HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/28/2011 - City Council - Minutes - RegularUNAPPROVED MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
February 28, 2011
A work session of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the City
Manager’s Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, on February 28,
2011, at 6:30 p.m., there being present the following members of said Council, to wit: Byron
Randolph Foley, John C. Givens, William D. Jones, and Lisa D. Garst (Jane W. Johnson – absent);
with Byron Randolph Foley, Mayor, presiding; together with Kevin S. Boggess, City Manager;
James E. Taliaferro, II, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council; Frank P. Turk, Director of
Finance; Caleb M. Taylor, Director Water and Sewer; and Krystal M. Coleman, Deputy Clerk of
Council, and the following business was transacted:
Mayor Foley reported that this date, place, and time had been set in order for the
Council to hold a work session; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Water and Sewer gave a presentation regarding water and
sewer policies; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding a date for the Convention and Visitors
Bureau to give a presentation to Council; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding a schedule for Council work sessions
regarding budget and staffing plan; and
WHEREAS, there were no other topics for discussion.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the work session was
adjourned at 7:13 p.m.
Mayor
Clerk of Council
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
COUNCIL MEETING
February 28, 2011
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in
Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, on February 28, 2011, at
7:30 p.m., there being present the following members of said Council, to wit:
Byron Randolph Foley, John C. Givens, William D. Jones, and Lisa D. Garst (Jane
W. Johnson– absent); with Byron Randolph Foley, Mayor, presiding; together
with Kevin S. Boggess, City Manager; James E. Taliaferro, II, Assistant City
Manager and Clerk of Council; Frank P. Turk, Director of Finance; Melinda J.
Payne, Director of Planning and Economic Development; Charles E. Van Allman,
Jr., City Engineer; Mike Stevens, Communications Director; and Stephen M. Yost,
City Attorney, and the following business was transacted:
It was noted that several Salem High Students from Mrs. Loracco’s
Government class were present at the meeting. Also present at the meeting
were several Boy Scouts.
Mayor Foley stated that Item 8 on the agenda regarding an amendment
to the City Code pertaining to the keeping of fowl in general would be
considered at a future Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned if 60 days would allow enough
time to further review the proposed changes; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that staff would like for the item to
be continued generally with the idea that it will be reviewed as part of the
Comprehensive Plan update, which will not be concluded within 60 days;
ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILWOMAN GARST, SECONDED BY VICE
MAYOR GIVENS, AND DULY CARRIED, an ordinance entitled “AN ORDINANCE TO
AMEND, REVISE, AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, CHAPTER 14, OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, BY ENACTING SECTION 14-38, PERTAINING TO
KEEPING OF FOWL IN GENERAL,” is hereby continued to a future meeting of
Council – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W.
Johnson – absent, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye.
ITEM 8
ORDINANCE
CONTINUED
AMENDING
SECTION 14-38 OF
THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA, and
PERTAINING TO
KEEPING OF FOWL
IN GENERAL
2
The February 14, 2011, regular meeting minutes were approved as
amended, and the February 14, 2011, work session minutes were approved as
written.
Mayor Foley noted that Item 5 on the agenda pertaining to the request
for a Special Exception Permit to allow primary/secondary educational facilities
on an approximately 3.9 acre tract and an approximate 1.8 acre tract located at
1150 Kime Lane/113 Lynchburg Turnpike would be moved to the last item to be
heard this evening.
Mayor Foley reported that this date and time had been set to hold a
public hearing in accordance with Section 98-94 of The Code of the City of Salem,
Virginia, to consider the issuance of Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity for the next twelve (12) months beginning April, 1, 2011; the public
hearing was set at the January 24, 2011, meeting; notice of such hearing was
advertised in the February 14, 2011, issue of The Roanoke Times, a newspaper
having general circulation in the City of Salem; and
WHEREAS, no person(s) appeared related to the request;
ON MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity for the operation of public vehicles (taxicabs) within the City of
Salem are hereby issued to the following for the year beginning April 1, 2011:
Yellow Cab Services, Inc. for thirty-eight (38) vehicles; Salem Taxi for four (4)
vehicles; Quality Transportation for three (3) vehicles; and Delivery Boys, Inc. for
one (1) vehicle – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye,
Jane W. Johnson – absent, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye.
Mayor Foley reported that this date and time had been set to hold a
public hearing to consider the request of Salem Presbyterian Church, Salem, VA,
Inc., property owner, and Roanoke Valley Interfaith Hospitality Network, lessee,
for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow general offices on the
property located at 37 East Clay Street (Tax Map #106-5-4); notice of such
hearing was published in the February 9 and 16, 2011, issues of The Roanoke
Times, a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Salem; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its regular meeting held March
16, 2011, recommends approval of said request; and
ITEM 1
CERTIFICATES OF
PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY
ISSUED FOR THE
NEXT TWELVE
MONTHS
BEGINNING APRIL
1, 2011
ITEM 2
SPECIAL
EXCEPTION
PERMIT
APPROVED TO
ALLOW GENERAL
OFFICES ON THE
PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 37
EAST CLAY STREET
(TAX MAP 106-5-4)
3
WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of one
parcel currently zoned RMF located on East Clay Street, directly behind the
Salem Presbyterian Church; the property is approximately .1 acre and is currently
occupied by a two-story residential structure; currently, the property is being
used, on occasion, by the church to house homeless families at night as part of
their affiliation with the Interfaith Hospitality Network; under this proposal, that
use would discontinue, and Interfaith would use the residence as adm inistrative
offices to serve and assist its clients by providing services and resources to help
homeless families find jobs and permanent housing; and if approved, no clients
would be housed at the facility. The only improvements proposed are
renovations to the interior of the property, and the enclosing of the screened
porch; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that he signed the petition in his
capacity as a member at Salem Presbyterian Church; in light of that, under the
Cannon of Ethics for Attorneys, he has a conflict of interest and would recuse
himself and go to the backroom while Council considers the request; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that she is also a member of
Salem Presbyterian Church and a supporter of the Interfaith Hospitality Network;
she stated that she has discussed this with the City Attorney and he advised that
unless she was prejudice in one way or another and unable to render a decision
she should also recluse herself; however, she feels she can approach the request
fairly; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that Councilwoman Garst falls under
a different standard because she is not an attorney; he stated the question
would be does she have a personal interest in a contract between the parties ;
the second issue would be whether she has a personal interest in the
transaction, which she does not under the Virginia Conflict of Interest Act; he
stated he advised Councilwoman Garst that she would only have a conflict if she
feels like her membership at Salem Presbyterian Church would in any way
influence her vote; if she feels she can view the request impartially, then she can
vote on the request and if she feels like she cannot be impartial, then she should
recuse herself; and
WHEREAS, Katie Elmore, member of Salem Presbyterian Church and
President of the Board of Directors for Interfaith Hospitality Network; John
McDowell, Executive Director of Interfaith Hospitality Network; and Will
Robinson, Pastor of Salem Presbyterian Church and also a representative of the
Governing Body of Salem Presbyterian Church; appeared before the Council to
request that a Special Exception Permit be approved so that a building that is
4
owned by the church, referred to as the Marshall House, located directly behind
Salem Presbyterian Church be used as an office for the family center for
Interfaith Hospitality Network; Ms. Elmore stated that the building would be
used as office space for day-use for Interfaith Hospitality Network; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones clarified that no one would be housed in
the building; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Elmore stated that no one would be housed in the
building; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones stated that the Interfaith Hospitality
Network is a good organization; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst noted that the Interfait h Hospitality
Network worked hard to stay in the City of Salem and to provide the service; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Elmore stated that she is grateful for the help received
and worked closely with the City of Salem and she feels this will be a mutually
beneficial relationship between the Interfaith Hospitality Network and the City of
Salem; and
WHEREAS, Council thanked the Interfaith Hospitality Network for the
services they provide; and
WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to the request;
ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILWOMAN GARST, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, the request of Salem Presbyterian
Church, Salem, VA, Inc., property owner, and Roanoke Valley Interfaith
Hospitality Network, lessee, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to
allow general offices on the property located at 37 East Clay Street (Tax Map
#106-5-4) was hereby approved -- the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William
D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – absent, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron
Randolph Foley – aye.
Mayor Foley reported that this date and time had been set to hold a
public hearing to consider the request of Brown Properties LLC, property owner,
and Tonie’s RVs, lessee, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow
recreational vehicle sales and service on the property located at 1102 Tennessee
Street (Tax Map #199-4-1); notice of such hearing was published in the February
ITEM 3
SPECIAL
EXCEPTION
PERMIT
APPROVED TO
ALLOW
RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE SALES
AND SERVICE ON
THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1102
TENNESSEE STREET
(TAX MAP #199-4-
1)
5
9 and 16, 2011, issues of The Roanoke Times, a newspaper having general
circulation in the City of Salem; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its regular meeting held March
16, 2011, recommends approval of said request; and
WHEREAS, staff noted the following: at last month’s Commission
meeting, the Commission approved a change to the HM Heavy Manufacturing
District zoning to allow recreational vehicle sales and service with the approval
of a Special Exception Permit; Tonie’s RVs, lessee, has submitted an application
for the required permit so they can proceed with the proposed addition to the
business; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Economic Development stated
that Tonie’s RVs is requesting to be allowed to sell RVs on the property; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones noted that the RVs will be housed in the
back of the lot and not on the front of the lot ; and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens questioned if there is a limited number of
RVs that can be placed on the lot; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Economic Development stated
that there is a maximum of 30 vehicles; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the limit is by geography; he
stated that due to the size of the lot, 28-30 RVs would be the most that would fit
on the lot; he further stated that some of the spaces are rented for storage,
therefore, that would be the total number of vehicles, not new units for sale;
and
WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to the request;
ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMAN JONES, SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR
GIVENS, AND DULY CARRIED, the request of Brown Properties, LLC, property
owner, and Tonie’s RVs, lessee, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to
allow recreational vehicle sales and service on the property located at 1102
Tennessee Street (Tax Map #199-4-1) was hereby approved – the roll call vote:
Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – absent, John C.
Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye.
6
Mayor Foley reported that this date and time had been set to hold a
public hearing and consider an ordinance on first reading regarding the request
of Harry J. and Brenda B. French, property owners, for rezoning the property
located at 1535-1541 Apperson Drive (Tax Map #249-1-6) from LM Light
Manufacturing District to HBD Highway Business District; also included in the
request is the following property: Lester K. Jr. and Fran ces W. Stover and Russell
E. and Roy S. Nelson, II, property owners, 1507 Apperson Drive (Tax Map #249 -1-
3.1); notice of such hearing was published in the February 9 and 16, 2011, issues
of The Roanoke Times, a newspaper having general circulation in the City of
Salem; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its regular meeting held March
16, 2011, recommends approval of said request; and
WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject properties consist of
two parcels currently zoned LM, and located along Apperson Drive, east of the
intersection with Route 419; the eastern parcel is approximately 10,430 square
feet, and the western one 15,000 square feet; both are located between
Apperson Drive and the Norfolk and Southern Railway; the eastern parcel is
currently occupied by two attached retail spaces; the western parcel is occupied
by a vacant one-story retail space; this request is to rezone the properties from
LM to HBD in order to allow commercial uses by right; commercial uses have
existed in these locations for some time, as grandfathered uses; and this request
would bring the zoning into compliance with the current use; and
WHEREAS, Brenda French and Harry French, 2519 Laburnum Avenue,
Roanoke, property owners, appeared before the Council to request that their
property be rezoned which would allow for more business opportunities to come
into the building; Mrs. French stated that apparently the property should have
been rezoned in the past, but wasn’t; and
WHEREAS, it was noted that retail uses would be an use by-right; and
WHEREAS, it was further noted that no one spoke against the request at
the Planning Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned if concerns had been voiced by
anyone since the Planning Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Economic Development stated
that they have not received any calls regarding the request; and
WHEREAS, Mr. French commended the City for its efforts during this
ITEM 4
ORDINANCE
PASSED REZONING
THE PROPERTIES
LOCATED AT 1535-
1541 APPERSON
DRIVE (TAX MAP
#249-1-6), AND
1507 APPERSON
DRIVE (TAX MAP
#249-1-3.1) FROM
LM TO HBD
7
process; he stated that this is the first time he has had an issue as a business
owner in the City of Salem and staff went out of their way to help him; he stated
that it is important for businesses to stay in Salem and he would like for there to
be a temporary solution which would allow things to move forward without
having to wait to get it resolved; he again commended City staff for being so
easy to work with; and
WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to the request;
ON MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN GARST, AND DULY CARRIED, an ordinance entitled “AN
ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 106-110, ARTICLE I, CHAPTER 106, OF THE
CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, RELATING TO ZONING AND DIVIDING
THE CITY INTO BUILDING DISTRICTS AND ESTABLISHING DISTRICT BOUNDARY
LINES ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA,” was hereby
passed on first reading – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones –
aye, Jane W. Johnson – absent, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley –
aye.
Mayor Foley reported that this date and time had been set to hold a
public hearing and to consider an ordinance on first reading amending Chapter
106, Article VI Definitions and Use Types, Section 106-602.3 Residential Use
Types of The Code of the City of Salem, Virginia, pertaining to residential human
care facility; notice of such hearing was published in the February 9 and 16,
2011, issues of The Roanoke Times, a newspaper having general circulation in
the City of Salem; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its regular meeting held March
16, 2011, recommends approval of said request; and
WHEREAS, staff noted the following: currently, residential human care
facilities are “single family” group homes designated for 8 or fewer mentally ill,
mentally retarded, or other developmentally disabled persons to be licensed by
the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance
Abuse Services; Section 15.2-2291 of THE CODE OF VIRGINIA was amended to
allow this designation to also apply to “single family” group homes of 8 or less
aged, infirm or disabled persons to be licensed by the Department of Social
Services:
ITEM 6
ORDINANCE
PASSED
AMENDING
CHAPTER 106,
ARTICLE VI
DEFINITIONS AND
USE TYPES,
SECTION 106-602.3
RESIDENTIAL USE
TYPES OF THE
CODE OF THE CITY
OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA,
PERTAINING TO
RESIDENTIAL
HUMAN CARE
FACILITY
8
PROPOSED CHANGES:
Article VI Definitions and Use Types
Sec. 106-602.3. Residential use types.
Residential human care facility. A building (1) used as a group home where not
more than 8 mentally ill, mentally retarded or other developmentally disabled persons,
not related by blood or marriage, reside with one or more resident counselors or other
staff persons and for which the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental
Retardation and Substance Abuse Services is the licensing authority, pursuant to Sec.
15.2-2291(A) of the Code of Virginia, or (2) used as a group home where not more than
8 aged, infirm or disabled persons, not related by blood or marriage, reside, with one
or more resident counselors or other staff persons and for which the Department of
Social Services is the licensing authority, pursuant to Sec. 15.2 -2291(B) of the Code of
Virginia; excluded from this definition are drug or alcohol rehabilitation centers, half-
way houses and similar uses; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Economic Development stated
that currently residential human care facilities or single-family group homes are
designated for eight (8) or fewer mentally ill, mentally retarded, or other
developmentally disabled persons; she stated that the Code of Virginia has been
amended to allow this designation to also apply to single-family group homes of
eight (8) or less aged, infirm, or disabled persons to be licensed by the
Department of Social Services; she stated that this is a State Code change and
the City Code needs to reflect the change; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if this is an instance where
the City Code has to align with the State Code; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Economic Development stated
that the City Code does have to align with the State Code; and
WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to request;
ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMAN JONES, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN GARST, AND DULY CARRIED, an ordinance entitled, “AN
ORDINANCE TO AMEND, REVISE, AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 106, ARTICLE VI
DEFINITIONS AND USE TYPES, SECTION 106-602.3 RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES OF
THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, PERTAINING TO RESIDENTIAL
HUMAN CARE FACILITY,” was hereby passed on first reading – the roll call vote:
Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – absent, John C.
Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye.
9
Mayor Foley reported that this date and time had been set to hold a
public hearing and consider an ordinance on first reading amending Chapter 106,
Article II District Regulations, Section 106-202.2(A), Article III Use and Design
Standards, Section 106-316.3(B), and Article VI Definitions and Use Types,
Section 106-602.3 Residential Use Types of The Code of the City of Salem,
Virginia, pertaining to temporary healthcare structures; notice of such hearing
was published in the February 9 and 16, 2011, issues of The Roanoke Times, a
newspaper having general circulation in the City of Salem; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its regular meeting held March
16, 2011, recommends approval of said request; and
WHEREAS, staff noted the following: temporary healthcare structures
are a new variation of an ongoing issue of caretaking in the home; these pre-
manufactured units are small detached structures limited to one occupant;
Section 15.2-2292.1. of the CODE OF VIRGINIA allows a homeowner/occupant to
install a temporary cottage-type building in their rear yard as a permitted
accessory use in single family residential district; the following code changes are
proposed to bring our ordinance in compliance with the State Code:
PROPOSED CHANGES:
ARTICLE II DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Sec. 106-202.2 (A). Permitted uses.
(A) 2. Residential Use Types
Home Occupation*
Manufactured Home, Emergency*
Residential Human Care Facility
Single Family Dwelling, Detached
Temporary Family Health Care Structure*
ARTICLE III USE AND DESIGN STANDARDS
Sec. 106-316.3. Accessory Uses: residential use types
(B) (1) Temporary family health care structures, as defined herein, shall be a
permitted accessory use in RSF – Residential Single Family District if such
structures (i) are used by a caregiver in providing care for a mentally or
physically impaired person, and (ii) are on property owned or occupied by the
caregivers as his or her residence. For purposes of this section, “caregiver” and
“mentally or physically impaired person” are defined in Section 15.2-2292.1 of
the Code of Virginia.
(2) In addition to the specific requirements of a temporary family health care
ITEM 7
ORDINANCE
PASSED
AMENDING
CHAPTER 106,
ARTICLE II DISTRICT
REGULATIONS,
SECTION 106-202.2
(A), ARTICLE III USE
AND DESIGN
STANDARDS,
SECTION 106-
316.3(B), AND
ARTICLE VI
DEFINITIONS AND
USE TYPES,
SECTION 106-602.3
RESIDENTIAL USE
TYPES OF THE
CODE OF THE CITY
OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA,
PERTAINING TO
TEMPORARY
HEALTHCARE
STRUCTURES
10
structure found in Section 106-602.3 herein, such structures must meet the
following requirements:
(a) Any person proposing to install such a structure shall first obtain a
permit from the City for which such applicant may be charged a fee up
to $100.00. The City may not withhold such permit if the applicant
provides sufficient proof of compliance with the requirements herein
and the requirements found in Section 15.2-2292.1 of the Code of
Virginia.
(b) Only one such structure shall be allowed on a lot or parcel of land.
(c) The applicant must provide evidence of compliance with this section to
the City one year from the date of installation, and every year
thereafter, as long as such structure remains on the property. Such
evidence will include inspection by the City of such structure at
reasonable times.
(d) The applicant must comply with all applicable requirements of the
Virginia Department of Health.
(e) No signage advertising or otherwise promoting the existence of the
structure shall be permitted anywhere on the property.
(f) Such structure shall be removed within 30 days of the time from which
the mentally or physically impaired person is no longer receiving or is
no longer in need of the assistance provided for in this section.
(g) The Zoning Administrator may revoke any permit granted hereunder if
the permit holder violates any provisions herein or any provisions in
Section 15.2-2292.1 of the Code of Virginia. In addition to any other
remedies, provided in Chapter 106 herein, the City may seek injunctive
relief against the permit holder or other appropriate legal proceedings
to ensure compliance.
(h) Such structure shall be subject to the standards as provided in Section
106-202.3 herein.
(i) Any such structure shall connect to any water, sewer and electric
utilities that are serving the primary residence on the property.
(j) Such structure shall comply with all requirements as set forth in
Section 15.2-2292.1 of the Code of Virginia.
ARTICLE VI DEFINITIONS AND USE TYPES
Section 106-602.3 Residential use types
Temporary Family Health Care Structure. A transportable residential structure
providing an environment facilitating a caregiver’s provision of care for mentally or
physically impaired person that (i) is primarily assembled at a location other than its
site of installation, (ii) is limited to one occupant who shall be the mentally or
physically impaired person, (iii) has no more than 300 gross square feet, (iv) complies
with the applicable provisions of the Industrialized Building Safety Law and the
Uniform Statewide Building Code, and (v) is not placed on a permanent foundation.
For purposes of this definition “caregiver” and “mentally or physically impaired
person” are as defined in Section 15.2-2292.1 of the Code of Virginia; and
11
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that he is currently serving as a consultant
to a manufacturer of temporary healthcare structures; therefore, he would
recuse himself to the backroom while Council considers the amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney noted that Vice Mayor Givens will take
Mayor Foley’s position; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Economic Development stated
that temporary healthcare structures are a new variation of the on-going issue of
care taking in the home; the structures are small, detached pre-manufactured
units that are limited to one occupant; she stated that the units have been
added as a permitted accessory use in Residential Single-Family District; the
proposed amendments will align the City Code with the State Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that the State Code requires the City
to make the changes; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst asked for clarification on the word
“temporary,” and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney read the definition of a temporary family
health care structure; he stated that the ordinance states that city staff would
inspect the facilities to make sure they are in compliance and once they get the
application, as long as they continue to meet the requirements of the state code
and the city’s ordinance, they can continue to use the structure in that fashion;
and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if there is a timeframe that
the structure has to be removed once the structure is no longer needed; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that the structure would have to be
removed within 30 days once the structure is no longer needed; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned if there is a time limit on how
long the person can live in the structure; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that the person can live in the
structure for as long as they meet the requirements; he stated that the
caregiver, the person who owns the property in which the structure would be
placed, has to be related by blood, marriage, adoption, or be the legally
appointed guardian of the person; and
12
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst clarified that the City is only responsible
for inspecting the structure, and is not responsible for determining the eligibility
of the person living in the structure; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that is correct; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned who determines the eligibility
and the steps involved in the process; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Economic Development stated
that it is so new right now and we are just beginning to determine how this will
work; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that the State has not set the
guidelines and it is up to the City to determine whet her the person is in fact a
mentally or physically impaired person; he stated the term is defined in the State
Code and he read the definition; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if there could be a checklist
in place because the process is so new; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that several meetings have been held
to make sure staff is as prepared as possible; he stated that staff have met with a
couple of vendors who will be essentially leasing the structures out to insurance
companies as their business model; he stated that as it is understood, there may
be prescriptions written in order for insurance to provide the facilities; therefore,
obviously as long as there is a valid prescription for the structure, the city has a
way of knowing if it is still valid; he stated that the City is in the process of
establishing its policies and procedures/checklist on how to handle the
structures because the connection to water/sewer and electric are issues, etc.;
and
WHEREAS, Mark Henrickson, 729 Virginia Avenue, appeared before the
Council and questioned how the ordinance will affect subdivisions that have a
homeowners’ association or deed restrictions; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that the issue is not addressed; he
stated that the City, by State Law, cannot disallow the structure in residential
single-family; he stated that he feels it is an open issue as to whether the
covenants would restrict people from using the structures and would rather not
offer an opinion; and
13
WHEREAS, Mr. Henrickson stated that before the ordinance is passed, he
feels, as a builder/developer the question needs to be answered; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that unfortunately the question
hasn’t been answered and it will probably only get answered in a court case
when a homeowners’ association tries to prevent one from being placed on
someone’s property; he stated that the City of Salem is not in the position to be
able to control it that way; the City has to allow a structure within a residential
single family classification; he stated that it does not address the civil side of the
issue, which would be the homeowners’ association denying the structure based
on deed restrictions or covenants; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that the State Code states that a local
governing body must allow the use in residential single family; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Henrickson questioned if homeowners’ associations have
restrictive issues, which one has precedence; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that he thinks a home owners’
association would have a reasonable argument if it’s contrary to the restrictions;
and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned the urgency of the ordinance
change; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Economic Development stated
that it brings the City Code in compliance with the State Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that the State Code became effective
July 1 and the city has been studying the changes and processes involved; he
stated that this is not something that just happened , although he does not think
many jurisdictions have addressed the issue yet; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned if there have been any requests
for the structures; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Economic Development stated
that vendors have come forward and met with the City asking for guidance on
how the City wants to proceed; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the vendors have been
cooperative thus far and want to make it work; and
14
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst noted that the hierarchy is that State
Code trumps City Code; therefore, if a citizen qualified for this structure the City
would have to comply; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that State Code does have
precedence over local code; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding state code requirements and
homeowners’ associations; and
WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to the request;
ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILWOMAN GARST, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, an ordinance entitled, “AN
ORDINANCE TO AMEND, REVISE, AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 106, ARTICLE II
DISTRICT REGULATION, SECTION 106-202.2(A), ARTICLE III USE AND DESIGN
STANDARDS, SECTION 106-316.3(B), AND ARTICLE VI DEFINITIONS AND USE
TYPES, SECTION 106-602.3 RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
SALEM, VIRGINIA, PERTAINING TO TEMPORARY HEALTHCARE STRUCTURES,” was
hereby passed on first reading – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D.
Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – absent, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron
Randolph Foley – abstain.
Mayor Foley requested that Council consider approval of a lease with the
Salem Red Sox on the Salem Memorial Baseball Stadium; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the City has had long
negotiations with the Red Sox organization—Fenway Sports Group—to get an
extension of the Salem Red Sox lease of the ballpark; he stated that a four-year
extension has been agreed upon with the terms being almost exactly the same
as the prior two-year lease agreement; he stated that the changes concern the
capital improvements projects and the police staffing requirements for events;
he stated that the Director of Civic Facilities is present at the meeting to answer
any questions; and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens questioned who decides the number of
police officers to be present at the events; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that Todd Stephenson, General
Manager of the Salem Red Sox, would make the decision in consultation with the
Director of Civic Facilities; and
ITEM 9
LEASE APPROVED
WITH THE SALEM
RED SOX ON THE
SALEM MEMORIAL
BASEBALL
STADIUM
15
WHEREAS, the Director of Civic Facilities appeared before the Council and
stated that he and Mr. Stephenson currently discuss the number of police
officers needed and it is based upon if there is something else going on other
than a baseball game, i.e. when Willie Nelson and Bob Dylan were present in the
stadium; he stated that currently the agreement states that they would have up
to two (2) officers, which would not be sufficient in certain circumstances; he
stated that one (1) officer would be sufficient on slow nights; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned if the Director of Civic Facilities,
Carey Harveycutter, was satisfied with the agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Civic Facilities stated that he was satisfied; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned how the need for the number of
officers to be present is determined; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Civic Facilities stated that it is predominantly
based on advanced ticket sales; he stated that there is a direct correlation to the
advance sale and promotions on the night; he stat ed that there would never only
be one police officer present on a Thursday, Friday, or Saturday night because of
the larger crowds that night; he stated that there have been very few if any
arrests at the ballpark and the police officers are more of a visual deterrent than
anything else; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned if there is a plan to have
another officer become available if needed; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Civic Facilities stated that Police Chief Jeff
Dudley and Police Captain Tim Guthrie have been very accommodating in getting
someone else to come in if needed; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned how Red Sox staff are trained
on security measures; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Civic Facilities stated that to his knowledge Red
Sox staff are not trained on security measures, they are trained on the Tips
Program for alcohol which is the way to identify an individual who should not be
drinking alcohol; he further stated that intoxication is generally the basis for the
issue; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned how ticket sales from 2010
compared with 2009; and
16
WHEREAS, the Director of Civic Facilities stated that ticket sales were
down slightly, but he spoke with Mr. Stephenson today and Mr. Stephenson
stated that season ticket sales this year are ahead of last year’s, along with
promotions and sponsorships, etc.; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley commended the Director of Civic Facilities and
other city staff on their efforts in negotiating the agreement;
ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMAN JONES, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN GARST, AND DULY CARRIED, the lease with the Salem Red Sox
on the Salem Memorial Baseball Stadium was hereby approved – the roll call
vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – absent, John
C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye.
Mayor Foley requested that Council consider a contract with the Salem
Host Lions Club for concession rights at the Salem Stadium ; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Civic Facilities appeared before Council and
stated that the only change to the contract is that when large events such as the
Stagg Bowl and events other than high school and sandlot football games are
held at the stadium, up to three (3) additional concessionaires would be allowed
beyond what the Lions Club sells; he stated that the additional concessionaires
would not sell hot dogs; he stated that the Lions Club would get 25 percent of
the gross sales of the concessionaires and the Civic Center would make sure the
necessary health permits, etc. were obtained; he stated that the additional
concessionaires would be located predominately as you come into the stadium
on the bowl end of the field in the grassy area; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager commended the Lions Club for working with
the City to allow a little more flexibility; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Civic Facilities also commended the Lions Club
and stated that the club has been very accommodating; he stated that the Lions
Club would like to have a photo opportunity to help advertise t he good work
they do for the community; he further stated that the Lions Club gives all of their
proceeds back to the community; he stated that on March 15 they would be
giving out checks; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst also commended the Lions Club for the
good work they do for the community; and
ITEM S1
LEASE APPROVED
WITH SALEM HOST
LIONS CLUB FOR
CONCESSION
RIGHTS AT THE
SALEM STADIUM
17
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if the other vendors would be lined
up ahead of time, or if the vendors would be chosen as an event arises; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Civic Facilities stated that as a situation comes
up, the vendors would be lined up; he stated that they are able to secure
vendors because of their relationships with the Salem Fair and with other
vendors in the community; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that there would be separate
contracts with the individual concessionaires; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Civic Facilities stated that the other
concessionaires would provide their own insurance, etc.; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding permits and insurance, etc.
the concessionaires would have to provide;
ON MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, the contract with the Salem Host
Lions Club for concession rights at the Salem Stadium was hereby approved – the
roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson –
absent, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye.
Mayor Foley reported that this date and time had been set to hold a
public hearing to consider the request of the City of Salem, property owner, for
the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow primary/secondary
educational facilities on an approximate 3.9 acre tract and an approximate 1.8
acre tract located at 1150 Kime Lane/1130 Lynchburg Turnpike (P/O Tax Map
#148-1-2); notice of such hearing was published in the February 9 and 16, 2011,
issues of The Roanoke Times, a newspaper having general circulation in the City
of Salem; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its regular meeting held March
16, 2011, recommends approval of said request; and
WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of two
parcels zoned RSF, and situated on opposite sides of Corporate Drive, near the
Salem YMCA; the eastern parcel is approximately 3.9 acres, and the western is
approximately 1.8 acres; both properties are currently vacant; and this request is
to issue a special exception permit to allow primary/secondary educational
facilities; and
ITEM 5
SPECIAL
EXCEPTION
PERMIT
APPROVED TO
ALLOW PRIMARY/
SECONDARY
EDUCATIONAL
FACILITIES ON AN
APPROXIMATE 3.9
ACRE TRACT AND
AN APPROXIMATE
1.8 ACRE TRACT
LOCATED AT 1150
KIME LANE/1130
LYNCHBURG
TURNPIKE (P/O
TAX MAP #148-1-2)
18
WHEREAS, Anna Sachs, 825 Virginia Avenue, appeared before the Council
and questioned if this item pertains to additional construction on the campus,
land grant from Andrew Lewis site; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the property in question is located on
the property formerly known as the Elizabeth Campus; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that if you are entering the Salem
YMCA, the property is located to the left of the YMCA; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the City of Salem is the
petitioner of the request as there is not yet a contract purchaser; however, the
Salem Montessori School has a representative present at the meeting who
would give a presentation on the proposed project; he stated that the proposed
project would be located on a parcel of property located between Commerce
Street and Lynchburg Turnpike; he stated that the City was approached by the
Salem Montessori School a couple of months ago about purchasing the property,
as well as a small parcel across the street, which is a wooded area, in order to
construct a primary elementary-type school for the Montessori program; he
stated that the Montessori school has outgrown its current location on the
Boulevard and will move some of the older students from the Boulevard location
to the Commerce Street location; he further stated that the Special Exception
Permit request and the sale of the property went concurrently, and Council held
a public hearing to authorize the sale of the property; the City Attorney began to
negotiate a contract with the proposed purchaser being the Salem Montessori
School; he stated that at the same time the special exception process was going
through because in a residential single-family zoned area a primary or secondary
education school requires a Special Exception Permit in a residential area; he
stated that the item has gone before the Planning Commission and the body
recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, Barney Horrell, 3555 Carvins Cove Road, representing the
Salem Montessori School appeared before the Council; he stated that Council
has a packet of information regarding the proposed plans and pointed out the
parcels the Montessori School would like to purchase; he stated that the
Montessori School is currently located across from the GE facility on Roanoke
Boulevard; Valerie VanderHoeven has been running the facility for 18 years and
has been very successful; he further stated that the Montessori School has
grown to the point where it has used up all of the available land at its current
location; he stated that Ms. VanderHoeven started looking for an alternative site
to expand, not replace the existing facility, but to use it to focus more on the
infants and toddlers and use the additional location for children ages 3 to 6 and a
19
couple children up to 10 years of age; he stated that when Ms. VanderHoeven
started looking for a location, the undeveloped property located next to the
Salem YMCA was found; the property is currently zoned residential and a school
is allowed in residential zoning with a Special Exception Permit; he stated that
the Montessori program has a couple key differences than a public school or a
traditional daycare facility—a Montessori school is intended to be very
residential in character, the idea that the children are coming home during the
day; the children change their shoes to inside slippers and traditional classroom
settings are not used, it’s more of a carpet and beanbag feel; he further stated
that when sites were being looked at it was important for it to be in a residential
area so that the residential feel could be captured; the architecture of the
building, the appearance of the site—its heavily landscaped with garden plots to
get the children involved with as many outdoor activities as possible; that’s
important to the program—with its residential feel and the added benefit of
having the YMCA next door made this property ideal; he stated that the YMCA
allows for some cross-programming opportunities that the Montessori school
could not afford if it had to build its own gym and athletic facilities; Mr. Horrell
stated that he and Ms. VanderHoeven have talked with Mark Johnson and the
YMCA staff about utilizing the YMCA facility during the day when it is
underutilized (i.e. swim lessons, use the gym, etc.); he stated that the advantage
to the YMCA of the Montessori school’s use is that they would increase the
YMCA’s numbers during slower times, and it would encourage the parents of the
children to join the YMCA if their children are going there; he further stated that
the wooded area parcel was identified as an additional piece of property to be
kept wooded and utilize for outdoor programming; the trees would be preserved
as much as possible with the understanding that some of the trees are aged , but
the idea is to preserve the wooded area as a nature and exploring area for the
children; he stated that they have tried to keep the residential character of the
area in the design of the building—one-story brick structure with a gray metal
hip roof to keep the roof line down and prevent blocking the view of the
neighbors; and to address traffic, the traffic will be ke pt to Commerce Drive
instead of being directed toward Lynchburg Turnpike; he stated that the goal is
to educate the parents and direct them to utilize Commerce Drive toward Texas
Street away from Lynchburg Turnpike; and
WHEREAS, Brad Graham, 801 Carrollton Avenue, appeared before the
Council and stated that he has owned a residential home building business in
Salem since 1987 and he worked out at the Salem YMCA today; he stated that he
mentioned those facts because he feels that there is a nation-wide demand for
residential housing to be located near facilities like the YMCA; he stated that he
has reviewed the plan of the Elizabeth Campus and went for a long run; he
stated that there are some walking trails and he would like to see the remainder
20
of the walking trails developed on the property; he feels that Salem is about
promoting families and healthy living and feels that is what Council and the
former City Manager had in mind when they made the compromise with the
neighbors; he stated that it is his understanding that the Montessori school plans
to move to Roanoke County if their request is not approved; he assured Council
that his business will not leave Salem regardless of Council’s decision; he stated
that the following are reasons he opposes the Special Exception Permit for the
Montessori school: he is not convinced that the request conforms to the City’s
Comprehensive Plan for the property, the Montessori school is not a by -right use
for the property; he feels that the Planning Commission and City Cou ncil have a
strong obligation to look at other projects whose owners have made written
offers that would have less of an adverse affect on surrounding neighbors, and
the reason there is not a roomful of upset residents present at the meeting is
because they have been worn down and are tired of fighting to get what they
were promised by a previous Council and City Manager; he stated that he has
spoken with several of the neighbors surrounding the property and they feel that
the decision has already been made and he hopes that is not true; he stated that
he has personally been very close to the entire Elizabeth Campus project for the
past 10 years and it has dominated his family’s happy hour conversations for at
least two years; he stated that through fights with neighbors, lawsuits, and
eventual compromise in order to approve the current plan, his company has
proposed a compromise that would allow the Montessori school to locate on the
tract adjacent to the residential tract, which in his view is a win-win situation;
however, no one seems to want to compromise and the citizens may be correct,
this decision has already been made; he questioned what is wrong with homes
being built on the residential tract and the Montessori being built on the
commercial tract below, which would fulfill the commitment made to the
residents by prior City officials; he stated that he was at the Planning
Commission meeting regarding the Special Exception Permit request and the City
Council meeting regarding the sale of the property, and feels that he was not
given the same opportunity to have access to the City Attorney who has met
with the Montessori school and is in the process of drafting a contract to sell the
property to the school; he feels that he has not been given the same
consideration as the Montessori school; he stated that a traffic study was not
presented at the Planning Commission meeting or the City Council meeting and
feels that there is not enough parking for parents and visitors; he further stated
that if approved, there would be a line of cars stretching to Texas Street as up to
150 students are dropped and picked up each day; any parent driving their
children to school can attest to long car pool lines; he stated that if the request is
approved, parking will have to be expanded; Mr. Graham stated that he
submitted his proposal to purchase the property the morning of February 23,
2011, and have received no response and will provide a copy of the offer if
21
needed; he stated that by his calculation, his proposal of 14 res idential units with
an average tax valuation of $250,000 per unit would bring in approximately
$41,000 per year in real estate taxes for the City versus his calculation of 150
students at $5,000 per year roughly BPOL tax of $3,000 is far less of an income
generator for the City; he asked Council to explain how the Montessori school is
more advantageous to the City than his proposal; he stated that at the very least
he feels the project demands further review and by the City Manager’s own
admission, the process has been expedited as requested by a private entity
which would not have been granted to a residential home builder; he stated that
in closing, as a life-long resident of Salem if Council can prove that the
Montessori school project is better for the City it has his full support; he thanked
Council for its time and consideration; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones asked Mr. Graham to repeat the numbers
he talked about regarding the taxes and explain how he came up with those
numbers; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Graham stated that the first part of the numbers are
factual; he stated that if he had not been at a dinner party the week before last
he would not have known this was being proposed; he stated that right before
the former City Manager retired, he scheduled a meeting with him to discuss the
project and he informed Mr. Graham that he was on his way out and it needed
to be the next city manager’s decision; he stated that he met with the current
City Manager as soon as he took office and the City Manger stated that he was
not up to speed on the project and he needed more time to study the project; he
stated that, what was quickly put together, without a doubt 14 units which is
based on a plan drawn up by the City that shows 12 units, but 14 units will fit
within the same block of housing, would generate an average valuation of
$250,000 each; he stated that based upon his experience of people who are
looking to move to a patio home, that price would sell and would be extremely
popular; he stated that based upon his assumption with an average valuation of
$250,000 with the units being sold from $260,000 or $270,000 to $310,000 or
$320,000 that the City’s current real estate tax rate of $1.18 per $100 equals
$41,000 per year; he stated that the BPOL tax was calculated based on a service
if you take 150 students multiplied by $5,000 per student, which is an
assumption, $3,000 per year was determined; he stated that he does not know
what the Montessori School’s offer is and questioned if Council has seen his
offer; and
WHEREAS, Council stated that they have seen Mr. Graham’s offer; and
22
WHEREAS, Mr. Graham stated that as a gesture to the City he would
purchase the wooded parcel located across the street and would donate it to the
Montessori school if they are willing to build on the commercial tract, which he
feels is a better building site for the school based upon the grade of the
property; he stated that the way the proposed site is graded, he would place the
street in the middle with homes on a slab on the left and homes with basements
on the right, which would be perfect for the site; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that it is her understanding that
the property located below this parcel is zoned HBD Highway Business District,
which makes it a more valuable piece of property and would be more expensive
to acquire; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Economic Development stated
that the parcel in question is zoned Highway Business District; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Graham stated that doesn’t mean that the City wouldn’t
negotiate; he stated that he feels that the entire Elizabeth Campus project has
been about compromise; he stated Council is aware of the relationships he has
with people who were involved with the project and a former Council member,
who is currently trying to sell his house, told Mr. Graham that the project Mr.
Graham is proposing would be the perfect project for he and his wife to move to,
and Mr. Graham feels that means a lot; he again stated that the former Cit y
Manager stated that the plan for the residential parcel was for homes to be
placed on the property; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if there was a covenant on
the property that states homes were to be built on the property; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that he is not aware of a covenant on
the property; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if when the property was in
question, there was not a covenant placed on it; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that there was not a covenant placed
on the property that restricted it to only single family residences; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Graham stated that single family residences are allowed
within residential zoning; the commercial parcel was mentioned and the
Montessori school could be built on the commercial parcel just as well as it could
be built on the residential parcel with a special use permit; and
23
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley thanked Mr. Graham for his comments; and
WHEREAS, Nora Smith, 1135 Lynchburg Turnpike, appeared before the
Council and stated that she is also representing Lucy Coons; she stated that she
and Ms. Coons own the residence located at 1135 Lynchburg Turnpike; she
stated that rezoning to accommodate the construction of a Montessori school is
the best thing that could happen to us; she understands the reasoni ng of some
of the neighbors who area opposed to the project; however, she feels that if the
property is not rezoned to accommodate the school, she will be either looking at
modest patio homes or less than impressive businesses which will decrease the
value of the surrounding properties; she stated that either option will produce
more noise, lights, and traffic than the school would especially at night; she
further stated that she supports the school being built because all of the
available land will be purchased, she will be assured there will be no more
construction on the property; the site will be landscaped and properly
maintained which will add value to the surrounding properties; the school will
have a campus environment which will blend in with what i s already nearby
(Roanoke College and the Salem YMCA) and is a very good fit; she stated that she
appreciates the school’s plan that the grove of old oak trees will be preserved as
they are; she stated that when she moved into her residence in 1956 the tre es
were huge then and she is certain that they are over 100 years old and possibly
close to 200 years old; she stated that when the property was part of the
Lutheran Children’s Home she knows that arrowheads were found in the vicinity
and feels Salem should recognize the historic property for what it is; she stated
that the first manor house was named Sherwood and feels the property should
properly be called the Sherwood Property; she further stated that having studied
the Montessori concept of education in graduate school at Virginia Tech and
having a granddaughter who has attended a Montessori school, she is impressed
with the concept and the quality of education students receive at these schools;
she feels the school will add prestige to the neighborhood and neighbors should
be grateful that the school has chosen them to be neighbors; she then read a
comment from Sarah L. Ahalt and Martha S. Ahalt who reside at 1123 Lynchburg
Turnpike: “As owners and residents of the property at 1123 Lynchburg Turnpike,
we are very interested in the potential sale of the land under consideration. The
sale of the land for construction of a Montessori school is a good fit with the use
of the land to the west of those parcels of land. The school will not create a
substantial increase in traffic and noise during the day time. We consider the
Montessori school to be a good fit. At night, it should create less traffic and less
light and noise pollution than many alternate uses for which the land might be
sold. We also see an advantage to having the matter settled in an acceptable
way rather than as a source of continued controversy;” and
24
WHEREAS, William Mullins, 1208 Lynchburg Turnpike, appeared before
the Council and stated that the property is located next to his property and he
was promised homes, not a school; he stated that he would like for homes to be
built on the property, not a school; he also questioned what happened to his bid
on an acre of the property in question; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that his bid for an acre of the parcel
was forwarded to Council and Council is aware of his offer also, along with Mr.
Graham’s offer; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins questioned if the land was going to be sold at this
meeting and asked for clarification on the item before Council; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the item is regarding granting a
Special Exception Permit to allow a school to be built on the property; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins questioned if the Special Exception Permit was
approved and his bid was accepted, will the school still be built on the property;
and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the Special Exception Permit is to
grant them the ability to build the school; he stated that if the permit is
approved, their offer is for the entire property; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins stated that he was told that he could bid on one
acre of the property and it would be sold that way; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that Mr. Mullins was told that he
could place a bid on the property, but not that the property would necessarily be
subdivided; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins stated that if he had realized that he may have
placed a bid for the entire parcel he would have done so; he stated that when
the City promises something and then doesn’t keep its promise, what can
residents expect; he further stated that homes would not only generate real
estate tax revenue, but would also generate personal property taxes on vehicles
also; he thanked Council for its time; and
WHEREAS, Jamie Sachs, 825 Virginia Avenue, appeared before the
Council and stated that he came to the meeting to discuss chickens, but he is
concerned about this issue; he stated that as a resident of the neighborhood, he
would prefer to see a Montessori school than 14 new houses down the hill; he
25
stated that he feels that there has already been too much development in that
area; he stated that he is also the great-great-great nephew of Andrew Lewis so
he feels that he has a bias related to this item, but he would prefer to see the
Montessori school than 14 people with vehicles, etc.; he stated that he feels the
Montessori school would be better stewards of the land and better members of
the community; and
WHEREAS, Doug Hale, 1155 Lynchburg Turnpike, appeared before the
Council and stated that he originally intended to not attend the meeting because
he felt like the entire process has been on a fast track with blinders on to
anything else that was coming from the sides; he stated that he lives in the
acreage that will be somewhat directly across the street from the proposed
development; he stated that he has been looking at the dirt pile across the street
for five years and has been patiently waiting for its removal; he stated that
portions of the dirt pile have gradually been removed, but there is still a large
pile of dirt located on the parcel that would have to be leveled or removed, etc.;
he does not oppose the Montessori school, but opposes the school being built
across the street from his residence; it is a residential neighborhood; therefore,
he would like to see homes built on the property; he referenced the patio homes
that were built on Maple Street and feels that they are nice homes; he stated
that as many people begin to “season out” who have homes to maintain may not
be able to care for their homes in the future and would prefer to live in a patio
style home; he stated that his greatest concern regarding the proposal is that it
was fast tracked and was something else he didn’t know about; he asked Council
to look at the whole picture and consider the b est interests of the City—financial
gains, good contributions to the property, etc.; he further stated that there are
many things he has recognized over the past 11 years and feels there are several
mechanical things that have yet to be resolved that go beyond a vote at this
meeting; he again asked Council for its consideration and thanked Council for its
time; and
WHEREAS, Joe Thomas, Jr., owner of Thomas Ltd. located at 494
Glenmore Drive, appeared before the Council and stated that he has been
before Council many times on behalf of most things; he stated that through a lot
of years serving on the Board at the YMCA, and also through performing a lot of
the site work on the Elizabeth Campus, he feels that he almost knows the
property as well as his own property; Mr. Thomas apologized to Mr. Hale for
piling a lot of the dirt up across from his property and thanked him for his
comments regarding the townhouses on Maple Street; he stated that he
supported the City’s conceptual plan for the Elizabeth Campus when it was
approved years ago, and addressed many issues and concerns and proved to be
a nice blend of proposed business and residential that was all connected by
26
walking trails and green space; he stated that he does not understand why the
City is abandoning the proposed residential in favor of a private school; he stated
that his company, and noted that he and Brad Graham are partners, submitted a
proposal that would allow Council to follow through with its promises to the
citizens of Salem at least in regard to the residential use; he stated that the
walking trails have not been developed and the additional job producing
businesses that were a part of the original concept have not been fulfilled, but
feels the City is doing everything it can to make sure those promises will come to
fruition as well; he stated that his various companies have been located in the
City of Salem since the early 1960s and in the last 10 years, over $70 million
worth of revenue has been generated out of his operation on Glenmore Drive;
he further stated that many of his subcontractors and suppliers are also located
in the City of Salem so the economic impact to the City of Salem is somewhat far-
reaching; he stated that a residential development proposal was submitted to
the City that offers the City significantly more money than what he understands
has been offered for the previously proposed residential parcel; he stated that
his proposed development is in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive
Plan, doesn’t require rezoning or a special use permit, and will generate over
$2.8 million in potential work for local subcontractors and suppliers; the
proposal fulfills a need related to affordable housing for empty nesters and
active adults; it is a convenient location to area businesses, shopping, and
restaurants; he stated that between Carter Machinery, GE, Atlantic Mutual, One
Beacon, and Virginia Orthopaedic alone there are at least 2,000 jobs whereby
employees at those companies could walk to work from the location if they
desired; he further stated that details to the offer were submitted on February
23, 2011, and they have yet to receive a response; he stated that the potential
economic impact his proposal would generate has been calculated and asked
Council to address how the private school would in fact be more fiscally
beneficial to the City of Salem than his proposal; he stated that the citizens
deserve to know those numbers before any proposal is accepted; he stated that
in closing, he believes that his proposal addresses a direct need in the City, it
provides a significant economic impact, both immediate and long-term, and it
allows the current Council to fulfill its promise to the residents that the parcel
would be use for its intended residential purpose; he stated that all anyone
wants is what is best for the City; he further stated that after considering both
proposals with equal diligence, if Council feels the construction of a private
school on the property is the best use for the property and maximizes the fiscal
impact of the residents of the City, then Council has no alternative but to accept
the proposal and move forward; otherwise, he feels his proposal should be
accepted; he thanked Council for its consideration; and
27
WHEREAS, Dr. Michelle Hartman, Roanoke, appeared before the Council
and stated that she is a pediatric nurse practitioner on the faculty at Jefferson
College of Health Sciences, and most importantly a mom of two children who
have attended Salem Montessori School for the last seven years; she stated that
as a pediatric nurse practitioner, she is well trained in pediatric growth and
development principles; she stated that Salem Montessori School is an optimal
environment to allow children to master the critical task of development such as
autonomy, independence, and being industrious; she stated that she brings her
nursing students to observe this excellent environment which highlights what
children can and should be able to do; she encouraged Council to take time to
observe the school also; she stated that along with the exceptional instruction in
math, reading, science, and other subjects, as a Montessori mom she values the
many life lessons her children have and are learning at Salem Montessori School;
her children and other children are learning how to pr oblem solve, be stewards
of their environment, be community servants, and learn how to resolve conflicts
peacefully; she urged Council to approve the Special Exception Permit to allow
the Montessori school so that more children and their families may benef it from
the enriched environment at Salem Montessori School; she stated that she picks
up and drops off her children twice a day at different times during the day, and
she has never had to wait on the Boulevard; she stated that the families stagger
their drop-off and pick-up times so that has never been an issue; she thanked
Council for its consideration; and
WHEREAS, Merna Helsty, a Southwest Roanoke County resident and
parent of a Montessori school student, appeared before the Council and stated
that she drops off her child at 8 a.m., which is the busiest time of the day, and
she has never been delayed for more than five minutes; she stated that the
parking flow is very easy; she stated that she lives on Keagy and Sugarloaf Drive,
which is across from the Allstate building, and there has been a large parcel that
has been depleted of trees and everything that’s called nature to build homes;
she stated that the original plan was for 50 homes, but there have only been two
homes that people have purchased; she questioned how in the current soft
economy and housing market, how it is expected for a $250,000 plus home to be
sold, especially 14 of them; she questioned if there truly is a market for the
homes right now; she stated that based on what she has seen where she lives is
that homes have been sitting and nothing is being built; she further stated that
the site near her residence is one of the saddest sights because where the land
was full of trees and nature, now there is nothing; she stated that she has been
very happy with the Montessori school and feels that many of the residents of
Salem realize the value that the school would bring to the community, especially
with preservation of nature being of first importance to the school; and
28
WHEREAS, Walt Gordon, 100 Kimball Avenue, appeared before the
Council and questioned how the sale of City property is advertised; he stated
that according to the newspaper, the school made an offer for the property back
in December 2010; he again questioned how it was advertised that the property
was for sale; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that a public hearing is held prior to
the sale of piece of property; therefore, if someone makes an offer on a parcel
owned by the City, City Council then would hold a public hearing whether or not
to sale the property and enter into a contract under the terms of that offer or
ask for a different offer, or deny the offer outright; he stated that is the process
the City goes through to sell a piece of City-owned property; he stated that the
City has property that it markets for economic development reasons and those
pieces of property are typically not listed either and often “sit” and wait for an
offer to come in; he stated that if the City had a piece of property it wanted to
sell, it could advertise and accept bids also; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon stated that the City Manager said “could” accept
bids and questioned if the city has to accept bids; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the City does not have to accept
bids on property it wants to sell; he further stated that there are a number of
ways for the City to sell property, but they must be accompanied by a public
hearing at some point; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon asked whether the school is a private school and
questioned if the school is a proprietary school, a school for profit; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the school is a business; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon reiterated that the school is a taxable business;
and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the school is a taxable business;
and
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon noted that a business is going to be placed in a
residential area without the property being rezoned; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that any use can be placed on the
property that is allowed in the ordinance; he stated that the ordinance allows,
with a Special Exception Permit, a school use; he further stated that whether the
29
school is making a profit or not is not relevant, the use is what is relevant; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon reiterated that the school is a business; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that the school is a business, just like
other uses that are allowed by special exception in residential zoning (i.e.
stables, etc.); he again stated that it is the use that is the issue, not necessaril y
whether someone makes a profit or not; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon thanked Council for its time; and
WHEREAS, Inez Good, 1203 Lynchburg Turnpike, appeared before the
Council and stated that she lives directly across from the property in question
and has lived there for 50 years; she stated that she feels that the school would
be a good fit for the area; she would rather have the school with some open area
and landscaping than homes; she stated that she does not feel the homes would
sell very well due to the noise and lights, etc. from the ballpark and the civic
center; she feels it would be beneficial for the school to be built on the property;
she stated that the neighborhood is no longer a quiet residential neighborhood
as it was 50 years ago; and
WHEREAS, Bob Hunt, 709 Maryland Avenue, appeared before the Council
to address the environmental aspects of the plans; he stated that he does not
plan to address the 3.8 acres where the school, homes, or other use might be
placed, but would like to address the 1.8 acres of wooded area; he stated that he
was very active in the Elizabeth Campus plans in what was planned on the
campus and what has been developed on the site; he stated that there were
pros and cons at every step and the only thing that was not controv ersial at any
point was the wooded area; he stated that Harry Haskins started calling the
parcel an ancient grove of trees, which is what it is referred to in social
discussions; he further stated that everyone feels that the parce l of trees should
be preserved and hopes to continue to see that the trees are preserved and
enhanced; he stated that the trees are beautiful even though they have
deteriorated some in the last few years; he stated that it is a beautiful grove of
trees that adds a lot to the area; he questioned if the wooded area could be
segregated from the other acreage so that the City could concentrate more on
the use of the 3.9 acres and then concentrate separately on the wooded area; he
stated that the City currently owns the wooded area and feels that the City
would be a better owner of the wooded area than the Montessori school or a
homeowners’ association; he stated that he feels the City could better care for
the trees; he further stated that the pond that forms on the property from time
to time also needs to be preserved; he stated that wetland areas such as the
30
pond that forms on the property have special protection under the EPA; he
stated that whoever the property is sold to, if the wooded area is included with
the other acreage to be developed, he feels that special terms need to be in the
contract as to how the wooded area would be handled and preserved for the
future; he again stated that he feels it would be better if the City maintained
ownership of the wooded parcel and let the Montessori school use the area for
activities; he again stated that he would rather the City maintain ownership of
the wooded area than have a private entity own the parcel; and
WHEREAS, Stella Reinhard, 213 North Broad Street, appeared before the
Council and stated that from what she has heard so far at the meeting, there is
cause to slow down the process a bit; she stated that fast tracking has been
mentioned and several projects have been proposed for the property in
question; she feels that more thinking and discussion time needs to be taken;
she stated that she was also a part of the process a few years ago that was
looking at the land known as the last part of a land grant to Andrew Lewis; she
stated that she saw the development of the mixed use design o f the property
and one of the main arguments used by the City as to why the property would
be developed in the first place was because the City of Salem needed revenue;
she questioned if the revenue being brought into the City would be sufficient to
justify the development of another chunk of Elizabeth Campus; she stated that
several parcels have been developed, but there is still some open land that has
been undeveloped; she stated that she is not against the Montessori school, but
a school does not bring in much tax revenue; she also knows that a school
located next to the YMCA will benefit from the YMCA, but she also questioned if
the school would want two campuses separate from each other in the long-term;
she stated that Elizabeth Campus has one of the best views in Salem, and feels
that it is an ideal space for the use of the undeveloped land to be used for the
running trails that were a part of the campus design; she stated that there are at
least two separate wetland areas on the site, as well as the grove of trees; she
stated that she feels that it would be better for the City to retain ownership of
the grove of trees and begin to think about giving the citizens what they were
promised several years ago—the running trails, maybe the use of the grove of
trees, and the wetlands to possibly be used as part of a linear park that could be
a benefit to the YMCA, Roanoke College students, and the neighbors near the
property; she further stated that the citizens were promised running trails and as
Council chooses what to do with the last pieces of property located on the
Elizabeth Campus, she hopes Council considers that the City would be a better
steward of the grove of trees, the wetlands, and the potential for the linear park
that was promised before; she asked Council to also consider the tax revenues;
she stated that she would not like to see the last piece of Andrew Lewis’ land to
go for no good enough reason; she further stated that if revenue is needed for
31
the City, then Council needs to consider the best way to obtain the revenue; she
thanked Council for its consideration; and
WHEREAS, Barney Horrell reappeared before the Council; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst asked Mr. Horrell to show Council what
he has been showing the audience present at the meet ing; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell showed Council a rendering of what the school
would look like—all brick construction, single story building with a hip roof to
help preserve the views of the neighbors; he stated that with the grade of the
parcel they will be able to bench the site so that the building will be placed as
low as possible on the property and will be on a slab; he stated that they are
trying to do everything possible to keep from blocking the view from across the
street; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst asked Mr. Horrell to state what
construction materials will be used; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that in order to stay residential in
appearance and character, the building will have a 100 percent brick exterior,
will be a single story building, the brick will be a red color consistent with the
other buildings in the area, will have white trim, the building will have a gray/
slate in color metal roof, a couple of dormers will be on the building itself to help
further create a residential character to the building and also to bring in as much
natural light as possible; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned the total height of the building; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the plans are not final yet pending the
outcome of the request, but the building is between 22 and 23 feet in height at
its peak; and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens questioned if the roof would be tin; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the roof would be like a standing,
seemed metal roof and not a corrugated metal roof; he stated that the metal will
be a coated metal roof; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones asked Mr. Horrell the projected cost to
construct the building; and
32
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the estimate is a little over $1 million;
he showed the conceptual drawing of the proposed building; he stated that the
building was purposefully placed away from Mr. Mullins’ property and away
from Lynchburg Turnpike in an effort to preserve the existing trees and
landscaping along Lynchburg Turnpike; he again stated that the t raffic would be
directed to Texas Street from Commerce Drive, and stated that the whole focus
of the building is to take advantage of the view of the surrounding area; he
discussed the parcels the Montessori school wants to purchase and reiterated
that the existing landscaping will be preserved; he displayed various photos
taken from different driveways near the property that show the height of the
proposed building and how little it will block the neighbors’ view of the area; he
addressed the concern he heard regarding revenue that would be brought into
the City from the school versus homes being built on the site; he stated that
more than just tax revenue needs to be considered in as a financial benefit to the
community; he stated that as a community Salem needs to have points to sell
the City on, and Salem has plenty of great things to point to, but another facility
for early childhood development and care, and early education is a great draw to
the community; he stated that the school would benefit the co mmunity as
another selling point—at least 15 new jobs will be created; he pointed out that
the property is not being rezoned, a Special Exception Permit is being requested
and if for some reason the school would close, the property could not be used
for anything else other than a private school; Mr. Horrell also addressed the
concerns that the property needs to stay residential in use; he stated that the
Montessori school is a perfect transition use in his mind of going from homes to
the future commercial use to the south of the parcel, and in keeping with a
campus feel going across Lynchburg Turnpike; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that the construction schedule is
very aggressive and questioned how the building could be completed in such a
short period of time; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that there is an alternative site available
that they would prefer not to go to, but they have gone ahead and started
designing the building itself; a local architect is currently working on building
plans and they are close to having a final set to send out to begin the bidding
process; he stated that this process has not been fast tracked in any way other
than their aggressiveness in pushing our contractors; the City process has been
followed and will continue to be followed; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the building could be built on another
piece of property, and questioned if that is why he is confident in moving
forward with the project; and
33
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that is why the design of the building was
ordered; he stated that the building will be built either in Salem or on the
alternative property; he stated that the preferred site is here in Salem; he stated
that the goal is to start construction in April and have been assured by sever al
contractors they have met with that it is a doable schedule because of the style
of construction, nearby utilities, etc.; he stated that it is not a complicated
construction and they have been reassured that the project can be completed on
the timeframe they have requested; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if any type of LEED or energy
efficiency programs would be implemented; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they are not seeking LEED certification
due mostly to a cost issue for the certification itself; however, there are many
design elements being placed into the school such as a lot of natural light,
lighting fixtures and water fixtures; he stated that there will be a lot of things
incorporated but they are not seeking actual certification; he further stated that
part of the Montessori theme ties into environmental education and making a
building that is environmentally efficient is part of their goal; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned the intended use of the 1.8
acres of wooded area to be used as a nature area; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they view the wooded area the same
way as the citizens do; there is a beautiful grove of trees there that we want to
preserve as long as possible, and at the same time add to it with some plantings
of new trees on the parcel; he stated that the intent is to create a couple of
mulch paths on the parcel and use it as an outdoor exploring area for the
children; the 3.9 acre lot the building is proposed to be built on does not have a
grove of trees and they would like for the children to explore the grove of trees
to find lizards, butterflies, etc.; he stated that his children attend the Montessori
school and came home and could identify six birds; he further stated that in the
future they would like to lay down a couple of logs and use it as a log
amphitheatre; he discussed various programs offered at the school; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst asked the City Attorney what type of
concessions the Montessori school could offer to ens ure the 1.8 acre parcel
would stay a wooded area; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that there could be a condition that
there would be no development on the site; he stated that he would need to
research it further; he stated that as far as maintain ing the wooded area, it
34
would be subject to the disease of trees, etc.; he stated that there could be
reasons why it couldn’t be maintained; he stated that he believes that a
condition could be placed on that parcel that it could not be developed in any
way, shape, or form unless it was brought back before Council with the
appropriate advertisement and public hearings, etc.; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if the City could place a right
of first refusal if the property were to be sold; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that could be done and has been
done consistently; he stated that the process has been done consistently by
every City Council since he has been City Attorney, which is almost 30 years; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the lower parcel was recently
repurchased by the City; he stated that if the developer had developed the
property the way he had hoped to develop it, there would now be an existing
building of some size on the parcel, but he was unable to construct the building;
therefore, the City exercised its option to repurchase the property; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney noted that the City repurchased the
property for the original purchase price the developer paid; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that if the property is ever sold, it would
still be zoned residential with the only special exception allowed being a school
facility; he stated that a McDonald’s could not be placed on the property if it
were sold; he further stated that the Montessori school does not have any
intention of selling the property; and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens questioned if the Montessori school would
be willing to proffer a condition that on the lower side near Mr. Mullins’
property to plant a close growing row of trees that would act as both a visual and
a sound barrier and possibly some lower growing trees or shrubs along
Lynchburg Turnpike, not to block the view of the neighbors across the street, but
to also act as a barrier; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they are very willing to make that
proffer; he stated that the intent is to fully landscape the part of the parcel
located next to Mr. Mullins’ property; he stated that they have met with Mr.
Mullins and all of the neighbors and landscaping has been discussed; he stated
that along Lynchburg Turnpike, the school has a vested interested in screening
that side of the property because any traffic noise that can be absorbed by trees,
etc. also benefits the school; and
35
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned the type of exterior lighting to be
used on the development (height, brightness, etc.); and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the hours of operation are from 7 a.m.
to 6 p.m. five days a week; he stated that the last teacher goes home at 6 p.m.
and at that point there is no need for lighting other than just security lighting
right around the building itself; he stated that the rendering shows a covered
entryway on the south side of the building facing the stadium, which would be
the entryway for all students being dropped off and picked up; he stated that
some lighting may be placed underneath the covered entryway that would shine
down, but would not shine out; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if there would be any dusk to dawn
lighting in the parking lot; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they would prefer not to have dusk to
dawn lighting if possible and would like as much natural exchange as possible; he
stated that they do not want a consistent lighting throughout the day, they want
a connection to what is outside; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins reappeared before the Council and questioned
where the air conditioning units will be placed; he described a situation where a
church placed air conditioning units facing residential property ; he also
questioned if the units would be shielded from Lynchburg Turnpike; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the designs are still at the conceptual
level and he does not know exactly where the units will be placed, but he
assured Mr. Mullins and the other residents that wherever the units ar e placed
on the exterior of the building, they will be screened in an enclosure and
landscaping will be placed around the units in an effort to reduce the noise from
the units as much as possible; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that Mr. Mullins’ concern is a
legitimate concern because when Roanoke College was doing some construction,
the Broad Street neighbors had an issue with the noise from the chillers;
therefore, the plantings were not as mature as they needed to be in order to
accommodate the noise; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that because of their hours of operation
and because they are trying to be as green as possible, the thermostats will be
adjusted so that the units will not run as much as night; he stated that the entire
site will get much quieter at night, as opposed to a residential facility which gets
36
louder at night; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned the type of fencing that would
surround the parcel; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the existing facility has solid cedar
fencing that is six feet high, and a similar type fencing would be used on the
proposed property; he stated that it has not been determined exactly where the
fencing will be placed on the property; he further stated that they do not want
the fencing to be an impediment to the neighbors across the street and is more
effective closer to the building; he stated that they are not going to fence the
entire property, they are going to create little play areas outside of each
classroom that would utilize an outdoor classroom space when the weather
permits; he stated that fencing would be closer to the building and likely cedar in
nature; he stated that there would not be chain link fencing on the property; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned the maximum number of
children who could attend the school; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that between 120 and 150 students is the
maximum number of students; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley asked how many students are currently enrolled
in the school; and
WHEREAS, Ms. VanderHoeven stated that 110 students are currently
enrolled in the school; and
WHEREAS, Doug Hale reappeared before the Council and stated that he
does have some trees and the floodlights, etc. light up his house at night but it
has never bothered him; he stated that real estate sells well in Salem as most
people know; therefore, he does not feel that would be an issue if homes were
built on the property; he questioned if the utilities (electric, water, and sewer)
for the proposed building would come from Lynchburg Turnpike; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they are still in the conceptual design
phases of the project, but there is sanitary sewer along Lynchburg Turnpike; he
stated that it appears that the depth needed to service the school is not
available in order to have the water and sewer lines from Lynchburg Turnpike;
he stated that there is also sanitary sewer along Texas Street and they are
looking to extend a main down to Texas Street which would benefit the
commercial lot below the parcel; he further stated that water would probably
37
come from Lynchburg Turnpike, and he assumes that the electric will come from
the Turnpike also; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hale stated that all of that is located on the opposite side
of the street; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if the electric could be
buried; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that yes the electric could be buried; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hale stated that the street has been called Commerce
Drive, but the street sign says Corporate Lane; he clarified that it was the same
street that is being discussed; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley noted that the street sign needs to be looked at;
and
WHEREAS, Joe Thomas, Jr., reappeared before the Council and stated
that Mrs. Reinhard makes a point and he doesn’t know why they have to move
so fast on this, and maybe they aren’t; maybe part of the process is getting the
zoning and then slowing everything down; he stated that there is a good reason
for placing the school in the City of Salem because if you need to get something
built fast, Salem is the best place to do it because the City has the best people to
deal with; he further stated that even with the good people in Salem, to get site
plans in and approved, it is a tough schedule; he stated that he has be en doing
this a long time and it’s tough; he requested that the school at least get s a
response from its proposal and hopefully make a presentation to Council, the
City Manager, or Engineering so that they can have a better feel for what the
school plans to do; he stated that as of yet a decision has not been made on
whether the school can move forward or not; he stated that even though design
plans for the building are moving forward he does not feel that things need to be
pushed that quickly so that Council can take time to make an educated decision
and have some of the questions answered that have been brought forth at the
meeting; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned if the City Manager or the
Director of Planning and Economic Development have any reservations about
what the school has proposed; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that he is not aware of any
reservations; and
38
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned why a traffic study was not
conducted; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that most roadways are 30 feet curb
to curb and usually the vertical and horizontal curves are built to VDOT
standards; he stated that in most situations those type streets can handle
upwards of 10,000 ADT (average daily traffic); unless there is a situation where
there is an extreme amount of traffic, a traffic study is not needed unless there is
a specific reason; he stated that there is not a need in the area of the proposed
development; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that in other areas where development
has been discussed, that has been an issue; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that the traffic on Commerce, in and
of itself, there is no traffic Commerce besides the YMCA traffic and that is the
only draw; he stated that he has not looked at it specifically but there is no
concern in Engineering regarding traffic on Commerce or off Lynchburg Turnpike;
and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned if staff had any additional
comments; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that staff is available to answer an y
questions; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if the Special Exception Permit was
approved and the school was built and later sold, the building could only be used
as a school or would the property need to be rezoned; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that the Special Exception Permit
would allow a school, but the property could also be used for a single family
dwelling, or anything that is allowed in the zoning ordinance for the Residential
Single Family District zoning classification; he stated that the mere fact that there
is a permit to build a school on the property does not preclude someone making
another use of it; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if a government building could go on
the property; and
39
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that he did not think a government
building is allowed in RSF zoning; he stated that RSF zoning allows parks, golf
courses, stables and other things allowed according to the code; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding possible uses of the property
if the school was built and then later sold and what the current zoning ordinance
would allow, etc.; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager noted that in the current RSF classification,
there are very few other uses the property could be other than a school; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley asked Mr. Graham and Mr. Thomas what would
the approximate height of a patio home similar to the ones built on Maple Street
be; and
WHEREAS, Brad Graham stated that the height would be approximately
20 feet in height; he stated that he lives on Carrollton Avenue in The Hill
subdivision and there is a constant stream of noise from the interstate; he stated
that he goes running at the YMCA and there is no noise; he stated that he has
been developing projects in Salem for 20 years and Salem has been very diligent
about knowing exactly what is going to be on a property and what is allowed
before it is approved by the City; he stated that the building should be designed
and submitted before a special use is approved, otherwise the City will lose
control if the project continues to go through at the current pace; he stated that
it is unrealistic to think the school will be able to open by its projected opening
date; he stated that there is extensive cut and fill work that has to be done on
the site and rain can cause a two or three day delay; he stated that he doesn’t
feel that there is anyway the school can open by its projected September 1
opening date; he further stated that if that is why the project has to be approved
so quickly, it is another reason to slow down; he stated that the school may have
to open in January but it would give the City a chance to step back and get the
project done correctly; and
WHEREAS, Nora Smith reappeared before the Council to address the
issue about there not being any noise at the YMCA; she invited him to come to
her house on a Friday night when there is a football game going on, or when the
Horse Show, or the Salem Fair is in town; she stated that the noise sounds louder
than if you were on the premises; she stated that people are not going to pay a
whole lot of money for expensive housing to live in that kind of situation with
the noise and lights, and feels that it is not a suitable site for homes; and
40
WHEREAS, Bob Hunt reappeared before the Coun cil and questioned if
there was any distinction in Salem between a park and property like the ancient
grove of trees that the City owns; he questioned if calling City-owned property a
park was more significant than not; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that he does not think there is a
difference; and
WHEREAS, Lisa Reynolds, 1458 Deacon Street, appeared before Council
and stated that she has a school in her neighborhood; she stated that she
understands the logistics that must be considered from a f iscal or business
standpoint, but she stated that the children also need to be remembered; she
stated that all of her children have grown up in Salem —one graduated from
Salem High School and has two children who currently attend Salem High School;
she further stated that all three of her children also attended Salem Montessori
School; she stated that her oldest son, who is now 20, attended the school when
there were only 25 students; she stated that Ms. VanderHoeven did not plan to
get any larger, but students kept coming and coming because of the programs
offered at the school; she stated that her children learned how to be productive
citizens, were taught conflict resolution, and other life lessons; she further stated
that if children could learn these things when they are small, they take it with
them and continue to practice what they have learned; her children still say they
miss Salem Montessori School; she stated that her oldest son couldn’t wait to
get out of Salem went to school in Connecticut, and i s back telling his friends
that they don’t know how good they have it in Salem and that he can’t wait to
get back; she stated that Salem is a great city and asked Council to consider the
children as a part of everything else to be considered; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones stated that it’s been mentioned about fast
tracking the request; he stated that issues regarding Elizabeth Campus have
been on-going for 10 years; he further stated that he has been on Council for
two years and eight months, and this is the first time to his knowledge that
anyone has come to the City wanting to purchase the parcel in question; he
stated that he feels that when someone comes to the City wanting to purchase
city-owned property, especially during the current economic times, Council
needs to listen to what they have to say and what they have to present; he
stated that he feels that the Montessori school has been honest and upfront on
where it stood, where it was going, and time tables; he stated that he does not
feel that this process has gone through fast; he further stated that Council has
listened to both sides and no one has spoken against the school and most
schools are located in a residential area; he stated that Salem’s motto is kids
first; he stated that previous Councils promised different things and he was not
41
involved in what was previously promised; he stated that times are different
now; he again stated that this is the first time since he has been on Council that
the City has been approached about selling this par cel; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins reappeared before the Council and stated that
that the former City Manager told him personally that he would talk to the
residents before anything was developed on the land; he stated that he was told
that if homes were placed on the property, it would be discussed how the
residents wanted the homes placed on the property, etc. and that the residents
would be notified before anything was done on the property; he stated that he
didn’t receive any notification until people from the Montessori school walked
up and knocked on his door; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones stated that he was not told that the former
City Manager had told the residents they would be notified; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins stated that he realizes that, but he figured the
current City Manager was told because he called the former City Manager at
home and asked him what was going on; he stated that the former City Manager
told him that he did not know what was going on, and told him that he promised
Mr. Mullins that homes would be built on the property and that Mr. Mullins
would be notified before anything was done on the property; he again stated
that he was not notified prior to people from the Montessori school knocking on
his door; he stated that he feels that it should also be considered that the City
did not notify the neighbors that anything was being proposed for the property;
and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if the City was accepting any less than
what is required by standard operating procedures or City Code; is the City
allowing anything that it would not normally allow; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that a site plan has not been received
or anything of that sort; he stated that the site plan review process has not even
begun; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if the process should have already
begun; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that the site plan review process
normally begins after someone who owns a property submits a proposal to
develop the property, once the owner has all the details; he stated that the City
does not have the details for a site plan review; and
42
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if anything in this request is
happening faster than it has in any other situation regarding the sale of City -
owned property; he questioned if the City is requiring less from the petitioners
than it has from anyone else; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the sale of City owned property
goes through the process that is required by State Code; he stated that what has
happened in this case that is not always done, and someone who has been with
the City longer than he has would know if the City has done this before, is that
the Special Exception Permit request is being done concurrently with the sale of
the property; he stated that it is not unusual outside of Salem for the process to
be done that way, but he does not know in the City of Salem if it’s been done
before; he stated that in a more typical transaction, the contract with the
contract purchaser is done contingent upon a Special Exception Permit being
approved; he stated that in this case the contract and the Special Exception
Permit request are being considered at the same time; he further stated that the
same notice and public hearing requirements are being followed as if they are
being done separately rather than concurrently; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned in a normal sale of property would
one bidder know the proposal offered by another bidder; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that as Council is aware, an offer to
purchase another parcel on the Elizabeth Campus property was presented to
Council recently for Council to decide if the offer would be considered; he stated
that Council decided not to consider the offer ; he stated that the offer is
generally kept confidential until such point that it is required to be made public
by state code; he stated that the City is allowed to keep the terms of the sale of
certain property confidential up to a certain point; he stated that in this case, the
Montessori School’s offer was made public very early on in the process and has
been public knowledge from the beginning; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if there were any proffers
being offered and asked the City Attorney if she could ask that question; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that proffers concerning a rezoning
request are different than conditions being placed on a Special Exception Permit
request; he stated that the City’s ordinance and the state code states that in
approving any special exception or a use not provided for, Council may require
and attach any conditions necessary to ensure the proposal is compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood and community, etc.; he stated that conceivably
if Council were inclined to approve the special exception request, Council could
43
make the request subject to everything that has been presented at the meeting;
including the statement that the HVAC units would be screened, the fencing
would be cedar or cedar-like, etc.; he stated that Council would not need to
specify the conditions because they are all part of the record and Council could
make all of those conditions part of the special exception approval; he further
stated that not only would the conditions be special conditions to the Special
Exception Permit, but the conditions would be incorporated into the deed on the
property, as has been the practice, and if the conditions are not met then
Council could exercise its option to repurchase the property; and
WHEREAS, Doug Hale reappeared before Council and questioned what
happens to the other individuals who are interested in the property; he
questioned if the other individuals will still have a viable option to purchase the
property; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that if the Special Exception Permit is
approved and the contract is executed, then a contractual agreement has been
made; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hale questioned if it will just be implied that the other
individuals’ offers were not accepted; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that if Council has three offers and
only accepts one of the offers, then it means that Council has denied the other
two offers; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hale clarified that it is implied since the individuals were
not verbally told; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that he feels it is explicit that the
other offers were denied if Council accepts one offer; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hale stated that he feels that Council should have let the
other individuals who submitted offers know that their offers were not accepted;
and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned the procedure when there are
multiple bidders on a piece of property; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that there are currently three offers
on the parcel or a portion of the parcel; he stated that the City has not entered
into a contract at this point; therefore, all three offers are still on the table; he
44
stated that the City would not generally provide a letter stating that the contract
was rejected unless Council said that it wasn’t going to consider the offer, or the
City had accepted another contract on the property; he stated that if Council
decides to approve the Special Exception Permit, then it is implied that the sale
of the property to the Montessori school would move forward; he stated that if
Council decides not to approve the Special Exception Permit, there are two other
viable offers because he is certain that the Montessori school will withdraw its
offer to purchase the parcel; he noted that Council then would have to decide
whether to accept one of the other offers, not accept any of the other offers,
continue to “sit” on the property while the adjoining property develops, or any
other alternative; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hale stated that it is a gray area and he appreciates the
consideration given to help him understand the process; he stated that he now
understands that the Special Exception Permit is the issue and not whether to
sell the property to the highest bidder; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that is correct; and
WHEREAS, Barney Horrell reappeared before the Council and stated that
the Montessori school is very comfortable with voluntarily proffering the
landscaping that was discussed, screening the HVAC units outside, that the
building will be a single-story brick building with a gray, metal hip roof, traffic will
be directed onto Commerce Drive, and the character of the building will be very
similar as to what was presented at the meeting; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned if the 1.8 acre parcel will remain
all trees; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the parcel is not all trees, but the trees
that are on the parcel will remain and the school will maintain them; he stated
that he needs to make a minor correction for the record; he stated that he said
the fencing would be a solid, cedar fencing but Ms. VanderHoeven pointed out a
black wrought iron type higher fencing that will allow some visibility might be
erected in the play areas as an alternative to cedar; he stated that there may be
some cedar fencing, but the wrought iron type fencing is more desirable; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if the school would agree to granting
the City first right of refusal on the two parcels in question; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the City would have right of first
refusal on both parcels if the parcels are not developed; and
45
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that he would like for the City to have
right of first refusal on the 1.8 acre parcel even if the 3.9 acre parcel was
developed; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the 1.8 acre parcel would not be
developed; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned the review time once a site
plan is submitted; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that the City has 45 days to review
the site plan, but staff tries to get it done as fast as they can; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Economic Development stated
that it takes approximately two weeks for a site plan to be reviewed; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if that was standard
procedure; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Economic
Development stated that two weeks are standard for Salem; the City Engineer
stated that if it is a complicated site plan, it can take longer but he does not
consider the Montessori school proposal to be a complicated plan based on what
has been presented at the meeting; and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens questioned if the existing detention pond is
sufficient for the development of the parcel, or if another storm water
management system would need to be placed on the parcel; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that the existing detention pond was
built to serve approximately 52 acres of the Elizabeth Campus, and when it was
designed, it was designed for an ultimate build-out which meant it was assumed
that there would be a lot of paving, a lot of impervious surfaces; he stated that
the pond was designed to handle a 25 -10 and a 10-2, which exceeded state
standards at that point in time; and
WHEREAS, Bob Hunt reappeared before the Council and stated that he
hopes that the use of the 1.8 acre parcel would still be available for all residents
to enjoy and not for the exclusive use of the school; he stated that he feels there
is no reason to sell that parcel to the school because the parcel is ok with t he
City owning the parcel; he stated that the City does not have to sell the parcel to
the school, it can allow the school to use it; he stated that he feels that the City
46
could be taking on a problem by selling the parcel to the school; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that he is now aware that the City
currently maintains the 1.8 acre parcel; he stated that the City does own the
property; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hunt stated that the property does need some
maintenance; he stated that he feels it would be a lo w liability for the City to
allow the school to use the property; he asked Council to consider that the 1.8
acre parcel does not need to be sold to the school, if the school is allowed to be
built on the 3.9 acre parcel; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that the school intends to make
the 1.8 acre parcel a nature trail; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hunt stated that the City should allow the school to build
the trail without actually owning the property; he stated that he wants to see
the maximum preservation and use by the citizens of Salem of the parcel so that
it’s not determined to be private property; and
WHEREAS, Barney Horrell reappeared before the Council and stated that
the school has liability reasons for not making the 1.8 acre parcel open to the
general public even after school hours; he stated that the school will invite
people other than its students to attend the cross programming opportunities at
the site; he stated that the parcel will be used by more than just the Montessori
students, but it will be at the school’s invitation only; therefore the school will
control the liability of it; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned how the proposed walking
trails on the Elizabeth Campus cross in relation to the 1.8 acre parcel; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that there is a section of an easement
the City has on the border of the YMCA property on the north side, but it would
not be directly adjacent to it; he stated that the City still owns the property and a
trail can connect down to the parcel up to the point of purchase; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned when the trail was discussed
and conceptualized, were easements put in place around the properties to be
sold; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that currently is being worked on to
have easements in place for the City to put in trails; and
47
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if the sale of the 1.8 acre
parcel would prohibit the development of the proposed trails; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that if the 1.8 acre parcel was sold, it
would not affect the layout of the proposed walking trails; and
WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to the request;
ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMAN JONES, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN GARST, AND DULY CARRED, a Special Exception Permit to
allow primary/secondary educational facilities on an approximate 3.9 acre tract
and an approximate 1.8 acre tract located at 1150 Kime Lane/1130 Lynchburg
Turnpike (P/O Tax Map #148-1-2) was hereby approved conditioned on what
was presented – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye,
Jane W. Johnson – absent, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye.
Mayor Foley stated that Council was going to hold a closed session
pursuant to provisions of Section 2.2-3711 A (1) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended, to discuss a personnel matter;
ON MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN GARST, AND DULY CARRIED, in accordance with Section 2.2-
3711 A. of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended to date, Council convened to
Closed Session at 10:06 p.m. for the purpose of discussing a personnel matter,
which is authorized by Section 2.2-3711 A. 1. of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as
amended to date -- the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye,
Jane W. Johnson – absent, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye.
Upon reconvening at 10:29 p.m.;
ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMAN GIVENS, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN JOHNSON, AND DULY CARRIED, in accordance with Section
2.2-3712 D. of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended to date, Council hereby
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 -- the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye,
William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – absent, John C. Givens – aye, and
Byron Randolph Foley – aye.
ITEM S2
CLOSED SESSION
FOR PERSONNEL
MATTER
48
There being no further business to come before the Council, the same on
motion adjourned at 10:29 p.m.