Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/10/2023 - Planning Commission - Agenda -Regular Planning Commission Meeting AGENDA Wednesday, May 10, 2023, 7:00 PM Work S es s io n 6:00P M C ounc il C hamb ers C onference R oo m, C ity Hall, 114 North Broad S treet: R egular S ess ion 7:00P M C ouncil C hambers, C ity Hall, 114 North Broad S treet WORK SE SSI ON 1.C all to Order 2.New Business A.Discussion of items on the May agenda 1. Old Virginia Brick sign 2. Salem Montessori School B.I ntroduction of items on the June agenda 1. Rezoning 500 block White Street - Invisions 2. Special Exception Permit 514 West Main St - Personal Services - Barber 3.Adjournment RE GU L AR SE S SI ON 1.C all to Order A.P ledge of Allegiance 2.C onsent Agenda A.Minutes C onsider acceptance of the minutes from the April 12, 2023, work session and regular meeting. 3.Old Business A.L andmark Sign Hold public hearing to consider the request of O VB Investments LLC, property owner, to designate the Old Virginia Brick sign located at 2500 West Main Street, Tax Map # 175-2-3, as a landmark sign. (C ontinued from the April 12, 2023, meeting.) 4.New Business A.Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Hold public hearing to consider the request of Salem Montessori School, Inc., property owner, for rezoning the property at 112 C orporate Boulevard (Tax Map # 148-1-2.2) from RSF Residential Single-Family District and BC D, Business C ommerce District with conditions to RSF Residential Single-Family District. B.Special Exception P ermit Amendment Hold public hearing to consider the request of Salem Montessori School, Inc., property owner, to revise the Special Exception Permit approved February 28, 2011, to allow the construction of an educational facility, primary/secondary on the property located at 112 Corporate Boulevard, (Tax Map # 148-1-2.2). 5.Adjournment Footnote C ity C o uncil meeting, May 22, 2023, 6:30 p.m. C ounc il C hamb ers , C ity Hall, 114 North Broad S treet Planning Commission Meeting MINUTES Wednesday, April 12, 2023, 7:00 PM Work Session 6:00PM 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 Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, at 6:00 p.m. on April 12, 2023; there being the members of said Commission, to wit: Vicki G. Daulton, Chair; Denise P. King, Vice Chair; Reid Garst, Jackson Beamer, and Neil L. Conner; together with William L. Simpson, Jr., Assistant Director of Community Development; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator; Maxwell Dillon, Planner; and Jim H. Guynn, Jr., City Attorney; and the following business was transacted: Chair Daulton called the meeting to order at 6:13 p.m. and reported that this date, place and time had been set for the Commission to hold a work session. 2. New Business A. Discussion of items on the April agenda 1. Old Virginia Brick sign 2. 1630 & 1640 Roanoke Blvd A discussion was held regarding the items on the April agenda. B. Introduction of items on the May agenda 1. Salem Montessori School A discussion was held regarding an item on the May agenda. 3. Adjournment Chair Daulton inquired if there were any other items for discussion and hearing none, adjourned the work session at 6:53 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 Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, at 7:00 p.m., on April 12, 2023. Notice of such hearing was published in the March 30 and April 6, 2023, issues of the "Salem Times Register," a newspaper published and having general circulation in the City of Salem. All adjacent property owners were notified via the U. S. Postal Service. The Commission, constituting a legal quorum, presided together with Jim H. Guynn, Jr., City Attorney; James E. Taliaferro, II, City Manager and Executive Secretary, ex officio member of said Commission, to wit; William L. Simpson, Jr., Assistant Director of Community Development; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator; and Maxwell Dillon, Planner, and the following business was transacted: A. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Consent Agenda A. Minutes Consider acceptance of the minutes from the March 15, 2023, work session and regular meeting. Neil Conner motioned Motion. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King 3. New Business A. Landmark Sign Hold public hearing to consider the request of OVB Investments LLC, property owner, to designate the Old Virginia Brick sign located at 2500 West Main Street, Tax Map # 175-2-3, as a landmark sign. Staff noted the following: According to the City of Salem code, “Signs that do not advertise an existing bona fide business, service or product manufactured on a premises, but which may be of significant civic, historic, architectural, or cultural interest may be declared a landmark sign.” The following are requirements for a landmark sign: 1. An application shall be made to the planning commission. 2. Applicants shall provide at the time of application, a written history of the existing sign, noting any and all physical changes or modifications, and/or a written account of the nature of the significance to the community. Applicants shall provide photographs of the sign, preferably at various times throughout its history, and from as many different views as possible, or plans or drawings of the proposed sign from different views, along with a certified plat determining location, and photos of the existing property on which the sign will reside. Applicants shall provide a maintenance plan as to how the sign will be maintained in its current form or a restoration plan to include maintenance to restore the sign to its original form. 3. The commission shall hold a public hearing and review the application before making a determination as to the declaration. 4. Any alterations to any landmark sign must be approved through this process. 5. The commission may remove such landmark designation and require the sign to be removed if it is altered, in disrepair, misused, or any other reason deemed appropriate. OVB Investments LLC, “Old Virginia Brick,” is seeking the landmark designation for the sign located at the front of the property at 2500 West Main Street. Standing in some form or fashion since 1890, the “Old Virginia Brick” sign pays homage to a company which many historians believe to be the oldest manufacturer in the Roanoke Valley during its operation. In addition to its contribution to numerous development projects and homes throughout the City of Salem (such as the Veterans Affair Medical Center) and the greater Roanoke Valley, Old Virginia Bricks also facilitated the construction of numerous iconic sites throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia including the University of Virginia, Colonial Williamsburg, and Virginia Museum of Fine Arts in Richmond. An approval of the landmark designation for a sign does not in any way encroach upon the allowable signage for any future development/business operation which may occur on the site. It is also important to note that according to Section 66-13 (7), “The commission may remove such landmark designation and require the sign to be removed if it is altered, in disrepair, misused, or any other reason deemed appropriate.” It was noted that no one from OVB was present at the meeting. Mary Ellen Wines, Planning and Zoning Administrator, appeared before the Commission to discuss the request. She stated that the Community Development Department approached the property owner regarding their sign which no longer advertises an actual business located on the property. The Sign Ordinance states that after 60 days a sign needs to be removed if it no longer advertises a business located on the property. The options available to the property owner was discussed, and one of the options is to request that the sign be designated as a landmark sign. The property owner is requesting that the sign be designated as a landmark sign and have agreed to refurbish the sign and maintain it in perpetuity to allow the sign to remain. Member Garst questioned the timeframe for the sign to be refurbished. Ms. Wines stated that a timeframe was not given, but if the Commission has a suggestion she would let the property owner know if the request is approved. A discussion was held regarding the property owner needing to be being present and continuing the item to the next meeting. No other person(s) appeared related to the request. Denise King motioned continuance of request of OVB Investments LLC, property owner, to designate the Old Virginia Brick sign located at 2500 West Main Street, Tax Map #175-2-3, as a landmark sign to May 10, 2023, meeting. Reid Garst seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King B. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Hold public hearing to consider the requests of Patane, LLP and Walter S. Kearns, Jr. and Laurel P. Kearns, property owners, for rezoning the properties located at 1640 Roanoke Boulevard (Tax Map # 222-2-6) and 1630 Roanoke Boulevard (Tax Map # 222-2-5) from RB Residential Business District to LM Light Manufacturing District. Staff noted the following: The subject properties (1640 and 1630 Roanoke Boulevard) combine to form a 1.053 acre tract of land which currently sit within the RB Residential Business designation. These parcels are currently occupied by a house and garage (1630 Roanoke Boulevard), and an office building with a parking lot (1640 Roanoke Boulevard). HPSRx, the business located at the subject properties, is a small specialty distributor in the Women’s Reproductive Healthcare industry. Previously approved to engage in warehousing and distribution in its current location, the applicant is now seeking to rezone the properties from RB Residential Business to LM Light Manufacturing in order to expand the scale of their business. If approved, the applicant intends to remove the existing house and garage located at 1630 Roanoke Boulevard and install a new 5,750 square foot warehouse. This new warehouse is expected to receive deliveries from one semitruck per week. There will also be approximately five pickup/drop-offs by Fed EX or UPS local parcel trucks per weekday, with the business remaining closed on weekends. The property line separating 1630 and 1640 Roanoke Boulevard would be vacated, and the details of the plan would be navigated during the site plan review process. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as commercial which is not necessarily consistent with the proposed utilization of the property; however, the subject properties would simply be expanding the scale of their operations (not changing their use) and are currently located adjacent to HM Heavy Manufacturing parcels across Eaton Road and Roanoke Boulevard. Barney Horrell, Brushy Mountain Engineering, appeared before the Commission on behalf of the property owners. He stated that he is the site engineer of the project and referenced the preliminary site plan in the agenda packet. He noted that the property owners are also present at the meeting. He stated that Mr. Kearns is getting ready to retire, and at the same time HPS is looking to improve the operations of its business, not necessarily expand it. HPS purchases drugs and distributes them. The requirements of the product and the regulatory bodies necessitate the building of a new distribution warehouse. He further stated that there will not be a huge amount of traffic in and out of the area. HPS does not sell to the public; therefore, there will not be a lot of people coming in and out of the property. Approximately one semi-truck delivers once a week, and several box trucks (i.e. UPS/FedEx type) will distribute 4-5 a day and would not utilize the proposed truck dock. The trucks would park in a designated loading area and will be loaded by hand trucks, not forklifts. He also noted that the warehouse will not look like a typical warehouse, and the architecture of the new warehouse will be somewhat matched to the existing office. If approved, the two parcels will be combined. Vice Chair King questioned if the existing entrance to 1630 Roanoke Boulevard would be used, and Mr. Horrell stated that it will not be used. Mr. Horrell stated that the access cut there will be removed and he will work with the electric department to relocate one pole on the site, and the traffic flow will enter via Roanoke Boulevard and leave via Easton Road. A discussion was held regarding landscaping and storm water management on the site. Member Beamer asked about the number of employees, and Mr. Horrell stated that the number of employees will most likely not increase. Chair Daulton questioned the timeline for development, and Mr. Horrell stated that it will be done as quickly as possible after approval. Vice Chair King questioned if the neighbors are concerned about the project. Mary Ellen Wines, Zoning Administrator, stated that one neighbor called to support the project. No other person(s) appeared before the Commission related to the request. Reid Garst motioned approve the requests of Patane, LLP and Walter S. Kearns, Jr. and Laurel P. Kearns, property owners, for rezoning the properties located at 1640 Roanoke Boulevard (Tax Map #222-2-6) and 1630 Roanoke Boulevard (Tax Map #222-2-5) from RB Residential Business District to LM Light Manufacturing District. Neil Conner seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King 4. Adjournment Having no other items before the Commission, on motion by Member Beamer, seconded by Member Conner and duly carried, meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. City Council meeting, April 24, 2023, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA held in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 114 North Broad Street Salem, VA 24153 AGENDA ITEM: Landmark Sign Hold public hearing to consider the request of OVB Investments LLC, property owner, to designate the Old Virginia Brick sign located at 2500 West Main Street, Tax Map # 175-2-3, as a landmark sign. SUBMITTED BY: Mary Ellen Wines, CZA CFM, Planning & Zoning Administrator SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Zoning: HM Heavy Manufacturing Land Use Plan Designation: Industrial According to the City of Salem code, “Signs that do not advertise an existing bona fide business, service or product manufactured on a premises, but which may be of significant civic, historic, architectural, or cultural interest may be declared a landmark sign.” The following are requirements for a landmark sign: 1. An application shall be made to the planning commission. 2. Applicants shall provide at the time of application, a written history of the existing sign, noting any and all physical changes or modifications, and/or a written account of the nature of the significance to the community. 3. Applicants shall provide photographs of the sign, preferably at various times throughout its history, and from as many different views as possible, or plans or drawings of the proposed sign from different views, along with a certified plat determining location, and photos of the existing property on which the sign will reside. 4. Applicants shall provide a maintenance plan as to how the sign will be maintained in its current form or a restoration plan to include maintenance to restore the sign to its original form. 5. The commission shall hold a public hearing and review the application before making a determination as to the declaration. 6. Any alterations to any landmark sign must be approved through this process. 7. The commission may remove such landmark designation and require the sign to be removed if it is altered, in disrepair, misused, or any other reason deemed appropriate. OVB Investments LLC, “Old Virginia Brick,” is seeking the landmark designation for the sign located at the front of the property at 2500 West Main Street. Standing in some form or fashion since 1890, the “Old Virginia Brick” sign pays homage to a company which many historians believe to be the oldest manufacturer in the Roanoke Valley during its operation. In addition to its contribution to numerous development projects and homes throughout the City of Salem (such as the Veterans Affair Medical Center) and the greater Roanoke Valley, Old Virginia Bricks also facilitated the construction of numerous iconic sites throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia including the University of Virginia, Colonial Williamsburg, and Virginia Museum of Fine Arts in Richmond. An approval of the landmark designation for a sign does not in any way encroach upon the allowable signage for any future development/business operation which may occur on the site. It is also important to note that according to Section 66-13 (7), “The commission may remove such landmark designation and require the sign to be removed if it is altered, in disrepair, misused, or any other reason deemed appropriate.” REQUIREMENTS: The proposal meets the requirements of Section 66-13. Regulations for Landmark Signs. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend approval of the request. 2. Recommend denial of the request. MBLU Location Owner Name Co-Owner Name Address 1 Address 2 City, State, Zip 175-2-3 2500 W MAIN ST OVB INVESTMENTS LLC P O BOX 12627 ROANOKE VA 24027 176-1-1 2250 SALEM INDUSTRIAL DR CONMAT PROPERTIES LC P O BOX 1347 HARRISONBURG VA 22801 168-2-9 2260 SALEM INDUSTRIAL DR CONMAT PROPERTIES LC P O BOX 1347 HARRISONBURG VA 22801 168-2-1 2280 SALEM INDUSTRIAL DR THREE W CORP 77 MAIER FARM RD BUCHANAN VA 24066 168-2-1.1 2246 W MAIN ST DEV MOHAN LLC 112 W MAIN ST SUITE 212 SALEM VA 24153 168-1-1 2259 W MAIN ST MUHAMMAD MASOOD KHAN P O BOX 3112 ROANOKE VA 24015 169-3-24 2315 W MAIN ST LITTLE OIL COMPANY (THE)P O BOX 6863 RICHMOND VA 23230 169-3-25 2355 W MAIN ST RUSSELL J DUNCAN 770 TYLER RD SALEM VA 24153 169-3-25.1 2300 BLK W MAIN ST ABNA LLC 1392 TEXAS ST SALEM VA 24153 175-1-7 2501 W MAIN ST ABNA LLC 1392 TEXAS ST SALEM VA 24153 175-2-2 2508 W MAIN ST WASTE MANAGEMENT OF VA INC P O BOX 1450 CHICAGO IL 60690-1450 176-2-1 2167 SALEM INDUSTRIAL DR HELM BUILDING ENTERPRISES LTD 1491 SOUTHSIDE DR SALEM VA 24153 176-3-8 2180 SALEM INDUSTRIAL DR CITY OF SALEM P O BOX 869 SALEM VA 24153 208-1-1 100 DIUGUIDS LN ROANOKE ELECTRIC STEEL CORP 160 DIUGUIDS LN SALEM VA 24153 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA held in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 114 North Broad Street Salem, VA 24153 AGENDA ITEM: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Hold public hearing to consider the request of Salem Montessori School, Inc., property owner, for rezoning the property at 112 Corporate Boulevard (Tax Map # 148-1-2.2) from RSF Residential Single-Family District and BCD, Business Commerce District with conditions to RSF Residential Single-Family District. SUBMITTED BY: Mary Ellen Wines, CZA CFM, Planning & Zoning Administrator SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Zoning: RSF Residential Single-Family/BCD Business Commerce District Land Use Plan Designation: Institutional Existing Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Educational facilities, primary/secondary The subject property located at 112 Corporate Boulevard consists of a 1.812 acre tract of land which currently possesses both the RSF Residential Single-Family and BCD Business Commerce District zoning designations. A previous amendment to the zoning ordinance resulted in the split zoning of the subject property, in addition to conditions which included the following clause: “The ancient grove of trees shown on the preliminary development plan and located on the eastern portion of the property midway between Texas Street and Lynchburg Turnpike shall be preserved.” The Montessori School is requesting a rezoning of the property from RSF/BCD with conditions to RSF, which will ultimately allow for the development of a new private elementary school should a subsequent special exception permit be approved. The removal of conditions applicable to this property will remove the existing protection of the ancient grove of trees which currently resides on the lot; however, the City Horticulturalist, Jeff Ceasar, provided a recommendation that many of the trees on site hold relatively little value (aside from a few select species), and thus could be removed to accommodate development (see submitted letter for a comprehensive list of recommendations). The developer has provided an initial concept plan for the planned construction, but this is subject to change based on the objective to preserve as many valuable trees as possible. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as institutional, which is consistent with the proposed development of an educational facility. REQUIREMENTS: The proposal meets the requirements of Section 106-202.3. Site development regulations for RSF. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend approval of the request. 2. Recommend denial of the request. • .> '.~ •• ' .;.i AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 106-7, 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, the City of Salem, property owner, has heretofore petitioned to have a 28.0426 acre parcel of land located on Texas Street and Idaho Street rezoned from Residential District R-2 to Business Commerce District B-C; and WHEREAS, in said petition, the City of Salem, property owner, did proffer written conditions in addition to the regulations provided for in Business Commerce District B-C into which this property is requested to be rezoned; and WHEREAS, Council has reviewed the proposed conditions and is of the opinion that the requested rezoning without the proposed conditions would not be in the best interests of the City and that the conditions proffered will more closely comply with the intent of the Land Use Plan heretofore adopted; and WHEREAS, Council has adopted the provisions of Chapter 320 of the 1978 Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia, Sections 15.1-491.1 through 15.1-491.6, relating to conditional zoning; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its regular meeting held on November 11, 1998, did recommend to Council after holding a public hearing that such rezoning be approved with the voluntarily proffered conditions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that Section 106-7, Article I, Chapter 106, of The Code of the City of Salem, be amended, revised, and reordained to read as follows and the map referred to shall be changed in this respect and no other: Section 1. That the following described property, presently zoned Residential District R-2 in the City of Salem, be and the same is hereby changed from Residential District R-2 to Business Commerce District B-C and the map referred to shall be changed in this respect and no other. However, in addition to the regulations for such zoning district as contained in Chapter 106 of The Code of the City of Salem, Virginia, there is hereby incorporated the conditions set forth in Section 2 of this ordinance to the same extent and purpose as though such conditions were herein fully set out at length: Commencing at the intersection of the north right of way line of Texas Street and the east right of way line Idaho Street; thence in a northwesterly direction along the eastern right of way of Idaho Street approximately 300 feet to an iron pin, common corner to a 4.950 acre tract, the actual POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the southern property line of said tract N. 79° 56' Section 2. , .'. 34" E. 425 .. 00 feet to an iron pin; thence along the eastern property line of said tract N. 10 0 03' 26" W. 522.78 feet to an iron pin, common corner to the Roanoke College property; thence along the southern property line of Roanoke College N. 75 0 07' 49" E. 862.53 feet to an iron pin; thence leaving the Roanoke College property with a new line across the City Of Salem property N. 71 0 28' 34" E. 440.36 feet to a point; thence S. 17 0 49' 28" E. 139.42 feet to a point; thence S. 84 0 55' 56" E. 196.77 feet to a point; thence with a bearing DUE SOUTH 173.81 feet to a point; thence S. 27 0 36' 11" E. 291.09 feet to a point on the northern right of way line of Texas Street (60 foot right of way); thence along the northern right of way line of Texas Street S. 62 0 23' 49" W. 537.28 feet to a point; thence with the same with a curve to the right whose radius is 1535.53 feet and whose length is 495.65 feet (chord = S. 71 0 38' 39" W. 493.50 feet) to a point; thence with the same S. 80 0 53' 29" W. 337.53 feet to a point; thence with the same S. 69 0 59' 59" W. 145.74 feet to a point; thence continuing with the same with a curve to the right whose radius is 2210.93 feet and whose length is 482.00 feet (chord = S. 73 0 15' 05" W. 481.05 feet) to an iron pin; thence leaving Texas Street and with the easterly right of way line of Idaho Street (60 foot right of way) with a curve to the right whose radius is 25 feet and whose length is 40.93 feet (chord = N. 570 18' 10" W. 36.51 feet) to an iron pin; thence with the same easterly right of way line of Idaho street N. 10 0 03' 36" W. 262.24 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, and containing 28.0426 acres. The following conditions voluntarily proffered by the City of Salem, property owner, shall apply in addition to the regulations contained in Chapter 106 of The Code of the City of Salem: 1. The areas on the west and east of the property along Texas Street, designated for stormwater management, shall be developed for use as public parks, in addition to the use for stormwater management. 2. The ancient grove of trees shown on the preliminary development plan and located on the eastern portion of the property midway between Texas Street and Lynchburg Turnpike shall be preserved. Tax Parcel 148-1.2-2 (112 Corporate Blvd) BEGINNING at a point on the west right-of-way line of Corporate Boulevard; thence leaving Corporate Boulevard N. 71° 40’ 12” W. 514.44 feet to a point; thence N. 66° 27’ 36” E. 122.11 feet to a point; thence N. 77° 00’ 16” E. 385.99 feet to a point on the west right-of-way line of Corporate Boulevard, thence following the west right-of-way line the following three calls; a curve to the right with a radius of 281.17 feet, Chord Bearing S. 07° 09’ 01” E., Chord Distance 47.84 feet, and Arc Length 47.90 feet; thence S. 01° 18’ 23” E. 173.37 feet; thence a curve to the right with a radius of 270.73 feet, Chord Bearing S. 07° 09’ 42” W., Chord Distance 77.17 feet, and Arc Length 77.43 feet to the place of BEGINNING, containing 1.8120 acres, and being known as Tract 2, on Plat Showing the Vacation and Combination for City of Salem, dated March 23, 2011, prepared by Caldwell White Associates, as recorded in the Clerk’s Office, Circuit Court, Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 13, Pages 49-52, Slide 213. 1 Abstract of Minutes of the February 16, 2011, Salem Planning Commission meeting A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, at 7:00 p.m., on February 16, 2011, there being present all the members of said Commission, to wit: Terrance D. Murphy, Jimmy W. Robertson, Vicki G. Daulton, Bruce N. Thomasson, and Samuel R. Carter III; with Terrance D. Murphy, Chairman, presiding; together with James E. Taliaferro, II, Assistant City Manager and Executive Secretary, ex officio member of said Commission; Kevin S. Boggess, City Manager; Melinda J. Payne, Director of Planning and Development; Charles VanAllman, City Engineer; Benjamin W. Tripp, Planner; Judy L. Hough, Planner; and William C. Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney; and the following business was transacted: Chairman Murphy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * In re: Request of City of Salem, property owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow primary/secondary educational facilities on an approximate 3.9 acre tract and an approximate 1.8 acre tract located at 1150 Kime Lane/1130 Lynchburg Turnpike (P/O 148-1-2) The Executive Secretary reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of City of Salem, property owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow primary/secondary educational 2 facilities on an approximate 3.9 acre tract and an approximate 1.8 acre tract located at 1150 Kime Lane/1130 Lynchburg Turnpike (P/O 148-1- 2); and WHEREAS, the Executive Secretary further reported that notice of such hearing had been published in the February 3 and 10, 2011, issues of The Roanoke Times, and adjoining property owners were notified by letter mailed February 4, 2011; and WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of two parcels zoned RSF, and situated on opposite sides of Corporate Drive, near the Salem YMCA; the eastern parcel is approximately 3.9 acres, and the western is approximately 1.8 acres; both properties are currently vacant; and this request is to issue a special exception permit to allow primary/secondary educational facilities; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Thomasson noted that he would need to abstain from voting on this matter since he has a family member who he believes is interested in investing in this property, and he does not want there to be any thoughts of impropriety involved on his behalf; and WHEREAS, Kevin Boggess, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission in support of the Special Exception Permit request; he noted under normal circumstances the City of Salem typically would not be the petitioner for a request such as this one; however, because the City is running both the decision of whether or not to sell the property concurrently with the decision to grant a Special Exception Permit for the proposed use on the property, the City is still the property owner, and there is not a true contract purchaser for the property at this time; the City is in negotiations with a purchaser, but the contract has not been executed; however, the City is presenting the Special Exception request on behalf of a proposed purchaser of the property; he noted that when the City sells property it must hold a public 3 hearing prior to that sale; City Council held the public hearing on Monday night, February 14, and directed staff to begin negotiations on a contract; then at the appropriate time, the City would sell the property; he stated that these are being run concurrently because of the time constraints of the prospective petitioner who is interested in building a Montessori school at this location; further, the proposed purchaser would like to have that school opened and operating by September of this calendar year so obviously there is a considerable time crunch in order to build a structure in that time frame; thus this is the reason why we are uncharacteristically running these concurrently; he further noted that the City has received interest for the purchase of the property from two other parties as well; one of the neighbors, Mr. Mullins, has submitted a written offer to purchase one acre of the 3.9 acre tract, and he believes that another residential real estate developer may be submitting an offer prior to City Council taking any formal action on the sale; the City was approached by the Salem Montessori School to locate a new school building on this piece of property, which is zoned Residential Single Family District; the use of a school whether it is private or public is a use that is allowed in this zoning district, however, it does require the approval of a Special Exception Permit; he noted that there has been a lot of discussion among staff, former administrators, and some of the people here in attendance about the use of the property and its residential character and what promises were made in the past about the residential use of the property; staff has reviewed the minutes very carefully and talked with previous administrators, and there were promises made that the property would be developed as residential; however, looking at it from a land use perspective and not considering what had been said 4 in the past, staff feels a school use in a residential district is an appropriate use, and this would be an suitable use from a land use perspective for this piece of property; he stated that the Montessori School has a representative at the meeting to discuss the proposed building, access, type of operation, etc.; and WHEREAS, Barney Horrell of Brushy Mountain Engineering, representing Salem Montessori School, appeared before the Commission in support of the Special Exception Permit request; he noted that Mrs. Valerie VanderHoeven, owner, was in attendance if there were questions that she needed to address; he noted that he wanted to discuss several things with the Commission; he noted that he wanted to focus on the issue that this is a residentially-zoned property, and their use is residential in nature; why they are building a new school, they are not planning to take down the existing school, which is located on the Boulevard across from the General Electric plant; this is a very successful facility, and they have been there for 18+ years; they need room to expand because they have run out of room, and they are planning to change the focus of the existing school to infants and toddlers; the new facility will allow them to meet the growing demand within the community for quality child care and early education; why this site – they looked at several sites around the community and even outside the city, and they settled on this site largely because of the proximity to their existing facility and because the YMCA is right next door; the YMCA has wonderful cross- programming opportunities, and they have gotten a lot of strong encouragement from the staff at the Y about being able to utilize their facility during their off-peak times; this will benefit both them and the Y; he further discussed the site for the proposed school and the surrounding neighborhood; he noted 5 that a residential feel is very important to the Montessori philosophy and teaching style; he further noted the layout of the school and the individual learning spaces that make the school much more of a homey feel; they have worked hard to develop an exterior that matches the residential character of the neighborhood; he stated the hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., and those are the outside limits of the hours; he noted most of the students that attend their school have older siblings in the public school system or other nearby schools and usually the parents pick up the older children and then come by the Montessori School to get the younger ones and take them home; so, the numbers start declining around 3:30 p.m.; the proposed building would have six classrooms with a maximum of 25 children in each, which is the maximum; the maximum number of students would be 150; further, there is no bus service as the parents drop off the children; there will not be 150 vehicles coming to the site as most families drop off more than one child; he noted that he had several exhibits displayed and also had several packets of information to share, if anyone wanted one; they have gone to great lengths to try and meet with the neighbors at the direction of the City; he noted that they had met with all but two of the residents and have tried to enter into dialogue about what they are proposing to do and also asked about their concerns; he noted the issues that had been brought up by the neighbors and how they have tried to address those issues; first, the area is supposed to be a residential development area, and they feel their development will fit within the residential nature of the community; they also feel that this use will be a transitional buffer kind of use between the residential single-family homes down to the commercial uses along Texas Street; the next big concern is traffic along the 6 Turnpike, and the fact that this is a residential neighborhood; after hearing the concerns about the traffic, they came up with a site plan that only has access onto Commerce Drive; the whole idea is to limit as much as possible the access and traffic on the Turnpike; he noted that they feel the bulk of the traffic will come in off of Texas Street; another concern was protecting the view; the site topography drops off quite a bit from the Turnpike, and their site plan takes advantage of the topography and allows them to drop the building down to not obstruct the view of the neighbors; he noted that the building height at the peak is about 23’; he went out to the site and had a companion hold up a 20’ pole, and then he walked to several driveways along the Turnpike and took pictures to show what a 20’ high building would look like; the photos show that the building does not block any of the horizon or mountain views; another concern they heard was potential noise; he believes there may be a misconception of the nature of a Montessori school compared to a more traditional day care facility or school setting; he noted that he keeps pointing to the fact that the hours of operation are from 7 am to 6 pm and after that the site will be dark and quiet; it will not be like residences where the quiet time will be from 7 to 6, and then people would come home and mow their yards, etc. in the evening hours; a couple of neighbors voiced concerns about outdoor basketball courts and other outdoor facilities which could be utilized by neighborhood youth; he noted with the Y located next door, they will not need any of these facilities as they are already there; another issue was preserving existing trees and also what type of landscaping would they provide; he noted that there are quite a few existing shrubs and trees along the Turnpike and they are working with their architect to come up with a landscaping plan that includes some retaining walls so 7 they can preserve all the existing trees; he also discussed the new landscaping they are proposing for the site; he noted the interior of the site would be full of flower beds and a vegetable garden; he noted that it would be a very attractive site from a landscaping standpoint; and he further discussed the rendering of the building and the building materials; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Daulton noted that she had not seen the rendering of the building; she asked if this would be a one-story building; Mr. Horrell gave Mrs. Daulton a copy of the rendering and noted that it would be a single story building; also, a big goal is to get as much natural light into the building as possible; so there is a clear story over the central lobby area and alot of windows; he also discussed the additional parcel of land they are requesting to purchase, which is the wooded area; their intentions for the wooded area is for an outdoor exploring area for the children; they have heard several citizens requested that the trees be preserved, and he noted it is their desire to preserve them as well; and WHEREAS, Doug Hale of 1155 Lynchburg Turnpike appeared before the Commission in opposition to the request; he commended Barney Horrell on his nice presentation, and he noted if all of us lived in a glass house, then he guesses it would be a nice thing; he noted that he is opposed because it is a residential area and because of his personal investment; he is located across from where the building would be situated, and therefore he feels it is part of his front yard; he asked if the Special Exception Permit for educational facilities applied to a profit earning school versus a public school in the residential zoning; the Assistant City Attorney noted that they do have the same rights as a public school in the Residential Single Family zoning district, and he read the definition of primary/secondary educational facilities in the City code; Mr. 8 Maxwell noted that it would be permitted with the Special Exception permit; Mr. Hale asked other than the initial payment that the City would receive if they decide to sell the property to the particular individuals we are referring to tonight, would there be potential revenue from real estate taxes in the future; it was noted that there would be revenue from real estate taxes; Mr. Hale noted that had the City pursued the development of this property before the bottom fell out of the economy, we probably could have housed five residences along the area that would have brought approximately $1,500 to $2,000 per house per year for real estate taxes likewise; so, we did have a potential to retain that residential appearance by having additional homes built in the area; he noted that he wondered if we have considered all the options with regards to the position of the school and the parking lot, etc.; he presented the Commission a copy of a drawing showing an optional layout; he further discussed the water retention pond the City expanded when the Y was built; if the parking were placed on the property as he has it drawn, it would be closer to the retention pond; he discussed the water issues that still occur when we have a large rainfall; his point is if we add additional parking we are obviously going to dump additional water onto the area, and this is a consideration that the City needs to think about; if the school decides to close in the future, would the property convert back to a straight Residential Single Family zoning or would it be a doorway for some other activity other than a private school; Chair Murphy noted that the Special Exception permit would stay with the property; if another user wanted to use the property for something other than a school or the other permitted uses in RSF Residential Single Family district, then it would have to come back before the Commission and City Council; he noted that 9 there is an expansion of activity on the Turnpike with the College building additional sports fields and the YMCA has certainly exceeded its capacity; so, with this continuous growth, safety is a concern; he noted that this is a residential area, and the speed limit is 25 miles per hour; he further discussed the additional traffic that is going to be generated with the proposed school, and he feels there will be a safety factor in increasing the amount of traffic in this particular area; he noted that he hopes the City will look at this more closely; and he does not have a problem with this school just not at this location; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer noted that the current stormwater management pond located there is designed to drain 52 acres; this includes a substantial portion of the tennis courts and Roanoke College property; he further discussed the pond, and the fact that the pond was designed in excess of the standards required by the state and the city; and WHEREAS, Eddie Mullins of 1208 Lynchburg Turnpike appeared before the Commission in opposition to the request; he noted that he has a copy of the unapproved minutes from the November 11, 1998, Planning Commission meeting; he noted that he thought the Commission needed to read them; the Commission at that time noted that the property would be residential, there was to be a park and also a track around the field; he further added he has the City Council meeting minutes from November 23rd, and he said he thought it would be nice if they read those too because City Council promised the neighbors the world; he noted that he believes that we need to keep residential homes on this property; he has spoken to eight of his neighbors and seven are against the proposal; he noted that if he had known the City was going to sell the land, he would have asked them to sell him some so he could build a patio home; he further discussed 10 the traffic issue in this area and noted that according to the minutes, there was not supposed to be access from Corporate Drive to Lynchburg Turnpike; he noted that there is a lot of speeding on the Turnpike and a lot of trouble with parking when there are meets; he noted that he had spoken with former City Manager Forest Jones many times about the land, and he told him that the City would talk to them before they decided to let anybody do anything with the property; he noted that the first he heard of this was when the school came around to talk to them; further, he stated that if the city is going to let the school go here, then he feels we should rezone it all to industrial and sell for $150-200,000 an acre and make money on it; we should not sell it cheaper; he would just as soon have a manufacturer beside him as he would the school; and WHEREAS, Chair Murphy noted that the Commission did review the minutes at the work session earlier in the day; he also reminded everyone that regardless of the location in the city, this is the appropriate process to utilize for an approval for a school in a residential area; Mr. Mullins noted that he understood that but the neighbors were promised, and he believes that the city should keep its promise; and he does not think this is right; and WHEREAS, Nora Smith of 1135 Lynchburg Turnpike appeared before the Commission in support of the request; she noted that she was also speaking for her daughter, Lucy Koons, who is also an owner of the residence; she noted that she did not get the opportunity to speak to the people from the school, but she heard about the plan second hand; however, she personally believes that this is the best thing that could happen on this property; her house faces the proposed location of the school, and she feels it will preserve the property and save it from being developed; she is familiar with the Montessori school 11 concept as she has a Masters Degree in Education and her granddaughter attended a Montessori school in Lebanon; she likes the idea that the stand of trees will be preserved; she noted that she and her parents moved to this house in approximately 1958 when she was nine years old, and she has always admired the trees; this is another reason she is in favor of this request; she further noted that a Montessori school is not like a regular school; she believes that it is prestigious and will be good for the neighborhood; and there is a campus environment there already with Roanoke College and the Y, and she thinks it will fit right in; and WHEREAS, Chair Murphy noted that Mr. Horrell has handouts of the items he is displaying tonight for anyone who has not had the opportunity to see what is being proposed; he noted as a matter of clarification the Commission is primarily responsible for land use issues and is charged with making a recommendation on the matter to City Council; and WHEREAS, Inez Good of 1203 Lynchburg Turnpike appeared before the Commission noting that she has lived here for almost 50 years now; when she moved into this house, it was not only a residential area, it was a rural area; they cows in the front and horses in the back; this changed when the Civic Center and the ballparks were built; now, they have noise and glaring lights, and anyone who would build a home there would be out of their mind; they have suffered with it because they have always been there; the final straw was when the city built the water tower; her husband planted a tree to preserve them from the view of the monstrosity; she thinks the school is the best solution for the property because she does not feel that they will get any high class residential buildings there; she noted that her only concern about the proposed school is that there will be more noise, but the owner has assured them that the 12 children are well behaved and under control; she hopes that this is the case, and she is in support of the request even though it is contrary to what her neighbors think; and WHEREAS, Brad Graham of Graham Construction, life-long Salem resident, appeared before the Commission; he noted that his father-in-law was Mayor at the time when all of this controversy was going on, and he would tell you that the neighbors were promised homes on the parcel; he noted that before former City Manager Forest Jones retired he tried to meet with him to talk about the property, but Forest did not want to deal with it; as soon as Mr. Boggess came on board, he set up a meeting with him to discuss, and he indicated to him that he was not ready to deal with this yet; he told Mr. Boggess to get back to him when he was ready; the first he heard about the request was in the past week or so; he does not think residential would be crazy in this location; it is a great thing throughout the country – people are building homes near Ys so that they have that connection; his company is more than happy to make a proposal to purchase the property, and he believes that the city should sell it to whoever is going to pay the most; he again noted that homes were what was called, and if it will bring a higher and better use and more money for the city, then how can we not put homes here; and he further noted that City Council needs to think about what is best for the property; and WHEREAS, Chair Murphy noted that the Commission has to make a decision related to the current petition before them; Mr. Graham noted that he understands this, and if he were sitting on the Commission this evening, he would vote yes for the request; there is no question that he would vote in favor because it might bring the city more money for the property; it may get into a bidding war, and the proposed purchaser may be 13 willing to pay more than they are willing to pay; but he still has a strong feeling that homes connected near a Y will sell well; he works out there three times a week and sees all the empty nesters that he thinks would love to just walk down the street to their home; he thinks the city needs to look at this and say how can we get more money for the property; it is a little disturbing that we are trying to push this through so fast; it is kind of scary; he does not see how in the world they think they are going to get a building ready for next year; if they were trying to build houses here, they would have to go through three or four months going back and forth to get an approved plan; at the very least, the process needs to be slowed down and make the right decision that we can live with; and WHEREAS, Chair Murphy asked Mr. Horrell if he wanted to respond to the neighbors and also if he could address the lighting for the proposed building; Mr. Horrell noted that because they will not be using the facility after 6 p.m., they do not have a lot of use for lighting for the security of people walking to their cars, etc. so the outdoor lighting will be very minimal; he again noted that the hours of operation are from 7 am to 6 pm, which is your typical daylight hours even in the winter time; the lighting will be minimal, and it will be downward facing; he noted the covered area at the front of the building will probably have a light to shine down over the entryway; this would be completely shielded by the roof and building so that the neighbors behind would not see it; the whole focus of the conceptual plan has all the traffic being on the south side of the building and he believes that with the circulation pattern of the driveway as shown, car lights will be shielded by the building; he feels that light pollution from the facility will be minimal; he noted in regards to Mr. 14 Graham’s comments that they are drawn to the property for the same reasons that he can see benefits for residential, such as the proximity of the Y, etc.; they feel like this decision should not be made purely on a financial basis and they feel that what they will be bringing to the community is an additional alternative educational experience in child care; they hope the city will consider their use as a benefit to the community – a benefit other than a financial gain; he noted that Mrs. Good’s concerns were lighting and the water tower; obviously they have nothing to do with the water tower; he noted that he was sorry that they did not have the chance to meet with Mrs. Smith in person; and they do plan to preserve the trees, which she mentioned; he noted to Mr. Mullins that he could not relieve his feelings of being betrayed by the city, but he promised that they would be a good neighbor to him, if the project is approved; he hopes that over time they will win his respect; with regards to Mr. Hale, he commends him for creating an alternative layout instead of just coming out and offering constructive criticism; he noted that he has looked at the layout; with regards to his concerns about stormwater, the layout he drew has a little more pavement; they will have to capture the stormwater on their site using the storm sewer; he further noted that the impervious surface area for their building and parking lot will be less than six residential houses with roof tops and driveways so the runoff created will be much less; further, the incorporation of landscaping will improve the quality of the water runoff; and WHEREAS, Commission Member Carter noted that he agreed with Mr. Horrell regarding to the stormwater issue related to putting houses with roofs, driveways, etc. rather than the single structure as proposed; he stated that this facility is 15 one that lends itself very perfectly to thinking about porous pavement; he feels that it could be designed with no additional or very little stormwater runoff; with regards to the traffic on Lynchburg Turnpike, he realizes that they would have any control in this matter, but he feels they would have the perfect opportunity to suggest to their clientele that whenever possible that they use Texas Street to access the building; Mr. Horrell noted that they are going to want people to be driving 25 miles per hour as much as the neighbors since there will be children here; and WHEREAS, Chair Murphy noted that he appreciates the neighbors’ patience in this area when there are swim meets, etc.; he asked if the school might consider allowing parking for these events in their parking lot; Mr. Horrell noted that they would prefer not to have the general public parking here for liability reasons and upkeep; WHEREAS, Commission Member Robertson noted that he was involved in the planning for this property initially, and he recalls quite vividly some of the things that were proposed for the property; with regards to land that was left as residential, he personally does not recall anyone saying that houses would definitely be built on this land; all he knew was that it was zoned residential, and as has been mentioned earlier, the City’s zoning ordinance clearly permits schools in a residential area subject to the Special Exception Permit being obtained; he noted that he has tried to listen as closely as he could to the speakers and to take into consideration everyone’s thoughts, but he is left with the feeling that we should approve this request based on the fact that it is residential, and it is a permissible use; he noted that if the request is approved, he would fully expect that the final plans should be very, very close to, if not exactly, what has been 16 discussed this evening; and Mr. Horrell noted that is their intent; ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSION MEMBER ROBERTSON, AND DULY CARRIED, the Planning Commission of the City of Salem doth recommend to the Council of the City of Salem that the request of City of Salem, property owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow primary/secondary educational facilities on an approximate 3.9 acre tract and an approximate 1.8 acre tract located at 1150 Kime Lane/1130 Lynchburg Turnpike (P/O 148-1-2) be approved -- the roll call vote being as follows: Mr. Carter – aye; Mr. Thomasson – abstaining; Mrs. Daulton – nay; Mr. Robertson – aye; and Mr. Murphy - aye. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * There being no further business to come before the Commission, the same on motion adjourned at 8:33 p.m. 1 Abstract of Minutes of the February 28, 2011, Salem City Council A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, on February 28, 2011, at 7:30 p.m., there being present the following members of said Council, to wit: Byron Randolph Foley, John C. Givens, William D. Jones, and Lisa D. Garst (Jane W. Johnson– absent); with Byron Randolph Foley, Mayor, presiding; together with Kevin S. Boggess, City Manager; James E. Taliaferro, II, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council; Frank P. Turk, Director of Finance; Melinda J. Payne, Director of Planning and Economic Development; Charles E. Van Allman, Jr., City Engineer; Mike Stevens, Communications Director; and Stephen M. Yost, City Attorney, and the following business was transacted: Mayor Foley called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Foley reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of the City of Salem, property owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow primary/secondary educational facilities on an approximate 3.9 acre tract and an approximate 1.8 acre tract located at 1150 Kime Lane/1130 Lynchburg Turnpike (P/O Tax Map #148-1-2); notice of such hearing was published in the February 9 and 16, 2011, issues of The Roanoke Times, a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Salem; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its regular meeting held March 16, 2011, recommends approval of said request; and WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of two parcels zoned RSF, and situated on opposite sides of Corporate Drive, near the Salem YMCA; the eastern parcel is approximately 3.9 acres, and the western is approximately 1.8 acres; both properties are currently vacant; and this request is to issue a special exception permit to allow primary/secondary educational facilities; and WHEREAS, Anna Sachs, 825 Virginia Avenue, appeared before the Council and questioned if this item pertains to additional construction on the campus, land grant from Andrew Lewis site; 2 and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the property in question is located on the property formerly known as the Elizabeth Campus; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that if you are entering the Salem YMCA, the property is located to the left of the YMCA; and WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the City of Salem is the petitioner of the request as there is not yet a contract purchaser; however, the Salem Montessori School has a representative present at the meeting who would give a presentation on the proposed project; he stated that the proposed project would be located on a parcel of property located between Commerce Street and Lynchburg Turnpike; he stated that the City was approached by the Salem Montessori School a couple of months ago about purchasing the property, as well as a small parcel across the street, which is a wooded area, in order to construct a primary elementary-type school for the Montessori program; he stated that the Montessori school has outgrown its current location on the Boulevard and will move some of the older students from the Boulevard location to the Commerce Street location; he further stated that the Special Exception Permit request and the sale of the property went concurrently, and Council held a public hearing to authorize the sale of the property; the City Attorney began to negotiate a contract with the proposed purchaser being the Salem Montessori School; he stated that at the same time the special exception process was going through because in a residential single-family zoned area a primary or secondary education school requires a Special Exception Permit in a residential area; he stated that the item has gone before the Planning Commission and the body recommended approval; and WHEREAS, Barney Horrell, 3555 Carvins Cove Road, representing the Salem Montessori School appeared before the Council; he stated that Council has a packet of information regarding the proposed plans and pointed out the parcels the Montessori School would like to purchase; he stated that the Montessori School is currently located across from the GE facility on Roanoke Boulevard; Valerie VanderHoeven has been running the facility for 18 years and has been very successful; he further stated that the Montessori School has grown to the point where it has used up all of the available land at its current location; he stated that Ms. VanderHoeven started looking for an alternative site to expand, not replace the 3 existing facility, but to use it to focus more on the infants and toddlers and use the additional location for children ages 3 to 6 and a couple children up to 10 years of age; he stated that when Ms. VanderHoeven started looking for a location, the undeveloped property located next to the Salem YMCA was found; the property is currently zoned residential and a school is allowed in residential zoning with a Special Exception Permit; he stated that the Montessori program has a couple key differences than a public school or a traditional daycare facility—a Montessori school is intended to be very residential in character, the idea that the children are coming home during the day; the children change their shoes to inside slippers and traditional classroom settings are not used, it’s more of a carpet and beanbag feel; he further stated that when sites were being looked at it was important for it to be in a residential area so that the residential feel could be captured; the architecture of the building, the appearance of the site—its heavily landscaped with garden plots to get the children involved with as many outdoor activities as possible; that’s important to the program—with its residential feel and the added benefit of having the YMCA next door made this property ideal; he stated that the YMCA allows for some cross-programming opportunities that the Montessori school could not afford if it had to build its own gym and athletic facilities; Mr. Horrell stated that he and Ms. VanderHoeven have talked with Mark Johnson and the YMCA staff about utilizing the YMCA facility during the day when it is underutilized (i.e. swim lessons, use the gym, etc.); he stated that the advantage to the YMCA of the Montessori school’s use is that they would increase the YMCA’s numbers during slower times, and it would encourage the parents of the children to join the YMCA if their children are going there; he further stated that the wooded area parcel was identified as an additional piece of property to be kept wooded and utilize for outdoor programming; the trees would be preserved as much as possible with the understanding that some of the trees are aged, but the idea is to preserve the wooded area as a nature and exploring area for the children; he stated that they have tried to keep the residential character of the area in the design of the building—one-story brick structure with a gray metal hip roof to keep the roof line down and prevent blocking the view of the neighbors; and to address traffic, the traffic will be kept to Commerce Drive instead of being directed toward Lynchburg Turnpike; he stated that the goal is to educate the parents and direct them to utilize Commerce Drive toward Texas Street away from Lynchburg Turnpike; and WHEREAS, Brad Graham, 801 Carrollton Avenue, appeared 4 before the Council and stated that he has owned a residential home building business in Salem since 1987 and he worked out at the Salem YMCA today; he stated that he mentioned those facts because he feels that there is a nation-wide demand for residential housing to be located near facilities like the YMCA; he stated that he has reviewed the plan of the Elizabeth Campus and went for a long run; he stated that there are some walking trails and he would like to see the remainder of the walking trails developed on the property; he feels that Salem is about promoting families and healthy living and feels that is what Council and the former City Manager had in mind when they made the compromise with the neighbors; he stated that it is his understanding that the Montessori school plans to move to Roanoke County if their request is not approved; he assured Council that his business will not leave Salem regardless of Council’s decision; he stated that the following are reasons he opposes the Special Exception Permit for the Montessori school: he is not convinced that the request conforms to the City’s Comprehensive Plan for the property, the Montessori school is not a by-right use for the property; he feels that the Planning Commission and City Council have a strong obligation to look at other projects whose owners have made written offers that would have less of an adverse affect on surrounding neighbors, and the reason there is not a roomful of upset residents present at the meeting is because they have been worn down and are tired of fighting to get what they were promised by a previous Council and City Manager; he stated that he has spoken with several of the neighbors surrounding the property and they feel that the decision has already been made and he hopes that is not true; he stated that he has personally been very close to the entire Elizabeth Campus project for the past 10 years and it has dominated his family’s happy hour conversations for at least two years; he stated that through fights with neighbors, lawsuits, and eventual compromise in order to approve the current plan, his company has proposed a compromise that would allow the Montessori school to locate on the tract adjacent to the residential tract, which in his view is a win-win situation; however, no one seems to want to compromise and the citizens may be correct, this decision has already been made; he questioned what is wrong with homes being built on the residential tract and the Montessori being built on the commercial tract below, which would fulfill the commitment made to the residents by prior City officials; he stated that he was at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the Special Exception Permit request and the City Council meeting regarding the sale of the property, and feels that he was not given the same opportunity to have access to the City Attorney who has met with the Montessori school and is in the process of drafting a contract 5 to sell the property to the school; he feels that he has not been given the same consideration as the Montessori school; he stated that a traffic study was not presented at the Planning Commission meeting or the City Council meeting and feels that there is not enough parking for parents and visitors; he further stated that if approved, there would be a line of cars stretching to Texas Street as up to 150 students are dropped and picked up each day; any parent driving their children to school can attest to long car pool lines; he stated that if the request is approved, parking will have to be expanded; Mr. Graham stated that he submitted his proposal to purchase the property the morning of February 23, 2011, and have received no response and will provide a copy of the offer if needed; he stated that by his calculation, his proposal of 14 residential units with an average tax valuation of $250,000 per unit would bring in approximately $41,000 per year in real estate taxes for the City versus his calculation of 150 students at $5,000 per year roughly BPOL tax of $3,000 is far less of an income generator for the City; he asked Council to explain how the Montessori school is more advantageous to the City than his proposal; he stated that at the very least he feels the project demands further review and by the City Manager’s own admission, the process has been expedited as requested by a private entity which would not have been granted to a residential home builder; he stated that in closing, as a life-long resident of Salem if Council can prove that the Montessori school project is better for the City it has his full support; he thanked Council for its time and consideration; and WHEREAS, Councilman Jones asked Mr. Graham to repeat the numbers he talked about regarding the taxes and explain how he came up with those numbers; and WHEREAS, Mr. Graham stated that the first part of the numbers are factual; he stated that if he had not been at a dinner party the week before last he would not have known this was being proposed; he stated that right before the former City Manager retired, he scheduled a meeting with him to discuss the project and he informed Mr. Graham that he was on his way out and it needed to be the next city manager’s decision; he stated that he met with the current City Manager as soon as he took office and the City Manger stated that he was not up to speed on the project and he needed more time to study the project; he stated that, what was quickly put together, without a doubt 14 units which is based on a plan drawn up by the City that shows 12 units, but 14 units will fit within the same block of housing, would generate an average valuation of $250,000 each; he stated that based upon his experience of people who are 6 looking to move to a patio home, that price would sell and would be extremely popular; he stated that based upon his assumption with an average valuation of $250,000 with the units being sold from $260,000 or $270,000 to $310,000 or $320,000 that the City’s current real estate tax rate of $1.18 per $100 equals $41,000 per year; he stated that the BPOL tax was calculated based on a service if you take 150 students multiplied by $5,000 per student, which is an assumption, $3,000 per year was determined; he stated that he does not know what the Montessori School’s offer is and questioned if Council has seen his offer; and WHEREAS, Council stated that they have seen Mr. Graham’s offer; and WHEREAS, Mr. Graham stated that as a gesture to the City he would purchase the wooded parcel located across the street and would donate it to the Montessori school if they are willing to build on the commercial tract, which he feels is a better building site for the school based upon the grade of the property; he stated that the way the proposed site is graded, he would place the street in the middle with homes on a slab on the left and homes with basements on the right, which would be perfect for the site; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that it is her understanding that the property located below this parcel is zoned HBD Highway Business District, which makes it a more valuable piece of property and would be more expensive to acquire; and WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Economic Development stated that the parcel in question is zoned Highway Business District; and WHEREAS, Mr. Graham stated that doesn’t mean that the City wouldn’t negotiate; he stated that he feels that the entire Elizabeth Campus project has been about compromise; he stated Council is aware of the relationships he has with people who were involved with the project and a former Council member, who is currently trying to sell his house, told Mr. Graham that the project Mr. Graham is proposing would be the perfect project for he and his wife to move to, and Mr. Graham feels that means a lot; he again stated that the former City Manager stated that the plan for the residential parcel was for homes to be placed on the property; and 7 WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if there was a covenant on the property that states homes were to be built on the property; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that he is not aware of a covenant on the property; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if when the property was in question, there was not a covenant placed on it; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that there was not a covenant placed on the property that restricted it to only single family residences; and WHEREAS, Mr. Graham stated that single family residences are allowed within residential zoning; the commercial parcel was mentioned and the Montessori school could be built on the commercial parcel just as well as it could be built on the residential parcel with a special use permit; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley thanked Mr. Graham for his comments; and WHEREAS, Nora Smith, 1135 Lynchburg Turnpike, appeared before the Council and stated that she is also representing Lucy Coons; she stated that she and Ms. Coons own the residence located at 1135 Lynchburg Turnpike; she stated that rezoning to accommodate the construction of a Montessori school is the best thing that could happen to us; she understands the reasoning of some of the neighbors who area opposed to the project; however, she feels that if the property is not rezoned to accommodate the school, she will be either looking at modest patio homes or less than impressive businesses which will decrease the value of the surrounding properties; she stated that either option will produce more noise, lights, and traffic than the school would especially at night; she further stated that she supports the school being built because all of the available land will be purchased, she will be assured there will be no more construction on the property; the site will be landscaped and properly maintained which will add value to the surrounding properties; the school will have a campus environment which will blend in with what is already nearby (Roanoke College and the Salem YMCA) and is a very good fit; she stated that she appreciates the school’s plan that the grove of old oak trees will be preserved as they are; she stated that when she moved into her residence in 1956 the trees were huge then and she is certain that they are over 100 years old and possibly close to 200 years old; she stated that when the property was part of the Lutheran Children’s Home she knows that arrowheads were found in 8 the vicinity and feels Salem should recognize the historic property for what it is; she stated that the first manor house was named Sherwood and feels the property should properly be called the Sherwood Property; she further stated that having studied the Montessori concept of education in graduate school at Virginia Tech and having a granddaughter who has attended a Montessori school, she is impressed with the concept and the quality of education students receive at these schools; she feels the school will add prestige to the neighborhood and neighbors should be grateful that the school has chosen them to be neighbors; she then read a comment from Sarah L. Ahalt and Martha S. Ahalt who reside at 1123 Lynchburg Turnpike: “As owners and residents of the property at 1123 Lynchburg Turnpike, we are very interested in the potential sale of the land under consideration. The sale of the land for construction of a Montessori school is a good fit with the use of the land to the west of those parcels of land. The school will not create a substantial increase in traffic and noise during the day time. We consider the Montessori school to be a good fit. At night, it should create less traffic and less light and noise pollution than many alternate uses for which the land might be sold. We also see an advantage to having the matter settled in an acceptable way rather than as a source of continued controversy;” and WHEREAS, William Mullins, 1208 Lynchburg Turnpike, appeared before the Council and stated that the property is located next to his property and he was promised homes, not a school; he stated that he would like for homes to be built on the property, not a school; he also questioned what happened to his bid on an acre of the property in question; and WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that his bid for an acre of the parcel was forwarded to Council and Council is aware of his offer also, along with Mr. Graham’s offer; and WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins questioned if the land was going to be sold at this meeting and asked for clarification on the item before Council; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the item is regarding granting a Special Exception Permit to allow a school to be built on the property; and WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins questioned if the Special Exception Permit was approved and his bid was accepted, will the school still be built on the property; and 9 WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the Special Exception Permit is to grant them the ability to build the school; he stated that if the permit is approved, their offer is for the entire property; and WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins stated that he was told that he could bid on one acre of the property and it would be sold that way; and WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that Mr. Mullins was told that he could place a bid on the property, but not that the property would necessarily be subdivided; and WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins stated that if he had realized that he may have placed a bid for the entire parcel he would have done so; he stated that when the City promises something and then doesn’t keep its promise, what can residents expect; he further stated that homes would not only generate real estate tax revenue, but would also generate personal property taxes on vehicles also; he thanked Council for its time; and WHEREAS, Jamie Sachs, 825 Virginia Avenue, appeared before the Council and stated that he came to the meeting to discuss chickens, but he is concerned about this issue; he stated that as a resident of the neighborhood, he would prefer to see a Montessori school than 14 new houses down the hill; he stated that he feels that there has already been too much development in that area; he stated that he is also the great-great-great nephew of Andrew Lewis so he feels that he has a bias related to this item, but he would prefer to see the Montessori school than 14 people with vehicles, etc.; he stated that he feels the Montessori school would be better stewards of the land and better members of the community; and WHEREAS, Doug Hale, 1155 Lynchburg Turnpike, appeared before the Council and stated that he originally intended to not attend the meeting because he felt like the entire process has been on a fast track with blinders on to anything else that was coming from the sides; he stated that he lives in the acreage that will be somewhat directly across the street from the proposed development; he stated that he has been looking at the dirt pile across the street for five years and has been patiently waiting for its removal; he stated that portions of the dirt pile have gradually been removed, but there is still a large pile of dirt located on the parcel that would have to be leveled or removed, etc.; he does not oppose the Montessori school, but opposes the school being built across the street from his residence; it is a residential neighborhood; therefore, 10 he would like to see homes built on the property; he referenced the patio homes that were built on Maple Street and feels that they are nice homes; he stated that as many people begin to “season out” who have homes to maintain may not be able to care for their homes in the future and would prefer to live in a patio style home; he stated that his greatest concern regarding the proposal is that it was fast tracked and was something else he didn’t know about; he asked Council to look at the whole picture and consider the best interests of the City—financial gains, good contributions to the property, etc.; he further stated that there are many things he has recognized over the past 11 years and feels there are several mechanical things that have yet to be resolved that go beyond a vote at this meeting; he again asked Council for its consideration and thanked Council for its time; and WHEREAS, Joe Thomas, Jr., owner of Thomas Ltd. located at 494 Glenmore Drive, appeared before the Council and stated that he has been before Council many times on behalf of most things; he stated that through a lot of years serving on the Board at the YMCA, and also through performing a lot of the site work on the Elizabeth Campus, he feels that he almost knows the property as well as his own property; Mr. Thomas apologized to Mr. Hale for piling a lot of the dirt up across from his property and thanked him for his comments regarding the townhouses on Maple Street; he stated that he supported the City’s conceptual plan for the Elizabeth Campus when it was approved years ago, and addressed many issues and concerns and proved to be a nice blend of proposed business and residential that was all connected by walking trails and green space; he stated that he does not understand why the City is abandoning the proposed residential in favor of a private school; he stated that his company, and noted that he and Brad Graham are partners, submitted a proposal that would allow Council to follow through with its promises to the citizens of Salem at least in regard to the residential use; he stated that the walking trails have not been developed and the additional job producing businesses that were a part of the original concept have not been fulfilled, but feels the City is doing everything it can to make sure those promises will come to fruition as well; he stated that his various companies have been located in the City of Salem since the early 1960s and in the last 10 years, over $70 million worth of revenue has been generated out of his operation on Glenmore Drive; he further stated that many of his subcontractors and suppliers are also located in the City of Salem so the economic impact to the City of Salem is somewhat far-reaching; he stated that a residential development proposal was submitted to the City that offers the City significantly more money than what he understands has been 11 offered for the previously proposed residential parcel; he stated that his proposed development is in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, doesn’t require rezoning or a special use permit, and will generate over $2.8 million in potential work for local subcontractors and suppliers; the proposal fulfills a need related to affordable housing for empty nesters and active adults; it is a convenient location to area businesses, shopping, and restaurants; he stated that between Carter Machinery, GE, Atlantic Mutual, One Beacon, and Virginia Orthopaedic alone there are at least 2,000 jobs whereby employees at those companies could walk to work from the location if they desired; he further stated that details to the offer were submitted on February 23, 2011, and they have yet to receive a response; he stated that the potential economic impact his proposal would generate has been calculated and asked Council to address how the private school would in fact be more fiscally beneficial to the City of Salem than his proposal; he stated that the citizens deserve to know those numbers before any proposal is accepted; he stated that in closing, he believes that his proposal addresses a direct need in the City, it provides a significant economic impact, both immediate and long- term, and it allows the current Council to fulfill its promise to the residents that the parcel would be use for its intended residential purpose; he stated that all anyone wants is what is best for the City; he further stated that after considering both proposals with equal diligence, if Council feels the construction of a private school on the property is the best use for the property and maximizes the fiscal impact of the residents of the City, then Council has no alternative but to accept the proposal and move forward; otherwise, he feels his proposal should be accepted; he thanked Council for its consideration; and WHEREAS, Dr. Michelle Hartman, Roanoke, appeared before the Council and stated that she is a pediatric nurse practitioner on the faculty at Jefferson College of Health Sciences, and most importantly a mom of two children who have attended Salem Montessori School for the last seven years; she stated that as a pediatric nurse practitioner, she is well trained in pediatric growth and development principles; she stated that Salem Montessori School is an optimal environment to allow children to master the critical task of development such as autonomy, independence, and being industrious; she stated that she brings her nursing students to observe this excellent environment which highlights what children can and should be able to do; she encouraged Council to take time to observe the school also; she stated that along with the exceptional instruction in math, 12 reading, science, and other subjects, as a Montessori mom she values the many life lessons her children have and are learning at Salem Montessori School; her children and other children are learning how to problem solve, be stewards of their environment, be community servants, and learn how to resolve conflicts peacefully; she urged Council to approve the Special Exception Permit to allow the Montessori school so that more children and their families may benefit from the enriched environment at Salem Montessori School; she stated that she picks up and drops off her children twice a day at different times during the day, and she has never had to wait on the Boulevard; she stated that the families stagger their drop-off and pick-up times so that has never been an issue; she thanked Council for its consideration; and WHEREAS, Merna Helsty, a Southwest Roanoke County resident and parent of a Montessori school student, appeared before the Council and stated that she drops off her child at 8 a.m., which is the busiest time of the day, and she has never been delayed for more than five minutes; she stated that the parking flow is very easy; she stated that she lives on Keagy and Sugarloaf Drive, which is across from the Allstate building, and there has been a large parcel that has been depleted of trees and everything that’s called nature to build homes; she stated that the original plan was for 50 homes, but there have only been two homes that people have purchased; she questioned how in the current soft economy and housing market, how it is expected for a $250,000 plus home to be sold, especially 14 of them; she questioned if there truly is a market for the homes right now; she stated that based on what she has seen where she lives is that homes have been sitting and nothing is being built; she further stated that the site near her residence is one of the saddest sights because where the land was full of trees and nature, now there is nothing; she stated that she has been very happy with the Montessori school and feels that many of the residents of Salem realize the value that the school would bring to the community, especially with preservation of nature being of first importance to the school; and WHEREAS, Walt Gordon, 100 Kimball Avenue, appeared before the Council and questioned how the sale of City property is advertised; he stated that according to the newspaper, the school made an offer for the property back in December 2010; he again questioned how it was advertised that the property was for sale; and WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that a public hearing is held prior to the sale of piece of property; therefore, if 13 someone makes an offer on a parcel owned by the City, City Council then would hold a public hearing whether or not to sale the property and enter into a contract under the terms of that offer or ask for a different offer, or deny the offer outright; he stated that is the process the City goes through to sell a piece of City-owned property; he stated that the City has property that it markets for economic development reasons and those pieces of property are typically not listed either and often “sit” and wait for an offer to come in; he stated that if the City had a piece of property it wanted to sell, it could advertise and accept bids also; and WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon stated that the City Manager said “could” accept bids and questioned if the city has to accept bids; and WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the City does not have to accept bids on property it wants to sell; he further stated that there are a number of ways for the City to sell property, but they must be accompanied by a public hearing at some point; and WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon asked whether the school is a private school and questioned if the school is a proprietary school, a school for profit; and WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the school is a business; and WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon reiterated that the school is a taxable business; and WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the school is a taxable business; and WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon noted that a business is going to be placed in a residential area without the property being rezoned; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that any use can be placed on the property that is allowed in the ordinance; he stated that the ordinance allows, with a Special Exception Permit, a school use; he further stated that whether the school is making a profit or not is not relevant, the use is what is relevant; and WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon reiterated that the school is a business; and 14 WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that the school is a business, just like other uses that are allowed by special exception in residential zoning (i.e. stables, etc.); he again stated that it is the use that is the issue, not necessarily whether someone makes a profit or not; and WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon thanked Council for its time; and WHEREAS, Inez Good, 1203 Lynchburg Turnpike, appeared before the Council and stated that she lives directly across from the property in question and has lived there for 50 years; she stated that she feels that the school would be a good fit for the area; she would rather have the school with some open area and landscaping than homes; she stated that she does not feel the homes would sell very well due to the noise and lights, etc. from the ballpark and the civic center; she feels it would be beneficial for the school to be built on the property; she stated that the neighborhood is no longer a quiet residential neighborhood as it was 50 years ago; and WHEREAS, Bob Hunt, 709 Maryland Avenue, appeared before the Council to address the environmental aspects of the plans; he stated that he does not plan to address the 3.8 acres where the school, homes, or other use might be placed, but would like to address the 1.8 acres of wooded area; he stated that he was very active in the Elizabeth Campus plans in what was planned on the campus and what has been developed on the site; he stated that there were pros and cons at every step and the only thing that was not controversial at any point was the wooded area; he stated that Harry Haskins started calling the parcel an ancient grove of trees, which is what it is referred to in social discussions; he further stated that everyone feels that the parcel of trees should be preserved and hopes to continue to see that the trees are preserved and enhanced; he stated that the trees are beautiful even though they have deteriorated some in the last few years; he stated that it is a beautiful grove of trees that adds a lot to the area; he questioned if the wooded area could be segregated from the other acreage so that the City could concentrate more on the use of the 3.9 acres and then concentrate separately on the wooded area; he stated that the City currently owns the wooded area and feels that the City would be a better owner of the wooded area than the Montessori school or a homeowners’ association; he stated that he feels the City could better care for the trees; he further stated that the pond that forms on the property from time to time also needs to be preserved; he stated that wetland areas such as the pond that forms on the property have special protection under the EPA; he 15 stated that whoever the property is sold to, if the wooded area is included with the other acreage to be developed, he feels that special terms need to be in the contract as to how the wooded area would be handled and preserved for the future; he again stated that he feels it would be better if the City maintained ownership of the wooded parcel and let the Montessori school use the area for activities; he again stated that he would rather the City maintain ownership of the wooded area than have a private entity own the parcel; and WHEREAS, Stella Reinhard, 213 North Broad Street, appeared before the Council and stated that from what she has heard so far at the meeting, there is cause to slow down the process a bit; she stated that fast tracking has been mentioned and several projects have been proposed for the property in question; she feels that more thinking and discussion time needs to be taken; she stated that she was also a part of the process a few years ago that was looking at the land known as the last part of a land grant to Andrew Lewis; she stated that she saw the development of the mixed use design of the property and one of the main arguments used by the City as to why the property would be developed in the first place was because the City of Salem needed revenue; she questioned if the revenue being brought into the City would be sufficient to justify the development of another chunk of Elizabeth Campus; she stated that several parcels have been developed, but there is still some open land that has been undeveloped; she stated that she is not against the Montessori school, but a school does not bring in much tax revenue; she also knows that a school located next to the YMCA will benefit from the YMCA, but she also questioned if the school would want two campuses separate from each other in the long-term; she stated that Elizabeth Campus has one of the best views in Salem, and feels that it is an ideal space for the use of the undeveloped land to be used for the running trails that were a part of the campus design; she stated that there are at least two separate wetland areas on the site, as well as the grove of trees; she stated that she feels that it would be better for the City to retain ownership of the grove of trees and begin to think about giving the citizens what they were promised several years ago—the running trails, maybe the use of the grove of trees, and the wetlands to possibly be used as part of a linear park that could be a benefit to the YMCA, Roanoke College students, and the neighbors near the property; she further stated that the citizens were promised running trails and as Council chooses what to do with the last pieces of property located on the Elizabeth Campus, she hopes Council considers that the City would be a better steward of the grove of trees, the wetlands, and the potential for the linear park 16 that was promised before; she asked Council to also consider the tax revenues; she stated that she would not like to see the last piece of Andrew Lewis’ land to go for no good enough reason; she further stated that if revenue is needed for the City, then Council needs to consider the best way to obtain the revenue; she thanked Council for its consideration; and WHEREAS, Barney Horrell reappeared before the Council; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst asked Mr. Horrell to show Council what he has been showing the audience present at the meeting; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell showed Council a rendering of what the school would look like—all brick construction, single story building with a hip roof to help preserve the views of the neighbors; he stated that with the grade of the parcel they will be able to bench the site so that the building will be placed as low as possible on the property and will be on a slab; he stated that they are trying to do everything possible to keep from blocking the view from across the street; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst asked Mr. Horrell to state what construction materials will be used; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that in order to stay residential in appearance and character, the building will have a 100 percent brick exterior, will be a single story building, the brick will be a red color consistent with the other buildings in the area, will have white trim, the building will have a gray/ slate in color metal roof, a couple of dormers will be on the building itself to help further create a residential character to the building and also to bring in as much natural light as possible; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned the total height of the building; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the plans are not final yet pending the outcome of the request, but the building is between 22 and 23 feet in height at its peak; and WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens questioned if the roof would be tin; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the roof would be like a standing, seemed metal roof and not a corrugated metal roof; he stated that the metal will be a coated metal roof; and 17 WHEREAS, Councilman Jones asked Mr. Horrell the projected cost to construct the building; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the estimate is a little over $1 million; he showed the conceptual drawing of the proposed building; he stated that the building was purposefully placed away from Mr. Mullins’ property and away from Lynchburg Turnpike in an effort to preserve the existing trees and landscaping along Lynchburg Turnpike; he again stated that the traffic would be directed to Texas Street from Commerce Drive, and stated that the whole focus of the building is to take advantage of the view of the surrounding area; he discussed the parcels the Montessori school wants to purchase and reiterated that the existing landscaping will be preserved; he displayed various photos taken from different driveways near the property that show the height of the proposed building and how little it will block the neighbors’ view of the area; he addressed the concern he heard regarding revenue that would be brought into the City from the school versus homes being built on the site; he stated that more than just tax revenue needs to be considered in as a financial benefit to the community; he stated that as a community Salem needs to have points to sell the City on, and Salem has plenty of great things to point to, but another facility for early childhood development and care, and early education is a great draw to the community; he stated that the school would benefit the community as another selling point—at least 15 new jobs will be created; he pointed out that the property is not being rezoned, a Special Exception Permit is being requested and if for some reason the school would close, the property could not be used for anything else other than a private school; Mr. Horrell also addressed the concerns that the property needs to stay residential in use; he stated that the Montessori school is a perfect transition use in his mind of going from homes to the future commercial use to the south of the parcel, and in keeping with a campus feel going across Lynchburg Turnpike; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that the construction schedule is very aggressive and questioned how the building could be completed in such a short period of time; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that there is an alternative site available that they would prefer not to go to, but they have gone ahead and started designing the building itself; a local architect is currently working on building plans and they are close to having a final set to send out to begin the bidding process; he stated that this process has not been fast tracked 18 in any way other than their aggressiveness in pushing our contractors; the City process has been followed and will continue to be followed; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the building could be built on another piece of property, and questioned if that is why he is confident in moving forward with the project; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that is why the design of the building was ordered; he stated that the building will be built either in Salem or on the alternative property; he stated that the preferred site is here in Salem; he stated that the goal is to start construction in April and have been assured by several contractors they have met with that it is a doable schedule because of the style of construction, nearby utilities, etc.; he stated that it is not a complicated construction and they have been reassured that the project can be completed on the timeframe they have requested; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if any type of LEED or energy efficiency programs would be implemented; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they are not seeking LEED certification due mostly to a cost issue for the certification itself; however, there are many design elements being placed into the school such as a lot of natural light, lighting fixtures and water fixtures; he stated that there will be a lot of things incorporated but they are not seeking actual certification; he further stated that part of the Montessori theme ties into environmental education and making a building that is environmentally efficient is part of their goal; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned the intended use of the 1.8 acres of wooded area to be used as a nature area; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they view the wooded area the same way as the citizens do; there is a beautiful grove of trees there that we want to preserve as long as possible, and at the same time add to it with some plantings of new trees on the parcel; he stated that the intent is to create a couple of mulch paths on the parcel and use it as an outdoor exploring area for the children; the 3.9 acre lot the building is proposed to be built on does not have a grove of trees and they would like for the children to explore the grove of trees to find lizards, butterflies, etc.; he stated that his children attend the Montessori school and came home and could identify six birds; he further stated that in the future they would like to lay down a couple of logs and use it as a log amphitheatre; he discussed various programs offered at the school; and 19 WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst asked the City Attorney what type of concessions the Montessori school could offer to ensure the 1.8 acre parcel would stay a wooded area; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that there could be a condition that there would be no development on the site; he stated that he would need to research it further; he stated that as far as maintaining the wooded area, it would be subject to the disease of trees, etc.; he stated that there could be reasons why it couldn’t be maintained; he stated that he believes that a condition could be placed on that parcel that it could not be developed in any way, shape, or form unless it was brought back before Council with the appropriate advertisement and public hearings, etc.; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if the City could place a right of first refusal if the property were to be sold; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that could be done and has been done consistently; he stated that the process has been done consistently by every City Council since he has been City Attorney, which is almost 30 years; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that the lower parcel was recently repurchased by the City; he stated that if the developer had developed the property the way he had hoped to develop it, there would now be an existing building of some size on the parcel, but he was unable to construct the building; therefore, the City exercised its option to repurchase the property; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney noted that the City repurchased the property for the original purchase price the developer paid; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that if the property is ever sold, it would still be zoned residential with the only special exception allowed being a school facility; he stated that a McDonald’s could not be placed on the property if it were sold; he further stated that the Montessori school does not have any intention of selling the property; and WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens questioned if the Montessori school would be willing to proffer a condition that on the lower side near Mr. Mullins’ property to plant a close growing row of trees that would act as both a visual and a sound barrier and 20 possibly some lower growing trees or shrubs along Lynchburg Turnpike, not to block the view of the neighbors across the street, but to also act as a barrier; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they are very willing to make that proffer; he stated that the intent is to fully landscape the part of the parcel located next to Mr. Mullins’ property; he stated that they have met with Mr. Mullins and all of the neighbors and landscaping has been discussed; he stated that along Lynchburg Turnpike, the school has a vested interested in screening that side of the property because any traffic noise that can be absorbed by trees, etc. also benefits the school; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned the type of exterior lighting to be used on the development (height, brightness, etc.); and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the hours of operation are from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. five days a week; he stated that the last teacher goes home at 6 p.m. and at that point there is no need for lighting other than just security lighting right around the building itself; he stated that the rendering shows a covered entryway on the south side of the building facing the stadium, which would be the entryway for all students being dropped off and picked up; he stated that some lighting may be placed underneath the covered entryway that would shine down, but would not shine out; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if there would be any dusk to dawn lighting in the parking lot; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they would prefer not to have dusk to dawn lighting if possible and would like as much natural exchange as possible; he stated that they do not want a consistent lighting throughout the day, they want a connection to what is outside; and WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins reappeared before the Council and questioned where the air conditioning units will be placed; he described a situation where a church placed air conditioning units facing residential property; he also questioned if the units would be shielded from Lynchburg Turnpike; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the designs are still at the conceptual level and he does not know exactly where the units will be placed, but he assured Mr. Mullins and the other residents that wherever the units are placed on the exterior of the building, they will be screened in an enclosure and 21 landscaping will be placed around the units in an effort to reduce the noise from the units as much as possible; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that Mr. Mullins’ concern is a legitimate concern because when Roanoke College was doing some construction, the Broad Street neighbors had an issue with the noise from the chillers; therefore, the plantings were not as mature as they needed to be in order to accommodate the noise; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that because of their hours of operation and because they are trying to be as green as possible, the thermostats will be adjusted so that the units will not run as much as night; he stated that the entire site will get much quieter at night, as opposed to a residential facility which gets louder at night; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned the type of fencing that would surround the parcel; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the existing facility has solid cedar fencing that is six feet high, and a similar type fencing would be used on the proposed property; he stated that it has not been determined exactly where the fencing will be placed on the property; he further stated that they do not want the fencing to be an impediment to the neighbors across the street and is more effective closer to the building; he stated that they are not going to fence the entire property, they are going to create little play areas outside of each classroom that would utilize an outdoor classroom space when the weather permits; he stated that fencing would be closer to the building and likely cedar in nature; he stated that there would not be chain link fencing on the property; and WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned the maximum number of children who could attend the school; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that between 120 and 150 students is the maximum number of students; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley asked how many students are currently enrolled in the school; and WHEREAS, Ms. VanderHoeven stated that 110 students are currently enrolled in the school; and WHEREAS, Doug Hale reappeared before the Council and stated that he does have some trees and the floodlights, etc. light up 22 his house at night but it has never bothered him; he stated that real estate sells well in Salem as most people know; therefore, he does not feel that would be an issue if homes were built on the property; he questioned if the utilities (electric, water, and sewer) for the proposed building would come from Lynchburg Turnpike; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that they are still in the conceptual design phases of the project, but there is sanitary sewer along Lynchburg Turnpike; he stated that it appears that the depth needed to service the school is not available in order to have the water and sewer lines from Lynchburg Turnpike; he stated that there is also sanitary sewer along Texas Street and they are looking to extend a main down to Texas Street which would benefit the commercial lot below the parcel; he further stated that water would probably come from Lynchburg Turnpike, and he assumes that the electric will come from the Turnpike also; and WHEREAS, Mr. Hale stated that all of that is located on the opposite side of the street; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if the electric could be buried; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that yes the electric could be buried; and WHEREAS, Mr. Hale stated that the street has been called Commerce Drive, but the street sign says Corporate Lane; he clarified that it was the same street that is being discussed; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley noted that the street sign needs to be looked at; and WHEREAS, Joe Thomas, Jr., reappeared before the Council and stated that Mrs. Reinhard makes a point and he doesn’t know why they have to move so fast on this, and maybe they aren’t; maybe part of the process is getting the zoning and then slowing everything down; he stated that there is a good reason for placing the school in the City of Salem because if you need to get something built fast, Salem is the best place to do it because the City has the best people to deal with; he further stated that even with the good people in Salem, to get site plans in and approved, it is a tough schedule; he stated that he has been doing this a long time and it’s tough; he requested that the school at least gets a response from its proposal and 23 hopefully make a presentation to Council, the City Manager, or Engineering so that they can have a better feel for what the school plans to do; he stated that as of yet a decision has not been made on whether the school can move forward or not; he stated that even though design plans for the building are moving forward he does not feel that things need to be pushed that quickly so that Council can take time to make an educated decision and have some of the questions answered that have been brought forth at the meeting; and WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned if the City Manager or the Director of Planning and Economic Development have any reservations about what the school has proposed; and WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that he is not aware of any reservations; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned why a traffic study was not conducted; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that most roadways are 30 feet curb to curb and usually the vertical and horizontal curves are built to VDOT standards; he stated that in most situations those type streets can handle upwards of 10,000 ADT (average daily traffic); unless there is a situation where there is an extreme amount of traffic, a traffic study is not needed unless there is a specific reason; he stated that there is not a need in the area of the proposed development; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that in other areas where development has been discussed, that has been an issue; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that the traffic on Commerce, in and of itself, there is no traffic on Commerce besides the YMCA traffic and that is the only draw; he stated that he has not looked at it specifically but there is no concern in Engineering regarding traffic on Commerce or off Lynchburg Turnpike; and WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned if staff had any additional comments; and WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that staff is available to answer any questions; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if the Special Exception Permit was approved and the school was built and later sold, the building could only be used as a school or would the property need to be rezoned; and 24 WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that the Special Exception Permit would allow a school, but the property could also be used for a single family dwelling, or anything that is allowed in the zoning ordinance for the Residential Single Family District zoning classification; he stated that the mere fact that there is a permit to build a school on the property does not preclude someone making another use of it; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if a government building could go on the property; and 25 WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that he did not think a government building is allowed in RSF zoning; he stated that RSF zoning allows parks, golf courses, stables and other things allowed according to the code; and WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding possible uses of the property if the school was built and then later sold and what the current zoning ordinance would allow, etc.; and WHEREAS, the City Manager noted that in the current RSF classification, there are very few other uses the property could be other than a school; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley asked Mr. Graham and Mr. Thomas what would the approximate height of a patio home similar to the ones built on Maple Street be; and WHEREAS, Brad Graham stated that the height would be approximately 20 feet in height; he stated that he lives on Carrollton Avenue in The Hill subdivision and there is a constant stream of noise from the interstate; he stated that he goes running at the YMCA and there is no noise; he stated that he has been developing projects in Salem for 20 years and Salem has been very diligent about knowing exactly what is going to be on a property and what is allowed before it is approved by the City; he stated that the building should be designed and submitted before a special use is approved, otherwise the City will lose control if the project continues to go through at the current pace; he stated that it is unrealistic to think the school will be able to open by its projected opening date; he stated that there is extensive cut and fill work that has to be done on the site and rain can cause a two or three day delay; he stated that he doesn’t feel that there is anyway the school can open by its projected September 1 opening date; he further stated that if that is why the project has to be approved so quickly, it is another reason to slow down; he stated that the school may have to open in January but it would give the City a chance to step back and get the project done correctly; and WHEREAS, Nora Smith reappeared before the Council to address the issue about there not being any noise at the YMCA; she invited him to come to her house on a Friday night when there is a football game going on, or when the Horse Show, or the Salem Fair is in town; she stated that the noise sounds louder than if you were on the premises; she stated that people are not going to pay a whole lot of money for expensive housing to live in that kind of situation with the noise and lights, and feels that it is not a suitable site for homes; and 26 WHEREAS, Bob Hunt reappeared before the Council and questioned if there was any distinction in Salem between a park and property like the ancient grove of trees that the City owns; he questioned if calling City-owned property a park was more significant than not; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that he does not think there is a difference; and WHEREAS, Lisa Reynolds, 1458 Deacon Street, appeared before Council and stated that she has a school in her neighborhood; she stated that she understands the logistics that must be considered from a fiscal or business standpoint, but she stated that the children also need to be remembered; she stated that all of her children have grown up in Salem—one graduated from Salem High School and has two children who currently attend Salem High School; she further stated that all three of her children also attended Salem Montessori School; she stated that her oldest son, who is now 20, attended the school when there were only 25 students; she stated that Ms. VanderHoeven did not plan to get any larger, but students kept coming and coming because of the programs offered at the school; she stated that her children learned how to be productive citizens, were taught conflict resolution, and other life lessons; she further stated that if children could learn these things when they are small, they take it with them and continue to practice what they have learned; her children still say they miss Salem Montessori School; she stated that her oldest son couldn’t wait to get out of Salem went to school in Connecticut, and is back telling his friends that they don’t know how good they have it in Salem and that he can’t wait to get back; she stated that Salem is a great city and asked Council to consider the children as a part of everything else to be considered; and WHEREAS, Councilman Jones stated that it’s been mentioned about fast tracking the request; he stated that issues regarding Elizabeth Campus have been on-going for 10 years; he further stated that he has been on Council for two years and eight months, and this is the first time to his knowledge that anyone has come to the City wanting to purchase the parcel in question; he stated that he feels that when someone comes to the City wanting to purchase city-owned property, especially during the current economic times, Council needs to listen to what they have to say and what they have to present; he stated that he feels that the Montessori school has been honest and upfront on where it stood, where it was going, and time tables; he stated 27 that he does not feel that this process has gone through fast; he further stated that Council has listened to both sides and no one has spoken against the school and most schools are located in a residential area; he stated that Salem’s motto is kids first; he stated that previous Councils promised different things and he was not involved in what was previously promised; he stated that times are different now; he again stated that this is the first time since he has been on Council that the City has been approached about selling this parcel; and WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins reappeared before the Council and stated that that the former City Manager told him personally that he would talk to the residents before anything was developed on the land; he stated that he was told that if homes were placed on the property, it would be discussed how the residents wanted the homes placed on the property, etc. and that the residents would be notified before anything was done on the property; he stated that he didn’t receive any notification until people from the Montessori school walked up and knocked on his door; and WHEREAS, Councilman Jones stated that he was not told that the former City Manager had told the residents they would be notified; and WHEREAS, Mr. Mullins stated that he realizes that, but he figured the current City Manager was told because he called the former City Manager at home and asked him what was going on; he stated that the former City Manager told him that he did not know what was going on, and told him that he promised Mr. Mullins that homes would be built on the property and that Mr. Mullins would be notified before anything was done on the property; he again stated that he was not notified prior to people from the Montessori school knocking on his door; he stated that he feels that it should also be considered that the City did not notify the neighbors that anything was being proposed for the property; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if the City was accepting any less than what is required by standard operating procedures or City Code; is the City allowing anything that it would not normally allow; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that a site plan has not been received or anything of that sort; he stated that the site plan review process has not even begun; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if the process should have 28 already begun; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that the site plan review process normally begins after someone who owns a property submits a proposal to develop the property, once the owner has all the details; he stated that the City does not have the details for a site plan review; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if anything in this request is happening faster than it has in any other situation regarding the sale of City-owned property; he questioned if the City is requiring less from the petitioners than it has from anyone else; and WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the sale of City owned property goes through the process that is required by State Code; he stated that what has happened in this case that is not always done, and someone who has been with the City longer than he has would know if the City has done this before, is that the Special Exception Permit request is being done concurrently with the sale of the property; he stated that it is not unusual outside of Salem for the process to be done that way, but he does not know in the City of Salem if it’s been done before; he stated that in a more typical transaction, the contract with the contract purchaser is done contingent upon a Special Exception Permit being approved; he stated that in this case the contract and the Special Exception Permit request are being considered at the same time; he further stated that the same notice and public hearing requirements are being followed as if they are being done separately rather than concurrently; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned in a normal sale of property would one bidder know the proposal offered by another bidder; and WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that as Council is aware, an offer to purchase another parcel on the Elizabeth Campus property was presented to Council recently for Council to decide if the offer would be considered; he stated that Council decided not to consider the offer; he stated that the offer is generally kept confidential until such point that it is required to be made public by state code; he stated that the City is allowed to keep the terms of the sale of certain property confidential up to a certain point; he stated that in this case, the Montessori School’s offer was made public very early on in the process and has been public knowledge from the beginning; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if there were any 29 proffers being offered and asked the City Attorney if she could ask that question; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that proffers concerning a rezoning request are different than conditions being placed on a Special Exception Permit request; he stated that the City’s ordinance and the state code states that in approving any special exception or a use not provided for, Council may require and attach any conditions necessary to ensure the proposal is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and community, etc.; he stated that conceivably if Council were inclined to approve the special exception request, Council could make the request subject to everything that has been presented at the meeting; including the statement that the HVAC units would be screened, the fencing would be cedar or cedar-like, etc.; he stated that Council would not need to specify the conditions because they are all part of the record and Council could make all of those conditions part of the special exception approval; he further stated that not only would the conditions be special conditions to the Special Exception Permit, but the conditions would be incorporated into the deed on the property, as has been the practice, and if the conditions are not met then Council could exercise its option to repurchase the property; and WHEREAS, Doug Hale reappeared before Council and questioned what happens to the other individuals who are interested in the property; he questioned if the other individuals will still have a viable option to purchase the property; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that if the Special Exception Permit is approved and the contract is executed, then a contractual agreement has been made; and WHEREAS, Mr. Hale questioned if it will just be implied that the other individuals’ offers were not accepted; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that if Council has three offers and only accepts one of the offers, then it means that Council has denied the other two offers; and WHEREAS, Mr. Hale clarified that it is implied since the individuals were not verbally told; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney stated that he feels it is explicit that the other offers were denied if Council accepts one offer; and WHEREAS, Mr. Hale stated that he feels that Council should 30 have let the other individuals who submitted offers know that their offers were not accepted; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned the procedure when there are multiple bidders on a piece of property; and WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that there are currently three offers on the parcel or a portion of the parcel; he stated that the City has not entered into a contract at this point; therefore, all three offers are still on the table; he stated that the City would not generally provide a letter stating that the contract was rejected unless Council said that it wasn’t going to consider the offer, or the City had accepted another contract on the property; he stated that if Council decides to approve the Special Exception Permit, then it is implied that the sale of the property to the Montessori school would move forward; he stated that if Council decides not to approve the Special Exception Permit, there are two other viable offers because he is certain that the Montessori school will withdraw its offer to purchase the parcel; he noted that Council then would have to decide whether to accept one of the other offers, not accept any of the other offers, continue to “sit” on the property while the adjoining property develops, or any other alternative; and WHEREAS, Mr. Hale stated that it is a gray area and he appreciates the consideration given to help him understand the process; he stated that he now understands that the Special Exception Permit is the issue and not whether to sell the property to the highest bidder; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that is correct; and WHEREAS, Barney Horrell reappeared before the Council and stated that the Montessori school is very comfortable with voluntarily proffering the landscaping that was discussed, screening the HVAC units outside, that the building will be a single-story brick building with a gray, metal hip roof, traffic will be directed onto Commerce Drive, and the character of the building will be very similar as to what was presented at the meeting; and WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned if the 1.8 acre parcel will remain all trees; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the parcel is not all trees, but the trees that are on the parcel will remain and the school will maintain them; he stated that he needs to make a 31 minor correction for the record; he stated that he said the fencing would be a solid, cedar fencing but Ms. VanderHoeven pointed out a black wrought iron type higher fencing that will allow some visibility might be erected in the play areas as an alternative to cedar; he stated that there may be some cedar fencing, but the wrought iron type fencing is more desirable; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if the school would agree to granting the City first right of refusal on the two parcels in question; and WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the City would have right of first refusal on both parcels if the parcels are not developed; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that he would like for the City to have right of first refusal on the 1.8 acre parcel even if the 3.9 acre parcel was developed; and WHEREAS, Mr. Horrell stated that the 1.8 acre parcel would not be developed; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned the review time once a site plan is submitted; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that the City has 45 days to review the site plan, but staff tries to get it done as fast as they can; and WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Economic Development stated that it takes approximately two weeks for a site plan to be reviewed; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if that was standard procedure; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Economic Development stated that two weeks are standard for Salem; the City Engineer stated that if it is a complicated site plan, it can take longer but he does not consider the Montessori school proposal to be a complicated plan based on what has been presented at the meeting; and WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens questioned if the existing detention pond is sufficient for the development of the parcel, or if another storm water management system would need to be placed on the parcel; and 32 WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that the existing detention pond was built to serve approximately 52 acres of the Elizabeth Campus, and when it was designed, it was designed for an ultimate build-out which meant it was assumed that there would be a lot of paving, a lot of impervious surfaces; he stated that the pond was designed to handle a 25-10 and a 10-2, which exceeded state standards at that point in time; and WHEREAS, Bob Hunt reappeared before the Council and stated that he hopes that the use of the 1.8 acre parcel would still be available for all residents to enjoy and not for the exclusive use of the school; he stated that he feels there is no reason to sell that parcel to the school because the parcel is ok with the City owning the parcel; he stated that the City does not have to sell the parcel to the school, it can allow the school to use it; he stated that he feels that the City could be taking on a problem by selling the parcel to the school; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that he is now aware that the City currently maintains the 1.8 acre parcel; he stated that the City does own the property; and WHEREAS, Mr. Hunt stated that the property does need some maintenance; he stated that he feels it would be a low liability for the City to allow the school to use the property; he asked Council to consider that the 1.8 acre parcel does not need to be sold to the school, if the school is allowed to be built on the 3.9 acre parcel; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that the school intends to make the 1.8 acre parcel a nature trail; and WHEREAS, Mr. Hunt stated that the City should allow the school to build the trail without actually owning the property; he stated that he wants to see the maximum preservation and use by the citizens of Salem of the parcel so that it’s not determined to be private property; and WHEREAS, Barney Horrell reappeared before the Council and stated that the school has liability reasons for not making the 1.8 acre parcel open to the general public even after school hours; he stated that the school will invite people other than its students to attend the cross programming opportunities at the site; he stated that the parcel will be used by more than just the Montessori students, but it will be at the school’s invitation only; therefore the school will control the liability of it; and 33 WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned how the proposed walking trails on the Elizabeth Campus cross in relation to the 1.8 acre parcel; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that there is a section of an easement the City has on the border of the YMCA property on the north side, but it would not be directly adjacent to it; he stated that the City still owns the property and a trail can connect down to the parcel up to the point of purchase; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned when the trail was discussed and conceptualized, were easements put in place around the properties to be sold; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that currently is being worked on to have easements in place for the City to put in trails; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if the sale of the 1.8 acre parcel would prohibit the development of the proposed trails; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that if the 1.8 acre parcel was sold, it would not affect the layout of the proposed walking trails; and WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to the request; ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMAN JONES, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GARST, AND DULY CARRED, a Special Exception Permit to allow primary/secondary educational facilities on an approximate 3.9 acre tract and an approximate 1.8 acre tract located at 1150 Kime Lane/1130 Lynchburg Turnpike (P/O Tax Map #148-1-2) was hereby approved conditioned on what was presented – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – absent, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * There being no further business to come before the Council, the same on motion adjourned at 10:29 p.m. MBLU Location Owner Name Co-Owner Name Address 1 Address 2 City, State, Zip 148-1-2.2 112 CORPORATE BLVD SALEM MONTESSORI SCHOOL INC P O BOX 1213 SALEM VA 24153 148-1-2 120 CORPORATE BLVD CITY OF SALEM P O BOX 869 SALEM VA 24153 148-1-2.1 1126 KIME LN YMCA OF ROANOKE VALLEY INC P O BOX 2130 ROANOKE VA 24009 118-3-1 104 CORPORATE BLVD CITY OF SALEM P O BOX 869 SALEM VA 24153 117-2-1 101 CORPORATE BLVD SALEM MONTESSORI SCHOOL INC P O BOX 1213 SALEM VA 24153 149-1-4.1 107 CORPORATE BLVD SALEM MONTESSORI SCHOOL INC P O BOX 1213 SALEM VA 24153 149-1-4 113 CORPORATE BLVD RICHARD C BISHOP 331 ROBIN HOOD RD SE ROANOKE VA 24014 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA held in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 114 North Broad Street Salem, VA 24153 AGENDA ITEM: Special Exception Permit Hold public hearing to consider the request of Salem Montessori School, Inc., property owner, to revise the Special Exception Permit approved February 28, 2011, to allow the construction of an educational facility, primary/secondary on the property located at 112 Corporate Boulevard, (Tax Map # 148-1-2.2). SUBMITTED BY: Mary Ellen Wines, CZA CFM, Planning & Zoning Administrator SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Zoning: RSF Residential Single-Family/BCD Business Commerce District Land Use Plan Designation: Institutional Existing Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Educational facilities, primary/secondary The subject property located at 112 Corporate Boulevard consists of a 1.812 acre tract of land which currently possesses both the RSF Residential Single-Family and BCD Business Commerce District zoning designations. The applicant is requesting a revision to the Special Exception Permit approved on February 28, 2011, for the development of an education facility at 101 Corporate Boulevard to also include 112 Corporate Boulevard (across the street), which is contingent on the approval of the related rezoning request. That rezoning petition would remove the protection of the ancient grove of trees on the parcel, paving the way for the construction of a new school which would service students that age of out the existing facilities. The applicant has submitted a preliminary concept plan for the proposed educational facility which is subject to adjustments made to preserve as many valuable trees from the existing forest as possible. Jeff Ceaser, the City Horticulturalist, submitted a recommendation to save “4-5 very large and very old white oaks on site [by] designing the newly planned development around their canopy and vast root system” (amongst a few other species) if the site is developed (see letter for comprehensive list of recommendations). Additionally, City staff has agreed to be flexible in regard to parking requirements due to the plentiful proximal parking across Corporate Boulevard and in an effort to preserve as many valuable trees as possible. The applicant has noted that the building style of the proposed facility, along with the business hours, will be similar to the existing Montessori School operations across Corporate Boulevard. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as institutional, which is consistent with the proposed development of an educational facility. REQUIREMENTS: The proposal meets the requirements of Section 106-202.3. Site development regulations for RSF. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend approval of the request. 2. Recommend approval of the request with conditions. 3. Recommend denial of the request. BRUSHY MOUNTAIN ENGINEERING,BRUSHY MOUNTAIN ENGINEERING,BRUSHY MOUNTAIN ENGINEERING,BRUSHY MOUNTAIN ENGINEERING, PLLCPLLCPLLCPLLC 3553 Carvins Cove road3553 Carvins Cove road3553 Carvins Cove road3553 Carvins Cove road Salem, VA 24153Salem, VA 24153Salem, VA 24153Salem, VA 24153 (540) 526(540) 526(540) 526(540) 526----6800680068006800 www.brushymtnengr.comwww.brushymtnengr.comwww.brushymtnengr.comwww.brushymtnengr.com DATE: March 21, 2023 TO: City of Salem – Planning Commission ATTN: Executive Secretary 21 S. Bruffey Street Salem, VA 24153 RE: 112 Corporate Boulevard – SMS Upper Elementary Tax ID: 148-1.2-2 With this letter the Owner of the subject property does hereby request that the City approve an amendment to the Special Exception approved by Salem City Council on February 28, 2011. This amendment is necessary to allow for the development and use of Tract 2 therein described. The original sale of the property from the City to the Salem Montessori School (SMS) included Deed Restrictions which can only be modified after the Special Exception is amended by City Council. The brief history of the project is that SMS originally purchased the land from the City in 2011 and immediately built a new private school building. In the past 12 years SMS has continued to grow and serve more children. In 2016 this growth led to the purchase of the adjoining lot from the City to allow for the construction of an infant campus. During Covid class size was limited so SMS had to re-open its facility at 1574 Roanoke Boulevard. However, this facility is showing its age and does not properly serve the needs of SMS moving forward. A significant group of parents has expressed commitment to continue enrolling their children through upper elementary grades if SMS has a proper facility to serve them. The most logical answer is to create a true campus by constructing a new building on Tract 2. This will allow children to graduate from the infant building at 107 to the lower elementary building at 101 and then across Corporate Boulevard to the planned upper elementary building at 112. This true campus will have many benefits to the students and parents. It will allow for easier pick up if they have multiple children of different ages. The proximity to the Y gives a wonderful opportunity for programming for the older students. Activities including students of different age groups will also be possible without having to transport students in vans. For instance, the older students could walk across and read to the younger kids to share the love of reading or do science experiment demonstrations. The new campus will also make administration and maintenance easier. At the time of the initial sale to SMS in 2011 the development of Tract 2 was restricted partly as a concession to the neighbors to prevent an overly dense development. At that time there was concern from the neighbors about the operation of the school having negative impacts to the traffic on the local streets and the quiet enjoyment of the nearby homes. After 12 years of operation the SMS has a proven history of operating during normal business hours without negative traffic impacts. SMS has worked hard to be a good neighbor and be respectful of the overall neighborhood. A copy of the property deed is attached to this letter. Deed Restrictions “A” and “F” speak to the development of Tract 2 and will need to be removed to allow for the planned upper elementary building. Restriction “A” requires that the Special Exception previously approved must be amended before the lot can be developed. The fact that this restriction spells out the process to develop the property in the future is an indication that the possibility of future development was acknowledged in 2011. Deed Restriction “F” requires that the trees on Tract 2 be preserved when the initial lot was developed. Again the concern in 2011 was that the City was moving toward high impact development on these properties. The thought was to preserve an established wooded area to offset the feared original development. Now 12 years later the trees planted at the school are becoming more established and the landscaping well maintained including all the way up to Kime Lane. Meanwhile the few remaining “legacy” trees on Tract 2 have continued to age and are in need of significant trimming if not removal. The bulk of the vegetation on Tract 2 is brush and smaller, newer growth. If the City allows this project to move forward the site plan will work to preserve as many of the larger trees as possible. The rear portion of the property will remain wooded to preserve some screening and provide shade for the outdoor play area. We look forward to discussing this project further with you. We are honored that the residents of Salem have continued to trust SMS with their children and we are excited to be experiencing continued growth. Thank you for your consideration. This request is being made on behalf of the Owner: Salem Montessori School, Inc. ATTN: Valerie Vanderhoeven P.O. Box 1213 Salem, VA 24153 Respectfully Submitted, Barney Horrell Virginia Professional Engineer # 44654 Brushy Mountain Engineering, PLLC 1 City of Salem Special Exception or Use Not Provided For Application Pre-application Meeting (optional) • Meetings with the Community Development Staff are recommended prior to submittal of a Special Exception/Use Not Provided For Permit application. Please bring a plat to the meeting with a sketch of your proposal. Application Submittal • The application deadline is the first of the month for inclusion on the following month’s agenda. If the first falls on a weekend or holiday, the application deadline will be the following business day. • When submitting an application be sure to include the following: a complete application, plat of the subject property, legal description that includes metes and bounds, and supplementary information to support the request (such as conceptual plans and building elevations). Please note incomplete applications will not be accepted and will be returned to the applicant. • The application fee is due at time of submittal. The applicant will be notified to submit the required legal ad fees prior to the meeting. (See Page 4) • PLEASE NOTE: As per 106-524.1(A) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance no application shall be accepted for a lot or parcel that does not comply with the minimum lot area, width, or frontage requirements of the zoning district or applicable use and design standards. A variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals must be obtained prior to the submission of a Special Exception/Use Not Provided For application. Application Distribution for City Review • Complete applications may be routed to City departments for review. Staff/Applicant Meeting • The staff may contact the applicant to schedule a meeting to discuss comments provided by reviewing agencies, to request additional information or plan revisions, and to negotiate proffers. Planning Commission • Revised conceptual plans and draft proffers must be submitted prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Proffers and conceptual plans may be revised in accordance with Staff’s recommendations, and revisions incorporating the staff’s recommendations must be submitted prior to the Planning Commission meeting. • A staff report and recommendation are included in the Planning Commission packet. • The Planning Commission meets on the 1st Wednesday after the 1st City Council meeting of the month. • Following a public hearing on the Special Exception/Use Not Provided For Permit case, the Planning Commission may recommend approval, approval with conditions, denial, or deferral of the application. City Council • A staff report containing the recommendation of the Planning Commission and Staff is sent to the City Council prior to the meeting. • The City Council typically hears Special Exception/Use Not Provided For Permit cases on the 4th Monday of every month. • Following a public hearing on the case, the City Council may vote to approve, deny, defer the application to another meeting, or remand the application back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. 2 ATTACHMENTS - For ALL REQUESTS you must submit the following electronically: A fully completed signed application. Acknowledgement of Application Fee Payment Procedure (Page 4) A plat of the subject property, which accurately reflects the current property boundaries, is drawn to scale, and shows existing structures. (Typically, available from the City Clerk’s Office.) Responses to questions on Page 5 Historic Impact Information (if any) For applications requiring plans, please submit electronically only. No hard copies will be accepted. Check here if the conceptual plan will serve as the preliminary plat. NOTE: Elevations will be required with new development. TO THE APPLICANT: It is the policy of the City of Salem City Council, the City of Salem Planning Commission, and City of Salem Board of Zoning Appeals to require a property to be posted when a zoning action is being considered. Such a posting notifies the general public of an impending action and the location being considered. It is incumbent on you, the applicant, to ensure the sign is in the proper location and remains there until an action has taken place. Consequently, the procedure for posting is as follows: 1.The Community Development Staff will post the sign on your property. 2.You should check the location of the sign to make certain it is in the right place on your property. If it is not, notify the Community Development Office as soon as possible. 3.You should check periodically to ensure the safety of the sign. If it is stolen or otherwise harmed, notify the Community Development Office as soon as possible. In submitting this Special Exception/Use Not Provided For Permit application, you hereby grant permission to the agents and employees of the City of Salem to enter the referenced property for the purposes of processing and reviewing the above application. Should you have any questions regarding this policy, please contact a member of Community Development. 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 (540) 375-3007 IMPORTANT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS PROPOSAL TO CHANGE USE Notice is hereby given that a request of the property owner/petitioner of the property described below has been filed with the City of Salem. The Planning Commission of the City of Salem will consider this request at its meeting listed below and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council of the City of Salem will also consider this request and the recommendation of the Planning Commission at its meeting listed below. City Council will make the final decision in this matter. Property Owner/Petitioner: Salem Montessori School, Inc Location of Property: 112 Corporate Boulevard (Tax Map # 148-1-2.2) Purpose of Request: To revise the Special Exception Permit approved February 28, 2011 to allow the construction of an educational facility, primary/secondary, on the property located at 112 Corporate Boulevard (Tax Map # 148-1-2.2) The date, time, and place of the public hearing scheduled by the Planning Commission on this request are as follows: WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2023 – 7 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, FIRST FLOOR, SALEM CITY HALL 114 NORTH BROAD STREET, SALEM, VIRGINIA The date, time, and place of the public hearing scheduled by City Council on this request are as follows: MONDAY, MAY 22, 2023 – 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, FIRST FLOOR, SALEM CITY HALL 114 NORTH BROAD STREET, SALEM, VIRGINIA Additional information on this request may be obtained in the Community Development Department, 21 South Bruffey Street, Salem, Virginia or at (540) 375-3032. James E. Taliaferro, II Executive Secretary Planning Commission