Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/25/2022 - Regular October 25, 2022 845 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of October 2022. Audio and video recordings of this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES Before the meeting was called to order, Pastor Josh Kestner of Christian Life International Church provided an invocation. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present: IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Mahoney called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Paul M. Mahoney; Supervisors Martha.B. Hooker, Phil C. North and P. Jason Peters MEMBERS ABSENT: Supervisor David F. Radford STAFF PRESENT: Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator; Rebecca Owens, Deputy County Administrator; Doug Blount, Assistant County Administrator, Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information Officer and Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS County Attorney, Peter Lubeck requested the Board remove item E.3 - The petition of First Four Petroleum Group, LLC to obtain a special use permit for equipment sales and rental (storage container yard) on approximately 14.82 acres on land zoned C-2S, High Intensity Commercial, located at 4855.Hollins Road, Hollins Magisterial District as the petitioner withdrew their petition. There were no objections. 846 October 25, 2022 IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Proclamation declaring October 22-31, 2022, as Red Ribbon Week in the County of Roanoke (Adam T. Neal, Director, Roanoke Area Youth Substance Abuse Coalition) Proclamation was read by the Clerk. 2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to Rose Marie Guzi, Library Assistant, upon her retirement after thirty-two (32) years of service (Jim Blanton, Director of Library Services) Mr. Blanton outlined the request. Resolution was read by the Clerk. RESOLUTION 102522-1 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO ROSE MARIE GUZI, LIBRARY ASSISTANT, UPON HER RETIREMENT AFTER THIRTY-TWO (32) YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Rose Marie Guzi was employed by Roanoke County on September 17, 1990; and WHEREAS, Ms. Guzi retired on September 30, 2022, after thirty-two (32) years of devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, Ms. Guzi, through her employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life and providing services to the citizens of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, throughout Ms. Guzi's tenure with Roanoke County, she saw many technology changes at the library from using a paper card catalog to going digital early in her career. She helped the library prepare to go fully automated by assisting in barcoding items throughout the system. Over the years, she learned and adapted to many new library services, including learning about Pepper, the humanoid robot, and other technology offerings. Ms. Guzi participated in patron outreach to retirement communities and brought Bi-Folkal kits and memory cards to engage patrons in these communities. Ms. Guzi shared book reviews, provided large-print materials, and chatted with the residents during her visits. Ms. Guzi also brought her passion for the theatre to the library by performing countless roles in Mystery Nights. Ms. Guzi worked the service desk at the original 419 Library, South County Library, and later at the Vinton Library. When Ms. Guzi transferred to the Vinton Library in 2019 some of her patrons from South County followed her and became loyal patrons of the Vinton Library. Ms. Guzi October 25, 2022 847 impacted the community with her smiling face, customer service skills, and by assisting everyone that came through the doors. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to ROSE MARIE GUZI for thirty-two (32) years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Mahoney NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Radford IN RE: BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing to introduce Megan Baker, Economic Development Director, to the Board of Supervisors (Doug Blount, Assistant County Administrator) Ms. Baker was introduced. IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA 1. The petition of Neil Aneja to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 0.30 acre on land zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, located at 2776 White Pelican Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District Supervisor Peters' motion to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for November 9, 2022, was seconded by Supervisor North and approved by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, Radford, Mahoney NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Radford 848 October 25, 2022 2. The petition of Barnett Properties, LLC, to rezone approximately 9.38 acres from R-3C, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions, R-1, Low Density Residential District, I- 1C, Low Intensity Industrial District with conditions, C-2C, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions, and C-1, Low Intensity Commercial District, to C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, for retail sales located in the 4400 block of Brambleton Avenue including 4449 and 4457 Brambleton Avenue, and the 4500 and 4600 blocks of Old Cave Spring Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District Supervisor North's motion to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for November 9, 2022, was seconded .by Supervisor Hooker and approved by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Mahoney NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Radford 3. T e pe tion of First Four Pe roleum Group, 1 1 C__to obtain a $n ial us+e permit fer uipmenf saes. and renal (storage pe6�ra,—crs�p��mr-rvr—e�v�prrr�rrz—� arrca�c�arT�'��9� , e Petitioner withdrew the petition. IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public Hearing to receive comments on the proposals submitted for the construction of a fire station at 1465 Mexico Way, NE in the City of Roanoke (Tax Id: 7110128) (Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney) Mr. Lubeck outlined the request. Chairman Mahoney inquired as to how the public was notified with Mr. Lubeck advising the Roanoke Times. Chairman Mahoney opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to speak on this item. October 25, 2022 849 IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Amending . Chapter 2 (Administration), Article V (County Board Organization and Procedures), Section 2-113 (Order of business), deleting the separate consent agenda. for requests for public hearings and first reading of rezoning ordinances (Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney) Mr. Lubeck advised there were no changes since the first reading held on October 11, 2022. Supervisor Peters stated he has a little bit of heartburn with this. He does not mind giving up one of the readings; we receiving all the information. However, some of these things are issues that citizens would like to know. He understands the delay, but give the Board a first reading., There is no public process. Mr. Lubeck explained today's matter is specifically in regards to rezoning matters. Mr. Lubeck added the item could also be pulled off the Consent Agenda is so desired by the Board member. Supervisor Peters noted his only concern is that we still live in an area where not everyone is computer savvy, and they may want to just, like I said, one of the two readings. He is not saying both of them need to be public as we've done previously, but I just think maybe one of them, maybe it's the first one where you've given a snapshot and I guess in the FEMA case that probably, Mr. Moneir would give a snapshot of what was taking place and why we did apply for that grant, and then we put the second ordinance in the consent agenda barring there's no questions or anything. That's the only, I also believe in making things as fluid as possible. Supervisor North stated one last comment. Newspapers across the country, there's two and three that fail every day and go out of business. He is not saying that this newspaper that serves us and the region is going to do that one day but, maybe we should be thinking about other ways to get these things out. Social media, well not everybody subscribes to it, but even he looks at it every day, share pictures and so forth and so on but, everyone and people even older than he am are using Facebook and other social media as a medium to communicate. Maybe we need to think a little bit about that internally going forward, because one day there may not be event in Messenger. There may one day there may not be a Roanoke Times. And in fact, even Roanoke Times has got a big movement, I guess, to online readership. He added that he thinks that the time's coming where we maybe have fewer newspapers, and we can't rely on the same old method. Supervisor Mahoney stated that Mr. Peters raises some valid points and he apologized to him and to the other Board members. When he met with the county attorney, he was trying to come up with procedures that would simplify the process. At least in my experience, many of the items that we vote on first reading, that there's never any debate or discussion. There's never a negative vote, and so he was hoping that maybe if we could move that to the consent agenda with the idea that if there were 850 October 25, 2022 an issue, we can take any item that's on the consent agenda under our procedures and pull it off and discuss it. But Mr. Peters has a good point that when we would have staff stand up at the podium and make a presentation that would provide a greater opportunity for citizen communication so that the citizens would have a better idea of what we're dealing with. To that extent, would the board want to defer this matter and think about it some more, or is it the pleasure of the board to proceed. Supervisor Peters advised he felt it was okay to proceed. Chairman Mahoney opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to speak on this agenda item. ORDINANCE 102522-2 AMENDING CHAPTER 2 (ADMINISTRATION), ARTICLE V (COUNTY BOARD ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES), SECTION 2-113 (ORDER OF BUSINESS), DELETING THE SEPARATE CONSENT AGENDA FOR REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES WHEREAS, Section 2-113 of the Roanoke County Code sets forth the "order of business" for Board of Supervisor meetings, by setting forth the sequence of business matters; and WHEREAS, Section 2-113 designates two separate "consent agendas": one for requests for rezoning matters and one for all other matters; and WHEREAS, it has been proposed, for the sake of efficiency, that the separate consent agenda for rezoning matters be deleted from the order of business; accordingly, all consent agenda matters (including rezoning matters) may be addressed together; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this matter was held on October 11, 2022, and the second reading and public hearing were held on October 25, 2022. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, as follows, 1. That Chapter 2 (Administration), Article V (County Board Organization and Procedures), Section 2-113 (Order of business), is hereby amended to delete the business item of"Request for public hearings and first reading of rezoning ordinance-consent agenda"; all other items of business shall remain unchanged. 2. That this amendment shall be effective immediately. On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Mahoney NAYS: None October 25, 2022 851 ABSENT: Supervisor Radford 2. The petition of the Gallery at South Peak, LLC, to rezone approximately 10.83 acres from C-2C (High Intensity Commercial District with conditions) and R-4C (High Density . Multi-Family Residential District with conditions) to R-4C (High Density Multi- Family Residential with amended conditions), to construct 260 apartments located in the 5000 block of The Peaks Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning) Mr. Thompson provided a PowerPoint presentation and outlined the request for petition. Supervisor North asked if this was where we considered storage units with Mr. Thompson responding in the negative add that was below this area. Supervisor Peters asked if this is where the condos were. Mr. Thompson responded if you went back to those condos, yes. So, it's taking portions of that condo project and it's taking part of the original South Peak that I think they showed on that concept plan as office. That would've been off of South Peak Boulevard or wherever. That project, so it's both the office space that was the C2C and then the portions of the condo project make up this property. So, two previous actions but they're trying to make it all just multifamily residential. Supervisor Peters then inquired about any fire constraints with Mr. Thompson advising that's something they'll have to work through in the site review process. Supervisor Mahoney asked for clarification on two points. First, did the application before us include revoking all of the previous conditions with Mr. Thompson responding in the affirmative stated only on the 10.3 acres. Secondly, Supervisor Mahoney referenced page 127 of the Board packet and the VDOT comment and the last sentence indicates that Roanoke County maintains the roadways in this area and should be consulted for improvements required due the impacts associated with any development of this property. He did not think that Roanoke County maintained roads. Mr. Thompson responded it is not a County maintained road. It might be the CDA or the actual developers that are doing the property. Will it dissolve, and if so, what happens to the road network at that time? Because he is not sure those roads were built to specs. Mr. Thompson responded they're not, and again, we can verify this. It's my understanding that the CDA is essentially just a financing vehicle that lays over top of what's otherwise a typical private development. So just like any other apartment complex, or in this case, you've got some mixed uses that the owner of that would be responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructure including the road. Supervisor Mahoney stated as a practical matter it would be no different than a private road subdivision. And back in the good old days, Roanoke County had a whole lot of private road subdivisions. I think they still exist today. So normally it is the 852 October 25, 2022 responsibility of the people who live there and typically they have a road maintenance agreement or things of that nature to address that. Supervisor Peters stated he is looking at 260 apartments and then the wear and tear on those roads. That's the concern that I don't want that to be glaring us in the face one day or a future board. Mr. Thompson advised he would let the petitioner speak to that. Also, we did develop private road standards for planned districts and for situations like this, and the difference between our private road standards and VDOT standards is the construction and how they're constructed is the same. It's really the vertical and horizontal alignment issues that you deal with on private roads, because there's not going to be VDOT standards regarding that. The petitioner, Dan Lamay and his attorney, Max Wiegard provided a PowerPoint presentation. Supervisor Mahoney commented this is a challenging sit, looking at the right-hand side of the concept plan you showed there it is very steep. It will be a challenge if this is approved to fit that in there. I kind of wonder if a landscape buffer, and I'm looking to Mr. Thompson, because of that grade change it'd be kind of silly to put some bushes and trees. Because if he is in the condos, I would be looking over the bushes and trees anyway. That would be a very challenging process for that site concept plan and site development review to accomplish that. Mr. Lamay explained that actually sits on the upper end of the site at this point. It's relatively flat at that elevation, which is in closest. So, we're not talking about going down the slope from the overlook. It's starting at the overlook. So, we're working south back towards the parking lot. It's a little atypical in the sense that the land that we're proposing, the overlook is wholly contained on the 10.8 acres, but we're trying to allow the condo owners the exclusive use of that overlook and the hope is that the buffer, while it would be entirely on our property, would provide that level of exclusivity to them so that they can continue to use the overlook. Our initial thought is that our residents are probably not likely to go over there anyway. We are proposing a fourth level rooftop amenity that would face east, that sort of leg that sticks the furthest down the page of the building and the fourth level of that would have a rooftop amenity where we're talking about community gathering space and an indoor-outdoor component as well. So that's our plan is to provide the same level of impact as the overlook would, but keep it within our building. If that makes sense. Chairman Mahoney opened the public hearing with the following citizens to speak: October 25, 2022 853 Ron Reese of 5458 The Peaks Drive stated, "I have seven brief points to make, some of which have been alluded to. 5400 The Peaks Drive is 32 units and indoor parking for 50 vehicles with 25 outdoor visitor parking spaces. Most of the offices in 5400 were told a few buildings of similar size were planned on the adjacent vacant land. The proposed single gallery structure is more than seven times the size of the existing buildings. Point two, the gallery would erect massive retaining walls three tiers high on the main entrance road. The proposed project will eventually build on or pave over almost the entirety of vacant land between 5400 and South Peak Boulevard. It's about 10 acres. This will cause excessively massive runoffs and heavy rains. We had eight inches near there one day last month. Some of the thunderstorms can deliver several inches of rain per hour. Such storms will likely overtax the existing storm drains and endanger the proposed walls and other walls all over South Peak. Point three, the Peaks Drive to 5400 is only 24 feet wide. It has no sidewalks and several very sharp turns. Increasing traffic flows by a factor of 10 along The Peaks Drive will be hazardous, especially to pedestrians. Mark my words, some pedestrians will be killed up there. Point four, the outlets to US 220 in the electric road have long light cycles for traffic from South Peak even now to endure. The lights have very short go cycles for exiting traffic, allowing only a few cars to pass per cycle. Adding hundreds of more vehicles at these exit points will cause long delays and traffic backups, especially during rush hours. It is likely that waits of 30 minutes or more may be involved to exit South Peak with a huge increase in traffic with development and visions. The location of trash dumps, as we mentioned, should be down near South Peak Boulevard. The proposed building for the gallery is four stories high and will block all views for half the residents of the existing 5400 building. The galleries should have no more than three stories, the same as the existing building. Personally, I suggest the entire project be reenvisioned to exploit the existing land contours with all access to the parts below South Peak.Boulevard. Fewer walls will be needed, much less earth moving too. Rather than one massive building blocking existing views, several smaller buildings should be scattered down the existing general contours. All units in the gallery could still have views if the access cards were on the uphill side of the building. In my opinion, the proposed gallery development is a landscape and architectural abomination. Thank you." Claude Ravenford — 5480 The Peaks Drive stated, "You're going to laugh at me. This is going to be my system, okay? What we're doing here is what we presented to the planning commissioner. Okay. Same thing. Come up a little closer. Come up a little closer. Okay. What my concern is this curve right here. Okay. This curve is extremely hazardous curve. Really busy on this one. Okay. Now this curve right here is extremely hazard. The biggest concern right here is if you're coming down this hill right here, and you want to make a left turn into here, you can only see from here to here, 70 feet. Her and I did this this morning, 70 feet. Just like VDOT said, a three-foot five cone shoot with a laser is 70 feet. Now VDOT says okay, there are two tables. Now, VODT says that going 20 miles by, you need 225 feet site distance right here for that car to turn into that area right there. You don't have but 70 feet. So, you don't even have 854 October 25, 2022 near what we need. Also, the other table, VDOT says if a car is going 20 miles per hour, that this car coming up this hill right here needs 225 feet to stop. Well, he won't be able to see the object. If he's turning in there, he won't have 225 feet. He's got 70 feet of distance for that car to come there. So, we got a problem right there. This right here is a big concern right here. This curve right here. Take it from me as an engineer, you've got a problem. This is going to be a real busy intersection right here at 5:00. What's going to happen is between 5:00 and 6:00, you can have people coming home in the [inaudible 01:30:15], up here at this main entrance, it's going to be full, so they're going to come back down here and come back through here. Most people are going to try to park up here close to the main entrance. It's going to fill up first. They're going to come back down, come into this area here, and they're going to have to walk a lot farther. So, they need to go back to the drawing board to get this fixed. I'm sure this plan's going to be approved, and that's fine, but you got to fix that. You got to fix that curve. I explained that to the Planning Commission and two people were concerned about it. They talked about it, and the head of developers come up here and ask them, what can they do about it? They said that they don't own that land right there. They can't do nothing about it. That was their answer. They don't own the land, so they can't correct it. That's not an answer, that's not correct, that's not good. That's the hazard right there. That needs to go back and get it fixed. Basically, like I say, I'm not a lawyer, but I would think if the county approved that right there, if they got a lawsuit or they got a problem, get another lawyer. But if you only got 70 feet of site distance, if you need a lot more than that to turn, then I would be looking at just turn this project down. Or at least make them change that right there. That's all I got to say." Chairman Mahoney closed the public hearing. Supervisor Mahoney asked a representative from the applicant to address the comments that were made by the last citizen. You can maybe clarify some of those concerns, particularly with respect to the access points to the development and that curve. Mr. Lamay stated where we selected that entrance is in the center of the curve, to where you can look both ways. Where you're measuring, I'm not sure exactly where he measured to cite this, but you're looking at the car that's sitting at the entrance wanting to go on to Peaks Drive. From that measurement, you can see 220 plus feet to the left, and you probably can see closer to 280 feet. Some of the difference is, once we grade fully on our site, the land that's on, if you're going up Peaks Drive to the right, right now there's a steep slope there. We're pulling that slope back so that you'll be able to see farther going up Peaks Drive, and then to the left, because of where the car is sitting, you can see the 220 feet for a 20 mile an hour design speed. In our opinion, you do have the adequate sight distance that we measured using our CAD software. Supervisor North asked Mr. Lamay to point out on the diagram so we can see it up here, and the folks at home too? Mr. Lamay added they have been in discussion with Smith/Packett about obtaining a grading easement across the street from our entrance. We have not October 25, 2022 855 finalized the terms of that easement at this point, correct me if I'm wrong. Our intention is to knock down the knoll that exists across the street from our site to better alleviate some of that concern as part of our development plans. I don't have the specific meets and bounds of that easement right now. It's not wholly contained on the 10.8 acres that we have as part of our application right now, but it is being contemplated with our purchase agreement from the land seller. - Supervisor Mahoney stated, unfortunately, he has too much history for the South Peak and the CDA, and it has gone through several iterations in the past. As counsel for Smith/Packett has pointed out to me on several occasions, circumstances have changed. Circumstances have changed from the economic conditions that existed both in 2004, when the county went forward with this project with Smith/Packett, and in 2012 and subsequent. He thinks the County has recognized that change in economic conditions, and that change is reflected in the 419 Plan. As our staff report shows, there are some elements with this application that are inconsistent with our 2005 comprehensive plan. At the same time though, he also thinks that we addressed that when we adopted the 419-Plan. We have specifically looked at wanting to have multi- family development in this area. We have also, through Mr. North's initiative a couple years ago, we had a housing study done that identified a need for this kind of housing. He has some concerns with respect to the private road and the access. Realistically, there are only two ways in and out. One is by Wendy's at 419, and the other is by Lowe's at 220. I think we're familiar with some of the plans that the Highway Department has with changing the signalization on 220 that I'm concerned might make it more difficult to get out of this development when you're coming by the Lowe's and onto 220. Despite that, he would like to make a motion to approve this application. This application, is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the County's adopted comprehensive plan, with respect to the land use designation of core, but it is consistent with the county's designation as transition, and part of this property is transition. We do have a need for housing in our community, and the proposed project is within an area identified under the 419 Town Center Plan as multi-family in the urban design framework, and is identified for additional residential development, including multi-family development. Therefore, it is consistent with the 419 plan. And the 419 plan is a component of our comprehensive plan. He thinks this does reflect good zoning practice for this property. It is a challenging piece of property, but I'm intrigued by what the applicant is going to try to do with this and to address the topographic concerns. But it looks like they have a plan to address that. I don't believe it will be a detriment to the community that's in the condos further up on top of the hill. 856 October 25, 2022 He then moved that we approve this rezoning request, as requested. Again, I want to emphasize that this is removing the existing conditions on only the 10.83883 parcel, which is subject to this rezoning, and would replace those conditions with the two conditions that we have in our agenda packet. The one condition being general conformity with the concept plan that Lumsden has developed, and number two, that the facades and finishes of the building on the property shall be similar design and materials that are shown on the renderings that we have in our materials. Supervisor North stated his only concern is the transportation piece in the entrance. He knows VDOT doesn't have a say in this formally because this is private roads, but I would just say to the applicant, double check your work because you don't want to be wrong and you want to be safe. When it comes to roads coming down that hillside, there's not a lot of room for error. That's my biggest concern. He does know that we need the apartments because of the housing study that were done. I thought at one point these were condominiums last week, and I went back and read the packet again and it said apartments. These are nice-looking apartments. You don't have to answer the question, but my question would be, you're going to get a select income to rent those apartments. It's going to be an expensive apartment. I know that it looks very enticing, all the amenities that you've shown us in other complexes in the renderings, that's welcome to that area as well. If the transportation piece can be confirmed, addressed, reviewed, it's your conscience to do that. I'd certainly think that would go a long ways to relaxing any fears. Other than that, I think it's a good project. ORDINANCE 102522-3 REZONING APPROXIMATELY 10.83 ACRES FROM C-2C (HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS) AND R-4C (HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS) TO R-4C (HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WITH AMENDED CONDITIONS), IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT 260 APARTMENTS AT THE 5000 BLOCK OF THE PEAKS DRIVE, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (TAX MAP NOS: 077.20-01-04.00-0000, 077.20-01-54.00-0000, A PORTION OF 077.20-01-48.01-0000, AND A PORTION OF 077.20-01-52.00- 0000) WHEREAS, The Gallery at South Peak, LLC is requesting to rezone approximately 10.83 acres from C-2C (High Intensity Commercial District with conditions) and R-4C (High Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions) to R-4C (High Density Multi-Family Residential District with amended conditions) in order to construct 260 apartments at the 5000 block of the Peaks Drive; and WHEREAS, the new 10.83-acre parcel being rezoned is made up of properties identified as Roanoke County Tax Map Number 077.20-01-04.00-0000, Roanoke October 25, 2022 857 County Tax Map Number 077.20-01-54.00-0000, a portion of Roanoke County Tax Map Number 077.20-01-48.01-0000, and a portion of Roanoke County Tax Map Number 077.20-01-52.00-0000; and WHEREAS, the new 10.38-acre parcel being rezoned is also identified as "NEW TRACT B-1 B" on the preliminary plat submitted with the rezoning application and attached hereto as Exhibit A, prepared by Lumsden Associations, P.C., dated February 13, 2022, and titled "PLAT FROM RECORDS SHOWING THE SUBDIVISION AND COMBINATION OF TAX #077.20-01-52.00-0000 TRACT B-1 PLAT INSTRUMENT #201211691 CREATING HEREON NEW TRACT B-1A (12.3162 AC.) & TRACT B-1 B (10.8300 AC.) PROPERTY OF SLATE HILL II, LLC AND TAX #077.20-01-03.00-0000, #077.20-01-04.00-0000 & #077.20-01-54.00-0000 PLAT INSTRUMENT #201201979 CREATING HEREON NEW TRACT C 3.3120 AC. (144,270 S.F.) AND PROPERTY OF WOODCLIFF INVESTMENTS, LLC AND TAX #077.20-01-48.01-0000 LOT 2 PLAT INSTRUMENT #200613943 & #201304283 CREATING HEREON NEW LOT 2-A 6.2537 AC. (272,412 S.F.) PROPERTY OF SOUTH PEAK RESIDENCES, LLC SITUATED ALONG ELM VIEW ROAD & SOUTH PEAK BLVD. CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA"; and WHEREAS, each of the properties by which the new 10.38-acre parcel being rezoned have been rezoned in the past, and have existing conditions attached to them; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the applicant and the intent of the Board that the existing conditions attached to the 10.38-acre parcel be removed and replaced with the amended conditions outlined herein and proffered by the applicant; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 28, 2022, and the second reading and public hearing were held on October 25, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission_held a public hearing on this matter on October 4, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition with certain amended conditions, as requested; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. The petition of The Gallery at South Peak, LLC to rezone approximately 10.83 acres from C-2C (High Intensity Commercial District with conditions) and R-4C (High Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions) to R-4C (High Density Multi-Family Residential District with amended conditions) is approved, with the following proffered amended conditions: a. The Property shall be developed in general conformity with the concept development plan prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated August 10, 2022, and revised September 29, 2022, consisting of Sheets 1 through 2, and attached hereto as Exhibit B 858 October 25, 2022 (Concept Plan — The Gallery at South Peak), subject to such minor modifications as may be necessitated by final engineering considerations and such changes as may be required by Roanoke County during comprehensive site plan review. b. The facades and finishes of the building on the Property shall be of similar design and materials as detailed on the rendering prepared by Winks Snowa Architects, P.C. and dated August 12, 2022, consisting of Sheets 1 through 4, and attached hereto as Exhibit C. 2. The Board finds that the proposed rezoning of approximately 10.83 acres, while not consistent with the purpose and intent of the County's adopted comprehensive plan's future land use designation of"Core," a. Is consistent with the purpose and intent of the County's adopted comprehensive plan's future land use designation of"Transition"; b. Will meet the need for available housing that currently exists in Roanoke County; and c. Is within an area identified under the 419 Town Center Plan as multifamily in the Urban Design Framework and identified for additional residential development including multifamily development, and is therefore consistent with the 419 Town Center Plan which is a component of the County's adopted comprehensive plan. 3. The Board further finds that the proposed rezoning of approximately 10.83 acres is consistent with good zoning practice, and will not result in substantial detriment to the community. 4. Any existing conditions on the 10.83-acre parcel which is the subject of this rezoning are hereby removed and replaced with the amended conditions identified herein and proffered by the applicant. 5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Mahoney NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Radford October 25, 2022 859 IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Peters asked Mr. Moneir to explain the FEMA grant, which was done. RESOLUTION 102522-4 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I- CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for October 25, 2022, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 7 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes—June 28, 2022 2. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of$241,531 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, . and authorizing the use of such funds to acquire property located at 915 Clearwater Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia 24019 (TAX PARCEL NO. 027.13-06-39.00-0000), Hollins Magisterial District (Second reading of Ordinance) 3. Ordinance approving a site and ground lease with Seiontec Systems, LLC for placement of broadband equipment on Crowells Gap Mountain (Second Reading of Ordinance) 4. Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $24,787 from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Grant to the Roanoke County Sheriffs Office 5. Designation of voting delegate to the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) Conference to be held November 13-15, 2022 6. Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $9,600 from the U.S. Department of Justice's Bulletproof Vest Partnership to the Roanoke County Sheriffs Office 7. Confirmation of appointment to the Social Services Advisory Commission On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Mahoney NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Radford 860 October 25, 2022 ORDINANCE 102522-4.a ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $241,531 FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) FLOOD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZING THE USE OF SUCH FUNDS TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 915 CLEARWATER AVENUE, ROANOKE, VA 24019 (TAX PARCEL NO. 027.13-06-39.00-0000), HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program is a competitive grant program that provides funding to states, local communities, federally recognized tribes and territories for projects that reduce or eliminate the risk of repetitive flood damage to buildings insured by the National Flood Insurance Program, with recipients chosen by FEMA based on the applicant's ranking of the project and the eligibility and cost- effectiveness of the project; and WHEREAS, two residences in Roanoke County insured under the National Flood Insurance Program have experienced damages from multiple flooding events and are classified, by FEMA, as Severe Repetitive Loss ("SRL") properties; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County's Hazard Mitigation Plan has a goal of eliminating its SRL properties; and WHEREAS, the property owner of one of the SRL properties has expressed interest in voluntarily participating in this FEMA funded program. The property is a residential property located at 915 Clearwater Avenue, Roanoke, VA 24019 (tax parcel ID no: 027.13-06-39.00-0000). Accordingly, the County applied for grant funding to acquire this property; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2022, the County's application was approved; the County received 'a grant from the FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program in the amount of$241,531. This grant will be used to purchase the property and demolish and remove the existing flood-prone structure. After demolition the property must be maintained, by the County, as undeveloped green space in perpetuity; and WHEREAS, the federal share is 100 percent of the total project costs; no local funding is required; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be appropriated by ordinance; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 11, 2022, and the second reading was held on October 25, 2022. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the sum of $241,531 is hereby accepted and appropriated to the Roanoke County Grant Fund, to be used for the acquisition of the October 25, 2022 861 residential property located at 915 Clearwater Avenue, Roanoke, VA 24019 (tax parcel ID no: 027.13-06-39.00-0000). 2. The County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator is authorized to execute any documents, including contracts and deeds of conveyance, in order to effectuate the acquisition of this property and demolition of the existing structure; such documents shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Mahoney NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Radford ORDINANCE 102522-4.b AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A GROUND LEASE BETWEEN ROANOKE COUNTY AND SEIONTEC SYSTEMS, LLC ON CROWELLS GAP MOUNTAIN WHEREAS, Roanoke County ("Lessor" or "County") and Seiontec Systems, LLC ("Seiontec" or "Lessee") wish to enter into an antenna site lease on the County's telecommunications tower and ground lease in the County's equipment cabinet on Crowell's Gap Mountain, located more specifically at 37 Degrees -11" —27.0 N. Latitude and 79 Degrees — 53" — 39.0 W. Longitude. Seiontec shall also be afforded non- exclusive right of ingress and egress to the Leased Premises for purposes of maintaining their telecommunications equipment; and WHEREAS, the addition of Seiontec's equipment will not interfere with the County's communications equipment; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition or conveyance of an interest in real estate, including leases, shall be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 11, 2022 and the second reading was held on October 25, 2022. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. The 2022 ground lease addendum between Roanoke County and Seiontec be approved. 2. That the County Administrator or the Deputy County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County and to execute such other documents and take such further actions as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form and subject to the conditions by the County Attorney. 3. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. 862 October 25, 2022 On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Mahoney NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Radford A-102522-3.c A-102522-3.d A-102522-3.e A-102522-3.f IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Mahoney moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Mahoney ABSENT: Supervisor Radford NAYS: None 1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report 2. Outstanding Debt Report 3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of September 30, 2022 4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances as of September 30, 2022 5. Accounts Paid —September 30, 2022 6. Statement of Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy as of September 30, 2022 7. Proclamation signed by the Chairman — October 19, 2022 as Support your Local Chamber of Commerce Day IN RE: CITIZEN COMMENTS William Skaff of 4815 Farmington Place Court stated, "As my thirteen op eds and four letters published in The Roanoke Times over the past several years indicate, I am a Constitutional conservative. So much so, in fact, that The Times appears to have cancelled me. So, anyone who wants to examine my views on current issues will have to go back to my op ed, 'Why the Left Wants Our Children," appearing on February 17th of this year. Chairman Mahoney raised an important point last month— how can a conservative advocate for the regulation of private property that curtails • October 25, 2022 863 property rights? Every conservative needs to think this through carefully, as Mr. Chairman has, and justify their position. Having called for regulation stopping density development in Roanoke County—as opposed to Roanoke City, where I believe it belongs—I too must provide a justification for my position. I hasten to emphasize that this is not a reply to Chairman Mahoney, whose position, in my opinion, is perfectly valid. I actually sympathize with Mr. Chairman's libertarian leaning perspective of property owners maximizing use of their property, that is, "the highest and best use," in the vernacular. Rather, what follows is simply an explanation for my own position. John Locke stated that life, liberty, and property are God-given rights, and Jefferson incorporated these in the Declaration, broadening property to happiness. They understood property as the fruits of our labors, legally obtained. They held that we can enjoy this property as long as its use does not infringe on the rights of others. The right to happiness includes being happy in one's environment. Real estate differs from other properties in that it is part of a built and natural environment that we all share and experience. Our mutual happiness depends on the state of these properties. It is not as if I bought an ugly lamp and put it in my house, never to be seen by others again. If I do something ugly with my real estate— such as a building of oppressively massive size—the result inevitably impacts the community. The right to happiness is inextricably related to the right to property, which includes location. People choose to live where the ratio between the built and the natural appeals to them, be it rural, suburban, or urban. To drastically change that ratio, particularly after they have made that choice, infringes on their right to happiness. As real estate agents tell us, the most important element of property value is location. Although they mean monetary value, that value is actually much broader. The right to happiness of developers who want to make money using property, or owners who want to profit from their real estate, or community planners who want to make cities, may infringe on other owners' right to property, and right to happiness, beyond environment. Projects may prevent others from maximizing the use of their property, such as blocking useful light and pleasing viewsheds, introducing disturbing noise throughout the day, or sleep preventing light at nighttime. Additionally, as.a consequence, monetary value for these properties will be reduced. Thus, from my perspective, we are justified in zoning that curtails the unlimited use of property by owners in order to preserve the right to happiness and the right to property of others. We must balance aesthetics, nature, architectural design, orderliness, infrastructure, size. Therein lies the hard work. There is no easy answer. But, for me, it is clear that we have a right to do so, in order to preserve everyone's rights. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the depth of the perspective that you have brought to this issue, and for articulating it." IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 864 October 25, 2022 • Supervisor Hooker offered condolences publicly to our fellow Board member, David Radford, who lost his father earlier this week. A great loss for our community, a good man, a good friend to many of us, and he will be sorely missed. Supervisor North stated he too would like to keep the Radford family in all of our thoughts and prayers. Their father was a great man and had many contributions to the community, and he was a great golfer. Mr. Radford and he played together in a golf tournament last year on about the day of his passing this year, and he was remarkable. We finished fourth in a field of 17 senior golfers, and last Saturday he played with the Chairman of the school board, Mr. Linden, and we only finished fifth. We thought we'd only finished seventh, and I looked at Mr. Linden and I said, "We didn't do good enough for Mr. Radford." So, great man. First class. Additionally, just some comments, in case I don't get them in the work session. I just want to let everybody know we're going to go to the work session, we're going to hear what they have to say, and staffs going to go to work, but we're going to look at different methods to which we can get money for a CTE facility one day. But there are three things that I don't want us, any of us within earshot, to forget. School construction grants of 20% are a possibility once the applications ever come to us from the Board of Education, so that our schools and Superintendent Nicely can apply. That could amount to a great sum of money. I just got an email from the Senate Commission on School Construction and Modernization calling for a meeting December 1st at 1:00, which is probably related to these applications. We'll see. The second thing, he does not want us to lose sight of workforce grants because it's part of the Governor's program, and Delegate Head is on the Labor and Commerce Committee in Richmond and will have an ear to hear from us concerning workforce grants of some type. Others in the area that serve our community are able to get funds for many projects. We hope that we can get some funds through Mr. Delegate Head's efforts. Number three, workforce grants from the EDA, and working with the Executive Director, Jeremy Holmes, will possibly be a source, and we'll have a call on that next month. So, good things to hopefully supplement a big project, the biggest project in the history of Roanoke County. Supervisor Peters stated he too wanted to share my condolences for the Radford family. Mr. North, Mr. Caywood and he attended the funeral today, and what a great tribute to Mr. Radford. He only met him a few times, but he left a lasting impression. So, my thoughts and prayers are with David and his three sisters, and his mother and all the family. On another note, begin telling your friends and neighbors, we're going to have Illuminights starting right after Thanksgiving, so make your plans to come to the Explore Park in the Vinton District. Supervisor North added one more piece of news. It's been a busy week, but I finally reached the epic of adulthood becoming a grandfather Sunday, and I want to thank my son, Alex, and my daughter-in-law, Caitlin, for giving us a grandchild. Lance, oh, not Lance, Lane Edward. So, good stuff, good stuff. October 25, 2022 8655 Supervisor Mahoney commented our thoughts and prayers are with the Radford family. I've known Frank for many years. In my prior life, he was one of the premier developers in Roanoke County. He was a community leader, and he was a neighbor of mine, he lived three doors up from me. He will be missed. But we think of David and his wife and his sisters. Chairman Mahoney recessed to the third floor for work session at:4:47 p.m. IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Joint work session with the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County Public School Board and the County of Roanoke Career and Technical Education (CTE) Advisory Committee (Paul M. Mahoney, Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors) Roanoke County. Public School Board called their Board to order. CTE Committee called their Board to order. Alex Jones, Planner, provided a PowerPoint to provide an overview of the purpose of the CTE. Mr. Balzer and Mr. Altizer (CTE Committee) outlined their recommendation on solar technology. Mr. Balzer then advised their recommendation is to look at solar options very closely and consider solar applications in the design and development of the facility. Mr. Altizer went through the minutes outlined their actions throughout this process. He stated there is a reoccurring statement to get an independent study from an independent company on solar. Supervisor North did he hear correctly that APCO works with 8.8 cents a kilowatt hour with Mr. Altizer responding it was a negotiated rate at Henrico. School Board Member Greenway inquired how long do we look at solar to save $200,000 a year, while building costs are escalating. Do we continue to stretch that down the road? Or, do we say let's incorporate it as we are starting this project. Mr. Balzer noted it would be significant savings. Mr. Altizer also noted that it was not their charge to determine. Mr. Balzer then added he thought that you go ahead and just decide on the front end that you're going to build the roof system in to accommodate solar collections, unless you can accommodate it on the ground, and we didn't hear any support for that, then you have to build that in on the front end and move forward. As an architect, I tell you, you're going to battle another thing and that is the cost of materials, especially in roof support structure is a very volatile thing. And I know Mr. Phillips could ditto that. So, I think the important thing is if you're going to consider it, you've got to get a third party involved. You got to study it while your architect's designing and working in parallel. And that's what our committee is saying is we didn't hear any reason not to do 866 October 25, 2022 it. We heard the reasons to do it that were ample enough to say, we recommend that you consider it. Because to sit there and say you shouldn't consider it because we don't see the savings, we didn't have enough information to do that. Gift were distributed to the CTE Committee members for their work on this committee. Next, Jason Suhr, Director of Career & Technical Education provided a PowerPoint presentation on the August 2022 Business Community Meetings feedback and BCAT Student Survey Results. Todd Kageals, and Ben Crew of Balzer and Associates did a PowerPoint presentation on the due diligence report of the proposed site, conceptual site plan and the cost estimates on 6251 Peters Creek Road. It was the consensus of the Board to have both boards and staff look and digest the information and come back with several alternatives to pay for this and how we move forward. A meeting has been scheduled for December 7, 2023, immediately following the State of the County address. A recess from taken from 7:55 p.m. until 8:13 p.m. Assistant Chief of Police Jimmy Chapman provided an update regarding School Resource Officer Recruitment. Supervisor Peters asked if we could hire full-time officer and then delegate them to SROs. County Administrator, Richard Caywood, explained the grants limit us to part-time. School Board member, Tim Greenway, stated this isn't something we can be talking about now, we should have been having these conversation four or five months ago. He added he is disappointed that we are trying to work this out now. He doesn't understand why the sense of urgency is only happening now. His sense of urgency is we get these people in the schools. He knows the Sheriffs office has gotten their 8, and understands there is some coordination efforts there, but is disappointed that we are just starting to figure out what we need to do to get these officers in there. Chairman Mahoney commented he does not think that is accurate, adding as soon as the General Assembly ended in June and talked about the grant program we applied immediately for the grants. Mr. Greenway asked if we don't get the grant program are we saying we are not going to do this. Chairman Mahoney stated we have already gotten the grants. Mr. Greenway responded with all due respect, again, he knows that it's a tough time to gather folks, but we've got to come up with something and not say, 'Well, we just couldn't get these guys if something happened." I can sit across from a family member and say we did everything we could. We tried to do everything we can, but I can't sit across from a family member and say, "Well, we're still working on it. We're starting to work on it." We've known about this four or five months ago when we started stating that we wanted this. I'm not saying it's an easy issue, but my gosh, we're having conversations on how to get them in there now. We should have done this four or five months ago. October 25, 2022 867 Chairman Mahoney responded we are, and we have been doing this. Mr. Greenway responded there is nothing to show for it except on the Sheriffs side. Supervisor Peters stated if you can't get somebody to come do the job, what are you going to do? And here's my take, and Chief, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like you've probably got a lot of law enforcement peoples who have gotten out in the last couple years who went through a bunch of crap before they left law enforcement and don't want to have anything to do with it again. So I think that we have continually put forth, I mean, as Mr. Mahoney said, as soon as the grant came out, we applied for it, we got the grant and we've continually pursued it and tried to find out what else we can do, and that's why I even asked the question about full-time, if it's easier to get full-time people, but I never realized we were down 15. I thought last I heard, we were only down four. Mr. Greenway then asked with regard to Debbe Adams with the Vinton Messenger asked us about televising these joint meetings and we could not get it done today. He feels that for our next joint meeting and future joint meetings should be televised. Supervisor Mahoney, advised it has never been the practice of the Board of Supervisors to televise it's work session as it destroys the whole concept of the work sessions and if we televise work session we do it downstairs. He always felt it was king of stupid of us sifting on the dais and all you sitting down below us, almost like lesser individuals and that is not right. Mr. Greenway stated transparency is a big deal and out constituents deserve to know about these things, like BCAT. Chairman Mahoney stated he is sure they will know about it, but again, technically, nothing that occurs here has any meaning until we actually go downstairs and vote on a specific plan or program. He assumes that's the same thing, true with you guys. It's been a long time since he attended a school board meeting. If the board wants to start televising work sessions, he thinks that's a decision that the board can make. He would oppose it. That's not the intent of a work session. The work session was held from 5:27 p.m. until 8:55 p.m. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Mahoney adjourned the meeting at 8:56 p.m. miffed by: Approved by: Lp ; Deborah C. Js Martha B. Hooker Ch'-f Deputy Jerk to the Board Chairman 868 October 25, 2022 PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY