The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6/24/2024 - City Council - Agenda -Regular City Counci l Meeting AGENDA Monday, June 24, 2024, 6:30 P M 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 W O RK SESSIO N IS CANC EL LE D FO R J U NE 24, 20 24 RE GU L AR SE S SI ON 1.C all to Order 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3.Bid Openings, Awards, Recognitions 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 J une 10, 2024, Regular Meeting minutes. 5.Old Business A.Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance C onsider adoption of ordinance on second reading for the request of Virginia Baptist C hildren's Home (dba HopeTree Family Services), property owner, for rezoning the properties located at 1000 block Red Ln and a portion of 860 Mount Vernon Lane (Tax Map #'s 41-1-1, 41-1-2, 41- 1-3, 41-1-4, 41-1-5, 41-1-6, and a portion of 44-3-10) from RSF Residential Single Family to PUD Planned Unit District. The public hearing was held at the May 13, 2024, meeting. The ordinance was ado pted on first reading at the June 10, 2024, meeting. 6.New Business A.Special Exception P ermit Hold public hearing to consider the request of J BN Investments, LLC, property owner, for the issuance of a special exception permit to allow for the conversion of a single family dwelling to a two family dwelling on the property located at 324 Pennsylvania Avenue (Tax Map # 120 – 6 - 3). (Advertised in the J une 13 and J une 20, 2024, issues of the Salem Times-Register). (Planning Commission recommended denial; see page 4-8 of Planning C ommission minutes.) STAFF REPORT B.Regional F ire Training Agreement C onsider authorizing the C ity Manager to finalize and execute an intergovernmental agreement for the operation of the Regional Fire Training C enter. C .Miscellaneous F ees - Resolution 1474 C onsider the adoption of Resolution 1474 which rescinds Resolution 1472 adopted on J une 10, 2024, and provides corrections to the Miscellaneous Fees for 2024-2025. 7.C losed Session A.Closed Session Hold a closed session in accordance with Section 2.2-3711 A (1) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, to discuss a personnel matter pertaining to School Board appointments. 8.Adjournment City Council Meeting MINUTES Monday, June 10, 2024, 6:30 PM Regular Session 6:30 P.M. Community Room, Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, Virginia 24153 WORK SESSION WORK SESSION IS CANCELLED FOR JUNE 10, 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; Mike Stevens, Director of Communications; and Chris Dadak, on behalf of City Attorney, Jim Guynn. 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. John Breen, 142 Bogey Lane, expressed disappointment and concern at recent budget and property tax decisions. He expressed concern with the budget process. Mr. Breen expressed that he felt there was a lack of opportunity for citizen participation through public question and answer dialogues. He also expressed concern with Salem's Zoning Code and code enforcement. Council was requested Item #4B Date: 6/24/2024 to timely respond to the following three questions: 1) Why are citizens prohibited from asking Council public questions and receiving public answers; 2) Will Council provide a venue where citizens may ask and receive answers; and 3) What is Council's plan to address and measure success in evading blight and eyesores? Councilman Foley noted that Mr. Breen had spoken before Council about forty times, that he was not a registered voter in the City of Salem, and to his knowledge did not pay taxes in his personal name in Salem. Douglas Griggs, 2734 Gardner Drive, articulated concern for whether the budget included funds to handle a large amount of snow if that were to occur in the next few years. Mayor Turk noted that she had confidence that the City would be ready. Councilman Jones added that this was a line item in the budget and that there were also contingency funds. Lisa Miller, 405 Apperson Drive, shared with Council a recap of the April 9, 2024, Public Comprehensive Plan Meeting, which focused on housing, and a follow-up meeting on April 10, 2024. She expressed concern for the impact on the decision- making process of citizen comments and petitions. Donna Crotts, 307 N. Broad Street, respectfully asked that Council vote no to the Hope Tree rezoning if they had any reasonable doubt. She expressed that she felt this was not an appropriate location for this development. She also noted concerns with the traffic studies, about the boundaries and protection of the cemetery on the property in the future, and or the impact on the tax base and revenue for the City of Salem. Ms. Crotts shared the results of an informal survey of homes on surrounding streets by Mr. Holliday. She asked why there had only been one public hearing and asked that Council vote no to this rezoning if they had any doubts. Whitney Leeson, 212 N. Broad Street, shared information that she had researched on Planned Unit Developments. She shared both positive and negative aspects and examples of this type of development. Ms. Leeson noted that it had been difficult to determine any normative date; however, she shared comparisons of a number of PUDs in the United States and specifically compared density levels, expressing concern with the proposed density level for the Hope Tree project. B.Minutes Consider acceptance of the May 23, 2024, Special Meeting Work Session and the May 28, 2024, Regular Meeting minutes. The minutes were approved as written. 5.Old Business A.Budget Adoption Ordinance Consider ordinance on second reading adopting the budget for 2024-2025 fiscal year. William Jones motioned to adopt on second reading the 2024-2025 fiscal year budget adoption ordinance. Randy Foley seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace B.Budget Appropriation Ordinance Consider ordinance on second reading appropriating funds for the 2024-2025 fiscal year budget. Randy Foley motioned to adopt on second reading the Ordinance to appropriate funds for the fiscal year 2024-2025 budget. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace 6.New Business A.Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Consider adoption of ordinance on first reading for the request of Virginia Baptist Children's Home (dba HopeTree Family Services), property owner, for rezoning the properties located at 1000 block Red Ln and a portion of 860 Mount Vernon Lane (Tax Map #'s 41-1-1, 41-1-2, 41- 1-3, 41-1-4, 41-1-5, 41-1- 6, and a portion of 44-3-10) from RSF Residential Single Family to PUD Planned Unit District. The public hearing was held at the May 13, 2024, meeting. Mayor Turk asked if there was any further information from Hope Tree before moving forward. Jon Morris, President/CEO of HopeTree Family Services, noted that there was no further presentation this evening and thanked Council and City staff for their time during this process. He also thanked the citizens for their involvement and said that they were happy to answer any further questions. Mayor Turk asked if there was any knowledge of cemeteries on the property. Mr. Morris responded that, to the best of their knowledge, there was one cemetery in the horse pasture and that it was marked with a gravestone. To their knowledge, there were no other cemetery locations on their property. Councilman Jones commented that they had heard a lot about density and asked that someone speak to that topic. Mr. Morris responded that he would let Mr. Robertson speak to that. Todd Robertson, President of Stateson Homes, shared that there was a total of 62 acres on the property and this has been limited to about 32 because 30 acres is dedicated to open space. He explained that if you look at the total density, 340 total units, which includes the accessory dwelling units scattered over 62 acres, this would be not quite six units per acre. Mayor Turk asked to clarify if they are speaking of not necessarily individual homes, but buildings with front doors or units that will not go above a limit of 340. Mr. Robertson affirmed that this was correct. He gave as an example that one of the existing buildings would lay out nicely as four condos or four apartments and this would count as four units or four homes. Councilman Holliday asked if it was correct that 32 acres out of the total of 62 acres would be developed. Mr. Robertson responded that it was roughly that or about half of it. Councilman Holliday asked if he were saying that he was counting the 62 acres as space, but the actual 340 units themselves would be located on 32 acres. Mr. Robertson confirmed that this was correct and that this was typically how it was done as they worked hard to preserve large areas of open space. Some of the trade- off is that there would be a higher density so that they would be preserving the lake area, the trails, and some of the beautiful old trees that form the campus of HopeTree. Mayor Turk asked to confirm if she had heard correctly that they would be developing in phases and that 20% would be built residential first. Mr. Robertson responded that the land would definitely be built in phases and that some portions of the property were more difficult to develop than others. He indicated that he was unsure about the 20% figure. He added that you could even say 50% would be residential other than a couple of small items such as the grocery and coffee shop that had been discussed. He also noted that they would like to have that fairly early to attract people. Mayor Turk asked if all of the commercial development would be located in the core area in the center campus as opposed to being on the perimeter of the campus and that those areas would be residential. Mr. Robertson confirmed that this was correct. He explained that some of the feedback that had been received in Work Sessions in regards to the T1 up through T5 units, with T5 being the highest density that also allowed some commercial space had been really scaled back so that it was only around the existing center part of the campus. Mayor Turk asked to clarify if the last area that would probably be developed was the horse pastures that hit on the front area of Carrollton. Mr. Robertson responded that there were two portions or two blocks that he would consider part of the horse pasture and that both of them were fairly steep. The one down in the bottom as you first enter HopeTree would be the easiest to develop at some point in time but that the agreement with HopeTree was to develop everything else on the main campus side first and that would be years down the road if it were feasible. Mayor Turk asked Mr. Van Allman if anything else had changed or if there was anything else that they needed to be aware of. Mr. Van Allman responded that there was no new information to provide at this time. Mayor Turk asked City Manager Dorsey if there was any other information that Council needed to be aware of before this was put to a vote. Mr. Dorsey responded that there was no new information and noted that a synopsis of all changes that had been made since the submission by the applicant had been shared at the public hearing. He added that fourteen items had been discussed at the public hearing. Councilman Foley remarked that he felt he was the person on Council whose family was most directly impacted. He shared that he and his wife, his sister-in-law and brother-in-law and their three children, his daughter and son-in-law and two grandsons, and his in-laws all live in that vicinity. He noted that he still felt this was the highest and best use for this property to rezone it to a PUD. Mayor Turk paused to ask the audience to have respect and allow them to continue. Councilman Jones noted that this would impact his family as well but that he did not make decisions based on what was best for him. He added that as a Council they had to look at situations for the whole City of Salem and over time. Mr. Jones also explained that this would not happen overnight and would most likely take ten to fifteen years. He felt that with the steps that were being taken this was the best use for this property. Councilman Holliday noted that tonight a difficult decision was being made and that this had been going on for months. He emphasized that the services provided by HopeTree Family Services were very needed in the Salem area as well as the Roanoke Valley. He shared that he has lived all over the United States and in various foreign countries during his military service and that he had seen PUDs in many states close to major roadways, public transportation, and major employment centers. He had not seen a PUD with dense housing in the middle of a historic residential neighborhood less than a mile from City center. He spoke of unique qualities of Salem that foster pride in Salem and that he took representing the citizens of Salem very seriously. He noted that he had been very diligent in coming to a decision on whether to support this rezoning and that he had met with Jon Morris, with the developers, and had visited PUDs developed by Stateson and Snyder-Hunt. He did not feel that this situation was comparable to those. Mr. Holliday also shared that he had listened to the concerns of many residents in North Salem, and he noted the number of vacant office buildings on Main Street in Salem from East Lakeside to Beverly Heights. He also made note of a survey that he had done in the neighborhood that would be most affected and noted that 4% of the survey respondents were for the rezoning, 88% were against, and 8% were undecided. He noted that he felt it was his job to represent the people that would be most impacted by what would happen in the next few years and that his decision was to vote against this rezoning request. Mayor Turk noted that she had been weighing the pros and cons of the HopeTree request for the past nine months as well as all of the available information and that Council would make a decision that was in the best interest of the majority of the current and future citizens of the City of Salem, not for her personally. She added that she appreciated the work, passion, and input from all of the citizens on both sides of the issue. She noted all of the actions that she had taken during the past 10 months to educate herself and work on this request. This included many meetings with HopeTree, developers, Community Development, City staff, and with citizens. Mayor Turk shared that she had considered how she would feel if this were happening near her property and noted a situation that she had faced in her own neighborhood and that she had voted for a rezoning because it was in the best interest of the City. She noted current needs of the City including shrinking population, decreasing school population, need for increased revenue to meet rising expenses, housing needs, and the need for greenspace. Mayor Turk reiterated the concerns that have been raised by HopeTree area citizens over the past months and emphasized that Council has heard the citizens and that many revisions have been made to the original submission. She reviewed the facts and needs of HopeTree's situation and noted that she had done everything that she could to separate fact from opinion for everyone involved. She also shared opinions on the situation and City facts in relation to this proposal including traffic and how this would impact housing, stormwater, and schools. Mayor Turk noted that every Director on City staff whose department would be impacted by this development had been consulted. She addressed specifically many of the neighbor's concerns. Mayor Turk ended by summarizing some of the benefits that would be provided by this rezoning. She indicated that in looking at Salem as a whole, the PUD would address more concerns more efficiently than staying with residential single family. Mayor Turk asked if there were any further comments from Council. There were none, and Mayor Turk called for a vote. Randy Foley motioned to adopt on first reading the ordinance for the request of Virginia Baptist Children's Home (dba HopeTree Family Services), property owner, for rezoning the properties located at 1000 block Red Ln and a portion of 860 Mount Vernon Lane (Tax Map #'s 41-1-1, 41-1-2, 41-1-3, 41-1-4, 41-1-5, 41-1-6, and a portion of 44-3-10) from RSF Residential Single Family to PUD Planned Unit District. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Jones, Turk Nays: Holliday, Wallace B. Approval of Electric Rates Consider adoption of Resolution 1473 amending the Electric Rate Tariffs. Audit - Finance Committee Vice-Mayor Wallace noted that the City conducted a rate study for electric rates utilizing the firm GDS Associates, Inc.. The electric rate tariffs have been updated based on the report received from GDS Associates. He requested that Ms. Jordan share a brief summary of the report from GDS. Ms. Jordan explained that with the cost that the City is incurring currently for mainly purchase power and the transmission cost, it was obvious that a slight increase or adjustment needed to be made to the rates. What GDS was asked to look at was to incorporate the current rates and roll the power cost adjustment into and see what adjustment was needed. The study found that a small increase is necessary. She shared that for a residential customer this would depend on usage. The higher the usage, the lower the percentage and the lower the usage, the higher the percentage increase. She shared that this would mean a 4 1/2 to 5% increase on residential. In looking at some of our small general service, this would also be a 4 1/2 to 5% increase. For medium general services, there would be anywhere from a 4 1/2 down to a 1 1/2% depending on usage. The proposed rates are ready to take effect with billing beginning on or after July 1st. She added that for large services this would really depend on usage. She noted that this was a small adjustment that was necessary at this time in order to get the rates needed to cover the cost of purchase power and transmission, which is a very large percentage of the City's budget. Councilman Foley shared that Cardinal News reported that the regulators for the Central Virginia Electric Cooperative had approved an increase of 4 1/2% in rates. He noted that this was not just Salem-specific and that this was another cooperative representing Central Virginia that was having to do the same thing. James Wallace motioned to approve Resolution 1473 updating the electric rate tariffs to be effective for all bills issued on or after July 1, 2024. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace C. Book of Rates - 2024 Consider the adoption of Resolution 1471 regarding the Book of Rates for 2024. Audit-Finance Committee Vice-Mayor Wallace noted that the Book of Rates and Fees are adopted each fiscal year along with the budget. James Wallace motioned to adopt Resolution 1471 amending the Book of Rates and Fees for the 2024-2025 fiscal year. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace D. Miscellaneous Fees - 2024 Consider the adoption of Resolution 1472 regarding the Miscellaneous Fees for 2024. Audit-Finance Committee Vice-Mayor Wallace explained that the Miscellaneous Fees are adopted each fiscal year along with the budget. James Wallace motioned to adopt Miscellaneous Fees Resolution 1472 for the 2024-2025 fiscal year. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace E. Fiscal Agent Agreements Consider approval of the fiscal agent agreements with Court Community Corrections Program and Cardinal Criminal Justice Academy. Audit - Finance Committee James Wallace motioned to approve the 2024-2025 fiscal agent agreements for the Court-Community Corrections Program, Regional Alcohol Safety Action Program Board and Cardinal Criminal Justice Academy. The City of Salem has acted as fiscal agent for these entities for a number of years and has experienced no difficulty in acting in this capacity. Each of these agencies reimburses the City for out-of- pocket expenses, such as audit fees, materials and supplies, and all other contractual related items. They also reimburse a portion of salaries and fringe benefits for all departments involved in providing services to their agency. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace F. Amendment to Administrative Calendar for 2024 Consider adoption of amended Administrative Calendar for 2024. Mr. Light explained that the Audit-Finance Committee, established by Council, meets prior to the first meeting of every month to review matters and fiscal implications and to ask for recommendations and feedback for Council. The City has an Administrative Calendar that is adopted by Council each year and the Audit- Finance Committee is included in that. The committee would like to change their meeting date from Thursday to the Wednesday prior to the first meeting of the month at 8:30 a.m. for their standard meeting dates. Other meetings are called or publicized as needed. Mr. Foley asked to clarify if this was for the remainder of this fiscal year and also for the next fiscal year. Mr. Light responded that this would be for the remainder of this calendar year and that Council would adopt a new Administrative Calendar for the new Calendar year. Mr. Dorsey also noted that this is the Wednesday before the first Council meeting of the month, not the second and fourth Wednesday or the first and third Wednesday. This is important to note especially for those months that have five weeks. Vice-Mayor Wallace added that the reason that this change was being was requested was to enable that committee to make decisions prior to the agenda being released for the upcoming meeting. This will be a better oversight practice. Mayor Turk added that this would enable them to research some items and receive answers to questions they might have. William Jones motioned to adopt the amended administrative calendar for 2024. H Hunter Holliday seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace G.Boards and Commissions Consider appointments to various boards and commissions. Vice-Mayor Wallace noted that Mr. Guidry has done a great job representing Salem on the Airport Commission. Council thanked him for his service. Randy Foley motioned to reappoint Dale T. Guidry for a four-year term ending July 1, 2028, to the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission. H Hunter Holliday seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace 7.Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Item #5A Date: 6/24/24 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA TO BE HELD AT CITY HALL AGENDA ITEM: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Consider adoption of ordinance on second reading for the request of Virginia Baptist Children's Home (dba HopeTree Family Services), property owner, for rezoning the properties located at 1000 block Red Ln and a portion of 860 Mount Vernon Lane (Tax Map #'s 41-1- 1, 41-1-2, 41-1-3, 41-1-4, 41-1-5, 41-1-6, and a portion of 44-3-10) from RSF Residential Single Family to PUD Planned Unit District. The public hearing was held at the May 13, 2024 meeting. The ordinance was adopted on first reading at the June 10, 2024, meeting. SUBMITTED BY: Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Zoning: RSF Residential Single Family Land Use Plan Designation: Residential Existing Use: Civic Proposed Use: PUD Planned Unit District BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The subject property is commonly known as “HopeTree”, formerly as the “Baptist Home” and consists of seven parcels land of approximately 62.318 acres. It is bounded by the Stonegate & Emerald Hills subdivisions and North Broad Street on the west, East Carrollton Avenue on the south, Red Lane on the east, and Interstate 81 to the north. The property is currently, and will continue, to be the home of HopeTree Family Services. These services include clinical services such as equine assisted psychotherapy, therapeutic foster care, the HopeTree Academy, therapeutic group homes, and developmental disability homes. This request is to rezone the property in order for it to be developed as a planned unit district that will contain the existing HopeTree services, a significant number of residential building types (not to exceed 340 units including Accessory Dwelling Units), single-use renovated and/or one-story structures, and mixed use structures that will contain commercial uses. Approximately 35% of the site will be preserved or used as public or private open space areas including a proposed lawn area near the center of the site. PROFFERED CONDITIONS: The Planned Unit District master plan (labeled PUD Rezoning Application in attached documentation) will constitute the required conditional zoning proffers. Attached to this Council Report is a summary of substantive aspects of the current submission for informational purposes only. All other documentation included throughout the application process is supportive in nature. DATE: May 1, 2024 TO: H. Robert Light, Clerk of Council FROM: Mary Ellen H. Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: HopeTree Rezoning: Summary of Changes CC: Charles E. Van Allman, Jr. Director of Community Development The application for the HopeTree rezoning request from RSF, Residential Single Family District to PUD, Planned Unit District was received in our office on December 1, 2023. That application contained the “PUD Document” dated November 30, 2023, which included a Project Description, Land Use Plan (transect map), Circulation Plan, Public Services & Utility Plan, Open Space Plan, Building Type Standards, Architectural Design Guidelines, Phasing Plan, and Use Table. The written and graphic information included in that document are conditional zoning proffers. During the months following HopeTree’s original submission, the petitioners received comments from citizens, city staff, Planning Commission, and City Council which included the concerns raised at a public joint work session of PC and Council in February 2024. In response to those comments, the application was amended on three occasions. A final draft of the PUD Document was recommended for approval by Planning Commission on April 10, 2024. The purpose of this memo is to serve as a synopsis of the major changes from the application’s initial submission in December 2023 to its current form. The petitioners have offered the following changes to the original plan: 1. The total number of hotel rooms shall be limited to a maximum of 34. 2. Retail establishments and restaurants shall be limited to a maximum of 15,000 square feet in total. Any new commercial or office construction will have a maximum building footprint of 5,000 square feet. 3. All office uses and “other” commercial uses (non-restaurant/retail, but permitted by use table in PUD Document) shall be limited to a maximum of 35,000 square feet in total. 4. The T3 (Edge Zone) and T4 (General Zone) will now only allow residential development. 5. The T5 (Center Zone) has been reduced in size, and it no longer possesses frontage along Red Lane. 6. 34 non-residential uses such as flea markets, hospitals, veterinary hospitals, etc. have been removed. 7. Residential units have been limited to a maximum number of 340 inclusive of accessory dwelling units. 8. The minimum amount of open space shall be 35% of the site area. Therefore, as the site is 62.318 acres, approximately 21.81 acres will remain open space. 9. The pedestrian paths shall be open to the public except as necessary for HopeTree events and therapeutic interactions. Sidewalk and on-street parking will be provided on the HopeTree side of Red Lane. 10. Should townhomes be constructed, the facades shall be varied by staggered front yards and variations in design & materials. This is consistent with townhome development requirements elsewhere in Salem. 11. The primary structures shall be no more than 45 feet in height (regardless of number of stories) measured by the current zoning ordinance standards (the vertical distance above the average existing grade measured to the highest point of the building). 12. An accessory structure shall not be any taller than the primary structure on the same parcel. 13. The initial traffic study was amended to address the concerns of city staff and Mattern & Craig, an independent engineering firm. Mattern & Craig found that the amended study “appears to conform with VDOT and industry standard practices, and addressed [the] concerns of the original study.” 14. Traffic generation calculations for the actual new residential and non-residential uses shall be provided during the development review process and shall not exceed 4,037 trips per day (excluding HopeTree operations). This means that new uses on the HopeTree property cannot exceed 4,037 trips per day as determined by the methodology of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. {00547465.DOCX } 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. WHEREAS, Virginia Baptist Children’s Home (dba HopeTree Family Services), property owner, has heretofore petitioned to have a parcel located at the 1000 block of Red Lane and a portion of 860 Mount Vernon Lane (Tax Map #;s 41-1-1, 41-1-2, 41-1-3, 41-1-4, 41-1-5, 41-1-6, and a portion of 44-3-10) rezoned from RFS Residential Single Family to PUD Planned Unit District with proffered conditions; and WHEREAS, the property owner voluntarily proffered conditions which are attached to this ordinance and labeled Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, Council has reviewed the proffered conditions and concluded that the proffered conditions are in the best interests of the City and more closely comply with the intent of the Land Use Plan heretofore adopted; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its regular meeting held on April 10, 2024 recommended approval of the rezoning request with proffers; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the requested rezoning with the proffers set forth in Exhibit A is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and good zoning practice. 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 Virginia Baptist Children’s Home (dba HopeTree Family Services), property owner, located at 1000 block Red Lane and a portion of 860 Mount Vernon Lane (Tax Map #;s 41-1-1, 41-1-2, 41-1-3, 41-1-4, 41-1-5, 41-1-6, and a portion of 44-3-10) be and the same is hereby changed from RFS Residential Single Family to PUD Planned Unit District with proffered conditions set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto, and the map referred to shall be changed in this respect and no other, said property being described as follows: Beginning at a point at the intersection of the North line of West Carrollton Avenue and the East line of North Broad Street, thence along the East line of North Broad Street N 27°07'26" W a distance of 405.00' to a point at the terminus of North Broad Street; thence S 62°50'44" W a distance of 220.00' to a point; thence N 27°07'26" W a distance of 56.58' to a point; thence S 65°21'08" W a distance of 20.97' to a point; thence N 60°42'55" W a distance of 39.80' to a point; thence S 65°51'41" W a distance of 177.30' to a point; thence S 66°49'50" W a distance of 165.36' to a point; thence N 27°06'48" W a distance of 127.34' to a point; thence S 60°36'41" W a distance of 49.06' to a point; thence N 29°18'28" W a distance of 127.22' to a point; thence N 27°59'13" W a distance of 401.04' to a point; thence S 61°59'55" W a distance of 12.00' to a point; thence N 71°49'41" W a distance of 152.51' to a point; thence N 60°22'31" E a distance of 118.03' to a point; thence N 19°56'17" W a distance of 1088.42' to a point on the South line of Interstate 81; thence along the South line of Interstate 81 N 51°21'30" E a distance of 390.06' to a point; thence N 59°46'44" E a distance of 100.89' to a point; thence N 42°21'32" E a distance of 100.52' to a point; thence N 52°01'06" E a distance of 380.85' to a point at the intersection of the South line of Interstate 81 and the West line of Red Lane; thence along the West line of Red Lane S 08°26'28" E a distance of 365.95' to a point; thence S 08°55'13" E a distance of 83.12' to a point; thence with a curve turning to the left with an arc length of 353.82', with a radius of 320.00', with a chord bearing of S 40°35'45" E, with a chord length of 336.07', to a point; thence S 72°16'18" E a distance of 141.44' to a point; thence with a non-tangent curve turning to the right with an arc length of 318.24', with a radius of 710.00', with a chord bearing of S {00547465.DOCX } 58°42'30" E, with a chord length of 315.58', to a point; thence S 45°54'08" E a distance of 839.41' to a point ; thence S 67°53'11" W a distance of 9.99' to a point; thence S 22°06'49" E a distance of 315.70' to a point; thence leaving the West line of Red Lane S 60°35'11" W a distance of 190.10' to a point; thence S 22°06'49" E a distance of 100.00' to a point; thence S 37°19'34" E a distance of 95.13' to a point; thence S 28°44'42" E a distance of 122.90' to a point on the North line of West Carrollton Avenue; thence along the North line of West Carrollton Avenue S 62°51'48" W a distance of 676.02' to a point; which is the point of beginning, having an area of 2,714,568 square feet, 62.318 acres, being known as part of tax map number 44-3-10 and lying in the City of Salem, Virginia. 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: June _______, 2024 Effective: June ______, 2024 /s/ Mayor ATTEST: H. Robert Light HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 HOPETREE SALEM, VIRGINIA PUD REZONING APPLICATION 1 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 SALEM PUD REZONING APPLICATION CITY OF SALEM VIRGINIA PUD APPLICATION PLANNING OBJECTIVES Per the Salem Zoning Application Sec. 106-228.4. Application process:To initiate an amendment, the applicant shall complete a rezoning application. This information shall be accompanied by graphic and written information, which shall constitute a preliminary master plan. All information submitted shall be of sufﬁcient clarity and scale to clearly and accurately identify the location, nature, and character of the proposed district. At a minimum this information shall include: 1.A legal description and plat showing the site boundaries, and existing street lines, lot lines, and easements. 2.Existing zoning, land use and ownership of each parcel proposed for the district. 3.A general statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PUD district, including a description of the character of the proposed development, the existing and proposed ownership of the site, the market for which the development is oriented, and objectives towards any speciﬁc manmade and natural characteristics located on the site. 4.A description and analysis of existing site conditions, including information on topography, natural water courses, ﬂoodplains, unique natural features, tree cover areas, etc. 5.A land use plan designating speciﬁc use types for the site, both residential and non-residential use types, and establishing site development regulations, including setback, height, building coverage, lot coverage, and density requirements. 6.A circulation plan, including location of existing and proposed vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and other circulation facilities and location and general design of parking and loading facilities. General information on the trip generation, ownership and maintenance and proposed construction standards for these facilities should be included. A trafﬁc impact analysis may be required by the administrator. 7.A public services and utilities plan providing requirements for and provision of all utilities, sewers, and other facilities to serve the site. 8.An open space plan, including areas proposed for passive and active recreational uses, natural and undisturbed areas, and proposed buffer areas proposed around the perimeter of the site. Information on the speciﬁc design and location of these areas and their ownership and maintenance should be included. 9.Generalized statements pertaining to any architectural and community design guidelines shall be submitted in sufﬁcient detail to provide information on building designs, orientations, styles, lighting plans, etc. 10.A development schedule indicating the location, extent and sequence of proposed development. Speciﬁc information on development of the open space, recreational areas, and non-residential uses should be included. 2 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 EXISTING SITE DESCRIPTION EXISTING SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Development The site is currently developed with a network of private driveways and several existing buildings on the property. The center core of the site is located on top of a ridge and consists of many of the existing buildings, as well as supporting parking areas and other improvements. Some of the existing buildings are currently being utilized by HopeTree, while others are vacant. There are also two recreational fields located near Red Lane to the north of the center core. The existing site has road frontage on East Carrollton Avenue, Red Lane, and North Broad Street. There is an existing private access drive (Mount Vernon Lane) from East Carrollton Avenue that accesses through the site and provides access to the center core before continuing through the site and back to Red Lane. A separate private access drive (Printers Lane) from Red Lane provides access to the recreational fields, as well as providing an additional connection to Mount Vernon Lane to the north of the center core. In addition to these private roads, there are also adult homes located at the north end of the property with driveways that access directly from Red Lane. Existing Topography There is an existing ridge bisecting the property from north to south. The east side of the property slopes from this ridge and from Red Lane to an existing drainage swale and storm sewer system. There is an existing stormwater management detention pond located near the center core of the property that was constructed with a previous development project. Existing Natural Features/Floodplain There is an existing pond located on the property in the northwest corner adjacent to Interstate 81. The pond discharges to an existing creek to the south that conveys stormwater from north to south toward the existing residential area at the end of North Broad Street. There is also an existing creek located at the southeast corner of the property that begins at the end of the existing storm sewer system that conveys water through the HopeTree property. This creek conveys runoff to an existing culvert under East Carrollton Avenue. The property is not located within a FEMA-defined floodplain. Existing Vegetation Much of the property that is not developed with buildings or pavement/hardscape is covered with a mix of managed turf and pasture. There is a large wooded area on the west side of the property around the pond and existing creek. There is a variation of other trees that are located throughout the property, with many of these being in the southeast corner of the site or along Red Lane. EXISTING SITE PLAN EXISTING AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF SITE 4.A description and analysis of existing site conditions, including information on topography, natural water courses, ﬂoodplains, unique natural features, tree cover areas, etc. BALZER ENGINEERS 1.A legal description and plat showing the site boundaries, and existing street lines, lot lines, and easements. 2.Existing zoning, land use and ownership of each parcel proposed for the district. BALZER AND ASSOCIATES 62.318 3 41-1-1, 41-1-2, 41-1-3, 41-1-4, 41-1-5, 41-1-6, and a portion of 44-3-10. EXISTING SITE PLAN HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 BALZER ENGINEERS SWIMMING POOL BASKETBALL & TENNIS COURTS STABLES ALMA HUNT BUILDING BLEADSOE BUILDING BLESSINGS BUILDING RUTH CAMP CAMPBELL BUILDING MEMORIAL BUILDING LONGVIEW BUILDING PRESIDENT’S HOUSE BROWNLEY DOCK EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES FISHING POND BAPTIST ORPHANAGE CEMETARY HOBDAY BOXLEY BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING ANNEX BUILDING INFIRMARY BUILDING JAMES CAMP CARPENTER BUILDING 4 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 EXISTING SITE PLAN AERIAL Dra$ 9.25.22 5 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 ILLUSTRATIVE MASTER PLAN WITH AERIAL 6 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 PROJECT DESCRIPTION CITY OF SALEM VIRGINIA PUD APPLICATION HOPETREE Master Planned TND Traditional Neighborhood Development PLANNING OBJECTIVES Per the Salem Zoning Application Sec. 106-228.4. - Application process: “ 3. A general statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PUD district, including a description of the character of the proposed development, the existing and proposed ownership of the site, the market for which the development is oriented, and objectives towards any speciﬁc manmade and natural characteristics located on the site.” The purpose of the Hopetree master plan is to allow for the development of fully integrated, mixed-use pedestrian oriented neighborhood woven into the existing Hopetree campus of buildings and surrounding open space while connecting to the surrounding neighborhoods where feasible. The intent is to preserve the Hopetree campus and buildings and for new and infill development to minimize traffic congestion, suburban sprawl, site grading, infrastructure costs, and environmental degradation. The provisions of the Hopetree neighborhood are based on urban design and development conventions which were widely used in the United States since its founding until the 1940's and were based on the following principles: A. All neighborhoods have identifiable centers and edges. B. The center of the neighborhood is easily accessed by non-vehicular means from lots on the edges (i.e. approximately one-quarter-mile from center to edge, or a five-minute walk). C. Uses and housing types are mixed and in close proximity to one another. D. Street networks are interconnected and blocks are small. E. Civic buildings are given prominent sites throughout the neighborhood. THE HOPETREE MASTER PLAN INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING DESIGN FEATURES: A. Neighborhood form. 1. Dwellings at the edge of the neighborhood are roughly a five-minute walk or less to the center of the neighborhood. 2. A great variety of housing types and price ranges is included in the neighborhood, with the highest density of housing located towards the center of the neighborhood. 3. Within the neighborhood a mix of land uses is arranged to serve the needs of the residents in a convenient walking environment: open space/recreational areas, civic buildings, low and high density residential, retail/commercial, business/workplace, institutional, educational, and parking. 4. The area of the overall master plan includes the existing core campus with the surrounding open areas divided into blocks, streets, lots, greenways, and open space. 5. Similar land uses generally front across each street. Dissimilar land uses generally abut at rear lot lines. Corner lots which front on streets of dissimilar use generally observe the setback established on each fronting street. 6. Along existing streets, new buildings are compatible with the general spacing of structures, building mass and scale, and street frontage relationships of existing buildings. 7. The appearance of the neighborhood blends in with existing surrounding neighborhoods and feature the use of similar materials in construction. B. Lots and buildings: 1. New lots share a frontage line with a street or public space; lots fronting on a public space shall have access to a rear alley. 2. Consistent build-to lines are established along all streets and public space frontages. 3. All buildings, except accessory structures, have their main entrance opening on a street or public space. 4. No structure exceeds 3 stories in height in the Edge zone, and 4 stories in the General and Center zones. Height of buildings shall be measured per the Salem code and shall not exceed 45’ in any location. C. Streets, alleys and pathways: 1. Designs permit comfortable use of the street by motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. Pavement widths, design speeds, and number of motor travel lanes are minimized to enhance safety for motorists and non-motorists alike. The specific design of each street considers the building types which front on the street and the relationship of the street to the overall town street network. An extensive system of connected pathways is woven through the core campus extending to the perimeter. 2. A combination of perimeter public streets and internal private streets provide access to all tracts and lots 3. Streets and alleys connect where feasible at other streets within the neighborhood and connect to existing and projected streets outside the development. Cul-de-sac and dead-end streets are discouraged and should only occur where absolutely necessary due to natural conditions. 4. Block faces do not have a length greater than 500 feet without dedicated alleys or pathways providing through access. 5. To prevent the build-up of vehicular speed, disperse traffic flow, and create a sense of visual enclosure, long uninterrupted segments of straight streets are avoided. 6. A continuous network of rear alleys is provided for the majority of lots. 7. Existing and proposed utilities are underground and run along alleys wherever possible as well as some streets and greenways. 8. Streets are organized according to a hierarchy based on function, size, capacity and design speed. Streets and rights-of-ways are therefore expected to differ in dimension. The proposed hierarchy of streets is indicated on the submitted master plan and each street type is separately detailed in the master plan. 9. Every street, except alleys, has a sidewalk on at least one side that is at least five feet wide. In commercial areas, sidewalks shall be at least ten feet wide. D. Parking: 1. On-street parking is provided on all streets where feasible. Occasional on-street parking may be accommodated without additional pavement width. For streets which serve workplace and storefront buildings, on-street parking is required and should be marked as such. On-street parking is parallel to the street unless the street lends itself to other parking layouts. 2. Parking lots are generally located at the rear or at the side of buildings and screened from public rights-of-way and adjoining properties by land forms or evergreen vegetation . 3. To the extent practicable, adjacent parking lots are interconnected. 4. Small and strategically placed parking areas are also provided. 5. Parking areas are paved as required and all parking areas and traffic lanes shall be clearly marked. 6. The number, width and location of curb cuts is such as to minimize traffic hazards, inconvenience and congestion. 7. Off-street parking and loading requirements as outlined in the city’s parking regulations may be used as guidance but there are no minimum parking standards. 8. The master plan provides adequate parking and off-street loading areas for different areas of the development, based on the uses allowed and the density of development. 9. In addition to landscaping provided for screening above, trees are planted around the perimeter and interior of parking lots to provide shade. E. Landscaping: 1. Trees are planted within right-of-ways parallel to the street along all streets except alleys. 2. Tree spacing is determined by species type selected from the City list of approved trees. Large maturing trees are generally planted a minimum of 30 feet and a maximum of 50 feet on center. Small and medium maturing trees are planted a minimum of ten feet and a maximum of 30 feet on center. 3. Large maturing trees are generally planted along residential streets and along the street frontages and perimeter areas of parks, squares, greenbelts and civic structures. 4. Small maturing trees are generally planted along non-residential streets, interior portions of parks, squares, greenbelts and civic lots. Storefronts are not obstructed by the planting pattern. 5. The natural features of the landscape are incorporated into the landscaping plan. 6. All plantings are with native or appropriate species (refer to the City list). 7. Buffer requirements for property located on the perimeter of the neighborhood has setbacks and buffers that are consistent with the setbacks and buffers of the adjoining zoning district, including provisions for accessory buildings, but are a minimum of 10 feet. F. Sidewalks and Greenways: 1. Sidewalks or greenway easements are proposed in locations shown on the master plan or proposed to connect to pedestrian facilities shown on the master plan. 2. Existing sidewalks at the time of development or re-development in each phase are improved, repaired, or replaced as necessary. G. Uses 1. Maximum number of total residential units is 340. 2. Maximum number of total hotel rooms is 34. 3. Maximum total square footage of retail and restaurant uses is 15,000 s.f. 4. Home occupations shall not be counted toward any maximum densities. Permitted uses shall be based on the general category of use that has been established for a lot or group of lots as shown in the Use Table. 3.A general statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PUD district, including a description of the character of the proposed development, the existing and proposed ownership of the site, the market for which the development is oriented, and objectives towards any speciﬁc manmade and natural characteristics located on the site. 7 T-4 NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL T-4 The Neighborhood General Zone consists of higher-density scale urban fabric with predominantely attached residential and serves as a transition from neighborhood edge to the neighborhood center with the historic campus core. Home occupation and accessory buildings are allowed. Setbacks and landscaping are also similar and may vary some. These houses front on new streets, and greenways. Streets vary depending on location and may include curbs, planting strips, sidewalks arranged with traditional size blocks including side streets, rear lanes, and greenways. General Character A mix of houses with a range of medium to high density building types including a range of single-family urban houses, multi-family estates, cottages, townhouses in a variety of configurations, cottage courts, stacked flats, loft houses, mews houses, multi-family houses, tree houses, and multi-family buildings. Building Placement Shallow front and side yard setbacks. Accessory building and parking are accessed from rear lanes. Frontage Type Porches, stoops, terraces, light wells, forecourts, shopfronts, Galleries, and arcades. Typical Building Two to four-story Types of Civic Space: Urban streetscapes with on-street parking, walks, street trees, courtyards, plazas, terraces, mews, and linear green fingers with pathways. T-5 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER T-5 The Neighborhood Center Zone consists of higher-density scale urban fabric with predominantely attached residential and mixed- use buildings including infill in the historic campus core. These buildings front on squares, campus greens, plazas, parking courts, streets, and greenways. Street are limited in the core and vary depending on location and may include curbs, planting strips, sidewalks arranged with traditional size blocks including side streets, rear lanes, and greenways. General Character A mix of buildings with a range of medium to high density building types including townhouses in a variety of configurations, tree houses on steep slopes, stacked flats, loft houses, mews houses, multi-family estates, multi-family buildings, and mixed-use buildings. Building Placement No setbacks are required for buildings in the general campus parcel. Parking is accessed from on-street parking, rear lanes, in nearby perimeter areas adjacent to the core campus including the parking allee, and in small parking courts that also serve as civic gather space. Frontage Type Stoops, terraces, light wells, forecourts, shopfronts, Galleries, and arcades. Typical Building Two to four-story Types of Civic Space: Urban streetscapes with on-street parking, walks, street trees, courtyards, plazas, terraces, mews, and linear green fingers with pathways. HISTORIC EXISTING CAMPUS CORE The historic campus consists of a range of institutional buildings originally serving the orphanage as well as newer school buildings, a chapel, dormitories, and other related uses. Each historic building is to be retained where feasible for on going institutional uses, commercial, residential and mixed-use with additional infill mixed-use buildings, building additions, and spaces. These buildings front on squares, campus greens, plazas, parking courts, streets, and greenways. Streets are limited in the core and vary depending on location and may include curbs, planting strips, sidewalks arranged with traditional size blocks including side streets, rear lanes, and greenways. General Character A mix of buildings with a range of medium to high density building types including townhouses in a variety of configurations, tree houses on steep slopes, stacked flats, loft houses, mews houses, multi-family houses, multi-family buildings, and mixed-use buildings. Building Placement Minimum or no setback are required. Parking is accessed from on-street parking, rear lanes, in nearby perimeter areas adjacent to the core campus including the parking allee, and in small parking courts that also serve as civic gathering space. Frontage Type Stoops, terraces, light wells, forecourts, shopfronts, Galleries, and arcades. Typical Building Two to four-story Types of Civic Space: Urban streetscapes with on-street parking, walks, street trees, courtyards, plazas, terraces, mews, and linear green fingers with pathways. T-3 NEIGHBORHOOD EDGE T-3 The Neighborhood Edge Zone consists of residential scale urban fabric similar to existing neighborhoods and serves as a buffer and transition to higher internal zones that have more residential and other mixed use. Home occupations and accessory buildings are allowed. Setbacks and landscaping are also similar and may vary some. These houses front on existing streets facing similar scale existing homes on the opposite side. Streets include curbs, planting strips, and will include new sidewalks with on-street parking on the Hopetree side arranged with traditional size blocks including connected streets, rear lanes, and greenways. General Character A mix of houses with a range of neighborhood density building types including larger estate houses, smaller single-family houses, multi-family estates, cottages, pair houses, stacked flats, townhouses in a variety of configurations, and cottage courts. Building Placement Shallow to medium front and side yard setbacks. Outbuilding and parking are accessed from rear lanes. Frontage Type Porches, stoops, landscaped front yards Typical Building One to two-story, with some three story Types of Civic Space: Neighborhood streetscapes with on-street parking, walks, street trees, and linear green fingers with pathways. EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS The existing surrounding neighborhoods consist of primarily traditional single family homes. Home occupations and accessory buildings are evident. Setbacks and landscaping are generally front lawns and vary in character. General surrounding neighborhood houses front on streets facing similar scale homes on the opposite side. Some blocks include rear lanes, while others use front loaded driveways. Existing streets include curbs, planting strips, both with and without sidewalks. Most neighborhoods are arranged with traditional size blocks. In the case of homes immediately around Hopetree, the homes generally face the campus open space in the form of recreation fields, lawn, pasture, or natural vegetation. There are no sidewalks along Red Lane and sidewalks only on one side of one block for North Broad Street and Carrollton Avenue. General Character A mix of houses immediately around Hopetree include larger estate houses, smaller single-family houses. Nearby neighborhoods include a range of larger estate houses, smaller single-family houses, multi-family estates, cottages, duplexes, townhouses, stacked flats, multi-family houses, multi-family buildings, and mixed-use buildings. Nearby Wiley Court is a famous example of a pocket court. Building Placement Shallow to medium front and side yard setbacks. Outbuilding and parking are accessed from rear lanes. Frontage Type Porches, stoops, landscaped front yards Typical Building One to two-story, with some three story Types of Civic Space: Neighborhood streetscapes with on-street parking, walks, street trees, and linear green fingers with pathways. HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 TRANSECT ZONE DESCRIPTIONS MISSING MIDDLE H O U S I N G ILLUSTRATION BY OPTICOS FOR AARP LIVABLE COMMUNITIES PUBLICATION ON MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/livable-communities/housing/2022/Discovering and Developing Missing Middle Housing-spreads-093022.pdf SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES HOUSES COTTAGES MULTI-FAMILY HOUSES PAIR HOUSES COTTAGE COURTS TOWN HOUSES APARTMENT BUILDINGS MIXED-USE BUILDINGS URBAN CORE STACKED FLATS TRANSECT ZONES SUMMARY LESS URBAN MORE URBAN 3.A general statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PUD district, including a description of the character of the proposed development, the existing and proposed ownership of the site, the market for which the development is oriented, and objectives towards any speciﬁc manmade and natural characteristics located on the site. 8 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 LAND USE PLAN GENERAL NOTES: •Building Types generally provide parking from rear alleys and lanes screened from frontages on lots. •On-street parking shall be provided along all streets where pratical. •Each Block Group includes a minimum of three (3) building types. •Each Block Group shall have 20% minimum of each of the building types used. •A minimum of six (6) building types shall be used for the overall project. • A maximum of ﬁve (5) of the same building type attached consecutively. •Civic or Historic Core Buildings may be converted to T5 - Neighborhood Center transect zone if the current use is discontinued. •Land may be subdivided into seperate ownership. •These standards do not CIVIC SPACE RESERVES HISTORIC CORE BUILDINGS CIVIC BUILDINGS STREETS AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS & DETAILS BLOCK GROUP RECOMMENDED GALLERY RECOMMENDED SHOPFRONT VISTA POINTS PEDESTRIAN SHED - 5 MINUTE WALK RADIUS TRANSECT ZONES w/ FRONTAGE LINES T5 - NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER T4 - NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL T3 - NEIGHBORHOOD EDGE OPEN SPACE / NATURAL T5 T3 T4 TRANSECT ZONES & BUILDING TYPES KEY (SEE SPECIFIC BUILDING TYPES FOR STANDARDS) 5.A land use plan designating speciﬁc use types for the site, both residential and non-residential use types, and establishing site development regulations, including setback, height, building coverage, lot coverage, and density requirements. STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED 9 E - ESTATE H - HOUSE / ADU C - COTTAGE / ADU PH - PAIR HOUSE / ADU T - TOWNHOUSE / ADU PC - POCKET / COTTAGE COURT TH-PU - TOWNHOUSE PARK-UNDER 3THE - 3-TOWNHOUSE ESTATE SF - STACKED FLAT LH - LOFT HOUSE MH- MEWS HOUSE TR - TREE HOUSE AH - MULTI-FAMILY HOUSE AB - MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING MXB - MIXED-USE BUILDING CV - HISTORIC CORE BUILDING SITE T5 T3 T4 H C PH T AH PC TH- PU SF 3 THE LH MH MX B CV AB TR E CIRCULATION PLAN HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 PARK ALLEE’ ST 20-64 PLAZA PL VARIES PEDESTRIAN PATH** PP 5/10 REAR LANE* RL 14-30 HOPETREE THOROUGHFARE TYPES HILLSIDE LANE HL 20-20 The Purpose of Streets designed within Hopetree is to create a network with managed motor vehicle driver speeds that are compatible with safe, comfortable walking and bicycle mobility. Target Speeds are 20 miles per hour. Lane widths of 10 feet maximum and street trees planted between certain parking spaces and between the curb and sidewalk help manage driver speeds via lateral views and provide shade for travelers in summer months. Wet utilities are typically placed in the front of buildings and dry utilities are in the rear. Solid waste is collected in the rear lanes enhancing walkability in front. MOUNT VERNON AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS* MV 36-60 RED LANE IMPROVEMENTS* RED - 28-60 ** On existing thoroughfares dimensions and details may vary based on existing conditions and site constraints. The ﬁrst number is the estimated pavement width and second is the estimated R.O.W. width but dimensions may vary as the design is engineered in more detail. 6.A circulation plan, including location of existing and proposed vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and other circulation facilities and location and general design of parking and loading facilities. General information on the trip generation, ownership and maintenance and proposed construction standards for these facilities should be included. A trafﬁc impact analysis may be required by the administrator. ST ST PL PL RL RL RL RL RL RL RED MV MV HL HL HL HL HL HL MV RED RED PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PPPP PP PP PP PP PP PP 10 * On-street parking and a minimum 5' sidewalk shall be provided along Red Lane. HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 4.25.23 7.A public services and utilities plan providing requirements for and provision of all utilities, sewers, and other facilities to serve the site. PUBLIC SERVICES & UTILITY PLAN * BALZER ENGINEERS * Loca'ons are conceptual and subject to change with the final design. 11 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 OPEN SPACE PLAN SHOWING PARKS, GREENWAYS, GREEN FINGERS, TREE CANOPY, TREE PLANTINGS, ,WATER FEATURES, & THE QUADRANGLE 8. An open space plan, including areas proposed for passive and active recreational uses, natural and undisturbed areas, and proposed buffer areas proposed around the perimeter of the site. Information on the speciﬁc design and location of these areas and their ownership and maintenance should be included. 12 POCKET COURT TRANSECT ZONES & BUILDING TYPES KEY (SEE SPECIFIC BUILDING TYPES FOR STANDARDS) HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 COMMUNITY DESIGN STANDARDS SUMMARY T5 – CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD T3 – EDGE NEIGHBORHOOD T4 – GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD COTTAGE MULIT-FAMILY HOUSE PAIR HOUSEESTATE TOWNHOUSEHOUSE SHOP FRONT / MIXED-USE MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGTOWNHOUSE PARK-UNDER 3-TOWNHOUSE ESTATE STACKED FLAT LOFT HOUSE MEWS HOUSE T5 – CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD T4 – GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD T3 – EDGE NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE / PARK T1 – NATURAL CIVIC CIVIC AHTH- PU SF3 THE LH MH MX B CV ABTR C PH T PCEH HOUSING & BUILDING TYPES BY TRANSECT ZONES TREE HOUSE 9.Generalized statements pertaining to any architectural and community design guidelines shall be submitted in sufﬁcient detail to provide information on building designs, orientations, styles, lighting plans, etc. E - ESTATE H - HOUSE / ADU C - COTTAGE / ADU PH - PAIR HOUSE / ADU T - TOWNHOUSE / ADU PC - POCKET / COTTAGE COURT TH-PU - TOWNHOUSE PARK-UNDER 3THE - 3-TOWNHOUSE ESTATE SF - STACKED FLAT LH - LOFT HOUSE MH- MEWS HOUSE TR - TREE HOUSE AH - MULTI-FAMILY HOUSE AB - MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING MXB - MIXED-USE BUILDING CV - CIVIC BUILDING SITE T5 T3 T4 H C PH T AH PC TH- PU SF 3 THE LH MH MX B CV AB TR E 13 Note: These standards do not apply to the existing buildings. HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 BUILDING TYPES STANDARDS TEMPLATE F/G A E B C D HH I K J L TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE A Townhouse is a single-family residence that shares a party wall with another of the same type and occupies the full frontage line on its own lot. For Townhouses, garages and/or parking is provided from the rear lane frontages while the primary townhouse front faces a street or public greenway. Townhouses in the Strolling District are permitted to have ground floor mixed-use. Lot width x depth 16’ min. x 80’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 10’ min. (B) Front Corner 10’ min. (C) Side 0’ min. (D) Rear 20’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 20’ min. (F) Accessory Buildings from Front 40’ min. (G) Accessory Buildings Side Align. (H) Accessory Buildings Rear 0’ min. (I) Building Frontage at Setback 100 %’ max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 5’ max.(K) Building Side Encroachments 4’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. DESCRIPTION LOT DIMENSIONS DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS KEYED TO THE GRAPHIC PLAN FORM-BASED GRAPHIC PLAN NAME OF BUILDING TYPES ACCESSORY’ DWELLING UNIT PRIMARY ‘BUILDING SIDE PORCH LOT BOUNDARY REAR LANE DRIVEWAY REAR YARD PLANTING STRIP FRONT STREET STREET CORNER FRONT FACADE SIDE YARD FRONT YARD SIDE STREET PLANTING STRIP SIDEWALK FRONT PORCH SIDEWALK SAMPLE STANDARDS TEMPLATE KEY 14 THIS IS A SAMPLE BUILDING TYPES TEMPLATE KEY FOR REFERENCE ONLY AS A GUILD TO THE BUILDING TYPES STANDARDS GRAPHICS INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT. THE TEXT LABELS IN RED IIDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FEATURED ON THE GRAPHICS FOR EACH TYPE. NOTE: THESE STANDARDS DO NOT APPLY TO THE EXISTING BUILDINGS. HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 GREENWAY OPTION A E B C D HH I K J L F/G GREENWAY OPTION — AVAILABLE OF ALL TYPES A Greenway Option is for reference. Instead of fronting a street, the primary facade faces a public greenway connected to walks and trails while garages and/or parking is generally provided from a rear lane frontage. For each Type the Standards are the same. EXAMPLE of the HOUSE TYPE SHOWING the GREENWAY OPTION Lot width x depth 50’ min. x 100’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 20’ min. (B) Front Corner 15’ min. (C) Side 8’ min. (D) Rear 20’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 20’ min. (F) Accessory Buildings from Front 40’ min. (G) Accessory Buildings Side 5’ min. (H) Accessory Buildings Rear 5’ min. (I) Building Frontage at Setback 30’ min. (J) Building Front Encroachments 12’ max.(K) Building Side Encroachments 8’ max. (L) Height Principle Building Varied Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS ESTATE ESTATE An Estate is a large single-family dwelling on a large lot of more suburban character, often shared by one or more ancillary buildings. The primary facade faces a street or public greenway where a porch and entry are prominent. Garages and/or parking is generally provided from the street frontage and is set back from the primary facade, side-loaded, or set forward side-loaded. Garage forward doors are not permitted to face the street. Lot width x depth 80’ min. x 100’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 25’ min. (B) Front Corner 20’ min. (C) Side 20’ min. (D) Rear 20’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 20’ min. (F) Accessory Buildings from Front 25’ min. (G) Accessory Buildings Side 10’ min. (H) Accessory Buildings Rear 6’ min. (I) Building Frontage at Setback 60 % max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 15’ max.(K) Building Side Encroachments 12’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. A E B C HH I K L J D F/G A C H H F J L EI K D B/G J 15 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 HOUSE HOUSE A House Type is a single-family residence on its own lot. For House the primary facade faces a public street or a greenway where a porch and entry are prominent. Garages and/or parking is generally provided from a rear lane or from the street frontage set back from the primary façade. Lot width x depth 50’ min. x 100’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 20’ min. (B) Front Corner 15’ min. (C) Side 8’ min. (D) Rear 20’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 20’ min. (F) Accessory Buildings from Front 40’ min. (G) Accessory Buildings Side 6’ min. (H) Accessory Buildings Rear 6’ min. (I) Building Frontage at Setback 30’ min. (J) Building Front Encroachments 12’ max.(K) Building Side Encroachments 8’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. A E B C D HH I K J L F/G BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS A E B C HH I K J L F/G D COTTAGE DD HH F/G M COTTAGE A Cottage is a smaller single-family residence on its own lot. For Cottages garages and/or parking is required to be provided from a rear lane while the primary house front faces a public street or greenway. Lot width x depth 30’ min. x 65’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 12’ min. (B) Front Corner 8’ min. (C) Side 5’ min. (D) Rear 30’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 40’ min. (F) Accessory Buildings from Front 40’ min. (G) Accessory Buildings Side Align (H) Accessory Buildings Rear 0’ min. (I) Building Frontage at Setback 20’ min. (J) Building Front Encroachments 10’ max.(K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Building Back Wing 15’ max. (M) Height Principle Building 3.0 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.0 Stories max. 16 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 PAIR HOUSE PAIR HOUSE A Pair House is a single-family residence that shares a party wall with one other of the same type, each on their own lot. Garages, ADUs and/or parking is provided from the rear lane while the primary front faces a street or public greenway. Lot width x depth 24’ min. x 65’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 15’ min. (B) Front Corner 10’ min. (C) Side 6’ min. (D) Rear 30’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 35’ min. (F) Accessory Buildings from Front 40’ min. (G) Accessory Buildings Side Align (H) Accessory Buildings Rear 0’ min. (I) Building Frontage at Setback 20’ min. (J) Building Front Encroachments 12’ max.(K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Building Back Wing 15’ max. (M) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2 Stories max. F/G A E B C D HH I K J L M H BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS TOWNHOUSE F/G A E B C D HH I K J L M H TOWNHOUSE A Townhouse is a single-family residence that shares a party wall with another of the same type, with a minimum of three units in a row, and occupies the full frontage line on its own lot. For Townhouses, garages, ADUs, and/or parking is provided from the rear lane frontages while the primary townhouse front faces a street or public greenway. Townhouses in the T-5 Neighborhood Center Strolling District are permitted to have ground floor mixed-use. Lot width x depth 16’ min. x 80’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 10’ min. (B) Front Corner 8’ min. (C) Side 0’ min. (D) Rear 30’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 35’ min. (F) Accessory Buildings from Front 40’ min. (G) Accessory Buildings Side Align. (H) Accessory Buildings Rear 0’ min. (I) Building Frontage at Setback 100 %’ max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 8’ max.(K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Building Back Wing 15’ max. (M) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Sidewalk Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. 17 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 POCKET COURT POCKET COURT A Pocket Court is permitted with up to 8 units. Pocket Courts permit units that do not front a public vehicular right-of-way, Attached and detached houses can be grouped in pedestrian courts facing a mews, small common, green or garden, shared through an owners’ association. A pocket court is often, but not always, arranged in a U-shape. The units are separated from the common area only by a sidewalk, path or other non-vehicular way. Parking is from rear lanes or alleys in attached or detached garages or open parking in a central location. Lot width x depth (may rotate) 60’ min. x 90’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 5’ min. (B) Front Corner 10’ min. (C) Side 5’ min. (D) Rear 20’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 20’ min. (F) Building Frontage at Setback 80 % max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 5’ max. (K) Building Side Encroachments 5’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 2.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. A E B C D F K J LPer Fire Code BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS LOFT F AE B C D K J L LOFT A Loft is a single-family residence that is detached or shares a party wall with another of the same type and occupies the full frontage line on its own lot. For Loft types, garages, and/or parking is provided adjacent or under the townhouse from the rear lane frontages while the primary townhouse front faces a lane, street, or public greenway. Lofts in the T-5 Neighborhood Center Strolling District are permitted to have ground floor mixed-use. Lot width x depth 20’ min. x 30’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 0’ min. (B) Front Corner 0’ min. (C) Side 0’ min. (D) Rear 0’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 20’ min. (F) Building Frontage at Setback 90 %’ max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 8’ max. (K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. 18 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 TOWNHOUSE PARK-UNDER F AE B C D K J L TOWNHOUSE PARK-UNDER A Townhouse is a single-family residence that shares a party wall with another of the same type and occupies the full frontage line on its own lot. For Townhouse Park-Under types, garages, and/or parking is provided under the townhouse from the rear lane frontages while the primary townhouse front faces a street or public greenway. Townhouses in the T-5 Neighborhood Center Strolling District are permitted to have ground floor mixed-use. Lot width x depth 20’ min. x 50’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 10’ min. (B) Front Corner 8’ min. (C) Side 0’ min. (D) Rear 30’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 30’ min. (F) Building Frontage at Setback 100 %’ max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 8’ max.(K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS 3-TOWNHOUSE ESTATE 3-TOWNHOUSE ESTATE A 3-Townhouse Estate is a single-family residence that shares a party wall with two other of the same type with the building and architectural massing of a large house or estate. and occupies the full frontage line on its own lot. For 3-Townhouse Estate types, garages, and/or parking is provided under the townhouse from the rear lane frontages while the primary townhouse front faces a street or public greenway. Townhouses in the T-5 Neighborhood Center Strolling District are permitted to have ground floor mixed-use. Lot width x depth 24’ min. x 50’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 10’ min. (B) Front Corner 8’ min. (C) Side 0’ min. (D) Rear 30’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 30’ min. (F) Building Frontage at Setback 100 %’ max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 8’ max. (K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. F AE B C D K J L C L 19 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 STACKED-FLAT F AE B CD K J L STACKED-FLAT A Stacked-Flat is a single floor or town house residence that is stacked vertically with one above the other and occupies the full frontage line on a shared lot lot. For Staked-Flat types, garages, and/or parking is provided under or behind the building accessed from the rear lane frontages while the front faces a street or public greenway. Stacked-Flats in the T-5 Neighborhood Center are permitted to have ground floor mixed-use. Lot width x depth 60’ min. x 50’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 10’ min. (B) Front Corner 8’ min. (C) Side 0’ min. (D) Rear 30’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 30’ min. (F) Building Frontage at Setback 80 % max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 8’ max. (K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 4 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS MEWS HOUSE MEWS HOUSE A Mews House is a single-family residence that is detached or shares a party wall with another of the same type and occupies the full frontage line on its own lot. Mews House types are generally wide and shallow. For Mews House types, garages, and/or parking is provided adjacent from the rear lane frontages screened from the frontage while the primary townhouse front faces a lane, street, or public greenway. Mews Houses in the T-5 Neighborhood Center are permitted to have ground floor mixed-use. Lot width x depth 50’ min. x 30’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 5’ min. (B) Front Corner 5’ min. (C) Side 5’ min. (D) Rear 5’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade Screened (F) Building Frontage at Setback 90 % max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 8’ max. (K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. F AE B C D K J L 20 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 A E B C D HH I K J L D H F D MULTI-FAMILY HOUSE M H MULTI-FAMILY HOUSE A Multi-Family House is a multi-family residence with up to 8 units that is similar in scale, massing, and character with a large single-family house and intended to be compatible in form and adjacency. For Multi-Family Houses, garages, ADUs and/or parking is provided from the street and lane frontages while the primary front faces a street or public greenway. Multi-Family Houses in the T-5 Neighborhood Center are permitted to have ground floor mixed-use. Lot width x depth 72’ min. x 100’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 12’ min. (B) Front Corner 6’ min. (C) Side 8’ min. (D) Rear 30’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 45’ min. (F) Accessory Buildings from Front 60’ min. (G) Accessory Buildings Side Align (H) Accessory Buildings Rear 0’ min. (I) Building Frontage at Setback 90 % max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 10’ max. (K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 3.5 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. M BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS A E B C D H I K J L D H F D MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING H MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING A Multi-Family House is a multi-family residence with up to 16 units that is similar in scale, massing, and character with the frontage of a Multi-Family Building and intended to be compatible in form and adjacency. For Multi-Family Buildings, garages, ADUs and/or parking is provided in a rear common parking area and/or park-under garages screened from the street while the primary front faces a street or public greenway. Multi-Family Buildings in the T-5 Neighborhood Center are permitted to have ground floor mixed-use. Lot width x depth 72’ min. x 60’ min. (A) Setbacks Front 6’ min. (B) Front Corner 6’ min. (C) Side 6’ min. (D) Rear 0’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 45’ min. (F) Building Frontage at Setback 90 % max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 10’ max. (K) Building Side Encroachments 6’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 4 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding 2.5 Stories max. 21 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS TREEHOUSE A Treehouse Type is a single-family dwelling. The small footprint is vertical in proportion and typically includes substantially deep cantilevered porches and balconies. Parking is generally provided along the street frontage or by driveways set back from the frontage. Lot width x depth & max footprint 50’ min. x 50’ min. (A) 576 sq. ft. max. building footprint Setbacks Front 5’ min. (B) Front Corner 12’ min. (C) Side 12’ min. (D) Rear 5’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 20’ min. (F) Building Frontage at Setback 40 % max. (J) Building Front Encroachments 15’ max.(K) Building Side & Rear Encroachments 12’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 4 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 1.5’ min. Outbuilding N/A TREEHOUSE A E B D F K C L J SHOPFRONT / MIXED-USE SHOPFRONT / MIXED USE Shopfront and Mixed-Use Buildings are small to medium size size traditional building types typically following the platting patterns of the historic main street. Ground level uses typically include retail shops, restaurants and cafes, and commercial. Upper level uses typically include residential and/or commercial uses. Ground level facades are detailed with inviting storefronts with abundant windows and canopies, balconies, and/or awnings above. Parking is provided on-street and in shared screened parking areas or park-under accessed from a rear alley while the primary front faces the street or public green space. Refer to the Land Use Plan for recommended shopfront locations. Lot width x depth 12’ min. x 40’ min. (A) Building Footprint 5,000 sf building footprint max. Setbacks Front 0’ min. (B) Front Corner 0’ min. (C) Side 0’ min. (D) Rear 0’ min. (E) Parking and Waste from Front Façade 20’ min. (F) Building Frontage at Setback 80 % min. (J) Building Front Encroachments Above 1st Level 15’ max. (K) Building Side Encroachments Above 1st Level 8’ max. (L) Height Principle Building 4 Stories max. First Floor Above Grade 0’ min. A E B C F K L J 22 Note: These standards do not apply to the existing buildings. HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 ACCESSORY BUILDING ACCESSORY BUILDING •Accessory Structures are permitted in zones with residential uses. In all cases, garages and storage buildings should be located behind or set back from the principal dwelling. When the housing type does not include a garage, a storage building is recommended. •Garages: Garages should be located behind the principal dwelling. Construction of garages for houses should be optional. •Accessory buildings are allowed everywhere that accessory building standards are called out in specific Building Types Standards including Estate, House, Cottage, Pair House, Town House, and Multi-Family House. •Accessory Dwelling Unit: A secondary dwelling unit associated with a principal residence on a single lot is permitted. ADUs shall be a maximum of 50% of the square footage of the primary building footprint. An accessory unit is typically located over the detached garage of a townhouse or detached house. Refer to each Building Type for specific standards. • See the Use Table for “accessory apartment” when attached to the principal residence. BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS 23 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 ROOFS Roofs shall be clad in galvanized metal, fiberglass/asphalt shingles, or slate. Roof Penetrations, including vent stacks, shall be placed on the rear slope of the roof where feasible. Roof penetrations shall be finished to match the color of the roof. Mechanical equipment including solar panels shall be screened and located away from frontages. Roof Slope shall be between 6:12 and 12:12. Porch Slope shall be a minimum of 3:12. Gutters, Downspouts, and Projecting Drainpipes shall be made of galvanized metal, copper, or painted aluminum in white or same color as building. Flashing shall be galvanized/pre-painted metal or copper. Eaves shall be continuous. Eaves shall be either exposed with custom cut rafter tails, partially exposed with square-cut rafter tails, or closed soffits and on the front facade shall project 12 to 36 inches from the exterior wall sheathing to the outer edge of gutter. Rafter Tails shall not exceed 6 inches in depth at the tip. OPENINGS Doors shall provide a clear width of not less than 32”. Exterior doors shall have a maximum nominal width of 36” for single doors. If double doors are used, one leaf shall provide a minimum 32” clearance. Local compliance for fire egress and ADA standards takes precedent. Doors shall be side-hinged swinging type (no sliders) at frontages. Doors shall be painted. Windows shall be made of wood, extruded aluminum, vinyl, or hollow steel frame and glazed with clear glass. Windows shall be with a vertical or square proportion, Storm Windows and Screens, shall cover the entire window area. Panes shall be of square or vertical proportion. Shutters shall be operable w/ shutter dogs, sized, and shaped to meet the associated openings. SUSTAINABILITY GUIDELINES Sites should be disturbed as little as possible during construction. Natural drainage patterns shall be kept wherever feasible. Excavated soil shall be used for required contour line modifications and onsite backfill. Materials should be locally sourced where feasible. Use of Recycled Materials is encouraged. Building Shape is recommended to be rectangular to allow breezes inside, cross-ventilation, and provide natural cooling. Landscaping should encourage deciduous trees next to buildings to provide them with shade in summer and solar heating in winter. Building Shading should be used selectively to minimize unwanted solar heat gain in the summer and maximize heat gains in the winter. Cross ventilation is recommended to be provided through narrow floor plans with large, operable windows, porches and breezes. Paints are recommended to have Low-VOC emissions. Stormwater Management for guidance on stormwater management and the application of tools for paving, channeling, storage, and filtration including maintenance and costs refer to the; Light Imprint Handbook; Integrating Sustainability and Community Design. HEIGHT Height of buildings shall be measured per the Salem code. For residential dwellings the ground floor shall be a minimum of 18” above the back of curb measured at the front corners. ELEMENTS Porches and Colonnades are generally covered and shall have their columns, and posts. Porches shall have square or vertically proportioned intercolumniation. Porches may encroach into the setbacks. Railings shall be made of metal, wood, or composite. Railings shall have horizontal top and bottom rails centered on the balusters. The openings between balusters shall not exceed 4 inches. Bottom rails shall be raised above the level of the floor. Equipment including HVAC and utility meters shall be screened and located away from the primary entries. Vista Points where shown on the Land Use Plan are prominent locations including corners, deflections, and at the axial conclusion of a thoroughfare or public space. A building located at a Vista Point designated on a Regulating Plan is required to be designed in response to this location. Galleries shall be aligned close to the frontage line with an attached cantilevered shed or lightweight colonnade overlapping the Sidewalk. WALLS Walls shall be in stone, brick, stucco, wood clapboard, board and batten, fiber cement, or vinyl, or polymeric. Walls shall show no more than two materials above the foundation. Materials shall change along a horizontal line, with the heavier material below the lighter. Siding shall be of integral color, painted or stained. Arches and Piers shall be brick, stone, or stucco. Posts shall be pressure treated, wood, or protective wrapped with vinyl or PVC. Foundations shall be enclosed with horizontal wood boards, wood louvers, stucco over block, stamped poured concrete, stone, or brick. Trim shall be high grade lumber, pre-painted metal, polymeric, vinyl, or fiber cement board, and shall be 3.5 inches to 6 inches in width at corners and around corners. Wood, if visible, shall be painted or stained with an opaque stain, except walking surfaces, which may be left natural. Stucco shall be cement with smooth sand or pebble finish. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES SIGNAGE A Master Signage Plan and Sign Standards may be submitted prior to specific site plan submissions. General to all zones: a.There shall be no signage permitted additional to that specified in this section. Temporary signage for builders is excluded. General and Edge zone a.The address number, no more than 6 inches measured vertically, shall be attached to the building in proximity to the Principal Entrance or at a mailbox. Center zone a. Blade signs, not to exceed 6 square ft. for each separate business entrance, may be attached to and should be perpendicular to the Facade, and shall clear 8 feet above the Sidewalk. b. A single external permanent sign band may be applied to the Facade of each building, providing that such sign not exceed 3 feet in height by any length. 9.Generalized statements pertaining to any architectural and community design guidelines shall be submitted in sufﬁcient detail to provide information on building designs, orientations, styles, lighting plans, etc. 24 Note: These standards do not apply to the existing buildings. HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 10.2.23 PHASING PLAN SWIMMIN BASKETBALL STABL ALMA BLEADSO BLESSIN RUTH CAMP MEMORI LONGVIE PRESIDENT BROWNL EQUESTRI FISHIN BAPTIST ORPHANA HOBDA BOXLEY MAINTENAN ANNEX INFIRMA JAMES CARPENT A B J I H G F D E C 10. A development schedule indicating the location, extent and sequence of proposed development. Speciﬁc information on development of the open space, recreation areas, and non-residential uses should be included. 25 Use Type Historic Core Buildings T3 T4 T5 Open Space / Natural Definition Agriculture The use of land for the production of food and fiber, including farming, dairying, pasturage, agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, and animal and poultry husbandry. A garden accessory to a residence shall not be considered agriculture. The keeping of a cow, pig, sheep, goat, chicken or similar animal shall constitute agriculture regardless of the size of the animal and regardless of the purpose for which it is kept. Agritourism Any activity carried out on a farm or ranch that allows members of the general public, for recreational, entertainment, or educational purposes, to view or enjoy rural activities, including farming, wineries, ranching, historical, cultural, harvest-your- own activities, or natural activities and attractions. Farm stand An establishment for the seasonal retail sale of agricultural goods and merchandise primarily produced by the operator on the site, or on nearby property. Agricultural goods produced on other properties owned or leased by the operator may also be allowed provided a majority of the produce comes from land surrounding the wayside stand. This use type shall include agricultural products picked by the consumer. Forestry operations The use of land for the raising and harvesting of timber, pulp woods and other forestry products for commercial purposes, including the temporary operation of a sawmill and/or chipper to process the timber cut from that parcel or contiguous parcels. Excluded from this definition shall be the cutting of timber associated with land development approved by the City of Salem, which shall be considered accessory to the development of the property. Stable √* The boarding, keeping, breeding, pasturing or raising of horses, ponies, mules, donkeys or llamas by the owner or occupant of the property and/or their paying or non-paying guests. Included in this definition are riding academies. *HopeTree Equine Therapy to remain a viable use. The City of Salem Zoning Ordinance - Hopetree Uses & Definitions - Revised 03.18.2024 Agriculture 1 Use Type Historic Core Buildings T3 T4 T5 Open Space / Natural Definition Accessory apartment √ √ √ √ A second dwelling unit within a detached single family dwelling which is clearly incidental and subordinate to the main dwelling unit. Accessory Dwelling Unit √√√√Additional use type to include attached or detached accessory dwelling units. Family day care home √ √ A single family dwelling in which more than five but less than ten individuals, are received for care, protection and guidance during only part of a 24 hour day. Individuals related by blood, legal adoption or marriage to the person who maintains the home shall not be counted towards this total. The care of five or less individuals for portions of a day shall be considered a home occupation. Home occupation √ √ √ √ An accessory use of a dwelling unit for gainful employment involving the production, provision, or sale of goods and/or services. Manufactured home A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which in the traveling mode is eight body feet or more in width or 40 body feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, is 320 or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation. A manufactured home shall contain one dwelling unit. Some manufactured homes are also referred to as mobile homes. Manufactured home, accessory A manufactured home that is subordinate to a single family dwelling on a single lot and meets the additional criteria contained in this chapter. Manufactured home, emergency A manufactured home used temporarily for the period of reconstruction or replacement of an uninhabitable dwelling lost or destroyed by fire, flood, or other act of nature, or used temporarily as housing relief to victims of a federally declared disaster in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Manufactured home subdivision A ten acre or larger community of manufactured home dwellings with lots that are subdivided for individual ownership. Manufactured home park A ten acre or larger tract of land intended to accommodate a manufactured home community of multiple spaces for lease or condominium ownership. A manufactured home park is also referred to as a mobile home park. Multi-family dwelling √√ √ A building or portion thereof which contains three or more dwelling units for permanent occupancy, regardless of the method of ownership. Included in the use type would be garden apartments, low and high rise apartments, apartments for elderly housing and condominiums. Residential human care facility √ √ √ √ A building (1) used as a group home where not more than eight mentally ill, mentally retarded or other developmentally disabled persons, not related by blood or marriage, reside, with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons and for which the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services is the licensing authority, pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-2291, or (2) used as a group home where not more than eight aged, infirm or disabled persons, not related by blood or marriage, reside with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons and for which the Department of Social Services is the licensing authority, pursuant to § Virginia Code § 15.2-2291(B). Excluded from this definition are drug or alcohol rehabilitation centers, half-way houses and similar uses. Residential 2 Single family dwelling detached √ √ √ √ A site built or modular building designed for or used exclusively as one dwelling unit for permanent occupancy. A single family dwelling which is surrounded by open space or yards on all sides, is located on its own individual lot, and which is not attached to any other dwelling by any means. Single family dwelling attached √ √ √ √ A site built or modular building designed for or used exclusively as one dwelling unit for permanent occupancy. Two single family dwellings sharing a common wall area, each on its own individual lot. Temporary family health care structure √ √ √ √ A transportable residential structure providing an environment facilitating a caregiver's provision of care for mentally or physically impaired person that (i) is primarily assembled at a location other than its site of installation, (ii) is limited to one occupant who shall be the mentally or physically impaired person, (iii) has no more than 300 gross square feet, (iv) complies with the applicable provisions of the Industrialized Building Safety Law and the Uniform Statewide Building Code, and (v) is not placed on a permanent foundation. For purposes of this definition "caregiver" and "mentally or physically impaired person" are as defined in § 15.2-2292.1 of the Code of Virginia. Townhouse √ √ √ A grouping of three or more attached single family dwellings in a row in which each unit has its own front and rear access to the outside, no unit is located over another unit, and each unit is separated from any other unit by one or more common walls. Two family dwelling √ √ √ √The use of an individual lot for two dwelling units which share at least one common wall, each occupied by one family. 3 Use Type Historic Core Buildings T3 T4 T5 Open Space / Natural Definition Administrative services Governmental offices providing administrative, clerical or public contact services that deal directly with the citizen. Typical uses include federal, state, county, and city offices. Assisted care residence An establishment that provides shelter and services which may include meals, housekeeping, and personal care assistance primarily for the elderly. Residents are able to maintain a semi-independent life style, not requiring the more extensive care of a nursing home. Residents will, at a minimum, need assistance with at least one of the following: medication management, meal preparation, housekeeping, money management, or personal hygiene. At least one nurse's aid is typically on duty, with medical staff available when needed. Camps √*A use which primarily provides recreational opportunities of an outdoor nature on a daily or overnight basis. Included in this use type would be scout camps, religious camps, children's camps, wilderness camps, and similar uses which are not otherwise specifically described in this chapter.*Includes special events of a temporary nature. Cemetery √* Land used or dedicated to the burial of the dead, including columbariums, crematoriums, mausoleums, and necessary sales and maintenance facilities. Funeral Services use types shall be included when operated within the boundary of such cemetery. * There is small cemetery located on the edge of our pasture Clubs √√ A use providing meeting, or social facilities for civic or social clubs, and similar organizations and associations, primarily for use by members and guests. Recreational facilities, unless otherwise specifically cited in this section, may be provided for members and guests as an accessory use. This definition shall not include fraternal or sororal organizations associated with colleges or universities. A Club does not include a building in which members reside. Community recreation √√ √ A recreational facility for use solely by the residents and guests of a particular residential development, planned unit development, or residential neighborhood, including indoor and outdoor facilities. These facilities are usually proposed or planned in association with development and are usually located within or adjacent to such development. Correction facilities A public or privately operated use providing housing and care for individuals legally confined, designed to isolate those individuals from a surrounding community. Crisis center A facility providing temporary protective sanctuary for victims of crime or abuse including emergency housing during crisis intervention for individuals, such as victims of rape, child abuse, or physical beatings. Cultural services √*√*A library, museum, or similar public or quasi-public use displaying, preserving and exhibiting objects of community and cultural interest in one or more of the arts or sciences. **HopeTree Museum Specifically Educational facilities, college/university An educational institution authorized by the Commonwealth of Virginia to award associate, baccalaureate or higher degrees. Educational facilities, primary/secondary √√A public, private or parochial school offering instruction at the elementary, junior and/or senior high school levels in the branches of learning and study required to be taught in the public schools of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Civic 4 Guidance services √√ A use providing counseling, guidance, recuperative, or similar services for persons requiring rehabilitation assistance or therapy for only part of a 24 hour day. This use type shall not include facilities that dispense and/or administer controlled substances and/or pharmaceutical products for the treatment of drug addiction and substance abuse and/or mental health disorders. Non-medicinal counseling-based treatment of drug addiction and substance abuse and/or mental health disorders may be considered guidance services after review by the administrator. Facilities that do dispense and/or administer controlled substances and/or pharmaceutical products for the treatment of drug addiction and substance abuse and/or mental health disorders shall be considered an Outpatient mental health and substance abuse clinic. Halfway House An establishment providing residential accommodations, rehabilitation, counseling, and supervision to persons suffering from alcohol or drug addiction, to persons reentering society after being released from a correctional facility or other institution, or to persons suffering from similar disorders or circumstances. Life care facility A residential facility primarily for the continuing care of the elderly, providing for transitional housing progressing from independent living in various dwelling units, with or without kitchen facilities, and culminating in nursing home type care where all related uses are located on the same lot. Such facility may include other services integral to the personal and therapeutic care of the residents. Nursing home A use providing bed care and in-patient services for persons requiring regular medical attention but excluding a facility providing surgical or emergency medical services and excluding a facility providing care for alcoholism, drug addiction, mental disease, or communicable disease. Nursing homes have doctors or licensed nurses on duty. Park and ride facility A publicly owned, short-term, parking facility for commuters. Post office Postal services directly available to the consumer operated by the United States Postal Service. Public assembly Facilities owned and operated by a public agency accommodating public assembly for sports, amusement, or entertainment purposes. Typical uses include auditoriums, sports stadiums, convention facilities, fairgrounds, and sales and exhibition facilities. Public maintenance and service facilities A public facility supporting maintenance, repair, vehicular or equipment servicing, material storage, and similar activities including street or sewer yards, equipment services centers, and similar uses having characteristics of commercial services or contracting or industrial activities. Public parks and recreational areas Publicly-owned and operated parks, picnic areas, playgrounds, indoor or outdoor athletic facilities, greenways and open spaces. Religious assembly √√A use located in a permanent building and providing regular organized religious worship and related incidental activities, except primary or secondary schools and day care facilities. Safety services Facilities for the conduct of safety and emergency services for the primary benefit of the public, whether publicly or privately owned and operated, including police and fire protection services and emergency medical and ambulance services. 5 Use Type Historic Core Buildings T3 T4 T5 Open Space / Natural Definition Financial instutitions √√* Provision of financial and banking services to consumers or clients. Walk-in and drive-in services to consumers are generally provided on site. Typical uses include banks, savings and loan associations, savings banks, credit unions, lending establishments and free-standing automatic teller machines. • Walk-In Only General office √√ Use of a site for business, professional, or administrative offices, excluding medical offices/clinic. Typical uses include real estate, insurance, management, travel, computer software or information systems research and development, or other business offices; organization and association offices; or law, architectural, engineering, accounting or other professional offices. Retail sales do not comprise more than an accessory aspect of the primary activity of a General Office. Medical Office/clinic A facility used for human health care of the body, such as medical, dental, therapeutic, chiropractic or similar consultation, diagnosis, and treatment by one or more practitioners licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Medical offices/clinics provide outpatient care on a routine basis, and may offer minor surgical care, but do not provide overnight care or serve as a base for an ambulance service. Outpatient mental health and sustance abuse clinic An establishment which provides outpatient services primarily related to the diagnosis and treatment of mental health disorders, alcohol, or other drug or substance abuse disorders. Services include the dispensing and administering of controlled substances and pharmaceutical products by professional medical practitioners licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Laboratories √√ Establishments primarily engaged in performing research or testing activities into technological matters. Typical uses include engineering and environmental laboratories, medical, optical, dental and forensic laboratories, x-ray services, and pharmaceutical laboratories only involved in research and development. Excluded are any laboratories which mass produce one or more products directly for the consumer market. Office 6 Use Type Historic Core Buildings T3 T4 T5 Open Space / Natural Definition Adult business Any adult bookstore, adult video store, adult model studio, adult motel, adult movie theater, adult nightclub, adult store, business providing adult entertainment, or any other establishment that regularly exploits an interest in matters relating to specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas or regularly features live entertainment intended for the sexual stimulation or titillation of patrons, and as such terms are defined in Chapter 58 of this Code. Agricultural services An establishment primarily engaged in providing services specifically for the agricultural community which is not directly associated with a farm operation. Included in this use type would be servicing of agricultural equipment, independent equipment operators, and other related agricultural services. Antique shops √√A place offering primarily antiques for sale. An antique for the purposes of this chapter shall be a work of art, piece of furniture, decorative object, or the like, of or belonging to the past, at least 30 years old. Assembly hall √√A building, designed and used primarily for the meeting or assembly of a large group of people for a common purpose. Typical uses include meeting halls, union halls, bingo parlors, and catering or banquet facilities. Athletic instruction services √√ Establishments primarily engaged in providing indoor instruction and training in athletic sports that require high ceiling heights for the activity. Typical uses include gymnastics academies, baseball and softball training centers, tennis centers and golf centers. Automobile dealership, new The use of any building, land area or other premise for the display of new and used automobiles, trucks, vans, or motorcycles for sale or rent, including any warranty repair work and other major and minor repair service conducted as an accessory use. Automobile dealership, used Any lot or establishment where three or more used motor vehicles, including automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles are displayed at one time for sale. Automobile repair services, major Repair of construction equipment, commercial trucks, agricultural implements and similar heavy equipment, including automobiles, where major engine and transmission repairs are conducted. This includes minor automobile repairs in conjunction with major automobile repairs. Typical uses include automobile and truck repair garages, transmission shops, radiator shops, body and fender shops, equipment service centers, machine shops and other similar uses where major repair activities are conducted. Automobile repair services, minor Repair of automobiles, noncommercial trucks, motorcycles, motor homes, recreational vehicles, or boats, including the sale, installation, and servicing of equipment and parts. Typical uses include tire sales and installation, wheel and brake shops, oil and lubrication services and similar repair and service activities where minor repairs and routine maintenance are conducted. Automobile rental/leasing Rental of automobiles and light trucks and vans, includ-ing incidental parking and servicing of vehicles for rent or lease. Typical uses include auto rental agencies and taxicab dispatch areas. Automobile parts/supply, retail Retail sales of automobile parts and accessories. Typical uses include automobile parts and supply stores which offer new and factory rebuilt parts and accessories, and include establishments which offer minor automobile repair services. Commercial 7 Business support services √√ Establishments or places of business engaged in the sale, rental or repair of office equipment, supplies and materials, or the provision of services used by office, professional and service establishments. Typical uses include office equipment and supply firms, small business machine repair shops, convenience printing and copying establishments, as well as temporary labor services. Business or trade schools A use providing education or training in business, commerce, language, or other similar activity or occupational pursuit, and not otherwise defined as an educational facility, either primary and secondary, or college and university. Campgrounds Facilities providing camping or parking areas and incidental services for travelers in recreational vehicles and/or tents. Car wash Washing and cleaning of vehicles. Typical uses include automatic conveyor machines and self-service car washes. Commercial indoor amusement Establishments which provide multiple coin operated amusement or entertainment devices or machines as other than an incidental use of the premises. Such devices would include pinball machines, video games, and other games of skill or scoring, and would include pool and/or billiard tables, whether or not they are coin operated. Typical uses include game rooms, billiard and pool halls, and video arcades. Commercial indoor entertainment Predominantly spectator uses conducted within an enclosed building. Typical uses include motion picture theaters, and concert or music halls. Commercial indoor sports and recreation Predominantly non-instructional participant-based uses conducted within an enclosed building. Typical uses include bowling alleys, ice and roller skating rinks, indoor racquetball, swimming, and/or tennis facilities. Commercial outdoor entertainment Predominantly spectator uses conducted in open or partially enclosed or screened facilities. Typical uses include sports arenas, motor vehicle or animal racing facilities, and outdoor amusement parks. Commercial outdoor sports and recreation √*√*Predominantly participant uses conducted in open or partially enclosed or screened facilities. Typical uses include driving ranges, miniature golf, swimming pools, tennis courts, outdoor racquetball courts, motorized cart and motorcycle tracks, and motorized model airplane flying facilities. *Limited to two existing ballfields in current or future location/design. Communications services Establishments primarily engaged in the provision of broadcasting and other information relay services accomplished through the use of electronic and telephonic mechanisms. Excluded from this use type are facilities classified as Utility Services - Major or Towers. Typical uses include television studios, telecommunication service centers, telegraph service offices or film and sound recording facilities. Construction sales and services Establishments or places of business primarily engaged in retail or wholesale sale, from the premises, of materials used in the construction of buildings or other structures, but specifically excluding automobile or equipment supplies otherwise classified herein. Typical uses include building material stores and home supply establishments. Consumer repair services √√ Establishments primarily engaged in the provision of repair services to individuals and households, rather than businesses, but excluding automotive and equipment repair use types. Typical uses include appliance repair shops, shoe repair, watch or jewelry repair shops, or repair of musical instruments. Convenience store √√Establishments primarily engaged in the provision of frequently or recurrently needed goods for household consumption, such as prepackaged food and beverages, and limited household supplies and hardware. Convenience stores shall not include fuel pumps or the selling of fuel for motor vehicles. Typical uses include neighborhood markets and country stores. 8 Dance hall Establishments in which more than ten percent of the total floor area is designed or used as a dance floor, or where an admission fee is directly collected, or some other form of compensation is obtained for dancing. Day care center √√Any facility operated for the purpose of providing care, protection and guidance to ten or more individuals during only part of a 24 hour day. This term includes nursery schools, preschools, day care centers for individuals, and other similar uses but excludes public and private educational facilities or any facility offering care to individuals for a full 24 hour period. Equipment sales and rental Establishments primarily engaged in the sale or rental of tools, trucks, tractors, construction equipment, agricultural implements, and similar industrial equipment, and the rental of mobile homes. Included in this use type is the incidental storage, maintenance, and servicing of such equipment. Flea market Businesses engaged in the outdoor sale of used or new items, involving regular or periodic display of merchandise for sale. Funeral services Establishments engaged in undertaking services such as preparing the dead for burial, and arranging and managing funerals. Typical uses include mortuaries and crematories. Garden center Establishments or places of business primarily engaged in retail or wholesale (bulk) sale, from the premises, of trees, shrubs, seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, plants and plant materials primarily for agricultural, residential and commercial consumers. Such establishments typically sell products purchased from others, but may sell some material which they grow themselves. Typical uses include nurseries, plant stores and lawn and garden centers. Gasoline station Any place of business with fuel pumps and gasoline storage tanks which provides fuels and oil for motor vehicles. Golf course A tract of land for playing golf, improved with tees, greens, fairways, hazards, and which may include clubhouses and shelters. Included would be executive or par 3 golf courses. Specifically excluded would be independent driving ranges and any miniature golf course. Homestay inn A dwelling in which not more than five bedrooms are provided for overnight guests for compensation, on a daily or weekly basis, with or without meals. The owner or the owner's agent shall reside on the same parcel occupied by the homestay inn. A homestay inn may also be known as a bed and breakfast. Hospital A facility providing medical, psychiatric, or surgical service for sick or injured persons primarily on an in-patient basis and including ancillary facilities for outpatient and emergency treatment diagnostic services, training, research, administration, and services to patients, employees, or visitors. Hotel/motel/motor lodge √√ A building or group of attached or detached buildings containing lodging units intended primarily for rental or lease to transients by the day, week or month. Such uses generally provide additional services such as daily maid service, restaurants, meeting rooms and/or recreation facilities. Kennel, commercial The boarding, breeding, raising, grooming or training of dogs, cats, or other household pets of any age not owned by the owner or occupant of the premises, and/or for commercial gain. Laundry Establishments primarily engaged in the provision of laundering, cleaning or dyeing services other than those classified as Personal Services. Typical uses include bulk laundry and cleaning plants, diaper services, or linen supply services. Manufactured home sales Establishments primarily engaged in the display, retail sale, rental, and minor repair of new and used manufactured homes, parts, and equipment. 9 Massage parlor Establishments having a fixed place of business where any person other than a massage therapist, as licensed by the Virginia Board of Nursing, administers or gives any kind or character of massage, manipulation of the body or other similar procedure. Massage therapy as licensed by the Virginia Board of Nursing shall be considered a personal service. This definition shall not be construed to include a hospital, nursing home, medical clinic, or the office of a duly licensed physician, surgeon, physical therapist, chiropractor, osteopath, or a barber shop or beauty salon in which massages are administered only to the scalp, the face, the neck, or the shoulders, or an exercise club where massage is performed by a person of the same sex as the subject of the massage. Microbrewery √√An establishment engaged in the production of beer with a significant commercial component, such as a restaurant or retail store. Microdistillery √√An establishment engaged in the production of spirits with a significant commercial component, such as a restaurant or retail store. Personal storage A building designed to provide rental storage space in cubicles where each cubicle has a maximum floor area of 400 square feet. Each cubicle shall be enclosed by walls and ceiling and have a separate entrance for the loading and unloading of stored goods. Pawn shop A use engaged in the loaning of money on the security of property pledged in the keeping of the pawnbroker and the incidental sale of such property. Personal improvement services √√ Establishments primarily engaged in the provision of informational, instructional, personal improvements and similar services. Typical uses include driving schools, health or physical fitness centers (excluding athletic instruction services), reducing salons, dance studios, handicraft and hobby instruction. Personal services √√ Establishments or places of business engaged in the provision of frequently or recurrently needed services of a personal nature. Typical uses include beauty and barber shops; grooming of pets; seamstresses, tailors, or shoe repairs; florists; and Laundromats and dry cleaning stations serving individuals and households. Recreational vehicle sales and service Retail sales of recreational vehicles and boats, including service and storage of vehicles and parts and related accessories. Restaurant* √*√*An establishment engaged in the preparation and sale of food and beverages. Service to customers may be by counter or table service, or by take-out or delivery. * Walk-In Only. Retail Sales √√Sale or rental with incidental service of commonly used goods and merchandise for personal or household use but excludes those classified more specifically by these use type classifications. Short-term lender Establishments primarily engaged in short-term lending such as payday loans, car title loans, and refund anticipation loans. Studio, fine arts √√A building, or portion thereof, used as a place of work by a sculptor, artist, or photographer. Truck stop An establishment containing a mixture of uses which cater to the traveling public and in particular motor freight operators. A truck stop might include such uses as fuel pumps, restaurants, overnight accommodations, retail sales related to the motor freight industry, and similar uses. Veterinary hospital/clinic Any establishment rendering surgical and medical treatment of animals. Boarding of animals shall only be conducted indoors, on a short term basis, and shall only be incidental to such hospital/clinic use, unless also authorized and approved as a commercial kennel. 10 Use Type Existing Buildings T3 T4 T5 Open Space / Natural Definition Amateur radio tower A structure on which an antenna is installed for the purpose of transmitting and receiving amateur radio signals erected and operated by an amateur radio operator licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. Aviation facilities Private or public land areas used or intended to be used for the take-off and landing of aircraft. Aviation facilities may include facilities for the operation, service, fueling, repair and/or storage of the aircraft. Mixed use √√Mixed use is a single building or parcel wherein multiple uses such as residential and commercial share space. Outdoor gathering Any temporary organized gathering expected to attract 500 or more people at one time in open spaces outside an enclosed structure. Included in this use type would be music festivals, church revivals, carnivals and fairs, and similar transient amusement and recreational activities not otherwise listed in this section. Such activities held on publicly owned land shall not be included within this use type. Parking facility, surface/structure Use of a site for surface parking or a parking structure unrelated to a specific use which provides one or more parking spaces together with driveways, aisles, turning and maneuvering areas, incorporated landscaped areas, and similar features meeting the requirements established by this chapter. This use type shall not include parking facilities accessory to a permitted principal use. Shooting range, outdoor The use of land for archery and the discharging of firearms for the purposes of target practice, skeet and trap shooting, mock war games, or temporary competitions, such as a turkey shoot. Excluded from this use type shall be general hunting, and the unstructured and nonrecurring discharging of firearms on private property with the property owner's permission if in compliance with the Code of the City of Salem. Tower Any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting one or more antennas. The term includes but need not be limited to radio and television transmission towers, microwave towers, common-carrier towers, and cellular telephone and wireless communication towers. Tower types include, but are not limited to monopoles, lattice towers, wooden poles, and guyed towers. Excluded from this definition are amateur radio towers, which are otherwise defined. Utility services, minor √ √ √ √ √ Services which are necessary to support existing and future development within the immediate vicinity and involve only minor structures. Including in this use type are distribution lines and small facilities that are underground or overhead, such as transformers, relay and booster devices, and well, water and sewer pump stations. Also included are all major utility services owned and/or operated by the City of Salem, or any major utility services which were in existence prior to the adoption of this chapter. Utility services, major Services of a regional nature which normally entail the construction of new buildings or structures such as generating plants and sources, electrical switching facilities and stations or substations, water towers and tanks, community waste water treatment plants, and similar facilities. Included in this definition are also electric, gas, and other utility transmission lines of a regional nature which are not otherwise reviewed and approved by the Virginia State Corporation Commission. Miscellaneous 11 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 SALEM PUD REZONING APPLICATION (1 OF 3) Not Applicable for existing buildings. Not Applicable due to campus arrangements of multiple buildings. 32 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 SALEM PUD REZONING APPLICATION (2 OF 3)33 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 SALEM PUD REZONING APPLICATION (3 OF 3)34 HOPETREE PUD SALEM, VIRGINIA© 3.7.24 HOPETREE SALEM, VIRGINIA PUD REZONING APPLICATION 35 REZONING NARRATIVE As outlined in the PUD document, the vision for this property is to allow for the development of a fully integrated, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented neighborhood woven into the existing HopeTree campus of buildings and surrounding open space, while being sensitive to, and providing meaningful connections to, the surrounding neighborhoods in the community. On behalf of HopeTree Family Services (HopeTree), we are providing the narrative below as supplemental information to support the rezoning application and Planned Unit District (PUD) document with associated zoning information and guidelines for the development. This request is to rezone a portion of existing Tax Parcel 44-3-10 from RSF-Residential Single Family, to PUD-Planned Unit District for a proposed mixed- use neighborhood to be developed on the property. The HopeTree PUD document is the only document that is proffered with this request and all other documents are provided as supplemental information to further explain the request. Project Narrative The portion of the property that is proposed to be rezoned is approximately 62.318 acres along Red Lane and East Carrollton Avenue. The parcel is owned, operated, and occupied by HopeTree Family Services. HopeTree Family Services offers a wide range of ministries for at-risk children and youth and their families. These services include Treatment Foster Care, the HopeTree Academy secondary educational program, and Therapeutic Group Home. HopeTree also serves the needs of adults with intellectual disabilities and their families through their Developmental Disabilities Ministry. HopeTree Family Services is supported by the Virginia Baptist Children’s Home & Family Services Foundation and is a mission partner of the Virginia Baptist Mission Board. Over the last several decades, the use of this property has changed significantly, mainly due to a changing regulatory environment surrounding the specific types of services that have occupied the Salem campus. At its peak, when HopeTree was an orphanage, the campus was home to more than 400 youth ranging in age from 5 to 18. New regulations have discouraged the type of large-scale group home that existed on this campus in the past and have moved instead toward smaller-scale facilities that are integrated with the surrounding communities in which they are located. Because of limits from licensing bodies, the HopeTree campus is now limited to housing no more than 16 youth residents ages 13 to 17. In the past, youth would live on the campus for years until they turned 18. Today, youth residents typically stay no more than 6 months before being moved to another setting or back to their home. Care for youth and adults is moving away from a congregate, campus-style setting. Today, most services are offered in the communities in which they already live. As a result, HopeTree no longer has a need for the large amount of property that exists at this site; however, there is a strong desire to stay true to HopeTree’s roots and maintain a presence in this location. The HopeTree Board of Directors has been discussing options for the Salem campus since 2007. Several recommendations have been considered over the years, including selling the Salem campus property and moving elsewhere, or selling a portion of property along the Red Lane frontage for development. The proposed rezoning request is a result of HopeTree’s desire to “do more” with the property and to create something that will benefit HopeTree, the City of Salem, and its residents for years to come. The proposed PUD rezoning and associated development will allow HopeTree to remain on the property where they have so much history, while integrating HopeTree’s services with the proposed development, which is in keeping with the intent of the new regulations. HopeTree is currently teamed with a residential home builder (Stateson Homes) and commercial builder (Snyder & Associates), who are providing construction expertise on the project. Existing Conditions Existing improvements on the site include approximately 20 buildings of varying condition, drive aisles and parking areas, pool, tennis and basketball courts, two existing baseball fields near Red Lane, picnic shelter, above-ground stormwater management facility, and other miscellaneous improvements. The existing improvements have served various purposes for HopeTree over the years and many of them are under utilized or no longer utilized at all. Many of the buildings are centered around the core area in the center of the site. Six of these buildings (Portsmouth, Memorial, Carpenter, English, the Infirmary, and Ruth Camp Campbell) are currently vacant and will not be used again by HopeTree and were previously planned to be demolished. The proposed development envisions preserving as many of these structures as possible and converting them to residential or commercial uses that the entire community can benefit from. Utilizing the existing structures will preserve the unique character of the campus and allow this existing infrastructure to be re-purposed for the intended new uses. Existing topography is rolling with a ridge through the middle of the site running north to south that contains much of the existing development. There is an existing pond and two existing creeks on the property. One creek is on the west side to the south of the pond and the other creek is located in the southeast corner of the site. These features are anticipated to remain and have been incorporated into the Master Plan. There is a wooded area near the pond and creek along the western side of the property and this vegetation will be preserved to the extent practical. The property has frontage on the public rights-of-way of Red Lane, East Carrollton Avenue, North Broad Street, and Mount Vernon Avenue. This property is designated for residential use on the City of Salem Future Land Use Map dated June 11, 2012. The property is surrounded by Interstate 81 to the north and existing residential development on other sides. Community Vision The intent of this project is to preserve the HopeTree campus and buildings to the extent practical (including the buildings that were previously planned to be demolished) and provide new and infill development, where appropriate. Guiding principles of the project are to create a new community that minimizes traffic congestion, suburban sprawl, site grading, infrastructure costs, and preserves natural features and amenities. The plan for the HopeTree project is based on neighborhood design and development conventions which were widely used in the United States up until the 1940s and were based on the principles outlined throughout the PUD document. A design charette was held in October 2022 to solicit input from, and engage with, adjacent property owners, City staff, elected City officials, and other stakeholders for the project. While engaging with the community during the development of the Master Plan, it was noted that the existing neighborhood lacks pedestrian amenities such as sidewalks or trails. Residents currently walk along Red Lane and the speed of traffic along this road was also cited as a major concern. It is the intent of the project to reduce vehicle trips and encourage pedestrian activity by limiting the width of vehicular drives, providing on-street parking where possible, and providing a network of sidewalks and trails throughout the property. In addition to these design principles, the project also proposes to install on-street parking along the frontage of Red Lane, which will slow traffic and provide additional parking opportunities, and to install a new sidewalk along the frontage of Red Lane to provide safe pedestrian accommodations for the surrounding community. Density The City of Salem has very limited land resources remaining to be developed and it is paramount to utilize these remaining land resources to their true potential. The proposed PUD plan allows for the HopeTree property to be developed to its potential while also being sensitive to the existing community and its residents. These are guiding principles of this PUD plan. The density of the development will be limited by what is allowed in the PUD document. The total number of primary residential units shall not exceed 340. Accessory dwelling units will also be allowed but are not expected to be a major component of the project. Residential uses will make up the majority of the development with the proposed commercial uses and existing HopeTree institutional uses being integrated into the overall development. The commercial uses within the development will be determined based on what this community can support but is anticipated to consist of smaller users that are integrated into the neighborhood at an appropriate scale and in thoughtful locations. Approximately 40% of the property will be preserved either in a natural state or as public or private open space areas. This includes the large area on the west side of the site that contains the existing pond, creek, and natural vegetation. Several interior open space areas will be provided as well, including the proposed lawn area near the center of the site. Development Guidelines The development of the property will be governed by the PUD document. Lot development regulations, architectural standards, etc. are provided within the document and will be enforceable throughout the development. Allowable uses are outlined in the Use Table that is provided within the PUD document. Roads Roads and drive aisles internal to the development will be private. On-street parking will be a preferred parking solution for the development and will be utilized where practical. All proposed roads will be paved, and we will work with the appropriate City staff to ensure that sufficient access for emergency and trash collection vehicles is provided. A network of sidewalks will be provided throughout the development to encourage pedestrian activity and connectivity, as this is a central theme of the project. On-street parking and new sidewalk will be provided on Red Lane along the frontage of the property. The intent of these improvements is to slow traffic along this section of Red Lane, provide additional public parking opportunities, and to provide a dedicated pedestrian accommodation where one does not exist now. This section of Red Lane has a significant amount of pedestrian activity, and these improvements will serve existing and new residents. Access There are existing vehicular access points on Red Lane (2 locations) and East Carrollton Avenue (1 location). Additional access points are proposed along Red Lane, East Carrollton Avenue, and at the end of North Broad Street. One of the central themes within this development is to provide multiple access points to increase connectivity within the existing street grid pattern and to allow vehicular trips to be distributed to the existing road network more efficiently. As requested by the City, a Traffic Study has been prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. that analyzes the development and impacts to the existing roadway network adjacent to the project. In addition to this, turn lane warrants have been analyzed. The quantities of residential and commercial uses have been assumed in order to study a reasonable and conservative level of traffic that will be generated by this project. The uses assumed in the study intended to be placeholders and are not intended to represent exactly what will be developed on the property. As outlined in the Traffic Study, the surrounding road network is sufficient to handle traffic from the proposed development and impacts to delay and level of service are minimal. The development does not meet any turn lane warrants at any of the proposed access points. Sight distance requirements will be required to be met with the final development plans. Utilities This project will be served by public water and sewer. As discussed with the City of Salem Water and Sewer Department, sufficient capacity exists within the existing public water and sewer systems to serve the proposed development. Public water and sewer will be extended through the property to serve the existing and proposed buildings and replace the existing private utility systems that are currently in place. New public water mains are anticipated to provide additional interconnectivity and redundancy in the system, which will improve service to the property and the surrounding area. Comprehensive Development Plan This project is in conformance with many of the Goals and Objectives defined in the City of Salem’s current Comprehensive Plan. The development pattern for this project is sensitive to the existing surrounding neighborhoods by centering the most intense uses near the core of the property furthest from the existing residential houses. The least intense residential uses are located around the perimeter of the property, closest to the existing roadways and existing residential homes. The variety of housing types acknowledges and addresses the need for new housing and varying types of housing in the City of Salem. The intent of the project is to maximize the development potential of the most developable portions of the property and to preserve the most environmentally sensitive areas of the property. The preservation of open space, development of pedestrian amenities, and extensive landscaping will all enhance the neighborhood and directly address the goals of improving the beauty and appearance of the City of Salem and Preserving and Enhancing Open Space on Private properties. Summary The proposed development regulations and Master Plan are fully outlined in the HopeTree PUD document, attached to this application. It is the intent that this be the official document that will guide the development of this property. HopeTree has repeatedly stated that its three main goals for the project are “to honor the history of HopeTree on this campus, to position HopeTree for the future, and to make our community proud.” We are extremely excited to submit this application for rezoning. This project provides an excellent opportunity for the City of Salem to gain a new mixed-use community that will serve existing and future residents of Salem. The HopeTree project will provide many different housing types, while being sensitive to the surrounding residential neighborhoods, preserving important natural features, and providing services and amenities that will benefit the entire community. 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 2 9 . 0 0 H O P E T R E E M A S T E R P L A N \ C I V I L \ d w g \ 0 4 2 2 0 0 2 9 . 0 0 C i v i l B a s e 6 . 2 9 . 2 0 2 3 . d w g P L O T T E D : 12 / 1 / 2 0 2 3 9 : 0 7 : 4 3 A M 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 540.772.9580 AAB CPB CPB 12/1/2023 1" = 100' HO P E T R E E P L A N N E D U S E D I S T R I C T PR O P E R T Y E X H I B I T CI T Y O F S A L E M , V I R G I N I A MO U N T V E R N O N A V E N U E EX-A 04220029.00 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 2 9 . 0 0 H O P E T R E E M A S T E R P L A N \ C I V I L \ d w g \ 0 4 2 2 0 0 2 9 . 0 0 H o p e T r e e P r o p e r t y E x h i b i t . d w g P L O T T E D : 2/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 4 1 0 : 3 4 : 4 8 A M 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 540.772.9580 AAB CPB CPB 2/9/2024 1" = 100' HO P E T R E E PR O P E R T Y O W N E R S H I P E X H I B I T CI T Y O F S A L E M , V I R G I N I A MO U N T V E R N O N A V E N U E EX-A 04220029.00 PRE L I M I N A R Y PROPERTY EXPECTED TO BE RETAINED BY HOPETREE (±22 ACRES TOTAL) LEGEND HopeTree Re-Zoning Updates Notes only – not a proffered document. HopeTree – List of revisions made previously on 3/07/2024 (Red Bubble Clouds) Pgs. 1/2 – No change Pg. 3 – Revised tax map numbers to include all parcels within the project boundaries. Pgs. 4/5/6 – No change Pg. 7 – In Parking, section 2: removed barrier height and timeline for growth. Pg. 7 – In Uses, added: • Maximum residential units at 340. • Maximum hotel rooms at 34. • Maximum square footage of retail / restaurant at 15,000SF. • Home occupations shall not be counted toward any maximum densities. This is consistent with how home occupations are typically handled in the City. • Removed note about establishing densities during master plan review. Pg. 8 – Removed reference to tree houses in T-3 Zone to be consistent with land use map. Pg. 9 – Revised four areas around the lower-left perimeter to be T-4 in lieu of T-5. Also: • Added clarification note that Historic Core Buildings or Civic Buildings would become T-5 zone if current use is discontinued. • Revised labeling of “Civic Building Site” to “Historic Core Building Site” for consistency with Use Table. • Revised general note to explain the definition of a “row” to mean a maximum of (5) of the same building type attached consecutively. • Deleted note about Commercial, Mixed Use, and Live-Works in T-5 (already noted in use table). Pg. 10 – Added note that sidewalk and on-street parking would be provided along Red Lane to be consistent with what has been discussed and committed to in meetings. Pgs. 11-22 – No change Pg. 23 – Accessory Buildings: • Removed language from “Garages” section that required a storage building be added if no garage. • Added language denoting what building types allow for accessory buildings, including ADU’s. Pg. 24 – Removed “General Zone” signage specifications, as signage is not applicable to residential use types. Pg. 25 – No change Pgs. 26-31 – Use tables: • “Existing Buildings” column change to “Historic Core Buildings” throughout Use Table to be consistent with Land Use Plan. • Removed several Agricultural Uses. • Added “Residential Human Care Facility” to all T-zones. Per City comment, this must be allowed throughout. • Added “Home Occupation” to list of Residential Uses – already allowed by ordinance, so this is a clarification. • Removed certain uses from T-4 zone as mixed-use building is not allowed. • Removed “Medical Office” from Open Space – typo. • Removed “Flea Market” from allowable uses. • Removed “Hospital” from allowable uses. • Removed “ Veterinary Hospital” from allowable uses. Pgs. 32-35 – No change HopeTree Re-Zoning Updates Notes only – not a proffered document. HopeTree – Additional changes made on 3/18/2024 and 4/1/2024 (Green Bubble Clouds) Pages 1-6 – No change Page 7 • Section A, Item 8 – Addresses the varying facades for townhouse units as noted in the zoning ordinance. • Section B, Item 4 – Add language to address the height of accessory buildings not exceeding that of the principal structure. • Section G, Item 5 – Adds maximum square footages for Office and other Commercial uses. • Section G, Item 6 – Limits total traffic generation for new residential and non-residential uses. • Section G, Item 7 – Denotes that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) shall count toward the maximum number of residential units. • Section G, Footnote – Clarifies that square footage maximums are for total square footage. Page 8 – No change Page 9 • General Notes were updated on the left-hand side of the page based upon Planning Commission feedback. o Building types do not apply to existing buildings. o Single-story mixed use buildings may be single use. o Existing buildings can be 100% non-residential use. o Minimum open space shall be 35% of total site area. • Civic Use Building Type was removed from the key. • Block ground delineation was updated (black dashed lines ILO green dashed lines) Page 10 • Note clarifying that Pedestrian Paths will be open to the public, except as necessary for HopeTree events and therapeutic interactions. Pages 11-12 – No change Page 13 • Changed “Civic Building Site” to “Historic Core Building Site” Pages 14-16 – No change Page 17 • Removed mixed use permission from Townhouse Building Type Page 18 • Removed mixed use permission from Loft Building Type Page 19 • Removed mixed use permission from Townhouse Park-Under Building Type • Removed mixed use permission from 3-Townhouse Estate Building Type Page 20 • Removed mixed use permission from Stacked-Flat Building Type • Removed mixed use permission from Mews House Building Type Page 21 • Removed mixed use permission from Multi-Family House Building Type • Removed mixed use permission from Multi-Family Building Building Type Pages 22-24 – No change Page 25 • Note added that final phasing plan will be determined during engineering design and development. Pages 26-36 • Use tables updated following feedback from Planning Commission and City Staff. Pages 37-40 – No Change LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE REZONED Beginning at a point at the intersection of the North line of West Carrollton Avenue and the East line of North Broad Street, thence along the East line of North Broad Street N 27°07'26" W a distance of 405.00' to a point at the terminus of North Broad Street; thence S 62°50'44" W a distance of 220.00' to a point; thence N 27°07'26" W a distance of 56.58' to a point; thence S 65°21'08" W a distance of 20.97' to a point; thence N 60°42'55" W a distance of 39.80' to a point; thence S 65°51'41" W a distance of 177.30' to a point; thence S 66°49'50" W a distance of 165.36' to a point; thence N 27°06'48" W a distance of 127.34' to a point; thence S 60°36'41" W a distance of 49.06' to a point; thence N 29°18'28" W a distance of 127.22' to a point; thence N 27°59'13" W a distance of 401.04' to a point; thence S 61°59'55" W a distance of 12.00' to a point; thence N 71°49'41" W a distance of 152.51' to a point; thence N 60°22'31" E a distance of 118.03' to a point; thence N 19°56'17" W a distance of 1088.42' to a point on the South line of Interstate 81; thence along the South line of Interstate 81 N 51°21'30" E a distance of 390.06' to a point; thence N 59°46'44" E a distance of 100.89' to a point; thence N 42°21'32" E a distance of 100.52' to a point; thence N 52°01'06" E a distance of 380.85' to a point at the intersection of the South line of Interstate 81 and the West line of Red Lane; thence along the West line of Red Lane S 08°26'28" E a distance of 365.95' to a point; thence S 08°55'13" E a distance of 83.12' to a point; thence with a curve turning to the left with an arc length of 353.82', with a radius of 320.00', with a chord bearing of S 40°35'45" E, with a chord length of 336.07', to a point; thence S 72°16'18" E a distance of 141.44' to a point; thence with a non-tangent curve turning to the right with an arc length of 318.24', with a radius of 710.00', with a chord bearing of S 58°42'30" E, with a chord length of 315.58', to a point; thence S 45°54'08" E a distance of 839.41' to a point ; thence S 67°53'11" W a distance of 9.99' to a point; thence S 22°06'49" E a distance of 315.70' to a point; thence leaving the West line of Red Lane S 60°35'11" W a distance of 190.10' to a point; thence S 22°06'49" E a distance of 100.00' to a point; thence S 37°19'34" E a distance of 95.13' to a point; thence S 28°44'42" E a distance of 122.90' to a point on the North line of West Carrollton Avenue; thence along the North line of West Carrollton Avenue S 62°51'48" W a distance of 676.02' to a point; which is the point of beginning, having an area of 2,714,568 square feet, 62.318 acres, being known as part of tax map number 44-3-10 and lying in the City of Salem, Virginia. 1 HOPETREE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Traffic Impact Study B&A Project #04220029.00 Date: December 1, 2023 Planners | Architects | Engineers | Surveyors 1208 Corporate Circle, Roanoke, VA 24018 www.balzer.cc TRAFFIC STUDY FOR HOPETREE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TAX MAP #: 44-3-10 860 MOUNT VERNON LANE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA B&A PROJECT #04220029.00 DATE: December 1, 2023  PLANNERS ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Phone: (540) 772-9580 Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….1 2. Analysis of Existing Conditions……………………………………………………….......4 3.Analysis of Future Conditions Without Development.……..…………………………...6 4.Trip Generation.…………………………………………………………………….………8 5.Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment…………………………..……………………. 10 6.Analysis of Future Conditions with Development……….……………………..............13 7.Turn Lane Warrants……………………………….……….…………………….............. 16 8.Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………18 Appendix A – Vicinity Map………………………………………………………………...19 Appendix B – P.U.D. Master Plan…..…………………..………………….…………….21 Appendix C – Existing Traffic Data……………………………………………………….23 Appendix D – VDOT Turn Lane Worksheets……………………………………………26 Appendix E – Synchro 11 Intersection Analysis Data………..………….……………. 31 2023 Existing AM Peak Hour Analysis…………………………………………32 2023 Existing PM Peak Hour Analysis…………………………………………34 2028 Background AM Peak Hour Analysis…………………………………….36 2028 Background PM Peak Hour Analysis…………………………………….38 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hour Analysis…..……………………….……………40 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hour Analysis………..……………………………….42 List of Figures Fig. 1 – 2023 Existing Turning Movements…..……………………..………….……............………..5 Fig. 2 – 2028 Projected Turning Movements..…………………………..............................………..7 Fig. 3 – Site-Generated Entering Movements..……………...………….............................………..11 Fig. 4 – Site-Generated Exiting Movements..…...…………...………….............................………..12 Fig. 5 –2028 Buildout Turning Movements..…………..….…...………………..………….……........14 List of Tables Table 1 – LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HCM)………...……………………………..3 Table 2 – Site-Generated Traffic…………………...…..…………………………….…….....………..11 Table 3 – Site-Generated Traffic w/ 25% Reduction…………………...…..……....…….....………..11 Table 4 – Red Lane & East Carrollton Avenue LOS Analysis…………………….………..………..15 Table 5 – North Broad Street & East Carrollton Avenue LOS Analysis…………….……..………..15 Traffic Study 1 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA December 1, 2023 1. Introduction HopeTree Family Services is proposing to rezone 62.318 acres of land located along Red Lane in the City of Salem (see Appendix A for vicinity map). The property is proposed to be rezoned from RSF, Residential Single Family, to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The P.U.D. Land Use Plan, prepared by Civic by Design, is included in Appendix B. The development will have a mix of residential and commercial use types. The maximum number of residential units allowed for this development is 340 and these are assumed to be broken down by type as outlined in the list below. Commercial uses will be determined by market conditions and opportunities available at the time of development. The list below outlines the uses that have been assumed for the purposes of this traffic study. •115 Single-Family Detached Dwelling Units •140 Single-Family Attached Dwelling Units •85 Multi-Family Dwelling Units •60 Total Hotel Rooms •15,000 s.f. of Total General Office Space •7,500 s.f. of Total Restaurant Space The breakdown of uses above is based on what is considered to be a reasonable and conservative expectation for the development based on the P.U.D. Land Use Plan. The actual breakdown may differ from these assumptions. It is recommended that projected trip generation be tracked as the development progresses for comparison to the traffic study. If the actual development results in significantly more traffic than what has been assumed, then it may be necessary to update this study. The site is located on the west side of Red Lane with East Carrollton Avenue to the south and Interstate 81 to the north. The property is described as City of Salem Tax Parcel #44-3-10. The development has several proposed existing and proposed entrances on Red Lane, East Carrollton Avenue, and North Broad Street. As discussed with the City of Salem, the following intersections will be analyzed to determine levels of service with the proposed development: •Red Lane and East Carrollton Avenue (Unsignalized) •East Carrollton Avenue and North Broad Street (Unsignalized) Traffic Study 2 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA December 1, 2023 All roads in the direct vicinity of the project are two-lane local roads that provide access between mostly residential areas. A mix of residential building types is present in this area, including single-family, two-family, townhome, and multi-family units. Roanoke College is located approximately 0.25 miles from the site to the southeast. The Main Street and downtown Salem commercial corridor is located approximately 0.7 miles south of the site. There are also two golf courses located in this area, Hanging Rock Golf Course to the north and Salem Municipal Golf Course to the west. Red Lane is utilized as a connection between downtown Salem, Hanging Rock Golf Course, and existing residential developments to the north. The speed limit on all of the local roads in the direct vicinity of the project is 25 mph. Three scenarios will be considered: Existing Condition 2023, Background Condition 2028, and Buildout Condition 2028 to determine the effects of the background traffic growth and the proposed development on the levels of service at the existing intersections. Level of service (LOS) for unsignalized intersections is evaluated based on control delay per vehicle and the driver’s perception of those conditions. Control delay is the portion of the total delay attributed to the control at the intersection. Table 1 depicts the LOS scale with corresponding control delay per vehicle, with LOS “A” representing the best operating conditions and LOS “F” representing the worst. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level Of Service Avg. Control Delay (Sec./Veh) A < 10 B > 10 – 15 C > 15 – 25 D > 25 – 35 E > 35 – 50 F > 50 Table 1: LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HCM) The Synchro 11 software was used for traffic modeling and analysis. This study was undertaken by Balzer and Associates, Inc. to: •determine the total number of vehicle trips generated by the potential development to be added to the adjacent street network; Traffic Study 3 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA December 1, 2023 •determine the impacts to level of service and queue lengths at the existing intersections as a result of the background traffic growth and from the proposed development; •determine if any roadway or intersection improvements are warranted as a result of the proposed development; •and to determine turn lane/taper requirements at the proposed entrances to the site. Traffic Study 4 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA December 1, 2023 2. Analysis of Existing Conditions The site is currently owned and operated by HopeTree Family Services and has been for many years. Changing regulations over the last several decades have greatly decreased the number of permanent residents that are allowed to be housed at the site at any one time. There are many existing buildings, some of which are still in use by HopeTree, and others that are no longer in use. Among other things, the site includes a school, group homes for children and adults, and offices where staff members work on-site. Other improvements on-site include access drives and parking areas, pool and athletic courts, two existing baseball fields near Red Lane, and other miscellaneous improvements. There is an existing pond and two existing creeks located on the site as well and these will be preserved to the extent practical. All intersections in the vicinity of the site are unsignalized. 2021 VDOT traffic count data is available for Red Lane just to the north of the site in Roanoke County, and this data is provided below as general background information. 2021 VDOT Traffic Count Data: Red Lane, Rte. 705 (from Salem/Roanoke County line to North Road) AADT = 1,100 vpd Directional Factor = not provided K Factor = not provided In addition to the VDOT published traffic count data, manual traffic counts were performed for each of the study intersections. The counts were performed on Tuesday, October 3, 2023 from 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM to capture the AM and PM peak hours. All turning and through movements were counted to facilitate analysis of the intersections. The manual traffic count data is provided in Appendix C. Figure 1 graphically depicts the existing peak hour traffic volumes. The Synchro 11 software was used to analyze delay and level of service for existing weekday AM and PM peak hours. The Synchro 11 results are included in Appendix E. Traffic Study 6 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA December 1, 2023 3. Analysis of Future Conditions Without Development It is anticipated that the proposed development will be constructed and in use by the year 2028. To analyze the future conditions and obtain the projected background traffic volumes, an annual growth factor was applied to the existing traffic volumes. Based on historical VDOT traffic data, the average growth rate over the last 10 years or so has been approximately 1% on Red Lane and there has actually been a reduction in traffic volume over the last 5 years. To provide a conservative analysis, a 1.5% annual growth rate was applied to bring the existing traffic volumes from the current year of 2023 to the buildout year of 2028. Figure 2 graphically depicts the projected background traffic in the year 2028 with the growth rate applied. The Synchro 11 software was used to analyze delay and level of service for background weekday AM and PM peak hours. The Synchro 11 results are included in Appendix E. Traffic Study 8 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA December 1, 2023 4. Trip Generation Trip generation for this study was based on the anticipated and assumed uses outlined in the Introduction and information provided by the developer regarding the possible uses of the property. The policies and procedures found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, were employed to determine the potential site generated traffic volumes for the proposed development for the average weekday and AM and PM peak hours. Trip generation calculations were performed using the equations provided in the ITE manual. Table 2 shows the potential site-generated traffic for this development. Trip Generation Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday Proposed Development ITE Code Independent Variable Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total Single-Family Detached Housing 210 115 Dwelling Units 21 64 85 71 42 113 1,147 Single-Family Attached Housing 215 140 Dwelling Units 17 50 67 47 33 80 1,016 Multi-Family Housing (Low- Rise) 220 85 Dwelling Units 12 37 49 36 21 57 620 Hotel 310 60 Rooms 13 10 23 8 9 17 227 General Office 710 15,000 s.f.29 4 33 6 28 34 223 Sit-Down Restaurants 932 7,500 s.f.39 33 72 41 27 68 804 Total 120 166 286 175 137 312 4,114 Table 2: Site-Generated Traffic Please note that the table above does not include traffic volumes for the HopeTree school or office uses. These specific uses are already taking place on the site and will not be trips that are “added” to the street network. The addition of the other use types on-site may actually reduce some of the existing trips due to the fact that some of the existing trips could be redirected to or from the new facilities that are developed within the site. The intent of the proposed development is to provide a cohesive, connected, walkable community where pedestrian connectivity is a primary focus and vehicular trips are secondary. Due to the nature of the development and the mix of residential, commercial, institutional, and other uses, a portion of the site-generated trips will be pedestrian trips and/or “internally Traffic Study 9 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA December 1, 2023 captured”. Internal capture reductions consider site trips “captured” within a mixed-use development, recognizing that trips from one land use can access another land use within a development without having to access the adjacent street system. It is well-documented that this type of pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use development will result in less traffic to the adjacent street network than what is calculated using traditional trip generation methods. Walkable mixed-use developments have been documented to reduce trip generation by as much as 60% during the peak hours dependent on factors such as location, density, mix of uses, etc. Based on the characteristics and initiatives of this P.U.D. development, a 25% reduction was deemed to be reasonable for this project. Table 3 below shows the potential site-generated traffic for this development with the internal capture reduction applied. Trip Generation Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday Proposed Development ITE Code Independent Variable Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total Single-Family Detached Housing 210 115 Dwelling Units 16 48 64 53 32 85 860 Single-Family Attached Housing 215 140 Dwelling Units 13 37 50 35 25 60 762 Multi-Family Housing (Low- Rise) 220 85 Dwelling Units 9 28 37 27 16 43 465 Hotel 310 60 Rooms 10 8 18 6 7 13 170 General Office 710 15,000 s.f.22 3 25 4 21 25 167 High-Turnover Sit- Down Restaurant 932 7,500 s.f.29 25 54 31 20 51 603 Total 99 149 248 156 121 277 3,027 Table 3: Site-Generated Traffic w/ 25% Reduction Traffic Study 10 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA December 1, 2023 5. Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment The distribution of potential site generated traffic was completed by applying engineering judgement based on knowledge of the proposed uses, as well as the surrounding area. These assumptions were then applied to the site generated traffic to determine the ingress/egress movements at each entrance and in each direction. Traffic will enter to and exit from the site to the north toward I-81 or to the south or west to go toward downtown Salem. There are several entrances planned for the site in strategic locations to disperse traffic and efficiently distribute vehicles to the adjacent road system in an interconnected grid-type network that is similar to what already exists to the north of Main Street. This development is proposed to have four access points on Red Lane, three access points on East Carrollton Avenue, and one access point on North Broad Street. The roadway network creates a network of streets within the development with a high level of interconnectivity both internally and externally to the existing streets. After distribution of trips to the roadway, trips were distributed to each road and intersection based on the assumptions described above. Traffic assignment for traffic entering the development is shown graphically in Figure 3 and for traffic exiting the development is shown graphically in Figure 4. Traffic Study 13 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA December 1, 2023 6. Analysis of Future Conditions With Development The buildout traffic was calculated by adding the 2028 background traffic (Figure 2) to the site-generated traffic (Figures 3 and 4). The 2028 buildout traffic for each of the study intersections is shown in Figure 5. The intersections were then modeled and evaluated using the Synchro 11 software. Tables 4 and 5 provide a summary of the levels of service and delays calculated at each intersection for the 2023 Existing, 2028 Background, and 2028 Buildout conditions. The detailed Synchro 11 reports are included in Appendix E. As shown in the data, all approaches at the two study intersections will function at the same level of service in the Buildout condition as they do in the Existing and Background conditions, with minimal increases in delay. No further improvements are warranted or recommended as a result of the development traffic. Traffic Study 15 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA December 1, 2023 Red Lane and East Carrollton Avenue AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOURCONDITIONLANE GROUP LANE LOS (delay)LANE LOS (delay) NBLT A (7.4)A (7.9) EBLR A (7.4)A (7.9)Existing 2023 Condition SBTR A (7.2)A (7.3) NBLT A (7.5)A (7.9) EBLR A (7.5)A (8.0) Background 2028 Condition SBTR A (7.3)A (7.4) NBLT A (7.7)A (8.4) EBLR A (7.7)A (8.4) Buildout 2028 Condition SBTR A (7.6)A (7.7) Table 4: Red Lane & East Carrollton Avenue LOS Analysis North Broad Street and East Carrollton Avenue AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOURCONDITIONLANE GROUP LANE LOS (delay)LANE LOS (delay) NBLTR B (10.3)B (12.1) EBL --A (7.5) WBL A (7.6)A (7.7) Existing 2023 Condition SBLTR A (8.7)B (10.3) NBLTR B (10.5)B (12.6) EBL --A (7.5) WBL A (7.7)A (7.7) Background 2028 Condition SBLTR A (8.7)B (10.5) NBLTR B (11.6)B (14.8) EBL A (7.5)A (7.6) WBL A (7.8)A (7.8) Buildout 2028 Condition SBLTR B (10.9)B (11.8) Table 5: North Broad Street & East Carrollton Avenue LOS Analysis Traffic Study 16 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA December 1, 2023 7. Turn Lane Warrants The analyses to determine turn lane requirements for the new development were completed by following the procedures and methodologies found in the VDOT Road Design Manual, Volume I, Appendix F. Turn lane warrants were analyzed based on the highest volumes for each roadway (Red Lane and East Carrollton Avenue) to show that the warrants are not met and will not be met for any of the intersections. Right-Turn Lane into Site from Red Lane AM Peak Hour Analysis: - 22 Vehicles per Hour Turning Right into site from Red Lane - Approach Volume = 127 + 22 = 149 VPH Red Lane -- Right-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: Radius Required (please see Appendix D). PM Peak Hour Analysis: - 36 Vehicles per Hour Turning Right into site from Red Lane - Approach Volume = 133 + 36 = 169 VPH Red Lane -- Right-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: Radius Required (please see Appendix D). Left-Turn Lane into Site from Red Lane AM Peak Hour Analysis: - 7 (9.7%) Vehicles per Hour Turning Left into site from Red Lane Posted Speed Limit = 25 mph - Advancing Volume = 72 VPH - Opposing Volume = 127 VPH -- Left-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: None Required (please see Appendix D). PM Peak Hour Analysis: - 11 (6.8%) Vehicles per Hour Turning Left into site from Red Lane Posted Speed Limit = 25 mph - Advancing Volume = 161 VPH - Opposing Volume = 133 VPH -- Left-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: None Required (please see Appendix D). Traffic Study 17 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA December 1, 2023 Right-Turn Lane into Site from East Carrollton Avenue AM Peak Hour Analysis: - 6 Vehicles per Hour Turning Right into site from East Carrollton Avenue - Approach Volume = 122 VPH East Carrollton Avenue -- Right-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: Radius Required (please see Appendix D). PM Peak Hour Analysis: - 9 Vehicles per Hour Turning Right into site from East Carrollton Avenue - Approach Volume = 166 VPH East Carrollton Avenue -- Right-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: Radius Required (please see Appendix D). Left-Turn Lane into Site from East Carrollton Avenue AM Peak Hour Analysis: - 8 (8.4%) Vehicles per Hour Turning Left into site from East Carrollton Avenue Posted Speed Limit = 25 mph - Advancing Volume = 95 VPH - Opposing Volume = 122 VPH -- Left-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: None Required (please see Appendix D). PM Peak Hour Analysis: - 14 (9.0%) Vehicles per Hour Turning Left into site from East Carrollton Avenue Posted Speed Limit = 25 mph - Advancing Volume = 155 VPH - Opposing Volume = 166 VPH -- Left-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: None Required (please see Appendix D). Traffic Study 18 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA December 1, 2023 8. Conclusions Based on the data collected, the assumptions made, and the projected site-generated traffic, the results of the analysis are outlined below. •The proposed development will generate additional traffic to the existing road network. •The proposed development results in very minimal increases in delay at the study intersections and all approaches function at the same level of service in the Existing, Background, and Buildout scenarios. •No turn lanes or tapers are warranted by the proposed development. Traffic Study HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA December 1, 2023 Appendix A Vicinity Map 19 Traffic Study HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA December 1, 2023 SITE SITE 20 Traffic Study HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA December 1, 2023 Appendix B P.U.D. Master Plan 21 22 Traffic Study HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA December 1, 2023 Appendix C Existing Traffic Data 23 TOTALS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by: VCU Intersection of: North Broad Street Date: October 03, 2023 Tuesday and: Carrollton Avenue Weather: Sunny/Warm Location: Salem, Virginia Entered by: SN Star Rating: 4 TOTAL on:North Broad Street on:North Broad Street on:Carrollton Avenue on:Carrollton Avenue N + S TIME + RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL E + W AM 7:00 - 7:15 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 11 2 0 13 20 5 0 0 25 44 7:15 - 7:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 13 2 0 15 21 10 0 0 31 54 7:30 - 7:45 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 5 1 18 2 0 21 50 13 0 0 63 89 7:45 - 8:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 8 0 15 2 0 17 32 20 0 0 52 77 8:00 - 8:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 0 25 0 0 25 15 18 0 0 33 71 8:15 - 8:30 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 9 0 10 0 16 0 0 16 19 8 0 0 27 54 8:30 - 8:45 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 7 0 8 0 7 0 0 7 25 11 0 0 36 52 8:45 - 9:00 1 0 0 0 1 2 3 5 0 10 0 13 0 0 13 16 9 0 0 25 49 2 Hr Totals 3 3 0 0 6 6 3 56 0 65 1 118 8 0 127 198 94 0 0 292 490 1 Hr Totals 7:00 - 8:00 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 22 0 24 1 57 8 0 66 123 48 0 0 171 264 7:15 - 8:15 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 32 0 34 1 71 6 0 78 118 61 0 0 179 291 7:30 - 8:30 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 33 0 36 1 74 4 0 79 116 59 0 0 175 291 7:45 - 8:45 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 36 0 39 0 63 2 0 65 91 57 0 0 148 254 8:00 - 9:00 2 1 0 0 3 4 3 34 0 41 0 61 0 0 61 75 46 0 0 121 226 PEAK HOUR 7:30 - 8:30 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 33 0 36 1 74 4 0 79 116 59 0 0 175 291 PM 4:00 - 4:15 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 8 0 10 0 24 0 0 24 19 17 0 0 36 71 4:15 - 4:30 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 20 0 20 0 20 1 0 21 18 19 0 0 37 79 4:30 - 4:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 0 13 0 34 1 0 35 15 20 0 0 35 83 4:45 - 5:00 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 18 0 18 0 28 3 0 31 12 18 1 0 31 81 5:00 - 5:15 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 25 0 27 0 35 0 0 35 19 25 1 0 45 109 5:15 - 5:30 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 23 0 25 0 36 4 0 40 32 26 1 0 59 124 5:30 - 5:45 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 16 0 16 1 20 1 0 22 17 23 0 0 40 80 5:45 - 6:00 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 20 0 22 0 24 2 0 26 19 25 1 0 45 93 2 Hr Totals 3 4 0 0 7 8 1 142 0 151 1 221 12 0 234 151 173 4 0 328 720 1 Hr Totals 4:00 - 5:00 1 2 0 0 3 2 1 58 0 61 0 106 5 0 111 64 74 1 0 139 314 4:15 - 5:15 2 2 0 0 4 2 1 75 0 78 0 117 5 0 122 64 82 2 0 148 352 4:30 - 5:30 1 2 0 0 3 4 1 78 0 83 0 133 8 0 141 78 89 3 0 170 397 4:45 - 5:45 2 3 0 0 5 4 0 82 0 86 1 119 8 0 128 80 92 3 0 175 394 5:00 - 6:00 2 2 0 0 4 6 0 84 0 90 1 115 7 0 123 87 99 3 0 189 406 PEAK HOUR 5:00 - 6:00 2 2 0 0 4 6 0 84 0 90 1 115 7 0 123 87 99 3 0 189 406 TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM WEST 24 TOTALS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by: VCU Intersection of: Red Lane Date: October 03, 2023 Tuesday and: Carrollton Avenue Weather: Sunny/Warm Location: Salem, Virginia Entered by: SN Star Rating: 4 TOTAL on:Red Lane on:Red Lane on:on:Carrollton Avenue N + S TIME + RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL E + W AM 7:00 - 7:15 12 6 0 0 18 0 3 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 5 28 7:15 - 7:30 9 7 0 0 16 0 1 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 0 11 32 7:30 - 7:45 10 18 0 0 28 0 3 6 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8 0 11 48 7:45 - 8:00 13 9 0 0 22 0 4 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 7 0 13 42 8:00 - 8:15 14 9 0 0 23 0 6 6 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 13 0 17 52 8:15 - 8:30 10 11 0 0 21 0 6 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 5 36 8:30 - 8:45 5 2 0 0 7 0 8 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 9 0 12 28 8:45 - 9:00 10 3 0 0 13 0 6 2 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 12 33 2 Hr Totals 83 65 0 0 148 0 37 28 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 61 0 86 299 1 Hr Totals 7:00 - 8:00 44 40 0 0 84 0 11 15 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 26 0 40 150 7:15 - 8:15 46 43 0 0 89 0 14 19 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 37 0 52 174 7:30 - 8:30 47 47 0 0 94 0 19 19 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 31 0 46 178 7:45 - 8:45 42 31 0 0 73 0 24 14 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 32 0 47 158 8:00 - 9:00 39 25 0 0 64 0 26 13 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 35 0 46 149 PEAK HOUR 7:30 - 8:30 47 47 0 0 94 0 19 19 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 31 0 46 178 PM 4:00 - 4:15 18 12 0 0 30 0 13 5 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 13 0 20 68 4:15 - 4:30 16 2 0 0 18 0 9 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 15 0 20 48 4:30 - 4:45 21 7 0 0 28 0 12 7 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 18 0 23 70 4:45 - 5:00 21 10 0 0 31 0 12 4 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 15 0 18 65 5:00 - 5:15 12 8 0 0 20 0 17 11 1 29 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 18 0 25 74 5:15 - 5:30 19 6 0 0 25 0 12 13 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 20 0 27 77 5:30 - 5:45 13 7 0 0 20 0 10 3 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 14 0 16 49 5:45 - 6:00 19 9 0 0 28 0 7 4 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 13 0 20 59 2 Hr Totals 139 61 0 0 200 0 92 48 1 141 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 126 0 169 510 1 Hr Totals 4:00 - 5:00 76 31 0 0 107 0 46 17 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 61 0 81 251 4:15 - 5:15 70 27 0 0 97 0 50 23 1 74 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 66 0 86 257 4:30 - 5:30 73 31 0 0 104 0 53 35 1 89 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 71 0 93 286 4:45 - 5:45 65 31 0 0 96 0 51 31 1 83 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 67 0 86 265 5:00 - 6:00 63 30 0 0 93 0 46 31 1 78 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 65 0 88 259 PEAK HOUR 4:30 - 5:30 73 31 0 0 104 0 53 35 1 89 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 71 0 93 286 TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM WEST 25 Traffic Study HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA December 1, 2023 Appendix D VDOT Turn Lane Worksheets 26 Road Design Manual Appendix F Page F-89 FIGURE 3-26 WARRANTS FOR RIGHT TURN TREATMENT (2-LANE HIGHWAY) Appropriate Radius required at all Intersections and Entrances (Commercial or Private). LEGEND PHV - Peak Hour Volume (also Design Hourly Volume equivalent) Adjustment for Right Turns For posted speeds at or under 45 mph, PHV right turns > 40, and PHV total < 300. Adjusted right turns = PHV Right Turns - 20 If PHV is not known use formula: PHV = ADT x K x D K = the percent of AADT occurring in the peak hour D = the percent of traffic in the peak direction of flow Note: An average of 11% for K x D will suffice. When right turn facilities are warranted, see Figure 3-1 for design criteria.* * Rev. 1/15 NO TURN LANES OR TAPERS REQUIRED 27 Road Design Manual Appendix F Page F-69 WARRANT FOR LEFT-TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO-LANE HIGHWAY FIGURE 3-4 WARRANT FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO LANE HIGHWAY FIGURE 3-5 WARRANT FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO LANE HIGHWAY 28 Road Design Manual Appendix F Page F-89 FIGURE 3-26 WARRANTS FOR RIGHT TURN TREATMENT (2-LANE HIGHWAY) Appropriate Radius required at all Intersections and Entrances (Commercial or Private). LEGEND PHV - Peak Hour Volume (also Design Hourly Volume equivalent) Adjustment for Right Turns For posted speeds at or under 45 mph, PHV right turns > 40, and PHV total < 300. Adjusted right turns = PHV Right Turns - 20 If PHV is not known use formula: PHV = ADT x K x D K = the percent of AADT occurring in the peak hour D = the percent of traffic in the peak direction of flow Note: An average of 11% for K x D will suffice. When right turn facilities are warranted, see Figure 3-1 for design criteria.* * Rev. 1/15 NO TURN LANES OR TAPERS REQUIRED 29 Road Design Manual Appendix F Page F-69 WARRANT FOR LEFT-TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO-LANE HIGHWAY FIGURE 3-4 WARRANT FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO LANE HIGHWAY FIGURE 3-5 WARRANT FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO LANE HIGHWAY 30 Traffic Study HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA December 1, 2023 Appendix E Synchro 11 Intersection Analysis Data 31 HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave 10/20/2023 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 7:30 am 10/03/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.3 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 31 15 19 19 47 47 Future Vol, veh/h 31 15 19 19 47 47 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 36 17 22 22 55 55 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB NB SB Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 7.4 7.4 7.2 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 50% 67% 0% Vol Thru, % 50% 0% 50% Vol Right, % 0% 33% 50% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 38 46 94 LT Vol 19 31 0 Through Vol 19 0 47 RT Vol 0 15 47 Lane Flow Rate 44 53 109 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.051 0.061 0.113 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.178 4.102 3.728 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 854 867 959 Service Time 2.218 2.155 1.764 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.052 0.061 0.114 HCM Control Delay 7.4 7.4 7.2 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 0.2 0.4 32 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave 10/20/2023 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 7:30 am 10/03/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 59 116 4 74 1 33 0 1 0 0 1 Future Vol, veh/h 0 59 116 4 74 1 33 0 1 0 0 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 72 141 5 90 1 40 0 1 0 0 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 91 0 0 213 0 0 244 244 143 244 314 91 Stage 1 - - - - - - 143 143 - 101 101 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 101 101 - 143 213 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1517 - - 1369 - - 714 661 910 714 605 972 Stage 1 - - - - - - 865 782 - 910 815 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 910 815 - 865 730 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1517 - - 1369 - - 711 658 910 711 603 972 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 711 658 - 711 603 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 865 782 - 910 812 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 905 812 - 864 730 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 10.3 8.7 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 716 1517 - - 1369 - - 972 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.058 - - - 0.004 - - 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 0 - - 7.6 0 - 8.7 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0 - - 0 33 HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave 10/20/2023 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 4:30 pm 10/03/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.7 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 71 22 36 53 31 73 Future Vol, veh/h 71 22 36 53 31 73 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 76 24 39 57 33 78 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB NB SB Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 7.9 7.9 7.3 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 40% 76% 0% Vol Thru, % 60% 0% 30% Vol Right, % 0% 24% 70% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 89 93 104 LT Vol 36 71 0 Through Vol 53 0 31 RT Vol 0 22 73 Lane Flow Rate 96 100 112 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.113 0.118 0.116 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.243 4.264 3.727 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 835 829 946 Service Time 2.316 2.349 1.81 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.115 0.121 0.118 HCM Control Delay 7.9 7.9 7.3 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0.4 0.4 34 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave 10/20/2023 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 4:30 pm 10/03/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 99 87 7 115 1 84 0 6 0 2 2 Future Vol, veh/h 3 99 87 7 115 1 84 0 6 0 2 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 4 121 106 9 140 1 102 0 7 0 2 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 141 0 0 227 0 0 343 341 174 345 394 141 Stage 1 - - - - - - 182 182 - 159 159 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 161 159 - 186 235 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1455 - - 1353 - - 615 584 875 613 546 912 Stage 1 - - - - - - 824 753 - 848 770 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 846 770 - 820 714 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1455 - - 1353 - - 606 578 875 603 541 912 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 606 578 - 603 541 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 822 751 - 845 765 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 835 765 - 811 712 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.4 12.1 10.3 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 619 1455 - - 1353 - - 679 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.177 0.003 - - 0.006 - - 0.007 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.1 7.5 0 - 7.7 0 - 10.3 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 0 - - 0 - - 0 35 HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave 10/28/2023 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 4:22 pm 10/20/2023 Background AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.4 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 33 16 20 20 51 51 Future Vol, veh/h 33 16 20 20 51 51 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 38 19 23 23 59 59 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB NB SB Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 7.5 7.5 7.3 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 50% 67% 0% Vol Thru, % 50% 0% 50% Vol Right, % 0% 33% 50% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 40 49 102 LT Vol 20 33 0 Through Vol 20 0 51 RT Vol 0 16 51 Lane Flow Rate 47 57 119 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.054 0.065 0.123 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.19 4.121 3.735 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 851 862 956 Service Time 2.234 2.18 1.774 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.055 0.066 0.124 HCM Control Delay 7.5 7.5 7.3 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 0.2 0.4 36 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave 10/28/2023 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 4:22 pm 10/20/2023 Background AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 64 125 4 80 1 36 0 3 0 0 1 Future Vol, veh/h 0 64 125 4 80 1 36 0 3 0 0 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 78 152 5 98 1 44 0 4 0 0 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 99 0 0 230 0 0 263 263 154 265 339 99 Stage 1 - - - - - - 154 154 - 109 109 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 109 109 - 156 230 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1507 - - 1350 - - 694 646 897 692 586 962 Stage 1 - - - - - - 853 774 - 901 809 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 901 809 - 851 718 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1507 - - 1350 - - 691 643 897 687 584 962 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 691 643 - 687 584 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 853 774 - 901 806 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 896 806 - 848 718 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 10.5 8.7 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 703 1507 - - 1350 - - 962 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.068 - - - 0.004 - - 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.5 0 - - 7.7 0 - 8.7 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0 - - 0 37 HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave 10/28/2023 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 4:18 pm 10/20/2023 Background PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.8 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 76 24 38 57 33 79 Future Vol, veh/h 76 24 38 57 33 79 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 82 26 41 61 35 85 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB NB SB Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 8 7.9 7.4 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 40% 76% 0% Vol Thru, % 60% 0% 29% Vol Right, % 0% 24% 71% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 95 100 112 LT Vol 38 76 0 Through Vol 57 0 33 RT Vol 0 24 79 Lane Flow Rate 102 108 120 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.121 0.128 0.125 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.263 4.288 3.744 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 830 824 941 Service Time 2.344 2.378 1.835 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.123 0.131 0.128 HCM Control Delay 7.9 8 7.4 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0.4 0.4 38 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave 10/28/2023 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 4:18 pm 10/20/2023 Background PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 107 94 8 124 1 90 0 6 0 2 2 Future Vol, veh/h 3 107 94 8 124 1 90 0 6 0 2 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 4 130 115 10 151 1 110 0 7 0 2 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 152 0 0 245 0 0 370 368 188 371 425 152 Stage 1 - - - - - - 196 196 - 172 172 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 174 172 - 199 253 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1441 - - 1333 - - 590 564 859 589 524 900 Stage 1 - - - - - - 810 742 - 835 760 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 833 760 - 807 701 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1441 - - 1333 - - 581 558 859 579 518 900 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 581 558 - 579 518 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 808 740 - 832 754 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 821 754 - 798 699 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.5 12.6 10.5 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 593 1441 - - 1333 - - 658 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.197 0.003 - - 0.007 - - 0.007 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.6 7.5 0 - 7.7 0 - 10.5 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 0 - - 0 - - 0 39 HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave 11/30/2023 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 1:26 pm 11/30/2023 Buildout AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.7 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 44 31 31 28 64 63 Future Vol, veh/h 44 31 31 28 64 63 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 51 36 36 33 74 73 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB NB SB Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 7.7 7.7 7.6 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 53% 59% 0% Vol Thru, % 47% 0% 50% Vol Right, % 0% 41% 50% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 59 75 127 LT Vol 31 44 0 Through Vol 28 0 64 RT Vol 0 31 63 Lane Flow Rate 69 87 148 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.081 0.1 0.156 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.273 4.138 3.808 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 831 854 932 Service Time 2.339 2.223 1.87 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.083 0.102 0.159 HCM Control Delay 7.7 7.7 7.6 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 0.3 0.6 40 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave 11/30/2023 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 1:26 pm 11/30/2023 Buildout AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 77 125 20 99 3 36 6 13 5 8 9 Future Vol, veh/h 7 77 125 20 99 3 36 6 13 5 8 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 9 94 152 24 121 4 44 7 16 6 10 11 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 125 0 0 246 0 0 370 361 170 371 435 123 Stage 1 - - - - - - 188 188 - 171 171 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 182 173 - 200 264 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1474 - - 1332 - - 590 569 879 589 517 933 Stage 1 - - - - - - 818 748 - 836 761 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 824 760 - 806 694 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1474 - - 1332 - - 563 554 879 561 504 933 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 563 554 - 561 504 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 812 743 - 830 747 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 788 746 - 778 689 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 1.3 11.6 10.9 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 614 1474 - - 1332 - - 639 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.109 0.006 - - 0.018 - - 0.042 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.6 7.5 0 - 7.8 0 - 10.9 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0 - - 0.1 - - 0.1 41 HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave 11/30/2023 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 1:27 pm 11/30/2023 Buildout PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.2 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 91 35 56 70 44 89 Future Vol, veh/h 91 35 56 70 44 89 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 98 38 60 75 47 96 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB NB SB Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 8.4 8.4 7.7 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 44% 72% 0% Vol Thru, % 56% 0% 33% Vol Right, % 0% 28% 67% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 126 126 133 LT Vol 56 91 0 Through Vol 70 0 44 RT Vol 0 35 89 Lane Flow Rate 135 135 143 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.168 0.169 0.158 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.451 4.478 3.967 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 807 803 907 Service Time 2.466 2.496 1.982 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.167 0.168 0.158 HCM Control Delay 8.4 8.4 7.7 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.6 0.6 42 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave 11/30/2023 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 1:27 pm 11/30/2023 Buildout PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 128 94 21 140 5 90 8 22 5 9 9 Future Vol, veh/h 12 128 94 21 140 5 90 8 22 5 9 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 15 156 115 26 171 6 110 10 27 6 11 11 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 177 0 0 271 0 0 481 473 214 488 527 174 Stage 1 - - - - - - 244 244 - 226 226 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 237 229 - 262 301 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1411 - - 1304 - - 499 493 831 493 459 875 Stage 1 - - - - - - 764 708 - 781 721 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 771 718 - 747 669 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1411 - - 1304 - - 471 476 831 457 443 875 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 471 476 - 457 443 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 754 699 - 771 705 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 733 702 - 704 660 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 1 14.8 11.8 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 512 1411 - - 1304 - - 554 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.286 0.01 - - 0.02 - - 0.051 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.8 7.6 0 - 7.8 0 - 11.8 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.2 0 - - 0.1 - - 0.2 43 701 1st St. S.W. ● Roanoke, VA 24016 (540) 345-9342 ● Fax (540) 345-7691 www.matternandcraig.com Randy W. Beckner Bradley C. Craig Wm. Thomas Austin James B. Voso Chad M. Thomas Jason A. Carder Brian R. Newman D. Jason Snapp Ryan P. Kincer Edwin K. Mattern, Jr. (1949-1982) Gene R. Cress (1935-2014) Sam H. McGhee, III (1940-2018) Stewart W. Hubbell (Retired) J. Wayne Craig (Retired) Michael S. Agee (Retired) Steven A. Campbell (Retired) Randy L. Dodson (Retired) December 20, 2023 Mr. William Simpson, Jr., PE Assistant Director/City Engineer City of Salem 21 S Bruffey Street Salem, Virginia, 24153 wsimpson@salemva.gov Re: Traffic Study Review HopeTree Planned Unit Development M&C Commission No. 4197-H GESC Contract No. 2021-018 Dear Mr. Simpson, The purpose of this letter is to summarize Mattern & Craig’s (M&C) findings of an independent review of a traffic impact statement/study (TIS) prepared by Balzar & Associates dated December 1, 2023 for the HopeTree Planned Unit Development project proposed within the boundaries of Salem, Virginia. The scope of the review was to determine general conformance with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and industry standard practices in the preparation of the subject TIS. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes many manuals, books, guidelines and methodologies including (but not limited to) the Trip Generation Manual, the Trip Generation Handbook, and the Traffic Engineering Handbook which all contain information on how traffic impact analyses/studies/statements should be conducted and prepared. The information presented by ITE is considered the “industry standard” in the development of TI S’s. VDOT provides traffic impact analysis regulations (24 VAC 30-155) to enhance land planning and development review within the state of Virginia. 24 VAC 30-155-60 contains specific information regarding a VDOT Traffic Impact Study/Statement (VTIS). The VDOT Administrative Guidelines for the Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations provides guidance on the application of the traffic analysis regulations and is attached to this letter report for reference as Exhibit A. The VDOT Checklist for the Evaluation of Submitted Traffic Impact Analyses was used to summarize what elements of the TIS were deemed necessary and whether or not the TIS provided those necessary elements. A copy of the completed Checklist is attached to this letter as Exhibit B. During the review of the HopeTree TIS prepared by Balzer & Associates, M&C referred to their general knowledge of the “ITE industry standard methodology” and the “specific criteria required by VDOT” in determining whether or not the TIS was in general conformance with these industry standard and VDOT practices. A tabulated summary of our Comments is listed below in italics. When the comment identifies a concern or deficiency, a Recommended Action is included in bold text: Mr. William Simpson, Jr., PE HopeTree Traffic Study Review 12/20/23 Page 2 of 4 Comment 1: The proposed development is a rezoning of approximately 62 acres of land located along Red Lane in the City of Salem and is proposed as a mixed-use development consisting of single family detached housing, multi-family housing, hotel use, general office use, and retail (restaurant) use. Since the proposed development is a mixed-use development, the study does not qualify as a low volume road submission as defined in the VDOT Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations (must be residential only). The “Required Elements of a Traffic Impact Analysis” table as depicted on pages 46 -49 of the Administrative Guidelines (see Exhibit A) was used in determining conformity with VDOT and standard practices. The unadjusted trip generation contained in the TIS prepared by Balzar & Associates identifies 286 site-generated AM peak hours trips and 312 site-generated PM peak hour trips for the proposed development. As such, the “Less than 500” column in the above-referenced table was used to define the necessary elements of the study. Recommended Action: None. Comment 2: Page 1 of the Balzar-prepared TIS identifies the study area intersections (indicated as discussed with the City of Salem) as Red Lane at East Carrollton Avenue and East Carrollton Avenue at North Broad Street. Recommended Action: Documentation should be provided that shows what conversations were had and what decisions were agreed upon with the City. The defined study area of only two intersections seems insufficient considering the scope of the proposed development, the location of the proposed development, the multiple access points to the development, and the existing transportation infrastructure surrounding the development. At a minimum, along with the two intersections identified above, all existing access points should be included in the study area as well as the i ntersection of East Carrollton Avenue at Mt. Vernon Lane since this intersection is located in-between the two identified study intersections and serves as an access point to the development. Further intersections for consideration include Mt. Vernon Lane at Red Lane and Printer’s Lane at Red Lane. The applicant should provide documentation justifying the limited study area or revise the TIS to include an expanded study area as described above. Comment 3: Page 3 of the Balzar-prepared TIS indicates that, among other things, the study was undertaken to determine the impacts to level of service and queue lengths at the existing intersections. Page 15 of the study includes tabular results of level of service (LOS) and delay (control delay) for the two study intersections but does not include any queue length results. Recommended Action: The summarized capacity analyses results should include tabulated results of the Synchro 95th percentile queue as well as the SimTraffic max queue or discussion should be included as to the results of the queue length analyses. Comment 4: The traffic volumes on Figure 1 (existing peak hour turning movement counts) match the raw turning movement count data included in Appendix C of the Balzar-prepared TIS. The use of a 1.5% growth rate over a period of 5 years (to achieve the background year of 2028) seems reasonable and the traffic volumes on Figure 2 (2028 turning movement counts) appear to be correctly calculated. Recommended Action: None. Comment 5: Section 4. Trip Generation of the Balzar-prepared TIS provides information related to the trips expected to be generated by the development as well as information on potential trip reduction due to the mixed-use nature of the development (internal capture) and due to the walkable aspect of the proposed development. The unadjusted trips presented in Table 2: Site Generated Traffic on page 8 of the TIS seem reasonable. The ITE Trip Generation Manual and Handbook contains methodology for the application of trip reductions for multi-use developments. In addition, VDOT provides an alternative trip generation methodology for mixed use developments (see page 43 of the Mr. William Simpson, Jr., PE HopeTree Traffic Study Review 12/20/23 Page 3 of 4 VDOT Administrative Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations in Exhibit A attached to this letter report). Page 9 of the Balzar-prepared TIS applies a flat 25% reduction to the trip generated values presented in Table 1. While this may or may not be a reasonable reduction to apply, it is unclear how this 25% number was realized. Recommended Action: The TIA should employ the use of either the ITE internal capture trip reduction methodology or the VDOT alternative trip generation methodology to achieve the appropriate trip reduction and document how the reduction numbers are obtained. Comment 6: Section 5. Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment describes how traffic was distributed to the various existing and proposed access points for the development. Figures 3 and 4 identify 8 different access points which seems excessive for a development of this magnitude. Recommended Action: The applicant should have discussions with the City of Salem and VDOT regarding the locations of proposed access points to serve the development. If those discussions have already taken place, documentation of those discussions and decisions agreed upon should be provided. While it is true that the multiple access points will “disperse traffic and efficiently distribute vehicles to the adjacent road system” as stated on page 10 of the Balzar-prepared TIS, having multiple access points introduces additional potential conflict points on the existing transportation infrastructure and is counter-productive to modern access management techniques. Generally, proposed access points should be kept to the minimum required to adequately serve the proposed development in an efficient and safe manner. The applicant should consider consolidation of some of the proposed access points or provide documentation as to why this is not feasible. Comment 7: Section 7. Turn Lane Warrants of the Balzar-prepared TIS contains a summary of the results for analyses of left and right turn lanes at the study intersections. However, analyses were not provided for the left and right turn lanes at the intersection of East Carrollton Avenue at Red Lane (currently a study intersection) or at the intersection of East Carrollton Avenue at Mt. Vernon Lane. Recommended Action: Additional analyses should be performed at the above-mentioned intersections at a minimum and potentially more intersections if the access points to the development are consolidated and/or if either the City or VDOT expand the study area. Comment 8: Section 8. Conclusions of the Balzar-prepared TIS concludes that no improvements are recommended to the existing transportation infrastructure as a result of this proposed development. Recommended Action: Pending the answers provided to the above comments and the further discussions the applicant may need to have with the City and/or VDOT, the Conclusion s Section may need to be rewritten to include recommended mitigation improvements. Mr. William Simpson, Jr., PE HopeTree Traffic Study Review 12/20/23 Page 4 of 4 If any additional information is needed on this subject at this time, please feel free to contact me directly via email at jbvoso@matternandcraig.com or by telephone at 828-254-2201. Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance to the City of Salem. Sincerely, Mattern & Craig James B. Voso, PE Traffic Engineer Attachments 12/20/2023 January 2012 1 CHAPTER 155 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REGULATIONS 24VAC30-155-10. Definitions. The following words and terms when used in this chapter shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: "Floor area ratio" means the ratio of the total floor area of a building or buildings on a parcel to the size of the parcel where the building or buildings are located. “Local traffic impact statement” means a traffic impact statement accepted or prepared by a locality pursuant to its land development approval process and whose requirements regarding content are set out in the locality’s ordinances or published policies, if such ordinances or policies have been reviewed and certified by VDOT as requiring acceptable standards of preparation and providing sufficient information to determine the current and future impacts of development proposals. "Locality" means any local government, pursuant to § 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia, that must prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the territory within its jurisdiction. "Network addition" means a group of interconnected street segments and intersections shown in a plan of development that is connected to the state highway system and meets the requirements of the Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements (24VAC30-92). "Pedestrian facility coverage" means the ratio of: (length of pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalks, foot paths, and multiuse trails, along both sides of a roadway) divided by (length of roadway multiplied by two). “Receipt” means the date on which a proposal or request for a meeting is first in the possession of VDOT or a locality or an agent thereof, as applicable. "Redevelopment site" means any existing use that generates traffic and is intended to be developed as a different or denser land use. "Service level" means a measure of the quality, level or comfort of a service calculated using methodologies approved by VDOT. January 2012 2 "Small area plan" means a plan of development for multiple contiguous properties that guides land use, zoning, transportation, urban design, open space, and capital improvements at a high level of detail within an urban development area or for a transit-oriented development that is at least 1/2 square mile in size unless otherwise approved by VDOT due to proximity to existing moderate to high density developments. A small area plan shall include the following: (i) densities of at least four residential units per acre and at least a floor area ratio of 0.4 or some proportional combination thereof; (ii) mixed-use neighborhoods, including mixed housing types and integration of residential, office, and retail development; (iii) reduction of front and side yard building setbacks; and (iv) pedestrian-friendly road design and connectivity of road and pedestrian networks. "State-controlled highway" means a highway in Virginia that is part of the interstate, primary, or secondary systems of state highways and that is maintained by the state under the direction and supervision of the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner. Highways for which localities receive maintenance payments pursuant to §§ 33.1-23.5:1 and 33.1-41.1 of the Code of Virginia and highways maintained by VDOT in accordance with §§ 33.1-31, 33.1-32, 33.1-33, and 33.1-68 of the Code of Virginia are not considered state-controlled highways for the purposes of determining whether a specific land development proposal package must be submitted to meet the requirements of this regulation. "Traffic impact statement" means the document prepared in accordance with best professional practice and standards that assess the impact of a proposed development on the transportation system and recommends improvements to lessen or negate those impacts. "Transit-oriented development" means an area of commercial and residential development at moderate to high densities within 1/2 mile of a station for heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, or bus rapid transit transportation and includes the following: (i) densities of at least four residential units per acre and at least a floor area ratio of 0.4 or some proportional combination thereof; (ii) mixed-use neighborhoods, including mixed housing types and integration of residential, office, and retail development; (iii) reduction of front and side yard building setbacks; and (iv) pedestrian-friendly road design and connectivity of road and pedestrian networks. "Transportation demand management" means a combination of measures that reduce vehicle trip generation and improve transportation system efficiency by altering demand, including but not limited to the following: expanded transit service, employer-provided transit benefits, bicycle January 2012 3 and pedestrian investments, ridesharing, staggered work hours, telecommuting, and parking management including parking pricing. "Urban development area" means an area designated on a local comprehensive plan pursuant to § 15.2-2223.1 of the Code of Virginia that includes the following: (i) densities of at least four residential units per acre and at least a floor area ratio of 0.4 or some proportional combination thereof; (ii) mixed-use neighborhoods, including mixed housing types and integration of residential, office, and retail development; (iii) reduction of front and side yard building setbacks; and (iv) pedestrian-friendly road design and connectivity of road and pedestrian networks. "VDOT" means the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Commissioner of Highways, or a designee. “VDOT traffic impact statement” means a traffic impact statement prepared pursuant to 24VAC30-155-60. 24VAC30-155-20. Authority. Section 15.2-2222.1 of the Code of Virginia requires localities to submit comprehensive plans and amendments to comprehensive plans that will substantially affect transportation on state- controlled highways to VDOT in order for the agency to review and provide comments on the impact of the item submitted. This section also requires localities to submit traffic impact statements along with proposed rezonings that will substantially affect transportation on state- controlled highways to VDOT for comment by the agency. Chapter 527 of the 2006 Acts of Assembly directs VDOT to promulgate regulations for the implementation of these requirements. 24VAC30-155-30. Comprehensive plan and comprehensive plan amendment. A. Plan and amendment submittal. Prior to adoption of any comprehensive plan pursuant to § 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia, any part of a comprehensive plan pursuant to § 15.2-2228 of the Code of Virginia, or any amendment to any comprehensive plan as described in § 15.2- 2229 of the Code of Virginia, including small area plans, if required by this section of this chapter, the locality shall submit such plan or amendment to VDOT for review and comment, such submission should take place at least 100 days prior to anticipated final action by the locality. The Virginia Department of Transportation shall, upon request, provide localities with technical assistance in preparing the transportation plan of the comprehensive plan. The January 2012 4 comprehensive plan or comprehensive plan amendment package shall be submitted to VDOT if it is reasonably anticipated to substantially affect transportation on state controlled highways. Substantially affect, for the purposes of comprehensive plans, includes substantial changes or impacts to the existing transportation network. For the purposes of this section, a substantial impact shall be defined as a change that would allow the generation of 5,000 additional vehicle trips per day on state-controlled highways compared to the existing comprehensive plan, assuming the highest density of permissible use in accordance with the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook (see 24VAC30-155-100) or, subject to the approval of VDOT, the regional model as adopted by the local Metropolitan Planning Organization, and substantial change shall include those changes that materially alter future transportation infrastructure, travel patterns, or the ability to improve future transportation facilities on state-controlled highways. B. Required elements. The submission by the locality to VDOT shall contain sufficient information so that VDOT may evaluate the system of new and expanded transportation facilities, outlined in the transportation plan, that are needed to support the current and planned development of the territory covered by the plan. In order to conduct this evaluation, the package submitted to VDOT shall contain the following items: 1. For a comprehensive plan or a transportation plan, the locality shall provide one paper and one electronic copy of the following: a. A cover sheet, containing: (1) Contact information for the locality, and (2) Summary of major changes made to the comprehensive plan or transportation plan; b. The proposed comprehensive plan or transportation plan, and the following elements: (1) Inventory – an inventory (written or graphic) of the existing transportation network, which shall include at a minimum all roadways within the Federal Aid system. (2) Assumptions – planning assumptions shall be detailed, since these assumptions directly influence the demand placed on the transportation system. Population growth, employment growth, location of critical infrastructure such as water and sewer facilities, among others, are examples of planning assumptions that may be addressed. January 2012 5 (3) Needs assessment – written or graphic evaluation of the transportation system's current and projected performance and conditions. The needs assessment identifies specific deficiencies. (4) Recommendations – proposed improvements or additions to the transportation infrastructure. Recommendations should be specific so that the need, location and nature of the proposed improvements are clear and understandable. Localities are encouraged to include pedestrian, bicycle, transit, rail and other multimodal recommendations as they deem appropriate. The transportation plan shall include a map showing road and transportation improvements, taking into account the current and future needs of residents in the locality while considering the current and future needs of the planning district within which the locality is situated. Recommended improvements shall include cost estimates as available from VDOT. 2. For an amendment to a comprehensive plan or transportation plan, the locality shall provide one paper and one electronic copy of the following: a. A cover sheet, containing: (1) Contact information for the locality; (2) Summary of proposed amendment or amendments to the comprehensive plan or transportation plan; and (3) Overview of reasoning and purpose for amendments. b. Application forms and documentation presented to or prepared by the local jurisdiction, c. Associated maps or narratives that depict and detail the amendment under consideration, d. Any changes to the planning assumptions associated with the amendment, e. Local assessment of the potential impacts the amendment may have on the transportation system, and f. Those elements identified in subdivision 1 b of this subsection that VDOT determines are needed in order to review and comment on impacts to state-controlled highways. C. Small area plans for urban development areas and transit oriented developments. A locality that develops a small area plan for all or a portion of an urban development area or January 2012 6 transit-oriented development and corresponding amendments to their comprehensive plan, as described in § 15.2-2229 of the Code of Virginia, that will have a substantial affect on the state transportation network pursuant to this section of the regulation, may in lieu of submitting a comprehensive plan amendment package as required under subsection B of this section submit a small area plan package. The small area plan package submitted by the locality to VDOT shall contain sufficient information and data so that VDOT may determine the location of the area impacted by the small area plan, its size, its impact on state-controlled highways, and the methodology and assumptions used in the analysis of the impact. Submittal of an incomplete small area plan package shall be considered deficient in meeting the submission requirements of § 15.2-2222.1 of the Code of Virginia and shall be returned to the locality and the applicant, if applicable, identifying the deficiencies noted. A small area plan package submitted to VDOT shall contain the following items: 1. A cover sheet containing: a. Contact information for locality; b. Small area plan location, highways and transit facilities adjacent to site, and parcel number or numbers; c. Proposal summary with development names, size, and proposed zoning; 2. A VDOT traffic impact statement prepared in accordance with 24VAC30-155-60; and 3. A plan of development for the area encompassed by the small area plan. D. Review process. VDOT may pursuant to § 15.2-2222.1 of the Code of Virginia request a meeting with the locality to discuss the plan or amendment. The request must be made within 30 days of receipt of the proposal. VDOT must provide written comments to the locality within 90 days of the receipt of the plan or plan amendment or by such later deadline as may be agreed to by the parties. VDOT will conduct its review and provide official comments to the locality for inclusion in the official public record of the locality. VDOT shall also make such comments available to the public. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from acting on a comprehensive plan or plan amendment if VDOT's comments on the submission have not been received within the timelines in this section. January 2012 7 E. Concurrent consideration. For the purposes of this regulation, when a related comprehensive plan or comprehensive plan amendment and a rezoning proposal that cover the same geographical area are being considered concurrently by a locality, only a rezoning package as required under 24VAC30-155-40 shall be prepared and provided to VDOT for review. 24VAC30-155-40. Rezoning. A. Proposal submittal. The locality shall submit a package to VDOT within 10 business days of receipt of a complete application for a rezoning proposal if the proposal substantially affects transportation on state-controlled highways. All trip generation calculations used for the purposes of determining if a proposal meets the criteria shall be based upon the rates or equations published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (see 24VAC30-155-100), and shall not be reduced through internal capture rates. For redevelopment sites, trips currently generated by existing development that will be removed may be deducted from the total site trips that are generated by the proposed land use. However, no submission shall be required under this section if the rezoning proposal consists of no changes in allowable land use. Furthermore, no submission shall be required if the rezoning proposal results in lower maximum daily trip generation and no increase in maximum trip generation for AM Peak Hour of the adjacent street, PM Peak Hour of the adjacent street, and Weekend Peak Hour when compared to the hourly trip generation of land uses allowed by right under the current zoning, excepting governmental uses such as schools and libraries. For the purposes of this section, a rezoning proposal shall substantially affect transportation on state-controlled highways if it meets or exceeds one or more of the following trip generation criteria: 1. Within a jurisdiction in which VDOT has maintenance responsibility for the secondary highway system, if the proposal generates more than 5,000 vehicle trips per day at the site's connection to a state-controlled highway. For a site that does not have an entrance onto a state-controlled highway, the site's connection is assumed to be wherever the road network that the site connects with attaches to a state-controlled highway. In cases where the site has multiple entrances to highways, volumes on all entrances shall be combined for the purposes of this determination; January 2012 8 2. Within a jurisdiction in which VDOT does not have maintenance responsibility for the local highway system, if the proposal generates more than 5,000 vehicle trips per day and whose nearest property line is within 3,000 feet, measured along public roads or streets, of a connection to a state-controlled highway; or 3. The proposal for residential rezoning generates more than 400 daily vehicle trips on a state- controlled highway and, once the site generated trips are distributed to the receiving highway, the proposal's vehicle trips on the highway exceed the daily traffic volume such highway presently carries. For the purposes of determining whether a proposal must be submitted to VDOT, the traffic carried on the state-controlled highway shall be assumed to be the most recently published amount measured in the last traffic count conducted by VDOT or the locality on that highway. In cases where the site has access to multiple highways, each receiving highway shall be evaluated individually for the purposes of this determination. B. Required proposal elements. The package submitted by the locality to VDOT shall contain sufficient information and data so that VDOT may determine the location of the rezoning, its size, its affect on state-controlled highways, and methodology and assumptions used in the analysis of the affect. Submittal of an incomplete package shall be considered deficient in meeting the submission requirements of § 15.2-2222.1 of the Code of Virginia and shall be returned to the locality and the applicant, if applicable, identifying the deficiencies noted. A package submitted to VDOT shall consist of one paper copy and one electronic copy and include the following items: 1. A cover sheet containing: a. Contact information for locality and developer (or owner) if applicable; b. Rezoning location, highways adjacent to site, and parcel number or numbers; c. Proposal summary with development name, size, and proposed zoning; and d. A statement regarding the proposal's compliance with the comprehensive plan. 2. A local traffic impact statement or, if the local requirements for traffic statements contained in ordinances or policies have not been certified by VDOT, a VDOT traffic impact statement. 3. A concept plan of the proposed development. January 2012 9 C. Rezoning proposals associated with small area plans. 1. A traffic impact statement prepared for a small area plan pursuant to 24VAC30-155-30 C, or initiated for a small area plan at the request of a locality prior to the effective date of that subsection and that study contains substantially the same elements as those of a VDOT traffic impact statement, shall serve as the traffic impact statement required pursuant to this section for any rezoning proposals developed in furtherance of the adopted small area plan and related comprehensive plan amendments provided the following: a. That the small area plan package is accompanied by a cover letter that includes a statement that the assumptions made in the traffic impact statement prepared for the small area plan remain generally valid. b. That the following are accurate: (1) The rezoning proposal is in substantial conformance with the adopted small area plan. A deviation in density must be greater than 10% to be considered no longer in substantial conformance with the adopted small area plan. (2) The character and volume of the trip generation by the proposed uses are similar to those proposed by the small area plan. (3) All other assumptions made in the traffic impact statement prepared for the small area plan remain generally valid. 2. In instances where the assumptions made in the traffic impact statement prepared for the small area plan are no longer valid, the traffic impact statement may be updated. If the traffic impact statement is updated, it shall serve as the traffic impact statement required pursuant to this section for any rezoning proposals developed in furtherance of the adopted small area plan and related comprehensive plan amendments. D. Review process. After formal submission of a rezoning proposal for review, VDOT may, pursuant to § 15.2-2222.1 of the Code of Virginia, request a meeting with the locality and rezoning applicant to discuss potential modifications to the proposal to address any concerns or deficiencies. The request must be made within 45 days of receipt by VDOT of the proposal. VDOT must provide written comments to the locality and the rezoning applicant within 45 days of VDOT's receipt of the proposal if no meeting is scheduled or has been requested or within 120 January 2012 10 days of the receipt of the proposal otherwise. VDOT shall not reject or require resubmission, if the package has been prepared in accordance with best professional practice and substantially documents the expected impacts of the proposal. If VDOT determines that the package has not been prepared in accordance with best professional practice, fails to substantially document the expected impacts of the proposal, or if the submission is substantially incomplete, VDOT may request of the applicant, in writing or at the above mentioned meeting, modifications to address concerns. If the concerns are not adequately addressed within 30 days of the transmission of such concerns, VDOT may require resubmission. VDOT shall conduct its review and provide official comments to the locality for inclusion in the official public record. The Department’s comments on the proposed rezoning shall be based upon the comprehensive plan, regulations and guidelines of the Department, engineering and design considerations, adopted regional or statewide plans, and short and long term traffic impacts on and off site. VDOT shall also make such comments available to the public. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from acting on a rezoning proposal if VDOT's comments on the submission have not been received within the timelines in this section. 24VAC30-155-50. (Repealed.) 24VAC30-155-60. VDOT traffic impact statement. A. A VDOT traffic impact statement (VTIS) assesses the impact of a proposed development on the transportation system and recommends improvements to lessen or negate those impacts. It shall (i) identify any traffic issues associated with access from the site to the existing transportation network, (ii) outline solutions to potential problems, (iii) address the sufficiency of the future transportation network, and (iv) present improvements to be incorporated into the proposed development. If a VTIS is required, data collection shall be by the locality, developer, or owner, as determined by the locality and the locality shall prepare or have the developer or owner prepare the VTIS. If the locality prepares the VTIS it shall provide a copy of the complete VTIS to the applicant when one is provided to VDOT. The completed VTIS shall be submitted to VDOT. The data and analysis contained in the VTIS shall be organized and presented in a manner acceptable to VDOT and consistent with this regulation. January 2012 11 B. Scope of work meeting. 1. For proposals that generate less than 1,000 vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator representatives of the locality, the applicant, or the locality and the applicant may request a scope of work meeting with VDOT to discuss the required elements of a VTIS for any project and VDOT shall reply to such request within 30 days of its receipt of such a request and provide a date that is no more than 60 days from such receipt, time and location for such a scope of work meeting to both the locality and the applicant, if applicable. 2. For proposals that generate 1,000 or more vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator representatives of the locality and applicant, if applicable, shall hold a scope of work meeting with VDOT to discuss the required elements of a VTIS. Once a locality or applicant has contacted VDOT regarding the scheduling of a scope of work meeting, VDOT shall reply to both the locality and the applicant, if applicable, within 30 days of such contact and provide a date that is no more than 60 days from such contact, time and location for such a meeting. At a scope of work meeting pursuant to this section, the locality, the applicant and VDOT shall review the elements, methodology and assumptions to be used in the preparation of the VTIS, and identify any other related local requirements adopted pursuant to law. The results of the initial scoping meeting may be adjusted in accordance with sound professional judgment and the requirements of this regulation if agreed upon by VDOT, the locality, and applicant, if applicable. C. Required elements. The required elements and scope of a VTIS are dependent upon the scale and potential impact of the specific development proposal being addressed by the VTIS as determined by VDOT in its sole discretion. 1. At a minimum, the VTIS shall include the elements shown in the table below. The site generated peak hour trips in the table below shall be based upon the gross vehicle trip generation of the site less internal capture and reductions, if applicable. When the type of development proposed would indicate significant potential for walking, bike or transit trips either on- or off- site, the VTIS shall estimate multimodal trips. All distances in the table below shall be measured along roads or streets. January 2012 12 Item Site Generated Peak Hour Trips Less than 500 500 to 999 1,000 or more Background information List of all nonexistent transportation improvements assumed in the analysis Required Required Required Map of site location, description of the parcel, general terrain features, and location within the jurisdiction and region. Required Required Required Description of geographic scope/ limits of study area. Within 2,000 feet of site and any roadway on which 50 or more of the new peak hour vehicle trips generated by the proposal are distributed – not to exceed one mile Within 2,000 feet of site and any roadway on which 10% or more of the new vehicle trips generated by the proposal are distributed – not to exceed two miles To be determined by VDOT in consultation with the locality Plan at an engineering scale of the existing and proposed site uses. Required Required Required Description and map or diagram of nearby uses, including parcel zoning. Required Required Required Description and map or diagram of existing roadways. Required Required Required Description and map or diagram of programmed improvements to roadways, intersections, and other transportation facilities within the study area. Required Required Required Analysis of Existing Conditions Collected daily and peak hour of the generator traffic volumes, tabulated and presented on diagrams with counts provided in an appendix. Required Required Required Analyses for intersections and roadways identified by VDOT. Delay and Level of Service (LOS) are tabulated and LOS is presented on diagrams for each lane group. Required Required Required January 2012 13 When the type of development proposed would indicate significant potential for walking, bike or transit trips either on - or off - site, analyses of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and bus route or routes and segment or segments, tabulated and presented on diagrams, if facilities or routes exist. Within 2,000 feet of site Within 2,000 feet of site To be determined by VDOT in consultation with the locality Speed Study If requested by VDOT If requested by VDOT If requested by VDOT Crash history near site If requested by VDOT If requested by VDOT If requested by VDOT Sight distance If requested by VDOT If requested by VDOT If requested by VDOT Analysis of Future Conditions without Development Description of and justification for the method and assumptions used to forecast future traffic volumes. Required Required Required Analyses for intersections and roadways as identified by VDOT. Delay and Level of Service (LOS) are tabulated and LOS is presented on diagrams for each lane group. Required Required Required When the type of development proposed would indicate significant potential for walking, bike or transit trips either on - or off - site, analyses of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and bus route or routes and segment or segments tabulated and presented on diagrams, if facilities or routes exist or are planned. Within 2,000 feet of site Within 2,000 feet of site To be determined by VDOT in consultation with the locality at the scope of work meeting Trip Generation Site trip generation, with tabulated data, broken out by analysis year for multi- phase developments, and including justification for deviations from ITE rates, if appropriate. Required Required Required Description and justification of internal capture reductions for mixed use developments and pass-by trip reductions, if appropriate, including table of calculations used. Required Required Required January 2012 14 Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment Description of methodology used to distribute trips, with supporting data. Required Required Required Description of the direction of approach for site generated traffic and diagrams showing the traffic assignment to the road network serving the site for the appropriate time periods. Required Required Required Analysis of Future Conditions With Development Forecast daily and peak hour of the generator traffic volumes on the highway network in the study area, site entrances and internal roadways, tabulated and presented on diagrams. Future background + site generated traffic, at each expected phase and at build - out or six years after start, whichever is later Future background + site generated traffic, at each expected phase, at build - out, and six years after build - out, which may be extended or reduced by VDOT in consultation with the locality At a minimum the future background + site generated traffic, at each expected phase, at build - out, and six years after build - out; may be extended by VDOT in consultation with the locality Analyses for intersections and roadways identified by VDOT. Delay and Level of Service (LOS) are tabulated and LOS presented on diagrams for each lane group. Required Required Required When the type of development proposed would indicate significant potential for walking, bike or transit trips either on - or off - site, analyses of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and bus route or routes and segment or segments tabulated and presented on diagrams, if facilities or routes exist or are planned. Within 2,000 feet of site Within 2,000 feet of site To be determined by VDOT in consultation with the locality Recommended Improvements Description and diagram of the location, nature, and extent of proposed improvements, with preliminary cost estimates as available from VDOT. Required Required Required January 2012 15 Description of methodology used to calculate the effects of travel demand management (TDM) measures, if proposed, with supporting data. Required if TDM proposed Required if TDM proposed Required if TDM proposed Analyses for all proposed and modified intersections in the study area under the forecast and site traffic. Delay, and Level of Service (LOS) are tabulated and LOS presented on diagrams for each lane group. For intersections expected to be signalized, MUTCD Signal Warrant analysis or ITE Manual for Traffic Signal Design, as determined by VDOT, presented in tabular form. Required Required Required When the type of development proposed would indicate significant potential for walking, bike or transit trips either on - or off - site, analyses of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and bus route or routes and segment or segments tabulated and presented on diagrams, if facilities or routes exist or are planned. Within 2,000 feet of site Within 2,000 feet of site To be determined by VDOT in consultation with the locality Conclusions Clear, concise description of the study findings. Required Required Required Notwithstanding the geographic scope noted above, the geographic scope of the study noted above may be reduced or enlarged based upon layout of the local transportation network, the geographical size of the development, and the traffic volume on the existing network, as determined by VDOT in consultation with the locality and the applicant, if applicable. Typically, analysis will be conducted for any roadway on which the additional trips generated by the proposal have a materially detrimental impact on traffic conditions. The analysis presented in the VTIS need not include all roadway and roadway segments located within the geographic scope of the study as determined by VDOT. 2. A VTIS for a development proposal that only meets the low volume road submission criterion (24VAC30-155-40 A 1 c and 24VAC30-155-50 A 1 c 3) shall, at a minimum, consist of the following elements, unless otherwise directed by VDOT. January 2012 16 a. All elements contained in the Background Information portion of the above table, except the geographic scope/limits of study area is limited to the highway fronting the proposed development and the closest intersection, in each direction if applicable, of that highway with a highway that has an average daily traffic volume higher than the fronting highway. b. A roadway safety inventory study of the roadway segment or segments between the site entrance to the nearest intersections with the higher traffic volume highways, to include such elements as, but not limited to, speed limit, existing warning signs, pavement and shoulder type, pavement and shoulder width, intersection sight distances, and safe horizontal curve speeds. c. Daily and peak hour traffic volumes presented on diagrams, with counts provided in an appendix, for the fronting highway at the site, at the highway's intersections with the higher volume highway, and for the higher volume highways at their intersection with the fronting highway. d. All relevant elements contained in the Trip Generation portion of the above table. e. Projected daily and peak hour of the generator traffic volumes assuming build-out of the proposal, presented on diagrams for the receiving highway at the site, at the highway's intersection with the higher volume highways, and for the higher volume highways at their intersections with the receiving highway. f. Delay and level of service analysis for the intersections of the receiving highway with the higher volume highways. g. A comparison of the existing geometrics of the fronting highway under proposed build- out traffic conditions with the geometric standards, based upon functional classification and volume, contained in the Road Design Manual (see 24VAC30-155-100). 3. A VTIS for a rezoning proposal may be prepared in accordance with the “Less than 500 Site Generated Peak Hour Trips” category in the table above, regardless of actual projected trip generation, provided that: a. The rezoning proposal is in conformance with a locality’s adopted comprehensive plan that was reviewed in accordance with 24VAC30-155-30; and January 2012 17 b. The review of the comprehensive plan included the submission to VDOT of a technical evaluation of the traffic impacts for anticipated development based on the future land use policies and map. D. Methodology and standard assumptions. A VTIS shall be prepared based upon methodology and assumptions noted below or as may be agreed upon by VDOT based upon the results of a scope of work meeting held by VDOT pursuant to this section. 1. Data collection. Preparers shall collect traffic data in accordance with the identified study area. The count data shall include at a minimum, weekday 24-hour counts, and directional turning movement counts during AM and PM peak times of the day. The 24-hour counts shall include vehicle classification counts. With approval of VDOT, data collected by the transportation professional preparer within the last 24 months may be used, likewise for data from the VDOT count program. The preparer shall monitor traffic operations during data collection to ensure extraneous events such as vehicle crashes or special event traffic do not affect integrity of count data. Preparers collecting data for utilization in traffic impact studies shall normally avoid data collection during the following instances: a. Holidays or times of the year when the traffic patterns are deemed to be unrepresentative of typical conditions, unless required by VDOT or the locality, or both. b. Summer months if school or schools in proximity. c. Fridays and weekends unless required by VDOT or the locality, or both. d. Other times of the year contingent upon existing adjacent land use activities. e. During times of inclement weather. 2. Trip generation. Estimates of trip generation by a proposed development shall be prepared using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (see 24VAC30-155-100), unless VDOT agrees to allow the use of alternate trip generation rates based upon alternate published guides or local trip generation studies. VDOT shall at all times after July 1, 2011, have at least one non-ITE trip generation methodology or alternative rate approved for the use in preparation of small area plan traffic impact statements pursuant to 24VAC30-155-30 C that recognizes the benefits of reduced vehicle trip generation and vehicle miles traveled from developments that January 2012 18 meet the criteria for a small area plan pursuant to this regulation. Such alternate methodology or rate can be modified based upon local factors if agreed to at a scoping meeting. Rezoning proposals shall assume the highest vehicle trip generating use allowable under the proposed zoning classification. In determining which trip generation process (equation or rate) may be used, the preparer shall follow the guidance presented in the Trip Generation Handbook – an ITE Proposed Recommended Practice (see 24VAC30-155-100), which is summarized here, except rates may be utilized if the criteria for the use of regression equations are not met. Regression equations to calculate trips as a result of development shall be utilized, provided the following is true: a. Independent variable falls within range of data; and b. Either the data plot has at least 20 points; or c. R2 is greater than 0.75, equation falls within data cluster in plot and standard deviation greater than 110% of weighted average rate. If the above criteria are not met, then the preparer can use average trip rates, though if the following do not apply a rate based upon the study of similar local sites should be considered: d. At least three data points exist; e. Standard deviation less than 110% of weighted average rate; and f. Weighted average rate falls within data cluster in plot. 3. Internal capture and pass-by trips. a. Internal capture rates consider site trips "captured" within a mixed use development, recognizing that trips from one land use can access another land use within a development without having to access the adjacent street system. Mixed use developments include a combination of residential and nonresidential uses or a combination of nonresidential uses only. Internal capture allows reduction of site trips from adjacent intersections and roadways. For traffic impact statements prepared for small area plans pursuant to 24VAC30-155-30 C the internal capture rate or rates may be based on the non-ITE trip generation methodology approved by VDOT. For ITE-based methodologies, unless otherwise approved by VDOT, the following internal capture rates should be used if appropriate: January 2012 19 (1) Residential with a mix of nonresidential components - use the smaller of 15% of residential or 15% nonresidential trips generated. (2) Residential with office use - use the smaller of 5.0% of residential or 5.0% of office trips generated. (3) Residential with retail use - for AM peak hour, use the smaller of 5.0% residential or 5.0% retail trips generated; for PM peak hour, use the smaller of 10% residential or 10% retail trips generated; for 24-hour traffic, use the smaller of 15% residential or 15% retail trips generated. (4) Hotel/motel with office use - use 15% of hotel/motel trips, unless the overall volume of the office traffic is more than the overall volume of hotel/motel traffic use in which case use the smaller of 10% of the hotel/motel traffic or the office traffic. (5) Multiuse development with more than five million square feet of office and retail - internal capture rate should be determined in consultation with and approval of VDOT. (6) Office with retail use – use the smaller of 5% office or retail trips generated. (7) Some combination of the above, if approved by VDOT. b. Pass-by trip reductions consider site trips drawn from the existing traffic stream on an adjacent street, recognizing that trips drawn to a site would otherwise already traverse the adjacent street regardless of existence of the site. Pass-by trip reductions allow a percentage reduction in the forecast of trips otherwise added to the adjacent street from the proposed development. The reduction applies only to volumes on adjacent streets, not to ingress or egress volumes at entrances serving the proposed site. Unless otherwise approved by VDOT, the pass-by rates utilized shall be those reported in Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition – an ITE Proposed Recommended Practice (see 24VAC30- 155-100). For traffic impact statements prepared for small area plans pursuant to 24VAC30-155-30 C, the pass-by trip reductions may be based on the non-ITE trip generation methodology approved by VDOT. 4. Trip distribution. In the absence of more detailed information, trip distribution shall be in accordance with logical regional travel patterns as suggested by existing highway directional split and intersection movements or population and destination site distribution and shall January 2012 20 recognize the effects of increased street connectivity if such streets meet the requirements of the Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements (see 24VAC30-155-100). If more detailed information is available from trip origin/destination studies, marketing studies, or regional planning models, this may be used to distribute trips upon approval of VDOT. 5. Planning horizon. In general, the analysis years shall be related to (i) the opening date of the proposed development, (ii) build-out of major phases of a multiyear development, (iii) long-range transportation plans, and (iv) other significant transportation network changes. The preparer should establish the planning horizon in consultation with and subject to the acceptance of VDOT. 6. Background traffic growth. Unless directed by VDOT, geometric growth (or compound growth), based upon historical growth rates, shall generally be used for determining future background traffic levels where extensive traffic-count history is available and capacity constraint is not appropriate. This growth rate replicates "natural growth" and is typical for projecting urban growth. Natural growth of traffic can be adjusted consistent with traffic forecasts associated with previously submitted local land development projects within the study area. 7. Future conditions. For the purpose of the VTIS, future conditions shall include background traffic and additional vehicle trips anticipated to be generated by approved but not yet constructed or improved projects. 8. Level of service calculation. Level of service (LOS) analysis for highways shall utilize the techniques described in the Highway Capacity Manual (see 24VAC30-155-100). Neither the intersection capacity utilization method nor the percentile delay method may be used in the traffic impact calculations of delay and level of service. Preparers shall consult with VDOT on which traffic analysis software package is to be used to conduct the LOS calculations. The results shall be tabulated and displayed graphically, with levels of service provided for each lane group for each peak period. All data used in the calculations must be provided along with the results of the capacity analysis. Any assumptions made that deviate from the programmed defaults must be documented and an explanation provided as to why there was a deviation. Electronic files used for the analysis shall be provided to VDOT as a digital submission (e.g. .hcs, .sy6, .inp, .trf files), along with the printed report. If intersections analyzed are in close proximity to each other so that queuing may be a factor, VDOT may require the inclusion of January 2012 21 an analysis with a micro simulation model. Unless actual on-ground conditions dictate otherwise, preparers should use the following defaults when utilizing the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) or other approved programs when evaluating roadway components: a. Terrain – choose the appropriate terrain type. Most of the state will be level or rolling, but some areas may qualify for consideration as mountainous. b. Twelve-foot wide lanes. c. No parking or bus activity unless field conditions include such parking or bus activity or unless the locality has provided VDOT with a written statement of intent for the services to be provided. d. Peak hour factor by approach – calculate from collected traffic counts (requires at least a peak hour count in 15-minute increments). However, the use of peak hour factors lower than 0.85 shall only be allowed if based upon the average of more than three peak hour counts. For future conditions analysis, unless specific site conditions can be expected to create extreme peak hour factors, default peak hour factors between 0.92 and 1.00 should be used. e. Heavy vehicle factor – calculate from collected traffic (classification) counts or obtain from VDOT count publications. For future conditions analysis with development traffic, the existing heavy vehicle factor should be adjusted based upon the nature of the traffic being generated by the development. f. Area type – non-center of business district. The VTIS shall identify any existing or proposed bicycle and pedestrian accommodation that would be affected by the proposal. For the purposes of this subsection, a bicycle accommodation is defined as on-street bike lanes, paved shoulders of roadways that are not part of the designated traveled way for vehicles, or exclusive and shared off-street bicycle paths. For the purposes of this subsection, a pedestrian accommodation is defined as sidewalks, intersection treatments and exclusive or shared off-street trails or paths. If significant potential for bicycle or pedestrian trips exists, the VTIS shall include current and future service level analyses at build-out for existing or proposed bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. When the proposal requires or includes improvements or modifications to the roadway, bicycle or pedestrian accommodations, the VTIS shall analyze the impacts of such improvements and January 2012 22 modifications on bicycle and pedestrian accommodations and service levels, and provide recommendations for mitigation of adverse impacts. The VTIS shall provide analysis for all bus service with routes that have, or will have a station or stop within 2,000 feet of the proposal. The VTIS shall evaluate and discuss potential for increased demand for bus use due to the proposal, addressing whether such increases will result in longer dwell time at stops or increase the need for buses on a route. The quality of service analysis for bus service shall be determined in accordance with the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (see 24VAC30-155-100). The VTIS shall provide both route and segment quality of service. The VTIS may consider the benefits of dedicated bus lanes for more frequent and rapid service. The VTIS shall provide recommendations for mitigation of adverse impacts where adverse impacts are expected to the quality of service to bus service. If an analysis of pedestrian quality or level of service is required for calculation of the bus quality of service, the preparer shall use a methodology approved by VDOT. 9. Trip reduction, and pedestrian and bicycle accommodations. When a proposal meets the criteria listed below, the preparer of the VTIS may reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the proposal in the VTIS analysis in accordance with this subsection. Notwithstanding the percentages below, the total number of reductions used by a preparer in accordance with this subsection shall not exceed 500 vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator unless otherwise approved by VDOT. The trip reductions for traffic impact statements prepared for small area plans pursuant to 24VAC30-155-30 C may be based on the non-ITE trip generation methodology approved by VDOT and are not subject to limitations or requirements of this subdivision. a. Pedestrian accommodations. For the purposes of this subsection, a pedestrian accommodation is defined as a sidewalk, pedestrian path, or multiuse trail. Where a pedestrian service level of A exists, vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator may be reduced by 4.0% for those portions of the development within a 2,000-foot radius of the connections between the proposed development and the adjoining network. Where a pedestrian service level of B exists, vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator may be reduced by 3.0%; where a pedestrian service level of C exists, vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator may be reduced by 1.5% for the portion of the development noted above. These reductions may only be taken if: January 2012 23 (1) Pedestrian facility coverage in a 2,000-foot radius of the connections to the proposed development is on or along at least 80% of the road network; (2) The pedestrian facilities inside and outside the development provide reasonably direct access to traffic generators; and (3) There are at least two of the 10 major land use classifications, as defined in ITE Trip Generation (see 24VAC30-155-100), within the 2,000-foot radius. b. Bicycle accommodations. For the purposes of this subsection, a bicycle accommodation is defined as a street with a design speed of 25 MPH or less that carries 400 vehicles per day or less, on-street bike lanes, a pedestrian accommodation, paved shoulders of roadways that are not part of the designated traveled way for vehicles and are at least two feet wide, or exclusive and shared off-street bicycle paths. Where a bicycle service level of A exists, vehicle trips per day may be reduced by 3.0%. Where a bicycle service level of B exists, vehicle trips per day may be reduced by 2.0%. Where a bicycle service level of C exists, vehicle trips per day may be reduced by 1.0%. These reductions may only be taken if: (1) Bicycle accommodations within a 2,000-foot radius of the connections to the proposed development exist on or along at least 80% of the road network; (2) The bicycle accommodations inside and outside the development provide reasonably direct access to traffic generators; and (3) There are at least two of the 10 major land use classifications as defined in ITE Trip Generation (see 24VAC30-155-100), within the 2,000-foot radius. 10. Modal split and trip reduction. All vehicle trip reductions used in the VTIS pursuant to this subsection are subject to the approval of VDOT. a. If a proposal is located within 1/2 mile along roadways, pedestrian or bicycle accommodations of a transit station, excluding bus stops and stations, reasonable vehicle trip reductions of vehicle trips generated by the proposal may be made with approval of VDOT. The preparer shall submit documentation to justify any such vehicle trip reductions used with the VTIS. When a proposal is located more than 1/2 mile but less than two miles from a transit stop, excluding bus stops and stations, with bicycle parking accommodations, January 2012 24 additional bicycle modal split reductions may be utilized. The analysis of capacity of the parking accommodations shall be included in the VTIS when such trip reductions are used. b. If a proposal is located within 1/4 mile along roadways, pedestrian or bicycle accommodations of a bus stop or station where the segment and route service levels are C or higher, reasonable vehicle trip reductions of vehicle trips generated by the proposal may be made with the approval of VDOT. The preparer shall submit documentation to justify any such vehicle trip reductions used with the VTIS. c. Transit and bus modal split data from similar developments within the geographic scope of the VTIS or one mile of the proposal, whichever is greater, shall be collected if the VTIS vehicle trip reductions are used pursuant to this subsection and similar developments exist within the geographic scope of the VTIS or one mile of the proposal, whichever is greater. 11. Signal warrant analysis. Traffic signal warrant analysis shall be performed in accordance with the procedures set out in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (see 24VAC30-155-100) or ITE Manual of Traffic Signal Design as determined by VDOT. 12. Recommended improvements. Recommendations made in the VTIS for improvements to transportation facilities shall be in accordance with the geometric standards contained within the Road Design Manual (see 24VAC30-155-100). 24VAC30-155-70. Departmental analysis. After concluding its review of a proposed comprehensive plan or transportation plan or plan amendment, or rezoning, VDOT shall provide the locality and applicant, if applicable, with a written report detailing its analysis and when appropriate recommending transportation improvements to mitigate any potential adverse impacts on state-controlled highways. VDOT shall provide recommendations for facilitating other modes of transportation including but not limited to transit, bus, bicycle and pedestrian facilities or accommodations where such facilities or accommodations are planned or exist, or where such facilities have a significant potential for use. In addition, VDOT shall provide the locality and the applicant, if applicable, with preliminary recommendations regarding compliance with other VDOT regulations such as the Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements (see 24VAC30-155-100), the Access Management Regulations: Principal Arterials (see 24VAC30-155-100), and the Access Management Regulations: Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local Streets (see 24VAC30-155-100). January 2012 25 24VAC30-155-80. Fees. A. Locality initiated proposals. No fee shall be charged for review of any comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan amendment, or rezoning proposal initiated by a locality or other public agency. B. Proposals containing a traffic impact statement as described in subdivision C 1 of 24VAC30-155-40. No fee shall be charged for the review of a rezoning submission that properly includes a traffic impact statement submitted under subdivision C 1 of 24VAC30-155-40. C. All other proposals. Any package submitted to a locality by an applicant that will be subject to VDOT review pursuant to this chapter shall include any required payment in a form payable directly to VDOT. 1. For initial or second review of all comprehensive plans, comprehensive plan amendments, and transportation plans submitted to VDOT for review, not initiated on behalf of the locality, there shall be a fee of $1,000 charged to the applicant. This fee shall be paid upon submission of a plan to VDOT for review. 2. For initial or second review of rezoning proposals accompanied by a traffic impact statement not initiated on behalf of the locality, there shall be a single fee for both reviews determined by the number of adjusted vehicle trips generated per peak hour, as follows: Submission made due to 24VAC30-155-40 A 3 (Low volume road criterion) - $250 All other submissions - $1,000 The fee shall be paid upon submission of a package to VDOT for review. 3. For a third or subsequent submission pursuant to subdivisions 1 or 2 of this subsection, that is requested by VDOT on the basis of the failure of the applicant to address deficiencies previously identified by VDOT, the applicant shall be required to pay an additional fee as though the third or subsequent submission were an initial submission and requiring the fees identified above. An applicant or locality may appeal to the district administrator a determination by VDOT that a submitted package failed to address deficiencies previously identified by VDOT. 24VAC30-155-90. (Repealed.) January 2012 26 24VAC30-155-100. Listing of documents incorporated by reference. Requests for information pertaining to the availability and cost of any of these publications should be directed to the address indicated below the specific document. Requests for documents available from VDOT may be obtained from VDOT's division and representative indicated; however, VDOT documents may be available over the Internet at www.vdot.virginia.gov. 1. Access Management: Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local Streets (24VAC30-73) VDOT 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 2. Access Management: Principal Arterials (24VAC30-72) VDOT 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 3. Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street NW Washington, DC 20001 4. ITE Manual of Traffic Signal Design, 1998 Institute of Transportation Engineers 1099 14th Street NW Suite 300 West Washington, DC 20005 5. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, effective 2003, revised 2004 Federal Highway Administration Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office P.O. Box 371954 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15250 6. Road Design Manual, 2011 VDOT 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 7. Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements (24VAC30-92) Commonwealth Transportation Board 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 January 2012 27 8. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition, 2003 Transportation Research Board of the National Academies Keck Center of the National Academies Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 9. Trip Generation, 2008 Institute of Transportation Engineers 1099 14th Street NW Suite 300 West Washington, DC 20005 10. Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition – an ITE Recommended Practice, 2004 Institute of Transportation Engineers 1099 14th Street NW Suite 300 West Washington, DC 20005 Administrative Guidelines July 2008 Organization of a Traffic Impact Analysis Report 1) Introduction and Summary a) Purpose of report and study objectives b) Executive Summary i) Site location and study area ii) Description of the proposed development iii) Principal findings iv) Conclusions v) Recommendations 2) Background Information: Proposed Development (Site and Nearby) a) List of all non-existent transportation improvements assumed in the analysis b) Description of on-site development i) Map of site location ii) Description of the parcel iii) General terrain features iv) Location within the jurisdiction and region v) Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the subject property vi) Current or proposed zoning of the subject property c) Description of geographic scope and limits of study area * d) Plan at an engineering scale of the existing and proposed site uses e) Description and map or diagram of nearby uses, including parcel zoning f) Description and map or diagram of existing roadways g) Description and map or diagram of programmed improvements to roadways, intersections, and other transportation facilities within the study area 3) Analysis of Existing Conditions a) Collected daily and peak hour of the generator traffic volumes, tabulated and presented on diagrams with counts provided in an appendix * b) Analyses for intersections and roadways identified by VDOT * i) Delay and Level of Service (LOS) are tabulated and LOS is presented on diagrams for each lane group c) When the type of development proposed would indicate significant potential for walking, bike or transit trips either on- or off-site, analyses of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and bus route(s) and segment(s), tabulated and presented on diagrams, if facilities or routes exist * d) Speed Study (if requested by VDOT) e) Crash history near site (if requested by VDOT) f) Sight distance (if requested by VDOT) 4) Analysis of Future Conditions Without Development a) Description of and the justification for the method and assumptions used to forecast future traffic volumes * b) Analyses for intersections and roadways as identified by VDOT * Administrative Guidelines July 2008 i) Delay and Level of Service (LOS) are tabulated and LOS is presented on diagrams for each lane group c) When the type of development proposed would indicate significant potential for walking, bike or transit trips either on- or off-site, analyses of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and bus route(s) and segment(s) tabulated and presented on diagrams, if facilities or routes exist or are planned * 5) Trip Generation a) Site trip generation, with tabulated data, broken out by analysis year for multi-phase developments, and including justification for deviations from ITE rates, if appropriate b) Description and justification of internal capture reductions for mixed use developments and pass- by trip reductions, if appropriate, including table of calculations used 6) Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment a) Description of methodology used to distribute trips, with supporting data b) Description of the direction of approach for site generated traffic and diagrams showing the traffic assignment to the road network serving the site for the appropriate time periods 7) Analysis of Future Conditions With Development a) Forecast daily and peak hour of the generator traffic volumes on the highway network in the study area, site entrances and internal roadways, tabulated and presented on diagrams * b) Analyses for intersections and roadways identified by VDOT * i) Delay and Level of Service (LOS) are tabulated and LOS is presented on diagrams for each lane group c) When the type of development proposed would indicate significant potential for walking, bike or transit trips either on- or off-site, analyses of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and bus route(s) and segment(s) tabulated and presented on diagrams, if facilities exist or are planned * 8) Recommended Improvements a) Description and diagram of the location, nature, and extent of the proposed improvements, with preliminary cost estimates as available from VDOT b) If travel demand management (TDM) measures are proposed, description of methodology used to calculate the effects of TDM measures with supporting data c) Analyses for all proposed and modified intersections in the study area under the forecast and site traffic * i) Delay and Level of Service (LOS) are tabulated and LOS presented on diagrams for each lane group ii) For intersections expected to be signalized, MUTCD Signal Warrant analysis or ITE Manual for Traffic Signal Design, as determined by VDOT, presented in tabular form d) When the type of development proposed would indicate significant potential for walking, bike or transit trips either on- or off-site, analyses of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and bus route(s) and segment(s) tabulated and presented on diagrams, if facilities or routes exist or are planned * 9) Conclusions a) Clear, concise description of the study findings * The level of analysis and information provided depends on site generated peak hour traffic. See page 2 of these forms; 24 VAC 30-155-60.C. Required Elements table.. Administrative Guidelines July 2008 VDOT CHECKLIST EVALUATION of the SUBMITTED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS  ITEM PROVIDED OR NOT APPLICABLE (NA) Verify Use of Methodology and Standard Assumptions in Regulations (or Changes Approved at Scope of Work Meeting) Verify any Additions to Required Elements Approved at Scope of Work Meeting Introduction and Summary Purpose of report and study objectives Executive Summary: Site location and study area; description of the proposed development; conclusions; recommendations. Background Information List of all non-existent transportation improvements assumed in the analysis Map of site location, description of the parcel, general terrain features, and location within the jurisdiction and region. Comprehensive plan recommendations for the subject property Current and proposed zoning of the subject property Description of geographic scope / limits of study area. Plan at an engineering scale of the existing and proposed site uses. Description and map or diagram of nearby uses, including parcel zoning. Description and map or diagram of existing roadways. Description and map or diagram of programmed improvements to roadways, intersections, and other transportation facilities within the study area. Analysis of Existing Conditions Collected daily and peak hour of the generator traffic volumes, tabulated and presented on diagrams with counts provided in an appendix. Analyses for intersections and roadways identified by VDOT. Delay and Level of Service (LOS) are tabulated and LOS is presented on diagrams for each lane group. Administrative Guidelines July 2008  ITEM PROVIDED OR NOT APPLICABLE (NA) When the type of development proposed would indicate significant potential for walking, bike or transit trips either on- or off-site, analyses of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and bus route(s) and segment(s), tabulated and presented on diagrams, if facilities or routes exist. Speed Study Crash history near site Sight distance Analysis of Future Conditions Without Development Description of and justification for the method and assumptions used to forecast future traffic volumes. Analyses for intersections and roadways as identified by VDOT. Delay and Level of Service (LOS) are tabulated and LOS is presented on diagrams for each lane group. When the type of development proposed would indicate significant potential for walking, bike or transit trips either on- or off-site, analyses of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and bus route(s) and segment(s) tabulated and presented on diagrams, if facilities or routes exist or are planned. Trip Generation Site trip generation, with tabulated data, broken out by analysis year for multi-phase developments, and including justification for deviations from ITE rates, if appropriate. Description and justification of internal capture reductions for mixed use developments and pass-by trip reductions, if appropriate, including table of calculations used. Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment Description of methodology used to distribute trips, with s upporting data. Description of the direction of approach for site generated traffic and diagrams showing the traffic assignment to the road network serving the site for the appropriate time periods. Analysis of Future Conditions With Development Forecast daily and peak hour of the generator traffic volumes on the highway network in the study area, site entrances and internal roadways, tabulated and presented on diagrams. Analyses for intersections and roadways identified by VDOT. Delay and Level of Service (LOS) are tabulated and LOS presented on diagrams for each lane group. When the type of development proposed would indicate significant potential for walking, bike or transit trips either on- or off-site, analyses of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and bus route(s) and segment(s) tabulated and presented on diagrams, if facilities exist or are planned. Administrative Guidelines July 2008  ITEM PROVIDED OR NOT APPLICABLE (NA) Recommended Improvements Description and diagram of the location, nature, and extent of proposed improvements, with preliminary cost estimates as available from VDOT. Description of methodology used to calculate the effects of travel demand management (TDM) measures, if proposed, with supporting data. Analyses for all proposed and modified intersections in the study area under the forecast and site traffic. Delay, and Level of Service (LOS) are tabulated and LOS presented on diagrams for each lane group. For intersections expected to be signalized, MUTCD Signal Warrant analysis or ITE Manual for Traffic Signal Design, as determined by VDOT, presented in tabular form. When the type of development proposed would indicate significant potential for walking, bike or transit trips either on- or off-site, analyses of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and bus route(s) and segment(s) tabulated and presented on diagrams, if facilities or routes exist or are planned. Conclusions Clear, concise description of the study findings. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________ SIGNED: ____________________________________ DATE: ______________ VDOT Representative PRINT NAME: _______________________________ VDOT Representative 1 HOPETREE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Traffic Impact Study B&A Project #04220029.00 Date: December 1, 2023 Revised: February 2, 2024 Planners | Architects | Engineers | Surveyors 1208 Corporate Circle, Roanoke, VA 24018 www.balzer.cc TRAFFIC STUDY FOR HOPETREE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TAX MAP #: 44-3-10 860 MOUNT VERNON LANE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA B&A PROJECT #04220029.00 DATE: December 1, 2023 REVISED: February 2, 2024  PLANNERS ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Phone: (540) 772-9580 Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………. 1 2. Analysis of Existing Conditions………………………………………………………....... 4 3. Analysis of Future Conditions Without Development.……..…………………………... 6 4. Trip Generation.…………………………………………………………………….……… 8 5. Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment…………………………..……………………. 11 6. Analysis of Future Conditions with Development……….…………………….............. 14 7. Turn Lane Warrants……………………………….……….…………………….............. 18 8. Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………… 20 Appendix A – Vicinity Map………………………………………………………………... 21 Appendix B – P.U.D. Master Plan…..…………………..………………….……………. 23 Appendix C – Existing Traffic Data………………………………………………………. 25 Appendix D – VDOT Turn Lane Worksheets…………………………………………… 28 Appendix E – Synchro 11 and SimTraffic 11 Intersection Analysis Data……………. 33 2023 Existing AM Peak Hour Analysis………………………………………… 34 2023 Existing PM Peak Hour Analysis………………………………………… 43 2028 Background AM Peak Hour Analysis……………………………………. 52 2028 Background PM Peak Hour Analysis……………………………………. 61 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hour Analysis…..……………………….…………… 70 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hour Analysis………..………………………………. 79 List of Figures Fig. 1 – 2023 Existing Turning Movements…..……………………..………….……............………..5 Fig. 2 – 2028 Projected Turning Movements..…………………………..............................………..7 Fig. 3 – Site-Generated Entering Movements..……………...………….............................………..12 Fig. 4 – Site-Generated Exiting Movements..…...…………...………….............................………..13 Fig. 5 –2028 Buildout Turning Movements..…………..….…...………………..………….……........15 List of Tables Table 1 – LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HCM)………...……………………………..3 Table 2 – Site-Generated Traffic…………………...…..…………………………….…….....………..8 Table 3 – Site-Generated Traffic w/ 25% Reduction…………………...…..……....…….....………..10 Table 4 – Red Lane & East Carrollton Avenue LOS & Queuing Analysis……….………..………..16 Table 5 – Mount Vernon Lane & East Carrollton Avenue LOS & Queuing Analysis…….………..16 Table 6 – North Broad Street & East Carrollton Avenue LOS & Queuing Analysis….…..………..17 Traffic Study 1 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 1. Introduction HopeTree Family Services is proposing to rezone 62.318 acres of land located along Red Lane in the City of Salem (see Appendix A for vicinity map). The property is proposed to be rezoned from RSF, Residential Single Family, to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The P.U.D. Land Use Plan, prepared by Civic by Design, is included in Appendix B. The development will have a mix of residential and commercial use types. The maximum number of residential units allowed for this development is 340 and these are assumed to be broken down by type as outlined in the list below. Residential and commercial uses will be determined by market conditions and opportunities available at the time of development. The list below outlines the uses that have been assumed for the purposes of this traffic study. •115 Single-Family Detached Dwelling Units •140 Single-Family Attached Dwelling Units •85 Multi-Family Dwelling Units •60 Total Hotel Rooms •15,000 s.f. of Total General Office Space •7,500 s.f. of Total Restaurant Space The breakdown of uses above is based on what is considered to be a reasonable and conservative expectation for the development based on the P.U.D. Land Use Plan. The actual breakdown will differ from these assumptions. It is recommended that projected trip generation be tracked as the development progresses for comparison to the traffic study. If the actual development results in significantly more traffic than what is included in these assumptions, then it may be necessary to update this study. The site is located on the west side of Red Lane with East Carrollton Avenue to the south and Interstate 81 to the north. The property is described as City of Salem Tax Parcel #44-3-10. The development has several proposed existing and proposed entrances on Red Lane, East Carrollton Avenue, and North Broad Street. Traffic Study 2 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 As discussed with the City of Salem, the following intersections will be analyzed to determine levels of service with the proposed development: •Red Lane and East Carrollton Avenue (Unsignalized) •East Carrollton Avenue and Mount Vernon Lane (Unsignalized) •East Carrollton Avenue and North Broad Street (Unsignalized) All roads in the direct vicinity of the project are two-lane local roads that provide access between mostly residential areas. A mix of residential building types is present in this area, including single-family, two-family, townhome, and multi-family units. Roanoke College is located approximately 0.25 miles from the site to the southeast. The Main Street and downtown Salem commercial corridor is located approximately 0.7 miles south of the site. There are also two golf courses located in this area, Hanging Rock Golf Course to the north and Salem Municipal Golf Course to the west. Red Lane is utilized as a connection between downtown Salem, Hanging Rock Golf Course, and existing residential developments to the north. The speed limit on all of the local roads in the direct vicinity of the project is 25 mph. Three scenarios will be considered: Existing Condition 2023, Background Condition 2028, and Buildout Condition 2028 to determine the effects of the background traffic growth and the proposed development on the levels of service at the existing intersections. Level of service (LOS) for unsignalized intersections is evaluated based on control delay per vehicle and the driver’s perception of those conditions. Control delay is the portion of the total delay attributed to the control at the intersection. Table 1 depicts the LOS scale with corresponding control delay per vehicle, with LOS “A” representing the best operating conditions and LOS “F” representing the worst. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level Of Service Avg. Control Delay (Sec./Veh) A < 10 B > 10 – 15 C > 15 – 25 D > 25 – 35 E > 35 – 50 F > 50 Table 1: LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HCM) Traffic Study 3 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 The Synchro 11 software was used for traffic modeling and analysis. This study was undertaken by Balzer and Associates, Inc. to: •determine the total number of vehicle trips generated by the potential development to be added to the adjacent street network; •determine the impacts to level of service and queue lengths at the existing intersections as a result of the background traffic growth and from the proposed development; •determine if any roadway or intersection improvements are warranted as a result of the proposed development; •and to determine turn lane/taper requirements at the proposed entrances to the site. Traffic Study 4 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 2. Analysis of Existing Conditions The site is currently owned and operated by HopeTree Family Services and has been for many years. Changing regulations over the last several decades have greatly decreased the number of permanent residents that are allowed to be housed at the site at any one time. There are many existing buildings, some of which are still in use by HopeTree, and others that are no longer in use. Among other things, the site includes a school, group homes for children and adults, and offices where staff members work on-site. Other improvements on-site include access drives and parking areas, pool and athletic courts, two existing baseball fields near Red Lane, and other miscellaneous improvements. There is an existing pond and two existing creeks located on the site as well and these will be preserved to the extent practical. All intersections in the vicinity of the site are unsignalized. 2021 VDOT traffic count data is available for Red Lane just to the north of the site in Roanoke County, and this data is provided below as general background information. 2021 VDOT Traffic Count Data: Red Lane, Rte. 705 (from Salem/Roanoke County line to North Road) AADT = 1,100 vpd Directional Factor = not provided K Factor = not provided In addition to the VDOT published traffic count data, manual traffic counts were performed at two of the study intersections. Counts were performed at the Red Lane/East Carrollton Avenue intersection and the East Carrollton Avenue/North Broad Street intersection on Tuesday, October 3, 2023 from 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM to capture the AM and PM peak hours. All turning and through movements were counted to facilitate analysis of the intersections. The manual traffic count data for these intersections is provided in Appendix C. After the first review of the traffic study, it was requested by the City of Salem that the intersection of East Carrollton Avenue/Mount Vernon Lane be added to the analysis. Traffic volumes for this intersection were derived from the previous counts that were obtained at the other two intersections. In addition, a site visit was made to observe traffic patterns at this intersection during the peak traffic times to inform the breakdown of turning movements at each approach. Figure 1 graphically depicts the existing peak hour traffic volumes at all intersections. The Synchro 11 software was used to analyze delay and level of service for existing weekday AM and PM peak hours. The Synchro 11 results are included in Appendix E. Traffic Study 6 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 3. Analysis of Future Conditions Without Development It is anticipated that the proposed development will be constructed and in use by the year 2028. To analyze the future conditions and obtain the projected background traffic volumes, an annual growth factor was applied to the existing traffic volumes. Based on historical VDOT traffic data, the average growth rate over the last 10 years or so has been approximately 1% on Red Lane and there has actually been a reduction in traffic volume over the last 5 years. To provide a conservative analysis, a 1.5% annual growth rate was applied to bring the existing traffic volumes from the current year of 2023 to the buildout year of 2028. Figure 2 graphically depicts the projected background traffic in the year 2028 with the growth rate applied. The Synchro 11 software was used to analyze delay and level of service for background weekday AM and PM peak hours. The Synchro 11 results are included in Appendix E. Traffic Study 8 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 4. Trip Generation Trip generation for this study was based on the anticipated and assumed uses outlined in the Introduction and information provided by the developer regarding the possible uses of the property. The policies and procedures found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, were employed to determine the potential site generated traffic volumes for the proposed development for the average weekday and AM and PM peak hours. Trip generation calculations were performed using the equations provided in the ITE manual. Table 2 shows the potential site-generated traffic for this development. Trip Generation Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday Proposed Development ITE Code Independent Variable Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total Single-Family Detached Housing 210 115 Dwelling Units 21 64 85 71 42 113 1,147 Single-Family Attached Housing 215 140 Dwelling Units 17 50 67 47 33 80 1,016 Multi-Family Housing (Low- Rise) 220 85 Dwelling Units 12 37 49 36 21 57 620 Hotel 310 60 Rooms 13 10 23 8 9 17 227 General Office 710 15,000 s.f.29 4 33 6 28 34 223 Sit-Down Restaurants 932 7,500 s.f.39 33 72 41 27 68 804 Total 131 198 329 209 160 369 4,037 Table 2: Site-Generated Traffic Please note that the table above does not include traffic volumes for the HopeTree school or office uses. These specific uses are already taking place on the site and will not be trips that are “added” to the street network. The addition of the other use types on-site may actually reduce some of the existing trips due to the fact that some of the existing trips may be redirected to or from the new facilities that are developed within the site. The intent of the proposed development is to provide a cohesive, connected, walkable community where pedestrian connectivity is a primary focus and vehicular trips are secondary. Due to the nature of the development and the mix of residential, commercial, institutional, and other uses, a portion of the site-generated trips will be pedestrian trips and/or “internally Traffic Study 9 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 captured”. Internal capture reductions consider site trips “captured” within a mixed-use development, recognizing that trips from one land use can access another land use within a development without having to access the adjacent street system. It is well-documented that this type of pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use development will result in less traffic to the adjacent street network than what is calculated using traditional trip generation methods. It should also be noted that ITE and VDOT both have methodologies for estimating trip generation reduction for mixed-use developments. These methodologies require a high level of detail about proposed uses that is not available at this time for this particular development. In addition, these methodologies also do not adequately account for other characteristics of this development that are expected to further reduce traffic. These include urban design principles such as proximity between uses interior and exterior to the development, proximity to Roanoke College and downtown, and the very nature of the development which is to prioritize pedestrian connectivity and walkability and de-emphasize vehicle trips. Walkable mixed-use developments have been documented to reduce traffic dependent on factors such as location, density, mix of uses, etc. A report by the American Planning Association entitled “Getting Trip Generation Right: Eliminating the Bias Against Mixed Use Development,” indicates that, on average, conventional trip generation methods overestimate trip generation by 49 percent for typical mixed-use developments. It is acknowledged that this development does not have all of the characteristics that would warrant a 49 percent reduction in traffic. However, it is expected to share many of the same characteristics such as density, diversification of uses, proximity between uses, and walkability. Based on the characteristics and initiatives of this P.U.D. development and utilizing engineering judgement, a 25% reduction was deemed to be reasonable for this project. Table 3 below shows the potential site-generated traffic for this development with the internal capture reduction applied. Traffic Study 10 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 Trip Generation Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday Proposed Development ITE Code Independent Variable Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total Single-Family Detached Housing 210 115 Dwelling Units 16 48 64 53 32 85 860 Single-Family Attached Housing 215 140 Dwelling Units 13 37 50 35 25 60 762 Multi-Family Housing (Low- Rise) 220 85 Dwelling Units 9 28 37 27 16 43 465 Hotel 310 60 Rooms 10 8 18 6 7 13 170 General Office 710 15,000 s.f.22 3 25 4 21 25 167 High-Turnover Sit- Down Restaurant 932 7,500 s.f.29 25 54 31 20 51 603 Total 99 149 248 156 121 277 3,027 Table 3: Site-Generated Traffic w/ 25% Reduction Traffic Study 11 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 5. Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment The distribution of potential site generated traffic was completed by applying engineering judgement based on knowledge of the proposed uses, as well as the surrounding area. These assumptions were then applied to the site generated traffic to determine the ingress/egress movements at each entrance and in each direction. Traffic will enter to and exit from the site to the north toward I-81 or to the south or west to go toward downtown Salem. There are several entrances planned for the site in strategic locations to disperse traffic and efficiently distribute vehicles to the adjacent road system in an interconnected grid-type network that is similar to what already exists to the north of Main Street. This development is proposed to have four access points on Red Lane, three access points on East Carrollton Avenue, and one access point on North Broad Street. The roadway network creates a network of streets within the development with a high level of interconnectivity both internally and externally to the existing streets. After distribution of trips to the roadway, trips were distributed to each road and intersection based on the assumptions described above. Traffic assignment for traffic entering the development is shown graphically in Figure 3 and for traffic exiting the development is shown graphically in Figure 4. Traffic Study 14 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 6. Analysis of Future Conditions With Development The buildout traffic was calculated by adding the 2028 background traffic (Figure 2) to the site-generated traffic (Figures 3 and 4). The 2028 buildout traffic for each of the study intersections is shown in Figure 5. The intersections were then modeled and evaluated using the Synchro 11 software. Tables 4 and 5 provide a summary of the levels of service and delays calculated at each intersection for the 2023 Existing, 2028 Background, and 2028 Buildout conditions. The detailed Synchro 11 reports are included in Appendix E. As shown in the data, all approaches at the two study intersections will function at the same level of service in the Buildout condition as they do in the Existing and Background conditions, with minimal increases in delay. No further improvements are warranted or recommended as a result of the development traffic. Traffic Study 16 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 Red Lane and East Carrollton Avenue AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR CONDITION LANE GROUP LANE LOS (delay) Max. Queue (ft.) LANE LOS (delay) Max. Queue (ft.) NBLT A (7.4)40 A (7.9)52 EBLR A (7.4)31 A (7.9)39Existing 2023 Condition SBTR A (7.2)52 A (7.3)55 NBLT A (7.5)47 A (7.9)53 EBLR A (7.5)37 A (8.0)48 Background 2028 Condition SBTR A (7.3)55 A (7.4)55 NBLT A (7.7)46 A (8.4)56 EBLR A (7.7)37 A (8.4)44 Buildout 2028 Condition SBTR A (7.6)57 A (7.7)62 Table 4: Red Lane & East Carrollton Avenue LOS & Queuing Analysis Mount Vernon Lane and East Carrollton Avenue AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR CONDITION LANE GROUP LANE LOS (delay) Max. Queue (ft.) LANE LOS (delay) Max. Queue (ft.) NBLTR A (7.5)34 A (7.7)34 EBLTR A (7.5)53 A (7.8)61 WBLTR A (7.5)55 A (7.9)68 Existing 2023 Condition SBLTR A (7.0)31 A (7.4)34 NBLTR A (7.6)43 A (7.8)32 EBLTR A (7.5)60 A (7.9)61 WBLTR A (7.5)52 A (8.0)70 Background 2028 Condition SBLTR A (7.1)31 A (7.4)33 NBLTR A (7.8)47 A (8.1)40 EBLTR A (7.9)62 A (8.5)66 WBLTR A (7.9)62 A (8.4)61 Buildout 2028 Condition SBLTR A (7.5)45 A (7.8)44 Table 5: Mount Vernon Lane & East Carrollton Avenue LOS & Queuing Analysis Traffic Study 17 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 North Broad Street and East Carrollton Avenue AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR CONDITION LANE GROUP LANE LOS (delay) Max. Queue (ft.) LANE LOS (delay) Max. Queue (ft.) NBLTR B (10.3)49 B (12.1)64 EBL --2 A (7.5)11 WBL A (7.6)22 A (7.7)27 Existing 2023 Condition SBLTR A (8.7)18 B (10.3)28 NBLTR B (10.5)46 B (12.6)77 EBL ----A (7.5)11 WBL A (7.7)15 A (7.7)23 Background 2028 Condition SBLTR A (8.7)18 B (10.5)31 NBLTR B (11.6)50 B (14.8)76 EBL A (7.5)12 A (7.6)41 WBL A (7.8)33 A (7.8)35 Buildout 2028 Condition SBLTR B (10.9)34 B (11.8)47 Table 6: North Broad Street & East Carrollton Avenue LOS & Queuing Analysis Traffic Study 18 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 7. Turn Lane Warrants The analyses to determine turn lane requirements for the new development were completed by following the procedures and methodologies found in the VDOT Road Design Manual, Volume I, Appendix F. Turn lane warrants were analyzed based on the highest volumes for each roadway (Red Lane and East Carrollton Avenue) to show that the warrants are not met and will not be met for any of the intersections. Right-Turn Lane into Site from Red Lane AM Peak Hour Analysis: - 22 Vehicles per Hour Turning Right into site from Red Lane - Approach Volume = 127 + 22 = 149 VPH Red Lane -- Right-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: Radius Required (please see Appendix D). PM Peak Hour Analysis: - 36 Vehicles per Hour Turning Right into site from Red Lane - Approach Volume = 133 + 36 = 169 VPH Red Lane -- Right-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: Radius Required (please see Appendix D). Left-Turn Lane into Site from Red Lane AM Peak Hour Analysis: - 7 (9.7%) Vehicles per Hour Turning Left into site from Red Lane Posted Speed Limit = 25 mph - Advancing Volume = 72 VPH - Opposing Volume = 127 VPH -- Left-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: None Required (please see Appendix D). PM Peak Hour Analysis: - 11 (6.8%) Vehicles per Hour Turning Left into site from Red Lane Posted Speed Limit = 25 mph - Advancing Volume = 161 VPH - Opposing Volume = 133 VPH -- Left-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: None Required (please see Appendix D). Traffic Study 19 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 Right-Turn Lane into Site from East Carrollton Avenue AM Peak Hour Analysis: - 6 Vehicles per Hour Turning Right into site from East Carrollton Avenue - Approach Volume = 122 VPH East Carrollton Avenue -- Right-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: Radius Required (please see Appendix D). PM Peak Hour Analysis: - 9 Vehicles per Hour Turning Right into site from East Carrollton Avenue - Approach Volume = 166 VPH East Carrollton Avenue -- Right-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: Radius Required (please see Appendix D). Left-Turn Lane into Site from East Carrollton Avenue AM Peak Hour Analysis: - 8 (8.4%) Vehicles per Hour Turning Left into site from East Carrollton Avenue Posted Speed Limit = 25 mph - Advancing Volume = 95 VPH - Opposing Volume = 122 VPH -- Left-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: None Required (please see Appendix D). PM Peak Hour Analysis: - 14 (9.0%) Vehicles per Hour Turning Left into site from East Carrollton Avenue Posted Speed Limit = 25 mph - Advancing Volume = 155 VPH - Opposing Volume = 166 VPH -- Left-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: None Required (please see Appendix D). Traffic Study 20 HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 8. Conclusions Based on the data collected, the assumptions made, and the projected site-generated traffic, the results of the analysis are outlined below. •The proposed development will generate additional traffic to the existing road network. •The proposed development results in very minimal increases in delay and queue lengths at the study intersections and all approaches function at the same level of service in the Existing, Background, and Buildout scenarios. •No turn lanes or tapers are warranted by the proposed development. Traffic Study HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 Appendix A Vicinity Map 21 Traffic Study HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 SITE SITE 22 Traffic Study HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 Appendix B P.U.D. Master Plan 23 24 Traffic Study HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 Appendix C Existing Traffic Data 25 TOTALS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by: VCU Intersection of: North Broad Street Date: October 03, 2023 Tuesday and: Carrollton Avenue Weather: Sunny/Warm Location: Salem, Virginia Entered by: SN Star Rating: 4 TOTAL on:North Broad Street on:North Broad Street on:Carrollton Avenue on:Carrollton Avenue N + S TIME + RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL E + W AM 7:00 - 7:15 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 11 2 0 13 20 5 0 0 25 44 7:15 - 7:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 13 2 0 15 21 10 0 0 31 54 7:30 - 7:45 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 5 1 18 2 0 21 50 13 0 0 63 89 7:45 - 8:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 8 0 15 2 0 17 32 20 0 0 52 77 8:00 - 8:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 0 25 0 0 25 15 18 0 0 33 71 8:15 - 8:30 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 9 0 10 0 16 0 0 16 19 8 0 0 27 54 8:30 - 8:45 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 7 0 8 0 7 0 0 7 25 11 0 0 36 52 8:45 - 9:00 1 0 0 0 1 2 3 5 0 10 0 13 0 0 13 16 9 0 0 25 49 2 Hr Totals 3 3 0 0 6 6 3 56 0 65 1 118 8 0 127 198 94 0 0 292 490 1 Hr Totals 7:00 - 8:00 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 22 0 24 1 57 8 0 66 123 48 0 0 171 264 7:15 - 8:15 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 32 0 34 1 71 6 0 78 118 61 0 0 179 291 7:30 - 8:30 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 33 0 36 1 74 4 0 79 116 59 0 0 175 291 7:45 - 8:45 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 36 0 39 0 63 2 0 65 91 57 0 0 148 254 8:00 - 9:00 2 1 0 0 3 4 3 34 0 41 0 61 0 0 61 75 46 0 0 121 226 PEAK HOUR 7:30 - 8:30 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 33 0 36 1 74 4 0 79 116 59 0 0 175 291 PM 4:00 - 4:15 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 8 0 10 0 24 0 0 24 19 17 0 0 36 71 4:15 - 4:30 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 20 0 20 0 20 1 0 21 18 19 0 0 37 79 4:30 - 4:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 0 13 0 34 1 0 35 15 20 0 0 35 83 4:45 - 5:00 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 18 0 18 0 28 3 0 31 12 18 1 0 31 81 5:00 - 5:15 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 25 0 27 0 35 0 0 35 19 25 1 0 45 109 5:15 - 5:30 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 23 0 25 0 36 4 0 40 32 26 1 0 59 124 5:30 - 5:45 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 16 0 16 1 20 1 0 22 17 23 0 0 40 80 5:45 - 6:00 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 20 0 22 0 24 2 0 26 19 25 1 0 45 93 2 Hr Totals 3 4 0 0 7 8 1 142 0 151 1 221 12 0 234 151 173 4 0 328 720 1 Hr Totals 4:00 - 5:00 1 2 0 0 3 2 1 58 0 61 0 106 5 0 111 64 74 1 0 139 314 4:15 - 5:15 2 2 0 0 4 2 1 75 0 78 0 117 5 0 122 64 82 2 0 148 352 4:30 - 5:30 1 2 0 0 3 4 1 78 0 83 0 133 8 0 141 78 89 3 0 170 397 4:45 - 5:45 2 3 0 0 5 4 0 82 0 86 1 119 8 0 128 80 92 3 0 175 394 5:00 - 6:00 2 2 0 0 4 6 0 84 0 90 1 115 7 0 123 87 99 3 0 189 406 PEAK HOUR 5:00 - 6:00 2 2 0 0 4 6 0 84 0 90 1 115 7 0 123 87 99 3 0 189 406 TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM WEST 26 TOTALS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by: VCU Intersection of: Red Lane Date: October 03, 2023 Tuesday and: Carrollton Avenue Weather: Sunny/Warm Location: Salem, Virginia Entered by: SN Star Rating: 4 TOTAL on:Red Lane on:Red Lane on:on:Carrollton Avenue N + S TIME + RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL E + W AM 7:00 - 7:15 12 6 0 0 18 0 3 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 5 28 7:15 - 7:30 9 7 0 0 16 0 1 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 0 11 32 7:30 - 7:45 10 18 0 0 28 0 3 6 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8 0 11 48 7:45 - 8:00 13 9 0 0 22 0 4 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 7 0 13 42 8:00 - 8:15 14 9 0 0 23 0 6 6 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 13 0 17 52 8:15 - 8:30 10 11 0 0 21 0 6 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 5 36 8:30 - 8:45 5 2 0 0 7 0 8 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 9 0 12 28 8:45 - 9:00 10 3 0 0 13 0 6 2 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 12 33 2 Hr Totals 83 65 0 0 148 0 37 28 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 61 0 86 299 1 Hr Totals 7:00 - 8:00 44 40 0 0 84 0 11 15 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 26 0 40 150 7:15 - 8:15 46 43 0 0 89 0 14 19 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 37 0 52 174 7:30 - 8:30 47 47 0 0 94 0 19 19 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 31 0 46 178 7:45 - 8:45 42 31 0 0 73 0 24 14 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 32 0 47 158 8:00 - 9:00 39 25 0 0 64 0 26 13 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 35 0 46 149 PEAK HOUR 7:30 - 8:30 47 47 0 0 94 0 19 19 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 31 0 46 178 PM 4:00 - 4:15 18 12 0 0 30 0 13 5 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 13 0 20 68 4:15 - 4:30 16 2 0 0 18 0 9 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 15 0 20 48 4:30 - 4:45 21 7 0 0 28 0 12 7 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 18 0 23 70 4:45 - 5:00 21 10 0 0 31 0 12 4 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 15 0 18 65 5:00 - 5:15 12 8 0 0 20 0 17 11 1 29 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 18 0 25 74 5:15 - 5:30 19 6 0 0 25 0 12 13 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 20 0 27 77 5:30 - 5:45 13 7 0 0 20 0 10 3 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 14 0 16 49 5:45 - 6:00 19 9 0 0 28 0 7 4 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 13 0 20 59 2 Hr Totals 139 61 0 0 200 0 92 48 1 141 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 126 0 169 510 1 Hr Totals 4:00 - 5:00 76 31 0 0 107 0 46 17 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 61 0 81 251 4:15 - 5:15 70 27 0 0 97 0 50 23 1 74 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 66 0 86 257 4:30 - 5:30 73 31 0 0 104 0 53 35 1 89 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 71 0 93 286 4:45 - 5:45 65 31 0 0 96 0 51 31 1 83 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 67 0 86 265 5:00 - 6:00 63 30 0 0 93 0 46 31 1 78 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 65 0 88 259 PEAK HOUR 4:30 - 5:30 73 31 0 0 104 0 53 35 1 89 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 71 0 93 286 TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM WEST 27 Traffic Study HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 Appendix D VDOT Turn Lane Worksheets 28 Road Design Manual Appendix F Page F-89 FIGURE 3-26 WARRANTS FOR RIGHT TURN TREATMENT (2-LANE HIGHWAY) Appropriate Radius required at all Intersections and Entrances (Commercial or Private). LEGEND PHV - Peak Hour Volume (also Design Hourly Volume equivalent) Adjustment for Right Turns For posted speeds at or under 45 mph, PHV right turns > 40, and PHV total < 300. Adjusted right turns = PHV Right Turns - 20 If PHV is not known use formula: PHV = ADT x K x D K = the percent of AADT occurring in the peak hour D = the percent of traffic in the peak direction of flow Note: An average of 11% for K x D will suffice. When right turn facilities are warranted, see Figure 3-1 for design criteria.* * Rev. 1/15 NO TURN LANES OR TAPERS REQUIRED 29 Road Design Manual Appendix F Page F-69 WARRANT FOR LEFT-TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO-LANE HIGHWAY FIGURE 3-4 WARRANT FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO LANE HIGHWAY FIGURE 3-5 WARRANT FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO LANE HIGHWAY 30 Road Design Manual Appendix F Page F-89 FIGURE 3-26 WARRANTS FOR RIGHT TURN TREATMENT (2-LANE HIGHWAY) Appropriate Radius required at all Intersections and Entrances (Commercial or Private). LEGEND PHV - Peak Hour Volume (also Design Hourly Volume equivalent) Adjustment for Right Turns For posted speeds at or under 45 mph, PHV right turns > 40, and PHV total < 300. Adjusted right turns = PHV Right Turns - 20 If PHV is not known use formula: PHV = ADT x K x D K = the percent of AADT occurring in the peak hour D = the percent of traffic in the peak direction of flow Note: An average of 11% for K x D will suffice. When right turn facilities are warranted, see Figure 3-1 for design criteria.* * Rev. 1/15 NO TURN LANES OR TAPERS REQUIRED 31 Road Design Manual Appendix F Page F-69 WARRANT FOR LEFT-TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO-LANE HIGHWAY FIGURE 3-4 WARRANT FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO LANE HIGHWAY FIGURE 3-5 WARRANT FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO LANE HIGHWAY 32 Traffic Study HopeTree Planned Unit Development – City of Salem, VA February 2, 2024 Appendix E Synchro 11 Intersection Analysis Data 33 HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 7:30 am 10/03/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.3 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 31 15 19 19 47 47 Future Vol, veh/h 31 15 19 19 47 47 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 36 17 22 22 55 55 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB NB SB Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 7.4 7.4 7.2 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 50% 67% 0% Vol Thru, % 50% 0% 50% Vol Right, % 0% 33% 50% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 38 46 94 LT Vol 19 31 0 Through Vol 19 0 47 RT Vol 0 15 47 Lane Flow Rate 44 53 109 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.051 0.061 0.113 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.178 4.102 3.728 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 854 867 959 Service Time 2.218 2.155 1.764 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.052 0.061 0.114 HCM Control Delay 7.4 7.4 7.2 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 0.2 0.4 34 HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 7:30 am 10/03/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.5 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 43 7 0 59 7 15 13 3 0 4 5 Future Vol, veh/h 12 43 7 0 59 7 15 13 3 0 4 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 15 52 9 0 72 9 18 16 4 0 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 7.5 7.5 7.5 7 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 48% 19% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 42% 69% 89% 44% Vol Right, % 10% 11% 11% 56% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 31 62 66 9 LT Vol 15 12 0 0 Through Vol 13 43 59 4 RT Vol 3 7 7 5 Lane Flow Rate 38 76 80 11 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.045 0.085 0.09 0.012 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.251 4.052 4.013 3.899 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 834 880 889 905 Service Time 2.322 2.094 2.055 1.979 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.046 0.086 0.09 0.012 HCM Control Delay 7.5 7.5 7.5 7 HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 0.3 0.3 0 35 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 7:30 am 10/03/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 59 116 4 74 1 33 0 1 0 0 1 Future Vol, veh/h 0 59 116 4 74 1 33 0 1 0 0 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 72 141 5 90 1 40 0 1 0 0 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 91 0 0 213 0 0 244 244 143 244 314 91 Stage 1 - - - - - - 143 143 - 101 101 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 101 101 - 143 213 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1517 - - 1369 - - 714 661 910 714 605 972 Stage 1 - - - - - - 865 782 - 910 815 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 910 815 - 865 730 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1517 - - 1369 - - 711 658 910 711 603 972 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 711 658 - 711 603 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 865 782 - 910 812 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 905 812 - 864 730 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 10.3 8.7 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 716 1517 - - 1369 - - 972 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.058 - - - 0.004 - - 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 0 - - 7.6 0 - 8.7 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0 - - 0 36 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing AM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Start Time 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 End Time 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 Total Time (min) 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 412 419 411 363 368 375 359 Vehs Exited 411 418 405 364 369 380 354 Starting Vehs 2 2 0 3 1 7 2 Ending Vehs 3 3 6 2 0 2 7 Travel Distance (mi) 87 89 85 77 80 79 77 Travel Time (hr) 4.2 4.2 4.0 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.7 Total Delay (hr) 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 Total Stops 413 433 403 360 389 365 373 Fuel Used (gal) 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Start Time 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 End Time 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 Total Time (min) 75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 384 396 396 385 Vehs Exited 386 399 399 388 Starting Vehs 8 5 3 0 Ending Vehs 6 2 0 0 Travel Distance (mi) 78 84 83 82 Travel Time (hr) 3.7 4.0 4.0 3.9 Total Delay (hr) 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 Total Stops 355 373 399 386 Fuel Used (gal) 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.5 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. No data recorded this interval. 37 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing AM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 7:45 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 127 125 124 111 113 103 114 Vehs Exited 125 122 119 106 108 106 109 Starting Vehs 2 2 0 3 1 7 2 Ending Vehs 4 5 5 8 6 4 7 Travel Distance (mi) 26 26 24 23 24 21 24 Travel Time (hr) 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 128 120 106 108 129 99 113 Fuel Used (gal) 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 7:45 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 102 120 104 114 Vehs Exited 104 119 105 113 Starting Vehs 8 5 3 0 Ending Vehs 6 6 2 3 Travel Distance (mi) 21 25 21 24 Travel Time (hr) 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 95 110 99 110 Fuel Used (gal) 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 38 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing AM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 3 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:45 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 90 90 85 71 94 99 81 Vehs Exited 89 92 87 74 100 101 86 Starting Vehs 4 5 5 8 6 4 7 Ending Vehs 5 3 3 5 0 2 2 Travel Distance (mi) 19 19 18 15 20 21 18 Travel Time (hr) 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.9 Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 93 96 86 66 92 104 88 Fuel Used (gal) 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.8 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:45 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 100 99 97 89 Vehs Exited 105 103 97 94 Starting Vehs 6 6 2 3 Ending Vehs 1 2 2 0 Travel Distance (mi) 21 23 21 20 Travel Time (hr) 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.9 Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 102 113 100 92 Fuel Used (gal) 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 39 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing AM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 4 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 8:00 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 119 98 94 96 92 96 81 Vehs Exited 120 95 90 93 86 92 82 Starting Vehs 5 3 3 5 0 2 2 Ending Vehs 4 6 7 8 6 6 1 Travel Distance (mi) 24 21 20 20 19 19 18 Travel Time (hr) 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 109 109 94 95 93 88 86 Fuel Used (gal) 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 8:00 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 92 88 100 95 Vehs Exited 88 86 101 93 Starting Vehs 1 2 2 0 Ending Vehs 5 4 1 1 Travel Distance (mi) 17 18 21 20 Travel Time (hr) 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 Total Delay (hr) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 71 76 99 92 Fuel Used (gal) 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 40 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing AM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 5 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 8:15 End Time 8:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 76 106 108 85 69 77 83 Vehs Exited 77 109 109 91 75 81 77 Starting Vehs 4 6 7 8 6 6 1 Ending Vehs 3 3 6 2 0 2 7 Travel Distance (mi) 17 22 23 19 16 17 18 Travel Time (hr) 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 Total Stops 83 108 117 91 75 74 86 Fuel Used (gal) 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 8:15 End Time 8:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 90 89 95 86 Vehs Exited 89 91 96 88 Starting Vehs 5 4 1 1 Ending Vehs 6 2 0 0 Travel Distance (mi) 18 17 20 19 Travel Time (hr) 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.9 Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 87 74 101 91 Fuel Used (gal) 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.8 41 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr 2023 Existing AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 6 Intersection: 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 31 40 52 Average Queue (ft) 25 22 32 95th Queue (ft) 43 46 48 Link Distance (ft) 383 305 460 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 2 22 49 18 Average Queue (ft) 0 1 20 1 95th Queue (ft) 0 12 46 11 Link Distance (ft) 292 373 621 370 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 53 55 34 31 Average Queue (ft) 29 28 20 10 95th Queue (ft) 50 47 44 33 Link Distance (ft) 373 383 294 364 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 42 HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 4:30 pm 10/03/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.7 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 71 22 36 53 31 73 Future Vol, veh/h 71 22 36 53 31 73 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 76 24 39 57 33 78 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB NB SB Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 7.9 7.9 7.3 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 40% 76% 0% Vol Thru, % 60% 0% 30% Vol Right, % 0% 24% 70% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 89 93 104 LT Vol 36 71 0 Through Vol 53 0 31 RT Vol 0 22 73 Lane Flow Rate 96 100 112 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.113 0.118 0.116 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.243 4.264 3.727 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 835 829 946 Service Time 2.316 2.349 1.81 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.115 0.121 0.118 HCM Control Delay 7.9 7.9 7.3 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0.4 0.4 43 HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 4:30 pm 10/03/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.8 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 88 12 2 104 2 13 3 2 3 5 6 Future Vol, veh/h 5 88 12 2 104 2 13 3 2 3 5 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 6 107 15 2 127 2 16 4 2 4 6 7 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 7.8 7.9 7.7 7.4 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 72% 5% 2% 21% Vol Thru, % 17% 84% 96% 36% Vol Right, % 11% 11% 2% 43% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 18 105 108 14 LT Vol 13 5 2 3 Through Vol 3 88 104 5 RT Vol 2 12 2 6 Lane Flow Rate 22 128 132 17 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.028 0.144 0.15 0.02 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.593 4.043 4.092 4.307 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 784 881 871 836 Service Time 2.593 2.097 2.143 2.308 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 0.145 0.152 0.02 HCM Control Delay 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.4 HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.1 44 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 4:30 pm 10/03/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 99 87 7 115 1 84 0 6 0 2 2 Future Vol, veh/h 3 99 87 7 115 1 84 0 6 0 2 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 4 121 106 9 140 1 102 0 7 0 2 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 141 0 0 227 0 0 343 341 174 345 394 141 Stage 1 - - - - - - 182 182 - 159 159 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 161 159 - 186 235 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1455 - - 1353 - - 615 584 875 613 546 912 Stage 1 - - - - - - 824 753 - 848 770 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 846 770 - 820 714 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1455 - - 1353 - - 606 578 875 603 541 912 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 606 578 - 603 541 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 822 751 - 845 765 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 835 765 - 811 712 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.4 12.1 10.3 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 619 1455 - - 1353 - - 679 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.177 0.003 - - 0.006 - - 0.007 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.1 7.5 0 - 7.7 0 - 10.3 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 0 - - 0 - - 0 45 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing PM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Start Time 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 Total Time (min) 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 550 568 518 505 500 529 506 Vehs Exited 551 561 518 507 497 528 502 Starting Vehs 9 3 4 7 4 6 7 Ending Vehs 8 10 4 5 7 7 11 Travel Distance (mi) 122 122 115 114 111 118 113 Travel Time (hr) 6.0 5.9 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.7 5.5 Total Delay (hr) 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 Total Stops 658 628 623 629 611 640 604 Fuel Used (gal) 5.3 5.3 5.0 4.9 4.9 5.2 4.8 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Start Time 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 Total Time (min) 75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 517 535 506 522 Vehs Exited 509 540 509 523 Starting Vehs 4 7 4 2 Ending Vehs 12 2 1 5 Travel Distance (mi) 115 118 111 116 Travel Time (hr) 5.6 5.8 5.4 5.7 Total Delay (hr) 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 Total Stops 629 646 590 627 Fuel Used (gal) 5.0 5.2 4.9 5.0 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 4:45 End Time 5:00 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. No data recorded this interval. 46 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing PM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 5:00 End Time 5:15 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 136 126 130 95 108 114 113 Vehs Exited 137 123 128 97 110 115 116 Starting Vehs 9 3 4 7 4 6 7 Ending Vehs 8 6 6 5 2 5 4 Travel Distance (mi) 31 26 28 22 24 27 26 Travel Time (hr) 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 170 132 148 122 128 147 133 Fuel Used (gal) 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 5:00 End Time 5:15 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 135 138 111 120 Vehs Exited 134 143 108 120 Starting Vehs 4 7 4 2 Ending Vehs 5 2 7 3 Travel Distance (mi) 29 31 24 27 Travel Time (hr) 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.3 Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 Total Stops 159 169 124 142 Fuel Used (gal) 1.3 1.4 1.0 1.2 47 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing PM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 3 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 5:15 End Time 5:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 168 150 138 148 158 159 152 Vehs Exited 171 150 138 143 154 163 153 Starting Vehs 8 6 6 5 2 5 4 Ending Vehs 5 6 6 10 6 1 3 Travel Distance (mi) 38 32 30 32 35 35 33 Travel Time (hr) 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.6 Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 204 163 159 180 195 190 180 Fuel Used (gal) 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.4 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 5:15 End Time 5:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 144 155 160 152 Vehs Exited 142 150 161 153 Starting Vehs 5 2 7 3 Ending Vehs 7 7 6 2 Travel Distance (mi) 32 33 35 34 Travel Time (hr) 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 181 180 177 183 Fuel Used (gal) 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.5 48 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing PM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 4 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 5:30 End Time 5:45 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 130 127 115 118 135 137 115 Vehs Exited 131 125 114 124 133 131 111 Starting Vehs 5 6 6 10 6 1 3 Ending Vehs 4 8 7 4 8 7 7 Travel Distance (mi) 28 27 27 27 30 29 25 Travel Time (hr) 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.2 Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 148 143 148 153 166 153 136 Fuel Used (gal) 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.0 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 5:30 End Time 5:45 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 114 104 111 119 Vehs Exited 113 106 114 122 Starting Vehs 7 7 6 2 Ending Vehs 8 5 3 3 Travel Distance (mi) 25 23 25 27 Travel Time (hr) 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 136 131 138 144 Fuel Used (gal) 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 49 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing PM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 5 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 5:45 End Time 6:00 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 116 165 135 144 99 119 126 Vehs Exited 112 163 138 143 100 119 122 Starting Vehs 4 8 7 4 8 7 7 Ending Vehs 8 10 4 5 7 7 11 Travel Distance (mi) 25 37 30 32 22 27 28 Travel Time (hr) 1.2 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.4 Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 136 190 168 174 122 150 155 Fuel Used (gal) 1.1 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.0 1.2 1.2 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 5:45 End Time 6:00 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 124 138 124 129 Vehs Exited 120 141 126 129 Starting Vehs 8 5 3 3 Ending Vehs 12 2 1 5 Travel Distance (mi) 28 31 28 29 Travel Time (hr) 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 153 166 151 157 Fuel Used (gal) 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.3 50 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM 02/02/2024 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr 2023 Existing PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 6 Intersection: 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 39 52 55 Average Queue (ft) 29 32 33 95th Queue (ft) 41 46 49 Link Distance (ft) 383 305 460 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 11 27 64 28 Average Queue (ft) 0 1 34 4 95th Queue (ft) 6 10 56 20 Link Distance (ft) 292 373 621 370 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 61 68 34 34 Average Queue (ft) 34 34 15 12 95th Queue (ft) 54 50 41 37 Link Distance (ft) 373 383 294 364 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 51 HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 4:22 pm 10/20/2023 Background AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.4 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 33 16 20 20 51 51 Future Vol, veh/h 33 16 20 20 51 51 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 38 19 23 23 59 59 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB NB SB Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 7.5 7.5 7.3 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 50% 67% 0% Vol Thru, % 50% 0% 50% Vol Right, % 0% 33% 50% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 40 49 102 LT Vol 20 33 0 Through Vol 20 0 51 RT Vol 0 16 51 Lane Flow Rate 47 57 119 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.054 0.065 0.123 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.19 4.121 3.735 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 851 862 956 Service Time 2.234 2.18 1.774 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.055 0.066 0.124 HCM Control Delay 7.5 7.5 7.3 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 0.2 0.4 52 HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 4:22 pm 10/20/2023 Background AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.5 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 46 8 0 64 8 16 14 3 0 4 5 Future Vol, veh/h 13 46 8 0 64 8 16 14 3 0 4 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 16 56 10 0 78 10 20 17 4 0 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.1 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 48% 19% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 42% 69% 89% 44% Vol Right, % 9% 12% 11% 56% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 33 67 72 9 LT Vol 16 13 0 0 Through Vol 14 46 64 4 RT Vol 3 8 8 5 Lane Flow Rate 40 82 88 11 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.048 0.092 0.098 0.012 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.278 4.058 4.019 3.924 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 827 878 887 898 Service Time 2.354 2.103 2.064 2.01 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.048 0.093 0.099 0.012 HCM Control Delay 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.1 HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 0.3 0.3 0 53 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 4:22 pm 10/20/2023 Background AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 64 125 4 80 1 36 0 3 0 0 1 Future Vol, veh/h 0 64 125 4 80 1 36 0 3 0 0 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 78 152 5 98 1 44 0 4 0 0 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 99 0 0 230 0 0 263 263 154 265 339 99 Stage 1 - - - - - - 154 154 - 109 109 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 109 109 - 156 230 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1507 - - 1350 - - 694 646 897 692 586 962 Stage 1 - - - - - - 853 774 - 901 809 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 901 809 - 851 718 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1507 - - 1350 - - 691 643 897 687 584 962 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 691 643 - 687 584 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 853 774 - 901 806 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 896 806 - 848 718 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 10.5 8.7 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 703 1507 - - 1350 - - 962 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.068 - - - 0.004 - - 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.5 0 - - 7.7 0 - 8.7 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0 - - 0 54 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background AM 02/02/2024 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Start Time 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 End Time 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 Total Time (min) 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 430 415 428 404 400 398 440 Vehs Exited 424 409 426 405 397 399 434 Starting Vehs 1 1 0 3 1 5 3 Ending Vehs 7 7 2 2 4 4 9 Travel Distance (mi) 88 87 92 84 85 85 94 Travel Time (hr) 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.6 Total Delay (hr) 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 Total Stops 401 422 468 369 406 402 460 Fuel Used (gal) 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.6 3.6 3.7 4.0 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Start Time 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 End Time 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 Total Time (min) 75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 394 424 426 416 Vehs Exited 395 426 425 415 Starting Vehs 3 5 1 0 Ending Vehs 2 3 2 0 Travel Distance (mi) 83 90 89 88 Travel Time (hr) 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.2 Total Delay (hr) 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 Total Stops 396 423 417 418 Fuel Used (gal) 3.6 4.0 3.9 3.8 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. No data recorded this interval. 55 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background AM 02/02/2024 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 7:45 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 128 117 133 111 118 120 148 Vehs Exited 126 116 129 109 114 121 145 Starting Vehs 1 1 0 3 1 5 3 Ending Vehs 3 2 4 5 5 4 6 Travel Distance (mi) 26 24 29 23 25 25 31 Travel Time (hr) 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.5 Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 Total Stops 119 117 149 94 119 115 139 Fuel Used (gal) 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 7:45 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 124 130 120 121 Vehs Exited 121 134 112 121 Starting Vehs 3 5 1 0 Ending Vehs 6 1 9 2 Travel Distance (mi) 26 29 24 26 Travel Time (hr) 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.3 Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 Total Stops 120 142 109 120 Fuel Used (gal) 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1 56 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background AM 02/02/2024 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 3 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:45 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 107 90 88 83 98 100 94 Vehs Exited 105 88 87 83 101 101 98 Starting Vehs 3 2 4 5 5 4 6 Ending Vehs 5 4 5 5 2 3 2 Travel Distance (mi) 22 18 19 17 21 21 21 Travel Time (hr) 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 102 87 98 67 106 105 100 Fuel Used (gal) 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:45 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 106 96 99 95 Vehs Exited 111 95 102 95 Starting Vehs 6 1 9 2 Ending Vehs 1 2 6 1 Travel Distance (mi) 24 21 21 21 Travel Time (hr) 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 123 101 101 99 Fuel Used (gal) 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 57 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background AM 02/02/2024 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 4 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 8:00 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 110 100 99 107 92 94 110 Vehs Exited 110 98 96 106 89 90 102 Starting Vehs 5 4 5 5 2 3 2 Ending Vehs 5 6 8 6 5 7 10 Travel Distance (mi) 21 21 22 22 19 20 23 Travel Time (hr) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 89 104 110 100 89 101 118 Fuel Used (gal) 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 8:00 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 79 97 100 99 Vehs Exited 73 97 105 97 Starting Vehs 1 2 6 1 Ending Vehs 7 2 1 3 Travel Distance (mi) 16 20 22 21 Travel Time (hr) 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 Total Delay (hr) 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 73 89 95 100 Fuel Used (gal) 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 58 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background AM 02/02/2024 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 5 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 8:15 End Time 8:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 85 108 108 103 92 84 88 Vehs Exited 83 107 114 107 93 87 89 Starting Vehs 5 6 8 6 5 7 10 Ending Vehs 7 7 2 2 4 4 9 Travel Distance (mi) 19 23 22 22 19 18 19 Travel Time (hr) 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 91 114 111 108 92 81 103 Fuel Used (gal) 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 8:15 End Time 8:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 85 101 107 98 Vehs Exited 90 100 106 97 Starting Vehs 7 2 1 3 Ending Vehs 2 3 2 0 Travel Distance (mi) 17 20 23 20 Travel Time (hr) 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.0 Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Stops 80 91 112 100 Fuel Used (gal) 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.9 59 Queuing and Blocking Report Background AM 02/02/2024 2028 Background AM Peak Hr 2028 Background AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 6 Intersection: 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 37 47 55 Average Queue (ft) 26 22 33 95th Queue (ft) 44 46 48 Link Distance (ft) 383 305 460 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave Movement WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 15 46 18 Average Queue (ft) 1 24 1 95th Queue (ft) 11 47 9 Link Distance (ft) 373 621 370 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 60 52 43 31 Average Queue (ft) 30 28 20 8 95th Queue (ft) 51 48 46 31 Link Distance (ft) 373 383 294 364 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 60 HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 4:18 pm 10/20/2023 Background PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.8 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 76 24 38 57 33 79 Future Vol, veh/h 76 24 38 57 33 79 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 82 26 41 61 35 85 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB NB SB Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 8 7.9 7.4 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 40% 76% 0% Vol Thru, % 60% 0% 29% Vol Right, % 0% 24% 71% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 95 100 112 LT Vol 38 76 0 Through Vol 57 0 33 RT Vol 0 24 79 Lane Flow Rate 102 108 120 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.121 0.128 0.125 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.263 4.288 3.744 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 830 824 941 Service Time 2.344 2.378 1.835 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.123 0.131 0.128 HCM Control Delay 7.9 8 7.4 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0.4 0.4 61 HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 4:18 pm 10/20/2023 Background PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.9 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 95 13 2 112 2 14 3 2 3 5 6 Future Vol, veh/h 5 95 13 2 112 2 14 3 2 3 5 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 6 116 16 2 137 2 17 4 2 4 6 7 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 7.9 8 7.8 7.4 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 74% 4% 2% 21% Vol Thru, % 16% 84% 97% 36% Vol Right, % 11% 12% 2% 43% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 19 113 116 14 LT Vol 14 5 2 3 Through Vol 3 95 112 5 RT Vol 2 13 2 6 Lane Flow Rate 23 138 141 17 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.03 0.155 0.161 0.021 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.641 4.051 4.101 4.35 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 776 878 867 828 Service Time 2.642 2.111 2.159 2.351 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 0.157 0.163 0.021 HCM Control Delay 7.8 7.9 8 7.4 HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.1 62 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 4:18 pm 10/20/2023 Background PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 107 94 8 124 1 90 0 6 0 2 2 Future Vol, veh/h 3 107 94 8 124 1 90 0 6 0 2 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 4 130 115 10 151 1 110 0 7 0 2 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 152 0 0 245 0 0 370 368 188 371 425 152 Stage 1 - - - - - - 196 196 - 172 172 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 174 172 - 199 253 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1441 - - 1333 - - 590 564 859 589 524 900 Stage 1 - - - - - - 810 742 - 835 760 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 833 760 - 807 701 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1441 - - 1333 - - 581 558 859 579 518 900 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 581 558 - 579 518 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 808 740 - 832 754 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 821 754 - 798 699 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.5 12.6 10.5 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 593 1441 - - 1333 - - 658 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.197 0.003 - - 0.007 - - 0.007 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.6 7.5 0 - 7.7 0 - 10.5 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 0 - - 0 - - 0 63 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background PM 02/02/2024 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Start Time 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 End Time 5:30 5:30 5:30 5:30 5:30 5:30 5:30 Total Time (min) 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 608 572 581 509 564 592 556 Vehs Exited 608 567 579 507 564 593 547 Starting Vehs 9 7 4 8 4 8 6 Ending Vehs 9 12 6 10 4 7 15 Travel Distance (mi) 135 124 129 115 126 132 125 Travel Time (hr) 6.7 6.1 6.3 5.6 6.2 6.5 6.1 Total Delay (hr) 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 Total Stops 743 661 699 627 675 707 684 Fuel Used (gal) 5.9 5.3 5.6 5.0 5.5 5.8 5.4 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Start Time 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 End Time 5:30 5:30 5:30 5:30 Total Time (min) 75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 573 574 563 566 Vehs Exited 569 580 562 569 Starting Vehs 4 6 4 3 Ending Vehs 8 0 5 5 Travel Distance (mi) 130 128 125 127 Travel Time (hr) 6.4 6.3 6.1 6.2 Total Delay (hr) 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 Total Stops 718 697 672 684 Fuel Used (gal) 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.5 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 4:15 End Time 4:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. No data recorded this interval. 64 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background PM 02/02/2024 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 4:30 End Time 4:45 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 150 125 145 112 120 134 120 Vehs Exited 151 126 144 116 121 138 125 Starting Vehs 9 7 4 8 4 8 6 Ending Vehs 8 6 5 4 3 4 1 Travel Distance (mi) 33 26 32 26 27 32 29 Travel Time (hr) 1.6 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.4 Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 Total Stops 183 139 171 145 140 181 156 Fuel Used (gal) 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 4:30 End Time 4:45 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 143 148 130 132 Vehs Exited 139 152 127 133 Starting Vehs 4 6 4 3 Ending Vehs 8 2 7 2 Travel Distance (mi) 31 34 29 30 Travel Time (hr) 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.5 Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 170 191 145 162 Fuel Used (gal) 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.3 65 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background PM 02/02/2024 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 3 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 4:45 End Time 5:00 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 144 141 134 114 149 143 141 Vehs Exited 145 138 134 110 149 142 140 Starting Vehs 8 6 5 4 3 4 1 Ending Vehs 7 9 5 8 3 5 2 Travel Distance (mi) 33 31 29 24 32 31 31 Travel Time (hr) 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.5 Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 178 170 160 132 181 178 168 Fuel Used (gal) 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.4 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 4:45 End Time 5:00 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 128 124 139 135 Vehs Exited 134 123 139 135 Starting Vehs 8 2 7 2 Ending Vehs 2 3 7 2 Travel Distance (mi) 31 27 31 30 Travel Time (hr) 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 176 153 166 166 Fuel Used (gal) 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3 66 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background PM 02/02/2024 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 4 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 5:00 End Time 5:15 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 146 119 128 126 139 145 128 Vehs Exited 148 120 126 126 129 142 122 Starting Vehs 7 9 5 8 3 5 2 Ending Vehs 5 8 7 8 13 8 8 Travel Distance (mi) 33 25 30 28 32 32 29 Travel Time (hr) 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.4 Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 184 134 159 152 172 166 160 Fuel Used (gal) 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.2 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 5:00 End Time 5:15 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 131 130 124 133 Vehs Exited 124 123 128 131 Starting Vehs 2 3 7 2 Ending Vehs 9 10 3 6 Travel Distance (mi) 30 28 27 29 Travel Time (hr) 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 162 149 160 159 Fuel Used (gal) 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 67 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Background PM 02/02/2024 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 5 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 5:15 End Time 5:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 168 187 174 157 156 170 167 Vehs Exited 164 183 175 155 165 171 160 Starting Vehs 5 8 7 8 13 8 8 Ending Vehs 9 12 6 10 4 7 15 Travel Distance (mi) 37 41 39 36 36 37 37 Travel Time (hr) 1.8 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 198 218 209 198 182 182 200 Fuel Used (gal) 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 5:15 End Time 5:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 171 172 170 168 Vehs Exited 172 182 168 169 Starting Vehs 9 10 3 6 Ending Vehs 8 0 5 5 Travel Distance (mi) 39 39 38 38 Travel Time (hr) 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 210 204 201 199 Fuel Used (gal) 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 68 Queuing and Blocking Report Background PM 02/02/2024 2028 Background PM Peak Hr 2028 Background PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 6 Intersection: 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 48 53 55 Average Queue (ft) 30 32 33 95th Queue (ft) 41 49 47 Link Distance (ft) 383 305 460 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 11 23 77 31 Average Queue (ft) 0 1 35 4 95th Queue (ft) 6 10 56 20 Link Distance (ft) 292 373 621 370 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 61 70 32 33 Average Queue (ft) 36 34 14 11 95th Queue (ft) 54 51 39 35 Link Distance (ft) 373 383 294 364 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 69 HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 1:26 pm 11/30/2023 Buildout AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.7 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 44 31 31 28 64 63 Future Vol, veh/h 44 31 31 28 64 63 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 51 36 36 33 74 73 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB NB SB Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 7.7 7.7 7.6 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 53% 59% 0% Vol Thru, % 47% 0% 50% Vol Right, % 0% 41% 50% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 59 75 127 LT Vol 31 44 0 Through Vol 28 0 64 RT Vol 0 31 63 Lane Flow Rate 69 87 148 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.081 0.1 0.156 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.273 4.138 3.808 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 831 854 932 Service Time 2.339 2.223 1.87 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.083 0.102 0.159 HCM Control Delay 7.7 7.7 7.6 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 0.3 0.6 70 HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 1:26 pm 11/30/2023 Buildout AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.8 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 21 63 9 1 87 11 17 18 3 8 9 16 Future Vol, veh/h 21 63 9 1 87 11 17 18 3 8 9 16 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 26 77 11 1 106 13 21 22 4 10 11 20 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.5 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 45% 23% 1% 24% Vol Thru, % 47% 68% 88% 27% Vol Right, % 8% 10% 11% 48% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 38 93 99 33 LT Vol 17 21 1 8 Through Vol 18 63 87 9 RT Vol 3 9 11 16 Lane Flow Rate 46 113 121 40 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.058 0.131 0.138 0.048 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.536 4.164 4.107 4.26 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 794 849 861 846 Service Time 2.538 2.249 2.191 2.261 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.058 0.133 0.141 0.047 HCM Control Delay 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.5 HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 71 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 1:26 pm 11/30/2023 Buildout AM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 77 125 20 99 3 36 6 13 5 8 9 Future Vol, veh/h 7 77 125 20 99 3 36 6 13 5 8 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 9 94 152 24 121 4 44 7 16 6 10 11 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 125 0 0 246 0 0 370 361 170 371 435 123 Stage 1 - - - - - - 188 188 - 171 171 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 182 173 - 200 264 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1474 - - 1332 - - 590 569 879 589 517 933 Stage 1 - - - - - - 818 748 - 836 761 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 824 760 - 806 694 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1474 - - 1332 - - 563 554 879 561 504 933 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 563 554 - 561 504 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 812 743 - 830 747 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 788 746 - 778 689 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 1.3 11.6 10.9 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 614 1474 - - 1332 - - 639 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.109 0.006 - - 0.018 - - 0.042 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.6 7.5 0 - 7.8 0 - 10.9 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0 - - 0.1 - - 0.1 72 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout AM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Start Time 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 End Time 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 Total Time (min) 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 554 584 531 514 533 592 558 Vehs Exited 553 581 526 516 530 591 560 Starting Vehs 3 0 5 4 3 6 7 Ending Vehs 4 3 10 2 6 7 5 Travel Distance (mi) 118 125 114 108 111 127 119 Travel Time (hr) 5.7 6.1 5.6 5.3 5.4 6.2 5.8 Total Delay (hr) 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.2 Total Stops 580 636 597 522 555 654 599 Fuel Used (gal) 5.2 5.6 5.0 4.7 4.8 5.6 5.1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Start Time 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 End Time 8:30 8:30 8:30 8:30 Total Time (min) 75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 594 567 537 556 Vehs Exited 595 569 537 556 Starting Vehs 7 6 4 2 Ending Vehs 6 4 4 2 Travel Distance (mi) 127 121 115 119 Travel Time (hr) 6.2 5.9 5.7 5.8 Total Delay (hr) 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 Total Stops 637 626 603 600 Fuel Used (gal) 5.5 5.3 5.0 5.2 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:15 End Time 7:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. No data recorded this interval. 73 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout AM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 7:45 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 178 159 187 156 163 161 173 Vehs Exited 175 153 186 153 161 157 173 Starting Vehs 3 0 5 4 3 6 7 Ending Vehs 6 6 6 7 5 10 7 Travel Distance (mi) 37 33 39 31 34 34 37 Travel Time (hr) 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.8 Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 180 166 208 144 181 179 176 Fuel Used (gal) 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:30 End Time 7:45 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 172 177 148 167 Vehs Exited 168 178 147 165 Starting Vehs 7 6 4 2 Ending Vehs 11 5 5 3 Travel Distance (mi) 36 37 31 35 Travel Time (hr) 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.7 Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 Total Stops 187 177 160 175 Fuel Used (gal) 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.5 74 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout AM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 3 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:45 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 121 130 109 110 129 129 132 Vehs Exited 122 130 107 114 131 136 134 Starting Vehs 6 6 6 7 5 10 7 Ending Vehs 5 6 8 3 3 3 5 Travel Distance (mi) 26 28 23 25 27 28 29 Travel Time (hr) 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 138 147 125 114 126 145 150 Fuel Used (gal) 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 7:45 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 157 139 122 126 Vehs Exited 159 141 125 129 Starting Vehs 11 5 5 3 Ending Vehs 9 3 2 2 Travel Distance (mi) 34 31 27 28 Travel Time (hr) 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.4 Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 176 167 139 143 Fuel Used (gal) 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 75 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout AM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 4 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 8:00 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 143 139 116 114 123 141 129 Vehs Exited 141 140 117 112 118 138 133 Starting Vehs 5 6 8 3 3 3 5 Ending Vehs 7 5 7 5 8 6 1 Travel Distance (mi) 30 30 27 24 26 30 27 Travel Time (hr) 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.3 Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 144 150 138 119 126 161 135 Fuel Used (gal) 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.1 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 8:00 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 133 127 142 130 Vehs Exited 135 124 140 129 Starting Vehs 9 3 2 2 Ending Vehs 7 6 4 1 Travel Distance (mi) 28 27 30 28 Travel Time (hr) 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.4 Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 Total Stops 137 148 159 141 Fuel Used (gal) 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 76 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout AM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 5 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 8:15 End Time 8:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 112 156 119 134 118 161 124 Vehs Exited 115 158 116 137 120 160 120 Starting Vehs 7 5 7 5 8 6 1 Ending Vehs 4 3 10 2 6 7 5 Travel Distance (mi) 24 34 25 28 25 35 26 Travel Time (hr) 1.2 1.7 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.7 1.3 Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 Total Stops 118 173 126 145 122 169 138 Fuel Used (gal) 1.1 1.5 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.6 1.1 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 8:15 End Time 8:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 132 124 125 134 Vehs Exited 133 126 125 131 Starting Vehs 7 6 4 1 Ending Vehs 6 4 4 2 Travel Distance (mi) 28 27 27 28 Travel Time (hr) 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Stops 137 134 145 141 Fuel Used (gal) 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 77 Queuing and Blocking Report Buildout AM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout AM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 6 Intersection: 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 37 46 57 Average Queue (ft) 27 27 35 95th Queue (ft) 43 47 52 Link Distance (ft) 383 305 460 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 12 33 50 34 Average Queue (ft) 1 4 28 16 95th Queue (ft) 7 22 49 41 Link Distance (ft) 292 373 621 370 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 62 62 47 45 Average Queue (ft) 33 32 22 22 95th Queue (ft) 53 50 46 47 Link Distance (ft) 373 383 294 364 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 78 HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 1:27 pm 11/30/2023 Buildout PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.2 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 91 35 56 70 44 89 Future Vol, veh/h 91 35 56 70 44 89 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 98 38 60 75 47 96 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB NB SB Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 8.4 8.4 7.7 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 44% 72% 0% Vol Thru, % 56% 0% 33% Vol Right, % 0% 28% 67% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 126 126 133 LT Vol 56 91 0 Through Vol 70 0 44 RT Vol 0 35 89 Lane Flow Rate 135 135 143 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.168 0.169 0.158 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.451 4.478 3.967 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 807 803 907 Service Time 2.466 2.496 1.982 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.167 0.168 0.158 HCM Control Delay 8.4 8.4 7.7 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.6 0.6 79 HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 1:27 pm 11/30/2023 Buildout PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.4 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 119 14 3 133 7 16 8 2 8 9 16 Future Vol, veh/h 19 119 14 3 133 7 16 8 2 8 9 16 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 23 145 17 4 162 9 20 10 2 10 11 20 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.5 8.4 8.1 7.8 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 62% 12% 2% 24% Vol Thru, % 31% 78% 93% 27% Vol Right, % 8% 9% 5% 48% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 26 152 143 33 LT Vol 16 19 3 8 Through Vol 8 119 133 9 RT Vol 2 14 7 16 Lane Flow Rate 32 185 174 40 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.043 0.22 0.207 0.051 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.848 4.263 4.279 4.519 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 739 847 842 793 Service Time 2.871 2.268 2.284 2.541 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 0.218 0.207 0.05 HCM Control Delay 8.1 8.5 8.4 7.8 HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.2 80 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 1:27 pm 11/30/2023 Buildout PM Synchro 11 Report CPB Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 128 94 21 140 5 90 8 22 5 9 9 Future Vol, veh/h 12 128 94 21 140 5 90 8 22 5 9 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 15 156 115 26 171 6 110 10 27 6 11 11 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 177 0 0 271 0 0 481 473 214 488 527 174 Stage 1 - - - - - - 244 244 - 226 226 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 237 229 - 262 301 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1411 - - 1304 - - 499 493 831 493 459 875 Stage 1 - - - - - - 764 708 - 781 721 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 771 718 - 747 669 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1411 - - 1304 - - 471 476 831 457 443 875 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 471 476 - 457 443 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 754 699 - 771 705 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 733 702 - 704 660 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 1 14.8 11.8 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 512 1411 - - 1304 - - 554 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.286 0.01 - - 0.02 - - 0.051 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.8 7.6 0 - 7.8 0 - 11.8 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.2 0 - - 0.1 - - 0.2 81 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout PM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Start Time 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 Total Time (min) 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 757 750 729 730 679 735 724 Vehs Exited 753 749 730 733 680 739 723 Starting Vehs 7 7 7 9 5 10 10 Ending Vehs 11 8 6 6 4 6 11 Travel Distance (mi) 174 167 165 164 152 164 163 Travel Time (hr) 8.8 8.4 8.3 8.2 7.6 8.2 8.2 Total Delay (hr) 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.9 Total Stops 997 941 925 911 852 916 913 Fuel Used (gal) 7.8 7.5 7.3 7.3 6.7 7.3 7.2 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Start Time 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 Total Time (min) 75 75 75 75 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 5 5 5 5 # of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 Vehs Entered 745 750 693 727 Vehs Exited 738 752 689 730 Starting Vehs 7 10 4 4 Ending Vehs 14 8 8 6 Travel Distance (mi) 162 166 151 163 Travel Time (hr) 8.0 8.3 7.5 8.2 Total Delay (hr) 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.8 Total Stops 911 947 856 918 Fuel Used (gal) 7.2 7.4 6.8 7.2 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 4:45 End Time 5:00 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. No data recorded this interval. 82 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout PM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 5:00 End Time 5:15 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 188 163 175 167 144 149 177 Vehs Exited 187 167 174 168 140 152 177 Starting Vehs 7 7 7 9 5 10 10 Ending Vehs 8 3 8 8 9 7 10 Travel Distance (mi) 42 36 40 39 31 34 40 Travel Time (hr) 2.2 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.7 2.0 Total Delay (hr) 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 245 195 224 218 175 189 218 Fuel Used (gal) 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.8 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 5:00 End Time 5:15 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 172 194 163 169 Vehs Exited 169 198 156 167 Starting Vehs 7 10 4 4 Ending Vehs 10 6 11 3 Travel Distance (mi) 37 43 35 38 Travel Time (hr) 1.9 2.1 1.7 1.9 Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 210 239 188 212 Fuel Used (gal) 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.7 83 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout PM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 3 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 5:15 End Time 5:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 228 214 203 212 227 217 214 Vehs Exited 226 211 202 207 230 216 221 Starting Vehs 8 3 8 8 9 7 10 Ending Vehs 10 6 9 13 6 8 3 Travel Distance (mi) 51 47 46 46 51 47 50 Travel Time (hr) 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.6 Total Delay (hr) 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 Total Stops 296 261 265 257 291 254 289 Fuel Used (gal) 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.2 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 5:15 End Time 5:30 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 214 220 198 214 Vehs Exited 219 219 198 215 Starting Vehs 10 6 11 3 Ending Vehs 5 7 11 6 Travel Distance (mi) 47 49 44 48 Travel Time (hr) 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.4 Total Delay (hr) 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 Total Stops 277 286 244 270 Fuel Used (gal) 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.1 84 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout PM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 4 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 5:30 End Time 5:45 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 182 177 176 165 151 183 166 Vehs Exited 187 172 172 168 147 183 159 Starting Vehs 10 6 9 13 6 8 3 Ending Vehs 5 11 13 10 10 8 10 Travel Distance (mi) 44 39 40 38 35 40 36 Travel Time (hr) 2.2 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.8 Total Delay (hr) 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 248 227 217 214 203 231 208 Fuel Used (gal) 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.8 1.6 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time 5:30 End Time 5:45 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 162 150 172 167 Vehs Exited 156 149 176 168 Starting Vehs 5 7 11 6 Ending Vehs 11 8 7 6 Travel Distance (mi) 35 33 38 38 Travel Time (hr) 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.9 Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 187 189 224 214 Fuel Used (gal) 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 85 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Buildout PM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 5 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 5:45 End Time 6:00 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 159 196 175 186 157 186 167 Vehs Exited 153 199 182 190 163 188 166 Starting Vehs 5 11 13 10 10 8 10 Ending Vehs 11 8 6 6 4 6 11 Travel Distance (mi) 37 45 40 41 35 43 36 Travel Time (hr) 1.8 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.2 1.8 Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 Total Stops 208 258 219 222 183 242 198 Fuel Used (gal) 1.6 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.6 2.0 1.6 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time 5:45 End Time 6:00 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 197 186 160 175 Vehs Exited 194 186 159 178 Starting Vehs 11 8 7 6 Ending Vehs 14 8 8 6 Travel Distance (mi) 42 41 34 40 Travel Time (hr) 2.1 2.1 1.7 2.0 Total Delay (hr) 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 Total Stops 237 233 200 219 Fuel Used (gal) 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.8 86 Queuing and Blocking Report Buildout PM 02/02/2024 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr 2028 Buildout PM Peak Hr SimTraffic Report CPB Page 6 Intersection: 2: Red Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 44 56 62 Average Queue (ft) 31 36 36 95th Queue (ft) 38 53 54 Link Distance (ft) 383 305 460 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Broad St & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 41 35 76 47 Average Queue (ft) 3 5 39 17 95th Queue (ft) 21 24 64 44 Link Distance (ft) 292 373 621 370 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Mt Vernon Ln & Carrollton Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 66 61 40 44 Average Queue (ft) 38 34 19 21 95th Queue (ft) 58 49 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 373 383 294 364 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 87 AFFADAVIT OF MAILING PURSUANT TO S15.2-2204 CODE OF VIRGINIA PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM # JANUARY 10, 2024 This is to certify that I mailed letters in reference to the rezoning request of Virginia Baptist Children’s Home (dba HopeTree Family Services), property owner for rezoning the properties located at 1000 blk Red Ln and a portion of 860 Mount Vernon Lane (Tax Map #’s 41-1-1, 41-1-2, 41-1-3, 41-1-4, 41- 1-5, 41-1-6, and a portion of 44-3-10), from RSF Residential Single Family to PUD Planned Unit District, to the following property owners and adjacent property owners on December 22, 2023, in the 2:00 p.m. mail: Location Owner Name Co-Owner Name Address 1 City, State, Zip 204 BENTWOOD CT LESTER, MARY FRANCES-LIFE ESTATE 204 BENTWOOD CT SALEM, VA 24153 206 BENTWOOD CT HERNDON, PATRICK A HERNDON, EMILY Z 206 BENTWOOD CT SALEM, VA 24153 208 BENTWOOD CT COWLING, RAYMOND J III 208 BENTWOOD CT SALEM, VA 24153 210 BENTWOOD CT PEASLEE ROBERT B 210 BENTWOOD CT SALEM, VA 24153 217 BENTWOOD CT STADER, WILLIAM B SECRIST, APRIL L 217 BENTWOOD CT SALEM, VA 24153 211 BENTWOOD CT HINRICHS, MARC CHARLES HINRICHS, SANDRA JO 211 BENTWOOD CT SALEM, VA 24153 209 BENTWOOD CT STOVALL STUART W 209 BENTWOOD CT SALEM, VA 24153 200 BENTWOOD CT JANOSCHKA, STEPHEN P JANOSCHKA, MACEL H 200 BENTWOOD CT SALEM, VA 24153 202 BENTWOOD CT VALUE HOUSING PARTNERS LLC 5211 S CONCOURSE DR ROANOKE, VA 24019 1002 RED LN FELL, LUKE E BRIMER, ALLYSON R 1002 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 1000 RED LN BLK HOLMES LETHA ELLA EARLY- ESTATE 410 VANDERWALL PEACHTREE CITY, GA 30269 984 RED LN LONG REGINALD ALAN 338 WARWICK AVE SOUTH ORANGE, NJ 07079 900 RED LN BLK HOLMES LETHA ELLA EARLY- ESTATE 410 VANDERWALL PEACHTREE CITY, GA 30269 900 RED LN BLK EDWARDS ALMA HOLMES 410 VANDERWALL PEACHTREE CITY, GA 30269 102 NORTH OAKS DR COPLAND, JAMES HENRY COPLAND, BRENDA SUE 102 NORTH OAKS DR SALEM, VA 24153 104 NORTH OAKS DR KENNY, OTIS KENNY, BARBARA 104 NORTH OAKS DR SALEM, VA 24153 107 NORTH OAKS DR OLDE SALEM CONTRACTING INC PO BOX 2492 SALEM, VA 24153 105 NORTH OAKS DR OLDE SALEM CONTRACTING INC PO BOX 2492 SALEM, VA 24153 103 NORTH OAKS DR SURRATT RICK 103 NORTH OAKS DR SALEM, VA 24153 108 NORTH OAKS DR HUTCHISON, KATHERINE GUIDRY HUTCHISON, RICHARD RYAN 108 NORTH OAKS DR SALEM, VA 24153 1024 STONEGATE DR HARRISON, JAMES EDWARD HARRISON, TRACEY LEA 1024 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 1015 STONEGATE DR ESTILL LLOYD H 1015 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 1009 STONEGATE DR SNOW RICHARD M 1009 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 107 BARTLEY DR BRUSSEAU WESLEY 107 BARTLEY DR SALEM, VA 24153 108 BARTLEY DR PERRY, KEVIN J PERRY, WENDY L 108 BARTLEY DR SALEM, VA 24153 987 STONEGATE DR JEAN O WHEELING REVOCABLE DECLARATION OF TRUST 987 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 971 STONEGATE DR LOWE CARL J 971 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 955 STONEGATE DR YOUNG, HOLLIE 955 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 1020 STONEGATE DR WILLIAMS, BARBARA WERTZ 1020 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 1016 STONEGATE DR CRAIGHEAD ROBERT A 1617 STRAWBERRY MOUNTAIN DRIVE ROANOKE, VA 24018 1010 STONEGATE DR LOVING, JASON R LOVING, TRACY L 1010 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 1006 STONEGATE DR KING CHRISTOPHER M 1006 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 996 STONEGATE DR HAAS MICHAEL S 996 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 988 STONEGATE DR MINUCIE DEBORAH B 1914 OLD MILL DR SALEM, VA 24153 972 STONEGATE DR SIMMONS GARY E 972 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 900 STONEGATE DR BLK ETHERIDGE LIONEL L 956 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 916 RED LN KUMMER MICHAEL BROWN 916 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 910 RED LN MILBRODT, TERESA PALMGREN, TRISTAN 910 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 904 RED LN KERR, MITCHELL D 904 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 844 RED LN BRANSON, BOBBY HAROLD PO BOX 976 SALEM, VA 24153 840 RED LN BEEDLE ANDREW SCOTT 840 RED LANE SALEM, VA 24153 834 RED LN WILLIAMS SAMUEL J 834 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 826 RED LN BELOUS, RICHARD S 826 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 958 RED LN BAILEY, DEITRA D 958 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 954 RED LN VALUE HOUSING PARTNERS LLC 5211 SOUTH CONCOURSE DR ROANOKE, VA 24019 950 RED LN VALUE HOUSING PARTNERS LLC 5211 SOUTH CONCOURSE DR ROANOKE, VA 24019 946 RED LN TUCK, DONALD S 946 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 942 RED LN PRUSA, FRANK W JR PRUSA, MELINDA A 942 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 936 RED LN ST PIERRE, ADAM THOMAS BROWN, KAYLA DANIELLE 936 RED LANE SALEM, VA 24153 934 RED LN MARY FRANCES BOWEN IRREVOCABLE TRUST 5406 SNOW OWL DR ROANOKE, VA 24018-0000 932 RED LN OWEN JONATHAN C 227 TAYLOR AVE SALEM, VA 24153 930 RED LN LOWE, DAVID LOWE, DEBORAH 106 ROSELAND DR CHRISTIANSBURG, VA 24073 928 RED LN SAKALAS, ALEXANDER J 928 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 922 RED LN HUNT, RONALD E 922 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 805 HONEYSUCKLE RD MUSGRAVE DONNA L 805 HONEYSUCKLE RD SALEM, VA 24153 819 HONEYSUCKLE RD ENGLAND, ROBERT KENNETH II 819 HONEYSUCKLE RD SALEM, VA 24153 851 HONEYSUCKLE RD WALLACE, NATHAN W WALLACE, JESSICA E 851 HONEYSUCKLE RD SALEM, VA 24153 900 HONEYSUCKLE RD BLK THE BLISS PROPERTY TRUST 8960 RIDGEMONT DR SANDY SPRINGS, GA 30350 821 RED LN TUELL, STEVEN NEIGHBORS, JESSICA 821 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 803 RED LN GLASBY, LEON K GLASBY, DEBORAH R 803 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 801 RED LN GOLDSTEIN ANDREW S 801 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 818 RED LN DEMPSEY, TRACEY L DEMPSEY, JACOB A 818 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 808 RED LN CHAMBERLAND SETH R 808 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 800 RED LN MCGEEVER, MICHAEL MCGEEVER, MARGARET 800 RED LANE SALEM, VA 24153 718 RED LN MAY ROBERT L 718 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153-0553 721 RED LN WOHLFORD, DAVID A WOHLFORD, WHITNEY S 721 RED LANE SALEM, VA 24153 702 MOUNT VERNON AVE PFEIFFER JULIE KRISTINE 702 MT VERNON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 710 MOUNT VERNON AVE COX MICHAEL F 710 MT VERNON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 720 MOUNT VERNON AVE CARLOS B HART JR REVOCABLE TRUST 720 MT VERNON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 707 RED LN TAYLOR, ALLEN WAYNE 707 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 721 MOUNT VERNON AVE MURPHY, KARLA 721 MT VERNON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 18 E CARROLLTON AVE PICARD JASON R 18 E CARROLLTON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 715 MOUNT VERNON AVE MICHAEL E HALL REVOCABLE DECLARATION OF SUSAN E HALL REVOCABLE DECLARATION OF TRUST 1383 WALDHEIM RD SALEM, VA 24153 709 MOUNT VERNON AVE JOHNSON, RENITA ANNE 709 MT VERNON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 701 MOUNT VERNON AVE WHEELING MATTHEW P 701 MT VERNON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 710 N BROAD ST HAKKENBERG, MICHAEL HAKKENBERG, DAWN 710 N BROAD ST SALEM, VA 24153 706 N BROAD ST NANCY ELLEN UTZ LIVING TRUST 706 N BROAD ST SALEM, VA 24153 714 N BROAD ST COFFMAN, STEPHEN COFFMAN, BONNIE MOULSE 320 W MAIN ST UNIT 74 SALEM, VA 24153 718 N BROAD ST SHREEMAN, MADELAINE ROSE 718 N BROAD ST SALEM, VA 24153 14 E CARROLLTON AVE HALL ELIZABETH A 1814 BELLEVILLE RD SW ROANOKE, VA 24015-2708 14 W CARROLLTON AVE WEEKS, JAMES R JR 5938 VIEWPOINT AVE SALEM, VA 24153 10 W CARROLLTON AVE GREGORY MATTHEW H 10 W CARROLLTON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 717 N BROAD ST WARRINER, BRYAN K WARRINER, MARY G 717 N BROAD ST SALEM, VA 24153 823 N BROAD ST GRESHAM, JAMES L GRESHAM, JUDY S 433 DEER RUN CIR SALEM, VA 24153 819 N BROAD ST MUSNUG FRED A 819 N BROAD ST SALEM, VA 24153 815 N BROAD ST MILLIGAN BRUCE P 815 N BROAD ST SALEM, VA 24153 809 N BROAD ST HARRIS, MELVIN LEE 809 N BROAD ST SALEM, VA 24153 805 N BROAD ST DUFFY LIVING TRUST 409 STONEWALL CIR SALEM, VA 24153 801 N BROAD ST HENRY GEORGE M 801 N BROAD ST SALEM, VA 24153 956 STONEGATE DR ETHERIDGE LIONEL L 956 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 29 CORBETT ST CRAWFORD, ROBERT C III 29 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153 19 CORBETT ST STEEN, MARK QUINN STEEN, ANNA TRIVETTE 19 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153 901 N BROAD ST CRAFT, SUSAN T 132 W CARROLLTON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 944 STONEGATE DR MARTIN THOMAS J PO BOX 628 SALEM, VA 24153-0628 927 SADDLE DR DOTSON PAUL R 927 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 929 SADDLE DR SHANER, JOHN P R 929 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 931 SADDLE DR SMITH, ROBERT C III SMITH, KRISTEN KAY 931 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 932 SADDLE DR DELAPP VICTOR B 932 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 928 SADDLE DR WILEY, DARLENE C 928 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 924 SADDLE DR VAUGHAN ESTHER S-TRUSTEE OF VAUGHAN LIVING TRUST 924 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 920 SADDLE DR CROWGEY, TERENCE H CROWGEY, MAEVE N 920 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 916 SADDLE DR DAVID AND RICHIA GREGSTON REVOCABLE TRUST 916 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 915 SADDLE DR ADVANTAGE BUILDERS LLC 1618 CASCADE COURT SALEM, VA 24153 917 SADDLE DR BAKER, KEVIN WARREN 917 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 921 SADDLE DR RYAN, DANIEL R 921 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 923 SADDLE DR LANGFITT, TERRY JR LANGFITT, ASHLEIGH 923 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 925 SADDLE DR REYNOLDS NANCY F 925 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 808 SCOTT CIR CHRISTOPHER, YEAKEL S MARY, YEAKEL CATHERINE 808 SCOTT CIR SALEM, VA 24153 836 ACADEMY ST FLETCHER, KEVIN L FLETCHER, MELISSA H 836 ACADEMY ST SALEM, VA 24153 842 ACADEMY ST WRIGHT, CASEY WALLACE WRIGHT, AMANDA GURLEY 842 ACADEMY ST SALEM, VA 24153 810 SCOTT CIR YERTON JOSHUA D 810 SCOTT CIR SALEM, VA 24153 812 SCOTT CIR POLLARD RICHARD H 812 SCOTT CIR SALEM, VA 24153 814 SCOTT CIR EDWARDS, GARY EDWARDS, NANCY 814 SCOTT CIR SALEM, VA 24153 811 SCOTT CIR FELDENZER, JOHN A FELDENZER, KAREN C 811 SCOTT CIRCLE SALEM, VA 24153 809 SCOTT CIR EVANS, MICHAEL D EVANS, LISA DAWN 809 SCOTT CIR SALEM, VA 24153 806 SCOTT CIR GETSI MICHAEL N 806 SCOTT CIR SALEM, VA 24153 20 CORBETT ST BLK STEEN RICHARD D-TRST ELBERT R STEEN (ESTATE) IRREV 34 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153 19 W CARROLLTON AVE HUGHES STEVEN M 19 W CARROLLTON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 40 CORBETT ST BARTON, TIMMY D BARTON, ANITA B 40 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153 38 CORBETT ST RIGANTI ROCCO 38 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153-2629 34 CORBETT ST STEEN, RICHARD D 34 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153 30 CORBETT ST MORRIS, LAURA W 30 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153 26 CORBETT ST MONNETT, BRENDA L 26 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153 22 CORBETT ST STEEN RICHARD D-TRST ALBERT R STEEN (ESTATE) IRREV 34 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153 20 CORBETT ST BLK STEEN RICHARD D-TRST ELBERT R STEEN (ESTATE) IRREV 34 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153 18 W CARROLLTON AVE CORBETT, BRIAN J 18 W CARROLLTON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 711 N BROAD ST TWO LANE HOLDINGS LLC 409 N BROAD ST SALEM, VA 24153 707 N BROAD ST PEDIGO, MARVIN L 1901 MAIN ST SW ROANOKE, VA 24015-3019 Signed ________________________________________ Date_________________ City of Salem Commonwealth of Virginia The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _____________, 2O___, by ____________________________ __________________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires:______________________ Location Owner Name Co-Owner Name Address 1 City, State, Zip 204 BENTWOOD CT LESTER, MARY FRANCES-LIFE ESTATE 204 BENTWOOD CT SALEM, VA 24153 206 BENTWOOD CT HERNDON, PATRICK A HERNDON, EMILY Z 206 BENTWOOD CT SALEM, VA 24153 208 BENTWOOD CT COWLING, RAYMOND J III 208 BENTWOOD CT SALEM, VA 24153 210 BENTWOOD CT PEASLEE ROBERT B 210 BENTWOOD CT SALEM, VA 24153 217 BENTWOOD CT STADER, WILLIAM B SECRIST, APRIL L 217 BENTWOOD CT SALEM, VA 24153 211 BENTWOOD CT HINRICHS, MARC CHARLES HINRICHS, SANDRA JO 211 BENTWOOD CT SALEM, VA 24153 209 BENTWOOD CT STOVALL STUART W 209 BENTWOOD CT SALEM, VA 24153 200 BENTWOOD CT JANOSCHKA, STEPHEN P JANOSCHKA, MACEL H 200 BENTWOOD CT SALEM, VA 24153 202 BENTWOOD CT VALUE HOUSING PARTNERS LLC 5211 S CONCOURSE DR ROANOKE, VA 24019 1002 RED LN FELL, LUKE E BRIMER, ALLYSON R 1002 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 1000 RED LN BLK HOLMES LETHA ELLA EARLY-ESTATE 410 VANDERWALL PEACHTREE CITY, GA 30269 984 RED LN LONG REGINALD ALAN 338 WARWICK AVE SOUTH ORANGE, NJ 07079 900 RED LN BLK HOLMES LETHA ELLA EARLY-ESTATE 410 VANDERWALL PEACHTREE CITY, GA 30269 900 RED LN BLK EDWARDS ALMA HOLMES 410 VANDERWALL PEACHTREE CITY, GA 30269 102 NORTH OAKS DR COPLAND, JAMES HENRY COPLAND, BRENDA SUE 102 NORTH OAKS DR SALEM, VA 24153 104 NORTH OAKS DR KENNY, OTIS KENNY, BARBARA 104 NORTH OAKS DR SALEM, VA 24153 107 NORTH OAKS DR OLDE SALEM CONTRACTING INC PO BOX 2492 SALEM, VA 24153 105 NORTH OAKS DR OLDE SALEM CONTRACTING INC PO BOX 2492 SALEM, VA 24153 103 NORTH OAKS DR SURRATT RICK 103 NORTH OAKS DR SALEM, VA 24153 108 NORTH OAKS DR HUTCHISON, KATHERINE GUIDRY HUTCHISON, RICHARD RYAN 108 NORTH OAKS DR SALEM, VA 24153 1024 STONEGATE DR HARRISON, JAMES EDWARD HARRISON, TRACEY LEA 1024 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 1015 STONEGATE DR ESTILL LLOYD H 1015 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 1009 STONEGATE DR SNOW RICHARD M 1009 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 107 BARTLEY DR BRUSSEAU WESLEY 107 BARTLEY DR SALEM, VA 24153 108 BARTLEY DR PERRY, KEVIN J PERRY, WENDY L 108 BARTLEY DR SALEM, VA 24153 987 STONEGATE DR JEAN O WHEELING REVOCABLE DECLA 987 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 971 STONEGATE DR LOWE CARL J 971 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 955 STONEGATE DR YOUNG, HOLLIE 955 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 1020 STONEGATE DR WILLIAMS, BARBARA WERTZ 1020 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 1016 STONEGATE DR CRAIGHEAD ROBERT A 1617 STRAWBERRY MOUNTAIN DRIVE ROANOKE, VA 24018 1010 STONEGATE DR LOVING, JASON R LOVING, TRACY L 1010 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 1006 STONEGATE DR KING CHRISTOPHER M 1006 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 996 STONEGATE DR HAAS MICHAEL S 996 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 988 STONEGATE DR MINUCIE DEBORAH B 1914 OLD MILL DR SALEM, VA 24153 972 STONEGATE DR SIMMONS GARY E 972 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 900 STONEGATE DR BLK ETHERIDGE LIONEL L 956 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 916 RED LN KUMMER MICHAEL BROWN 916 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 910 RED LN MILBRODT, TERESA PALMGREN, TRISTAN 910 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 904 RED LN KERR, MITCHELL D 904 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 844 RED LN BRANSON, BOBBY HAROLD PO BOX 976 SALEM, VA 24153 840 RED LN BEEDLE ANDREW SCOTT 840 RED LANE SALEM, VA 24153 834 RED LN WILLIAMS SAMUEL J 834 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 826 RED LN BELOUS, RICHARD S 826 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 958 RED LN BAILEY, DEITRA D 958 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 954 RED LN VALUE HOUSING PARTNERS LLC 5211 SOUTH CONCOURSE DR ROANOKE, VA 24019 950 RED LN VALUE HOUSING PARTNERS LLC 5211 SOUTH CONCOURSE DR ROANOKE, VA 24019 946 RED LN TUCK, DONALD S 946 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 942 RED LN PRUSA, FRANK W JR PRUSA, MELINDA A 942 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 936 RED LN ST PIERRE, ADAM THOMAS BROWN, KAYLA DANIELLE 936 RED LANE SALEM, VA 24153 934 RED LN MARY FRANCES BOWEN IRREVOCABLE 5406 SNOW OWL DR ROANOKE, VA 24018-0000 932 RED LN OWEN JONATHAN C 227 TAYLOR AVE SALEM, VA 24153 930 RED LN LOWE, DAVID LOWE, DEBORAH 106 ROSELAND DR CHRISTIANSBURG, VA 24073 928 RED LN SAKALAS, ALEXANDER J 928 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 922 RED LN HUNT, RONALD E 922 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 805 HONEYSUCKLE RD MUSGRAVE DONNA L 805 HONEYSUCKLE RD SALEM, VA 24153 819 HONEYSUCKLE RD ENGLAND, ROBERT KENNETH II 819 HONEYSUCKLE RD SALEM, VA 24153 851 HONEYSUCKLE RD WALLACE, NATHAN W WALLACE, JESSICA E 851 HONEYSUCKLE RD SALEM, VA 24153 900 HONEYSUCKLE RD BLK THE BLISS PROPERTY TRUST 8960 RIDGEMONT DR SANDY SPRINGS, GA 30350 821 RED LN TUELL, STEVEN NEIGHBORS, JESSICA 821 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 803 RED LN GLASBY, LEON K GLASBY, DEBORAH R 803 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 801 RED LN GOLDSTEIN ANDREW S 801 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 818 RED LN DEMPSEY, TRACEY L DEMPSEY, JACOB A 818 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 808 RED LN CHAMBERLAND SETH R 808 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 800 RED LN MCGEEVER, MICHAEL MCGEEVER, MARGARET 800 RED LANE SALEM, VA 24153 718 RED LN MAY ROBERT L 718 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153-0553 721 RED LN WOHLFORD, DAVID A WOHLFORD, WHITNEY S 721 RED LANE SALEM, VA 24153 702 MOUNT VERNON AVE PFEIFFER JULIE KRISTINE 702 MT VERNON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 710 MOUNT VERNON AVE COX MICHAEL F 710 MT VERNON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 720 MOUNT VERNON AVE CARLOS B HART JR REVOCABLE TRUST 720 MT VERNON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 707 RED LN TAYLOR, ALLEN WAYNE 707 RED LN SALEM, VA 24153 721 MOUNT VERNON AVE MURPHY, KARLA 721 MT VERNON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 18 E CARROLLTON AVE PICARD JASON R 18 E CARROLLTON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 715 MOUNT VERNON AVE MICHAEL E HALL REVOCABLE DECLARA SUSAN E HALL REVOCABLE DECLARAT 1383 WALDHEIM RD SALEM, VA 24153 709 MOUNT VERNON AVE JOHNSON, RENITA ANNE 709 MT VERNON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 701 MOUNT VERNON AVE WHEELING MATTHEW P 701 MT VERNON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 710 N BROAD ST HAKKENBERG, MICHAEL HAKKENBERG, DAWN 710 N BROAD ST SALEM, VA 24153 706 N BROAD ST NANCY ELLEN UTZ LIVING TRUST 706 N BROAD ST SALEM, VA 24153 714 N BROAD ST COFFMAN, STEPHEN COFFMAN, BONNIE MOULSE 320 W MAIN ST UNIT 74 SALEM, VA 24153 718 N BROAD ST SHREEMAN, MADELAINE ROSE 718 N BROAD ST SALEM, VA 24153 14 E CARROLLTON AVE HALL ELIZABETH A 1814 BELLEVILLE RD SW ROANOKE, VA 24015-2708 14 W CARROLLTON AVE WEEKS, JAMES R JR 5938 VIEWPOINT AVE SALEM, VA 24153 10 W CARROLLTON AVE GREGORY MATTHEW H 10 W CARROLLTON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 717 N BROAD ST WARRINER, BRYAN K WARRINER, MARY G 717 N BROAD ST SALEM, VA 24153 823 N BROAD ST GRESHAM, JAMES L GRESHAM, JUDY S 433 DEER RUN CIR SALEM, VA 24153 819 N BROAD ST MUSNUG FRED A 819 N BROAD ST SALEM, VA 24153 815 N BROAD ST MILLIGAN BRUCE P 815 N BROAD ST SALEM, VA 24153 809 N BROAD ST HARRIS, MELVIN LEE 809 N BROAD ST SALEM, VA 24153 805 N BROAD ST DUFFY LIVING TRUST 409 STONEWALL CIR SALEM, VA 24153 801 N BROAD ST HENRY GEORGE M 801 N BROAD ST SALEM, VA 24153 956 STONEGATE DR ETHERIDGE LIONEL L 956 STONEGATE DR SALEM, VA 24153 29 CORBETT ST CRAWFORD, ROBERT C III 29 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153 19 CORBETT ST STEEN, MARK QUINN STEEN, ANNA TRIVETTE 19 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153 901 N BROAD ST CRAFT, SUSAN T 132 W CARROLLTON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 944 STONEGATE DR MARTIN THOMAS J PO BOX 628 SALEM, VA 24153-0628 927 SADDLE DR DOTSON PAUL R 927 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 929 SADDLE DR SHANER, JOHN P R 929 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 931 SADDLE DR SMITH, ROBERT C III SMITH, KRISTEN KAY 931 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 932 SADDLE DR DELAPP VICTOR B 932 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 928 SADDLE DR WILEY, DARLENE C 928 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 924 SADDLE DR VAUGHAN ESTHER S-TRUSTEE OF VAU 924 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 920 SADDLE DR CROWGEY, TERENCE H CROWGEY, MAEVE N 920 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 916 SADDLE DR DAVID AND RICHIA GREGSTON REVOCA 916 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 915 SADDLE DR ADVANTAGE BUILDERS LLC 1618 CASCADE COURT SALEM, VA 24153 917 SADDLE DR BAKER, KEVIN WARREN 917 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 921 SADDLE DR RYAN, DANIEL R 921 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 923 SADDLE DR LANGFITT, TERRY JR LANGFITT, ASHLEIGH 923 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 925 SADDLE DR REYNOLDS NANCY F 925 SADDLE DR SALEM, VA 24153 808 SCOTT CIR CHRISTOPHER, YEAKEL S MARY, YEAKEL CATHERINE 808 SCOTT CIR SALEM, VA 24153 836 ACADEMY ST FLETCHER, KEVIN L FLETCHER, MELISSA H 836 ACADEMY ST SALEM, VA 24153 842 ACADEMY ST WRIGHT, CASEY WALLACE WRIGHT, AMANDA GURLEY 842 ACADEMY ST SALEM, VA 24153 810 SCOTT CIR YERTON JOSHUA D 810 SCOTT CIR SALEM, VA 24153 812 SCOTT CIR POLLARD RICHARD H 812 SCOTT CIR SALEM, VA 24153 814 SCOTT CIR EDWARDS, GARY EDWARDS, NANCY 814 SCOTT CIR SALEM, VA 24153 811 SCOTT CIR FELDENZER, JOHN A FELDENZER, KAREN C 811 SCOTT CIRCLE SALEM, VA 24153 809 SCOTT CIR EVANS, MICHAEL D EVANS, LISA DAWN 809 SCOTT CIR SALEM, VA 24153 806 SCOTT CIR GETSI MICHAEL N 806 SCOTT CIR SALEM, VA 24153 20 CORBETT ST BLK STEEN RICHARD D-TRST ELBERT R STE 34 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153 19 W CARROLLTON AVE HUGHES STEVEN M 19 W CARROLLTON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 40 CORBETT ST BARTON, TIMMY D BARTON, ANITA B 40 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153 38 CORBETT ST RIGANTI ROCCO 38 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153-2629 34 CORBETT ST STEEN, RICHARD D 34 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153 30 CORBETT ST MORRIS, LAURA W 30 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153 26 CORBETT ST MONNETT, BRENDA L 26 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153 22 CORBETT ST STEEN RICHARD D-TRST ALBERT R STE 34 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153 20 CORBETT ST BLK STEEN RICHARD D-TRST ELBERT R STE 34 CORBETT ST SALEM, VA 24153 18 W CARROLLTON AVE CORBETT, BRIAN J 18 W CARROLLTON AVE SALEM, VA 24153 711 N BROAD ST TWO LANE HOLDINGS LLC 409 N BROAD ST SALEM, VA 24153 707 N BROAD ST PEDIGO, MARVIN L 1901 MAIN ST SW ROANOKE, VA 24015-3019 Planning Commission Meeting MINUTES Wednesday, April 10, 2024, 7:00 PM Work Session 6:00PM, Regular Session 7:00PM Community Room, Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard: WORK SESSION 1. Call to Order A work session of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the Community Room, Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, Virginia, at 6:00 p.m. on March 13, 2024; there being the members of said Commission, to wit: Vicki G. Daulton, Chair; Reid Garst, Neil L. Conner, and Jackson Beamer; together with Christopher Dorsey, City Manager; H. Robert Light, Assistant City Manager; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator; William L. Simpson, Jr., Assistant Director of Community Development; Maxwell S. Dillon, Planner; and Jim Guynn, City Attorney; and the following business was transacted: Chair Daulton 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. Comprehensive Plan Update An update was given regarding the progress of the Comprehensive Plan update. 3. Old Business A. Discussion of items on the April agenda 1. 860 Mount Vernon Lane rezoning from RSF to PUD 2. 1200 block Thompson Memorial Dr rezoning from RSF to HBD A discussion was held regarding the old business items on the April agenda. 4. New Business A. Discussion of items on the April agenda 1. Home Occupation Permit Amendment - 275 Fort Lewis Blvd 2. Use Not Provided For Permit Amendment - 125 Knotbreak Road A discussion was held regarding the new items on the April agenda. B. Discussion of items on the May agenda 1. 324 Pennsylvania Avenue - two family dwelling A discussion was held regarding the items on the May agenda. 5. Adjournment Chair Daulton inquired if there were any other items for discussion and hearing none, adjourned the work session at 6:37 p.m. REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held after due and proper notice in the Community Room, Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, Virginia, at 7:00 p.m., on April 10, 2024. Notice of such hearing was published in the March 28, and April 4, 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 Christopher Dorsey, City Manager; H. Robert Light, Assistant City Manager; Jim Guynn, City Attorney; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator; Maxwell S. Dillon, City Planner; and William L. Simpson, Jr., Assistant Director of Community Development, and the following business was transacted: A. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Consent Agenda Reid Garst motioned for Vice Chair King to remotely participate in the meeting. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst Chair Daulton stated that she is still hearing from many citizens that the vote for the HopeTree rezoning needs to wait until the Comprehensive Plan update has been completed. She stated that the Commission has 100 days to make a decision and the 100 days is up today. The City already has a comprehensive plan in place. She explained that a comprehensive plane does not have any laws or ordinances--it is simply a visionary tool, a guide for the future. The comprehensive plan currently being updated is to go through 2045, and the decision simply cannot wait until that time. The City's current comprehensive plan addresses a PUD development. She stated that there is a new poll posted on the Community Development website and asked that everyone participate in the poll. She asked those present at the meeting to refrain from outbursts. A. Minutes Consider acceptance of the minutes from the March 13, 2024, work session and regular meeting. Consider acceptance of the minutes from the March 13, 2024, work session and regular meeting. Reid Garst motioned approve March 13, 2024, work session and regular meeting minutes. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King 3. Old Business A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Consider the request of Virginia Baptist Children's Home (dba HopeTree Family Services), property owner, for rezoning the properties located at 1000 block Red Ln and a portion of 860 Mount Vernon Lane (Tax Map #'s 41-1-1, 41-1-2, 41-1-3, 41- 1-4, 41-1-5, 41-1-6, and a portion of 44-3-10) from RSF Residential Single Family to PUD Planned Unit District. (Continued from the March 13, 2024, meeting.) Jon Morris, President, and CEO of HopeTree Family Services, appeared before the Commission and stated that since the process began there has been three goals in mind: to honor the history of HopeTree; to position HopeTree for the future; and to do something that the community will be proud of. He thanked the Planning Commission, City Council, City staff, neighbors, and colleagues for their input during this process, especially since February 14, 2024. He thanked Chair Daulton for requesting a joint meeting after the March meeting and stated that the Commission has received a revised application with the most recent changes, some of which resulted from the feedback received from the meeting. The changes include the elimination of over 40 commercial business uses; the reduction of the number of boutique hotel rooms; included accessory dwelling units in the overall housing numbers; and placed maximum square footage on any allowable commercial use. Changes were made to the existing plan to ensure that commercial was in the center of the campus in Zones T5. The traffic study has been confirmed by a third-party firm and nothing in the proposed plan will exceed the outcomes of that study. Red Lane improvements were also added to the application with more detail. All of the changes made have been more restrictive. He stated that HopeTree honors and respects everyone who has given input throughout the entire process. He feels that the revised plan before the Commission is a compromise from all parties involved and still allows HopeTree to achieve all three of its goals. He asked the Commission to approve the rezoning request. Chair Daulton asked if homes would be sold prior to the development or if spec houses would be built. Todd Robertson, Stateson Homes, appeared before the Commission and stated that the business model is that they sell the home and build on the lots; they don't sell the lots. He stated that the homes are typically custom built, but there are some spec-built units (i.e. townhomes). Chair Daulton asked if the majority of the units will be single-family homes. Mr. Robertson stated that single family means individually owned, but some could be attached. He stated that they have a patio home that is popular that is attached, but each of the homes are individually owned. He noted that there will be multiple types of patio homes in the development. Chair Daulton clarified and questioned if the majority will be single-family detached homes. Mr. Robertson stated that he could not answer the question at this time, but that single family detached will be a part of the project. He stated that if the project had 340 "doors" he thinks the majority of the homes would be attached instead of detached. A discussion was held regarding residential housing on the project--rental versus owner occupied and who would own the rental properties; apartment-type housing, etc. Use and refurbishing of the existing buildings, commercial spaces, etc. A motion to approve as written was given and seconded. Chair Daulton thanked the HopeTree team for the time spent going over the proposal and she appreciates the time given. She stated that she still feels that some things need to be tweaked; therefore, she will not be voting in favor of the rezoning request. She stated that at some point in time, she would like to get together again and go over the things she feels need to be modified. Member Conner stated that he feels that HopeTree did a great job responding to the neighborhood, and he thanked the neighbors for their feedback. He states that he feels that he has a good understanding of what is being proposed on the property, and having listened to it all, his first "knee-jerk" reaction was that this is not a good plan for the property. After listening to everything, he feels that the uses being asked for in the application are incongruent with the area. After using the same "lens" he has used for other questions, he cannot "square it" in his head and feels that the current zoning of residential, not necessarily just residential single-family, is the proper zoning for the property. He is in favor of denser housing, but 340 units on 37 acres gives him pause and he would like to flush that out more. He further stated that if the project gets built, he hopes he is wrong. He loves Salem and is in favor of development but is not in favor is this development. Vice Chair King stated that she is currently on vacation in Norway, and it is 1:23 a.m. She stated that is how seriously she takes her responsibilities on the Planning Commission. She further stated that the Commission has respectfully listened to citizen comments for approximately four hours at a public hearing, in addition the Commission has also met with many individual citizens. She has spent considerable time reviewing the original documents and all amendments line by line. She understands that people can become emotional when thinking and speaking of their homes, and she also understands that this can lead to a worst-case scenario in people's minds. In her opinion, the HopeTree project is not a commercial project, it is a residential project with a potential of limited commercial uses if and when there is a substantial need for it. Neither HopeTree nor its developers are in the business of owning spec commercial spaces. In speaking to the many citizens, she has had the opportunity to meet, she found that those citizens under the approximate age of 55 have been in favor of the project; and those older than 55 have been generally against the project, but not all. She feels that as a city, we cannot survive living in the past. We must live in the present and rebuild for our future. Salem must continue to move forward because maintaining the current does not ensure our future. Member Garst stated that traffic has been the biggest complaint by far regarding this project. Traffic is going to increase regardless of whether there is a PUD or RSF on the property. He feels that the traffic will be a little greater with a PUD than RSF. To determine the benefits to justify the additional traffic, he looked at the character of the project and compared it to what it would look like with residential single family. He lives in north Salem and believes that North Broad Street is a historic area, and one of the reasons it has such character is because of its variety and versatility-- small houses, big houses, apartment complexes, and duplexes all in the same street and they fit in, and everyone seems to get along well. With residential single family, you're looking at another neighborhood with largely "cookie cutter" houses with no shared greenspace-- something similar to Simms Farm. He stated that he held his nose when he voted yes for Simms Farm and believes it was the correct thing, but believes this proposal is much better. He feels that if another development is placed with just residential single family, it is going to another development with single family 100 years from now and feels that if a PUD is placed on the property, it will be historic like North Broad Street and believes it is in more in line with the character of North Broad Street than a development of just single family. He does not feel this is a heavily commercial project, but looks more like Crystal Springs where you have residential with commercial built into to it where you can walk down to eat breakfast, coffee, dinner, etc. He stated that he presented this project to his students and 77 percent of them voted in favor of the project. Member Beamer stated that he has listened to everyone and has read emails about emails, he has met with some residents individually. He stated that he has chosen to live at his current residence for 46 years. He has three different developments-- either new or repurposed developments around his residents and it was all four sides, and he has had three neighbors. He has made a lot of changes to his house and it's scary, but it has all worked out. He feels that voting for the PUD is the best option for this property. He stated that he has spoken to people adamantly against the project and people adamantly for the project. He stated that he had spent hours and hours thinking about the project, he has prayed about it, his wife has prayed about it for him. He loves this town; he gets emotional about it. He hears the concerns--the Baptist Home is near and dear to him--a lot of his friends he went to school with went there, he has refereed basketball games there, he's played basketball, he's refereed softball there, he has played softball there, and he has coached a lot of kids that went to school there later on. He stated that he sees it all, he gets it all, but he feels it is best to vote yes and hopes that the residents understand and he knows some will be upset with him for voting yes--some are his good friends and he is sorry but he is doing what he thinks is right for the City; and deep down in his soul, he feels this is what is right for everyone. Reid Garst motioned the request of Virginia Baptist Children's Home (dba HopeTree Family Services), property owner, for rezoning the properties located at 1000 block Red Lane and a portion of 860 Mount Vernon Lane (Tax Map #'s 41-1-1, 41-1-2, 41-1-3, 41- 1-4, 41-1-5, 41-1-6, and a portion of 44-3-10) from RSF Residential Single Family to PUD Planned Unit District. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Garst, King Nays: Conner, Daulton B. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Consider the request of Pinkesh R. Patel and Sonal P. Patel, property owners, for rezoning the property located at 1200 block Thompson Memorial Drive (Tax Map # 20 - 2 - 4) from RSF Residential Single-Family District to HBD Highway Business District. (Continued from the March 13, 2024, meeting) Petitioners request that the item be continued until the May 15, 2024, meeting. Neil Conner motioned the request of Pinkesh R. Patel and Sonal P. Patel, property owners, for rezoning the property located at 1200 block Thompson Memorial Drive (Tax Map # 20 - 2 - 4) from RSF Residential Single-Family District to HBD Highway Business District. Reid Garst seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King 4. New Business A. Home Occupation Permit Hold public hearing to consider the request of Philip M. and Rachel C. Knouff, property owners, for the amendment of a Home Occupation Permit to allow retail sales at the cut flower farm (garden) on the property located at 275 Ft Lewis Blvd (Tax Map # 130-2-22). Staff noted the following: The subject property (275 Fort Lewis Boulevard) consists of a 1.779-acre tract of land which currently sits within the RSF Residential Single Family zoning designation. The applicant is requesting the addition of a retail license for the Home Occupation permit related to the sale of flowers. In 2022, the applicant requested the allowance of a wholesale flower business sustained by the garden located on the subject property. Because a wholesale flower business is a unique use in regard to a Home Occupation permit, staff referred the application to Planning Commission for approval. The Planning Commission correspondingly approved that item, and since that time, the applicant has experienced a demand for small-scale purchases which are more profitable than bulk orders. As a result, the current request entails the addition of a retail license to the home occupation permit which would facilitate the purchase of flowers by individuals. If approved, all sales will be delivered to customers off-site. Rachel Knouff, property owner, appeared before the Commission and stated that she came before the Commission two years ago to start her business for a wholesale license, which was granted, and she is requesting a retail license as well. She stated that this will not change the day-to-day activities of her business. She would still be growing flowers as usual and transporting flowers from her property to be sold, it would just expand who she can sell to. She has had a number of friends and family ask to buy flowers from her and she has had to turn them down because she didn't have the license to do that. She has enjoyed gifting, but there is only so much you can give before it becomes unhelpful to your business; therefore, she is asking for permission to make those sales. Member Garst questioned if there would be people coming to the residence to purchase the flowers. Mrs. Knouff stated that people will not be coming to the residence to purchase flowers. Member Beamer asked the petitioner to further explain how her business operates. Mrs. Knouff stated that with her wholesale business, she emails a list to her florist clients at the beginning of the week of what she has available, and they get back to her typically the next day. She then makes the deliveries to the shops. She stated that the retail sales would function basically the same, except it would be people making a request to her for an arrangement for a holiday or special occasion. In that case, she would make an arrangement and deliver it to that person's home. It was clarified that the request is not for a change in her business, but a change to be in compliance with tax laws. Member Garst applauded Mrs. Knouff for her success and for her honesty. Vice Chair King asked if any calls or comments were received from anyone in the neighborhood. The Planning and Zoning Administrator stated that no comments have been received regarding the request. No other person(s) appeared regarding the request. Jackson Beamer motioned the request of Philip M. and Rachel C. Knouff, property owners, for the amendment of a Home Occupation Permit to allow retail sales at the cut flower farm (garden) on the property located at 275 Ft Lewis Blvd (Tax Map # 130-2- 22). Neil Conner seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King B. Use Not Provided For Hold public hearing to consider the request of PHC of Virginia, LLC/Acadia Healthcare, Mt Regis Center, property owner, for the amendment of the Use Not Provided For permit to allow additions to the outpatient mental health and substance abuse treatment center on the property located at 125 Knotbreak Road, (Tax Map # 148-1-5). Staff noted the following: The subject property (125 Knotbreak Road) consists of a 5.012-acre tract of land which currently sits within the BCD Business Commerce District. The applicant is requesting an update to the previously issued Use Not Provided For Permit to allow the addition of 24 beds (~5,400 square foot addition). In 2015, the applicant requested the issuance of a Use Not Provided For Permit to accommodate the construction of an Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility primarily serving the needs of those suffering from substance abuse and addiction. While that request was approved, it limited the size of the facility to 48 beds. Since that time, Mount Regis has experienced an increase in demand for beds within their facility, a trend that is expected to continue in the future due to their partnerships with other medical providers. Should this request be approved, Mount Regis intends to add a two-wing addition to this location which would accommodate 8 bedrooms and 24 beds. Through preliminary concept plan discussions, staff can confirm that Mount Regis is able (and will be required) to meet City Code requirements (setbacks, landscaping, parking, stormwater, etc.). Those details will be addressed through the site plan review process with relevant city departments. Jon Puvak, attorney working with Acadia Healthcare, 10 Franklin Road, Roanoke, Virginia, appeared before the Commission and stated that Bubba Ingram, civil engineer; Tim Morgan, architect; Bridget Funk, Director at Mount Regis; and Sharmain Garland, operations at Mount Regis, are also present at the meeting. Bridget Funk, Clinical Director at Mount Regis Center, appeared before the Commission and stated that Mount Regis serves adults 18 and older who are suffering from a substance use disorder. They also treat those who have co-occurring mental health disorders. Mount Regis Center partners with medical and behavioral healthcare providers in the region to enhance their comprehensive and holistic care. They receive referrals from multiple entities both within and from outside the State of Virginia. While in a program, patients receive treatment from a multi-disciplinary team of clinical and medical professionals. They engage in daily structures programs that include evidence- based therapeutic techniques. At the time of discharge, patients leave with an after-care plan to aid them with the next steps of their recovery journey. Mount Regis Center provides opportunities for educational and professional growth. They offer clinical internships to students at local, regional colleges and universities. They also provide residencies to those pursuing clinical state licensure. Mr. Puvak stated that the reason for the request is that there is a demand. When the project was built, it was built for 48 beds based on the need at the time with the goal that it could be expanded in the future, which is where they are today. He stated that the zoning is not going to change, they are asking for 24 additional beds, which will be located in eight bedrooms on either wing of the existing building. They can meet all of the design requirements as far as stormwater management, parking, and hope that construction can commence by the end of this year and be completed within 18 months. It is only approximately a 5,700 s.f. expansion of the existing building. He stated that there is a demand for the services as Mount Regis Center currently has a 15-person waiting list for every bed currently in the facility. It is a local facility that serves local citizens with a planned arrival, not walk-ins. He showed some photos of the existing facility and showed where the additional wings would be built. He noted that parking would be added to accommodate the additional staff. A discussion was held regarding the current number of beds, number of beds requesting to be added, how people are referred to the facility--it can be self, family, or doctor referral. Member Conner questioned if it is all private insurance-based payment. Mr. Puvak stated that they accept all private insurance and Medicaid. No other person(s) appeared related to the request. Neil Conner motioned the request of PHC of Virginia, LLC/Acadia Healthcare, Mt Regis Center, property owner, for the amendment of the Use Not Provided For permit to allow additions to the outpatient mental health and substance abuse treatment center on the property located at 125 Knotbreak Road, (Tax Map # 148-1-5). Reid Garst seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King 5. Adjournment Vice Chair King motioned to adjourn at 7:54 p.m. Jackson Beamer seconded. City Council meeting, April 22, 2024, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street Item #6A Date: 6/24/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL AGENDA ITEM: Special Exception Permit Hold public hearing to consider the request of JBN Investments, LLC, property owner, for the issuance of a special exception permit to allow for the conversion of a single family dwelling to a two-family dwelling on the property located at 324 Pennsylvania Avenue (Tax Map # 120 – 6 - 3). (Advertised in the June 13 and June 20, 2024, issues of the Salem Times-Register). (Planning Commission recommended denial; see page 4-8 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: Residential – Single Family Proposed Use: Residential – Two Family Dwelling The subject property consists of a 0.344 acre tract of land which currently sits within the RSF Residential Single Family zoning designation. This parcel is 100 feet wide, and it contains two existing 50 foot-wide interior lots. The applicant is requesting a Special Exception Permit for the allowance of a two family dwelling that will provide two separate residential units within the same existing principal structure. In 2022, the applicant purchased the subject property which consists of a primary house and a smaller detached cottage in the rear yard. The primary structure contains multiple bedrooms and two kitchens. Beginning in the fall of 2023, the Community Development staff received numerous complaints from neighbors stating that the subject property was being utilized as a short-term rental. After coordinating a site visit with the property owners in early 2024, CD staff learned that an interior wall had been placed within the primary structure, and subsequently, two residential units had been created. At that time, CD staff informed the property owners that the interior wall had to be removed, or a Special Exception Permit for a two family dwelling obtained. Since that time, no complaints have been received. The cottage in the rear yard is legal nonconforming, and as a result, can be rented on a long-term basis so long as it is not vacant for more than two years. 324 Pennsylvania Avenue is located within an established, historic single family neighborhood, and although there are other uses/zoning designations located on its periphery, the core of the Pennsylvania Avenue is a traditional single family community. REQUIREMENTS: The proposal meets the minimum lot size, width, and frontage requirements of Section 106-202 for RSF. WOODS ROGERS VANDEVENTER BLACK ATTORNEYS AT LAW R NEAL KEESEE, JR. wrvblaw.com APPLICANT INFORMATION Deed Book 540-983-7711 Neal.Keesee@wrvblaw.com Requested �Special Exception Use Not Provided For SIGNATURE OF OWNER {.i CONTRACT PURCHASER As owner or authorized agent of this property, I hereby certify that this application Is complete and accurate to the best of my knowl • nd hereby grant pe ission to agents and employees to enter the property for� • wing request QUESTIONS/ LETTERS/ SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE FOLLOWING .. : Neel Keesee@wrvblaw com 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 acknowteclge that any application fee submitted after the deadline shall result In the appllcatlon being considered filed for the next month's �gs. ( , � A 1.-, Signature of applicant/authorized agent _:� rm Date: -3 t __ P rint Na m e : --Jr.--------- Signature of owner/authorized agent Date: Print Name: ---------------------------------------------- If you would like your correspondence emailed and/or faxed, please make selections, and provide the information below: II Neal.Keesee@wrvblaw.com Email _____________ _ Fax: _________ _ FEES: All application fees must be paid at the time of submittal. Please make checks payable to the City of Salem: Special Exception/Use Not Provided For/Use Not Provided For Permit application fee: FOR STAFF USE ONLY Staff Reviewer: Application Complete? C YES ONO Date: 4 PLEASE RESPOND FOR ALL.SPECIAL EXCEPTION/USE NOT PROVIDED FOR APPLICATIONS: 1. This Special Exception/Use Not Provided For is being requested in order to? Allow for a two-family d�E!!��JL�Y special e��eption per�J!.!_n_��-��_?e with Section 106.202.2 of t�� City_��_?alem Zoning Ordinance ___________________ _ 2. Describe how you plain to develop the property for the proposed use and any associated uses. No changes to existing property. _Property is currently configured to accomodate two families living_in main house each with a separate kitchen ___________________ _ 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.) ��!_subje�!_Proe�t:!,yj� surrou_��_ed by or �ear the transitional b�siness district _________ _ ��9 __ sit� o�_�J_ar�I_:_��!-Use of !he property_by -�o families will be controlled by _��le�------ and regulations on_all tenants so no negative impa_c_t. ________ _ 4. Is the subject property located within the Floodplain District? YES !!!I 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? No new development on the property 6. Is the subject property listed as a historic structure or located within a historic district? YES !!!I NO If yes, describe the proposed measures for meeting the standards of the Department of Historic Resources. 5 MBLU Location Owner Name Co-Owner Name Address 1 Address 2 City, State, Zip 120-6-3 324 PENNSYLVANIA AVE JBN INVESTMENTS LLC 6591 FAIRWAY VIEW TRAIL SALEM VA 24153 R NEAL KEESEE JR P O BOX 14125 ROANOKE VA 24038-4125 120-6-2 320 PENNSYLVANIA AVE DAVID P REDDING DONNA REDDING 320 PENNSYLVANIA AVE SALEM VA 24153 120-6-1 312 PENNSYLVANIA AVE M & W CORPORATION 305 ROANOKE BLVD SALEM VA 24153 120-7-2 315 PENNSYLVANIA AVE 315 PENNSYLVANIA LLC 320 POLAR LN SALEM VA 24153 120-7-3 321 PENNSYLVANIA AVE MICHAEL THOMAS GROVE SAMARA MUJEEB KHALIQUE 321 PENNSYLVANIA AVE SALEM VA 24153 120-7-4 325 PENNSYLVANIA AVE JULIA PAIGE THOMPSON 325 PENNSYLVANIA AVE SALEM VA 24153 120-7-5 331 PENNSYLVANIA AVE JOHN TRAVIS PIERCE 331 PENNSYLVANIA AVE SALEM VA 24153 120-7-6 341 PENNSYLVANIA AVE JODY B BALDWIN JESSICA T BALDWIN 341 PENNSYLVANIA AVE SALEM VA 24153 120-7-7 349 PENNSYLVANIA AVE ELIZABETH CHARLETON COLE 349 PENNSYLVANIA AVE SALEM VA 24153 120-7-10 363 PENNSYLVANIA AVE EUGENE M BANE III TARA Y BANE 363 PENNSYLVANIA AVE SALEM VA 24153 120-6-11 360 PENNSYLVANIA AVE WILLIAM C MAXWELL ROSEMARY B MAXWELL 360 PENNSYLVANIA AVE SALEM VA 24153 120-6-10 356 PENNSYLVANIA AVE CHRISTOPHER J MCGRATH MARILY MCGRATH 2828 PULPIT HILL CT WOODBRIDGE VA 22191-5119 120-6-9 352 PENNSYLVANIA AVE KAREN E WALKER CARL V WALKER 352 PENNSYLVANIA AVE SALEM VA 24153 120-6-8 348 PENNSYLVANIA AVE RICHARD D CORELL 348 PENNSYLVANIA AVE SALEM VA 24153 120-6-7 344 PENNSYLVANIA AVE DAVID W HALL JOYCE S HALL 344 PENNSYLVANIA AVE SALEM VA 24153 120-6-6 340 PENNSYLVANIA AVE THE BLYTHE LIVING TRUST C/O GREGORY WAYNE BLYTHE 340 PENNSYLVANIA AVE SALEM VA 24153 120-6-5 300 BLK PENNSYLVANIA AVEWILLIAM & LARA RICHARDS REV DEC TRUST 332 PENNSYLVANIA AVE SALEM VA 24153 120-6-4 332 PENNSYLVANIA AVE WILLIAM & LARA RICHARDS REV DEC TRUST 332 PENNSYLVANIA AVE SALEM VA 24153 120-6-12 305-313 ROANOKE BLVD M & W CORPORATION 305 ROANOKE BLVD SALEM VA 24153 145-1-1 323 ROANOKE BLVD IRISH CORNER O'CONNOR REV TRUSTC/O R COY O'CONNOR 323 ROANOKE BLVD SALEM VA 24153 146-1-2 329 ROANOKE BLVD CHERYL LYNN CARTER LEE ALLISON EUBANKS 329 ROANOKE BLVD SALEM VA 24153 146-1-3 335 ROANOKE BLVD CHARLES FULLER MARLY FULLER 335 ROANOKE BLVD SALEM VA 24153 Planning Commission Meeting MINUTES Wednesday, May 15, 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 A work session of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the Council Chambers Conference room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, at 6:00 p.m. on May 15, 2024; there being the members of said Commission, to wit: Vicki G. Daulton, Chair; Denise P. King, Vice Chair; Reid Garst, Neil L. Conner, and Jackson Beamer; together with H. Robert Light, Assistant City Manager; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator; Charles E. Van Allman, Jr., Director of Community Development; Maxwell S. Dillon, Planner; and Jim Guynn, City Attorney; and the following business was transacted: Chair Daulton 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. Old Business A. Discussion of items on the May agenda 1. 1200 block Thompson Memorial Dr rezoning from RSF to HBD A discussion was held regarding the rezoning request for the 1200 block of Thompson Memorial Drive from RSF to HBD. 3. New Business A. Discussion of items on the May agenda 1. 324 Pennsylvania Avenue - Special Exception - two family dwelling A discussion was held regarding the request for a Special Exception Permit at 324 Pennsylvania Avenue. B. Discussion of items on the June agenda 1. Section 106-406.25 - Storage Containers A discussion was held regarding the item for the June meeting. 4. Adjournment Chair Daulton inquired if there were any other items for discussion and hearing none, adjourned the work session at 6:31 p.m. REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held after due and proper notice in Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, at 7:00 p.m., on May 15, 2024. Notice of such hearing was published in the May 2 and 9, 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 H. Robert Light, Assistant City Manager; Jim Guynn, City Attorney; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator; Maxwell S. Dillon, City Planner; and Charles E. Van Allman, Jr., Director of Community Development, and the following business was transacted: A. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Consent Agenda Chair Daulton announced that she would be retiring from the Planning Commission, and this would be her last meeting. She had been on the Commission 24 years and had been a part of many things, good and controversial throughout the years. She stated she would miss Salem very much. She wished the Commission members and city staff much luck in the future. A. Minutes Consider acceptance of the minutes from the April 10, 2024, work session and regular meeting. Denise King motioned approve April 10, 2024, work session minutes as amended; and approve April 10, 2024, regular meeting minutes. Neil Conner seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King B. June 12, 2024, Planning Commission meeting The Zoning Administrator noted that staff will not be ready to present on possible changes to Section 106-406.25 of the City of Salem Code regarding Storage Containers at the June meeting and requested that the item be continued to a future date. Neil Conner motioned to continue amending Code Section 106- 406.25 of the Code of the City of Salem, regarding Storage Containers to a future date. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King Due to no other items being on the June agenda, Neil Conner motioned to cancel the June 10, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. Reid Garst seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King 3. Old Business A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Consider the request of Pinkesh R. Patel and Sonal P. Patel, property owners, for rezoning the property located at 1200 block Thompson Memorial Drive (Tax Map # 20 - 2 - 4) from RSF Residential Single-Family District to HBD Highway Business District. (Continued from the April 10, 2024, meeting, request to withdraw received from the petitioner) Staff noted that the petitioners have requested to withdraw their request. Reid Garst motioned request to withdraw the request of Pinkesh R. Patel and Sonal P. Patel, property owners, for rezoning the property located at 1200 block Thompson Memorial Drive (Tax Map # 20 - 2 - 4) from RSF Residential Single- Family District to HBD Highway Business District. Neil Conner seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King 4. New Business A. Special Exception Permit Hold public hearing to consider the request of JBN Investments, LLC, property owner, for the issuance of a special exception permit to allow for the conversion of a single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling on the property located at 324 Pennsylvania Avenue (Tax Map # 120 – 6 - 3). STAFF REPORT Staff noted the following: The subject property consists of a 0.344-acre tract of land which currently sits within the RSF Residential Single Family zoning designation. This parcel is 100 feet wide, and it contains two existing 50-foot-wide interior lots. The applicant is requesting a Special Exception Permit for the allowance of a two-family dwelling that will provide two separate residential units within the same existing principal structure. In 2022, the applicant purchased the subject property which consists of a primary house and a smaller detached cottage in the rear yard. The primary structure contains multiple bedrooms and two kitchens. Beginning in the fall of 2023, the Community Development staff received numerous complaints from neighbors stating that the subject property was being utilized as a short-term rental. After coordinating a site visit with the property owners in early 2024, CD staff learned that an interior wall had been placed within the primary structure, and subsequently, two residential units had been created. At that time, CD staff informed the property owners that the interior wall had to be removed, or a Special Exception Permit for a two-family dwelling obtained. Since that time, no complaints have been received. The cottage in the rear yard is legal nonconforming, and as a result, can be rented on a long-term basis so long as it is not vacant for more than two years. 324 Pennsylvania Avenue is located within an established, historic single-family neighborhood, and although there are other uses/zoning designations located on its periphery, the core of Pennsylvania Avenue is a traditional single-family community. Neil Kessee, representing JBN Investments, appeared before the Commission and stated that the property was purchased with the expectation that it would be a two-family dwelling based on the two kitchens. The property has three on-site parking spaces, as well as ample parking on the street. He noted that the rear of the property abuts Oakey's Funeral Home, which is a commercial use. The property is rented, fully furnished and is marketed to professionals such as travel nurses. He stated that if the special exception request is denied, then there are other uses by-right available that would be much worse such as an elderly home or a sobriety home. He feels that the petitioner has a good, solid plan in place and would fit well in the community. Chair Daulton noted that the property had not been utilized as a two-family dwelling previously, despite the presence of two kitchens. She stated that she understands why the petitioners feel that with two kitchens, it would be a good two-family dwelling, but none of the homes in the 300 block of Pennsylvania Avenue are two-family dwellings. Vice Chair King asked about the access to the units and utility meters for the units. Mr. Kessee stated that the entrance to the units is through the main door to a "lobby" area, which leads to the separate units. There is one meter for the principal structure. Vice Chair King asked who would be taking care of the landscaping of the property. Mr. Kessee stated that a third-party landscaper comes every two weeks to take care of the property. A discussion was held regarding sobriety houses, homes for the elderly, etc. that could be placed on the property. Adam Neal, property owner, appeared before the Commission and stated that a door was framed in to create the separation of the units. Staff noted that if the request was approved, building amendments may be required to install the appropriate separation/firewall between the units. Vice Chair King asked if the request was not approved, then the owners intend to place an elderly or sobriety home in the residence. Mr. Kessee stated that those are alternatives that have been looked at for the property. Laura Richards, 332 Pennsylvania Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that she is speaking on behalf of the residents of Pennsylvania Avenue strong opposition of the request. She stated that the LLC is not requesting to rezone the property, but to allow it to continue to operate as it has been operating and marketing for the last 10 months as a multi-unit property. She stated that the constant influx of transient laborers has created on-going issues and disrupts the neighborhood (i.e. excessive trash, parking issues, intoxication and drug use by occupants, aggressive animals, etc.). She feels the LLC's blatant disregard of regulations and the negative impact on the neighborhood warrants the Planning Commission's denial of the request and asked that the Commission deny the request. Vice Chair King asked if anyone has called the police department due to the issues from the property. Ms. Richards stated that she has not called the police but cannot speak for other residents. Member Garst stated that there are other multi-family units in the area and asked how this property is different from the others. Ms. Richards stated that there are three units being operated on the one parcel--two in the main residence, and one in the carriage house. She is only aware of one other multi-family dwelling in the area, and it requires a one-year lease. This property was originally marketed as a 30-day minimum property until complaints were received and then it started being marketed as a 90-day rental. However, you will see a vehicle on the property for a week or longer, but other vehicles will be at the property for days or weeks at a time. It appears as if there is a sub-lease of some sort. The other rental property with long-term rentals, the renters are acclimated to the neighborhood, take pride in their property and participate in the community. Chair Daulton noted that the property has been marketed on Furnished Finder and asked how that differs from the air B & B policies of the City. Staff noted that the City does not allow short-term rentals, it has a 90-day policy. To be in current compliance, the length of stay must be at a minimum of 90 days. It was further noted that as of July 1, 2024, the state legislature will no longer allow localities to mandate a 90-day minimum requirement, it will go to 30 days instead. Rick Correll, 348 Pennsylvania Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that he has been in construction for 50 years. He cannot believe the owners did not ask if this is something that could be done beforehand. He feels the owners are asking for forgiveness instead of permission. He is in opposition of the request. Greg Blythe, 340 Pennsylvania Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that he purchased his property due to the single-family nature of the neighborhood. He opposes the request. Karen Walker, 352 Pennsylvania Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that she does not want to see the character of the neighborhood destroyed. Dave Redding, 320 Pennsylvania Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that he feels unsafe due to the people renting the units in 320 Pennsylvania Avenue. He has not called the police but has contacted the zoning department regarding the issues. Regina Correlle, 348 Pennsylvania Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that the community is not just a community, they are a family. She and her family feel unsafe due to the renters of the property. She opposes the request. Mike Grove, 321 Pennsylvania Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that he and his wife moved to the area in 2021. They were attracted to Salem due to its safe community and its schools. He stated that their peace was disrupted when the current owners purchased the property at 324 Pennsylvania Avenue. He opposes the request and asked the Commission to deny the request. Chair Daulton asked the petitioner if the intention was for the property to be short-term or long-term rental. Mr. Keesee stated that the owners intend it to be long-term, which the city ordinance states must be at least 90 days and the owners are willing to proffer that condition as part of the request. The City Attorney noted that a condition determining the length of stay will be superseded by upcoming state legislation. Melissa Neal, property owner of 324 Pennsylvania Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated that she tries to rent to respectable, professional renters. She stated that she says that she has an 85% extension rate from renters, which means that the renters like the area and take pride in the area. She does not discriminate against renters, and she did address and remove the renters causing issues when they were aware of the issues. She stated that they primarily rent to traveling nurses at Carilion. A discussion was held regarding the layout of the residence, the other rental properties owned by the petitioner (nine others, one in Salem on Piedmont Avenue); grandfathered cottage on the property, parking, etc. Laura Richards reappeared before the Commission with her husband Bill, 332 Pennsylvania Avenue, and stated that she did introduce herself to Mrs. Neal when they first purchased the property. She stated that Mrs. Neal told her that they would be renting the property. She assumed that the owners with their knowledge and experience of rental property would be aware of the city ordinances and regulations. Mr. Richards stated that he should not feel like a prisoner in his own home and should not have to call the landlord every time there is a situation or an issue with the property--it is not his job to police the property. Greg Blythe reappeared before the Commission and noted that when you search the property on Furnished Finder, the property is marketed for the character of the neighborhood, but the property owners are not trying to maintain the character of the neighborhood and threatened the neighborhood with something worse if the request was denied. No other person(s) appeared related to the request. Denise King motioned to recommend denial of the request of JBN Investments, LLC, property owner, for the issuance of a special exception permit to allow for the conversion of a single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling on the property located at 324 Pennsylvania Avenue (Tax Map #120-6-3). Reid Garst seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King 5. Adjournment Mayor Turk appeared before the Commission on behalf of City Council and recognized Chair Daulton for her esteemed service to the Commission and its citizens during her tenure on the Planning Commission by presenting her with the Salem Salutes award. Chair Daulton adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m. Item # 6B Date: 6/24/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: June 24, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Consider authorizing the City Manager to finalize and execute an intergovernmental agreement for the operation of the Regional Fire Training Center SUBMITTED BY: Chris Dorsey, City Manager SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The current intergovernmental agreement with the County of Roanoke and the City of Roanoke for operation of the Roanoke Regional Tire Training Center is set to expire June 30, 2024 and a new agreement needs to be executed. Since 1999, the City of Salem, the City of Roanoke, and Roanoke County have operated a multi-jurisdictional training center for fire and emergency services personnel in order to maximize training opportunities, combine resources, and efficiently utilize training staff. The three jurisdictions entered into an agreement in March of 1999 to set forth the terms, conditions, and shared obligations of the parties with respect to the original construction, maintenance, and operation of the training center. The Town of Vinton was an original participant to the 1999 agreement, but subsequently Roanoke County has assumed direction and control of fire and emergency services for the Town. The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: The City of Salem’s share of operating cost of the training center shall be $9,600 annually (8% of the total for the center). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends authorizing the City Manager to finalize and execute the intergovernmental agreement for the operation of the Regional Fire Training Center. Item #6C Date: 6/24/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: June 24, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Consider the adoption of Resolution 1474 which rescinds Resolution 1472 adopted on June 10, 2024 and provides corrections to the Miscellaneous Fees for 2024-2025 SUBMITTED BY: Angela A. Sellers, Process Improvement/Business Efficiency Director SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Miscellaneous Fees for fiscal year 2025 were adopted in Resolution 1472 by Council at their June 10, 2024 meeting. Included in the Miscellaneous Fees are water and sewer connection fees. These fees were set by Council on November 27, 2023 and effective January 1, 2024. Due a clerical error, certain current water and sewer connection fees listed in Resolution 1472 are incorrect. The “Present Fee 2023-2024” column changes are noted in bold font on pages 12 and 13 of Resolution 1474. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting Resolution 1474 rescinding Resolution 1472 and adopting the corrected Miscellaneous Fees for 2024-2025. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, JUNE 24, 2024: RESOLUTION 1474 WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution 1472 on June 10, 2024; and WHEREAS, due to a clerical error, Resolution 1472 needs to be rescinded and replaced with an updated resolution. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that Resolution 1472 be and is hereby rescinded. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following fees and policies for the 2024-2025 fiscal year be amended in the City of Salem effective July 1, 2024: DESCRIPTION PRESENT FEE 2023-2024 AMENDED FEE 2024-2025 AMENDED FEE 2025-2026 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEES: Appeal to Uniform Statewide Building Code $ 250.00 Board of Building Code Appeals Fee $200.00 and petitioner pays the full advertisement cost Boundary Line Adjustment or Vacation of Interior Lot Lines $ 75.00 Bridges – Overweight Permit $100.00 plus analysis cost Building Plan Review Commercial Construction (New or Expansion) 10% of permit fee or $30.00, whichever is greater to be paid when dropping plans off at the office Building Plan Review Residential $ 30.00 Building Plan Review with a Stormwater Plan $250.00 for under an acre Building Plan Re-Review $ 75.00 Certificate of Occupancy $ 30.00 Certificate of Occupancy Temporary $ 30.00 Chicken Permit $ 25.00 Concert Work: New Driveway Permit Fee $100.00 per linear foot – payable in advance $125.00 per linear foot – payable in advance $150.00 per linear foot – payable in advance New Sidewalk Permit Fee $50.00 Per linear foot – payable in advance $75.00 per linear foot – payable in advance $100.00 per linear foot – payable in advance New Curb and Gutter Permit Fee $50.00 per linear $75.00 per linear $100.00 per 2 foot – payable in advance foot – payable in advance linear foot – payable in advance New Curb Only Permit Fee $30.00 per linear foot – payable in advance $55.00 per linear foot – payable in advance $80.00 per linear foot – payable in advance DESCRIPTION PRESENT FEE 2023-2024 AMENDED FEE 2024-2025 AMENDED FEE 2025-2026 Community Development Fees Continued Commencing Work without a Building Permit Double of the permit up to $250.00 Demolition Permit Use the Uniform Statewide Building Code Table and is based on the cost of the demolition Elevator Inspection Fee $ 30.00 Erosion and Sediment Control $100.00 plus $50.00 per acre greater than one acre Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement in Lieu of Plan $ 50.00 Land Disturbing Fee $ 30.00 Home Occupation Review Fee (See Business License for cost of license.) $25.00 one-time fee for initial review Manufactured Home Park Operation Permit $ 20.00 Nuisance Fees: Nuisance Administrative Fee $250.00 plus if the nuisance is not addressed the property owner will be billed for the cost of the clean up First Nuisance ticket $ 50.00 Any subsequent violations $ 200.00 Planning Unit Developments (PUD) Review and Approval $ 1,000.00 Property Maintenance Code $ 30.00 3 Compliance Re-Inspection Code Compliance $ 30.00 Refund of Building Permit Retain $30.00 or 25% of the permit, whichever is higher DESCRIPTION PRESENT FEE 2023-2024 AMENDED FEE 2024-2025 AMENDED FEE 2025-2026 Community Development Fees Continued Rezoning $ 1,000.00 Right of Way Permit $50.00 for a 30- day permit $100.00 for a 60- day permit If worked started without a permit the cost is doubled Site Plan Approval $500.00 plus $25.00 per acre greater than one acre. This fee covers two reviews: the initial review and one re-review. A fee of $75.00 will be charged for additional reviews. Site Plan Approval (Minor) $ 150.00 Preliminary Site Plan $ 500.00 Special Exception Permit $ 500.00 State Levy Tax on all Permit Fees (Pass through to the State) 2% Storm Water Appeal $ 200.00 Street and Alley Closure Review Fee $250.00 plus the cost of the advertising Subdivision Site Plan Review Fee $500.00 plus $25.00 per acre greater than one acre. This fee covers two reviews: the initial review and 4 one re-review. A fee of $75.00 will be charged for additional reviews. Subdivision Minor (5 or less lots) $ 100.00 DESCRIPTION PRESENT FEE 2023-2024 AMENDED FEE 2024-2025 AMENDED FEE 2025-2026 Community Development Fees Continued Subdivision Major (6 or more lots or any subdivision involving the creation of public right of way) $220.00 plus $45.00 per lot Technology Fee (Assessed on most Building Permits, all Electrical Permits, most Mechanical Permits, All Plumbing Permits, most Sign Permits, some Stormwater Management Permits, all 30 and 60 Day Right of Way Permits, Small Cell Facilities and most Site Plans. 2% charged on most permits for the purpose of purchasing future software and hardware Temporary Electric Inspection Fee $ 30.00 Use Not Provided for Review Fee $ 500.00 Variances (Board of Zoning Appeals) $200.00 plus petitioner pays full advertisement cost $500.00 plus petitioner pays full advertisement cost Zoning Certification Letter (Charge for background investigation for zoning and building compliance, not just zoning designation) $ 100.00 $ 150.00 Zoning Permit $ 25.00 GENERAL FEES: East Hill Cemetery Single Space for Burial $800.00 (no charge for Salem residents ages 0- 17) East Hill Cemetery Open/Close for full burial $ 800.00 East Hill Cemetery Open/Close for cremains $ 450.00 East Hill Cemetery Open/Close for children No charge (Salem residents ages 0- 17) Farmers Market - First-time Application – For all potential $ 35.00 5 Vendors who have not submitted an application in 3 years, a one-time processing fee of $35.00 is required with the application. Farmers Market Rental Daily Fee-Per day per space. $5.00 per week day, $10.00 on Saturday DESCRIPTION PRESENT FEE 2023-2024 AMENDED FEE 2024-2025 AMENDED FEE 2025-2026 GENERAL FEES: General Fees Continued Farmers Market Fees: Farmers Market Rental Monthly Fee – Please indicate specific months on application $ 35.00 Farmers Market Rental Full Season - $30.00 per month for the full season (April 1-December 31). Two payments allowed - $135.00 due by April 1 and September 1. $ 270.00 Fireworks Permit $100.00 per event Fire/EMS Incident Reports $10.00 per request FOIA Fees ( Freedom of Information Act): Staff member search time, charged at an estimated rate of $5.00 per quarter hour Computer search time, requests for materials which exist electronically, or transmission of electronic files are charged at the rate of $8.00 per quarter hour Attorney Fees Charged at current rate to the extent allowed by law Large format printing Actual cost for large print plus staff time rate estimated at $5.00 per quarter hour Electronic recordings Actual cost for electronic recordings plus staff time rate estimated at $5.00 per quarter hour 6 Computer print outs $0.10 per page Photocopies (including those necessary to perform reactions) $0.10 per page Incidental out-of-pocket costs necessary to assemble the records (ex: phone, postage or courier charges) Will be itemized DESCRIPTION PRESENT FEE 2023-2024 AMENDED FEE 2024-2025 AMENDED FEE 2025-2026 General Fees Continued FOIA Fees ( Freedom of Information Act): If the requester has asked for an advanced determination of the cost, or if the cost exceed $200.00, the requester shall be notified in advance. The City Manager may, before continuing to process the request, require the requester to agree to payment of a deposit not to exceed the amount of the advance determination. Library Fines and Fees: Adult material except hot items: video’s and games $0.00 (Patron will be billed for cost to replace the item) All Hot items: video’s and games $0.00 (Patron will be billed for cost to replace the item) Children’s material except hot items: video’s and games $0.00 Patron will be billed for cost to replace the item) Damaged or missing CD or DVD case $ 1.00 Fax Services $1.00 per fax job sent; $.50 each page received Interlibrary Loan Fee $4.00 per item Lost books on CD-Adult or Children Retail cost plus processing fee of $5.00 Lost items Retail cost plus processing fee of $5.00 7 Lost Music Retail cost plus processing fee of $5.00 Lost Video’s or DVD’s Retail cost plus processing fee of $5.00 DESCRIPTION PRESENT FEE 2023-2024 AMENDED FEE 2024-2025 AMENDED FEE 2025-2026 General Fees Continued Library Fines and Fees Continued Missing barcode $ 0.25 Notary Fee $5.00 per notary Out-of-State Library Card $15.00 per year Photocopies $0.20 per page Printing Services Black/White $0.20 per page; Color $0.50 per page Processing fee for lost items-except paperbacks $ 5.00 Processing fee for lost paperbacks $ 1.00 Replacement CD Audio Book $ 10.00 Replacement Library Card $ 0.00 Temporary Library Card (Non- resident) No charge Parks and Recreation Fees: Adult Sports Team Participation Fee $350.00 – Softball and Basketball $400.00 – Touch Football Participation Fee (Non- resident/Tuition Students only) $50.00 per sport Sports Uniform Fee $40.00 per sport Late Registration for all youth sports $ 25.00 Youth Summer Camps-Baseball, Basketball, Cheerleading, Football, Lacrosse, Soccer, Softball, Tennis and Volleyball $10.00 per participant Taliaferro Complex Facility Fee $1.00 on tickets equal to or > $8.01 $0.50 on tickets equal to or < $8.00 8 Police-Fingerprints $ 10.00 Police Incident Reports $10.00 per request Return Check Charge $ 40.00 DESCRIPTION PRESENT FEE 2023-2024 AMENDED FEE 2024-2025 AMENDED FEE 2025-2026 General Fees Continued Sanitation Fees: Bulk Collection/Pickup If the debris placed to be picked up becomes a health, safety or nuisance, then the city will charge $250.00 plus $25.00 administrative fee up to one hour, plus $200.00 each additional hour. Dumpster Collection Fees: Dumpster Collection Fee-per dumpster, collected on a weekly schedule $ 24.00 Dumpster Once a Week Pickup $ 104.00 Dumpster Twice a Week Pickup $ 208.00 Dumpster Three Times a Week Pickup $ 312.00 Dumpster Four Times a Week Pickup $ 416.00 Dumpster Five Times a Week Pickup $ 520.00 Dumpster Service-Collection Fee for Extra Pickup with a Contract-Per Instance $ 28.00 $ 30.00 No Charge for companies participating in City’s Cardboard Recycling Program No Charge Dumpster Service-Collection Fee for each call-in not on a contract-Per Instance $ 50.00 $ 55.00 Lease of Dumpster-monthly $ 17.00 $ 20.00 9 Purchase a Dumpster $ 1,800.00 Toter Purchase Fee (additional toter) $ 65.00 each $ 67.00 each Toter Replacement Fee (first toter) $10.00 per month $1.00 per month if qualify for Tax Relief for the Elderly or Veteran Relief from the Commissioner of the Revenue Office DESCRIPTION PRESENT FEE 2023-2024 AMENDED FEE 2024-2025 AMENDED FEE 2025-2026 General Fees Continued Sidewalk Dining Permit $ 100.00 Yard Sale Permit $ 5.00 Street Fees: Patching Gas Cuts Fees $7.50 per foot Taxicab Service Charge Fees: Application Fee $ 3.00 Renewal of License Fee $ 1.00 Background check for each application $ 20.00 UTILITY FEES: Bulk Water Charge $50.00 plus $5.00 per 1,000 gallons $15.00 per 1,000 gallons (charged in increments of 1,000 gallons) or $75.00, whichever is greater per vehicle Fire Hydrant Connection Fees: Deposit $500.00 for use of a back flow meter. This is refunded when the meter if returned, pending any outstanding charges owed the 10 city or damage to the returned meter. Connection fee $ 10.00 Water Usage The rate of the small commercial rate with a base fee plus the rate per 1,000 gallons used per month: See the City of Salem Water and Sewer Rates on their website: www.salemva.gov DESCRIPTION PRESENT FEE 2023-2024 AMENDED FEE 2024-2025 AMENDED FEE 2025-2026 Utilities Fees Continued Fire Hydrant Connection Fees Continued Minimum charged 10,000 gallons will be charged per month. Any water used over 10,000 gallons will be charged at actual gallons used per month. Cost to move the meter Contractor is not allowed to move the meter and the cost for the city to move the meter is $10.00 each occurrence. Locate Lateral in Existing Sewer $250.00 plus $100.00 per hour Low Pressure Complaint (If not within City system) $ 100.00 Meter Check for Accuracy-Electric $50.00 (payment of fee is required for this service and will be refunded if the degree of error is greater than 2%) Meter Re-reads $10.00 for a 11 second trip Penalty for Late Payment $5.00 per service if residential or 5% of bill if commercial or industrial. Reconnect Fee for Non-Payment $25.00 for Residential or Small General Service $75.00 for Residential or Small General Service if done after hours or weekends All other customers will be charged the cost of making the reconnection, with a minimum of $250.00 Customers where service has been disconnected for fraudulent use of electricity or where access to the meter has been denied will be actual cost of making the reconnection, with a minimum of $250.00 Approved in the Electric Book of Rates DESCRIPTION PRESENT FEE 2023-2024 AMENDED FEE 2024-2025 AMENDED FEE 2025-2026 Utility Fees Continued Sewer Availability Fees- Effective January 1: 5/8” or ¾” Water Meter Size $ 1,500.00 $ 2,000.00 1” Water Meter Size $ 3,000.00 $ 4,000.00 1 ½” Water Meter Size $ 4,500.00 $ 6,000.00 2” Water Meter Size $ 9,000.00 $ 12,000.00 12 3” Water Meter Size $ 18,000.00 $ 24,000.00 4” Water Meter Size $ 30,000.00 $ 40,000.00 6” Water Meter Size $ 60,000.00 $ 80,000.00 8” Water Meter Size $112,500.00 $ 150,000.00 Sewer Backup Complaint (if not found in City System) $ 200.00 Sewer Cleanout Installation Contact Sewer Department for a 50/50 contract DESCRIPTION PRESENT FEE 2023-2024 AMENDED FEE 2024-2025 AMENDED FEE 2025-2026 Utility Fees Continued Sewer Connection Fees: 6” or smaller – based on lateral diameter The greater of $2,200.00 or actual cost plus 29% Larger than a 6” – based on lateral diameter The greater of $2,200.00 or actual cost plus 29% Shut off Water Service at Meter after hours $ 100.00 Utility Turn on Fees for Electric/Water Service $ 10.00 per service Water Availability Fees-Effective January 1: 5/8” or ¾” Water Meter Size $ 3,000.00 $ 4.000.00 1” Water Meter Size $ 6,000.00 $ 8.000.00 1 ½ “ Water Meter Size $ 10,500.00 $ 14,000.00 2” Water Meter Size $ 19,500.00 $ 26,000.00 3” Water Meter Size $ 37,500.00 $ 50,000.00 4” Water Meter Size $ 60,000.00 $ 80,000.00 6” Water Meter Size $ 120,000.00 $ 160,000.00 8” Water Meter Size $232,500.00 $ 310,000.00 Water Connection Fees: 5/8” or ¾” Water Meter Size $2,000.00 or actual cost plus 29%, whichever is greater 13 1” Water Meter Size $2,300.00 or actual cost plus 29%, whichever is greater 1 ½” Water Meter Size $3,200.00 or actual cost plus 29%, whichever is greater 2” Water Meter Size $3,800.00 or actual cost plus 29%, whichever is greater Larger than 2” Water Meter Size Actual cost plus 29% DESCRIPTION PRESENT FEE 2023-2024 AMENDED FEE 2024-2025 AMENDED FEE 2025-2026 Water Connection Fees for Water Service Laterals Installed by Subdivider: Utility Fees Continued 5/8” or ¾” Water Meter Size $ 1,200.00 1” Water Meter Size $ 1,380.00 1 ½” Water Meter Size $ 1,920.00 2” Water Meter Size $ 2,280.00 Larger than 2” Water Meter Size Actual cost plus 29% 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