Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/16/2019 - Planning Commission - Minutes - RegularPlanni ng Commi ssi on Meeti ng M INUTES Wednesday, October 16, 2019, 7:00 P M Community Room, Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard 1.C all to Order A regular meeting of the Planning C ommission of the C ity of Salem, Virginia, was called to order at 7:00 p.m., there being present the following members to wit: Vicki G. Daulton, Chair; Denise P. King, Vice C hair; Reid A. Garst II, N. J ackson Beamer, and Neil L. Conner; with Vicki G. Daulton, Chair, presiding; together with J ames E. Taliaferro, Interim City Manager and Executive Secretary; William L. Simpson, J r., C ity Engineer; Mary Ellen Wines, Zoning Administrator; Benjamin W. Tripp, C ity Planner; and William C. Maxwell, Assistant C ity Attorney. 2.C onsent Agenda A.Minutes Consider approval of the minutes from the September 11, 2019, work session and regular meeting. Approved as presented 3.New Business A.Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Hold public hearing to consider the request of R. Fralin Companies, Inc., contract purchaser, for rezoning the properties located at 211 Diamond Road (Tax Map # 272 - 2 - 1) and 135 Diamond Road (Tax Map # 273 - 2 - 1) from A G - Agriculture District / RSF - Residential Single Family District, to RSF Residential Single Family District with proffered conditions. T he Executive Secretary reported that notice of said hearing had been published in the October 3 and 10, 2019, issues of the Salem Times Register and all property owners were notified by letter mailed September 27, 2019. Staff noted the following regarding the request: Background Information T he subject property is commonly known as “T he Simms Farm”, and consists of two parcels land of approximately 66.7 acres, bounded by Franklin Street on the west, Upland Drive on the south, Diamond Road on the east, and a private portion of Homeplace drive to the north. T he property was until recently used for the stabling of horses, and is currently occupied by a main, centrally located residence, a secondary residence, and a variety of barns and other agricultural buildings. T his request is to rezone the property to allow it to be developed into a new residential neighborhood consisting of 139 single-family detached houses. Of the 139 single- family detached houses, 43 of the units would be on slightly smaller lots as proposed in the Cluster Housing Overlay (Item 3B). T he development would include several new public streets, public sidewalks, pedestrian streetlights, street trees, public walking trails, and a minimum of 18 acres (approximately one-quarter of the site) of dedicated open space. T he applicant is proposing two entrances to the property. T he primary entrance would be located at the intersection of Westclub Drive and Upland Drive, and would change the current two way stop intersection to a four way stop (all way stop). A secondary entrance would be located on Diamond Road. T he initial concept that was submitted to the city showed two other connections, one onto Homeplace Drive, and one through the private road back onto Upland Drive. T hose two connections have been eliminated. Several potential areas for stormwater management are identified on the plan. T hese areas are: at the extreme west side of the property near Franklin Street near the townhomes, behind lots 21 and 22 on the southwestern side along Upland Drive, behind lots 123-125, behind lots 83- 81, behind lots 75-77 near Diamond Road, and behind lots 52 and 51. Not all of these areas may be utilized. T he actual number of facilities and their design will depend on engineering and regulatory requirements, but if approved, these would be the only locations allowed as substantially conforming with the Master Plan. C hanges to the Master Plan since the August 14th Meeting: At its August 14th meeting the Planning C ommission continued both the request for rezoning and the request for a special exception permit (for the single-family attached units) to the September 11th, 2019 meeting. T he reason for this was to accommodate the expected large public interest in these items, an interest which could not be physically accommodated in City C ouncil C hambers, and the meeting was subsequently moved a larger room in the Salem C ivic Center. Subsequent to the September 11th meeting, all three items were withdrawn. Two requests have been resubmitted: a request to rezone the property from Agricultural to Residential Single Family, and a request for a Special Exception Permit to allow the C luster Housing Overlay. T he following is a summary of the changes that have been made to the Master Plan since the design was originally presented in August: 1. T he total number of units has been reduced from 150 to 139. 2. Both the August and September versions of the Master Plan included Single Family Attached housing. T his has now been eliminated and all units will be detached. 3. T he community pool has been removed from the concept. 4. T he number of new Single-Family Detached units along Upland Drive has been increased from seven to ten (Lots 137-139), and one additional lot has been added fronting on Diamond Road (Lot 90) 5. T he developer is proposing to reduce the size of 43 of the Single-Family Detached lots by using the C luster Housing Overlay, as requested in Item 3D. T hese smaller lots are shown as shaded on the Master Plan. T he C O L zoning was “created to encourage and allow flexibility in site design and lot arrangements for new single family residential development…” and to allow “…a reduction in minimum lot size and frontage requirements from those required in the underlying single family residential zoning district.” (C ity of Salem Zoning Ordinance Sec. 106-222.1) While the C O L allows lot sizes to be reduced from what is allowed by- right that reduction “must be compensated for by the provision of an equal or greater amount of open space within the cluster housing development.” T he developer is proposing to accomplish this by dedicating 18 acres of the site (1/4 of the total area) as open space, which cannot be developed. For more details, please see Item 3B. Proffered Conditions: T he application is voluntarily proffering the following conditions: 1. T he property shall be developed in substantial conformance with “Simms Family Farm Masterplan”, Dated September 17, 2019, and last revised September 26, 2019 Prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. 2. All new homes constructed within the development shall have the following architectural treatments: a. Roof Materials shall be Architectural Grade Shingles, Designer Shingles and/or Metal. b. All front elevations shall have a combination of masonry finish and siding. c. All above grade foundations 3. Hours of construction associated with the development of the property, and the construction of homes on the property, shall be limited to: Between 7:00 A.M. and 5:00 P. M. Monday through Friday, and Between 8 A.M. and 3 P.M. on Saturdays. No construction associated with the development of the property, or the construction of homes on the property, shall take place on Sundays. (Staff Note: T he intent of this proffer relates only to the initial construction of the subdivision and will not regulate individual homeowner “home-improvement” projects, e.g. building a new deck years after the house has been constructed.) 4. All homes constructed on the Cluster Lots shall be a Maximum of 1.5 (one and a half) stories high. IN D EPEN D EN T A N A LY SIS O F T RA FFIC D ATA SUBMIT T ED BY T HE A PPLIC A N T: T he City hired Mattern & C raig, an independent, licensed professional engineer to review the traffic data that was submitted with the request for accuracy and to obtain a third party opinion. In summary, Mattern & Craig found that the supplied traffic study was reasonable, and used generally accepted assumptions and standards for trip generation, and that the surrounding roadways would not experience a decline from their current state, a Level of Service A (the highest), due to the additional traffic. T he report also determined that the increased per-vehicle delay at the intersection of West Club Drive and Upland Drive amounted to less than one half second per vehicle due to the expected additional traffic at buildout. Mattern & C raig’s analysis can be found in the supporting documents of this staff report. C O MMEN T S REC EIVED FRO M C IT Y D EPA RT MEN T S: T he proposed development was submitted to all city departments for comment and review. Below is the response of each department: C OMMU N I T Y D E VE L OP ME N T If approved, the project will have to comply with all applicable local and state stormwater regulations and requirements, including over-detention. Additionally, since the Master Plan is a proffered condition, the actual construction would have to tightly adhere to what is presented on the plan to be deemed in substantial conformance. Any substantial changes to the Master Plan would require the approval of the Planning C ommission and City C ouncil, a process similar to the current one and which would require multiple public hearings, published notification in a local newspaper, and the written notification of adjacent property owners. An independent analysis of the submitted traffic data was performed by Mattern & C raig, Professional Engineers. For more details, please see the Traffic Section above. E L E C T RI C Electrical loading - T he proposed development would not adversely affect the power in that area. We have adequate feeds available for the new load. We will require extensive easements on the property for our lines and equipment. Traffic – Traffic is not necessarily an Electric Dept. issue, but there has been some talk about adding a traffic signal at the Orchard & Apperson intersection. We believe this to be feasible, but would require some road marking and the signal would most likely need to be coordinated with the Apperson & 419 intersection. An estimated cost for adding a signal would be approximately $250,000. P O L I C E In response to the Salem Planning Commission regarding rezoning the former Simms Farm Property to allow construction of 140-150 single-family homes, the Salem Police Department understand the positive economic impact of this project. T he department would, however, observe a slight increase for calls for service during the construction phase from existing neighborhoods concerning traffic issues, construction equipment, and potential property damage. T he department anticipates an overall increase in calls for service after the development involving the limited ingress and egress points leading to the new proposed community. T here will be a significant increase in traffic volume on the surrounding roadways. T he most significant areas impacted will be Franklin Street because of the narrow roadway with sharp curves just north of Upland Drive and the east side of Upland Drive leading to Homestead Drive. Both ingress/egress points will impact the traffic volume on Apperson Drive and Colorado Street thus potentially creating the need to add a traffic signal or roundabout at the intersection of Apperson Drive and Orchard Drive. T he department foresees traffic-related issues with both ingress/egress points to the proposed development during recent flood events that have impacted the surrounding roadways leading to the new development. SC H O O L S T hanks for the opportunity to provide input on this matter. Ultimately, please know that the School Board and School Administration trust C ity Council and C ity Administration with making good decisions that benefit all Salem residents. From the perspective of the Salem City School Division, new development is likely to increase enrollment. Increased enrollment generally results in increased per pupil revenue from the state and locality for annual instructional costs. T hese enrollment increases generally happen over time, which permits staffing and program delivery to adapt and adjust. Outside of annual instructional programming, the other consideration is capacity of school facilities. T he proposed development is in what is currently the East Salem Elementary Attendance Zone. Both East Salem and West Salem elementary schools have a facility capacity of approximately 450 students and are currently operating near capacity. G W Carver and South Salem, however, were designed with facility capacity that could be pushed to approximately 600 students. (Both A LMS and SHS have facility space in the event more teachers were hired due to an increase in enrollment.) For this reason, any large development in Salem that could significantly increase enrollment would require planning and preparation on the part of the School Board. Any development with the potential to increase enrollment at East or West Salem would likely require thoughtful consideration of elementary attendance zone boundaries to consider shifting attendance boundary lines to direct enrollment increases toward schools with greater capacity. In public education, changing attendance zones is generally unpopular but there are ways to phase the changes in, such as permitting siblings in affected neighborhoods to continue attending the neighborhood's traditional school while new students are transported the newly assigned school. In large or rural districts, the redundant transportation required would be a more significant challenge than it would be here in Salem, where our geographic area is condensed. T here would be a modest increase in transportation costs during implementation, but likely worth mitigating the impact on families (not suddenly switching schools for affected students). S T RE E T D E PART ME N T State road funding will pay for any future road maintenance needs; we have the staff to cover those items. We will be able to provide snow removal as well. When it comes to trash, we feel we can service those new residents with current staffing levels, some of the current collection routes or day of collection may need to be adjusted. T here will be a slight increase in fuel and maintenance. We will provide a garbage tote to each new resident; I’m only counting one tote for each of the 150 homes. Current cost of new totes is about $70 each including shipping, which is going to cost $10,800.00. Garbage totes are lasting approximately ten years. I’m estimating the homes might dispose of 150lbs of garbage per week, which equals 11.25 tons a week. We currently pay $53.50 a ton, equals $600.00 a week or $5,600.00 a week or $31,200.00 a year for disposal. We would also provide curbside bulk collection. Being they will be new homes, that is a difficult one to estimate; I would estimate $3,000.00 in tipping fees for bulk. In round numbers, the impact to garbage collection will be approximately $45K annually. WAT E R D E PART ME N T T here is adequate water to serve up to 150 homes without a problem. Based on what we can tell, the sewer system should also be able to handle 150 homes. However, there may be a need for the developer to help with a small amount of upgrade of the sewer (up to 100 feet is estimated). T his needs to be investigated further. We don’t have adequate surveying data to make a final determination. T he subdivision will be required to connect to what we call the Franklin Pressure Zone in order to have adequate water pressures. T herefore, the subdivision must connect to the waterline on Upland Drive and will not be allowed to connect to the waterline on Diamond Rd or Earl Drive. Also, pressures for residents in the area will not be a concern. T he system should be able to provide adequate fire flows and pressures to the area. T he developer will be required to install 8-inch waterlines throughout the subdivision and loop waterlines where feasible to enhance fire protection and water quality. Background Information related to the Special Exception Permit: T his request is for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a C luster Housing Overlay. As part of the overall proposed development, this would allow 43 cluster lots. T hese lots will contain single-family detached homes on reduced sized lots as described in the master plan. T he applicant has voluntarily proffered that a minimum size of 6,000 square feet, a minimum 55 foot width for these lots, as well as the following minimum setbacks: 20 feet in the front yard, 15 feet in the rear yard, and 7 ½ feet in the side yard. It should be noted that a side yard setback of 7 ½ feet is the same minimum setback as for a standard minimum sized non-cluster Residential Single Family lot. T he C luster Overlay requires open space as compensation of the reduced lot sizes, and the Master Plan meets this requirement. ISSUES: T his request is related to the request for a Special Exception Permit for a C luster Housing Overlay, in order to allow 43 houses to be constructed on slightly smaller lots. T his request is contingent on the rezoning request being granted. C hair Daulton noted she is the C hairman of the Planning C ommission. She stated there are two items for consideration regarding the Simms Farm property. T he first item is the rezoning of the property from Agricultural District to Residential Single Family District. T he second item is a Special Exception Permit to allow Cluster Housing Overlay. T he Cluster Housing Overlay allows reduced lot sizes by compensating with open spaces. Since these two items are related to the Master Plan of the development and staff anticipates so much overlap in the discussion, the public hearing for both items will be conducted simultaneously. So the applicant will present the items first and then she will open the public hearing for comments. Anyone can come to the microphone and speak. T hey will go row by row and take anyone who wants to speak. She asked that they not be redundant and repetitive. Because they anticipate there being a lot of speakers, each person will be limited to three minutes to speak, and when they have one minute left, Mrs. Wines will hold up a yellow sign. When their time is up, she will hold up a red sign. When they are finished with the public comments, she will close the public hearing portion of the meeting and ask the applicant to come back up and respond to any questions. After this the Commission will vote on both items. Finally, she noted the Commission is a recommending body. T hey will give their recommendation to C ity Council who will have the final vote for these requests on October 28th here in this room. She thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and for their interest in what happens in the C ity. Robert Fralin of R. Fralin Companies, Inc., contract purchaser, appeared before the C ommission in support of the two requests. He thanked the Commission for being here this evening and the audience for taking time out of their night to be here to voice their concerns. He noted that he hopes this will be productive engagement. He introduced the members of his team, Kathryn Mahoney, Zack Paul, T homas Fellers, and Brian McCahill. Also on their team are two representatives from Balzer & Associates, Ben Crew and Sean Horne. He noted they will be addressing storm water, traffic, etc. Finally J im Woltz is present representing the selling firm, Woltz & Associates. He noted he feels very confident that they have addressed stormwater, traffic, and more importantly, land use. T hey believe that they have fully addressed the concerns and feel that this is the very best use of the property. Further, they have had three community meetings and have revised the plans four times, and they know it is not perfect, but they believe that they have done a really good job with the proposed development. Brian McC ahill with R. Fralin C ompanies, Inc., appeared before the C ommission. He noted they are a local real estate developer with 42 employees. He further discussed the mission of the company. He presented a presentation regarding the company and the proposed project. He noted that they are proffering the C luster Home lots to be 33% larger than the minimum standards of the zoning ordinance, which was based on feedback from the community. All the other lots in the development will be standard single family dwelling lots. T hey have reduced the lot count to a density of just over 2 units per acre which is comparable to the densities found in the surrounding neighborhoods. With regards to construction hours, they are proffering the hours will be limited to between 7 am and 5 pm Monday through Friday and 8 am and 3 pm on Saturdays, and no construction will take place on Sundays. Also, at this time they would like to add three additional proffers: 1) a Type B landscape buffer will be provided along the western property line of Tax Parcel #273-2-2, otherwise known as 67 Upland Drive; 2) the front setback of Lots 136, 137, 138, and 139 shall be a minimum of 40'; and 3) the houses shall be constructed in substantial conformance to the exterior architectural styles depicted in the package as part of their submission. He noted some key features about the community. T here will be a hard surface trail throughout the development in addition to sidewalks. Also, there will be a gazebo picnic area. T he trails and gazebo will be open to anyone in the neighborhood to use. Curb and gutter will be provided on all roads and also decorative street lighting. T hey will be putting a plaque on the Simms family home to honor the history and the family. In addition there will be a Home Owners' Association which will maintain the green space, amenities, stormwater, etc. in perpetuity. He further discussed the proposed development including the architectural styles and home design features. T homas Fellers with R. Fralin C ompanies, Inc., appeared before the C ommission. He noted that there has been a lot of curiosity about price point for the development. T he range will be between $275,000 to $500,000 which gives them a nice range with lots of flexibility. He discussed the proposed home styles, exterior and interior design features, landscaping, etc. C ommissioner Garst asked if the substantial conformance is referring to the drawings and pictures they are showing this evening, and Mr. Fellers noted that this is correct. C ommissioner Conner asked if there was any correlation between the styles and whether they would go on a regular lot or a cluster housing lot. Mr. Fellers noted that more often than not the patio home styles would go on a cluster housing lot. C ommissioner Garst asked if what was included in the packet is what has been shown on the screen this evening, as it is difficult for the C ommission to see the presentation. Mr. Simpson noted that what has been presented is what was included in the C ommission's packet. C ommissioner Beamer asked if the cluster housing would be in the $275,000 range, and Mr. Fralin noted that this was correct. T here was further discussion about the price points for the development. Mr. Fralin noted that Ben Crew with Balzer and Associates was going to talk next about storm water and traffic, but before that he wanted to touch on density. Traditionally developments such as this provided for larger lots so much of the green space would go into the lots. So if we boil it down to a little over 2 units an acre, this development will be very similar to what is already constructed around it. Of course, Homeplace Subdivision is the exception. Ben Crew with Balzer and Associates appeared before the C ommission in support of the requests. He noted in the letters, emails, etc. that were passed down from the C ity from the neighbors the two most expressed concerns were stormwater runoff and traffic. T hey went through all the correspondence thoroughly to make sure they understood the concerns and could address them this evening. As part of Exhibit A, which was included in the C ommission's packet, they have outlined the potential stormwater management areas for the development. T hese are potential locations as part of the initial design and planning phase, and the design and configuration will be further developed as part of the site plan process. It is important to note that the C ity of Salem has more stringent storm water standards than some of the surrounding localities, and even more strict than the State. T he proposed subdivision is different than historical subdivisions built in the 50s, 60s, and 70s because a lot of those subdivisions did not contain stormwater management. So the newer subdivisions are under much stricter guidelines and this project will follow that same requirement. It is important to note when a lot of the correspondence received talked about flooding in different parts of the City, the majority of the subdivisions in the C ity do not have stormwater management. T his is an important distinction since this development will be subject to some of the more stricter stormwater regulations. With regards to traffic, they provided trip generation and turn lane data that were supplied as part of the application to identify the trip generation from the site and identify any level of service changes for Upland Drive and Diamond Road and to investigate the need for turn lanes or improvements into the site from the two vehicular access points. He noted that they conducted manual, on-site traffic counts to identify the peak hour volumes on Upland and Diamond. T he existing peak background traffic was combined with the site generated traffic from 139 residential lots with a study that assumed 65% utilized the Upland Drive access and 35% utilized the Diamond Road access. T he analysis concluded the development did not warrant turn lanes or tapers at either one of the intersection points. However, one of the recommendations from the study was that the intersection of Upland Drive and Westclub Drive should be converted to a four-way stop, which will alleviate some of the concerns about traffic and turns that were passed along to them. In addition the C ity commissioned a third party, Mattern & C raig, to review their information. Mattern & Craig provided a letter and agreed with their analysis provided to them. T he letter is included as part of the C ommission's package. It is important to note at each of the intersection points adequate site distance to meet VD O T requirements will be a requirement. So when this project goes through review, they have to prove that they can meet the site distance requirements, and they feel they can. Further he discussed the Franklin Street access and noted that the developer is dedicating public right of way and a construction easement at this location for the widening of the road in the future. In summary, as they have shown in their report and Mattern & C raig has confirmed, the proposed development will not significantly impact the current levels of service on Upland and Diamond Roads, and they feel they have provided up front and significant information to identify and address these two important concerns. Vice C hair King asked Mr. C rew is the traffic analysis was done while the Salem C ity Schools were in session, and Mr. Crew noted that the analysis was done while the schools were in session. C hair Daulton noted that there has been some concerns about the construction traffic using Franklin Street. Is there way to limit them from using Franklin Street? Mr. Fralin noted that he thought they could proffer this but he would prefer Mr. Crew to discuss this. J im Woltz with Woltz & Associates, appeared before the Commission. He noted that he started his career in Salem and he sold a lot of the homes in West C lub when they were developed so he is very familiar with this area of the City. He noted the family came to him a couple of years ago to study the property and help them figure out what to do with it as they were no longer going to be farming it. T he family had it appraised for highest and best use, which was determined to be residential. He noted that they agreed with this appraisal. He further discussed the initial steps leading up to the proposed development which is before the Commission this evening. T hey marketed the property and yes, they did approach Mr. Fralin very early on as he has a lot of projects in the area. He noted that they had marketed the property to builders in Richmond, Atlanta, Northern Virginia, national builders and local builders; however, they kept coming back to the one local company they felt was perfect for the development. He further discussed the project and noted that when they were studying the C ity's C omprehensive Plan, the plan calls for this property to be residential. Also in the Comp Plan, it talks about the shortage of developable land in the C ity, and he brings this up more for the benefit of the people in the audience to understand about the limited amount of developable land here in Salem. He sits on the Roanoke C ounty Planning C ommisson, and as a member of that C ommission, he knows that Roanoke County would love to have this development. T his is a wonderful opportunity for the community, and he understands about the concerns. He believes that Mr. Fralin has tried very hard to accommodate the concerns by changing the plan, and he urged the C ommission to approve the rezoning of this property. C ommissioner Conner noted Mr. Woltz had mentioned zero lot line housing and he asked he he was referring to the C luster Housing part of the development. Mr. Woltz noted that he was talking about the C luster Housing. Mr. C onner also asked about the side setbacks for the Cluster Housing which would be a little greater that what is required. Mr. Fralin noted the side setbacks are greater by the C ity's standards for the cluster development, and he noted they have proffered the front setbacks for the lots on Upland Drive to be more in line with the existing construction. Mr. Fralin noted while they have the podium they would like to make the additional proffer. Mr. Crew noted that they can work with staff on the wording for this. So proffer # 8 will be: commercial vehicle construction traffic will be prohibited from using Franklin Street for access to the site or subject properties. Mr. Tripp asked if Mr. C rew could clarify the proffer. Would this only be during the construction of the subdivision? Mr. Crew noted that this was correct. C hair Daulton asked if this would include any construction traffic after the hours of construction, and Mr. Crew noted that this would apply. C hair Daulton noted that the C omp Plan talks about the zero lot line housing. She noted that she did not think this was specific to this piece of property, but it is just in general throughout the C ity. Mr. Tripp noted that it is not specific to this piece of property. T he C omp Plan talks about zero lot line housing as an option for future residential growth. He also noted that there is no zero lot lines in the proposal before the C ommission. T he zero lot lines were eliminated, and they are now proposing C luster Housing. C ommissioner Garst noted for clarification - will the walking trail and green space be open to the community at large and not just for the residents of the development? Mr. Fralin noted that it would be open to anyone in the community to use and he thought this would be a nice ammenity. Mr. Garst asked if this would be maintained by the HO A, and Mr. Fralin noted that it would be. C ommissioner Beamer asked for clarification of Proffer #6 and #7. Mr. Cahill noted that Proffer # 6 is the minimum front setback of Lots 136, 137, 138, and 139 shall be a minimum of 40'; and Proffer # 7 is the houses shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the exterior architectural styles depicted on the Simms Farm-Architectural Styles submitted with the proposal. C hair Daulton opened the public hearing and asked for those who wished to speak to raise their hands. Donald R. J ohnson of 2932 West Club Drive, approximately two blocks from the development, appeared before the Commission. He noted that he has driven by this property thousands of times. Two words came from the developer that he feels needs to be addressed: the first is that Salem needs this development and the second is that Salem is lucky to have the proposed development. He feels that neither is true. His concerns are the loss of the beauty of this property, additional traffic, congestion on Franklin Street, and in addition, how will the school system handle the extra students. He is against the proposed development and hopes the C ommission is against the requests, too. Bruce Stewart,136 Diamond Road, appeared in opposition to the request. He noted that his main concern is traffic congestion. At certain times of the day, he cannot turn left onto Apperson Drive. C het Farabaugh, 2445 Tyler Way, noted his main concern is the access for emergency vehicles. T his location will be served by Engine 3 on Eddy Avenue, and the closest access is Franklin Street. He further discussed the fire trucks' use of Franklin Street which is a concern when they are traveling fast around the curves. T he developer talked about the widening of the road, but he noted that it will take a lot to widen the road on that side. Linda Wood, 48 Sawyer Drive, noted that her concern is about the children. She wonders what will happen with the East Salem School district when we put these additional 100 to maybe 400 children in the system. Will the school be enlarged or will the school have to absorb the students as is? T hese types of large homes will attract young families with lots of children. Ronald L. Poff, 3123 West Club Drive, noted he is concerned about traffic. He believes that the four-way stop is not the only answer for the increased traffic from this development. He believes that the engineers need to look at adding turn lanes. Bill Sanford, 126 Diamond Road, noted his main concern is increased traffic. He made a suggestion about temporary barriers, aluminium with rubber, being installed across the streets to slow down the traffic. T his would make the roads safer for the children, etc. T hese could be taken up when the construction is finished. C ommission Garst if these were temporary speed controls, and Mr. Sanford noted this was correct. Richard Dierckins, 803 Diamond Road, noted he is concerned about the back up of the sewer. With the heavy rains, a lot of times they get sewage back up in their front yard. Also, he is concerned about the increased runoff from the proposed development. Tom Fame, 221 Homeplace Drive, stated that he is concerned about the additional runoff from the new development. He asked who does he contact when he has problems with the runoff. In addition, he likes the development, but he feels the density is too great for the area which affects the traffic, schools, water, etc. J im Soderberg, 57 Sawyer Drive, noted one of his concern is about the erosion problem we have every time we get a heavy rain. He noted that we need to fix the problems ahead of time. Franklin Street is a serious problem, and with the additional runoff from this development it is only going to be worse. Dan Bolt, 607 Diamond Road, noted that he is not just referring to this development. He noted there are two intersections which need some attention. T he first is at the intersection of Diamond Road and Homestead Drive. T he sight lines are very bad. T he second is the intersection of Homestead Drive and Orchard Drive. T he proposed development is going to add a lot more traffic so the problem will only be worse. Dr. Michael Chiglinsky, 2722 Titleist Drive, stated his concern is regarding the construction traffic using the roads when the school children are being picked up in the mornings. He is concerned about safety issues and transportation issues with the construction vehicles traversing the same roads with the buses full of children. He stated perhaps this needs to be discussed as part of the proffers and maybe some coordination with the developer, schools, and police needs to occur before any decision is made about the time frame for construction to start. T he following is a list of additional speakers: C lark Wade, 2730 Titleist Drive J ulie Gosier (sp?), 2405 Franklin Street Rose Eanes, 144 Upland Drive Mary Ann McElmurray, 181 Forest C ircle J eff Kessel, 240 Baier Drive J essie Howard, 70 Upland Drive Eddie Hite, 122 Par Drive Mike Fisher, 66 Upland Drive Paul Page, 429 Homeplace Drive Wesley Trent, 98 Upland Drive J anet C haney, 150 Diamond Road Derek Weeks, 104 Upland Drive C onnie Guelich, 168 Forest Drive Steve Richardson, 63 Upland Drive David Vansutphen, 77 Sawyer Drive C laire Hightower, 220 Baier Drive J ohn Breen, 142 Bogey Lane Wendy Mellenthin, 922 Homestead Drive J ohn Spruhan, 720 Diamond Road Peggy Lovecchio, 130 Fore Drive David Poff, 2475 Poff Lane Elizabeth Heil, 2987 Golf C olony Drive Randy Broadwell, 808 Diamond Road Aaron Reese, 44 Upland Drive C arole Keith, 119 Par Drive B elow are negativ e comments/opinions and suggestions regarding the proposed dev elopment: Lot sizes should be the standard single family dwelling lot size Too much traffic already Safety issues Problems related to stormwater runoff including erosion and flooding C an the C ity's sewer system handle the additional sewage from the proposed development? T he existing infrastructure needs to be addressed before we allow more development. How long will the construction last? Too much density with the C luster Housing overlay - no objective rational for the increased density Dust, dirt and noise during the construction phase No existing stormwater system to handle the water being proposed to be held in the detention ponds. Fire hydrants have not been tested in years. Disagrees with Balzer's statement that the development pattern and density maintains and enhances the current development pattern in the area. Need to have a proper study of traffic counts Should not rezone until the streets are upgraded No one has explained the stormwater standards - suggested a proffer that the stormwater released from this development will not be any greater than the water currently being discharged. Does not agree with the proffer about no construction traffic on Franklin Street - this will put too much traffic on Orchard, Homestead and Diamond. Franklin Street cannot be widened where the developer is giving the land for this use - it is useless and a joke. Visibility problems at Diamond Road and Homestead Drive and Diamond Road and Upland Drive intersections and also on Franklin Street. T his development does not achieve the purpose of the City's zoning ordinance -- "to improve the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of our citizens and to plan for the future development of our community." According to Virginia case law, the C ity does not have to approve the rezoning of this property, does not matter if it complies with the master plan, etc. Suggest using the PUD zoning to control the development of this property. When do we limit development? Request that the front setback of Lots 1 through 5 be 40' just like the others that were proffered on Upland Drive. Roanoke River cannot handle additional water runoff. No scientific data or survey to indicate this many new houses are needed in the area. No one builds smaller houses any more -- cannot afford the prices of the ones being proposed. Suggested that Mr. Fralin's group should come up with the money to help fix the roads and put in a traffic light, etc. We need another vision for this property. If we have to have houses on this property, then why not have a vision with a future. Nothing has been said about solar energy. Why not consider solar for this development? Too approve this development would be an act of complete irresponsibility on the C ommission's part. B elow are positiv e comments/opinions: Likes the plan and believes that Mr. Fralin has done a good job with the plans. Also, believes the end result will be very nice. Best C ity in the valley T here was a brief recess at 9:20 p.m. T he meeting resumed at 9:30 p.m. C hair Daulton thanked everyone for coming out for the meeting. She noted that all members of the Planning C ommission are Salem residents. She noted that it is the C ommission's duty to look at a piece of property in Salem and determine what is the best use for it. T he C ommission will make a recommendation to City C ouncil regarding the requests. C hair Daulton noted that she did not see any additional people to speak, and the public hearing was closed. C ommissioner Conner noted stormwater runoff is always an issue when we have a development, and all the concerns are certainly valid. He thought it might be helpful to understand from staff about the process for permitting at this stage in the development and also, what the expectation will be on the developer related to stormwater. Mr. Simpson appeared before the C ommission. He noted with regards to the process related to stormwater, the plan before the C ommission this evening is a concept which is being reviewed and approving or disapproving a master plan. If the development is approved, then the engineers will come back with the design and calculations, release rates, etc. T here was a comment made regarding the post development vs the pre-development release rates and asking for a proffer to that effect; however, actually Salem's standards are more strict than that. We require that the post development rate be less than the pre-development rate is. He further went into detail about the stormwater detention during storms. C ommissioner Conner noted that some concerns were expressed regarding the sewer. He asked staff if the City was addressing those issues, or is this the first time we are hearing about it. Mr. Tripp noted that they had the gentleman's name and would follow up with the Water & Sewer Department regarding the issue. If there are concerns such as this, the City certainly wants to address those. C ommissioner Garst asked if someone could give a better explanation of the traffic counts and the classification system. Mr. Simpson noted that the count done by Balzer & Associates was done in J une when Salem schools were still in session. T he City had Mattern & Craig complete a followup count which was done in September after the Salem schools were back in session. Mr. Simpson also discussed the level of service and classifications for the roads. He noted that there was an increase in traffic, but it did not show a significant impact to the level of service. Commissioner Garst noted that Mattern & Craig, the other engineering firm, does not have an interest in this project and they are an independent third party contracted by the City. T hey reviewed the data that Balzer had submitted and also did their own counts and came up with the same results. C hair Daulton asked Mr. Fralin if he could address some of the concerns that were expressed. Mr. Fralin noted he would like to give some background information about development with regards to greenspace. Formerly development was not done the way it is done now. Instead of saving woods, wetlands and fields, this was all incorporated into the lots. It made for less responsible development. T he industry has improved, and it is a better methodology than it used to be. He wants to make sure that they are not being accused of doing something less responsible when they are actually doing some more responsible. Vice C hair King asked if they had given any thought about the request to proffer a 40' minimum building setback on Lots 1 through 5 like the ones on Lots 136 to 139. Mr. Fralin noted he would need to discuss this with his engineers because he is not sure those lots are deep enough to allow a 40' setback. It was noted that this would be acceptable for those lots, also. Mr. Fralin noted that they will add this to the proffer. Mr. Crew noted to clarify as part of Proffer #6, they will include Lots 1 through 5. T his will make a total of nine lots. C ommissioner Beamer noted he thought he remembered hearing the projected completion date of 2024. Will this be for the entire project or just the infrastructure portion of the development? Mr. Fralin noted that the project will be done in phases, including the infrastructure. It is hard to say because it will all be market driven. T his will be a long term project, and he cannot say how many years it will take to complete as it could be up to ten years. C ommissioner Garst noted there were some comments about the demand for the cluster type houses or the smaller single family houses. He asked if he had done a market analysis on the demand for this type of house versus the current zoning single family house. Mr. Fralin noted that he and his associates regularly study the markets for this data, and there is a market for this type of home in Salem. He further noted there is a market for all price ranges. T he higher price ranges of course has the less number of buyers because there are not that many people who make $450,000 worth of home. He noted in some of the community meetings they had names given to them of potential buyers for the patio homes in particular. T here is definitely a demand for the patio homes. T here was further discussion regarding the smaller single family home types, such as patio and cluster type homes. Mr. Fralin noted with the aging population the trend is more for these types of homes. C ommissioner Conner asked how long would it be before they have the first house for sale. Mr. Fralin noted that they have to have the rezoning completed and then purchase the property. Once this is done, then the engineers can start the design work. It will take a while with the revisions to the plans, etc. He would be surprised if they were developing this property before 2021. C ommissioner Beamer noted going back to his question about the infrastructure for the development. He asked if this would be phased in or would it all be done at once, because this would affect the stormwater runoff. Mr. Fralin noted the demand side will dictate the development of the property, and they will put in stormwater mitigation for each phase. T hen they will also have a master plan that they will have to direct towards. So the short answer is that it will be phased in but some of the phasing will be temporary. Mr. Simpson noted typically on a large development such as this the developer will take the roads and utilities so far in the phase, build the houses out and then sell those, and then they will move on to the next phase. So they would not build the entire road system with the utliities at one time. But as Mr. Fralin noted there will be requirements during each phase to have not only stormwater control but also erosion control and all measures in place. C ommissioner Garst asked if there is an adverse impact from the construction who do the neighbors need to contact. Mr. Simpson noted that during construction it is the developer's responsibility to make sure nothing leaves the site as far as erosion, etc. If it does, then it is up to the developer to clean it up. C ommissioner Garst asked who will make them accountable, and Mr. Simpson noted that the C ommunity Development Department would be responsible for this. Mr. Fralin noted that the monetary penalties for violations is much more severe and strict than they were years ago. Mr. Fralin stated it is important to note that the stormwater rate will be reduced from what is there now as it has to be. Mr. Fralin noted with regards to the comments about traffic, roads are always a threat and can be dangerous. T hey are just going on the ratings provided by the traffic impact studies which have been conducted, and there is no emotion or bias on their part with regards to the traffic. C hair Daulton noted she had heard comments about the traffic on Orchard and Homestead Drive; she asked staff or engineers from Balzer if they any of the studies looked at the traffic on those roads. Mr. C rew noted that the answer to this question is "no". T he study was performed looking at Upland Drive and Diamond Road and the direct impacts associated with the project. T hey have not analyzed every system including all the local roads that feed out into the network of the C ity streets from this one location. Once you leave Upland, Diamond and Franklin it branches off into a bunch of different spots. He further discussed the traffic counts. C ommissioner Conner noted it would seem that the most concentrated problem with regards to added traffic congestion will be at the Upland Drive and West C lub Drive intersection. He asked if this was a fair statement. He understands the outward disbursement, and it would seem as the traffic moves further out from the development those numbers would improve due to the alternate routes available. Mr. C rew noted that he was correct that the majority of the traffic is going to utilize the Upland and West Club intersection. Once it moves from that point and heads out to the other road system, it will disburse due to people traveling in different directions. Mr. C onner asked if the studies that have been done are typical for the stage of development at this point. Mr. C rew noted that the traffic study they performed is standard for a land use or zoning application such as this. Mr. C onner noted that he is just trying to figure out if the concerns are valid. Are the studies that were done up to some sort of standard to generate the data? Mr. Crew noted that C ommissioner Conner is absolutely correct, and he further discussed the standards and codes associated with the traffic count data. C hair Daulton noted that she wanted to commend the C ity staff on the work that went into gathering the supporting data from the different City departments and the schools for the staff report which was included in the C ommission's packet. Denise King motioned to recommend to the C ouncil of the C ity of Salem that the request of R. Fralin Companies, Inc., contract purchaser, for rezoning the properties located at 211 Diamond Road (Tax Map # 272-2-1) and 135 Diamond Road (Tax Map # 273-2-1) from A G - Agriculture District / RSF - Residential Single Family District, to RSF Residential Single Family District be approved with the following amended proffered conditions: 1) T he property shall be developed in substantial conformance with “Simms Family Farm Masterplan,” dated September 17, 2019, and last revised September 26, 2019 Prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. 2) All new homes constructed within the development shall have the following architectural treatments: a. Roof Materials shall be Architectural Grade Shingles, Designer Shingles and/or Metal. b. All front elevations shall have a combination of masonry finish and siding. c. All above grade foundations shall be faced with brick, stone, synthetic stone or equivalent materials. 3) Hours of construction associated with the development of the property, and the construction of homes on the property, shall be limited to: Between 7:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, and Between 8 A.M. and 3 P.M. on Saturdays. No construction associated with the development of the property, or the construction of homes on the property, shall take place on Sundays. 4) All homes constructed on the C luster Lots shall be a Maximum of 1.5 (one and a half) stories high. 5) A Type “B” Landscape Buffer will be provided along the Western Property line of Tax Parcel 273-2-2, 67 Upland Drive. 6) T he Minimum Front Set Back of Lots 1,2,3,4,5,136,137,138 and 139 shall be a minimum of 40 feet. 7) T he Houses will be constructed in substantial conformance with exterior Architectural Styles Depicted on the “Simms Farm- Architectural Styles” Exhibits filed with the Simms Family Farm Rezoning Requested Dated September 26,2019 8) Commercial vehicle construction traffic will be prohibited from using Franklin Street for access to and from the project site. Neil C onner seconded the motion. Ayes: Conner, Garst, King Nays: Beamer, Daulton B.Special Exception P ermit Hold public hearing to consider the request of R. Fralin Companies, Inc., contract purchaser, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow Cluster Housing Overlay with proffered conditions on the properties located at 211 Diamond Road (Tax Map # 272 - 2 - 1) and 135 Diamond Road (Tax Map # 273 - 2 - 1). Neil Conner motioned to recommend to the Council of the City of Salem the request of R. Fralin Companies, Inc., contract purchaser, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow Cluster Housing Overlay with the following amended proffered conditions on the property located at 211 Diamond Road (Tax Map # 272-2-1): 1) T he property shall be developed in substantial conformance with “Simms Family Farm Masterplan,” dated September 17, 2019, and last revised September 26, 2019 Prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. 2) All new homes constructed within the development shall have the following architectural treatments: a. Roof Materials shall be Architectural Grade Shingles, Designer Shingles and/or Metal. b. All front elevations shall have a combination of masonry finish and siding. c. All above grade foundations shall be faced with brick, stone, synthetic stone or equivalent materials. 3) Hours of construction associated with the development of the property, and the construction of homes on the property, shall be limited to: Between 7:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, and Between 8 A.M. and 3 P.M. on Saturdays. No construction associated with the development of the property, or the construction of homes on the property, shall take place on Sundays. 4) All homes constructed on the Cluster Lots shall be a Maximum of 1.5 (one and a half) stories high. 5) A Type “B” Landscape Buffer will be provided along the Western Property line of Tax Parcel 273-2-2, 67 Upland Drive. 6) T he Minimum Front Set Back of Lots 1,2,3,4,5,136,137,138 and 139 shall be a minimum of 40 feet. 7) T he Houses will be constructed in substantial conformance with exterior Architectural Styles Depicted on the “Simms Farm- Architectural Styles” Exhibits filed with the Simms Family Farm Rezoning Requested Dated September 26,2019 8) C ommercial vehicle construction traffic will be prohibited from using Franklin Street for access to and from the project site. Denise King seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Garst, King Nays: Daulton 4.Adjournment T he meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m.