Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/9/2024 - City Council - Agenda -Regular City Counci l Meeting AGENDA Monday, September 9, 2024, 6:30 P M Work S es s io n 5:30 P.M. C ouncil C hambers C onference R oom, C ity Hall, 114 North Broad S treet, S alem, Virginia 24153 R egular S ession 6:30 P.M. C ouncil C hambers , C ity Hall, 114 North Broad S treet, S alem, Virginia 24153 WORK SE SSI ON 1.C all to Order 2.New Business A.Discussion I tems 1) C ouncil Retreat goals and objectives update 2) Economic Development Update - Tommy Miller 3.Adjournment RE GU L AR SE S SI ON 1.C all to Order 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3.Bid Openings, Awards, Recognitions A.Recognition of Constitution Week and F ort L ewis Chapter of NSD AR Present Proclamation to Elizabeth Vincel, Chapter Regent of the Fort Lewis C hapter of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution (N SD AR) in recognition of C onstitution Week 2024. 4.C onsent Agenda A.Citizen Comments C omments from the public, limited to five minutes, on matters not already having a public hearing at the same meeting. B.Minutes C onsider acceptance of the August 12, 2024, Work Session and Regular Meeting minutes. C .F inancial Reports C onsider acceptance of the Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for the one month ending J uly 2024. 5.Old Business A.Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance C onsider ordinance on second reading for the request of Seaside Heights, LLC, property owner, to rezone the property located at 1590 West Main Street (Tax Map # 140-1-3) from LM Light Manufacturing District to HBD Highway Business District. (Approved on first reading at the August 12, 2024, C ouncil meeting.) 6.New Business A.Special Exception P ermit Amendment Hold public hearing to consider the request of Salem Montessori School, Inc., property owner, to amend the existing special exception permit to allow for a second elementary educational facility on the property located at 101 C orporate Boulevard (Tax Map # 117-2-1). (Advertised in the August 22 and 29 issues of the Salem Times-Register.)(Planning C ommission recommended approval with condition; see pages 2-11 of Planning C ommission minutes.) B.Resolution 1482- Reschedule October 15, 2024, Regular Council Meeting C onsider Resolution 1482 rescheduling the October 15, 2024, Regular Meeting of City C ouncil to October 7, 2024. C .Salem City School Board C onsider setting date for public hearing in accordance with Section 22.1-29.1 of the C ode of Virginia 1950, as amended, regarding the expiration of term for Nancy Bradley and Teresa Sizemore-Hernandez. (Suggest date of October 7, 2024). D.Appropriation of F unds C onsider request to amend the School Operating Fund and School C apital Projects Fund budgets as approved by the School Board on August 13, 2024. Audit - Finance C ommittee E.Allman E &S P lan C onsider setting bond for erosion and sediment control for the Allman E&S Plan. Audit - Finance C ommittee F.Savory Ventures Salem C onsider setting bond for erosion and sediment control and landscaping for Savory Ventures Salem. Audit - Finance Committee G.Appropriation of F unds C onsider request to appropriate fund balance to replenish C ontingency. Audit - Finance C ommittee H.City Holiday C onsider the addition of Tuesday, December 24, 2024, as a City holiday for employees and closing C ity offices. 7.Adjournment City Council Meeting MINUTES Monday, August 12, 2024, 6:30 PM Work Session 6:00 P.M.; Regular Session 6:30 P.M. Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 WORK SESSION AMENDED AGENDA 1.Call to Order A work session of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 N. Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, on August 12, 2024, at 6:00 p.m., there being present the following members of said Council to wit: Renée Ferris Turk, Mayor; James W. Wallace, III, Vice- Mayor; Council members; Byron Randolph Foley, William D. Jones, and H. Hunter Holliday; with Renée Ferris Turk, Mayor, presiding; together with Chris Dorsey, City Manager; Rob Light, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council; Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance; Chuck Van Allman, Director of Community Development; Crystal Williams, Assistant to the City Manager; and Laura Lea Harris, Deputy Clerk of Council; and the following business was transacted; Mayor Turk reported that this date, place, and time had been set in order for the Council to hold a work session; and 2.New Business A.Discussion Items Discussion of citizen comment requests. Mayor Turk presented requests that had been made by citizens during the Public Comment period of Council meetings from April 22 through July 22, 2024. Discussion was held on various citizen comment requests received from these meetings and they were reviewed by Council. 3.Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Turk adjourned the meeting at 6:19 p.m. Item #4B Date: 9/09/2024 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was called to order at 6:30 p.m., there being present the following members to wit: Renée Ferris Turk, Mayor; James W. Wallace, III, Vice-Mayor; Councilmembers: Byron Randolph Foley, William D. Jones, and H. Hunter Holliday; with Renée Ferris Turk, Mayor, presiding together with Chris Dorsey, City Manager; Rob Light, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council; Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance; Chuck Van Allman, Director of Community Development: Tommy Miller, Director of Economic Development; Mike Stevens, Director of Communications; and Jim Guynn, City Attorney. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Bid Openings, Awards, Recognitions There were none this evening. 4. Consent Agenda A. Citizen Comments Comments from the public, limited to five minutes, on matters not already having a public hearing at the same meeting. Ronald Thompson and Matthew Thompson, 1000 W. Riverside Drive, expressed concern about trees falling on their property. He noted that they had discussed the situation with Community Development and updated Council and staff on their situation since the previous meeting at which they had spoken. Mayor Turk asked to confirm that since this was private property it would be the responsibility to handle the matter with the neighbor and not through City involvement. Mr. Van Allman remarked in regards to the applicable section of City Code. He indicated that this Public Nuisance section of Code is relatively new and that the interpretation of whether a tree was a nuisance must be done by someone like a horticulturist that was qualified to make a determination as to whether the tree was an immediate threat and that there was a defined process that must be followed. He also remarked that state code would play into this as well. Mayor Turk repeated that this was a civil matter between Mr. Thompson and his neighbor. She thanked the Thompsons for being here this evening. B. Minutes Consider acceptance of the July 22, 2024, Work Session and Regular Meeting minutes. The minutes were approved as written. C. Financial Reports Consider acceptance of the Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for the twelve months ending June 2024. Mayor Turk noted that the Financial Reports were part of the Agenda Packet that was published ahead of time and that Council had the opportunity to review and ask questions. Vice-Mayor Wallace noted that he realized that these were unaudited statements, and he did not need an answer this evening, but asked Mr. Dorsey if it would be possible to have a look back at the financial models to look at the misses in revenue forecasting. He stated that some areas were off by as much as 15 and 19%. He felt that it was important to understand what was happening for future budgeting purposes. Mr. Dorsey confirmed that he would meet with Ms. Jordan and look at these specifically to determine what these are and what triggered them and would get back to Council on this. The Financial Reports were received. 5. Old Business There was no Old Business this evening. 6. New Business A. Salem High School Wrestling Consider the adoption of Resolution 1478 honoring Salem High School Individual Wrestling Team member Derek Bush for his State Championship. Mayor Turk shared that Council would like to recognize Salem High School Individual Wrestling Team member Derek Bush with Resolution 1478 to honor him this evening for his State Championship. She asked that Derek Bush and Coach Lawrence Van Liew come forward. Mayor Turk read Resolution 1478 for those present. City Council expressed congratulations and pictures were taken Derek and Coach Van Liew with Council by Mike Stevens. Derek was presented with a copy of the resolution and a Salem City Championship pin. William Jones motioned to adopt Resolution 1478 honoring Salem High School Individual Wrestling Team member Derek Bush for his Virginia High School League State Championship. Randy Foley seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace B. Salem High School Debate Team Consider the adoption of Resolution 1479 honoring the Salem High School Debate team for winning the Virginia High School League State Championship. Mayor Turk shared that Council would like to recognize the Salem High School Debate team with Resolution 1479 to honor them this evening. She asked that the members of the team and Coach Mark Ingerson come forward. Mayor Turk read Resolution 1466 for those present. City Council expressed congratulations and pictures were taken of the team and Council by Mike Stevens. The team members were each presented with a copy of the resolution and a Salem City Championship pin. William Jones motioned to adopt Resolution 1479 honoring the Salem High School Debate team for winning the Virginia High School League State Championship. H Hunter Holliday seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace C. Salem High School Individual Tennis Consider the adoption of Resolution 1480 honoring Salem High School Tennis team member Drew Perez for his Class 4 Boys Tennis Singles State Championship. Mayor Turk shared that Council would like to recognize Salem High School Tennis Team member Drew Perez with Resolution 1480 to honor him this evening for his Class 4 Boys Tennis Single State Championship. She asked that Derek Bush and his mom/Assistant Coach Jill Perez come forward. Mayor Turk read Resolution 1480 for those present. City Council expressed congratulations and pictures were taken Drew and his mom with Council by Mike Stevens. Drew was presented with a copy of the resolution and a Salem City Championship pin. William Jones motioned to adopt Resolution 1480 honoring Salem High School Tennis team member Drew Perez for his Class 4 Boys Tennis Singles State Championship. Randy Foley seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace Mayor Turk thanked all of these students for participating on behalf of the citizens of Salem and for representing their school. She spoke on the dedication and commitment that was required to get where they were. She also thanked Dr. Hicks for being here this evening and let them know that they were free to leave at this point in the meeting. D. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Hold public hearing and consider ordinance on first reading for the request of Seaside Heights, LLC, property owner, to rezone the property located at 1590 West Main Street (Tax Map # 140-1-3) from LM Light Manufacturing District to HBD Highway Business District. (Advertised in the July 25 and August 1, 2024, issues of the Salem Times-Register.) (Planning Commission recommended approval; see page 3-4 of Planning Commission minutes.) Mayor Turk asked Mr. Van Allman to brief the public with any information that he had. Mr. Van Allman noted that in the past this property was a highway business type zoning. Somewhere along the way it was incorrectly labeled as Light Manufacturing (LM). He stated that it should be Highway Business District (HBD) and was just missed. The owners came to Community Development planning to do some work and did some things required for it to be conforming. He indicated that the purpose of this request was really to fix a wrong. This business functions as the current form of a highway business district. All they are really doing is adding a second queuing lane for their restaurant. This is being done in order to be a non- grandfathered use and to be in conformance. Councilman Foley noted for the benefit of the public that this is the Bojangles on West Main Street. Mayor Turk opened the public hearing. Ben Crew, 1208 Corporate Circle, Roanoke VA, 24108, of Balzer and Associates, appeared before Council as acting agent on this request. He noted that Stan Seymour, property owner, was with him this evening. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Van Allman for his information and stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Foley noted that he felt the information was clear from the Planning Commission minutes. Mayor Turk closed the public hearing. Randy Foley motioned to approve the ordinance on first reading for the request of Seaside Heights, LLC, property owner, to rezone the property located at 1590 West Main Street (Tax Map # 140-1-3) from LM Light Manufacturing District to HBD Highway Business District. H. Hunter Holliday seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace E. Special Exception Permit Hold public hearing to consider the request of Sherwood Memorial Park, Inc., property owner, for a Special Exception Permit to allow for the expansion of the cemetery into the adjacent property located at 1221 Lynchburg Turnpike (Tax Map # 117-1-8). (Advertised in the July 25 and August 1, 2024, issues of the Salem Times-Register.) (Planning Commission recommended approval; see page 5-7 of Planning Commission minutes.) Mayor Turk noted that Council had the notes from the Planning Commission minutes and had reviewed all of the information related to this item. Councilman Foley stated that he would abstain from this item because he serves on the Board at Sherwood Memorial Park. Mayor Turk asked Mr. Van Allman for any additional information. Mr. Van Allman noted that the main point that he wanted Council to be aware of was that they were not going to provide any access to the cemetery from this site and there would be no issues with traffic. The request is to maintain this as a residential structure. The only access will be from the front. It was noted that the plan is for a caretaker to live there and that there would not be public access to any part of the cemetery through this lot. Mayor Turk opened the public hearing. Mike Woolwine, 3800 Electric Road, Roanoke, VA 24108; with Hughes and Associates Engineers, agent for Sherwood Memorial Park, addressed Council. He noted that the President of Sherwood, Susan Mini was with him this evening. He stated that he did not have anything to add to the information that had been shared and that he would be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Turk closed the public hearing. Vice-Mayor Wallace motioned to approve the request of Sherwood Memorial Park, Inc., property owner, for a Special Exception Permit to allow for the expansion of the cemetery into the adjacent property located at 1221 Lynchburg Turnpike (Tax Map # 117-1-8). Mr. Light noted that Council could place conditions on the special exception so that there would be no access from this parcel's frontage along Lynchburg Turnpike and the existing single-family dwelling would not be utilized for cemetery options if they wished to do so. Mr. Jones asked if this was what the Planning Commission passed. Mr. Light noted that this was the staff recommendation from the report. Vice-Mayor Wallace amended the motion. James Wallace motioned to approve the request of Sherwood Memorial Park, Inc., property owner, for a Special Exception Permit to allow for the expansion of the cemetery into the adjacent property located at 1221 Lynchburg Turnpike (Tax Map # 117-1-8) with the conditions that there will be no access to the cemetery from this parcel’s frontage along Lynchburg Turnpike, and the existing single-family dwelling will not be utilized for cemetery operations. H. Hunter Holliday seconded the motion. Ayes: Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace Abstain: Foley F. Appropriation of Funds Consider request to appropriate grant funds awarded by Virginia Tourism Corporation. Audit - Finance Committee James Wallace motioned to appropriate $20,000 in grant revenue from the Virginia Tourism Corporation to the State Grants- Tourism account and increase the budget for the grant expenditures account by $20,000. It is also recommended that any of this grant not spent in the fiscal year 2025 be administratively appropriated to fiscal year 2026. This grant provides funds for attracting visitors in other markets to various championship events in the City. Randy Foley seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace G. Appropriation of Funds Consider request to appropriate Preservation Trust Fund Program funds from the Virginia Outdoors Foundation for the Tuttle Transformation to Salem's Downtown Pocket Park. Audit - Finance Committee The City of Salem was awarded a $200,000 grant from the Virginia Outdoors Foundation’s Preservation Trust Fund Program to purchase three parcels located at 230 West Main Street consisting of 1.34 acres in the floodway to create a future community open space. He noted for the benefit of the public that if you were looking head-on at the post office, that this was the land immediately to the left. He added this was the white house and some clear lots. Councilman Foley asked for the public's benefit if the plan was to raze the house or if that was still to be discussed. Mr. Light responded that this was still to be discussed, but that this was an option. He continued that the planning had not gotten to that point yet. Mr. Van Allman added that they needed to determine if the bones were still good or not. Mayor Turk stated that she wanted to note that Council has always been very interested in preserving green space when possible. She added that this was something that Council had talked about this past year, and she was thankful that the City was able to acquire the grant to allow the City to be in the position to move forward with something for the community. Mr. Dorsey noted that depending on what the future plans are, nothing else can really be built there because this land is in the flood plain and that this is a perfect use for that. He wanted to note that the City was not taking good commercial real estate off the tax rolls because nothing else could be built in that location. Mayor Turk added that a drainage issue that they are aware of needed to be taken into consideration with whatever is done for the public. James Wallace motioned to appropriate $200,000 to the planning state grants revenue account and increase the budget for the state grants expenditure account by $200,000. It is also recommended that any of this grant not spent in the fiscal year 2025 be administratively appropriated to fiscal year 2026. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace H. Appropriation of Funds Consider request to appropriate grant funds awarded by Virginia Tourism Corporation. Audit - Finance Committee Vice-Mayor Wallace motioned to appropriate $10,000 in grant revenue from the Virginia Tourism Corporation to the State Grants – Tourism account and increase the budget for the grant expenditures account by $10,000. It is also recommended that any of this grant not spent in the fiscal year 2025 be administratively appropriated to fiscal year 2026. The purpose of the grant includes increasing overnight visits to Salem, increasing visits to the Salem Museum, exposure to the history of Salem while relating to VA250, and creating awareness of life on the frontier in the 1700s. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace Mayor Turk noted that it was great that the City had applied for these grants and that they were able to be used in such a way. I. Appropriation of Funds Consider Request to Appropriate Highway Maintenance Carryover for Apperson Bridge #1800. Audit - Finance Committee The City has an existing approved capital project for Bridge #1800 on Apperson Drive near Cook Drive over the Roanoke River. The project includes City repairs to two sidewalks and an existing waterline on the upstream overhang. He added that this was not to be confused with the other upcoming bridge work at Apperson and 419 as a point of clarity. James Wallace motioned to re-appropriate $292,400 previously appropriated in fiscal year 2024 to complete the project from highway maintenance state funding to the Designation of Beginning Fund Balance account and to the Transfer to Capital Projects highway maintenance account in the General Fund. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace J. Appropriation of Funds Consider request to amend the School Grants fund budget as approved by the School Board on July 9, 2024. Audit - Finance Committee James Wallace motioned to approve the School Board’s appropriation change of $194,211 to the School Grant’s Fund as approved by the School Board at their July 9, 2024, meeting. Additionally, authorize that any of this grant not expended in fiscal year 2024 be administratively appropriated to fiscal year 2025. These grant funds were received late in fiscal year 2024. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace K. Appropriation of Funds Consider request to appropriate funds from the Library of Virginia. Audit - Finance Committee James Wallace motioned to appropriate $22,027 to the Library Grants in Aid State revenue account. Increase the budget for the Books and Subscriptions – State account by $22,027 to reflect additional funds provided for books and materials by the Library of Virginia. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace L. Appropriation of Funds Consider request to appropriate Virginia Department of Elections Grant for the Registrar. Audit - Finance Committee Mayor Turk noted that no local match was required. James Wallace motioned to accept a grant from the Virginia Department of Elections to purchase equipment and appropriate $14,075 in grant revenue to the ARPA – Election Grant Revenue account. Also, appropriate $14,075 to federal grant expenditures, ARPA – Election Grant Expenditure account. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace M. Appropriation of Funds Consider request to re-appropriate funding for various capital items. Audit - Finance Committee Vice- Mayor Wallace noted that this was a financial housekeeping item. In previous fiscal years, funds were budgeted for capital items that were not purchased for various reasons. Provided in the agenda packet is a list of projects that need to have funding reappropriated in fiscal year 2025. Re-appropriated funds will be used to cover the cost of equipment and projects, and this list can be found in the Agenda Packet. James Wallace motioned to re-appropriate fund balance of $912,760 to the General Fund, re-appropriate $485,000 to the Sewer Fund, re-appropriate $54,916 to the Catering Fund, and re-appropriate $272,190 to the Civic Center Fund for capital items previously approved. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace N. Appropriation of Funds Consider request to appropriate bond proceeds for Franklin Street Water Tank Replacement and Well Infrastructure Development Projects. Audit - Finance Committee James Wallace motioned to appropriate bond proceeds of $4,650,000 for the Franklin Street Tank Replacement and Well Infrastructure Development projects per the Capital Improvement Plan to the Appropriated from Bond Proceeds revenue account and Infrastructure Improvements expense account in the fiscal year 2024 budget to allow these projects to proceed. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace O. Reimbursement Resolution Receive report and consider adoption of Resolution 1481 authorizing reimbursement from proposed Fiscal Year 2025 borrowing. Audit - Finance Committee The City’s approved budget includes borrowing of funds for the development of well infrastructure for the water plant and the replacement of the water tank located on Franklin Street. Due to the timing of this project, funds may be expended prior to the debt issuance. In order to ensure that the City can be reimbursed from the bond proceeds, a reimbursement resolution needs to be adopted giving the City the ability to reimburse any funds expended for this project prior to closing on the borrowing. James Wallace motioned to adopt Reimbursement Resolution 1481 allowing the City to be reimbursed from bond proceeds once a borrowing is completed during the fiscal year 2025. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace P. Building Addition-Warehouse Space Consider setting bond for erosion and sediment control and landscaping for Building Addition-Warehouse Space at 1640 Roanoke Boulevard. Audit - Finance Committee Vice-Mayor Wallace noted for the benefit of the public that this item pertained to the special exception permit that Council approved a few months back for the property across the street from the GE plant on Shenandoah Avenue. He believed that they are going to add a warehouse. James Wallace motioned to bond erosion and sediment control; and landscaping for a building addition-warehouse space located at 1640 Roanoke Boulevard in the amount of $21,723.00 with a time frame for completion set at twelve (12) months. Randy Foley seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace Q. Deed of Easement - 2005 Cook Drive Consider authorizing the City Manager to finalize and execute the Deed of Easement between the City of Salem and The Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority for the property located at 2005 Cook Drive (Tax Map #256-1-2) for the construction and operation of certain telecommunications facilities Mayor Turk asked Mr. Light to give some background information on this item. Mr. Light shared that the City of Salem, along with some other localities in the region, established and are members of the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority for the purpose of promoting data and telecommunication services. A business on Cook Drive reached out to the Authority that needed additional capacity and another option. The Broadband Authority had fiber adjacent and had to cross under a railroad track to get to the necessary depth and back. They slightly had to cross over on City property, so technically an easement is needed from the City to be able to serve this business and others on Cook Drive. Mr. Dorsey noted that this did not disturb anything and that there was not an impact for the City. Mr. Light confirmed this and noted that they had worked with Community Development, Streets, and other departments to make sure that there was no impact on the City. Randy Foley motioned to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the Deed of Easement between the City of Salem and The Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority for the property located at 2005 Cook Drive (Tax Map #256-1-2) for the construction and operation of certain telecommunications facilities. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace R. Boards and Commissions Consider appointments to various boards and commissions. Randy Foley motioned to upon CPMT approval, appoint Sean Slusser as primary to replace Derek Weeks and Seth Chamberland to replace Danny Crouse as alternate, both from the Police Department; to appoint Bridget Nelson to replace Deborah Coker as alternate from Salem City Schools; and to remove Sarah Watkins and Chris Park as alternates and add Deborah Breedlove as an alternate for Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare to the Community Policy Management Team. William Jones seconded the motion. Vice-Mayor Wallace asked if a resignation had been received by Mr. Weeks from this position. Ms. Jordan noted that no resignation was required. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace 7. Closed Session A. Closed Session Hold a closed session in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.2- 3711A(5) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, for discussion concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business’ or industry’s interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the community. James Wallace motioned that, in accordance with Section 2.2-3711 A (5) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, Council hereby convenes to closed session at 7:22 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following specific matters: For discussion concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business' or industry's interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the community. Randy Foley seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace Mayor Turk noted that no action was anticipated this evening. A citizen in the audience asked about an item she had anticipated on the agenda that was not and asked about a meeting being held at the Salem Civic Center tomorrow. Mayor Turk noted that an open house was being held at the Salem Civic Center tomorrow from 3:00 to 7:00. She stated that the purpose was to inform the citizens of what has been collected to this point towards the Comprehensive Plan update. Mayor Turk stated for the record that a Comprehensive Plan meeting is being held tomorrow and that normally she would announce this right before closing the meeting. She informed the citizens that the meeting would be held tomorrow from 3:00 to 7:00 at the Salem Civic Center. James Wallace motioned to reconvene at 7:48 p.m. in accordance with Section 2.2- 3712 D. of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended to date, Council certifies that in closed session only items lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and only such items identified in the motion by which the closed session was convened were heard, discussed, or considered by the Council. Randy Foley seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Schedule A Current Year Current Year % of Prior Year Budget Year to Date Budget Year to Date Variance Revenues: Beginning Balance 7-1-24 5,341,387$ -$ 0%-$ -$ General Property Taxes 51,890,783 981,202 2%932,806 48,396 Other Local Taxes 29,110,800 296,504 1%273,702 22,802 Permits and Licenses 359,440 22,060 6%23,322 (1,262) Fines and Forfeitures 128,500 1,150 1%280 870 Revenue from Use of Money and Property 6,342,391 501,138 8%466,919 34,219 Charges for Services 3,711,197 435,929 12%356,999 78,930 Payment in Lieu of Taxes from Electric Fund 3,160,000 263,333 8%- 263,333 Payment in Lieu of Taxes from Water Fund 147,696 12,079 8%11,721 358 Miscellaneous Revenue 376,000 102,693 27%60,714 41,978 Non-Categorical Aid 3,642,803 22,621 1%109 22,512 Shared Expense 1,933,459 - 0%- - Categorical Aid 10,548,965 163,105 2%64,281 98,824 Non-Revenue Receipts 11,846 11,845 100%- 11,845 Transfer From Other Funds - - 0%1,202,456 (1,202,456) Total Revenues 116,705,267 2,813,658 2%3,393,309 (579,651) Expenditures: General Government 11,296,295 973,724 9%827,211 146,513 Judicial Administration 3,135,634 242,998 8%320,813 (77,815) Public Safety 24,921,976 2,021,616 8%2,489,282 (467,666) Public Works 18,979,374 885,304 5%777,625 107,679 Health and Welfare 7,137,055 375,377 5%469,787 (94,410) Education 26,538,801 2,478,960 9%2,402,680 76,280 Parks, Recreation and Cultural 9,487,955 910,665 10%576,345 334,320 Community Development 4,065,121 360,043 9%365,500 (5,457) Non-Departmental 3,442,225 129,982 4%104,007 25,975 Transfers Out 6,641,356 266,850 4%4,691,042 (4,424,192) Contingency 1,009,475 - 0%- - Contingency for Economic Dev. Opportunities 50,000 - 0%- - Total Expenditures 116,705,267 8,645,519 7%13,024,292 (4,378,773) Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures -$ (5,831,861)$ (9,630,983)$ 3,799,122$ City of Salem, Virginia General Fund Statement of Revenues and Expenditures For One Month Ending July 31, 2024 Item #4C Date: 9/09/2024 Schedule B - 50,000.00 100,000.00 150,000.00 200,000.00 250,000.00 300,000.00 350,000.00 400,000.00 450,000.00 500,000.00 550,000.00 600,000.00 650,000.00 700,000.00 750,000.00 800,000.00 850,000.00 900,000.00 950,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,050,000.00 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June City of Salem Sales Tax Summary For Fiscal Years 2022 -2025 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 Schedule C 50,000.00 100,000.00 150,000.00 200,000.00 250,000.00 300,000.00 350,000.00 400,000.00 450,000.00 500,000.00 550,000.00 600,000.00 650,000.00 700,000.00 750,000.00 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June City of Salem Meals Tax Summary For Fiscal Years 2022 -2025 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Schedule D - 25,000.00 50,000.00 75,000.00 100,000.00 125,000.00 150,000.00 175,000.00 200,000.00 225,000.00 250,000.00 275,000.00 300,000.00 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June City of Salem Lodging Tax Summary For Fiscal Years 2022 -2025 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 City of Salem, Virginia Special Revenue Fund Statement of Revenues and Expenditures For Period Ending July 31, 2024 Schedule E Project Total Available Year To Budget To Date Encumbrances Project Balance Date Fund Balance, July 1, 2024 -$ Revenues: American Rescue Plan Act Funding 4,914,423$ 4,914,423$ -$ 4,914,423$ -$ -$ American Rescue Plan Act Funding-NEU 26,250,208 26,250,208 - 26,250,208 - - ARPA - VA Tourism Recovery Program 70,000 70,000 - 70,000 - - ARPA - Sports Marketing Incentive Program 25,650 25,650 - 25,650 - - ARPA - Law Enforcement Grant Program 215,000 215,000 - 215,000 - - Total Revenues 31,475,281 31,475,281 - 31,475,281 - - Expenditures: Tourism Initiative 4,000 4,000 - 4,000 - - VA Tourism Recovery Program 70,000 70,000 - 70,000 - - Sports Marketing Incentive Program 25,650 25,650 - 25,650 - - Law Enforcement Grant Program 215,000 215,000 - 215,000 - - Transfer to General Fund 31,160,631 31,160,631 - 31,160,631 - - Total Expenditures 31,475,281$ 31,475,281$ -$ 31,475,281$ -$ - Fund Balance, July 31, 2024 -$ City of Salem, Virginia Debt Outstanding For Period Ending July 31, 2024 Schedule F Balance Principal Balance 7/1/2024 Issuances Payments 7/31/2024 City Debt Outstanding 2013 Public Improvement Bonds 888,125$ -$ (89,425)$ 798,700$ 2016B Public Improvement Bonds 297,713 - - 297,713 2019 Public Improvement Bonds 4,065,000 - - 4,065,000 2020 Public Improvement Bonds 1,700,000 - - 1,700,000 2020 Public Improvement Refunding Bonds 4,405,060 - - 4,405,060 2021 Public Improvement Refunding Bonds 805,000 - - 805,000 2022B Public Improvement Bonds 13,916,000 - - 13,916,000 Total City Debt Outstanding 26,076,898 - (89,425) 25,987,473 School Debt Outstanding 2012A Public Improvement Bonds 4,295,250 - - 4,295,250 2013 Public Improvement Bonds 2,736,875 - (275,575) 2,461,300 2020 Public Improvement Bonds 23,395,000 - - 23,395,000 Total School Debt Outstanding 30,427,125 - (275,575) 30,151,550 Total Debt Outstanding 56,504,023$ -$ (365,000)$ 56,139,023$ City of Salem, Virginia Capital Projects Fund Statement of Revenues and Expenditures For Period Ending July 31, 2024 Schedule G Project Total Available Year To Budget To Date Encumbrances Project Balance Date Fund Balance, July 1, 2023 13,449,111$ Revenues: Federal Grants 13,560,359$ 2,969,474$ -$ 2,969,474$ 10,590,885$ -$ State Grants 17,515,640 4,724,487 - 4,724,487 12,791,153 - Proceeds From Debt Issuance 42,015,146 42,015,145 - 42,015,145 1 - Interest Income 813,126 813,125 - 813,125 1 - Transfer From General Fund 28,644,299 28,355,297 - 28,355,297 289,002 3,400 Total Revenues 102,548,570 78,877,528 - 78,877,528 23,671,042 3,400 Expenditures: Next Generation 911 378,493 187,161 30,609 217,770 160,723 - Fire Station #2 Renovations 432,000 113,085 8,386 121,471 310,529 7,563 Fire Station #2 Storage Building 515,000 - - - 515,000 - Fire Station #1 Renovations 654,000 7,781 12,579 20,360 633,640 - Fire Station #3 Renovations 454,000 7,051 4,844 11,895 442,105 - Colorado St Bridge Replacement 11,778,826 3,946,921 2,693,273 6,640,194 5,138,632 102,291 Apperson Drive Bridge Replacement 9,784,451 1,023,809 26,874 1,050,683 8,733,768 - Jury Room Expansion 900,000 243,338 550,714 794,052 105,948 11,583 Apperson Drive Bridge Repairs #1800 682,432 85,772 38,360 124,132 558,300 3,400 Valleydale Streetscape Improvements 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000 - Upland Drive Storm Drain and Curb & Gutter 125,000 - - - 125,000 - Hanging Rock Battlefield Phase 2 1,456,304 1,456,303 - 1,456,303 1 - Western Roanoke River Greenway 50,000 1,500 - 1,500 48,500 - Elizabeth Campus Greenway 2,252,578 188,203 10,445 198,648 2,053,930 - Moyer Sports Complex Renovation 27,903,295 25,753,842 1,320,997 27,074,839 828,456 (1,137,670) Mason Creek Greenway Phase 3 2,610,681 233,296 243,838 477,134 2,133,547 - Library Flooring Replacement 190,000 - - - 190,000 - Library Co-working Space 155,000 - - - 155,000 - Civic Center East/West Fields Restroom 221,070 221,070 - 221,070 - 221,070 Longwood Park Restroom Replacement #2 180,000 138,469 - 138,469 41,531 138,412 Civic Center West Field Lighting Upgrades 250,000 249,353 - 249,353 647 - Kiwanis Park Wall Pads 110,000 - 93,448 93,448 16,552 - Library Lawn Special Events Space 500,000 - - - 500,000 - Flood Mitigation-CFPF 78,962 75,013 3,949 78,962 - - Downtown Impr - E Main St/Union St 2,325,959 2,325,959 - 2,325,959 - - Downtown Impr - E Main St/Market St 5,440,677 1,273,483 2,926,360 4,199,843 1,240,834 (54,195) Downtown Impr - E Main St/White Oak 2,311,825 36,755 25,175 61,930 2,249,895 - Capital Projects Local Reserve 397,629 - - - 397,629 - Downtown Improvements Reserve 90,350 - - - 90,350 - City of Salem, Virginia Capital Projects Fund Statement of Revenues and Expenditures For Period Ending July 31, 2024 Schedule G Project Total Available Year To Budget To Date Encumbrances Project Balance Date Excess Local Funding Reserve 1,670,730 - - - 1,670,730 - Arbitrage 149,308 149,307 - 149,307 1 - Transfer to Schools-2020 Bonds 27,000,000 27,000,000 - 27,000,000 - - Total Expenditures 102,548,570$ 64,717,471$ 7,989,851$ 72,707,322$ 29,841,248$ (707,546) Fund Balance, July 31, 2024 14,160,057$ City of Salem, Virginia Capital Reserve Fund Statement of Revenues and Expenditures For Period Ending July 31, 2024 Schedule H Project Total Available Year To Budget To Date Encumbrances Project Balance Date Fund Balance, July 1, 2024 17,026,870$ Revenues: Transfer From General Fund 17,026,870$ 17,026,870$ -$ 17,026,870$ -$ -$ Total Revenues 17,026,870 17,026,870 - 17,026,870 - - Expenditures: Capital Reserve 13,107,803 - - - 13,107,803 - Fire Ladder Truck 2,400,000 - - - 2,400,000 - Body Cameras and In-Car Camera Replacement 654,067 - - - 654,067 - Front Load Dumpster Truck 415,000 - - - 415,000 - Salem Stadium Scoreboard Replacement 200,000 - - - 200,000 - Civic Center Scoreboard Replacement 250,000 - - - 250,000 - Total Expenditures 17,026,870$ -$ -$ -$ 17,026,870$ - Fund Balance, July 31, 2024 17,026,870$ Schedule I Operating Revenues Current Year Budget Current Year Year to Date % of Budget Prior Year Year to Date Variance Sale of Power 50,066,620$ 5,099,198$ 10%3,487,282$ 1,611,916$ Other Electric Revenue 648,370 46,767 7%41,329 5,438 Reserve for Encumbrances 1,817,312 - 0%- - Appropriated from Net Position 250,000 - 0%- - Total Operating Revenues 52,782,302 5,145,965 10%3,528,611 1,617,354 . Operating Expenses Other Power Generation - Operation 125,000 12,569 10%7,066 5,503 Other Power Generation - Maintenance 103,715 8,304 8%- 8,304 Purchased Power 26,815,000 3,173,449 12%2,778,578 394,871 Transmission - Operation 10,054,500 804,283 8%859,311 (55,028) Transmission - Maintenance 46,750 279 1%249 30 Distribution - Operations 1,194,500 99,534 8%88,625 10,909 Distribution - Maintenance 1,609,161 114,468 7%108,265 6,203 Customer Service 686,849 48,122 7%42,979 5,143 Administration & General - Operation 2,814,721 (24,323) -1%(42,893) 18,570 Administration & General - Maintenance 242,000 69,536 29%74,840 (5,304) Depreciation - 146,194 0%118,748 27,446 Capital 5,399,755 (357,660) -7%115,544 (473,204) Contingency 530,351 - 0%- - Total Operating Expenses 49,622,302 4,094,755 8%4,151,312 (56,557) Income (loss) Before Transfers 3,160,000 1,051,210 (622,701) 1,673,911 Transfers (Payment in Lieu of Taxes)(3,160,000) (263,333) 8%- (263,333) Income (loss)-$ 787,877$ (622,701)$ 1,410,578$ Income (loss)-$ 1,575,754$ (1,245,402)$ 2,821,156$ City of Salem, Virginia Electric Fund Statement of Operations For One Month Ending July 31, 2024 Schedule J Operating Revenues Current Year Budget Current Year Year to Date % of Budget Prior Year Year to Date Variance Services 7,967,406$ 767,885$ 10%617,865$ 150,020$ Other Revenue 530,996 35,326 7%24,826 10,500 Reserve for Encumbrances 2,871,889 - 0%- - Total Operating Revenues 11,370,291 803,211 7%642,691 160,520 . Operating Expenses Salaries of Personnel 1,127,628 79,387 7%74,533 4,854 Fringe Benefits 479,930 37,229 8%35,490 1,739 Contractual Services 729,307 36,197 5%28,260 7,937 Printing and Binding 2,500 - 0%24 (24) Advertising 1,000 - 0%- - Utilities 422,200 45,565 11%31,679 13,886 Communications 5,900 330 6%308 22 Insurance 36,000 1,786 5%1,786 - Travel and Training 9,800 250 3%603 (353) Miscellaneous 66,793 31,709 47%31,706 3 Materials and Supplies 331,688 41,400 12%67,286 (25,886) Depreciation - 70,981 0%71,255 (274) Capital 477,861 39,500 8%- 39,500 Contingency 265,581 - 0%- - Total Production Expenses 3,956,188 384,334 10%342,930 41,404 Salaries of Personnel 783,721 65,863 8%43,399 22,464 Fringe Benefits 368,938 31,738 9%20,803 10,935 Contractual Services 837,061 84,744 10%56,511 28,233 Printing and Binding 500 - 0%- - Communications 4,850 1,043 22%324 719 Insurance 36,000 - 0%- - Lease/Rent of Equipment 2,000 - 0%- - Travel and Training 7,600 - 0%- - Miscellaneous 33,193 2,624 8%2,899 (275) Miscellaneous Credits (290,000) (32,940) 11%(18,551) (14,389) Materials and Supplies 166,075 6,928 4%23,060 (16,132) Depreciation - 19,004 0%9,085 9,919 Capital 3,441,949 258,988 8%6,813 252,175 Interest Obligations 1,874,520 (31,973) -2%(41,886) 9,913 Total Distribution Expenses 7,266,407 406,019 6%102,457 303,562 Income (loss) Before Transfers 147,696 12,858 197,304 (184,446) Transfers (Payment in Lieu of taxes)(147,696)(12,079) 8%(11,721) (358) Income (loss)-$ 779$ 185,583$ (184,804)$ - Production Distribution City of Salem, Virginia Water Fund Statement of Operations For One Month Ending July 31, 2024 Schedule K Operating Revenues Current Year Budget Current Year Year to Date % of Budget Prior Year Year to Date Variance Services 7,220,956$ 641,786$ 9%573,718$ 68,068$ Other Revenue 182,200 12,029 7%7,844 4,185 Reserve for Encumbrances 732,058 - 0%- - Appropriated from Net Position 1,200,000 - 0%- - Total Operating Revenues 9,335,214 653,815 7%581,562 72,253 . Operating Expenses Salaries of Personnel 952,012 62,718 7%58,452 4,266 Fringe Benefits 432,026 31,248 7%29,517 1,731 Contractual Services 3,454,354 194,343 6%201,973 (7,630) Printing and Binding 1,500 - 0%127 (127) Advertising 1,500 - 0%- - Utilities 4,500 276 6%323 (47) Communications 14,850 1,123 8%1,039 84 Insurance 15,000 - 0%- - Lease/Rent of Equipment 1,800 - 0%- - Travel and Training 12,000 - 0%15 (15) Miscellaneous 40,693 2,674 7%2,752 (78) Miscellaneous Credits (270,000) (12,447) 5%(15,629) 3,182 Materials and Supplies 93,420 2,593 3%6,428 (3,835) Depreciation - 120,409 0%114,240 6,169 Capital 2,371,114 1,417 0%3,726 (2,309) Interest Obligations 1,803,283 (24,909) -1%(32,574) 7,665 Contingency 407,162 - 0%- - Total Operating Expenses 9,335,214 379,445 4%370,389 9,056 Income (loss) before Transfers - 274,370 211,173 63,197 Income (loss)-$ 274,370$ 211,173$ 63,197$ City of Salem, Virginia Sewer Fund Statement of Operations For One Month Ending July 31, 2024 Schedule L Operating Revenues Current Year Budget Current Year Year to Date % of Budget Prior Year Year to Date Variance Shows/rentals 373,000$ 10,824$ 3%14,185$ (3,361)$ Box office shows 1,500,000 13,957 1%18,565 (4,608) Catering and concessions - - 0%615 (615) Merchandise and commissions 250,800 3,840 2%9,816 (5,976) Static advertising 55,000 5,875 11%5,875 - Miscellaneous income 20,000 243 1%272 (29) Interest Income 1,000 62 6%- 62 Salem Fair 645,000 668,876 104%569,729 99,147 Reserve for encumbrances 178,614 - 0%- - Total Operating Revenues 3,023,414 703,677 23%619,057 84,620 Operating Expenses Salaries of personnel 1,451,908 182,876 13%194,602 (11,726) Fringe benefits 547,769 44,014 8%45,600 (1,586) Maintenance and contractual services 399,487 18,088 5%15,192 2,896 Printing and binding 500 - 0%- - Advertising 23,000 2,700 12%1,344 1,356 Utilities 323,000 50,645 16%28,713 21,932 Communications 12,700 840 7%739 101 Insurance 30,500 - 0%- - Leases and Rentals 3,200 - 0%- - Travel and training 11,600 - 0%1,686 (1,686) Miscellaneous 108,267 17,696 16%13,740 3,956 Show expense 1,450,000 10,448 1%13,900 (3,452) Fair expense 625,363 361,199 58%462,960 (101,761) Materials and supplies 38,000 3,897 10%3,500 397 Capital 835,764 - 0%100,950 (100,950) Depreciation - 22,744 0%22,797 (53) Total Operating Expenses 5,861,058 715,147 12%905,723 (190,576) Income (loss) Before Transfers (2,837,644)(11,470) (286,666)275,196 Transfers 2,837,644 163,970 6%154,249 9,721 Income (loss)-$ 152,500$ (132,417)$ 284,917$ 0.00 City of Salem, Virginia Salem Civic Center Statement of Operations For One Month Ending July 31, 2024 Schedule M Operating Revenues: Current Year Budget Current Year Year to Date % of Budget Prior Year Year to Date Variance Catering 655,785$ 40,640$ 6%48,607$ (7,967)$ Concessions 137,833 4,848 4%1,261 3,587 Moyer Concessions 65,000 2,916 4%- 2,916 Salem High Concessions 8,500 - 0%- - Total Operating Revenues 867,118 48,404 6%49,868 (1,464) . Operating Expenses: Salaries of personnel 305,459 24,343 8%22,839 1,504 Fringe benefits 111,075 7,638 7%8,111 (473) Contractual services 9,465 1,172 12%417 755 Printing and binding 300 - 0%- - Laundry and Cleaning 2,500 - 0%- - Communications 200 17 9%14 3 Insurance 2,000 - 0%- - Miscellaneous 24,848 3,516 14%3,659 (143) Materials and supplies 254,331 12,869 5%13,555 (686) Depreciation - 277 0%365 (88) Total Catering Expenses 710,178 49,832 7%48,960 872 Salaries of Personnel 58,030 6,580 11%5,661 919 Fringe Benefits 15,246 900 6%550 350 Contractual services 25,000 - 0%- - Miscellaneous 150 (26) -17%(14) (12) Materials and Supplies 29,000 146 1%1,250 (1,104) Total Concessions Expenses 127,426 7,600 6%7,447 153 Salaries of Personnel 37,000 2,425 7%- 2,425 Fringe Benefits 11,698 466 4%- 466 Contractual services 2,500 3,013 121%208 2,805 Materials and Supplies 21,000 314 1%- 314 Total Moyer Expenses 72,198 6,218 9%208 6,010 Salaries of Personnel 4,461 - 0%- - Fringe Benefits 1,676 - 0%- - Contractual 2,500 - 0%- - Materials and Supplies 1,807 - 0%- - Total Salem High Expenses 10,444 - 0%- - Income (loss) Before Transfers (53,128)(15,246)(6,747)(8,499) Transfers 53,128 - 0%- - Income (loss)-$ (15,246)$ (6,747)$ (8,499)$ Moyer Concessions Salem High Concessions City of Salem, Virginia Salem Catering and Concessions Statement of Operations For One Month Ending July 31, 2024 Catering Concessions City of Salem, Virginia Water and Sewer Capital Fund Statement of Revenues and Expenditures For Period Ending July 31, 2024 Schedule N Project Total Available Year To Budget To Date Encumbrances Project Balance Date Fund Balance, July 1, 2024 13,575,000$ Revenues: Transfer From General Fund 13,575,000$ 13,575,000$ -$ 13,575,000$ -$ -$ Total Revenues 13,575,000 13,575,000 - 13,575,000 - - Expenditures: North Salem Water Improvements 6,200,000 - - - 6,200,000 - Roanoke River Upper Sewer Rehab 7,000,000 - - - 7,000,000 - Wiley Ct Sewer Improvements 375,000 - - - 375,000 - Total Expenditures 13,575,000$ -$ -$ -$ 13,575,000$ - Fund Balance, July 31, 2024 13,575,000$ Schedule O *Subject to Final Audit Budget Current Year Year to Date Percent to Date Prior Year Year to Date Variance Beginning Net Position -$ 7,846,412$ 6,036,231$ 1,810,181$ Revenue Premiums Paid - City 6,060,000 5,840,114 96% 5,637,646 202,468 Premiums Paid - School 5,240,000 5,007,003 96% 4,841,947 165,056 Premiums Paid - Retirees 765,000 680,480 89% 738,501 (58,021) Dental Premiums Paid 591,050 591,026 100% 582,387 8,639 Interest Earnings 90,000 511,785 569% 330,222 181,563 Miscellaneous 5,000 16,249 325% 5,214 11,035 Total Year to Date Revenues 12,751,050 12,646,657 99% 12,135,917 510,740 Expenses Health Claims 11,545,772 10,015,071 87% 9,282,168 732,903 Dental Claims 591,050 550,249 93% 511,769 38,480 Employee Health Clinic 511,332 458,231 90% 430,752 27,479 Consulting Services 96,896 80,555 83% 97,156 (16,601) Miscellaneous 6,000 4,170 70% 3,891 279 Total Year to Date Expenses 12,751,050 11,108,276 87% 10,325,736 782,540 Ending Net Position -$ 9,384,793$ 7,846,412$ 1,538,381$ City of Salem, Virginia Health Insurance Fund Statement of Revenues and Expenses For Twelve Months Ending June 30, 2024 City of Salem, Virginia Schedule of Deposits and Investments For Period Ending July 31, 2024 Schedule P FV as a Cash Value Net Change Fair Value % of 7/31/2024 in Fair Value 7/31/2024 Portfolio Demand & Time Deposits Concentration Account 55,234,474$ -$ 55,234,474$ 32.9% Payroll Account 10,524 - 10,524 0.0% Revenue Recovery Account 18,365 - 18,365 0.0% Utility Billing Account 69,559 - 69,559 0.0% Box Office Account 1,014,154 - 1,014,154 0.6% Held as Fiscal Agent of: Cardinal Academy 935,214 - 935,214 0.6% Court Community Corrections 1,749,947 - 1,749,947 1.0% Held on Behalf of: Economic Development Authority 101,126 - 101,126 0.1% Total Demand & Time Deposits 59,133,363 - 59,133,363 35.2% Investments Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP) 108,390,945 - 108,390,945 64.4% Held on Behalf of: Economic Development Authority LGIP 602,376 - 602,376 0.4% Total Investments 108,993,321 - 108,993,321 64.8% Total Deposits and Investments 168,126,684$ -$ 168,126,684$ 100.0% Item #5A Date: 9/09/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA ITEM: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Consider ordinance on second reading for the request of Seaside Heights, LLC, property owner, to rezone the property located at 1590 West Main Street (Tax Map # 140-1-3) from LM Light Manufacturing District to HBD Highway Business District. (Approved on first reading at the August 12, 2024, Council meeting.) SUBMITTED BY: Mary Ellen Wines, Planning and Zoning Administrator SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Zoning: LM – Light Manufacturing District Land Use Plan Designation: Commercial Existing Use: Commercial – Restaurant Proposed Use: Commercial – Restaurant (with expanded drive-thru services) The subject property consists of a 0.734 acre tract of land which currently sits within the LM Light Manufacturing zoning designation. The applicant is requesting to rezone the parcel to allow for the expansion of the drive-thru services. The restaurant was constructed in 2003. At that time the property was zoned Business District B3, which allowed for a restaurant use. In 2005, the City conducted a mass rezoning of the entire city, and this parcel was inadvertently rezoned to LM Light Manufacturing District. At the time of that citywide rezoning, the restaurant use entered into a nonconforming status. Section 106-526.3 of the zoning ordinance states that any improvement that would enlarge or expand the existing use requires a rezoning to an appropriate district which, in this case, is from LM Light Manufacturing to HBD Highway Business District. REQUIREMENTS: The proposal is in compliance with the requirements of Section 106-214 HBD Highway Business District. Staff recommendations: Recommend approval of the ordinance on second reading. 1 | P a g e REZONING REQUEST NARRATIVE: On behalf of Seaside Heights, LLC (Owner/Applicant), Balzer and Associates, Inc. “Balzer” (Agent) is requesting to rezone the subject parcel located at 1590 West Main Street within the City of Salem. The existing use of the parcel includes a commercial restaurant with drive-thru lane that serves the existing facility. It is our understanding from the City of Salem Zoning Administrator that the current use is a legal non-conforming use within the existing LM (Light Manufacturing) District. Any improvements as part of the planned renovations to Bojangles that would potentially intensify the existing use would require a rezoning to an appropriate district which in this case would be HBD (Highway Business District) A conceptual site plan has been provided by Balzer as Exhibit A, which outlines the proposed area of improvements for the project. Parcel to be Rezoned: 1. Rezone a portion of Tax Parcel 140-1-3: (1590 West Main Street Salem, VA 24153) a. Existing Zoning: LM – Light Manufacturing District b. Proposed Zoning: HBD – Highway Business District Existing Site Conditions: The existing parcel is located along the public right-of-way of West Main Street and is currently owned by Seaside Heights, LLC. The parcel contains an existing Bojangles commercial restaurant with drive-thru. Typical commercial improvements are located on-site including the building, parking spaces, freestanding signage, utilities, dumpster enclosure, landscaping, etc. The property is located within a FEMA defined floodplain district and the building has been removed by prior LOMA Case No. 08-03-1819A dated 10/14/2008. Proposed Improvements: The proposed improvements on-site include the renovation of the existing building. (No expansions proposed). Drive-thru improvements to include two (2) order boards in lieu of the single existing location. Other miscellaneous improvements are being proposed such as restriping, repaving, landscaping, etc. Access will remain the same from West Main Street and through an existing easement for the adjacent drive aisle that accesses the signalized intersection. 2 | P a g e Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map The comprehensive plan for the City of Salem supports commercial growth and re- development along major commercial/industrial corridors. This section of West Main Street (Route 11/460) is the commercial hub for the City which includes appropriate designations of commercial zoning districts including Highway Business. The future land use map “FLUM” indicates this property as commercial, therefore we are in alignment with the HBD district request and the FLUM. This project will be developed in accordance with applicable regulations including the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. ACCESS A ACCESS B DT LANE 2 DT LANE 1 DU M P S T E R EN C L O S U R E PROJECT NO. REVISIONS SCALE DATE CHECKED BY DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY www.balzer.cc Roanoke / Richmond New River Valley Shenandoah Valley P L A N N E R S / A R C H I T E C T S E N G I N E E R S / S U R V E Y O R S J: \ 2 2 \ 0 0 \ 0 4 \ 0 4 2 2 0 0 6 3 . 0 0 B O J A N G L E S - S A L E M , V A D O U B L E D R I V E T H R U T E S T F I T \ C I V I L \ d w g \ 0 4 2 2 0 0 6 3 . 0 0 B o j a n g l e s E x h i b i t 2 0 2 4 - 5 - 2 2 . d w g P L O T T E D : 5/ 2 8 / 2 0 2 4 1 0 : 4 0 : 2 1 A M 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 540.772.9580 HEC BTC BTC 5/31/2024 1" = 20' BO J A N G L E S - D R I V E T H R U I M P R O V E M E N T S ZO N I N G E X H I B I T 15 9 0 W E S T M A I N S T R E E T SA L E M , V I R G I N I A EX-A 04220063.00 PRE L I M I N A R Y PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT EXISTING CONCRETE PROPOSED HEAVY-DUTY ASPHALT 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 540.772.9580 www.balzer.cc Roanoke Richmond New River Valley Shenandoah Valley En v i s i o n i n g T o m o r r o w , D e s i g n i n g T o d a y METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF A 0.734 ACRE PARCEL TO BE REZONED TO HBD BEING CITY OF SALEM TAX ID 140-1-3 BEGINNING AT A N IRON PIN FOUND ON THE SOUTH LINE OF WEST MAIN STREET, BEING THE COMMON CORNER OF TAX ID 140-1-3 AND TAX ID 140-1-4.1; THENCE WITH THE COMMON LINE OF TAX ID 140-1-3 AND TAX ID 140-1-4.1 S8°37’27”E 215.00 FEET TO AN IRON PIN FOUND, BEING THE COMMON CORNER OF TAX ID 140-1-3 AND TAX ID 140- 1-4.1, AND ON THE LINE OF TAX ID 140-1-11; THENCE WITH THE COMMON LINE BETWEEN TAX ID 140-1-3 AND TAX ID 140-1-11 THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: S81°22’33”W 150.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N8°37’27”W 89.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N6°50’03”W 96.05 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N8°37’27”W 15.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 23.56 FEET, AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N36°22’53”E 21.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF WEST MAIN STREET, BEING THE COMMON CORNER OF TAX ID 140-1-3 AND TAX ID 140-1-11; THENCE WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF WEST MAIN STREET N81°22’33”E 132.00 FEET TO AN IRON PIN FOUND, BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.734 ACRE. Balzer Project No.04220063.00 CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA P.O. BOX 869 SALEM, VIRGINIA 24153-0869 Balzer and Associates, Inc. c/o Ben Crew 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 July 18, 2024 RE: Petition for Zoning Amendment (Rezoning) 1590 West Main Street Tax Map# 140-1-3 To Whom It May Concern: You and/or your agent shall appear before City Council on Monday, August 12, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, First Floor, Salem City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia for consideration of your request for a rezoning for the above referenced property. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our office at (540) 375-3032. Sincerely, H. Robert Light Assistant City Manager/Clerk of Council 114 N . Broad Street. Salem. Virginia 2415 3. (540) 375-3007 ir~u~ 7 • '"'ff . . ,..,... ~,. ~; .. ..,._ ., • lJftsl) n.'t ' • • l\"t, J1Jt, ~ \' lS, l024 , SALEM TIMES-REGISTER • ~•~m1. ,,. www.ourwl~ey.org 141:i ·. Or llii·• ,·• ••lite/ya ' c~ l'd1a1e L!'gals • C,ly o f Radford L!'gals - C,ty of Sal!'m Legals - Montgomery County Aue lion No 1,ce tj:t p~. TRusreE•s SALE ; 130 H.i'dr lld V.:.. OF 362 LOWE ~Friday~ STREET s.~:: 2 BUCHANAN: VA Caai, Pleai,.,8-1. 24066 S.~ Q'-Yy ~ hot ~xea.ao., ot; C8l1M'I Cont -...,. for laJe ot Tn.t deled ~ TRUSTEE'S SALE OF PROPERTY 486 Waterworks Road Radford,VA 24141 Tax Map No. 064•A 66, Parcel ID No. 020617 oJIClpllon pom,itto-for • ucond eMfflOfllafy lducalional fac:lity on tho propeny localad at 101 Co,p«N-.rd(Tox Mapf 117•2•1), Coplu of Iha~ plonl, onllnoncea or ~ 1111)' be ........, In the Olllce °' Notice of Public Hearing Town of Blacksburg Plannlng ·commlulon Tuesday, August 6, • entafrom • 12,201a,1ntheorfgfnef l'mc:lparlrnounlot $94,065.oo '8Conlod 1n the Clor1c'a Office, Cln:ul Court 'I/ for llolatou,t County .., -Conmriy~ In ell9ClAlori of I DMd d ~ 21 South 11tuf1-, Snot, Trwt dalod Jtly 24, 2008, Salem, Vltglnlo. 2024 N..ic. laheffl>ygjve,I that the Planning Cornmlulon of the Town of Blacbbutg wll c:onducl lhe folowlng poblc •ter1 nary V-rginjo as ~ No Assistant at R 1900ooe1s. The • lnlhl~amountd $73,280.<15, NCOnlod h lhl AJ said hlatlng, pa,lloo fn C"""-Olllceof lhl Cln:lllt lnt11911 Ind clllw. lhall Mou~ta ln An1;:~ r~~. Cow1 ol Monlilo!netY haw an Clj>pOlllnly to be Cow,4y, Virgina, of~ heard -.1o the said Ca os Pita I l'Ublc •uetion In the front ot °"""'::'._to be ''•B~:'!f~ ~ ror lllnam.menlN..nl>er r9qUHla. OIOOl179, Wooda Rogerw Pt.C, TrualN,wtlollorfor dog,,~ Will Slreet, f'ilaosllo, VA 24090, One! IOfne llrCJtica or any aoct, ~ H01q are ~ •ltemat!w Clrcul Court throug!, Mlday locelb, daslgnaled by ... up to 35 ~ • ~ Judges ot tho C1rcu11 Cou11, n..., on Auguat 30, 202~. at 2.00 """" tompui., -PM, the p,operty dNal>od ~ .,.. -N In 111d Deed o( TNII, ~alongWithg:;• loca!9doClhl- gramm., Ind "Pelllng lldd,...., and moro Plf1lculorlydeoc:rl>ed11 :_~idatea mu11 be followa: LOCATED IN THE •-to till 40 PO<#lda COUNTY Of Wage range la • BOTETOURT, VIRGINIA: ~ to $18 00/hour TWO-THIRDS OF LOT NO. • ;!,"""""II one~ EIGHTEEN (18~ Pfeaae lend .....,,.111 FRONTING 88.82 FEET ~ICreaQnountafn. ON WATER STREET, ANO -corn RUNNING BACK BETWEEN PARAUEL LINES 187.77 FEET TO THE REAR LINE OF SAID LOT NO. 18; THE WEST ONE-•THIRD OF SAID LOT ADJOINS AN Al.LEY KNOWN AS SECOND Al.LEY, AND BEING THE u11 ac pubic aucllon -themolnannnc. ollho ~ County Cln:ull Court, 55 &ti Main SlrNI, Clvi.lilntburg, VA 2o4073, on ~ 30, 2024 at 12.00 noon, 1he pr-1Y deoc:rlbed In said Deed ol TIUII lying In~ County, Vlrglnla, and more ~-.. -M that certain lot or porcel of land with all "'-1wiltthereon ~. lying and being In the Prices Forte Magllterlol DiltrictofMomgot,.y Counlj, Vl,glnlo, on Water Wortca Road, containing 2.1417 ..,.. more or leas 11-on•ptatofume dated October 15, 1992, prepared by W. A Davia, CE/LS, referred to as •Plat prepared for Bobby W.yne SotJlhem, et al.• Director of Fund Development N<>np!ofit 1ee1ca an Individual with experience SAME LAND THAT WAS LESS ANO EXCEPT: All ~Efr[~ that Clf1ain lot or portel of ~-ludlng, Ind managing • fundraislng antegy Ind program 1o ma.-lndMdual and co,pon,te donatlont. Miat haw• minimum ofS years' experience wilh lond wtth d lmpn,voments AND M.F. HOOGES , HIS lhlroon lying Ind being In WIFE. BY DEED DATED JUNE 18, 1934, AND the Prtco'a Fon< Maglalerial RECORDED IN THE Diltrict of Montgomery C~~~t~~~rOFTHE = ~~)=-~ BOTETOURT COUNTY, 1~n~~to VIRGINIA, IN DEED BOOK o..n,,. J. Soulhem Ill' deed THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TttE CITY OF SAi.EM, VIRGINIA BY: Clvlatopher J. Dorsay Extc:U!Wo Secretary Notice 11 hereby given to all lntere1ted persona that the Councll of the City of Salem, otlts regular meeUng on Mond.y, August 12, 2024, at 8'30 p.m., In Councl Chambers, Clly Hall, 114. N. Broad Street, In the City of Salem, V11glnla, will hold a public hearing, pursuant to Section■ 15.2-2204 and 15.2-2285 of lhe Code o( Vl,glnla, a■ amended, to consider the following requNts relative lo the CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA: 1. Hold public hearing lo conolder the request of Seaside Heights, LLC, ~ owner, lo rezorte the~ localed at 1590 Weal Main Street (Tax Map # 140-1-3)from 1M light Ma,.,,.cturing District to HBO Hlghw.y Buolness District. hunngt on Tuasday, Augiat a, 202,4 during 111 meeting beginning at 8:30 PM In the Roger E. Hedgepeth CouncJI Cllambe,, 300 South Main s~ Blecubu,g, VA on the l~Jtem: Zoning O!dlnonco Amlndmant(ZOA) '60IORDl2001-An omendment to amend 1he text of the Town's Zoning Ordinance lo ctuta I new Downtown N..-1 zoning district for the area bounded by North Main Slteat, Tumor Street, and Prices Forte Road. In 2019, the Town adopfad the Downtown Snteglc Plan which ldantified six aub dislrictl ror Downtown including the Downtown Northwest district bounded by North Main SI., Prices Fon< Rd , and Turner SI. The proposed amencrnenl wUJ create a new lloating zoning district appl-lo the Downtown Northwest area Creation of the new district does not change existing zoning and property owners would ,_ to rezone lo the new district through a public hearing process. The district includes an applicability crlterta , permitted iae tal>N, definitions specific lo the ,_ district, bulldlng dernonualed --In develoj,n,ent Ind managing • por1folio of donors and "X" AT PAGE 34. LESS dated June 1, 11195 and AND EXCEPTING THAT recorded In the Clerk's -·-· building design otandardo, 2. Hold pubic heartng to lite development otandanla consider the~ of and algnage ~. PORTION OF THE ABOVE-0111ce of the Circuit Court of LEGAL NOTICE A public auction wlll be held on Wed July 31, 2024 at lOa.m. at Grand Storage of Vinton 1119 Vinyard Rd, Vinton, VA 24179, ;o sell personal property In the following units : Ellzabeth Steele C29 Teresa Hemstock A9 STATEWIDE ADS AIJCT10NS ATTN. AUCTIONEERS: Adve!tise your upcoming 8UCllons sfa!awlde and In 04her atates. Albdable Print and Digital Solu!lons ~.~this= or Landon Clari: at Vwgfnla Press Services 804-521 - 7576, landonc@vpa.net HOME IMPROVEMENT Replace yoor roof with lhe best JoolOOg and longest lastlng material steel m Erie Melal Roofs! Three styles and mulliple colors available. Guaranleed lo last a lifetime! Limted rime Offer up to 50% off Installation • Additlonal 1 O'lo off Install (for military, heal1h worl(ers & -1st responders .) Call Elle Metal Rools: 1-M4-902· 4611 BAG A GREAT DEAL INTHE CLASSIFIEDS! To place your ad, call 389 -9355 STATEWIDE ADS 7-Year wamr.t-f wNh quaifying ptKChase. cal 1-3#-9-4'7-1479 today lo IIGhedule a tee quole, It's not ;JSt a generm. 11'1 a powerfflOYI. SERVICES DIVORCE-Uncontesled, $475+$86 court cost. Wl.1.S..$295.00. No court appearance. Estimaled completion line ~ da-fs. Hillon Ower, ~ (Faceboolc). 757-4915- 0126. Se Habla Eapanol. BBS Member. hllps:// hlllonollverattorneyva. com . DENTAL INSURANCE from Physidans Mutual Insurance Company. Co,,erage for 350 plus procedures. Real ddal 1naurance • NOT 1'11t a discount plan. Do not wail! Cal now\ Get your FREE Dental lnfonnalion Kl..., althedetallsl1~ 3083 www.dental50plua. cloalng giftl of $1 ,000 DESCRIBED LOT Monlgo,-r County, ..,; ~..:... for SECURING 44 FEET ON Vl,glni,I, In Deed Book a~eJ Sa • --~ WATERSTREETNID P-381ond'N-.an Sherwood Memorial Pa,k, The dillrict I~ Inc,, pt'Opa'rty own«, for ~ny ,newu&e~ .,.,. ",~I "'!<»JI~~~ •·r. ~~_.tftdly'" ~ Eliminate guuer cleaning lor-1 l.ealf'llter, the most advanr.ed ~ bloddng gutter prol8clon. ~~~ con,Mrginia #6258 ~ I 1'ftb&fiid' Author. We want ID Read ~-. , !f~jtf9 ,W:,K ...., ol"l!l'ffl'pf ,_a, .~.,.,,,~· rrn,l,BEiwEEt(PAiwtEr-"'~ ~ 876, Page 363. v8(bal and written ,, -LINES 167.77 FEET, THAT corrvnunlcatlon ak!ns. WAS CONVEYED TD H.J. 1"divefy identify, cultivate , and close gifts In support of TAP. This Includes both financial and In- SMITH AND EDRA SMITH, HIS WIFE, BY THE SAID HARRY S. HODGES AND LENA S. HODGES, HIS WIFE, BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 6, 1948, AND TERMS· Cash • Bldde(s deposit of ten percent (10%) of the sales price by cashier's or certified c:heclc may be required. Balance of purchase price shall be due and payable not later than ten (1 0) days after sale. km donations. Build and manage a por1folio of 75-100 individual and corporate donors and prospecu With an annual giving capacity of $1 ,000+. Within this list, identify, actively cultr,,ate, RECORDED IN THE AFORESAID CLERK'S OFFICE IN DEED BOOK 100, PAGE 282 , TO WHICH SAID DEED REFERENCE IS HERE AND NOW MADE. WOODS ROGERS PLC, Trustee For Information Contact Woods RogeB Vandevenler B1aci< PLC, P.O. Box 14125, Roanoke, VA 24038-4 125, Telephone: 540-983-7729 and close gifts. This por1folio movement will be reviewed monthly with the Presidenl/CEO to ensure l reflects significant prospect TERMS OF SAI.E: All CASH. A bidder's deposl of ten percent (10%) of the sale price or ten percent (10%) of the orignal movement from identification lo cultivation to oollcitation lo stewardship. principal balance of the subject Deed of TIUSI, whichever Is lower, In the form of cash or certified Won< in coordination with the Presidenl/CEO to seek out and secure quarterly opuki,g eng~ements ~I ciYlc or ccmrnunlty events to promote TAP and its _..,. and cultivate proopectivedonors MUii have a bachelor's deg<ee in corrvnunlcations, marketing , public relat,ons , or related fteld Elcperience in strategic planning for development, major gifts, capital campaigns, corporate and marketing lnffiatives For a full job description please vistt Indeed.com or atourwebotte www.tapinlohope.org Salary; $60,00()..$75, 000/yr. Submit cover letter and rest.me!o:TAP,Hoo,an Resot.rees, Job Code DFD-CA, PO Box 2868, 302 2nd St SW Roanoke VA 24011 or fax to 540-J4S.1944 TTY: 540-345-4096 AA/EOE/Drug Free Workplace Biingual ability is a plus Wanted to Rent or Lease funds payable to the Substitute Trustee rrust be present II the tine of the sale. The balance of the purchase price wil be due within fifteen (15) days of sale, olhefwlse Purchaser's deposit may be for/Oiled to Trustee. Tine Is of the essence. If the sale Is set aside for any reasoo, lhe Purchaser at lhe sale shal be entitled lo a return or lhe depos,t paid. The Purchaser may, W provided by the terms o( the Trustee's Memorandi.m of Foreclosure Sale, be entitled lo a $50 cancellation fee from the Substitute Trustee, but shall have no further recoorse against the Mortgagor, the Mortgagee or lhe Mortgagee's attorney. A form COf1'/ of the Trustee's memorandi.m of foreclosure sale and contract to purchase real property is available for viewing al www.bwwsales.com. Additional tenns, f any, to be announced al the sale and the Purchaser may be given the option to execute the contrad of sale eledronicaly. This is a communication from a debt coledor and any information oblained will be used for that p,xposa. The sale is subject to seller cor,mnation. SubslilLu Trustee: Equity Truslees, LLC, 8100 Ttvee Chopl WANTED TO RENT OR LEASE Loolcing for fenced pasture land to rent or lease. CaU 276-233-5863 Road , Suite 240, Rklrnond, VA'Zrl29. Dogs/Livestock 1tvete,,na,ycareil unavauble or unaffordable, Ml< for Ham' Jad<e __. .... to control ~-, --H&H ()utdoon 254-2A20 <-~) For more ir1otmation contact BWW Law G'oup, LLC, attorneys for Equity Trustees, LLC, 6003 Executive Blvd, SUile 101 , Roc!Mle, MD 20852, 301- 961-6555, websie: !fN'W bwwsales com. VA-370006-1. ABC NOTICE PIZZA HOUSE PARTNERS, LLC., trading as BRICK HOUSE PIZZA, 311 W. MAIN STREET, RADFORD, RADFORD CllY, VA. 24141. The above establishment is applying lo the VIRGINIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) AUTHORITY lor a INDUSTRY BREWERY APPUCA TION - CONSUMED license lo NII or manufadure alcoholic bevelagea. DIANA DOBBINS, MANAGING PARTNER NOTE: Objections to the lasuance of this license rn..t be aubnvtted to ABC no laler than 30 days from the publishing dale of the first of two required ,-paper legal notices. Objection■ should be registered at www.abc . ..-ginia.gov or 800-552.J200. Legals - City of Salem Notice Is hereby given to all interested persons that the City of Salem Planning Commission, at its regular rnee&,g on August 14, 2024, at 7:00 p.m., In Council Cti.nbers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, In lhe City of Salem, Vifvlnia, wil hold • public hearing, pursuant lo Sections 15.2-2204 and 15.2-2285 of the Code of Vrginia, as amended, to coraider approval of the fclowlng requests ralalive to the COOE OF THE crrv OF SALEM, VIRGINIA: 1.Hold public heamg to c:orwlcler the request at Salem Morusaori School, lnc.,p,ope,1y-.to amend the exilllng apeciaJ lo .... .::;,:::;x~;;;.tt building end ... dNlgn adjacent property requ i"'!"""ts. f!1•n ty~lty iodled al 1221 Lynchburg found 11 IJ'adi!i""al zoning Turnpike (Tax Map I 117-1 -d151ricts. 8) with condition. If approved, Salem City Council Intends to adopt the ordinance(•) associated with the above rtem(s ) on Int reading, with a second reading of those ordinance(•) at • subsequent meeting. Coples of the proposed plans, ordinances or amendments may be examined in the Office of Community Developmen~ 21 South Brufley Stree~ Salem, Vrglnla. At said hearing, parties in inlllA!SI and citizens shal have an opportunity lo be heard relative to the said requests. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM , VIRGINIA BY: H. Robert Light Clerk of CouncU Persons affected by or Interested in the zoning ordinance arnenclment may appear and present their views Mer hearing, the Planning Commmlon may lal<e actJon. Copies of the ordinance, staff teporl Ind all related items may be foond onJine at WWW bfacksburg.gov/pubJic hearings or reviewed 111 person at the Blecuburg Planning and Building Departmen~ 400 South Main SIIM~ Blad<sbuig, Vrgtnia. Yoo may aiso cal the oll"tce at (540) 443-1300 for more information. Individuals with disabilities who require special assistance to attend and participate in the public hearing on the above should contact the Planning & Building Department al (540) 443-1300, or (540)- 443-1000-TDD. ADVERTISE! 20% off Entire Purthase; Plus 10% Seniof & ~ Discoonls. Call t-877.lSl+ 6667 ~~811~1 Au~ .Sm 1920. so3 Safe Step. Norlh America's #1 Walk-In Tub . Comprehensive ifetime warraniy. Top-of-lhe-Nne installation and service. Now fealuring oor FREE shower package and $1600 Off for a limited time! Call loday! Financing available. Call Safe Step 1-an-s91.9950 The bathroom ol your dreams in as little as 1 day. Limited Tme Offer-$1000 off or No Paymenls and No Interest for 18 months for cuslllmers l<i1o qualify. BCI Bath & Shower. Many options available. Quality malerials & professional installation. Senior & lotlitary Discounts Available. Call Today! 1-844-945-1631 Prepare for power outages loday with a Generac Home Standby Generator. Act now ID receive a FREE • bm/ssion$ ~rer: /e'liewed. Comprehensive Selvices: Consultation, Produdlon, Promotion and Distribution. Cal lo< Your Free Author's Guide 1-883-366-7596 or visit dorrancenb.com' vapress Portable Oxygen Concenlralor May Be Covered .., Medica-e! Reclaim v~ and ~ with lhe compact design and long- lasting battery ol lnogen One. Free infonnation kit! Call~974 Switch and save up ID $250/year on your !alt, lex! and data. No conlract and no hidden fees. Unlimited talk and text with flexible dala plans. Premium nationwide coverage. 100% ~.s. based cuslDmer service. For more Information, call 1-MS-262-5564 8oGO 40%0ff ~ ENDS S/31 20!•10! Your £mire Pun:h.ue' Senion+ MlUwy ++ We offer linancing that tits your budget!' CALL TODAY FOR A FIB INSPKIIOM 1-877-614-6667 ,·:." :' ; ~ • ~t .i < '' b: Planning Commission Meeting MINUTES Wednesday, July 10, 2024, 7:00 PM Work Session 6:00PM Regular Session 7:00PM Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street: Work Session 1. Call to Order A work session of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, at 6:00 p.m. on July 10, 2024, there being the members of said Commission, to wit: Denise King, Reid Garst, Jackson Beamer, and Mark Henrickson; together with Mary Ellen Wines, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Maxwell Dillon, Planner, Charles E. Van Allman Jr., Director of Community Development, Christopher J. Dorsey, City Manager, and Jim H. Guynn, Jr., City Attorney; and the following business was transacted: Denise King called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and reported that this date, place, and time had been set for the Commission to hold a work session. 2. New Business A. Discussion of items on the July agenda 1. 1590 West Main Street rezoning from LM to HBD 2. 1221 Lynchburg Turnpike special exception permit for cemetery use 3. 141 Electric Road approval of preliminary site plan A discussion was held regarding the items on the July agenda. B. Introduction of items on the August agenda 1. 101 Corporate Blvd special exception permit for elementary school 2. 1014 East Main Street special exception permit for outpatient mental health and substance abuse clinic Items for the August agenda were introduced, and a discussion was held. 3. Adjournment Denise King inquired if there were any other items for discussion and hearing none, adjourned the work session at 6:49 p.m. Regular Session 1. Call to Order A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, at 7:00 p.m. on July 10, 2024. Notice of such hearing was published in the June 20 and 27, 2024, issues of the “Salem Times Register,” a newspaper published and having general circulation in the City of Salem. All adjacent property owners were notified via the U.S. Postal Service. The Commission, constituting a legal quorum, presided together with Jim H. Guynn, Jr., City Attorney; Christopher J. Dorsey, City Manager and Executive Secretary, ex officio member of said Commission, to wit; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning and Zoning Administrator; Charles E. Van Allman, Jr., Director of Community Development, and Maxwell Dillon, Planner, and the following business was transacted. A. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Agenda Amendment Jackson Beamer motioned to add item 4D to the agenda regarding remote participation for Planning Commissioners. Reid Garst seconded the motion. Ayes: Henrickson, Beamer, Garst, King 3. Election of Officers An Election of officers was held. Reid Garst made a motion for Denise King to serve as Chair of the Planning Commission. Jackson Beamer seconded that motion. Ayes: Henrickson, Beamer, Garst, King Mark Henrickson made a motion for Reid Garst to serve as Vice Chair. Jackson Beamer seconded that motion. Ayes: Henrickson, Beamer, Garst, King Chair King noted that this meeting is Mr. Henrickson’s first meeting as a Planning Commissioner. 4. Consent Agenda Chair King asked if each member had reviewed the minutes, and without objection, accepted the minutes as amended. 5. New Business A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Hold public hearing to consider the request of Seaside Heights, LLC, property owner, to rezone the property located at 1590 West Main Street (Tax Map # 140-1-3) from LM Light Manufacturing District to HBD Highway Business District. Staff noted the following: The subject property consists of a 0.734-acre tract of land which currently sits within the LM Light Manufacturing zoning designation. The applicant is requesting to rezone the parcel to allow for the expansion of the drive-thru services. The restaurant was constructed in 2003. At that time the property was zoned Business District B3, which allowed for a restaurant use. In 2005, the City conducted a mass rezoning of the entire city, and this parcel was inadvertently rezoned to LM Light Manufacturing District. At the time of that citywide rezoning, the restaurant use entered into a nonconforming status. Section 106-526.3 of the zoning ordinance states that any improvement that would enlarge or expand the existing use requires a rezoning to an appropriate district which, in this case, is from LM Light Manufacturing to HBD Highway Business District. Chair King opened the public hearing at 7:04p.m. Ben Crew, 1208 Corporate Circle, Roanoke VA, 24018, of Balzer and Associates appeared before the commission as the agent of Seaside Heights LLC. Ben explained that interior updates will be done, as well as small parking updates in the back and the addition of a second drive thru order board. He explained that this request is to smooth out the zoning as a result of the 2005 mass rezoning of the City of Salem where the property in question was rezoned to LM Light Manufacturing. Chair King asked if any parking in the rear will be affected by the additional drive thru space. Mr. Crew explained that some parking will be altered in regard to its angle. He noted that parking demand has decreased while drive thru demand has increased. Member Beamer asked where the location of the second drive thru would be. Mr. Crew explained that the additional drive thru will be directly behind the first drive thru, and those two lanes will merge into one serviced by the windows. Chair King asked if staff had been contacted by anyone interested parties Staff confirmed that nobody had reached out in regard to this matter. No other person(s) appeared related to the request. Chair King closed the public hearing at 7:07p.m. Mark Henrickson motioned approval of the request of Seaside Heights, LLC, property owner, to rezone the property located at 1590 West Main Street (Tax Map # 140-1-3) from LM Light Manufacturing District to HBD Highway Business District. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion. Ayes: Henrickson, Beamer, Garst, King B. Special Exception Permit Hold public hearing to consider the request of Sherwood Memorial Park, Inc., property owner, for a Special Exception Permit to allow for the expansion of the cemetery into the adjacent property located at 1221 Lynchburg Turnpike (Tax Map # 117-1-8). Staff noted the following: The subject property consists of a 6.056 acre tract of land which currently sits within the RSF Residential Single Family zoning designation. The applicant is requesting the addition of the cemetery use to allow for the expansion of the existing adjacent cemetery. The current plan is to utilize two of the six acres for cemetery purposes. The applicant is proposing the utilization of two of the six acres for burial plot purposes. It is further proposed that two terraces/patio areas will be constructed for patrons of the cemetery. The single-family dwelling and surrounding area will remain single-family. Vegetation will be planted to screen along the boundaries of the parcel adjacent to residential properties. Access will remain through the existing entrances to the cemetery. There will not be a new entrance created through this parcel. The petitioner does not expect an increase in funeral services as a result of this expansion. On-site stormwater facilities will be constructed. Chair King opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Mike Woolwine, 3800 Electric Road, Roanoke, VA 24018, of Hughes and Associates appeared before the commission as the agent of Sherwood Memorial Park, Inc. He noted that the request is for a Special Exception Permit to expand the existing cemetery into the adjacent parcel. Member Henrickson asked about the intent of the single-family dwelling in the future. Susan Mini, President of Sherwood Memorial, explained that a grounds crew member lives there, and the plan is for him to continue to live there. She mentioned that some additional landscaping will be installed on that property. Chair King asked about an entrance to the cemetery along Lynchburg Turnpike from this parcel. Ms. Mini explained that there will not be another entrance to the cemetery from this site. Vice Chair Garst clarified that the portion of the planned cemetery will be accessible by vehicle, but there will not be a new entrance to the cemetery created along Lynchburg Turnpike. Nancy Ikenberry, accompanied by Archie Brooks, 1309 Texas Street, asked about the existing access to 1309 Texas Street and whether that driveway would be altered. Staff noted that they were not aware of any planned changes to that access. Ms. Mini explained that no changes will be made to that access. Chair King asked city staff about relevant zoning requirements for the cemetery. Ms. Wines explained that 25 feet is required between any property line and the any burial site. She further noted that there are no landscape buffering requirements, but existing landscaping is present and that could be a condition placed on the permit by the Commission. Member Henrickson asked whether monuments will be allowed in this portion of the cemetery. Ms. Mini explained that this portion of the cemetery is intended to have flat grave markers. No other person(s) appeared related to the request. Chair King closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Vice Chair Garst motioned approval of the request of Sherwood Memorial Park, Inc., property owner, for a Special Exception Permit to allow for the expansion of the cemetery into the adjacent property located at 1221 Lynchburg Turnpike (Tax Map # 117-1-8) with the condition that there is no entrance to the cemetery from the subject parcel along Lynchburg Turnpike. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion. Ayes: Henrickson, Beamer, Garst, King C. Site Plan Approval Consider the request of Lakeside (Salem) Station LLC, property owner, for the approval of a building addition at 141 Electric Road (Tax Map # 81-4-4) in conjunction with the proffered conditions of Ordinance #118. Staff noted the following: The subject property consists of a 9.692-acre tract of land which currently sits within the HBD Highway Business zoning designation. The applicant is requesting the approval of the proposed addition in accordance with the conditions on Ordinance #118 from 1987 when the old Lakeside Amusement Park property was rezoned to allow for the construction of the retail shopping center. Condition #1 of Ordinance #118 states that “a preliminary site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval for any future development of the property, other than the development indicated on the proffered site plan submitted to the Planning Commission on November 11, 1987. Said preliminary site plan to include the location of the flood plain, floodway and river, proposed use of the floodway and any other remaining amusement park land and street rights of way, pavement, poles, adjacent streets and drives...” City staff is in the process of reviewing the entire site plan in further detail, and if approved by the Planning Commission, will coordinate any additional requirements with the developer. Ben Crew, 1208 Corporate Circle, Roanoke VA, 24018 of Balzer and Associates appeared before the commission as the acting agent of Lakeside (Salem) Station LLC and explained that Dollar Tree is the new tenant for this location, and a building expansion is required to accommodate their needs in regard to inventory display. An ordinance from 1987 requires that any development not shown on the attached concept plan be presented and approved by the Planning Commission. Member Beamer asked how many units are being occupied by Dollar Tree. Mr. Crew explained that like any good shopping mall, the interior had been a variety of different spaces. He thought two spaces would be utilized. Member Beamer asked about the existing utility meters in the rear of the building where the expansion is planned. Mr. Crew explained that those meters will be reconfigured to accommodate the new development, and that he is working with the city’s utility departments to get everything straightened out. Member Beamer asked what the new space will be utilized for. Mr. Crew explained that most of the space will be retail space, as modern trends do not call for dedicated inventory space. Vice Chair Garst asked if parking would be affected in any way by this expansion. Staff stated there would be no parking issues. Vice Chair Garst motioned approval of the request of Lakeside (Salem) Station LLC, property owner, for the approval of a building addition at 141 Electric Road (Tax Map # 81-4-4) in conjunction with the proffered conditions of Ordinance #118. Mark Henrickson seconded the motion. Ayes: Henrickson, Beamer, Garst, King 6. Remote Participation Chair King explained that this remote participation policy would allow a Commissioner to call into a meeting and participate if not able to be physically present. She noted that City Council passed an identical policy at Monday’s meeting. Jackson motioned to adopt the remote participation policy for Commission members participating in Planning Commission meetings for fiscal year 24-25. Reid Garst seconded the motion. Ayes: Henrickson, Beamer, Garst, King 7. Adjournment Having no other items before the Commission, Chair King adjourned at 7:22 p.m. 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. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that Section 106-110, Article I, Chapter 106 of The Code of the City of Salem, Virginia, relating to building district boundary lines be amended in the following particular and no other, viz: That the following described property in the City of Salem of Seaside Heights, LLC, property owner, located at 1590 West Main Street (Tax Map # 140-1-3) be and the same is hereby changed from LM Light Manufacturing District to HBD Highway Business District, and the map referred to shall be changed in this respect and no other, said property being described as follows: BEGINNING AT AN IRON PIN FOUND ON THE SOUTH LINE OF WEST MAIN STREET, BEING THE COMMON CORNER OF TAX ID 140-1-3 AND TAX ID 140-1-4.1; THENCE WITH THE COMMON LINE OF TAX ID 140-1-3 AND TAX ID 140-1-4.1 S8°37’27”E 215.00 FEET TO AN IRON PIN FOUND, BEING THE COMMON CORNER OF TAX ID 140-1-3 AND TAX ID 140- 1-4.1, AND ON THE LINE OF TAX ID 140-1-11; THENCE WITH THE COMMON LINE BETWEEN TAX ID 140-1-3 AND TAX ID 140-1-11 THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: S81°22’33”W 150.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N8°37’27”W 89.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N6°50’03”W 96.05 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N8°37’27”W 15.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 23.56 FEET, AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N36°22’53”E 21.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF WEST MAIN STREET, BEING THE COMMON CORNER OF TAX ID 140-1-3 AND TAX ID 140-1-11; THENCE WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF WEST MAIN STREET N81°22’33”E 132.00 FEET TO AN IRON PIN FOUND, BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.734 ACRE. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be and the same are hereby repealed. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect ten (10) days after its final passage. Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows: H. Hunter Holliday – William D. Jones – Byron Randolph Foley – James W. Wallace, III – Renee F. Turk – Passed: Effective: /s/____ _ Mayor ATTEST: H. Robert Light Clerk of Council City of Salem, Virginia Item #6A Date: 9/09/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL AGENDA ITEM: Special Exception Permit Amendment Hold public hearing to consider the request of Salem Montessori School, Inc., property owner, to amend the existing special exception permit to allow for a second elementary educational facility on the property located at 101 Corporate Boulevard (Tax Map # 117-2-1). (Advertised in the August 22 and 29 issues of the Salem Times-Register.)(Planning Commission recommended approval with condition; see pages 2-11 of Planning Commission minutes.) SUBMITTED BY: Max Dillon, Planner SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Zoning: RSF Residential Single Family Land Use Plan Designation: Residential Existing Use: Civic – Educational facilities, primary/secondary (1 building) Proposed Use: Civic – Educational facilities, primary/secondary (2 buildings) The subject property consists of a 3.602-acre tract of land which currently sits within the RSF Residential Single Family zoning designation. The applicant is requesting an amendment to an existing Special Exception Permit to allow for the construction of an additional educational facility that will serve upper elementary school students. In February of 2011, a Special Exception Permit was issued for the subject property to allow the construction of a primary/secondary educational facility; however, the conditions on that permit restrict any development other than the sole building shown on the concept plan at the time. Additionally, the recorded deed (attached for reference) enumerates the 11 (A through K) conditions included in the approved Special Exception Permit. Due to expanding operations, the applicant is requesting permission to construct an additional building in conjunction with the provided plans. In May of 2023, the applicant received a Special Exception Permit to construct an elementary school building on the property at 112 Corporate Boulevard but has since pivoted to the current request due to the exorbitant cost associated with developing that previously approved site. If approved, all relevant requirements will be coordinated through the site plan review process. REQUIREMENTS: The proposal is in compliance with the requirements of Section 106-202.3 (RSF). Staff recommendations: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request and removal of existing conditions A through G recorded in the deed. Additionally, they recommended an added condition that the height of the proposed building not exceed 20 feet of the height of the existing building on the property. Staff suggests Council not remove condition A but that it be amended to reflect the Special Exception Permit Council approved in May of 2023 which conditioned approval that the oak trees will remain, and other trees can be eliminated with the approval of City Staff. Additionally, staff recommends condition G remain. While the boundary line between Tract 1 and 1208 Lynchburg Turnpike has been landscaped, retaining this condition will ensure this buffer is maintained in the future. Should Council wish to approve the Special Exception Permit and chooses to amend the existing conditions, staff recommends approval conditioned upon: 1. Amending condition A to reflect that the oak trees will remain, and other trees can be eliminated with the approval of City staff on Tract A as this is an existing condition on this parcel placed by Council in May of 2023. 2. Eliminating conditions B through F only. 3. Retaining conditions G through K. 4. Adding a condition that the height of the proposed building not exceed 20 feet of the height of the existing building on the property. 5. Direct the City Attorney to modify and record the deed as appropriate to reflect changes Council approves as conditions in granting this Special Exception Permit. City of Salem Community Development Application Request for SPECIAL EXCEPTION/USE NOT PROVIDED FOR PERMIT Case#: APPLICANT INFORMATION Owner : Salem Montessori School, Inc. Contact Name: Valerie VanderHoeven Address: PO Box 1213, Salem, VA 24153 Applicant/Contract Pur chaser: Same as Owner Contact Na me: Address: Telephone No. (540 ) 387-1523Fax No. Email Address vaJene@salemmontessori@gmail.com Telephone No. Fax No. Email Address - PARCEL INFORMATION For m1,1U;jglg parcels, please attach a page □ (Tax ID#'s) 1 1 1-2-1 Deed Book Inst 110001303 Page Total Area (acres/square feet) 3.6022 acres (156,913 sq. ft ) Current z oning RSF with Special Exception for existinglower elementary school building Subdivision Tract 1 A, City of Salem Plat Requested Use □Special Exception □Use Not Provided For Location Description (Street Address, if applicable) __ Modify existing Special Exception to allow for second school 1 01 Corporate Blvd building for upper elementary students. SIGNATURE OF OWNER � CONTRACT PURCHASER O (attach contract) □LESSEE As owner or authorized agent of this property, I hereby certify that this application Is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and I hereby grant pennission to the agen1s and employees of the City of Salem to enter the p�perty for M� of 1::::::: reviewing this request 1 J Signature �!L�.a11t:::"hoe¼er-:· Date o/Z-71-Z.'f Print Name Valerie VanderHoeven I Signature _________________________ _ Date _______ _ Print Name QUESTIONS/ LETTERS/ SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE FOLLOWING**: Name Brushy Mountain Engineering, PLLC Telephone No. (540 ) 526-6800 _Address: 3553 Carvins Cove Road Fax No. --Email Address Salem, VA 24 153 barney@brushymtnengr.com ••it is the responsibility of the contact person to provide copies of all correspondence to otherinterested parties to the application. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF APPLICATION FEE PAYMENT PROCEDURE Application fees must be submitted at the time of submittal. I hereby acknowledge that this application is not complete until the payment for all applicable fees has been received by the City of Salem Community Development Department. I acknowledge that I am responsible for ensuring that such fees are received by the City of Salem. I further acknowledge that any application fee submitted after the deadline shall result in the application being considered filed for the next month's meetings. I s;gnature of appUcant/author;zed agent 1�-�fUIJt£�: ___ !Jj-1.1/kN--- Print Name: 1Laltfle,_ __ V_a_a_JuJ�� . Signature of owner/authorized agent J}_&frriL�ut!/6ke: ____ &h-2/-1!:L, Mnt Name: V/).,lfAJL-VU,� If you would like your correspondence emailed and/or faxed, please make selections, and provide the information below: FEES: All application fees must be paid at the time of submittal. Please make checks payable to the City of Salem: Sp ecial Exception/Use Not Provided For/Use Not Provided For Permit application fee: $500 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Staff Reviewer: Application Complete? ..J YES ONO Date: 4 PLEASE RESPOND FORAJ.LSPECIAL EXCEPTION/USE NOT PROVIDED FOR APPLICATIONS: 1.This Special Exception/Use Not Provided For is being requested in order to? Revision of Special Exception approved Feb 28, 2011 _ to allow for construction of second school building on Tax Parcel 117-2-1._ Underlying zoning on property is RSF which allows _____ for use as school with Special Exception. --------------------------------------------------------------- 2.Describe how you plain to develop the property for the proposed use and any associated uses. See attached preliminary site plan._ A second school building will be constructed to serve the students as they outgrow the lower elementary program. The second building will be two _____ _ story with the upper floor being at ground _level facing Lynchburg Turnpike._ The main __________ _ entrance to the building will be off of the existing parking lot. No new driveways will be created along Lynchburg Turnpike.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3.Describe why the proposed use or exception is desirable and appropriate for the area. What measures will be taken to assure that the proposed use or exception will not have a negative impact on the surrounding vicinity? (This could include traffic or environmental impacts.) The proposed building will allow Salem Montessori to continue serving their existing students as well� ne� upper elementary students from Salem and the entire Roanoke valley. _The ____ proposed use is just an expansion of the current use. As mentioned above the main ___________ _ architectural focus of the building wUlbe the side facing the existing parking lot The side ______ of the building facing Lynchburg Turnpike will appear as single story with access for the _______ _ classrooms to play in fenced outdoor play area consjstent with the existi ng play area . ___________ 4.Is the subject property located within the Floodplain District?□YES II NO If yes. describe the proposed measures for meeting the standards of the Floodplain Ordinance. ---------------------�---·------------------------------·----------------------------------------- 5.Have you provided a conceptual plan of the proposed development, including general lot configurations and road locations? Are the proposed lot sizes compatible with existing parcel sizes in the area? A concept plan has been sent to Zoning staff._ A much more detailed concept site layout and_ architectural sketches are currently being developed and will be submitted in the next few _____ _ weeks. 6.Is the subject property listed as a historic structure or located within a historic district? □ YES l!!I NO If yes, describe the proposed measures for meeting the standards of the Department of Historic Resources. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 VIEW FROM CORPORATE CIRCLE '_. .............................. mau ........ HRI ................... I-.. fi.-•• UR.----HR.f,~~.~·.··.1n~lI.ii.~._.G.M·.5.\._.S.L.ID.E_-~~~-1 ___ IIIIIIl ____ IIII ... ! ___ I .. I!!IIU!tI!I_I-.. !-__ .. IIIII!I!.II ___ III-.m'llll __ -IIi!llllllll~.! __ I11III1 __ "___ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!_ ........ ,~ ...... ___ ~_ KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS TO WIT: THAT THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA IS THE FEE SIMPLE OWNm OF THE PARCEL OF LAND SHOWN HmEON, BOUNDED ON THE OUTSIDE BY CORNERS 19 THF?OUGH 26 INCLUSIVE TO 9, 8 TO 19 INCLUSIVE CONTAINING 3.6834 ACRES, BEING A PORTION OF THE LAND CONVE'(ED TO SAID OWNm BY INSTRUMENT DA TED SEPTEMBm 16, 1996 AND F(ECORDED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF IHE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CfTY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA IN DB. 254, PG. 654 AND BEING AU OF THE LAND CONVD'ED TO SAID OWNER BY DEED DATED OCTOBER 21, 2010 AND RECORDED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TI-{E CITY OF S,~LEM, ~1RGINIA IN INSTRUMENT No. 100002534. THA T ~"'ALEM MONTESSORI SCHOOL, INC. is THE FEE SIMPLE OWNO? OF THE PARCEL OF LAND SHOWN HEREON, BOUNDED ON THE OUTSIDE 8Y CORNERS 1 THROUGH 18 TO 1 iNCLUSIVE CONTAINiNG 3.9194 ACRES, BEING A PORTION OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO SAiD OWNER BY INSTRUMENT DA TED JUNE 17, 2011 AND RECOR'DED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE ON T!-fE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA IN INSTRUMENT 110001303 AND SUB')ECT TO A CREDIT UNE DEED OF mUST FROM SALEM MONTESSORI SCHOOL INC TO BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, A NORTH CAROLINA BANKING CORPORA TlON (BENEFICIARY), AND BB&T-VA COLLA TERAL SERVICE COR'PORA TlON (TRUSTEE) EI THER OF ImOM MA,( AC T DA TED JUNE 17, 2011 AND RECORDED IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CLERK'S OFFICE IN iNSTRUMENT No. 110001304. THE SAID OWNERS HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THEY HAVE SUBDIVIDED THE LANDS SHOWN HEREON EN77REL Y OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL AND ACCORD AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 15.2-2240 THROUGH 15.2-2279 OF THE 1950 CODE OF VIRGINIA AS AMENDED TO DA TE, AND AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AS AMENDED TO DA TE. 'M7NESS THE SIGNA TURE AND SEAL OF SAID a VINER: ----.--__ 1/-5-;lC)15 CITY OF SALEM-AumORIZED AC'ENT (iNSTRUMENT No. 100002534, D.B. 254, PG. 654) _\l41bU., VArtJf(/~ SALEM MONTESSORI SCHOOL, INC.-AUTHORIZED AGENT (INSTRUMENT No. 110001303) BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY DEED OF TRUST-AUTHORIZED AGENT {INSTRUMENT No. 110001304} DATE _.&3-/r DATE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CfTY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA. mls MAP WAS PRESENTED WITH mE CERT/FICA TE OF ACKNOWlEDGEMENT ThERETO ANNEXED /S ADMITTED TO RECORD ON -111 (, _ 2015, A r-.:l'.;p O'CLOCK __ .A::_.M. TESTE: CHANCE CRA WFORD -~1!uTf CLERK----- NOTfS: 1. THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY, THEREFORE, THERE MAY EXIST ENCUMBRANCES Im/CH AFFECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THA T MAY NOT BE SHOWN HEREON. 2. THE SUBJECT PROPERlY UES WITHIN mE LIMITS OF lONE "X UNSlfADED" AS SHOWN ON THE FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RA TE MAP, 51161C0141G, MAP REVISED SEPTEMBm 28, 2007. 3. REFERENCE: * SURVEY FOR ROANOKE COLLEGE BY JOHN D. ABBOTT, PE, CLS DATED AUGUST 14, 19.96 AND RECORDED IN P.B. 6, PG. 47. • RESUBDIVISION PLAT OF PARTIAL SURVEY & FROM RECORDS FOR THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA BY BALlER AND ASSOCIA TES, iNC. DA TED NO'([MBm 19, 2004 AND RECORDED IN P.B. 10, PG. 69 and 70, SLIDE 185. * RESUBDIVISION PLA T OF PARTIAL SUl~VEY &-FROM RECORDS FOR THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA BY BALZER AND ASSOCIA TES, INC. DATED AUGUST 1, 2006 AND RECORDED IN P.B. 11, PG. 65, SUDE 195. • PLA T SHOWING THE VACA TlON AND COMBINA TlON FOR CfTY OF SALEM BY CALDWELL WlflTE ASSOCIA rES DA TED SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 LAST REVISED MARCH 23, 2011 AND RECORDED IN P.B. 13, PG. 49-52, SLIDE 213. 4. REFERENCE OF PROPERTY CONVEYANCE: tDB. 254, PG. 654 BEING TAX PARCEL 148-1-2 CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SALDJ, VIRGINIA. "'INSTRUMENT No. 100002534 BEING TAX PARCEL 149-1-4 CONVEYED TO mE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA. "'INSTRUMENT No. 110001303 BEING TAX PARCEL 117-2-1 CONVEYED TO SALEM MONTESSORI SCHOOL, INC. 5. THIS PLAT IS PREPARED FROM A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY. 6. TRACTS 1A AND 3B ARE lONED RSF /HBD-I?ESIDENTIAL SiNGLE FAMIL Y AND HIGliWA Y BUSINESS DISTRICT. TRACT 3A IS ZONED RSF /HBD/BCD-RESiDENTIAL SiNGLE FAMIL Y, HIGHWA Y BUSINE!3S DISTRICT AND BUSINESS COMMERCE DISTRICT AS OF mE DA TE OF THIS SURVEY. .Y1c.I}JJ rr... MAE STA TE OF VIRGINIA ~ OF ~O~~ ____ __ £" U' /<0 TO WfT: 1,_J11/r/ltL-. n u.g .J A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE AFORESAiD STA TE DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT _ ~ ;'l'bl/e-r-, WHOSE NAME IS SIGNED TO THE FOREGOING WRITING HAS PERSONALL Y APPEARED BEFORE ME AND ACKNOWLEDGED THE SAME IN MY AFORESAID JljRISDICTION ON THIS .d1"'~DA Y OF /'fIvu"b-VI--_.-, 2015. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ()U<;b.A., 3/ 0l0!7 . -------.+------_.- ,??Sfp 8'3,:) ~~ NOTARY REGISTRA nON No. ~~F-NOTARY PUBLIC APPROVED: APPROVED: _~~ f~Uu--CtA ___ ._ CHARLES E. VAN ALLMAN, JI.::P.E., L.S. CITY ENGINEER -CITY OF SALEM, ~1RGINIA NO SCALE :-::", ',,r-; "';~-~ ,,~ , :: ' R£SUBDIV1S1ON PLA r FOR CITY OF SALEM __ r._ ft .. -___ _ SHOK7NG R£SUBDIVISION OF TRACT " 3.9194 ACRES (INSTRUMENT No. 110001303) AND TRACT 3, 3.6834 ACRES (D.8. 264, PG. 654, INSTRUMENT No. 100002534) P.B. 13, PC. 49 -52, SUDE 213 CREA TING HEREON TRACT 1A (3.6022 Ac., 156913 Sq.Ft.) TRACT JA (2.1872 Ac., 95271 Sq.rt.) AND TRACT 3B (1.8134 Ac., 78989 Sq. Ft.) SITUATE CORPORA TE BOULEVARD CI TY OF SALEM, WRGINIA .~urCWf\ ------------'",-" , --,--,-- CALDWELL WI-lITE ASSOCIAT'E;S 'M'''''.'''M.Itt'.-eM.... ···· ... '· .. ,·IIn_ ... ·' ...... n.r_· r ___ ~."'-.. _,..., ... _.,. __ _ ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS / PLANNERS _________ .. _!F __ , ___ ~; _____ IB_ .. ____ ._. __ .. _ .. _____ ____ 4203 MELROSE AYENUE, N.W. P.O. BOX 6260 ROANOKl!I, VIROINLf\. 2·'017-0260 Telephone:(154.0) 366-3400 Fax: (1540) 366-6702 REV: OCTOBER 29, 2015 E-Mail: owaroanokoe.aol.coln TAX No. 149-1-4 REV: OCTOBER 22, 2015 SCALE: 1"= 100' DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2015 N.B.: WES-66 CALC. cur CI-{K'D FBC DRA WN: CLI-{ CLOSED: CLH SHEET 1 OF 2 w.o.: 15-0034 ________ -__ ' ... II.IIIIII_IIIUII_IIIUI-1III!I1 ____ IIII1I111111M11_I' .. -__ i-III-_-.aJlllUI'MIBRI"PIII_!IIIIIMII __ IRFT"'_'-IIIIIII __ "_""_I!.-" __ IM!_i_I1I._III!IiII~iI!IIIIlIIII!_1IIIIl1I P. B . ..J:t.._PG .. .-2.LSLIDE_-'-~i_ 1_1IIIIIII-__ II-. __ I1I111I-_IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII_' __ IIIO_' ... ___________ -____ . ------------------- PROPERTY LINE TABLE ---------------'----.. _-_._-- PROPEf?TY CURVE TABLE i----- CURVE RADIUS ARC TAN DEL TA CHORD D/ST i--~------f---. f--._._-- 20-21 25.00' 45.84' 32.62' 105'03'40" N 64'48'09" W 39.68~_ 21-22 115.00' 114.82' f--?211' __ -'.'21'12'22" __ N 16'57'59" E 110.11' -..:...:.--23-24 550.00' 56.59' 28.32' 09'08'30" N 39'22'28" E 56.57' -- 25-26 320.73' 217. 43' 113.08' 22'12'57" S 18'22'01" W 213.29' 25-~ 1---- 320.73' 29.88' 14.95' 05'20'14" N 35'11'51" E 29.87' -- 28-26 320.73' 187.57' 96.55' 33~JO'27" N 15'41'11" E 184.91' --' .~---- 10-11 331.17' 56.69' 28.41' 10'41'45" N 07'05'54" W 56.62' _ --_c ___ 1----____ i------.=-=--. ...J.?-73 265.79' 288.24' 160.13' 61'19'50" N 41'56'04" W 274.32' .. ----.---f--._---- 14-15 112.13' 9.3. 78' __ 49.?.L ~~9'09" S 81'42'00" W 91.07' 15-16 18,3.20' 69.43' 35.14' 22'09'12" S 69'02'07" W 69.02' -----------'-----f------ 16-17 6,J.51' 84.84' 50.10' 76'31 '53" N 48'23'37" W 78.67' ----:-1--------f.-----_. . . 18-1 25.00' 40.04' 25.78' 91'45'25" N 57"46'31" E 35.89'._ '---. . •. ________ .. _L..... ____________ .. ___ NEW !3ANITARY SEWeR EASEMENT LINE TABLE UNE BEARING DISTANCE S 01'19'56"E 107.68' S 62'23'4·':"'9--::'II'="W-1---i6.7Y-- • ..:.--+-. N 01'19'56" W 115.08 ---27-19 AY-27 N88'40'04"£--i5.00'--· ~-----~~--------- IE/iiSniic--WXtEi{UNE EASEMENT- IErNE 8EARING DISTANCE ~_-B ____ ~07~35'01 .. £..-198.10_' _ B --C S 61'27'00" E 21.42' C -0 S 07'3,5"DrW 232.53' D -11 S 78'09'50" W 5.00' [ 11 -A N_11'40'1?,' W ---46.35'- -----. EXISTlNG DRAINAGE EASEMENT LINE TABL£ 1-- LINE BEARING __ j]lsr~NCE __ I-- S 01'18';23" E ,J..p-AG(rIQ, ___ 42. ~7~,------_._=-- AG-AH S 8J'53'10" [ 189~47:_ AI-1-8 S 64 '30'38" E 68.55' .. 8-AJ S 01'19'56" E 22.41' N 64 ~JO'J8" W --AJ-AK 75.25' ------ AK-AL N 8J~53'10" W __ 120.81' ____ --------AL-AM S 65'19'51" W 67. 67' f--.. ------------_. ---_.--_.- AM-AG N 01'18'23" W 55.09' f---_._ .. N 58'00'54"[ --81.03' 21-AN -------N 30'23'41" W 1-_ AN-22 _ 72.34' -_. . r--??--AP . N 45~J4'06" E 20.62 S J0'23'41" E ..- I-~P-AO .. 77.20' --_._- 492,69' AO-AR N 59'25'25" E ~.:-AS N 4Y41'38" E 28.51' f--~S:-A T S 01'19'56" [ --28.27' AT-AU S 4J'41'38" W f---11.29' S 59'25'25" W --512,24' AU-AV 1---f----S -58'00'54" W 82,39' AV-AW N 01'19'56" W f------.. --- 19-AT 53.82' -I-. ____ ... _L.. B __ EXISTING DRAINAGE £AS£}{~._N __ r_C_U...-_R_VE __ -·7:_~_=BL-E-·~ CUR~FTRADIUS ARC TAN DEL TA CHORD DIST _ AW-:-~J2Q_' __ ,--.20,63' 10.94' L-47'16'26"Ji._35"54'32" W 2'2.QL IPF EX/S77NG 20' WA TEF?UNE EASEMENT --- iNSTRUMENT No. 120000171 PROPERlY OF ' '"\ .. 1..... . .. l"C: '0",,,,: :~:C ..... : :VV:-:I • l1W:T 1 (3.9194 N:RfS) /NS7'RUUf.NT' No. 110001JOJ P.B. 1:1, PO. 49 -52, ,sUDE 21J r.4X No. 117-2-' TRACT 1 3.9194 ACRES LESS 0,J172 ACRES TO TRACT J Tr?ACT 1A ,}..!..6022 ACRES 0.J172 ACRf.~FROM fBACT 1.. AND ADOED TO TRACT 3 C"'V ",-.... " ,-, , ! I • ..r. ,',A:" = . ." .: vi ~ ... :...:_,,1 LEGEND ACT. DB. EP IPF IPS OHE PIPE/F PK/F R/W TRACT 1A 3.6022 ACRES ACTUAL DEED BOOK EDGE OF PA VEMEN T IRON PIN FOUND IRON PIN SET OVERHEAD ELECTRIC PIPE FOUND PK NAIL FOUND RIGHT OF WAY (156913 SO. FT.) BOUNDED 8Y CORNERS 1 THRU 8 IPF INCLUSIVE TO 29, 30, 31, TO 10 Tf7RU 18 INCLUSIVE TO 1 IPF BEARS S 02'56'37" W 9.16' FROM CORNER (SEE P_B. 3, PG. 67) PROPEi?TY OF -EXISnNG VARIABLE WIDTH • DRAINAGE EASEMENT ~ ~ WILLIAM E. MULLINS &-JUD Y 8. MULLINS r-..: ~t ~ ~ IPF ~ 0_· ~ NEW TPACT A WB. 5, PG. 160 P8. J, PG. 67 TAX #149-1-1 ~ EXISTING CITY OF SALEM ~ II -----PROPEI~TY OF 1.8134 ACeES ~ ST~1~~~/~~5~:~~Gf;~NT ~ t;;;; BRACKMAN PROPERTIES, (78989 SO. FT.) .:S P.B, 1J, PC. 49-52. I NEW TRACT B • SLIDE 213 .~ r-, 0.8. 299, PG. J27 BOUNDED 8Y CORNERS 28, 26, tiffS TAX No. 149-1-5 j ~ ~ P8. J, PG. 67 9, J1, JO, 29, 8, 27 TO 28 I ~ f ~ ~ TAX #149-1-1.1 LLC TRACT 3 J. 68J4 ACRES ADD1770N FROM TRACT 1 Q,3172 ACRES NET 4.0006 ACRES TRACT 3A 2.1872 ACRES TRACT 38 1.8134 ACRES U ri8J ~-NEW DIVISION LINE ~ ~ ~-L __ ,,_J03,23' iAV\. iPS A V) IP~>p fPS S 88'40'O:~::W - -.-::"',L,.. ~ .... ' ® TRACT 3,4-@ @ @ ~ IPF BEARS S 89'32'54" W 0.30' mOM CORNER 100' 50' 0' 100' 200' EXISnNG 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT (P.8. 13, PG. 49 --52, SLIDE 213) MjIf~-"""_g. 1" ,= 100' GRAPHIC SCALE NEW 15' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT FOR TI1E BENEFf r OF TRACT 38 RESUBDIWSlON PLA T FOR CITY QF S'ALfM SHO'MNG RESUBDIVISION OF TRACT 1, 3.9194 ACRES (INSTRUMENT No. 110001303) AND TRACT J, 3,68J4 ACRES (D,B. 264, PG. 654, INSTRUMENT No. 100002534) P.8. 13, PG. 49 -52, SLIDE 213 CREA TING HEREON TRACT 1A (J.6022 Ac., 15691J Sq.Ft.) TRACT JA (2.1872 Ac., 95271 Sq.rt.) AND TRACT.38 (1.81J4 Ac" 78989 Sq.Ft.) SIWAT[ CORPORATE BOULEVARD C/ TY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA "1rcw/\ _____ ,_ _-___ ... -._ .. .., .. ' ... __ .. 'P'.... _.' .. ' ... _ CALDWELL WI-lITE ASSOCIATE~S ___ ... ..'..... _.' ...... "'*_·1 ' .,,_ ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS / PJ~NNERS ---"' .. • ........ _ 'S. * _._ __ ... m •• ___ 4203 MELROSE AVENUE, N.W. P.O. BOX 13260 ROANOKE, VIRGINL<l 2·(017-0260 Telephone:(CS.(O) 366-3400 Fax: (640) 366-8702 REV: OCTOBER 29, 2015 REV: OCTOBER 22, 2015 DA 7£: OCTOBER 1J, 2015 CALC. CLH CHK'D FBC CLOSED: CLH E-Mail: cffaroanokeOaol.con1 SHEET 2 OF 2 TAX No. 149-1-4 SCALE: 1"= TOO' N,B.: W[S-66 DRAWN: CLH W.O.: 15-00J4 _1I1U1111111U11l11111l!1Bi .. MU ____ -IImI ___ IBIlIIllUUIIIIIIBIIIIIII_U _____ -.....,IIUI __ -I __ iWl ____ .. ____ '_I __ .I ......... W!!I. ____ -II-__ MlllII!III ____ IIBlMIW P.B. I't PG. 5~l--SLIDE 1..Z:/ _1___ _u_ _1lII0I __ Salem City Council Minutes 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: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * 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: t he 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 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 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 foun d; 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 kept 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 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 followin g 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 Council 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 needed; he stated that by his calculation, his proposal of 14 residential 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 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 City 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 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 reasoning 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 is 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 trees 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 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 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 best 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 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 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 problem 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 benefit 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 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 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 necessarily 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 controversial 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 parcel 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 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 of 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 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 meeting; 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 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 traffic 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 community 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 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 several 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 ensure 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 maintaining the wooded area, it 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 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 are 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 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 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 been doing this a long time and it’s tough; he requested that the school at least gets 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 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 on 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 any 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 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 WHEREAS, Bob Hunt reappeared before the Council 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 fiscal 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 is 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 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 parcel; 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 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 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 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 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 the 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 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 low 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 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. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * There being no further business to come before the Council, the same on motion adjourned at 10:29 p.m. A true copy teste: H. Robert Light Clerk of Council Tax Parcel 117-2-1 (101 Corporate Blvd) BEGINNING at a point on the south right-of-way line of Lynchburg Turnpike at the east right-of-way line of Corporate Boulevard; thence following the south right-of-way line of Lynchburg Turnpike the following five calls; S. 76° 11’ 36” E. 155.67 feet to a point; thence S. 68° 44’ 26” E. 231.09 feet to a point; thence S. 61° 27’ 00” E. 254.56 feet to a point; thence S. 67° 52’ 22” E. 202.15 feet to a point; thence S. 68° 43’ 38” E. 170.77 feet to a point; thence departing the south right-of-way line of Lynchburg Turnpike; S. 04° 15’ 56” E. 277.77 feet to a point; thence S. 87° 01’ 55” W. 221.12 feet to a point; thence N. 01° 19’ 56” W. 16.81 feet to a point; thence N. 64° 30’ 38” E. 63.53 feet to a point; thence N. 83° 53’ 10” W. 193.99 feet to a point on the east right-of-way line of Corporate Boulevard; thence following the east right-of-way line of Corporate Boulevard the following eleven calls; N. 01° 18’ 23” W. 27.34 feet to a point; thence a curve to the left with a radius of 331.17 feet, Chord Bearing N. 07° 05’ 54” W., Chord Distance 56.62 feet, and Arc Length 56.69 feet; thence N. 11° 40’ 17” W. 119.26 feet; thence a curve to the left with a radius of 265.79 feet, Chord Bearing N. 41° 56’ 04” W., Chord Distance 274.32 feet, and Arc Length 288.24 feet; thence N. 76° 16’ 29” W. 93.20 feet to a point; thence a curve to the left with a radius of 112.13 feet, Chord Bearing S. 81° 42’ 00” W., Chord Distance 91.07 feet, and Arc Length 93.78 feet; thence a curve to the right with a radius of 183.20 feet, Chord Bearing S. 69° 02’ 07” W., Chord Distance 69.02 feet, and Arc Length 69.43 feet; thence a curve to the right with a radius of 63.51 feet, Chord Bearing N. 48° 23’ 37” W., Chord Distance 78.67 feet, and Arc Length 84.84 feet; thence N. 10° 33’ 11” E. 53.19 feet to a point; thence a curve to the right with a radius of 25.00 feet, Chord Bearing N. 57° 46’ 31” E., Chord Distance 35.89 feet, and Arc Length 40.04 feet to the place of BEGINNING, containing 3.6022 acres, and being known as Tract 1A, on Resubdivision Plat for City of Salem, dated October 29, 2015, prepared by Caldwell White Associates, as recorded in the Clerk’s Office, Circuit Court, Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 14, Pages 051-052, Slide 224. Planning Commission Meeting MINUTES Wednesday, August 14, 2024, 7:00 PM Work Session 6:00PM Regular Session 7:00PM Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street: WORK SESSION 1. Call to Order 2. New Business A. Discussion of items on the August agenda 1. 101 Corporate Blvd - SEP amendment B. Discussion of items on the September agenda 1. Simms Farm - Proffer and condition amendment 2. Code Changes 3. Adjournment Chair King adjourned the meeting at 6:55pm REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order Chair King called the regular session to order at 7:02 pm 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Consent Agenda A. Minutes Consider acceptance of the minutes from the July 10, 2024, work session and regular meeting. Mark Henrickson motioned accept the minutes from the July 1 0, 2024, work session and regular meeting. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Garst, Henrickson, King, Routt 4. New Business A. Special Exception Permit Amendment Hold public hearing to consider the request of Salem Montessori School, Inc., property owner, to amend the existing special exception permit to allow for a second elementary educational facility on the property located at 101 Corporate Boulevard (Tax Map # 117-2-1). Chair King opened the public hearing at 7:03 p. m. Barney Horrell, Brushy Mountain Engineering, 3553 Carvins Cove Road, appeared before the Commission and presented the idea of constructing a second elementary school facility on the lot that previously received approval for one elementary school in 2011. Mr. Horrell stated that the need to move out from across the GE building to a new building was great, especially as it ages out of its useful life span. Mr. Horrell noted that the wooded lot that received approval in May of 2023 was initially slated to fulfil the need for the additional school; however, the geometry of the lot and the physical constraints of the lot prevented the owner from pursuing that plan. They did find, as shown on the concept plan submitted, that there is a location that a building would work. They went from a single-story building on the triangular lot to a two-story building on this parcel. The reason they went to a two-story building was because of topography. In reviewing the original covenants in 2011 when this was approved for a school, one of the covenants discussed keeping it as a single-family structure and limited heights and stuff like that. In this case, the two-story building will appear as a one-story building as you see it from Lynchburg Turnpike so in fact it will sit below the centerline of Lynchburg Turnpike keeping with the intent to look residential in nature. Mr. Horrell stated the intent is to use residential-sourced-style windows. There is a little front porch almost in appearance on the one side. They talked about probably bricking that side of the building, just so it looks and matches the houses across the street. They are mostly brick buildings, brick houses. So again, from Lynchburg Turnpike, it will appear as a single -story building. He also pointed out that if you look closely at that elevation, you will see a dotted line across the front of the building. That is the elevation from the center line of Lynchburg Turnpike so the building will sit below Lynchburg Turnpike by a couple of feet, so it will appear even shorter from Lynchburg Turnpike. They will be well below the height concerns of 2011. From the Corporate Boulevard side, all access would come from the Corporate Boulevard. They would not have any driveways, not any permanent driveways. There may be a construction entrance, but it would be removed. The situation they have now is that they have the school that is on this property and there is the adjoining school down below which has a much larger parking lot. They are only open during the day. The lower parking lot is a third to a half full. There’re quite a few spaces, 20 or more, that are vacant. That is because they have a lot of parents who have kids at both locations, and so they come and drop their kids off, and then they circulate out, and do not stick around all day long. They have more than adequate parking for our teachers. They do not have that much of a heavy administrative staff, and the fact that they would all be on one campus would help that even more. So, they have more than adequate parking now. They meet the code requirement as it is now, but with this additional building, they would need additional parking. They are proposing on that preliminary site plan an additional row of about 10 spaces. And then they would set up some sort of cross-parking agreement, if necessary, with the lot down below to utilize it all. It is a joint campus of sorts. They are trying to create a campus feel. So, the idea is even though there are separate lots, it is the same ownership. It would be very easy for them to grant cross-use of the parking lots. All the traffic would come in from Corporate Boulevard. The side facing the parking lot is a two-story side. They would probably not brick that entire side because of the cost. They are in a very conceptual stage right now. They have some programming done on the inside of the building for space needs. They have got that figured out. This size of building will serve their needs. He will be happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Beamer asked if there would be a breezeway between the two buildings. Mr. Horrell answered that the two buildings are not at all connected and would not be connected in any way. Right now, there is a property line between the two existing buildings. They are separate parcels. The plan would be to subdivide the upper parcel so they can separate the financing for the two buildings. The ownership would remain the same. Both parcels have a ton of frontage. With this, it is important to remember the 2011 special exception permit did have quite a few proffers in it. Mr. Horrell spoke of letters A-K pertaining to that special exception. Some of those proffers would prevent this development. For instance, proffer B stated the building should be a one story, red brick structure with white trim on a slab with a gray metal hip roof. This new proposed building will not be a single story. It would be a two-story building from the lower elevation. They would prefer to not commit to a metal roof. The lower building is an asphalt shingle roof. The second building will most likely have asphalt shingle roof making it look more residential from the street than a metal building up there. There are a couple other co venants that talk about height and color of the roof that they would like to have removed. He doesn’t know if they need to go through them itemized. he doesn’t know how a special exception permit would go. He is open to a discussion on that. With permission from the Madam Chair, Ms. Wines spoke to the purpose of the meeting which was to amend the special exception permit to allow a second building. Mr. Guynn spoke up to say the amendment would be taking off the conditions for this building. Commissioner Henrickson asked how much square footage the proposed building footprint is. Not first story or second story, but just the footprint. Mr. Horrell answered the outline of the second story is about six thousand square feet. The lower story is slightly smaller at about four thousand five hundred square feet or so. Commissioner Henrickson asked if this is two separate parcels and the Montessori School chooses to sell, can they sell this other building to another school. It was agreed that the Montessori School could sell the property. Ms. Wines explained that whatever the property is zoned you have those allowable uses within that zone without any special exceptions. The additional uses such as an educational facility needs a special permission or special permit to be allowed. But the original by right uses are still allowed. Chair King asked that if the committee were to allow the property to be subdivided, then whatever is decided in this meeting would cover the entire property. Ms. Wines stated that even if they subdivided after the approval, the special exception is attached to both parcels. Chair King inquired for the record if any comments, phone calls, or emails had been received from anyone with regards to this item. Ms. Wines answered stating that Mr. Dillon did receive one phone call. The caller left a message. Max left a message with her expla ining the item, but they never heard anything back. Commissioner Henrickson asked about the façade matching. He understood standing seam metal roof is very expensive, but the concern would be the complimentary façade. Is there any brick figured on this o r is it to early? Mr. Horrell answered that it is not to early. John Fulton, who did the lower building design will be the architect for this project. The architect who did the upper building is no longer practicing. The upper building, which is the same building on this parcel is entirely brick façade with the standing seam roof. The lower building is brick on the two wings, the center corridor is white siding, giving it a color element. This building would be brick facing Lynchburg Turnpike. Again, because they want it to look that way from Lynchburg Turnpike, residential. On the lower side they have not decided exactly what they are doing, but he is envisioning some white siding on that lower side. It is two story and to run brick two stories is quite expensive. Chair King inquired if the overall design is to make all three buildings look like a campus. Mr. Horrell responded affirmatively. The same brick color will be used as the first two and then take the white siding used down below or something similar on this new building. We have the asphalt shingles down below; they will probably use those up above. We will use the same things again. Commissioner Routt asked if the siding would be vinyl or fiber cement? Mr. Horrell answered that he did not remember. Commissioner Henrickson noted that he is happy with what the school has done with the property. He feels that they have been very good for the City of Salem and a good neighbor and not disruptive in any means. He does have a concern of Lynchburg Turnpike, and they discussed it in the work session. And even where the school is now, he feels that there is some vulnerability of a vehicle going through the fence. Mr. Henrickson asked Chuck Van Allman to explain what could be done to help prevent this from happening. Mr. Van Allman noted that guardrails are typically used to prevent cars from exiting their lane as opposed to protecting things outside of the guardrails. But they can have that discussion. They can look at it and see what other alternatives or methods might be available to ensure safety. Commissioner Henrickson stated that his concern is the safety through there. They do not want to have a vehicle go through there. Any precaution that can be placed to make it safer through there would be en couraged. Mr. Van Allman suggested using something like curbs. He thinks curb is enough to act as a safety measure. Mr. Horrell stated that there will be a part of the site plan review that is a heavy landscaping requirement along the frontage, and that is a frontage. So that would be an installation of quite a few new plantings and stuff. Vice Chair Garst stated that if they recommend approval, that it would not be appropriate as a condition. Commissioner Henrickson noted no. He just wanted to make that as a comment. Just as a comment to be on record. Commissioner Routt asked what other conditions do they need to look at? Considering this special exception permit, so if it passed, it would go through without any conditions from the previous. Ms. W ines explained that you would have to remove the current conditions. That would be part of the motion. You could remove the current conditions and add any other conditions you felt appropriate. And the Commission can discuss that after the public hearing in case there is anybody else that would like to talk. It might bring up another item for discussion. Mr. Horrell stated that he was prepared to go through the conditions on the previous one if the commission feels that’s a better way than doing it itemized wise. Mr. Horrell began. What he cited was the deed of purchase from the city to the Montessori School. He cited instrument 11-0001303 page 3. The convenances of tract 1 and 2 is expressly subject to the following reservations, and covenants shall run with the land as follows. A. Tract 2 will not be developed in any manner whatsoever without amendment to the Special Exception approved by Salem City Council on February 28, 2011, and shall be kept wooded and the existing trees shall be fully preserved possible. B. The building on Tract 1 shall be a one-story, red brick structure, with white trim, on a slab, with a grey metal hip roof. C. All traffic to and from the building on Tract 1 shall be oriented onto Corporate Drive and away from Lynchburg Turnpike. D. The color of the roof on Tract 1 of the building shall be grey/slate and shall be a metal seamed roof with no corrugated metal. E. The building on Tract 1 shall be between 19 and 25 feet in height. F. The existing trees and landscaping on Lynchburg Turnpike on Tract 2 shall be maintained and preserved. G. The boundary line between Tract 1 and 1208 Lynchburg Turnpike shall be fully landscaped. H. The only lighting on Tract 1 shall be after-dark security lighting. I. The exterior air conditioning units on Tract 1 shall be screened in an enclosure and landscaping will be placed around such units. J. Any fencing on Tract 1 shall be solid cedar or black wrought iron type fence. K. All electric utilities on Tract 1 shall be buried. Tract 2, which is the triangle tract, the wooded triangular tract with no building on it. That covenant was removed when they came before you before when they were going to develop that triangular lot. The city removed that requirement. Covenant B, the building on tract one shall be a one-story red brick structure with white trim on a slab with a gray metal hip roof. That is the existing structure that is there, and it does comply with those requirements. Again, this Covenant B, they’re asking to be stricken because the new building will not be single-story. All traffic to and from the building on tract 1 shall be oriented onto Corporate Drive and away from Lynchburg Turnpike. That is currently the situation and will be the situation going forward. Covenant C can remain. Covenant D, the color of the roof on tract 1 of the building shall be gray slash slate and shall be a metal seamed roof with no corrugated metal okay so standing scenes what they used on the first building again they’re asking that you strike covenant D to allow us some flexibility and roofing materials for cost reasons. Covenant E reads the building on tract 1 shall be between 19 and 25 feet in height it’s lower than the street. He would ask that covenant be stricken as well. With a two-story building, if you measured it from the lower parking lot side, they would exceed those 25 feet in height. Commissioner Beamer asked by how much. Mr. Horrell answered he does not know exactly. It is a two-story building with a sloped roof on top of it. So, it depends on where it is measured. If you measure it from the Lynchburg Turnpike side, then they would probably be close to that twenty-five. Commissioner Routt questioned elevation wise, peak of roof to peak of roof, how much variance do you think there is. Mr. Horrell explained in looking at the rough grading, the first floor of this proposed building would be close to the floor of the existing building. The topography on that site goes up quite a bit to Lynchburg Turnpike. That second story would be considerably higher than your existing building. But if you were to go out there, you’ll see this bank of dirt that rises with it. They plan on rising with the ground level. Again, the elevation from Lynchburg Turnpike shows that dash line of the road going across the front of the building. It will not appear that tall from Lynchburg Turnpike. Commissioner Routt inquired as far as the difference of the peak of the roofs, what do you think that would be- a guesstimate. Mr. Horrell guesstimated they are probably going to have twelve to fourteen feet between floors. Commissioner Routt responded that the new building would be twelve to fourteen feet higher than the peak of the roof? Mr. Horrell stated the peak of the roof, yes. Mr. Horrell continued with Covenant F, the existing trees and landscaping on Lynchburg Turnpike on Tract 2 shall be maintained and preserved. He believes there’s a typo in that because Tract 2 is the triangular lot that doesn’t face on Lynchburg Turnpike. It’s down on Corporate. So, he believes it’s a typo. he believes there was reference there from memory, the neighbors across the street, again, were wanting to preserve some of those nice, large trees that were along Lynchburg Turnpike, and they have done so. There are some trees that sit a little further off Lynchburg Turnpike. There was an old caretaker house on that parcel where they were going to be now. he says little. Some smaller trees, they’re not the big grand oaks that you’re thinking of that would probably be killed during the grading process so he guesses they would ask that Covenant F be stricken they have no intent to cut down the great big oak trees that are there. Covenant G the boundary line between Tract 1 and 1208 Lynchburg Turnpike shall be fully landscaped this is the property line to the east. It’s between their playground area and the neighbor to the east, Mr. Mullins. At that time, Mr. Mullins was an opponent to this development. He has since become a wonderful neighbor of theirs, and they have a very good relationship with him. They did fully landscape between there with some evergreen trees, so they did comply with that one, no issue there. Covenant H, the only lighting on Tract 1 shall be after dark security lighting. No issue with that. Covenant I, the exterior air condition units on Tract 1 shall be screened in an enclosure and landscaping will be place around such units. Again, there was concern that the residents across the street would be looking at AC units, and they did not want to see that. Vice-Chair Garst stated that there will obviously be new HVAC since it is a new building. Mr. Horrell explained they have new HVAC and the landscaping requirements that are significant. That entire area will be landscaped heavily. he doesn’t see an issue there. He stated that it is almost redundant to have in here again because of the landscaping code. Item J any fencing on Tract 1 shall be of solid cedar or black wrought iron type fencing. That is the type of fencing that they have went to great expense to put in and intend to continue to do so. Vice-Chair Garst asked if the fencing was marked in the drawings. Mr. Horrell answered he did not believe there was any fencing shown. Then corrected by stating on the two-story elevation, there is fencing on either side. That is more of a handrail. There is some retaining wall there. Vice-Chair Garst inquired if the plan was to put fencing up along the retaining wall. Mr. Horrell answered yes. It would be black iron. Vice-Chair Garst stated it would then conform to item J. Mr. Horrell agreed stating that Item J was more concerning perimeter fencing that right against the door. They did not want ugly fencing up along Lynchburg Turnpike. Item K is the last one. It reads all electric utilities on Tract 1 shall be buried. That is standard and they will do so again. Obviously, it is your discretion. We are asking that Covenants B, D, E, and F are stricken, and they feel like Item I, about the air conditioning unit screening is sort redundant. Item A is also null and void at this point. Item D, the color of the roof shall be metal seam roof. We ask that D be stricken. We do not want a metal roof. E is about the height of the building. We ask that be stricken. Commissioner Henrickson asked if Item E could be amended. Mr. Horrell stated the only hesitation they would have, is they do not know the exact height of the building to give the committee right now. Commissioner Henrickson questioned if the committee could put a “not to exceed” in the conditions. That Mr. Horrell stated that it is probably fourteen to fifteen, and the building span is less, so the pitch will be less. He would like to see something in there that says it will not exceed twenty feet above the peak of the other building. Mr. Horrell wanted clarification asked twenty feet beyond the peak of the other Building? Commissioner Henrickson responded twenty. Mr. Horrell laughing said fair enough 20 feet. Mr. Horrell verified with the owner and agreed Commissioner Beamer wanted clarification of which covenants would have the changes or be null and void. Mr. Horrell stated that it may be easier to just read the ones you want to keep. Chair King asked if there was anyone else here to speak on this matter. No response was made. Chair King closed the public hearing at 7:32pm Chair King asked if there were comments from commissioners or if there was a motion. Commissioner Beamer questioned Mr. Horrell on the expected time this is to start and how long do you expect it to take. Mr. Horrell answered the intent is he encouraged the owner to wait and to make sure they got through this public hearing process and then the design will start right away so one of the things they are running into is that the existing facility they’re in is aging out quickly, so they are under pressure internally to get it done as soon as possible quick as they can. Hopefully breaking ground next year will be the goal. Chair King asked the commissioners if they wanted to ask anything else or call for a motion. Vice-Chair Garst made the motion that would recommend approval of the request of Salem Montessori School, Inc., property owner, amending the existing special exception permit by striking conditions A through G, maintaining H. I. J. K, and adding the condition that the height not exceed 20 feet over the exis ting building that will allow for a second elementary educational facility on the property located at 101 Corporate Boulevard (Tax Map # 117 - 2 - 1) Commissioner Routt seconded the motion. Chair King called for role. Mr. Routt, aye; Mr. Henrickson, aye; Mr. Beamer, aye; Mr. Garst, aye; Chair King, aye. Chair King states the motion passed. She noted the item will go to city council, and you the applicant be notified. She asked if Ms. Wines, will be the one notifying them a to when it’s set on council’s agenda. Ms. Wines stated that the clerk’s office will notify them. Chair King asked if there was anything else. Rob stated that just for the benefit of the applicant , regarding issues such as this, typically, there would be a council meeting in between so they’re looking at the first meeting being in September. The clerk’s office will communicate with the applicant as soon as possible. 5. Adjournment On motion made, seconded, and all approved Chair King adjourned the meeting a 7:35pm. Item # 6B Date: 09/09/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: September 9, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Consider rescheduling the October 15, 2024, Regular Meeting of City Council to October 7, 2024.. SUBMITTED BY: Chris Dorsey, City Manager SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends rescheduling the October 15, 2024, Regular Meeting of City Council to October 7, 2024 and posting this resolution in the Salem Times-Register as required by Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, September 9, 2024: RESOLUTION 1482 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Salem wishes to change the date of a regular Council meeting; and WHEREAS, section 15.2-1416 requires such change be made by resolution of the local governing body; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that Salem City Council’s regular October 15, 2024 meeting is changed to October 7, 2024 at 6:30 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia. Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows: H. Hunter Holliday - William D. Jones - Byron Randolph Foley - James W. Wallace, III - Reneé F. Turk - ATTEST: ________________________________________ H. Robert Light Clerk of Council City of Salem, Virginia Item # 6C Date: 09/09/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: September 9, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Consider setting date for a public hearing in accordance with Section 22.1-29.1 of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, regarding the expiration of term for Nancy Bradley and Teresa Sizemore-Hernandez. SUBMITTED BY: Chris Dorsey, City Manager SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The current term for School Board members Nancy Bradley and Teresa Sizemore-Hernandez expire on December 31, 2024. Per the Code of Virginia, Council must hold a public hearing to receive the views of citizens within the school division at least seven days prior to any appointment. No nominee or applicant whose name has not been considered at a public hearing shall be appointed as a School Board member. Pending Council direction to set the public hearing date for the October 7, 2024 regular City Council meeting (or an alternate meeting date if Council elects), the City will provide public notice of this date and request interested applicants submit a letter of interest and resume to the office of the Clerk of Council for consideration and naming at the public hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council set a public hearing on the appointment of school board members for October 7, 2024 during the regular Council meeting, provide public notice, and accept letters of interest and resumes from interested applicants for naming at this public hearing. Code of Virginia Title 22.1. Education Chapter 5. School Boards; Selection, Qualification and Salaries of Members Article 1. General Provisions § 22.1-29.1. Public hearing before appointment of school boardmembers At least seven days prior to the appointment of any school board member pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, of §§ 15.2-410, 15.2-531, 15.2-627 or § 15.2-837, or of any municipal charter, the appointing authority shall hold one or more public hearings to receive the views of citizens within the school division. The appointing authority shall cause public notice to be given at least seven days prior to any hearing by publication in a newspaper having a general circulation within the school division. No nominee or applicant whose name has not been considered at a public hearing shall be appointed as a school board member. 1985, c. 423; 1987, c. 430; 2023, cc. 506, 507. The chapters of the acts of assembly referenced in the historical citation at the end of this section(s) may not constitute a comprehensive list of such chapters and may exclude chapters whose provisions have expired. 1 8/3/2023 12:00:00 AM Item #6D Date: 9/09/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT SALEM CITY HALL MEETING DATE: September 9, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Request to amend the School Operating Fund and School Capital Projects Fund budgets as approved by the School Board on August 13, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The School Operating Fund and School Capital Projects Fund budgets were amended for fiscal year 2023-2024 by the School Board at their meeting on August 13, 2024. The Board amended the Operating Fund budget to increase revenues and expenditures by $3,400,000 and the Capital Projects Fund to increase revenues and expenditures by $6,000. The attached memo details the appropriation changes. FISCAL IMPACT: Appropriation changes totaling $3,400,000 and $6,000 to be made to the School Operating and Capital Projects Funds, respectively. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve the School Board’s appropriation changes of $3,400,000 to the School Operating Fund and $6,000 to the School Capital Projects Fund, per the attached report. H:\Board Reports\Budget Adjustments for Contingency Use, Parking Contribution, and Increased Appropriation Due to Online School 08132024.doc Salem City Schools Budget Amendments Fiscal Year (FY) 23-24 August 13, 2024 Summary of Issue: Presented for your consideration are amendments to the 2023-24 School Operating Fund budget, as well as the School Capital Projects Fund budget. Amendments are required for a variety of reasons. When the Board adopts the budget, it is based on known facts and assumptions made throughout the budget process. Over time, these assumptions change; demands may be made by parents and/or students, state mandates previously unknown may come in to play, student enrollment may change, and even the Board itself may place additional requirements on school finances. The School General Fund remains in a positive financial position. When the FY 24 budget was formed in March of 2023, the decision about having an online school program, under Salem’s administration, wasn’t finalized. Because of this, the FY 24 budget does not include any revenue or expenditure budgets for this program. W e received revenue and incurred expenditures for the program that need to be accounted for in the year we are about to close out. The K12 online school provider, STRIDE, contributed to the increase in State revenue, calculated by students enrolled in the program. There were 603 students enrolled and the State revenue amount we will receive per student is approximately $7,012, for a total increase in revenue of roughly $4,200,000. The cost that STRIDE charged the division for educating these students was $6,201 per student (minus an oversight fee) for an increase in expenditures of $3,536,722. There were also costs associated with Special Education students of $209,779, and costs for students in the online school Alternative Program of $30,800, for a total cost for the online school program of $3,777,301. While the addition of the online school program increase d revenue based on the increase in student count, our in-person student enrollment did not meet our budgeted target of 3,600, thus reducing the amount of revenue in these same accounts. Our enrollment at the time of reporting to the state in September (3,554) and March (3,536) were lower than anticipated and reduced the revenue we received for the school year by approximately $800,000. The net of these 2 things, result in an increase of revenue for Salem of $3,400,000. This budget adjustment will also account for state categories tha t are overspent, where instruction and technology are both showing as having more expenditures than budgeted (which correlates to the costs associ ated with the STRIDE program). The School Capital Project Fund remains in a positive financial position. Salem High School collects parking fees from students who desire to have a H:\Board Reports\Budget Adjustments for Contingency Use, Parking Contribution, and Increased Appropriation Due to Online School 08132024.doc parking space at the school. Those funds are collected to be put toward parking lot improvements, as needed, as well as used for the cost of parking pass decals and a few student body needs. We encourage the school to hold most of this funding back to assist with larger costly parking lot improvement projects, and we had such improvements this sum mer where their parking lots were repaired. We asked the school to provide a contribution from their parking fee account of $6,000 to assist with this project. That revenue is seen as a contribution in the capital project fund and does not have a budget , since it wasn’t in the original planning of what projects we would be doing in the summer of 2024. This adjustment will provide that budget for the revenue contribution account, as well for the parking lot improvement expenditure account. Policy Reference: DA-BR Budget Transfers Fiscal Impact: The budget adjustments in the School General Fund increase the overall budget by $3,400,000 (Attachment A). The budget adjustments in the School Capital Projects Fund increase the overall budget by $6,000 (Attachment B). Recommended Action: Move approval of the budget amendments in the School General Fund and School Capital Projects Fund as presented, and recommend that City Council approve the same. Salem City Schools Summary of Expenditure Budget/Actuals By State Category FY 2024 Clean-Up Attachment A 2024 Amended Budget 2024 Actual Amount Difference Adjustment Needed Budget After Adjustment Difference 61000 Instruction $43,814,461.00 $44,898,413.97 ($1,083,952.97)$3,180,000.00 $46,994,461.00 $2,096,047.03 62000 Admin, Attend, Health $4,412,604.00 $4,308,181.43 $104,422.57 $4,412,604.00 $104,422.57 63000 Pupil Transportation $2,472,504.00 $2,225,381.30 $247,122.70 $2,472,504.00 $247,122.70 64000 Operations & Maintenance $4,943,008.00 $4,699,187.41 $243,820.59 $4,943,008.00 $243,820.59 65000 Food Services $2,427,002.00 $2,236,824.23 $190,177.77 $2,427,002.00 $190,177.77 67000 Debt Service & Fund Transfers $1,059,948.00 $994,948.00 $65,000.00 $1,059,948.00 $65,000.00 68000 Technology $2,384,123.00 $2,603,183.46 ($219,060.46)$220,000.00 $2,604,123.00 $939.54 $61,513,650.00 $61,966,119.80 ($452,469.80)$3,400,000.00 $61,513,650.00 $123,027,300.00 $0.00 Revenue: Amended Budget YTD Transactions Budget - YTD Transactions Budget Increase Budget Decrease Final Budget 30-110-00-00-9-000-61006 $12,533,777 $14,737,387.00 ($2,203,610.00)$2,200,000.00 $14,733,777.00 30-110-00-00-9-000-61015 $1,372,609 $1,600,992.00 ($228,383.00)$230,000.00 $1,602,609.00 30-110-00-00-9-000-61050 $1,664,986 $1,942,016.00 ($277,030.00)$278,000.00 $1,942,986.00 30-110-00-00-9-000-61053 $714,203 $833,037.00 ($118,834.00)$120,000.00 $834,203.00 30-110-00-00-9-000-61113 $1,832,735 $2,135,956.00 ($303,221.00)$305,000.00 $2,137,735.00 30-110-00-00-9-000-61330 $402,768 $745,307.00 ($342,539.00)$127,000.00 $529,768.00 30-110-00-00-9-000-61369 $918,350 $1,054,103.00 ($135,753.00)$140,000.00 $1,058,350.00 $19,439,428.00 $23,048,798.00 ($3,609,370.00)$3,400,000.00 $0.00 $22,839,428.00 Expenditures: 30-110-61-10-2-110-73037 $0 $2,173,315.70 ($2,173,315.70)$1,796,014.29 $1,796,014.29 30-110-68-21-9-800-71141 $591,163 $714,179.22 ($123,016.22)$125,000.00 $716,163.00 30-111-68-10-9-800-78050 $90,750 $228,013.00 ($137,263.00)$95,000.00 $185,750.00 30-110-61-10-3-110-73037 $7,500 $524,048.74 ($516,548.74)$524,048.74 $531,548.74 30-110-61-10-4-110-73037 $0 $870,157.60 ($870,157.60)$650,157.60 $650,157.60 30-110-61-10-2-120-73037 $23,000 $151,151.69 ($128,151.69)$128,909.42 $151,909.42 30-110-61-10-3-120-73037 $0 $30,397.03 ($30,397.03)$30,397.03 $30,397.03 30-110-61-10-4-120-73037 $0 $50,472.92 ($50,472.92)$50,472.92 $50,472.92 $712,413 $4,741,736 ($4,029,323)$3,400,000 $0 $4,112,413 Net Totals $3,400,000.00 $0.00 Journal Entry to Finance FY 2024 Final Budget by State Category Adjustments Adjustment Needed Contractual Services - Other Compensation - Technical Support Technology Addtl VPSA Eligible Contractual Services - Other Basic Aid Supplemental Lottery Per Pupil Special Education VRS Teacher Retirement FICA Reimbursement Compensation Supplement At Risk Contractual Services - Other Contractual Services - Other Contractual Services - Other Contractual Services - Other To set up budget for new revenues received in FY 24 Account Code Description Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount School Capital Projects Fund: 34-180-0200-63007 Transfer from School Activity Fund 6,000$ SCP 8151 34-180-0205-78151 Sealing/Striping/Paving Parking Lots 6,000$ SCP 8151 6,000$ 6,000$ Salem City Schools Budget Adjustments 8/13/2024 Attachment B Item # 6E Date: 9/09/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: September 9, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Consider setting bond for erosion and sediment control for the Allman E&S Plan SUBMITTED BY: Chuck Van Allman, Director of Community Development SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The City Engineer’s office has reviewed the estimate for erosion and sediment control for the Allman E&S Plan located at 2640 Franklin Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the project be bonded in the amount of $6,292.00 for a time frame for completion set at twelve (12) months. Item # 6F Date: 9/09/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: September 9, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Consider setting bond for erosion and sediment control and landscaping for Savory Ventures Salem Plan SUBMITTED BY: Chuck Van Allman, Director of Community Development SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The City Engineer’s office has reviewed the estimate for erosion and sediment control and landscaping for the Savory Ventures Salem Plan located at 600 W. 4th Blk.. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the project be bonded in the amount of $4,125.00 for a time frame for completion set at twelve (12) months. Item #6G Date: 9/09/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: September 9, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Request to Appropriate Fund Balance to Replenish Contingency SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Additional funding was needed to complete projects at Salem Memorial Park including replacement of netting and wall pads. Funding of $217,698 was transferred from Contingency in order to fund these projects and allow work to proceed. To replenish the amount budgeted in Contingency, $217,698 needs to be appropriated from General Fund fund balance. FISCAL IMPACT: Appropriating fund balance to replenish the Contingency budget ensures adequate funds are available if needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriating $217,698 to the Designation of Beginning Fund Balance, account 10-012-0100-40200, and the increasing the budget in the Contingency account, 10-012-9110-59500 by $217,698. Budget Entry Date GL Account Account Name Increase/ (Decrease)Description 9/9/2024 10-012-0100-40200 Designation Of Beginning Fund Balance 217,698 Appropriate fund balance per 9/9 Council action 9/9/2024 10-012-9110-59500 Contingency 217,698 Appropriate fund balance per 9/9 Council action Item # 6H Date: 09/09/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: September 9, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Consider the addition of Tuesday, December 24, 2024, as a City holiday for employees and closing City offices. SUBMITTED BY: Chris Dorsey, City Manager SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Consider the addition of Tuesday, December 24, 2024, as a City holiday for employees and closing City offices. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council consider granting Tuesday, December 24, 2024 as a City holiday for employees and closing City offices.