Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/11/2025 - City Council - Agenda -Regular Agenda Monday, August 11, 2025, 6:30 PM Regular Session, 6:30 PM, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 WORK SESSION WORK SESSION IS CANCELLED FOR AUGUST 11, 2025 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Bid Opening, Awards, Recognitions 4. Consent Agenda A. Citizen Comments Comments from the public, limited to five minutes, on matters not already having a public hearing at the same meeting. B. Minutes Consider acceptance of the July 28, 2025, Regular Meeting minutes. 5. Old Business 6. New Business A. Public Hearing for Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Special Exception Permit Hold a public hearing for the request of J Cline Properties LLC, property owner, to rezone the property located at 106-110 Butt Hollow Road (Tax Map #174-1-7) from BCD Business Commerce District to LM Light Manufacturing District with proffered conditions and to request the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow athletic instruction services. (Advertised in the July 24 and 31, 2025 issues of Cardinal News.) B. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Consider adoption of ordinance on first reading for the request of J. Cline Properties, Page 1 of 249 LLC, property owner, to rezone the property located at 106-110 Butt Hollow Road (Tax Map #174-1-7) from BCD Business Commerce District to LM Light Manufacturing District with proffered conditions. (The Planning Commission recommended approval by a unanimous vote.) C. Special Exception Permit Consider the request of J. Cline Properties, LLC, property owner, for a Special Exception Permit for the property located at 106-110 Butt Hollow Road (Tax Map #174-1-7) to allow athletic instruction services. (The Planning Commission recommended approval by a unanimous vote) The approval of the Special Exception Permit is contingent upon final Council approval on second reading of the ordinance to rezone the property from BCD Business Commerce District to LM Light Manufacturing District. D. Special Exception Permit Hold a public hearing to consider the request of McJohn Investments LLC, property owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a telecommunications tower on the property located at 319 Rowan Street (Tax Map #232-1-1). (Advertised in the July 24 and 31, 2025, issues of Cardinal News.) (The Planning Commission recommended approval by a unanimous vote.) E. Public Hearing for Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Special Exception Permit Hold a public hearing for the request of Brad Graham Real Estate LLC, contract purchaser, to rezone the property located at 638 Dalewood Avenue (Tax Map #33-2- 3) from AG Agricultural District to RSF Residential Single-Family District and to request the issuance of a Special Exception Permit for 638, 672 and 696 Dalewood Avenue (Tax Map #s 33-2-3, 33-2-2 and 33-2-1) to allow the inclusion in the Cluster Housing Overlay. (Advertised in the July 24 and 31, 2025, issues of Cardinal News.) F. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Consider adoption of ordinance on first reading for the request of Brad Graham Real Estate LLC, contract purchaser, to rezone the property located at 638 Dalewood Avenue (Tax Map #33-2-3) from AG Agricultural District to RSF Residential Single- Family District with proffered conditions. (The Planning Commission recommended approval by a unanimous vote.) G. Special Exception Permit Consider the request of Brad Graham Real Estate LLC, contract purchaser, for a Special Exception Permit for 638, 672 and 696 Dalewood Avenue (Tax Map #s 33-2- 3, 33-2-2 and 33-2-1) to allow their inclusion in the Cluster Housing Overlay. (The Planning Commission recommended approval by a unanimous vote.) The approval of the Special Exception Permit is contingent upon final Council approval on second reading of the ordinance to rezone the property located at 639 Dalewood Avenue from AG Agricultural District to RSF Residential Single-Family District. H. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Hold a public hearing and consider ordinance on first reading for the request of Page 2 of 249 ABoone Real Estate Inc., contract purchaser, to rezone the properties located at 1002 and 1108 Newman Drive (Tax Map #s 58-1-1 and 58-1-2) from LM Light Manufacturing District with proffered conditions to RMF Residential Multi-Family District with proffered conditions. (Advertised in the July 24 and 31, 2025, issues of Cardinal News.) (The Planning Commission recommended approval by a 4-0 vote with one member recusing himself.) I. Appropriation of Funds Consider request to accept and appropriate grant funds received from the Virginia E- 911 Services Board. J. Boards and Commissions Consider appointments to various boards and commissions. 7. Adjournment Page 3 of 249 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Monday, July 28, 2025 at 6:30 PM Regular Session, 6:30 PM, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 WORK SESSION WORK SESSION IS CANCELLED FOR JULY 28, 2025 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was called to order at 6:30 p.m., there being present the following members to wit: Renée Ferris Turk, Mayor; Anne Marie Green, Vice-Mayor; Councilmembers: Byron Randolph Foley, Hunter Holliday, and John Saunders; with Renée Ferris Turk, Mayor, presiding together with Chris Dorsey, City Manager; Rob Light, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council; Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance; Mike Stevens, Director of Communications; and Jim Guynn, City Attorney. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Bid Opening, Awards, Recognitions 4. Consent Agenda A. Citizen Comments Comments from the public, limited to five minutes, on matters not already having a public hearing at the same meeting. Lauren Strong, 613 Doyle Street, spoke, focusing on three main areas of concern relating to the proposed rezoning and development on Newman Drive: hydrology and environmental impacts, quality of construction, and public transparency. While acknowledging the developer's strong reputation, the speaker raised concerns over the use of Ryan Homes as the builder. In addition, she requested a legally binding Page 4 of 249 conservation easement on any undeveloped portion of the property . Ms. Strong ended by requesting that all hydrology and environmental studies be completed at the developer’s expense, and that any commitments regarding conservation and construction quality be made legally enforceable prior to project approval. Karen Monroe-Walker, 462 Parkdale Drive, expressed concerns regarding the proposed rezoning and development on the radio station property at the end of Newman Drive. She emphasized the negative impact this could have on the character, traffic, and safety of the neighborhood. She proposed alternative development ideas. Ms. Monroe-Walker ended by requesting that the developer, Alexander Boone, withdraw the current rezoning application and take 60 days to engage with residents on a revised plan. If no changes are made and public input is not integrated, she asked Council to vote against the proposal at the August 11th public hearing. B. Minutes Consider acceptance of the July 14, 2025, Regular Meeting minutes. The minutes were approved as written. C. Financial Reports Consider acceptance of the Statement of Revenues and Expenses for the twelve months ending June 2025. The Financial Reports were received. 5. Old Business There was no Old Business this evening. 6. New Business A. 216 Chapman Avenue - Purchase Authorize the City Manager to Finalize and Execute Necessary Documents for the Purchase of Property Located at 216 Chapman Avenue Utilizing Existing Contingency Funds. Mr. Light clarified that there was a typographical error on the agenda and that the motion on this item would need to be for 216 Chapman Street, not Chapman Avenue. Mr. Dorsey explained that this property was off Broad and Chapman over in the square behind the Rescue Squad. He indicated that this was a very small property with a dilapidated house sitting on it currently. The City plans to buy the property, eliminate the house that is currently located here, and possibly utilize the property for a Habitat house or find another suitable use. Randy Foley motioned to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute necessary documents for the purchase of the property located at 216 Chapman Page 5 of 249 Street, utilizing existing Contingency Funds. Anne Marie Green seconded the motion. Ayes: John Saunders, Hunter Holliday, Randy Foley, Anne Marie Green, Renee Turk Nays: None Abstaining: None B. Boards and Commissions Consider appointments to various boards and commissions. Randy Foley motioned to reappoint Russ Craighead for a three -year term ending June 30, 2028, to the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission. Hunter Holliday seconded the motion. Ayes: John Saunders, Hunter Holliday, Randy Foley, Anne Marie Green, Renee Turk Nays: None Abstaining: None 7. Closed Session Hold a closed session in accordance with the following sections of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended: 1. Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3) for discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose, or the disposition of publicly held real property, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body. Specifically, the acquisition and disposition of real property. 2. Section 2.2-3711 (A)(5) for discussion concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business’ or industry’s interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the community. Specifically, the expansion of an existing business. 3. Section 2.2-3711 (A)(8) for consultation with legal counsel employed or retained by a public body regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel. Specifically, counsel advice related to certain agreements or contracts involving the City. Anne Marie Green motioned that, in accordance with Section 2.2‐3711 A of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, Council hereby convenes to closed session at 6:44 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following specific matters: 1. Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3) for discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose, or the disposition of publicly held real property, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the Page 6 of 249 bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body. Specifically, the acquisition and disposition of real property. 2. Section 2.2-3711 (A)(5) for discussion concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business’ or industry’s interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the community. Specifically, the expansion of an existing business. 3. Section 2.2-3711 (A)(8) for consultation with legal counsel employed or retained by a public body regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel. Specifically, counsel advice related to certain agreements or contracts involving the City. Randy Foley seconded the motion. Ayes: John Saunders, Hunter Holliday, Randy Foley, Anne Marie Green, Renee Turk Nays: None Abstaining: None Anne Marie Green motioned to reconvene at 7:52 p.m. in accordance with Section 2.2‐3712 D. of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended to date, Council certifies that in closed session only items lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and only such items identified in the motion by which the closed session was convened were heard, discussed, or considered by the Council. Randy Foley seconded the motion. Ayes: John Saunders, Hunter Holliday, Randy Foley, Anne Marie Green, Renee Turk 8. Supplemental Action Item Authorize the City Manager to exercise provisions related to the Roanoke County/Salem Jail agreement. City Manager Dorsey noted for the benefit of the public that the City of Salem has an agreement with the Roanoke County-Salem Jail for housing prisoners. He shared that this agreement had been in place since 1977. Mr. Dorsey explained the significant cost difference between housing prisoners at the Roanoke County -Salem Jail at $110 per day versus $53 per day at the regional jail. Concerns were raised about the financial sustainability of the current arrangement. Approximately six months ago, City representatives initiated discussions with Roanoke County officials regarding this issue. After reviewing the agreement and associated financial impacts, the City has determined that providing a two-year notice to withdraw from the existing jail agreement is in Salem's best interest, with the intent to transition inmates to the regional facility. Staff, including the City Attorney, Ms. Jordan, and representative s from the Police and Sheriff’s Departments, have been actively involved in the review process and were available to answer questions. Ms. Jordan provided a financial analysis comparing the cost of housing inmates at the Roanoke County-Salem Jail versus the Western Virginia Regional Jail. Assuming Page 7 of 249 current inmate population levels remain constant, the analysis estimates an increase in operating costs of approximately $194,000 and an additional $61,000 in debt service costs if the city transitions to the regional jail—totaling about $255,000 in new expenses. However, the city currently pays approximately $370,000 annually in operating costs and an average of $45,000 for capital expenditures to the Roanoke County-Salem Jail, totaling around $415,000. Based on these figures, transitioning to the regional jail could result in an estimated annual savings of approximately $160,000. These figures are based on current per diem rates and inmate population data and may fluctuate depending on changes in inmate population across member localities. Councilman Foley asked for information on the impact on mileage and vehicle wear- and-tear of this decision. Captain Branson with the Sheriff’s Department and Deputy Chief Crouse with the Police Department briefed Council on the operational analysis related to prisoner processing. Currently, for each arrest, officers make an average of four trips to the Roanoke County -Salem Jail due to the need to process prisoners independently, including completing reports and conducting fingerprinting at the City’s own facility. The Roanoke County-Salem Jail does not provide these services. In contrast, the Western Virginia Regional Jail offers full processing services, which would eliminate the need for multiple trips and in-house processing. This change is expected to result in significant time savings—approximately 3.5 hours per officer per shift—as well as long-term cost reductions related to travel and processing resources. Vice-Mayor Green asked for clarification of time savings related to the Magistrate. Deputy Chief Crouse responded that a video magistrate is utilized at the regional jail. With the county jail, they are stacked in line, or if there is not a magistrate available, they have to go to Roanoke City. Council was informed that while processing at the magistrate’s office can occasionally be completed in 20–25 minutes, it often depends on timing and availability. Transitioning to the Western Virginia Regional Jail would streamline this process through the use of their video magistrate system. Officers would only be required to provide testimony to the magistrate, as all other intake and processing tasks would be handled by the regional facility—resulting in greater efficiency and reduced demands on officer time. Councilman Foley asked the Sheriff how this would impact on the Sheriff's Office. Captain Branson noted significant benefits in transitioning to the Western Virginia Regional Jail. Currently, Sheriff's Office staff are on call 24/7 for inmate-related issues, including after-hours medical calls, which often result in overtime. The regional jail provides 24/7 on-site medical staff and manages all inmate healthcare, including outside appointments. This shift would relieve the Sheriff's Office of these responsibilities, reduce overtime demands, and improve operation al efficiency. Page 8 of 249 Vice-Mayor Green asked to confirm that this was all covered by the fee per head. This was confirmed by Captain Branson. Captain Branson informed Council that the Western Virginia Regional Jail provides comprehensive on-site medical care, reducing the need for officers to transport inmates to the emergency room for evaluation and treatment. Unlike the County jail, which has limited medical staffing, the regional jail is equipped to manage a wider range of medical issues in-house. This capability would reduce officer time spent at hospitals and improve efficiency in inmate processing and care. Mr. Dorsey noted that discussions with the regional jail leadership confirmed that no additional cost would be incurred for these services, as staff are already in place to manage after-hours processing. Deputy Chief Crouse reiterated that the Western Virginia Regional Jail can handle inmate intake at any time—day or night, including weekends and holidays—due to having a 24/7 docket staff. This capability would streamline prisoner intake and reduce delays. Mr. Dorsey reported for the benefit of the public having multiple constructive meetings with Roanoke County officials regarding the potential transition to the regional jail. The discussions focused on cost-saving measures, and the City emphasized maintaining transparency and a collaborative, respectful dialogue throughout the process. Councilman Holliday shared insights from his tour of the Western Virginia Regional Jail, noting that the facility is currently underutilized and has significant capacity for expansion. The jail serves Montgomery County, Franklin County, Salem, and Roanoke County. It offers extensive medical services— which he believed include dialysis—minimizing the need for inmate transport to external hospitals. He expressed strong support for increased use of the facility, citing operational efficiencies, reduced demands on local law enforcement, and overall cost savings. Councilman Foley noted the difference in age of the two facilities under disc ussion. Randy Foley motioned to authorize the City Manager to give notice to Roanoke County that the City of Salem is withdrawing from our agreement with the Roanoke County-Salem Jail . This will not be effective for two years. Hunter Holliday seconded the motion. Ayes: John Saunders, Hunter Holliday, Randy Foley, Anne Marie Green, Renee Turk Nays: None Abstaining: None 9. Adjournment Page 9 of 249 Mayor Turk expressed appreciation to the citizens that were present for their attendance and encouraged them to utilize the City's website for help in finding information and reporting problems. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: H. Robert Light Renée Ferris Turk Clerk of Council Mayor Page 10 of 249 Item #: 6.A. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: August 11, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing for Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Special Exception Permit Hold a public hearing for the request of J Cline Properties LLC, property owner, to rezone the property located at 106- 110 Butt Hollow Road (Tax Map #174-1-7) from BCD Business Commerce District to LM Light Manufacturing District with proffered conditions and to request the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow athletic instruction services. (Advertised in the July 24 and 31, 2025 issues of Cardinal News.) SUBMITTED BY: Chuck Van Allman, Director of Community Development SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Hold a public hearing for the request of J Cline Properties LLC, property owner, to rezone the property located at 106-110 Butt Hollow Road (Tax Map #174-1-7) from BCD Business Commerce District to LM Light Manufacturing District with proffered conditions and to request the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow athletic instruction services. (Advertised in the July 24 and 31, 2025 issues of Cardinal News.) FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council hold a public hearing on the requests to rezone the property located at 106-110 Butt Hollow Road (Tax Map #174-1-7) from BCD Business Commerce District to LM Light Manufacturing District with proffered conditions, and for a Special Exception Permit to allow athletic instruction services. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 11 of 249 Item #: 6.B. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: August 11, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Consider adoption of ordinance on first reading for the request of J. Cline Properties, LLC, property owner, to rezone the property located at 106-110 Butt Hollow Road (Tax Map #174-1-7) from BCD Business Commerce District to LM Light Manufacturing District with proffered conditions. (The Planning Commission recommended approval by a unanimous vote.) SUBMITTED BY: Chuck Van Allman, Director of Community Development SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Zoning: BCD Business Commerce District Land Use Plan Designation: Commercial Existing Use: Construction yard Proposed Use: Addition of wrestling practice facility (athletic instruction services) 106-110 Butt Hollow consists of an approximately 1.13-acre tract of land which currently sits within the BCD Business Commerce District zoning designation. The property was previously rezoned in 2000 from B-3 to BCD to allow for a construction yard, and it is currently utilized by an electrical contractor. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property from BCD Business Commerce District to LM Light Manufacturing with proffered conditions which, if approved, would also allow the existing structure to accommodate a private wrestling practice facility for middle-high school-aged kids. The footprint of the building is not planned to change, and proposed hours of use for the space would be weekday evenings and weekends. The applicant has submitted a voluntary proffer statement which eliminates several of the most intensive uses permitted in the LM Light Manufacturing District, including Truck Stop, Manufactured Home Sales, Transfer Station, Truck Terminal, and Industry Type I. Page 12 of 249 The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as commercial. REQUIREMENTS: The proposal meets the requirements of Section 106-218.3., LM site development regulations. FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend consideration of the ordinance on first reading with the following proffered condition: 1. Allowable uses will not include Truck Stop, Manufactured Home Sales, Transfer Station, Truck Terminal, and Industry Type I. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Item 6B 8-11-25 106-110 Butt Hollow Rezoning Application 2. Item 6B 8-11-25 106-110 Butt Hollow legal description 3. Item 6B.6C 8-11-25 106-110 Butt Hollow Affidavit 4. Item 6B.6C 8-11-25 106-110 Butt Hollow Neighbor Notification Map 5. Item 6A-6H .July 16 2025 PC Minutes 6. Item 6A.6B.6C 8-11-25 Council meeting owner notification letter 106-110 Butt Hollow Road 7. Item 6A-6H 8-11-25 Legal Ad Cardinal News 7-24 and 7-31 8. Item 6B 8-11-25 Rezoning Ordinance 106-110ButtHollow Road T.M.174-1-7 Page 13 of 249 Page 14 of 249 Page 15 of 249 Page 16 of 249 Page 17 of 249 Page 18 of 249 Page 19 of 249 Page 20 of 249 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING PURSUANT TO 515.2-2204 CODE OF VIRGINIA PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM#3A JULY 16, 2025 This is to certify that I mailed letters in reference to the request of J Cline Properties LLC, property owner, for rezoning of the property located at 106-110 Butt Hollow Road (Tax Map #174-1-7) from BCD Business Commerce District to LM Light Manufacturing District with proffered conditions and request the issuance of a Special Exception Permit allowing ath letic instruction services to the following property owners and adjacent property owners on June 27, 2025, in the 2:00 p.m. mail: HARWOOD, DORA MAE 129 BUTT HOLLOW RD SALEMVA24153 TRUSTEES FORT LEWIS CHRISTIAN CHURCH 2931 W MAIN ST SALEM VA 24153 RR SAL EM LLC 5171 S SPENCER ST SEA TILE WA 98118 COMMON WEAL TH OF VA DEPT OF STATE POLICE PO BOX 27472 RICHMOND VA 23261-7472 LARSON FAMILY TRUST 2826 W MAIN ST SALEM VA 24153 MFC REAL TY LLC 5226 MEADOW CREEK DR ROANOKE VA 24018 PX3 PROPERTIES LLC 1147 WELCH RD ROANOKE VA 24015 JEANNE ALDERMAN ROBINSON REVOCABLE TRUST 120 BUTT HOLLOW RD SALEM VA 24153 NEW LIFE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 101 KEESLING AVE SALEM VA 24153 BLUE EAGL E CREDIT UNION 2121 ELECTRIC RD ROANOKE VA 24018 KEMBA ROANOKE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 2812 W MAIN ST SALEM VA 24153 Signed � C::::: :::::2) My commission expires:_/_D�f-�_,t /,_;;.._o_�-�--- NORTHWEST HARDWARE COMPANY INC 2303 WILLIAMSON RD NE ROANOKE VA 24012 PRILLAMAN CARLYLE B PRILLAMAN LESLIE K 116 BUTT HOLLOW RD SALEM VA 24153 POARCH JOSEPH W II POARCH CHRISTINE LOCKHART 101A KEESLING AVE SALEM VA 24153 DRENNEN, CONNIE Y 2821 W MAIN ST SALEM VA 24153 JCC PROPERTIES LLC 2618 PUCKETT CIR SALEM VA 24153 Page 21 of 249 106-110 Butt Hollow Neighbor Notification Map Page 22 of 249 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, July 16, 2025, at 7:00 PM Work Session, 6:00 PM, Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 Regular Session, 7:00 PM, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 WORK SESSION 1. Call to Order A work session meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, at 6:00 p.m., on Wednesday, July 16, 2025, there being present the following members of said Commission, to wit: Denise P. King, Reid Garst, Jackson Beamer, Mark Henrickson, and Nathan Routt, constituting a legal quorum, with Chair King, presiding; together with Christopher Dorsey, City Manager and Executive Secretary and, Robert Light, Assistant City Manager and Deputy Executive Secretary, both ex officio members of said Commission, Charles E. Van Allman Jr., Director of Community Development; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator, Maxwell S. Dillon, Planner, and Christopher Dadak, on behalf of Jim Guynn, City Attorney; and the following business was transacted: Chair Denise King reported that this date, place, and time had been set in order for the Commission to hold a work session. The work session meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. New Business A. Items from the July agenda 1. 106-110 Butt Hollow Road rezone from BCD to LM with proffered conditions 2. 319 Rowan Street special exception request for a cell tower 3. 638 Dalewood Avenue rezone from AG to RSF 638, 672, and 696 Dalewood Avenue special exception request for Cluster Housing Overlay 4. 1002 and 1108 Newman Drive rezone from LM with proffered condition to RMF Page 23 of 249 Comprehensive Plan review, work session 1507-1511 Eddy Avenue special exception request for non-residential uses out of doors Amendment to the PC bylaws regarding time change for meetings 3. Adjournment REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order Page 24 of 249 Pledge of Allegiance Roll call 2. Consent Agenda Minutes th joint work session with City Council on the Comp Plan. She noted that on the first set of minutes, there was one correction that was made. The word proper was showing as property and that has been amended for the official minutes. On the second set of minutes, the consultants name was misspelled in one of the 3 places where it appears. That has also been amended. She asked if there were any questions or comments from the Commission. None were stated and the minutes were adopted as amended. 3. New Business Rezoning Request and Special Exception Permit Page 25 of 249 of said hearing. Page 26 of 249 Special Exception Permit Page 27 of 249 permit for a communications tower at 319 Rowan Street. This was a warehouse and industrial district and, fortunately, the view of the tower from most locations would be obscured and would blend in with other infrastructure. She had photo simulations to illustrate what she meant. The photo simulations showed the location of the proposed cell tower. It was at 319 Rowan Street, Parcel #232-1-1. Ms. Schweller stated that this was a 13 and a half acre parcel. The location is south of the railroad in a manufacturing district, just north of the Roanoke River. As they can see from the zoning map, the parcel marked with a star and nearby properties are all zoned Heavy Manufacturing. The closest residential zoned district is over 612 feet to the south, across the river. She showed a photo of the subject property and stated that the entire parcel was paved. As part of their request, they were asking for a waiver of the landscaping requirement, as there was no dirt for planting in this area. Also, the property is in a flood zone. If approved, the applicant would construct the cell tower and ground equipment on a 6 foot platform. There are no co-location opportunities or, in other words, no other cell towers or vertical structures tall enough on which to place antennas to avoid building a new cell tower. This is the area they were searching for to serve in the ring so a new tower was needed in the area. Another photograph was a close up of the site location and the drawing shows the abutting property owners which also includes the City of Salem. The City property was the closest actual residence. The residence itself is 900 feet south across the river. The railroad is a neighbor. Virginia Appalachian Properties LLC and Graham White Manufacturing are the abutting properties. The site layout would be within a 50’ x 100’ leased area and within that would be a fenced compound for the ground equipment and the monopole which would be 35’ x 80’. She presented a schematic that showed that the monopole would be 195’ tall with a 4’ lightning rod. It would have additional space on it that could serve other wireless providers who wanted to co-locate on that monopole. It would be matt galvanized steel and, because it was under 200 feet and not within 5 miles of an airport, no lighting was required. As she mentioned, the balloon test was done to evaluate the visual impact of the proposed tower. These locations on the map are locations where they will see on the photographs; the ones in red are places where the balloon and, thus the tower, could be seen and the ones in blue at the bottom of the screen are locations where the balloon could not be seen. In these photographs, these are photo simulations and there was a little arrow pointing to an actual simulation of the monopole in the distance. They can see that there was a theme throughout the photos that there are lots of electric towers, electric poles and telephone poles and lines. There is a lot of infrastructure, and the cell tower basically blends in with existing infrastructure. This location was from Colorado Street viewed from the northwest. This view was the view that the closest home would have and so they can see that in the view from the southwest, there was a large tree buffer which was south of the Roanoke River. That helps to screen and block the entire compound area and would screen the bottom portion of the tower from that residential area. The view from Electric Road southeast of the site has more poles in the foreground and then the proposed cell tower was in the distance. This was the view from Roanoke Boulevard northeast of the site. This was the view from 9th street north of the site. This is the view southwest from Eddy Avenue and Union Street. Finally, these are the 2 locations that are southeast of the site and the balloon was not visible from these locations. In summary, they would like to submit to the Commission that their application complied with the City of Salem zoning ordinance and was also in line with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Salem. This communications infrastructure was needed for business, industry, education, government Page 28 of 249 services and the convenience of their citizens, as well as visitors to the area. She stated she would take any questions they might have. Rezoning Request and Special Exception Permit Page 29 of 249 Page 30 of 249 there and they are saying, if they need to grade, they were going to do takes to get sight distance. Page 31 of 249 he has leaned more toward getting some conforming lots. 672 Dalewood, the one beside it to the right and the one beside that to the right could be conforming because they are on an existing street. They can do the residential single-family 70 foot lots. Page 32 of 249 Jeanette Watkins of 1609 Reese Road addressed the Commission. She stated that she did not know what was left to say but would say there are a lot of folks here from Reese Road and Dalewood area. Everybody kind of wants to raise their hand. There are a lot of folks back there that are older citizens and she was kind of representing a lot of them who did not want to speak. They do have a lot of concern and, like Jenna said, not out of not having growth because they certainly want Salem to grow, but there are a lot of accidents. There was a bad curve there in Dalewood. There are a lot of speeders that come through there. Since the light was installed there at Lakeside Baptist, there has been tons of accidents. Lots of poles down Route 419, as soon as they put one up, somebody takes it out. It is just gone. She asked what can the current residents expect. She knows this was a flood zone. She knows that the property shows three holding ponds. She asked what that was going to look like for them that are down at the end of Reese and how was that going to run down on us. She questioned the value of these new homes and how that was going to affect their property. In the smaller properties and many other homes along Reese Road, some of those folks have lived there for over 50 years. They have grass growing up in the middle of the road. The roads have not been paved. She asked what does that look like and what can they expect to happen for the existing people that are on that road right now. She asked again about what the value of these homes are going to be and what does that look like. They thought that was a lot of houses for that area up there. It was a nice green area and they do have a lot of concern. They asked the Commission to look at a lot of that for them. Page 33 of 249 a requirement of the City when they have new subdivisions coming in that stormwater be addressed, so if he could make comments on that they would appreciate it. He asked him to state his name and address. Page 34 of 249 traffic or pedestrian walkways, he could see where that would be a problem. He asked if they would consider putting in sidewalks on anything that abuts Dalewood. Page 35 of 249 house, there is a blind curve. Even though there was no place to put sidewalks, they could make a place to put sidewalks. It is not that difficult. One side of Dalewood is gullies. That is all there is here. There is no place for anyone to take a walk on that road. The other side across the street from him, it at least has curb and gutter. He does not have curb and gutter. He believes there is a lot of room to make improvements on that road without a doubt. He knows that nobody wants to throw good money after bad, but that road is just screaming for help. No one wants to walk down that road and it is heavily used for a cut-through. He stated there was probably more people cutting through from Green Ridge to Electric Road than the people in the community. They do speed down that road and he hears it all the time. He asked them to please reconsider. He stated that their opinions or votes on this was very important to the residents in that community. Page 36 of 249 asked that they leave quietly. She then asked if the Commission was ready for the next agenda item. Rezoning Request and Special Exception Permit Page 37 of 249 over to 107.3 like a lot of people. Mr. Wheeler explained to him what they were doing at the property and asked him as a real estate developer about what he thought they should do with this. Mr. Boone stated he told him first, always go to the zoning. They looked at the zoning and it was light manufacturing with conditions. That was highly unusual as there are few parcels in Salem or the Roanoke Valley of this size that are relatively undeveloped. They looked at the zoning, at development options, talked with appraisers and commercial real estate brokers, and met with officials from the City of Salem. This is a unique property because they could potentially have a number of light manufacturing options here with the special exception. That was attractive to an economic developer and a city, but as they talked through it and had a number of meetings, it just did not feel right for the community. This has been a radio station for all these years. Honestly, they went into it not looking for housing. They thought that the City would probably want to maintain that light manufacturing zoning and go with a warehouse or distribution center. They see the micro warehouses today that are so popular with the rise of Amazon and some of the quick delivery. Having a warehouse in a neighborhood made a lot of sense. It has been one of the most popular and successful real estate investments over the last 5 to 10 years. The more they talked, the more they realized and he gave Mr. Wheeler the credit for wanting this to be residential. The City of Salem agreed that this really needed to be residential so they started down that path. He understood why people were here to speak to say this was different. This was different than what they have and that is what development is. It is different, it is change and it is uncomfortable. At one point, this neighborhood was a farm. He spoke to Mr. Beamer after the community meeting last week and he confirmed that there was a farmhouse there. They knew this was a farm at one point. All of a sudden, it gets developed and he was sure people who lived close to that were probably not excited about losing their farm. That was a change in the character of the community to lose the farm. That was development. That was progress. He thought many people in this room were questioning how do they have this change and what was an appropriate change. They have looked at and discussed traffic. They have discussed stormwater management. They have discussed utilities. They have discussed roads. They had a great and well attended community meeting at Abundant Life Church last Tuesday night. It was well attended. They had a great dialogue with people. A number of people stayed after. He thought that the church had to ask them to leave around 8:30 just before the big storm. It was well attended, and they had great discussion. They worked hard with Mr. Burns who seemingly is at every Planning Commission session. Mr. Burns’ team at Balzer has been outstanding. They have addressed all these issues. Mr. Burns and Court Rosen, who is the Director of Development for ABoone Real Estate, would be speaking briefly about these issues but with a little more precision than he has. The traffic clearly shows the roads in the community can support additional traffic. Some people say there is already too much traffic. They heard that in Mr. Graham's application. When they look at it, the numbers are actually very small for roads that go anywhere from approximately 20 feet wide to 30 feet wide, so these roads are pretty large throughout the community. They are narrower and he has spoken with a number of them about Newman Drive and he will get into more detail about that. They had a good dialogue the other night. They had a meeting with City of Salem Planning on Thursday. They talked about all the issues that came up. They have the notes from that meeting. The first thing was utility law. Somebody said that some utility lines were too low. The utility department is going to evaluate them and if they need to be raised, they would be raised. They thought they were sufficient but he wanted the neighbors to know that they did Page 38 of 249 evaluate those. Another issue that they did talk about at length was another access to the community. He wanted the neighbors to know that they and the City Planners evaluated how else they could get to North Mill Road and how they could get to Brand Avenue. Unfortunately, there was not a way to do it. When people look at the map, they will see that you have to cross a stream, go uphill and through private property. One thing people do not think about is that there is a house on the other side of that street. They would have to take out the house and build another connection through to that road. He stated they are not looking to displace people. As they looked at the topography and the streams, it was not a viable course. Those are items, as he said that Mr. Burns and Mr. Rosen will address. They want to answer the questions but they are really here on the application to rezone to residential multifamily. They know they are not unlike other communities. All communities have housing issues right now. It is the result of the housing crash we had in 2008 and the lack of construction that went on for 15 years. That is why they are here. It was ironic that the day that they had a community meeting, there was an article or a commentary in all the major newspapers across the Commonwealth that said that the housing crisis in Virginia is worse than they think. It dialed down into lack of permits, lack of new housing and that they are building basically 50% of the amount of housing that they need in the Commonwealth to be able to sustain any type of growth. They say that is Virginia, that they have the Golden Crescent, they have Northern Virginia and they have Tidewater, but they are Salem in the Roanoke Valley. In that case, they have to look at the fact that businesses do not go where their employees cannot live. Businesses cannot grow if their employees do not have a place to live and that really was an issue here. He thought that if they were together at a housing crisis discussion or summit or if they were all just at Mac and Bob 's having a beer talking about housing, everybody would agree they need more housing. They need different types of housing. But the disagreement comes when they want to build it in their backyard and that was the issue. As he shared upfront that their first plan was to go single-family housing. Chris Burns and him worked together to come up with a single-family concept. The problem with that was they ended up with about 61 or 62 lots. It was an interesting conversation earlier about the cluster overlay because they were also going under the cluster. They were using 51 foot lots to try to get more lots in because of the infrastructure cost. It did not work. They talked about this a lot last week about what does it mean it did not work. It means when they grade a piece of property like this, there is topography on it, there is steepness and a significant amount of grading. As they look at how do they get the housing on there, they have to put in roads and they have to build roads throughout the community. They have to build storm, they have to build water and all utility infrastructure. When they look at that, when it was spread that across 61 lots or whatever it was, the project was well underwater. Then how about if they go to single-family and some townhomes. That did not work because there was too much grading and too much infrastructure. They got into various mixes. They did not want to try to build apartments here and they did not even look at that. They thought could they build some condo buildings in here but that did not feel right. They did not think the market was right for condominium buildings. Townhomes really fit. In the words of Chris Burns, they fit the property perfectly because they ring the property. They can go in and ring the property and reach the different units. One important thing to realize was that this is a 40-acre tract but it is really a 20 acre developable tract because of the floodway and the floodplain. They could build in the floodplain, but they cannot build in the floodway. Instead of 171 units, as they look at the last row closer to the floodplain, they could actually build all the Page 39 of 249 way down to the green line where the conservation area begins. There would be over 200 units there but that did not feel right. It worked fine from an engineering perspective, but they think it is too many units. Certainly, a number of people are going to tell them that 171 is too many units. They had a great conversation last week about how many was enough or how many was just right. He stated 171 was just right. He knows that was a lot of density but, in their case, it has to be viable. People asked does that mean maximum profitability. Not at all. Maximum profitability was to put 200 and some units on that property. They did not want to do that. Looking at the concept plan, they are going to conserve half of the property. The density on a per acre basis is very low. In the townhome community on the right when you first turn onto Parkdale has a much higher density on a per acre basis. They are spreading their density out across the 40 acres. Their density on a per acre basis was very low. They are going to have a buffer that rings the property and they are going to make sure that not only do they maintain the existing buffer, but they are also going to add buffer. They are going to add trees as required by the ordinance but also for the community. They want to make sure that it is beautiful. It maintains a park-like setting for this project. This is a unique project for the Roanoke Valley. There is nothing like it. It will be very unique, and he thinks it will attract a lot of people in Salem to move and free up housing in Salem. It is also going to attract people from a lot of the surrounding localities to move to Salem because this is exactly what the market needs. Someone last week mentioned that he grabbed our poster of townhomes and this is what people want to buy. It is the only thing they can build in the $300,000s. As Brad Graham stated and he was right. Mr. Boone stated he did not even know how Mr. Graham was going to build a $450,000 house on his property. He suspects they would probably be in the $500,000s and higher. Here, they would see homes in the low $300,000s to probably $400,000s. They are going to have a number of slabs and basements, so it will be a mix. They are going to see a mix of people living here. Different people of different ages, people with kids and people without kids. The grades support having some basements so that will allow people to finish basements and have more families in there. There are going to be a lot of singles and empty nesters because of the low maintenance and no maintenance on the exterior. Importantly, they are going to have parks and they are going to have playgrounds. They talked about walking trails on the last case. They will have walking trails. He has met with a number of the neighbors out there over the past few weeks. Every time he has been to the property, he has met a neighbor who has been walking their dog on the trails that the Wheelers have mowed for many years to open it up to the community. It is important to them that this was maintained. A community feeling and that the residents may continue to use these trails. They can use the playgrounds. They can use the amenities that will be open to the existing community. It was great that somebody asked that last week and said they would like to be able to use the trails and the playgrounds and amenities that will be there. That is a commitment that they make for the community. It was unfortunate because they wanted to do single family housing. As he said at the town hall meeting last week, if they hacked into Chris Burns’ folder at Balzer, they would see their very first concept was single family with 60 foot lots. He was not sure if they even got to 50 of them and then they went to the 51 foot lot and got up to he thinks 61. This was a year or year and a half ago. Knowing that did not work, that was where their process started. Unfortunately, they cannot develop this property for single-family. He did not think anybody would do it. He cannot do it. It would be a loss. They would go into it knowing they were going to lose money. These projects are very risky. They can go into them and make money. Page 40 of 249 They can lose money, but they pretty much never make the money they think they are going to because they always run into rock and extra grading. That is the unfortunate thing. He questioned what was going to happen to this property because it is not going to remain a station for the radio towers. It is going to be something, and they believe that introducing a great new community that can attract many new residents to the City of Salem is an excellent use for this project. To continue to be respectful of the neighbors and open this community up so that it could continue to be a magnet as it is now for people in the community. He stated he would answer any questions but would like to turn it over to Mr. Burns to answer questions about stormwater management, traffic or any other engineering type of issues. Page 41 of 249 standard software. They followed those same requirements here. The traffic analysis is based on analyzing the AM peak hour when everybody is going to work in the morning. PM peak hour when everybody is coming home at the end of the day. Those are the times of the day when traffic is the most. That is what they look at as a worst-case scenario. They model the intersections in synchro software and all of that was submitted to the City of Salem engineering department. It goes through a review with them. The results of the study are the levels of service that they measure a letter grade. They were unchanged at the intersections that they looked at. Very minimal increases in delay. They are going to wait for another second or two at the stop sign which is really what the result was. They heard a lot of questions at the community meeting about how does this compare to single-family. He did a comparison and, if this property were to be developed as single family versus townhomes, they would have about 30 less trips in the peak hours. Essentially, one car every 2 minutes. They can stand here for 2 minutes and think about one car going by but that is the level that they are talking about as far as the difference between single-family and townhomes. At the end of the day, the existing street network can support the development. The City of Salem engineering department concurred with that. They are happy to answer any questions about it. Page 42 of 249 else, decided that no damage had been done and they failed to make the report. There was one vehicular to vehicular accident. In 2025, so far and into the 7th month, there has been one crash. Generally speaking for what she had been told was a heavy crash area, she was looking for much larger numbers than those. She wanted to share that information with them and to put that on the record. She asked for any other questions at this time. Page 43 of 249 Foster. Then Mr. Chrisfield and Mrs. Chrisfield. That would be the first 5. Page 44 of 249 the Department of Historic Resources. First, there are only 3 remaining arch structures in the area, as much of the completed railroad bed has already been destroyed by the construction of Route 11, the widening of Route 117 between I-581 and Williamson Road and residential development. Second, of the 3 limestone arches, this expansive barrel- vaulted tunnel with railroad bed atop is the largest and most imposing. Built in 1873 by a team of Irish immigrants and formerly enslaved African Americans under the direction of Thomas Menifee. It is, in fact, an example of the very best stonework of any period found in the area. Third, it is also in the best condition of any such structure in the region south of Lexington. She also wanted to emphasize that the Gish Branch Bridge is an integral aspect of Virginia 's Reconstruction Era history and the building of a New South post-civil war chartered by the General Assembly in 1866. The 113-mile Virginia Valley Railroad project aimed to connect the Baltimore and Ohio at Harrisonburg to the Virginia and Tennessee at Salem. As you go down I-81 just south of Staunton, look over and they will see those barrel vaults in a field. Robert E. Lee served as the second president of the Valley Railroad Company. Claiborne Rice Mason, Stonewall Jackson’s bridge builder, received the contract to build the Staunton to Salem segment in 3 years, an unsurprising choice given Mason's reputation for quality construction and daring feats of engineering. Along with Claudius Crozet, it was the Mason Syndicate that completed the 19-mile crossing of the Blue Ridge at Rockfish Gap for the Virginia Central Railroad including the impressive 1,300-foot Blue Ridge Tunnel. These historical circumstances, coupled with the fact that the potential exists to create a walking trail along the Gish Branch that connects the Mason Creek Greenway and the Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail should encourage all actors involved in the planned development to prioritize permanent protection of this structure. Page 45 of 249 to provide for the Gish Branch greenway. Page 46 of 249 drain. This was the worst it was. She had it before in the past. The City installed a new sewage line after this occurred. Thus far, this has corrected the problem. The City was good about reimbursing them for their expenses, including 7 and a half hours of sweeping out their basement which he will not describe. Their concern and question with the development on the table was will the denuding of the property for construction create more issues with drainage, creating more of an accumulation of water at the low point and, thereby, creating flooding problems in the area where they live. Another concern they have was increased traffic flow. The streets in their neighborhood, it appeared to him, were developed to take care of the neighborhood as they were originally designed. They are adding a considerably large new neighborhood to this area of town. He questioned just how well the traffic will be able to flow with this development. Based on these factors, he asked that they not approve this recommendation. Page 47 of 249 implementing that plan. The water was deep for a walk-out basement, their car got totaled because it came at 5:30 in the morning and they were in bed. This is a problem. He would like to see some type of detailed plan about their wastewater, as well as the general problem with the water coming down North Mill. Permits have been handed out for many years without thought to this bottom down on Chamberlain Lane. Page 48 of 249 they will do with that land. If they put two cars per townhouse, each time you go up and down the road and they all take a million trips up and down their streets, then add on the daily delivery trucks from Amazon and UPS. If they let them build it, then add all the construction vehicles that are going up and down. She asked if they could imagine what that would do to their neighborhood. They asked at the meeting the other day about looking for different venues in and out of either Brand or North Mill or whatever. They said it was not feasible. It would be too hard or cost too much. At the base where this goes up and into where it would be located is multiple families with children that live right there where all of this will take place. They all play outside. There are no sidewalks. We do not have sidewalks. More housing is not the only key to keeping Salem great. Maybe there should be a pause. Less townhouses. Maybe better access. She does not know the answer. They have all chosen to live in this neighborhood because of its charm. They have all chosen to live in Salem because it is a special and unique place to live. They ask them to please help keep it that way. Page 49 of 249 small neighborhood roads where children regularly play, ride bikes in the streets and where they find people jogging and exercising. These roads already cannot support two- way traffic when residents park on the street. The volume increase is not just inconvenient, it is dangerous. At a recent community meeting, the developer compared this to the growth he experienced as a child in the area now surrounding Tanglewood Mall. He said he once played in the fields where the mall and high-density housing now stand and suggested that similar growth is inevitable here. To expand on his example, the area surrounding Tanglewood Mall now has a significantly higher population density and crime rate than Salem. A 2020 analysis by the US Department of Justice confirmed that increased residential density is associated with higher rates of property crime, particularly in areas undergoing rapid population growth or lacking adequate infrastructure. Increased density often brings more anonymity and less community cohesion. To further illustrate this concern, she reviewed the public crime data from Roanoke's official crime mapping tool. Since January 1st, the high density townhome and condo complexes in the Tanglewood area have seen 13 assault cases, 6 vehicle break-ins, 3 burglaries, 3 thefts and 3 cases of vandalism. In contrast, their town and neighborhood west of Electric Road have not had a single reported crime during the same time frame. This stark difference further illustrates what is at stake if they choose to introduce large-scale developments rather than preserving low-density, community rooted neighborhoods. If they follow this analogy to its logical conclusion, then Salem's future is one of high-density housing, heavier traffic and higher crime. The developer also claimed that this project addresses a housing shortage in Salem but, as of this past Monday, July 14th, there were 123 homes, apartments, condos and townhouses currently for sale in Salem. There are also approximately 702 residences being built as we speak. That is not what a housing shortage looks like. This proposal is not about a housing need; it is more about profit at the expense of a safe and pre-existing neighborhood. She respectfully asked them to protect the culture of safety and integrity of their town and neighborhood. Please reconsider the rezoning request for multifamily homes. Growth can be thoughtful. Growth can be aligned with what Salem is and not just what developers want it to become. Page 50 of 249 was one, the land was not best suited for townhomes. That is due to the grade. It is best suited for single-family residences. The issue is the roads as Chris did talk about not being able to fit in ample amounts to make the same profit margins. Speaking with a developer that works with Ryan homes, frequently, they found that with the land and pricing 60 homes between $450,000 and $550,000, they would still maintain an 8% margin on the total development, assuming normal land expenses and infrastructure costs. There, based on national data, they can see that over the next 5 years, home values in the surrounding area will most likely decrease by 9%, assuming a normal trend of 3% growth. Eliminating 3 years of growth in value. That equates to approximately $8.1 million in lost growth within the neighborhood for land values. All of this was reputable national peer reviewed literature that he was citing from. Then, at a glance, they are looking at 171 units at approximately $350,000 each. That brings in $718,000 of tax revenue to the City. This looks great on paper, and he thinks everyone would want $718,000 going into the City. When they look at the impact of this on the City, they see that there are a lot of expenditures that are not seen right away. Some of the first ones being traffic. The literature that they used prior at the community meeting was a lower volume townhome study that they done approximating 4 to 5 trips per day for each townhome. These are going to be more family-oriented townhomes, so most research suggests that it is going to be closer to 8 trips per day. That is looking at 1,370 additional trips on roads versus a 60 single-family home project yielding 750 trips less than that, so over double then what they would expect from single-family residency. Addressing public safety. As townhomes are being built, approximately 30% of these will be bought up in the next 5 years to rent. Increased rentals led to a measurable increase in crime, leading to approximately $1,000 per unit annually to the City. If they were to extrapolate just from this development, that is $171,000 of taxpayer money that is going to policing, courts and EMS services. Most of them are not here to say no to growth. They were here to say yes to smart growth. He believed that development in Salem is necessary and good for the City, but it needs to be done in a way that aligns with City values and not just with individuals that might not live here and in these neighborhoods. Page 51 of 249 was trying to save their neighborhood. She wanted to speak about the impact this proposed townhouse development could have on Salem's public service infrastructure. Right now, there are already over 700 new residential units approved or under construction in the City of Salem. That is a significant population increase. Potentially, thousands of new residents in a small town, in a very short period of time. And yet, we have not seen any clear analysis or public communication on whether the local schools, EMS, police, fire department and hospitals are equipped to handle this surge. There has been no transparent plan shared with the public to show that Salem services and infrastructure are ready for this kind of growth so why are they considering 171 townhomes before they even know whether they have the staffing, road access, emergency response capacity or school space to support the people already coming in. This was not just about the traffic or housing. It is about planning responsibly for public safety, health and quality of life. She was asking for a pause and reassessment and a real look at how Salem can handle how quickly. Once the units are built, the people come and, if they are not ready, the burden falls on existing residents in the system they all rely on. She had one question, would they want this in their neighborhood because, she would go for townhomes, she would go for patio homes, for single living homes. She asked again would they really want this in their neighborhood. Page 52 of 249 between 6% and 10%. With 171 units with a $350,000 selling price means that the revenue from the project will be somewhere around $59.8 million and using just the 6% net profit is $3.59 million and he wished Mr. Boone all the best of luck getting there. Back to Mr. Boone 's position that he wants to benefit Salem. Mr. Breen asked should Boone’s project be approved as a suggestion to really give back to their community and do the right thing. To help enhance the number one selling element of Salem and that is their schools. He could help enhance Salem schools by creating the ABoone Salem school fund based upon just 1% of the net profit from each unit. This would be tax deductible. He respectfully requested Mr. Boone consider proceeding in this manner. Page 53 of 249 stated he had seen a lot. He was a graduate of Andrew Lewis High School, and they had an astronomy club that was formed right there in good old Forest Lawn and Parkdale Drive. As far as an astronomy club, they upgraded the scholastics of the neighborhood. These people have stolen his thunder. He was by education a geologist. His military service was as a terrain analyst for the military in Europe and NATO. He liked to crawl around in caves and climb mountains and hike and stuff like that, so he liked to walk around in this neighborhood. He lives on top of the hill. At one time, back around the 1950s, it was the highest. There was only one house higher than his in Salem and it was the one across the street. He thought that gentleman was going to get up to speak too. He is 80 years old and still walks around in the morning through these places. His observations here most of lately have been in the Parkdale/Newman area back to the antennas. What they have there is like a hill and valley terrain where if they have a flood situation, there will be a lot of water. There is a very shallow aquifer there that they can pump water out of. They pumped water out of it for all of their houses on top of that hill a total distance of three hundred and some feet. That was how much water they pumped out of that. That well has been capped now. There is a very shallow layer there that blocks rainwater from soaking in and it creates a flood situation. There is a funnel up through there. In a flood situation, they will have sewer problems because of that. He asked if they have 20 acres up on a hill and they are going to put 171 townhouses up there, think of all those driveways and all of those cross streets and all of that water coming down towards Parkdale. Then, the day will come when there are 4 automobiles and double family habitation in those houses up there and that will multiply the cars too. They have too many cars to start with. Page 54 of 249 Robertson's parking areas there and then come out on Kessler Mill and that has flooded. There are ways to fix it, but it is going to cost. It is going to take a partnership between the City, the developer and the EPA. There is a lot of things that are going to need to take place to get down there. As planners, you have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the neighbors and the neighborhoods surrounding the new development so he was asking them all to apply logic. That is why they are sitting on that side of the table. He understands that because he has sat on that side of the table. On the side of City Council, he was on the regional planner board for 10 years. 10 years of State transportation. Given the need for site visits, the deliberation of tonight’s testimony, along with the handouts and the petition, he requested that they table this petition at this time until all of the information could be absorbed. Page 55 of 249 They also heard that it could very well be part of a future Greenway that connects with their greenway. Those are two things that make it an exceptional piece of acreage. The neighborhood that lives there and the rest of Salem just heard about it a few days ago. She also wanted to say they should table this for a while. She asked if the Commission had 90 to 100 days before they must do something. At the very least, she asked if they could do that and Council could use their 90 days. The other thing she wanted to comment on was, referring to the map and depending on what happens, would the developer consider turning everything that was not development over to an actual conservation easement. Some of it was described as they could build here but were not going to. That would protect it a greater amount into perpetuity, and she thought that was kind of important. Page 56 of 249 their stormwater management strategy. Page 57 of 249 otherwise rent it, but every neighborhood that all of us live in have rental homes in them. It is just kind of the way it ends up working. He also wanted to mention that, since the community meeting, he has had several residents who reached out and said either they do not oppose it or they affirmatively support the project. He did not feel comfortable saying that publicly, so he knows it is coming from one of the developers. He thinks there are people who support this and who simply see the opposition and do not necessarily want to speak out. As he has said, they believe there is a housing shortage. They believe the data shows that. They would not be building new communities if they thought that they were going to sit and not sell. This is what they do. It is not just to make money, it is about making communities and building better communities. They are all local. They all live in the region and the valley. They are doing this because it is needed to help the City of Salem and the whole region grow. If they all grow together, they all prosper. Page 58 of 249 declaration would have the requirement that any lease, one that it be reported to the HOA and that it would be no less than 6 months. That was what they saw a lot of the time. Some of them are a year. They do not know what it would be here, but there would be no short-term rentals. These are designed to be for sale for the homeowner occupant to live there, not to be rented. As Mr. Rosen said, it happens in every community, but he thinks it would be limited in this case because of that restriction. In all the communities they have developed across the Roanoke Valley, they always had either 6 months or a year and have not had any problems in the 50+ communities they have They have not had an issue. As they brought up the bridges and also brought up the floodway and flood plain. As far as the railroad bridges, they will absolutely put that land in a conservation easement. If they have trails, they will take them and clear the area best that they can. They really know very little about it. Mr. Garst introduced them to that more than anybody. They had heard from some of the Wheeler media folks that there were bridges, but it was so thick, they could not get to them at the time. They are completely committed to doing whatever they can to open the trails to them. He had no idea if they could preserve them or if they could work on them. Having not seen them yet, they are completely committed to making that part of the amenity package in the community. They are also willing to say they would put in an easement, but as the HOA would own it, it would be common space. There would be a restriction against any development in that area out and ringing all the townhomes. Everything below that first row of townhomes would be restricted against development, would be owned by the HOA and controlled by the HOA, as well as maintained which would certainly allow for the trails, playgrounds and parks that they have talked about. Page 59 of 249 Mr. Garst what had been officially proffered to date because the agenda item says LM Light Manufacturing with proffered conditions to RMF residential multifamily district. Page 60 of 249 Mr. Garst ended his motion. She explained that the Planning Commission is a research and recommending body to the City Council. Attendees will need to appear at the City Council meeting when placed on their Agenda. They will be notified of the time and date once it has been scheduled. Planning Commission Bylaws Remote Participation Policy Page 61 of 249 Consider resolution to adopt a Remote Participation Policy for Commissioner participation in Planning Commission meetings for Fiscal Year 2025-2026. Chair King asked Mr. Light to briefly describe the resolution to adopt a remote participation policy. Mr. Light stated the State code addresses remote participation by board and commission members. On July 1, 2024, the code was changed to require such bodies to adopt their policy annually. This is exactly what they would be doing. It is in the form adopted by City Council and EDA, then reviewed by the City attorney's office, so they ask for the Commission to adopt that for the next year. Chair King stated they would consider the resolution and asked for a motion on that item. Mr. Henrickson motioned. Mr. Beamer seconded. Chair King asked for a roll call vote: Mr. Routt - Aye Mr. Henrickson - Aye Mr. Beamer - Aye Mr. Garst - Aye Chair King - Aye Chair King stated that the resolution had been adopted. 4. Adjournment Chair King asked if there was any additional business for the Planning Commission. There being no further business, Chair King adjourned the meeting at 9:44 p.m. Page 62 of 249 Page 63 of 249 Page 64 of 249 Page 65 of 249 AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 106-110 BUTT HOLLOW ROAD (TAX MAP #174-1-7) FROM BCD BUSINESS COMMERCE DISTRICT TO LM LIGHT MANUFACTURING DISTRICT WITH PROFFERED CONDITIONS WHEREAS, J. Cline Properties, LLC, property owner, petitioned to rezone the property at 106-110 Butt Hollow Road (Tax Map # 174-1-7) from BCD Business Commerce District to LM Light Manufacturing District with proffered condition; and WHEREAS, the rezoning is in accordance with good zoning practice; and WHEREAS, the City of Salem Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that the property at 106-110 Butt Hollow Road (Tax Map #174-1-7) be and hereby is rezoned from BCD Business Commerce District to LM Light Manufacturing District with the following proffer: 1. Allowable uses will not include Truck Stop, Manufactured Home Sales, Transfer Station, Truck Terminal, and Industry Type I. The map shall be changed in this respect and no other, said property being described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the east side of Butt Hollow Road also known as Va. Sec. Rte. 640 and at a point of intersection 200 feet, more or less, to W. Main Street (Rt. 11); thence along Butt Hollow Road, N. 46° 15' 00" W. 219.01 total feet; thence N. 43° 45' 00" E. 4.17 feet to a point; thence N. 86° 43' 00" E. 403.13 feet to a point; thence S. 03° 17' 00" E. 139.66 total feet to a point; thence S. 86° 43' 00" W. 174.17 feet to a point; thence S. 70° 54' 00" W. 86.00 feet to the point of BEGINNING, and being shown as PARCEL III and PARCEL IV, containing 1.13 acres on "Survey for AFFORDABLE EFFICIENCIES, INC., Butt Hollow Road ... ", prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc., L.S., dated March 25, 1997, a copy of which is attached to Deed of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the City of Salem, Virginia, in Deed Book 334, page 81. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be and the same are hereby repealed. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect ten (10) days after its final passage. Page 66 of 249 Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows: John Saunders - H. Hunter Holliday – Byron Randolph Foley – Anne Marie Green – Renee F. Turk – Passed: Effective: /s/____ _ Mayor ATTEST: H. Robert Light Clerk of Council City of Salem, Virginia Page 67 of 249 Item #: 6.C. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: August 11, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Special Exception Permit Consider the request of J. Cline Properties, LLC, property owner, for a Special Exception Permit for the property located at 106-110 Butt Hollow Road (Tax Map #174-1-7) to allow athletic instruction services. (The Planning Commission recommended approval by a unanimous vote) The approval of the Special Exception Permit is contingent upon final Council approval on second reading of the ordinance to rezone the property from BCD Business Commerce District to LM Light Manufacturing District. SUBMITTED BY: Chuck Van Allman, Director of Community Development SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Zoning: BCD Business Commerce District Land Use Plan Designation: Commercial Existing Use: Construction yard Proposed Use: Addition of wrestling practice facility (athletic instruction services) 106-110 Butt Hollow consists of an approximately 1.13-acre tract of land which currently sits within the BCD Business Commerce District zoning designation. The property was previously rezoned in 2000 from B-3 to BCD to allow for a construction yard, and it is currently utilized by an electrical contractor. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property from BCD Business Commerce District to LM Light Manufacturing with proffered conditions which, if approved, would also allow the existing structure to accommodate a private wrestling practice facility for middle-high school-aged kids. The footprint of the building is not planned to change, and proposed hours of use for the space would be weekday evenings and weekends. The applicant has submitted a voluntary proffer statement which eliminates several of the most intensive uses permitted in the LM Light Manufacturing District, including Truck Stop, Manufactured Home Sales, Transfer Station, Truck Terminal, and Industry Type I. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as commercial. Page 68 of 249 REQUIREMENTS: The proposal meets the requirements of Section 106-218.3., LM site development regulations FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council consider approval of the Special Exception Permit contingent upon Council final approval on second reading of the ordinance to rezone the properties from BCD Business Commerce District to LM Light Manufacturing District. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Item 6C 8-11-25 106-110 Butt Hollow Special Exception Permit Application Page 69 of 249 Page 70 of 249 Page 71 of 249 Page 72 of 249 Item #: 6.D. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: August 11, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Special Exception Permit Hold a public hearing to consider the request of McJohn Investments LLC, property owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a telecommunications tower on the property located at 319 Rowan Street (Tax Map #232-1-1). (Advertised in the July 24 and 31, 2025, issues of Cardinal News.) (The Planning Commission recommended approval by a unanimous vote.) SUBMITTED BY: Chuck Van Allman, Director of Community Development SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Zoning: HM Heavy Manufacturing Land Use Plan Designation: Industrial Existing Use: Transport/Hauling business Proposed Use: Addition of cell tower The subject property, 319 Rowan Street, consists of a 13.498-acre parcel that sits within the HM Heavy Manufacturing zoning designation. Cellco Partnership, more commonly known as Verizon Wireless, is requesting the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow the construction of a 199-foot (total) tower to extend and enhance the coverage that it currently provides in the area. According to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, towers are permitted by Special Exception in the HBD, BCD, LM and HM zoning districts. The proposed tower is also subject to the standards set forth in Section 106-314.5. Towers, aside from items (D), (O), and (T) which, since their implementation many years ago, are now inconsistent with updated Virginia State Code regulations. If approved, the project would be required to meet the appropriate City of Salem and State of Virginia development standards which are integrated into the standard site plan review process. Page 73 of 249 REQUIREMENTS: The proposal meets the requirements of Section 106-220.3., HM Heavy Manufacturing site development regulations, and 106-314.5 standards for Towers FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council consider the request for a Special Exception Permit. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Section 106-314.5. - Towers (regulations) 2. 319 Rowan Special Exception Permit application 3. Authorization Letter 4. Narrative 5. Preliminary Design Letter 6. Plans 7. Photo Sims 8. FCC_FAA Reg Not Reqd 9. VZW Collocation Guidelines 10. 319 Rowan Street Neighbor Notification Map 11. Affidavit of Mailing Rowan Cell Tower Updated Signed Notarized 12. Item 6D 8-11-25 Council meeting owner notification letter 319 Rowan Street Page 74 of 249 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) Sec. 106-314.5. - Towers. Intent. These minimum standards are intended to govern the location of all towers and the installation of antennas and accessory equipment structures. Towers, with related unmanned equipment buildings, shall be permitted only by special exception in HBD, BCD, LM and HM zoning districts as specified in Article II District Regulations. Towers shall also be allowed by special exception in any zoning district on property owned or controlled by the City of Salem. As part of the review and approval of any special exception permit for a tower, Council may waive any of the requirements of this section, or prescribe such reasonable additional conditions in connection therewith as to assure that the design and installation of the tower and related facilities will conform to sound planning principals. No tower or related facilities shall be located within 500 feet of any residential district. No tower shall exceed 199 feet in height, including antennas. Towers shall be monopole in design, and subject to any applicable standards of the FCC or FAA, be painted a neutral color. At any tower site, the design of the buildings and related structures shall use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend the facilities to the natural setting and the built environment. The related unmanned equipment structure shall not contain more than 750 square feet of gross floor area or be more than 12 feet in height, and shall be located in accordance with the requirements of the zoning district in which located. Towers shall not be artificially lighted, unless required by the FCC or FAA. If lighting is required, the council may review the available lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the least disturbances to surrounding views. No advertising of any type shall be allowed on any tower. Satellite and microwave dishes attached to monopoles shall not exceed two feet in diameter or six feet in diameter when attached to towers. All towers must meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FAA, the FCC, and any other agency of the federal government with the authority to regulate towers. If such standards and regulations are changed, then the owners of the tower governed by this section shall bring such structures into compliance with such revised standards as required. Failure to bring a tower into compliance with such revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the revocation of the special exception permit, and removal of the tower at the owner's expense. The owner of any tower shall ensure that it is constructed and maintained in compliance with standards contained in applicable federal, state, and local building codes and regulations. Each applicant requesting a special exception permit for a new tower shall submit 18 copies of a scaled site plan and a scaled elevation view and other supporting drawing, calculations, and other documentation, signed and sealed by appropriate licensed professionals, showing the location and dimensions of all improvements, including information concerning topography, radio frequency coverage, height requirements, setbacks, drives, parking, fencing, landscaping, easements, adjacent uses, and other information deemed necessary by the city to assess compliance with the regulations of this chapter. Additionally the applicant shall provide actual photographs of the site from designated relevant views that include a simulated photographic image of the proposed monopole or tower. The photograph with the simulated image shall include the foreground, the mid-ground, and the background of the site. An engineering report, certifying that the proposed tower and site are compatible for co-location with a minimum of three similar users including the primary user, must accompany the application. The applicant shall provide copies of their co-location policy. In addition to any reasonable application fees established by council, the applicant shall be financially responsible for the cost of any professional engineering and or related services that may be procured by the city to independently verify the application information submitted by the applicant. No new tower shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the council that no existing tower, or structure can accommodate the proposed antenna. Evidence submitted to demonstrate that no existing tower, or structure can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna may consist of any of the following: 7/9/25, 4:44 PM ARTICLE III. - USE AND DESIGN STANDARDS | Code of Ordinances | Salem, VA | Municode Library https://library.municode.com/va/salem/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICO_CH106ZO_ARTIIIUSDEST_S106-314.5TO 1/2Page 75 of 249 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. (P) (Q) (R) (S) (T) No existing towers, or structures are located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's engineering requirements. Existing towers, or structures are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements. Existing towers, or structures are not of sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna or related equipment. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with existing antenna, or the antenna on the existing towers, or structures would cause interference with the applicants proposed antenna. The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting factors that render existing towers, or structures unsuitable. Towers, guys, and accessory facilities must satisfy the minimum zoning district setback requirements for primary structures Towers shall be enclosed by security fencing not less than six feet high and shall be equipped with an appropriate anti-climbing device. Tower facilities shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that effectively screens the view of the support buildings from adjacent property. The standard buffer shall consist of a landscaping strip of at least four feet wide outside the perimeter of the compound. Existing mature tree growth and natural land form on the site shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Antennas and other equipment located on the top or side of a building or structure shall be screened from public view. Any tower, that is not operational for a continuous period of 90 days shall be considered abandoned, and the owner of such tower shall remove same within 90 days of receipt of notice from the building official or city manager notifying the owner of such removal requirement. Removal includes the removal of the tower, all subterranean tower and fence footers, underground cables and support buildings. The buildings may remain with the approval of the landowner. If there are two or more users of a single tower, then this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the tower. If the tower is not removed per this section, the city may require the landowner to have it removed. In all cases, the site shall be returned as closely as possible to its original conditions. Every applicant for a special exception permit for a tower shall, as a condition for the issuance of the special exception permit, file with the building official a continuing bond in the penal sum of not less than $10,000.00, and conditioned for the faithful observance of the provisions of this chapter and all amendments thereto, and of all the laws and ordinances relating to towers, and which shall indemnify and save harmless the city from any and all damages, judgments, costs, or expenses which the city may incur by reason of the removal or the causing to be removed any tower as provided for in this section. (Ord. of 3-14-05(2); Ord. of 1-23-2017(2)) 7/9/25, 4:44 PM ARTICLE III. - USE AND DESIGN STANDARDS | Code of Ordinances | Salem, VA | Municode Library https://library.municode.com/va/salem/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICO_CH106ZO_ARTIIIUSDEST_S106-314.5TO 2/2 As mentioned in the staff report, text highlighted in blue represents regulations inconsistent with Virginia State Code. Page 76 of 249 3 E [ ] City of Salem Community Development Application Case #: APPLICANT INFORMATION Owner: Contact Name: Address: Telephone No._ Fax No. Email Address _ _ Applicant/Contract Purchaser: Contact Name: Address: Telephone No._ Fax No. Email Address _ _ QUESTIONS/ LETTERS/ SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE FOLLOWING**: Name Address: **It is the responsibility of the contact person to provide copies of all correspondence to other interested parties to the application. Telephone No._ Fax No. Email Address _ _ Request for SPECIAL EXCEPTION/USE NOT PROVIDED FOR PERMIT PARCEL INFORMATION For multiple parcels, please attach a page (Tax ID #’s) Subdivision Location Description (Street Address, if applicable) _ Total Area (acres/square feet)_ Current Zoning Use SIGNATURE OF OWNER CONTRACT PURCHASER (attach contract) LESSEE As owner or authorized agent of this property, I hereby certify that this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and I hereby grant permission to the agents and employees of the City of Salem to enter the property for the purposes of processing and reviewing this request. Date Name Date Name McJohn Investments, LLC 3330 Hollins Rd NE, Suite A, Roanoke, VA 24012 Verizon Wireless 804-901-7433 Stuart P. Squier, AICP 513 Stewart St. Suite E, Charlottesville, VA 22902 stuart.squier@gdnsites.com 232-1-1 13.498 acres 160002101 HM 319 Rowan St, Salem, VA 24153 199 foot overall height communications facility in an HM district Stuart P. Squier, AICP 804-901-7433 513 Stewart St. Suite E, Charlottesville, VA 22902 stuart.squier@gdnsites.com John Lipscomb lmprop@verizon.net Stuart Squier for Verizon Wireless 5/30/2025 X Page 77 of 249 Page 78 of 249 5 PLEASE RESPOND FOR ALL SPECIAL EXCEPTION/USE NOT PROVIDED FOR APPLICATIONS: 1. This Special Exception/Use Not Provided For is being requested in order to? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Describe how you plain to develop the property for the proposed use and any associated uses. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Describe why the proposed use or exception is desirable and appropriate for the area. What measures will be taken to assure that the proposed use or exception will not have a negative impact on the surrounding vicinity? (This could include traffic or environmental impacts.) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Is the subject property located within the Floodplain District? ˆ YES ˆ NO If yes, describe the proposed measures for meeting the standards of the Floodplain Ordinance. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Have you provided a conceptual plan of the proposed development, including general lot configurations and road locations? Are the proposed lot sizes compatible with existing parcel sizes in the area? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Is the subject property listed as a historic structure or located within a historic district? ˆ YES ˆ NO If yes, describe the proposed measures for meeting the standards of the Department of Historic Resources. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Construct a 199-foot overall height wireless communications facility in an HM district. Verizon will construct a 195-foot monopole antenna support structure, topped with a four-foot lightning rod, for an overall height of 199 feet. The monopole will be enclosed within an 80'x35' fenced equipment compound that will contain supporting equipment including a raised metal platform with transmitting equipment cabinet, H-frame utility stand, backup emergency power generator, and propane tank. The monopole will be engineered to support four (4) total colocators, and the compound will include space for future carrier equipment. The proposed wireless communications facility will enhance the use of the area by improving communications for residents, businesses, travelers, and emergency responders. The facility will be unmanned and once constructed will not generate traffic except for periodic visits by a technician. The upper portion of the facility will be visible from the surrounding area but will be a slim-profile monopole with non-reflective appurtenances and no lighting. The facility will include a sound-attenuated emergency generator that will run during testing or in the case of power loss. The proposed use is located in the 100 year floodplain. Supporting ground equipment (utility stand, transmitting cabinet, generator) will be elevated above the six (6) foot flood plain elevation in order to minimize flood damage. A conceptual plan is provided with this application. The proposed use will only cover 2,800 square feet of the 13.498 acre parcel. The proposed use is not located within a historic district. Page 79 of 249 MCJOHN INVESTMENTS LLC 3330 Hollins Rd NE Suite A Roanoke, Virginia 24012 June __, 2025 City of Salem Planning and Zoning Attention: Max Dillon, CZA 21 South Bruffey Street, Salem, VA 24153 Re: Owner Authorization for Land Use Matters To Whom It May Concern: The undersigned is the owner of City of Salem Parcel ID 232-1-1 (the “Property”). This letter authorizes Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (the “Applicant”) and its agents to file all applications and act as agent for the sole purpose of obtaining all governmental approvals necessary to construct a Wireless Communications Facility with monopole, antennas, and supporting equipment on the Property. Authorized agents of the Applicant include the employees, affiliates and agents of GDN Sites (including, without limitation, Stuart Squier) and the attorneys at Williams Mullen (including, but not limited to, Lori Schweller) to submit the land use applications and other materials as required by the City for processing the land use applications. Sincerely, MCJOHN INVESTMENTS LLC a Virginia corporation By: _____________________________ Name: ___________________________ Title: ____________________________ Docusign Envelope ID: 28D76D50-3654-42A0-84FD-52D18C073A85 John Lipscomb Member 20 Page 80 of 249 Verizon Wireless Page 1 “Poff” Facility CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS “POFF” WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY Project Description: Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless, respectfully requests approval of a Special Exception Permit pursuant to Sections 106-524. and 106-314.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to allow the installation of a 199- foot overall height tower in an HM Heavy Manufacturing District. The proposed facility would include a steel monopole that is 195-foot tall, with an additional four feet of height for the lightning rod, for a total maximum height of 199 feet. The monopole will initially be equipped with panel antennas, radios, and associated components for Verizon Wireless’s use. This project is intended to expand Verizon’s network of services into an area of the City of Salem that currently has low to marginal levels of wireless coverage, while also meeting the needs for increased network capacity in the surrounding areas that are being served by existing, neighboring facilities that are currently overstressed. The proposed facility will initially include a sectored mounting array allowing space for up to twelve (12) antennas with remote radio heads and fiber optics junction boxes connected behind the antennas. Verizon’s base station cabinets housing transmit / receive radios and an emergency back-up generator will be placed on a platform elevated above the floodplain. Other boxes for electrical and communications utilities such as power meters, fiber optic and telephone service circuits would be attached on an H-frame stand. The monopole and all base station equipment will be installed within a 35’ x 80’ fenced compound and 50’x100’ (5,000 square-foot) leased area that Verizon leases from the property’s owner, McJohn Investments LLC. In addition to allowing the deployment of the different technologies for which Verizon is licensed to provide throughout the City of Salem, the monopole serving this facility will also be engineered and constructed with additional structural capacity to support the co-location of antennas and components of additional providers of wireless services. Description of the Property and Character of the Area: The subject property, containing 13.498 acres, is identified as Tax Parcel Number 232-1-1, which is accessed from an existing, gated entrance on the north side of Rowan Street, and approximately 1,600 east of the intersection with South Colorado Street. Access to the facility will then be provided by an easement over an existing paved area. The proposed facility will be located 612’4” north of the nearest residentially zoned district, which is identified as Tax Parcel Number 233-6-1 owned by the City of Salem and zoned RSF Residential Single Family. The subject property is zoned HM Heavy Manufacturing. Adjacent properties surrounding the subject property and to the north are similarly zoned HM districts containing manufacturing, warehousing, and railroad uses. The property is bounded to the south by the Roanoke River which is zoned RSF. The properties to the south of the river are similarly zoned RSF and RMF and contain a mix of single and multi-family housing. The proposed tower will be located approximately 900 feet from the nearest residential structure. Network Objectives: Verizon Wireless is licensed, by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), to provide state-of-the-art wireless telecommunications services within the City of Salem using a combination of four (4) separate bands on the frequency spectrum. These consist of the 850 MHz band for Cellular (CDMA), the 1900 MHZ frequency band for Personal Communications Services (PCS), the 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE) on 700 MHz band and Advance Wireless Services (AWS) on the 2100 MHz band. The current network offers data upload and download transmission speeds that are much faster than the previous generations of wireless technologies and Verizon has also recently added high-definition calling capabilities in the form of its Voice Over LTE (VOLTE) service. The proposed facility will provide expanded in-building coverage and additional capacity for residents, businesses, and other nearby establishments in the surrounding area. The site will also provide service improvements at the street level and people traveling in cars on Colorado St/College Ave, Electric Rd, Roanoke Blvd, and other nearby local roads. Page 81 of 249 Verizon Wireless Page 2 “Poff” Facility In addition to serving coverage needs in the immediate area, this facility will also provide improvements to overall network performance by adding more network capacity to transfer data throughout a much greater area. This objective is important for network stability, because it reduces the total number of customers that are relying on the marginal levels of coverage currently being provided by existing, neighboring facilities at farther distances away from this site. If the proposed facility is constructed, then the users that currently receive marginal coverage will have access to stronger signals that are in concentrated in closer proximity, while those closer to other existing facility sites will also experience improvements, because they will now be competing with fewer overall users for access to the services provided by the facilities in their own areas. The City of Salem Comprehensive Plan The City of Salem Comprehensive Plan specifically prioritizes wireless communications infrastructure development in Chapter IV: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies under the Technology section: “Salem continues to invest in technologies that are both flexible and scalable to support and meet the demands of the city’s strategic initiatives relating to education, economic development, quality of life and overall management and operation of the city. “Goal: Ensure infrastructure exists and is in place to support the school system’s Comprehensive Plan relating to instructional support and technology. Objective: Provide current technology to address the schools technical needs for now and the future. Strategy: Coordinate with the City of Salem Schools to ensure the needed technology services and infrastructures are available and accessible. “Goal: Coordinate with Planning and Economic Development to meet the needs of technology-based initiatives for business and industry. Objective: Support innovative technology-based development opportunities. Strategy: Continue expansion and investment in core telecommunications infrastructure to support both wired and wireless opportunities. Strategy: Continue to seek and expand public-private partnerships that foster economic development initiatives. “Goal: Leverage opportunities with other public and private organizations to support technology initiatives in the region. Objective: Actively pursue opportunities to enhance technology in the region. Strategy: Pursue and coordinate public-private partnerships that foster technology innovation and support economic development initiatives. Approval of this Special Exception Permit for a new communications tower would allow the expansion of high quality wireless communications that would support existing and future residents, industry and business, all of which increasingly rely on communications infrastructure for everyday life. Wireless communications enable remote work, support advanced agricultural applications, improve processes for commercial business, support emergency services, and instructional support. By enhancing communications for business, education, and public safety, the proposed facility would support and not conflict with the goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Page 82 of 249 Verizon Wireless Page 3 “Poff” Facility The City of Salem’s provisions for Towers The Salem Zoning Ordinance provides the following requirements for Towers in Section 106-314.5. The applicant’s responses to the code requirements follow in bold italics: Sec. 106-314.5. Towers. (A) Intent. These minimum standards are intended to govern the location of all towers and the installation of antennas and accessory equipment structures. (B) Towers, with related unmanned equipment buildings, shall be permitted only by special exception in HBD, BCD, LM and HM zoning districts as specified in Article II District Regulations. Towers shall also be allowed by special exception in any zoning district on property owned or controlled by the City of Salem. The proposed facility will be located in an HM zoning district and is in compliance with this subsection. (C) As part of the review and approval of any special exception permit for a tower, Council may waive any of the requirements of this section, or prescribe such reasonable additional conditions in connection therewith as to assure that the design and installation of the tower and related facilities will conform to sound planning principals. Due to unique site conditions the applicant is requesting Council waive the requirement for a planted landscape buffer per subsection (R) of the tower ordinance. The entire parcel is paved and is within the 100 - year flood zone. Therefore the proposed equipment will be elevated on a platform above the floodplain, six (6) feet above grade. Planted landscaping would not conceal the facility equipment from view. Additionally, there are several areas of existing mature vegetation between the proposed facility and the residential structures to the south, which are on the other side of the Roanoke River along East Riverside Drive. View 2 of the included photo simulations shows the existing vegetation which screens the view of the industrial area on Rowan Street where the proposed tower will be located. Due to the screening effect of this existing vegetation the applicant proposes Council may waive the requirement for a planted landscape buffer and the facility will still conform to sound planning principles. (D) No tower or related facilities shall be located within 500 feet of any residential district. The proposed tower will be located 612’-4” from the nearest residential district and is in compliance with this subsection. (E) No tower shall exceed 199 feet in height, including antennas. The proposed tower will be 195 feet in height with an additional 4 feet lightning rod, for an overall height of 199 feet. (F) Towers shall be monopole in design, and subject to any applicable standards of the FCC or FAA, be painted a neutral color. The proposed tower will be a monopole design with a galvanized matte finish. The tower will be in compliance with all relevant FCC and FAA standards. Additionally, the applicant has provided FCC and FAA pre-screening reports demonstrating the proposed tower does not require registration. Page 83 of 249 Verizon Wireless Page 4 “Poff” Facility (G) At any tower site, the design of the buildings and related structures shall use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend the facilities to the natural setting and the built environment. The related unmanned equipment structure shall not contain more than 750 square feet of gross floor area or be more than 12 feet in height, and shall be located in accordance with the requirements of the zoning district in which located. The proposed facility will utilize outdoor equipment cabinets to contain transmitting and electrical equipment. The cabinets must be elevated six (6) feet above the floodplain, but will not exceed twelve (12) feet in height. See Sheets C-1 and S-1 of the Plans for elevation views of proposed equipment. (H) Towers shall not be artificially lighted, unless required by the FCC or FAA. If lighting is required, the council may review the available lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the least disturbances to surrounding views. The proposed tower will not be lighted. No lighting is required by the FCC or FAA due to the overall height of 199 feet. (I) No advertising of any type shall be allowed on any tower. The applicant affirms compliance with this subsection. (J) Satellite and microwave dishes attached to monopoles shall not exceed two feet in diameter or six feet in diameter when attached to towers. The applicant affirms compliance with this subsection. No dishes are proposed with Verizon’s initial installation. (K) All towers must meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FAA, the FCC, and any other agency of the federal government with the authority to regulate towers. If such standards and regulations are changed, then the owners of the tower governed by this section shall bring such structures into compliance with such revised standards as required. Failure to bring a tower into compliance with such revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the revocation of the special exception permit, and removal of the tower at the owner's expense. The applicant affirms compliance with all regulatory requirements. (L) The owner of any tower shall ensure that it is constructed and maintained in compliance with standards contained in applicable federal, state, and local building codes and regulations. The applicant affirms compliance with all applicable building codes and regulations. (M) Each applicant requesting a special exception permit for a new tower shall submit 18 copies of a scaled site plan and a scaled elevation view and other supporting drawing, calculations, and other documentation, signed and sealed by appropriate licensed professionals, showing the location and dimensions of all improvements, including information concerning topography, radio frequency coverage, height requirements, setbacks, drives, parking, fencing, landscaping, easements, adjacent uses, and other information deemed necessary by the city to assess compliance with the regulations of this chapter. Additionally the applicant shall provide actual photographs of the site from designated relevant views that include a simulated photographic image of the proposed monopole or tower. The photograph with the simulated image shall include the foreground, the mid- ground, and the background of the site. An engineering report, certifying that the proposed tower and site are Page 84 of 249 Verizon Wireless Page 5 “Poff” Facility compatible for co-location with a minimum of three similar users including the primary user, must accompany the application. The applicant shall provide copies of their co-location policy. The applicant has submitted all required documents electronically per the City’s current protocol, and will provide hard copies upon request. Included with the submittal are: 1) a complete set of plans; 2) a set of actual photographs and simulated photographs of the proposed site; 3) a stamped PE letter certifying the proposed tower will be compatible for co-location; and (4) a copy of Verizon’s co-location policy. Regarding radio frequency coverage, the applicant notes the following: Va. Code § 15.2-2316.4:2 provides as follows: “A. In its receiving, consideration, and processing of a complete application submitted under subsection A of § 15.2-2316.4:1 or for any zoning approval required for a standard process project, a locality shall not: 2. Require an applicant to provide proprietary, confidential, or other business information to justify the need for the project, including propagation maps and telecommunications traffic studies…” (N) In addition to any reasonable application fees established by council, the applicant shall be financially responsible for the cost of any professional engineering and or related services that may be procured by the city to independently verify the application information submitted by the applicant. Noted. (O) No new tower shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the council that no existing tower, or structure can accommodate the proposed antenna. Evidence submitted to demonstrate that no existing tower, or structure can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna may consist of any of the following: 1. No existing towers, or structures are located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's engineering requirements. 2. Existing towers, or structures are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements. 3. Existing towers, or structures are not of sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna or related equipment. 4. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with existing antenna, or the antenna on the existing towers, or structures would cause interference with the applicants proposed antenna. 5. The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting factors that render existing towers, or structures unsuitable. The applicant conducted a search of the geographic area and found no existing telecommunications support structures. There is an existing power transmission line nearby, however the types of support structures used on the line are not suitable for colocation of communications equipment. There are also a few small stacks on nearby industrial buildings but they are not suitable for colocation. A map of the geographic area with a half - mile radius of the proposed facility follows below: Page 85 of 249 Verizon Wireless Page 6 “Poff” Facility Figure 1: half-mile radius around proposed tower (P) Towers, guys, and accessory facilities must satisfy the minimum zoning district setback requirements for primary structures The proposed tower is located in the HM Heavy Manufacturing district, which has no minimum setback requirements. (Q) Towers shall be enclosed by security fencing not less than six feet high and shall be equipped with an appropriate anti-climbing device. The proposed tower will be enclosed by a six (6) foot tall chain link fence, topped with an additional one (1) foot of barbed wire as an anti-climbing device. (R) Tower facilities shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that effectively screens the view of the support buildings from adjacent property. The standard buffer shall consist of a landscaping strip of at least four feet wide outside the perimeter of the compound. Existing mature tree growth and natural land form on the site shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Antennas and other equipment located on the top or side of a building or structure shall be screened from public view. The applicant is requesting Council waive the requirement for a planted landscape buffer due to unique site conditions. The proposed site is located in the 100-year flood zone and all equipment will be elevated six (6) feet above grade level, therefore landscaping on the ground would not screen the equipment. The entire parcel is paved and not suitable for planted landscaping. Additionally the nearest residentially-zoned district to the south contains the Roanoke River which has mature vegetation along its banks that will screen the facility Page 86 of 249 Verizon Wireless Page 7 “Poff” Facility from view of the houses along East Riverside Drive and Yorkshire Street. A view from this perspective is included in the photo simulation package as View 2. The applicant proposes the facility will still conform to the intent of this subsection without the implementation of planted landscape screening. (S) Any tower, that is not operational for a continuous period of 90 days shall be considered abandoned, and the owner of such tower shall remove same within 90 days of receipt of notice from the building official or city manager notifying the owner of such removal requirement. Removal includes the removal of the tower, all subterranean tower and fence footers, underground cables and support buildings. The buildings may remain with the approval of the landowner. If there are two or more users of a single tower, then this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the tower. If the tower is not removed per this section, the city may require the landowner to have it removed. In all cases, the site shall be returned as closely as possible to its original conditions. The applicant affirms compliance with this subsection. (T) Every applicant for a special exception permit for a tower shall, as a condition for the issuance of the special exception permit, file with the building official a continuing bond in the penal sum of not less than $10,000.00, and conditioned for the faithful observance of the provisions of this chapter and all amendments thereto, and of all the laws and ordinances relating to towers, and which shall indemnify and save harmless the city from any and all damages, judgments, costs, or expenses which the city may incur by reason of the removal or the causing to be removed any tower as provided for in this section. The applicant affirms compliance with this subsection. (Ord. of 3-14-05(2); Ord. of 1-23-2017(2)) Conclusion: Verizon Wireless is confident that the proposed Tower meets the Zoning Ordinance’s criteria for approval of Special Exception Permits and is in accord with the goals and objectives set forth in the City of Salem’s Comprehensive Plan. Approval of this application will support the provision of Verizon’s full range of wireless communications and data services within an area of the City that currently needs greater access to high quality voice, data and broadband services. While this facility will directly benefit customers in close proximity to this site, it will also facilitate greater improvements to Verizon’s overall network in the City of Salem by offloading strains on other existing facilities in outlying areas. This is because the total number of users who are relying on services currently provided by neighboring on-air sites will be reduced, which means those sites will then have fewer users that are competing for access to the network. The tower serving this facility will meet the City’s design preferences of a neutral finish and monopole structural design, which has a smaller profile than self-supporting lattice structures. The base station equipment would not be visible from the nearest residentially zoned district, and the monopole will not be lighted. Therefore, it will not impose any unexpected, adverse impacts upon the neighboring properties or the adjacent roadways. Sincerely, Stuart P. Squier, AICP GDNsites Site Development Consultant to Verizon Wireless Page 87 of 249       120 Eastshore Drive  +  Suite 300  +  Glen Allen, VA  +  804.548.4079  +  www.networkbuilding.com  June 12, 2025 Stuart Squire Zoning Manager DGN Sites Subject: Certification of Code Compliance for Proposed Telecommunications Tower NB+C Project No. 100912 Dear Mr. Squire: NB+C Engineering Services, LLC (NB+C) is pleased to submit this certification letter outlining the approximate design parameters for a proposed telecommunications structure. It is our understanding that Arcola Towers intends to build a new wireless telecommunications facility at the below-mentioned site to include a new Monopole Tower as defined in the zoning drawings by NB+C dated May 20, 2025. This letter certifies that the tower will be designed and manufactured to meet all structural requirements and safety specifications outlined in the codes and standards listed below as well as local code requirements. Please see below for tower site information, approximate geometry, design parameters, and design loading summary: Tower Site Information Tower Owner: Vertical Bridge “The Towers” Site Name: US-VA-5216 - “Poff” Latitude: 37° 16’ 38.4457” N Longitude: 80° 02’ 50.9508” W Address: 319 Rowan Street, Salem, VA 24153 Approximate Monopole Loading Summary Tower Height: 195 ft Minimum # of Design Carriers: 1 Initial + 3 future (4 Total) Tower Site Design Parameters Building Code: 2021 Virginia Construction Code (2018 IBC) TIA-222 Revision: TIA-222-H Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact us. Respectfully submitted by: NB&C ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC Erik Bowers, PE Engineering Market Manager VA License No. 57974 6/12/2025 Page 88 of 249 DE S I G N R E C O R D PR O F E S S I O N A L S T A M P SIT E I N F O R M A T I O N SH E E T T I T L E SH E E T N U M B E R EN G I N E E R REVISIONS DESCRIPTIONDATEREV BY LA S T P L O T T E D : 05 / 2 8 / 2 0 2 5 9 : 3 9 A M JC03/17/25A POFF VERIZON RAWLAND NB+C PROJECT #: 100374 319 ROWAN ST SALEM, VA 24153 CITY OF SALEM PRELIMINARY ZDS AP P L I C A N T EN G I N E E R I N G F I R M NB+C ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC. 120 EASTSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 300 GLEN ALLEN, VA 23059 (804) 548-4079 JOHN A. DAUGHTREY III, P.E. VA PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LIC. #052122 C OMMONWEAL T H O F VIRGIN I A PROFESSIONA L ENGINEERLic. No. 0402052122 JOHN A. DAUGHTREY III 05/20/25 JC03/17/250 FINAL ZDS AT03/26/251 REVISED AA05/20/252 REVISED 1831 RADY COURT RICHMOND, VA 23222 T-1 TITLE SHEET VICINITY MAP DIRECTIONS CODE COMPLIANCE 319 ROWAN ST SALEM, VA 24153 CITY OF SALEM PROJECT TEAM EMERGENCY INFORMATION: SITE INFORMATION FIRE & RESCUE DEPARTMENT: POLICE OFFICE: (540) 375-3098 (540) 375-3078 SITE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SITE ADDRESS: LATITUDE (NAD 83): LONGITUDE (NAD 83): GROUND ELEVATION: FLOOD PLANE: BASE FLOOD ELEVATION: JURISDICTION: ZONING: PARCEL ID: PARCEL AREA: PARCEL OWNER: TOWER OWNER: STRUCTURE TYPE: HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: OVERALL HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: TOTAL LEASE AREA: TOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE: POWER PROVIDER: TELCO PROVIDER: RAWLAND: PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND RELATED EQUIPMENT WITHIN SECURED COMPOUND. 319 ROWAN ST SALEM, VA 24153 37° 16' 38.4457" (37.277346) -80° 02' 50.9508" (-80.047486) 996.0'± AMSL ZONE AE 1002.0'± AMSL CITY OF SALEM HM 232-1-1 13.498± ACRES MCJOHN INVESTMENTS LLC 3330 HOLLINS RD NE STE A ROANOKE, VA 24012 VERIZON WIRELESS 1831 RADY CT RICHMOND, VA 23222 MONOPOLE 195.0'± AGL 199.0'± AGL 5,000± SQ. FT. 2,800± SQ. FT. CITY OF SALEM (540) 375-3030 VERIZON (800) 837-4966 DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS T-1 T-2 EE-1 EE-2 Z-1 Z-2 C-1 C-2 S-1 S-2 S-3 TITLE SHEET GENERAL NOTES EASEMENT EXHIBIT EASEMENT EXHIBIT SITE PLAN ENLARGED SITE PLAN COMPOUND PLAN TOWER ELEVATION DETAILS & NOTES CONSTRUCTION DETAILS FENCE DETAILS I FENCE DETAILS II DRAWING INDEX SITE NAME: POFF VERIZON RAWLAND THESE DRAWINGS ARE FORMATTED TO BE SCALED AT FULL SIZE (22"X34") AND MAY NOT SCALE WHEN PRINTED AT OTHER SIZES. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS AND EXISTING DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE AND SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE DESIGNER / ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK OR MATERIAL ORDERS OR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME. CONTRACTOR SHALL USE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE TO PREVENT STORM WATER POLLUTION DURING CONSTRUCTION. FROM 6750 THIRLANE RD NW, ROANOKE, VA 24019: TURN RIGHT ONTO THIRLANE RD, TURN RIGHT ONTO VA-117 S/PETERS CREEK RD, TURN RIGHT ONTO MELROSE AVE, USE THE 2ND FROM THE LEFT LANE TO TURN LEFT ONTO S ELECTRIC RD, KEEP RIGHT TO CONTINUE ON TEXAS ST, CONTINUE ONTO ROANOKE BLVD, TURN LEFT ONTO E 4TH ST, TURN LEFT ONTO S COLLEGE AVE, CONTINUE ONTO SHANKS CROSS RD, TURN LEFT ONTO S COLORADO ST, TURN LEFT AT THE 1ST CROSS STREET ONTO ROWAN ST AND THE DESTINATION IS ON THE LEFT. Know what's below. Call before you dig. R ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THE LATEST EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES. ·ANSI/TIA-222-H ·TIA 607 ·INSTITUTE FOR ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONICS ENGINEER 81 ·IEEE C2 NATIONAL ELECTRIC SAFETY CODE LATEST EDITION ·TELCORDIA GR-1275 ·ANSI/T 311 ·2021 VIRGINIA CONSTRUCTION CODE ·2020 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE ·2021 NFPA 101, LIFE SAFETY CODE ·2021 VIRGINIA STATEWIDE FIRE PREVENTION CODE ·AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE ·AISC MANUAL OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION 15TH EDITION APPLICANT: PROJECT MANAGEMENT FIRM: ENGINEERING FIRM: VERIZON WIRELESS 1831 RADY COURT RICHMOND, VA 23222 GDN NATHAN HOLLAND (757) 305-8420 NB+C ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC. 120 EASTSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 300 GLEN ALLEN, VA 23059 (804) 548-4079 APPROVAL BLOCK Page 89 of 249 DE S I G N R E C O R D PR O F E S S I O N A L S T A M P SIT E I N F O R M A T I O N SH E E T T I T L E SH E E T N U M B E R EN G I N E E R REVISIONS DESCRIPTIONDATEREV BY LA S T P L O T T E D : 05 / 2 8 / 2 0 2 5 9 : 3 9 A M JC03/17/25A POFF VERIZON RAWLAND NB+C PROJECT #: 100374 319 ROWAN ST SALEM, VA 24153 CITY OF SALEM PRELIMINARY ZDS AP P L I C A N T EN G I N E E R I N G F I R M NB+C ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC. 120 EASTSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 300 GLEN ALLEN, VA 23059 (804) 548-4079 JOHN A. DAUGHTREY III, P.E. VA PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LIC. #052122 C OMMONWEAL T H O F VIRGIN I A PROFESSIONA L ENGINEERLic. No. 0402052122 JOHN A. DAUGHTREY III 05/20/25 JC03/17/250 FINAL ZDS AT03/26/251 REVISED AA05/20/252 REVISED 1831 RADY COURT RICHMOND, VA 23222 T-2 GENERAL NOTES “ “ O E C ” ” … Page 90 of 249 Page 91 of 249 Page 92 of 249 DE S I G N R E C O R D PR O F E S S I O N A L S T A M P SIT E I N F O R M A T I O N SH E E T T I T L E SH E E T N U M B E R EN G I N E E R REVISIONS DESCRIPTIONDATEREV BY LA S T P L O T T E D : 05 / 2 8 / 2 0 2 5 9 : 3 9 A M JC03/17/25A POFF VERIZON RAWLAND NB+C PROJECT #: 100374 319 ROWAN ST SALEM, VA 24153 CITY OF SALEM PRELIMINARY ZDS AP P L I C A N T EN G I N E E R I N G F I R M NB+C ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC. 120 EASTSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 300 GLEN ALLEN, VA 23059 (804) 548-4079 JOHN A. DAUGHTREY III, P.E. VA PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LIC. #052122 C OMMONWEAL T H O F VIRGIN I A PROFESSIONA L ENGINEERLic. No. 0402052122 JOHN A. DAUGHTREY III 05/20/25 JC03/17/250 FINAL ZDS AT03/26/251 REVISED AA05/20/252 REVISED 1831 RADY COURT RICHMOND, VA 23222 Know what's below. Call before you dig. R PARCEL MAP SITE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EXISTING FENCE PROPOSED LEASE AREA EXISTING EASEMENT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X PROPOSED FENCE OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES GRAPHIC SCALE 0100 50 100 200 400 1 INCH = 100 FEET (22X34) 1 INCH = 200 FEET (11X17) GRAPHIC SCALE SCALE: 1" = 100' (22X34) SCALE: 1" = 200' (11X17) 1 Z-1 SITE PLAN Z-1 SITE PLAN JURISDICTION: DIMENSION FRONT SETBACK: RIGHT SETBACK: (ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE IN FEET ± UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) PROPOSED ± CITY OF SALEM ZONING:HM LOT AREA:13.498 ± ACRES LEFT SETBACK: 189'-8"± 145'-2"± 1572'-8"± CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL 612'-4"± REQUIRED NO MINIMUM NO MINIMUM NO MINIMUM 500'-0"DISTRICT: REAR SETBACK: 25'-1"±NO MINIMUM ROW A N S T R E E T EAST RIVERSID E D R I V E IN D I A N A S T R E E T Page 93 of 249 DE S I G N R E C O R D PR O F E S S I O N A L S T A M P SIT E I N F O R M A T I O N SH E E T T I T L E SH E E T N U M B E R EN G I N E E R REVISIONS DESCRIPTIONDATEREV BY LA S T P L O T T E D : 05 / 2 8 / 2 0 2 5 9 : 3 9 A M JC03/17/25A POFF VERIZON RAWLAND NB+C PROJECT #: 100374 319 ROWAN ST SALEM, VA 24153 CITY OF SALEM PRELIMINARY ZDS AP P L I C A N T EN G I N E E R I N G F I R M NB+C ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC. 120 EASTSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 300 GLEN ALLEN, VA 23059 (804) 548-4079 JOHN A. DAUGHTREY III, P.E. VA PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LIC. #052122 C OMMONWEAL T H O F VIRGIN I A PROFESSIONA L ENGINEERLic. No. 0402052122 JOHN A. DAUGHTREY III 05/20/25 JC03/17/250 FINAL ZDS AT03/26/251 REVISED AA05/20/252 REVISED 1831 RADY COURT RICHMOND, VA 23222 Z-2 ENLARGED SITE PLAN GRAPHIC SCALE 030 15 30 60 120 1 INCH = 30 FEET (22X34) 1 INCH = 60 FEET (11X17) GRAPHIC SCALE SCALE: 1" = 30' (22X34) SCALE: 1" = 60' (11X17) 1 Z-2 ENLARGED SITE PLAN Know what's below. Call before you dig. R ROWAN STREET Page 94 of 249 DE S I G N R E C O R D PR O F E S S I O N A L S T A M P SIT E I N F O R M A T I O N SH E E T T I T L E SH E E T N U M B E R EN G I N E E R REVISIONS DESCRIPTIONDATEREV BY LA S T P L O T T E D : 05 / 2 8 / 2 0 2 5 9 : 3 9 A M JC03/17/25A POFF VERIZON RAWLAND NB+C PROJECT #: 100374 319 ROWAN ST SALEM, VA 24153 CITY OF SALEM PRELIMINARY ZDS AP P L I C A N T EN G I N E E R I N G F I R M NB+C ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC. 120 EASTSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 300 GLEN ALLEN, VA 23059 (804) 548-4079 JOHN A. DAUGHTREY III, P.E. VA PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LIC. #052122 C OMMONWEAL T H O F VIRGIN I A PROFESSIONA L ENGINEERLic. No. 0402052122 JOHN A. DAUGHTREY III 05/20/25 JC03/17/250 FINAL ZDS AT03/26/251 REVISED AA05/20/252 REVISED 1831 RADY COURT RICHMOND, VA 23222 C-1 COMPOUND PLAN GRAPHIC SCALE 3/16 INCH = 1 FOOT (22X34) 3/32 INCH = 1 FOOT (11X17) 0 4 84821 SCALE: 3/16" = 1' (22X34) SCALE: 3/32" = 1' (11X17) 1 C-1 COMPOUND PLAN Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Page 95 of 249 DE S I G N R E C O R D PR O F E S S I O N A L S T A M P SIT E I N F O R M A T I O N SH E E T T I T L E SH E E T N U M B E R EN G I N E E R REVISIONS DESCRIPTIONDATEREV BY LA S T P L O T T E D : 05 / 2 8 / 2 0 2 5 9 : 3 9 A M JC03/17/25A POFF VERIZON RAWLAND NB+C PROJECT #: 100374 319 ROWAN ST SALEM, VA 24153 CITY OF SALEM PRELIMINARY ZDS AP P L I C A N T EN G I N E E R I N G F I R M NB+C ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC. 120 EASTSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 300 GLEN ALLEN, VA 23059 (804) 548-4079 JOHN A. DAUGHTREY III, P.E. VA PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LIC. #052122 C OMMONWEAL T H O F VIRGIN I A PROFESSIONA L ENGINEERLic. No. 0402052122 JOHN A. DAUGHTREY III 05/20/25 JC03/17/250 FINAL ZDS AT03/26/251 REVISED AA05/20/252 REVISED 1831 RADY COURT RICHMOND, VA 23222 Know what's below. Call before you dig. R C-2 TOWER ELEVATION & NOTES GRAPHIC SCALE 3/32 INCH = 1 FOOT (22X34) 3/64 INCH = 1 FOOT (11X17) 0 4 8 1681621 SCALE: 3/32" = 1' (22X34) SCALE: 3/64" = 1' (11X17) 1 C-2 ELEVATION Page 96 of 249 FABRIC/BAR CONNECTIONS NTS 2 S-1 SITE COMPOUND SURFACING DETAIL NTS 1 S-1 H-FRAME FRONT VIEW - ELECTRIC NTS 3 S-1 H-FRAME REAR VIEW - FIBER NTS 4 S-1 DE S I G N R E C O R D PR O F E S S I O N A L S T A M P SIT E I N F O R M A T I O N SH E E T T I T L E SH E E T N U M B E R EN G I N E E R REVISIONS DESCRIPTIONDATEREV BY LA S T P L O T T E D : 05 / 2 8 / 2 0 2 5 9 : 3 9 A M JC03/17/25A POFF VERIZON RAWLAND NB+C PROJECT #: 100374 319 ROWAN ST SALEM, VA 24153 CITY OF SALEM PRELIMINARY ZDS AP P L I C A N T EN G I N E E R I N G F I R M NB+C ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC. 120 EASTSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 300 GLEN ALLEN, VA 23059 (804) 548-4079 JOHN A. DAUGHTREY III, P.E. VA PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LIC. #052122 C OMMONWEAL T H O F VIRGIN I A PROFESSIONA L ENGINEERLic. No. 0402052122 JOHN A. DAUGHTREY III 05/20/25 JC03/17/250 FINAL ZDS AT03/26/251 REVISED AA05/20/252 REVISED 1831 RADY COURT RICHMOND, VA 23222 S-1 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Page 97 of 249 VEHICLE GATE ARRANGEMENT NTS 1 S-3 POST/CORNER POST ARRANGEMENT NTS 2 S-3 BARBED WIRE ARM OF LINE POST NTS 4 S-3 INSTALLATION AT CORNERS NTS 5 S-3 MUSHROOM STOP DETAIL NTS 6 S-3 DE S I G N R E C O R D PR O F E S S I O N A L S T A M P SIT E I N F O R M A T I O N SH E E T T I T L E SH E E T N U M B E R EN G I N E E R REVISIONS DESCRIPTIONDATEREV BY LA S T P L O T T E D : 05 / 2 8 / 2 0 2 5 9 : 3 9 A M JC03/17/25A POFF VERIZON RAWLAND NB+C PROJECT #: 100374 319 ROWAN ST SALEM, VA 24153 CITY OF SALEM PRELIMINARY ZDS AP P L I C A N T EN G I N E E R I N G F I R M NB+C ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC. 120 EASTSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 300 GLEN ALLEN, VA 23059 (804) 548-4079 JOHN A. DAUGHTREY III, P.E. VA PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LIC. #052122 C OMMONWEAL T H O F VIRGIN I A PROFESSIONA L ENGINEERLic. No. 0402052122 JOHN A. DAUGHTREY III 05/20/25 JC03/17/250 FINAL ZDS AT03/26/251 REVISED AA05/20/252 REVISED 1831 RADY COURT RICHMOND, VA 23222 S-2 FENCING DETAILS I Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Page 98 of 249 POST FOOTINGS NTS 1 S-4 FABRIC/BAR CONNECTIONS NTS 2 S-4 DE S I G N R E C O R D PR O F E S S I O N A L S T A M P SIT E I N F O R M A T I O N SH E E T T I T L E SH E E T N U M B E R EN G I N E E R REVISIONS DESCRIPTIONDATEREV BY LA S T P L O T T E D : 05 / 2 8 / 2 0 2 5 9 : 3 9 A M JC03/17/25A POFF VERIZON RAWLAND NB+C PROJECT #: 100374 319 ROWAN ST SALEM, VA 24153 CITY OF SALEM PRELIMINARY ZDS AP P L I C A N T EN G I N E E R I N G F I R M NB+C ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC. 120 EASTSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 300 GLEN ALLEN, VA 23059 (804) 548-4079 JOHN A. DAUGHTREY III, P.E. VA PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LIC. #052122 C OMMONWEAL T H O F VIRGIN I A PROFESSIONA L ENGINEERLic. No. 0402052122 JOHN A. DAUGHTREY III 05/20/25 JC03/17/250 FINAL ZDS AT03/26/251 REVISED AA05/20/252 REVISED 1831 RADY COURT RICHMOND, VA 23222 S-3 FENCING DETAILS II Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Page 99 of 249 Page 100 of 249 Page 101 of 249 Page 102 of 249 Page 103 of 249 Page 104 of 249 Page 105 of 249 Page 106 of 249 Page 107 of 249 Page 108 of 249 Page 109 of 249 Page 110 of 249 Page 111 of 249 Page 112 of 249 Page 113 of 249 Page 114 of 249        !"#$%&%$ "' ()*$!)+,--./01.234.567869:3;<=9><.?@ABCD ,--:38=9:EFGHIJK'"L  $M)!)+"' *%N*OO OPQRSTQUVWXOOO OYZ86=F[79:YF\9B]^_`abcdecdf^g`ecd^^]habi`cjkecale`jkibhj`]_d`_]c`mncm^_n]^oahchabhadi`cj`ei``eajj`]_d`_]ch^cjb^`]cp_a]c]claj`]i`a^bq rrr"sIHKtu"rrr?@ABCDvjgabhablji]cb^`hcgaba`aoc^]wabhablkibhxcdibb^`l_i]ib`cc`ei``echi`iab?@ABCDi]cg_yymd_]]cb`ibhidd_]i`cqCbj^zcabj`ibdcjk?@ABCDzimmacyh]cj_y`j`ei`haggc]g]^zinnyadi`a^b^g`ecd]a`c]aijc`^_`ab{|}q~qDqcd`a^b€|q|ibh€{}q~qDqcd`a^b||q€ qBn^ja`aocgabhablwm?@ABCD]cd^zzcbhablb^`agadi`a^bje^_yhwclaocbd^bjahc]iwycxcale`q@b`ec^`ec]eibhkigabhablwm?@ABCD]cd^zzcbhablca`ec]g^]^]iliabj`b^`agadi`a^bajb^`d^bdy_jaocqC`aj`ec]cjn^bjawaya`m^gcideBDni]`adanib``^c‚c]dajch_chayalcbdc`^hc`c]zabcaga`z_j`d^^]habi`ca`jj`]_d`_]cxa`e`ec~BBq?@ABCDaj^bym^bc`^^yhcjalbch`^ijjaj`BDni]`adanib`jabc‚c]dajabl`eajh_chayalcbdckibhg_]`ec]abocj`ali`a^bzimwcbcdcjji]m`^hc`c]zabcag~BBd^^]habi`a^bajinn]^n]ai`cqƒ„…„†‡ˆ‰Š…ˆ‹‰Œ† Ž ‘Ž’“””•”–—’˜™š››œššœ•ž—•Ÿ““• ˜¡¢ £¤•¥— ˜•¦§“ž•š›¨©©•¥¦ ”•ª•«¬­­®«¯•¥¦ ”•™«®¬­­°›±¥š•“£“¤¦²³´ µ¶  –·¸¹¸º»´ –¼½¾¹¸º»´ ž·¿´ “»»À´ÁÁ –¼Â´Á¸˜Ã´Ä·¸¹¼½™¿š  º½Â·²•–´½¾¸Å™¿šBCDÆ D |Ç€ÈÇÉÊqÊÊË Ê|ÈÇÌÈÇÉqÊÊA D@BË@ÍÎÏÐÑB}ÍÐÒDÓDÓËÑÔA@@ÕDÒÖ~ÑÕ× D@BË@ÍÎD@BË@ÍÎkØB {Ùq{ ÉÊ|ÉqÌÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ’“””•”–—’˜™š››œššœ•ž—•Ÿ““• ˜¡¢ £¤•¥— ˜•¦§“ž•š›¨©©•¥¦ ”•ª•°›š¨®«š•¥¦ ”•™°®›š¨¯©±¥š•“£“¤¦²³´ µ¶  –·¸¹¸º»´ –¼½¾¹¸º»´ ž·¿´ “»»À´ÁÁ –¼Â´Á¸˜Ã´Ä·¸¹¼½™¿š  º½Â·²•–´½¾¸Å™¿šBCDÆ D |Ç€ÈÇ{{qÊÊË Ê|ÈÇÌÙÇÌÉqÊÊA D@BË@ÍÎÏÐÑB}ÍÐÒDÓDÓËÑÔA@@ÕDÒÖ~ÑÕ× D@BË@ÍÎD@BË@ÍÎkØB {Ùq{ ÉÊ|ÉqÌÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÚÛ ÜŒÝÞ ßàáàßâ‘àÛ㎞“ä°å•µ¼¼À»¹½·¸´ÁÑi`a`_hc |Ç€æÇ Ùq{b^]`eÑ^bla`_hc ÊÙÊÇÊÉÇÌÊqÈxcj`¥´·ÁºÀ´¿´½¸Á•™¥´¸´ÀÁš@oc]iyy`]_d`_]cçcale`ÔBÓÑ× æÊq|_nn^]``]_d`_]cçcale`ÔBÓÑ× ÌÈq{a`cÎycoi`a^bÔBÖÑ× Ê q攸Àºè¸ºÀ´•¦²³´Ö?@AÎDÇÖ^b^n^ycéêëìêëéíîïïðñòîóô õö÷óøùîúûüýþÿîùûÿðêêýûûëþþ ê óêóýúûüýþÿê üýùû ïêëPage 115 of 249        !"# $%&$&'()*+,-./0 1234567869:;97<4=>?@A96BCB8>64D9?E68?C7:F@<<>GB)*+,HI/JI.,*KLM.NL OPQRST4U5VWF42FV:567869:18786X42<<78?CB8>6:F9CG?E:4V9X8YBGCB8>6:F9CG?E)Z[\M,)*+]G8^C?_:FBCB9A96B42`>@B:2FV42FV:;>A91UUabac8G979YYabadeFabaU5VWF ;97<abaD9?E:F@<<>GBfghgijkalmnnopqrjsqmptalmnnqttqmpuvawaxsiggsayz{jt|qp}smp~ala€ vvu ‚|mpgƒa„…†‡‡…u† …ˆ€ „‰xwaŠqhgm‹|mpgƒ„…†uu…uˆ€…€€‡vF@`A8B:;97<:V9Œ@9YB Ž Ž ‘’““”•–’—˜™š›—œš’žŸ ¡¢£’šŸ¤¥¦§¤£§§¨¤”ŽŽ©ª¡Ÿ¦Ÿ¤¤ «¬¢¢«­®¯Ž°¦¤—¨¨Ž—¤¡žŸ ¡¢£Ž§®© ª¡šŸ¤¥¦§«±¤¨ Ž Page 116 of 249 OE/AAA Pre-screening Results Wed May 28 2025 11:29:23 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Structure: Monopole Latitude Longitude Height Site Elevation AMSL 37.277346 -80.047486 199 995 1194 Based on the information you provided, you are not required to file notice with the FAA. Page 117 of 249 Page 118 of 249 Page 119 of 249 Page 120 of 249 Page 121 of 249 Page 122 of 249 319 Rowan Street Neighbor Notifi cation Map Page 123 of 249 AF FIOAVIT OF MAILING PURSUANT TO S15.2-2204 CODE OF VIRGINIA PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM #3B JULY 16, 2025 This is to certify that I mailed letters in reference to the request of McJohn Investments LLC, property owner, for the issuance of a special exception permit to allow a telecommunications tower on the property located at 319 Rowan Street (Tax Map #232-1- 1)to the following property owners and adjacent property owners on June 27, 2025, in the 2:00 p.m. mail: NORFOLK 650 WEST PEACHTREE ST NWATLANTA GA 30308 MCJOHN INVESTMENTS LLC239 ROWAN ST STE A SALEM VA 24153 HEDGBETH LLEWELLYN HEDGBETH ROGER A JR646 E MAIN ST SALEM VA 24153 VIRGI NIA APPALACHIANPROPERTIES LLC 239 ROWAN ST STE ASALEM VA 24153 CITY OF SALEMPO BOX869 SALEM VA 24153-0869 SUNSET RIDGE HOLDINGS LLCPO BOX4327 LYNCHBURG VA 24502 GRAHAM-WHITE MANUFACTURING CO 1242 S COLORADO STSALEM VA 24153 WALTERS FRANK M Ill WALTERS CYD R 5020 BRUCETON RD SWROANOKE VA 24018 � ----·-·---... Signed_ Z � � City of Salem Date_,_/_7_,__/4---'-�-=-6-�/ Commonwealth of Virginia ,t--/'h_ -r. I , , The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _L_. day of _J=--=-tu...=-"--�--_,. 20 J$by � -,.., I ftm rn 'j 0L1..11 n c;t�MW< J I My commission expires: ID 3/ �o;;l �r ' Page 124 of 249 Page 125 of 249 Item #: 6.E. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: August 11, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing for Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Special Exception Permit Hold a public hearing for the request of Brad Graham Real Estate LLC, contract purchaser, to rezone the property located at 638 Dalewood Avenue (Tax Map #33-2-3) from AG Agricultural District to RSF Residential Single-Family District and to request the issuance of a Special Exception Permit for 638, 672 and 696 Dalewood Avenue (Tax Map #s 33-2-3, 33-2-2 and 33-2-1) to allow the inclusion in the Cluster Housing Overlay. (Advertised in the July 24 and 31, 2025, issues of Cardinal News.) SUBMITTED BY: Chuck Van Allman, Director of Community Development SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Hold a public hearing to consider the request of Brad Graham Real Estate LLC, contract purchaser, to rezone the property located at 638 Dalewood Avenue (Tax Map #33-2-3) from AG Agricultural District to RSF Residential Single-Family District and to request the issuance of a Special Exception Permit for 638, 672 and 696 Dalewood Avenue (Tax Map #s 33-2-3, 33-2-2 and 33-2-1) to allow the inclusion in the Cluster Housing Overlay. (Advertised in the July 24 and 31, 2025, issues of Cardinal News.) FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council hold a public hearing on the requests to rezone the property located at 638 Dalewood Avenue (Tax Map #33-2-3) from AG Agricultural District to RSF Residential Single- Family District and for a Special Exception Permit for 638, 672 and 696 Dalewood Avenue (Tax Map #s 33-2-3, 33-2-2 and 33-2-1) to allow the inclusion in the Cluster Housing Overlay. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 126 of 249 Item #: 6.F. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: August 11, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Consider adoption of ordinance on first reading for the request of Brad Graham Real Estate LLC, contract purchaser, to rezone the property located at 638 Dalewood Avenue (Tax Map #33-2-3) from AG Agricultural District to RSF Residential Single-Family District with proffered conditions. (The Planning Commission recommended approval by a unanimous vote.) SUBMITTED BY: Chuck Van Allman, Director of Community Development SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Zoning: AG Agriculture/RSF Residential Single Family Land Use Plan Designation: Residential Existing Use: Residential Proposed Use: Residential subdivision with cluster lots 638, 672, and 696 Dalewood Avenue together consist of an approximately 13.289- acre tract of land, with 638 Dalewood Avenue possessing the AG Agriculture zoning designation, and 672 and 696 Dalewood Avenue sitting within the RSF Residential Single Family zoning district. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to situate all parcels in the RSF Residential Single Family district, and a Special Exception Permit to develop a single family subdivision within the Cluster housing overlay which allows for a reduction of minimum lot standards. The property owners have voluntarily submitted two proffers for the rezoning request that have been incorporated in the attached ordinance: 1. The minimum lot width will be 60 feet, excluding cul-de-sac lots. 2. Walking trails to be installed as part of the project would be open to the neighborhood. Page 127 of 249 Note that these proffers are applicable only to the parcel included in this rezoning request. The entire proposed development encompasses multiple parcels for which Council will consider a Special Exception Permit in agenda item 6.G to allow for a Cluster Housing Overlay, contingent upon final approval of this rezoning at a second reading. Should Council be amenable to the rezoning and subsequent issuance of the Special Exception Permit in agenda item 6G, staff recommends Council add conditions in approving the Special Exception Permit to reflect the intent of the proffers as applicable to the entire proposed development. The concept plan submitted as part of the application displays 35 lots for development, with corresponding open space and stormwater management areas. The cluster housing overlay requires that any reduction in lot size be compensated by open space preservation. If approved, the project would be required to meet the appropriate City of Salem and State of Virginia development standards which are integrated into the standard site plan and subdivision plat review process. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as residential, which is consistent with the proposed future utilization of the property. REQUIREMENTS: The proposal meets the requirements of Section 106-202.3., RSF Residential Single Family site development regulations, and 106-222.3. COL Cluster housing overlay site development regulations. FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend consideration of the ordinance with the following proffered conditions: 1. The minimum lot width will be 60 feet, excluding cul-de-sac lots. 2. Walking trails to be installed as part of the project would be open to the neighborhood. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Item 6F 8-11-25 Rezoning Application Dalewood 2. Item 6F.6G 8-11-25 638 672 696 Dalewood Affidavit 3. Item 6F.6G. 8-11-25 Dalewood Avenue Neighbor Notification Map 4. Item 6f.6G 8-11-25 Dalewood Avenue Subdivision Concept 5. Item 6F 8-11-25 sink property legal description UPDATED 6. Item 6F 8-11-25 Proffer Statement 638 Dalewood Page 128 of 249 7. Item 6E.6F.6G 8-11-25 638 672 696 Council meeting owner notification letter Dalewood Avenue 8. Item 6F 8-11-25 RezoningOrdinance 638 Dalewood Avenue Tax Map 33-2-3 Page 129 of 249 Page 130 of 249 Page 131 of 249 Page 132 of 249 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING PURSUANT TO S15.2�2204 CODE OF VIRGINIA PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM #3C JULY 16, 2025 This is to certify that I mailed letters in reference to the request of Brad Graham Real Estate LLC, contract purchaser, for rezoning of the property located at 638 Dalewood Avenue (Tax Map #33-2-3) from AG Agricultural District to RSF Residential Single-Family District and to request the issuance of a Special Exception Permit for 638, 672 and 696 Dalewood Avenue (Tax Map #s 33-2-3, 33-2-2 and 33-2-1) to allow their inclusion in the Cluster Housing Overlay to the following property owners and adjacent property owners on June 27, 2025, in the 2:00 p.m. mail: ALLS JAMES ALLS NORMA JEAN GREER NEIDA K 1633 REECE RD SALEM VA 24153 BOBBY COLE LOONEY AND JANE LEE CALDWELL LOONEY JOI 519 DALEWOOD AVE SALEM VA 24153 CUBBISON BRIAN N 1657 REECE RD SALEM VA 24153 FAITH CENTRAL FELLOWSHIP INC 677 DALEWOOD AVE SALEM VA 24153 HAMBRICK RAYMOND S 514 DALEWOOD AVE SALEM VA 24153 HARTMAN E R JR 6047 GREEN RIDGE RD ROANOKE VA 24019 KING SUSAN 2225 BAINBRIDGE DR SALEM VA 24153 LAMPRINAKOS ANGELA R 1632 REECE RD SALEM VA 24153 MANN EDWARD W MANN CINDY L 1717 GREEN RIDGE RD SALEM VA 24153 MCMILLAN DANIEL E MCMILLAN KATE D 1662 REECE RD SALEM VA 24153 BELL CLOYSE W BELL SHARON 610 DALEWOOO AVE SALEM VA 24153 CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST 50 E NORTH TEMPLE ST 22ND FLOOR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 DAVIS KYLE J CHRISTOPHER CLAIRE D 614 DALEWOOD AVE SALEM VA 24153 GABRI$ JOSEPH ROBERT GABRIS MARY EVELYN 1610 REECE RD SALEM VA 24153 HANCOCK BLAINE M CROZIER JENNA N 1725 GREEN RIDGE RD SALEM VA 24153 HINTON KAREN V 1710 WAYBURN DR SALEM VA 24153 KNOUFF JANICE WALKER JONATHAN 6320 WAYBURN DR SALEM VA 24153 LEFFLER PATSY 1618 REECE RD SALEM VA 24153 MARTIN ANGELA D 1817 GREEN RIDGE RO SALEM VA 24153 MCNEIL EDWARD L 1745 GREEN RIDGE RD SALEM VA 24153 BLANKENSHIP-MARTIN CATHERINE A 1781 GREEN RIDGE RD SALEM VA 24153 CROSIER BOBBY P CROSIER ESTHER M 1714 WAYBURN DR SALEM VA 24153 DUDLEY JAMIE D 1645 REECE RD SALEM VA 24153 HAGERMAN MEGAN ANN TRUST ANDERSON DESIMONE & GREEN PC 4923 COLONIAL AVE ROANOKE VA 24018 HARRIS SANDRA SUE 1628 REECE RD SALEM VA 24153 HUNGATE NATHAN B HUNGATE JENNIFER 8005 WHITTLER CT ROANOKE VA 24019 KNOUFF RUSSELL B JR KNOUFF JANICE M BAINS MARGARET L 6320 WA YBURN DR SALEM VA 24153 LONG JEFFREY L 1722 WAYBURN OR SALEM VA 24153 MASSIE JENNA K 1667 REECE RO SALEM VA 24153 MEGAN ANN HAGERMAN TRUST AGREEMENT 4923 COLONIAL AVE ROANOKE VA 24018 Page 133 of 249 Page 134 of 249 Dalewood Avenue Neighbor Notification Map (Salem) Neighbor Notification Map (Roanoke County) Page 135 of 249 DALEWOOD AVE RE E C E R D EX. PROPERTY LINES TO BE VACATED EXISTING SLOPE TO BE GRADED FOR SIGHT DISTANCE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SHARED DRIVEWAY POSSIBLE FUTURE RSF LOTS PROJECT NO. REVISIONS SCALE DATE CHECKED BY DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY www.balzer.cc Roanoke / Richmond New River Valley Shenandoah Valley P L A N N E R S / A R C H I T E C T S E N G I N E E R S / S U R V E Y O R S N: \ _ B A L \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 5 \ 0 0 \ 0 4 \ R 0 0 6 9 4 5 6 . 0 0 D A L E W O O D S U B D I V I S I O N \ C I V I L \ d w g \ 2 0 2 5 - 6 - 1 2 C o n c e p t \ 2 0 2 5 - 6 - 1 6 C o n c e p t . d w g P L O T T E D : 6/ 1 7 / 2 0 2 5 3 : 5 8 : 3 1 P M 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 540.772.9580 CAN KAM CPB 6/17/2025 1" = 50' DA L E W O O D S U B D I V I S I O N CO N C E P T U A L S U B D I V I S I O N P L A N SA L E M , V A 67 2 D A L E W O O D A V E EX-A R0069456.00 PR E L I M I N A R Y NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SITE AND ZONING SUMMARY NOTE: RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES MINIMUM OF 15% OF DEVELOPMENT SIZE TO BE OPEN SPACE, OR ONE SQUARE FOOT OF OPEN SPACE FOR EACH SQUARE FOOT OF REDUCTION IN LOT SIZE BELOW 9,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. Page 136 of 249 I flat .... __ _ lr.:L,_-� .• - fee L �L Trnfw-.S-­ T.iLJCJL 'lll-,.J., ") :':-'IS DE!D, I.lad• and •11tue4 illto \btP' tha\th clay �t nb!'llll'J', U"8, by Md between •• , D. TREVff· llll4 .ia.JJ. TRKYU, hla. W:1re, pt.rt.he ot th• f1r•t p•rt, und '-· ·•• SIIIJt on4 11.UD,"I ·11. SIRE, h1ielu1114 1114 •it•, aa Joint tenanta retelnlnl!. the r1gbt or 1urvhorah1p, po.1"\iH or th.-••oon4 part, •w1·1·111•8il1'1'r -----,----- ;11/,T for and 1n oon■ 14•rat1on ot tb• •• or 1•BJIII TBOll!UIU) DOLU.15, 133,000,00I, Ceeh 1n ha!l4, paid b7•th• pu•ti•• ot tile ... ond part to the parties or the rlr•t part, reo•lpt ot wblob 1• h•r•by_aalalOwle4g•4, The parilae or the t1ret part do bereb7 gtant, bvga1n, aell and eonve7, with cove110.11h ot ,enero.l ,1arrut7 ;;·;•1tle, unto J.,W,S1nk cuad i.u1no "• Sinll:, o.a Jo lat tena'!,, tbe auJ"YlYor tall:lng tbe tee • IAple t1 tle as roco0nlud In and provided ror by ···••t,1on 5160 ot tho �ode or , lrg1alo or 1919, as Mended t� date: parties or tha aaoond part, all of that certain lot or yereel or •and, lying and being In the countyot &&1111011:a, v1rg1n1o., ,od �ore particularly da,or1�•d aa tollon, to-wit: �l!r.IN!lr.!G at a point in tho ce11-ter ot State Seo,•Route No. 831 at • .l" on map and bel1111 the •outlnfHt corner ot the ;., L, ,:;uthrie tract lDB,290,page 23811 thenoe with tile lined Guthrie N 75-55 ! pu1lng ell irton at 33,5 1 in llll 297.0' to an iron at "B"; tbeao, }'. 14-lllf 1n.o• to an iron on the aouth aiae· ot a 15' road at •c•f tjlenoe wltb tbe rod II 7D-5H 30,0' to •o•; t b•nce Nl4-lllf :;.o• to a point at,••• on.�lne ot tbe ·1y1er propert7; tbenoe wltb th• lln• ot th� T7lar pl'Opert7 6 76-551 658,3' to a corner tenc• poet 1t -,•oorner to oJ,C-• .t.nderaon property; the11oe .w.1th the l1ne..,t •-81S-5d '75,8' to a etu:e at "G" on lln� or tho eout� traot ot tba 8Ullll l.fran7 aub­d1Y1&1on; theno, with thl line or,_. 888•1'1W 78'.3' to • 'point 1n �• canter or Stat• Sao, Jloute Ro, 631 at "ll•; thence with the road Nlll-551f :1110,0• to a point at •r; tll.aD.� • at-28W 109. 3 • to the 8eg1nn1ag, allcl oontailling '• 7' acrr�• eHlud1ng the eaet Olle-be.lt ot th• �tat• Road an4 being �he remaining propert1 owned bJ W, o. TraYef looata4 on �h• •••t •14• ot �tat• Sao, Route Ho, 631 u ■hown ill datail_fl...UdJp0.. by T,P,Parker, O,!,, 4ate4 Jan, 30 lka1 and helngftlll-iiiffl>Mperty oonveya4 to partiH ot the ti.rat pan by 4 .. 4 4aw4 1 and recorded 1n de,4 boot , page , 1n th• Clerk'• Ott10e ot the County ot noanoka Ya, lnoluded 111 tbla 4n4 ii 15 tt. rlgbi-ot••r. ruervod al<>ag no, h4e ,or ;.,L,C...tbrio.lan4,aooor41ag to 11.9 made b ,P,Parll:er TO lliV! ARD 'l'O HOLD uto L,1f, Sl.D.t ut lld�•�•!Jldrta& 1.&4 :IQ-.4946, .. 1re, tor Md during Ule11' "joill\ llfll ldtll th• remain4er unto the •• �J••r• • � Ll\.u •-'!',,; -aurv1Yor 0114 hla or her heir• u4 aeatgne tor.Yer, in tee-staple, Page 137 of 249 Page 138 of 249 Page 139 of 249 Page 140 of 249 AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 638 DALEWOOD AVENUE (TAX MAP # 33-2-3) FROM AG AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO RSF RESIDENTIAL SINGLE- FAMILY DISTRICT WITH PROFFERED CONDITIONS. WHEREAS, Brad Graham Real Estate, LLC, contract purchaser, petitioned to rezone the parcel located at 638 Dalewood Avenue (Tax Map #33-2-3) from AG Agricultural District to RSF Residential Single-Family District with proffered conditions; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning is in accordance with good zoning practice; and WHEREAS, the City of Salem Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that the parcel at 638 Dalewood Avenue (TAX MAP #33-2-3) be and hereby is rezoned to RSF Residential Single-Family District with the following proffers: 1. The minimum lot width will be 60 ft., excluding cul-de-sac lots. 2. Walking trails to be installed as part of the project would be open to the neighborhood. The map shall be changed in this respect and no other, said property being described as follows: Beginning at a point in the center of State Sec.- Route No. 631 at “A" on map and being the southwest corner of the A.L. Guthrie tract (DB.290,page 238); thence with line of Guthrie N 75-55 E passing an iron at 33.3’ in all 297.0' to an iron at "B"; thence, N 14-11W 199.0’ to an iron on the south side of a 15' road at “C”; thence with the road N 75-55E 30.0’ to “D”; thence N14-11W 15.0’ to a point at “E” on line of the Tyler property; thence with the line of the Tyler property N 75-55E 656.3’ to a corner fence post at “F” corner to J.C. Anderson property; thence with the line of same S13-56E 475.8’ to a stake at “G” on line of the south tract of the Sarah E. Trevey subdivision; thence with the line of same S66-17W 724.3’ to a point in the center of State Sec. Route No. 631 at “H”; thence with the road N51-55W 360.0’ to a point at “J”; thence N 39-26W 109. 3’ to the Beginning, and containing 9.77 acres excluding the east one-half of the State Road and being the remaining property owned by W. D. Travey located on the east side of State Sec. Route No. 631 as shown in detail on map made by T.P. Parker, O.E., dated Jan. 30, 1948; and being a portion of the same property conveyed to parties of the first part by deed dated the 7th day of February, 1948, and recorded in deed book 383, page 372, in the Clerk’s Office of the County of Roanoke, Va. Included in this deed is 15 ft. right-of-way reserved along no. side of A. L. Guthrie, land, according to map made by T. P. Parker, dated Jan. 30, 1948. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be and the same are hereby repealed. Page 141 of 249 This ordinance shall be in full force and effect ten (10) days after its final passage. Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows: John Saunders - H. Hunter Holliday – Byron Randolph Foley – Anne Marie Green – Renee F. Turk – Passed: Effective: /s/____ _ Mayor ATTEST: H. Robert Light Clerk of Council City of Salem, Virginia Page 142 of 249 Item #: 6.G. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: August 11, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Special Exception Permit Consider the request of Brad Graham Real Estate LLC, contract purchaser, for a Special Exception Permit for 638, 672 and 696 Dalewood Avenue (Tax Map #s 33-2-3, 33-2-2 and 33-2-1) to allow their inclusion in the Cluster Housing Overlay. (The Planning Commission recommended approval by a unanimous vote.) The approval of the Special Exception Permit is contingent upon final Council approval on second reading of the ordinance to rezone the property located at 639 Dalewood Avenue from AG Agricultural District to RSF Residential Single-Family District. SUBMITTED BY: Maxwell Dillon, Planner SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Zoning: AG Agriculture/RSF Residential Single Family Land Use Plan Designation: Residential Existing Use: Residential Proposed Use: Residential subdivision with cluster lots 638, 672, and 696 Dalewood Avenue together consist of an approximately 13.289- acre tract of land, with 638 Dalewood Avenue possessing the AG Agriculture zoning designation, and 672 and 696 Dalewood Avenue sitting within the RSF Residential Single Family zoning district. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to situate all parcels in the RSF Residential Single Family district, and a Special Exception Permit to develop a single family subdivision within the Cluster housing overlay which allows for a reduction of minimum lot standards. As noted in item 6.F, the property owner voluntarily submitted proffers for the parcel in the proposed development that requires rezoning. While proffers are not applicable for Special Exception Permits, Council may add conditions at their discretion. Staff recommends that Council add the following conditions to this Special Exception Permit Page 143 of 249 should they wish to approve (note that the recommended condition related to walking trails varies slightly from that in the proffer submitted for the companion rezoning item for clarification purposes to reflect that the trails would be open to the public vs. "neighborhood" to avoid any confusion as to the definition of "neighborhood"): 1. The minimum lot width will be 60 feet, excluding cul-de-sac lots. 2. Walking trails to be installed as part of the project would be open to the public. The concept plan submitted as part of the application displays 35 lots for development, with corresponding open space and stormwater management areas. The cluster housing overlay requires that any reduction in lot size be compensated by open space preservation. If approved, the project would be required to meet the appropriate City of Salem and State of Virginia development standards which are integrated into the standard site plan and subdivision plat review process. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as residential, which is consistent with the proposed future utilization of the property. REQUIREMENTS: The proposal meets the requirements of Section 106-202.3., RSF Residential Single Family site development regulations, and 106-222.3. COL Cluster housing overlay site development regulations. FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council consider approval of the Special Exception Permit with the following conditions, contingent upon Council final approval on second reading of the ordinance to rezone the property located at 639 Dalewood Avenue from AG Agricultural District to RSF Residential Single-Family District: 1. The minimum lot width will be 60 ft., excluding cul-de-sac lots. 2. Walking trails to be installed as part of the project would be open to the public. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Item 6G 8-11-25 Special Exception Permit Application 638 Dalewood 2. Item 6G 8-11-25 672 Dalewood Kelly_SEP application 3. Item 6G 8-11-25 696 Dalewood Whitenack_SEP application 4. Item 6G 8-11-25 Dalewood Avenue Subdivision Concept Page 144 of 249 Page 145 of 249 Page 146 of 249 Page 147 of 249 DigiSign Verified - e3783f62-880a-4ac1-a893-47dc54ff40e3 Brad Graham Brad Graham 07/21/2025 07/21/2025JohnKelly John Kelly Page 148 of 249 DigiSign Verified - e3783f62-880a-4ac1-a893-47dc54ff40e3 Brad Graham Brad Graham 07/21/2025 John Kelly 07/21/2025 John Kelly Page 149 of 249 DigiSign Verified - e3783f62-880a-4ac1-a893-47dc54ff40e3 Page 150 of 249 DigiSign Verified - 82c8ee95-f21f-442f-a7ed-54cb6c7869fb 07/21/2025 Brad Graham Brad Graham Ann Whitenack Ann Whitenack 07/22/2025 Page 151 of 249 DigiSign Verified - 82c8ee95-f21f-442f-a7ed-54cb6c7869fb 07/21/2025 Brad Graham Brad Graham 07/22/2025AnnWhitenack Ann Whitenack Page 152 of 249 DigiSign Verified - 82c8ee95-f21f-442f-a7ed-54cb6c7869fb Page 153 of 249 DALEWOOD AVE RE E C E R D EX. PROPERTY LINES TO BE VACATED EXISTING SLOPE TO BE GRADED FOR SIGHT DISTANCE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SHARED DRIVEWAY POSSIBLE FUTURE RSF LOTS PROJECT NO. REVISIONS SCALE DATE CHECKED BY DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY www.balzer.cc Roanoke / Richmond New River Valley Shenandoah Valley P L A N N E R S / A R C H I T E C T S E N G I N E E R S / S U R V E Y O R S N: \ _ B A L \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 5 \ 0 0 \ 0 4 \ R 0 0 6 9 4 5 6 . 0 0 D A L E W O O D S U B D I V I S I O N \ C I V I L \ d w g \ 2 0 2 5 - 6 - 1 2 C o n c e p t \ 2 0 2 5 - 6 - 1 6 C o n c e p t . d w g P L O T T E D : 6/ 1 7 / 2 0 2 5 3 : 5 8 : 3 1 P M 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 540.772.9580 CAN KAM CPB 6/17/2025 1" = 50' DA L E W O O D S U B D I V I S I O N CO N C E P T U A L S U B D I V I S I O N P L A N SA L E M , V A 67 2 D A L E W O O D A V E EX-A R0069456.00 PR E L I M I N A R Y NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SITE AND ZONING SUMMARY NOTE: RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES MINIMUM OF 15% OF DEVELOPMENT SIZE TO BE OPEN SPACE, OR ONE SQUARE FOOT OF OPEN SPACE FOR EACH SQUARE FOOT OF REDUCTION IN LOT SIZE BELOW 9,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. Page 154 of 249 Item #: 6.H. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: August 11, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Hold a public hearing and consider ordinance on first reading for the request of ABoone Real Estate Inc., contract purchaser, to rezone the properties located at 1002 and 1108 Newman Drive (Tax Map #s 58-1-1 and 58-1-2) from LM Light Manufacturing District with proffered conditions to RMF Residential Multi-Family District with proffered conditions. (Advertised in the July 24 and 31, 2025, issues of Cardinal News.) (The Planning Commission recommended approval by a 4-0 vote with one member recusing himself.) SUBMITTED BY: Chuck Van Allman, Director of Community Development SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Zoning: LM Light Manufacturing with proffered conditions Land Use Plan Designation: Residential Existing Use: Radio tower site Proposed Use: Townhouse development to be known as “Creekside Park.” The subject properties (1002 and 1108 Newman Drive) together consist of an approximately 40.501-acre tract of land which currently sits within the LM Light Manufacturing zoning designation. Several radio towers are currently situated on the site. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property from LM Light Manufacturing with proffered conditions to RMF Residential Multi Family with proffered conditions in order to facilitate the development of a townhouse residential community with 171 units according to the concept plan dated 07/01/2024. The City of Salem Engineering Division has reviewed the Traffic Impact Study included with the applicant’s submittal. If approved, the project would be required to meet the appropriate City of Salem and State of Virginia development standards which are integrated into the standard site Page 155 of 249 plan and subdivision plat review process. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as residential which is consistent with the proposed future utilization of the property. REQUIREMENTS: The proposal meets the requirements of Section 106-204.3., site development regulations for RMF Residential Multi-Family. FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend Council consider first reading of the ordinance with the following proffered conditions: 1. The development shall consist of townhouses only. 2. The development shall not exceed 171 townhouses. 3. All community amenities, including but not limited to walking trails or paths and playgrounds, shall be open and accessible to residents and the general public. 4. The historic railroad bridge will be protected from development and left in its “as is” condition, reasonable wear and tear from the elements to be expected. Owner shall create pedestrian access for residents and the general public to visit and view the bridge. Owner shall have no obligation to maintain the structure of the bridge itself. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Newman Drive Rezoning application 2. Newman Drive project narrative 3. Newman Drive concept plan 4. Newman Drive Traffic Impact Study 5. Newman Drive legal description 6. Affidavit - 1002 1108 Newman Signed Notarized 7. Newman Drive Neighbor Notification Map 8. Valley Railroad Bridge National Register Form with Photos 9. Item 6H 8-11-25 Council meeting owner notification letter 1002 1108 Newman Drive 10. Newman Drive Proffer Statement EXECUTED 11. Item 6H 8-11-25 Rezoning Ordinance for 1002 1108 Newman Drive (T.M. 58-1-1 and 58-1-2) Page 156 of 249 Page 157 of 249 Page 158 of 249 Page 159 of 249 Page 160 of 249 Page 161 of 249 Page 162 of 249 © 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS PROPOSED SWM AREA ROA D " A " RO A D " A " ROAD " A " RO A D " C " NEWMAN DR DO Y L E S T RO A D " B " RO A D " A " STOU T A M I R E D R FR E Y S T NORT H M I L L R D CA M P N O R T H R D OPEN SPACE ±19 Ac. 15' BUFFER YARD (TYPE "B" OPTION 2) 20' PERIPHERAL SETBACK 20' PERIPHERAL SETBACK 15' BUFFER YARD (TYPE "B" OPTION 2) 25' FRONT SETBACK 10 0 Y E A R FL O O D P L A I N 50 0 Y E A R F L O O D P L A I N FLO O D W A Y 10 0 Y E A R F L O O D P L A I N 500 Y E A R F L O O D P L A I N GIS H B R A N C H TR I B U T A R Y T O GI S H B R A N C H 107 6 107 8 107 9 108 3 108 7 10 7 0 10 6 7 10 6 2 10 5 9 PROJECT NO. REVISIONS SCALE DATE CHECKED BY DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY www.balzer.cc Roanoke / Richmond New River Valley Shenandoah Valley P L A N N E R S / A R C H I T E C T S E N G I N E E R S / S U R V E Y O R S J: \ 2 4 \ 0 0 \ 0 4 \ 0 4 2 4 0 0 2 2 . 0 0 N E W M A N D R I V E R E S I D E N T I A L D E V E L O P M E N T \ C I V I L \ d w g \ 0 4 2 4 0 0 2 2 . 0 0 C o n c e p t G r a d i n g B a s e . d w g P L O T T E D : 7/ 2 / 2 0 2 4 8 : 0 1 : 5 0 A M 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 540.772.9580 JJL JJL CPB 07/01/2024 1" = 100' CR E E K S I D E P A R K T O W N H O M E S CO N C E P T U A L S I T E P L A N 10 0 2 N E W M A N D R CI T Y O F S A L E M , V I R G I N I A EX-B 04240022.00 PR E L I M I N A R Y NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N Page 163 of 249 1 CREEKSIDE PARK Traffic Impact Study B&A Project #04240022.00 Date: November 6, 2024 Planners | Architects | Engineers | Surveyors 1208 Corporate Circle, Roanoke, VA 24018 www.balzer.cc Page 164 of 249 TRAFFIC STUDY FOR CREEKSIDE PARK TAX MAP #: 58-1-1, 58-1-2 NEWMAN DRIVE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA B&A PROJECT #04240022.00 DATE: November 6, 2024 11/6/24 PLANNERS ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Phone: (540) 772-9580 Page 165 of 249 Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………. 1 2. Analysis of Existing Conditions………………………………………………………....... 3 3. Analysis of Future Conditions Without Development.……..…………………………... 5 4. Trip Generation.…………………………………………………………………….……… 7 5. Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment…………………………..……………………. 8 6. Analysis of Future Conditions with Development……….…………………….............. 10 7. Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………… 14 Appendix A – Vicinity Map………………………………………………………………... 15 Appendix B – Concept Plan………....…………………..………………….……………. 17 Appendix C –Traffic Count Data…………………………………………………………. 19 Appendix D – Synchro 11 Intersection Analysis Data………..………….……………. 24 2024 Existing AM Peak Hour Analysis………………………………………… 25 2024 Existing PM Peak Hour Analysis………………………………………… 29 2028 Background AM Peak Hour Analysis……………………………………. 33 2028 Background PM Peak Hour Analysis……………………………………. 37 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hour Analysis…..……………………….…………… 41 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hour Analysis………..………………………………. 45 Page 166 of 249 List of Figures Fig. 1 – 2024 Existing Turning Movements…..……………………..………….……............……….. 4 Fig. 2 – 2028 Projected Turning Movements..…………………………..............................……….. 6 Fig. 3 – Site-Generated Turning Movements...……………...………….............................……….. 9 Fig. 4 –2028 Buildout Turning Movements..…………..….…...………………..………….……........ 11 List of Tables Table 1 – LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HCM)………...…………………………….. 2 Table 2 – Site-Generated Traffic…………………...…..…………………………….…….....……….. 7 Table 3 – East Main Street & Parkdale Drive LOS Analysis………..…………….………..……….. 12 Table 4 – Parkdale Drive & Forest Lawn Drive LOS Analysis……………………….……..……….. 12 Table 5 – Kesler Mill Road & Forest Lawn Drive LOS Analysis……....…………….……..……….. 13 Table 6 – Kesler Mill Road & Stoutamire Drive LOS Analysis….…..……………….……..……….. 13 Page 167 of 249 Traffic Study 1 Creekside Park – City of Salem, VA November 6, 2024 1. Introduction The applicant is proposing to rezone +/-40.5 acres of land located at the end of Newman Drive in the City of Salem (see Appendix A for vicinity map). The property is proposed to be rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing, to RMF, Residential Multi-Family to allow for proposed townhomes to be developed on the property. The Concept Plan is included in Appendix B and shows that approximately 180 townhome units could be developed on the property. The site is located at the end of Newman Drive and to the west of Doyle Street. The property is described as City of Salem Tax Parcels #58-1-1 and 58-1-2. Development traffic will access the site from the end of Newman Drive. As discussed with the City of Salem, the following intersections will be analyzed to determine levels of service with the proposed development: · Stoutamire Drive and Kesler Mill Road (Unsignalized) · Parkdale Drive and East Main Street (Unsignalized) · Parkdale Drive and Forest Lawn Drive (Unsignalized) · Forest Lawn Drive and Kesler Mill Road (Unsignalized) All roads in the direct vicinity of the project are two-lane local roads that provide access between residential areas, East Main Street, and some businesses along Kesler Mill Road. The speed limit on these local roads in the direct vicinity of the project is 25 mph. Three scenarios will be considered: Existing Condition 2024, Background Condition 2028, and Buildout Condition 2028 to determine the effects of the background traffic growth and the proposed development on the levels of service at the existing intersections. Level of service (LOS) for unsignalized intersections is evaluated based on control delay per vehicle and the driver’s perception of those conditions. Control delay is the portion of the total delay attributed to the control at the intersection. Table 1 depicts the LOS scale with corresponding control delay per vehicle, with LOS “A” representing the best operating conditions and LOS “F” representing the worst. Page 168 of 249 Traffic Study 2 Creekside Park – City of Salem, VA November 6, 2024 Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level Of Service Avg. Control Delay (Sec./Veh) A < 10 B > 10 – 15 C > 15 – 25 D > 25 – 35 E > 35 – 50 F > 50 Table 1: LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HCM) The Synchro 11 software was used for traffic modeling and analysis. This study was undertaken by Balzer and Associates, Inc. to: · determine the total number of vehicle trips generated by the potential development to be added to the adjacent street network; · determine the impacts to level of service at the existing intersections as a result of the background traffic growth and the proposed development; · and to determine if any roadway or intersection improvements are warranted as a result of the proposed development. Page 169 of 249 Traffic Study 3 Creekside Park – City of Salem, VA November 6, 2024 2. Analysis of Existing Conditions The site is currently owned by Mel Wheeler, Inc. There are four large radio towers that exist on the property, along with supporting access drive, parking area, and building. These existing improvements will be removed as part of the proposed development. There is an existing creek crossing the property from northwest to southeast. The existing creek will be preserved, as well as the steep, wooded areas located to the west and south of the creek. A portion of the site consists of 100-year floodplain and floodway areas. All development on the property will occur to the north and west of the existing creek. All intersections in the vicinity of the site are unsignalized. 2021 VDOT traffic count data is available for East Main Street and Kessler Mill Road in the vicinity of the site, and this data is provided below as general background information. 2021 VDOT Traffic Count Data: East Main Street, Rte. 460 AADT = 11,000 vpd Directional Factor = 0.5726 K Factor = 0.0925 Kessler Mill Road, Rte. 630 AADT = 1,800 vpd Directional Factor = 0.52 K Factor = 0.1058 In addition to the VDOT published traffic count data, manual traffic counts were performed for each of the study intersections. The counts were performed on Wednesday, August 28, 2024 from 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM to capture the AM and PM peak hours. All turning and through movements were counted to facilitate analysis of the intersections. The manual traffic count data is provided in Appendix C. Figure 1 graphically depicts the existing peak hour traffic volumes. The Synchro 11 software was used to analyze delay and level of service for existing weekday AM and PM peak hours. The Synchro 11 results are included in Appendix D. Page 170 of 249 4 Page 171 of 249 Traffic Study 5 Creekside Park – City of Salem, VA November 6, 2024 3. Analysis of Future Conditions Without Development It is anticipated that the proposed development will be constructed and in use by the year 2028. To analyze the future conditions and obtain the projected background traffic volumes, an annual growth factor was applied to the existing traffic volumes. Based on historical VDOT traffic data, average daily traffic on East Main Street appears to have decreased over the past 10 years. To provide a conservative analysis, a 1% annual growth rate was applied to bring the existing traffic volumes from the current year of 2024 to the buildout year of 2028. Figure 2 graphically depicts the projected background traffic in the year 2028 with the growth rate applied. The Synchro 11 software was used to analyze delay and level of service for background weekday AM and PM peak hours. The Synchro 11 results are included in Appendix D. Page 172 of 249 6 Page 173 of 249 Traffic Study 7 Creekside Park – City of Salem, VA November 6, 2024 4. Trip Generation Trip generation for this study was based on the expectation that approximately 180 townhomes can be developed on the property. The policies and procedures found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, were employed to determine the potential site generated traffic volumes for the proposed development for the average weekday and AM and PM peak hours. Trip generation calculations were performed using the equations provided in the ITE manual. Table 2 shows the potential site-generated traffic for this development. Trip Generation Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday Proposed Development ITE Code Independent Variable Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total Single-Family Attached Housing 215 180 Dwelling Units 22 66 88 61 43 104 1,321 Table 2: Site-Generated Traffic Page 174 of 249 Traffic Study 8 Creekside Park – City of Salem, VA November 6, 2024 5. Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment The distribution of potential site generated traffic is expected to be similar to existing site distribution patterns. The traffic count data was utilized to make assumptions about site traffic distribution and assignment. These assumptions were then applied to the site generated traffic to determine the ingress/egress movements at the entrance and in each direction. All traffic will enter and exit the site at the end of Newman Drive. The surrounding road network requires vehicles to utilize the surrounding local streets and either East Main Street or Kessler Mill Road for access to and from the development. Trips were distributed in a manner that assumed that traffic from the proposed development will generally follow existing traffic patterns in the AM and PM peak hours. After distribution of trips to the roadway, trips were distributed to each road and intersection based on the assumptions described above. Traffic assignment for site generated traffic is shown graphically in Figure 3. Page 175 of 249 9 Page 176 of 249 Traffic Study 10 Creekside Park – City of Salem, VA November 6, 2024 6. Analysis of Future Conditions With Development The buildout traffic was calculated by adding the 2028 background traffic (Figure 2) to the site-generated traffic (Figure 3). The 2028 buildout traffic for each of the study intersections is shown in Figure 4. The intersections were then modeled and evaluated using the Synchro 11 software. Tables 3 through 6 provide a summary of the levels of service and delays calculated at each intersection for the 2024 Existing, 2028 Background, and 2028 Buildout conditions. The detailed Synchro 11 reports are included in Appendix D. As shown in the data, all approaches at the four study intersections will function at the same level of service in the Buildout condition as they do in the Existing and Background conditions, with minimal increases in delay. No further improvements are warranted or recommended as a result of the expected development traffic. Page 177 of 249 11 Page 178 of 249 Traffic Study 12 Creekside Park – City of Salem, VA November 6, 2024 East Main Street and Parkdale Drive CONDITION LANE GROUP AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LANE LOS (delay) LANE LOS (delay) Existing 2024 Condition EBL A (7.6) A (8.4) SBL B (11.5) C (19.9) SBR A (9.5) B (11.3) Background 2028 Condition EBL A (7.7) A (8.5) SBL B (11.7) C (21.1) SBR A (9.6) B (11.5) Buildout 2028 Condition EBL A (7.7) A (8.6) SBL B (12.0) C (23.8) SBR A (9.8) B (11.8) Table 3: East Main Street & Parkdale Drive LOS Analysis Parkdale Drive and Forest Lawn Drive CONDITION LANE GROUP AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LANE LOS (delay) LANE LOS (delay) Existing 2024 Condition WBLR A (9.1) A (9.0) SBL A (7.3) A (7.3) Background 2028 Condition NBLTR A (9.1) A (9.0) EBL A (7.3) A (7.3) Buildout 2028 Condition NBLTR A (9.4) A (9.3) EBL A (7.3) A (7.4) Table 4: Parkdale Drive & Forest Lawn Drive LOS Analysis Page 179 of 249 Traffic Study 13 Creekside Park – City of Salem, VA November 6, 2024 Kesler Mill Road and Forest Lawn Drive CONDITION LANE GROUP AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LANE LOS (delay) LANE LOS (delay) Existing 2024 Condition NBL A (7.5) A (7.5) EBLR B (10.1) A (9.8) Background 2028 Condition NBL A (7.5) A (7.6) EBLR B (10.2) A (9.9) Buildout 2028 Condition NBL A (7.5) A (7.6) EBLR B (10.1) A (9.8) Table 5: Kesler Mill Road & Forest Lawn Drive LOS Analysis Kesler Mill Road and Stoutamire Drive CONDITION LANE GROUP AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LANE LOS (delay) LANE LOS (delay) Existing 2024 Condition NBL A (7.6) A (7.5) EBLR B (11.0) B (10.2) Background 2028 Condition NBL A (7.7) A (7.5) EBLR B (11.2) B (10.3) Buildout 2028 Condition NBL A (7.7) A (7.6) EBLR B (11.7) B (10.7) Table 6: Kesler Mill Road & Stoutamire Drive LOS Analysis Page 180 of 249 Traffic Study 14 Creekside Park – City of Salem, VA November 6, 2024 7. Conclusions Based on the data collected, the assumptions made, and the projected site-generated traffic, the results of the analysis are outlined below. · The proposed development will generate additional traffic to the existing road network. · The proposed development results in minimal increases in delay at the study intersections and all approaches function at the same level of service in the Existing, Background, and Buildout scenarios. · No roadway improvements are warranted or recommended as a result of the proposed development. Page 181 of 249 Traffic Study Creekside Park – City of Salem, VA November 6, 2024 Appendix A Vicinity Map 15 Page 182 of 249 Traffic Study Creekside Park – City of Salem, VA November 6, 2024 SITE 16 Page 183 of 249 Traffic Study Creekside Park – City of Salem, VA November 6, 2024 Appendix B Concept Plan 17 Page 184 of 249 18 Page 185 of 249 Traffic Study Creekside Park – City of Salem, VA November 6, 2024 Appendix C Traffic Count Data 19 Page 186 of 249 TOTALS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by: VCU Intersection of: Parkdale Drive Date: August 28, 2024 Wednesday and: East Main Street Weather: Sunny/Warm Location: Salem, Virginia Entered by: SN Star Rating: 4 TOTAL on:Parkdale Drive on:on:East Main Street on:East Main Street N + S TIME + RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL E + W AM 7:00 - 7:15 17 0 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 26 0 34 5 0 39 83 7:15 - 7:30 25 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 2 24 0 0 26 0 40 9 0 49 100 7:30 - 7:45 16 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 4 21 0 0 25 0 35 11 0 46 87 7:45 - 8:00 16 0 2 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 4 30 0 0 34 0 47 13 0 60 112 8:00 - 8:15 21 0 1 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 3 21 0 0 24 0 33 10 0 43 89 8:15 - 8:30 16 0 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 1 38 0 0 39 0 39 8 0 47 103 8:30 - 8:45 13 0 4 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 3 62 0 0 65 0 28 9 0 37 119 8:45 - 9:00 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 3 56 0 0 59 0 33 5 0 38 107 2 Hr Totals 134 0 9 0 143 0 0 0 0 0 20 278 0 0 298 0 289 70 0 359 800 1 Hr Totals 7:00 - 8:00 74 0 3 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 10 101 0 0 111 0 156 38 0 194 382 7:15 - 8:15 78 0 3 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 13 96 0 0 109 0 155 43 0 198 388 7:30 - 8:30 69 0 4 0 73 0 0 0 0 0 12 110 0 0 122 0 154 42 0 196 391 7:45 - 8:45 66 0 8 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 11 151 0 0 162 0 147 40 0 187 423 8:00 - 9:00 60 0 6 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 10 177 0 0 187 0 133 32 0 165 418 PEAK HOUR 7:45 - 8:45 66 0 8 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 11 151 0 0 162 0 147 40 0 187 423 PM 4:00 - 4:15 5 0 5 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 3 93 0 0 96 0 105 17 0 122 228 4:15 - 4:30 6 0 6 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 4 82 0 0 86 0 92 7 0 99 197 4:30 - 4:45 8 0 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 4 94 0 0 98 0 90 13 1 104 211 4:45 - 5:00 7 0 4 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 3 78 0 0 81 0 84 10 0 94 186 5:00 - 5:15 14 0 7 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 9 102 0 0 111 0 123 9 0 132 264 5:15 - 5:30 6 0 3 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 79 0 0 88 0 99 9 0 108 205 5:30 - 5:45 10 0 5 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 4 98 0 0 102 0 88 10 0 98 215 5:45 - 6:00 8 0 2 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 8 86 0 0 94 0 74 14 0 88 192 2 Hr Totals 64 0 33 0 97 0 0 0 0 0 44 712 0 0 756 0 755 89 1 845 1698 1 Hr Totals 4:00 - 5:00 26 0 16 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 14 347 0 0 361 0 371 47 1 419 822 4:15 - 5:15 35 0 18 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 20 356 0 0 376 0 389 39 1 429 858 4:30 - 5:30 35 0 15 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 25 353 0 0 378 0 396 41 1 438 866 4:45 - 5:45 37 0 19 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 25 357 0 0 382 0 394 38 0 432 870 5:00 - 6:00 38 0 17 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 30 365 0 0 395 0 384 42 0 426 876 PEAK HOUR 5:00 - 6:00 38 0 17 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 30 365 0 0 395 0 384 42 0 426 876 TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM WEST 20 Page 187 of 249 TOTALS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by: VCU Intersection of: Parkdale Drive Date: August 28, 2024 Wednesday and: Forest Lawn Drive Weather: Sunny/Warm Location: Salem, Virginia Entered by: SN Star Rating: 4 TOTAL on:Parkdale Drive on:Parkdale Drive on:Forest Lawn Drive on:N + S TIME + RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL E + W AM 7:00 - 7:15 0 11 0 0 11 2 4 0 0 6 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 21 7:15 - 7:30 0 16 1 0 17 6 3 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 27 7:30 - 7:45 0 11 1 0 12 9 9 0 0 18 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 34 7:45 - 8:00 0 13 0 0 13 5 3 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 22 8:00 - 8:15 0 12 0 0 12 3 4 0 0 7 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 24 8:15 - 8:30 0 5 0 0 5 3 4 0 0 7 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 16 8:30 - 8:45 0 9 0 0 9 1 6 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 18 8:45 - 9:00 0 8 0 0 8 0 4 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 2 Hr Totals 0 85 2 0 87 29 37 0 0 66 1 0 21 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 175 1 Hr Totals 7:00 - 8:00 0 51 2 0 53 22 19 0 0 41 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 104 7:15 - 8:15 0 52 2 0 54 23 19 0 0 42 0 0 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 107 7:30 - 8:30 0 41 1 0 42 20 20 0 0 40 0 0 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 96 7:45 - 8:45 0 39 0 0 39 12 17 0 0 29 0 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 80 8:00 - 9:00 0 34 0 0 34 7 18 0 0 25 1 0 11 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 71 PEAK HOUR 7:15 - 8:15 0 52 2 0 54 23 19 0 0 42 0 0 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 107 PM 4:00 - 4:15 0 4 1 0 5 4 11 0 0 15 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 21 4:15 - 4:30 0 4 0 0 4 1 9 0 0 10 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 17 4:30 - 4:45 0 4 1 0 5 2 10 0 0 12 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 20 4:45 - 5:00 0 6 0 0 6 4 8 0 0 12 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 19 5:00 - 5:15 0 10 0 0 10 4 7 0 0 11 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 26 5:15 - 5:30 0 2 0 0 2 3 10 0 0 13 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 19 5:30 - 5:45 0 10 0 0 10 1 13 0 0 14 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 28 5:45 - 6:00 0 4 1 0 5 2 14 0 0 16 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 23 2 Hr Totals 0 44 3 0 47 21 82 0 0 103 4 0 19 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 173 1 Hr Totals 4:00 - 5:00 0 18 2 0 20 11 38 0 0 49 2 0 6 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 77 4:15 - 5:15 0 24 1 0 25 11 34 0 0 45 1 0 11 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 82 4:30 - 5:30 0 22 1 0 23 13 35 0 0 48 1 0 12 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 84 4:45 - 5:45 0 28 0 0 28 12 38 0 0 50 2 0 12 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 92 5:00 - 6:00 0 26 1 0 27 10 44 0 0 54 2 0 13 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 96 PEAK HOUR 5:00 - 6:00 0 26 1 0 27 10 44 0 0 54 2 0 13 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 96 TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM WEST 21 Page 188 of 249 TOTALS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by: VCU Intersection of: Kessler Mill Road Date: August 28, 2024 Wednesday and: Forest Lawn Drive Weather: Sunny/Warm Location: Salem, Virginia Entered by: SN Star Rating: 4 TOTAL on:Kesler Mill Road on:Kesler Mill Road on:Private Access on:Forest Lawn Drive N + S TIME + RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL E + W AM 7:00 - 7:15 3 29 0 0 32 0 28 1 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 62 7:15 - 7:30 1 26 1 0 28 0 32 1 0 33 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 0 8 70 7:30 - 7:45 3 20 0 0 23 0 26 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 0 10 59 7:45 - 8:00 4 34 0 0 38 0 35 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 79 8:00 - 8:15 4 25 0 0 29 0 21 1 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 7 58 8:15 - 8:30 1 32 2 1 36 3 8 0 0 11 1 1 1 0 3 1 0 5 0 6 56 8:30 - 8:45 1 27 2 0 30 1 15 1 0 17 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 50 8:45 - 9:00 0 18 0 0 18 1 17 1 0 19 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 42 2 Hr Totals 17 211 5 1 234 5 182 5 0 192 4 1 2 0 7 6 0 37 0 43 476 1 Hr Totals 7:00 - 8:00 11 109 1 0 121 0 121 2 0 123 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 22 0 25 270 7:15 - 8:15 12 105 1 0 118 0 114 2 0 116 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 27 0 31 266 7:30 - 8:30 12 111 2 1 126 3 90 1 0 94 1 1 1 0 3 4 0 25 0 29 252 7:45 - 8:45 10 118 4 1 133 4 79 2 0 85 1 1 2 0 4 2 0 19 0 21 243 8:00 - 9:00 6 102 4 1 113 5 61 3 0 69 3 1 2 0 6 3 0 15 0 18 206 PEAK HOUR 7:00 - 8:00 11 109 1 0 121 0 121 2 0 123 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 22 0 25 270 PM 4:00 - 4:15 1 30 0 0 31 0 38 4 1 43 1 0 1 0 2 4 0 2 0 6 82 4:15 - 4:30 1 15 0 0 16 0 26 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 44 4:30 - 4:45 3 50 2 0 55 1 33 1 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 92 4:45 - 5:00 0 29 0 0 29 1 40 0 0 41 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 3 0 4 76 5:00 - 5:15 3 31 0 0 34 0 35 1 0 36 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 2 0 4 76 5:15 - 5:30 2 23 0 0 25 0 30 2 0 32 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 60 5:30 - 5:45 3 14 0 0 17 1 33 1 1 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 54 5:45 - 6:00 0 21 0 0 21 0 28 2 0 30 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 3 55 2 Hr Totals 13 213 2 0 228 3 263 11 2 279 5 0 3 0 8 11 0 13 0 24 539 1 Hr Totals 4:00 - 5:00 5 124 2 0 131 2 137 5 1 145 2 0 2 0 4 6 0 8 0 14 294 4:15 - 5:15 7 125 2 0 134 2 134 2 0 138 2 0 2 0 4 4 0 8 0 12 288 4:30 - 5:30 8 133 2 0 143 2 138 4 0 144 3 0 2 0 5 6 0 6 0 12 304 4:45 - 5:45 8 97 0 0 105 2 138 4 1 145 3 0 2 0 5 5 0 6 0 11 266 5:00 - 6:00 8 89 0 0 97 1 126 6 1 134 3 0 1 0 4 5 0 5 0 10 245 PEAK HOUR 4:30 - 5:30 8 133 2 0 143 2 138 4 0 144 3 0 2 0 5 6 0 6 0 12 304 TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM WEST 22 Page 189 of 249 TOTALS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by: VCU Intersection of: Stoutamire Drive Date: August 28, 2024 Wednesday and: Kessler Mill Road Weather: Sunny/Warm Location: Salem, Virginia Entered by: SN Star Rating: 4 TOTAL on:Stoutmire Drive on:Stoutmire Drive on:on:Kesler Mill Road N + S TIME + RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL E + W AM 7:00 - 7:15 4 35 0 0 39 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 0 10 74 7:15 - 7:30 6 37 0 0 43 0 37 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 19 0 20 100 7:30 - 7:45 3 33 0 0 36 0 33 1 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 12 0 14 84 7:45 - 8:00 3 54 0 0 57 0 36 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 14 0 15 108 8:00 - 8:15 7 48 0 0 55 0 26 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 0 10 91 8:15 - 8:30 2 41 0 0 43 0 12 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 5 61 8:30 - 8:45 3 25 0 0 28 0 13 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 0 11 52 8:45 - 9:00 5 18 0 0 23 0 15 2 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 46 2 Hr Totals 33 291 0 0 324 0 197 4 0 201 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 77 0 91 616 1 Hr Totals 7:00 - 8:00 16 159 0 0 175 0 131 1 0 132 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 52 0 59 366 7:15 - 8:15 19 172 0 0 191 0 132 1 0 133 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 53 0 59 383 7:30 - 8:30 15 176 0 0 191 0 107 2 0 109 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 38 0 44 344 7:45 - 8:45 15 168 0 0 183 0 87 1 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 35 0 41 312 8:00 - 9:00 17 132 0 0 149 0 66 3 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 25 0 32 250 PEAK HOUR 7:15 - 8:15 19 172 0 0 191 0 132 1 0 133 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 53 0 59 383 PM 4:00 - 4:15 6 18 0 0 24 0 46 6 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 81 4:15 - 4:30 3 14 0 0 17 0 29 4 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 8 58 4:30 - 4:45 8 28 0 0 36 0 42 8 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 6 92 4:45 - 5:00 3 24 0 0 27 0 37 3 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 5 72 5:00 - 5:15 6 23 0 0 29 0 40 4 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 0 8 81 5:15 - 5:30 8 18 0 0 26 0 27 6 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 4 63 5:30 - 5:45 7 14 0 0 21 0 26 9 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 9 65 5:45 - 6:00 6 14 0 0 20 0 28 4 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 0 10 62 2 Hr Totals 47 153 0 0 200 0 275 44 0 319 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 37 0 55 574 1 Hr Totals 4:00 - 5:00 20 84 0 0 104 0 154 21 0 175 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 14 0 24 303 4:15 - 5:15 20 89 0 0 109 0 148 19 0 167 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 19 0 27 303 4:30 - 5:30 25 93 0 0 118 0 146 21 0 167 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 15 0 23 308 4:45 - 5:45 24 79 0 0 103 0 130 22 0 152 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 19 0 26 281 5:00 - 6:00 27 69 0 0 96 0 121 23 0 144 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 23 0 31 271 PEAK HOUR 4:30 - 5:30 25 93 0 0 118 0 146 21 0 167 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 15 0 23 308 TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM WEST 23 Page 190 of 249 Traffic Study Creekside Park – City of Salem, VA November 6, 2024 Appendix D Synchro 11 Intersection Analysis Data 24 Page 191 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: E Main St & Parkdale Dr 11/06/2024 2024 Existing AM 7:00 am 08/28/2024 2024 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 147 151 11 8 66 Future Vol, veh/h 40 147 151 11 8 66 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 130 - - - 0 200 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 45 165 170 12 9 74 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 182 0 - 0 431 176 Stage 1 - - - - 176 - Stage 2 - - - - 255 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1405 - - - 585 872 Stage 1 - - - - 859 - Stage 2 - - - - 792 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1405 - - - 566 872 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 566 - Stage 1 - - - - 832 - Stage 2 - - - - 792 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.6 0 9.7 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 1405 - - - 566 872 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 - - - 0.016 0.085 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 - - - 11.5 9.5 HCM Lane LOS A - - - B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0 0.3 25 Page 192 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: Parkdale Dr & Forest Lawn Dr 11/06/2024 2024 Existing AM 7:00 am 08/28/2024 2024 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 0 19 23 2 52 Future Vol, veh/h 11 0 19 23 2 52 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 13 0 22 27 2 61 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 101 36 0 0 49 0 Stage 1 36 - - - - - Stage 2 65 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.1 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.2 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 902 1042 - - 1571 - Stage 1 992 - - - - - Stage 2 963 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 901 1042 - - 1571 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 901 - - - - - Stage 1 992 - - - - - Stage 2 962 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 0 0.3 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 901 1571 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.014 0.001 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.1 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS - - A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 - 26 Page 193 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Kessler Mill Rd & Forest Lawn Dr 11/06/2024 2024 Existing AM 7:00 am 08/28/2024 2024 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 3 2 121 109 11 Future Vol, veh/h 22 3 2 121 109 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 26 4 2 142 128 13 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 281 135 141 0 - 0 Stage 1 135 - - - - - Stage 2 146 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 713 919 1455 - - - Stage 1 896 - - - - - Stage 2 886 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 712 919 1455 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 712 - - - - - Stage 1 895 - - - - - Stage 2 886 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.1 0.1 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1455 - 732 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.04 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 10.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A A B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - 27 Page 194 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 10: Kessler Mill Rd & Stoutamire Dr 11/06/2024 2024 Existing AM 7:00 am 08/28/2024 2024 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 53 6 1 132 172 19 Future Vol, veh/h 53 6 1 132 172 19 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 1 0 Mvmt Flow 60 7 1 148 193 21 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 354 204 214 0 - 0 Stage 1 204 - - - - - Stage 2 150 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 648 842 1368 - - - Stage 1 835 - - - - - Stage 2 883 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 647 842 1368 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 647 - - - - - Stage 1 834 - - - - - Stage 2 883 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11 0.1 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1368 - 663 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.1 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 11 - - HCM Lane LOS A A B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 - - 28 Page 195 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: E Main St & Parkdale Dr 11/06/2024 2024 Existing PM 4:30 pm 08/28/2024 2024 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 42 384 365 30 17 38 Future Vol, veh/h 42 384 365 30 17 38 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 130 - - - 0 200 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 49 452 429 35 20 45 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 464 0 - 0 997 447 Stage 1 - - - - 447 - Stage 2 - - - - 550 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1108 - - - 273 616 Stage 1 - - - - 649 - Stage 2 - - - - 582 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1108 - - - 261 616 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 261 - Stage 1 - - - - 620 - Stage 2 - - - - 582 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0 14 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 1108 - - - 261 616 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.045 - - - 0.077 0.073 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 - - - 19.9 11.3 HCM Lane LOS A - - - C B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.2 0.2 29 Page 196 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: Parkdale Dr & Forest Lawn Dr 11/06/2024 2024 Existing PM 4:30 pm 08/28/2024 2024 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 2 44 10 1 26 Future Vol, veh/h 13 2 44 10 1 26 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 15 2 51 12 1 30 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 89 57 0 0 63 0 Stage 1 57 - - - - - Stage 2 32 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.1 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.2 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 917 1015 - - 1553 - Stage 1 971 - - - - - Stage 2 996 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 916 1015 - - 1553 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 916 - - - - - Stage 1 971 - - - - - Stage 2 995 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9 0 0.3 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 928 1553 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.019 0.001 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS - - A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - 30 Page 197 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Kessler Mill Rd & Forest Lawn Dr 11/06/2024 2024 Existing PM 4:30 pm 08/28/2024 2024 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 6 4 138 133 8 Future Vol, veh/h 6 6 4 138 133 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 1 0 Mvmt Flow 7 7 5 162 156 9 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 333 161 165 0 - 0 Stage 1 161 - - - - - Stage 2 172 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 666 889 1426 - - - Stage 1 873 - - - - - Stage 2 863 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 663 889 1426 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 663 - - - - - Stage 1 870 - - - - - Stage 2 863 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.8 0.2 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1426 - 760 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - 0.019 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 9.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - 31 Page 198 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 10: Kessler Mill Rd & Stoutamire Dr 11/06/2024 2024 Existing PM 4:30 pm 08/28/2024 2024 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 8 21 146 93 25 Future Vol, veh/h 15 8 21 146 93 25 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 1 0 0 Mvmt Flow 18 9 25 172 109 29 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 346 124 138 0 - 0 Stage 1 124 - - - - - Stage 2 222 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 655 932 1458 - - - Stage 1 907 - - - - - Stage 2 820 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 643 932 1458 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 643 - - - - - Stage 1 890 - - - - - Stage 2 820 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.2 0.9 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1458 - 721 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - 0.038 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 10.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A A B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 - - 32 Page 199 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: E Main St & Parkdale Dr 11/06/2024 2028 Background AM 7:00 am 08/28/2024 2028 Background AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.5 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 42 153 158 12 9 69 Future Vol, veh/h 42 153 158 12 9 69 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 130 - - - 0 200 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 47 172 178 13 10 78 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 191 0 - 0 451 185 Stage 1 - - - - 185 - Stage 2 - - - - 266 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1395 - - - 570 862 Stage 1 - - - - 852 - Stage 2 - - - - 783 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1395 - - - 551 862 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 551 - Stage 1 - - - - 823 - Stage 2 - - - - 783 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.7 0 9.8 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 1395 - - - 551 862 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.034 - - - 0.018 0.09 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 - - - 11.7 9.6 HCM Lane LOS A - - - B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.1 0.3 33 Page 200 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: Parkdale Dr & Forest Lawn Dr 11/06/2024 2028 Background AM 7:00 am 08/28/2024 2028 Background AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 0 20 24 3 55 Future Vol, veh/h 12 0 20 24 3 55 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 14 0 24 28 4 65 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 111 38 0 0 52 0 Stage 1 38 - - - - - Stage 2 73 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.1 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.2 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 891 1040 - - 1567 - Stage 1 990 - - - - - Stage 2 955 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 888 1040 - - 1567 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 888 - - - - - Stage 1 990 - - - - - Stage 2 952 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 0 0.4 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 888 1567 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.016 0.002 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.1 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS - - A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 - 34 Page 201 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Kessler Mill Rd & Forest Lawn Dr 11/06/2024 2028 Background AM 7:00 am 08/28/2024 2028 Background AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 4 3 126 114 12 Future Vol, veh/h 23 4 3 126 114 12 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 27 5 4 148 134 14 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 297 141 148 0 - 0 Stage 1 141 - - - - - Stage 2 156 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 698 912 1446 - - - Stage 1 891 - - - - - Stage 2 877 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 696 912 1446 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 696 - - - - - Stage 1 888 - - - - - Stage 2 877 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.2 0.2 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1446 - 721 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.044 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 10.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A A B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - 35 Page 202 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 10: Kessler Mill Rd & Stoutamire Dr 11/06/2024 2028 Background AM 7:00 am 08/28/2024 2028 Background AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 56 7 2 138 179 20 Future Vol, veh/h 56 7 2 138 179 20 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 1 0 Mvmt Flow 63 8 2 155 201 22 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 371 212 223 0 - 0 Stage 1 212 - - - - - Stage 2 159 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 634 833 1358 - - - Stage 1 828 - - - - - Stage 2 875 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 633 833 1358 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 633 - - - - - Stage 1 826 - - - - - Stage 2 875 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.2 0.1 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1358 - 650 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.109 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 11.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A A B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.4 - - 36 Page 203 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: E Main St & Parkdale Dr 11/06/2024 2028 Background PM 4:30 pm 08/28/2024 2028 Background PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 44 400 380 32 18 40 Future Vol, veh/h 44 400 380 32 18 40 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 130 - - - 0 200 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 52 471 447 38 21 47 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 485 0 - 0 1041 466 Stage 1 - - - - 466 - Stage 2 - - - - 575 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1088 - - - 257 601 Stage 1 - - - - 636 - Stage 2 - - - - 567 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1088 - - - 245 601 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 245 - Stage 1 - - - - 605 - Stage 2 - - - - 567 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0 14.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 1088 - - - 245 601 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.048 - - - 0.086 0.078 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - - - 21.1 11.5 HCM Lane LOS A - - - C B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.3 0.3 37 Page 204 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: Parkdale Dr & Forest Lawn Dr 11/06/2024 2028 Background PM 4:30 pm 08/28/2024 2028 Background PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 3 46 11 2 28 Future Vol, veh/h 14 3 46 11 2 28 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 16 3 53 13 2 33 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 97 60 0 0 66 0 Stage 1 60 - - - - - Stage 2 37 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.1 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.2 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 907 1011 - - 1549 - Stage 1 968 - - - - - Stage 2 991 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 906 1011 - - 1549 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 906 - - - - - Stage 1 968 - - - - - Stage 2 990 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9 0 0.5 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 923 1549 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.021 0.002 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS - - A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - 38 Page 205 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Kessler Mill Rd & Forest Lawn Dr 11/06/2024 2028 Background PM 4:30 pm 08/28/2024 2028 Background PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 7 4 144 139 9 Future Vol, veh/h 7 7 4 144 139 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 1 0 Mvmt Flow 8 8 5 169 164 11 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 349 170 175 0 - 0 Stage 1 170 - - - - - Stage 2 179 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 652 879 1414 - - - Stage 1 865 - - - - - Stage 2 857 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 649 879 1414 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 649 - - - - - Stage 1 862 - - - - - Stage 2 857 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.9 0.2 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1414 - 747 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - 0.022 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 9.9 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - 39 Page 206 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 10: Kessler Mill Rd & Stoutamire Dr 11/06/2024 2028 Background PM 4:30 pm 08/28/2024 2028 Background PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 9 22 152 97 27 Future Vol, veh/h 16 9 22 152 97 27 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 1 0 0 Mvmt Flow 19 11 26 179 114 32 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 361 130 146 0 - 0 Stage 1 130 - - - - - Stage 2 231 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 642 925 1448 - - - Stage 1 901 - - - - - Stage 2 812 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 629 925 1448 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 629 - - - - - Stage 1 883 - - - - - Stage 2 812 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.3 1 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1448 - 711 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.018 - 0.041 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 10.3 - - HCM Lane LOS A A B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 - - 40 Page 207 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: E Main St & Parkdale Dr 11/06/2024 2028 Builout AM 7:00 am 08/28/2024 2028 Buildout AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 52 153 158 15 12 97 Future Vol, veh/h 52 153 158 15 12 97 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 130 - - - 0 200 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 58 172 178 17 13 109 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 195 0 - 0 475 187 Stage 1 - - - - 187 - Stage 2 - - - - 288 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1390 - - - 552 860 Stage 1 - - - - 850 - Stage 2 - - - - 766 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1390 - - - 529 860 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 529 - Stage 1 - - - - 814 - Stage 2 - - - - 766 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 2 0 10 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 1390 - - - 529 860 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.042 - - - 0.025 0.127 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 - - - 12 9.8 HCM Lane LOS A - - - B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.1 0.4 41 Page 208 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: Parkdale Dr & Forest Lawn Dr 11/06/2024 2028 Builout AM 7:00 am 08/28/2024 2028 Buildout AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 1 33 24 7 86 Future Vol, veh/h 12 1 33 24 7 86 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 14 1 39 28 8 101 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 170 53 0 0 67 0 Stage 1 53 - - - - - Stage 2 117 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.1 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.2 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 825 1020 - - 1547 - Stage 1 975 - - - - - Stage 2 913 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 821 1020 - - 1547 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 821 - - - - - Stage 1 975 - - - - - Stage 2 908 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.4 0 0.6 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 834 1547 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.018 0.005 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.4 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS - - A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - 42 Page 209 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Kessler Mill Rd & Forest Lawn Dr 11/06/2024 2028 Builout AM 7:00 am 08/28/2024 2028 Buildout AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 8 4 126 114 12 Future Vol, veh/h 23 8 4 126 114 12 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 27 9 5 148 134 14 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 299 141 148 0 - 0 Stage 1 141 - - - - - Stage 2 158 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 697 912 1446 - - - Stage 1 891 - - - - - Stage 2 875 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 694 912 1446 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 694 - - - - - Stage 1 887 - - - - - Stage 2 875 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.1 0.2 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1446 - 740 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - 0.049 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 10.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A A B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - - 43 Page 210 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 10: Kessler Mill Rd & Stoutamire Dr 11/06/2024 2028 Builout AM 7:00 am 08/28/2024 2028 Buildout AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 87 7 2 138 179 28 Future Vol, veh/h 87 7 2 138 179 28 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 1 0 Mvmt Flow 98 8 2 155 201 31 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 376 217 232 0 - 0 Stage 1 217 - - - - - Stage 2 159 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 629 828 1348 - - - Stage 1 824 - - - - - Stage 2 875 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 628 828 1348 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 628 - - - - - Stage 1 822 - - - - - Stage 2 875 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.7 0.1 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1348 - 640 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.165 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 11.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A A B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.6 - - 44 Page 211 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: E Main St & Parkdale Dr 11/06/2024 2028 Buildout PM 4:30 pm 08/28/2024 2028 Buildout PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.9 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 64 400 380 46 26 58 Future Vol, veh/h 64 400 380 46 26 58 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 130 - - - 0 200 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 75 471 447 54 31 68 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 501 0 - 0 1095 474 Stage 1 - - - - 474 - Stage 2 - - - - 621 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1074 - - - 239 595 Stage 1 - - - - 630 - Stage 2 - - - - 540 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1074 - - - 222 595 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 222 - Stage 1 - - - - 586 - Stage 2 - - - - 540 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.2 0 15.5 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 1074 - - - 222 595 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.07 - - - 0.138 0.115 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 - - - 23.8 11.8 HCM Lane LOS A - - - C B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0.5 0.4 45 Page 212 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: Parkdale Dr & Forest Lawn Dr 11/06/2024 2028 Buildout PM 4:30 pm 08/28/2024 2028 Buildout PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.9 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 15 80 11 9 54 Future Vol, veh/h 14 15 80 11 9 54 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 16 17 93 13 10 63 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 183 100 0 0 106 0 Stage 1 100 - - - - - Stage 2 83 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.1 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.2 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 811 961 - - 1498 - Stage 1 929 - - - - - Stage 2 945 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 805 961 - - 1498 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 805 - - - - - Stage 1 929 - - - - - Stage 2 938 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.3 0 1.1 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 879 1498 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.038 0.007 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.3 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS - - A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - 46 Page 213 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Kessler Mill Rd & Forest Lawn Dr 11/06/2024 2028 Buildout PM 4:30 pm 08/28/2024 2028 Buildout PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 14 16 144 139 9 Future Vol, veh/h 7 14 16 144 139 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 1 0 Mvmt Flow 8 16 19 169 164 11 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 377 170 175 0 - 0 Stage 1 170 - - - - - Stage 2 207 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 629 879 1414 - - - Stage 1 865 - - - - - Stage 2 832 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 620 879 1414 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 620 - - - - - Stage 1 852 - - - - - Stage 2 832 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.8 0.8 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1414 - 772 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - 0.032 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 9.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - 47 Page 214 of 249 HCM 2010 TWSC 10: Kessler Mill Rd & Stoutamire Dr 11/06/2024 2028 Buildout PM 4:30 pm 08/28/2024 2028 Buildout PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 26 9 22 152 97 42 Future Vol, veh/h 26 9 22 152 97 42 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 1 0 0 Mvmt Flow 31 11 26 179 114 49 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 370 139 163 0 - 0 Stage 1 139 - - - - - Stage 2 231 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 634 915 1428 - - - Stage 1 893 - - - - - Stage 2 812 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 621 915 1428 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 621 - - - - - Stage 1 875 - - - - - Stage 2 812 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.7 1 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1428 - 677 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.018 - 0.061 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 10.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A A B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.2 - - 48 Page 215 of 249 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR REZONING CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA TAX PARCEL 58-1-1 BEGINNING AT A POINT AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF NEWMAN DRIVE; THENCE N 86°32'24" W A DISTANCE OF 108.90' TO A POINT; THENCE S 24°35'24" E A DISTANCE OF 267.60' TO A POINT; THENCE S 45°35'24" E A DISTANCE OF 92.20' TO A POINT; THENCE N 72°56'36" E A DISTANCE OF 158.20' TO A POINT; THENCE N 62°02'36" E A DISTANCE OF 81.00' TO A POINT; THENCE S 79°12'24" E A DISTANCE OF 24.50' TO A POINT; THENCE S 40°17'24" E A DISTANCE OF 105.00' TO A POINT; THENCE S 55°47'24" E A DISTANCE OF 115.00' TO A POINT; THENCE S 11°22'36" W A DISTANCE OF 111.84' TO A POINT; THENCE S 74°19'36" W A DISTANCE OF 221.63' TO A POINT; THENCE S 68°30'36" W A DISTANCE OF 520.34' TO POINT; THENCE S 70°10'36" W A DISTANCE OF 200.70' TO A POINT; THENCE N 89°30'09" W A DISTANCE OF 121.50' TO A POINT; THENCE N 77°33'30" W A DISTANCE OF 509.24' TO A POINT; THENCE N 38°06'44" W A DISTANCE OF 413.09' TO A POINT; THENCE N 39°48'49" W A DISTANCE OF 350.00' TO A POINT; THENCE N 39°48'49" W A DISTANCE OF 150.00' TO A POINT; THENCE N 39°48'49" W A DISTANCE OF 79.96' TO A POINT; THENCE N 68°11'11" E A DISTANCE OF 19.09' TO A POINT; THENCE N 68°11'11" E A DISTANCE OF 99.50' TO A POINT; THENCE N 68°21'11" E A DISTANCE OF 180.00' TO A POINT; THENCE N 21°48'49" W A DISTANCE OF 100.00' TO A POINT; THENCE N 68°11'11" E A DISTANCE OF 625.00' TO A POINT; THENCE S 59°00'49" E A DISTANCE OF 125.54' TO A POINT; THENCE N 68°11'11" E A DISTANCE OF 213.10' TO A POINT; THENCE N 69°16'03" E A DISTANCE OF 238.29' TO A POINT; THENCE S 22°01'49" E A DISTANCE OF 123.00' TO A POINT; THENCE S 19°20'49" E A DISTANCE OF 285.60' TO A POINT; THENCE S 28°47'49" E A DISTANCE OF 216.00' TO A POINT; THENCE S 59°14'24" E A DISTANCE OF 94.86' TO A POINT WHICH IS THE POINT OF BEGINNING, HAVING AN AREA OF 1,693,254 +/- SQUARE FEET, 38.9 +/- ACRES SITUATE IN THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA. THIS DESCRIPTION BEING COMPILED FROM RECORDS AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON COMPLETION OF A BOUNDARY SURVEY. Project Number 04240022.00 ~ 05-30-2025 Page 216 of 249 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR REZONING CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA TAX PARCEL 58-1-2 BEGINNING AT A POINT AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF NEWMAN DRIVE; THENCE S 01°31'47" E A DISTANCE OF 55.02' TO A POINT; THENCE S 56°36'21" E A DISTANCE OF 158.67' TO A POINT; THENCE S 50°53'51" E A DISTANCE OF 119.31' TO A POINT; THENCE S 62°06'11" W A DISTANCE OF 81.04' TO A POINT; THENCE S 72°56'36" W A DISTANCE OF 158.20' TO A POINT; THENCE N 45°35'24" W A DISTANCE OF 92.20' TO A POINT; THENCE N 24°35'24" W A DISTANCE OF 267.60' TO A POINT; THENCE S 86°32'24" E A DISTANCE OF 108.90' TO A POINT; THENCE N 89°26'49" E A DISTANCE OF 64.85' TO A POINT, WHICH IS THE POINT OF BEGINNING, HAVING AN AREA OF 60234.27 SQUARE FEET, 1.383 ACRES HAVING AN AREA OF 60,234 +/- SQUARE FEET, 1.38 +/- ACRES SITUATE IN THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA. THIS DESCRIPTION BEING COMPILED FROM RECORDS AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON COMPLETION OF A BOUNDARY SURVEY. Project Number 04240022.00 ~ 05-30-2025 Page 217 of 249 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING PURSUANT TO S15.2-2204 CODE OF VIRGINIA PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM#3D JULY 16, 2025 This is to certify that I mailed letters in reference to the request of ABoone Real Estate Inc., contract purchaser, to rezone the property located at 1002 Newman Drive and 1108 Newman Drive (Tax Map #s 58-1-1 and 58-1-2) from LM Light Manufacturing District with proffered conditions to RMF Residential Multi-Family District to the following property owners and adjacent property owners on June 27, 2025, in the 2:00 p.m. mail: ACOSTA LUIS A CANO ADAMCZYK MICHAEL J ADDINGTON JOHN M CANO AMANDA ADAMCZYK SHARON C ADDINGTON LINDA E 217 RUTLEDGE CIR 712 DOYLE ST 716 DOYLE ST SALEM VA 24153 SALEM VA 24153 SALEM VA 24153 ALBERT WILLIAM ANTHONY KENNETH T BARLOW CRYSTABEL-LIFE EST ATE SAU NDERS LINDSAY WINFREY ANTHONY BARBARA A PO BOX 91123 1216 NEWMAN DR 607 DOYLE ST WASHINGTON DC 20090 SALEM VA 24153 SALEM VA 24153 BAUGUS$ DAVID A BAUSERMAN LESTER ALLEN II BEAMER FAMILY OR BY-PASS BAUGUS$ LESLIE H 1062 NORTH MILL RD TRUST 1113 FOREST LAWN DR SALEM VA 24153 19 HILLMOUNT DR SALEM VA24153 SALEM VA24153 BELL GEORGE MICHAEL II BLAIR THOMAS S JR BOWER STEVEN CHARLES 1121 STOUTAMIRE DR PERDUE Kl MERL Y L BOWER REGINA B SALEM VA 24153 1217 FOREST LAWN DR 710 DOYLE ST SALEM VA 24153 SALEM VA 24153 BRAXTON LAURA MICHELLE BROOKS ANTOIWON AUSTIN BROWN JEFFERY W 1121 NEWMAN DR RANDLE AARONJATHOO BROWN DEENA W SALEM VA 24153 601 DOYLE ST 1235 FOREST LAWN DR SALEM VA 24153 SALEM VA 24153 BUSH ANGELA BUTLER GEORGE DAVID BUTLER PATRICK BUSH BRANDON BUTLER GENIE GIBSON BUTLER SUSAN 479 PARKDALE DR 721 DOYLE ST 1133 FOREST LAWN DR SALEM VA24153 SALEM VA24153 SALEM VA 24153 CANTRELL PHILLIP A II CARKIN MICHAEL E CARPENTER ERIC B CANTRELL JESSICA L CARKlN VICTORIA C CARPENTER BONNIE H 58 NEW LONDON DR 485 PARKDALE DR 1135 NEWMAN DR LYNCHBURG VA 24502-6668 SALEM VA 24153 SALEM VA 24153 CARPENTER JEREMIAH DANIEL CHANDLER BETTY S CHASE DAVID 0 CARPENTER JANIS JUSTIN A 624 NORTH MILL RD CHASE LINDA M 707 DOYLE ST SALEM VA 24153 11 COVE LOOP RD SALEM VA24153 HENDERSONVILLE NC 28739 CHRISFIELD BENJAMIN JAMES CM HOMES OF VI RGINIA LLC COCHRAN BRYAN CHRISFIELD KATHRYN LEIGH STEWART 171 FOREST DR COCHRAN NICOLE 948 NORTH MILL RD SALEM VA 24153 709 DOYLE ST SALEM VA 24153 SALEM VA 24153 COMPTON ATESHA MONTEEN CONNER JUNIOR COULTER NATHAN CLARK 718 DOYLE ST CONNER NANCY W 722 DOYLE ST SALEM VA 24153 524 DOYLE ST SALEM VA 24153 SALEM VA 24153 Page 218 of 249 Page 219 of 249 Page 220 of 249 Page 221 of 249 Page 222 of 249 Newman Drive Neighbor Notification Map Page 223 of 249 Page 224 of 249 Page 225 of 249 Page 226 of 249 Page 227 of 249 Page 228 of 249 Page 229 of 249 Page 230 of 249 Page 231 of 249 Page 232 of 249 Page 233 of 249 Page 234 of 249 Page 235 of 249 Page 236 of 249 Page 237 of 249 Page 238 of 249 Page 239 of 249 Page 240 of 249 Page 241 of 249 Page 242 of 249 AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1002 AND 1108 NEWMAN DRIVE (TAX MAP # 58-1-1 & 58-1-2) FROM LM LIGHT MANUFACTURING DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS TO RMF RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT WITH PROFFERED CONDITIONS. WHEREAS, ABoone Real Estate, Inc., contract purchaser heretofore petitioned to rezone the properties located at 1002 and 1108 Newman Drive (Tax Map # 58-1-1 & 58-1-2) from LM Light Manufacturing District with conditions to RMF Residential Multi-Family District with proffered conditions; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning is in accordance with good zoning practice; and WHEREAS, the City of Salem Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested rezoning; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that the zoning designation of the property located at 1102 and 1108 Newman Drive (Tax Map # 58- 1-1 & 58-1-2) be rezoned to RMF Residential Multi-Family District with the following proffers: 1. The development shall consist of townhouses only. 2. The development shall not exceed 171 townhouses. 3. All community amenities, including but not limited to walking trails or paths and playgrounds, shall be open and accessible to residents and the general public. 4. The historic railroad bridge will be protected from development and left in its “as is” condition, reasonable wear and tear from the elements to be expected. Owner shall create pedestrian access for residents and the general public to visit and view the bridge. Owner shall have no obligation to maintain the structure of the bridge itself. The map shall be changed in this respect and no other, said properties being described as follows: BEGINNING AT A POINT AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF NEWMAN DRIVE; THENCE N 86°32'24" W A DISTANCE OF 108.90' TO A POINT; THENCE S 24°35'24" E A DISTANCE OF 267.60' TO A POINT; THENCE S 45°35'24" E A DISTANCE OF 92.20' TO A POINT; THENCE N 72°56'36" E A DISTANCE OF 158.20' TO A POINT; THENCE N 62°02'36" E A DISTANCE OF 81.00' TO A POINT; THENCE S 79°12'24" E A DISTANCE OF 24.50' TO A POINT; THENCE S 40°17'24" E A DISTANCE OF 105.00' TO A POINT; THENCE S 55°47'24" E A DISTANCE OF 115.00' TO A POINT; THENCE S 11°22'36" W A DISTANCE OF 111.84' TO A POINT; THENCE S 74°19'36" W A DISTANCE OF 221.63' TO A POINT; THENCE S 68°30'36" W A DISTANCE OF 520.34' TO POINT; THENCE S 70°10'36" W A DISTANCE OF 200.70' TO A POINT; THENCE N 89°30'09" W A DISTANCE OF 121.50' TO A POINT; THENCE N 77°33'30" W A DISTANCE OF 509.24' TO A POINT; THENCE N 38°06'44" W A DISTANCE OF 413.09' TO A POINT; THENCE N 39°48'49" W A DISTANCE OF 350.00' TO A POINT; THENCE N 39°48'49" W A DISTANCE OF 150.00' TO Page 243 of 249 A POINT; THENCE N 39°48'49" W A DISTANCE OF 79.96' TO A POINT; THENCE N 68°11'11" E A DISTANCE OF 19.09' TO A POINT; THENCE N 68°11'11" E A DISTANCE OF 99.50' TO A POINT; THENCE N 68°21'11" E A DISTANCE OF 180.00' TO A POINT; THENCE N 21°48'49" W A DISTANCE OF 100.00' TO A POINT; THENCE N 68°11'11" E A DISTANCE OF 625.00' TO A POINT; THENCE S 59°00'49" E A DISTANCE OF 125.54' TO A POINT; THENCE N 68°11'11" E A DISTANCE OF 213.10' TO A POINT; THENCE N 69°16'03" E A DISTANCE OF 238.29' TO A POINT; THENCE S 22°01'49" E A DISTANCE OF 123.00' TO A POINT; THENCE S 19°20'49" E A DISTANCE OF 285.60' TO A POINT; THENCE S 28°47'49" E A DISTANCE OF 216.00' TO A POINT; THENCE S 59°14'24" E A DISTANCE OF 94.86' TO A POINT WHICH IS THE POINT OF BEGINNING, HAVING AN AREA OF 1,693,254 +/- SQUARE FEET, 38.9 +/- ACRES SITUATE IN THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA. THIS DESCRIPTION BEING COMPILED FROM RECORDS AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON COMPLETION OF A BOUNDARY SURVEY; and All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be and the same are hereby repealed. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect ten (10) days after its final passage. Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows: John Saunders – H. Hunter Holliday – Byron Randolph Foley – Anne Marie Green – Renee F. Turk – Passed: Effective: /s/____ _ Mayor ATTEST: H. Robert Light Clerk of Council City of Salem, Virginia Page 244 of 249 Item #: 6.I. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: August 11, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation of Funds Consider request to accept and appropriate grant funds received from the Virginia E-911 Services Board. SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The City of Salem has been awarded a grant totaling $150,000 from the Virginia E- 911 Services Board for the Communications 911 Center. Grant funds will be used to purchase equipment and supplies to promote wellness, retention and recruitment efforts, technology to enhance public and responder safety, technology to enhance training and efficiency and operational environmental improvements. The grant award does not require a local match. FISCAL IMPACT: Proceeds from the grant will fund the purchase of equipment and supplies that are not included in the FY26 operating budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Appropriate $150,000 in state grant revenue to account 10-030-0100-48395 and increase the budget for state grant expenditures, account 10-030-3140-55859, by $150,000. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 245 of 249 Item #6J Date: 8/11/2025 August 11, 2025 Council of the City of Salem Salem, Virginia 24153 Dear Council Members: For your information, I am listing appointments and vacancies on various boards and commissions: Board or Commission Recommendation Board of Appeals (USBC Building Code) Recommend reappointing Chelsea Dyer as alternate for a five- year term ending August 9, 2030. Personnel Board Recommend reappointing Margaret Humphrey and J. Chris Conner for two-year terms ending August 12, 2027. Vacancies Board of Zoning Appeals Need one regular member for the remainder of a five-year term ending March 30, 2028 and one alternate member for the remainder of five-year term ending November 13, 2028. Economic Development Authority Need one member for the remainder of a four-year term ending March 9, 2028. Roanoke River Blueway Advisory Committee Need one member, two-year term Sincerely, Laura Lea Harris Laura Lea Harris Deputy Clerk of Council Page 246 of 249 CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS August 11, 2025 MEMBER EXPIRATION OF TERM 12-31-25 (appointed by Circuit Court) 11-30-27 (appointed by Circuit Court) Courtenay Alleyne Requires Oath of Office) Page 247 of 249 MEMBER EXPIRATION OF TERM INACTIVE) (INACTIVE) Page 248 of 249 VIRGINIA WESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE LOCAL ADVISORY Requires Oath of Office) (Alternate) 2-3-26 (Alternate) 2-3-28 Requires Oath of Office) Page 249 of 249