HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/2019 - Planning Commission - Agenda -RegularPlanni ng Commission Meeti ng
AGENDA
Wednesday, November 13, 2019, 7:00 PM
Council Chambers, 114 N. Broad St., Salem, VA 24153
1.Call to Order
2.Consent Agenda
A.Minutes
Consider approval of the minutes from the October 16, 2019, work session and regular meeting.
3.New Business
A.Special Exception P ermit
Hold public hearing to consider the request of R. L. Lucas C onstruction Inc., contractor, and
Richard H. Macher, property owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a new
1,707 square foot detached garage on the property located at 1900 South C learing Road (Tax Map
#277-1-4).
4.Adjournment
Work Session, Wednesday, November 13, 2019, 6:30 p.m.,
Council Chambers 114 North Broad Street
UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION October 16, 2019 A work session of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the Parlor B, Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard at 6:00 p.m., on October 16, 2019, there being present all the members of said Commission, to wit: Vicki G. Daulton, Chair; Denise P. King, Vice Chair; Reid A. Garst II, N. Jackson Beamer, and Neil L. Conner; together with James E. Taliaferro, II, Interim City Manager and Executive Secretary, ex officio member of said Commission; William L. Simpson, Jr., Director of Community Development; Mary Ellen Wines, Zoning Administrator; Benjamin W. Tripp, City Planner; and William C. Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney; and the following business was transacted: The Executive Secretary reported that this date, place, and time had been set in order for the Commission to hold a work session; and In re: Hold public hearing to consider the request of R. Fralin Companies, Inc, contract purchaser, for rezoning the properties located at 211 Diamond Road and 135 Diamond Road (Tax Map #s 272 - 2 - 1 and 273 - 2 - 1) from AG - Agriculture District / RSF - Residential Single Family District to RSF Residential Single Family District with proffered conditions WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property is commonly known as “The 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. The 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. This 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). The 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. The applicant is proposing two entrances to the property. The 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. The 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. Those two connections have been eliminated.
2 Several potential areas for stormwater management are identified on the plan. These 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. The 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. CHANGES TO THE MASTER PLAN SINCE THE AUGUST 14th MEETING: At its August 14th meeting the Planning Commission 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. The reason for this was to accommodate the expected large public interest in these items, an interest which could not be physically accommodated in City Council Chambers, and the meeting was subsequently moved a larger room in the Salem Civic 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 Cluster Housing Overlay. The following is a summary of the changes that have been made to the Master Plan since the design was originally presented in August: 1. The 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. This has now been eliminated and all units will be detached. 3. The community pool has been removed from the concept. 4. The 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. The developer is proposing to reduce the size of 43 of the Single-Family Detached lots by using the Cluster Housing Overlay, as requested in Item 3D. These smaller lots are shown as shaded on the Master Plan. The COL 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.” (City of Salem Zoning Ordinance Sec. 106-222.1) While the COL allows lot sizes to be reduced from what is allowed by-right that reduction “must be compensated for by the provision of an
3 equal or greater amount of open space within the cluster housing development.” The 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. WHEREAS, staff and the Commission discussed the rezoning request; and WHEREAS, a full and lengthy discussion was held regarding the request of R. Fralin Companies, Inc., contract purchaser, for rezoning the properties located at 211 Diamond Road and 135 Diamond Road (Tax Map #s 272-2-1 and 273-2-1) from AG Agricultural District/RSF Residential Single Family District to RSF Residential Single Family District with proffered conditions. In re: 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 on the property located at 211 Diamond Road (Tax Map #272-2-1) with proffered conditions WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property is a portion of what is commonly known as “The Simms Farm”. It consists of a single parcel of land of approximately 62.5 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. The property was until recently used for the stabling of horses, and is currently occupied by a main, centrally located residence and a variety of barns and other agricultural buildings. This request is for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a Cluster Housing Overlay. As part of the overall proposed development, this would allow 43 cluster lots. These lots will contain single-family detached homes on reduced sized lots as described in the master plan. The 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. The Cluster Overlay requires open space as compensation of the reduced lot sizes, and the Master Plan meets this requirement. This request is related to the request to rezone the entire property from Agricultural to Single-Family Residential. This request cannot be considered unless the rezoning has been approved; and
4 WHEREAS, staff and the Commission discussed the Special Exception Permit request; and WHEREAS, a full and lengthy discussion was held regarding the request of R. Fralin Companies, Inc., contract purchaser, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow Cluster Housing Overlay on the property located at 211 Diamond Road (Tax Map # 272 - 2 - 1) with proffered conditions. THEREUPON, the Commission took no action at this work session. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the work session was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. _____________________________ Chair ________________________________ Executive Secretary
Planni 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.
CITY OF SALEM ITEM #3A
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Meeting Date:
City Administrative Staff November 13, 2019
Report prepared:
November 6, 2019
RE: Hold public hearing to consider the request of R. L. Lucas Construction Inc., contractor,
and Richard H. Macher, property owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to
allow a new 1,707 square foot detached garage on the property located at 1900 South
Clearing Road (Tax Map #277-1-4).
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Zoning: RMF Residential Multi Family
Land Use Plan Designation: Residential
Existing Use: Residential
Proposed Use: Residential
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The subject property consists of a single parcel of approximately 4.755 acres, located to the west of
the cul-de-sac of Ridgewood Drive. The property is occupied by the 14,288 square foot “Ridgewood
Farm” manor house, which contains an additional separate apartment.
The applicant is requesting a Special Exception permit to allow the construction of a garage over
1,000 sq. ft. The garage would be located in the northeast corner of the rear yard. The garage is
proposed to have three bays, and would have a footprint of 1,040 square feet on the ground floor,
and 518 square feet on the second floor.
ISSUES:
The original plans submitted showed an apartment in the second story of the garage. As dwelling
units are not allowed in accessory structures, the applicant amended the plans to show only
storage space.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Recommend approval of the Special Exception Permit request to City Council as submitted.
2) Recommend approval of the request to City Council with conditions not yet received.
3) Recommend denial of the request.
A2
.
0
1
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
0
9
1
7
6
.
0
0
DA
T
E
:
MA
R
C
H
2
2
,
2
0
1
9
43
5
3
W
I
N
D
Y
G
A
P
D
R
I
V
E
,
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
,
V
A
2
4
0
1
4
54
0
.
9
1
5
.
1
2
3
3
W
W
W
.
T
H
E
S
U
M
M
I
T
S
T
U
D
I
O
.
C
O
M
3
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
RO
A
N
O
K
E
,
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
RE
V
.
D
A
T
E
MA
N
O
R
H
O
U
S
E
19
0
0
S
O
U
T
H
C
L
E
A
R
I
N
G
R
O
A
D
REAR ELEVATION 41/4"=1'-0"
FRONT ELEVATION 31/4"=1'-0"
LEFT ELEVATION 21/4"=1'-0"
RIGHT ELEVATION 11/4"=1'-0"
NOTES
1'-6"
SHINGLE SYSTEM OR ARTISAN SERIES HARDIE PLANK
SHINGLE SYSTEM OR ARTISAN SERIES HARDIE PLANK
WOOD SHAKE OR ASPHALT
SHINGLE ROOFING
CONTINUOUS METAL FLASHING
1x4 WATER TABLE
FRIEZE BOARD
FASCIA
MOULDING
12
16
1'-6"
SHINGLE SYSTEM OR ARTISAN
SERIES HARDIE PLANK
WOOD SHAKE OR ASPHALT
SHINGLE ROOFING
CONTINUOUS METAL FLASHING
1x4 WATER TABLE
1x8 TRIM BOARD
FRIEZE BOARD
SHINGLE SYSTEM OR ARTISAN
SERIES HARDIE PLANK
RAKE MOULDING
RAKE FASCIA
CROWN MOULDING
FASCIA
MOULDING
FRIEZE BOARD
12
16
CONTINUOUS METAL FLASHING
#310 MOULDING 17
8"x43
8"
1x6 CELLULAR PVC FASCIA
1
2" CELLULAR PVC SOFFIT
3" ROUND ALUMINUM VENTS @ 24" o/c
2x4 SOFFIT FRAMING
#358 CROWN MOULDING
1x8 FRIEZE BOARD
SHINGLE SYSTEM OR ARTISAN
SERIES HARDIE PLANK
#310 MOULDING 17
8"x43
8"
1x6 CELLULAR PVC FASCIA
1
2" CELLULAR PVC SOFFIT
3" ROUND ALUMINUM VENTS @ 24" o/c
2x4 SOFFIT FRAMING
#358 CROWN MOULDING
1x8 FRIEZE BOARD
SHINGLE SYSTEM OR ARTISAN
SERIES HARDIE PLANK
FIN. 2ND FLOOR
FIN. SLAB
11
'
-
0
3 4"
9'
-
4
"
1'
-
8
3 4"
CLG. HEIGHT
FLOOR SYSTEM BRG.
8'
-
0
"
SEE 5-A2.02
12
16
12
4
2x4 WALL FRAMING w/ 7
16" OSB
SHEATHING, BUILDING WRAP,
& SHINGLE/SIDING SYSTEM
8" POURED CONC. STEM WALL
CONC. FOOTING w/
2 - #5xCONT. BARS
4" CONC. SLAB w/ WWR
1
2" GYPSUM
BOARD CEILING
20" DEEP TJI FLOOR SYSTEM
3
4" T&G SUBFLOOR
12
16
12
4
SEE 5-A2.02
FOLDED AND SOLDERED
COPPER ROOFING
5
0
'
2
0
'20'
105.7'
82'MANOR
H
O
U
S
E
PATIO
PROPOSED
GARAGE
MANOR HOUSE
NEW PARCEL "E"
2.98 AC.
ZONED
B-3
1.00 AC.
ZONED R-4
TAX MA
P
#
2
7
7
-
1
-
1
SOUTH
CL
E
A
R
I
N
G
ROAD
40'
26
'
TRACT 4
NEW PARCEL "D"
13.85 AC.
TRACT 4
NEW PARCEL "F"
15.06 AC.
PUB
L
I
C
U
T
I
L
I
L
T
Y
&
DRA
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
PUBLIC UTILILTY &
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
3'-2"
51
4"2'-21
2"
5
1
2
"
814"
3'
-
7
1 2"
1'-31
4"51
2"
514"
1'
-
3
1 4"
A2
.
0
2
SE
C
T
I
O
N
&
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
0
9
1
7
6
.
0
0
DA
T
E
:
MA
R
C
H
2
2
,
2
0
1
9
43
5
3
W
I
N
D
Y
G
A
P
D
R
I
V
E
,
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
,
V
A
2
4
0
1
4
54
0
.
9
1
5
.
1
2
3
3
W
W
W
.
T
H
E
S
U
M
M
I
T
S
T
U
D
I
O
.
C
O
M
3
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
RO
A
N
O
K
E
,
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
RE
V
.
D
A
T
E
MA
N
O
R
H
O
U
S
E
19
0
0
S
O
U
T
H
C
L
E
A
R
I
N
G
R
O
A
D
CORNICE RETURN ELEVATION 41-1/2"=1'-0"
TYPICAL CORNICE SECTION 51-1/2"=1'-0"CORNICE RETURN SECTION @ GABLE 31-1/2"=1'-0"
CORNICE RETURN END ELEV.21-1/2"=1'-0"BUILDING SECTION 13/8"=1'-0"
SITE LOCATION PLAN 7N.T.S.
BRACKET DETAIL 61"=1'-0"
AG - Agriculture District
BCD - Business Commerce District
CBD - C ommuni ty Business District
CUD - C ollege/U niversity District
DBD - D owntow n Business District
HBD - H ighway Business District
HBD/HM - Highw ay Business/Heavy Manufacturing District
HBD/LM - Highw ay Business/Li ght Manufacturing District
HM - Heavy Manufactur ing Distr ict
LM - Light Manufacturing District
LM/HM - Light M anufacturing/Heavy Manufacturing District
MHP - M anufactured Home Par k District
PUD - Planned Unit District
RB - Residential Business District
RMF - Residential Multi-Family District
RMF/RB - Residential Multi-Family/Residential Business District
RSF - Residential Single Family District
RSF/HBD - Residential Single/Highway Business District
RSF/LM - Residential Single Family/Light Manufacturing
RSF/RB - Residential Single Family/Residential Business District
RSF/RMF - Residential Single Family/Residential Multi-Family District
RSF/TBD - Residential Single Family/Transitional Business District
TBD - Transitional Business District
EXISTING ZONING FUTURE LAND USE
R id g e w o o d D riv e
R
idgewoodDrive
Carriage House Ct.
Private)
Gate h o u s e Lane (P rivate)
Oak Ridg e L a n e (P v t)
SouthCleari n g R o a d (P riv a t e )
Edens&Avant,PB 10,P G 9
Northwoods,Sec.1,PB4,PGS84,85
1
2 D2
5
6
7
8
E
FF-1 11
10
9
1
E
F-1
2.5 -1 901
2.5 -1 9031-2 5 1 9 1-2 5 2 1 1-2 5 2 3
1-2 5 2 7 1-2 5 2 9 1-2 5 3 1
1 -2 5 0 7
1 -2 4 0 3 1 -2 4 0 5 1 -2 4 0 7
1 -2 4 0 9 1-2 4 1 1 1 -2 4 1 3 1 -2 4 1 5
1 -2 4 0 0 1 -2 4 0 2
1-2 4 1 0
1 -2 4 0 4
3
0
Blk. "2"
Phase 41
4
12
3
4
6
5
5 7
19.663
1
.
2
4
3 9 .5 7
%
%
%
20.42 41.42
7 8 .6 781.2 0
3 5 .2 5 4 9 .9 1
64.0 4
22.06
85.5 6
1
3
0
.
5
4
1
4
8
.
9
3
1
4
8
.
2
4
1
3
7
.
8
8
1 5 1.8 7
6
4
.
9
0
1
4
0
.
0
0
7
5
.
1
0
5 0 .1 8
8 3 .9 9
8 1 .0 0
83.20
1 0 0 .2 0 1
2
4
.
8
1
148.28
1
4
3
.
7
5
204.8
4
105.0099.08
8 3 .9 0
8 1 .0 0
1
3
4
.
1
1
7 1 .4 3 4 3 .5 7
159.17
1 2 8.9 8
1 2 8.9 8
2 2 .39
1
3
5
.
0
0
91.70 9.78
6.00
70.70
7.03
4 2.13
34.28
4.00
2 5 0 .8 2
1 3 .8 6
48.26
5
2
.
7
7
7 1 .7 9
1 33.64
1 1 4.79
45.27
2
9
6
.
9
4
4
1
5
.
7
1
50.00
15.68
97.68
59.3567.79 1 8 4 .0 8
72.88
80.57
56.34
98.17
17.78
1
13
4
1900-1906-1910
2502
25 0 1 2 5 0 6
2 4 0 0 B lk C a rria g e H o u s e C t.
2 5 3 5 G ate h o u s e L a n e
2500 B l k G a t e h o u s e L a n e
2 5 0 4
2000
2001
TOTAL 4.755 Ac.
1.82 Ac.
0.244 Ac.
0 70 14035
Feet±1 inch = 70 fee t NOVEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM 11900 SOUTH CLEARING RD.
CITY OF SALEM
Community Development DepartmentP.O. Box 869Salem, Virginia 24153-0869Phone: (540) 375-3032
Tax Parcel 277-1-4 Buildings Parcels City Limits
Comme rcia l
Dow ntown
Econo mic De velopme nt A rea
In dus trial
In stitutio na l
Mixed Use
Public Pa rks and R ecre atio na l
Reside ntia l
Tran sitio nal
Ta x Parcel 277 -1-4 Bu ildings Pa rce ls City Limits
21 South Bruffey Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 (540) 375-3032
IMPORTANT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
PROPOSAL TO CHANGE USE
Notice is hereby given that a request of the property owner/petitioner of the property
described below has been filed with the City of Salem. The Planning Commission of
the City of Salem will consider this request at its meeting listed below and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council of the City of Salem will also
consider this request and the recommendation of the Planning Commission at its
meeting listed below. City Council will make the final decision in this matter.
Property Owner/Petitioner:
R. L. Lucas Construction, Inc., Contractor and Richard H. Macher, Property Owner
Location of Property:
1900 South Clearing Road (Tax Map# 277-1-4)
Purpose of Request:
For the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a new 1,707 square foot
detached garage on the property located at 1900 South Clearing Rd, (Tax Map# 227-1-
4).
The date, time, and place of the public hearing scheduled by the Planning Commission
on this request are as follows:
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2019 – 7 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, FIRST FLOOR, SALEM CITY HALL
114 NORTH BROAD STREET, SALEM, VIRGINIA
The date, time, and place of the public hearing scheduled by City Council on this
request are as follows:
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2019 – 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, FIRST FLOOR, SALEM CITY HALL
114 NORTH BROAD STREET, SALEM, VIRGINIA
Additional information on this request may be obtained in the Community Development
Department, 21 South Bruffey Street, Salem, Virginia or at (540) 375-3032.
James E. Taliaferro, II
Executive Secretary
Planning Commission
MBLU Location Owner Name Co-Owner Name Address 1 Address 2 City, State, Zip
285-13-1 1900 BLK S CLEARING RD RICHARD H MACHER 120 CHURCH AVE ROANOKE VA 24011
285-13-2 1800 NORTHWOODS LN MARY W PARDON LIVING TRUST C/O MARY W PARDON TRUSTEE 1800 NORTHWOODS LN SALEM VA 24153
285-13-3 1802 NORTHWOODS LN RALPH N GREENWAY 1802 NORTHWOODS LN SALEM VA 24153
276-5-2 2500 OAK RIDGE LN DOROTHY D THOMAS C/O VIRGINIA MOSNESS 2500 OAK RIDGE LN SALEM VA 24153
276-5-3 2502 OAK RIDGE LN JOHN P WILLIAMS LIFE ESTATE SYLVIA D WILLIAMS LIFE ESTATE 2502 OAK RIDGE LN SALEM VA 24153
276-5-4 2504 OAK RIDGE LN CHARLES R COOPER BONNIE M COOPER 2504 OAK RIDGE LN SALEM VA 24153
276-5-5 2506 OAK RIDGE LN BERLYN M JAMES TRUSTEE BERLYN M JAMES TRUST 2506 OAK RIDGE LN SALEM VA 24153
277-1-5 2508 OAK RIDGE LN DOMITILA CRAIGHEAD C/O DAVID C CRAIGHEAD 2508 OAK RIDGE LN SALEM VA 24153
277-1-6 2510 OAK RIDGE LN PAUL J HOUSMAN KATHRYN K HOUSMAN 2510 OAK RIDGE LN SALEM VA 24153
277-1-7 2512 OAK RIDGE LN DELILAH DORINE P STRAUB LIFE ESTATE 2512 OAK RIDGE LN SALEM VA 24153
277-1-8 2514 OAK RIDGE LN NANCY M JOHNSON 2514 OAK RIDGE LN SALEM VA 24153
277-1-3 2001 RIDGEWOOD DR NATIONWIDE HEALTH PROPERTIES INCC/O COMMUNITY ACCOUNTING 2001 RIDGEWOOD DR SALEM VA 24153
277-1-3.1 2000 RIDGEWOOD DR NATIONWIDE HEALTH PROPERTIES INC 2001 RIDGEWOOD DR SALEM VA 24153
284-1-2.2 1935 ELECTRIC RD WOOD SALEM CENTER LLC C/O BC WOOD PROPERTIES LLC 321 HENRY ST LEXINGTON VA 40508
284-1-2.5-1901 1901 S CLEARING RD CODY WALKER HILDA WALKER 1901 S CLEARING RD SALEM VA 24153
284-1-2.5-1903 1903 S CLEARING RD PATRICIA B DAVIDSON 1903 S CLEARING RD SALEM VA 24153
284-1-2.5-1905 1905 S CLEARING RD KENNETH S WHITE CAROLYN S WHITE 1905 S CLEARING RD SALEM VA 24153
284-1-2.5-1907 1907 S CLEARING RD THE FRANCIS FAMILY TRUST C/O THOMAS G FRANCIS III 1907 S CLEARING RD SALEM VA 24153
284-1-2.5-1909 1909 S CLEARING RD H P LLC 728 S ATLANTIC AVE VIRGINIA BEACH VA 23451
284-1-2.5-1911 1911 S CLEARING RD ROBERT J TOPPING TRUST ROBERT J TOPPING TRUSTEE 1911 S CLEARING RD SALEM VA 24153
284-1-2.5-1913 1913 S CLEARING RD RAE N WEST 3490 PINE DR SALEM VA 24153
284-1-2.5-1915 1915 S CLEARING RD GEOFFREY KOOPMAN KATHERINE KOOPMAN 11035 BOOKER T WASHINGTON HWY WIRTZ VA 24184
284-1-2.5-1917 1917 S CLEARING RD JUSTIN LEWIS WADE 1917 S CLEARING RD SALEM VA 24153
284-1-2.5-1919 1919 S CLEARING RD JANET M CLOUSER 1919 S CLEARING RD SALEM VA 24153
284-1-2.5-1921 1921 S CLEARING RD ANITA J WEBSTER C/O ANITA W NAFF 2034 DARLINGTON RD SW ROANOKE VA 24018
284-1-2.5-1923 1923 S CLEARING RD AMY K HOLLAR 1923 S CLEARING RD SALEM VA 24153
284-1-2.5-1925 1925 S CLEARING RD BOWERS PROPERTIES LLC 804 PENDLETON DR SALEM VA 24153
284-1-2.5-1927 1927 S CLEARING RD SHARON L MALONE 1927 S CLEARING RD SALEM VA 24153
284-1-2.5-1929 1929 S CLEARING RD ANTOINETTE D GORDON 1929 S CLEARING RD SALEM VA 24153
284-1-2.5-1931 1931 S CLEARING RD KATHERINE PAXTON 1931 S CLEARING RD SALEM VA 24153
284-1-2.5-1933 1933 S CLEARING RD CATHERINE L CARR 2832 FAIRWAY FOREST DR SALEM VA 24153
284-1-2.5-1935 1935 S CLEARING RD SHEILA W GOFF 1935 S CLEARING RD SALEM VA 24153
284-1-2.5-1937 1937 S CLEARING RD CAROLYNE EDWARDS KAREN M EDWARDS 1937 S CLEARING RD SALEM VA 24153
284-1-2.5-1939 1939 S CLEARING RD BRIANNA J GALLATIN 1939 S CLEARING RD SALEM VA 24153
284-1-2.7 1630 BRAEBURN DR GOODPASTURE PROPERTIES LLC 1819 ELECTRIC RD STE E ROANOKE VA 24018
284-4-1-2406 2406 WOOD GATE LN JAMES K STRASSER JULIE S STRASSER 2406 WOOD GATE LN SALEM VA 24153
284-4-1-2408 2408 WOOD GATE LN HUGH E ROBERTS JUDITH L ROBERTS 2408 WOOD GATE LN SALEM VA 24153
284-4-1-2410 2410 WOOD GATE LN MARGIE HURST 2410 WOOD GATE LN SALEM VA 24153
284-4-1-2517 2517 GATEHOUSE LN CARL E TARPLEY JOYCE E TARPLEY 12540 KELLY GREENS BLVD UNIT 324 FT MYERS FL 33908
284-4-1-2519 2519 GATEHOUSE LN SINA A EMBREY 2519 GATEHOUSE LN SALEM VA 24153
284-4-1-2521 2521 GATEHOUSE LN SPERRYS FAMILY PROPERTIES LLC P O BOX 792 VINTON VA 24179
284-4-1-2523 2523 GATEHOUSE LN JANE A OKES 2523 GATEHOUSE LN SALEM VA 24153
284-4-1-2525 2525 GATEHOUSE LN A & S ENTERPRISES LLC C/O SAMMIE RUDOLPH 2151 BRIDGE VIEW CT UNIT 11102 N MYRTLE BEACH SC 29582
284-4-1-2527 2527 GATEHOUSE LN HELGARD B RITTENBERG 1971 ASHLEY LN ROANOKE VA 24018-1645
284-4-1-2529 2529 GATEHOUSE LN CATHERINE G BROWN 2529 GATEHOUSE LN SALEM VA 24153
284-4-1-2531 2531 GATEHOUSE LN EDWARD LEON SWEENEY 2531 GATEHOUSE LN UNIT 2531 SALEM VA 24153
285-8-1-2400 2400 GATEHOUSE LN DEBORAH E DALON 2400 GATEHOUSE LN SALEM VA 24153
285-8-1-2401 2401 CARRIAGE HOUSE CT SHIRLEY FEAZELLE 2401 CARRIAGE HOUSE CT SALEM VA 24153
285-8-1-2402 2402 GATEHOUSE LN LISA C CAPITO 2402 GATEHOUSE LN SALEM VA 24153
285-8-1-2403 2403 CARRIAGE HOUSE CT LEON A VORST 459 CLUBHOUSE DR FAIRHOPE AL 36532-6347
285-8-1-2404 2404 GATEHOUSE LN DENNIS HUMSTON 11107 ROCKY RD BENT MOUNTAIN VA 24059
285-8-1-2405 2405 CARRIAGE HOUSE CT ERIC S ROMEISER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 5832 LAKEMONT DR ROANOKE VA 24018
285-8-1-2407 2407 CARRIAGE HOUSE CT PATRICIA T JAMES 2407 CARRIAGE HOUSE CT SALEM VA 24153
285-8-1-2409 2409 CARRIAGE HOUSE CT VERONICA LAWRENCE 2409 CARRIAGE HOUSE CT SALEM VA 24153
285-8-1-2411 2411 CARRIAGE HOUSE CT DERINDA KAY SNEAD MOOK 1262 PICKWICK LN SALEM VA 24153
285-8-1-2413 2413 CARRIAGE HOUSE CT RICHARD H POLLARD REBECCA F POLLARD 812 SCOTT CIRCLE SALEM VA 24153
285-8-1-2415 2415 CARRIAGE HOUSE CT JERRY L BOBO JOYCE J BOBO 2415 CARRIAGE HOUSE CT SALEM VA 24153