Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/15/2009 - Planning Commission - Minutes - RegularAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION July 15, 2009 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, at 7:00 p.m., on July 15, 2009, there being present the following members of said Commission, to wit: Gardner W. Smith, Jimmy W. Robertson, Vicki G. Daulton, and Bruce N. Thomasson (Terrance D. Murphy – absent); with Gardner W. Smith, Chairman, presiding; together with James E. Taliaferro, II, Assistant City Manager and Executive Secretary, ex officio member of said Commission; Melinda J. Payne, Director of Planning and Development; Charles VanAllman, City Engineer; Charles B. Aldridge, Sr., Acting Building Official and Zoning Administrator; Benjamin W. Tripp, Planner; Judy L. Hough, Planner; and William C. Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney; and the following business was transacted: ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSION MEMBER THOMASSON, AND DULY CARRIED, the minutes of the regular meeting and work session held on April 15, 2009, were approved as written – the roll call vote: all present – aye. In re: Request of Peter R. & Vivian D. Fields, property owners, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow general and medical offices on the property located at 303/305 S. Colorado Street (Tax Map # 121-10-4) The Executive Secretary reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of Peter R. & Vivian D. Fields, property owners, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow general and medical offices on the property located at 303/305 S. Colorado Street (Tax Map # 121-10-4); and WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the July 1 and 8, 2009, issues of The Roanoke Times, and adjoining property owners were notified by letter mailed July 2, 2009; and 2 WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of one parcel, located on the west side of South Colorado Street, south of Boulevard; the property is approximately 75 feet wide and 65 feet deep; it is currently occupied by a 1,612 square foot general office building; this request is for a Special Exception Permit to allow both general and medical offices in RMF; the applicant has voluntarily proffered the exclusion of outpatient mental health and substance abuse clinics; the existing office building was constructed in 1964; at that time, professional offices were allowed by right in the R-3 zoning under the previous zoning ordinance; the Special Exception Permit will bring the zoning into conformance with the existing general office use, but medical offices do not currently exist at the site; this property is partially located within the 500-year flood zone; and WHEREAS, Peter R. Fields of 6416 North Barrens Road, Roanoke, property owner, appeared before the Commission in support of the Special Exception Permit request; he noted that this request is not a change in use; the building was built in the early 1960s as an office building and has always been used this way; and their request is a housekeeping measure to allow them to continue to lease the property as an office building; and WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to said request; ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSION MEMBER ROBERTSON, AND DULY CARRIED, the Planning Commission of the City of Salem doth recommend to the Council of the City of Salem that the request of Peter R. & Vivian D. Fields, property owners, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow general and medical offices on the property located at 303/305 S. Colorado Street (Tax Map # 121-10-4) be approved with the following voluntarily proffered condition: within the medical office use, outpatient mental health and substance abuse clinics will be excluded – the roll call vote: all present - aye. In re: Request of The Trustees of Roanoke College, property owners, for rezoning the property located at 20 McClung Street (Tax Map #87-7-5) from RSF Residential Single Family District to CUD College and University District 3 The Executive Secretary reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of The Trustees of Roanoke College, property owners, for rezoning the property located at 20 McClung Street (Tax Map #87-7-5) from RSF Residential Single Family District to CUD College and University District ; and WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the July 1 and 8, 2009, issues of The Roanoke Times, and adjoining property owners were notified by letter mailed July 2, 2009; and WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of one parcel, located along Red Lane, south of the intersection with McClung Street; the property is approximately 40,000 sq. ft.; it is currently occupied by a 14-unit residential apartment complex; it should be noted that the previous owner contacted the college about purchasing the property; the college did not seek out this property; this request is to rezone the property from RSF to CUD to allow it to be used for student housing under the auspices of Roanoke College; the applicants have submitted a site plan to expand and renovate the existing parking area, to improve the overall aesthetics of the property and better accommodate parking; ultimately, the college’s goal is to bring more students into a campus-style environment and remove the students from rental properties throughout the city; the existing apartment complex is surrounded by residential properties, and many of these home owners have expressed concern over increased traffic and noise; and the City has requested that the college bring all of its properties under the College and University District designation; and WHEREAS, Teresa Gereaux, Director of Public Relations for Roanoke College, appeared before the Commission in support of the rezoning request; she noted that the former owners of the property approached the college with an offer to sell the building in the fall of 2008; it is their understanding that the property is currently zoned single family residential; at the request of the City of Salem, they are now asking to rezone the property to CUD College and University District to bring this property into compliance with other college-owned property; the former College Court Apartments is now known as Afton Hall, and the new name is meant to signify 4 the facility’s new status as a college-owned residence facility; as a college residence hall, it will be under the same governance as other residence halls; it will have resident assistants and be on the regular patrols of campus safety; the facility is being renovated, and the college intends to use it for housing students; renovations include more than $75,000 of work in painting, flooring, roof and gutter repairs, and lighting enhancements; in addition, the college has submitted plans to expand the parking lot to accommodate more vehicles to avoid parking problems on the street; this parking lot expansion is expected to cost approximately $85,000; several years ago the college made a multi-year commitment to City Council through its neighborhood relations task force to try to increase the percentage of college students living on campus; the goal is to have 75% of students living on campus; the new facility will house up to 42 students and will help the college to bring the percentage of students on campus to 72%, which is an increase from 68% last year; Roanoke College values its relationship with the City of Salem and its neighbors in the city; several college officials, including the President, recently met with the neighbors on Broad Street to discuss the residence hall changes on their side of the campus; they will continue to communicate with these and other neighbors about this and other parts of the campus with an impact to their neighborhood; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson asked Mrs. Gereaux how many students would be living in this facility; she noted that there would be a maximum of 42 students in this facility; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked if the facility was close to being ready to occupy, and Mrs. Gereaux noted that the college plans to occupy it in August when the students return; most of the renovations on the building have been completed, but they are still working with the City regarding the approval of the parking lot expansion site plan; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith asked if some students previously lived in this building, and Mrs. Gereaux noted that it was possible, but she thought it was mostly non-college students who lived there before; and 5 WHEREAS, Mrs. Gereaux noted that she is a member of the neighborhood relations task force, and this was not an area that they would hear problems related to students, so she does not think any students were living there; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked Ms. Payne if the residential single family zoning was incorrect for this piece of property; Ms. Payne noted that Mrs. Daulton was correct; she stated that when staff met with the college a few weeks back, the city requested that the college bring all of their properties under the CUD College and University District zoning because this was a piece that the college had purchased; so, the college is doing what the city has requested; Mrs. Daulton asked if the property was grandfathered as residential single family, and Ms. Payne noted it was grandfathered since it is being used for multi-family residential; and WHEREAS, Dolores Smith of 433 Red Lane appeared before the Commission and noted that she wanted to point out a situation that is very pertinent to this piece of property; she noted that this past week she contacted the city about the storm drain, which is located at the corner of Red Lane and McClung Street; she noted that the storm drain is always getting stopped up, and it had all sorts of trash, etc., in it at that time; Mr. Mowles came out to look at the problem, and he called her and told her that the storm drain was not acting as a storm drain, in fact that it only went five feet out; she asked him where was the water going to go, and he said that is the problem; he told her that they would have to seal the drain, and she asked him if the water would not be diverted down to Mount Vernon; he noted he thought that would be correct; she further discussed the problems with the water during the flood of ’85 and stated the building at 20 McClung Street was flooded very badly during that time; the drains are not working correctly and something should be done or there are going to be more problems for those living in this building; and WHEREAS, Sheila Herndon of 407 Red Lane appeared before the Commission noting her concern is the traffic situation; she stated that it appears that 42 more vehicles will be going in and out of the apartment building; she added that currently on Red Lane they have reached the 6 max of what they can hold with regards to cars; a lot of the traffic flows from the newest dormitories on McClung out to Broad or Market Street, however, some of it comes up Red Lane; some of these vehicles are traveling up this street at 45 mph and even law enforcement is aware of this; at 25 miles per hour, this is sometimes too fast due to the width of the street; she presented the Commission and staff with a list of pavement widths for Red Lane; she noted that she had measured in front of each house on the street; in 13 of the 20 places that she measured, the pavement was under 18’ in width; she asked if anyone would want to meet a car going the opposite direction when there is only 12’6” of pavement; she noted that one car would probably have to go into a yard or up a bank; she noted that something needs to be done if we are going to put additional traffic on this street; she is afraid that we are going to have a serious injury or a fatality on this road; and WHEREAS, Sandy Garden of 336 North Broad Street appeared before the Commission in opposition to the rezoning request; he noted that many of the neighbors are not concerned about the apartment complex, however, their biggest concern is the possibility the college will raze this building and build a dormitory in its place; he noted in the past several years four dormitories have been built in the neighborhood and three more have been enlarged; a lot of the parking for the dorms is located at the end of Red Lane next to this apartment building; further, the neighbors would like to request that the college proffer that they will not build a dormitory on this property in the future; he further noted that when the neighbors met with the college this question was asked, and the college did not say whether or not they would build a dormitory in this location; considering economics and the fact that the college is trying to increase enrollment, then this property could become a new dormitory; if a dormitory was built on this property, it would look down upon four residential houses that abut the property; in addition, this would cause an increase in traffic as was previously discussed, and they do not feel this property is suitable for a dormitory; and WHEREAS, Perry Smith of 353 Red Lane appeared noting he is concerned about how many students will be living in each apartment; he is aware that in the dorms, there is one student per bedroom, and he thinks that in this apartment complex they should do the same; 7 he noted there is a three-bedroom house on Market Street the college owns that has been housing eight people; further, if anyone rents a house to college students, they are limited to four people maximum; he believes the college should be doing the same, especially since they only have one person per bedroom in the dormitories; in addition, the college owns buildings at the old Lutheran Home that they could probably utilize for student housing; he noted that he does not have anything against the students because most of the students over the years have treated the neighbors well; and WHEREAS, Van Gresham of 327 North Broad Street appeared before the Commission in opposition to the request; he noted traveling west on McClung Street one would go directly through his house; over the years, he has had several vehicles up on his sidewalk; he does not particularly want to see more traffic in this area that might result in more vehicles on his sidewalk; he stated he would like to know if this request is granted, what other privileges and uses will be allowed on the property; he believes that this information needs to be made public at this meeting; and WHEREAS, Ron Boothe of 319 North Broad Street appeared noting that he has been a resident of this area for over 36 years; he sits on his front porch quite frequently and over the years the traffic has continued to escalate; he lives next door to the Greshams and he shares the same concerns as Mr. Gresham about the west bound traffic on McClung Street ending up on the sidewalk in front of his house; he has had to contact Roanoke College many times to ask them to come and investigate cars that have been left parked on the street in front of his house & Mr. Gresham’s house for several days; he is concerned about the college increasing housing in this area and would like to know what the college can do with this property in the future; also, what is the potential for housing on this piece of property; and WHEREAS, Whitney Leeson of 212 North Broad Street appeared before the Commission noting that she was there in support of the Gardens and the other neighbors on North Broad Street; she noted that she really likes Salem, and she is a fairly new resident as she has only lived here for about ten years; she really likes the way Salem operates, and in particular, the 8 give and take atmosphere that she sees coming from the City Council and the Planning Commission; she believes that this would afford an opportunity for some give and take; one problem that she sees with an institution such as Roanoke College, where she works, is that people come and people go; the benefit of an institution such is this, is that it lasts a long time; however, people currently cannot make promises that last for 50, 75, or 100 years; but, the Planning Commission and City Council can put restrictions in place that will last into the future; just thinking about the view from Broad Street, it would be appalling to think of a dorm the size of Roanoke College’s Chesapeake, which is three stories, overlooking the Bentley’s house, the Garden’s house, and physically visible from Broad Street; she feels that a structure no higher than the existing structure would be more reasonable, and she encourages the Planning Commission and City Council to think about the give and take needed; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Gereaux noted that some of the issues raised by the neighbors would need the City’s involvement such as speeding, traffic, storm drains, etc.; as a member of the City Council’s Neighborhood Relations Task Force, she is aware of the problems related to traffic and students speeding, and the impact that it has on the City, not only in this neighborhood but in several other neighborhoods as well; the City and especially the Salem Police Department have been very helpful in managing these issues because this is something that the college cannot control entirely; she noted that there are 14 units in the complex, and the renovations will not change the number of units; it is her understanding that there are two bedrooms per apartment and a total of 3 students will occupy each apartment; one of the bedrooms is larger, which is why two students will share a bedroom; with a total of 3 students in each apartment, the total number of students living in Afton Hall will be 42 maximum; as much as she would like to be able say that the College would promise not to construct a larger building in this location, she has to be aware that she speaks for an institution that has been in Salem for more than 150 years, and she certainly hopes that 150 years from now the college will still be here; so, she does not believe that anyone who works at the college can make a promise that lasts forever, but what she does know is that right now there are no plans to raze the apartment complex and build anything new; the college was offered this building to purchase and since it is physically against their campus, it seemed like a win/win situation for 9 the college to purchase apartments that someone else could have potentially purchased and rented out to students; this allows the college to own the property and to have more control over the students who live here; she noted that when students live in rental properties, they do not have this control; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that issues related to the terrain and area are City issues, and the Assistant City Manager, who is at this meeting, can direct those issues to the correct city staff to handle; the issues related to traffic direction, etc., can also be addressed by city staff; further, the primary concern of the Planning Commission is related to the use and designation of this property; he further discussed the City’s comprehensive plan and the process of labeling properties with the proper designation according to the use; the city staff and the Planning Commission have tried to realign the properties and designations to make sure they were appropriate, and this request is an example of realigning; further, if the college decides to do something different, then college representatives will have to come back to the City with plans and requirements it must meet; and WHEREAS, George Barker of 320 North Broad Street, resident for almost 40 years, appeared noting that he had two questions; he stated that he thought a good deal of the property is in the flood plain; first, if the property is in the flood plain, then is it in the floodway or just the flood plain? if it is floodway, then nothing can be built there; he is concerned about the water being diverted to his property, if the property is elevated; second, he wants to know what the college can build in the College and University District; his concern is what can go on the property next, and the City can solve this because whatever is decided now will outlast the current people at Roanoke College; and WHEREAS, City Engineer Chuck VanAllman noted that if the property is located in the floodway designation, then nothing could be built; however, if it is located in the flood plain, then the property would have to be raised to one foot above the base flood elevation; and 10 WHEREAS, Assistant City Manager Jay Taliaferro noted that on the survey plat submitted with the request, there is no flood plain designation indicated so the actual stream study may not go up this far; Commission Member Robertson noted that it was neither flood plain or floodway; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith asked Mr. Barker if he understood that the survey of the property does not show floodway or flood plain, and Mr. Barker noted that was not his understanding, but if this is what the survey shows, but then he will have to believe that the survey is right; Chairman Smith noted that Mr. Barker could get with city staff to discuss this further; and WHEREAS, Mark Noftsinger, Vice President Business Affairs for Roanoke College, stated that there is a note on the plat that states the subject property lies within floodway zone “X” as shown on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map so there must be some connection; Mr. VanAllman noted that they would have to investigate this further because Zone “X” is not a floodway designation; he further noted he will check into this as it may be a discrepancy; and WHEREAS, Acting Building Official and Zoning Administrator Chuck Aldridge noted that the maximum height in CUD zoning is 45 feet, which is the same as the RMF zoning; further, with regards to the maximum number of people in one apartment, he noted that four unrelated people can reside in an apartment regardless of the number of bedrooms; the College has indicated that it will have only 3 students per apartment; and WHEREAS, Director of Planning & Economic Development Melinda Payne noted that Mr. Taliaferro had pulled up the flood map for the property on the City’s GIS, and the flood plain does stop short of this property; and WHEREAS, Mr. Taliaferro noted that the limits of the study stops approximately 30 feet short of the property line on the south side; there is a stream to the east and south that goes up through the College and under the track; however, the particular stream that goes behind 11 the property in question, the study stops; Mr. VanAllman noted the property would be considered in Zone “X,” which is outside the flood plain and floodway; WHEREAS, City Planner Ben Tripp noted the permitted uses under the CUD district are “college/university educational facilities”; the definition for “college/university educational facilities” is an educational institution authorized by the Commonwealth of Virginia to award associate, baccalaureate or higher degrees; he further noted that the definition is very broad that relates specifically to the uses that colleges may entail; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted anything from administrative, maintenance, educational, etc. could be used for this particular piece of property; so, under this designation the college would have the opportunity to use the property as they see fit to support the educational activities, which means it may or may not be continued as a dormitory; he noted that if anyone wanted more information on this zoning district, which was added to the code approximately 6 years ago, the code is available either on line or at City Hall; and WHEREAS, Mr. Gresham noted that somewhat of an explanation has been given regarding what could or could not happen with this property; however, he noted if he understands is correctly, the Commission can make proffers to anything that is agreed to; he stated that after hearing the neighbors’ concerns, there are things that should be considered to keep a high-rise dorm from being built here; further, he does not care whether it is 45 feet or not, it is still a dorm; and it is pretty much a stretch to say that this property is part of the Roanoke College campus because if they continue to purchase property, they will be out on West Main Street; so, he does not think we can really say this is part of the Roanoke College campus, it is a piece of property that the College purchased and wants to use; further, he asked the Commission consider proffers that the property will only be used for the current use; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Leeson asked if the building was built to 45’ in height, would this be 4 stories; Mr. Aldridge noted that a 45’ building would typically be 3 stories plus the basement and the roof system, which is similar to the one built across the street from this property; and 12 WHEREAS, Butch Johnson of 349 North Broad Street and owner of property at 233 North Broad Street asked that everyone understand the character of the neighborhood; the apartments that are there now fit, which has always been a stretch, but they do fit; if you add more to it or even change it to a high rise, it changes the character of the neighborhood; North Broad Street is a good neighborhood to live in and good property to own; he does not want to see this encroached on for financial and family reasons; he asked that the Commission consider this in rendering a decision; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked Mrs. Gereaux how extensive has the college been to listen to the concerns of the neighbors, are they willing to make some proffers related to this request; Mrs. Gereaux noted she felt like the college would be willing to talk to the neighbors about their concerns, but she could not promise that they would or would not make such an offer; they have been talking to many of the neighbors and have addressed several concerns that were raised regarding not only this property, but other properties along this side of the campus; she noted President Maxey told the neighbors the College will certainly consider requests, but they could not necessarily do everything that everyone asked them to do, but that they would give it serious consideration, and if they could not do something, then they would explain why; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton asked if the Commission voted on the request without the proffers, then it would go forward without the proffers and the property could be used for whatever purpose the College decided; she noted that perhaps the Commission should wait and see if the college is willing to talk about this further; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that the issue of the proffers does not affect the property in its present state; if this action were disapproved and the zoning designation did not change, the property still could be used and construction could be made beyond the kind of limits everyone has talked about tonight; there are two different issues here: one is the designation of the property, and the other is the future use of the property; proffering would not affect the actual proposed zoning change; and 13 WHEREAS, Mrs. Gereaux noted that a lot of the concern has to do with the future use of the building and the potential height of possible buildings; it is her understanding that if the height of the building is an issue, then it would have to come back before this group, and it would also be open to public comments; it seems that regardless of the designation, the college could potentially build on this property in the future but at that point they would have to come back to get an approval; further, the College is certainly not trying to dodge these concerns; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson noted that the College owns the property and is moving forward with renovations to house students here this fall regardless of a rezoning of the property; and the City asked the college to bring this property into compliance with the proper zoning, and this is the reason for the request; Mrs. Gereaux noted that Commission Member Thomasson was correct on both accounts; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that the Commission is a recommending body and whatever action they take this evening is a recommendation to City Council; he noted that if the neighbors still have concerns after their decision, then they need to address their concerns with City Council; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson noted one comment was made about what else could be done with the property; as he was thinking about this comment, he cannot imagine anything the college could do that would not be above board; if someone else owned the property, it could open up the door to a lot of different activities; second, everything Roanoke College has done with the City has been handled first class; the college pitched in and helped to form the neighborhood task force, when there was a situation some time back between city residents and students; there has been tremendous improvement in the problems that existed; further, he noted that the Commission cannot demand proffers, this has to come voluntarily from the petitioners; and 14 WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson noted he feels the relationship the City has with the College will prove to be a good one down the road should things change related to this property; right now the college is moving forward with occupying the space for residences, and since the City came to them asking them to put it into compliance, he thinks we should honor this request; ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSION MEMBER THOMASSON, AND DULY CARRIED, the Planning Commission of the City of Salem doth recommend to the Council of the City of Salem that the request of The Trustees of Roanoke College, property owners, for rezoning the property located at 20 McClung Street (Tax Map #87-7-5) from RSF Residential Single Family District to CUD College and University District be approved as presented – the roll call vote: all present - aye. In re: Request of Harold E. Weikle Jr. & Ronald R. Buckley, property owners, and Larry David & Rebecca M. Horton, contract purchasers, for rezoning the property located at 555 Boulevard-Roanoke (Tax Map #146-5-7) from RSF Residential Single Family District to RB Residential Business District The Executive Secretary reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of Harold E. Weikle Jr. & Ronald R. Buckley, property owners, and Larry David & Rebecca M. Horton, contract purchasers, for rezoning the property located at 555 Boulevard-Roanoke (Tax Map #146-5-7) from RSF Residential Single Family District to RB Residential Business District; and WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the July 1 and 8, 2009, issues of The Roanoke Times, and adjoining property owners were notified by letter mailed July 2, 2009; and WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of one parcel, located on the north side of Boulevard-Roanoke, near the intersection with 4th Street; the property is approximately .13 acres; it is currently occupied by a single family residence; this request is to rezone the property to RB Residential Business District to allow a consulting 15 business; the contract purchasers state that their business has two full-time and two part- time employees, and that their clients are not local; the plat submitted shows this property is accessed through a shared driveway with the property directly to the west; this driveway and most of the parking near the alley at the rear of the property, is located on the adjacent lot; How will ingress and egress occur? Where will employees park? Also, is there an agreement with the adjacent property owner? In accordance with Section 106-400, the applicant will be required to submit a site plan to the city for review prior to any construction occurring on the site; and the applicant may also be required to install storm water management on the site; and WHEREAS, Rebecca Horton of 419 Boulevard-Roanoke, contract purchaser, appeared before the Commission in support of the rezoning request; she noted that the purpose of the request is to relocate her small, private consulting business at this address; she stated that the company was established in Salem in 1996; they currently have two full-time and two part-time employees, it is a very seasonal business, and there are no local clients; most of the business is conducted over the Internet or by phone; in addition, there would be no increase in traffic and no signs are needed for the business; she lives on the Boulevard within two blocks of this location so she is very contentious of and it is her desire to maintain the current community atmosphere of this neighborhood; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Horton noted that there was a question raised regarding the shared driveway between this property and the property to the immediate west; she has spoken with Mr. Smeltzer who owns that property, and there is no problem using the driveway; and the most parking that they will need is probably two or three spaces, and there is sufficient room behind the house for those spaces; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson asked Mrs. Horton if three people would be the maximum number working there; Mrs. Horton noted that there would be three or four working there at one time; Mr. Robertson asked if there would be any other traffic, and Mrs. Horton noted that there would not be any public traffic; and 16 WHEREAS, Chairman Smith asked Mrs. Horton about the previous location of the business; Mrs. Horton noted that she initially started in the basement of her home when she lived on Dominion Lane; for the past ten years she has been located over top of Countryside Classics in an office suite, but the business needs more room now; and WHEREAS, Pearl Hamilton of 5119 Glenvar Heights Boulevard, Salem, property owner of 615 Arch Street, appeared before the Commission; she noted that she knew absolutely nothing about rezoning; she asked if any other homes would be rezoned or would it affect any other properties around this one; and WHEREAS, Chairman Smith noted that when he rode through this area today, Boulevard has a mix of uses on this street, such as residential, in-home businesses, dentists, doctors, funeral home, etc.; and WHEREAS, Ms. Payne asked Ms. Hamilton if she was asking would her home automatically be rezoned, and Ms. Hamilton noted this was what she was asking; Ms. Payne replied that her property would not be rezoned; she noted that when someone comes to the City with a rezoning request, it is related to just that particular piece of property; she noted that Mrs. Horton would like to operate her business here, so she is asking that the property be rezoned from Residential Single Family to Residential Business; Ms. Hamilton asked if this would affect her property, and Ms. Payne noted that it would not affect her property unless she requests that the City change her zoning, too; ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSION MEMBER ROBERTSON, AND DULY CARRIED, the Planning Commission of the City of Salem doth recommend to the Council of the City of Salem that the request of Harold E. Weikle Jr. & Ronald R. Buckley, property owners, and Larry David & Rebecca M. Horton, contract purchasers, for rezoning the property located at 555 Boulevard- Roanoke (Tax Map #146-5-7) from RSF Residential Single Family District to RB Residential Business District be approved as presented. 17 The roll call vote: all present - aye. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the same on motion adjourned at 8:08 p.m.