAL PROJECTED Amendments Density Density 2054 (units per acre) (Lots per acre) ( lots per acre) R-12 3.1 1.1 1.1 R-7 5.2 2.1 2.2 R-5 7.3 2.6 2.7 R-3 12.1 5.8 6.0 RM-1 10.4 3.9 4.1 21 Equity and Exclusionary Effects During the early decades of the 20th century,governments,developers,and corporations enforced a host of racial segregation policies. Segregation ordinances, restrictive covenants,financial redlining, and single-family zoning worked hand in hand to make it impossible for Black families to move into most neighborhoods. Fortunately,those segregation ordinances, redlining,and restrictive covenants were discarded as unconstitutional, but one tool of government-enforced segregation persists: the single- family zoning district. City Plan 2040 has a central theme of"Interwoven Equity"which includes elements of: housing priorities;the need to dismantle the existing segregated landscape; and the need to address a history of inequity.27 City Plan 2040 also states the need for and goal of a variety of housing types and affordable housing in all neighborhoods of the city.28 As noted in the Introduction, one goal of the Zoning Amendments is to reduce the persisting effects of single-family only zoning restrictions that exclude residents on the basis of race and economic status. When we hear the terms "institutional racism"or"structural racism,"they refer to effects that are not necessarily overt or direct, but rather are baked into political and social institutions and that work almost invisibly behind the scenes. Such is the case with the exclusionary effects of the single-family only restrictions in place prior to the March 2024 Amendments. Findings Zoning in the United States has an unfortunate past. The overt tools of segregation,such as race based zoning ordinances, redlining,and restrictive covenants, have been prohibited by the courts and ended by other reforms. Nevertheless, most U.S. Cities remain racially segregated.The origins and genesis of single-family only zoning restrictions help explain why segregated housing patterns persist. Single-family zoning restrictions have the effect of excluding potential residents on the basis of cost and economics; single-family housing is among the most costly type of housing to develop and maintain. Single-family only zoning restrictions have the effect of continuing the exclusion of Black Americans because of their historic relative economic standing due to racist policies. In Roanoke,the zoning code prior to the March 2024 Amendments limited the use of land in most of the residential districts to single-family uses;these restrictions increased the cost of housing and effectively exclude citizens from living in those areas.This continuing exclusionary effect is a compelling reason to eliminate single-family only zoning districts. 27 City Plan 2040,pp.4,7,23,30-43. 28 City Plan 2040,pp. 38(Policy 1:Identify and remove barriers to housing choice);39-41(Policy 4:Develop varied and affordable housing options in each neighborhood);79 (Policy 1: Develop all neighborhoods to be complete neighborhoods);81(Policy 1:Enable affordable and accessible housing in all neighborhoods);82(Policy 3: Enable a range of housing types in each part of the community to achieve inclusive,livable neighborhoods that prosper over time); 109("Each neighborhood should welcome people of varied demographic dimensions such as income,race or ethnicity,life stage,familial status,housing preference,housing type,and mobility. Such diversity tends to occur naturally in the absence of artificial and deliberate actions to prevent it,so local government's role is to remove or relax barriers(e.g.exclusive zoning practices); 110-111(Policy 1:Promote complete neighborhoods by allowing a mix of housing types in each neighborhood). 23 The historical record establishing the exclusionary intent of early zoning ordinances is clear.The issue for policy makers today is how to address the continuing effects of zoning provisions that continue patterns of racial and economic segregation. In the recent Arlington County zoning amendments litigation,the NAACP Arlington Branch—which most would recognize as a subject matter expert—submitted a detailed explanation of the discriminatory intent of early zoning restrictions and the continuing effect of such restrictions. See "Pretrial Brief of NACCP Arlington Branch as Amicus Curiae" in Nordgren v. County Board of Arlington,Case No. CL23001513-00; dated July 1, 2024. Below is a sampling of quotes by notable scholars and policy commentators on the effects of exclusionary zoning restrictions in the United States: "Across Virginia's three metro areas, residential racial segregation endures at moderate to high levels,and the pattern of segregation noted by scholars at the height of segregation—largely black urban centers surrounded by largely white suburbs—persists. "Other factors such as redlining, private covenants, urban renewal,tax policies,etc., contributed to segregation during the 20th century, but zoning remains one of the few governmental actions that perpetuate segregation today. [Emphasis added] McGuireWoods,Zoning and Segregation in Virginia, parts 1 and 2, 202129 "... patterns and processes of racial segregation in the post-civil rights American city are strongly affected by density zoning.At any point in time from 1990 to 2000, inter-metropolitan variation in black-white segregation and black isolation was strongly predicted by a metropolitan area's relative openness to housing construction as embodied in maximum zoning rules--the greater the allowable density,the lower the level of racial segregation." Rothwell and Massey,The effect of density zoning on racial segregation in US urban areas, National Library of Medicine, 2009 "How can we, at last, end our embrace of segregation?The most important thing we can do is to replace exclusionary zoning policies.... We cannot in good faith claim that our communities are antiracist or antipoverty if they continue to uphold exclusionary zoning—our politer, quieter means of promoting segregation" Matthew Desmond,Poverty, By America, 2023, p 161 29 https://media.mcguirewoods.com/publications/2021/Zoning-And-Segregation-In-Virginia-Study-Partl.pdf and https://media.mcguirewoods.com/publications/2022/Zoning-And-Segregation-In-Virginia-Part2.pdf,retrieved 7/31/2024 24 "Density restrictions work to increase segregation, mainly by exacerbating the concentration of affluence.This contradicts the commonly held belief that exclusionary zoning leads to the concentration of the poor. Instead,the authors find that the main effect of density restrictions is to enable the wealthy to wall themselves off from other groups." Richard Florida,How Zoning Restrictions Make Segregation Worse, Bloomberg,2016 "Reversing the effects of more than a century of discriminatory housing policy will require new approaches to land use....The first is rethinking single-family residential zoning designations. These classifications were originally designed to cement racial and socioeconomic segregation, and the inequality they enforce persists today. Limiting and eliminating single-family residential zoning will help diversify segregated neighborhoods. George Fatheree,A Brief History of Racial Zoning and How to Reverse the Lasting Effects of Housing Discrimination, Urban Land, 2024 Conclusion As can been seen, Roanoke published its intent to take action on its zoning code in City Plan 2040, adopted by City Council in December 2020.The Zoning Amendments remove exclusionary provisions of the zoning code to implement multiple policies and actions of the Interwoven Equity theme of City Plan 2040: • Review and eliminate City codes and policies based on explicit or implicit biases, and advocate the same approach for state laws and policies. (p. 34) • Enable complete neighborhoods to develop within the framework of the zoning code, providing access to affordable housing,services,and employment. (p. 34) • Identify and remove barriers to housing choice.(p. 38) • Reconsider housing policies rooted in racial segregation efforts such as exclusionary zoning districts that exclude all but single-family houses. (p. 38) • Work to reduce tenure bias [... ] the favoring of owner-occupants over renter occupants, by reviewing City policy and plans to eliminate such bias. (p. 38) • Ensure affordable housing is available in all neighborhoods of the City. (p.40) • Promote complete neighborhoods,so all neighborhoods have a broad range of housing type, including multifamily housing. (p.40) • Pursue legislative opportunities to increase affordable housing options and opportunities. (p. 40) 25 Population Change Impact on Schools, Public Facilities, and Infrastructure Using the projected new housing units resulting from the Zoning Amendments,the impact on the population can be extrapolated. Roanoke has had a consistent average household size of about 2.25 people over the past two decades. Findings The model projects approximately 1,200 net new households over 30 years. Assuming the current 2.25 persons per household remains constant,the resulting population increase would be 3,000, in addition to the forecast by Weldon Cooper Center of 105,079 in 2050. Over 30 years,the Zoning Amendments will potentially contribute about a tenth of a percent(0.1%)of growth each year. This variance is well within the scale of change seen between decennial Census counts. The enrollment in Roanoke City Public Schools is approximately 14,000. The projected growth from Zoning Amendments would add less than 15 school age children per year and 450 students over 30 years.This level of variance is well within the scale of change from year to year. The Western Virginia Water Authority indicates considerable excess capacity for growth and that the projected growth resulting from the Zoning Amendments can readily be met. The Authority indicates it has 18 million gallons per day of water supply capacity available and 22 million gallons per day of sanitary sewer capacity available to accommodate growth in the City of Roanoke. An estimated 10,000 to 11,000 additional trips per day would be generated by the projected new households created.These would be spread across the City's developed network of local streets, collector streets, and arterial streets and would not result in any appreciable impact on the street system. The City's system of parks and recreation facilities are distributed around the City and would easily accommodate the additional population projected from the Zoning Amendments. Conclusion The population change projected to result from the Zoning Amendments will be negligible,and readily accommodated by existing infrastructure and public facilities. 26 Rental vs Ownership Some residents have expressed concern that removing exclusionary zoning will reduce homeownership in Roanoke. Findings Prior to adoption of the March 2024 Amendments, Roanoke's ownership rates had been falling and renter households had been increasing. Most cities in Virginia have considerably more renter households than owner households. As of 2022, Roanoke was about half and half,with slightly more owner households.Accordingly, restricting units to single-unit detached housing(i.e.,the pre-March 18, 2024 zoning)does not necessarily increase ownership rates.' Although the nature of middle housing does mean it is more likely to be renter occupied,there is nothing in a zoning code that specifies an ownership or rental arrangement. About 1,600 owner households live in types of housing other than detached single-unit structures. A third of renter households live in detached single-unit structures. (6,549 households). Conclusion The nature of zoning and the projected new units created indicate that the Zoning Amendments will have little to no impact on rates of ownership. Other factors, such as general cost of housing, interest rates,availability,etc., have much greater impact on the tenure of a household. 3°2022 1-year ACS, US Census Bureau 27 Neighborhood Traffic Impacts With respect to traffic impacts, planners looked at maximum build out scenarios allowed by the Zoning Amendments for neighborhood blocks. Daily and peak hour traffic volumes were calculated using trip generation factors. The results were compared to the capacity of the street. Generally, residential streets start to reach their capacity at 1,000 trips per day or more than 100 trips in a peak hour. The City of Roanoke subdivision code only requires a wider street when capacity is projected to exceed 1,500 vehicles per day. A VDOT standard is 2,000 vehicles per day. Single-unit dwellings generate 10 vehicle trips per day with 10%in the peak hours. Each unit of multiple dwelling residential generates eight trips per day with 10%in the peak hours. Findings In all the sampled neighborhood streets,even with the unlikely full build out, projected trips never exceed 900 daily trips or 90 peak trips. All projections were well within the capacity of existing streets. R-12 District: 3200 block Allendale SW contains 25 interior lots and 4 corner lots. The maximum buildout of 25 one-dwelling units and 12 units on the corner lots would yield 346 trips per day.. (10 trips x 25 units) + (8 trips x 12 units) = 346 vehicle trips per day. Maximum build out would be well within the capacity of the street R-7 District: 2400 and 2500 block Dorchester Court NW contains 28 interior lots and four corner lots. Each interior lot could have two units and each corner lot could have four units, leading to a maximum buildout of 72 units,which would yield 576 vehicle trips per day. Maximum build out would be well within the capacity of the street. R-5 District: 2200 block Denniston SW contains 25 interior lots and four corner lots. Each interior lot could have three units and each corner lot could have six units, leading to a maximum buildout of 99 units,which would yield 792 vehicle trips per day. Maximum build out would be well within the capacity of the street. RM-1 District:400 block Washington Ave SW contains 19 interior lots and four corner lots. Each interior lot could have four units and each corner lot could have eight units, leading to a maximum buildout of 108 units,which would yield 864 vehicle trips per day. Maximum build out would be well within the capacity of the street. Conclusion The traffic scenarios below demonstrate that development under the Zoning Amendments will not lead to undue congestion of public streets,even in an unlikely full build out situation. A qualitative statement such as, "There will be more traffic." May be true, but planning staff sees no evidence that the Zoning Amendments will result in traffic that exceeds the capacities of residential streets. 28 On-Street Parking The City of Roanoke repealed minimum parking requirements for new development on private property in 2021. In doing so,the City made a policy decision that it would no longer make off-street parking a consideration in making development decisions. This action removed a barrier to economic development and housing development. In creating a development,a developer will decide if off-street parking is warranted and construct it if so. Experience with development projects since 2021 demonstrates that developers almost always include off-street parking,even when it is not required. Some residents have expressed concern that new units resulting from the Zoning Amendments will overcrowd on-street parking. Findings On-street parking is a public resource that may or may not be available to the adjacent properties based on factors such as street width and traffic volumes. Generally,all local residential access streets are open to parallel parking on both sides. In rare cases,the street is so narrow that parking must be eliminated on one or both sides to ensure at least one lane of travel. The on-street parking supply is often affected through the private action of establishing a private driveway,which reduces the opportunity of on street parking, effectively reducing the supply by a full space. Projecting the expected rate of change over 30 years at the block level yields less than one new unit for most blocks in Roanoke.That would mean 1-3 additional vehicles if all of that unit's occupants used on- street parking. There are few, if any, blocks that could not absorb this small increase in demand. With the prior elimination of minimum parking requirements and other zoning reform measures,the City implemented policies that place a higher value on places for people to live than on places for people to park. There is no doubt that on-street parking demand and occupancy increases with more housing units. More often than not,there is unused capacity to absorb this demand. However,should on-street parking become less available or less convenient,the response should be consistent with the higher value placed on housing. Planning staff does not support prioritization of the on-street parking supply that would sacrifice potential increased housing supply. Any individual property owner who seeks parking that is always available and convenient can create that in the form of off-street parking. Indeed, many have already provided their exclusive parking with driveways off the street or spaces off alleys where available. Conclusion As the scale of expected change is minimal, it is unlikely that the Zoning Amendments will contribute to on-street parking problems. Consistent with other policy, planning staff concludes that on-street parking availability should not be a consideration for the number of housing units permitted in a zoning district. 29 Assessments and Property Values Some property owners expressed concern that increasing the number of units permitted on a lot will result in an increase in property assessments. Generally,the greater the development potential of a property,the greater its value. It may initially seem,therefore,that allowing multifamily dwelling units will result in the real estate assessment office increasing assessments on all the properties where more dwelling units are allowed under the Zoning Amendments. However, such a conclusion is questionable. As noted below, real estate assessments are based on fair market value with reference to actual sales of similar properties and actual income for similar rental properties. Assessments will likely go up because they generally increase incrementally over time along with the actual market value of real estate, regardless of what the zoning allows. Residential assessments rarely fall and do so only in times of general economic distress such as a severe recession.The question is whether any increment of increase can be attributed to the Zoning Amendments. Findings Planning staff compared dozens of multiunit zoning(RM-2) properties to properties in abutting R-12, R-7, R-5, R-3, and RM-1 districts. The comparison of land assessments reveals no distinguishable difference in the land assessments based on the difference in zoning.The data supporting this analysis is publicly available on the City's online GIS. Differences in per-square-foot value become evident only where there is a change in class of zones(i.e., residential compared to commercial). It is true that a single property would probably be re-assessed if it moved to a different class of zoning,such as residential to commercial,through a map amendment. That is because of its development potential relative to other properties in the area. A zoning change that stayed within the same class, however, is likely to have little impact on the assessment. A change in zoning from one residential zone to another, say R-12 to the higher density RM-1,would have little impact on the assessment. Likewise,if a single property's development potential is increased by a map amendment,while the property around it stays the same, it could probably become more valuable than the surrounding properties. It is unlikely that the Zoning Amendments alone will have any measurable effect on property values. Zoning changes are unlikely to increase assessments in any case because residential land assessments are based on actual sales of properties in the neighborhood, not the individual speculative development potential of a property. Conclusion The Zoning Amendments are unlikely to have any noticeable impact on the value of property or the assessments. In any case, an increase in assessment would be due to an actual increase in market value, indicated by comparable sales in the neighborhood. 30 Environmental Concerns Some property owners assert that the Zoning Amendments will have negative environmental impacts. Specifically,opponents cite loss of tree canopy, degraded water quality, and degraded air quality.There is no explanation of how the Zoning Amendments could have these effects. Findings Every new dwelling unit that may result from the Zoning Amendments will constitute infill development within the context of a developed city. Infill development is the opposite of urban sprawl and is environmentally superior in most every aspect. There is agreement among city planners and environmental advocates that infill development is far more environmentally friendly because it uses or extends existing infrastructure systems rather than create new housing in undeveloped areas. This avoids considerable environmental impacts of developing greenfield sites in disconnected exurbs. Planning staff considers the national Sierra Club to be a subject matter expert.Their Guidance For Smart Growth And The Urban Infill Policy holds the following view on the environmental and social considerations of housing policies: "When the Sierra Club Board of Directors adopted a position opposing redlining in 1986, it clearly signaled an intent to treat housing,and particularly housing discrimination and segregation,as an environmental issue.The Board has reinforced this commitment in the new Infill Policy. "As the lack of housing options forces people to live farther from jobs and services,we are driving more and increasing greenhouse gas emissions. For example, more than 70%of "extremely low-income renters"—those earning 30%or less of area median income—pay more than 50%of their income on rent and utilities. When the costs of transportation are taken into account,especially for households in locations lacking access to transit,the cost burden is even greater. "This guidance focuses on expanding housing choices in neighborhoods that offer access to educational and economic opportunity, particularly for residents who, because of race, ethnicity,and/or income, have historically been marginalized and displaced in land use decisions. It also follows the Urban Infill Policy's recommendation that every neighborhood should host its fair share of affordable and low-income housing through equitable zoning, regulation,and investment." This document goes on to recommend ending exclusionary zoning (p. 62). Conclusion The infill development resulting from the Zoning Amendments will have a positive environmental benefit, providing needed housing in existing developed areas with minimal disturbance to natural landscapes. 31 Blight Issues Roanoke has about 50 vacant, derelict house structures and many more in need of rehabilitation. Moreover,there are thousands of vacant lots going unused that are sometimes nuisances. Some of these code enforcement cases are resolved each year through demolition or rehabilitation. Nevertheless, each year, additional residential structures are vacated or need rehabilitation,adding to the inventory. Findings Zoning restrictions that limit permitted uses to single-family dwellings contribute to neighborhood blight because these restrictions narrow a property's development potential to one option: a single-family dwelling. Derelict structures result from many root causes, but they all share a common theme:There is no viable economic use that is motivating an owner to action. Derelict houses are"upside down" financially. That is,the individual benefit,speculative sales price,or rental income would not support the costs of rehabilitation. Likewise,for a vacant lot—the income from the sale or rental of a single- dwelling house would not justify the cost of new construction. By increasing the possible number of units, it is far more likely that rehabilitating an old house will make financial sense. Likewise,the ability to build more housing units may motivate an owner of a long-vacant lot to return it to a beneficial use. In the first four months since the amendments were adopted,there were three permits for middle housing to be built on vacant lots in former single-family only zoning districts.All three lots had been vacant for at least 30 years;two of those lots also had multiple weed/trash violations in the past. Conclusion Allowing multi-family dwellings in residential districts increases development options and therefore will reduce blight, by creating more economic opportunity for rehabilitation or new construction. The Zoning Amendments will aid in blight reduction. Redevelopment of vacant houses and lots will be tracked by the planning staff. 32 Objections to the Zoning Amendments Opponents of the Zoning Amendments assert a number of policy,timing,and process objections to the Zoning Amendments—both to the March 2024 Amendments and the proposed amendments now. The "policy" objections include:the City Council should defer to the preferences of specific neighborhoods that wish to maintain single-family only zoning restrictions;the City should not allow new multifamily uses in neighborhoods that are developed for primarily single-family uses; allowing multifamily units in primarily single-family areas could change the character of those areas; and allowing multifamily units by right may result in an increase in poor quality rental housing, particularly in "vulnerable" neighborhoods.The timing and process objections include:the City should delay the Zoning Amendments to evaluate the effect of similar zoning changes in other places;the planning staff should undertake more research on the expected effect of the Zoning Amendments;the City should undertake more public outreach and allow more citizen input before implementing the Zoning Amendments. Opponents of the Zoning Amendments have stated their objections as concepts; they have not provided proposed revisions to the March 2024 Amendments that would address the stated concerns. The planning staff has considered the objections presented and does not agree with the policy conclusions,speculative conclusions about the impact of the Zoning Amendments, nor the conceptual remedies presented,for reasons provided in this report.. As explained throughout this report,the March 2024 Amendments are already in effect.The Zoning Amendments implement provisions of the 2040 City Plan, including the provisions addressing the need for additional housing,the need for more affordable housing,the need for all neighborhoods in Roanoke to participate in providing additional housing,and the elimination of Code and other restrictions that artificially limit the supply of housing and the types of housing that are developed.Allowing the development of multifamily units in all neighborhoods is consistent with the interwoven equity provisions of City Plan 2024. Many of the most desirable areas in Roanoke include a mix of single-family and multifamily units. And the expected rate of change resulting from the Zoning Amendments is projected to be incremental and gradual over time. City Plan 2040, and the December 2020 Citywide Housing Study and the October 2021 Housing Needs Assessment,state the need for additional housing in Roanoke.The zoning code, as it existed before March 18, 2024, restricted the development of new housing in much of Roanoke.The effect of the Zoning Amendments is expected to be incremental, but important;the Zoning Amendments will allow development of additional housing of different types, in all areas of Roanoke. Single family units are the most expensive type of housing; allowing the development of more multifamily units by right will help address the need for additional housing of all types and for more affordable housing. The City has undertaken significant study and public outreach efforts in connection with City Plan 2024 and the March 2024 Amendments. During the comprehensive plan review process,and the process for adopting the March 2024 Amendments,there has been consistent public support for the need to address the housing,affordability and equity principles stated in City Plan 2040 and addressed in the Zoning Amendments.There has been additional study and opportunities for public input in connection with the proposed zoning amendments.There is and has been extensive information available to citizens,the planning staff,the Planning Commission,and the City Council as part of the continuing staff review and the legislative process.The adoption of the Zoning Amendments involve changes, and the 33 City had undertaken appropriate study and outreach to identify the need for change,and the expected effects of the changes proposed and adopted. 34 Conclusions and Recommendation In connection with the zoning amendments,staff considered community input and recommended a moderate and reasonable zoning reform package that provides for proportional increases in each formerly exclusionary residential district.As stated earlier in this report,the projected 40 new units per year created under the Zoning Amendments is modest. The new units projected are unlikely to play a substantial role in easing the current housing shortage over the short term.Zoning codes work over decades and significant gains could be realized over the long term. Staff does not expect that zoning reform will alone solve the problem of housing scarcity and affordability. It is, however, an important piece of a larger strategy that includes incentives and removing barriers to housing development. In the process of readopting the Zoning Amendments, opponents of the Zoning Amendments raised the idea of general modifications to the Zoning Amendments, primarily to reduce the potential density of future multifamily development.The planning staff has carefully considered and analyzed these general suggestions.The planning staff continues to view the Zoning Amendments as moderate and reasonable. Despite the community discussion about theoretical worst case scenarios, staff has not seen evidence presented that supports reducing the number of dwellings permitted on a lot in the various zoning districts. Staff is committed to monitoring and reporting the results of the Zoning Amendments to the Planning Commission and City Council. In the first four-plus months since the March 2024 Amendments were adopted,there were three permits for eight units that were able to go on vacant lots in formerly single- family only zones.These developments will result in five additional units. At that rate,there would be approximately 15 new middle housing units created over the course of a year,which is below the projections. It should be noted that all three lots had been vacant for at least 30 years,and two of the lots had multiple prior citations for weed violations. In addition,staff anticipates that the neighborhood plans will be updated over time for consistency with City Plan 2040 and the Zoning Amendments.The effects of the Zoning Amendments over time can be evaluated as part of this process. In summary,following its additional study after adoption of the March 2024 Amendments,staff recommends substantially the same zoning reform package (i.e.,the Zoning Amendments)to the Planning Commission. Staff further commits to documenting and reporting the development outcomes that result from the reforms to inform future adjustments. 35 The Roanoke Times Account Number Roanoke,Virginia 6007932 Affidavit of Publication Date CITY OF ROANOKE-CLERKS OFFICE September 06,2024 Attn Cecelia Webb 215 CHURCH AVE SW ROOM 456 ROANOKE,VA 24011 Date Category Description Ad Size Total Cost 09/07/2024 Legal Notices NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 3 x 13.75 IN 6,783.31 Publisher of the Roanoke Times I, (the undersigned)an authorized representative of the Roanoke Times,a daily newspaper published in Roanoke,in the State of Virginia,do certify that the annexed notice NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING was published in said newspapers on the following dates: 08/30,09/06/2024 The First insertion being given ... 08/30/2024 Newspaper reference: 0001494762 Billing Repre entative Sworn to and subscribed before me th 6th Day of September 2024 ,ttttttrr,, •cJ ttt dF ire r - 7 ,<17^ Notary Public® 31 20�� ` RrG1S?RA-.6 ON : State of Virginia � ; ;20-19 �, Countyof Hanover '�T . ,es ®r 0Or •ARYQ. ° � My Commission expires '�z >11 i t,gi 't+X‘ti THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,1YSGINIA - NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the City of Roanoke,pursuant to Section 15.2-2204,Code of Vrginia(1950),as amended," will hold a public hearing on Monday,September 16,2024,at 7:00 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,in the Council Chamber,4th Floor,Room 450,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building,215 Church Avenue,S.W.,Roanoke,Virginia,at which time citizens of the City of Roanoke shah have an opportunity to be heard with respect to proposed amendments to Chapter 36.2,Zoning,of the Code of the City of Roanoke(1979),as amended,to ordain,reordain,amend,reamend,adopt and/or readopt the March 18,2024 Zoning Amendments,as described below.The City Council gives notice of its intent to consider for adoption the proposed amendments to Chapter 36.2,Zoning,of the Code of the City of Roanoke(1979),as amended,to ordain,reordain,amend,reamend,adapt and/or readopt the March 18,2024 Zoning Amendments,as described below.The proposed Zoning Amendments are intended to remove barriers for the creation of affordable housing,to make the zoning code consistent with state code,to create an additional zoning district(hO:Urban Center),and to make changes to the use tables for residential,multiple purpose,industrial,and planned unit development districts,such amendments being for the pudic purposes of promoting public health,public safety,and good zoning practice.Such amendments do not involve a change in the zoning map classification of any parcels of land and do not change zoning ordinance text regulations in a way that would decrease the allowed dwelling and density of any parcel of Iand.The proposed Zoning Amendments are similar in substance to the Zoning Amendments adopted by City Council on March 18,2024.The City Council will consider these Zoning Amendments: 1. Section 36.2-160,Title,changes title to"zoning code;" 2. Section 36.2-105,Rules of interpretation and construction,changes to construction of language; 3. Section 36.2-201,Establishment of districts,changes to the names of zoning districts;establishment of a new multiple purpose base zoning district:UC Urban Center, _ 4. Section 36.2-205,Dimensional regulations,regulations to determine the number of dwellings permitted on a lot;changes to lot frontage requirements;incorporation of the UC district; 5. Section 36.2-300,Purpose,changes to purpose statements; 6. Section 36.2-310,Purposes of the residential districts,changes to the purpose statements of the residential districts; 7. Section 36.2-311,Use table for residential districts,changes to the permitted uses in residential districts; 8. Section 36.2-312,Dimensional regulations for residential districts,changes to the dimensional regulations for residential districts; • 9. Section 36.2-314,Purposes of the multiple purpose districts,changes to the purpose statement of the MX,Mixed Use District, addition of a p erpose statement for the UC Urban Center, - - ---_10.- Sectlun 3m.2-3t5,Use table for multiple purpose district,changes to the permitted uses in the multiple purpose districts, addition of a column in the use table for the UC Urban Center; 11. Section 36.2-316,Dimensional regulations for multiple purpose districts,changes to the dimensional regulations for multiple purpose districts,addition of a column in the dimensional regulations table for the UC Urban Center; 12. Section 36.2-322,Use table for industrial districts,changes to the permitted uses in the industrial districts; 13. Section 36.2-327,Use table for planned unit development districts,changes to the permitted uses in the planned unit development districts; 14. Section 36.2-328,Dimensional regulations for planned unit development districts,changes to the dimensional regulation table; • 15. Section 36.2-332,Neighborhood Design Overlay District(ND),changes to design standards of the Neighborhood Design Overlay District 16. Section 36.2-336,Comprehensive Sign Overlay District,change to title reference; 17. Section 36.2-402,Accessory apartments,removal of code section; 18. Section 36.2-403,Accessory uses and structures,removal of prohibition on separate metering; 19. Section 36.2-405,Bed and breakfast,homestay,and short-term rental estab9shments,changes to dwelling naming convention references; 20. Section 362-409.1,Dwellings,addition of a design standards for specific dwelling types; 21. Section 36.2.410,Fences,walls,arbors and trellises,add reference to the UC Urban Center; 22. Section 36.2-411,Gasoline Stations,changes to the design standards for gasoline stations; 23. Section 36.2-419,Motor vehicle repair or service establishment,addition of a reference for UC Urban Center -24. Section 36.2-429,Temporary uses,addition of a reference for UC Urban Center; 25. Section 36.2-431,Townhouses and rowhouses,removal of section; 26. Section 36.2-551,Development plans,generally,changes to dwelling naming convention references; 27. Section 362-552,Basic development plans,changes to dwelling naming convention references; 28. Section 36.2-622,Exempt lighting,changes to dwelling naming convention references; 29. Section 362-644,Overall tree canopy requirements,changes to dwelling naming convention references; 30. Section 36.2-646,Facade planting,changes to dwelling naming convention references; 31. Section 36.2-647,Buffering and screening,changes to dwelling naming convention references in Table 647-t; 32. Section 36.2-654,Parking and loading area standards,changes to dwelling naming convention references; 33. Section 36.2-668,On-premises signs,generally,addition of a reference for UC Urban Center in table 668-1; 34. Section 36.2-669,Changeable copy signs and electronic readerboard signs,addition of a reference fa UC Urban Center; 35. Section 36.2-817,Powers and duties,change to title reference; 36. Appendix A,Definitions,additions,removal,and changes to defmitiors; The City Council adopted certain Zoning Amendments on March 18,2024(Ordinance No.42902-031824)(the"March 18 Zoning Amendments").The March 18 Zoning Amendments were challenged in a legal action.On June 17,2024,the City Council adopted a Resolution(Resolution No.42957-061724)initiating the adoption of zoning amendments similar in substance to the March 18 Zoning Amendments and,to the extent necessary,repealing the March 18 Zoning Amendments.The consideration of the Zoning Amendments addressed in the June 17,2024 Resolution addresses the uncertainty as to the adoption or effect of the March 18 Zoning Amendments, and provides additional opportunities for further public comment,Planning Commission review,and City Council review. The Zoning Amendments that will be considered: 1. Are similar in substance to the March 18 Zoning Amendments; 2. Implement priorities of the 2040 City Plan related to housing,neighborhood choice,complete neighborhoods,and equity; 3. Address the need for additional housing production,with more affordable housing and a broader range of housing types available; 4. Allow more efficient use of the City's limited developable land area; 5. Regulate dwelling units as a use of land and rertassify dwelling types; 6. Permit dwellings in residential and certain multiple purpose zoning districts,certain Industrial Districts,and certain Planned Unit Development Districts,subject to the dimensional regulations and development standards of the applicable district 7. Increase the number of dwelling units allowed on interior lots in most residential districts as compared to the Zoning Ordinance provisions in effect before the March 18 Amendments,and generally providing for additional dwelling units on comer lots 8. Allow accessory dwellings in residential districts on lots where the principal use is a one dwelling unit on a lot. 9. Define household to include family and nordamily living arrangements; 10. Delete all classes of group care facilities and create a new group living use as a form of permanent occupancy,create a new community housing use and a new regional housing services use as forms of temporary occupancy, 11. Create a new SC Urban Center zoning district; 12. Remove barriers to child care and adult care; 13. Change where certain uses are permitted,not permitted,or require a special exception in the following use categories: Commercial,Accommodations and Group Living,Industrial,Warehousing and Distribution,Assembly and Entertainment, Public,Institutional,and Community Facilities,Transportation,Utility,and Accessory. A physical copy of the proposed amendments is available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk,Suite 456,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building,215 Church Avenue SW,Roanoke,Virginia,24011.Citizens may also access the amendments,along with explanatory material,at httpJ/planroanoke.org/zoning.The ordinance ordaining,rerrdaining,amending,reamending,adopting,and/or readopting the amendments described above shall become effective upon adoption by the City Council for the City of Roanoke. All persons wishing to address City Council should sign-up with the City Clerk's Office by emailing clerkrroanokeva.g0v or calling (540)853-2541 by noon,on Monday,September 16,2024. If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations fa this hearing,please contact the City Clerk's Office at(540)853-2541, before noon on Thursday,September 12,2024. The City of Roanoke provides interpretation at no cost for all public meetings,upon request If you would Ike to request an interpreter, please let us know at least 24 hours in advance by calling(540)853-1283. La Ciudad de Roanoke proporciona interpretacion sin costa pot todas cites miblicas,previa selicitud.Si usted desea solicitor un interprete, haganoslo saber con al mends 24 bras de anlelacan por llama(540)853-1283. Jiji la Roanoke tinatoa huduma ya ukalimani bila mabpo katika mikutano yote ya umma,inapeombws.twapo ungependa kuomba mkalimani,tafadhali tujulishe angalau sea 24 kabla kwa kupiga simu(540)853-1283. ,)+?y-....I�a�.s�:tiff 1?JSSu`.^'--`'r la;/�ti."J.a?l'•-`?js:a{.J.Y', '�".'a•'^�S�Y"JYy'O,, .P'5ofji.V-'' r Jtsr;=i j t. (540)853-1283 -.: +• 4:rti:i.� ;1A t..24:3t=.ulJ• :,',.rat..% Given under my hand this 30th day of August 2024. Cecelia F.McCoy,City Clerk NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,VIRGINIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the City of Roanoke, pursuant to Section 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia(1950), as amended,will hold a public hearing on Monday, September 16,2024, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chamber, 4th Floor, Room 450, Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building,215 Church Avenue, S.W.,Roanoke,Virginia,at which time citizens of the City of Roanoke shall have an opportunity to be heard with respect to proposed amendments to Chapter 36.2,Zoning,of the Code of the City of Roanoke(1979),as amended,to ordain,reordain,amend, reamend, adopt and/or readopt the March 18, 2024 Zoning Amendments, as described below. The City Council gives notice of its intent to consider for adoption the proposed amendments to Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to ordain, reordain, amend, reamend, adopt and/or readopt the March 18,2024 Zoning Amendments,as described below.The proposed Zoning Amendments are intended to remove barriers for the creation of affordable housing, to make the zoning code consistent with state code, to create an additional zoning district (UC Urban Center), and to make changes to the use tables for residential, multiple purpose, industrial, and planned unit development districts, such amendments being for the public purposes of promoting public health, public safety, and good zoning practice. Such amendments do not involve a change in the zoning map classification of any parcels of land and do not change zoning ordinance text regulations in a way that would decrease the allowed dwelling unit density of any parcel of land. The proposed Zoning Amendments are similar in substance to the Zoning Amendments adopted by City Council on March 18,2024.The City Council will consider these Zoning Amendments: 1. Section 36.2-100, Title, changes title to "zoning code;" 2. Section 36.2-105,Rules of interpretation and construction, changes to construction of language; 3. Section 36.2-201, Establishment of districts, changes to the names of zoning districts; establishment of a new multiple purpose base zoning district: UC Urban Center; 4. Section 36.2-205, Dimensional regulations, regulations to determine the number of dwellings permitted on a lot; changes to lot frontage requirements; incorporation of the UC district; 5. Section 36.2-300, Purpose, changes to purpose statements; 6. Section 36.2-310, Purposes of the residential districts, changes to the purpose statements of the residential districts; 7. Section 36.2-311, Use table for residential districts, changes to the permitted uses in residential districts; 8. Section 36.2-312, Dimensional regulations for residential districts, changes to the dimensional regulations for residential districts; 1 9. Section 36.2-314, Purposes of the multiple purpose districts, changes to the purpose statement of the MX, Mixed Use District, addition of a purpose statement for the UC Urban Center; 10. Section 36.2-315,Use table for multiple purpose districts, changes to the permitted uses in the multiple purpose districts, addition of a column in the use table for the UC Urban Center; 11. Section 36.2-316, Dimensional regulations for multiple purpose districts, changes to the dimensional regulations for multiple purpose districts, addition of a column in the dimensional regulations table for the UC Urban Center; 12. Section 36.2-322, Use table for industrial districts, changes to the permitted uses in the industrial districts; 13. Section 36.2-327,Use table for planned unit development districts, changes to the permitted uses in the planned unit development districts; 14. Section 36.2-328, Dimensional regulations for planned unit development districts, changes to the dimensional regulation table; 15. Section 36.2-332,Neighborhood Design Overlay District(ND), changes to design standards of the Neighborhood Design Overlay District; 16. Section 36.2-336, Comprehensive Sign Overlay District, change to title reference; 17. Section 36.2-402, Accessory apartments,removal of code section; 18. Section 36.2-403, Accessory uses and structures, removal of prohibition on separate metering; 19. Section 36.2-405, Bed and breakfast,homestay, and short-term rental establishments, changes to dwelling naming convention references; 20. Section 36.2-409.1, Dwellings, addition of a design standards for specific dwelling types; 21. Section 36.2-410, Fences,walls, arbors and trellises, add reference to the UC Urban Center; 22. Section 36.2-411, Gasoline Stations, changes to the design standards for gasoline stations; 23. Section 36.2-419, Motor vehicle repair or service establishment, addition of a reference for UC Urban Center; 24. Section 36.2-429, Temporary uses, addition of a reference for UC Urban Center; 25. Section 36.2-431, Townhouses and rowhouses, removal of section; 26. Section 36.2-551, Development plans, generally, changes to dwelling naming convention references; 2 27. Section 36.2-552, Basic development plans, changes to dwelling naming convention references; 28. Section 36.2-622, Exempt lighting, changes to dwelling naming convention references; 29. Section 36.2-644, Overall tree canopy requirements, changes to dwelling naming convention references; 30. Section 36.2-646, Façade planting, changes to dwelling naming convention references; 31. Section 36.2-647, Buffering and screening, changes to dwelling naming convention references in Table 647-1; 32. Section 36.2-654, Parking and loading area standards, changes to dwelling naming convention references; 33. Section 36.2-668, On-premises signs, generally, addition of a reference for UC Urban Center in table 668-1; 34. Section 36.2-669, Changeable copy signs and electronic readerboard signs, addition of a reference for UC Urban Center; 35. Section 36.2-817, Powers and duties, change to title reference; 36. Appendix A, Definitions, additions,removal, and changes to definitions; The City Council adopted certain Zoning Amendments on March 18, 2024 (Ordinance No. 42902- 031824) (the"March 18 Zoning Amendments"). The March 18 Zoning Amendments were challenged in a legal action. On June 17, 2024, the City Council adopted a Resolution(Resolution No. 42957-061724) initiating the adoption of zoning amendments similar in substance to the March 18 Zoning Amendments and, to the extent necessary, repealing the March 18 Zoning Amendments. The consideration of the Zoning Amendments addressed in the June 17, 2024 Resolution addresses the uncertainty as to the adoption or effect of the March 18 Zoning Amendments,and provides additional opportunities for further public comment, Planning Commission review, and City Council review. The Zoning Amendments that will be considered: 1. Are similar in substance to the March 18 Zoning Amendments; 2. Implement priorities of the 2040 City Plan related to housing, neighborhood choice, complete neighborhoods, and equity; 3. Address the need for additional housing production, with more affordable housing and a broader range of housing types available; 4. Allow more efficient use of the City's limited developable land area; 3 5. Regulate dwelling units as a use of land and reclassify dwelling types; 6. Permit dwellings in residential and certain multiple purpose zoning districts, certain Industrial Districts, and certain Planned Unit Development Districts, subject to the dimensional regulations and development standards of the applicable district. 7. Increase the number of dwelling units allowed on interior lots in most residential districts as compared to the Zoning Ordinance provisions in effect before the March 18 Amendments, and generally providing for additional dwelling units on corner lots. 8. Allow accessory dwellings in residential districts on lots where the principal use is a one dwelling unit on a lot. 9. Define household to include family and nonfamily living arrangements; 10. Delete all classes of group care facilities and create a new group living use as a form of permanent occupancy; create a new community housing use and a new regional housing services use as forms of temporary occupancy; 11. Create a new UC Urban Center zoning district; 12. Remove barriers to child care and adult care; 13. Change where certain uses are permitted, not permitted, or require a special exception in the following use categories: Commercial, Accommodations and Group Living, Industrial, Warehousing and Distribution,Assembly and Entertainment, Public, Institutional, and Community Facilities, Transportation, Utility, and Accessory. A physical copy of the proposed amendments is available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, Suite 456, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia, 24011. Citizens may also access the amendments, along with explanatory material, at http://planroanoke.org/zoning. The ordinance ordaining, reordaining, amending, reamending, adopting, above shall become effective upon adoption and/or readopting the amendments described p P by the City Council for the City of Roanoke. All persons wishing to address City Council should sign-up with the City Clerk's Office by emailing clerk@roanokeva.gov or calling(540) 853-2541 by noon, on Monday, September 16, 2024. If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (540) 853-2541,before noon on Thursday, September 12, 2024. 4 The City of Roanoke provides interpretation at no cost for all public meetings, upon request. If you would like to request an interpreter,please let us know at least 24 hours in advance by calling(540) 853- 1283. La Ciudad de Roanoke proporciona interpretacion sin costo por todas citas publicas, previa solicitud. Si usted desea solicitar un interprete, haganoslo saber con al menos 24 horas de antelacion por llamar(540) 853-1283. Jiji la Roanoke linatoa huduma ya ukalimani bila malipo katika mikutano yote ya umma, inapoombwa. Iwapo ungependa kuomba mkalimani, tafadhali tujulishe angalau saa 24 kabla kwa kupiga simu (540) 853-1283. • ,IiS j.1 j. �eLa.' Lj1-4J5 4i9_54 1�) j93�cam°Sac uL.J�A-44 L5I_}1 .a)�)� )9 ) S9-s, >B" .J Lk> >•1 1J LA(540)853-1283 c.)943L' 6-)). 24 L u ls1-3,•1,s..d 454I1.1 Given under my hand this 30th day of August, 2024. Cecelia F. McCoy, City Clerk. Note to Publisher: Please publish in full once in the Legal Section of the Roanoke Times, on Friday, August st 30, 2024, and Friday, September 6, 2024. Please send bill and affidavit of publication to: Cecelia F. McCoy, City Clerk. 4th Floor,Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W.,Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia, 24011 5 2202 Carter Road Roanoke, Virginia 24015 September 6 , 2024 Honorable Mayor and Members Roanoke City Council Mayor Lea and Members of Council: I write again in opposition to the zoning ordinance amendments that Council adopted on March 18 (the "March amendments"), which you will have before you again. I am one of the plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit to have those amendments declared void. After the suit was filed, outside counsel for the City suggested that we meet. We did, and outside counsel suggested that the plaintiffs advise City staff of suggested changes to the March amendments that would make them more palatable. This was attempted in a meeting, with specific input from retired Roanoke City planners (I was out of the country and unable to attend), but City staff made it quite clear that they would not consider any such changes. Indeed, the amendments as presented to the Planning Commission on August 12 did not incorporate any of the changes sought by plaintiffs. (I suspect that Council has not been advised of these proposals?)While it was good of Council to ask City staff to conduct further meetings with the public to discuss the amendments, I attended one of these meetings and we were told that no changes to the March 18 amendments were going to be proposed. Indeed, the City's acting director of planning, building, and development was quoted in the Roanoke Times as saying before these meetings that "We will be bringing the very same amendments back... No changes." The Planning Commission, of course, has voted not to recommend the readoption of the March amendments. To me, the City's abolition of single-family zoning and the large increases in permitted densities of housing in residential districts, combined with existing regulations permitting accessory dwelling units as a matter of right and the absence in the zoning ordinance of any on- site parking requirements in residential districts, constitute a "quadruple whammy" that may greatly change the character of our neighborhoods. It is a lot of radical change and uncertainty to throw at our neighborhoods all at once, especially since some recent studies have found that abolishing single-family zoning may have the opposite effect intended —which was to create more "affordable" housing. Even at best, City planners are now saying that the March amendments would only create 40 more "affordable" (however that relative term may be defined) dwelling units a year. No one disputes that there is a nationwide (and worldwide) need for more affordable housing, and not just in Roanoke, but the entire region. Yet Roanoke is the only local community that has taken the drastic steps mentioned above. Abolishing single-family zoning districts is apparently a fad among planners these days. (The first major locality to do so was Minneapolis in 2018.) Charlottesville, Alexandria, and Arlington County all have taken steps in one fashion or another to do so —and all are currently in litigation. Should Roanoke have abolished single-family zoning just because it is a fad? Is Roanoke the same as these localities? Where are the studies that show the impact that abolishing single-family zoning will have on Roanoke's neighborhoods? More than half the housing units in the City are rental units now. The March amendments , and the earlier amendments permitting accessory dwelling units everywhere, will drive this number higher, lessen the incentive for families to invest in purchasing a home in the City, and encourage even more properties to be owned by absentee landlords. Shouldn't there have been studies showing the impact the amendments will have in each neighborhood on the City's schools, parking, traffic management, stormwater management, tree canopy, etc., before single-family zoning was abolished in its entirety? Raleigh Court Neighborhood Plan When my late wife and I returned to Roanoke to live in 1999, she would only seriously consider living in the Raleigh Court neighborhood. The tree-lined streets and sidewalks, and the short walk to our branch library, our church, the Grandin Theatre, Co-op, and many restaurants were the big attractions. The neighborhood featured a wide mixture of housing, including many historic homes, a variety of types of rental units, and large apartment complexes (much of the neighborhood already was zoned for multi-family development). We were fortunate to purchase in Raleigh Court what is now a 100-year old house. Like many houses on our street, it needed renovation and up-dating. Most of the residents in our neighborhood were older when we moved in, there were few children, and those were primarily older ones. I noticed that families with children tended to move out of the City when their children reached school age. Around the time we moved, the then Raleigh Court Civic Association (now the Raleigh Court Neighborhood Association) initiated an effort to amend the City's zoning ordinance and zoning map to slow down the conversion of many of the neighborhood's homes into multiple- unit apartments. This effort eventually culminated in the adoption by the City in 2007 of the Raleigh Court Neighborhood Plan, which provides in part that: "Residents take pride in the high quality of life of their neighborhood but have concerns about potential negative effects of higher density residential and commercial development." p. 11 4 "The neighborhood features a mix of residential zonings. However, the high concentration of single-family houses has long been cited as one of the neighborhood's foremost attributes." p. 12 "A major concern of residents as noted in the 1999 neighborhood plan was `reducing the number of multifamily housing units— or at a minimum, holding the number of units at the current level.'Based on the data presented, this trend has reversed. The City of Roanoke has taken further action to prevent future conversion of single-family to multifamily homes through 4 the rezoning effort in 2005. Existing multifamily homes in single-family zones may continue to operate as such, but new multifamily homes are restricted to multifamily or mixed density zones as shown on the zoning map in this plan." p. 16 "Community Design Policies: The neighborhood should retain its overall traditional character and development patterns. New development should be compatible with the neighborhood, consistent with the design guidelines of Vision 2001-2020, and use limited land resources efficiently." p. 40 The Plan [available on the City's website at Raleigh-Court (roanokeva,govl], in my opinion, has been a remarkable success. Many of my neighbors have, as Ann and I have, spent a lot of effort and expense in renovating their homes in recent years. Many of our new neighbors are families with children. By the latest count we now have 21 children living within a block of our house. I marvel at the parade of baby carriages that we often see on our street. The abolition of single-family zoning is certainly contrary to the Plan and does a disservice to the many young families and others who have relied on the Plan and purchased a home in Raleigh Court and spent thousands of dollars to fix up their homes. To pose a rather cynical question —why would we even need neighborhood plans in the future if how our neighborhoods are to be developed is to be dictated "top down" by a Code (especially one that now has so many"by right uses"), rather than the plans being developed by a consensus of the people who live in those neighborhoods? It seems rather undemocratic... Abolishing single-family residential districts and permitting greatly increasing dwelling densities Unfortunately, without any specific study of the likely impact on our neighborhood of which I am aware, in March the City amended its zoning ordinance to abolish single-family zoning throughout the City and greatly increased the density of permitted buildings and structures in residential areas. The City didn't consider this a rezoning, which would have called for notifications to be made to the owners of each property zoned single-family, but instead treated it as if it were just an amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance. (I will let you draw your own conclusions about that.) Consider, for example, our own property (a corner lot of just over 9,500 square feet)which previously was zoned Residential Single-Family District (R-7), 7,000 square feet having been the minimum lot size required. The City simply struck the words "Single-Family" in the title of the applicable section of the zoning ordinance and called the new district the "R-7 Residential District," even though the minimum lot size was reduced to 5,500 square feet. (Changing the name to the R-5.5 Residential District would have been too obvious a change in the zoning classification?) Instead of one dwelling permitted on a lot in the former R-7 district, up to four dwelling units are now permitted on our property (2,000 square feet being required for each unit). This would be a "by right" use, meaning that our neighbors or neighborhood would have no say in the matter. Under the new regulations, each unit can now house up to eight unrelated individuals. So instead of just my wife and me living on our property, the ordinance would permit up to 32 unrelated persons to reside on the lot (unless some applicable fire, building code, or other regulations would reduce that number). Because on-site parking is not now required for dwelling units, if each of the theoretical 32 people living on our lot had a car, the 32 cars would be parking on the street. This scenario is probably unlikely to happen, but the point is that it would be allowed. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) City Council not too long ago amended the zoning ordinance to permit"accessory dwelling units" as a matter of right on every lot in the City that has an existing or new residence on it. This is a right to establish a second dwelling, subject to an 800 square foot size limit. Since the City already has 29,380 single-family residences, this by itself could conceivably add many hundreds, if not thousands, of dwelling units in the City— and given their small size, one would hope that they would be "affordable." I am sure that absentee owners and speculators (the ones most likely to profit from more lax zoning requirements)will take advantage of this to increase the income that they can receive from a property. Strangely, the ordinance provides that"[A]n accessory dwelling is not subject to [the] minimum lot area requirement for each dwelling nor the maximum number of dwellings per lot." (Sec. 36.2-409.1). (I say this is strange because a couple of years ago when Ann and I applied for a permit that would have included an expansion of the deck behind our house, we were not permitted to do so because it would have exceeded the permitted maximum lot coverage, while now we are permitted to add an 800 square foot second dwelling as a matter of right!) Conceivably up to eight unrelated individuals, with cars, could move into an ADU (again, unless some applicable fire, building code, or other regulations would reduce that number). ADUs pose other issues, such as code enforcement. An article in the Roanoke Times last fall, reprinted from the Richmond Times-Dispatch, related that Richmond, before changing its regulations, had permitted "short-term rentals" of dwelling units, including ADUs, without the owner of the property having to reside on the premises. Before long, Richmond found that it had roughly 1,100 known short-term rentals such as Airbnbs, of which fewer than 100 had permits to operate as such. Does Roanoke have enough staff to enforce its new regulations, and not repeat Richmond's experience? What is to prevent"short term rentals" of ADUs? I understand that there have already been two applications in my neighborhood to the Board of Zoning Appeals to operate ADUs as Airbnbs (facing neighborhood opposition, the applications were denied). Presumably, the residents of ADUs will be permitted to operate various types of permitted "home occupations" in addition to those in the primary dwelling? Abolishing off-street parking requirements for residential dwellings City planners seem to believe that existing neighborhood streets can accommodate new developments without any on-site parking being required. What they ignore is that even with most houses in our neighborhood having off-street parking for one or more cars, there are already problems — usually with maneuverability. For instance, my Carter Road neighbor has had his cars backed into twice by neighbors across from him. My Avenel neighbors have had the same — neighbors from across the street have backed into their cars twice. I have had the same experience —a neighbor backed into my Jeep a couple of years ago ($3,600 in damages), and while visiting, a relative backed out of my driveway into a car parked across the street. It is difficult enough now to maneuver without our streets being filled with more cars. (We have also had a car, after striking a neighbor's car, drive across our yard and smash into a tree, and a drunk driver plowed into the back of another neighbor's car parked in front of our house, causing extensive damage to it.) Most families these days have two or more cars, and in our neighborhood, to avoid 4 having to move cars around, most park one of their cars on the street and one in their driveway. Residents naturally want to be able to park in front of or near their house, and I can foresee "parking wars" occurring in the future when higher density dwellings pop up in formerly single- family neighborhoods and their residents park on the street. Fair Housing Single-family zoning, rather than being discriminatory, helps protect the investments of those who have probably made the largest investment of their lives and purchased homes (the "American Dream"), be they white, Black, Hispanic, or something else, be they low-income, middle-income, or high-income. Abolishing such zoning takes away the rights and expectations of every homeowner, regardless of race, color, national origin, etc. • As a former civil rights attorney, I am and have always been sensitive to discrimination in any form. I have reviewed the 2022-2023 annual report of the City's Fair Housing Board to Council, which included a 99-page "Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice" and I do not see anything in it recommending abolishing single-family residential districts or increasing housing density. It does indicate (p. 18) that during 2016-2020, Roanoke had 41,694 housing units that were occupied or had people living in them, while 5,297housing units were vacant. It would seem logical to me for the City to focus its efforts on making these vacant units available, rather than taking the approach that it has with the zoning ordinance. There seems to be quite a debate in the planning community as to whether so-called "upzonings," which permit higher density development, such as abolishing single-family zoning, actually achieve the results intended, or whether they achieve the opposite results intended. There is a lot of literature available on this. One study of the result of upzoning in New York City published by the Brookings Institution in 2021 even concluded that"upzoning activity is positively and significantly associated with the odds of a census tract becoming whiter, suggesting that upzonings might accelerate, rather than temper, gentrification pressures in the short-term." To me, it just defies understanding to believe that with the high cost of construction these days developers are going to construct dwellings in neighborhoods with higher-priced homes and sell or rent them at below market, "affordable" prices. Lack of public awareness Few City residents who I have talked to have had any idea of what the March amendments were about and how they might be impacted by them. If most City residents were not aware of the impact that the amendments constituted a de facto rezoning of all property zoned single-family might have, perhaps it was because the City's advertising of the public hearings on the proposed March amendments before the Planning Commission and City Council were not advertised in the manner required by State law. Among the other defects in the advertising, the ads never expressly mentioned that the primary intent of the amendments was to abolish single family zoning and allow for greatly increased density in residential districts. They merely listed the title of the various sections in the zoning ordinance to be amended, without further explanation. The ads didn't even identify a physical place or even a place on line where citizens could review the actual proposed ordinance (as opposed to what was identified as a "draft'). Last fall, I attended one of the six "open house" sessions conducted by the Planning staff. At the time, I was primarily concerned about the effects of the earlier inclusion on the zoning ordinance of ADUs as a by right use. At the gathering, I was bewildered by the yard signs being distributed by the City promoting "zoning reform." I inquired as to what was being proposed, and was told that the session was a "listening" session and that no specific proposals had been developed. Why then were citizens being asked to support something when they had no idea what they were supporting? I left the meeting rather upset. A Procedural Muddle? As with the procedural missteps which preceded Council's adoption of the March 18, 2024, zoning text amendments (which prompted litigation), the City appears again to have muddled the process by which the amendments are coming before Council for a second time on September 16. The directives initiated by Council's adoption of a resolution on June 17, 2024, to reconsider the March 18 amendments were two-fold: to repeal those amendments, and to readopt ones "similar in substance" to them. Accordingly, the two notices of public hearing advertised for the Planning Commission's consideration of these directives stated that the purpose of that hearing was to obtain the Commission's recommendation "to ordain, reordain, amend, reamend, adopt and/or readopt, and to the extent necessary, repeal" the March 18 amendments. However, the resolution forwarded by the City staff to the Planning Commission only provided for a recommendation that "City Council ordain, reordain, amend, reamend, adopt and/or readopt" the March 18 amendments. No resolution was provided for the Commission to consider repealing the amendments. However, following its public hearing, the Commission in its wisdom voted not to adopt the resolution before it. Curiously, the notices advertising Council's public hearing for September 16 differ from the notices published for the Planning Commission and only state that the proposal before Council is to "reordain, amend, reamend, adopt and/or readopt the March 18, 2024, Zoning Amendments." No mention is made of considering repeal of the amendments. The resolution presented by staff to the Planning Commission, as well as the legal advertisements for Council's public hearing simply are at odds with Council's direction that consideration be given to repealing the March 18 amendments. Council's directives simply have not been followed. As they say, "here we go again." Conclusion The Planning Commission has recommended that the March amendments not be readopted. (Most, but not all, who spoke at the Planning Commission public hearing in favor of retaining the amendments, were builders and developers — no surprise as they are the ones most likely to profit from more lax zoning regulations.) I would respectfully request that Council undertake the necessary actions to repeal the March amendments and engage the community in a neighborhood-focused process to develop more reasonable regulations, and to develop a comprehensive strategy in line with City Plan 2040, other than just the zoning ordinance, to achieve more "affordable" housing in the City. With kindest personal regards, William M. Hackworth ■■■ RESTORATION HOUSING September 6th,2024 To: Mayor Lea and Roanoke City Council Members 215 Church Avenue Roanoke,VA 24011 From: Restoration Housing c/o Isabel Thornton 1116 Main Street,Suite B Roanoke,VA 24015 (540)797-0819 isabel@restorationhousing.org Dear Mayor Lea and Roanoke City Council Members, I am writing to you on behalf of Restoration Housing,a local nonprofit development company that specializes in affordable housing.As a developer who works with vacant and blighted properties that need to be revitalized into affordable housing, it goes without saying that I support the proposed zoning text amendments that are being presented on September 16t''. From a professional standpoint,these zoning amendments are important to any developer interested in either market rate or affordable housing as they reverse decades of inclusionary zoning that prohibits almost all development except for single family houses in our city. What doesn't go without saying, is my strong believe in these amendments as a reflection of the character and progress of our great city. I do the work that I do because I love Roanoke and I love the progress that it has made in the last several decades. I grew up in the Grandin area on Greenwood Road,which I believe to be one of the most beautiful streets in the city. I have always been drawn to Roanoke's beauty and its history.That's why I am drawn to reversing the negative effects of blight and vacancy in parts of our city that have long been neglected from public and private investment. What I think is important to consider is the outcome that everyone shares and hopes for on both sides of this discussion.We all want to see less blight and vacancy.Those arguing against these amendments fear rental housing and multifamily housing because they've seen disengaged landlords who have previously constructed multifamily apartments that then suck the marrow out of older homes and buildings,which subsequently causes blight,a decrease in property values,crime,vandalism, and a tax on our city's resources to react to these conditions. I share the same concern for these problems in our city. However, I don't believe that the answer to these problems is found in keeping our existing inclusionary zoning. Neither do I think that rental housing and multifamily housing are the source of the problem.The negative stigma against rental housing has long been an issue I've had to fight against. I believe it to be antiquated, iii6B Main Street,SW. Roanoke,VA 24015 • t.540-797-o819 • info@restorationhousing.org • www.restorationhousing.org inaccurate,and race based.To fear rental and multifamily housing as the source of our neighborhoods' problems is to live in the past and to not have trust and faith in our city's future. We no longer live in the 1970s when disinvestment in our older neighborhoods leads to slumlords and blight.Our city is thriving and growing,and we must respond by allowing new,quality, housing that is accessible to all. If we cannot respond positively to growth,then we are telling the rest of the world that we are happy with the status quo. I for one,am not happy with the status quo-where there are still countless vacant and dilapidated houses throughout our older neighborhoods or countless vacant lots that are undevelopable because of the high cost to build new construction. If we are interested in reducing blight,vacancy,and crime,then it seems clear to me that we should be supporting this amendment as it is a critical tool to help counter the negative effects of our vacant buildings and vacant lots that are problematic to neighborhoods throughout the city.These amendments allow developers to create new housing in these spaces where lots and buildings will sit dormant otherwise. It's also worth noting that most neighborhoods that currently feature single family homes(like the beautiful block on Greenwood Road)are not at risk for these changes to alter their character. It is entirely cost prohibitive for developers to acquire,then demolish,and then build new construction in these areas.We live in a city with countless available vacant lots or vacant buildings that deserve reinvestment and those are the areas that will be positively impacted by these changes.We all share an interest in both reducing blight in Roanoke and in seeing our city grow and prosper. I see these amendments as a path to both of these outcomes. Outcomes that are agreeable to the majority of our city's residents. My colleagues and I recently read a book titled "Fixer Upper, How to Repair America's Broken Housing Systems" by Jenny Schuetz.The book is a fascinating study on the topics of affordable housing, inclusionary zoning,the cost of construction,and the process of public hearings.Schuetz offers many examples of cities that have made strides in the right direction toward improving their housing stock and specifically their affordable housing stock as an effort to reflect their growth and their values.She also notes that speakers at public hearings who are against zoning reform are often a very vocal minority compared to broader public opinion.Yet if our City Council only listens to the vocal minority,then our city will suffer. I ask you to consider the very important and long-lasting effect that your decision will make for our city if you were not to support these amendments.A vote in support of them is a vote to reduce blight,vacancy, crime,and vandalism. Is a vote to increase our housing stock,to bring more affordability,to attract more workers and families,to encourage more growth,and to see Roanoke continue to revitalize and prosper. I believe these are values that we all share. Sincerely, ..1 Isabel Thornton Executive Director Restoration Housing iii6B Main Street,SW.Roanoke,VA 24015 • t.540-797-0819 • info@restorationhousing.org • www.restorationhousing.org petition_signaturesjobs_490154312_20240910172532 Name City State Postal Code Country Signed On Catherine Greenberg Roanoke VA US 2024-07-30 Phillip Morgan Roanoke VA 24016 US 2024-07-30 Kathy Bibb Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-07-30 Frame Sarah Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-30 Gina Louthian Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-30 Dixie Huff Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-07-30 Jeanne Bollendorf Roanoke VA 24016 US 2024-07-30 Barbara Kern Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-07-30 Dianna Dickens Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-07-30 Teresa Evans Fulton MS 38843 US 2024-07-30 Whit Bromm Roanoke VA 24017 US 2024-07-30 Anne Culley Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-07-30 Sherry Lucas Roanoke VA 24013 US 2024-07-30 Tammie Williamson Stuarts Draft VA 24477 US 2024-07-30 Martha Wood Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-07-30 Elizabeth Mullins Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-30 Jennifer Streng Roanoke VA 24016 US 2024-07-30 jape mcdaniel roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-07-30 McCarthy Marty Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-07-30 Mary Dunleavy Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-07-30 Lois Garrett Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-07-30 robin windsor Severn MD 21144 US 2024-07-30 Brooke Dayton Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-31 Russell Hawkins Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-07-31 Virginia Wagner Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-31 Sooraj John Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-31 Jim Huff Roanoke VA 24017 US 2024-07-31 Kathryn Barrows Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-07-31 Bob Clement Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-07-31 1 Marjorie Joyce Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-07-31 Teresa Nowak Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-07-31 Jan Dillon Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-07-31 Vickie Miller Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-07-31 Deborah Moses Roanoke VA 24017 US 2024-07-31 Jon Inwood Brooklyn NY 11226 US 2024-07-31 Cynthia Cabrera Cary NC 27519 US 2024-07-31 Etna Parker Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-31 Taylor Dayton Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-07-31 GARY GILTZ Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-07-31 Monica Holbrook Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-07-31 Howard Mowles roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-31 ALLISON Burrows Greeley Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-31 J H Sisson Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-31 Jeannie Green Stuarts Draft VA 24477 US 2024-07-31 Janet Keister Roanoke VA 24016 US 2024-07-31 Reginald Lawson Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-07-31 Katherine Gardner Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-07-31 Jay Evans Lynchburg VA 24501 US 2024-07-31 Elizabeth Viar Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-31 Terry Huxhold Roanoke VA 24013 US 2024-07-31 William Corey Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-31 Arthur Strickland Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-31 Barry Marsh Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-07-31 Michelle Hensley Easley SC 29642 US 2024-07-31 Susan McCoy Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-31 Brad Greenberg Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-31 John Harlow Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-31 Susan Wyatt Lisenbee Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-31 David Oshel Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-07-31 Mark Cregger Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-07-31 Paul Coleman Roanoke VA 24017 US 2024-07-31 2 Debra Layman Salem VA 24153 US 2024-07-31 Carole Mayberry Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-31 Lacey Rohrer Roanoke VA 24017 US 2024-07-31 Cindy Jepson Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-31 Diane Strickland Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-07-31 Ed Bowes Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-07-31 Maria Garland Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-31 Lisa Stoneman Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-07-31 , Celine Zambrano Delray Beach FL 33444 US 2024-07-31 Mary Pat Martin Washington DC 20001 US 2024-07-31 Emily Casey Nashville TN 37212 Iceland 2024-07-31 Catherine Ferrell Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-07-31 Tyler Ware Lakewood WA 98498 US 2024-07-31 Lisa McClintic Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-07-31 Jorge Ceballos Tampa FL 33614 US 2024-07-31 Rayma Mills Roanoke VA 24013 US 2024-08-01 Lynne Victorine Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-01 Alice Chryssikos Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-01 Gary Ferguson Roanoke VA 24017 US 2024-08-01 dakota hays Fincastle VA 24090 US 2024-08-01 Mark Hostetter Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-01 Diann Bateman Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-01 HAROLD KALUSTIAN Floyd VA 24091 US 2024-08-01 Becky Marsh Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-01 Amy Marsh Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-01 Ainsley Moyer Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-01 Bonnie Harris Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-01 Hope Ricketson Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-01 Ann Hopkins Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-01 Valerie Stowell Troutville VA 24175 US 2024-08-01 Janet Rutherford Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-01 1 Dale Clancy Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-01 3 Adele Carliss Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-02 Lori Rutherford Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-02 ----------- Rebecca Talbot Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-02 Ross Cowgill Washington DC 20020 US 2024-08-02 Cindy Pinkston Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-02 Matthew Talbot Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-02 Jackie Stanley Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-02 Parker Talbot Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-03 Cheryl Bedenbaugh Purcellville VA 20132 US 2024-08-03 HANNAH GREENBERG ROANOKE VA 24015 US 2024-08-03 Jenifer Borovy Jupiter FloridE FL 33458-5884 US 2024-08-03 Lisa Payne Newport New VA 23605 US 2024-08-03 ' Jennifer Fike Akron OH 44312 US 2024-08-03 Linda Bartlett Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-03 Cindy Brammer Vinton VA 24179 US 2024-08-03 Julie Howson Reinhart Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-04 Bobbi Wilson Roanoke VA 24000 US 2024-08-04 Sophia Peterson Portland OR 97203 US 2024-08-04 Melissa Witten Lynch Station VA 24571 US 2024-08-04 Ana Alves Seymour CT 6483 US 2024-08-05 Julie Wheeler Roanoke VA 24023 US 2024-08-05 Stephanie Bossed Charlottesville VA 24060 US 2024-08-05 Lu Holt Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-05 Thomas Butler Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-06 Spencer Garcia Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-06 Laura Davis Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-06 Zach Kranzler Gainesville FL 32601 US 2024-08-06 Richard Ellis Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-06 Charles Richards Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-07 Erika Rikhiram Clermont FL 34711 US 2024-08-07 Donald wleklinski Terre Haute IN 47803 US 2024-08-07 Shawn Spaulding Salem VA 24153 US 2024-08-07 4 Kenhai Morgan Fort Lauderde FL 33025 US 2024-08-08 Vicki Roberts Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-08 Summer Haley Dallas TX 75252 US 2024-08-08 Cameron Hutto Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-08 Trista Farrell Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-08 Dianne Zeigler Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-08 Makayla DiGenova Washington DC 20016 US 2024-08-08 CHRISTOPHER EUBANKS SPOKANE VALLEY 99016 US 2024-08-08 Jereme Greer Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-08 Russ Ellis Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-08 Debbie E Felton DE 19943 US 2024-08-08 Scott Fleming Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-09 J A Brooklyn NY 11234 US 2024-08-09 Rebecca morgan Affton MO 63123 US 2024-08-10 Joshua Coleman Roanoke VA 24017 US 2024-08-10 Carmello frazier Baton Rouge LA 70806 US 2024-08-10 Milani Hebert Tampa LA 7 US 2024-08-10 Terry Fowler North Richlan TX 76182 US 2024-08-11 Zaara Zaman Clayton NJ 8312 US 2024-08-11 john urbonas Plainfield IL 60586 US 2024-08-12 Mirand s ZfmN Chicago IL 60639 US 2024-08-12 Jennie Vogel Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-12 Mayank Paranjape Shakopee MN 55379 US 2024-08-12 Larry Morgan Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-12 Delvis McCadden Washington DC 20001 US 2024-08-12 Dj Mostultimate New York City NY 10462 US 2024-08-12 Fatou Ndure Atlanta GA 30305 US 2024-08-12 Christopher Tamplin Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-12 Sally Cleveland Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-12 Leslie Cleveland Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-12 Beth Doughty Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-12 Ralphie Beam Cumberland MD 21502 US 2024-08-13 5 Susan Ostaseski Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-13 Michael Pennell Lenoir NC 28645 US 2024-08-13 John Hayth Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-13 Clifford Nottingham Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-13 Wayne Lewis Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-13 Elizabeth Frank! Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-13 Annette Maness Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-13 Dwayne Smith Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-13 Rosemary StJacques Roanoke VA 24013 US 2024-08-13 anthony stavola Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-13 Kelly Prim Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-13 Jessica Zimmel Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-14 i Kevin Zimmel Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-14 mike Rimicci Norman OK 73069 US 2024-08-14 Eric Williamson Roanoke VA 24019 US 2024-08-14 Mike Thompson Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-14 Butch Lee Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-14 Amanda Thompson Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-14 William Meador Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-14 Barry Ferguson Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-14 Alemu Kassa Seattle WA 98122 US 2024-08-14 Elaine Hess Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-14 Alejandro Stabilito Tampa FL 33619 US 2024-08-14 Jace Stevens Salt Lake City UT 84123 US 2024-08-14 J C Charlotte NC 28269 US 2024-08-14 Kristin Segelke Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-14 Daryl Songer Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-14 Justine Minardo Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-15 Luna damata Stuart FL 34997 US 2024-08-15 Abdul Moiz Khan Los Angeles CA 90014 US 2024-08-15 Wendy McCauley Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-15 eldred huff Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-15 6 William Joyce Roanoke VA 24016 US I 2024-08-15 Heather Bathon Roanoke VA 24019 US 2024-08-16 James Steagall Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-16 Kim Duncan Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-16 Adam Troutt Roanoke VA 24019 US 2024-08-16 Mary Anne Mather Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-17 Julie Auvil Blue Ridge VA 24064 US 2024-08-17 Fiona Vance Roy UT 84067 US 2024-08-17 Rachel Vogeley Roanoke VA 24015 US ': 2024-08-17 i Esrom Eyob Boston MA 2143 US I 2024-08-17 Majok Majok East Syracuse NY 13057 US i 2024-08-18 Holly Smalley Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-18 Price Parker Upland CA 91784 US t 2024-08-18 Shanice Futrell Central Islip NY 11722 US 2024-08-18 Patricia Thompson Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-18 Susan Fickley Roanoke VA 24019 US 2024-08-18 Cynthia Dudley Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-18 Beth Marie Savage MS 55378 US 2024-08-19 Alison Conte Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-19 Scott Harrison Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-19 Shannon Cox Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-19 Sherry Davis Ringwood NJ 7456 US 2024-08-19 Adriana Holding Fall River MA 2720 US 2024-08-19 Grace Wheeling Arlington VA 22201 US 2024-08-19 Jennifer Shamy Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-19 Desanek Trent Roanoke VA 24017 US 2024-08-19 Shaquan Lee Roanoke VA 24017 US 2024-08-19 Linda Davis Roanoke VA 24017 US 2024-08-19 Joel Edwards Temecula CA 92590 US 2024-08-20 Jaytee Butltzchez Stockton CA 66994 US 2024-08-20 Sandy Hamilton Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-20 D L Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-20 7 William Shell Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-20 Mitzi Willingham Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-20 Preston Landes Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-20 Eddie Cripps sr Catalina Sprir TN 37031 US 2024-08-20 Marian Wise Roanoke VA 24017 US 2024-08-21 Bill Reid Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-21 Carol Dibling Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-21 Clay McClintock Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-21 Adam miron waterbury CT 6704 US 2024-08-21 Andrew Floyd US 2024 08 21 David Looney Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-21 Jason Bryant Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-21 Jacquie Zientek Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-21 Jeanette Muhlena Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-21 Douglas Muhlena Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-21 Mary Dodge Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-21 Leonard Dishner Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-21 Jennifer Agee Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-21 Lindsay Gilmore Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-22 Ashley Lauren US 2024-08-22 Jimmie Ward Selma AL 36701 US 2024-08-22 Austin Belcher Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-22 Joseph Pritchard Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-22 Sara Torres Hallandale FL 33024 US 2024-08-22 Benjamin Burch Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-22 Habtom Araya Burbank 91506 US 2024-08-23 Martha Hanna Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-23 Susan Yancey-Rawlings Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-23 Cindy Furrow Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-23 Amanda Beville Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-23 Mason Gallagher Carpentersvill IL 60110 US 2024-08-24 mason burton Murfreesboro TN 37128 US 2024-08-24 8 Renee Thornhill Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-24 Mari rose Seattle WA 98122 US 2024-08-24 Anne Lusby-Denham Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-24 Susan Rowe Aiken 29803 US 2024-08-24 Nickayla Brown Mason OH 45040 US 2024-08-24 London Craighead West Bloomfi( MI 48323 US 2024-08-24 Elizabeth McCorkindale Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-24 G Heather Pritchard Roanoke VA 24012 US 12024-08-24 Martha Stevens Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-25 Boyd Hale Salem VA 24153 US 2024-08-25 Rebecca McConchie Roanoke VA 24015 US 1 2024-08-25 Steven McConchie Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-25 Margaret Skelly Mulcahy Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-25 Don Hughes Roanoke VA 24023 US 2024-08-25 Austin Ward Corvallis OR 97330 US 2024-08-26 Mary H. Russell Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-26 a. patchen albuquerque NM 87113 US 2024-08-26 Elijah Nielson Salem VI 24153 US 2024-08-27 Jason Garnett Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-27 Logan Quesenbery Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-27 Mike Russell Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-27 Ann Russell Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-27 Rick Aydlett Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-27 Kimberly Thomas Roanoke VA 24017 US 2024-08-28 Litza Meza Prairieville LA 70769 US 2024-08-28 Stacy Favila Duncanville TX 75116 US 2024-08-28 James Overholser Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-28 farrah a Bedford TX 76021 US 2024-08-28 Maddie Murdock Manchester CT 6042 US 2024-08-28 Susan Bucher Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-08-28 julie seay Halethorpe MD 21227 US 2024-08-28 Briannah Shaw Sewell NJ 8080 US 2024-08-29 9 Monica LaFavor ' Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-29 Eric Berg Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-29 Pete Engel Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-29 Tom Schroeder Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-29 Dan Cole Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-29 James George Charlotte NC 28203 US 2024-08-29 Cheyanne Cooper Roanoke VA 24023 US 2024-08-29 Jamee Patrick Orange Park FL 32073 US 2024-08-30 Peter Brown Corinth VT 5039 US 2024-08-30 Elizabeth Snyder Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-30 Brittany Le pore Roanoke VA 24016 US 2024-08-30 Amy Peck Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-30 Jan Fore Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-30 Angie Brown Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-30 Judith Sibley Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-08-30 Susan Lancaster Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-30 Trevor Holbrook Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-08-30 Heather D NC 28326 US 2024-08-30 Stefaan Braem Palm Harbor FL 34683 US 2024-08-31 Earl Linkous Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-08-31 William Hart Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-09-01 anastasia ford Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-09-01 Loren Ford Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-09-01 Alana Preziosi Swedesboro NJ 8085 US 2024-09-02 David Podruchney Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-09-02 W love Hollywood FL 33023 US 2024-09-03 Malcolm Wade Thompson Roanoke City VA 24151 US 2024-09-03 Raquel Resende Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-09-03 Dianna Songer Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-09-04 Mary Dunleavy Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-09-04 Lauren Pickens Roanoke VA 24015 US 2024-09-04 Natalie Woody Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-09-04 10 James Pickens Roanoke % VA 24015 US 2024-09-04 Jim Pickens Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-09-04 Dylan Calhoun Denham Sprir LA ! 70726 US 2024-09-04j Tony Debenedictis Charlotte NC 28202 US 2024 09 04 Carl Cress Roanoke , VA 24015 US 2024-09-05 Mary Lewis Roanoke I VA 24018 US 2024-09-05 Jeri Browe Roanoke VA 24017 US 2024-09-05 John Shelor Roanoke VA 24019 US 2024-09-06 Minh Nguyen Wichita Falls TX 76306 US 2024-09-06 Wilbur Hall Salem VA 24153 US 2024-09-06 William Foster Roanoke I VA 24012 US 2024-09-06 LynnMeta Williams Wakefield VA 23888-3103 US 2024-09-07 Raquel Narvios San Franciscc CA 94134 US 2024-09-07 Mann Mann Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-09-07 Susan Sullivan Roanoke VA 24014 US 2024-09-07 Abdek Khalif Saint Cloud MN 56303 US 2024-09-08 Evelyn Diaz Cruz Virginia Beacr VA 23462 US 2024-09-08 April Cliver Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-09-08 Mark Greenawald Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-09-08 David Van Voorhis Riverside CA 92504 US 2024-09-09 Joanne Foster Roanoke VA 24012 US 2024-09-09 Dudley Woody Roanoke VA 24018 US 2024-09-10 dany vargas Rancho Cuca CA 91730 US 2024-09-10 Conrado Galarza San Bernardir CA 92407 US 2024-09-10 Nick Hagen Roanoke VA 24016 US 2024-09-10 I 11 Cecelia Webb From: PlanningBldDev planning Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 8:36 AM To: Luke Vilelle Cc: Cecelia Webb; Chris Chittum Subject: Re:zoning amendments support Good morning, Luke, Thank you for your comments. They'll be shared with Staff and Council. Have a great day, Emily G. Clark Boards & Commissions Specialist City of Roanoke (540) 283-5082 From: Luke Vilelle<Ivilelle@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 10, 2024 10:35 PM To: PlanningBldDev planning<planning@roanokeva.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] zoning amendments support Hello, I'm writing to express my support for the zoning amendments. I think the amendments are a cautious, well-thought-out proposal to address the housing shortage in the city and to try to begin to remedy some of the legacies of redlining. I also appreciate the positive environmental impact of bringing more people into walkable and bikeable spaces, with public transit options available. I appreciated the research that went into the proposal, and the careful evaluation of effects of similar rezoning efforts in other cities. I think these zoning amendments are the right approach to a number of challenging issues for the city, and I encourage the City Council to re-affirm their support for the amendments. thank you for listening. Luke Luke Vilelle 1814 Mt. Vernon Rd. SW 540-728-0960 1 5305 Medmont Cir SW Roanoke, VA 24018 September 14, 2024 BY EMAIL Mayor Sherman Lea, Sr. Vice Mayor Joseph L. Cobb Hon. Patricia White-Boyd Hon. Stephanie Moon Reynolds Hon. Vivian Sanchez-Jones Hon. Peter Volosin Hon. Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. Re:Opposition to Proposed Zoning Code Amendment Eliminating Residential Single- Family Zoning Dear Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor and Members of Council: I write to oppose the proposed zoning amendments and the proposed readoption of the amendments that were improperly before Council last March. A six-month delay with more presentations by staff and new notices of hearing cannot cure the faulty underlying premise of the amendments. Redlining The amendments have nothing to do with remedying the horrible practice of redlining that occurred 60 or more years ago by people who are no longer alive and whom we have never met. Many of us have never had ancestors from Roanoke. It was the city's policies that allowed redlining. The city could start by issuing a public apology, rather than attempting to shift the responsibility of making amends onto today's homeowners. The Fair Housing Act,Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, was enacted by Congress on April 11, 1968, seven days after Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. The Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or color, among other things, in the sale, rental, financing or advertising of housing. Mayor Sherman Lea, Sr.,et al September 14,2024 Page 2 The City of Roanoke already has a Fair blousing Board that through various outreach and educational opportunities helps citizens understand their right to receive fair and equal housing opportunities. That is a laudable undertaking and is the proper way to address the issue. Affordability The second argument the City staff previously advanced, but has now largely abandoned, is that upzoning is necessary to create affordable housing. Because of the cost of labor and materials, builders have advised it is not possible to build new housing at a price most would consider to be"affordable." Non-profit organizations which can benefit from volunteer labor and discounted materials are one effective way of addressing the issue. All of us who have volunteered for Habitat for Humanity understand that. Another way of addressing the affordability issue is by direct payments. The City of Roanoke already has a Housing Choice Voucher Program. a Neighborhood Development Grant Program, a Healthy Homes Roanoke Program, an Emergency Solutions Grant Program, and a Down Payment Assistance Program.The City of Roanoke also receives Community Development Block Grants and HOME Investment Partnerships grants from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Nonprofit builders and direct payments are both effective ways of addressing the affordability issue. Upzoning is not. The Experience of Other Cities. What the staff proposes is an experiment foist upon the citizens of Roanoke. At a recent joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council one member of the Planning Commission characterized the opposition to the zoning amendments as a "vocal minority." It is not. Opposition and anger is widespread and is growing as more people realize the impact of the proposed zoning amendments. Given that environment, I suggest that before taking action it would be well for Council to learn about the outcomes of other cities that have tried this approach. A City Councilman in Chapel Hill wrote. in part: People want to believe that eliminating single-family zoning restrictions will significantly increase housing supply for middle and lower-income families. But the building body of real-world experience and increasing research is showing this simply isn't true or the effects are minor and often just benefit the most well-off. Balance this against the enormous unpopularity of these changes Mayor Sherman Lea, Sr.,et al September 14,2024 Page 3 from the residents who actually live in affected neighborhoods, and it becomes clear we would be much better served by focusing on other strategies to achieve our housing goals. Every month I find more information how this proposal is really all about investors making money off of converting our single-family neighborhoods and — this is crucial — the latest research from respected independent nonprofit organizations like the Urban Institute showing proposals for more dense zoning like this do nothing to increase middle income and lower income housing or reduce rents. The largest study to date found a small(0.8%) increase in housing in the community for the most affluent, however—the opposite a ringing endorsement. The continuing drumbeat of research studies coupled with plenty of real- world examples is finally creating more media coverage of abject failures of these "build everywhere at any cost"tactics. EXHIBIT 1 The Urban Institute study found that zoning reforms, introduced over the last decade and a half, which loosened restrictions on development. are associated with a very small increase in housing supply,but not with a reduction in housing costs or with greater availability of lower-cost units. EXHIBIT 2 For a publicly available pre-proof of the Urban Institute study,see EXHIBIT 3 . When discussing school enrollment and available housing. the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of neighboring Roanoke County was quoted in last Wednesday's Roanoke Times as saying, "We made the wrong choice by putting town homes and apartment buildings in a community where there are single-family homes . . . ." He added"The supervisors may even need to look at zoning around the county and consider changing some areas from medium density multi- family to low density residential district. EXHIBIT 4 Conclusion I urge Council to learn the lessons other local governments have learned the hard way. These types of zoning amendments are an "abject failure." Do not adopt these proposed amendments and do not readopt the amendments that were improperly before Council last March. Those amendments should instead be repealed if and to the extent they were in fact ordained, so the new Council can start with a clean slate and determine what, if any.zoning amendments should be considered. Mayor Sherman Lea,Sr.,et a! September 14,2024 Page 4 I request that this letter be included in the record of the September 16, 2024 meeting of City Council at which this matter is to be considered. Very truly yours, David G. Harrison Enclosures cc: Ms. Cecelia F. McCoy, City Clerk(by email) Homepage The Week Ahead Council Contacts -„4. . �* 'vt. rces About Us Calendars Donate 4 Great neighborhoods make gre �unteer Blog EXHIBIT 1 Studies Show that Postst April 16 City Eliminating Single-Family Council Meeting April Zoning only Benefits the 16, 2024 Most Wealthy This case will come to you May 1, 2023 I Blog in National Historic Preservation Month April 14, 2024 Raleigh Police Officers demand higher pay I April 10, 2024 a April 8 and 9 lk City Council Meetings April 10, 2024 f Your tax Chapel Hill Town Councilor Adam dollars NOT Searing recently wrote to his at work April constituents about the move to 8, 2024 eliminate single-family zoning. He has given us permission to excerpt some of Index his comments: (click for listings) Elimination of single-family zoning 2021 requirements still moving forward despite Elections(12) massive resident opposition and increasing evidence of failure in other communities. 2022 People want to believe that eliminating single- Elections(45) family zoning restrictions will significantly increase Affordable housing supply for middle and lower-income Housing families. But the building body of real-world (165) experience and increasing research is showing Baldwin(76) this simply isn't true or the effects are minor and often just benefit the most well-off. Balance this BRT- Bus against the enormous unpopularity of these Rapid Transit changes from the residents who actually live in (37) affected neighborhoods and it becomes clear we Budget(33) would be much better served by focusing on other Buffkin(23) strategies to achieve our housing goals. CACs(80) Every month I find more information how this City council proposal is really all about investors making (148) money off of converting our single-family neighborhoods and - this is crucial - the latest City Election research from respected independent nonprofit (103) organizations like the Urban Institute showing Community proposals for more dense zoning like this do Engagement nothing to increase middle income and lower (220) income housing or reduce rents. Community Voices(310) The largest study to date found a small (0.8%) increase in housing in the community for the Comprehensive most affluent however - the opposite a ringing Plan (24) endorsement. Conflict of Interest(21) The continuing drumbeat of research studies coupled with plenty of real-world examples is Council finally creating more media coverage of abject meeting(27) failures of these "build everywhere at any cost" Councilors tactics as detailed in the articles below: (12) In Arlington, VA, which just eliminated single Crime(19) family zoning requirements, investment groups Density(26) are now taking over properties to tear down and are already marketing "targeted 35%+ return on Discrimination investment"and "Minimum Equity Commitments (18) of$50,000" to potential investors! Dislocation In Austin, TX an in-depth balanced investigative (15) article on this issue detailing how growth has Downtown meant lots of ultra-luxury apartments and not South(41) much else: Environment Cities Keep Building Luxury Apartments Almost (59) No One Can Afford: Cutting red tape and Equality(12) unleashing the free market was supposed to help Equity(46) strapped families. So far, it hasn't worked out that way. Bloomberg News, April 21 , 2023 Gentrification (81) The new Urban Institute comprehensive study on Glenwood the effects of zoning reforms to encourage density south (14) in over 1 ,000 US cities finds little help for any but upper income households: Hypocrisy (16) Land-Use Reforms and Housing Costs: Does INDYweek Allowing for Increased Density Lead to Greater (18) Affordability? Urban Institute, March 29, 2023. John Kane See an overview article in Governing, "Zoning (13) Changes Have Small Impact on Housing Supply_." Knight(27) The study's two main conclusions: LGBTQ(12) • A tiny 0.8% increase in housing supply in Melton(38) areas that made zoning changes but only for Missing "above-middle-income" households - or, in Middle plain language, the wealthiest folks in the Housing(51) community. No effect was observed on Money in housing supply for people with lower Politics(43) incomes. Rezoning • The zoning changes did not lead to any (58) increase in affordable rental units. Stewart(19) Stormwater (12) EXHIBIT 2 HOUSING AND URBAN ISSUES Zoning Changes Have Small Impact on Housing Supply A new report from the Urban Institute attempts to measure the impact of a broad array of zoning reforms on housing supply and cost. The effects are significant, but very small, researchers found. April 10, 2023 • Jared Brey IV gam. zn0. OW"10 L t f In March, Dallas officials said the city faces an affordable housing shortage of about 20,000 homes. A growing body of research suggests zoning reforms can play a small but meaningful role in increasing housing supply. (Smiley N. Pool/The Dallas Morning News/TNS) It's one of the most consequential theories in urban policy over the past few decades: The belief that loosening up zoning rules can help cities unleash abundant affordable housing for people at all income levels. It has sparked countless calls for reform from city and state officials, underpinned federal efforts to promote looser zoning rules, animated thousands of Twitter fights, and provided the foundation for the wide-ranging YIMBY movement. Naturally, a lot of people wonder how true it is. According to a new study from the Urban Institute, it's true that zoning reform helps create more housing units, but there's no evidence it makes housing cheaper. The study, Land-Use Reforms and Housing Costs: Does Allowing for Increased Density Lead to Greater Affordability?is co-authored by a team of seven researchers. Its main finding is that zoning reforms, introduced over the last decade and a half, which loosen restrictions on development, are associated with a very small increase in housing supply, but not with a reduction in housing costs or with greater availability of lower-cost units. ADVERTISEMENT The study takes a novel approach to the question of how zoning changes impact housing supply and costs. The researchers used "machine learning algorithms" to analyze newspaper reports about land-use changes in cities across the U.S. They trained a computer program to tag news reports from 40 metropolitan areas with information about the reforms taking place: when they occurred, whether they increased or decreased restrictions, how much of the city they applied to, and what type of policies they involved. To achieve more reliable results, the researchers reduced the study area to eight metropolitan areas for closer inspection. Eventually the team identified 180 reforms in 1,136 cities, dealing with things like accessory dwelling units, building height restrictions, lot sizes and allowable uses. Eighty-four of the reforms increased restrictions on development, while 96 reforms reduced restrictions. Further, they checked the reforms against U.S. Census data on rent and population levels and U.S. Postal Service data showing the total number of addresses in a given area. That provided a measure of how housing supply and housing costs changed after reforms were adopted. ADVERTISEMENT The results showed reforms that loosened restrictions were associated with a 0.8 percent increase in housing units at least three years after the reform was implemented. Those same reforms were not associated with any significant effects on rent. On the other hand, policies that increased restrictions on housing development were associated with small increases in rent, according to the paper. Like every major study on the effects of housing policy, the data have limitations, the researchers say. It isn't possible to conduct a true experiment in which one part of a city gets a policy treatment and another does not, says Christopher Davis, a data scientist in the Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center at the Urban Institute, because zoning isn't the only factor determining how much housing gets built and how much rent costs. "One of the difficult things about zoning reform in general is that zoning operates within a specific political and market context," Davis says. Still, Davis says, he had a hunch the study would show a greater effect of zoning reforms on housing supply. One factor in the seemingly small changes that result from zoning reforms is that the reforms themselves are often much more narrowly targeted than the debates around them would suggest. Reports of the "end of single-family zoning" in cities and states around the country, for example, often mean that properties in low-density neighborhoods that were previously zoned for one unit are now permitted to have two or three. In many cases, there are additional factors that prevent homeowners or developers from retrofitting those neighborhoods for multifamily living at any meaningful scale. "One of the ironies of this debate in general has been that the volume of discourse on this subject is much higher than the actual outcomes in either direction," says Yonah Freemark, research director of the Land Use Lab at the institute. "It's one of those situations where you wish the results were more cut and dry — massive changes and big improvements in quality of life." Although the study won't settle the debate about how zoning reforms affect housing affordability, it does add to a growing body of research that suggests zoning reforms can play a small but meaningful role in increasing housing supply, says Freemark. He recently published a separate study looking at a broad range of research on zoning policy. The effects of upzoning may just be much smaller than many advocates hope — at least from the scale of changes that American cities have adopted so far. "I think that this [study] and the broader data that we're assembling from a variety of studies pretty clearly demonstrates that if you want to increase housing affordability, upzoning can be one tool, but it's not a miracle solution," Freemark says. "There are many other things we need to engage with. And I hope policymakers are thinking seriously about expanding investment in affordable housing, which I think is fundamental to achieving that outcomes that people desire." Related Articles EXHIBIT 3 Land-Use Reforms and Housing Costs: Does Allowing for Increased Density Lead to Greater Affordability? Christina Stacy, Christopher Davis, Yonah Freemark, Lydia Lo, Graham MacDonald, Vivian Zheng, and Rolf Pendall Published in Urban Studies, March 21, 2023. This is the pre-proof version of the article. Find the full, proofed version here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00420980231159500 NOTE: This publicly available pre-proof version is attached because the published version is behind a paywall. Abstract: We generate the first cross-city panel dataset of land-use reforms that increase or decrease allowed housing density and estimate their association with changes in housing supply and rents. To generate reform data, we use machine-learning algorithms to search US newspaper articles between 2000 and 2019, then manually code them to increase accuracy. We merge these data with US Postal Service information on per-city counts of addresses and Census data on demographics, rents, and units affordable to households of different incomes. We then estimate a fixed-effects model with city specific time trends to examine the relationships between land-use reforms and the supply and price of rental housing. We find that reforms that loosen restrictions are associated with a statistically significant, 0.8% increase in housing supply within 3 to 9 years of reform passage, accounting for new and existing stock. This increase occurs predominantly for units at the higher end of the rent price distribution; we find no statistically significant evidence that additional lower-cost units became available or moderated in cost in the years following reforms. However, impacts are positive across the affordability spectrum and we cannot rule out that impacts are equivalent across different income segments. Conversely, reforms that increase land-use restrictions and lower allowed densities are associated with increased median rents and a reduction in units affordable to middle-income renters. Keywords: Zoning, Housing, Land Use, Affordable Housing 1. INTRODUCTION The United States is facing a housing affordability crisis that is exacerbating economic and racial inequities (Matlack and Vigdor 2006; Popov 2019). Rental prices were at an all-time high before the COVID-19 pandemic (Joint Center 2018), and as of March 2021, an estimated 10.7 million adults were delinquent on rent (CBPP 2021). These challenges disproportionately affect households with low incomes and people of color since they are more likely to rent than own their homes (Montgomery 2018). One explanation for the affordability crisis is that supply has not matched demand. While demand for rental units rose across all income bands between 2005 and 2015, the supply of rental housing costing less than $800 a month (2016 dollars) dropped as the national rental vacancy rate fell to a 30-year low (Joint Center 2018). Many metropolitan areas have experienced increases in housing prices and decreases in new construction over the past 25 years (Freemark 2022). The debate over how to increase the supply of affordable housing,however, stands unresolved. Many housing economists posit that inadequate supply stems from overly restrictive land-use regulations. Loosening these restrictions might increase housing production and thus decrease prices (Glaeser, Gyourko, and Saks 2005; Malpezzi 1996; Quigley and Raphael 2005). Research on housing filtering—the process by which properties age and depreciate into affordability— shows that new construction, even if rented or sold at prices above the market average, eventually opens less-expensive housing units for lower-income residents (Liu, McManus, and Yannopoulos 2020; Mast 2021). But others argue that loosening land-use restrictions (e.g., by increasing height limits) may not increase housing supply because loosened zoning may simply standardize common requests for variations from by-right rules that local zoning commissions already systematically approve for developers(Lo et al. 2020). Moreover, even if a regulatory change yields a supply increase, prices may not fall (or stop rising) accordingly. In rezoned areas, builders might convert existing lower- cost units into higher-cost ones; the amenity effects resulting from these conversions plus associated neighborhood retail and public safety improvements may, in turn, increase surrounding housing values (Jacobus 2016). As such, additional research is necessary to identify the effects land-use reforms have on housing supply and price. To examine these issues, we undertake the first cross-city panel analysis of the impact of land- use reforms on housing supply and rents. While other studies have examined the effect of land-use reforms on supply for individual cities or individual reforms (e.g., Kuhlmann 2021), we are the first to use a machine-learning approach to identify a diversity of reforms, and then examine their effects in multiple cities simultaneously. We also examine reform impacts on rents rather than sales prices—a unique contribution—and offer insight into how regulations impact unit availability at varying rent levels. We are specifically interested in housing that is affordable, which we define as units that cost no more than 30% of income for low- and moderate-income families, in both subsidized and non-subsidized projects (these units could be newly constructed or filtered down). We limit our investigation to reforms and impacts within individual cities, not across metropolitan areas. We generate a dataset of a variety of land-use reforms across eight US metropolitan regions encompassing 1,136 cities from 2000 to 2019. We also collect data on housing supply and costs. We then develop a random-trend model to estimate outcomes. We find that cities that passed reforms loosening land-use regulations (increasing allowed housing density, or "upzoning") saw a statistically significant increase in their housing supply compared to cities without reforms. This increase, however, occurred predominantly for rental units affordable to households with higher- measures of regulatory restrictiveness (i.e., strict regulations in multiple dimensions, like parking requirements and height limits, are related), as well as higher housing prices. Several of these studies use surveys to assess regulatory stringency, but -these surveys raise concerns because planners assessing their own land-use rules may not offer an objective view of regulatory stringency (Lewis and Marantz 2019). Moreover, despite the comparative lessons the above studies offer, they are limited because static cross-sectional data cannot confirm the effects a policy reform would have over time,nor can their averaged housing-price data discern variations in housing production at different levels of affordability. Other researchers have focused on changes in regulations. Zabel and Dalton (2011) find that larger minimum lot size requirements significantly increased prices over time. Glaeser and Ward (2006) find that those lot size increases decreased housing permits issued. Similarly, Kahn, Vaughn, and Zaslov (2010) examine a reform that increased restrictiveness on construction, finding that it increased prices. Broad-scale regulatory changes that increase allowed housing-unit density are rare, thus few studies have captured their effects on prices—and those that do typically examine jurisdictions one by one. Dong(2021)finds that increased allowed density in Portland was associated with a greater probability of long-term development—though the number of new units developed was small. Freemark (2020) finds that a Chicago reform allowing for higher densities and reduced parking requirements raised prices without affecting supply. Kuhlmann (2021) and Zhou, McMillen and McDonald (2008) report similar findings in other cities. Greenaway-McGrevy et al. (2021) show significant increases in parcel costs for underdeveloped land in Auckland, New Zealand after allowed densities were increased. While such studies are suggestive of the impacts of loosened regulations on land values and sales prices, none looks at impacts on rents, nor do they estimate average treatment effects across multiple jurisdictions. Given these findings, telling a consistent story about zoning reform impacts is difficult— especially when it comes to affordable housing. New construction creates positive spillovers for existing neighborhoods by improving aesthetics, removing eyesores, and adding neighborhood vibrancy (Zahirovich-Herbert and Gibler 2014). These amenity effects exert upward pressure on housing prices (Rossi-Hansberg, Sarte, and Owens 2010; Damiano and Frenier 2020), and newly constructed homes tend to cost more than the older buildings they replace or abut (Zillow 2020). We may thus expect reforms reducing restrictiveness to decrease affordable housing supply. Alternatively,the economic principles of supply and demand indicate that an increase in housing availability should reduce scarcity and increase competition among sellers, reducing prices. Additionally, scholarship on housing filtering tells us that supply increases create a chain of out- migration into newer units, creating newly affordable residences (Mast 2021). Thus, we may expect supply allowances to add units to the market that are affordable for low- and moderate- income families. A recent series of working papers examining the impacts of new housing largely find that such construction reduces rents in the surrounding area,potentially limiting displacement (Asquith et al. 2019; Li 2022; Pennington 2021; Phillips et al. 2021). That said, it is possible that outcomes vary by market segment, with more of an effect on moderating the costs of higher-end housing (Damiano and Frenier 2020). This latter phenomenon could reduce affordable housing in neighborhoods where amenity affects outweigh supply effects in the context of upzoning, but an increase in affordable housing in the region overall. Unlike studies leveraging surveys to identify regulatory stringency, we focus on the parameters of actual reforms in individual municipalities, where land-use regulations are written. This allows us to avoid potential biases inherent in survey-based analysis. Unlike studies that examine zoning reforms in individual cities, we use machine-learning approaches to develop a cohort of changes in multiple cities. We also provide insight into unit availability by rent level, unlike most studies that examine home sales. Our research links reforms passed within an individual jurisdiction with outcomes within that same jurisdiction. We acknowledge that reform impacts, however, vary based on scale; it is possible that reforms passed in one jurisdiction have impacts across an entire metropolitan area. A reform increasing housing production in one city could have limited effects therein because of amenity effects surrounding construction—yet at the same time reduce prices in the region overall due to increased supply.This is a key finding in Buechler and Lutz's(2021)examination of zoning changes in Zurich, Switzerland. The latter effect may ultimately be more important for residents seeking housing, since households have the ability to choose between multiple jurisdictions to live in a metropolitan real-estate market, but we do not have adequate data to measure such outcomes. By focusing on housing supply variations in multiple cities in the years following reform passage, our research adds evidence on how housing markets change in jurisdictions overall. We do not specifically investigate the number of new units built or their sales costs (as most aforementioned studies emphasize), but rather evaluate the total units available and their rents, with a focus on those units affordable to low- and moderate-income families. 3. DATA Land-Use Reform Data To generate a novel dataset of land-use reforms,we used machine-learning algorithms to analyze newspaper articles from Access World News, a comprehensive database of major newspapers. This approach to data generation builds on other methods for textual data proxies from newspapers for urban phenomena (Ginsberg et al. 2009; Saiz and Simonsohn 2013). We first assigned newspapers to their respective 40 US metropolitan regions. We prioritized regions with relatively better news coverage and higher population growth, since we hypothesize that those growing regions are more likely to experience affordability challenges, while also having cities that implement reforms that reduce land-use restrictions (to ease affordability) or reforms that increase restrictions (in response to resident concerns about growth). Next, we identified 21 types of regulations that we hypothesize could affect housing production and availability, a list developed based on our prior research, and constructed a string of search terms relevant to those 21 policies to use in the machine-learning and article identification process. We then used the search string to narrow down the articles, only including those from between January 1, 2000 and January 13, 2019, producing 76,410 articles. We then relied on a machine-learning algorithm to tag articles. Articles were identified as describing reforms that are more or less restrictive(i.e.,producing lower or higher allowed housing density, respectively), tied to a specific neighborhood or the whole city, occurring in a particular month and year(i.e., when policies were passed by respective city councils), and tied to a specific land-use reform type. We trained a team of four manual taggers with a background in housing and land-use policy to tag 568 randomly selected articles. The machine used this "training set" to "learn" to tag the full article set. While the machine-learning procedure successfully tagged many articles, the algorithm identified many articles merely discussing zoning reforms that did not indicate reform passage. Though we optimized the machine-learning algorithm to eliminate false negatives, this continued lack of reliability necessitated that the team verify all variables within the dataset for each article. A team of land-use experts including the authors of this study and analysts from a national research organization with experience researching land-use reforms then hand-coded the data by reading each article and correcting machine-coded data. Since the dataset was large,we reduced the sample for hand coding, selecting eight metropolitan regions with a higher number of cities tagged as having implemented reforms loosening restrictions. We selected the most frequent reform types to hand code, including those related to accessory dwelling units (ADUs); floor-area ratio (FAR) or housing density; general rezonings (city-initiated zoning map amendments); height limits; lot sizes; minimum setbacks; and mixed residential and non-residential development. Some articles lacked sufficient information to identify the exact reform type; we coded such reforms as general rezonings. We then randomly selected a set of reforms for manual analysis and independently identified other sources confirming 90% of regulations, suggesting that our approach effectively identified reforms. Table 1 lists the various reform types, noting examples of more or less restrictive versions of each. 1 For additional detail on the machine-learning methods used to create this dataset,see [Blinded for peer review] Table 1: Reform Types More Restrictive, i.e., Less Restrictive,i.e., allowing lower housing allowing higher Reform Type Description densities housing densities Accessory Secondary housing units on Raise minimum lot sizes for Lower minimum lot Dwelling Units single-family residential lots, ADUs, ban ADUs sizes for ADUs, (ADUs) such as tiny homes in the allow ADUs backyard("granny flats")or basement apartments Floor-Area- Ratio of a building's Lower allowed density or Higher allowed Ratio (FAR) or total floor area to the size of FAR density or FAR density the parcel where it is built General Land-use reforms with a Lower density or FAR Higher density or Rezoning broad purpose, but with FAR implications for housing density Height limits Limitations to building Lower height limit Higher height limit heights Minimum lot Requirement that every parcel Minimum allowed size Minimum allowed sizes be larger than a minimum increased size decreased square footage Minimum Minimum distance for a Minimum setback increased Minimum setback setbacks building from its property decreased line Mixed Blending of residential, Reduced use types allowed Lowered restrictions residential and commercial, cultural, or in a zone, increased on allowed use, lower non-residential institutional uses into one specificity on types of specificity in development space allowed uses in mixed-use allowed-use sub- zones types We identified 180 major reforms during the study period in the eight regions' 1,136 cities (table 2). We intentionally excluded small-scale reforms, since our interest is in municipality-wide impact. We did not include reforms affecting only one or two neighborhoods, but we did include reforms that, for example, reduced minimum lot sizes on all parcels. Of reforms identified, 84 increased development restrictions and 96 loosened them. Most reforms related to ADUs and minimum lot sizes, though many also related to height limits and floor-area-ratio requirements. About one-third of reforms were in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area. Because of our choice to specifically examine regions with many reforms loosening restrictions, the ratio of less restrictive reforms to more restrictive reforms should not be interpreted as nationally representative. Our dataset contained reforms passed by local governments between 2005 and 2019 (figure 1). Table 2: Land-Use Reform Summary Statistics Frequency Total More Less Type of Reform Reforms Restrictive Restrictive ADUs 50 15 35 FAR 34 19 15 General rezoning 22 11 11 Height limits 37 24 13 Minimum lot size 33 14 19 Minimum setbacks 1 1 0 Mixed residential and non-residential development 3 0 3 Total More Less Metropolitan region Reforms Restrictive Restrictive Boston-Cambridge-Newton,MA-NH 17 11 6 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia NC-SC 16 7 9 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI 20 11 9 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 15 3 12 Los Angeles—Long Beach—Anaheim, CA 57 28 29 Miami—Fort Lauderdale—West Palm Beach, FL 17 9 8 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington,PA-NJ-DE 17 6 11 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 21 9 12 Total 180 84 96 Note: General rezonings refer to land-use reforms that were major,but for which specifics of the type of reform are unclear. We designated regions using Census-defined metropolitan statistical areas(MSAs). Source: Authors' analysis of land-use reform data. Figure 1: Municipal Land-Use Reforms Less Restrictive 11 More Restrictive Frequency 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 III 1111111111111 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Source:Authors' analysis of land-use reform data. Census and Address Data We merged reform data with rent levels and population from the 2000 decennial census and each five-year American Community Survey (ACS) available at the time of writing (2005-2009 to 2015-2019) from the IPUMS National Historic Geographic Information System (Manson et al. 2018).Because census-designated places(generally equivalent to municipalities)and tracts change geographies over time, we created city-level information from census-tract data with consistent boundaries based on 2010 tracts. We used Brown University's Longitudinal Tract Database to standardize tracts (Logan, Xu, and Stults 2014). Our findings incorporate error due to ACS estimates, but that error is distributed across all studied communities, no matter whether they undertook a reform. The ACS publishes data on the number of rented housing units by the gross rent paid. These data are in bucket form; each bucket has a range of gross rent for units. To create our measures of affordable housing units, we calculate the rent that would be affordable to people in the relevant geography. We then sum the housing units in each rent bucket below the calculated affordable rent. We then approximate the number of units within the bucket that contains the calculated affordable rent by multiplying the number of units in the bucket by the difference between the calculated affordable rent and the minimum value of the bucket over its dollar range. For example, if the bucket between $80,000—$100,000 has 1000 units, and the relevant affordable rent for the calculation is $90,000, we would count 500 units. Finally, we integrated quarterly US Postal Service (USPS) data on the total number of addresses within each place, provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) between 2005 and 2018. These data represent the count of units as a housing-supply measure. Our decision to use this as an outcome measure limited our reform universe to cases between 2005 and 2018. USPS address data are available at the tract level, so a geographic transformation from tract to place was necessary to match the datasets. We used a geographic crosswalk to transform the data(Missouri Census Data Center 2020). Summary Statistics Cities that institute reforms (more or less restrictive) tend to be much more populous than those that never institute reforms (table 3). We identify similar statistically significant variation with respect to population change, rent levels, and other municipal characteristics. These differences could be exacerbated by bias in our data collection method since smaller cities are less likely to feature robust news coverage. Table 3: Baseline Municipal Characteristics by Reform Status Means Ever had a Ever had a Data Never had more restrictive less restrictive Characteristic year a reform reform reform Population 2000 19,700 189,585** 212,003** Population change 2000- 1,612 8,473** 7,635** 2007 Addresses 2005 8,884 89,385** 96,686** Change in number of addresses 2005- 213 1,003** 1,230** 2006 Median gross rent 2000 $945 $1,122** $1,034** Change in median gross rent 2000- $67 $100 $89 2007 Aggregate gross rent 2000 $1,846,465 $26,129,489** $28,536,468** Change in aggregate gross rent 2000- $739,340 $11,637,144** $12,151,556** 2007 Y Extremely low income(ELI) 2007 0.005 0.008** 0.007 • o Very low income(VLI) 2007 0.012 0.011 0.012 c• . L• ow income(LI) 2007 0.038 0.046* 0.043 cz a, Median income(MI) 2007 0.015 0.025** 0.023** A• bove MI 2007 0.019 0.051** 0.045** • > Above 50%AMI 2007 0.033 0.071** 0.084** a `� Under 50%AMI 2007 0. 056 0.071 0.066 Note: Stars indicate significant differences in mean between cities that instituted reforms and those that never instituted a reform. **p<0.01; *p<0.05. Cities that institute reforms that increase restrictiveness and those that reduce restrictiveness tend to have an increasing number of housing units leading up to a reform, though their trends diverge in the years after (figure 2). These overall increases in the number of units do not appear in cities that never instituted land-use reforms. This is likely due to reverse causation; cities may be more likely to institute land-use reforms because of observed changes in their housing supply. Therefore, controlling for these pre-trends helps identify the causal impacts of the reforms, since parallel trends prior to the treatment are necessary for a fixed-effects model. Figure 2: Average number of addresses before and after reforms, normalized Less restrictive reforms • More restrictive reforms Normalized Number of Addresses 103.50 103.25 103.00 102.75 102.50 102.25 102.00 101.75 101.50 101.25 101.00 100.75 100.50 100.25 100.00 4 before 3 before 2 before 1 before reform 1 after 2 after 3 after 4 after Quarters before and after reform Source: Authors' analysis of HUD USPS Vacancy Data and land-use reform data. 4. METHODS We estimate a random-trend, fixed-effects model that compares housing-related changes within cities that implemented land-use reforms to changes within cities that did not. Fixed effects allow us to remove unobserved heterogeneity within places and control for national trends (Wooldridge 2002). We also include random trends, providing each city its own linear time trend in addition to the separate level effect. This approach reduces the potentially endogenous relationships between municipal interest in passing land-use reforms in response to changing housing conditions in that community, and helps to fulfill the parallel-trends assumption. We estimate the following equation using multinomial quasi-conditional maximum likelihood estimation (Wooldridge 1999): Yit = RestrictiveReformslmplementationit + LessRestrictiveReformslmplementationit + RestrictiveRe f ormsPostit + LessRestrictiveRe f ormsPostit + + Ot + Sit + Eit where Yit is a series of outcome measures related to housing supply and costs, including total address count (2005-2018, quarterly), median rents (2000-2017, annually), aggregate gross rents (2000-2017, annually), and the count of rental units affordable to households at different income levels based on national median incomes (2000-2017 yearly).2 Note that the latter measure is not quantifying the number of available subsidized units, but rather the number of units affordable to people based on their means: units included could thus be subsidized or not. RestrictiveRe f ormsit and LessRestrictiveRe f ormsit are counts of the number of reforms that increased restrictions in city i in year t or any year before (i.e., it is specified as a stock variable). The model includes city-level fixed effects that capture time-invariant characteristics, Ai, and fixed effects for each year or quarter (depending on the outcome) to account for trends in the economy or real-estate market, Bt. Standard errors are clustered at the city level and are robust to heteroskedasticity and arbitrary forms of error correlation within each city. `We put dependent variables into natural logged form when both the variables themselves and the residuals from their regressions show a logged distribution. Once we log the variables,the residuals produce a normal distribution. The measure of units affordable to households at different income levels includes subsidized and non-subsidized units. Variables are split into an implementation period of two years before a reform, the year of the reform, and two years after the reform, plus a post period (three or more years after). The implementation period controls for anticipation effects that could cause an Ashenfelter dip or spike (e.g., a reform being discussed but not yet having been passed influencing developer behaviors). The post-period allows time for reforms to take effect; knowledge about reforms may take time to spread. The two-year period after reforms considers short-term impacts and accounts for the five- year averages in the ACS data to ensure that outcome years do not include pre-periods due to averaging. Because of this averaging, we cannot separate anticipatory effects from construction effects, so we do not split this implementation period into two. The longer-term post period reform impacts identify outcomes more than two years after reforms versus the three years before the reforms. These estimates represent average treatment effects for all years,three or more years after reform passage.This varies between cities,based on the reform. We split the treatment variable into reforms increasing restrictions on land use and those reducing restrictions on land use. This is because we believe that their effects are not symmetric: removing restrictions may not have the opposite effects on housing affordability, at least in the short run, as increasing restrictions. This is because loosening land-use restrictions may simply standardize requests for variations from by-right rules that local zoning commissions already systematically approve (Lo et al. 2020), and because in rezoned areas, builders might convert existing lower-cost units into higher-cost ones. The amenity effects resulting from these conversions plus associated neighborhood retail and public safety improvements may, in turn, increase surrounding housing values (Jacobus 2016).3 3 Results are similar when the treatment variable is run as a single reform variable,but they are attenuated and less informative since we cannot determine whether the effects are symmetric.Authors can provide these results upon request. As a robustness check, we estimate the models using area median incomes (AMIs) to calculate affordability (rather than the national median incomes in the standard models)to confirm that our results are not sensitive to this calculation. Though we do not prefer this approach, these findings can help confirm our national-data-based findings related to the lower end of rental affordability. We also run falsification tests to explore whether future hypothetical reforms could predict changes in outcome measures. If significant, these results might suggest that endogeneity exists in the model and that results are not reliable. We acknowledge several limitations in our approach. Because of our reliance on news articles to identify reforms,we may be undercounting changes occurring in some cities. Our control group (cities without reforms) may include some treated, but unmeasured, cities with reforms. This may attenuate our estimates of reform impact, though we expect that most reforms, especially the largest, were covered in the news. There may also be underlying conditions in cities that pass reforms that cause them to pass reforms; cities facing affordability problems,for example, may be more likely to loosen construction regulations. But our models' use of city linear trends and controls for regional context aid us in addressing this concern. Moreover, though our incorporation of fixed effects and random trends aid efforts to achieve identification, we cannot fully assert a causal relationship between reforms and outcomes as there remain potential endogenous relationships for which we cannot account, plus time-varying, unobserved characteristics. For example, cities passing reforms reducing construction restrictions may have simultaneously invested in increased subsidized housing support. And cities experiencing increasing rents may be more likely to implement reforms loosening restrictions,thus violating the exogeneity assumption of the model. We also face limitations in our ability to link specific land-use regulations with outcomes. We do not examine specific parcels experiencing zoning changes at the neighborhood level;we assume that reforms we identified impacted cities overall. We also do not differentiate between relative impacts of different changes,and we do not have the power to assess the varying impacts of reform types, like ADU or height-limit policy. It is likely that reform effects varied based on neighborhood, which we do not measure. Nor do we measure effects across entire metropolitan areas, which constitute the broader housing market. And it is possible that our method for identifying reforms was incomplete, particularly in smaller cities with a less active press. Despite these limitations, by providing the first multi-city, multi-reform dataset, we offer new insight into the short- and medium-term impacts of land-use regulatory changes. Our models provide unique information about how different types of changes may be associated with changes in housing production and affordability. 5. FINDINGS To identify relationships between land-use reforms and housing supply, we estimate reform impacts on the overall housing supply (measured by address counts), housing costs (median gross rents to represent average rental costs, plus aggregate gross rents to understand how total rents in cities change, which could be affected by both the number of rental units and their individual rents), and the supply of units affordable to households in different income buckets. We include subsidized and non-subsidized housing. Using a fixed-effects model with city-level random trends, we find that the reforms loosening restrictions were associated with a statistically significant, 0.8% increase in the total number of addresses over the medium- to long-term post reform, meaning at least three years after reform (table 4).4 These estimates are the average treatment effects for all post-reform years, compared to three years pre-reform, each of which varies by city based on when reforms passed. These results pass a falsification test(section 6).We find no effects on total address counts in the implementation period (meaning two years pre-reform to two years after) for these reforms. Among reforms loosening restrictions, we find no significant effects of reforms during either the implementation period or the post-reform period on rent levels. Reforms increasing land-use restrictiveness, such as those increasing minimum lot sizes, were associated with a significant, $50 increase in median rents in the post-reform period, but not in the implementation period. These results, interestingly, are somewhat symmetrical to those related to the reforms loosening restrictions. This finding also passes a falsification test. We found no effect of increasing land-use restrictions on the address count in either period. We identify similar results when we run the regression with the treatment variable run as a single reform variable.This implies that the results are somewhat symmetrical(meaning loosening restrictions may have the opposite effect as increasing them),though more research is necessary to confirm this finding. Table 4: Effect of Land-Use Reforms on Address Count and Rents (1) (2) (3) Ln Total Addresses Median Gross Rent Ln Aggregate Gross Rent Reforms Post Period 0.004(0.003) $49.54* (24.42) -0.003 (0.026) increasing Implementation restrictions Period 0.001 (0.002) $20.42(12.87) 0.002(0.014) Reforms Post Period 0.008** (0.003) -$60.52 (36.05) 0.008(0.031) loosening Implementation restrictions Period 0.003 (0.002) -$23.55 (21.21) 0.008(0.020) Quarter/year fixed effects Yes Yes Yes City-level fixed effects Yes Yes Yes City specific time trends Yes Yes Yes Observations 68,634 12,176 12,178 Adjusted R-squared 0.785 0.446 0.606 Note:Results for logged outcomes are semi elasticities from a fixed effects model with random trends that includes place and quarter or year fixed effects(quarter for number of addresses,year for rent)and city specific time trends (or random trends).Sample is a quarterly panel of 1,136 cities in 8 MSAs from 2005 quarter 4 to 2021 quarter 1 for total addresses,and a yearly panel from 2008 to 2017 for median and aggregate gross rent.Robust standard errors in parentheses,clustered at the place level. ** p<0.01; * p<0.05. We also estimate the effect of reforms on the price distribution of rental units. We developed a set of cut points for affordability (assuming families are to pay no more than 30% of income to rent),by year,for families at or below 30%of the median income(extremely low income,or ELI); 30 to 50% of median income (very low income, VLI); 50 to 80% of median income (low income, LI); 80 to 100% of median income (middle income, MI); and above.' We find statistically significant increases in housing supply at the top end of the rent distribution (i.e., for rental units affordable to households making more than the national median income) in both the implementation period and the post period for reforms loosening restrictions, meaning those allowing for increased density (Table 5). After such reform passage, we find an increase in units affordable to families with incomes above the national median of 43%in the short 5 We also test for effects on number of rental units by affordability at the regional level using Area Median Income(AMI)as a robustness check later.Authors will provide cut-point data on request. run and 63% in the medium to long run. These estimates are large, but note that based on the 95% confidence interval, these estimates could range from 15% to 70% for the short-run implementation period and 15%to 112%at least three years post-reform. We can rule out that the estimate is zero, however. These results also pass a falsification test. These results suggest, perhaps unsurprisingly, that allowing additional housing construction compared to the baseline attracts investment in "market-rate" units, which are generally not affordable to low- or moderate-income households. While we do not find statistically significant evidence that existing units become less expensive in the implementation period or post period the estimates for every affordability category for reforms that loosened restrictions are positive, and the effects on the number of rental units that are affordable to extremely-low income and very low- income households are much larger in magnitude than the effects on higher-cost units. The standard errors on the ELI and VLI unit estimates are much larger, likely because the base number of units in those affordability ranges are small to begin with in many of the cities in our study. Therefore, we cannot disprove that the impacts are positive and equivalent across the difference affordability categories. Table 5: Effect of Land-Use Reforms on Address Count by Affordability Level (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Ln ELI Ln VLI Ln LI Ln MI Ln above MI Reforms Post Period -0.365 -1.523 -0.063 -0.241* -0.335 increasing (1.263) (2.188) (0.053) (0.111) (0.216) restrictions Implementation Period 0.434 -0.527 -0.026 -0.050 0.000 (0.577) (0.353) (0.029) (0.061) (0.162) Reforms Post Period 2.047 1.264 0.122 0.051 0.632* loosening (3.303) (1.393) (0.083) (0.126) (0.248) restrictions Implementation Period 1.393 0.454 0.063 0.078 0.430** (1.773) (0.646) (0.053) (0.072) (0.140) Quarter/year fixed effects Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes City-level fixed effects Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes City specific time trends Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Observations 12,177 12,175 12,177 12,172 12,177 Ad'usted R-s.uared 0.276 0.221 0.126 0.132 0.178 Note:Results for logged outcomes are semi elasticities from a fixed-effects model with random trends that includes place and year fixed effects and city-specific time trends. Sample is a yearly panel from 2008 to 2017. Robust standard errors in parentheses,clustered at the place level. ** p<0.01;* p<0.05. For reforms that tighten land-use restrictions and reduce allowed density, we find a 24% decline in housing units affordable for middle-income families in the post period at least three years after reforms(regressions show negative coefficients for unit counts across all income ranges for these types of reforms, though these changes are not statistically significant). However, this finding fails a falsification test—and has no effect for other income levels—so we cannot rule out that this is a continuation of that pre-trend. 6. ROBUSTNESS CHECKS Using Area Median Income to Define Affordability We run additional models to ensure our results are robust to misspecification. Because national median incomes may not capture local income differentials and costs of living,we run the analysis using an outcome measure for affordable units based on AMI. In other words, we consider the impact of reforms on the count of rental units affordable to people in each metropolitan region based on that region's median income. Using AMIs to calculate affordability is not our preferred specification for two reasons. First, there is value in having a standard nationwide affordability definition, since some areas may have such high median incomes that what is considered affordable there based on AMI may not be affordable to people earning minimum wage, or even for teachers or police officers. For example, since 2019 San Francisco-region median household incomes were $121,795 in 2019, using that AMI we might claim that a monthly rent of$2,436 is affordable for a low-income family. The average salary for a teacher in San Francisco is$62,123,however,meaning that the rent calculated to be "affordable" there based on AMI is almost twice what a single teacher can afford, or$2,436 compared$1,242 (local median incomes may be more appropriate for two-earner households). We therefore prefer to use national medians to calculate affordability since these rents are more universally affordable to low-wage households. Second, the highest rent bucket in the ACS is lower than the cut point for what is affordable to households above middle income in our sample's more expensive cities, so we can only observe the number of rental units affordable to households that are ELI,VLI,and above VLI. For example, in Boston,affordable rent for someone at 100%of AM!would be$2,696 per month,but the highest rent bucket in Census data is $2,000 or more. We would therefore not be able to ascertain how many units are affordable for that income level. Nevertheless, we re-run the models using AMI as a robustness check on our primary results. We find evidence that reforms increasing restrictions reduce the availability of units affordable for households with low incomes or above on average—but with no statistical significance. We also find no statistically significant impacts for reforms that loosened restrictions, though this result may reflect limited data availability.6 Long-Run Effects We also trace out the full adjustment path for the reforms, as per Wolfers (2006), allowing us to monitor changes year-by-year. This helps to confirm that the inclusion of place-specific time trends created using effects post-reform is not biasing our results. It also helps to identify effects over time of reforms that are more or less restrictive. Due to our dataset having a relatively short panel, some of the results in our average treatment effects are not significant in this model, but the results generally confirm our main findings in terms of directionality of coefficients (table 6). The fully lagged model shows that less restrictive reforms reduce median gross rents the first, fourth, and fifth years after reform passage. It also shows that more restrictive reforms reduce the supply of rental units affordable to people at and above middle income the fourth and fifth years after such a reform. 6 The authors can provide tabular results on request. Table 6: Falsification Test: Effects of Future Land-Use Reforms on Address Count and Rents (1) (2) (3) Ln Total Addresses Median Gross Rent Ln Aggregate Gross Rent Future reforms that -0.000 -$29.97 -0.002 increase restrictions (0.003) (15.89) (0.019) Future reforms that 0.000 $15.20 -0.034* loosen restrictions (0.003) (17.90) (0.017) Quarter/year fixed effects Yes Yes Yes City fixed effects Yes Yes Yes City-specific trends Yes Yes Yes Observations 68,634 12,176 12,178 Adjusted R-squared 0.785 0.446 0.606 Note: Results for logged outcomes are semi elasticities from a fixed effects model with random trends that includes place and quarter or year fixed effects(quarter for number of addresses,year for rent)and city specific time trends (or random trends). Sample is a quarterly panel of 1,136 cities in 8 MSAs from 2005 quarter 4 to 2021 quarter 1 for total addresses,and a yearly panel from 2008 to 2017 for median and aggregate gross rent.Robust standard errors in parentheses,clustered at the place level. ** p<0.01; *p<0.05. Falsification Tests Finally, we run falsification tests to examine whether impacts are detectable in cities prior to actual reforms, which, if demonstrated, might suggest that the results above are the product of endogeneity and selection bias rather than the reforms themselves. To do so, we include a variable for three years (or quarters, for USPS data)prior to each reform in the models to see whether that coefficient is statistically significant (in essence, we are testing for the effects of a hypothetical reform that never occurred). We use three years prior since many of our outcomes are based on five-year ACS estimates, so one and two years prior to the reform could produce significant outcomes due to averaging. Additionally, three years prior to reform is the year before our implementation period control variable. We find no evidence of endogeneity in terms of housing supply. These results confirm our table 4 finding showing an increase in address count following reforms loosening housing regulations. But there may be some endogeneity in terms of rent prices leading up to a reform. Specifically, cities that institute reforms that loosened restrictions experienced decreases in aggregate gross rents prior to instituting a reform (table 7, model 3). We also find some evidence for a pre-existing decline in middle and above-middle-income units in cities that increased restrictions (models 7-8). That said, we find no evidence for pre-trends pointing toward increased above-middle-income units in cities that loosened restrictions, confirming table 5. Table 7: Falsification Test: Effects of Future Reforms on Addresses by Affordability Level (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Ln ELI Ln VLI Ln LI Ln MI Ln above MI Future reforms that 0.834 2.300 -0.010 -0.261* -0.361* increase restrictions (1.542) (1.441) (0.059) (0.105) (0.174) Future reforms that loosen -3.746 -1.990 -0.031 0.003 -0.030 restrictions (1.996) (1.908) (0.046) (0.200) (0.252) Year fixed effects Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes City fixed effects Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes City-specific trends Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Observations 12,177 12,175 12,177 12,172 12,177 Adjusted R-squared 0.277 0.221 0.126 0.132 0.178 Note: Results for logged outcomes are semi elasticities from a fixed effects model with random trends that includes place and quarter or year fixed effects(quarter for number of addresses,year for rent)and city specific time trends (or random trends). Sample is a quarterly panel of 1,136 cities in 8 MSAs from 2005 quarter 4 to 2021 quarter 1 for total addresses,and a yearly panel from 2008 to 2017 for median and aggregate gross rent.Robust standard errors in parentheses,clustered at the place level. **p<0.01; * p<0.05. 7. CONCLUSION This analysis is the first cross-city, panel analysis of the effect of land-use reforms on the supply of affordable housing. We offer preliminary evidence of the potential for using machine- learning to identify where zoning changes are occurring. We find that land-use reforms that reduce restrictions to increase allowed density lead to a 0.8% increase in housing supply, on average, in the cities we study. However, we find no statistically significant evidence that these reforms lead to an increase in affordable rental units within 3 to 9 years of reform passage. We do find that such reforms are associated with an increase in units affordable for above-middle-income households, and that effects on units affordable to those with extremely low incomes and very low incomes are positive but with large standard errors, likely because of the small number of units affordable at these levels at baseline. Therefore, we do not have enough data to conclude that the impacts are significant.. We theorize that these outcomes may be produced by amenity affects occurring when a reform takes place; new buildings increase housing supply, but not only are new units likely to be more expensive than existing units, they may also bring amenities that improve the attractiveness of a city's housing market overall. This could outweigh the effects of the supply increase on reducing prices for more affordable units—at least in the jurisdiction where zoning reforms occur. In other words, certain zoning reforms may induce more construction, but rather than opening up existing units in the surrounding area for lower-income families, existing housing units maintain relatively stable rents due to increased demand. Even so, at the metropolitan scale and in the longer run, we expect that more construction reduces costs. These results indicate that policies targeting affordable housing may need to accompany measures designed specifically to increase supply. Direct development or preservation of affordable units through non-profit housing developers may be more successful at increasing the supply of low-cost units in the short run than regulatory reform alone. If supply grows at pace with household growth, then income or rent supplements could also ease affordability problems for low-income households. Conversely, we find that reforms that increase restrictions on housing construction are associated with an increase in median rents over the longer term, combined with a decline in units affordable for middle-income households. This indicates that tightening restrictions on housing construction is, as predicted by economic theory, associated with less housing supply and less affordability.These results are not without their limitations. It is likely that heterogeneity exists among reforms; some reform types probably work better than others in terms of increasing housing supply and affordability,and the marginal impacts of loosening restrictions may be relatively small in cities surrounded by other municipalities that were also relaxing regulations. We do not have enough power in our datasets to test for heterogeneous effects. Our methods also do not entirely resolve endogeneity concerns that are endemic to all studies on housing regulations, supply, and cost. Moreover, while we have successfully measured associations between reforms and the housing market in the years following reforms,we acknowledge that the effects over a much longer term,such as a decade after,may vary significantly.And it is possible that reform impacts occurred across metropolitan areas as a whole rather than within the jurisdictions we studied, but we did not have the data to measure those outcomes. Finally, since we selected our metropolitan regions to be those that were most likely to include cities that instituted reforms, and because our data collection method does not guarantee that we identified all reforms, it is likely that our estimated effects are a lower bound on the true impact since some of our control cities also likely had reforms that were not reported. Future studies should expand the types of policies examined to include those that directly require or incentivize affordability and should explore effects over a larger set of cities. The use of additional datasets,such as building permit information,could further inform this research. And detailed investigations of the metropolitan-scale effects of the zoning reforms introduced by individual jurisdictions could vital new evidence on the impacts of this type of public policy. Continued advancements in machine learning could help researchers examine policies such as these at a larger scale. REFERENCES Asquith B, Mast E, and Reed D (2019) Supply Shock Versus Demand Shock. Working paper no. 19-316, Upjohn Institute. Buechler S., and Lutz E (2021) The local effects of relaxing land use regulation on housing supply and rents. Research paper no. 21/18, MIT Center for Real Estate. CBPP (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) (2021) Tracking the COVID-19 Recession's Effects on Food, Housing, and Employment Hardships. Damiano A and Frenier C (2020) Do New Housing Units in Your Backyard Raise Your Rents? Working paper, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota. Dong H (2021) Exploring the Impacts of Zoning and Upzoning on Housing Development. Journal of Planning Education and Research. Epub ahead of print 1 Feb 2021. DOI: 10.1177/0739456X21990728. Freemark Y (2020) Upzoning Chicago. Urban Affairs Review 56(3): 758-789. Freemark Y (2022)Homing In: What Types of Municipalities Are Adding Residential Units, And Which Are Mounting Barriers to Housing? Report, Urban Institute. Ginsberg J, Mohebbi M, Patel R, Brammer L, Smolinski M, and Brilliant L (2009) Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data.Nature 457: 1012-1014. Glaeser E, Gyourko J, and Saks R(2005) Why have housing prices gone up?American Economic Review 95(2): 329-333. Glaeser E, Gyourko J, and Saks R (2006) Urban growth and housing supply.Journal of Economic Geography 6(1): 71-89. Glaeser E, Schuetz J, and Ward B (2006). Regulation and the rise of housing prices in Greater Boston. Policy brief no. 2006-1, Rappaport Institute. Glaeser E and Ward B (2006) The causes and consequences of land use regulation. Working paper no. 12601,National Bureau of Economic Research. Greenaway-McGrevy R, Pacheco G, and Sorensen K (2021) The effect of upzoning on housing prices and redevelopment premiums in Auckland,New Zealand. Urban Studies 58(5): 959-976. Gyourko J and Saiz A (2006) Construction costs and the supply of housing structure.Journal of Regional Science 46(4): 661-680. Gyourko J and Molloy R (2015) Regulation and housing supply. In: Mills E (ed) Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics. Elsevier, pp. 1289-1337. Gyourko J, Saiz A, and Summers A (2008) A new measure of the local regulatory environment for housing markets. Urban Studies 45(3): 693-729. Jacobus R(2016) Why We Must Build. Shelterforce. Available at: https://shelterforce.org/2016/03/10/why_we_must_build/. Accessed 20 Jan 2022. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (2018) The State of the Nation's Housing. Kahn, M, Vaughn R, and ZasloffJ (2010) The housing market effects of discrete land use regulations.Journal of Housing Economics 19(4): 269-279. Kok N, Monkkonen P, and Quigley J (2014) Land use regulations and the value of land and housing.Journal of Urban Economics 81: 136-148. Kuhlmann D (2021) Upzoning and Single-Family Housing Prices.Journal of the American Planning Association 87(3): 383-395. Lewis P and Marantz N (2019) What Planners Know.Journal of the American Planning Association 85(4): 445-462. Li X (2022) Do new housing units in your backyard raise your rents?Journal of Economic Geography 22(6): 1309-1352. Liu L, McManus D, and Yannopoulos E(2020) Geographic and Temporal Variation in Housing Filtering Rates. SSRN. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3527800. Accessed 20 Jan 2022. Lo L, Noble E, Levy D, and Pendall R(2020) Land Use Reforms for Housing Supply. Report, Urban Institute. Logan J, Xu Z, and Stults B (2014) Interpolating US Decennial Census Tract Data from as Early as 1970 to 2010. The Professional Geographer 66(3): 412-420. Malpezzi S (1996) Housing prices, externalities, and regulation in US metropolitan areas.Journal of Housing Research 7(2): 209-241. Manson S, Shroeder J, Van Riper D, and Ruggle S (2019)National Historical Geographic Information System. IPUMS. Available at: http://doi.org/10.18128/D050.V14.0. Accessed 20 Jan 2022. Mast E (2022)The effect of new market-rate housing construction on the low-income housing market.Journal of Urban Economics. Epub ahead of print 27 July 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.jue.2021.103383. Matlack J and Vigdor J (2006) Do Rising Tides Lift All Prices? Working Paper no. 12331, National Bureau of Economic Research. Mawhorter S, Garcia D, and Raetz H (2018) It All Adds Up. Report, Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley. Missouri Census Data Center(2020) Geocorr 2014: Geographic Correspondence Engine. Available at: http://mcdc.missouri.edu/applications/geocorr2014.html. Accessed 20 Jan 2022. Popov I (2019) Housing Markets and Income Inequality. Apartment List Rentonomics. Available at: https://www.apartmentlist.com/research/housing-markets-and-income-inequality. Accessed 20 Jan 2022. Quigley J and Raphael S (2005) Regulation and the high cost of housing in California.American Economic Review 95(2): 323-328. Pennington K(2021) Does Building New Housing Cause Displacement?. Working paper. Phillips, S, Manville M, and Lens M (2021) Research Roundup: The Effect of Market-Rate Development on Neighborhood Rents. Report, UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies. Rossi-Hansberg E, Sarte P, and Owens R(2010) Housing externalities.Journal of Political Economy 118(3): 485-535. Saiz A (2010) The geographic determinants of housing supply. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 125(3): 1253-1296. Saiz A and Simonsohn U (2013) Proxying for unobservable variables with internet document- frequency.Journal of the European Economic Association 11(1): 137-165. Schuetz J and Murray C (2019) Is California's apartment market broken? Report, The Terner Center for Housing Innovation. Thorson J (1997) The effect of zoning on housing construction.Journal of Housing Economics 6(1): 81-91. Wooldridge J (1999) Distribution-free estimation of some nonlinear panel data models.Journal of Econometrics 90(1): 77-97. Wooldridge J (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press. Zabel J and Dalton M (2011) The impact of minimum lot size regulations on house prices in Eastern Massachusetts. Regional Science and Urban Economics 41(6): 571-583. Zahirovich-Herbert V and Gibler K (2014) The effect of new residential construction on housing prices.Journal of Housing Economics 26: 1-18. Zhou J, McMillen D, and McDonald J(2008) Land values and the 1957 comprehensive amendment to the Chicago zoning ordinance. Urban Studies 45(8): 1647-1661. Zillow (2020)New construction or existing homes: the pros and cons of both. Available at: https://www.zillow.com/home-buying-guide/buying-a-new-home/. Accessed 20 Jan 2022. ��>> II�� EXHIBIT 4 A91 WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER r..zwa \'111,GIlvIA TH0040NoKE TIMES Let u: Show You America � ' Roanoke superintendent ~ i f,,,l It t t> 4 -�E gets contract extension dam } t 3 night same as available to other Verletta White's It n 12-m th administrative z agreement with n' employees. -+y y. *8;. AT'.r ^1 i bl g Whit Virginia's 2024 ' I y school board to the r stateSuperintendent nttne c h I d r e n :} � Year.In 2023 s also to continue and families identified as one of five su- 'a'^+ ' of R eke p rintendents to watch by r through 2028 ci y Pub n wmfe a national education wag- Schools," called K 12 Dive { minwne White1"Let'sg t t 't "I would lake to thank Dr. 11 me Roanoke roes This the d t White tor agreeingto extend `i Roanoke's school board White received d a contract her rcontract for two more A ^ has agreed to a two-year t Whitey said School Board " ` v conlnactextensmwithS t lly h d t f y Ch person En Jamison a n�s�,k" ;* _i IlipermtendentVeel ttaWfut t r July2020 d W havea lototconfidence .,0,,- ta'.:av' i White's employment c ived a two-year e t able in you and your leadership, `41f k `., C, agreement with theschool erune202z and we're so grateful toha �1. y w rn P board is now continuing Her annual salary you. &b r y" �` s sc Lune 2028 Theao as Malt, schoolppr board extension ly according niT toschoolcontract aten Luke Weir wg approved the extension at moots video for pay (S40)5e0roa1 the end of ameeting Tuesday Sion provides for pay raises, Juke.wer@roanoke.com al ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS t � e a) Slight enrollment decline projected One factor that enInen Roanoke the schools,and ; � � i� �,a„y Number of nips to the decline m en Rnannke county Board ot ra w jj students expected rollment is the declining Supervisors Chairman Phil Oct4-5 Daniel"/Pennsylvania Dutch/Lancaster PA $510 Wirth rate New develop- North g d the,up vile withind 10s years 500 in Ingle famomn and y nneed hecoonly to yant mn n"m ve the d in dchangi Oct4-14 Jewels of the Rhino $6 t94is tom thug g dthe cou> needleng for communities p pule- yreuSco yyy5y r um al- ry terms of student 1 d me _ Oct s airy Graham Libra /stow,Botanical Gardens $sg urn Ktxum p p density Iti-family resi- TheRoanekeTmes tion,'he said. de„tialdistrictto low den- Oct s Brushy Mountain Apple Festival 8/6 Enrollment in Roanoke "The only way that sity residential district, County Public Schools is you can offset a declining North said. OctS-tt New England al the Fall $t r5o projected to decline slightly birthrate or delay in child We made the wry ove r the next decade,ac- birth is to have,by choice, choice bCputting town cording to a demographic folks come back into your homes and apartment Oct 6-10 Niagara Falls/Raw. $1 S. study conducted by MGT community,and you have buildillgs in a community Consulting to backhll it wall folks here there single-fam- Oct6-12 Haunted Halloween/Boston/Salem $t.125 Lance Richards educe coming in because there', ly homes and plenty otca: tion solutions manager at housing and there's places pacity at the elementary hall-13 Nashville/Music Cary a sA Srab MGT Consulting,presented they can live in which to school," North said. "It the study to the county's a.move to your community;' was a tactical mistake,and board ot supervisors o and Oh 12 cabs Ralmad/cars,WV $195 school board at their joint he When it comes tocapac- enPtls tube hared➢ne-on- w k sessron on Tuesday. ity and utilization r theervth f our u lager Oct 12-18 Pioneer Woman/Magnolia Market $2,010 Last year,13,8 S6 students schools,the tut al d l builders.It can enrolled were mRCPS.Over the schools based on eta- MGTComsultig's demo- Oct 19 Dolywood Harvest Festival $149 the next three years,that eency rate.It placed Mount graphic recommendations number is expected to de- Pleasant,Mountain View, for Roanoke County were to Oct IS Carolina Balloon Festival/Statesville.NC $85 crease by a couple hundred, Oak Grove and Bonsack el- 'sustain excellence"in its and within l0 years,it is ex- elentary schools,as well as early education programs, Nov 1-a Sunshine Tours,Farnay Reunion $9;iS petted to decrease by 500, Glenvar,hidden Valley and address the 'millennial Richards said. however, Northside middle schools, deficit;'support the cnun- Nov1 Southern Christmas show/charione.NC SW that • tothe amount ot factors in the"nrellicieul use of ty's aging population and That can impact the demo- space' category. When create strategic planning graphic data,the trends are averaged out, however, for workforce development. No27-10 Blhmore House/Smoky Mountain Cnrlsimas Sr 090 subject to change,he said. the unty'.s elementary For education,it[com- The data"has to be re- schools and high schools mended celebrating su- Nov 9 Southern Christmas Show/Charlotte.NC $90 trashed every year,every fell into the ideal"adequate coos,supporting growth, two years,because I feel space"category,and the continuing to invest in Noy Southern Christmas snow/CharWna,NC, $90 really confident about out middle schools tell into the technology integration and three-year forecast, but "approaching inefficient maintaining high fractoa- then these forecsitr trod of use of space" category. Lion rates. Nov9 Concord Mills/Bass Pro Shoo,Charlotte.NC $85 have to build on themselves Richards did not recom- "Your schools are doing to give you that trajectory mend that the county close a wonderful job,"Richards Nov 9-12 Veterans Day/Tour of Honor/Washington DC $1,175 going out and to get out to or consolidate any school,. said."They areimport- year 10,'he said. "There are school cow- ant economic driver that Nov to-1i Florida Keys Sunset celebrelion $3 235 Richards acknowledged n nities that would kill can help your community that the projected decrease for these numbers,"he said. going torwardt Nov 20-23 Macy's Thanksglvmg Paraae/New York $1,64s isn't dramatic,but said that Richards stated that it is something the county based on the data,adding Lily Kincaid Nov 2:-Oec2 CurrlerBWes Christmas $t a. moving • have to think about new housing in the county (540)986-5851 forward. won't "crush" or over- Illy.Ivncaidtaroanoke coin Nov 30 Premium Cutlets Christmas/Charlotte.NC $85 Dec a rangleweod Rank/GhnatmasLights Sat 9/11 ANNIVERSARY Dee 3-7 Gilded Age Christmas/Newport,RI $1,535 Barbershop chorus to perform for ceremony Dec 3-9 Si.Chadea Christmas $2395 Group to sing ,It's heart-wrenching he- tone with them ever since. cause it's 9/11,but every- The Virginians Chorus Dec 6-8 Oado Cary Christmas/.New York $142" at Virginia War thing is very well done.To performed at the War Me- it's just a tirst-class mortal for the first time Dec 6-6 Chrlslmas DV/Aland Halal At.asn Memorial in presentation,and we love during last v s 9/11 being part ot that care- ceremony.A month later, Dec cndatrnas Town USA/MCAaenvaua NC $rs tribute to victims mony." the group returned tot the 40th anniversary of the THAD GREEN Patriotic tunes Marine Corps barracks Dec] Grove Park/Gingerbread House $tb5 eoahmondrimes•nispatch The Richmond-based bombing in Beirut. RICHMOND - Each group is an a cappella, For the Common- Dec7 vihmnrr House 5 Gardenschrotmas $210 year,the 9/11 anniversary four-part harmony cho- wealth's Patriot Day ce - brings heavy emotions rut that was founded in mony,the chorus will sing , Dec 9-12 Christmas Mystery Adventure gr.295 across the country,induct- 1952 and currently has 40 a patriotic medley that mg in Richmond. active singers.It is a chap- includes staples like"This Dec n-tb Radio city Christmas/New York $1,nzo On Wednesday,the V.- ter of the Barbershop llar- Is My Country,"'God Bless ginia War Memorial will mony Society,a worldwide America,'"Battle Hymn host the Commonwealth's organization with 700 of the Republic"and"God Dec 13-15 Chnslm $t 26oaa opryland Hotel Patr rot Day Ceremony to chapters. Bless the C.S.A:' - honor and remember the Candrilli joined the The group will also per- - Doc I4 Blhmore House A Gardens Christmas $230 nearly 3,000 Americans group 25 years ago after loom an Armed Forces who died as a result of the seeing the chorus perform medley,which hits home Dec 26-31 Christmas oisnerivorid 1 Universal Sea World stars Sept.11 attack. at Regency Square Mall withmanyehorusmem- The Virginians Barber- around Valentine's Day. hers.Candrilli.served in , "All pricing is for Double Occupancy.Please call our office for shop Chorus is among the 'I went over there and the Air Force from 1980 to i groups and individuals I'm sure I was starstruck 1984 and two of his sons additional Pricing/Information." that will provide their n going toh my God,this is are active duty military unique messages to cow- awesome;"Candrilli said.. members. orate the 23rd anni "I started talking to those "We've got a lot ot enter- VA DMV Permit No.180 11 aryof9/11 guys and they Invited me to a our group,"he said. PICK-UP POINTS FOR ALL Towns LISTED- Ve"They do an outstanding co e check them out." "When oursong coms Richmond,Staunton,Charlottesville program'Jerry C d llr Candrilli successfully up,those that served in president of the V g he s auditioned for the chorus that branch tto raisenur ww•.v.GuSunshineTours.corn 1-800-552-0022 !. Barbershop Chorus,said. and has been singing Bari- hands." Cecelia Webb From: Ruth Visuete Perez Sent: Friday, September 13, 2024 12:42 PM To: Windsor Nevitt; Cecelia Webb Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] My Statement for City Council 7PM Sept. 16. From: Duane Howard<starcityflyer@aol.com> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2024 12:29 PM To: City Clerk<City.Clerk@roanokeva.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] My Statement for City Council 7PM Sept. 16. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or on clicking links from unknown senders. Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Members of City Council. Due to Covid I'll be unable to speak at the City Council Meeting this coming Monday at 7PM. The following is what I would like to say: Thank you for your time and service: Sept. 16th, 7 PM City Council could go down in history as a date they will live in infamy if Council votes to pass the ill conceived zoning changes. They say its about more affordable housing.So they want more affordable housing while they continue to destroy the affordable housing people bought decades ago with now wanting to destroy said neighborhood with half million dollar town houses. We need to stop this ill conceived zoning change. Its been said that our beautiful Historical Old Southwest neighborhood could be as much as 80%rental. I have been driving around Old S.W.just prior to writing this. I was flabbergasted at the number of mail boxes on those beautiful, no longer, single family homes. The same can be said for Raleigh Court, Grandin Village and other neighborhoods. The other gravely disturbing fact about this zoning change is still our greater population of the city.has NO idea its being considered. I've been making it a point to stop strangers to ask if they have heard about it. Profoundly sad they have not. I engage them in conversation and they are most concerned, from the bag boy at Kroger, people at CVS to my doctors and even merchants downtown. 1 We now have two citizens groups that have filed law suits against this zoning change. You,the good citizens of Roanoke,we have elected our city council members to serve us, and to do right by the citizens who put them in their powerful position.They owe it to us to listen to the majority of the public who are doing our best to educate them on the errors of this proposal. I urge you to talk to your neighbors and friends. We need to pack city council chambers on Sept. 16th at 7 PM. If you want to speak, you must sign up in advance or at the council changers by 7PM. Otherwise just show up and stand when you are asked to do so to show objection to this change. The future of our city is now in your voice and seat. E. Duane Howard 1221 6th Street, S.e. Roanoke, VA. 24013 540-815-5335 2 Zoning Reform Amendments City Council Public Hearing 9-16-2024 Evelyn A. Slone Comments Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council, I am unable to attend the public hearing on Monday,September 16, 2024 to speak to you on the drafted zoning amendments and the status of those amendments passed in March 2024.Thus, I wanted to reiterate my concerns and professional planning suggestions for revisions to the zoning regulations that have been put forward. 1. The zoning amendments that were passed in March need considerable revision and thought,particularly with respect to neighborhood impact and overall desired outcomes for residential investment in the City of Roanoke.They should be repealed, and a new set of zoning updates developed in close collaboration with neighborhood leaders. a. On August 12,2024, I submitted to city staff, the Planning Commission and to City Council detailed comments and potential revisions for diversifying housing types that I believe will more appropriately address the housing needs and challenges facing the city in the future. b. City staff must listen to the concerns raised by citizens and neighborhood leaders and find common ground for zoning changes, neighborhood stability, and new residential investment.While there have been multiple meetings held by staff,there has been little positive public engagement in discussion of concerns and possible strategies.Almost all of the decision-making has been done in closed staff work sessions (Planning Commission&City Council) without the benefit of collaborative public comment on the complex zoning topic. Public meetings have been tightly controlled and strategically organized to limit group discussion and raising of concerns.Density,parking, owner/rental balance, and ensuring quality/compatible infill development are valid concerns. 2. Statements regarding"exclusionary"zoning,and"inappropriate,unchanged zoning" regulations are not factual statements.The City of Roanoke has employed many past changes to the zoning code since the 1960s that have rectified community issues and managed diversified housing types. a. Zoning regulations were modified substantially in the late 1980s and 1990s to rectify adopted large-lot suburban standards, residential density provisions (like those now being reinstated), and business/industry zoning(urban renewal) that had been adopted in the 1960s.The revised zoning code, and the subsequent,more substantial one adopted in 2005, addressed neighborhood issues and conflicts - nonconforming lots and uses,lower densities to manage conflicts with absentee landlords and rental 1 Zoning Reform Amendments City Council Public Hearing 9-16-2024 Evelyn A. Slone Comments properties, parking, and appropriate infill development.These were adopted after substantial collaboration with neighborhood leaders and citizens. [See Roanoke Vision, Zoning:A Process for Balancing Preservation and Change, 1986 for more detailed information. Read pages 17-22 to understand conditions and adopted amendments.] b. Use of the word "exclusionary" across the city is not truthful and does not accurately describe the city as it exists today, or the diversified housing types in the residential neighborhoods in the city, particularly those that are more centrally located.Look at the housing patterns in Raleigh Court, Gainsboro,Old Southwest, Southeast, Northwest,Williamson Road, and even South Roanoke—these all include a variety of housing types AND they have been managed successfully since the 1990s (through density and design standards) to balance residential investment and enhance the quality of life and stability of neighborhoods.Approximately 60% of the residential area in Roanoke near the center of the city is zoned Residential Multifamily (RM1 and RM2). Even the 2020 Citywide Housing Plan noted that "Roanoke's housing stock has a much more diversified mix than many other locations in the region...and offers a wider range of housing choices." (p.43). The plan further noted that"the city's zoning ordinance allows a wide range of housing types across many different zoning districts with favorable lot sizes, lot coverage, and heights that generally match the historic development patterns of neighborhoods." (p. 85). c. Providing for more dense housing via a special exemption permit is not "exclusionary." This process enables development conditions to be evaluated and more importantly, it allows for public notice and comment on development that affects neighbors. d. It is very important that adopted zoning regulations reflect the built development patterns in the city. The March amendments do not reflect these patterns.They encourage development uncertainty and inappropriate development that can threaten the stability of residential/home investment and neighborhood quality of life.These amendments have the potential to destroy the valuable historic fabric of the city and adversely influence the progress of neighborhood revitalization efforts. If there are areas that are underutilized and need change for redevelopment, consider developing a plan, assembling property, and rezoning by working with neighborhoods and developers. 2 Zoning Reform Amendments City Council Public Hearing 9-16-2024 Evelyn A. Slone Comments 3. American Planning Association publications regarding zoning reform have not been appropriately applied to the zoning amendments.More specifically: a. Equity in Zoning Policy Guide,2022-This guide recognizes three kinds of equity in zoning that need to be considered to effectively advance zoning reform-equity in the rules,equity in the people engaged, and equity in the map of zoning districts (p. 12-20).These parameters were not followed;there was an assumption made that the city was "exclusively single-family" and therefore, needed broad changes in density and housing development types.There appears to be no assessment of existing neighborhood patterns or consideration of past inequities or conflict, residents were not involved with the drafting of the zoning rules, and proper public notice of the zoning amendments (need for clarity and understanding of the full scope of amendments)has been questionable. 4,1,111iun 11 ct.?: b. Housing Supply Accelerator Playbook: Solutions, Systems,Partnerships,2024-This publication provides guidance for addressing housing supply challenges that are diverse, attainable, and equitable (p.9). Missing middle housing is discussed as a needed strategy. [For Roanoke, it is very important to recognize that many of its neighborhoods already include these housing choices and are not exclusively built for single-family homes. In addition,it is important to recognize the built fabric and context of existing neighborhoods-appropriate development standards must ensure compatibility and enhancement.] Finally, the playbook discusses the need for collaboration and partnerships for success-engage partners (developers, real estate professionals, community members), employ financial strategies, plan for infrastructure, adjust land use regulations through scenario planning, engaging stakeholders, and innovative methods such as mixed-use districts, performance standards, pattern books,modernized codes,etc. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Evelyn A. Slone, FAICP 3257 Bromley Road Roanoke,VA 24018 3 Cecelia Webb From: Ruth Visuete Perez Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 2:04 PM To: Windsor Nevitt; Cecelia Webb Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Council Members :vote NO - residential zone changes From:Shannon Cox<shankoxx@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 1:51 PM To: City Clerk<City.Clerk@roanokeva.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Council Members :vote NO - residential zone changes You don't often get email from shankoxx@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or on clicking links from unknown senders. Dear Roanoke City Council Members; I am a Roanoke City resident and I oppose any changes to residential zoning that you will be considering at tonight's (9/16) council meeting and any future meetings also. I feel this will only boost residential growth for the counties around Roanoke City since the city would offer no protection for radical neighborhood change. We have bought and live in properties that we wish to remain zoned as was when purchased. I therefore urge you to please vote "NO" to any changes on the zoning changes. Respectfully, Shannon K Cox 3711 Greenland Ave NW Roanoke, VA 240112 1